The Hunger Games, Am I missing something?

[franticfarken]

I recently saw the second movie of the Hunger Games, it got extremely high reviews, had great props-makeup etc, was directed generally well in my opinion, and had decent acting.

But I find the plot, writing, the symbolism and the political elements boring and simple.

Am I missing something about this franchise? How is it so praised? I really want to enjoy it, but I cringed at several scenes including the final scene.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You aren't missing anything.

The fact of the matter is that the plot, writing, symbolism, and political elements really are incredibly simple. This isn't a book meant for adults, it's a book meant for teenagers and children, people who aren't interested in politics, and who have a very limited understanding of the subject, if any at all.

Not only that but the plot gets steadily worse from the first book onward, because it focuses more and more on the love triangle sub-plot, which is the least interesting, and worst written part of the books.

The reason it's so praised is that it compares favorably to Twilight, which is aimed at exactly the same demographic. That's about it.

Also, I disagree with the statement that the movies have great props and makeup. Both of those elements are serviceable but unspectacular.

 

[FabTails]

The films are very well directed and entertaining. The reason they are well reviewed movies by critics is because they are fun, cleverly made and enjoyable.

Contrary to popular belief, critics don't only enjoy films that are really high brow and arthousey. Critics often praised simpler films, they just have to be well crafted and the Hunger Games films certainly are.

In regard to comments about the books, I have no idea. I've never read them.

 

[franticfarken]

Ok, so i'm not missing out on anything that's good.

The fact that the targeted age audience is roughly my age, meant that when I asked anyone I know who had seen the movie/read the books they would give me vague responses of why it was good.

However, I'm still clueless on the high reviews aspect of the movies and books. Do they lower the standard for a "great movie" for younger audience.

Because an 8/10 and higher is something this book and movie really doesn't deserve.

 

[franticfarken]

Contrary to popular belief, critics don't only enjoy films that are really high brow and arthousey. Critics often praised simpler films, they just have to be well crafted and the Hunger Games films certainly are.

I see what you mean, which answers my question about the reviews. Thank you both for answering my questions.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I really enjoyed the first book but as its been said, it got worse as it steadily drifted off into the love triangle plot. In my opinion, the book was well written so I could picture an awesome fight to the death between kids in an awesome arena. Whats not to like?
The movie I didn't mind but again I preferred the book. Mainly because the movies focus a lot on the drama parts of the story when I was more interested in the action parts.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the point of the games to that you fight to the death to win food? But no one ever looks thin and hungry. I know its a kids/teen movie, but it would have been better if they had mostly skinny actors that look unhealthy and some look malnourished and sickly. Granted i only saw the trailer and other bits and pieces from the first movie, and not actually watched it as its on my Lovefilm list. But it doesnt seem like anyone needs to risk their life for food as their is no desperation.

I wonder if someone will make a more mature version of this book? Maybe make connection with whats happening in north Korea and have a more concentration camp mentality that gives proper desperation and hunger.

Currently Takashi Miike is directing a similiar movie about kids killing each other based on comic called Do As God Says.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

I seem to have glossed over the love triangle subplot, since I didn't find it particularly prominent at any point in any of the books; or at least, not to the extent that it supplanted the main plot.

I think the Hunger Games can be enjoyed on two levels; for the intended audience, it can be taken as "ZOMFG!! METAPHOR!!". For those who are older, who may find the symbolism a little too shallow (or are simply jaded to the message The Hunger Games is selling), then it can be enjoyed as a straigh fantasy/sci fi setting, without considering any pretensions to higher meaning.

 

[The Funslinger]

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the point of the games to that you fight to the death to win food? But no one ever looks thin and hungry. I know its a kids/teen movie, but it would have been better if they had mostly skinny actors that look unhealthy and some look malnourished and sickly. Granted i only saw the trailer and other bits and pieces from the first movie, and not actually watched it as its on my Lovefilm list. But it doesnt seem like anyone needs to risk their life for food as their is no desperation.

I wonder if someone will make a more mature version of this book? Maybe make connection with whats happening in north Korea and have a more concentration camp mentality that gives proper desperation and hunger.

