# Hunger Games and other film adaptations



## Zero Angel (Sep 11, 2012)

So watched Hunger Games the movie the other day and I must say I was appalled at how bad it was. Is the book that bad too? 

I normally don't judge a book by its movie, but with one that was as universally lauded as this, I am strongly leaning towards doing so. 

Any other film adaptations that threw you off a book or vice verse?

(@Moderators: Assumed this should go in Film & Television, apologies if not).


----------



## Reaver (Sep 12, 2012)

You have this in the right place. I can think of at least two movies that got me to read the book.  Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban intrigued me enough to start reading the books from the beginning and apart from the flash forward at the end of The Deathly Hallows, Ms. Rowling didn't disappoint.

The other was Dune, which I saw in the theater a very long time ago. Having read Tolkien's work prior to this, I was fortunate enough to be able to appreciate what Mr. Herbert was trying to convey.

As far as movies that turned me away from the book, I'd have to say Twilight, but only partially.  I was coerced into watching it by my niece and my sister. I made it about five minutes in and had to leave. I later borrowed the book from my niece with the hope that perhaps it would be better than that abysmal movie. 

I was wrong.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 12, 2012)

I had the same experience with Dune and Twilight!

Although for Dune, it was a combination of the movie and one of the sci-fi miniseries circa 2003. 

I had plans to read the Twilight series until I saw the movie and I have not been able to bring myself to give it a chance since. 

I had luckily already read Harry Potter--if I had seen the first two films first, I do not know if I would have given the books a chance. I do enjoy from Film 3 on and also agree about the flash forward at the very end. Totally unnecessarily and cheapened the last 7 books in my opinion.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 12, 2012)

If you're going to start off with "I saw X movie (that made a crapton of money and got generally good reviews) and it was awful," you might want to specify exactly why you thought it was awful. Otherwise you'll get people (like me) who stare cross-eyed at their monitor wondering what the heck you're talking about.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 12, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> If you're going to start off with "I saw X movie (that made a crapton of money and got generally good reviews) and it was awful," you might want to specify exactly why you thought it was awful.



Really? I thought it was clearly awful. I promise to elaborate tomorrow (having a hard time forming coherent sentences at the moment due to the lateness). But still, the main point of conversation I was trying to make was asking if the book was worth it if the film was terrible. In other words, is the film a faithful reproduction? 'cuz if it is, I won't be reading the Hunger Games.

Well, I guess I can go more into it. 

