|
I will absolutely never understand why people feel the need to join the hate parade anytime something is popular. Way to "fight back against the system", you super-cool rebel, you.
This was a very good movie that I found to be much more entertaining that I expected. Is it an absolute work of art that will move people to tears and win a dozen Academy Awards? No. But it's an excellent bit of entertainment.
After reading the more sensible-sounding negative complaints (they cut out too much violence, they lost the "feeling" of the book), I went and read the book. It is virtually identical to the movie, almost nothing was cut and the movie portrayed everything in exactly the same way as the book. People just like to complain, I guess.
The rest of the complaints seem to be from horror movie fans (those who obviously have such fine tastes) who wanted to see gore, decapitated limbs and guts spilling out of people's bodies, and blame the PG-13 rating. Go watch a Saw movie if you want that shit, because that's not what Hunger Games is all about.
I highly recommend reading the books to anyone.
|
After reading the poll, I'll go and see it. Thanks for input, those who both saw and movie and voted your experience in the poll.
|
Saw it yesterday, had a great time. And I don't really understand the flak the film's receiving in this thread. Not everyone will enjoy it, sure, but some of you appear as if you're trying very hard not to like it.
Book order on Amazon are away, interested to see how the story develops.
|
On March 27 2012 20:49 Chocobo wrote:
I will absolutely never understand why people feel the need to join the hate parade anytime something is popular. Way to "fight back against the system", you super-cool rebel, you.
Um. Maybe because, you know, they actually hated it?
|
Very rarely do you see people hating on a movie, that is not a big hit.
I do understand it from people that read the books. I would understand it in case if it was a sequel. They may not like it. But do they really hate it? That's quite a big jump and for no apparent reason in most cases.
|
On March 25 2012 16:57 zalz wrote:
The shaky cam is mostly there to assure a PG-13 rating.
Showing someone getting cut down with a sword is apparently fine if you shake the camera, hinting at what happened.
This movie suffers because of its PG-13 rating. I don't think it was bad directing. They just didn't have a lot of other options if they wanted to get the target audience.
This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO.
The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this.
Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies.
On March 23 2012 11:01 The KY wrote:However there is one bit that annoyed me; + Show Spoiler +Ok so the guy who is meant to be in love with her tries to get her killed at the beginning of the games for no reason and then he tells her to run away and it's never brought up again. Was it his plan to chase her up the tree and hope she didn't get shot by an arrow, then help her escape later? Why the fuck does she trust this guy later? What the hell, he tried to kill you, you're not going to even ask why? Even if he had some stupid plan in mind you were THIS CLOSE to being shot by an arrow, TWICE.
And then when she's up the tree, the kids miss with the bow twice and then just give up. What. Instead of, I don't know, trying again (they have plenty of time to get in a good position and really take their time with the shot, she ain't going nowhere) or getting that girl who is really really good at throwing knives to, ya know, throw a knife at her, they decide that the best course of action is to simply sit and wait for her to get hungry. If that wasn't stupid enough they then all go to sleep at the SAME TIME. Sleep in shifts, god damn. Throw rocks at the girl. Try climbing the tree again, just because you fell the first time. This bit is so stupid that I spent the rest of the film thinking about it.
Hmm, is it really necessary to use spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to discussing the movie? I guess I should, just to be on the safe side...
+ Show Spoiler +Your first question is very confusing, as you said someone got killed for no reason and then later went on to do other things. I have no clue what you're even talking about here.
If you're asking about Peeta's motives... you have to understand that all of these people are in a chaotic environment, there are no rules, you can't train for every situation. Peeta found himself in a situation his choices were join the hunting group or risk immediate death, so he joined. Not everything goes according to a predetermined gameplan in a situation like this.
Katniss trusted him to some extent before the games, was betrayed to see him in the hunting group, but then he tried to save her later and she realized he probably joined out of necessity and was probably still on her side. He never tried to kill her.
As for the scene in the tree, the idea is supposed to be "she climbed up too high to be killed by amateur hunters". It's a two-hour movie, I don't know how many minutes of it you want to be dedicated to firing arrows up there and missing over and over and over.
As for sleeping in shifts... again, please remember, these are not military professionals, they're randomly selected teenagers. (And in the book it was clarified... they DID plan to sleep in shifts, but the girl fell asleep during her shift.)
