The Hunger Games Movie

Thread for the movie only. What did you feel about it? I feel they left out a lot of the important stuff. Also, please use spoilers.

No Red Avox girl, No giving Peeta the sleep syrup when she gets the bag, no Katniss dehydration, no Madge giving the pin, No Peeta's Father giving the cookies, no golden cornucopia, nothing withh the prep them really, she never recieved the District 11 bread, no showing Peeta's amputated leg at the end.....

I could go on, but. The movie was still really good, I just liked the book more. I would rather have a longer movie with more stuff than missing some of the stuff.
 

Dr. Javelin

Nathan Latsk
If I'm going to go see this, I need to know if they made any horrible changes to the book.

You should spoiler it, I've read the book though.
 
Dr. Javelin said:
If I'm going to go see this, I need to know if they made any horrible changes to the book.

You should spoiler it, I've read the book though.
Well I was doing it for movie and in case some people haven't read it. There aren't really any changes (just things left out) , but you do get a view of what the Gamemakers do to make everything happen and stuff which is pretty cool.
 

Dark Light

Cherries and Berries
Just wondering, but how violent is the movie? I read the book and it sounds pretty violent
 

schmutz

welcome to the hotel waluigi
I went to see it yesterday. I thought it was a pretty good movie. The only problem I could really see was that it might be a little bit hard to follow for those who haven't read the book. BUT I am a strict believer in "book first, movie later," so I'm just gonna say it's your fault if you see the movie first.

I was disappointed that they changed from where Katniss got the pin, but the other omissions I can live with. I mean, the movie was already 2 hours and 20 minutes...
 

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
I saw the movie last night; it was better than the book, actually, and the book was already quite good.

And the mediocre second and third books would actually really benefit from an adaption to film, I think they'd work better as movies than novels.
 

Dr. Javelin

Nathan Latsk
schmutz said:
The only problem I could really see was that it might be a little bit hard to follow for those who haven't read the book.
That's better than when they choose to totally disregard the book (Eragon, Percy Jackson) and make a movie more appealing to common viewers.
Nosferatu Man said:
And the mediocre second and third books would actually really benefit from an adaption to film, I think they'd work better as movies than novels.
That's a great point - I abhorred Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but the movie was actually rather good.
 

RandomGuy

Earth Adept
I thought Deathly Hallows was worse as a movie, and definitley half-blood prince. They cut out almost all the memories and only focused on Lav-Lav and Won-Won and Hermione's love triangle. Well, most of it was focused on them
 

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
RandomGuy said:
I thought Deathly Hallows was worse as a movie, and definitley half-blood prince. They cut out almost all the memories and only focused on Lav-Lav and Won-Won and Hermione's love triangle. Well, most of it was focused on them
Deathly Hallows was the best movie, IMO. They didn't leave out nearly as much as they did in the other movies, plus they added that really powerful scene in the tent with Harry and Hermione.

Dr. Javelin said:
That's a great point
Thank you.

Dr. Javelin said:
I abhorred Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
:eek:
 

schmutz

welcome to the hotel waluigi
Dr. Javelin said:
I abhorred Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
I don't

How do you

I mean

What


Didn't The Hunger Games set some sort of record for a non-sequel movie?
 

Nabber

Artisanal Cheese Taster
Dr. Javelin said:
schmutz said:
The only problem I could really see was that it might be a little bit hard to follow for those who haven't read the book.
That's better than when they choose to totally disregard the book (Eragon, Percy Jackson) and make a movie more appealing to common viewers.
My god. I don't know about Eragon but the Jackson movie messed up everything. They basically said, "Screw you Riordan" and did whatever they want. Which is a shame because they left out pretty much everything that made the book good.
And they're making a sequel.
 

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
Viceroy Bubbles von Salamancer said:
Dr. Javelin said:
schmutz said:
The only problem I could really see was that it might be a little bit hard to follow for those who haven't read the book.
That's better than when they choose to totally disregard the book (Eragon, Percy Jackson) and make a movie more appealing to common viewers.
My god. I don't know about Eragon but the Jackson movie messed up everything. They basically said, "Screw you Riordan" and did whatever they want. Which is a shame because they left out pretty much everything that made the book good.
And they're making a sequel.
How are they going to do that? They killed off the most interesting (and important) character in the series,
Luke! And Kronos was never even mentioned.


They also made the showdown with Luke a lot less subtle and interesting.
 

Bop1996

Power Star
Retired Wiki Staff
Dr. Javelin said:
schmutz said:
The only problem I could really see was that it might be a little bit hard to follow for those who haven't read the book.
That's better than when they choose to totally disregard the book (Eragon)
Note that this almost completely alienated the (admittedly mostly horrible) fanbase of the book series and also sucked as a movie and just about every other form of entertainment in existence.

Uh, I haven't seen the movie and don't really plan to at this time, but it seems like they didn't butcher it, so that's a plus.
 

