Hunger Games: worth watching?

[oblivion6]

so since i never got around to it, lately i have been considering renting the Hunger Games movies. as a big fan of the novels, i would like to know how closely it actually follows the book and if its actually worth watching.

some people i know say it does not really follow the book all that closely while others say it follows it pretty well. what is the playgrounds opinion of the movie?

also, as simple curiousity: i hear they took out the Cornocopia scene and the muttations. is that true?

[Howler Dagger]

also, as simple curiousity: i hear they took out the Cornocopia scene and the muttations. is that true?

Completely false.

I think it is worth it if you were a fan of the books, so you should give it a try. It doesn't deviate from the book in any major way that I can remember.

[Kitten Champion]

I thought it was pretty tame. Then again my standards are set by Battle Royale and I haven't read the novels.

The lack of genuine ethical challenge to the protagonist left me feeling rather unenthusiastic. You really didn't know anyone well enough to give a damn, besides the people who lived.

[Razanir]

I thought it was pretty tame. Then again my standards are set by Battle Royale and I haven't read the novels.

The lack of genuine ethical challenge to the protagonist left me feeling rather unenthusiastic. You really didn't know anyone well enough to give a damn, besides the people who lived.

With the Careers (reps from Districts 1, 2 and 4), at least, they are trained killing machines. Most of them (except Finnick) I'd place as neutral on the good-evil axis... at best

[JoshL]

I dug it, both book and film, and I liked Battle Royale too. There are some deviations from the book, but nothing that changes the overall point. Besides which, different adaptations SHOULD be different, otherwise, what's the point (but that's a different rant)? HG, both book and film, stays entirely from Katniss' perspective, so it is hard to really get in touch with other characters. But, again, that's part of the point. Dystopia from a single ground-level perspective.

The film does have some inappropriate shakey-cam, and some extremely tight action shots where it's hard to make things out. The former annoyed me, but the latter I found appropriate since the exploitation/glorification of violence is supposed to be a Bad Thing. Great score, and some really great cinematography (when they keep the camera still). Good cast, and one of the scenes not in the book was very powerful (heavy handed, but HG isn't subtle).

Anyway, if you liked the books, you'll probably like the movie. However, if you are nitpicky about adaptations being exact, well, there will be stuff to nitpick!

[oblivion6]

Anyway, if you liked the books, you'll probably like the movie. However, if you are nitpicky about adaptations being exact, well, there will be stuff to nitpick!

nah, no adaptations perfect.

[Jahkaivah]

Hunger Games eh?

It's challenging work, out of doors, I guarantee you'll not go hungry, 'cause at the end of the day as long as there are two people left on the planet, someone is going to want someone dead.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hunger Games eh?

It's challenging work, out of doors, I guarantee you'll not go hungry, 'cause at the end of the day as long as there are two people left on the planet, someone is going to want someone dead.

That... doesn't make sense.

And yes I know where it's from.

[Mauve Shirt]

Good movie, good book. The shaky cam was obviously an attempt to capture the first-person present tense of the book, and I think it does a pretty good job. But I'm someone who doesn't mind shaky cam.

[Tvtyrant]

I liked it in the theater. I feel like there are some similarities to disaster movies that would make watching it at home problematic. Everything is super crisp and pretty, with bright colors and flashy effects. This never seems to do well in the shrinkage from theater to home.

[Ravens_cry]

It wasn't as actively violent as it made itself out to be. The only disturbing part, to me, was

Spoiler

Show

the wasps. I was grinning until they explained how these were super-wasps.

Of course, if they actually showed kids chopping up other kids in a graphic way, there would be no way they could have gotten away with the rating they did.
I enjoyed it, though I am more than willing to grumble about it from world building and villain stupidity aspects.
In fact, the fact I liked it is why I did.

[Blue1005]

Spoiler

Show

I was so disappointed when I saw it that it made me want to slap those that hyped it up. It was a teenie bopper movie i think and sucked due to it. So many amazing things could have been done but they worried about the rating system more than the story

[Scowling Dragon]

Well I liked the movie because I hated the book.

So If you dislike the books, the movie is better.

[The_Shaman]

I haven't read the books or even knew much about them, and I found the movie quite enjoyable. It reminded me of Battle Royal at times.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I haven't read the books and I thought it was a decent movie, nothing really spectacular; but not bad. In all a good movie to watch a lazy afternoon.

[Jerthanis]

It follows the events of the book pretty closely, only skimping on a few details here and there. They didn't try to imply the muttations were made of dead tributes, which was something Catching Fire and Mockingjay were pretty dedicated to walking backwards on anyway. The only other major skipped detail I can recall was in how much trouble she had finding water.

