Debating and discussing book-to-movie adaptations is essential to being a book lover. The general consensus is that the “Hunger Games” trilogy is as good as they come. However, the latest installment in the series begs the questions: what separates the good from the bad, and how can filmmakers please both readers and the general public with their adaptations?
On Nov. 17, 2023, “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” was released to theaters, and a generation of young adults were transported back to their teen years, back to the first time they saw or read “The Hunger Games” series. “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” is a prequel to the original “Hunger Games” series written by Suzzane Collins. As with previous books in the series, there were several years between the release of the book and the movie, with the book being released in May 2020, three years before the movie adaptation. The original “Hunger Games” series centers around 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen, who is forced to participate in The 74th Annual Hunger Games, a competition created by the sadistic Capitol to exact control and revenge on the 12 Districts for their loss in a civil war in Panem. The Hunger Games is a battle to the death between 24 District children, one boy and one girl from each district, with ages ranging from 12 to 18. Miraculously, Katniss wins the Hunger Games and goes on to lead a rebellion, in which she takes down President Snow, the dictator of Panem. “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” takes place 64 years before “The Hunger Games,” during the 10th Annual Hunger Games. The book serves as a villain origin story for President Snow. It provides readers and watchers with an insight into how a bright young mind could possibly turn into a cruel, calculating dictator.
To someone who read “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” book before watching the movie, the pacing of the movie was very obviously off. The book is split into three parts, just like its predecessors. Each part is distinct and tells a different and very important part of the story. However, this did not translate well into a film format. The film felt extremely rushed. Even with a runtime of two hours and 38 minutes, the movie felt like it consisted of constant action, not leaving much time for character development. It felt like the filmmakers were going through the motions, adding all of the essential elements that ensure that the plot stayed intact, without bothering to flesh out characters or include scenes that add to the story beyond being major plot points. It felt like there was an assumption that everyone in the theater had already read “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” and every other Hunger Games book, and would instantly be able to recall details from the book. The filmmakers felt as if it was okay to skip a ton of exposition concerning Panem’s civil war, the state of the Capitol and Districts, and the backgrounds of many secondary characters. The excuse of not having enough run time to make the movie watchable does not even work here. Movies like “The Godfather,” “Avatar,” “Titanic” and more recently, “Avatar: The Way of Water” all have runtimes of around three hours, but they remain engaging and entertaining for the entire movie. Cutting out character development and exposition is not acceptable, especially considering the fact that many “Hunger Games” fans exclusively watch the movies.
Another limitation of the film is the inability to convey the inner monologue of the characters. This is especially prevalent in “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes.” Snow’s character is very manipulative. He uses people, backstabs them, and is hyper-aware of his appearance and how other people perceive him. As a moviegoer, some of this can be inferred from some dialogue or some of Snow’s actions, but still, it is less obvious. As a result, many people walked out of the movie thinking that Snow was simply a poorly written character, who was an honorable, kind person who suddenly turned bad for no good reason; they saw a villain who was likable and heroic. However, a reader would know that Snow was always a bad person, always a manipulator and that every action he took fit his character. There was no “trigger” for Snow’s insanity. It was always there. If anything, his traumatic childhood, growing up as an orphan in the middle of a war influenced his twisted personality, but this crucial part of the story is just shoehorned into the beginning instead of sprinkled throughout the story, like in the book. It was a very off-putting choice because it condenses a ton of flashbacks into one and puts them in a short two-minute scene, which is quickly forgotten by audiences.
The cut scenes were reminiscent of another book-to-movie adaptation, “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.” Which, although it was the third-longest book in the series, arguably had the most cut from the movie. The most epic book in the series, featuring dragons, mermaids, sphinxes and important character development had so much cut from it that it is almost unwatchable. Moviemakers fail to explain the intricacies and rules of the Triwizard tournament, leading to a lot of confusion from movie-watchers. The book shows Harry’s selflessness so many times, because he sacrifices points to help his friends, but the movie cannot show this because they cut out the entire point system. The main similarity is that the villain’s motivations are completely skipped over, and the audience is just left to think that the villain is evil for no reason, similar to how filmmakers handled Snow’s character.
Some failings of the film should be met with empathy though. Reading the book adds so many layers to the original “Hunger Games” trilogy. Readers get a perfect picture of what Snow’s mind looks like, and reflecting on Snow as a character becomes suddenly more interesting. Spending over 500 pages immersed in Snow’s every thought, desire and torment makes a reader understand and even empathize with Snow at times. It is a shame that people who only watched the movie will never be able to experience this, as it truly transforms the way that one sees the world of “The Hunger Games.” But, the lack of internal dialogue in movies has always been a flaw of the medium, and it is realistic to have empathy for filmmakers in this instance.
Ultimately, the quality of a book-to-movie adaptation comes down to how faithful to the original material it is. A good adaptation can add to the world of a book and bring new people into the world created by the author. However, a bad adaptation can crush viewers, tarnishing their enjoyment of even the original material. They can also feel like lazy cash-grabs by film studios, used to capitalize off an author’s hard work without doing the story justice. Disney and 20th Century Fox are perpetrators of this. In both the adaptations of “Eragon” by Christopher Paolini and “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” by Rick Riordan, they excluded the authors from the process of making the movies, and the authors are open about their dislike of the adaptations of their own books.
“The movie reflects the studio and the director’s view of the story, whereas the books reflect mine,” Paolini said in an Q&A with fans in 2017. “It was their money, so they were the ones in charge. If another adaptation ever gets off the ground, though, you can rest assured I’ll retain as much control as possible.”
The “Eragon” movie truly represents the worst of the book-to-movie adaptations genre. The author had basically no control over the production, the director had never produced a movie before or since then, and overall, the movie feels like a parody of the original. The dialogue, casting, screenplay, visuals and acting are just horrible. The movie is almost unwatchable. Literally every ten seconds there would be a contradiction, inconsistency, or awkward piece of dialogue.
Without a doubt, no book-to-movie adaptation is perfect. However, some accept their flaws and use the medium of film to bring the story to life, while others outright ignore the wishes of the author, and disappoint fans with lazy writing, bad casting and cutting key points of the plot from the movie.
