Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
I just walked back in the door after watching Catching Fire and I've got to say I really enjoyed it. Jennifer Lawrence was even better this time around and while the setting is hard to believe in, it has elements to it that easily explain why so many people like it.

What makes the most compelling stories are
romance,
romanticism,
characters you can idolise,
and politics.

I feel certain I'd have come up with the same list even without having just watched this film, but Catching Fire has all of them.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
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.
 

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
Camaranth said:
I haven't seen the films but I did read the books. It's kind of unfortunate that I went into them with the "its a battle Royal knockoff" mindset. It sounds like the film follows the events of the book quite closely.

The way Katniss was written still confuses me. It's like she was meant to be this total bad-ass, do anything for her family, tough, brave and willing to fight but the way she acts is almost the total opposite. The running and hiding I get, I think the smart thing to do in that senario is to hide and let the others kill each other off and then you, being rested, have the advantage on the guy who just fought 12 other people and flying monkeys. But in everything else she just comes across as kinda pathetic (especially in the later books). Still I'd rather have my young relatives reading/watching her than what's her face from twilight.
From what I am given to understand, at least from reading *about* the book from a librarian post on my library message board, is that Katniss is suffering from PTSD all through the second and third books. That, no matter she was hunting animals to survive in her home district, killing people is very different from hunting an animal to survive. Forcing kids to kill is not likely to end well. It's why she's such an emotional wreck later on in the books and films- and she never really gets over it, leaving her emotionally paralyzed, and probably ensuring the end of her life after the third book is not going to be very good or happy even though (spoilers)

The Hunger Games finally end at the end of the third book, Mockingjay.
 

S1leNt RIP

New member
Feb 15, 2011
68
0
0
Draconalis said:
I'm going to be "that guy".

I don't even want to give this series a try because Battle Royal already exists and is awesome.

I would just spend the entire time comparing it to Battle Royal... and I doubt it can compete.
That's the weird thing too. I watched Battle Royal after having read (maybe even seen Hunger Games 1) and they seemed so dissimilar to me. The entire production was so different. The ONLY piece of commonality was that children fought to the death. Tone, themes, characters, all almost completely different.

I really don't get the out of hand dismissal and comparisons. I think Hunger Games quite different.


As for the movie, as someone who read the books and enjoyed them (I am an optimist though) I REALLY enjoyed this movie. I would go so far as to call it the most faithful book-movie adaptation I've ever seen, and an excellently acted, thoughtful and serious depiction. It was also VERY well paced! Some of that likely came from knowing what was coming, but then again, it's been a while since I've read it, and pacing was one of the many problems with the first one.

In any case, cheers mates!

Edit: Read through more comments. Sorry to find that you're just a troll dude! I was ready to elucidate some muthafukaz!
 

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
So it's the All-Stars spin-off of Hunger Games, I take it?

I think a part of the problem is the fact that it's PG 13, and for soem reason a hero can't kill even when their life is in danger.

That said, as for the faye vs. rest of the world stuff, I kind of draw some disagreement here. AND I'M USUALLY ONE OF THE PC PEOPLE SIDING WITH BOB ON THIS.

Every civilizationt that's doing well, finally creates an industry around fashion, makeup, and vanity. This is where the Fop stereotype comes from. Even now, in "heteronormative" terms it happens in PUA circles as "Peacocking". As for sci-fi, it's been a tradition since Star Trek or 60's Sci Fi. I mean, look at Plato's Stepchildren even.

That said, the point about visual shorthand is a very good one.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
The offscreen killing thing is unfortunately also a problem with the book. Although it is important for the story that it is truncated, I'd rather have seen the games actually play out properly in the bizarre arena, with Katniss being a bit more proactive.
 

Lex Darko

New member
Aug 13, 2006
244
0
0
I don't think it's fair to compare Hunger Games to other actions movies though; it's a drama most of the conflict is not combat related at all. But I went to see the second movie without watching the first I was aware of the plot.

I enjoyed the story of a person essentially being thrust into the position of leader and symbol of a revolution she wants no part of and tries multiple times to run away from. She has the skills of a trained killer but gets no joy using those skills even none combat situations. She suffers ptsd, guilt and regret as a result of the hunger games but is threaten with death to her family and friends and forced to put on an act that would have continued for the rest of her life.

