Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Rabidkitten

New member
Sep 23, 2010
143
0
0
Obviously the first book would have been "better" had the main characters taken the poison and no tribute was made. Which in an epilogue started the revolution that freed the districts. But still I do think the hunger games is pretty good, albeit low brow Orwellian.
 

Ashley Blalock

New member
Sep 25, 2011
287
0
0
wulf3n said:
VikingKing said:
This movie and Elysium both present the wealthy as being possessed of technology that renders traditional models of workforce composition ineffective and costly. But they exist anyhow to create that social commentary.

Frankly, when your hypothetical situation doesn't even make sense within the context of your own story, you had best go back and produce a motivation for your villains that isn't just 'I like being a jerk.' and nothing else.
Technology doesn't necessarily follow the path we assume.

While your statement is true of Elysium I don't really see it for The Hunger Games.

While the civilization in the Hunger Games has some advanced technologies what they don't have [or at least don't show] is any form of Artificial Intelligence, which is crucial in creating an automated workforce.
It does sort of follow the pattern of the ancient Greeks and Romans who had discoveries that could have resulted in labor saving devices but because of the abundance of cheap labor thanks to slavery that technology was never really exploited. For example the ancients had the basic understanding of steam power that could have resulted in steam engines, but with slaves to row the ships the ancients did not feel a need to replace the rowers with a steam engine. If there had been a shortage of labor then the steam engine might have came about in the ancient past.
 

Elijah Newton

New member
Sep 17, 2008
456
0
0
Elijah Newton said:
If it rises from 'made-for-tv' quality of the first one to 'average movie' I'll be politely surprised.
Having watched it last night I am, in fact, politely surprised. I get that this is no longer what the discussion is about but I found the quality to be vastly improved from its predecessor (no more incessant shaky-cam) in almost every regard. Also remarkable was, in hindsight, how much time the first movie had to spend world-building.

Lots of thoughts, none of which are probably interesting to folks here judging by the slant of comments. Suffice to say I've definitely sat through worse movies (and will again, no doubt) and this is not Battle Royale, nor is it trying to be any more than 1984 was trying to be Brave New World.
 

Coreless

New member
Aug 19, 2011
298
0
0
I just got back from seeing it today and while I did like it I found it absolutely depressing. Seeing how the disgustingly opulent treat the people of the outer districts really made my stomach turn. The movie was so despotic I was really shocked just how dark and oppressive the story really is and why teenagers seem to embrace it.

Please tell me I am not the only one that came out of that movie a little disturbed at seeing how families have embraced this as some kind of Twilight/Harry Potter alternative? The themes in this movie are leagues more darker then anything those movies ever where. It really is an Orwellian nightmare and I just hope kids are getting the right messages out of this movie.
 

Guiltyone

New member
May 10, 2013
19
0
0
Sadly, this was the last MovieBob review I'll watch. When I first started listening to his opinions, he was exited about movies. Now, he's just jaded and bitter. And what's with that Boston accent? I know that Bob is from Boston, I don't need to hear it every review.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
lord.jeff said:
The whole make up things isn't any different then what a lot of movies and Star Trek have done with facial hear, you're looking far to much into a simple visual queue.
A visual queue? Do you have to line up to see them or something?
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Delcast said:
... also, aren't we going a bit too overboard with the accent? We all know you can perfectly speak without it, so why force it so much?
I don't think he's forcing the accent, I think that's his actual accent. He has mentioned before that he has deliberately and self-consciously suppressed his Boston accent in the past. So, if anything, he's forcing it when he tries to speak without the accent.

Anyway, what's wrong with it? I say good for him for speaking naturally, rather than acting. Besides, even without the Boston accent, it's still a variation of an American accent. That variation may be preferable to you than the Boston one, but there's no such thing as spoken words without any accent.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Anti-gay subtext? Um... No. No, Bob.
Uh, when did Bob say there was an anti-gay subtext?

If the movie is "anti" anything, it is anti-Hollywood, anti-one-percent, anti-doing-disgusting-things-to-your-body-to-achieve-some-semblance-of-what-society-considers-to-be-"beautiful".
Yeah, right. A Hollywood blockbuster film is anti-Hollywood. A film that stars a popular young woman as the hero and victor, who has every quality that society considers beautiful, who defeats the ugly people is somehow an anti-beauty film?

Your argument isn't making any sense to me.

