Lol i agree... I have completely lost all respect for any critic/review site.
Movie/Book/Music Critics = selfrighteous Dbags who could never do anything in their life worth sharing/boasting about so instead they spend their time trying to tell other people what they did wrong in an attempt to feel superior... "The harry potter books are bad" tell that to JK Rowlings bank account and her status as the #1 selling author of all time...
people just baffle me...
You have no idea how much is wrong with your statements here haha.
By that logic twilight is actually a golden masterpiece and the author belongs up there with the greats like edgar alen poe and hemingway.
Whether you agree or disagree with critics there are quite a few of them that are incredibly intelligent/passionate that have accomplished far more than you would give them credit for.
Saying Twilight is bad is the same as saying Star Wars is bad.
Your single oppinion is not > the opinion of the majority.
I loled.
I would end it there, but in fear of getting a warning for low content post, I'll just make an observation here:
People who say this movie is good have read the book(s). People who say this movie is bad have only seen the movie.
I have not done either, so I wont jump into the arguement any more than that.
I dont agree with the "idea" was stolen at all... It doesn´t really take much creativity to come up with a fight to the death between people. Also the whole story about Districts etc. arent in battle royale right?
To the book, was absolutely into it and read it in one night and I am really hyped up to see that movie!
On March 24 2012 17:34 R3m3mb3rM3 wrote: I dont agree with the "idea" was stolen at all... It doesn´t really take much creativity to come up with a fight to the death between people. Also the whole story about Districts etc. arent in battle royale right?
To the book, was absolutely into it and read it in one night and I am really hyped up to see that movie!
People dont understand this book isnt "Opening scene: 24 kids have to kill eachother" "end scene... only 1 kid is alive" people watch the 30 seconds commercial and claim "omg she stole this idea from Battle Royale" lol..
On March 24 2012 11:02 WolfintheSheep wrote: So...this is essentially Battle Royale, but for teenagers, adapted into a movie for even younger teens?
You're not even close to the first person to say that in this thread. As for Battle Royale, I think it's a film about senseless violence... violence so senseless in fact that people see things in it that aren't even there in attempts to make sense of it. It's a movie to pamper the spoiled and messed up who just want to watch people die.
Hunger Games isn't senseless.
I don't know if I will see the film in theatres anymore. There have been a few bad reviews in this thread.
Battle Royale is about yanking your emotional chain around, to be blunt. It's about creating a vested interest in characters that you know are going to die, somehow making you hope that they beat the odds, and then slapping you back down. If it was just about people getting killed off, no one would care about it.
Hunger Games...I honestly don't know much about it, but from what I've read/heard, it's essentially Battle Royale with the wish fulfillment of the kids actually standing a chance against the system, instead of having a completely false illusion of a chance.
violence so senseless in fact that people see things in it that aren't even there in attempts to make sense of it
Wow, you know, you can just keep saying that regardless of what anyone else says. If you think it is senseless, great but that is your opinion. If someone else finds meaning to it, who are you to say that it is false to that person? You make it seem as if you can answer and speak for everyone on a subjective topic like this.
On March 24 2012 16:49 MaestroSC wrote:
On March 24 2012 16:43 Talack wrote: i liked the movie.
i felt the romance was forced really really hard. Maybe that was the point but it just felt incredibly awkward. like really really awkward.
i agree with there being 0 character development. the characters never changed at all(except for radical changes that had no consequences lol). the undertones of the ending were nice though.
U realize the "romance" was simply a marketing tool that the contestants were using to make themselves more likable and sympathetic as to draw more support from sponsors? And to get people cheering for them so the gamemasters wouldnt kill them off? They were making themselves more appealing and relatable to the people/sponsors watching. Protip: it was awkward because the girl had 0 romantic feelings for the boy.. she was simply showing that she had them just to try to help survive... The characters did change also... Katniss goes into the game with the "lonewolf" strategy. Get home at all costs. When she does the whole shpeal regarding Rue, who she sees as a reminder of her sister Prim.. we see her shift from getting home at all costs and hating all of her competitors to a "this is a 12 yr old girl... not an enemy i should kill/abandon"
Well these ideas were significant parts in the book that was not very well translated in the movie. They should have made it more overt.
