As bad as the Twilight movies are I actually think I would rather watch one of them over The Hunger Games. Don't even know how anyone liked the movie, didn't even know it was possible to create a movie even worse and overrated than the Twilight ones but I guess they succeeded. Another one are the Harry Potter movies though, can't believe how overrated they are.
I love how it's fashionable to say the Hunger Games is crap with nothing to back the statement whatsoever, just because it was a big blockbuster with way too much advertising.
I do know people who loved the movie, and they're not the kind of people who know nothing about cinema or who only go to see stupid blockbusters (nor are they the kind of people who fawn over Twilight).
The Hunger Games is very faithful to the books. Contrary to about 90% of film adaptations, I saw no decision to depart from the book that didn't make any sense (I can find plenty of examples of that in the LOTR saga and in most movie adaptations). Of course I did regret a few omissions (for instance, Foxface was a little too overlooked, I liked the character in the book) but you're bound to omit some elements or else the film will be deemed too long for lazy moviegoers. The few additions that they did make (for instance regarding Seneca Crane at the end) were rather good, I thought.
The actors are far better than actors usually are in such films. I thought they were all well cast. The costumes and sets were very well designed and very faithful to the book.
The only thing I did not really like was the shaky cam, it's just not my thing. But it does have a justification: it is how they chose to reproduce the narrative technique of the book (1st-person narrative in the present tense, extreme focalisation on Katniss's subjectivity and on the "survival" mode she's in all the time). So it absolutely makes sense and though it can be irritating to some viewers, it certainly does not make the movie "crap".
Now, as much as I love the LOTR trilogy, I would have far more complaints about the treatment of certain passages and characters. I was glad that they omitted certain parts of the book that were already boring in writing (IMO) and would probably have been even worse on film (Tom Bombadil... the Old Forest...). I understand that they have to use "compression", so I don't mind too much when they substitute one character with another in order not to multiply secondary characters (ex: Arwen instead of Glorfindel).
But in my opinion, Jackson made a lot of choices that are bad and the justifications he gave were not convincing. He had to leave a great number of good scenes out of the theatrical version, and you could argue the reason was that there was too much material to cover. That would have been a legitimate excuse, if only he had not added a number of really repetitive and unnecessary elements (all the "fake deaths" of Frodo, then Aragorn... the countless declarations of love between Frodo and Sam, which are moving at first, but quickly become irritating and even laughable). He fucked up two very interesting characters, Faramir (by turning him into a 2nd Boromir, when he's meant to be the opposite), and Grima (by turning him into some sort of wizard, when he's just a very shrewd man who can lull people into inaction and decadence by the sole power of his poisonous words). The editing is also often atrocious in the 2nd and 3rd movies (the story is already fragmented, but they make it worse by cutting very dramatic scenes in 2 or even 3 parts in a completely unnecessary fashion - Eowyn vs the King Sorcerer is prob the best example).
Now, I still respect Jackson immensely for having the balls to make the films, because no one believed he could do it at the time, and yet he did it, he provided me and certainly countless others with one of their best movie experiences ever, and he changed cinema forever, too.
I still haven't seen the Hobbit, I'm going to see it tomorrow. Unfortunately it will be in 3D, and I hate 3D, so I'm ready to be disappointed at least in that respect... But who knows?