Saw this movie again (not my choice obviously). Still hated it. Should have been called the babysitting games.
Futuristic dystopian society sacrificing kids as tributes? YES PLEASE!
the piece of **** that was actually on the screen? What in the flying **** is this? Taking care of a kid, having feelings for an emo kid and out of the blue turning into les stroud....it's a dystopian society for preteen girls.
Never read the book, but I am positive this PIECE OF **** film does not do it justice.
Spoil:
It's more nuanced than that you big baby. In the first book the games, or more importantly what happens in them to anyone besides Katniss and Peeta is entirely irrelevant to the overall story. The games were created by the author as a means to manufacture a long lasting emotional bond with Peeta, comparable to the bond she had with Gale, in order to make the love triangle believable. In a matter of days, Katniss and Peeta had developed a bond that matched and possibly exceeded the bond she had formed over several years with Gale. There's obviously the government opression conflict that needs resolved, which works out nicely as motivation to continue the storyline down the road. The author deserves credit for providing the interesting backdrops of the hunger games and the oppressive evil government, but at the end of the day the love triangle is always what these books were about. My advice for next time is to 1) read the books and know that this was never meant to satisfy your futuristic, superdeath, kid-killing fantasy world, despite the kid-killing being plentiful and 2) grow up
Saw this movie again (not my choice obviously). Still hated it. Should have been called the babysitting games.
Futuristic dystopian society sacrificing kids as tributes? YES PLEASE!
the piece of **** that was actually on the screen? What in the flying **** is this? Taking care of a kid, having feelings for an emo kid and out of the blue turning into les stroud....it's a dystopian society for preteen girls.
Never read the book, but I am positive this PIECE OF **** film does not do it justice.
No offense dude, but it sounds like you went in twice wanting to hate it. You wanted a mindless action-trill Michael Bay "blow up as much **** as possible and get angry at people who call me out for not writing a real story."
I've watched every episode of Survivorman, and I never saw Les Stroud run out of a burning forest, and he might have slept in a tree once. I also don't think he ever successfully hunted with a bow and arrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74
Spoil:
I guess I didn't like that scene in the movie or the book. The movie just made it seem way too easy to stone her to death. Also, why so easily follow Peeta's direction in that scenario. She should of had more cover in the tree from a believability stand point.
Spoil:
Meh, in 2 1/2 hours one can find enough details to take issue with. At some points things have to happen or else you don't have a story. They trusted Peeta because they felt he would lead them to Katniss (which he did), and also because they knew if he turned that they could dispose of him at anytime - which they "did."
From the standpoint of 'why didn't they just do this: ____," I'd like to know why Cato just assumed Peeta was going to die. In the book they ask him if he's dead and he just assumes that he will be...and then since the cannon never goes off they never go find him again - when they knew where he was at. I find that to be a more legitimate flaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Barrasso
My nerdy ass is currently working on a script for a Prequel to the Hunger games
I know where I want to go with this, I just need figuring out the names of the tributes. I want to give some of these tributes some sort of significance in their name.
They could easily do prequels in the same fashion they do for X-Men. One for Haymitch would be the most logical one, others would be for various characters yet to be introduced, or you could go explore whatever Cato and Clove's relationship was.
Meh, in 2 1/2 hours one can find enough details to take issue with. At some points things have to happen or else you don't have a story. They trusted Peeta because they felt he would lead them to Katniss (which he did), and also because they knew if he turned that they could dispose of him at anytime - which they "did."
From the standpoint of 'why didn't they just do this: ____," I'd like to know why Cato just assumed Peeta was going to die. In the book they ask him if he's dead and he just assumes that he will be...and then since the cannon never goes off they never go find him again - when they knew where he was at. I find that to be a more legitimate flaw.
Spoil:
That was pretty simple. They were still recovering from the Tracker Jackers and Peeta was able to camouflage himself.
Went in to it not knowing much about it besides the basic plot. Never read the book or watched the previews.