Well when the boy says it and walks offstage and the girl is choking him out... their mentor clearly says "Hey he is making u both more marketable. You need sponsors to survive." And then at the end "You need to convince them you are in love, and that ur attempting to commit suicide was an act of love for Peeta and not an act of defiance against the game and the capitols control "
I feel like my thoughts are well stated at this point and I am eaiting up space in this thread
But i just wanna make a final plea to every one.... Dont be derailed by other peoples' opinions. Dont bother seeing it if you are going in with a closed mind. Either way you won't enjoy it.
If you truely watch it and look for the complexities, they are there if you acknowledge them Yes its not as bloody as it could be if it was Rated R, but there is still PLENTY of suspense and action.
If you think its shallow, because you dont understand it, try reading the books. They are pretty damn good and will help u understand some complex ideas that people are clearly missing without reading the books/paying close enough attention.
I couldn't have watched it with a closed mind, because I didn't even know anything about it in the first place, but I found the characters pretty dumb and generic, to the point where they seemed like total psychos and out of this world, and the fact that said psychos grouped up after nonchalantly killing so many of them made it all worse, they even slept together for christ's sake! Though, maybe it didn't make sense because the part where they had to survive without any help and could actually die from natural causes didn't really get portrayed very well(aid comes flying from the skies, probably crafted by a computer that can magically create dogs ala ctrl+c, ctrl+v), and people seemed to get killed everywhere all the time.Also, Rue's death looked pretty pathetic and poorly thought out, but that's not the point, the point is, and I quote because that's exactly what I thought : " Everytime i expected the main characters to turn on each other some random plot device would be used to excuse them from it, which ruined the whole point of the games to begin with."
On March 24 2012 11:02 WolfintheSheep wrote: So...this is essentially Battle Royale, but for teenagers, adapted into a movie for even younger teens?
You're not even close to the first person to say that in this thread. As for Battle Royale, I think it's a film about senseless violence... violence so senseless in fact that people see things in it that aren't even there in attempts to make sense of it. It's a movie to pamper the spoiled and messed up who just want to watch people die.
Hunger Games isn't senseless.
I don't know if I will see the film in theatres anymore. There have been a few bad reviews in this thread.
Battle Royale is about yanking your emotional chain around, to be blunt. It's about creating a vested interest in characters that you know are going to die, somehow making you hope that they beat the odds, and then slapping you back down. If it was just about people getting killed off, no one would care about it.
Hunger Games...I honestly don't know much about it, but from what I've read/heard, it's essentially Battle Royale with the wish fulfillment of the kids actually standing a chance against the system, instead of having a completely false illusion of a chance.
violence so senseless in fact that people see things in it that aren't even there in attempts to make sense of it
Wow, you know, you can just keep saying that regardless of what anyone else says. If you think it is senseless, great but that is your opinion. If someone else finds meaning to it, who are you to say that it is false to that person? You make it seem as if you can answer and speak for everyone on a subjective topic like this.
On March 24 2012 16:49 MaestroSC wrote:
On March 24 2012 16:43 Talack wrote: i liked the movie.
i felt the romance was forced really really hard. Maybe that was the point but it just felt incredibly awkward. like really really awkward.
i agree with there being 0 character development. the characters never changed at all(except for radical changes that had no consequences lol). the undertones of the ending were nice though.
U realize the "romance" was simply a marketing tool that the contestants were using to make themselves more likable and sympathetic as to draw more support from sponsors? And to get people cheering for them so the gamemasters wouldnt kill them off? They were making themselves more appealing and relatable to the people/sponsors watching. Protip: it was awkward because the girl had 0 romantic feelings for the boy.. she was simply showing that she had them just to try to help survive... The characters did change also... Katniss goes into the game with the "lonewolf" strategy. Get home at all costs. When she does the whole shpeal regarding Rue, who she sees as a reminder of her sister Prim.. we see her shift from getting home at all costs and hating all of her competitors to a "this is a 12 yr old girl... not an enemy i should kill/abandon"
Well these ideas were significant parts in the book that was not very well translated in the movie. They should have made it more overt.
