Discussion in 'Movies & TV' started by Absolutely, Apr 15, 2013.
I have to admit, I think I remember thinking that I liked the first movie. I'd see it.
I need to read the book.
Me too. Should only take a weekend, just need to motivate.
So they go back to the Hunger Games. Great.
I will acquire it to see Philip Seymour Hoffman and Donald Sutherland play off each other. I think the latter is very underrated.
No you don't
I know nothing about the series. So when I saw them doing these Victory Tour promotions, I thought it was going to be something different with each movie. Like maybe a Hunger Game is going on in the background, but it's more about them getting post-Hunger Games jobs or being spokespeople for whatever. I'm kind of disappointed that it's "and now moar hunger gaming!"
Even if it would have played out like that it would still have to work very hard to not be a total yawn. I'm sorry, but this franchise just feels passionless to me. Not the actors or the people involved with the movies. It's the conceptual world and story that just fall totally flat with me. I recently watched a show based off of a book about future humanity, and it was infinitely more interesting and original and actually created a very clever moral equivalence and ambiguity to convey its message. Twilight, Hunger Games, and The Host all feel like young adult versions of stuff that's been done before and better. At least Harry Potter was its own thing. Sure, people compare it to LoTR but that comparison is invalid.
I've gotten spoiled with my speculative fiction. Between books and anime consistently knocking it out of the park for me, a bunt that miraculously gets you to first because of a throwing error just doesn't cut it anymore.
Remember this post when we are reading RP1, Liddy. Its concept isn't anything groundbreaking, but its passion is second to none. The amount of love he poured into that story is palpable. In Hunger Games I get none of that.
Which one do we get to see Jennifer Lawrence's tits? That's the one I'll watch.
It'll take more than that for me. Maybe Mila Kunis munching Jennifer Lawrence's box while sitting on keira knightley's face.
2nd book was way better than the first. if they are loyal to the book, 2nd movie will be awesome. 3rd book was fucking horrible.
That's because that's EXACTLY what they are. These books are in the young adults section. It's slightly more sanitized topics with a heavy dose of romance for teen girls.
I don't think that's an excuse, though. That's why I mentioned Ready Player One - it doesn't really do anything new, but it does what it does so well and with such love and passion that it doesn't matter.
Have you ever read any of the books? I haven't. No intention to either. Same with Harry Potter. But I get what you mean that there's no passion to this franchise, but I think that might be difficult to base off of one movie. But I can't see it really having the dedication that Jackson has to LotR or, to a lesser extent, that the Potter directors had to those films.
And I'm not saying Katniss: Action Administrative Assistant would lead to a great film. But it wouldn't be repetitive. Going back to the HG seems repetitive.
I think it does. Knowing your audience is important. I can't tell if these books are better than typical YA fare or whatnot.
I haven't read Hunger Games, but I don't think it matters. How much better than the movie could it be if all the fans of the book love the movie? Sure it's a little more violent and a little more detailed, but what hidden genius could it contain that wasn't in the movie and nobody cared?
The Harry Potter books simply offer more of what you see in the movies - more detail and just more stuff, so I guess if you absolutely love the movies and want more you can go books. But the thing I liked about Harry Potter was that by the end it was very dark YA, much like Hunger Games, but Harry Potter manages to pull it off with a story about wizarding children with silly names. Hunger Games sets itself up to be dark initially so there's no "dark turn" like in Harry Potter.
Twilight certainly isn't, and what I meant was that YA does not excuse you from doing something passionate and interesting even if it isn't super original. Name one piece of future technology from the Hunger Games. Or how about naming one thing about life in the rich people world that isn't directly related to the Hunger Games themselves. Like I said above - shit like this just doesn't cut it for me anymore because I have multiple alternatives that are infinitely superior.
And I didn't even hate the Hunger Games. It was OK, I guess. Just not memorable. It felt like a cross between Battle Royale and The Truman Show, and like I said in the movie thread after I watched it - they changed the rules as the game went on, which made the existence of rules irrelevant to begin with. Wasn't there betting going on too? Would you bet millions on a game that has arbitrary rules? That was a crushingly bad plot device that REALLY bugged me.
I think this is where you and I differ. You've become a bit of a speculative junky, haven't you? Constantly looking for the next high. Expecting more from the universes than the universes ever claimed to be able to provide. You've become so entrenched in your fantastic anime and sci-fi novel worlds that if things don't approach that level of insanity and wonder, you hold it against them even if that was never their intention. And even if it was, like in Avatar, you have so many benchmarks that it would probably be extraordinarily difficult to amaze you, and if you're not amazed you're let down, which is natural. But that's not how I roll.
