Was I the only one who thought the movie was bad? Am I remembering the book incorrectly?

[Artsygal402]

I havent seen the catching fire movie but I saw the hungergames movie. They changed it A LOT. They left out Madge and her dad, the mayor. They left out the fact that PEETA LOST HIS LEG! the actual feel of the movie was okay, but the movie still disappointed me, so its not surprising that the Catching Fire movie is bad, too. I wonder what the Mockingjay movie will be like. It would be really disappointing if they don't do justice to the book, because the Mockingjay is great, a great conclusion to an amazing series. The catching fire book is awesome, too, in my opinion anyways, so I guess its just the movie that is bad, in your opinion, anyways.

[Sandy]

um i liked catching fire movie MUCH better than the hunger games movie, bc cf movie was practically like the book (in my opinion)... but everyone has their own opinion i guess

[Chelsey]

The hunger games movie was awful so I went into catching fire with low expectations but I didn't need to worry. It was a lot like the book. Yes some things were changed but it was still a wonderful adaptation. I'm excited to see what they did with mockingjay.

[Annemarie]

I actually liked the movie Catching Fire a little bit more than the book. I felt that in the book Catniss was too "out" of the action. There was obviously a big plan going on in the background that Catniss was not in on. In the book I read her character as being annoyed by the actions of other characters that she couldn't understand. But in the movie she was angry at being out of the loop of important information. I can only say that it felt like the film did the character justice to at least notice that there was something going on behind her back whereas in the book I never really felt like Catniss was aware of it.

[Kelly Brigid ♡]

Catching Fire movie was actually very close to the book. It captured everything the book had other than reading Katniss' thoughts.

[Jason]

Jennifer L did a much better job in CF, although she was already memorable in THG.

[Elle]

Artsygal402 wrote: "I havent seen the catching fire movie but I saw the hungergames movie. They changed it A LOT. They left out Madge and her dad, the mayor. They left out the fact that PEETA LOST HIS LEG! the actual ..."

But to be honest you cannot blame Francis Lawrence on his job if Gary Ross left out Madge and her dad and the fact that Peeta lost his leg. If it wasn't in the first one, how could you expect them to incorporate it into Catching Fire?

[.]

The film is amazing. They did such a fantastic job. True, they missed out a chunk from the beginning with the runaways but other than that it stays very true to the book.

[K.N.]

You're always going to lose stuff when a book is adapted to a movie, but I do think that they stayed very close to the source material in both movies. I think that Catching Fire was better than Hunger Games, though. The CF movie felt more solid overall, and I really liked the casting choices for the other victors. I'm excited for Mockingjay, but I don't know how I feel about it being divided into two parts. Supposedly, they're going to go into more depth with President Coin, but I guess we'll see how that goes.

[Bisera]

Uhm...dude, the movie was one of the best book to movie adaptations I've ever seen. There were full lines exactly like those in the book. And guys you've gotta keep in mind that not everything can be incorporated into the movie. The movie's length does not allow that. In my opinion Hunger Games wasn't bad of a movie too. All the important stuff were there, and I don't see Madge not being in it as such a big deal.
But yes, Catching Fire stayed incredibly true to the book and of course somethings had to be changed but nothing is worse that the Percy Jackson movies in my opinion.

[Ria]

I actually felt that they did a great job! One of the best book to movie adaptions! I think that the stuff they left out was a good call. Adding Madge in would've taken up unnecessary screen time since she's not a very prominent character to the plot. As for the leg I think it's better he kept it in the movie since he would've just been annoying for the actor to act like he had a fake leg for the rest of the 3 movies.

[Chelsey]

Bisera wrote: "Uhm...dude, the movie was one of the best book to movie adaptations I've ever seen. There were full lines exactly like those in the book. And guys you've gotta keep in mind that not everything can ..."

Nothing can ever be as worse as the Percy Jackson movies!

[Lacey]

Don't worry, I didn't like it as well either. Yes, it stuck to the story fairly well but I feel like the stylization, while popular with pop culture, didn't do Catching Fire justice. Way to over the top.

[Lev]

Um Catching Fire was actually the most accurate book to movie adaptation that I have ever seen.

[Derek]

Here's a question for the group:

One scene I thought was missing from the movie was when Katniss and Peeta went up to the roof the night before the Games. Am I remembering this right? When they went through his book of drawings/paintings of plants and foliage. It showed a new connection and admiration between the characters, and thought it would have been an important scene for the movie.

Cheers.

[Bisera]

Derek wrote: "Here's a question for the group:

One scene I thought was missing from the movie was when Katniss and Peeta went up to the roof the night before the Games. Am I remembering this right? When they ..."

Yes that was missing, the scene when they say 'I wish I could freeze this moment right here and right now and leave in it forever' That was a wonderful scene and I did notice it not being there but I concentrated more on the awesome job they did with the other scenes.

[Bree]

I loved the movie, but the book was much better IMO. I think CF should have been the movie done in two-parts because so much happens before they actually go back into the games. I really wanted Katniss to know about there possibly being a D13, like when she met those women in the woods. But that could be because that was one scene I personally would have liked to see.

[Joel]

You are not alone in thinking the movie was bad. The movie was just as bad as the book.

[Anna]

Nothing can beat the book, but for the most part, the Catching Fire movie was done pretty well, and the arena looked amazing.

[Danica Shahana]

The Hunger Games movie was lacking in details like emphasizing the avox, because we know that in Mockingjay, it will play an important role while Peeta was tortured. They also left out Madge and the mayor. In the Catching Fire movie, it was kinda cool but the role of Plutarch Heavensbee wherein he was supposed to give Katniss an idea what the Quarter Quell would be wasn't included. Also Haymitch's Quarter Quell video tape, which I was really looking forward to that in the movie. :( It was overall lacking in details and it became less revolutionary. (There's a big difference between 'the feels' you get from the book and the movie) I hope they would give justice to Mockingjay.

[Lev]

Overall I personally loved it theres just one scene that I was disappointed that was not in it which was Haymitch winning his hunger games.

[Barb]

Breesc23 wrote: "I loved the movie, but the book was much better IMO. I think CF should have been the movie done in two-parts because so much happens before they actually go back into the games. I really wanted Kat..."

I agree with you here. I thought they could have easily done CF in 2 parts. However...after reading MJ again, and the depth of it, I think it will do well in 2 parts. I think for some of us, there will never be enough film to satisfy us.

[Eliza]

I feel like any lack of depth in the movie can be attributed to not having the narration the book has. You're not seeing what's going on inside of Katniss, and she's too private to wear it all on her sleeve. I think Jennifer Lawrence does a good job.