I'm sorry but it honestly seems to me like some people are setting out with the goal of finding flaws to complain about, while not considering that what they saw had a reasonable explanation. Others seem to be setting themselves up for disappointment by searching for deeper meaning and complex character development, because this is not that kind of movie.
It's an entertaining story about people who find themselves in a crazy situation and about how they attempt to survive it. Enjoy it for what it is, instead of trying to break it down and analyze it as a work of art.
|
On March 27 2012 21:02 Xayoz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 20:49 Chocobo wrote:
I will absolutely never understand why people feel the need to join the hate parade anytime something is popular. Way to "fight back against the system", you super-cool rebel, you.
Um. Maybe because, you know, they actually hated it?
Maybe this is true for a few people. But it simply doesn't make sense that such a well-made, highly entertaining movie would attract so many complaining people. I am certain that much of it is just hating on whatever's popular.
Especially considering how the film was shot and how the story was told. It didn't attempt to be a work of art and fall short. It didn't attempt to tell the most romantic story ever told, and fail at it. It set reasonable goals instead of lofty ones, and achieved those goals almost flawlessly. There is very little in the movie to dislike or say "that could have been done better".
I can certainly understand if this movie just isn't someone's cup of tea, and I can definitely understand if people prefer movies that aim higher and try to accomplish more. It's fine for Hunger Games to not be your favorite thing.
But I've seen enough of the stupid complaints like "wtf is with those parachute things, that didn't even make sense" and "that romance stuff sucked, this movie is just another Twilight lolol".
|
On March 27 2012 21:21 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 16:57 zalz wrote:
The shaky cam is mostly there to assure a PG-13 rating.
Showing someone getting cut down with a sword is apparently fine if you shake the camera, hinting at what happened.
This movie suffers because of its PG-13 rating. I don't think it was bad directing. They just didn't have a lot of other options if they wanted to get the target audience. This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO. The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this. Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies. Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 11:01 The KY wrote:However there is one bit that annoyed me; + Show Spoiler +Ok so the guy who is meant to be in love with her tries to get her killed at the beginning of the games for no reason and then he tells her to run away and it's never brought up again. Was it his plan to chase her up the tree and hope she didn't get shot by an arrow, then help her escape later? Why the fuck does she trust this guy later? What the hell, he tried to kill you, you're not going to even ask why? Even if he had some stupid plan in mind you were THIS CLOSE to being shot by an arrow, TWICE.
And then when she's up the tree, the kids miss with the bow twice and then just give up. What. Instead of, I don't know, trying again (they have plenty of time to get in a good position and really take their time with the shot, she ain't going nowhere) or getting that girl who is really really good at throwing knives to, ya know, throw a knife at her, they decide that the best course of action is to simply sit and wait for her to get hungry. If that wasn't stupid enough they then all go to sleep at the SAME TIME. Sleep in shifts, god damn. Throw rocks at the girl. Try climbing the tree again, just because you fell the first time. This bit is so stupid that I spent the rest of the film thinking about it. Hmm, is it really necessary to use spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to discussing the movie? I guess I should, just to be on the safe side... + Show Spoiler +Your first question is very confusing, as you said someone got killed for no reason and then later went on to do other things. I have no clue what you're even talking about here.
If you're asking about Peeta's motives... you have to understand that all of these people are in a chaotic environment, there are no rules, you can't train for every situation. Peeta found himself in a situation his choices were join the hunting group or risk immediate death, so he joined. Not everything goes according to a predetermined gameplan in a situation like this.
Katniss trusted him to some extent before the games, was betrayed to see him in the hunting group, but then he tried to save her later and she realized he probably joined out of necessity and was probably still on her side. He never tried to kill her.
As for the scene in the tree, the idea is supposed to be "she climbed up too high to be killed by amateur hunters". It's a two-hour movie, I don't know how many minutes of it you want to be dedicated to firing arrows up there and missing over and over and over.
As for sleeping in shifts... again, please remember, these are not military professionals, they're randomly selected teenagers. (And in the book it was clarified... they DID plan to sleep in shifts, but the girl fell asleep during her shift.) I'm sorry but it honestly seems to me like some people are setting out with the goal of finding flaws to complain about, while not considering that what they saw had a reasonable explanation. Others seem to be setting themselves up for disappointment by searching for deeper meaning and complex character development, because this is not that kind of movie. It's an entertaining story about people who find themselves in a crazy situation and about how they attempt to survive it. Enjoy it for what it is, instead of trying to break it down and analyze it as a work of art.
