The Hunger Games film thread

[Avilan the Grey]

Jennifer Lawrence is also teenage Mystique in X-men First Class. Dude, she's definitely on the pudgy side.

I agree with the bear: "Pudgy" is the Unattractive version. Jennifer is CURVY.

[Raistlin1040]

I thought it was about as good as Twilight.

Coming from me, this isn't a slam because I don't think Twilight is the steaming pile of excrement that the internet hivemind has decided it is. Rather, I think Twilight and the Hunger Games are both pretty average pieces of literature that have massive fandoms. I'm a bit disappointed that the obnoxious hatedom hasn't come out of the woodwork for the Hunger Games yet, since the best the Internet can muster for all of HG's flaws is "It's Battle Royale".

More specifically to the film, Jennifer Lawrence was good, Stanley Tucci was brilliant as always, Lenny Kravitz was surprisingly good. Rue was very good, Josh Hutcherson was awful, and most of the other characters were around average. The writing was pretty average as well, except for a few completely terrible bits.

Meh. 7/10 seems about right.

[Reverent-One]

I'm a bit disappointed that the obnoxious hatedom hasn't come out of the woodwork for the Hunger Games yet, since the best the Internet can muster for all of HG's flaws is "It's Battle Royale".

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

[The Glyphstone]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

You gotta feel sorry for Kristin Stewart in a way, what with Twilight having typecast her into the 'useless female love interest' role...a bunch of different roles as a young supporting actress, then Twilight, then the Snow White remake. My bad, I was confusing Snow White with the awful Red Riding Hood remake. Snow remains to be seen, if Stewart can play badass female lead as well.

[Reverent-One]

You gotta feel sorry for Kristin Stewart in a way, what with Twilight having typecast her into the 'useless female love interest' role...a bunch of different roles as a young supporting actress, then Twilight, then the Snow White remake.

Eh, looks like the Snow White movie is going the route of the new Alice in Wonderland movie, in which the female lead leads a rebellion against the evil queen. At least, that's what the trailer made it look like.

EDIT: I see your edit now, never mind then.

[Lord Seth]

I'm a bit disappointed that the obnoxious hatedom hasn't come out of the woodwork for the Hunger Games yet, since the best the Internet can muster for all of HG's flaws is "It's Battle Royale".

I don't know why you'd be disappointed. The Twilight hatedom is annoying enough (certainly more annoying than Twilight itself if you ask me), so why in the world would you want another one like it?

[BRC]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

Yeah. I don't see why Hunger Games would be expected to attract a Twilight-level Hatedom, unless the idea is that the Internet is suppose to reflexively generate a Hatedom for any popular female-targeted YA novel.

[North]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

I agree with this statement 1000%

I havent read the books. But the movie looked cool, even though I already know Battle Royale. I saw it last night, it was good. It slightly exceeded my expectations actually. And I was intrigued enough after watching it I picked up the books today.

What I disliked was the advertising about team peeta/ team gale.... frak am I sick and tired of that meme in advertising double ugh.

Oh and on the subject of the movies directorial style and the way they showed not just told. THANK YOU director/writer! I appreciated them not assuming I was an idiot and letting me think about the guy who was probably Rues dad and not handhold me by explaining it. I liked the way it was filmed as well surprisingly low gore/violence especially considering the start of the games.

2 thumbs up

[Psyren]

I thought it was about as good as Twilight.

That bad, huh?

In all seriousness, there's no hatedom for HG because it's not doing much to attract one. It's not out trying to "reinterpret" vampires and werewolves for no reason, it's not relying on a female "lead" that is unconscious for half the action scenes in her own story, and who spends almost all her waking hours trying to choose between the her male protective figures instead of finding ways to defend herself.

Katniss is independent; she hunts, she can survive in the wild for days on end, and though she also has two hunks to fawn over her, they are in no way the center of her universe.

In short, Katniss is a better role model because she doesn't define herself or her self worth by the men around her. Yet she's still unmistakeably feminine, and it's sad that I have to say that because it's not that hard a balance point to hit.

[Raistlin1040]

I had a big long post typed up about the role of gender in writing, the importance of context and fairness in judging a book, and literary analysis theory, but I decided that no one would really take it seriously because it made an argument that Twilight wasn't really that bad which is a cardinal sin on the internet and also because it was long.

You don't have to like Twilight. You don't have to dislike the Hunger Games. Ultimately however, I think they are of similar quality in writing ability, characterization, and interest. The biggest difference in the way they're viewed is that the Hunger Games is younger and was able to set itself up (though marketing, and also through fans, although that isn't the actual book's fault) as Twilight for people who don't like Twilight by attempting to intellectualize itself more than the subject matter really digs into.

[Lord Seth]

I never read The Hunger Games book, so I can't compare it with the Twilight book. But I did see Twilight the movie and The Hunger Games movie, and even ignoring various other reasons, I can definitely say I thought The Hunger Games was superior simply because I was substantially less bored watching it.