Well when the boy says it and walks offstage and the girl is choking him out... their mentor clearly says "Hey he is making u both more marketable. You need sponsors to survive." And then at the end "You need to convince them you are in love, and that ur attempting to commit suicide was an act of love for Peeta and not an act of defiance against the game and the capitols control "
I feel like my thoughts are well stated at this point and I am eaiting up space in this thread
But i just wanna make a final plea to every one.... Dont be derailed by other peoples' opinions. Dont bother seeing it if you are going in with a closed mind. Either way you won't enjoy it.
If you truely watch it and look for the complexities, they are there if you acknowledge them Yes its not as bloody as it could be if it was Rated R, but there is still PLENTY of suspense and action.
If you think its shallow, because you dont understand it, try reading the books. They are pretty damn good and will help u understand some complex ideas that people are clearly missing without reading the books/paying close enough attention.
I couldn't have watched it with a closed mind, because I didn't even know anything about it in the first place, but I found the characters pretty dumb and generic, to the point where they seemed like total psychos and out of this world, and the fact that said psychos grouped up after nonchalantly killing so many of them made it all worse, they even slept together for christ's sake! Though, maybe it didn't make sense because the part where they had to survive without any help and could actually die from natural causes didn't really get portrayed very well(aid comes flying from the skies, probably crafted by a computer that can magically create dogs ala ctrl+c, ctrl+v), and people seemed to get killed everywhere all the time.Also, Rue's death looked pretty pathetic and poorly thought out, but that's not the point, the point is and I quote because that's exactly what I thought : " Everytime i expected the main characters to turn on each other some random plot device would be used to excuse them from it, which ruined the whole point of the games to begin with. I really thought the build up to the games was ok, and then the moment I knew the audience it was catering to I pretty much knew exactly how it was going to end."
u obv missed half the movie.. if this post is sincere.
Like honestly not understanding the Parachuted in items... where were you for a solid 45 mins of the movie... where they talk about sponsors and such? And you missed all of the parts explaining the alliances within the Games? And you dont understand the Mutts who were put in by the people have complete control/surveillance over an area that they have complete 100% control over because none if it is natural... it takes place INSIDE of a man-made structure...
Watch the movie again or something cause you seem to have missed about an hour of it entirely...
On March 24 2012 11:02 WolfintheSheep wrote: So...this is essentially Battle Royale, but for teenagers, adapted into a movie for even younger teens?
You're not even close to the first person to say that in this thread. As for Battle Royale, I think it's a film about senseless violence... violence so senseless in fact that people see things in it that aren't even there in attempts to make sense of it. It's a movie to pamper the spoiled and messed up who just want to watch people die.
Hunger Games isn't senseless.
I don't know if I will see the film in theatres anymore. There have been a few bad reviews in this thread.
Battle Royale is about yanking your emotional chain around, to be blunt. It's about creating a vested interest in characters that you know are going to die, somehow making you hope that they beat the odds, and then slapping you back down. If it was just about people getting killed off, no one would care about it.
Hunger Games...I honestly don't know much about it, but from what I've read/heard, it's essentially Battle Royale with the wish fulfillment of the kids actually standing a chance against the system, instead of having a completely false illusion of a chance.
violence so senseless in fact that people see things in it that aren't even there in attempts to make sense of it
Wow, you know, you can just keep saying that regardless of what anyone else says. If you think it is senseless, great but that is your opinion. If someone else finds meaning to it, who are you to say that it is false to that person? You make it seem as if you can answer and speak for everyone on a subjective topic like this.
On March 24 2012 16:49 MaestroSC wrote:
On March 24 2012 16:43 Talack wrote: i liked the movie.
i felt the romance was forced really really hard. Maybe that was the point but it just felt incredibly awkward. like really really awkward.
i agree with there being 0 character development. the characters never changed at all(except for radical changes that had no consequences lol). the undertones of the ending were nice though.