Dr. Javelin

Nathan Latsk
Nosferatu Man said:
Dr. Javelin said:
I abhorred Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
:eek:
schmutz said:
Dr. Javelin said:
I abhorred Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
I don't

How do you

I mean

What
Explain to me how the first half of the book was actually relevant and useful to the plot, and also explain to me how Harry's revival isn't totally overpowered and the battle with Voldermort wasn't a complete anticlimax.

He lectures Voldemort for FOUR ENTIRE PAGES. WHY

It was just a major letdown to what could have been a great finish in my opinion.

The movie was better in my opinion because they clipped out a lot of the worthless stuff in the book and expanded or left in the parts that I enjoyed, chiefly the King's Cross scene which was almost completely unchanged from the book. They also had an actually interesting battle with Voldemort.
Nosferatu Man said:
Viceroy Bubbles von Salamancer said:
And they're making a sequel.
How are they going to do that? They killed off the most interesting (and important) character in the series,
Luke! And Kronos was never even mentioned.

They also made the showdown with Luke a lot less subtle and interesting.
I was going to ask the same thing, actually.

Though personally I prefer Annebeth to Luke.
 

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
Dr. Javelin said:
Explain to me how the first half of the book was actually relevant and useful to the plot,
They found the horcruxes, resolved the question of R.A.B., resolved the question of Kreacher's past, got to beat up Umbridge one last time, resolved Ron's tension with Harry, and Dobby died.

Dr. Javelin said:
He lectures Voldemort for FOUR ENTIRE PAGES. WHY
Every other time Harry and Voldemort faced each other, Voldemort lectured Harry and had the upper hand. The scene showed how Harry had gotten stronger and more intelligent, and had adopted Dumbledore's philosophy.

The battle with Voldemort was an anticlimax, yes, but that was the point. In the end, he was a pathetic little asshole who rose to power by being a disgusting human being. He had no real talent with magic other than killing people or any goals other than power. Once his horcruxes were destroyed, he couldn't keep himself alive for more than a few hours at most before having his avada kedavra deflected.
 

Dr. Javelin

Nathan Latsk
okay I would type a predictably awesome response to that but I actually have a relevant story to share

so...

The other day I was witting in class and this girl next to me was reading the Hunger Games, and a friend and I were trying to explain to her why Peeta was a bad character. She "accidentally" glanced at the last page and saw that Peeta and Katniss were talking, so she logically deduced that they survived until the end of the book. To which my friend replied: "Oh yeah that's where they're in heaven because they both died.".

The best part? SHE BELIEVED IT

until we both nearly died with laughter, her expression was priceless



anyways after this completely tangential story, what do you think of Peeta? I think he's just a waste of space and downright one of the worst literary characters I've ever known.
 

Mario4Ever

A price for everything.
Retired Wiki Staff
Peeta is one of the most underdeveloped characters I have ever seen. He gives Katniss bread and then suddenly becomes her love interest outside of District 12. That's it. What an over-hyped book...hopefully, the movie is not just a reflection of that.
 

schmutz

welcome to the hotel waluigi
Nosferatu Man said:
Dr. Javelin said:
Explain to me how the first half of the book was actually relevant and useful to the plot,
They found the horcruxes, resolved the question of R.A.B., resolved the question of Kreacher's past, got to beat up Umbridge one last time, resolved Ron's tension with Harry, and Dobby died.

Dr. Javelin said:
He lectures Voldemort for FOUR ENTIRE PAGES. WHY
Every other time Harry and Voldemort faced each other, Voldemort lectured Harry and had the upper hand. The scene showed how Harry had gotten stronger and more intelligent, and had adopted Dumbledore's philosophy.

The battle with Voldemort was an anticlimax, yes, but that was the point. In the end, he was a pathetic little asshole who rose to power by being a disgusting human being. He had no real talent with magic other than killing people or any goals other than power. Once his horcruxes were destroyed, he couldn't keep himself alive for more than a few hours at most before having his avada kedavra deflected.
Pretty much all of this. JK Rowling has never written a useless word in her life.
 

Zae

Donkey Kong
Banned User
Never read the book, but according to a buddy the book is amazing and the movie is pretty fair.

Will probably get more opinions before seeing it though.

May just wait to rent it, not sure atm.
 

Puddin

eat the rich
I heard the movie was full of shaky camera shit. If this is true, I'm not watching it. Fuck the Blair Witch Project. Fuck Cloverfield. Fuck movies where the camera is shaking the entire time.

But if this is false about this movie, I'd like to know.
 

Scarecrow von Steuben

I'm very friendly.
Mason said:
I heard the movie was full of shaky camera shit. If this is true, I'm not watching it. Fuck the Blair Witch Project. Fuck Cloverfield. Fuck movies where the camera is shaking the entire time.
RAWR FUCK FUCK ASS SHIT FUCK HELL SRS
 

Villain11

Katniss <3
The movie was amazing. The characters were exactly how I imagined them and they did not change the plot, (except for how Katniss got the pin) they just left a few minor details out. And the movie was already 2 hours and 22 minutes long, so I think they did the best they could.

Also, the shaky camera is only during the battle scenes, and it doesn't take away the effect of the movie.
 

Mario4Ever

A price for everything.
Retired Wiki Staff
There was no shaky camera in the book....
 
Top