Here's why a movie has less info. than the book

[DATo]

There is always a common complaint that a movie leaves out a lot of stuff from the book. One of the reasons for this is that the movie would be too long, and another is the additional production cost. I am just going to focus on the production costs and you might find my data illuminating. I am going to specifically focus on a movie that I know was very widely seen by most of the people that visit this website.

The Hunger Games - Personally, I thought they did a pretty good job of making the movie faithful to the book, but one thing that was never explained in the movie was how Katniss learned to hunt and to be so good with the bow. In the book we learn that her father began teaching her from the time she was very young, but this is never alluded to in the movie. Now, one would figure that they could devote some time to explaining this, but after doing some research I learned that each minute of screen time that we see in The Hunger Games cost the production company $550,000.

The cheapest way they could have fixed it: During the dream sequence after Katniss had been stung by the tracker jackers we learn how her father dies in the mining accident and how, as a result, her mother "zones out" in what might be interpreted as a nervous breakdown. But just consider, if at the very beginning of that dream sequence they had shown her as a little girl with her father in the woods teaching her how to use the bow the entire question would be answered .... but if they only used ten seconds of film to depict him perhaps kneeling beside her and showing her how to pull the bow string those ten seconds would have added $91,666 to the cost of the film. (10 sec = 1/6 of one minute, or 1/6 of $550,000). Imagine how long it would take you to earn $91,666 and then to see it disappear in ten seconds. That's a pretty staggering thought isn't it? Now just imagine the cost if they added every detail in the book.

And THAT is why movies don't contain everything we read in the book.

[Betelhem Demsie]

You shrewdly observed it. Thank you!

[Souad Al Nabulsi]

Woow that was interesting information. I actually saw all The Hunger Games series but never read the book. This made me so eager to get it and read it.
I appreciate your good explanation. Thank you for sharing.

[Marie Chalupová]

I never realised how much each small scene can cost. I always accepted that the movie has to make cuts and I am usually fine with those. What I don't like are unnecessary changes just for the sake of movie being different that completely change the story.

[Michael Adam Glidden Forteski]

Just in terms of cost, you are absolutely right. Could you do this math for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix? I felt like the movie left way more out of the 5th book than any of the other adaptations.
When I look at an adaptation to film though, I am concerned about how well the writers and directors were able to capture the narrative to give us a viewing experience equivalent to the book.
Have you also considered how some movies blend two or three characters together into character and how if you had each one how much would that cost?