Enjoyed it as it was happening, but come the end of it I was pretty 'meh' towards it all. It was ok. Will definitely be seeing the other flicks though, once they're out.
It's more nuanced than that you big baby. In the first book the games, or more importantly what happens in them to anyone besides Katniss and Peeta is entirely irrelevant to the overall story. The games were created by the author as a means to manufacture a long lasting emotional bond with Peeta, comparable to the bond she had with Gale, in order to make the love triangle believable. In a matter of days, Katniss and Peeta had developed a bond that matched and possibly exceeded the bond she had formed over several years with Gale. There's obviously the government opression conflict that needs resolved, which works out nicely as motivation to continue the storyline down the road. The author deserves credit for providing the interesting backdrops of the hunger games and the oppressive evil government, but at the end of the day the love triangle is always what these books were about. My advice for next time is to 1) read the books and know that this was never meant to satisfy your futuristic, superdeath, kid-killing fantasy world, despite the kid-killing being plentiful and 2) grow up
While you're right that he needs to relax, come on. This book wasn't written to satisfy the love triangle. If you cut and copied every line of text that had to do with romance from all 3 books you'd have maybe 12-15 pages worth of material. You're view of it is a pretty big stretch as well.
While you're right that he needs to relax, come on. This book wasn't written to satisfy the love triangle. If you cut and copied every line of text that had to do with romance from all 3 books you'd have maybe 12-15 pages worth of material. You're view of it is a pretty big stretch as well.
read the end of the last book again. Also, I said nuanced. Give the author some credit, she's hiding the broccoli with cheese. She did a very good job of writing a love sorry that appeals to the young male demographic by including the action/violence, even though it's really there for K and P to share an experience that only they would understand in order to build that life long connection. It assures that nobody else in their lives will have gone through what they went through..together. If you can't see that you're in denial, nbd.
Just.. in the first book, there is a reason that the tribute characters are never really developed, and it's because they don't matter at all.
I liked it but the 'tech' of having the mutated dogs created was over the top for me. Were they supposed to be illusions or physical things?
Good science fiction often rely on future tech that's a bit of a leap to be believable, but I that the dogs were simply too much. For me, it actually took away from the ending.
Is there something I am missing here?
Last edited by Freezerburn: 04-06-2012 at 06:41 PM.
I liked it but the 'tech' of having the mutated dogs created was over the top for me. Were they supposed to be illusions or physical things?
Good science fiction often rely on future tech that sa bit of a leap to be believable, but I that the dogs were simply too much. For me, it actually took away from the ending.
Is there something I am missing here?
I agree it was a bit over the top.
I think that just sets up the power the Gamemakers have coming up in the next book/movie.
I liked it but the 'tech' of having the mutated dogs created was over the top for me. Were they supposed to be illusions or physical things?
Good science fiction often rely on future tech that's a bit of a leap to be believable, but I that the dogs were simply too much. For me, it actually took away from the ending.
Is there something I am missing here?
They were real, mutated animals created by the Capitol play a big role going forward in the books. In this case the future-tech manipulations to the game arena are something you have to buy into though. It was important to illustrate that, I think for the upcoming films.
Spoiler for the 1st book only:
Spoil:
In the book, the dogs were mutations that shared characteristics with the tributes that had died. They had the same eyes and stuff. I'm guessing that was too creepy/time consuming/not really essential to the movie plot to depict that though.
They were real, mutated animals created by the Capitol play a big role going forward in the books. In this case the future-tech manipulations to the game arena are something you have to buy into though. It was important to illustrate that, I think for the upcoming films.
Spoiler for the 1st book only:
Spoil:
In the book, the dogs were mutations that shared characteristics with the tributes that had died. They had the same eyes and stuff. I'm guessing that was too creepy/time consuming/not really essential to the movie plot to depict that though.
