:smallconfused:Well if a shift of power is done to favour people who weren't from the place where it happens then it's not a revolution, it's an invasion. I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Printable View
I saw it on Saturday and thought the film worked better than the book. I was probably biased towards liking Jennifer Lawrence from being so impressed with her in Winter's Bone.
Anybody else here seen that movie? If not, go watch it now.
I suppose it's something along the lines of "The pre-teen camp where theres bad romance and jazz while the other is a "mature"(?) choice. Anyway, it does not fit too well (I mean, replace Hellsing with Buffy and I am all ears, but comparing Twilight with Helsing is like comparing rotten, crappy fruit with a blood-soaked piece of epic).
First and formost, the books are hardly "bad". Average, yes, but bad? Nope. Also, mearly stating the idea that a series is not as good as another because it just so happens to be rather popular with teens is not a accurate way of putting things.
SpoilerMadge Undersee is cut out. Katniss finds the pin at the market and gives it to Prim who gives it back to Katniss. Makes for a more personal touch.
Cinna is downplayed.
The prep team are not named although they can be seen.
The term "Avox" is not used and Lavina is cut, although if you look closely, you see her in the background and early in the film cutting out tounges is mentioned.
Foxface is only called Foxface once, which is jarring.
Katniss's interview with Ceaser is slightly different (with a fake flame dress).
There are numerous scenes of the Hunger Games controllers in their control room. Also scenes with Seneca Crane and President Snow talking about eliminating Katniss.
No internal monologue from Katniss at all to avoid similarity with twilight so all emotions play a bigger role.
Tracker Jackers and the re-activated Mines are explained via Flickerman and Temple Smith commentating.
After Rue dies you see District 11 rioting.
The Mutts look different and they don't look like the fallen tributes.
Thresh is killed by the Mutts, not by Cato.
The ending does not make it clear whether Katniss and Peeta stay together or not.
Minor changes, probably more I've not noticed.
Hunger Games in the US is PG-13. Heck, even Common Sense Media, a slightly alarmist organization, thinks its okay for kids 13 and up. That's a lot closer to the age that you think is okay to watch Saw and the Human Centipede. Does that mean its marketed towards 13 in the US and 11 in Sweden? Seriously?
:smallsigh:
There's a difference between availability/fanbase and marketing, as any brony could tell you.
What are you talking about? If you grow up under a regime, then you are obviously from that area. Hence, revolution. :smallconfused:
RE: Katniss - I'm glad they scrapped the internal monologue, and not just to avoid Katniss Swan syndrome. You got a lot more out of her acting that way, like when she was stalking that deer in the beginning - you could see everything she was doing and more importantly know why without her having to say a word. I thought it was a really good example of "show don't tell."
When she volunteered and everyone was trying to reassure her with "You know how to hunt!" I really believed it.
Ah. plot diffrences are minor.
now, can you tell me how the charecters look like in the movie?
The big ones were oppressive governments and big brother. Like I said, the thing that distinguishes the bad guys from the good guys is whether they play along with the Capital's games. The games themselves exist to demonstrate the power of the Capital. And because to this, the idea of resisting the oppression and keeping some measure of individuality is also important, even if it's only a small thing. We see it in Peeta's attitude about the games and wanting to die on his terms, in Cinna sneaking the Mockingjay pin to Katniss (I am remembering that right, aren't I?), and of course, in the way the games ended.
The pin was snuck in in the film, not in the book. In the book tributes were allowed a token, though there was some small discussion if the needle on the pin could be used as a weapon.
Huh, haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know how I got that mixed up.
Well, it wasn't all that violent in shown violence, though there was much implied violence and off camera violence, the most disturbing in my opinion was the wasps. A bit of weirdness was our heroines hallucination, quoting word for word something Caesar said, but which she would have had, I assume, no way of knowing or hearing herself. She could have gotten it from a past game, but it seems odd that the wording would be so similar.
Still, the fact it wasn't as disturbing as I thought it would be, children killing each other, disturbs me somewhat.
Casting mostly adults as teenagers helped with that I guess.
I think I liked Caesar Flickerman best. Yes, he is a slimy bastard, but he is such a glittery slimy bastard.
So just got around to reading the book. For those who've done that and seen the film, do you think the film or the book was better?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm kind of ambivalent about the book - read all the way to the end but felt a bit unsatisfied having done it - and now I'm 50/50 on seeing the film.
