Its safe to say that The Hunger Games movie is a great adaptation.
But how does it differ from Suzanne Collins novel?
Sarah takes a closer look…
Its always strange watching a film thats based on a book youve read.
Things, obviously, will have been changed.
TakeThe Hunger Games.The book is 464 pages long; the film is 142 minutes long.
That means every minute of the film needs to pack in more than three pages worth of story.
Especially since the film doesnt stick strictly to the book, but actually adds in some extra scenes.
Be warned there are an awful lot ofspoilersin this article.
Haymitch, generally, is a bit more likeable in the film than in the book.
But the eviction of a Big Brother contestant has never started a riot.
In the book, the Careers are basically just the baddies.
Suddenly, the fate of the Careers seems tragic.
They were taught that dying for the glory of their District was honourable.
In the book, there are six Careers per Games.
Five of them will die.
Those mutts all had the eyes of the dead Tributes.
Katniss looked into their faces and saw her fallen opponents including Rue.
The removal of the Avox subplot also lessens our appreciation of the Capitols cruelty.
Losing the explanation of what the mockingjay stands for, though, might present problems later on.
One of those muttations was a bird called a jabberjay basically, a living Dictaphone.
Its a fun story, and one that shows how the Capitols plans sometimes backfire.
Some of these work better than others.
For instance, cutting down on Haymitchs drunken boorishness at the beginning is probably a wise decision.
Hopefully the second film will make up for that, though.
will want to accuse me of being a pedant.
I cant argue with you on that count.
But I hope its also clear that I think theHunger Gamesmovie was a great adaptation of the book.
it’s possible for you to read ourreview of The Hunger Games here.