Not sure I can do spoilers with pictures
they did a poor job of it and unless you sat there to analyze the 15 seconds of face time they got you wouldn't realize they ever even did anything.
read the end of the last book again. Also, I said nuanced. Give the author some credit, she's hiding the broccoli with cheese. She did a very good job of writing a love sorry that appeals to the young male demographic by including the action/violence, even though it's really there for K and P to share an experience that only they would understand in order to build that life long connection. It assures that nobody else in their lives will have gone through what they went through..together. If you can't see that you're in denial, nbd.
Just.. in the first book, there is a reason that the tribute characters are never really developed, and it's because they don't matter at all.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit here.
Spoil:
I don't think that the revolution is the main focus of the story (or rather, how Katniss affects the revolution), but nor do I think that the love "triangle" is the focus of the story. I think the main narrative arc of the story is how the Games/Capitol and the revolution affect Katniss, transforming her from someone that is at nature a protector into someone who becomes quite literally crazy and burning for revenge for things that have done to her and the people she was trying to protect. (Hence the title of the 2nd book "Catching Fire" can refer to both the revolution and to Katniss herself).
Certainly Peeta plays a big role in transforming her back at the end of the story (and much - though not all - of her mental state at the end is due to things done to Peeta (and by extension to her via the brainwashing). But I think it's telling that the epilogue is actually more focused on their kids than on Peeta and Katniss themselves. She has someone to protect and watch over again.
If the story was really about the "love triangle" there would be some conflict regarding that towards the conclusion of the series. There isn't. It was pretty obvious to me fairly early in the 3rd book that Gale and Katniss were not going to end up together, way before Gale's idea killed Prim (whether it was D13 or the Capitol who sent it doesn't really matter). A friend of mine pointed out to me when we were discussing the trilogy a few nights ago that really, you could have known less than halfway through the 2nd book, when Gale decides to stay in District 12 rather than run away with the group Katniss wanted to get together. To Gale, the revolution was more important than Katniss, whereas everything Peeta does (aside from when he first comes back from being brainwashed) is calculated to keep Katniss alive.
Peeta and Gale seem to represent the two sides of Katniss's own personality. When Peeta is brainwashed, Katniss breaks and becomes obsessed with killing Snow, culminating in forcing her way into combat without telling her mom or Prim, indirectly leading to Prim's death.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit here.
Spoil:
I don't think that the revolution is the main focus of the story (or rather, how Katniss affects the revolution), but nor do I think that the love "triangle" is the focus of the story. I think the main narrative arc of the story is how the Games/Capitol and the revolution affect Katniss, transforming her from someone that is at nature a protector into someone who becomes quite literally crazy and burning for revenge for things that have done to her and the people she was trying to protect. (Hence the title of the 2nd book "Catching Fire" can refer to both the revolution and to Katniss herself).
Certainly Peeta plays a big role in transforming her back at the end of the story (and much - though not all - of her mental state at the end is due to things done to Peeta (and by extension to her via the brainwashing). But I think it's telling that the epilogue is actually more focused on their kids than on Peeta and Katniss themselves. She has someone to protect and watch over again.
If the story was really about the "love triangle" there would be some conflict regarding that towards the conclusion of the series. There isn't. It was pretty obvious to me fairly early in the 3rd book that Gale and Katniss were not going to end up together, way before Gale's idea killed Prim (whether it was D13 or the Capitol who sent it doesn't really matter). A friend of mine pointed out to me when we were discussing the trilogy a few nights ago that really, you could have known less than halfway through the 2nd book, when Gale decides to stay in District 12 rather than run away with the group Katniss wanted to get together. To Gale, the revolution was more important than Katniss, whereas everything Peeta does (aside from when he first comes back from being brainwashed) is calculated to keep Katniss alive.
Peeta and Gale seem to represent the two sides of Katniss's own personality. When Peeta is brainwashed, Katniss breaks and becomes obsessed with killing Snow, culminating in forcing her way into combat without telling her mom or Prim, indirectly leading to Prim's death.
