Though Battle Royale has been released this week on DVD in the US. That's one weird coincidenceRocklobster99 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 coincidenceRocklobster99 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.
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.stickmangrit said: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.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.
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..moviedork said: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.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.
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.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
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 ...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!
Oh God... what... please... say it ain't so... how... how can people be so stupid?McMarbles said:I have actually seen Battle Royale called, by a respected publication, "The Japanese Hunger Games."
Please join me in rage.
... 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 ...Grenge Di Origin said:See, this is why subtlety (and references that require less than a minute of researching) doesn't exist in low culture.rayen020 said:please elaborate on what the f*** this has to do with The Hunger Games and a review of it's movie adaptation...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.
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.
I see what you did there, and I approve.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
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.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.