There's two reasons why the PG-13 rating is a problem:
1) The shaky cam used to achieve it makes the action sequences completely incomprehensible. You can't tell what is happening in these sequences, and it degrades the whole movie by making these sequences look incredibly poorly shot.
2) One of the strongest moral themes of the whole film is the complete wrongness of the Hunger Games. They're barbaric, and the people of the Capitol who use the Games to quell the population are monstrous. The violence and brutality of the Games is central to theme of the movie, and when you sacrifice the visceral reaction to violence, the utter insanity of it all, you're substantially weakening what should be the strongest aspect of the movie. Its the same reason why some of the strongest war (and anti-war, depending on your perspective) are also the most violent. The opening of Saving Private Ryan, or the extreme depictions in Band of Brothers and The Pacific, stick with you because of their extreme nature, and are vivid illustrations of the insanity of war. When these depictions are sanitized, and particularly in the Hunger Games when the senseless nature of the violence is integral to the impact of the film, the film is weakened.
Also, the argument about "its not a work of art" or "its an action movie" or whatever is completely bogus. "Deeper meaning and complex character development" is what makes great movies, period. There are many paths through which this might be achieved, but at the end of it all, if the motivations and internal consistencies of the characters are not explained and demonstrated, its not going to be a great movie. Sure, you can actively downplay these aspects or employ simplistic devices to achieve these ends, but forgoing them entirely just makes the movie bad. Its the same reason I vehemently disagree with people who say the Transformers movies were OK or good because "well, its just an action movie". Action movies can still have more than a modicum of character development, and at the very least should have a coherent and internally consistent plot. If they don't, they're bad.
As I said in my previous posts, I thought Hunger Games had an interesting premise and the themes it introduced showed promise. I'm disappointed in the movie not because I hate it, but because it failed to live up to its promise or deliver very much in the way of insight on its core premise. That's disappointing to me.
|
This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO.
The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this.
Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies.
What are you even talking about...
I want a properly filmed action scene, not blood and guts pouring out of each contest when they die.
It isn't about blood or gore, it is about filming violence directly, which PG-13 barely allows. Do you not understand how filming a fighting scene is difficult when you aren't allowed to show a character stab another character without shaky cam?
Filming violence and glorifying violence are two very different things. You only display a lack of cinema when you proclaim that filming violence directly must always be akin to Saw-esque films.
|
On March 27 2012 21:58 azarat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 21:21 Chocobo wrote:On March 25 2012 16:57 zalz wrote:
The shaky cam is mostly there to assure a PG-13 rating.
Showing someone getting cut down with a sword is apparently fine if you shake the camera, hinting at what happened.
This movie suffers because of its PG-13 rating. I don't think it was bad directing. They just didn't have a lot of other options if they wanted to get the target audience. This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO. The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this. Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies. On March 23 2012 11:01 The KY wrote:However there is one bit that annoyed me; + Show Spoiler +Ok so the guy who is meant to be in love with her tries to get her killed at the beginning of the games for no reason and then he tells her to run away and it's never brought up again. Was it his plan to chase her up the tree and hope she didn't get shot by an arrow, then help her escape later? Why the fuck does she trust this guy later? What the hell, he tried to kill you, you're not going to even ask why? Even if he had some stupid plan in mind you were THIS CLOSE to being shot by an arrow, TWICE.
And then when she's up the tree, the kids miss with the bow twice and then just give up. What. Instead of, I don't know, trying again (they have plenty of time to get in a good position and really take their time with the shot, she ain't going nowhere) or getting that girl who is really really good at throwing knives to, ya know, throw a knife at her, they decide that the best course of action is to simply sit and wait for her to get hungry. If that wasn't stupid enough they then all go to sleep at the SAME TIME. Sleep in shifts, god damn. Throw rocks at the girl. Try climbing the tree again, just because you fell the first time. This bit is so stupid that I spent the rest of the film thinking about it. Hmm, is it really necessary to use spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to discussing the movie? I guess I should, just to be on the safe side... + Show Spoiler +Your first question is very confusing, as you said someone got killed for no reason and then later went on to do other things. I have no clue what you're even talking about here.
If you're asking about Peeta's motives... you have to understand that all of these people are in a chaotic environment, there are no rules, you can't train for every situation. Peeta found himself in a situation his choices were join the hunting group or risk immediate death, so he joined. Not everything goes according to a predetermined gameplan in a situation like this.