This is frankly because Sweden's movie ranking system is absurd (assuming wikipedia is correct of course). There's the "everyone can see rating" then its brackets at 7, 11 and 15. Who came up with those numbers? The 11 cutoff seems pretty arbitrary since there's a fairly significant difference I'd say between 11, 12 and 13 year olds. Yet I can see hardly any difference between say a 6 year old and a 7 year old. I suppose it can be based on the earliest time puberty tends to hit (which I think is around 11) though for a general thing like movies I'd have to assume 11 and 13 is a pretty big difference in maturity.
I'll add the themes of sacrifice/martyrdom (Katniss does this to protect her sister, and again in the end to attempt to deny the games their victor), and friendship/teamwork (the perpetual and capable loner Katniss only succeeds in the games due to help, both during the event and before it even starts.)
Key takeaways from the movie:
"Freedom is worth fighting for"
"No man (or woman) is an island"
"Self-sacrifice is an admirable quality worthy of emulation"
It was good.
I thought that the government cheated though.
I mean,seemed unfair.SpoilerCreating Virtual dogs and casting fireballs at her
I liked the Wasp idea. I felt sorry for the youngest member, Ruth? I mean, the rest are at least a teen and she was a little girl.
I didn't understand the hand symbols though. What did it mean?
I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.
I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.
That's kind of the point of the Games. Its really just a display to remind the Districts that the Capital has all the power, and it could play as unfair as it wants. The Hunger Games are essentially a show of power. The 'virtual' dogs are not exactly dogs, but they are very real and very dangerous.
Thats exactly what it means. For instance, Gale has put his name in multiple times to 'purchase' extra supplies. The point is that the Capital can help out the Districts, but chooses not to. See the above response. Another big thing is the concept of manipulation of hope. President Snow illustrates this. The system gives the Districts little hopes, like "I got extra food for my family, and chances are I won't be picked" and "Our sister was chosen, but she might survive and improve life for all of us." This is enough to keep the Districts operating without giving them big hopes like "We could rebel and beat the Capital".
Yes, but those who need a lot of extra supplies,. the hard scrabbling poor, are also the most likely to rebel and are the most numerous.
Really playing with fire there in my opinion.
As we saw, it doesn't take much to set them off.
And if the raw material production Districts, like 11 and 12, did rebel, what do you do?
You destroy them like you did 13 and you slit your own throat, a pyrrhic victory at best.
But don't destroy them and you show that rebellion is possible, which is incredibly dangerous for an oppressive regime.
Well clearly resentment has been building for a very long time. Initial fear after the capital crushed the districts is beginning to run thinner and thinner despite the horrific reminder of the games. That is why Snow is so set on crushing that hope into the ground in the hopes that this can maintain the peace the capital has enjoyed.
It just goes to show that in order to make people complacent about the horrible things in the world, you either need to make them comfortable with it (capital) or too hungry to do anything about it (district twelve.) It's districts like eleven that have better food supplies but equal discontent that become the problem.
Yeah, "Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"
Of course, I doubt Snow cared much whether the structure would survive long after his death. Like Tarquin, he fundamentally only seems to care about his personal place in things, keeping things stable long enough for him to pass on.
It is a fundamentally flawed system for long term stability.
Yeah, MovieBob hangs a rather large lampshade on this very point. Not only are they encouraging all their disenfranchised young people to hate the government, they're also actively encouraging them to get combat training - particularly from the ones that survive the horror and go home to their respective districts.
So yeah, it's not the most brilliant writing around but it gets the job done (entertainment.)
Nice to know someone else noticed it as well, that's always comforting.
Only one (usually) each year survives, but that still doesn't mean those who weren't selected won't be next year, and fact 24 will be, and so it would be indeed best to get in as much combat and survival skills as possible, skills equally useful in a guerilla war against technologically superior foe, like our friends in the white suits and (anti-gravity?) hovercraft.
Just saw the movie, it was well done. I especially like how they handled the switch from first-person novel to movie, by showing us more of what went behind the scenes as Katniss is doing her thing. Good casting choices overall too. They did like the shaky-cam a bit much though.
Sorry, I only have the movie to go by.
Also, forbidden and not done are two completely different things, just ask any teenager.
The heroine was able to get enough hunting practise to pick off squirrels on a regular enough basis to be well known in a rather formal looking 'black market' with a home made bow. My point is the system encourages this form of rebellion implicitly while trying to avoid the repercussions explicitly.
And, as a I said, what do they do if they do rebel? You can't keep destroying Sectors without bringing the entire means of production, and hence your civilisation, to a screeching halt.