12

Started reading The Hunger Games trilogy, now the movie is out. Although many people who watched the movie say that it is close to the first book, it must differ in many ways. How close is The Hunger Games (2012) movie to the first book in the trilogy series?

If one watches the movie before reading the whole book. Will the movie spoil the book in any way (except for the plot itself)?

15

The movie was very faithful to the book, as others here have stated. I have listed a few major points below, along with my recommendation regarding your particular problem.

The movie does make a few missteps, however. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is frankly misportrayed as a mutual romance, perhaps in an attempt to capitalize on the "love triangle" trope popular in adolescent fiction currently. Gale's role in Katniss' life is downplayed almost completely, in order to promote Peeta's role. Some details regarding the games are fudged for clarity; it's hard to show how Haymitch wordlessly communicated with Katniss through gifts from a third person view, so they show him sending actual written messages. Certain plot points from Catching Fire concurrent to The Hunger Games carry over into the movie, while in the books they are a surprise kept for the second book. Overall, though, the movie is an excellent depiction of the events of the book, if not the characters.

My wholehearted recommendation as a fan is to read the whole book first, however. The book is written from Katniss' perspective, while the movie is obviously written from a third person view, the cameras seeing the events. Since you don't have Katniss' perspective on the events of the movie, you may not draw all the same conclusions from certain events as she does, particularly during the games themselves. This can lead to some misunderstandings, particularly in view of Katniss' motivations and feelings. Her character is very strongly written, and it is hard to grasp her fully just by watching.

  • After watching the movie and reading the book, this answer comes close to my question. Thanks for posting. – Secko Aug 10 '12 at 3:22
  • 1
    I think the reduction of Gale's role is less about enhancing Peeta's and more about the simple nature of condensing a book into a movie. The introductory scene and the goodbye is basically all we have time for between Gale and Katniss (and frankly there's not much more in the book, except Katniss's internal monologue), and there's enough there for even non-readers to realize these two have a very close platonic relationship, that would only take a little nudge to become romantic (which Gale certainly wanted). – KeithS Aug 21 '12 at 18:03
  • 1
    The relationship between Peeta and Katniss is very complex. Katniss realizes that the star-crossed lover shtick might just get both of them out of the arena alive. So, from a third-person perspective she simply must make it look real, and when the only feasible perspective for shooting a movie is third person, it's extremely difficult to make it look real but tip the audience a wink. In addition, Katniss isn't 100% cold and calculating about this. Spend enough time pretending to love someone in the middle of a death arena, you're bound to end up with some feelings. They show it to an extent. – KeithS Aug 21 '12 at 18:10
  • @KeithS Oh, I agree that it's certainly a fairly accurate portrayal of the events of the book. I just think more should have been done to portray the characters more accurately. Gale and Peeta were accurate to the book, at least as much as they could have possibly been on screen. Katniss was missing something, and that may be solely introduced by the perspective switch from first to third person. Regardless of the reason, I feel it worth stating that it's better to read the book first, since it gives the more accurate and complete portrayal of Katniss. – Gabe Willard Aug 21 '12 at 22:36
2

Saw the movie opening weekend and had read the book probably a 18-24 months earlier. As other folks have said, the movie was very faithful to the book. Were there differences ? Am sure there were but my recollection is that whatever they were trivial things. Take that with a grain of salt because of the time delta between reading the book / seeing the movie.

With all that said, am really glad I read the book first. If I had seen the movie, I think the book would have been anti-climatic for me since the plot line adhered extremely closely to the movie. There would have been no surprises.

1

Do not watch it then read the book. I did this and it was very hard at some parts to keep reading because I already watched the same exact thing happen. The movie is very faithful to the book, the book is better but just read it first - I think you'd enjoy it more.

0

I was extremely disappointed by the films. I thought HG totally missed the point of the book. The main problem was having the characters looking so healthy. They were near starvation in District 12, yet Jennifer Lawrence looked far too healthy. The political allegory was also missed. The way the gap between the haves and have nots is ever growing. The 1% control everything, while people rely on food banks. Reality TV has become so entrenched in our culture, it is an ambition in and of itself; to be a reality tv star. And while Tributes are slaughtering each other, folk of the Capitol couldn't care less as long as they are entertained. These points, I felt, were not gone into enough detail.

  • 4
    This appears to be a criticism of the film rather than an answer to the question of whether watching the movie spoils the book. – Blackwood Jul 6 '16 at 16:07
0

Pretty Accurate

The movie adaptation was almost completely accurate. The only parts I can think of that are different than the book are:

  1. that they apparently thought the movie would be better if Madge Undersee didn’t exist and Katniss got the ‘good luck’ pin from a lady at the Hob.
  2. They showed a clip of District 11’s uprising when Rue died, but it was supposed to be entirely in Katniss’s POV, and that didn’t happen ‘till Catching Fire.
  3. The tributes weren’t allowed to have District Tokens, and Katniss had to sneak her pin.
-3

The main non-plot spoilers in watching the film before reading the books, in The Hunger Games as well as any other case, is that your imagination is shoehorned into the casting choices made by the filmmakers. I saw the Hunger Games movie before reading the books, and now I can't see Haymitch as NOT looking like Woody Harleson. You can argue over whether the casting choices are good or not, but watching the films will guide you to their interpretation of the text.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.