Currently Takashi Miike is directing a similiar movie about kids killing each other based on comic called Do As God Says.

The Hunger Games remake as written by the team behind... Breaking Bad!

They'd find some strung out looking actors, for sure

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

The Hunger Games is not about watching kids killing each other. It's not. The movies are about the games in that the central conflict revolves around it, the characters' actions are done in the name of it. However, the actual games themselves are treated like some awful disaster that's slowly approaching closer and closer, and it will return again and again unless something is done to stop it because every time it comes soooo many people die. This is not Battle Royale. But if I had to compare them, I would do so like this:

Battle Royale is clearly intended for mature audiences only, whereas Hunger Games has a wider audience by including younger folk.

The premise is the same (Theseus and the Minotaur), but the thesis of both plots, what each story is trying to accomplish, are completely different.

The characters within the Battle Royale are all that matter which is why the movie is completely focused on the individual killing of each. The characters who play in the Hunger Games share as much plot importance as the characters outside the games, each of their actions in and outside the games are just as important to the plot, which is why so many kills happen offscreen or too quickly instead of lingering on every bloody death.

The existence of both does not determine that one is a worse version of the other (if you want to be technical, they're both ripoffs).

If you have to make a choice of which one is "objectively" better, choose Battle Royale. Both movies are entirely enjoyable, the Hunger Games wins out for me simply because I prefer drama over gruesome violence.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I recently saw the second movie of the Hunger Games, it got extremely high reviews, had great props-makeup etc, was directed generally well in my opinion, and had decent acting.

But I find the plot, writing, the symbolism and the political elements boring and simple.

Am I missing something about this franchise? How is it so praised? I really want to enjoy it, but I cringed at several scenes including the final scene.

I concur, and there are plot holes that you can drive a truck through, but I do take the whole thing with a big grain of salt because, as someone already stated, the books are pretty much aimed at the teenage audience.

That being said, I found Battle Royale way more entertaining, and way more brutal in the fact that (to me) it genuinely makes you uncomfortable watching kids kill each other. Additionally, I thought "The Running Man" (which had a somewhat similar premise) was way more entertaining, especially the way it panned Television by turning the whole thing into a WWE-esque event, with ridiculous and over top characters with crazy themes.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think Hunger Games is the kind of teenage-oriented bullshit where sexy, smart, impeccably awesome kids drive the plot against adults while indulging in Mary Sue love triangles.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the point of the games to that you fight to the death to win food? But no one ever looks thin and hungry. I know its a kids/teen movie, but it would have been better if they had mostly skinny actors that look unhealthy and some look malnourished and sickly. Granted i only saw the trailer and other bits and pieces from the first movie, and not actually watched it as its on my Lovefilm list. But it doesnt seem like anyone needs to risk their life for food as their is no desperation.

Nope. The contestants tend to live in poverty because of the corrupt government and whatnot, but the goal of the game is just to get out alive. Food doesn't really play into it all that much (At least not more than any other surival skill). You get celebrity status and free stuff if you win, but most winners don't tend to enjoy it (PTSD and all that).

The contestants are chosen randomly, and although you can volunteer, people don't tend to do it.

 

[Tono Makt]

I seem to have glossed over the love triangle subplot, since I didn't find it particularly prominent at any point in any of the books; or at least, not to the extent that it supplanted the main plot.

I think the Hunger Games can be enjoyed on two levels; for the intended audience, it can be taken as "ZOMFG!! METAPHOR!!". For those who are older, who may find the symbolism a little too shallow (or are simply jaded to the message The Hunger Games is selling), then it can be enjoyed as a straigh fantasy/sci fi setting, without considering any pretensions to higher meaning.

And it can be enjoyed as a slightly unique storytelling method - entirely in the head of the protagonist. If she doesn't see it, feel it, think it or pay attention to it, it doesn't make it into the book. That's a huge reason for so many plot holes - Katniss isn't told what's going on, or told why things are they way they are.

This isn't to everyone's taste in fiction.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the point of the games to that you fight to the death to win food? But no one ever looks thin and hungry. I know its a kids/teen movie, but it would have been better if they had mostly skinny actors that look unhealthy and some look malnourished and sickly. Granted i only saw the trailer and other bits and pieces from the first movie, and not actually watched it as its on my Lovefilm list. But it doesnt seem like anyone needs to risk their life for food as their is no desperation.