Katniss trusted him to some extent before the games, was betrayed to see him in the hunting group, but then he tried to save her later and she realized he probably joined out of necessity and was probably still on her side. He never tried to kill her.
As for the scene in the tree, the idea is supposed to be "she climbed up too high to be killed by amateur hunters". It's a two-hour movie, I don't know how many minutes of it you want to be dedicated to firing arrows up there and missing over and over and over.
As for sleeping in shifts... again, please remember, these are not military professionals, they're randomly selected teenagers. (And in the book it was clarified... they DID plan to sleep in shifts, but the girl fell asleep during her shift.) I'm sorry but it honestly seems to me like some people are setting out with the goal of finding flaws to complain about, while not considering that what they saw had a reasonable explanation. Others seem to be setting themselves up for disappointment by searching for deeper meaning and complex character development, because this is not that kind of movie. It's an entertaining story about people who find themselves in a crazy situation and about how they attempt to survive it. Enjoy it for what it is, instead of trying to break it down and analyze it as a work of art. There's two reasons why the PG-13 rating is a problem: 1) The shaky cam used to achieve it makes the action sequences completely incomprehensible. You can't tell what is happening in these sequences, and it degrades the whole movie by making these sequences look incredibly poorly shot. 2) One of the strongest moral themes of the whole film is the complete wrongness of the Hunger Games. They're barbaric, and the people of the Capitol who use the Games to quell the population are monstrous. The violence and brutality of the Games is central to theme of the movie, and when you sacrifice the visceral reaction to violence, the utter insanity of it all, you're substantially weakening what should be the strongest aspect of the movie. Its the same reason why some of the strongest war (and anti-war, depending on your perspective) are also the most violent. The opening of Saving Private Ryan, or the extreme depictions in Band of Brothers and The Pacific, stick with you because of their extreme nature, and are vivid illustrations of the insanity of war. When these depictions are sanitized, and particularly in the Hunger Games when the senseless nature of the violence is integral to the impact of the film, the film is weakened. Also, the argument about "its not a work of art" or "its an action movie" or whatever is completely bogus. "Deeper meaning and complex character development" is what makes great movies, period. There are many paths through which this might be achieved, but at the end of it all, if the motivations and internal consistencies of the characters are not explained and demonstrated, its not going to be a great movie. Sure, you can actively downplay these aspects or employ simplistic devices to achieve these ends, but forgoing them entirely just makes the movie bad. Its the same reason I vehemently disagree with people who say the Transformers movies were OK or good because "well, its just an action movie". Action movies can still have more than a modicum of character development, and at the very least should have a coherent and internally consistent plot. If they don't, they're bad. As I said in my previous posts, I thought Hunger Games had an interesting premise and the themes it introduced showed promise. I'm disappointed in the movie not because I hate it, but because it failed to live up to its promise or deliver very much in the way of insight on its core premise. That's disappointing to me.
1) Shaky-cam is a perfectly legitimate technique to use in a movie. It's meant to help you identify with the main character and see things how she sees them. When she is panicked and looking around, or running/fighting for her life, she doesn't have a steady image of everything that's in front of her with time to analyze everything. She does not get to clearly see everything that happens.
I will admit that this technique was SLIGHTLY overused though. One of the only legitimate flaws with the movie.
2) I completely understand your point here, and I agree that more violence could have helped to emphasize that idea. But I strongly disagree that it's necessary to do this, and that the movie is flawed if it doesn't.
3) You say "Deeper meaning and complex character development" is what makes great movies, period."
I AGREE. And guess what... The Hunger Games will not make anyone's list of "great movies". It is not one of the very best movies of the year. It doesn't particularly try to be. But it is a very good movie that's packed full of entertainment, at least. It's a high-quality popcorn movie, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It sounds as if you might be walking into every movie hoping for something on the level of Shawshank Redemption, Memento, or Saving Private Ryan. If that's true, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
|
On March 27 2012 22:06 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO.
The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this.
Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies. What are you even talking about... I want a properly filmed action scene, not blood and guts pouring out of each contest when they die. It isn't about blood or gore, it is about filming violence directly, which PG-13 barely allows. Do you not understand how filming a fighting scene is difficult when you aren't allowed to show a character stab another character without shaky cam? Filming violence and glorifying violence are two very different things. You only display a lack of cinema when you proclaim that filming violence directly must always be akin to Saw-esque films.
I understand what you're saying, and I did exaggerate somewhat when describing the "let me see more violence" side as being all about blood and gore.
