The Hunger Games
discussion
Is it just me or did the movie that was created from the book, suck?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kaitlynn
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Jun 03, 2012 05:28AM
I read the book before I saw the movie and the movie had so many parts where there was something along the lines of what was in the book but done horribly, for example Katniss talks more in the book then she does in the move. I know this was to let people know that she wasn't really open with herself and liked to keep to herself but still she could still of said more in the movie.
reply
|
flag
*
I was not impressed by the movie...
I was happy with the movie. there were definitely some parts that I wish they focused on more, but overall I thought they did a good job. I went into it being realistic, knowing they couldn't possibly put everything from the book into the movie.
Yeah i know but there were bits i wished that they kept the same as the book like how Katniss got her district token
I was very satisfied with the movie. They couldn't have included everything in the book. I feel that the casting and the story line were carried out exceptionally well.I feel that in the movie, although she did not speak as much, her emotions were conveyed through actions and facial expressions. All the better in a visual.
I was very upset that they left the part out about how the muntant dog things at the end looked like Rue and the other dead contestants!!! the movie was ok but they left out things that would have made the movie much better and intresting.
Did you know, thats since Peeta Mellark did not lose his leg in the movie The Hunger Games a 14 year old fangirl broke into his house and tried to cut of Joshua Ryann Hutcherson's leg?!
O my gosh thats terrible in a funny way...
the MOVIE adaptation SUCKED PERIOD!
Dean wrote: "Any time you have America Screen writers making an adaption of anything, the chances are extremely good that they will go off on some wild tangent and produce something not related to the book much..."I've remembered a quote from Stargate Sg-1 after reading your post: ''Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment.''
Well, not gonna happen at America;look anything Hollywood or American channels produce (even if they do it will be cancelled before its time) so move on people to British series; some series have 3-7 episodes at every year but you cant find that quality at American tv shows at all.I feel like I'm watching a movie every time I watch an episode of British series.And they respect their audience!
The book is told from the perspective of Katniss, with lots of inner monologue, memories and feelings. It’s hard to turn that into a third person narrative for a film, yet I think they’ve done wonderfully.
The movie was good for those who have read the book, but for those who haven't read it , it would not be very appealing. I, myself, have read the book and watched the movie but is not satisfied. They could have done more justice in the book.
Dean wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Dean wrote: "Any time you have America Screen writers making an adaption of anything, the chances are extremely good that they will go off on some wild tangent and produce something ..."Lol, I was thinking the same thing when I heard about that show!They are definitely going to ruin it.Only thing they took from British tv and didnt ruin was Office (so I've heard) and that doesnt count:D And of course Sherlock is the best show ever;) Everthing BBC and PBC pruduces is excellent!
"Kaity, wrote: "I read the book before I saw the movie and the movie had so many parts where there was something along the lines of what was in the book but done horribly, for example Katniss talks more in the boo..."Actually, she didn't talk all that much in the book. The narrative was mostly inside her head. I think they did a good job making that work by showing what was going on outside the games.
Sure, the book was better but aren't they all?
the movie was nothing like the book. the only reason people liked it so much was because the book was awesome.
I saw the movie first and loved it. It inspired me to read the book. After finishing the book I saw the movie again. There was so much in the book there's no way they could put it all in the movie. I thought both the movie and the book were excellent! I've now read all three books in the trilogy and am excited about the next movie(s).
Agreed Russ. At first I was disappointed about some changes and lack of information but had all that been in there, the movie would have been like five hours long.
I felt that the PG-13 rating held it back. The book was brutal in it's depiction of of the abject poverty that Katniss and others lived in, the violence of the games. I'm hoping for an unrated director's cut when it comes out on Bluray, but I know that probably won't happen.
Yeah, and even with the PG-13 rating I still saw people walk out when after Rue died. It was an older couple but I couldn't help thinking "You did know the point is to kill everyone, right?"
I agree. I don't think the movie captured the spirit of the book at all.
Adaptation is not an easy art form, and Hunger Games' results are rather mixed.Without getting too analytical, what it boiled down to for me was this: I've read the book, my wife hasn't. I had to explain things about the "world" for the movie to make sense to her, and she's a pretty bright cookie.
That's one sign of a poor adaptation. Yes, many in the audience were fans or had read the book, but many more were not. It needs to make sense without relation to the source material.
Hunger Games, the movie, failed so often in this respect.
I enjoyed it somewhat. Not a bad movie. But we both enjoyed John Carter more. (An unjustly maligned film.)
^^^^ You are wrong you OGOR! You are wrong to not bring up the wrath of BREANNA! THE HUNGER GAMES KILLS EVERYTHING!!!!!! ESPECIALLY JOHN "THE LOSER" CARTER.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The movie was good, i guess. I think they stayed pretty true to the book. . . but i had read the book for a second time about three months earlier. So the book wasn't fresh in my mind. Also, i think they toned the violence down. I understand that they had to (for a pg-13 audience). Whatever. It was a good movie, IMO.
~Check out my group, Books to Movies. We discuss various books and compare them to the movie version.
If the book you want to discuss isn't in there, add it plz!
The movie had alot of potential but I don't think the actors did a great job, except for the person who played Rue! But if the actors, directors, and camera crew had worked harder the movie could have been a number 1 hit
Rue was my favorite character in the book and in the movie. I cried when she died.
