-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hunger Games (Dir. Gary Ross) |OT| May The Odds Be Ever In Your Favor
- Thread starter Replicant
- Start date
- Status
Pachterballs
Banned
I can't think of a good actioner flick + female director. Put penny marshall or sophia coppola on this.
Good Job Bob
Member
I hope they get Cuaron on this.
The movie/book actually has very little in common with Battle Royale despite the similar concept. Hunger Games is very much a reaction to modern day reality TV- the showmances, the the manipulation of editing and outcomes. The Peeta/Katniss relationship subplot has echoes of similar stories that have come out of "The Bachelor".
Castor Krieg
Banned
Then you didn't understand what BR is about. Hint: not about kids killing each other. BR was a cruel satire on social situation in Japan end of 90s. HG is a weak analysis of Reality TV at best, but third book makes is obvious Collins never thought about that.
Oh, shut up. There's nothing worse than the "WELL YOU JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ITS GENIUS!!!" argument.
Yes, I understood it. It wasn't complex or subtle. They repeatedly hammer it into your head throughout the movie.
I still thought it was pretty bad. I thought it was a bad movie. The writing, directing, pacing, characterization... everything just felt like it was done by an amateur. And then what little story it has completely falls apart at the end, as it quickly descends into retarded nonsense. And how about that part near the end where the girl has a magic psychic dream? Yeah, here's a movie world that, by everything we have seen, plays by real-world rules and physics. So let's throw in a magic psychic dream near the end of the movie. Because that makes sense.
But then again, maybe I'm just weird. I don't judge movies by what in the real world they're supposed to be commenting on, I judge them based on the actual content of the movie. I guess that's not how you're supposed to do it?
Castor Krieg
Banned
You are weird.
Someone in the other thread mentioned Mimi Leder.I can't think of a good actioner flick + female director. Put penny marshall or sophia coppola on this.
You didn't get Hunger Games. It's a tie.Castor Krieg said:
Just came back from seeing it and I really dug. It was obviously commentary on Reality TV but it also felt like there was some commentary on the "fakeness" of Hollywood as whole. The movie to me felt "fake" as a whole but it felt like that was the point, if that makes any sense. I haven't read the books though.
This did bother me too. If the one dude (who could of been her father etc.) just attacked the police then I could understand.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I had the feeling Suzanne Collins was living her fantasy out of being some sort of kick ass action heroine through Katniss. I can't believe any "revolutionaries" who were working on a rebellion for decades would be as dumb as to completely rely on a silly teenage girl for the entirety of their plans.
It is fair enough her being the inspiration, or the spark, for a rebellion but the centrepiece for it? That is just dumb and the book suffers for it.
I sorta agree since the book didn't discuss that at all. In fact, it was the opposite. their opposition was shown by helping Kat with the bread. There may have been struggles at one time since they actually did have a lot of security in the books and Rue alludes to them being watched constantly for thievery.
At the same time, I always remember this scene in Bug's Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmUD9Jhfh_U
This is a possible book spoiler
One District doesn't have the ability to provide enough security for 12 other ones, so the Capital tricks them.
I didn't get that as the goal. Throughout the books, Katniss is used only as the spark. She's not a real leader and everyone totally exploits that. She is nothing more than a mascot, she just doesn't know it and it goes directly against their plans for her.
A large part of Mockingjay involves trying to get rid of her
Except in the third book
she has little more to do than do promo ads, be seen on tv to boost morale, and then later on be a target for the Rebel President. She is only sent on a mission near the end and even then ordered killed.
I hope a great director is attached to the rest of the series. I liked the books but still feel they could have been more and maybe a great director can take over and add to the series rather than follow the book page by page.
Following the book page by page would be better in some cases though, like the scene with Peeta and the careers and the girl who started the fire on the first night. The book did that so much better.
Though a good director and writer could probably patch up the issues I had with Mockingjay. Catching Fire will be hard to screw up I think.
Though a good director and writer could probably patch up the issues I had with Mockingjay. Catching Fire will be hard to screw up I think.
Well I think the point was to keep that ambiguous. Even at the end, you didn't know if she was just 'putting on a show' or not.
I thought the movie was alright. Kept my interest.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
I agree. Catching fire has a great arc to it.
Mockingjay though, if the 4 movie deal does go through, i would imagine would pretty different because there is no way they are shooting that final 1/3rd how its written in the book, as well as the need for more scenes to flesh it out into two movies uless they are both short. With such tight scheduling though, i doubt the scripts will get the time they need, but fortunately the actors they have hired so far have delivered.
