The Hunger Games

OldeCinemaSoz

The Gorey Cinema.

Tomorrow.

Afternoon show.

WE hope to see you there!

:cool:

CaliforniaDream

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay so im a big fan of the books specifically the first which is by far the best of the three.
The movie was ok but it was never going to live up to my expectations unfortunately and thats mainly because its impossible to adapt books perfectly to screen as we had to learn 8 times with harry potter.

Going in my main concern was how they were going to convey Katniss's (main character) feelings and thoughts on the screen as throughout all the books there is a pretty constant inner monologue that is integral to understanding her character.
This was completely missing from the movie and they didnt really atempt to show the audience what was going on in her head. As a result any audience who hadnt read the book would come away thinking "oh shes a lovely girl who tried her best and fell in love etc" however from reading the book you realise at the end that she is a pretty selfish person who only deserves sympathy for the situation she is put in but not for the decisions she makes which are always based on what is she going to get out of it and never about the others involved.

The other problem i had was that someone somewhere decided that the best audience to market this at was the tweens. This meant all the violence, gore and blood from the books. which there is alot of, would have to be dramatically scaled back and in my opinion it was to the detriment of the film as the excitement and threat that is apparent in the book just wasnt there. Basically Kids were alive and then they were dead, there was no pain or suffering that was a constant part of the deaths in the books.

That being said they did manage to hit nearly all the major plotpoints that needed to be shown and also didnt make it all seem too rushed like previously mentioned adaptations (HP).
So yeah I dont know if id recommened people to go see it but if you do make sure to read the books, also if you dont go see it read the books.

As regards the thread I do find it funny all those complaining about it being a rip off of BR also admit to never having read the books, if you had you would realise all those "similarities" are only on the surface

I agree with a lot of this. I knew the movie wouldn't be as good as the book but I found it far inferior.
The inner dialogue is a major part in understanding Katniss and a lot about the Districts which weren't conveyed at all.
Gales character seemed out of place in the movie. He was just a guy who was shown every now and then.
If I hadn't read the book I would have been happy for him to be cut from the movie.

Lastly, I hated Peeta. I liked him in the books and got a full character. In the movie he was unlikeable (a major point in the books), weak and a bit nerdy or something.
I wouldn't have cast Josh in this role and feel he did a bad job.

tommyboy2222

Wow, didn't realise there was this many 12 year old girls on boards !

CaliforniaDream

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

Wow, didn't realise there was this many 12 year old girls on boards !

Why wouldn't there be?

Tar.Aldarion

Well it was just like a worse hollywood version of battle royale to me, although it had different themes yadayada, just on the surface.Holy **** your telling me arena based combat is not an original idea?!
(lol at saying battle royale is popular because of the violence, actually a complex film, and relevant to Japanese culture at the time).

Some very silly things in it. Still, it was an entertaining watch, didn't drag. Good film to eat popcorn with but has no replay value.

It's pretty much a bigger budget version of last years direct to DVD cheesefest The Arena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDyOXzDnww

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

It's pretty much a bigger budget version of last years direct to DVD cheesefest The Arena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDyOXzDnww

Except its not at all. Seriously can people get over their need to say its exactly the same as "other arena combat movie" and maybe read the books and see why its not?

Tar.Aldarion

How about you read the play of it and see why it is? oh no that makes no sense, we are watching a film

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Except its not at all. Seriously can people get over their need to say its exactly the same as "other arena combat movie" and maybe read the books and see why its not?

There are numerous similarities between the Arena and Hunger Games. Having read the first novel in the series the similarities between the HG, Battle Royale and the Arena are many. I'm not saying that it's a rip off or anything but there are numerous ways in which all three resemble one another.

don ramo

just seen it, great show, must say it was well paced parts i thought theyd drag out werent really dragged out,

katnis getting poisoned and healing peetas leg

, they just got on with the show,

i thought the love story would be hyped up to max and gotta say thanks to ross for not going there:D,

brilliant book translated to film, still the book is that bit better, as it is in 98% of cases:D

highly recomend seeing it

looking forward to the sequel, hopefully late next year:),

Mr E

I read the 3 books back to back a few months ago, so I was really looking forward to seeing how this turned out. I wasn't disappointed at all. I loved it and thought it was a great adaptation. When I read the book originally, I thought a lot of the build up (before the games) was actually pretty dull, but they seriously brought it to life on screen - fantastic costumes, makeup and spectacle.

The games themselves were a bit watered down (violence wise), but it was always easy to follow what was going on (with the small exception of the final fight), and they stuck to the book pretty rigidly. I really thought they did a great job with Rue too.