In most hero's journey story there's a point where you just feel like the protagonist is just being an ass and needs to man up and get shit done a perfect example would be Evangelion's Shingi. This movie show well and justifiably just why she tries to reject the call to action and rebel and I really like that.

My favorite character from the movie has to be Effie Trinket. In my opinion her character shows that underneath all the hedonism, propaganda, and willful ignorance that the people of the capital are still people with a sense that the system is wrong but essentially feel powerless to change it and compelled to keep the status quo (think the silent moderate republican).

The biggest thing the movie didn't do was show emerging discontent that was rising in the capital, but since there are more movies planned I'm not surprised this isn't in the second movie.

I'm not saying this movie is great but it isn't bad just don't expect an action movie.

To me comparing this to Battle Royale would be like comparing Children of Men to The Running Man, just a bad comparison.

Edit: Sorry made this post at 3 am mixed up blade runner and the running man
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
Has anyone ever noticed that when there is a movie that has conservative undertones, MovieBob will almost always give it a "less then good" review?

Just be patient Bob, 2 more movies to go.
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
blah blah Battle Royale blah blah Hunger Games. (Also... Running Man, Death Race 2000, Surviving the Game, Rollerball, Gamer, The Most Dangerous Game)

I have to wonder what your movie collections look like.

"This is my one horror movie, my one comedy, my one drama and my one action film. All others are just variations on a theme and therefore unworthy of time and energy."



Oh yeah... the review.


I can't say I disagree at all. The movies are a little bit on the dull side and it's hard to get emotionally invested in the various goings on when nothing of consequence seems to be actually going on most of the time.

I place the blame on that squarely on the adaptation of the source material. The books are all told in first person perspective which means we have little to no characterization for the supporting cast beyond those that Katniss provides. This isn't helped by her characterization as a self guarded introvert, it just means she doesn't really socialize with them enough for the reader to develop an understanding of their personalities.

This also kinda addresses the point of technology as magic. In the books, since Katniss only knows the technology from scant first hand experience there's no need for her to know, and therefore no need to explain to the reader how the Capital is able to do anything it does. The closest thing the reader gets is a loose explanation that a lot of it is leftover from the rebellion wars.

Resulting in out of nowhere werewolf attacks for example.


All things said and done neither the books or the movies are terrible, they're just nothing particularly exciting either.
 

TheUnbeholden

New member
Dec 13, 2007
193
0
0
So its basically like the first movie. Good premise, good actors, potential for some good action with underlining themes/morals to leave us thinking... on execution though, a very average movie. The first movie had 3 main issues, its at odds with itself, while the Heroine is seen as a extension of the people she is fighting for, honorable, valiant to a fault, yet she spends alot of time sulking & being pretty high strung for a "heroine of the people"..
a great setting for action that is supposed to serve as entertainment for the upper class... yet most of it is running and hiding, badly shot shakey cam, or happening offscreen.
the series has the whole extreme idealogies, political underlinings and rather violent novels and yet its a PG13 movie with barely any blood. Aren't we supposed to be getting shocked by children getting gruesomely killed? Pussying out and not showing it (or underplaying it) is counterproductive to the overall message.

I get Movie Bob's issue with the whole conflicting story aspect of "why keep people in poverty if a machine can create all this vegetation and animals", and how hamfisted the whole thing can seem.. but the bigger issues are far more problematic. The movie is at odds with itself!

Battle Royale doesn't have any of those issues, not to mention it had commentary on Japanese society, which eventhough it was about the Japanese school system & the larger society, much of it can be applied to Western society. The divide between the youth and teachers/parents/political figures, and the lengths the elderly go to discipline youth.
The misunderstood youth (ie one random class from one random highschool shipped off to an island) being forced to fight for their lives because of a growing national problem of youth violence, gangs and school shootings. A countries fear coming from within rather than outside forces, and the political climate selling the point that in order to overcome this problem it must force the message to the rest of Japan's school system that youth violence will only lead to their own downfall, while also combating the rising population problem.

Hunger Games substituted this divide with rich vs poor, and the poor being mostly in the form of children. I don't see that as any more or less hamfisted a premise, its just when you paint as the rich being so obviously evil & foppish, it kind drags everything down.
In Battle Royale its more clear from the only adult we can see, that being so absorbed with his work leaves him disconnected from his family... thats where it stems.

