The Hunger Games film thread

[Sunken Valley]

I liked this.

Surprised nobody's mentioned this, especially as it had the BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND FOR A NON-SEQUEL AND 3RD BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND OF ALL TIME

Also like how few changes they made.

[Krazzman]

I have to say the same thing I said to John Carter. The Book seems to be good.

On one side the trailer suggested a more action rich movie.
But contrary to John Carter they at least created a descent environment.

The lovestory is...meh or as my Girlfriend put it:

Spoiler

Show

Because it made the movie to cliché...

Else I found it awesome even though I didn't get some things like

Spoiler

Show

the riots in the maximum pigmented district...(was it 11?)

[Cespenar]

Not having read the books, the first thing I can say about the movie is that I found it a bit unclimactic. Though that's probably the book's fault rather than the movie's, since I heard the latter is pretty loyal to the former?

Also, the story was a little cliché. I felt like I'm watching an adaptation of a Drizzt Do'Urden novel for a second there.

Not bad though, overall.

[Sunken Valley]

I have to say the same thing I said to John Carter. The Book seems to be good.

On one side the trailer suggested a more action rich movie.
But contrary to John Carter they at least created a descent environment.

The lovestory is...meh or as my Girlfriend put it:

Spoiler

Show

Because it made the movie to cliché...

Else I found it awesome even though I didn't get some things like

Spoiler

Show

the riots in the maximum pigmented district...(was it 11?)

Love Story

Spoiler

Show

Isn't really explored that much anyways. You get more in the sequel, coming November 2013. One of the changes they made from film to book is that Katniss and Peeta don't truly love each other at that stage in the book, they're putting on a show.

Riots

Spoiler

Show

Don't forget the riots, that's a sequel hook. Let's just say maximum pigmented district wasn't the only one inspired by Katniss.

[Comet]

The fact that the movie seems to be heavily advertised on the window of a particular clothing store aimed towards young women and that quite a number of things I've heard about this movie revolve around the audience choosing 'teams', like in a certain vampire/werewolf mess, leads me to believe this movie might not be for me.

Am I wrong? Does this appeal to a wider demographic? Haven't read the book, mind, so I don't have much idea about the story other than the basic premise.

[Chen]

Love Story

Spoiler

Show

Isn't really explored that much anyways. You get more in the sequel, coming November 2013. One of the changes they made from film to book is that Katniss and Peeta don't truly love each other at that stage in the book, they're putting on a show.

Spoiler

Show

I don't think they changed that. I think they did a very bad job at showing the audience she doesn't actually love him. The only hint we get is her "We forget about it" when they're talking on the train back

Overall the movie was good, but without having read the book there is a LOT you'd miss. That's the problem with taking a book from a first person perspective with a lot of insights into the main characters thoughts. I mean they got away with the tracker jacker thing by making it blatant exposition, but really they needed to do a bit more of that where Katniss talked to people (Haymitch, Cinna maybe even Effie) about what she was thinking. It would have made things much more clear rather than the vague way they did it (see spoiler about the love story part).

[Ashtar]

So not having read the book, but I did go see the movie last friday, here's my 2 cents (no spoilers, I think but I prefer to let people decide):

Spoiler

Show

Average to good movie, but can't really decide which way to go, bad camera work, insufficient exposition of plot elements (supposedly revealed in the book) for audience to really understand (among others the meaning of the hand gesture?), some seriously dumb moments (everybody's asleep?), corny "romance" moment that is badly handled (seriously, you mean that's love supposedly being shown on screen, and anyone would fall for that?) and bit of techno-magic with the "arena" spouting fireballs and stuff from nowhere.

But after all that, it was an entertaining evening, once the movie got going, it was okay. My impression after leaving the theatre was: "It will work well in the box office and we'll have the all sequels".

In effect, the movie is "We take your kids away and then they fight to the death (poorly)".

[Ricky S]

I thought it was an ok movie. 7/10 but I dont really see what all the hype was about. It doesnt deserve the massive numbers it is getting. It is like twilight all over again.

The plot is average. Personally I think Battle Royale did a better job than the hunger games movie did. I guess I'll have to read the book to see if I love the story more.

[Durlan]

Is it just the first book or all three??

Durlan

[SamBurke]

Read the book, and thought it was fairly good. haven't seen the movie, though.

[Ashtar]

Is it just the first book or all three??

It's just the first book from what I understand.

[Selrahc]

BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND FOR A NON-SEQUEL AND 3RD BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND OF ALL TIME

This kind of measurement always confused me. Surely with inflation, there will be a natural upwards trend in opening weekend takings? To the point where a mildly big success will eclipse the mega smashes of a past decade.