I never expected The Hunger Games to have some fantastical, memorable technology, so I didn't care that it didn't. Besides, I get the sense that we're going to see more of the rich people's lives in the sequel. And still. It was dystopia Earth. Not dystopia super planet of magical computers and scientific wonder. I know that they had some advancements, but I never thought they'd have something so fantastically amazing. I mean their main source of entertainment is kids fighting in the woods. They mill grain by hand.
Though the rules arbitrarily changing annoyed me. I'll give you that.
I can certainly live without that stuff, but in that case the plot has to be something more than "it's a game where they have to kill each other and the protagonist is an underdog. Oh and the rules change for no reason." District 9 didn't do a single original thing. Alien refugees. Bug aliens. DNA-operated technology. Mecha suits. Mutating into an alien. Secret government facilities - none of those elements blew anyone's mind. It was how they were done that did. I said this about Avatar too - if Avatar had a kick ass story, you would have never even known that the alien life thing bothered me. Hell, I might not have even noticed it myself if the story was engaging. But it wasn't, so my mind wanders to stuff like that. hunger games is not much different in that respect. I actually found some of the pre-Hunger Games things way more interesting than the games themselves. So give me one or the other, but not neither. At least it is well acted and not remotely as emo schmaltzy as Twilight. Twilight I would categorize as bad. Hunger Games to me is ok.
There was betting but that wasn't the purpose of the event. It's more about giving the poorer people just a tiny bit of hope to prevent an uprising as the poorer districts out number the rich ones. For the rich districts it was about tv ratings, monetary gain via commercials, and flexing their might.
Well I obviously don't mean that you're physically addicted to speculative sci-fi.
And I think when we were discussing the Hunger Games when we first saw it, we both said that it got boring once it got into the Hunger Games portion of the movie. Because at least before the Hunger Games there was a universe with the potential for playing around in, and characters who had maturity greater than a teenager. And Donald Sutherland. (Sorry. I just really like that guy.) Once it got into Hunger Games, we knew it was going to be Battle Royale Lite at best and thus the odds of them doing anything particularly interesting with it was slim to none.
And I agree. Twilight is bad. Hunger Games is okay. But I believe that the HitW Twilight fest is going to be incredibly fun. You haven't seen the fifth one. Shit goes crazy in the fifth one.
You're a teenage girl.
And cordially invited to the two-night Twilight Fest.
I will say this, the first book is considerably deeper than the movie. They really don't get into the social order at all in the film. There is also some very important events that happen in the book that they left out of the movie. The book is also 1st person, which really changes the narrative.
Check out this link:
This one may even be better:
You were actually more accurate than you'd think. I go on these tangents of sub-subgenres and currently I'm big on spec fiction and it's made me more attuned to the setting. The show I referenced originally in this thread was Shin Sekai Yori (AKA From the New World) and if you read my review of it (ahem) you'll see that one of the things that really impressed me about it was that the characters felt like they were products of a future society that is nothing like ours, as opposed to just people from our time transposed into a futuristic setting. I'm not saying that Hunger Games just did the latter, but it didn't actively do the former either. I guess it's a combination of things that make me put a story like that way below what I would call great or even good, but if a movie or show does one of the things extremely well, then it becomes very easy to forgive its failings in other aspects.
I feel like they missed the opportunity to do something special. In Battle Royale the archetypes fell apart once the game began. The bullies weren't necessarily the ones gunning kids down, and the quiet shy kawaii girl didn't necessarily cower in fear. So once again you got this lame underdog story that is made even lamer by the fact that Katniss is superman, which again makes the whole social structure there irrelevant. What difference does it make that area 2 trains people better than area 11 if our protagonist is better than those people? Oh, I know - we'll give them an unfair advantage on top of that. See what I mean? There's zero about it that I find clever. It's just too straightforward.
Why because I got the point of the games?
However I am a sap for happy endings so you're not totally wrong
So how was it? Were there any more pigs in this movie?
Piggy wrote about this already but not in the HG2 thread:
Hunger Games and Frozen Create Record Holiday Box Office
i havent read the books
i know each movie goes along with the books
but still think it was shitty how they ended part 2 (its how the book ends)
enough of the god mode unlimited arrows for katniss!
the fog scene was awesome
i didnt know philip seymour hoffman was gonna be in the movie and i still fucking hate him!
philip seymour hoffman and president snow need to trim their eyebrows! its 1 of my major pet peeves in movies!
katniss's mom and the new police general (if that is what you call him) are in SONS OF ANARCHY
pretty cool to see a hotel you stay at in atl marriott marquis being used a lot in the movie
i hate peter..peta...whatever his fucking names is in the movie character.
awesome movie! cant wait for part 1 in november!