Also Battle Royale did something that no other film has for me, it deconstructs the nature of friendships, trust and our views on innocence. The problem of youth is the lack of any real open communication between youth or between youth and adults, but in extreme situations when guns are thrown into the equation, obviously everything is going to come out.
Penetrates the awkwardness/confusion, reveals the undercurrent of crushes/emotions... and by doing so gives them the experiences they need to overcome the reckless abandon of being a youth. The false nature of cliques are stripped away, friends turn on friends when survival is at stake.

The supposed "rebelliousness of youth" that larger society is afraid of, only comes out in 3 students. One that kills for revenge for being bullied, one that kills for mere pleasure and one that only does so in self defence but still does not want to be a part of the school system and hates adults (the 3 that seem slightly older than the rest).
The others seem to be driven to many other reasons, either trying to stay civilised/polite and hiding, suicide,
"killing to survive", or going crazy.
 

Silverspetz

New member
Aug 19, 2011
152
0
0
Draconalis said:
Silverspetz said:
Didn't you just say that you haven't even tried the Hunger Games? How do you know it isn't awesome?
Because it just can't compete... obviously.

Silverspetz said:
but no one looks at the execution
Funny you should mention the execution. I just watched a video about the two that informed me of how long it took for each movie to get to the kids killing kids aspect.

Hunger Games: 66 minutes

Battle Royale: 18 minutes, and two kids are kill before the game even started.
What does the time it takes to get to the killing matter? That is not what "execution" means. Part of the whole point of the Hunger Games is the time they take to build the games up before the killing. The interviews, the crowd-pleasing and preparations. Without that the social satire that gives the story its deeper meaning would fall flat.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
I do have similar feelings of "yeah i should like this movie but i dont".
As for your society question, it does not take much imagination to beleive how a ruling class can keep its subjects in relative poverty to be easier to control and feed false promises that keep the hope up. After all history has thousands of years for exampe.
The whole dome i think is a very very well done simulations. the birds, smoke, trees are not real they are artficially created by thousands of nanobots that can reassemble on command.
 

silasbufu

New member
Aug 5, 2009
1,095
0
0
Dr. Crawver said:
I have to admit I still don't get why it's so popular. I mean I had friends going to the midnight release of it. Why? It really isn't that good.
I think it's because of the books, heard they are quite popular and good. Still, not my cup of tea. My girlfriend was very excited though..and most women in the theatre. Maybe there's that.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
I'm suprised no ones brought up the fact that everyone in District 11 is black. What's up with that?

Maybe it's explained in the book but, all the other districts have a mix except that one.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
TheUnbeholden said:
I get Movie Bob's issue with the whole conflicting story aspect of "why keep people in poverty if a machine can create all this vegetation and animals", and how hamfisted the whole thing can seem.. but the bigger issues are far more problematic. The movie is at odds with itself!
Take this with a kilogram of salt as I only made it through half of the first book, but at a guess I would say that it would involve stabilising the rate of population growth. The women in the poorest sectors probably do not have access to decent quality eduction or reliable contraception. Those who are willing to knuckle down and cooperate wholeheartedly with the system that enslaves them would probably enjoy opportunities to further not only their station in life but the station of their children. This generational trickle of fresh blood would serve to offset the negative population growth of the upper classes. And remember, add salt to taste as this is all pure conjecture.
 

Demandred20

New member
Apr 13, 2013
37
0
0
wulf3n said:
I'm suprised no ones brought up the fact that everyone in District 11 is black. What's up with that?

Maybe it's explained in the book but, all the other districts have a mix except that one.
They are? Hmm "looks at the riot scene from film 1", looks like 50%ish black. Is this so different from places in the rural south that its supposed to be located in?
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Demandred20 said:
wulf3n said:
I'm suprised no ones brought up the fact that everyone in District 11 is black. What's up with that?

Maybe it's explained in the book but, all the other districts have a mix except that one.
They are? Hmm "looks at the riot scene from film 1", looks like 50%ish black. Is this so different from places in the rural south that its supposed to be located in?
In the first movie yeah, but in the second movie not so much.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
For a second there I thought they made a good movie this time.

I don't understand why Bob thinks that he's supposed to like these movies. He isn't. It's just like Twilight. A movie for teenage girls. It's nothing more than that.