Hunger games adaptation
It’s always strange watching a film that’s based on a book you’ve read. Things, obviously, will have been changed. Scenes that work in a book might not work on screen, and unless you’re willing to sit through a six hour long film, some plot elements will need to be simplified, subplots removed, and details lost. That doesn’t mean that film adaptations are always bad, or even necessarily worse than their books – they’re just different.
Take The 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. Obviously, it’s not quite that simple, but you can see where some things would need to be trimmed. Especially since the film doesn’t stick strictly to the book, but actually adds in some extra scenes. Those scenes are great, and a lot of the stuff we’ve lost isn’t all that important but some of the missing stuff might actually turn out to be quite crucial.
Although the film doesn’t add too many new scenes, they’re all fairly significant. We get to see things that Katniss isn’t privy to, and the world of Panem is opened up to us a little bit. So we get to spend time with President Snow in his rose garden, doling out advice to Head Gamemaker. These insights into the people running the show are actually really valuable, and let us see for ourselves – outside of Katniss’s limited understanding – how Panem works.
It’s also massively enjoyable to watch Donald Sutherland being creepy as all get out as Snow, and it’s great to see Crane’s character rounded out a little bit. As the Gamemaker, we mostly encounter him showing off, throwing all sorts of horrendous obstacles at the poor kids in the arena, which doesn’t make him a very likeable character. In his interactions with Snow, though, we get to see a little more depth to him; in some ways, he’s at the mercy of the Capitol as much as anyone else.
Because we don’t get the benefit of Katniss’...