First, I thought the best part of the movie was the build-up to the Hunger Games. I thought they did this great dystopia with the allure of the utopia over the hill or whatever, but then the Hunger Games themselves was just stupid. I thought the male love interest in the beginning was absurd. How do uneducated people have such philosophies? I thought Elizabeth Banks fashion sense was absurd in a non-awesome absurd way like everyone else at the capitol. I didn't understand how 70+ years of subjugation was handled so "well". I didn't understand why an apparently super-advanced capitol needed coal. And if you argue that the coal was for the dystopia, then what would be the point of subjugating those people anyway? Why not just destroy them? I didn't enjoy the brief allusion to the girl's mother being nuts and unfit. It was never made clear how the hunger games fed people--which was alluded to only once when Jennifer Lawrence's character told her little sister to not put her name in more times and that the extra rations weren't worth it. I didn't think her sister looked like a sister. I thought everyone in the dystopia with the exception of tall love interest boy and Jennifer Lawrence acted like they were coming out of a terrible terrible depression, while those two just acted like normal teenagers. I didn't understand how Jennifer Lawrence's character could have a bow and arrows--does she make them herself? Does she buy them? She makes money by hunting, but this seems like a chicken and an egg thing--and I am assuming she couldn't start out making a lot of money by hunting anyway. The price of the arrows alone would have made it cost ineffective. Plus, if hunger is a real issue, then why does the tall love interest boy scare the deer away at the beginning? Isn't this totally absurd if hunger is an issue? How does holding up three fingers incite an entire district to riot? If riots are so easy to start up, then why was it not handled more effectively? I thought Jennifer Lawrence's character seemed disingenuous and so did the blonde "strong" kid. I understand that they were "faking" it or whatever for the interviews, but even in the beginning where she wears that stupid swirly flame dress thing and she starts smiling or whatever. It just seems contrived, and not in a "my character feels that they have to have this be contrived" way, but rather a "this is totally absurd that my character is doing this but I am just going along with it". I thought the wasp thing was SUPER absurd. They build up this wasp as being super super deadly/poisonous, she gets stung MULTIPLE times in the NECK and is able to get away from the worst of it all. I thought the hanging out in the mud thing that the blonde kid did was super absurd as well and broke my suspension of disbelief. I thought it was absolutely nuts that the hunger games host person stopped them from killing themselves. Let 'em die. I thought her archery ability was overplayed and then when she is supposed to be super awesome she misses the target. Having JUST MISSED the target, she shoots into the midst of a bunch of people. I didn't think that the movie held any value for anyone over the age of 13. I thought it was long. Overly long. Drawn out. Slow. Boring. And I thought the computer animation was lackluster as well. It looked overly fake. At least SyFy everything looks fake, but the computer animation was weak. I thought the protagonist was more reactive than proactive. I felt like she relied on luck almost entirely with little to no skill involved. She misses with her bow point blank at that girl that tries to kill her. I understand that she was in the midst of battle, but well, she misses the buck, she misses the target, she misses the apple bag, she misses, she misses, she misses.
AND THE MINES! WOW. It looked like the concussive force alone should bloody well kill her. The violence felt unnecessarily tame. I don't need blood and guts. But it seemed to lack the level of viscerality that the subject called for. The violence lacked weight. It seemed like a kid's movie where the kids deal with adult themes but is still a kid's movie (in a bad way). They never show the antagonist (or at least I guess he's the antagonist) having died, but somehow the "winners" are still surprised when he shows up at the end. His ending drama seemed absurd also. There's no sense that the kids are even mad at the capitol  for being evil corrupt and whatever else. 
They seem emotionless! Whatever feelings they do show looks fake! That's probably my number one complaint and I didn't even realize it until now. Thanks Benjamin!


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 12, 2012)

In the fantasy field outside of LOTR films [and I have strong reservations about those movies relationships to the books – Elves at Helms Deep? Really Pete] I can't think of a single film that matched the book. I haven't read any Potter so I wont comment on them.

 If you include SciFi, then I think there are a few honourable mentions. _Blade Runner_ matched the spirit of _Do androids dream of electric sheep_ but it didn't really follow the original story, and _2001_ is every bit as incomprehensible to me as the book was.

 But there again can a 300+ page book be turned in to a 90 [or even a 180] minute film?

 Personally I think that films and books are too different to allow successful adaptations but for me more could be done using the worlds an author has already created.  

 We have a beautiful looking and successful TV show based on the works of Martin, how about movies or TV based in the worlds of Eddings, Gemmel, Feist, Tolkien...

 Just using Tolkien as an example, I'd think that films about Rangers foiling the Goblins in the misty mountains or the rivalries of the Dwarves would sell... let alone the whole unexplored south and east of middle earth. We know they could look good...


----------



## Zenke (Sep 12, 2012)

I liked the book. Its got a whole lot of what the movie is missing, and thats because the book was done in first person, where as its impossible to shoot a movie like that. With the movie your missing out on all of katniss' inner thoughts and feelings, like how she feels as she's running from a forest fire as she's slowly choking on smoke. This make the book thrilling. In the book, her father made the bow, and it would be nothing like the bow in the movie. Plus in the book she doesn't miss as much, they added that in for drama. I think you should forget what you seen and give the book a chance.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 12, 2012)

I liked the book pretty well. I have not seen the movie, so I can't compare the two. I haven't read the rest of the books in the series, so the first one didn't compel me to rush out and buy the next two, but I nevertheless enjoyed it.


