Frosting - the Final Defense of the Dying

What's with The Hunger Games movie?

I find it interesting that the title of today's blog (or something very like it) made it from the book into the movie when so much was left out. Yes, I realize that any time you try to cram a novel into a two and a half hour movie, you must leave a lot out. But they left out crucial data; if you haven't read the book, you won't completely get it.

The Good

• They stuck to the plot! They really didn't change much.
• The cast was generally excellent.
• If you understand the basic premises, it's a powerful commentary on society, and on some tendencies in our government and media, almost as much so as the book (and even better in a few cases).
• The districts looked just as I imagined them. The capital was perfect.

The Bad

• They changed how Katniss got the pin and why she wore it. (Apparently this matters for the later books/movies.)
• They failed to emphasize a big part of the motivation to win (besides the obvious issue of personal survival, and for some, the glory), which was that the winner's district got a lot of extra food and other assistance the following year, whereas they normally just eked out an existence (Katniss and her family were on the edge of starvation when Peeta threw her those crusts, having burnt them on purpose to get to do so.
• They didn't really develop Katniss. The book is told in the first person, so you know her every thought. The movie is more third person, and they fail to explain why she does much of what she does. She's a very complex young lady, and the situation was as tough for her mentally and emotionally as physically.
• They just kind of glossed over the danger at the end for the champions, and how hard they had to work to turn things around, having infuriated the authorities with their defiance.

The Ugly

• What is with the constant "fat head" close up shots? Yuck.