Seriously, critique the movie however you want, but don't spread that kind of baseless bullshit around.
Ahem.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Delcast said:
... also, aren't we going a bit too overboard with the accent? We all know you can perfectly speak without it, so why force it so much?
I don't think he's forcing the accent, I think that's his actual accent. He has mentioned before that he has deliberately and self-consciously suppressed his Boston accent in the past. So, if anything, he's forcing it when he tries to speak without the accent.

Anyway, what's wrong with it? I say good for him for speaking naturally, rather than acting. Besides, even without the Boston accent, it's still a variation of an American accent. That variation may be preferable to you than the Boston one, but there's no such thing as spoken words without any accent.
I don't know, maybe. To me it seems like he has begun going a bit overboard hoping it picks up like the UK sardonic reviewer style. It comes out particularly weird when parts of the review have the accent and parts of it don't. I just find it harder to follow and somewhat more conceited/less professional when he goes all bawstin: not only I don't feel it sounds natural (because it is so strong that is almost falls into parody), but it also seems to undermine the content and the message.
Of course political correctness dictates that I shouldn't mention this, but I really find that it hampers his reviews, so I'm not wanting to be offensive, just honest.

In any case I don't mean to criticize the accent itself (or any accent for that matter), but when you are trying to communicate effectively to a wide audience in an online platform, I think it's in your best interest to be more welcoming and all encompassing (at least to a certain degree). Does it water down the authenticity? Maybe... But I suppose great online entertainers learn to balance it effectively.
However! all said... never mind, he's free to do as he wants... and if it bothers me so much I can stop watching his reviews.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Uh, when did Bob say there was an anti-gay subtext?
The whole Ted Nugent attacking San-Francisco part.

Aardvaarkman said:
who has every quality that society considers beautiful
Introversion and PTSD are considered beautiful? :p
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
Uh, when did Bob say there was an anti-gay subtext?
Okay then, what else was he implying that he himself said was a bit of a reach?
Aardvaarkman said:
Yeah, right. A Hollywood blockbuster film is anti-Hollywood. A film that stars a popular young woman as the hero and victor, who has every quality that society considers beautiful, who defeats the ugly people is somehow an anti-beauty film?

Your argument isn't making any sense to me.
Probably because you didn't read the books, did you? That's right, the story's source material is a book, not the blockbuster. And you're right, they glamorized Katniss as a gorgeous and powerful near-perfect starlet with flawless skin as portrayed by celebrity actress Jennifer Lawrence instead of the pale, under-fed skin-and-bones scrawny unwashed urchin with her curly-haired legs that she hated having to get shaven and waxed every time she was forced in front of a camera. The disgust she would express by ridiculous get-ups and make-up that made the capitol people look almost inhuman in their quest for attention and trends. The insecurity she felt in being forced to fake everything about herself to play to the audience's expectations of her so that she may survive another day in the arena. The outrage she had upon learning at a back-room VIP party that she was expected to use built in facilities for guests to vomit the food they had just gorged themselves upon so that they may continue to eat more.

You're absolutely right, sir. None of this is a metaphor for "Hollywood". At all

Now, I get it, you're only exposure to the series was more than likely the movies, and the movies have clearly shifted the accusing finger less upon the darker side of Hollywood and more towards Hollywood's favorite target: the one percent (though the idea of people suffering for other's entertainment isn't exactly a theme that screen writers could ignore when adapting the books to film). But it's impossible to ignore that the character of Katniss in all her roughness and terrible charisma was meant to be as anti-Hollywood as a character can be, right down to her complete resistance to participate in the rebellion as shear propaganda.
Aardvaarkman said:
Excuse you.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
wulf3n said:
The whole Ted Nugent attacking San-Francisco part.
And you don't think that could be an aesthetic reference rather than a gay agenda thing? I mean, he specifically says, just seconds prior to that, that it would be stupid to consider it an anti-this-or-that message. Did you not hear that bit?

wulf3n said:
Aardvaarkman said:
who has every quality that society considers beautiful
Introversion and PTSD are considered beautiful? :p
Yes, they often are, but that was not my point. A young, slim, conventionally attractive young woman is not what society considers beautiful? If the message was about anti-beauty, then why isn't the star older, with sagging breasts and missing teeth?

Are you really trying to claim that the star of this film isn't conventionally attractive?

And on the flip-side, the wealthy people seem pretty unattractive to me - caked in makeup, ridiculous costumes and wigs. Perhaps that's your thing, but I think most people would consider a young, fit person who doesn't need makeup to be the more attractive specimen of human being.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Probably because you didn't read the books, did you? That's right, the story's source material is a book, not the blockbuster.
You mean the book, which was also a blockbuster?

