EPTTerrible camera, dumbed down predictable plot, tipical blockbuster. 4/10.
Waste of money.
I can feel people compairing it with Twilight. I hope the books are better.
[Movie] The Hunger Games - Page 15
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
Terrible camera, dumbed down predictable plot, tipical blockbuster. 4/10. Waste of money. I can feel people compairing it with Twilight. I hope the books are better. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 25 2012 22:50 WolfintheSheep wrote: There's a difference between copying the general plot, and copying major plot twists/plot points. Which they didn't, so the comparison falls flat. Sure, people that want to see Battle Royale in this are going to see Battle Royale in it. But objectively speaking, the movies are far too different to be considered rip-offs. For example, children don't receive duffel bags containing ranomd weapons. The romance is forced because that is what the audience (the people in the world that are watching the hunger games, not the real-life audience) want to see and they respond to it by giving them money and items. Alliances aren't a rip-off. In what universe where people are thrown in to battle to the death, would there not be alliances? Battle royale has dozens of alliances, this movie only has one actual alliance. Given the setting, of course the writer would work in an alliance. If they didn't, the audience would ask why they aren't teaming up and complaining that people aren't acting realistic. There aren't any sociopaths in this film. Battle Royale had a real sociopath, this movie has kids that are trained to take part in the hunger games, so of course they are going to be more eager to kill, that is how they are raised. Battle Royale just had a character that joined (or was forced to join) on purpose because he liked to murder. In Battle Royale, the kids don't fight for entertainment, they just fight as a form of oppression. In Hunger Games they fight as both a form of oppression and as entertainment, providing a critique on reality television. You can make a billion invalid comparisons (kids in both movies have legs) but that doesn't mean that the stories are the same. They have the same setup, both have kids fighting each other to the death, but that doesn't instantly make it a rip-off. One can take identical setups and do completely different things with it. I have seen + read Battle Royale and I have seen + read Hunger Games. They aren't the same, they aren't rip-offs. | ||
|
buickskylark
Canada664 Posts
| ||
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
On March 26 2012 02:39 zalz wrote: Which they didn't, so the comparison falls flat. Sure, people that want to see Battle Royale in this are going to see Battle Royale in it. But objectively speaking, the movies are far too different to be considered rip-offs. For example, children don't receive duffel bags containing ranomd weapons. The romance is forced because that is what the audience (the people in the world that are watching the hunger games, not the real-life audience) want to see and they respond to it by giving them money and items. Alliances aren't a rip-off. In what universe where people are thrown in to battle to the death, would there not be alliances? Battle royale has dozens of alliances, this movie only has one actual alliance. Given the setting, of course the writer would work in an alliance. If they didn't, the audience would ask why they aren't teaming up and complaining that people aren't acting realistic. There aren't any sociopaths in this film. Battle Royale had a real sociopath, this movie has kids that are trained to take part in the hunger games, so of course they are going to be more eager to kill, that is how they are raised. Battle Royale just had a character that joined (or was forced to join) on purpose because he liked to murder. In Battle Royale, the kids don't fight for entertainment, they just fight as a form of oppression. In Hunger Games they fight as both a form of oppression and as entertainment, providing a critique on reality television. You can make a billion invalid comparisons (kids in both movies have legs) but that doesn't mean that the stories are the same. They have the same setup, both have kids fighting each other to the death, but that doesn't instantly make it a rip-off. One can take identical setups and do completely different things with it. I have seen + read Battle Royale and I have seen + read Hunger Games. They aren't the same, they aren't rip-offs. In the sense that the themes are similar, the two movies are similar. But asides from the obvious rebellion against order when order loses touch and the method of bring this about, there really aren't that many similarities. | ||
|
NotAPro
Canada146 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
Hey spoilers alert, in the catching fire they are having another game by inviting every past winners into it. Kinda like NBA all-star. | ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On March 26 2012 04:41 Vardant wrote: You know there is a spoiler tag, right? wasn't spoiling the movie or anything right.... | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
| ||
|
Seala
Sweden118 Posts
| ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
On March 26 2012 03:18 NotAPro wrote: Never ceases to amaze how many obnoxious hipsters frequent this site. So if people have certain taste in well-written and well-directed movies, and point out gaping flaws in b-grade movies they are obnoxious hipsters? Haven't seen the movie, but the book was pretty bad. Much prefer to read battle royale or even watch the (inferior to the book) movie, has much more social commentary and is written far more cleverly. | ||
|
eg9
Norway43 Posts
I feel the concept of kids down to 12 years old fighting to the death is a pretty brutal concept to base a pg-13 on and the movie really feels these restraints. I have not read the books but from the earlier comments i can sort of get that the story is a bit darker? From my view the entire movie just ended up being absurd. They are constantly warned about natural dangers, however you see almost nobody having issues with cold, malnourishment, lack of water etc. I feel the movie really could have portrayed the horror of being in a situation where most likely you are going to die and the psycholocial affects this has on people. Also some of the decisioins that were made in the movie seemed really wierd and badly thought out. I can see the argument in teaming up being a good decision, however if I were any one of the members in the first group; obviously consisting of the strongest members,I would be prioritizing picking of the strongest opposition as easily as i could. This would mean looking for any chance at killing the other group members. And even if i did not think this way i still would have to worry constantly about others thinking the same way. This would lead to a huge ammount of paranoia amongst the members in such a group and nobody would like to turn their back on any of the others, not to mention sleeping near them. The movie seems to completely ignore this. For me the plot and the target audience are too distanced and the movie seems to get torn appart between the two. Also, the thing about the main characters faking their love i could sort see would be a smart move, but the movie never gives off much of an indication that they are, in fact, staging anything. As to the fact that BR and this movie is very similar is quite obvious seeing as both stories capture what seems to be a futuristic interpretation of ancient rome. | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
The movie felt faster than the books at times, but was all in all less satisfying for me. It was still a treat to watch, but it had the character that alot of films like that do, where they need to try to stay close to the source material, but can't make a four hour movie. As a result, some parts felt rushed in the film. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Rasun
United States787 Posts
On March 26 2012 11:58 Ace wrote: The 3rd book was an absolute disaster. Very much agree, really enjoyed the first two and then I felt like everything was so condensed and shallow in the third book, Collins should have stretched this series out into at least like 5 books, it just all wraps up too neatly. Does not give a sense of depth or scale to the world at all. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Poll: I watched the movie, and I definately enjoyed it (25) It was so-so, if you have money to spend its ok (19) It was a waste of money (4) 48 total votes Your vote: I watched the movie, and (Vote): I definately enjoyed it | ||
|
tw!tch
United States563 Posts
| ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
It's a good film. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
However, all the actors were really good, the sets were amazingly put together (in the city anyway, the woods are woods), and the special effects were decent. It was fine to just sit there and watch without really thinking. | ||
| ||
