The Hunger Games film thread

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by AtlanteanTroll

You can have hard SciFi with aliens.

Sure you can, but not having them makes it easier.
Interstellar distances are big.
Not walk to the post office big, not to the moon big, not even to the Kuiper belt big.
Just . . .big.

[BRC]

Originally Posted by SamBurke

I know, I know. I'm a Dr. Who fan. I can life with terrible math and science squishier than week old meatloaf.

But the "programming" thing annoys me quite a bit, hard or not.

Fill me in on this "Programmed to psychologically destroy people" thing?

Spoiler

I've only read the first two books, but the closest I can get is the birds in Catching Fire that mimic the screaming sounds of the Tribute's loved ones, and those are basically just biological tape recorders.

I suppose there are the Wolf-Things in the first book that are supposed to look like the Dead Tributes, but I don't see how that's anything special beyond physical appearance.

[SamBurke]

The muttations?

It explicitly says, "they were programmed to play with their prey psychologically." That's pretty close to an actual quote... lemme see if I can find it in the book.

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by SamBurke

The muttations?

It explicitly says, "they were programmed to play with their prey psychologically." That's pretty close to an actual quote... lemme see if I can find it in the book.

Could be psychological programming. No need for that part to be genetic is there? Even if it is there is precedent for such instincts. Just look at house cats.

[Hazzardevil]

Originally Posted by Ursus the Grim

My generation is significantly younger than you, Grey, but we had our share of mystery books too. We still read the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. But we also had the Animorphs and Goosebumps. Call me young and desensitized, but I don't think the violence in the Hunger Games was terribly graphic or disturbing. No, seriously. Read the books and then watch the news, and think long and hard about which is more upsetting.

What makes you say that its marketed towards eleven-year-olds? I haven't met anyone younger than 15 who's read the books and I assure you by that point I would have at least realized there was a reason she was showing us the game operators, and honestly the violence wouldn't have phased. Then again, I'm a blood-thirsty American pig.

Your last point is mostly accurate but fails to make the distinction between biological maturity, psychological maturity, and the maturity as seen by society, which are probably roughly 15, 22, and 18-21 respectively.

I'd just like to say that in Britain England, Hampshire we have a competition each year where we read 6 books voted in by the people who are in the year above us in school. We're 12/13 at the time and the first book was voted the best book out of the 6 that year.
The books that year weren't paticuerly good that year, but Suzanne Collins didn't turn up to the award ceremony so people in hampshire are a bit jaded against her.

[Mauve Shirt]

What a terrible horrible good movie!
I've never read the books, so I can't complain about the myriad problems I'm sure there are. What I can complain about is the fact that at the beginning I was all "These rich people and the media and the government are despicable and I hope they die in a fiery explosion". The "Reaping" was just a horrible heart-wrenching scene.
Then of course the hunger games start and I start cheering for the main character and watching this battle royale as eagerly as the bad guys. SCREW YOU MOVIE!!!!
I enjoyed it and will watch the sequels and read the books.

[t209]

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/592902'
I did not watch the movie (or the book) but I think I know about the details about the Hungergames rules (spoilered due to sameness of the movies).

Spoiler

If you move too early before the elevator reach to the surface, it explodes.
pick up bag and run and proceed to kill each other.

[Pokonic]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

Could be psychological programming. No need for that part to be genetic is there? Even if it is there is precedent for such instincts. Just look at house cats.

Yeah, this is it. Aggressiveness, willingness to kill? Sounds like they might simply stick them within a cage for most of there short lives, probably injecting them with some nasty mind-altering substances for taste, and then they have there killing mechines.

[comicshorse]

Originally Posted by SamBurke

On that note, she really needs to take some basic biology and economics classes...

The "muttations" are "programmed" to psychologically destroy people. WUT. Seriously, woman, that is NOT HOW IT WORKS. You couldn't even do that to a flipping computer. Get DNA right, if you could, please.

Also, the entire energy sector numbers 8600. They make coal for everyone. There can be no more than
[1/2 Women, who appear not to work in that way. -4300- Innumerable guards, rulers, etc. Their families. -3800- 1/2 Children, who also do not work in such a way. -1900- Most people seem to also do other work (Bakers, Greasy Mae, Gale, Katniss, and almost everyone who's mentioned, except Katniss' father have jobs other than the mines). That leaves maybe a few hundred, let's say -600- to be extremely, extremely, generous.] 600 workers in the mines. That's being generous, too.