You're absolutely right, sir. None of this is a metaphor for "Hollywood". At all
So, if the book was so anti-Hollywood, then why did the author allow it to be sold to Hollywood?

If it was all about the poor starving people against the 1%, then why wasn't it distributed for free, or for charity, instead of aiming to make huge profits on the back of popular tropes?

But it's impossible to ignore that the character of Katniss in all her roughness and terrible charisma was meant to be as anti-Hollywood as a character can be, right down to her complete resistance to participate in the rebellion as shear propaganda.
So anti-Hollywood, she was crafted to make Hollywood hundreds of millions of dollars. Yeah, that'll stick it to those fat cat Hollywood types.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
TheDrunkNinja said:
Probably because you didn't read the books, did you? That's right, the story's source material is a book, not the blockbuster.
You mean the book, which was also a blockbuster?

You're absolutely right, sir. None of this is a metaphor for "Hollywood". At all
So, if the book was so anti-Hollywood, then why did the author allow it to be sold to Hollywood?

If it was all about the poor starving people against the 1%, then why wasn't it distributed for free, or for charity, instead of aiming to make huge profits on the back of popular tropes?

But it's impossible to ignore that the character of Katniss in all her roughness and terrible charisma was meant to be as anti-Hollywood as a character can be, right down to her complete resistance to participate in the rebellion as shear propaganda.
So anti-Hollywood, she was crafted to make Hollywood hundreds of millions of dollars. Yeah, that'll stick it to those fat cat Hollywood types.
Yeah, it's probably hypocritical of Suzanne Collins.

No, it doesn't make my analysis of the series' theme and message any less undeniable fact.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Aardvaarkman said:
And you don;t thick that could be an aesthetic reference rather than a gay agenda thing? I man, he specifically says, just seconds prior to that, that it would be stupid to consider it an anti-this-or-that message. Did you not hear that bit?
It's not saying that he was implying the movie was an "an anti-this-or-that message" but rather he believes that the visual metaphors within the movie imply a fashion obsessed upper class culture as being indicative of the LGBT culture.



Aardvaarkman said:
Yes, they often are, but that was not my point. A young, slim, conventionally attractive young woman is not what society considers beautiful? If the message was about anti-beauty, then why isn't the star older, with sagging breasts and missing teeth?

Are you really trying to claim that the star of this film isn't conventionally attractive?

And on the flip-side, the wealthy people seem pretty unattractive to me - caked in makeup, ridiculous costumes and wigs. Perhaps that's your thing, but I think most people would consider a young, fit person who doesn't need makeup to be the more attractive specimen of human being.
It was a joke, hence the :p
 

BonGookKumBop

New member
Feb 24, 2010
60
0
0
So I'm sorry to rain on people's parades, but the book does a really good job of describing the capitol like San Francisco. I give you page 61 of The Hunger Games, in which Katniss complains about the capitol accent:

"Why do these people speak in such a high pitch? Why do their jaws barely open when they talk? Why do the ends of their sentences go up as if they're asking a question? Odd vowels, clipped words, and always a hiss on the letter s . . . no wonder it's impossible not to mimic them." (emphasis added)
While I do not feel this is pushing a feeling of homophobia into the books, the imagery in the books is very strongly San Francisco culture. One thing to remember is that the books strive to maintain that the leadership is the enemy and not the citizens. Although the citizens of the capitol initially represent that leadership, the second book shows them as a different type of controlled people who get just as frustrated with their own leaders. The leadership just uses another tool to control them. Instead of manual labor, the leadership uses decadence and self indulgence to keep the capitol in line. The president keeps them so concerned about stars, celebrity weddings, and keeping their own special rules that they ignore the problems of other places. We see this in our own politics on both sides of the isle. Certain groups will always vote certain ways because they have been promised that the rights of others will be taken away so that may gain or keep their own special rights.
 

Silverspetz

New member
Aug 19, 2011
152
0
0
TheDrunkNinja said:
Aardvaarkman said:
TheDrunkNinja said:
Probably because you didn't read the books, did you? That's right, the story's source material is a book, not the blockbuster.
You mean the book, which was also a blockbuster?

You're absolutely right, sir. None of this is a metaphor for "Hollywood". At all
So, if the book was so anti-Hollywood, then why did the author allow it to be sold to Hollywood?