What.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Catching Fire is the second book, and the movie should cover the entire thing even if there will be three movies for the remaining two books.
Mockingjay is the final book.
Yeah, I enjoyed the first two books. The third...not so much.
That said, I'd have to wonder how they would even deal with the final part of Mockingjay. That shit would be nightmarish if actually done as depicted in the book. (Which would probably never fly at all.)
Catching Fire would be a good movie if they stay true to it. It really does have a great arc.
Hari Seldon
Member
I am about 2/3 through the first book. Loved it for the most part, but it is getting too much YA bullshit now with all the stupid romance crap. Dunno if I will read the rest of the series.
BR has more emotional impact in any one of the 20 or so onscreen deaths then the entire HG put together. Frankly the deaths/fights in HG were about as impactful as Anakin skywalker at 7 shooting up Battle Droids (and that's focusing on the good parts of the movie).KevinCow said:
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I just came back from the cinema with a big grin on my face. Not that it was the perfect movie or anything close to it, but I found it thoroughly enjoyable after the shock of the first act* and despiting its significant lenght I didn't think it was excessive. If any, my only real complaint is that some of the deaths carried very little weight; they definitely needed less shacky cam and more impact.
*but seriously, those cuts were HORRENDOUS.
*but seriously, those cuts were HORRENDOUS.
I agree with this. Although I didn't have an issue with
Cato because it was luring Katniss to finish the job she had already started, killing Thresh that way was cheating
Dangit, the first sentence made me want to search out Battle Royale. The second sentence completely devalues the statement. I shall wait a bit longer.
I really liked this, and feel like many are hating on it because it's popular with teenagers. Something being popular / successful doesn't necessarily disqualify it from being good, guys.
But the hunger games isn't just about kids killing each other on an island, like battle royale is. That's one of the main concepts sure, but it relies just as heavily on themes like the morality of reality tv and the power of government, amongst others. To write off the hunger games as a battle royale rip-off isn't accurate or fair, imo.
But the hunger games isn't just about kids killing each other on an island, like battle royale is. That's one of the main concepts sure, but it relies just as heavily on themes like the morality of reality tv and the power of government, amongst others. To write off the hunger games as a battle royale rip-off isn't accurate or fair, imo.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
So, I saw it tonight. Bla bla bla, good cinematography, decent pacing, great on-location shots, good casting choices, liked the film, bla bla bla.
The thing I noticed the most prominently, both in terms of the film itself and compared to the books, is how fucking disgusting it all was. The Capitol was revolting, like a decadent late Rome. All the spectators, the commentators, the stylists. If the book wrote the Capitolites as vain and self-obsessed (and they did, one of the few passages I noted on my Kindle is when the stylist assistants are all talking about themselves), the movie took it to eleven. Their dress, their hair, their makeup, their jewelry, the architecture inside the apartment/hotel, even the train. Everything about it was nauseating. From the first shot of the capital, all I could think--I've only read the first book, so I have no idea if I'm predicting anything here--is how glad I will be if the series ends with the whole place reduced to ash. The opulence. The fact that the film played up the control room and the state itself compared to the book only served this further--the entire thing is just profoundly and utterly disturbing.
Thomas Cole, who is an American painter, did a series of paintings called the Course of Empire. The first painting is a sort of jungle-forest, the second of a sort of agrarian setting with some humans and buildings, the third of a Rome-like empire, filled with ornate buildings and cheering crowds with bright colours... the fourth of that same city burning, and the fifth of its destroyed remains. And it's always been one of my favourite set of paintings, because of the contrast between the beauty of the second painting and the tragic excess of the third. I thought immediately of these when I was watching the film.
The other thing that came to mind was an interview someone did with Stephen Fry, which you can see here, where they asked him about what made someone interesting, and he said:
Found the passage I highlighted in the book:
Sutherland as the villain was good casting, and I like that he was a refined man of taste compared with the commentators and the game master and the audience of the Capitol. I thought of nouveau riche versus old wealth. He seemed self-confident and empowered, but not bubble-headed like all the regular Capitolites. A good choice.
Was it shot in Washington state or BC?
