If you have ever complained about a movie (LotR, Harry Potter, Narnia, Airbender, Sherlock Holmes, etc) because it didn't follow the books closely enough, you need to read this article. [url]http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/high-fidelity-why-fans-demanding-faithfulness-to-their-favorite-source-material-is-damaging-movies[/url] Actually it would be even better if you read the AV Club article it links to: [url]http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-makes-a-good-booktofilm-adaptation,71545/[/url] - it's even longer but it's a much more comprehensive and cogent discussion of the relationship between books and the movies that are based around them. Maybe a few pull quotes will help set the stage (these are from the AV Club article): “A book is a book and a movie is a movie, and whenever the latter merely sets about illustrating the former, it’s a failure of adaptation, to say nothing of imagination.” "What I want is not faithfulness, but an active engagement with the material, which doesn’t have to preclude faithfulness. The question filmmakers should ask is not, “How can I bring this story to the screen without losing anything?,” but “What in this book do I want to emphasize?” They also talk about whether it's good to read the book before seeing the film, what good adaptations look like, whether the Hunger Games is too literal, etc. It's long but if you care about the book-to-film adaptation process it's a really good read. EDIT: The second article contains one or two choice words, just FYI. Also I put this here cause it concerns literature fans as well as movie buffs, and because I'm the only one who posts on the movie board.

Well, I haven't read it yet, but I will as soon as I have time to... Since I haven't read it yet, I'll just have to speak of my current thoughts on the issue... Movies should never be exactly like the book. I love books, and typically prefer the book to the movie, but it just does not work. The things that make a good book and a good movie are different, as they should be. Yes, there are some similar aspects that need to be there, but the play out differently in each, as they can be seen differently in each form. Even in forms of more similar natures must be different. Graphic novels and books can not translate perfectly into each other, and why should they? Each form of entertainment touches us in a different way, and it not only should be that way, but it MUST be that way... (Yes, I shouted there, but I feel italics are not strong enough for emphasis on that. I would have shouted it in a conversation as well :P ) That's actually just touching the surface of my thoughts on this issue, but I needs be getting some sleep, and I'm quite busy with some other things as well... I'll speak more on this later... Yay rambling!

Having never read the book version of the Hunger Games, but knowing there was a book, I could definitely tell that there were parts left out. I don't know if I dozed, but I don't remember finding out why these futuristic people celebrate the end of war in a period called 'the peace' with an all out slaughter of teenagers. Like a 12 year old has a chance against an 18 year old....

They fully explained the reason at the beginning of the movie, actually. I mean, yeah, they could have had a little bit more detail, but right before the reaping, they explain why they sacrifice in that political video clip.

Guess I can't remember....ALSO, I thought that Peeta's name was Peter and for whatever reason that was the only thing they said in an English accent :lol:

Yeah.... My problem with Airbender wasn't that he wasn't faithful to the series. It was that he completely missed the concept of the series. He failed to get a single characterization right. He changed the entire thing to make it "authentic." The problem being that it exists in its own world. It may have some serious Asian influences, but that doesn't mean that it everything must fight that narrow, narrow slot.