So yeah... a highly marketed movie, with a large and committed external fanbase, released in 2012 is naturally going to end pretty high on those sorts of rankings.

[Starbuck_II]

Going to see it wednesday so I'll find out then how it goes.

[Xondoure]

This kind of measurement always confused me. Surely with inflation, there will be a natural upwards trend in opening weekend takings? To the point where a mildly big success will eclipse the mega smashes of a past decade.

So yeah... a highly marketed movie, with a large and committed external fanbase, released in 2012 is naturally going to end pretty high on those sorts of rankings.

Not sure about this particular fact, but usually they account for inflation with these kind of things. The movie industry has just grown over the past century, meaning more people are going to the theaters and the mega smashes are correspondingly much bigger (and also appealing to a lower common denominator.)

I have to say while the movie wasn't perfect, it was as faithful of a sequel as we could reasonably hope for. And the fact that a book being so faithfully adapted and selling so well is always going to be a victory in my book because of what it says to the producers.

The only complaint I've really heard having ruined the movie for someone irl is the lack of exposition.

[polity4life]

I saw the movie and did not read the books.

I found the story pacing terribly slow in this film. I was bored more often than not and it wasn't because of the story or the setting; both are extremely interesting and I'm sure the book explores both far more thoroughly. The whole narrative just dragged on screen though. Some entire scenes just went on for too long and others were not given enough attention, especially in regards to explanation as to what was happening.

The cinematography was obnoxious. Way too much wobbly-cam and shots were sometimes over in less than two seconds for no real reason whatsoever. I had difficulty concentrating on anything because the editor has a very severe case of untreated ADHD.

Just my thoughts. I do have to watch this movie again in a triple date affair later this week. Methinks I'll sneak my good friend MacAllan into the theater in my tummy.

[Psyren]

I saw this years ago when they called it by its real name, Battle Royale

All kidding aside, I did enjoy the movie. I saw the ending coming a mile away, and I was a little upset before I realized it was the first installment of a trilogy. Thankfully, it was such a runaway financial success (as noted in the OP) that the other two are pretty much guaranteed now.


And MovieBob again put it best - unremarkable plotwise as it may have been, teenage girls need SOME kind of role model that is not Bella Swan, so HG deserves every penny it got and then some if it can derail that particular train.

[Dante & Vergil]

And MovieBob again put it best - unremarkable plotwise as it may have been, teenage girls need SOME kind of role model that is not Bella Swan, so HG deserves every penny it got and then some if it can derail that particular train.

Hehehe, yeah, I have to agree with this.

Personally, I liked the movie, though I haven't read the books 'cause I'm busy reading another series right now. I don't know if this means much cause I'm easy to entertain, though not so much lately, so who knows.

[Avilan the Grey]

Can someone explain the appeal of the books and film to me? To me it just seems digusting, horrible and at the same time done several times before (like in Battle Royale, for example, which I also never would dream of actually seeing). I wound not dream of reading or seeing this simply because the concept makes me too disgusted.

Somehow I can see the hype for say Twilight, but I cannot understand how people I like spending time with enjoy these books and try to make me read the first one or make me watch the movie... It somehow just doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: PLEASE NOTE this is not a flame post. I am honestly curious.

Edit again: Please explain how the first book can be deemed suitable for 11 year olds?????????????
And apparently the movie will get a 11 year limit here in Sweden: I can only assume they don't actually show any killings?

[Psyren]

Can someone explain the appeal of the books and film to me?

Battle Royale's been done before as you said but it's nowhere near as popular as this was. Maybe it was just good timing coupled with the relentless marketing; I'm not certain.

It's a good premise even if it seems overdone to us. Many people have not seen Battle Royale, particularly among teens, so this is a good introduction to the concept.

And the class warfare angle in the movie is somewhat topical.

[SamBurke]

Well, if you find yourself disgusted by children killing each other in the area, as a replacement for their parents doing so, then I judge the book a success.

Because that's what she wanted to say.

That said, if you can get past the basic plot and read the book, you'll find that there's little to no violence: at least, for what you'd expect. Most of the characters die away from the first-person stream-of-conciousness narrative, and thus, the book ends up with a lot of the dread without much of the dead.

It's an interesting book that, regardless of if you want to or not, regardless of whether you like it or not, will force you to finish it. I was completely unimpressed with it, but yet I stayed up until two in the morning to read that baby.

[Avilan the Grey]

Battle Royale's been done before as you said but it's nowhere near as popular as this was. Maybe it was just good timing coupled with the relentless marketing; I'm not certain.