Personally, the only major flaw in the adaptation is that

Spoiler

Show

they increased the importance of the Game Master guy, since they needed the story to have a clear villain. It's exactly the problem I had with books 2 and 3 where the President became the icon to be opposed when I was so happy that in book 1, the villain was the games themselves, and the miasmatic apathy and dehumanization of the process... that even Effie Trinket and the interviewer guy weren't villains, but were products of their society and reacted to tragedy like humans would... by compartmentalizing and rationalizing, but not being inhuman monsters. So that's one huge flaw, but one I can understand.

I will say, I like Battle Royale better... Battle Royale is one of my favorite movies of all time in fact. But Battle Royale is a bitter, dark movie that made me wish I had a heart condition so I could stop taking my medicine. Hunger Games was a fun movie with some dark and emotional moments and I left the theatre smiling.

[John Cribati]

Spoiler

Show

I was so disappointed when I saw it that it made me want to slap those that hyped it up. It was a teenie bopper movie i think and sucked due to it. So many amazing things could have been done but they worried about the rating system more than the story

Director: hey, we're gonna have this movie where we teenagers, and one twelve-year-old- die violently by each other's hands. And we're gonna show all of the blood and guts and gore.
Rating System: LolNo.

or maybe

Rating System: Okay, but that's getting an R rating.

Basically, if the movie isn't rated according to the target audience of the book, there is really no point in making the movie.

[Morbis Meh]

In truth I never read the books but i did see they movie, my impression: Battle Royale did a much better job at portraying the dystopic, gritty world with the sadistic teenager killing game but that is all that story is and that's great because it focuses on one area. The hunger games focused on both in game and outgame which frankly was not done well. The ingame parts paled in comparison to Battle Royale (both the book and the movie did much better); however, i did find it interesting how they went into the history of the country after the fall and societies evolution from that point.

So in conclusion if you're watching it because your a fan of the books go for it you may or may not like it depending on what kind of person you are (I prefer watching movies before reading the books that way i don't get nit picky ). If you're watching it for a gritty, dark, sadistic game where children are butchering each other then just find a copy of Battle Royale or read the book/manga.

[Drakeburn]

There are a couple details that aren't exactly accurate to the book.
Even though the death of Katnis's shadow was sad, the book was more sad than the movie.

So read more books kiddos.

[pita]

It was pretty much a perfect adaptation of the novel, IMO, with all of the good and bad implied.

[Tyndmyr]

so since i never got around to it, lately i have been considering renting the Hunger Games movies. as a big fan of the novels, i would like to know how closely it actually follows the book and if its actually worth watching.

some people i know say it does not really follow the book all that closely while others say it follows it pretty well. what is the playgrounds opinion of the movie?

also, as simple curiousity: i hear they took out the Cornocopia scene and the muttations. is that true?

If you like the book, but aren't fixated on the movie being *exactly* like the book, you should be aright. Yes, a few scenes are a bit different. However, it's pretty close in style overall, and many of the changes are, I feel, for the better.

Disclaimer: I hated the books passionately. Not quite as much as I hate Twilight, but it's up there.

With the Careers (reps from Districts 1, 2 and 4), at least, they are trained killing machines. Most of them (except Finnick) I'd place as neutral on the good-evil axis... at best

That does not make them an ethical challenge for the protagonist. She never really has to make a tough decision(and in fact, in the books and movie, isn't particularly good at making decisions at all). An ethical challenge would be, for instance, being forced to choose between options like killing a fairly good person(say, Rue) and dying herself. For a bunch of children forced to be in a deathmatch, they really go out of their way to keep the good and bad pretty black and white.

[The_Shaman]

That does not make them an ethical challenge for the protagonist. She never really has to make a tough decision(and in fact, in the books and movie, isn't particularly good at making decisions at all). An ethical challenge would be, for instance, being forced to choose between options like killing a fairly good person(say, Rue) and dying herself. For a bunch of children forced to be in a deathmatch, they really go out of their way to keep the good and bad pretty black and white.

Really? I'd say that for most people, killing anyone is supposed to be a tough decision, even if you don't like them. Sure, the book tries not to put the character in some really prickly dilemmas, but it was supposed to be a teenager book, wasn't it?

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but didn't the protagonist initially still have some block when it came to killing people, even "bad" ones?

[Devonix]

Really? I'd say that for most people, killing anyone is supposed to be a tough decision, even if you don't like them. Sure, the book tries not to put the character in some really prickly dilemmas, but it was supposed to be a teenager book, wasn't it?

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but didn't the protagonist initially still have some block when it came to killing people, even "bad" ones?

Also a lot of that Good, Bad is part of the point. They aren't bad in the way that Tyndmyr means. The're Careers are kids put through gladiatorial training, taught that their entire purpose in life will be to fight and die for the pleasure of people who see them as less than human and that they will be expected to play up the "Badguy" image for the crowds because that is something that will help them to survive there.

Remember the whole thing is televised the participants act the way they do for very dubious reasons, Even Catniss and her fake romance with Peta.