If it was all about the poor starving people against the 1%, then why wasn't it distributed for free, or for charity, instead of aiming to make huge profits on the back of popular tropes?

But it's impossible to ignore that the character of Katniss in all her roughness and terrible charisma was meant to be as anti-Hollywood as a character can be, right down to her complete resistance to participate in the rebellion as shear propaganda.
So anti-Hollywood, she was crafted to make Hollywood hundreds of millions of dollars. Yeah, that'll stick it to those fat cat Hollywood types.
Yeah, it's probably hypocritical of Suzanne Collins.

No, it doesn't make my analysis of the series' theme and message any less undeniable fact.
Or she knows that she will be able to reach a lot more people if Hollywood makes her book into a movie. Anyway, I really don't see her subtext as "anti-Hollywood". All that stuff about Katniss being forced to put on an act, hide who she is, the disgust with wasteful eating is more criticism of the average Hollywood movie-goer than of Hollywood itself. She is criticizing the people who get a kick out of putting celebrities on a pedestal only to tear them down and how the only way for a celebrity to "survive" is to remain popular liked by the masses by any means necessary. Private-life and dignity be damned.


Oh, and while I overall agree with you analysis, you should never EVER call an analysis "fact". It is misrepresentative both of what the word "fact" means and of what an analysis is supposed to be.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
BonGookKumBop said:
So I'm sorry to rain on people's parades, but the book does a really good job of describing the capitol like San Francisco. I give you page 61 of The Hunger Games, in which Katniss complains about the capitol accent:

"Why do these people speak in such a high pitch? Why do their jaws barely open when they talk? Why do the ends of their sentences go up as if they're asking a question? Odd vowels, clipped words, and always a hiss on the letter s . . . no wonder it's impossible not to mimic them." (emphasis added)

That sounds more like a description of an LA accent to me.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
BonGookKumBop said:
So I'm sorry to rain on people's parades, but the book does a really good job of describing the capitol like San Francisco. I give you page 61 of The Hunger Games, in which Katniss complains about the capitol accent:

"Why do these people speak in such a high pitch? Why do their jaws barely open when they talk? Why do the ends of their sentences go up as if they're asking a question? Odd vowels, clipped words, and always a hiss on the letter s . . . no wonder it's impossible not to mimic them." (emphasis added)
While I do not feel this is pushing a feeling of homophobia into the books, the imagery in the books is very strongly San Francisco culture. One thing to remember is that the books strive to maintain that the leadership is the enemy and not the citizens. Although the citizens of the capitol initially represent that leadership, the second book shows them as a different type of controlled people who get just as frustrated with their own leaders. The leadership just uses another tool to control them. Instead of manual labor, the leadership uses decadence and self indulgence to keep the capitol in line. The president keeps them so concerned about stars, celebrity weddings, and keeping their own special rules that they ignore the problems of other places. We see this in our own politics on both sides of the isle. Certain groups will always vote certain ways because they have been promised that the rights of others will be taken away so that may gain or keep their own special rights.
Heh, to be honest, I think Bob only drew the San Francisco comparison specifically to drive home the homophobic message he felt the series was implying, and not for the many legitimate in-lore reasons you've brought up.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Silverspetz said:
Or she knows that she will be able to reach a lot more people if Hollywood makes her book into a movie.
Yeah, that's essentially what I had in mind, but I seriously wasn't interested in arguing semantics over what a writer might have been thinking when adapting their work into a movie. Doesn't mean she couldn't be considered a hypocrite on some level. Dunno, don't care, not the issue.

Silverspetz said:
Anyway, I really don't see her subtext as "anti-Hollywood". All that stuff about Katniss being forced to put on an act, hide who she is, the disgust with wasteful eating is more criticism of the average Hollywood movie-goer than of Hollywood itself. She is criticizing the people who get a kick out of putting celebrities on a pedestal only to tear them down and how the only way for a celebrity to "survive" is to remain popular liked by the masses by any means necessary. Private-life and dignity be damned.
That pretty much is the darker side of Hollywood, kid. You don't blame the victims of Hollywood, you blame the awful Hollywood system. The pressures and depraved acts that are committed behind the scenes in the name of Hollywood.

Silverspetz said:
Oh, and while I overall agree with you analysis, you should never EVER call an analysis "fact". It is misrepresentative both of what the word "fact" means and of what an analysis is supposed to be.
Heh, sure. Whatever makes you happy, sir. Thanks for the lesson. I've already done my fair share of lecturing that I'll gladly take that bit of smug advice with stride.