I'd think you're overestimating the number of gaurds/rulers. ( Especially as gaurds might be from the Capital and so not counted)
Also I'd guess children start working early (its not like the Capital will want them too educated)

[LokeyITP]

Reasonably sure the author researched almost nothing for the books anyway. There's just so much wrong in areas that are stupidly easy to research (i.e. 2 minutes on wikipedia) like archery, hunting, fishing, plants...

How did all that get by the 3 editors anyway?

[Psyren]

Originally Posted by LokeyITP

Reasonably sure the author researched almost nothing for the books anyway. There's just so much wrong in areas that are stupidly easy to research (i.e. 2 minutes on wikipedia) like archery, hunting, fishing, plants...

How did all that get by the 3 editors anyway?

If you think the majority of the audience of this movie cares about the finer points of archery and fishing, I've got a lovely bridge to sell you.

All it has to do is LOOK authentic, and then only to the most rudimentarily-trained eyes at best.

[Mauve Shirt]

True fact: Authentic hunting is boring to watch.

[Avilan the Grey]

Originally Posted by Psyren

All it has to do is LOOK authentic cool, and then only to the most rudimentarily-trained eyes at best to the majority of the paying audience.

"Fixed", as it were.

Anyway, this is correct; there is a reason "Just Didn't Care", "Rule of cool", etc are tropes. If you are lucky, they are the reason, and not just "Didn't Do Their research".

[Psyren]

Originally Posted by Avilan the Grey

"Fixed", as it were.

Oh indeed

But "looking cool" is the end goal - a veneer of authenticity is how you get there. For instance, Katniss' initial hunting scene, where we see her stalking the deer - she trails it by reading stuff like bent saplings and tufts of fur caught on a rock, then whiffs her initial shot because she was upwind of the target (and uses the leaves as a brilliant way of conveying this to the audience without saying a word.) Then finally she relocates downwind and only flubs the second shot because of Jacob Gale.

There's a lot there that does apply to real hunting - moving silently, staying downwind, tracing your target by the passage it leaves. And having her use that stuff is what makes it cool. (Even if in real life, her chances of navigating the woods both silently and without her neon pastiness giving her away to the target at a distance would be pretty slim.)

[Sneaky Weasel]

What's this? The Hunger Games? You mean the Battle Royale ripoff?
I'm never going to watch the movie, never going to read the books. Because frankly I suspect they will be the most underwhelming pieces of fiction since the 32nd Xanth book. I just liked Battle Royale too much to take the same plot seriously when it's a popular children's book(I know a ten year old who loves it). It should be far too horrible for children to be reading, and if it's somehow presented in a way where it's not, then it's lessening the impact severely.
Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.

[Reverent-One]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Weasel

What's this? The Hunger Games? You mean the Battle Royale ripoff?
I'm never going to watch the movie, never going to read the books. Because frankly I suspect they will be the most underwhelming pieces of fiction since the 32nd Xanth book. I just liked Battle Royale too much to take the same plot seriously when it's a popular children's book(I know a ten year old who loves it). It should be far too horrible for children to be reading, and if it's somehow presented in a way where it's not, then it's lessening the impact severely.
Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.

It's not the same plot though, it's based on the same concept (that is, kids being put in a fight to the death), but that's as far as it goes. And I do have some idea what I'm talking about, since I've seen the Battle Royal movie.

[Raymond998]

I personally just finished reading the book . been waiting to see the movie.

I started reading some of this thread, but I think I need to see the movie first, then come back.

looks like I have to watch Battle Royale and Hunger Games . no problem...

[Ursus the Grim]

Originally Posted by Reverent-One

It's not the same plot though, it's based on the same concept (that is, kids being put in a fight to the death), but that's as far as it goes. And I do have some idea what I'm talking about, since I've seen the Battle Royal movie.

I've personally got to agree. I don't think Susanne Collins meant to rip of Battle Royale. Specifically, the way she skirts graphic depictions of death/gore indicates that she isn't attempting to capture the essence of Battle Royale. Rather, the events of the Games themselves are just a cog in the much larger plot. The third book ties in the developments of the games themselves into something bigger than any game.

Never mind that the rules and challenges are a little different.