U realize the "romance" was simply a marketing tool that the contestants were using to make themselves more likable and sympathetic as to draw more support from sponsors? And to get people cheering for them so the gamemasters wouldnt kill them off? They were making themselves more appealing and relatable to the people/sponsors watching. Protip: it was awkward because the girl had 0 romantic feelings for the boy.. she was simply showing that she had them just to try to help survive... The characters did change also... Katniss goes into the game with the "lonewolf" strategy. Get home at all costs. When she does the whole shpeal regarding Rue, who she sees as a reminder of her sister Prim.. we see her shift from getting home at all costs and hating all of her competitors to a "this is a 12 yr old girl... not an enemy i should kill/abandon"
Well these ideas were significant parts in the book that was not very well translated in the movie. They should have made it more overt.
Well when the boy says it and walks offstage and the girl is choking him out... their mentor clearly says "Hey he is making u both more marketable. You need sponsors to survive." And then at the end "You need to convince them you are in love, and that ur attempting to commit suicide was an act of love for Peeta and not an act of defiance against the game and the capitols control "
I feel like my thoughts are well stated at this point and I am eaiting up space in this thread
But i just wanna make a final plea to every one.... Dont be derailed by other peoples' opinions. Dont bother seeing it if you are going in with a closed mind. Either way you won't enjoy it.
If you truely watch it and look for the complexities, they are there if you acknowledge them Yes its not as bloody as it could be if it was Rated R, but there is still PLENTY of suspense and action.
If you think its shallow, because you dont understand it, try reading the books. They are pretty damn good and will help u understand some complex ideas that people are clearly missing without reading the books/paying close enough attention.
I couldn't have watched it with a closed mind, because I didn't even know anything about it in the first place, but I found the characters pretty dumb and generic, to the point where they seemed like total psychos and out of this world, and the fact that said psychos grouped up after nonchalantly killing so many of them made it all worse, they even slept together for christ's sake! Though, maybe it didn't make sense because the part where they had to survive without any help and could actually die from natural causes didn't really get portrayed very well(aid comes flying from the skies, probably crafted by a computer that can magically create dogs ala ctrl+c, ctrl+v), and people seemed to get killed everywhere all the time.Also, Rue's death looked pretty pathetic and poorly thought out, but that's not the point, the point is and I quote because that's exactly what I thought : " Everytime i expected the main characters to turn on each other some random plot device would be used to excuse them from it, which ruined the whole point of the games to begin with. I really thought the build up to the games was ok, and then the moment I knew the audience it was catering to I pretty much knew exactly how it was going to end."
u obv missed half the movie.. if this post is sincere.
Like honestly not understanding the Parachuted in items... where were you for a solid 45 mins of the movie... where they talk about sponsors and such? And you missed all of the parts explaining the alliances within the Games?
Watch the movie again or something cause you seem to have missed about an hour of it entirely...
You obviously missed the great majority of my post, and only answered the part in parentheses, anyways, regarding this, what I meant was that things seemed to happen from one day to the other, magical stuff happened to the point where I began to question if that was a comedy movie (fireballs from hell, dogs spawning from thin air, why would they ever fear coal miners if they can do that, suspension of disbelief went to hell with this, together with them fireballs), and that you don't need sponsors to survive a little more than half a weekend, so ye, I "understood" the sponsors part, and I don't seem to recall parts explaining the motives for alliances, to be honest the movie didn't inspire attention, like for example, Memento did/does.
7/10 . I would rate it higher but the abysmal action sequences with the shaky camera really disappointed me.
Why must directors get so lazy with fight scenes? Seems like very few directors in Hollywood actually go for wide shots with well choreographed fights.
Nope.. just gonna stick the camera 5 inches from the actors and shake it like crazy, yup...action folks EZPZ.
On March 24 2012 18:14 Doomwish wrote: 7/10 . I would rate it higher but the abysmal action sequences with the shaky camera really disappointed me.
