ByPeter Flynn, writer at
An advocate for understanding the phenomenological wonder of the moving image. Also Tremors is the best.
Peter Flynn

It sounds almost blasphemous to suggest a film adaptation series could overtake or even change the books they're based on. Even more shocking would be if The Hunger Games Franchise adopted this model, for these films are genuinely some of the most faithful adaptations in the history of using popular book series as the basis for movies. Sure, there are inconsistencies in how Katniss Everdeen's internal voice is translated to the screen, but Suzanne Collins' writing style is itself very cinematic, making for one of the most direct adaptations in Hollywood history.

But wait, what about [The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1](tag:446261)? For many fans, the latest instalment in the Hunger Games series exhibited a disregard for the coherency of the original books. This is down to the now common trend of splitting final instalments into two movies. Sure, it worked for Harry Potter, but the consensus emerged that, when used for The Hunger Games, the filmmakers were just biding time, or worse, squeezing every buck from us. So for [The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2](tag:449866), why don't they just roll with it, overtaking or even altering the story from the books?


This approach is currently working nicely for HBO in their adaptation for Game of Thrones. Pasting over a book's story, and inserting you own creative endeavours is starting to not seem so blasphemous. In the run up to Mockingjay Part 2, what changes could Lionsgate and Francis Lawrence make?


Have Katniss come out on top

Don't let them win!
Don't let them win!

At first glance, this suggestion might seem a little idyllic and non-comital to the dark and unforgiving world of The Hunger Games. But with a little thought, this move could prove interesting. What with President Coin assuming the position of President Snow, would it not be entertaining to then see Katniss ascend to power rather than be punished for her rebellious actions? "But Katniss is a figure of hope, not a leader" you might claim. Well exactly. Her being so ill-equipped to lead a disenfranchised, newly formulated base of power would be a great source of conflict, and provide places for both the character and story to delve into.

Exploit the 20 year time jump

This is all she did for 20 years...
This is all she did for 20 years...

Despite how widely adored Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is, the "19 years later" epilogue at the end is seen as a blemish by some. It just floods the audience with information that seems irrelevant to the story that's just been told, and destroys any ambiguity to the fates of the characters. The epilogue at the end of the Hunger Games trilogy gives an ending that's slightly more relevant to the story we've been given. Katniss becomes an almost broken figure who has come to terms with the truth of the world rather than beaten it. It's a dour ending, but my question is, why can't we see what happens in between?

I certainly don't mean to use the tired adage of "there's more story to be told", but the power vacuum that comes about after the fall of the Capitol is no doubt an interesting space to exploit after Mockingjay. Perhaps Katniss could encounter new threats and challenges that don't involve her simply being sent back to District 12. Whatever changes could be made to the character of Katniss and the world of Panem are in the hands of the filmmakers when The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 is released later this year.


Should Mockingjay Part 2 depart from the Hunger Games books?


Latest from our Creators