----------



## Aosto (Sep 12, 2012)

Something I have learned from a friend. A book and a movie are two different things. Judge each separately, or you almost always will be disappointed. Yes, the Cary the same plot. But they are different art forms and should be judged as such. 
I could build you a wonderful sculpture in a 3d environment and you find it breathtaking on account of the cg behind it. Someone could build the sculpture in stone and you could absolutely hate it. They could have used the wrong type of stone. The wrong paint. Whatever. In the end they are different art forms. 
Best analogy I could think of.


----------



## writeshiek33 (Sep 12, 2012)

i liked hunger games book but the movie fopr some reason bored me. i never go into movie adapted from book expecting to be exactly like it but i do expect it either be entertaining or the story not to butchered like eragon that bbook was bad enough but they butchered the story which made it worse


----------



## Sheilawisz (Sep 12, 2012)

I absolutely loved the _The Hunger Games_ movie, and then I bought the three books and I loved them as well =)

The _Stardust_ movie made me want to read the book, which I want to buy when I can find it... However, I really disliked the Prisoner of Azkaban movie, and curiously, the Narnia movies have never made me want to read the series.

I guess we all are different.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 12, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> I absolutely loved the _The Hunger Games_ movie, and then I bought the three books and I loved them as well =)
> 
> The _Stardust_ movie made me want to read the book, which I want to buy when I can find it... However, I really disliked the Prisoner of Azkaban movie, and curiously, the Narnia movies have never made me want to read the series.
> 
> I guess we all are different.



I didn't know Stardust was a book! I loved that movie!

I usually don't judge a book by its movie, but everyone and their mom was raving about the Hunger Games and I was just bored throughout the whole thing. I also never felt like either of the two from District 12 were in danger at all, so I think that also added to my distaste.

Great point about the LotR movies (whoever made it -_- apologies I can't remember). They are a different beast than the books. On the other hand, I prefer the movies, but I enjoy both.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 12, 2012)

Stardust is a good book by Neil Gaiman. You should also try Neverwhere, if you haven't read that one


----------



## morfiction (Sep 13, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> The _Stardust_ movie made me want to read the book, which I want to buy when I can find it... However, I really disliked the Prisoner of Azkaban movie, and curiously, the Narnia movies have never made me want to read the series.



Lol! I watched the Stardust movie, too.  SHAKE SPEAR! 

And I actually enjoyed the PoA so much more than the other movies. It's on a pile of books I'm going to read. That's the fourth book, right? I immediately read books 5-7 after watching that movie. I initially hated Harry Potter when the hype first hit. I still dont' like the usage of wands and brooms, but it's okay. I just wonder where the kids learn stuff like math and English and social studies? I have also read book one. I'm dubious about reading the first two sequels though. 

I remember the huge freakin' hype that "The Golden Compass" had. There were giant banners all over Oxford Valley Mall! I then read a little of the second book in the series. If someone doesn't mind spoiling the books for me, I HAVE QUESTIONS! 

It kinda depresses me that The Walking Dead has a TV show and a facebook game now. 

Oh, and a friend of mine busted on me for owning a copy of "Conan: The Destroyer" because it wasn't written by Robert E Howard. 







> I guess we all are different.



we sure are!


----------



## Aosto (Sep 13, 2012)

PoA is the third book in the series. I have read all 7 books and enjoyed them. I admit, it's probably because it's the first book series I ever read. I was 11 when the first book released and followed it through loyally until the Deathly Hallows. 

I was upset at the movies for not following through on a lot of the sub plot. But at the same time, there was a lot going on in the books that wouldn't translate well to film. 

If I view them as a separate entity, then I would say both were equally good in their own right.


----------



## Aravelle (Sep 28, 2012)

I feel like you can't really get the movie right unless the author is involved in its creation, namely the screenplay *coughStardustcough*. However, I find the HP movies more than acceptable and thoroughly enjoyed the Hunger Games movie. If anything, I thought it was better than the books. The books are written poorly, and the first person viewpoint was distracting. What redeemed it was the plot, and they magnify that in the movie and give it life.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2012)

Actually, I thought the first _Hunger Games_ book as well-written. I haven't read the last two.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 28, 2012)

I just watched Hunger Games last night (on accident really, I wanted to see Prometheus.)  I thought it was pretty well done and not a rip-off of Battle Royale like I was suspecting.  It seems to pull inspiration from different sources and still be a rather unique story and world.  I'm looking forward to reading the book eventually.