The thing I noticed the most prominently, both in terms of the film itself and compared to the books, is how fucking disgusting it all was. The Capitol was revolting, like a decadent late Rome. All the spectators, the commentators, the stylists. If the book wrote the Capitolites as vain and self-obsessed (and they did, one of the few passages I noted on my Kindle is when the stylist assistants are all talking about themselves), the movie took it to eleven. Their dress, their hair, their makeup, their jewelry, the architecture inside the apartment/hotel, even the train. Everything about it was nauseating. From the first shot of the capital, all I could think--I've only read the first book, so I have no idea if I'm predicting anything here--is how glad I will be if the series ends with the whole place reduced to ash. The opulence. The fact that the film played up the control room and the state itself compared to the book only served this further--the entire thing is just profoundly and utterly disturbing.
Thomas Cole, who is an American painter, did a series of paintings called the Course of Empire. The first painting is a sort of jungle-forest, the second of a sort of agrarian setting with some humans and buildings, the third of a Rome-like empire, filled with ornate buildings and cheering crowds with bright colours... the fourth of that same city burning, and the fifth of its destroyed remains. And it's always been one of my favourite set of paintings, because of the contrast between the beauty of the second painting and the tragic excess of the third. I thought immediately of these when I was watching the film.
The other thing that came to mind was an interview someone did with Stephen Fry, which you can see here, where they asked him about what made someone interesting, and he said:
Found the passage I highlighted in the book:
Sutherland as the villain was good casting, and I like that he was a refined man of taste compared with the commentators and the game master and the audience of the Capitol. I thought of nouveau riche versus old wealth. He seemed self-confident and empowered, but not bubble-headed like all the regular Capitolites. A good choice.
Was it shot in Washington state or BC?
Lord_Byron28
Member
Am I the only one that thought the 3rd book is when things finally got interesting. The first two books were rather naive and a lot of decision/thought process didn't seem realistic in the hunger games world. The 3rd book is where I found things to be a lot more realistic.
You are not the only one. It's the only book where
Kat get its and not just at the ending. She was living a bit of a fantasy in the first two books. In this one, even early on, she understands to what extent people would gain/hold power. This is kind of a big deal since us figuring it out early hurts the story- something I think occurred with me and Catching Fire.
I like the first 2 but, but enjoyed Mockingjay quite a bit and quite a bit more than Catching Fire.
I don't like the movie. The shakey cam's used in almost every scene, even non-action ones, and it's very distracting. Characters other than Katniss and Peeta are undeveloped, so their deaths have no emotional impact whatsoever. I think the movie spends too much time
. I don't even think the acting is good tbh. I like the ending though.
on the sponsor-gathering part at the beginning, even though the results don't really matter at the end
Angelus Errare
Banned
I was finally convinced to watch this (I have read the books) I must say.
This movie was dumb as shit, I felt like leaving a few times during the movie. Hell the only reason I stayed is my friend paid for the movie and she was bitching that if I left there would be no sleep for me. This movie did nothing for me, the only time I even felt a ping of emotion of any kind was when Rue died, only because the child actress looked so cute =3 and reminded me of my niece.
The fact people all over the interwebs were being racist about her is hilarious though to the point I hope they all die of poisoning.
I liked Battle Royale better.
This movie was dumb as shit, I felt like leaving a few times during the movie. Hell the only reason I stayed is my friend paid for the movie and she was bitching that if I left there would be no sleep for me. This movie did nothing for me, the only time I even felt a ping of emotion of any kind was when Rue died, only because the child actress looked so cute =3 and reminded me of my niece.
The fact people all over the interwebs were being racist about her is hilarious though to the point I hope they all die of poisoning.
I liked Battle Royale better.
One interesting silver lining I've only just found out about is that Battle Royale got a wide home release out of this. I guess they figured that after seeing Hunger Games nobody would care as much about its content.
Too bad BR2 is bundled in with it, what a piece of crap that was.
Too bad BR2 is bundled in with it, what a piece of crap that was.
Im late but I saw this today along with Avengers. Thats a lot of time in the theater, goddamn.
Anyway I enjoyed this movie for the most part. It should have been about 20 minutes shorter though. It was MUCH more of a chick flick than I thought. The ads for this mislead the hell out of me. Corny shaky cam, snooze-worthy teeny love nonsense. Ghastly.
But everything else was great. I was really intrigued by the idea of how the society worked, the games themselves, and the politics behind it. Rue was criminally underused though, what the fuck. Kid should have had way more screen time, never mind them killing her off like that. In any case, I would watch a sequel, and maybe next time wouldn't wait until I had an unexpected day off of work to do so.