Originally Posted by Raymond998

I personally just finished reading the book . been waiting to see the movie.

I started reading some of this thread, but I think I need to see the movie first, then come back.

looks like I have to watch Battle Royale and Hunger Games . no problem...

Yeah, people like to point their nose to the sun and say its derivative of Battle Royale. Battle Royale is certainly good, if you like heaping spoonfuls of grimdark. But it's derivative in the same way Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a ripoff of Blade. . . honestly I can't recall which of the two examples came first, but the point is that a similar premise does not a rip-off make.

[Lord Seth]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Weasel

Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.

It didn't offend me, but it does make me wonder why you decided to come into the topic and post solely to announce you had no interest in the topic.

[0Megabyte]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Weasel

What's this? The Hunger Games? You mean the Battle Royale ripoff?
I'm never going to watch the movie, never going to read the books. Because frankly I suspect they will be the most underwhelming pieces of fiction since the 32nd Xanth book. I just liked Battle Royale too much to take the same plot seriously when it's a popular children's book(I know a ten year old who loves it). It should be far too horrible for children to be reading, and if it's somehow presented in a way where it's not, then it's lessening the impact severely.
Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.

What's that? Battle Royale? You mean that The Running Man ripoff?

I'm sorry, I just liked The Running Man too much to take the same plot seriously when it's just some stupid weaboo thing. I hope my bias doesn't offend you.



Prepare sarcasm shields to maximum.

[JadedDM]

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

It didn't offend me, but it does make me wonder why you decided to come into the topic and post solely to announce you had no interest in the topic.

Um, obviously. So we could all be in awe of the fact that he is aware of an obscure Japanese film that never made it to the States. Soooooo coooooool.

[Sneaky Weasel]

Well, I just thought that this was a thread for sharing thoughts about the Hunger Games movie franchise, and so I thought I'd give my two cent's worth. If that is somehow unacceptable, than I apologize.
I've never actually seen the movie adaption of Battle Royale, merely read the book, and I do not see how knowing about either would be awe-inspiring. Or was that a joke?
I can see the similarities between Battle Royale and The Running Man, but I honestly don't think they can be compared. The Running Man has a completely different plot. Whereas Battle Royale and The Hunger Games are about ordinary people forced to fight one another to the death in an enclosed environment, The Running Man is about one man who is being hunted down by the authorities and can literally go anywhere to avoid them. Similar, but certainly different enough to both be enjoyed without feeling like you're reading the same story twice. Which you aren't.
Whereas to me, The Hunger Games has almost exactly the same story as Battle Royale, and I much prefer the writing style of the latter. Whether it is a rip-off or not is really impossible to determine, but I don't care to read a plot that has been done before, and done better, in the past. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and I am certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from reading The Hunger Games. I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not my cup of tea, let's say.

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Weasel

Well, I just thought that this was a thread for sharing thoughts about the Hunger Games movie franchise, and so I thought I'd give my two cent's worth. If that is somehow unacceptable, than I apologize.
I've never actually seen the movie adaption of Battle Royale, merely read the book, and I do not see how knowing about either would be awe-inspiring. Or was that a joke?
I can see the similarities between Battle Royale and The Running Man, but I honestly don't think they can be compared. The Running Man has a completely different plot. Whereas Battle Royale and The Hunger Games are about ordinary people forced to fight one another to the death in an enclosed environment, The Running Man is about one man who is being hunted down by the authorities and can literally go anywhere to avoid them. Similar, but certainly different enough to both be enjoyed without feeling like you're reading the same story twice. Which you aren't.
Whereas to me, The Hunger Games has almost exactly the same story as Battle Royale, and I much prefer the writing style of the latter. Whether it is a rip-off or not is really impossible to determine, but I don't care to read a plot that has been done before, and done better, in the past. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and I am certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from reading The Hunger Games. I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not my cup of tea, let's say.

Congratulations, all literature is meaningless under your definition. Because every story has been told (and arguably told better) in the past. People have pointed out that the Hunger Games is more than just the games themselves, and that the story it explores is different. If you still refuse to believe the story has any merit whatsoever because of a passing similarity to an older work that is your business. But if you have never actually read or viewed the material than I'm not sure you really have two cents to share.

