Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

[Aardvaarkman]

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]

... 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]

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]

... 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]

Uh, when did Bob say there was an anti-gay subtext?

The whole Ted Nugent attacking San-Francisco part.

who has every quality that society considers beautiful

Introversion and PTSD are considered beautiful?

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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?

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.

Ahem.

Excuse you.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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?

who has every quality that society considers beautiful

Introversion and PTSD are considered beautiful?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[BonGookKumBop]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

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.

But you said in your post that Bob as talking about an anti-gay subtext when he mentioned Sailor-Scout Ted Nugent attacking San Francisco. You were agreeing with another poster who said it was about a gay agenda. You may want to re-read your own posts and what they were responding to.

I thought Bob's comments were purely about the visual connotations - LGBT parades tend to be ornate and overly-colorful (like the people from the Capital), while Ted Nugent pretends to be salt-of-the-earth normal (like the people from the districts). Both seem to be overwrought extrapolations, hence Bob's sarcastic comment about over-reaching.

It was a joke, hence the

Sorry, I don't speak emoticon. They are the worst thing humans have invented apart from Facebook or Zyklon-B.

 

[Silverspetz]

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.

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.

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.

But that's not the darker side of Hollywood. That's the darker side of the Hollywood AUDIENCE. Hollywood makes it's policies and movies based on what WE like, and what we like is often times to see people suffer. Collins isn't criticizing what goes on behind the scenes as much as she is criticizing the REASON why those things are a part of the Hollywood system. There is no reason to be "Anti-Hollywood" when it is the lowest common denominator and their tastes that is the underlying problem.

There was nothing "smug" about it. An analysis can never be fact and claiming yours to be such is hubris.

 

[wulf3n]

But you said in your post that Bob as talking about an anti-gay subtext when he mentioned Sailor-Scout Ted Nugent attacking San Francisco. You were agreeing with another poster who said it was about a gay agenda. You may want to re-read your own posts and what they were responding to. I thought Bob's comments were purely about the visual connotations - LGBT parades tend to be ornate and overly-colorful (like the people from the Capital), while Ted Nugent pretends to be salt-of-the-earth normal (like the people from the districts). Both seem to be overwrought extrapolations, hence Bob's sarcastic comment about over-reaching.

Anti-gay Subtext != "this or that message". Bob was implying that the movie was from certain vantage points [read: the hyper sensitive] could be inferred as as anti gay.

Sorry, I don't speak emoticon. They are the worst thing humans have invented apart from Facebook or Zyklon-B.

Noted. I'll [facetious playfulness]endeavor to use the faux html tags instead[/facetious playfulness]

 

[DementedSheep]

I have friends who want to see it so I probably will at some point.
I think part of the problem is they are trying to make a movie out a story that is not really meant to be entertaining and they are doing it without wanting a high age rating. The books are also told from Katniss viewpoint. A lot of it is her internal monologue which is hard to work into a movie especially when the character is very introverted and doesn't talk to other characters much.
With impression I got from the first movie and the first book (I've not read the others so it could change or I could be misremebering the book because it was quite a while ago) having interesting gracious fight scenes would be a bit hypocritical because it seems to be trying to critique that sort of glorification among other things. So a lot of it happens off screen (which is also a product of being written from her veiwpoint, you only see what she was actually involved in), is anticlimactic (wasps, poisonous berries) or is just quick and brutal (snapping someones neck, sudden spear through the chest with no time to react) with the focus more on how Katniss responds to it than the actual violence itself. The fighting and action is not the point of the book. If you?re going to really show it to get the point across it would need a higher age rating than they would want because it isn't meant to be fun to watch.
The only long extended fight I can recall from the book was with Cato and that ended pretty much the same as the movie only he was fending off those dog things for what seemed like hours with Katniss and Peeta wishing he would just die so the screams would stop before she mercy kills him.
I don?t think Katniss is really meant to be a perfect badass heroine either. From what I've heard she isn't even very active in later books. The capitol is making her out to be one because that is more fun to watch but for her it?s a traumatizing experience which she is just trying to survive and it leaves her with PTSD.

Now if only the book spent less time on her dress and that cave scene, had less how the F dose that work technology and better writing in general.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I haven't read the books. and to be honest I don't understand what's so special about Lawrence other than she seems to be able to not be a drug addled mess like all other young actors. but I saw the first movie and my girlfriend accidentally bought the third hunger games book off audible a while back. we even tried listening to it on a road trip, got about 20 minutes in before the slog was too much.

I get really angry about series that do what this one does. which is simply to keep doing things TO the protagonist and having her basically refuse to go along with anything be the default reaction. like we were listening to the 3rd book, where all the important stuff should be happening, and you know what we got. a lot of talk about how the revolutionaries are just using her as a symbol and she's not happy about it but she's not doing anything about it either. and I guess in the 3rd book one of her love interests is dead. like dead dead, and she is still doing the back and forth of who does she really care for.... it's process of elimination sweetheart you only have one choice left. yet she agonizes over it. she gets caught up in all these different goings on but steadfastly refuses to participate one way or the other. I know if she was all gung ho about killing we wouldn't be supposed to like her but there comes a point in every show/movie/book/whatever that the main character has to make an active decision to participate in their own story in order to be the master of their own fate and get things done on their terms. and as far as I can tell katniss,(ugh) never gets to that point. it's just freaking boring.

also do this day favorite joke on hunger games "it's like running man without Arnold Schwarzenegger." Which if you haven't seen running man do yourself a favor and go watch it, before or after hunger games it's still a vastly superior movie.

Holy crap! That's why I instinctively hate her guts! She's a Shinji [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinji_Ikari]!