[Ursus the Grim]

I had a big long post typed up about the role of gender in writing, the importance of context and fairness in judging a book, and literary analysis theory, but I decided that no one would really take it seriously because it made an argument that Twilight wasn't really that bad which is a cardinal sin on the internet and also because it was long.

You don't have to like Twilight. You don't have to dislike the Hunger Games. Ultimately however, I think they are of similar quality in writing ability, characterization, and interest. The biggest difference in the way they're viewed is that the Hunger Games is younger and was able to set itself up (though marketing, and also through fans, although that isn't the actual book's fault) as Twilight for people who don't like Twilight by attempting to intellectualize itself more than the subject matter really digs into.

You're entitled to that opinion, and I think you're already aware that the majority of posters are going to disagree with you.

I'd be interested in reading this paper, if only for the fact that my best friend is getting her Masters in some Literature subtopic for other, and she's writing about the Hunger Games as a feminist distopian novel. She despises Twilight for its portrayal of a heroine and the Swan/Cullen relationship, not for its corruption of werewolves or vampires.

She's been working on this thesis for well over a year now, and I'm excited to read it. You could provide a link, perhaps, to this paper.

[Reverent-One]

I had a big long post typed up about the role of gender in writing, the importance of context and fairness in judging a book, and literary analysis theory, but I decided that no one would really take it seriously because it made an argument that Twilight wasn't really that bad which is a cardinal sin on the internet and also because it was long.

You don't have to like Twilight. You don't have to dislike the Hunger Games. Ultimately however, I think they are of similar quality in writing ability, characterization, and interest. The biggest difference in the way they're viewed is that the Hunger Games is younger and was able to set itself up (though marketing, and also through fans, although that isn't the actual book's fault) as Twilight for people who don't like Twilight by attempting to intellectualize itself more than the subject matter really digs into.

I have to really disagree with the the bolded part, it has basically nothing in common with Twilight beyond being a YA series with a female protaganist, and Twilight doesn't have the monopoly on that. Never have I heard a description from anyone who actually read the book that went along the lines of "It's Twilight, but good/better/not crap".

[Ursus the Grim]

I have to really disagree with the the bolded part, it has basically nothing in common with Twilight beyond being a YA series with a female protaganist, and Twilight doesn't have the monopoly on that. Never have I heard a description from anyone who actually read the book that went along the lines of "It's Twilight, but good/better/not crap".

People are drawing this conclusion because it has a similar demographic in its fanbase. The only other conclusion I can draw is because it has a female protagonist with two love interests. . . but if thats the basis it might as well be a Jane Austen novel.

There is, though, unmistakable overlap between the two fanbases. This doesn't necessarily mean its intended to be "Twilight for people who don't like Twilight."

Hell, Stephen King had decent things to say about it.

[The Glyphstone]

I have to really disagree with the the bolded part, it has basically nothing in common with Twilight beyond being a YA series with a female protaganist, and Twilight doesn't have the monopoly on that. Never have I heard a description from anyone who actually read the book that went along the lines of "It's Twilight, but good/better/not crap".

Well, it apparently also has marketing in common, if they're actually trying to make it a Team Peeta/Gale setup. But that's stupid Hollywood executives, not a quality of the book itself.

[Lord Seth]

She despises Twilight for its portrayal of a heroine and the Swan/Cullen relationship, not for its corruption of werewolves or vampires.

You know, I'm confused what complaint people have about "corruption" of werewolves. I understand the complaint about the "corruption" of vampires even if I disagree and think it's probably the worst reason to dislike the series, but the only thing I've seen people complain about in terms of werewolves is that they can change when it's not a full moon...just like plenty of werewolves in myth and legend.

Well, it apparently also has marketing in common, if they're actually trying to make it a Team Peeta/Gale setup. But that's stupid Hollywood executives, not a quality of the book itself.

Of all the advertising I saw for the film, I didn't see any kind of Team Peeta/Gale setup, but even so...I don't see how it's "stupid" if the film broke box office records. Obviously whatever advertising they did was effective.

[Reverent-One]

I haven't seen marketing playing up a Team Gale/Peeta angle though. Maybe I've just missed it.

[t209]

I haven't seen marketing playing up a Team Gale/Peeta angle though. Maybe I've just missed it.

Well,

Spoiler

Show

Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.

Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

[The Glyphstone]

Well,

Spoiler

Show

Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.

Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

Uh.....

Spoiler

Show

I think you have Gale confused with another character. The last mention of him in Mockingjay is alive and healthy.

What qualifies as 'redneck'?

[Xondoure]

Well,

Spoiler

Show

Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.

Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

Spoiler

Show

? When was Gale killed?

Spoiler

Show

I mean it

Spoiler

Show

Gale was partially responsible for Primrose's death but that's different than dying himself.

[Ursus the Grim]

Edit: Wow, double ninja'd. . .

You know, I'm confused what complaint people have about "corruption" of werewolves. I understand the complaint about the "corruption" of vampires even if I disagree and think it's probably the worst reason to dislike the series, but the only thing I've seen people complain about in terms of werewolves is that they can change when it's not a full moon...just like plenty of werewolves in myth and legend.

