|
On March 27 2012 23:21 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:42 zalz wrote: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.
He threw a spear at Katniss, but Katniss dodged, so the spear hit Rue.
In the book, Rue is not just on the ground and helpless, she is still in a net. Adding to that, her murderer was waiting for Katniss to arrive, just so he could murder Rue in front of her.
I think there is a pretty big difference between accidentally hitting a child with a spear and stabbing a child that is stuck in a net.
|
On March 27 2012 23:07 biology]major wrote: 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.
I admit, in a sick way, that the idea of the Hunger Games is an entertaining concept. It's horrible and insane and barbaric and evil... but it is interesting to see how people handle that situation, how alliances form and break.
I would be interested to read or see stories of how it played out in other years with other characters. I suspect that most years, the alliance of well-trained fighters prevails, and then has to break up. But it would be interesting to know the characters, and see if they honorably break up or suddenly backstab each other. And if something like a Katniss/Rue team makes it to the end, it would be dramatic to see how it played out.
But that's just not how the story went in this particular Games, and that's OK. In fact it would feel contrived to me that if in this crazy unplanned world of chaotic violence, it turned out that she does have to face off against a little girl just because it would be dramatic for the movie.
As for that happening with Katniss and Peeta... the rule changes had their reasons behind them, and I'm ok with that. Again, a story is not absolutely required to find the most dramatic outcome possible and make it happen that way.
|
On March 27 2012 23:21 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 22:42 zalz wrote: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.
About the level of violence...
The one tricky aspect of a book -> movie is that in the book the reader's imagination can really fill things out and make it more vivid. I, and others like yourself, probably read & imagined the violent scenes with great detail because the book nudges you in that direction to show the horror of the games. But that's probably not the case for everyone, the more squeamish or younger readers would be able to kind of fantasize or pass through these parts, as they weren't written in all that much detail compared to something like Game of Thrones that is really visceral.
Anyways, the point being that for a movie they have to pretty much pick what level of violence there is for you rather than letting it be flexible for each individual. In that sense, while we'd like a more visceral experience to highlight the horrors of the games, I can't really hold it against them for picking a road that won't alienate as much of the audience.
Also Harry Potter was violent, but had little blood/gore. The sort of violence you'd want to show the horror of it would be the type of stuff you'd see in Drive, and it's clear why that's not alright in a PG-13 movie.
On March 27 2012 23:45 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:07 biology]major wrote: 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. I admit, in a sick way, that the idea of the Hunger Games is an entertaining concept. It's horrible and insane and barbaric and evil... but it is interesting to see how people handle that situation, how alliances form and break. I would be interested to read or see stories of how it played out in other years with other characters. I suspect that most years, the alliance of well-trained fighters prevails, and then has to break up. But it would be interesting to know the characters, and see if they honorably break up or suddenly backstab each other. And if something like a Katniss/Rue team makes it to the end, it would be dramatic to see how it played out. But that's just not how the story went in this particular Games, and that's OK. In fact it would feel contrived to me that if in this crazy unplanned world of chaotic violence, it turned out that she does have to face off against a little girl just because it would be dramatic for the movie. As for that happening with Katniss and Peeta... the rule changes had their reasons behind them, and I'm ok with that. Again, a story is not absolutely required to find the most dramatic outcome possible and make it happen that way.
One of my favorite parts of the book was that there was this weird feeling where you get and buy into the horror of the games (mostly from the excellent build up/reaping), but then as you are reading what's going on in the games for Katniss you're excited and entertained and looking forward to what comes next out of the games and how it will end. Basically the reader has the same emotions as someone from the Capitol.
Also the Peeta / Katniss thing, I thought it had better motive in the book (but the movie was alright too), in the sense that having the Star Cross Lovers be together and be the last 2 alive would make for the most dramatic finish for the games. The impression I got from the book is they only made the rule change because they wanted to rig things to push towards either a dramatic moment where one has to watch the other die, or they have to kill each other in the end.
The other impression I got in the book, but not movie, was that Peeta joined the group as a way to be able to sabotage their effort to get Katniss. He basically was in the mindset that he had no chance to win, but he might be able to help Katniss win. So by being around her biggest threat he could be of the most help.