Goth: *~Kat Della-Rayna~* :Emo wrote: "Did you know, thats since Peeta Mellark did not lose his leg in the movie The Hunger Games a 14 year old fangirl broke into his house and tried to cut of Joshua Ryann Hutcherson's leg?!"LOL that's horrible, but I totally forgot he did lose his leg in the book it's been a while since I read it apparently.
Your definitely not the only one, I couldn't believe how bad it was, especially since it could have been so good. Epic fail on their part.
I read the book first, and I found that I enjoyed the movie way more than the book. I thought Katniss was more likable and all of the stupid stuff that made no sense in the book was eliminated, for the most part, from the movie. I went with my mother, who had never read the books and never knew anything about the books before the movie, and she had no problem following what was going on or why things were happening. Robert wrote: "Adaptation is not an easy art form, and Hunger Games' results are rather mixed.
Without getting too analytical, what it boiled down to for me was this: I've read the book, my wife hasn't. I had to..."
I think the reason John Carter did so poorly was because the marketing was horrible. All of the trailers made it look like it was going to be boring, generic scifi film, and it wasn't at all. I was blown away by how much better it was than the trailers lead me to believe.
Robert wrote: "Adaptation is not an easy art form, and Hunger Games' results are rather mixed.Without getting too analytical, what it boiled down to for me was this: I've read the book, my wife hasn't. I had to..."
Same here! My husband (also pretty bright) was a bit confused at times especially with the flashbacks of Peeta and the bread.
Kate wrote: "Goth: *~Kat Della-Rayna~* :Emo wrote: "Did you know, thats since Peeta Mellark did not lose his leg in the movie The Hunger Games a 14 year old fangirl broke into his house and tried to cut of Josh..."I forgot about the leg too. I know they probably had to cut a lot out for time but the leg is kind of a big thing.
Melissa wrote: "I felt that the PG-13 rating held it back. The book was brutal in it's depiction of of the abject poverty that Katniss and others lived in, the violence of the games. I'm hoping for an unrated dire..."I also think the rating held it back. I think if they took the shaky camera out and added real gore, it would have been better
The movie was really "blahh" for me. I was not impressed. And I don't think it was her fault because most of Katniss's dialogue is in her head in the book, but the movie turned Jennifer Lawrence into a dish rag.
THE HUNGER GAMES WAS ONE OF MY FAVOURITE BOOKS! I thought I was the only one who HATED the movie.
Everyone that I know who's seen it thought it was AMAZING while I was listening to Taylor Swift's song when the credits came up I was thinking: Gosh that was bad. All of it seemed really dull to me. The 12A was what came to the cinema for me and my friend was in Canada at that time and I was so jealous when she saw the PG-13 one. Was the PG-13 any more brutal (the 12A wasn't. Where there's someone being murdered, there should be blood)?
I really hope they don't muck up Catching Fire or Mockingjay!
Umm...I loved the movie. So...ya.
LaRinda wrote: "Kate wrote: "Goth: *~Kat Della-Rayna~* :Emo wrote: "Did you know, thats since Peeta Mellark did not lose his leg in the movie The Hunger Games a 14 year old fangirl broke into his house and tried t..."I just realized the irony of this situation. They cut a lot out of the movie...but they didn't cut off Peeta's leg. LOL It's one of those things that's not funny, but it is...
I think the personality of Katniss was made so bland and plain, the only time she made you feel what she felt was when she volunteered for Prim. And since I read the book after watching the movie I learned that Peeta was romantic and funny at the same time while reading the book. In the movie he's just so innocent, which is why it was awkward to watch his interview when he was talking about showers because the rest of the time he's so serious. I wish the new director good luck in trying to restore their real personalities.
i thought the movie stuck pretty closely to the book but i REALLY didn't like how they didn't acknowledge that the mutts were the dead tributes, i thought that this really showed the absolute power that the capitol had. I
I agree with Ellen. They take away important details of the book (such as the looks of the mutts) and add unnecessary stuff like Katniss looking at a forest backdrop in her room. The whole point of the mutts is to strike fear into the heart of the beholder. I admit the mutts were scary, but the description of the mutt that was rue in the book was just so believable and you had empathy for katniss, who might have had to kill the girl that was so similar to her younger sister. I can't believe they took that out and I was so annoyed.
I was horribly disappointed with the movie. The book was so much better. The movie did little to show how very wonderful Peeta is and how much he adores Katniss. It totally rushed their relationship and did not show 1/4 of what they really went through together in the arena. I also thought the action scenes were choppy and horrid. They seriously made me sick to my stomach!
Books are almost always better than the movies made about them. I know they will probably make a sequel. If it covers the third book, I won't even bother to go. I couldn't wait for the third book to be over.
The movie was really good, except for the fact that it was really quiet. Since they didnt do any voiceovers at all, it kind of was left up to the audience to figure out how katniss felt at times. I would have preferredvoice overs since the entire book was told from her thoughts, but other than that it was great :D
I thought that they missed some of the action in the books. I thought the cave scene would have been better. It was too quick in the movie. They rushed though it. I was really looking forward to seeing how they did the mutant dogs that looked like the dead tributes, but they didn't do it. Those are some of my biggest disappointments. They did an ok job, they can't get everything right, right?
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