But still... why do you feel that it's required that you are able to clearly see the stabbing and every other piece of violence, or else the movie is flawed? Katniss didn't get to clearly see them all. The filming is done in a way so that the viewer more or less gets the experience that she had.
And in the cases of violence when she did have a steady viewpoint (particularly the things that she did, and the things done to her), you did get to see it all.
|
On March 27 2012 21:32 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 21:02 Xayoz wrote:On March 27 2012 20:49 Chocobo wrote:
I will absolutely never understand why people feel the need to join the hate parade anytime something is popular. Way to "fight back against the system", you super-cool rebel, you.
Um. Maybe because, you know, they actually hated it? Maybe this is true for a few people. But it simply doesn't make sense that such a well-made, highly entertaining movie would attract so many complaining people. I am certain that much of it is just hating on whatever's popular. Especially considering how the film was shot and how the story was told. It didn't attempt to be a work of art and fall short. It didn't attempt to tell the most romantic story ever told, and fail at it. It set reasonable goals instead of lofty ones, and achieved those goals almost flawlessly. There is very little in the movie to dislike or say "that could have been done better". I can certainly understand if this movie just isn't someone's cup of tea, and I can definitely understand if people prefer movies that aim higher and try to accomplish more. It's fine for Hunger Games to not be your favorite thing. But I've seen enough of the stupid complaints like "wtf is with those parachute things, that didn't even make sense" and "that romance stuff sucked, this movie is just another Twilight lolol".
Great post. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
On March 27 2012 22:32 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:06 zalz wrote:This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO.
The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this.
Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies. What are you even talking about... I want a properly filmed action scene, not blood and guts pouring out of each contest when they die. It isn't about blood or gore, it is about filming violence directly, which PG-13 barely allows. Do you not understand how filming a fighting scene is difficult when you aren't allowed to show a character stab another character without shaky cam? Filming violence and glorifying violence are two very different things. You only display a lack of cinema when you proclaim that filming violence directly must always be akin to Saw-esque films. I understand what you're saying, and I did exaggerate somewhat when describing the "let me see more violence" side as being all about blood and gore. But still... why do you feel that it's required that you are able to clearly see the stabbing and every other piece of violence, or else the movie is flawed? Katniss didn't get to clearly see them all. The filming is done in a way so that the viewer more or less gets the experience that she had. And in the cases of violence when she did have a steady viewpoint (particularly the things that she did, and the things done to her), you did get to see it all.
Take for example the death of Rue.
In the book it is far more harsh and cruel. In the movie it is more of an accident.
If the movie could have filmed the violence better, it could have made the violence seem harsher, more cruel and thus make us feel sorry for the characters.
I am not saying I want them to have exciting fight scenes, I want the camera not to pan away to hide the horror of what is going on. Let the audience see just how horrible the fate of these kids is, let them see how visceral the violence is.
The movie could have made the Hunger Games part seem far more brutal.
And you don't need to spill guts and buckets of blood to make it seem brutal. Just put a steady cam and remove the music. Cold, heartless, fighting.
But they can't. They need to shake the cam because they can only hint at the violence, not show it outright. And I feel the movie suffers for it. It is still a great movie, but by not showing the violence for what it is (horrible) they are weakening the impact that the violence has, thus making the Hunger Games less cruel.
And because the Hunger Games don't seem as cruel as they could be displayed, we sympathize less with the characters and we don't hate the badguys as much as we should.
|
On December 20 2011 11:12 khaydarin9 wrote:
I'm biased (I work in publishing) but I feel like comparing the Hunger Games to Battle Royale is like comparing Star Wars to Lord of the Rings - there are thematic and structural similarities, but the underlying influence comes from mythology. Also, the execution is kind of different.
Well, when I first heard of The Hunger Games, my friend described it to me and I'm like "oh, you mean battle royal?"
Then I read it, and afterwards I was still thinking to myself "it's battle royal!"
|
On March 27 2012 22:25 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 21:58 azarat wrote:On March 27 2012 21:21 Chocobo wrote:On March 25 2012 16:57 zalz wrote:
The shaky cam is mostly there to assure a PG-13 rating.
Showing someone getting cut down with a sword is apparently fine if you shake the camera, hinting at what happened.