Anyway I enjoyed this movie for the most part. It should have been about 20 minutes shorter though. It was MUCH more of a chick flick than I thought. The ads for this mislead the hell out of me. Corny shaky cam, snooze-worthy teeny love nonsense. Ghastly.
But everything else was great. I was really intrigued by the idea of how the society worked, the games themselves, and the politics behind it. Rue was criminally underused though, what the fuck. Kid should have had way more screen time, never mind them killing her off like that. In any case, I would watch a sequel, and maybe next time wouldn't wait until I had an unexpected day off of work to do so.
Mike Works
Member
So I just saw this last night. I had only read the first chapter of the first book (and then put it down because it wasn't keeping my interest) going in, and I'm kind of lukewarm on it.
Call me a cynical writer, but I was just mentally checklisting off everything the author/screenwriter was introducing for the sake of the teenage girl audience:
- love triangle with two handsome guys who both want the female protagonist
- uncomfortable waxing/beauty probing
- going down the red carpet while stylists comment on how good she looks
- wearing a special dress and showing it off
- going on a talkshow and having everyone like you
- having one of your love interests protect and care for you while you sleep
and a half dozen other things
I was also really put off by the shaky cam introduced in the opening scene (where there wasn't even any action) to the point where I was feeling dizzy in the theatre.
On the plus side, I really liked the brutality the moment the games started. But there are other aspects which just rubbed me wrong.
Anyway, it was okay - definitely B/B+ territory - but it's too bad that the story is centered around appeasing the Twilight audience.
Call me a cynical writer, but I was just mentally checklisting off everything the author/screenwriter was introducing for the sake of the teenage girl audience:
- love triangle with two handsome guys who both want the female protagonist
- uncomfortable waxing/beauty probing
- going down the red carpet while stylists comment on how good she looks
- wearing a special dress and showing it off
- going on a talkshow and having everyone like you
- having one of your love interests protect and care for you while you sleep
and a half dozen other things
I was also really put off by the shaky cam introduced in the opening scene (where there wasn't even any action) to the point where I was feeling dizzy in the theatre.
On the plus side, I really liked the brutality the moment the games started. But there are other aspects which just rubbed me wrong.
Why did that district where the little black girl came from revolt? Why now? They've been doing this for 75 years; surely some other cute little girl died before?
Anyway, it was okay - definitely B/B+ territory - but it's too bad that the story is centered around appeasing the Twilight audience.
in the book, she spends a lot of time hating the fact that she's being made to look pretty, to having to make an impression, and all that. it gets lost on screen. also, the book treats the death of rue with a lot more subtlety. her sponsors give her some bread one night when she was hungry, at least, that's what she assumes.
the book stays right in katniss's head, so you never see outside her perspective. i felt the games lost a lot of the impact by switching out to donald sutherland and other scenes outside the games, although the commentator aspect worked well at least.
the audience in my theater cheered when
cato died.
Trent Strong
Banned
This entire movie is shot like a Bourne Identity fight scene. Constant, bizarre cuts and close ups, and shaky cam. It's nauseating. I had to quit watching half way through. This might be the worst movie I've ever seen.
Acerac
Banned
The worst movie you've ever seen?
I just watched the film myself and it obviously wasn't the greatest movie ever, but the hyperbole in this thread is ridiculous.
Bourne Identity? actually that one has no shacky cam at all
fizzelopeguss
Banned
This film was bloody awful.
Fox Mulder
Member
I never got why they're obviously shooting around the violence when the book apparently has plenty of it.
It's not the worst movie, just one that was conservatively made for a certain audience.
alex chilton
Member
so that guy was a master of make up because.... he's worked in a bakery? huh?
Escape Goat
Member
Finally watched it. It was good but it felt like it was only half a movie. Themes aren't really explored all that much and nothing is resolved. The Games were pretty weak and it seems like Katniss is only mildly involved in. Loved the crazy Fifth Element type costuming and general feel of this alternate world/future. And I really like Jennifer Lawrence so it wasnt all bad.
That bothered me too. The games still carry on, people still suffer in their crappy districts... it's great that Catniss made it, but otherwise who cares?
I didn't hate the movie though... it was somewhat interesting, just strange.
I actually read the book after seeing it, as I was curious to what differences there might be. But it was 95% identical, apart from some more details/side-stories, and a much longer ending.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked