Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Rocklobster99 said:
Considering that a straight up Battle Royale movie would never fly in the west, this is probably the best we're going to get.
Though Battle Royale has been released this week on DVD in the US. That's one weird coincidence
 

Whytewulf

New member
Dec 20, 2009
357
0
0
stickmangrit said:
Whytewulf said:
My only problem with the review is he is critisizing things that couldn't be changed, which makes less interested in the review. If he wants to critisize the source material, he probably should read it.
thing is, the things he's criticizing were major problems in the book too. opening up the world beyond Kats perspective was something the story definitely needed, and without those additions there is absolutely no excuse for this movie being 2 1/2 HOURS while still managing to be impenetrable to non-fans.
I don't disagree. I wasn't 100% into the books, though a cool concept in my opinion, as I hadn't read anything like it before. Yes it may have been done before. I wouldn't have changed the names, and some things do work better in books than movies. YOu can visualize something better than it would look on the screen. Sadly, I think it was an R rated booked from a violence perspective, but again, in a book that's different than seeing it.

I will check it in the coming weeks and see, how it does translate.
 

Whytewulf

New member
Dec 20, 2009
357
0
0
moviedork said:
Whytewulf said:
My only problem with the review is he is critisizing things that couldn't be changed, which makes less interested in the review. If he wants to critisize the source material, he probably should read it.
Some things in books or comics don't translate well on the big screen, so changes should be made to make it more feasible for the average movie going audience who hasn't read the books. As long as it keeps the main themes of the story and it's characters, than changes should be welcome.
But that's my point, he seemed to want to change the characters.. not sure how changing their names would help. And to your point, they cut the violence down to bring in a bigger audience.. Mistake.. but then again.. I am sicko I guess.. haha..
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,840
0
0
I've only ever been passingly familiar with the Hunger games. I knew what the premise was, but it was never something that got my attention too much.

What I didn't know is that the books are targeted at teenage girls. That changes things a bit. It leads me to: a.) still not be interested in reading them, and b.) glad they exist.

As Bob pointed out, it's a nice contrast to Twilight. I even kind of like the whole fake relationship thing (spoiler alert: Catfish isn't really into the guy, but he's into her). There's a significant need for girls to have the same sort self-actualized, strong role models that guys do.

Speaking of which, anyone who hasn't read Mistborn, should do so. The character of Vin is one of the best characters in books and one of the best Female characters in any medium.
 

Sheamus

New member
Mar 28, 2009
83
0
0
hmm, I'm glad that I watched this, it's better to go in to it with a bit of lowered expectations, the books were an addicting read, not great, but hard to put down. If the scene with Rue doesn't move me in any way I'll be disappointed, other than that I'll just enjoy the show.
 

CommanderKirov

New member
Oct 3, 2010
762
0
0
Gilhelmi said:
Here lies the MovieBob.

OT: I am sad too hear that the movie did not live up to the books. I honestly think that the books are going to be the next great 1984
Whatever you ever say about anything ever. Do not compare The Hunger Games to George Orwell's work. It's like calling Mayer the Stoker of this generation.

And on the topic of movie, yeah I think I'll be better off with watching the Blue-Ray release of Battle Royale.
 

DarthFennec

New member
May 27, 2010
1,154
0
0
PunkRex said:
I mean the guy had a two week long swordsmanship course and gained the skill to leap off a swooping dragon, land on a firey bat demon and slay the warlock guy riding it... I mean bloody hell I just about learn't how to use photoshop in three weeks!
Yeah ... I guess they cut for time or something so the whole movie took a grand total of like four days to play out ... in the book he was wandering around and training for years before he got anywhere, and there wasn't any dragon leaping either, the movie completely changed the ending. In the book (if I remember correctly) he was just sort of cornered and about to die, but then the dragon knocked down a giant chandelier which fell on the bad guy and killed him. I guess that wasn't "epic" enough to put in the movie or something ...

I really like Eragon. I don't really care that it's basically A New Hope set in Middle Earth, it's just a good book. The sequels are excellent too, imo. But that movie ... bleah >.<
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,084
0
0
McMarbles said:
I have actually seen Battle Royale called, by a respected publication, "The Japanese Hunger Games."

Please join me in rage.
Oh God... what... please... say it ain't so... how... how can people be so stupid?
 

Adventurer2626

New member
Jan 21, 2010
713
0
0
Wow. I think this is the most at odds yet I've been with MovieBob. It's not even that I'm a raging fanboy either. Well at least before seeing the movie. Like MovieBob, (obviously since he's picking out plot stuff on it's own merit rather than relating it to the books; don't blame him, I haven't found a copy yet) I had no prior exposure. I was cautiously optimistic and now I'm blown out of the water onto a mountaintop or at least a decent sized hill.