This movie suffers because of its PG-13 rating. I don't think it was bad directing. They just didn't have a lot of other options if they wanted to get the target audience. This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO. The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this. Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies. On March 23 2012 11:01 The KY wrote:However there is one bit that annoyed me; + Show Spoiler +Ok so the guy who is meant to be in love with her tries to get her killed at the beginning of the games for no reason and then he tells her to run away and it's never brought up again. Was it his plan to chase her up the tree and hope she didn't get shot by an arrow, then help her escape later? Why the fuck does she trust this guy later? What the hell, he tried to kill you, you're not going to even ask why? Even if he had some stupid plan in mind you were THIS CLOSE to being shot by an arrow, TWICE.
And then when she's up the tree, the kids miss with the bow twice and then just give up. What. Instead of, I don't know, trying again (they have plenty of time to get in a good position and really take their time with the shot, she ain't going nowhere) or getting that girl who is really really good at throwing knives to, ya know, throw a knife at her, they decide that the best course of action is to simply sit and wait for her to get hungry. If that wasn't stupid enough they then all go to sleep at the SAME TIME. Sleep in shifts, god damn. Throw rocks at the girl. Try climbing the tree again, just because you fell the first time. This bit is so stupid that I spent the rest of the film thinking about it. Hmm, is it really necessary to use spoiler tags in a thread dedicated to discussing the movie? I guess I should, just to be on the safe side... + Show Spoiler +Your first question is very confusing, as you said someone got killed for no reason and then later went on to do other things. I have no clue what you're even talking about here.
If you're asking about Peeta's motives... you have to understand that all of these people are in a chaotic environment, there are no rules, you can't train for every situation. Peeta found himself in a situation his choices were join the hunting group or risk immediate death, so he joined. Not everything goes according to a predetermined gameplan in a situation like this.
Katniss trusted him to some extent before the games, was betrayed to see him in the hunting group, but then he tried to save her later and she realized he probably joined out of necessity and was probably still on her side. He never tried to kill her.
As for the scene in the tree, the idea is supposed to be "she climbed up too high to be killed by amateur hunters". It's a two-hour movie, I don't know how many minutes of it you want to be dedicated to firing arrows up there and missing over and over and over.
As for sleeping in shifts... again, please remember, these are not military professionals, they're randomly selected teenagers. (And in the book it was clarified... they DID plan to sleep in shifts, but the girl fell asleep during her shift.) I'm sorry but it honestly seems to me like some people are setting out with the goal of finding flaws to complain about, while not considering that what they saw had a reasonable explanation. Others seem to be setting themselves up for disappointment by searching for deeper meaning and complex character development, because this is not that kind of movie. It's an entertaining story about people who find themselves in a crazy situation and about how they attempt to survive it. Enjoy it for what it is, instead of trying to break it down and analyze it as a work of art. There's two reasons why the PG-13 rating is a problem: 1) The shaky cam used to achieve it makes the action sequences completely incomprehensible. You can't tell what is happening in these sequences, and it degrades the whole movie by making these sequences look incredibly poorly shot. 2) One of the strongest moral themes of the whole film is the complete wrongness of the Hunger Games. They're barbaric, and the people of the Capitol who use the Games to quell the population are monstrous. The violence and brutality of the Games is central to theme of the movie, and when you sacrifice the visceral reaction to violence, the utter insanity of it all, you're substantially weakening what should be the strongest aspect of the movie. Its the same reason why some of the strongest war (and anti-war, depending on your perspective) are also the most violent. The opening of Saving Private Ryan, or the extreme depictions in Band of Brothers and The Pacific, stick with you because of their extreme nature, and are vivid illustrations of the insanity of war. When these depictions are sanitized, and particularly in the Hunger Games when the senseless nature of the violence is integral to the impact of the film, the film is weakened. Also, the argument about "its not a work of art" or "its an action movie" or whatever is completely bogus. "Deeper meaning and complex character development" is what makes great movies, period. There are many paths through which this might be achieved, but at the end of it all, if the motivations and internal consistencies of the characters are not explained and demonstrated, its not going to be a great movie. Sure, you can actively downplay these aspects or employ simplistic devices to achieve these ends, but forgoing them entirely just makes the movie bad. Its the same reason I vehemently disagree with people who say the Transformers movies were OK or good because "well, its just an action movie". Action movies can still have more than a modicum of character development, and at the very least should have a coherent and internally consistent plot. If they don't, they're bad. As I said in my previous posts, I thought Hunger Games had an interesting premise and the themes it introduced showed promise. I'm disappointed in the movie not because I hate it, but because it failed to live up to its promise or deliver very much in the way of insight on its core premise. That's disappointing to me. 1) Shaky-cam is a perfectly legitimate technique to use in a movie. It's meant to help you identify with the main character and see things how she sees them. When she is panicked and looking around, or running/fighting for her life, she doesn't have a steady image of everything that's in front of her with time to analyze everything. She does not get to clearly see everything that happens. I will admit that this technique was SLIGHTLY overused though. One of the only legitimate flaws with the movie.
