The Hunger Games Trilogy - Movies/books thread.

[GORDON]

Sci-fi.

There's "Capitol," and then 12 Districts that are ruled by Capitol with an iron fist. Every year a boy and girl from each district is selected by lottery to go fight in the Thunderdome in a game show called The Running Man. 24 children enter, 1 child leaves.

Interesting movie... I haven't read the books so don't know how they compare. I mostly stopped noticing the shakey-cam about 15 minutes in, though I did notice that in later fights... I had no idea what was happening because of the fast edits. I hate that.

The pacing seemed a little slow, though there were still good moments of tension where I noticed my heart was racing.

Worth seeing, I guess.

[Paul]

The shakey cam bugged my girlfriend and I as well.
Once they got on the train I was okay with it though.

It's pretty close to the books. In the book, the end was a little more rebellious though, which was kind of important in the second book.

[thibodeaux]

I hate shakey-cam. The Bourne movies would have been 100% better with a stable camera.

[TPRJones]

I for one am glad to see that Hollywood doesn't discriminate against cameramen that develop Parkinson's. Micheal J. Fox has done a fine job educating the industry about the disease.

[GORDON]

Interesting movie... I haven't read the books so don't know how they compare.

Read the books. They are "Young Adult" so they were easy reads and I was able to zip through all three in about four days.

The prose is spare, and very few words are wasted. Being YA there is a lot of the teen girl protagonist's inner monologue angst, but it doesn't completely overwhelm the story with annoyance.

The first movie kept to the first book pretty well. Someone in this thread suggested that the book had more of the rebellion aspect that the movie was missing, but even when I saw the movie without the book I had exactly the right impression of the act of rebellion. I guess the movie pretty much nailed it

The second movie is coming out this year, and the 3rd book has already been approved to cover 2 movies. And I know EXACTLY where they will split the story in half. I read that chapter last night and it immediately struck me... "Yep, that's where they will end the first movie."

If you haven't seen the first movie yet, it is worth seeing and fuck you with all the "I liked it better the first time I saw it when it was called Battle Royale."

Plus, it doesn't require a companion comic book to fill in the gaps in the story.

[GORDON]

Spoiler pic for first movie follows:







Plus, this is a pretty damned cool promo poster for the second movie.

[TheCatt]

I read the first book, but everyone I talked to said it goes downhill from there.

[GORDON]

I read the first book, but everyone I talked to said it goes downhill from there.

Eh, depends on your personality. The second story may actually be the strongest, and the 3rd book is so different in tone that I haven't digested it yet.

But you know how it is... like everything else in life, we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.

[Cakedaddy]

I thought the movie was pretty bad. Lot's of stuff didn't make sense and found myself asking "How could he have ever known that? Only the audience knew that. Are they aloud to watch tv while playing the game?" and many other things like that.

[GORDON]

For example?

[Cakedaddy]

SPOILER::::::













There was the little girl she hooked up with and took under her wing. Then the little girl died and she gave her a little ceremony. The TV audience saw all this and was touched, etc. Later, Cad is about to get her ass handed to her when a dude shows up and takes out the guy that was about to get her. "That was for 'little girl'." How the hell did he know what she did for her? Was he spying? Who told him? Was he aloud to watch tv and saw the ceremony? That's the big one that I remember. And because I thought the movie was mostly forgettable, I don't remember much else.

[GORDON]

Spoiler









Because 10 seconds earlier, the chick who was trying to cut Katniss had her pinned down and said, "We killed you're little buddy... the girl from 11... did that hurt your feelings?" (or something to that effect) Thresh was right there listening, and connected the dots.

[TheCatt]

I read the first book, but everyone I talked to said it goes downhill from there.

Eh, depends on your personality. The second story may actually be the strongest, and the 3rd book is so different in tone that I haven't digested it yet.

But you know how it is... like everything else in life, we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.

You're deep.

Wanna go to a poetry reading and drink tea? Maybe later I can show you my futon.

[Leisher]

While I don't remember any instances of "they shouldn't have known that", I don't think this was an excellent movie.

It was mediocre. Not horrific, but also not remotely deserving of the laurels it has received.

My biggest complaint was it felt like it was made for an audience that was assumed to have read the book.

I am not a teenage girl, so I did not read the book.

Battle Royale is still the superior version of this story.

[GORDON]

I read the first book, but everyone I talked to said it goes downhill from there.

Eh, depends on your personality. The second story may actually be the strongest, and the 3rd book is so different in tone that I haven't digested it yet.

But you know how it is... like everything else in life, we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are.

You're deep.

Wanna go to a poetry reading and drink tea? Maybe later I can show you my futon.

You couldn't handle the Talmud.

I was just in the mind of the "we see the world as we are" phrase because I was reading another discussion thread about the movie, and there are a whole lot of people who got REALLY ANGRY about it. So angry that you start to wonder what type of people these are.

Just people who want to see shit everywhere, is all I can figure.

[Leisher]

I was just in the mind of the "we see the world as we are" phrase because I was reading another discussion thread about the movie, and there are a whole lot of people who got REALLY ANGRY about it. So angry that you start to wonder what type of people these are.

On another site? What were they angry about?

[GORDON]

My biggest complaint was it felt like it was made for an audience that was assumed to have read the book.

I don't get that impression. I saw it in the theater, and then I watched it again when the blu ray showed up. A few months later I read the book, then watched the movie again.