[Sneaky Weasel]

I did once start reading The Hunger Games, but left about halfway through because I didn't really like it. And while it can be said that every story has been told before, there are many stories that are an original and thought provoking take on some other story. Or stories that have been changed so that they are unrecognizable as having been done before. To me, The Hunger Games is just too derivative. However, I do not believe that it has 'no merit whatsoever', nor have I ever stated this. If something I said led you to believe that I had such an absolute viewpoint, then it was merely a misunderstanding of my intent. As I said before, I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not one I'm interested in reading. That's just an opinion, and I'm not trying to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't read. I know there are some books that I like that have questionable merit, and I don't take offence if someone else dislikes them.

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Weasel

I did once start reading The Hunger Games, but left about halfway through because I didn't really like it. And while it can be said that every story has been told before, there are many stories that are an original and thought provoking take on some other story. Or stories that have been changed so that they are unrecognizable as having been done before. To me, The Hunger Games is just too derivative. However, I do not believe that it has 'no merit whatsoever', nor have I ever stated this. If something I said led you to believe that I had such an absolute viewpoint, then it was merely a misunderstanding of my intent. As I said before, I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not one I'm interested in reading. That's just an opinion, and I'm not trying to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't read. I know there are some books that I like that have questionable merit, and I don't take offence if someone else dislikes them.

Apologies, that was hyperbole on my part.

[dragonsamurai77]

Originally Posted by LokeyITP

Reasonably sure the author researched almost nothing for the books anyway. There's just so much wrong in areas that are stupidly easy to research (i.e. 2 minutes on wikipedia) like archery, hunting, fishing, plants...

How did all that get by the 3 editors anyway?

Read the book, just saw the movie, and what really bugs me:

Spoiler

The forest fire. At least from what I saw, there were only a few small streams, and the entire rest of the area would be highly flammable. Thus, the fire would spread far more quickly and further than it did (the movie explicitly shows the fire on a "minimap"). The gamemasters do have quite a bit of control over the arena, but I don't believe they could have put it out very easily; they'd probably have to douse the whole area for hours (though this could have happened offscreen). Any thoughts?

[Xondoure]

Originally Posted by dragonsamurai77

Read the book, just saw the movie, and what really bugs me:

Spoiler

The forest fire. At least from what I saw, there were only a few small streams, and the entire rest of the area would be highly flammable. Thus, the fire would spread far more quickly and further than it did (the movie explicitly shows the fire on a "minimap"). The gamemasters do have quite a bit of control over the arena, but I don't believe they could have put it out very easily; they'd probably have to douse the whole area for hours (though this could have happened offscreen). Any thoughts?

Spoiler

They seem to have pretty impressive control over their traps. A flame retardant border / flooding the area with nonflammable gas which is then vented / something else would hardly be surprising.

[dragonsamurai77]

Originally Posted by Xondoure

Spoiler

They seem to have pretty impressive control over their traps. A flame retardant border / flooding the area with nonflammable gas which is then vented / something else would hardly be surprising.

Spoiler

Entirely possible. I'm not discounting them having a method of containing it, simply observing that it was never shown, nor was there any sign of the fire spreading, which I think it would if left unattended, though I'm no expert.

[Wookieetank]

Originally Posted by dragonsamurai77

Spoiler

Entirely possible. I'm not discounting them having a method of containing it, simply observing that it was never shown, nor was there any sign of the fire spreading, which I think it would if left unattended, though I'm no expert.

Spoiler

In the books they showed that the gamemasters had control over everything from the temperature, to the weather, to whether or not the streams and lakes even contained water. The fire went out off screen in the book as well, but with the rest of the craziness that the gamemaster did there, it wasn't so hard to rationalize. In the movie however, they weren't shown to have quite as much control of every aspect of the areana as in the books, and the lack of fire damage was a bit of a head scratcher.

[Ravens_cry]

Originally Posted by Wookieetank

Spoiler

In the books they showed that the gamemasters had control over everything from the temperature, to the weather, to whether or not the streams and lakes even contained water. The fire went out off screen in the book as well, but with the rest of the craziness that the gamemaster did there, it wasn't so hard to rationalize. In the movie however, they weren't shown to have quite as much control of every aspect of the areana as in the books, and the lack of fire damage was a bit of a head scratcher.

Spoiler

Well, they already showed they could make fake fire. Remember the dress and the parade costumes?