Well, it never really bothered me personally, but its kind of the "Our Demons are Different" trope. Technically, these werewolves aren't werewolves, but the descendants of a shape-shifting native-american spirit warrior. They also only 'phase' when vampires are nearby.

But they also use "Children of the Moon", which are entirely werewolves as traditionally considered. Confusing and frustrating, so I'll stop there.

I haven't seen marketing playing up a Team Gale/Peeta angle though. Maybe I've just missed it.

That aspect of the fandom certainly exists. I've seen kids with the Team shirts on, but I haven't seen it pushed very much in the marketing. Most of the Team shirts I've seen were actually home-made.

Well,

Spoiler

Show

Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.

Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

Your spoiler is wrong. Flat-out wrong. Seriously. Go look at the book again.

I don't think we've got a Draco in Leather Pants at this point, but Finnick may count for part of Book 2.

And what do you mean, Redneck? Didn't you ask earlier how Appalachian folk felt about it being based in Appalachia? I certainly hope the two questions aren't related. . . .

[t209]

Your spoiler is wrong. Flat-out wrong. Seriously. Go look at the book again.

I don't think we've got a Draco in Leather Pants at this point, but Finnick may count for part of Book 2.

And what do you mean, Redneck? Didn't you ask earlier how Appalachian folk felt about it being based in Appalachia? I certainly hope the two questions aren't related. . . .

Spoiler

Show

I think I got mixed up with The Books ending with Peeta and Katniss getting married.

Redneck (Appalachian) as in, how much redneck when compared to Deliverance, Beverly Hillybilly and Duke of Hazzard. Yes, it is not related.

[Lord Seth]

If you're going to spoil things related to future books, could you possibly mention that's what you're spoiling? I got some stuff ruined for me because I opened up spoilers I thought were for the movie but were actually for the future books.

[Battleship789]

Spoiler

Show

I think I got mixed up with The Books ending with Peeta and Katniss getting married.

Redneck (Appalachian) as in, how much redneck when compared to Deliverance, Beverly Hillybilly and Duke of Hazzard. Yes, it is not related.

Uh, none? You aren't going to be seeing anyone loafing around in a red/orange/yellow pickup truck, being obtuse, smoking a cigarette and wearing a wife beater, if that's what you mean by "redneck." Though, I'm not so sure about the "family tree that doesn't fork" part...the human race isn't very diverse/large in THGs world, IIRC. Yes, that is super stereotyping. And a Jeff Foxworthy joke to boot!

Think "Dystopian Society." That's it. The fact that District 12 is probably in Appalachia means nothing to the story other than providing a reasonable location for game hunting and coal mining. Book 2-3 Spoilers

Spoiler

Show

And Appalachia is a decent choice for an area that wouldn't get hit in a nuclear war.

It would work just as well in any other semi-mountainous terrain in another location on Earth or even another planet.

[Pie Guy]

Someone asked for a hatedom:

I think the Hunger Games is undeserving of the acclaim it's getting! There were some logical holes in the universe! The style of writing irritates me! Would not recommend!

Am I doin' it right?

[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.

From what I've read, one miner with good tools can get about two tons of coal per day. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, that's 1200 tons of coal per day. Sounds like a lot, no? That's 414,000 tons of coal per year, minus the twenty or so days of the Hunger Games, during which no one can work.

There's a problem.

The US currently produces 973 MILLION tons of coal per year. That means that District 12 produces, with extremely generous figures and tons of rounding up, only 1/2,350. Oh, and that's only 23% of our energy, the 1,946,000,000,000 pounds of coal we make every year. Not even a FOURTH.

Ok, we know that there was an enormous apocalypse, and they don't use as much electricity as we do (save District 1 and the Capital...), but still... the machines need a ton, and we see no alternate form of energy. This means that there is just 1/10,000th of the energy used today available then. Or, alternately, 0.001%. Yeaaaaah. That works well. Remember, too, that this is the power for the entire continental UNITED STATES.


Again, anyone can double-check my math, I'm sure I've messed up quite a bit. Still...

[AtlanteanTroll]

Are you ... This wasn't meant as hard SciFi. Calm down.

[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.

[Ravens_cry]

Are you ... This wasn't meant as hard SciFi. Calm down.

Actually, it basically is. No aliens, no impossible (except perhaps the dogs and the 'fire') tech, set on Earth.
This IS hard science fiction.
Just not the worlds best written hard science fiction.
I liked the movie, but I also like being a nit-picker, especially of things I enjoy.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Actually, it basically is. No aliens, no impossible (except perhaps the dogs and the 'fire') tech, set on Earth.
This IS hard science fiction.
Just not the worlds best written hard science fiction.
I liked the movie, but I also like being a nit-picker, especially of things I enjoy.

You can have hard SciFi with aliens. Hard SciFi is characterized by accurate scientific details, not by realism. (Well, it is, but I think you know what I mean.) So by definition, no, it is not.