The book also talks more about the other games and how usually the alliance will backstab each other eventually, but overall they almost always win unless something happens to their supplies (hence the plan to blow them up).
|
On March 27 2012 23:38 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:21 Chocobo wrote:On March 27 2012 22:42 zalz wrote: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. He threw a spear at Katniss, but Katniss dodged, so the spear hit Rue. In the book, Rue is not just on the ground and helpless, she is still in a net. Adding to that, her murderer was waiting for Katniss to arrive, just so he could murder Rue in front of her. I think there is a pretty big difference between accidentally hitting a child with a spear and stabbing a child that is stuck in a net.
I wish it was out on DVD already, I'd like to see that scene again. I didn't see it that way at all. I thought he targetted Rue and hit her, I don't recall Katniss being aware the attack was coming and certainly not dodging it.
In the book, the boy was not waiting for Katniss to arrive. He evidently noticed his trap had caught someone, so he grabbed his weapon and went and did what he had to do. Katniss only saw what happened to Rue from a distance, as opposed to seeing it up close like in the movie.
I thought the intensity of this scene was slightly higher in the movie than the book, though then again there is something unpleasant about being caught in a net and knowing that is coming. Interesting that you saw it so differently. If in the movie it was indeed a complete accident, then I would count that as a flaw and a stupid change to make.
|
She didn't dodge/move out of the way of the spear. She just let it go past her. It wasn't really clear if it was a bad throw or intentionally aimed at Rue though. It wasn't a bad scene, but i thought it could have been done better.
|
I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I went to the theater at midnight and had an amazing time. Much better than other saga movie series in my opinion. However, i guess i can only really speak for the books. I really liked the first one, and then the next two slightly fell off for me. Hopefully the movies don't follow suit!! =D
|
On March 28 2012 00:21 Lindsey Sporrer wrote:
I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I went to the theater at midnight and had an amazing time. Much better than other saga movie series in my opinion. However, i guess i can only really speak for the books. I really liked the first one, and then the next two slightly fell off for me. Hopefully the movies don't follow suit!! =D
I'm interested in seeing people's opinions of the second book as well, though I guess it's probably good not to get too spoileriffic in here since most people would have only seen the movie.
I thought the second book was incredible, taking the story of the first one and expanding it into something so much better. It seems odd to me that someone could be disappointed by it... sort of like someone saying "yeah Terminator 1 was good, but T2 I didn't enjoy as much".
I'm in the early chapters of the third book, I can't even imagine it living up to the standards set by the second one though, but I'm hoping for the best.
|
Katniss was very annoying in the 3rd book for me, which made me not like it as much though it had the potential to be the
best in the series.
|
On March 28 2012 01:09 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 00:21 Lindsey Sporrer wrote:
I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I went to the theater at midnight and had an amazing time. Much better than other saga movie series in my opinion. However, i guess i can only really speak for the books. I really liked the first one, and then the next two slightly fell off for me. Hopefully the movies don't follow suit!! =D I'm interested in seeing people's opinions of the second book as well, though I guess it's probably good not to get too spoileriffic in here since most people would have only seen the movie. I thought the second book was incredible, taking the story of the first one and expanding it into something so much better. It seems odd to me that someone could be disappointed by it... sort of like someone saying "yeah Terminator 1 was good, but T2 I didn't enjoy as much".
It could also be likened to: "The first Matrix sucked! Wait till you see the second". The shock and awe of the Matrix's plot device wears off in the 2nd and 3rd movies.
I didn't like the other books as much either. I think the root of it is that once you're a bit bored with the concept itself, you're just left with the author's storytelling, and it becomes like any other novel.
|
On March 28 2012 00:03 Logo wrote:
She didn't dodge/move out of the way of the spear. She just let it go past her. It wasn't really clear if it was a bad throw or intentionally aimed at Rue though. It wasn't a bad scene, but i thought it could have been done better.
Just asked a few other people I know about this scene, they confirmed Katniss did see the attacker ahead of time and moved... which means this scene was actively made worse than the book.
