Why Is The Hunger Games So Bad Movie To Film Adaptation?

Why is The Hunger Games a notoriously bad movie-to-film adaption? When one claims that a film adaption of a movie isn’t good, they usually aren’t claiming the movie itself isn’t good—usually, the moviegoer is claiming that the adaption wasn’t good. Or rather, that the director made changes from print-to-screen that the viewer didn’t like. In the film adaptation of “1408,” the director made changes from the short story to add suspense, omit unnecessary details, and give Mike Enslin a rich emotional background. The film has some additions and changes that were made to create suspense. Before Mike even enters 1408, suspense is created through his journey to receiving his room key. The hotel clerk is initially unable to check him in until he’s spoken to the manager, leading ot a long conversation with Mr. Olin about all of those who have died in the room, and hearing how “nobody lasts more than an hour.” By this point, the viewer is feeling some doubt over if the room is as safe as Enslin believes it to be. Once Enslin enters the room, suspense is built as he paces around the room, putting the viewer on edge, waiting for a jump-scare.

For instance, the orange-yellow fruit painting is focal point throughout the story. However, most of the commentary is going on inside of Mike’s head. While the director had the freedom to transition some “thoughts” into lines that could be spoken into the tape-recorder, it would be difficult for the director to have Mike continually speaking into the tape recorder. Because the thoughts of yellow-orange had to be excluded, it makes sense that the director took out the fruit painting all together. The changing courses on the breakfast menu was also omitted from the film—while this hones subtle suspense in the book, in a movie, this type of “scares” would fall short in a horror