Hunger Games Trilogy discussion
The Hunger Games (Movie)
>
Book or Movie?
message 1:
by
Katherine2020
(new)
Apr 06, 2012 03:11PM
do you think the HG book or movie is better?
reply
|
flag
I don't want to sound desperate but can someone PLEASE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The book, although the movie was one of the better book-to-movie adaptations I'd seen.
I saw it with to high expectations, I kind of expected more but for the most part it was great
Books, for the most part, are usually better, but the film was definitely one of the best adaptions I've ever seen, since the changes in it actually didn't take away from the heart or soul of the story,
Your right. I only had three big things that I think should be changed.#1. Madge and the pin.
#2. When katniss and rue were eating in the woods katniss offered rue another leg of groosling and in the movie she just took but in the book she was like " really, a whole leg for me?" I guess it made the reader feel how much poverty the districts had, it just stood out for me.
#3. I think they should have focused more on "Peeta- the boy with the bread" story.
I missed Katniss banging on the glass window in the hover copter, screaming for Peeta, and not knowing if he lived.
Katherine wrote: "Your right. I only had three big things that I think should be changed.#1. Madge and the pin.
#2. When katniss and rue were eating in the woods katniss offered rue another leg of groosling and in..."
All so true but the book is better than the movie... But the movie is better than those outrageous movies that are soo stupid and the book (that the movie is based on) is waaaaay better like: Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
I LOVED the movie, but I 'm still going to have to say that the book was just a lil better. There was just not enough character development in the movie.
4 main reasons why i perfer the book to the movie#1. Madge and the pin.
#2. When katniss and rue were eating in the woods katniss offered rue another leg of groosling and in the movie she just took but in the book she was like " really, a whole leg for me?" I guess it made the reader feel how much poverty the districts had, it just stood out for me.
#3. I think they should have focused more on "Peeta- the boy with the bread" story.
#4 they were supposted to hang syndace crane* not sure how you spell that* not posin him with nightlock
Liked the book better was more detailed. But the movie was still awesome!
I Loved the book liked the movie but the movie did help with the imagenation I didnt quite SEE the capetal.
Dowshii wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Your right. I only had three big things that I think should be changed.#1. Madge and the pin.
#2. When katniss and rue were eating in the woods katniss offered rue another leg o..."
YESSS! That is exactly how I look at it. The book was better, but the movie was pretty freaking good. The Percy Jackson movie was horrible if you have read the books. And I think that Hunger Games was pretty good. A few minor changes, but they are manageable, unlike in Percy Jackson.
BookPlain and Simple
Book book book book book
Hey everyone!! Payton is having an annual 32 hunger games role play!!! There are only 8 more spots so sign up soon!! PLEASE DO IT!!:)
The movie was great though I would changed some parts....
The book! The love between Peeta and Katniss wasn't strong enough in the movie.
Kayla wrote: "The book! The love between Peeta and Katniss wasn't strong enough in the movie." I thought so too. They could have made it better. :(
The book. But the movie was really close to the book, there was a few differences though. But the movie was almost exactly whati visualized when reading the book.
The book was better, but the movie was still great. I also think the fact that they left out Peeta's amputated/artificial leg was probably a good idea (would've been too much blood and gore for PG-13) but, it did make me sad that they didn't stay entirely true to the books. Only other thing that bothered me....The Muttations at the end were supposed to look like the dead tributes!!!! They didn't!!!!!
The book was definitely best. I had to watch the movie twice to really like it, but that was because the first time I saw the movie I only looked for what was missing and etc.
wow... thats really hard. I mean, the books were really amazing and detailed, but Josh Hutcherson was in the movie! Um.... here, give me a minute.... i would have to say the book just because in the movie, it didn't really show the desperation of the characters, and how getting food and water was just as important as watching for other tributes.
plus, Katniss and Peeta didn't like.... connect as much. I really liked the part, though, when Katniss and Peeta were full fledge making out in the cave, and then it showed Gale with his ears fuming and looking all awkward and p.o'd. I thought that was really funny.