Why must directors get so lazy with fight scenes? Seems like very few directors in Hollywood actually go for wide shots with well choreographed fights.
Nope.. just gonna stick the camera 5 inches from the actors and shake it like crazy, yup...action folks EZPZ.
There are movies where close-up hand-held camera works for that (vide Bourne trilogy) and movies where fight sequences are done the way you say in a superb way (vide Ironclad and Alatriste).
On March 24 2012 18:14 Doomwish wrote: 7/10 . I would rate it higher but the abysmal action sequences with the shaky camera really disappointed me.
Why must directors get so lazy with fight scenes? Seems like very few directors in Hollywood actually go for wide shots with well choreographed fights.
Nope.. just gonna stick the camera 5 inches from the actors and shake it like crazy, yup...action folks EZPZ.
Choreographed fight scenes! That's definitely what the book was missing and the movie should've remedied this with some jazzed up fight scenes a la matrix. Instead of bullet time, they can have arrow time, and rewrite chunks of the book for the movie to make it more believable, like 5 years of intense combat training instead of the 3 days the contestants are given in the book so we can watch some sweet kungfu and weapon combat scenes.
On March 24 2012 14:57 R!! wrote: I found the movie disgustingly retarded, the participants reactions never made any sense on so many levels,I mean, most of them acted like complete psychopaths and yet they created a hunting group!? This isn't Big Brother, you aren't supposed to be friends with people you are gonna eventually have to kill, there's absolutely nothing to gain from it, unless you don't intend to kill anyone, which obviously wasn't the case for Cato and the others.Why did they act throughout the whole thing like it was something acceptable and normal to participate in that shit in the first place?Another thing, wtf were those magically created dogs, suspension of disbelief went to hell so many times it's ridiculous, people don't act like that.But still, worth watching because Jennifer Lawrence was simply put divine.
What? Shit dude you should really think before you write retarded crap. Of course people are going to ally, if you're part of a group that increases your chances at surviving until later and they cover your weaknesses. Not to mention there will be one person in that arena that you know prior to going because they are from your district. AND you have two weeks prior to the event where you are in contact with all the other participants on a daily basis. There are also the 'career' tributes which year in year out team up initially.
'Why did they act throughout the whole thing like it was something acceptable and normal to participate in that shit in the first place?' Because it has been going on for like 80 years in a post-apocalyptic world maybe? If it has been around since long before you were born, you don't really question it. Every year you watch it on TV. Of course the people know it sucks, but thats the point, it is a method of creating a sense of fear of the Capitol in the minds of District people.
'Another thing, wtf were those magically created dogs, suspension of disbelief went to hell so many times it's ridiculous, people don't act like that.' They are genetically engineered purely for the purpose of the arena to again, remind the people in the districts that Capitol can do whatever the fuck it wants. You seem to miss a MASSIVE amount of understanding about what it is. The Hunger Games is a TV show, it is their to ENTERTAIN. You want people to watch it, if nothing is happening in the arena, then bam fireballs or mutant dogs or w/e to spice shit up.
On March 24 2012 18:14 Doomwish wrote: 7/10 . I would rate it higher but the abysmal action sequences with the shaky camera really disappointed me.
Why must directors get so lazy with fight scenes? Seems like very few directors in Hollywood actually go for wide shots with well choreographed fights.
Nope.. just gonna stick the camera 5 inches from the actors and shake it like crazy, yup...action folks EZPZ.
I don't think it would be PG13 if they showed close-ups of teens getting sliced open and blown up.
Got bored during the actual hunger games, a lot of that part was really poorly done although I don't know how you make it better. The leadup was semi-interesting....not sure what I'd rate the movie...
Finished reading the 3 book series over the past 3 nights, gonna see the movie in an hour. I'll post my thoughts on the movie tommorrow when I get a chance, probably with comparisons to the book. The book series made my top 10 best book series, so I hold it in very high regard. As a sidenote I can't wait to start reading Under The Dome, the latest offering by stephen king, it shouldn't be nearly as heart wrenching as the hunger games series, lol.