It is a legitimate technique, but when it interferes with the audience comprehending what is actually happening, its a problem.
It should also be noted the use of this technique as a means to "identify" with the perspective of a character is troublesome. At the very basic level, the perspective of an audience and that of a character are very different things because in the majority of films, the audience is privy to different information than the characters. The reason why a horror movie can get away with shaky cams (The Blair Witch Project, or Cloverfield, for example) is because the consistent perspective and lack of information on the part of both audience and character is an important part of creating tension. Its not nearly as effective in action movies except to obfuscate a low budget.
2) I completely understand your point here, and I agree that more violence could have helped to emphasize that idea. But I strongly disagree that it's necessary to do this, and that the movie is flawed if it doesn't.
The film is less powerful than it otherwise could be, which counts as a flaw in my book.
3) You say "Deeper meaning and complex character development" is what makes great movies, period."
I AGREE. And guess what... The Hunger Games will not make anyone's list of "great movies". It is not one of the very best movies of the year. It doesn't particularly try to be. But it is a very good movie that's packed full of entertainment, at least. It's a high-quality popcorn movie, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It sounds as if you might be walking into every movie hoping for something on the level of Shawshank Redemption, Memento, or Saving Private Ryan. If that's true, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
In the last paragraph of my previous post, I said that my disappointment stemmed from the fact that the film didn't live up to the promise of its premise and themes, not because I was expecting some profound commentary on life (although the premise actually does have a lot to say about modern society if the film explored it at all). In any case, is it wrong for me to expect a film to strive for greatness? Should I, as a paying moviegoer, accept mediocrity and dismiss any shortcomings as "oh well, its not supposed to be a great movie"? I don't think so. That sort of attitude is why Hollywood churns out bad movies disguised with copious amounts of 'special effects' - because people still go and see them and expect nothing better. If I, in some small way, can contribute to better written, directed, and shot movies being produced by criticizing a film which fails to deliver on basic tenets of good film-making, I will.
|
The characters were really 1 dimensional in this movie. Such an amazing setup, and chance for characters to explore themselves and change over time. + Show Spoiler +When Katniss meets with Rue, first thing I thought of was how and when will they turn on each other, atleast how will they face it when the time comes? Next thing you know, she randomly dies to prevent that situation from occuring. Then Katniss and Peeta had the same opportunity, and again the plot comes in and saves them with announcements like 3 times.
|
You're thrown into an arena to fight for your survival and you're surprised most of them act like a bunch of primitives? That's perfectly reasonable in my book. Especially since some of them were trained their whole lives for this.
Also, character development isn't just, oh he likes something, goes through the games and then he likes something else.
Katniss went into the games to fight, alone and no matter what, come back. But she doesn't, she changes her mind and that helps her to get through the games mostly unaffected. You're just comparing how they seem before and after and completely disregard the journey, that they had to take to get there.
|
On March 27 2012 20:49 Chocobo wrote:
After reading the more sensible-sounding negative complaints (they cut out too much violence, they lost the "feeling" of the book), I went and read the book. It is virtually identical to the movie, almost nothing was cut and the movie portrayed everything in exactly the same way as the book. People just like to complain, I guess.
Watching a movie first vs reading a book first is probably very different for some people. I'm betting that some people can separate the two media pretty well and enjoy each on its own. Others probably will always view the second experience through the lens of the first.
For example, I watched the first season of Game of Thrones on HBO, then read "Game of Thrones". I didn't finish the book, nor did I pay close attention to the quality of the writing or the setting that was being described, I felt like I already knew it. I've read "A Clash of Kings" and I'm halfway through "A Storm of Swords". I was able to enjoy these books much more than the first. I wonder how I'll react to the second season on HBO. I did love the Lord of the Rings movies (seen long after reading the book).