Nope. The contestants tend to live in poverty because of the corrupt government and whatnot, but the goal of the game is just to get out alive. Food doesn't really play into it all that much (At least not more than any other surival skill). You get celebrity status and free stuff if you win, but most winners don't tend to enjoy it (PTSD and all that).

The contestants are chosen randomly, and although you can volunteer, people don't tend to do it.

Out of curiosity (and I haven't read the books) if the contest has nothing to do with winning food, or anything to do with food really, why are they called the "Hunger" games?

 

[shootthebandit]

Ok, so i'm not missing out on anything that's good.

The fact that the targeted age audience is roughly my age, meant that when I asked anyone I know who had seen the movie/read the books they would give me vague responses of why it was good.

However, I'm still clueless on the high reviews aspect of the movies and books. Do they lower the standard for a "great movie" for younger audience.

Because an 8/10 and higher is something this book and movie really doesn't deserve.

I totally agree. I watched the first one and found the pseudo-futuristic Orwellian world incredibly intriguing however apart from the opening scenes and one or two other scenes they kind of glossed over it.

I just couldnt accept the fact that people just bow down to their overlords and take part in the games and i certainly cant accept that they actively encourage children to take part

Its a movie designed for teenagers yet doesnt explore teenage rebellion which is kinda stupid, It actively encourages conformity. It just seems like another twilight knock-off where main character girl is part of a love triangle and has to choose between one of two good looking guys

The cast is excellent (jennifer lawrence, lenny kravitz, donald sutherland and woody harleson), its well made and its looks incredible but the story could be a little more right-wing.

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

snip

Snippity snip

Out of curiosity (and I haven't read the books) if the contest has nothing to do with winning food, or anything to do with food really, why are they called the "Hunger" games?

It's kind of a jumbled up yes-and-no answer. As part of the victor's reward, the district they represent do receive a greater allowance of food, supplies, fuel, etc., so the winning of food can be seen as an important aspect. On the other hand, since this is only used as a means of further dividing the various districts (it's hard to want to cooperate with someone after they kill your children and are rewarded for it), the actual food isn't as important as the motivation behind it.

 

[Weaver]

The first movie had so much shakey cam I shut it off after 5 minutes. They were just like sitting around eating bread and the scene was jittering all over the fucking place.

 

[DaWaffledude]

Ok, so i'm not missing out on anything that's good.

The fact that the targeted age audience is roughly my age, meant that when I asked anyone I know who had seen the movie/read the books they would give me vague responses of why it was good.

However, I'm still clueless on the high reviews aspect of the movies and books. Do they lower the standard for a "great movie" for younger audience.

Because an 8/10 and higher is something this book and movie really doesn't deserve.

I totally agree. I watched the first one and found the pseudo-futuristic Orwellian world incredibly intriguing however apart from the opening scenes and one or two other scenes they kind of glossed over it.

I just couldnt accept the fact that people just bow down to their overlords and take part in the games and i certainly cant accept that they actively encourage children to take part

Its a movie designed for teenagers yet doesnt explore teenage rebellion which is kinda stupid, It actively encourages conformity. It just seems like another twilight knock-off where main character girl is part of a love triangle and has to choose between one of two good looking guys

The cast is excellent (jennifer lawrence, lenny kravitz, donald sutherland and woody harleson), its well made and its looks incredible but the story could be a little more right-wing.

It's about a revolution and criticises celebrity-culture. How the hell does it encourage conformity?

The love triangle is a bit forced and gets in the way of things, I'll give you that, but it's not actually all that present and could probably be easily written out without losing much.

 

[franticfarken]

While watching the first two movies though, I thought that the movies were really pushing the symbolism aspect to the games etc etc. Whilst then completely ignoring that aspect to focus on the horrible love-triangle for the rest of the script.

This was one of the confusing aspects to me, which is why I couldn't glance over it to focus on the teenager subplot that it wanted me to focus on and enjoy/praise.

But based on the comments, I think I may watch Battle Royal now.