I just find the combination of the horrific theme, my personal complete uninterested in anything similar, and the extremely large fanbase very very strange indeed. Especially since many of the fans are people who would never watch say a Arnold movie because it is too violent.

Well, if you find yourself disgusted by children killing each other in the area, as a replacement for their parents doing so, then I judge the book a success.

Because that's what she wanted to say.

This argument feels strange too, since basically if she had not written this book, everyone in the western world already agrees that kids killing kids is much worse than grownups killing grownups. It all just feels like a big "Duh! We all knew that already!"

[Pokonic]

Can someone explain the appeal of the books and film to me? To me it just seems digusting, horrible and at the same time done several times before (like in Battle Royale, for example, which I also never would dream of actually seeing). I wound not dream of reading or seeing this simply because the concept makes me too disgusted.


Edit again: Please explain how the first book can be deemed suitable for 11 year olds?????????????

1. Well, for one, most kids are hardlyt sensitive to violance. The books themselves hardly go into detail, and the protagonist was (mildy)interesting. Also, note that by the end of the third book the games are ended for good. The whole message is basicly a critiqe of how people are perfectly fine with horrible things happening as long as they are on the other side of the screen.

2. Because it never goes into detail about the exact gory bits, and it makes as much sence as marketing the latest Batman movie to kids?

[Avilan the Grey]

1. Well, for one, most kids are hardlyt sensitive to violance. The books themselves hardly go into detail, and the protagonist was (mildy)interesting. Also, note that by the end of the third book the games are ended for good. The whole message is basicly a critiqe of how people are perfectly fine with horrible things happening as long as they are on the other side of the screen.

2. Because it never goes into detail about the exact gory bits, and it makes as much sence as marketing the latest Batman movie to kids?

The last Batman movie got a 15 yr old (aka "adult") marketing in Sweden, the highest age restriction we have, except for porn (that is 18).

And regarding your first argument... as I said, that just felt like a Duh! thing.

[SamBurke]

As a note, we have word of god from Susanne Collins that it is more or less a critique of the Iraq/Afghan wars. That's what my previous comment meant.

[Madara]

Else I found it awesome even though I didn't get some things like

Spoiler

Show

the riots in the maximum pigmented district...(was it 11?)

Did you see that they used firehoses? That's a little...pushing it. Especially with district 11

[Avilan the Grey]

As a note, we have word of god from Susanne Collins that it is more or less a critique of the Iraq/Afghan wars. That's what my previous comment meant.

Again, I have not read the books or seen them movie but.. how are these similar?

[SamBurke]

It's the idea of sending younger people off to fight what she perceives is a war that the old people need. I"m not defending her ideas, just saying what she said.

Obvious joke is obvious.

That's what SHE said.

[Pokonic]

As a note, we have word of god from Susanne Collins that it is more or less a critique of the Iraq/Afghan wars. That's what my previous comment meant.

Always thought the whole thing was somehow ment to reprisent the cold war, with the

Spoiler

Show

Decadent, flamboyant nation that uses parts of itself to feed the whims of the elite, while the other is a strict, highly regimented nation that constantly attempts to take down the opposing nation. Oh, and nukes.

[SaintRidley]

Again, I have not read the books or seen them movie but.. how are these similar?

Sending the young to die while the wealthy and powerful remain behind and insulated from the effects.


The other thing is that the horribleness of the premise is in part because it's probably the only way to really get through people about one of the secondary messages - the perversion of basing so much of popular culture on exploitative reality television.

[Omergideon]

MY full review to film quality is, I thought it was good, well acted and devoted the time that was needed to explore the mental states and essence of the situation without overstaying it's welcome. I say 8 or 9/10 depending on personal preferences. And Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence (I think) is a brilliant actress in the film.

Non-review, I do not think the comparisons to Battle Royale are that apt, beyond the superficial elements of the premise. It is closer to the Running Man (the Schwarzenegger film) in tone and nature with the gaudy and lauded nature of the tributes. Or Gladiatorial contests or ancient Rome. The way they adore the tributes in the capital and the effects of that on society, as well as Katniss herself (and the need to manipulate the audience to survive) are themes that make it a VERY different film to Battle Royale or The Running Man, even if I think the second is closer.


And in general I am a fan when films imply and suggest clearly without explaining things. Like the Riot. I get why they rioted and suspect that the first dude was Rue's Dad. And yet it is not stated in bold. It is presented and we get to figure it out ourselves. I like this as a thing when done well, as I think it was in this film.