What 'The Hunger Games' Movie had that the book did not

Going into the movie I was concerned with how they would portray Katniss without her seeming cold. In the first book her inner thoughts really give an in depth sense to her character and why she does the things she does, but in the movie, none of those inner thoughts would be there. I think they did an overall good job explaining the game as well as developing Katniss into an empowering, sensitive, and vulnerable girl.

I have had many conversations the past few days about what the book had that the movie didn't. Whether or not the movie held true to the book well enough and if it really worked. In the end though, every one I have talked to enjoyed the movie and thought it did a better job as an adaptation than many other book to movie films.

But a conversation I have not had yet was what the movie had that the book did not. There were many adaptations that helped move the story along and really worked. This article includes many of the scenes that were only in the movie.

The Hunger Games, According to the Boston Globe

According to the Globe, the movie is good, but the book is still better. This is usual for most film adaptations of books. The author says that readers of the book, "Hunger Games," will be satisfied by the compromises Hollywood has made with keeping the story true to itself. However, for non-readers, they will have a nice night at the movies, then wondering what the fuss was all about.

A line I like from this article is: "This is not a movie on fire, and it should have been." I think this was an excellent film adaptation because all of the essential pieces and scenes from the book included in the film. At the same time, I felt shocked, outraged, and with my stomach in my throat with the description of things occurring in the book. The movie did not give me this kind of reaction whatsoever. Was this because I knew what was about to happen from reading the book, or did the film lack that "fire"?