I pretty much got the entire thing, nuance and all, from the first viewing. I picked up on the opression of the outlying disctricts. I picked up on how the Hunger Games was meant to keep them beaten down... "Yeah, we can defeat you militarily, but we also own you so hard that you will give up to us your children to be slaughtered." I got the fact that the President was pissed, and the sequels would probably be based on that. Big yep.

I'm the guy who doesn't always catch the tricky things first time around, but I did with this one. So using my own personal experience, I can only have the opinion that the movie covered it, the book wasn't needed to understand it, and no companion comic is needed to fill in gaps. It's all in the movie. Honestly, there isn't much "fleshing out" in the book at all. It's all in the movie.

In my opinion.

I went in to the movie without knowing much about it, had a critical eye, and I found it proficient.

[GORDON]

I was just in the mind of the "we see the world as we are" phrase because I was reading another discussion thread about the movie, and there are a whole lot of people who got REALLY ANGRY about it. So angry that you start to wonder what type of people these are.

On another site? What were they angry about?

The something awful forums, where they have 50k+ registered users, charge $10 to register, and ban 5-10 people all day, often just because they feel like it, but usually because they are being idiots or vocally republican.

Anyway, just a lot of rage. One person made Cake's argument about how "How did they know that?" but their argument was


spoiler




Katniss's tracker jacker hallucination, and, "How did she hallucinate the game show host talking about the venom, when it was only just on TV?" But I thought that was a dumb example, and so did everyone else. The majority of the rage was, "I thought the movie was just fucking horrible and is just BATTLE ROYALE and the author is a thief and needs to be raped with a thousand herpes infested dildos and then die." Lots of people explained how everything is derivative of something else, and while HG had some resemblance of BR, it was an entirely different message. I agree with that. BR seemed to be a commentary on how the youth/schools are fucked up. HG was a study of a brutal, oppressive government. Two very different movies.

Government oppresses the population through a sadistic, brutal game show: Hunger Games.

Government oppresses the population through a sadistic, brutal game show: Battle Royale

Government oppresses the population through a sadistic, brutal game show: Stephen Kings, "The Long Walk"

Government oppresses the population through a sadistic, brutal game show: Ancient Rome/Gladiatorial Combat

So, saying HG sucks because there was another movie with kids killing each other is dishonest.

[Malcolm]

GORDON EDIT - I totally fucked up Malcolm's post. I thought I was hitting QUOTE but must have accidentally hit EDIT. I am an idiot.

Government oppresses the population through a sadistic, brutal game show: Stephen Kings, "The Long Walk"

In the second, all they had to do was walk. That's a lot more believable than the teenage version of Running Man HG presents.

I don't remember the fine details of this story... do they Walk by lottery? Volunteer?

But they don't "just walk." I remember they have to walk a minimum of 3 miles per hour... which is what we did on "humps" in the Marines (I would think a lot about this story while on long forced marches) And that is a brisk fucking pace, I can tell you. And if you fall below 3mph, you get a warning. A minute later, another warning. A minute after that, they (the government) shoot you in the head. After an hour a warning drops off. Three warning within an hour, dead. Last boy Walking gets to live and has fabulous prizes and finally gets enough food to eat. Lots of similarities. I just don't remember at all how one gets into the game.

So, it was combat by other means.



Edited By GORDON on 1362426397

[Leisher]

I don't get that impression. I saw it in the theater, and then I watched it again when the blu ray showed up. A few months later I read the book, then watched the movie again.

I pretty much got the entire thing, nuance and all, from the first viewing. I picked up on the opression of the outlying disctricts. I picked up on how the Hunger Games was meant to keep them beaten down... "Yeah, we can defeat you militarily, but we also own you so hard that you will give up to us your children to be slaughtered." I got the fact that the President was pissed, and the sequels would probably be based on that. Big yep.

I'm the guy who doesn't always catch the tricky things first time around, but I did with this one. So using my own personal experience, I can only have the opinion that the movie covered it, the book wasn't needed to understand it, and no companion comic is needed to fill in gaps. It's all in the movie. Honestly, there isn't much "fleshing out" in the book at all. It's all in the movie.

In my opinion.

I went in to the movie without knowing much about it, had a critical eye, and I found it proficient.

I disagree with pretty much that whole thing. I watched the movie at the request of my wife, who has read the books, and I also went in with a critical eye.

I ended the film not being unhappy that I watched it, but felt the hype around the movie was unjust. I made a joke about teenage girls, but let's be honest, women drove this movie.

I don't believe it needed repeated viewings to catch things or to understand the plot. What I mean by written for the readers is that they skipped sections of story or there were multiple moments where sections of story should have been.

The best example I can give you from my memory of the film (and please be aware I watched it months ago and didn't find it to be memorable) are the sponsors. The explanation of the sponsors in the film was piss poor. Basically a game changing moment in the story, and as a viewer you know basically nothing about them. Sure, you understood the concept, but I understand the concept of Godzilla movies without seeing a second of actual footage. The devil is in the details, and The Hunger Games gave us none. Yes, they referenced the sponsors, but they never actually explain the point or why someone would want to be one or the rules behind being one or why nobody else got one, etc.

So, saying HG sucks because there was another movie with kids killing each other is dishonest.

I never said that, although I have pointed out that this was probably a ripoff of Battle Royale.

I didn't hate The Hunger Games at all. I just think it came off like they made the movie based on "The Dummy's Guide to The Hunger Games" rather than The Hunger Games itself.



Edited By Leisher on 1362426091