Hunger Games

**ISUChippewa** · 05-03-2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by klamath632

The wife finally finished reading it and allowed us to go to it over the weekend. We were both "meh." They weren't nearly as faithful to the book as many had led us to believe, and the changes they made didn't seem to be done for any useful purpose.

I agree with you, I wish I would have waited for DVD. At least the popcorn was good.

I saw the movie twice; the first time before I read the book and the 2nd time after, and I actually liked the movie better the 2nd time. I'm curious; where do you think they deviated too much in the movie from the book? I personally thought it was pretty faithful, especially since the whole trilogy is written in the 1st-person.

**MNCyGuy** · 05-03-2012, 09:06 AM

My wife had read all the books and I hadn't read any when we went. We were both pretty entertained. I know she noticed stuff that was somewhat different, but it didn't seem to bother her that much.

She finally broke me down into reading the other two books after we went. I can't ever go back and read the books after I see the movie, even if I know it's different. There were a couple of things I had to have her explain to me that got left out of the movie referenced in the other books, I'll be curious to see how they address some of those. Namely, I'll be curious how they deal with Gale being such a huge part of the other two books when they really downplayed him in the movie.

**clone52** · 05-03-2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by klamath632

The wife finally finished reading it and allowed us to go to it over the weekend. We were both "meh." They weren't nearly as faithful to the book as many had led us to believe, and the changes they made didn't seem to be done for any useful purpose.

I agree with you, I wish I would have waited for DVD. At least the popcorn was good.

I don't know how they could have been more faithful. The only pointless difference I saw was how she got the pin. That and the dogs at the end, but couldn't have kept it at PG-13 I don't think if they did that like the book.

**clone52** · 05-03-2012, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by MNCyGuy

My wife had read all the books and I hadn't read any when we went. We were both pretty entertained. I know she noticed stuff that was somewhat different, but it didn't seem to bother her that much.

She finally broke me down into reading the other two books after we went. I can't ever go back and read the books after I see the movie, even if I know it's different. There were a couple of things I had to have her explain to me that got left out of the movie referenced in the other books, I'll be curious to see how they address some of those. Namely, I'll be curious how they deal with Gale being such a huge part of the other two books when they really downplayed him in the movie.

Gale will be a big part of the next movies. They kept cutting back to him as foreshadowing. Considering that once they went to the Capital in the first book, Gales only appearances are in Katniss's thoughts, they couldn't do much else with him.

**MNCyGuy** · 05-03-2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by clone52

Gale will be a big part of the next movies. They kept cutting back to him as foreshadowing. Considering that once they went to the Capital in the first book, Gales only appearances are in Katniss's thoughts, they couldn't do much else with him.

Yea, that's where it's tough transitioning from the first person of the books. As someone who saw the movie first, I had no idea he was significant at all until I read the other two books. I assume if you had read the first book you catch a lot more of that foreshadowing.

**klamath632** · 05-03-2012, 09:21 AM

**** SPOILERS ****

The pin, obviously. The person she got it from mattered. They erased the mayor's family from the story.

The search for drinkable water in the arena. She found it in a couple of minutes.

Her hearing loss in the arena.

Peta's leg.

As far as the dogs, the symbolism of their origin really drove home the point of the depravity of the Capitol. Instead, it looked like somebody remembered the dogs in Ghostbusters and resurrected them for the Hunger Games. Their meaning was an afterthought.

The entire idea of the Capitol being the height of decadence, with rampant plastic surgery, outlandish clothing... it was hardly captured at all in the movie. The only time devoted to that subject at all was Haymitch watching the family on the street with the children who were playing a pretend Hunger Game. (and that scene was done well, at least.)

My biggest gripe about the movie is that, if you didn't read the book, I don't think you'd be able to follow it at all. There aren't nearly enough clues in the movie about why people are performing the actions that they do.

**3TrueFans** · 05-03-2012, 09:22 AM

I didn't really have any issues following the story without reading the book.

**klamath632** · 05-03-2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

I didn't really have any issues following the story without reading the book.

Following the story is one thing. Getting into the characters and their motivations is something else. Did you like the movie? Did you like the storytelling? Did you get into the characters? Just curious.

**cyhiphopp** · 05-03-2012, 09:30 AM

I thought they did a pretty good job of translating a first person novel into a movie. There is only so much they can do when half of the book is internal dialogue. I think some of the additions actually helped the movie make a lot of sense.

**3TrueFans** · 05-03-2012, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by klamath632

Following the story is one thing. Getting into the characters and their motivations is something else. Did you like the movie? Did you like the storytelling? Did you get into the characters? Just curious.

I didn't have any preconceptions of what the movie should have told me about the characters, but overall I liked it.

**Buster28** · 05-03-2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

I didn't really have any issues following the story without reading the book.

Same here. I had only a couple of minor questions after I saw the movie. But overall, it made sense as I was watching it. Some things your brain has to just put together on your own as you watch. But in context with the rest of the story, it was clear enough to where I was able to watch and enjoy the whole thing.

**ISUChippewa** · 05-03-2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by klamath632

**** SPOILERS ****

The pin, obviously. The person she got it from mattered. They erased the mayor's family from the story.

The search for drinkable water in the arena. She found it in a couple of minutes.

Her hearing loss in the arena.

Peta's leg.

As far as the dogs, the symbolism of their origin really drove home the point of the depravity of the Capitol. Instead, it looked like somebody remembered the dogs in Ghostbusters and resurrected them for the Hunger Games. Their meaning was an afterthought.

The entire idea of the Capitol being the height of decadence, with rampant plastic surgery, outlandish clothing... it was hardly captured at all in the movie. The only time devoted to that subject at all was Haymitch watching the family on the street with the children who were playing a pretend Hunger Game. (and that scene was done well, at least.)

My biggest gripe about the movie is that, if you didn't read the book, I don't think you'd be able to follow it at all. There aren't nearly enough clues in the movie about why people are performing the actions that they do.

Yeah, I don't know why Madge and her family weren't in the movie, unless they just wanted to feature the Hob for a couple of minutes. I'll be interested to see how they are incorporated into "Catching Fire", since they play a bigger role.

As for the hearing loss and Katniss not being able to find water in the book, I see your point, but I don't know how well that would have translated to the screen.

As for the last paragraph, I may have been helped out by my sister having read the books to explain the basic outline for me, but I didn't have any issues at all following the movie.

**MNCyGuy** · 05-03-2012, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by ISUChippewa

[/B]

Yeah, I don't know why Madge and her family weren't in the movie, unless they just wanted to feature the Hob for a couple of minutes. I'll be interested to see how they are incorporated into "Catching Fire", since they play a bigger role.

As for the hearing loss and Katniss not being able to find water in the book, I see your point, but I don't know how well that would have translated to the screen.

As for the last paragraph, I may have been helped out by my sister having read the books to explain the basic outline for me, but I didn't have any issues at all following the movie.

Having read the other two books, you could totally cut Madge and her family and not have it affect the story. That's a justifiable change, imo.

**ISUCyclones2015** · 05-03-2012, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by MNCyGuy

Having read the other two books, you could totally cut Madge and her family and not have it affect the story. That's a justifiable change, imo.

I think the opening scene of Catching Fire is going to be Madge playing the Piano with Katniss. That's how they'll introduce them.

**Clonedogg** · 05-03-2012, 10:09 PM

I thought the movie did a great job, it made me read all the books after i saw it.

My question is how they do the last book/movie a lot of internal dialogue and imo irrational/petty reasoning by Katniss, bad book overall.