I concede most of MovieBob's digs at the plot/exposition. There's not a terrible lot original if you go back 30+ years. However, that's something to talk to the author about. I'm not hearing OMFG DEY RUINED THA STORY!!111!!!1! from book fans so it seems to have done reasonably well for what it was given. It's not the film's fault, except that it apparently didn't make it interesting or exciting enough for some.

Yes, the dog things were weird. While I agree that the teen villains were 1-dimensional, you do realize that were "teens?" High school politics don't exactly take a bachelor's degree. This is just a violent manifestation of those same relationships. That being said I liked my high school better than the characters'. Less chance of being shanked or eaten by dogs. It's worthy of note that this is but Act 1 of the series. The cannon fodder were it seems solely for the purpose of fleshing out Katniss as a character. While this may not be a terribly conclusive, satisfying policy this is exactly the sort of thing pulled by George Lucas in Star Wars/A New Hope. Both are stand-alone's (though Star Wars was a bit more wrapped up, but only just) that serve to begin a greater story.

While the actors were not whom would have picked had I been given the roles to fill but I am pleasantly surprised by them all. Whether heroine, mentor, shady politician or pathetic underling all the actors that had major screen time showed good chemistry and to know their character. I particularly loved how Jennifer Lawrence shined as an actress at the scene preparing anticipating the begin of the games. She was shivering. Believably. You could tell what she was feeling but not to point of her going into convulsions.

I applaud your bravery in taking this side in the debate but there is a lot more to be said.
 

SnakeoilSage

New member
Sep 20, 2011
1,211
0
0
The tropes of this movie are as old as Theseus and the Minotaur, complete with romantic subplots. When I first heard of this movie I was reminded of Stephen King's "The Long Walk" written under his pseudonym Richard Bachman.

Suffice to say I never found much interest in it. I could tell right away this wasn't the next "Harry Potter" Hollywood was hoping to suckle from, but teenagers with disposable incomes latching themselves onto terrible books to fuel their juvenile projectionist fantasies decide these things, not me.

I mean you said it yourself, Bob. The idiocy of the whole premise is self-evident. But I guess if "stupid evil" wasn't the unspoken 10 alignment option the heroes wouldn't have a lot of bad guys to fight, would they? A lot of these stories seem to imply that good is dumb and/or lazy and the only reason heroes win is because evil decides to drop a few IQ points just to give the good guys a sporting chance. Seriously, this whole bleak future seems to rely on every oppressed human being in this dystopia just deciding to bend over and take it.

A fat chunk of Americans start waving guns around if you mention "health care" in their presence, and we're supposed to believe that at some point in the next forty or so years Cirque du Hitler.

Gaaah. So sick of this weak setup shit. At least Running Man had a little cheese, what with the President having an agent and everything.
 

RedmistSM

New member
Jan 30, 2010
141
0
0
The shakycam really annoyed me. It was a bother during the fight scenes, but in that setting I got that it was their way of not showing the blood and murder. I wasn't liking it, but I got it. There weren't exactly long descriptions of gore or something in the book either. But when there is shakycam in the intro? Was it supposed to insinuate that something about the place was off? The desaturation sort of did that job already. I just got a mild headache from it.

The movie is really close to the book(that game master character isn't in the book, though), but it's sort of lacking without Katniss' perspective(thoughts), which I can't think of a way to show well in a movie, and all of the slow parts, which are cut short. If Bob got tired of the forest in the movie, the book would have put him to sleep, probably.

They really glossed over the mad scientist parts of fiction, like the spaceships and the gene modifications. I preferred the dogs in the movie because they aren't as silly as the mutated wolves made to look like the murdered participants/murdered participants mutated into wolves, but I suppose the latter would be more fun.
 