----------



## Wolfram (Sep 29, 2012)

Hunger games fans, get on netflix and watch Battle Royal. it's better than Hunger games in every way. and was done years before the hunger books were even written. the author said she hadnt seen Battle Royal before writing the hunger books, but I have serious doubts about that.


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 1, 2012)

Actually, she based her story idea off of the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur; the Minotaur is the government.
I'm tired of people bringing up Battle Royale. People do get similar ideas every so often without it being copying. Heck, it's happened to me when I've had story ideas much longer than the said person with a similar idea.

I may not be fond of the books but I will most certainly defend her, or any writer's proper story origins for that matter.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 1, 2012)

Aravelle said:


> Actually, she based her story idea off of the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur; the Minotaur is the government.



I can see that. I think her story is different enough from Battle Royale to not be confused for each other, but if you boil them wayyy down to their core, then its kids being forced to kill kids. From everything I've seen on Battle Royale, it looks to be the better, but I will reserve judgement until I get a chance to check it out. I have a suspicion that it will be violence for violence's sake in which case I probably would prefer Hunger Games...and I already said what I thought about that.


----------



## Philip Overby (Oct 1, 2012)

I've seen Battle Royale and I don't think it's violence for violence sake.  There is plenty of violence, but I think the story that is interwoven throughout is pretty good.  I personally (having seen both movies) think Hunger Games is the more character driven of the two, while Battle Royale relies more on the concept.  The characters are all symbolic of something in Battle Royale I think.  It also shows how junior high can be a brutal time in a young teen's life with all the politics and back-stabbing.


----------



## Mindfire (Oct 2, 2012)

[video=youtube_share;_hp_xsUg9ws]http://youtu.be/_hp_xsUg9ws[/video]


----------



## Kaellpae (Oct 9, 2012)

Harry potter: big fan of the books. The movies, eh. Not so much. As movies the 3rd to the 8th are the best. As adaptations the first two are best. They were short enough to not completely butcher the story or spirit of the novel.

Hunger games: I've been told multiple times how good the novel and movie are. I read a summary of the series and didn't like what I read for plot for the second and third, so I won't be reading the books. I watched the movie, and was bored until they started training. Then they started the games and I was bored again. Most of the reason I watched the movie was for Woody.

Twilight: ugh. Heard so much bad stuff about the novels, and I watched the first two movies and was bored out of my mind. Mostly watched it for Cedric. The girl in the movie seemed to be more of a zombie than human. So she's the real monster. As for good things I've heard about twilight. Usually the arguments written for it are so badly punctuated and spelled that I can't even begin to want to look at the books. 

LOTR: I like the movies and the books are on my reading list. I tried the Hobbit many years ago so I could read it chronologically, but it was so dry that I couldn't make it through the first couple chapters. I'm older and more into fantasy now, so I'll give it another chance.

Narnia: I liked the old movies, and I like the newer ones. I bought the book collection and read them all. They start out strong and with each book they spiral further and further into Christian/religious propaganda. Good stories, but didn't enjoy the series ending with everyone dying/rapturing.

Series I want made into movies and shows? Wheel of Time, Dark Tower Series, and Odd Thomas. Those are off the top of my head.

Last Harry Potter related note: if they made a television series/cartoon to effectively show all the subplots and have Peeves. I would be ecstatic. Just from the book and animate it. Have Harry narrate it so it'd be even closer to the books. That's my dream. I think a lot of book series would benefit from that type of conversion. Animation is a lot easier to age the characters corrrectly. McGonagall looked almost dead in the last movie. I know the actress was going through a bout of breast cancer, and I'm glad she pulled through, but you wouldn't have that problem with a cartoon.

End rant.


----------