Anywho...sorry for the essay .
agree 100%. I just didn't feel like arguing in circles.
Saw the movie. Read the 1st book. Saw the movie again.
Parts that were better in the movie...
Spoil:
- Peeta: I didn't like how Peeta was such a baby in the books. The whole "love story" between Katniss and Peeta was too overdone IMHO. I'm a 22 year old guy though so that might have something to do with it.
-Haymitch: Well of course since its Woody Harrelson but overall i thought Haymitch was much, much better in the movie. Even just the scene where he sees the little kid stabbing his mom with the toy sword and the look of disgust on his face. It added character depth that the book kind of lacked.
-Cato's Death: Body armor, really? His death in the books was pretty bad IMO. You cant expect me to believe that he's just going to put on some body armor and still not be instantly torn to pieces by a bunch of genetically engineered monster dogs. The death of a Villain isn't supposed to be long and drawn out. Its sudden and climactic. The Movie made it short and sweet.
-The Gamemaker: I really liked his inclusion into the movie. It added much needed perspective to people who havn't read the books. His death was also nice.
-Showing Haymitch getting sponsors: As well as President Snow's scenes. It really added depth to the mentality of the Capitol. The whole "they just want a good show" part of their society seemed to be lost in the book. Obviously the author couldn't include this in the novel as it is in the 1st person POV of Katniss.
Parts that were better in the book...
Spoil:
-Katniss searching for water: It showed character development and trust in Haymitch. They could have taken 2 minutes in the movie to show her really, really needing water
-Emphasis on Katniss' Father dying: In the book it gave her more character development i.e. reluctancy to be vulnerable which caused her overall demeanor.
Overall great movie, even better book. I'm going to start reading the 2nd book this week. In between Hawks games of course.
Last edited by xX Hot Fuss: 04-10-2012 at 01:08 PM.
so, are the books better than the movie? Are they intended for teenagers like the movie apparently was? I found the movie to be pretty mindless and juvenile
so, are the books better than the movie? Are they intended for teenagers like the movie apparently was? I found the movie to be pretty mindless and juvenile
Books are better. You may still find it juvenile at times because it's written in the perspective of a 17 year old girl, but it's not too bad.
Shortlist of new directors for Catching Fire. Gary Ross either got fired or quit. Whatever it was, sounded like he was only interested in doing one movie. Which sucks, I like keeping directors. Wish they could have gotten Cuaron to start the franchise, even though I was satisfied with the movie.
Ross wasn't comfortable with the production schedule. He takes years between movies...Catching Fire needs to be done filming by January due to Lawrence's contract obligations.
Shortlist of new directors for Catching Fire. Gary Ross either got fired or quit. Whatever it was, sounded like he was only interested in doing one movie. Which sucks, I like keeping directors. Wish they could have gotten Cuaron to start the franchise, even though I was satisfied with the movie.
I would love to see Sam Mendes get a shot at it, especially the last couple of movies. He's been quoted as saying that his movies are always about someone trying to find their way through a particular situation (whether successful or not) and Katniss' story seems like it's right up that alley.
I guess I am a bit late, but I just finished the Hunger Games series. I thought that the ending was just awful. I can understand what Collins is trying to do and what statement she is trying to make, but I thought that she destroyed her characters in the process. I was extremely depressed and disappointed and just wanted to see what you guys thought.
I certainly don't think she destroyed the characters in a literary sense. Katniss is obviously broken down at the end but that was sort of the point of the trilogy. Katniss slowly transforms from someone who is a protector at heart to someone who only desires the death of Snow for much of the 3rd book.
Not going to write a whole essay again, sorry ...there's a couple good posts from a couple other people as well in that thread I linked to about it.
Last edited by jflory81: 06-16-2012 at 02:43 PM.
Reason: fixed link
figuring out the names of the tributes. I want to give some of these tributes some sort of significance in their name.
...there's a couple good posts from a couple other people as well in that thread I linked to about it.