DarthFennec

New member
May 27, 2010
1,154
0
0
Grenge Di Origin said:
rayen020 said:
Grenge Di Origin said:
Okay, so here's what's going to go down May 4th, 2012. Chipman is either going to
A. Scream and ***** so intensely that it'd make his Transformers 2/Green Lantern reviews look civil and professional

OR

B. Go into denial and somehow praise it despite its glaring and undeniable flaws in a delusional fit like he did with Other M

OR

C. Be so pleased with the movie that his his spunk will be flowing out of the computer screen the instant I hit the "Play" button.
please elaborate on what the f*** this has to do with The Hunger Games and a review of it's movie adaptation...
Yes one of these is probably going to be true, BUT it deserves to be in another topic all to itself. And more to the point, why are you even posting in this forum thre... oooohhh *smacks head* duh, you're a troll. Sorry please, disregard earlier queries.
See, this is why subtlety (and references that require less than a minute of researching) doesn't exist in low culture.
... He gets the reference, I think we all got that, and frankly it wasn't subtle in the least. But if you aren't a troll, I guess I'm confused too ... what does The Avengers have to do with this review, this book, or this movie, at all? Unless he mentioned The Avengers in the video, but I don't remember that happening ...
 

i64ever

New member
Aug 26, 2008
186
0
0
Not that it makes them right, but all the plot holes Movie Bob points out are VERY true to the book. The bad guys are all shallow and foppish. The hunger games "stadium" is never explained well, and the bad guys DO make disasters happen out of thin air. The 1st book doesn't give any visuals of the rebellion happening in the districts.
 

Darren716

New member
Jul 7, 2011
784
0
0
I am so glad that this movie ended up theway it did because it renforces my theory that when somthing gets as popular as this before it's release it will be a dissapointment. Also I'm glad that I'll be able to gloat to my friends who went to see this movie and thought it was going to be the second coming about me judging a movie correctly before it was even released.
 

Dangit2019

New member
Aug 8, 2011
2,449
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
I'm gunna go out on a limb and say he hasn't actually read the books.
Still it looks like the Hunger Games are a little...

*puts on sunglasses*

Starved for Substance
I see what you did there, and I approve.
 

ShadowStar42

New member
Sep 26, 2008
236
0
0
i64ever said:
Not that it makes them right, but all the plot holes Movie Bob points out are VERY true to the book. The bad guys are all shallow and foppish. The hunger games "stadium" is never explained well, and the bad guys DO make disasters happen out of thin air. The 1st book doesn't give any visuals of the rebellion happening in the districts.
To be fair though we're dealing with a book with a non-omniscient narrator. They don't explain the Capitol society because our pov character doesn't understand Capitol society. The tech isn't explained because it's a mystery to the character as well. I'd personally much rather have sci-fi that doesn't explain something than that does in some absurd way (like a solar system with dozens of habitable worlds in Firefly or the Ansible in dozens of sci-fi stories.
 

Dangit2019

New member
Aug 8, 2011
2,449
0
0
If I hear one more review making immediate comparisons to Battle Royale/less popular scifi movies, I might shank a fool. Believe it or not, The Hunger Games is not really popular because of a stunningly innovative premise it's popular because of the characters, theme, tone, and the all encompassing cliffhanger ending that keeps the books selling. If you look at the accusations of ripping off other movies, you'll find that most are just standard dystopian scifi fare in the first place. I can't attest to the movie criticisms yet because I'm planning on watching it over the weekend, but a little side note: this movie was made with a budget that was $1 million less than Jack & Jill. Compare the 2 and see where some money is better spent than other money.

PS Even with the CGI that James Cameron must have enslaved his employees to get done, Avatar still kind of sucks imho.
 

Zenron

The Laughing Shadow
May 11, 2010
298
0
0
Goddammit, I was really hoping for this to be good. I would like to hope that this will be a time where I actually think moviebob is wrong about a film, but that generally doesn't happen that often. Ah well, I'm still a kind of fan of the books so I'm sure I'll like it regardless(and because Jeniffer Lawrence obviously...).
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
I have to disagree there Bob.

I haven't read the books and I know that the premise is just like Battle Royal, The Condemned etc. etc. but I saw the movie last night and I enjoyed it a lot.

In fact the only thing I didn't really like was the shaky-cam action scenes (but it was necessary to fit in the rating because it is pretty violent).

Also the premise is just completely unrealistic (really? they all agreed to let their young sons and daughters names be pulled out of a jar for a battle to the death?) but hey it's a movie so it can get away with that.

However I still thoroughly enjoyed it because it has a better story than all the other 'battle royal' style movies. It's a bit stupid having them all start off 2m away from each other though...that just leads to half the people being killed in the first minute of combat. Exciting start for the viewers but then there's nothing for ages, the winners of the 1st battle get the weapons, the others hide in the jungle (which is what I would be doing lol).

Actually it would be stupid to run for the weapons first...ANYTHING can be a weapon. he's got a sword? throw a fucking rock at him!

I enjoyed the movie and disagree with your opinion Bob (there are only a couple of occasions where I do that, Captain America being one you over-hyped to the extreme)