I got a completely different feeling from the Hunger Games books than I did the first movie. The movie just didn't have any darkness or hopelessness. It could be just a question of a difference of opinion in interpretation (maybe I fucked it up), but who knows. The author is cool with it probably, so what do I know. In truth I found it a tiny bit funny that she'd make a movie out of a book that indicts this type of media.
|
On March 27 2012 22:42 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:32 Chocobo wrote:On March 27 2012 22:06 zalz wrote:This kind of thinking... I just can't comprehend it at all. How exactly does the movie suffer? You make it sound like it's your right to see every stabbing, slicing, and shooting from an up close viewpoint, and to inspect the bloody corpses afterwards... and that the PG-13 took that away from you. Ridiculous way of thinking, IMO.
The movie contained plenty of violence and did not need to shove every bit of gore right up in your face. It would not have been improved if it did this.
Also, the story is told from the viewpoint of a character whose strategy is to evade and survive. She did not personally see much of the violence up close. They shouldn't change this just to satisfy the bloodlust of the fans of the Saw movies. What are you even talking about... I want a properly filmed action scene, not blood and guts pouring out of each contest when they die. It isn't about blood or gore, it is about filming violence directly, which PG-13 barely allows. Do you not understand how filming a fighting scene is difficult when you aren't allowed to show a character stab another character without shaky cam? Filming violence and glorifying violence are two very different things. You only display a lack of cinema when you proclaim that filming violence directly must always be akin to Saw-esque films. I understand what you're saying, and I did exaggerate somewhat when describing the "let me see more violence" side as being all about blood and gore. But still... why do you feel that it's required that you are able to clearly see the stabbing and every other piece of violence, or else the movie is flawed? Katniss didn't get to clearly see them all. The filming is done in a way so that the viewer more or less gets the experience that she had. And in the cases of violence when she did have a steady viewpoint (particularly the things that she did, and the things done to her), you did get to see it all. The movie could have made the Hunger Games part seem far more brutal. And you don't need to spill guts and buckets of blood to make it seem brutal. Just put a steady cam and remove the music. Cold, heartless, fighting. But they can't. They need to shake the cam because they can only hint at the violence, not show it outright. And I feel the movie suffers for it. It is still a great movie, but by not showing the violence for what it is (horrible) they are weakening the impact that the violence has, thus making the Hunger Games less cruel. And because the Hunger Games don't seem as cruel as they could be displayed, we sympathize less with the characters and we don't hate the badguys as much as we should.
You know what... I think you've convinced me. It is true that the parts that they did show could have been more intense and meaningful, which is a potential flaw with the movie. I was just stuck in the mindset of "the book didn't portray it that way, and it's wrong to stray from what's in the book". But I suppose they could have tried to make improvements on it.
I don't know if I believe the PG-13 rating is responsible though. The last Harry Potter movie was fairly violent, and showed the deaths of a handful of characters the audience had come to know well. I suppose it gets a pass because it's done with magic instead of knives, it's less real. Planet of the Apes was kinda violent too.
As for Rue- I have no idea why they changed that scene. I didn't think it was more harsh and cruel in the book at all, really the only difference is whether she's standing up or not. In fact I think this is a case of the movie taking more of an effort to show the violence happen whereas in the book it's viewed from a distance.
I certainly don't see it as being an accident (as if the Katniss was the target, but he missed) but it is strange that he would not be aiming for Katniss, it's a change that improves nothing imo.
|
On March 27 2012 22:49 azarat wrote:In any case, is it wrong for me to expect a film to strive for greatness? Should I, as a paying moviegoer, accept mediocrity and dismiss any shortcomings as "oh well, its not supposed to be a great movie"? I don't think so. That sort of attitude is why Hollywood churns out bad movies disguised with copious amounts of 'special effects' - because people still go and see them and expect nothing better. If I, in some small way, can contribute to better written, directed, and shot movies being produced by criticizing a film which fails to deliver on basic tenets of good film-making, I will.
I think it is wrong to expect every film to strive for true greatness. It's OK to make a simple, straightforward action movie, and try to make it stand out based on interesting characters or unique situations. It's OK to make yet another romantic comedy, if you have some fresh ideas for it and some quality jokes to include. Not every movie has to make an attempt to win Academy Awards.
That certainly doesn't excuse Hollywood from churning out 100-million-dollar pieces of crap, with completely incompetent storytelling, stupid dialogue, and pointless action. Whatever your goals are when creating a movie, they ought to be accomplished skillfully, and too often they aren't.
But if you think that Hunger Games falls into this same category alongside with Transformers, Jack and Jill, and Twilight... then our brains just work in such a different way that it's pointless to even try to communicate with each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