I liked the books, that's why Im definitely not gonna watch the movie and screw it for me. Same thing that happened with Eragon (before it got completely senseless in the last book) and the respective movie.
The movie disappointed me a bit, but not because of bad fight scenes or bad acting. The thing they got most wrong was the suffering of the characters. In the movie they made surviving the Hunger Games almost like a cake walk compared to how it was in the book. + Show Spoiler +
For example, when Peeta is on the cornicopia at the end of the movie his calf isn't ripped off and he's not near death at all like he is in the book. Cato also fought off the mutts for an hour in the cornicopia, he didn't just fall off and die.
On March 25 2012 01:49 knOxStarcraft wrote: The movie disappointed me a bit, but not because of bad fight scenes or bad acting. The thing they got most wrong was the suffering of the characters. In the movie they made surviving the Hunger Games almost like a cake walk compared to how it was in the book. + Show Spoiler +
For example, when Peeta is on the cornicopia at the end of the movie his calf isn't ripped off and he's not near death at all like he is in the book. Cato also fought off the mutts for an hour in the cornicopia, he didn't just fall off and die.
I agree, the book had a very dark feel to it while the movie didn't have it at all.
Sort of like that Batman Movie with George Clooney.
It's a pretty good series for people of all ages. The real stuff occurs in the 2nd and 3rd books which will be the next couple movies, but it's more then about Katniss and her personal problems as she goes though the series, but how she becomes the symbol of freedom and hope for everyone in the districts.
Well. I liked the first half of it. The setting was gorgeous and well presented.
The movie took a nosedive when we where given a 15 min scene of the main heroine weeping over the death of some random black girl who she had just met and surely should have been preparing to off herself. And then it turned into some cheesy love story with a predictable happy end.
I suppose I was expecting it to be a bit more like Battle Royale. Alas. Hollywood.
On March 25 2012 01:49 knOxStarcraft wrote: The movie disappointed me a bit, but not because of bad fight scenes or bad acting. The thing they got most wrong was the suffering of the characters. In the movie they made surviving the Hunger Games almost like a cake walk compared to how it was in the book. + Show Spoiler +
For example, when Peeta is on the cornicopia at the end of the movie his calf isn't ripped off and he's not near death at all like he is in the book. Cato also fought off the mutts for an hour in the cornicopia, he didn't just fall off and die.
I agree, the book had a very dark feel to it while the movie didn't have it at all.
This is my opinion as well.
I told my friends as we went to see it that if the movie had no titus, there is no love coming from me (titus was the kid in the book referred to once who went batshit insane and ate the other kids bodies in the arena after he killed them).
anyways, I still liked the movie quite a bit, but since I read the book just before seeing it I probably added in my mind the things I liked and didn't objectively view it well (I didn't get too much of the teenage drama impression others have gotten); I was too biased by "remembering" the book. But I do know enough of the darker sides of the book are lacking; especially the arena itself. Those are what make the book much better for me. examples: + Show Spoiler +
I may be remembering wrong for this one, but the bread scene was when the girl was like 12 years old and it seemed recent (like age 15) in the movie--peeta certainly didn't look younger. She hunts, but it doesn't really show the same starvation feel. It's a lot darker to talk about 10 year olds starving that "yeah she hunts".
The arena itself was less desperate. Like a huge part of the book is the fight over resources/water; she almost is going to die of thirst. The movie instantly goes "oh here is a stream". I understand that for time constraints, and I don't really mind, but it's far less dark or realistic. They also hype up the "gamemakers vs contestants" by making the guy from Rue's district die to the wolves when Cato actually had killed him. As people said before, the main characters don't change at all in the arena except arguably Cato (who again was used to hype up "The way the gamemakers wanted it" instead of being so ruthless himself). They're less barbaric/desperate among themselves, which is pretty important to the novel.
Onto Peeta specific examples, he wasn't drugged and he didn't lose his leg. Those are pretty much more realistic things that are completely gone in the movie that I liked in the novel.
EPT