With regards to the complaints about Katniss' lack of inner dialogue, I've read that in a few reviews. It would have been hard to add that in without weighing the movie down unnecessarily. I thought Jennifer Lawrence did a good job conveying how she felt though her acting. She really has a bright future ahead of her.

Snake Plisken

My 11 year old daughter and her best friend wanted to go so I said I'd bring them, thinking it was going to be like watching the twilight crap I wasn't looking forward to it, but have to say was plesantly surprised that I actually enjoyed it! Jennifer Lawrence was excellent, as was supporting cast especially liked Woody & Lennie , great direction from Gary Ross, he didn't play up to the twilight type love story that he could have! Kind of looking forward to the next installment.

Kinski

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

(lol at saying battle royale is popular because of the violence, actually a complex film, and relevant to Japanese culture at the time).

I didn't say it was "popular because of the violence." I was saying that it gained notoriety thanks to its violent content and subject-matter (there were even questions asked about it in the Japanese parliament), and this helped it develop a cultish reputation. And the funny thing about cult followings is that they're often blind to the flaws of the object they cluster round...

But I saw HG yesterday, and it was even more boring than that BR. That's what I get for going to a YA movie!

johnny_ultimate

Kinski wrote: »

I didn't say it was "popular because of the violence." I was saying that it gained notoriety thanks to its violent content and subject-matter (there were even questions asked about it in the Japanese parliament), and this helped it develop a cultish reputation. And the funny thing about cult followings is that they're often blind to the flaws of the object they cluster round...

Well first time I watched Battle Royale (first film, not the misguided sequel or awful manga) I was actually surprised at how overhyped the violence was, and was genuinely shocked to discover a quite intelligent, well written film underneath. Subtle it most certainly isn't, but the characters interact interestingly throughout and the 'breakdown of order' sequences are handled very well while also dismantling many aspects of Japanese social interaction (the lighthouse scene, most notably). You don't like it? More than acceptable. However, it's a film I admire on far more than a blind devotional level. But hey, let us discuss this in another thread sometime, yeah?

Have barely any time at the moment, but will hopefully get around to THG in the next few weeks. Actually feels strange going to see a film that's going to be in the cinema for more than a week or two :pac:

Drumpot

Havent read the books and knew little about the movie before going in so had a low enough expectation.

I was very dissapointed. Thought it was very slow, boring in many places, didnt really have any characters I cared about, didnt have much humour, much action and didnt offer anything new I hadnt already seen. When you are going to see a movie, you usually want to see at least one of these things. I have gone in frequently to movies expecting little and enjoying a movie for the average run of the mill popcorn flick that offered nothing special but this really let me down even in that department. When I saw the trailor I wasnt too inte rested in going to see it (so if anything I had lower expectations then normal) and a friend asked if I would go with him.

Some people will love or like it which is fine as I have my own favourate guilty pleasure movies that others rightly despise (and I hate myself for enjoying!). I just cannot understand the hype . .

Kinski

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Well first time I watched Battle Royale I was actually surprised at how overhyped the violence was, and was genuinely shocked to discover a quite intelligent, well written film underneath. Subtle it most certainly isn't, but the characters interact interestingly throughout and the 'breakdown of order' sequences are handled very well while also dismantling many aspects of Japanese social interaction (the lighthouse scene, most notably). You don't like it? More than acceptable. However, it's a film I admire on far more than a blind devotional level. But hey, let us discuss this in another thread sometime, yeah?

Of course, I didn't mean to go on and on about it, but when another poster effectively goes "lol, what a stupid opinion!" I think it's understandable that I feel compelled to respond.

And I wouldn't recommend anyone go out of their way to see HG. As the above poster notes, it's dull and slow-moving. Woody Harrelson's performance was the only redeeming thing, but after a promising introduction, they didn't take his character in any interesting directions.

Phony Scott

I watched the film, I couldn't shake the feeling I was watching a nightmare Baden Powell recuitment film. The highly suspect salute the girl gives to the TV audience clinched it. Join the scouts, see the world, make a few friends, dyb dyb dyb at killing the rest...

Burgo

OldeCinemaSoz

There's no way I'm gonna rip this flick.

Kids will adore it.



I liked the nod to Pasolini's 120 DAYS OF SODOM though.

VinLieger

Phony Scott wrote: »

I watched the film, I couldn't shake the feeling I was watching a nightmare Baden Powell recuitment film. The highly suspect salute the girl gives to the TV audience clinched it.

Yeah they didnt really explain that part properly, in the books they explain its a very old traditional greeting from district 12 you give to loved ones etc and not a salute

Bullseye1

Solid enough movie but it did remind me of Battle Royal.