Annabeth wrote: "plus, Katniss and Peeta didn't like.... connect as much. I really liked the part, though, when Katniss and Peeta were full fledge making out in the cave, and then it showed Gale with his ears fumin..."I am seeing the movie tomorrow, but that part does sound really funny. :)
I just saw the movie...finally! I think the book was waaay better because, like Annabeth said, it didn't really show the character's emotions and things. Movies are hard to do this, though, because you can't exactly put the character's thoughts into a movie. But the movie was still one of the best I've seen in a really, really long time. (I don't go to theaters hardly at all, but this movie was pretty darn good!)
Katherine2020 wrote: "I saw it with to high expectations, I kind of expected more but for the most part it was great"Same here.
I liked them both alot, but the book was definitely better.
(This review has a little spoiler, so don't read any further if you haven't seen the movie.)The film was pretty awesome, but it skipped through many parts. There were a lot of montages, like during the bloodbath at the Cornucopia, where there wasn't any talking. The music was also great, although the feel of the movie was kind of depressing. There weren't really any happy parts. The casting was also spot on, but there wasn't enough character development, in my opinion. The book-to-movie adaptation was interesting as well, there was hardly any changes made to the movie that weren't in the book. The Cornucopia was black, not gold, and I though that could have been different. For the most part, The film was fantastic, with twists and turns I hadn't expected, even though I have the first book almost memorized. Also, there wasn't as much violence as I had expected and I like that, since I'm not into blood and gore very much. I'd recommend this movie to any people who like the Hunger Games books, because it really gives a good impression of the settings (I loved the Capitol people with their crazy clothes and hair, and the Capitol itself!)
(spoilers a little about the movie & book)The book was so amazing!! I rather the book than the movie, of course like any other fan i wanted parts in the movie that just weren't there and it got me really mad. But they honestly made peeta looked sooooo despite im sorry but its true. i mean i LOVE the fact that josh is playing peeta but what the way they made him act was a no for me... and they cut out very super important scenes. And It wouldn't hurt if the movie was like 20 mins longer or anything i dont know but the actors where great. The way they where made to act ehhh. . . RUE'S SCENE WAS AMAZING AND THE PART AFTER TOO !
Fotsoft wrote: "The book was definitely best. I had to watch the movie twice to really like it, but that was because the first time I saw the movie I only looked for what was missing and etc."I love the fact the josh played peeta but he look really despite :c
Karla wrote: I love the fact the josh played peeta but he look really despite :c "Yeah, he did a great job! In the book I was cheering for Gale, but in the movie it's Peeta all the way!
book all the way! if you say movie, i'm sorry but you are CRAZY!
the book for sure! Yeah the movie was really good, but the book has more explanation in it. Als shows more feeling between peeta and katniss. If you never read the book the film is harder to understand i guess but the actors did do great!!
Dowshii wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Your right. I only had three big things that I think should be changed.#1. Madge and the pin.
#2. When katniss and rue were eating in the woods katniss offered rue another leg o..."
I know right I HATED the lightning Theif movie!!!!!!! GRRRRRR!!!!!!
Dowshii wrote: "Katherine wrote: "Your right. I only had three big things that I think should be changed.#1. Madge and the pin.
#2. When katniss and rue were eating in the woods katniss offered rue another leg o..."
Right, a lot of important things were cut out in the movie, I just hope they dont cut out finnick or annie.
I don't think they could. They are katnisss alliances basically
definitely the books, they show much more of wat the actors are thinking and wat they are like, but i also think tht the movie did do a good jobi have to give them tht
Yeah, but what if they cut them out? You've seen what they did to Madge, who I think is a very important character in the series? and how will they explain Maysilee Donner? Oooh! I hope they don't cut the part where katniss and peeta watch Haymitch's hunger games. I would LOVE to see a young Haymitch.
As much as I would love to see that two, I think they will cut that out because it is not the most important part although I would LOVE to see all the other victors hg
You know, honestly I think that they should make Catching Fire into two movies as well, there are soo many details that they shouldn't leave out
the book was better but i really liked the movie too. i didnt have any expectations of it because i watched it before i read the books but now im a total hunger games geek haha :)
One thing I dont want to see when they make a movie mof mockingjay... a battered peeta.