Kinski

There's actually one incredibly stupid aspect of this film which renders much of the plot pretty much illogical:

The only reason we are ever given for why attracting sponsorship is so important is because they can send aid packages to participants in the games. That's the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity. In the film, she gets packages three times IIRC. Twice it's some kind of healing balm. But how do these packages arrive? By ****ing parachute, which would totally give your position away. So you could be hiding up in a tree, seriously injured, and some helpful folk send you some balm, which alerts all your competitors - who are trying to kill you - to the fact that you're (a) probably injured, and (b) OVER HERE. And once it was just SOUP, which is pretty much the opposite of helping you. Unless those packages contained loaded guns, it's safe to say that, on balance, you'd be better off not getting them.

VinLieger

Kinski wrote: »

There's actually one incredibly stupid aspect of this film which renders much of the plot pretty much illogical:

The only reason we are ever given for why attracting sponsorship is so important is because they can send aid packages to participants in the games. That's the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity. In the film, she gets packages three times IIRC. Twice it's some kind of healing balm. But how do these packages arrive? By ****ing parachute, which would totally give your position away. So you could be hiding up in a tree, seriously injured, and some helpful folk send you some balm, which alerts all your competitors - who are trying to kill you - to the fact that you're (a) probably injured, and (b) OVER HERE. And once it was just SOUP, which is pretty much the opposite of helping you. Unless those packages contained loaded guns, it's safe to say that, on balance, you'd be better off not getting them.

Again its all explained in the books, how and why the packages happen. Basically there is huge gambling going on so the sponsors send packages to give their bet a better chance.

Notice for the first package Haymitch sent it while all the competitors were asleep. This is because the mentors are able to watch the show and know when it is or isnt safe to send the packages

Book spoiler below

There is a point in the book where katniss is dying from dehydration so she looks into the sky at the audience and asks for water but none comes, she takes this too mean from haymitch that shes very close to a source of water.

Skinfull

I only read the first book and I never finished it. (was on holidays, didn't bother continuing it) But when I saw the movie I couldn't help but feel like it was the second movie of a trilogy. I think it catered to the reader more than the viewer and some stuff just wasn't explained at all. Possibly this will become clear as the movies progress but I think it could have been handled better.

It was terribly paced and the camera work was all over the place, especially if there was anything interesting going on, on screen though I'm guessing this was so that the focus on the fighting was blurred and they could get the 12A rating.

Lirange

Kinski wrote: »

There's actually one incredibly stupid aspect of this film which renders much of the plot pretty much illogical:

The only reason we are ever given for why attracting sponsorship is so important is because they can send aid packages to participants in the games. That's the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity. In the film, she gets packages three times IIRC. Twice it's some kind of healing balm. But how do these packages arrive? By ****ing parachute, which would totally give your position away. So you could be hiding up in a tree, seriously injured, and some helpful folk send you some balm, which alerts all your competitors - who are trying to kill you - to the fact that you're (a) probably injured, and (b) OVER HERE. And once it was just SOUP, which is pretty much the opposite of helping you. Unless those packages contained loaded guns, it's safe to say that, on balance, you'd be better off not getting them.

That is not "the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity." It's more than just attracting valuable sponsorship gifts. It's being likable enough to the audience that the Gamesmakers themselves are more apt to manipulate the game in a more favourable way for you rather than against you. They want compelling contestants/storylines. It's the difference between life and death.

Kinski

VinLieger wrote: »

Again its all explained in the books, how and why the packages happen. Basically there is huge gambling going on so the sponsors send packages to give their bet a better chance.

Notice for the first package Haymitch sent it while all the competitors were asleep. This is because the mentors are able to watch the show and know when it is or isnt safe to send the packages

Lirange wrote: »

That is not "the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity." It's more than just attracting valuable sponsorship gifts. It's being likable enough to the audience that the Gamesmakers themselves are more apt to manipulate the game in a more favourable way for you rather than against you. They want compelling contestants/storylines. It's the difference between life and death.

None of this was clear to me from the film (unless I'm forgetting something, which is always possible.)

VinLieger

Kinski wrote: »

None of this was clear to me from the film (unless I'm forgetting something, which is always possible.)

Nope you didnt miss anything, it was just another thing that was explained through the inner monologue in the books that they didnt bother with for the movie

cynder

Didn't enjoy the film. if another one comes out I will watch it in hope that it is better.

VinLieger

So even people who have read the books apparently havent actually "read" the books that or they are just disgustingly ignorant racists.
BTW im going with the second option

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

Mr E

VinLieger wrote: »

So even people who have read the books apparently havent actually "read" the books that or they are just disgustingly ignorant racists.
BTW im going with the second option

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

That's just frightening. Mind boggling, in fact.