You could still argue due to the accuracy of the hit that he was aiming for Rue the whole time, but still, why change it.
|
On March 28 2012 02:16 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 01:09 Chocobo wrote:On March 28 2012 00:21 Lindsey Sporrer wrote:
I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I went to the theater at midnight and had an amazing time. Much better than other saga movie series in my opinion. However, i guess i can only really speak for the books. I really liked the first one, and then the next two slightly fell off for me. Hopefully the movies don't follow suit!! =D I'm interested in seeing people's opinions of the second book as well, though I guess it's probably good not to get too spoileriffic in here since most people would have only seen the movie. I thought the second book was incredible, taking the story of the first one and expanding it into something so much better. It seems odd to me that someone could be disappointed by it... sort of like someone saying "yeah Terminator 1 was good, but T2 I didn't enjoy as much". It could also be likened to: "The first Matrix sucked! Wait till you see the second". The shock and awe of the Matrix's plot device wears off in the 2nd and 3rd movies.
It could, if the 2nd story abandoned everything that was great about the first one in favor of intentionally confusing dialogue and a storyline that turns into a tangled incoherent mess. But that doesn't happen in the second Hunger Games book.
Sure, the novelty of the original story (which to be honest, does account for a large part of the appeal of the movie) has worn off... but it's replaced by an actively moving and very entertaining storyline.
|
for someone who didn't read the books I really enjoyed the film, there wasn't really a point where I was like "ok this is retarded," quality film in my opinion, i definitely recommend it
|
On March 28 2012 01:35 yourepicend wrote:
Katniss was very annoying in the 3rd book for me, which made me not like it as much though it had the potential to be the
best in the series.
It was tough after the initial charm, as Choco put it, wore off and the big picture plot had to be told. I felt like my inability to relate to Katniss during the third book was the biggest factor, where as in the earlier books I was right there with her in the story.
About the movie: thought it was entertaining. Had the usual, "oh, I didn't picture it that way..." with any book -> movie but thought it was solid all-around. Biggest moment was probably the Rue scene though where I was like uh, that's not at all how that happened.
|
After battle royale I hated this book, couldn't get 2/3 in. Finished the movie and it was... okay at best. Felt like it was stealing from BR but doing things considerably worse.
About shaky cam; I love it very much(Bourne movies are an example of it done well). But they should be used to add a visceral feeling to the action, not hide how crappy you are at choreography. Sadly this film did the latter mostly. I'd give a movie a 6.5/10. Worth watching. Actors did good. But the plot, and characters weren't very compelling and had little growth or development.
|
I enjoyed the movie.
Me and my girlfriend did.
|
I enjoyed the movie a lot except for the shaky camera... I had to close my eyes for like half the movie to keep from puking. I think it stuck pretty true to the movie. Definitely kept the feeling of uncertainty in Peeta's display of emotion. Read the entire series after watching the movie ^^
|
Good production and acting
But unfortunately the plot is bullshit and has a million holes ... so the movie sucked
I thought it might be good for the first 45 minutes until the actual Game began, everything went to shit then, and it just kept getting worse
I just do not understand how people can enjoy a movie with such a terrible plot
I have several questions
If the game is free-for-all fight to the death with one winner, why are they befriending and helping each other? what is this
People start saving each other, even though they are just going to kill them later? really
And why would you be upset when a competitior (the little black girl) dies ... one step closer to winning and staying alive
The pack of 4 or 5 kids go to sleep on the ground, why doesn't one of them just slit all over the other people's throats, that would help
It also bothers me that the little girl with throwing knives that weighs 70 or so pounds, completely manhandles the main character, who is twice her size and age
Towards the end when the sponsors give the remaining contestants a goody bag in the center common ground, everybody is gathered around outside in the woods to take cover, then the girl who is supposed to be the smartest one darts into the open first, and if you are going to do that, you might as well take all four of the goody bags. Then this same girl that is supposed to be smart dies from poisoning herself .. doesn't seem smart to me
It is stupid how towards the end of the movie, the announcer changes the rules 3 different times back and forth
One more thing, at the end when she shoots the antagonist in the arm to free Peeta, if that was real the arrow would have penetrated through the boy's hand an into Peeta's chest, killing them both
I don't even have a problem with them being able to create life forms that are big dog-like beasts out of thin air just by drawing them, on a computer or that they have magical cream that heals all ailments ... but the other things are just way too far
|
On March 28 2012 04:51 Endymion wrote:
for someone who didn't read the books I really enjoyed the film, there wasn't really a point where I was like "ok this is retarded," quality film in my opinion, i definitely recommend it
I found this part to be extremely stupid.
+ Show Spoiler +When Rue's friend/brother/whatever lets Katniss live, he says something like "just this time, for Rue."
Let me get this straight... You're on an Island, fighting to the death, and only ONE PERSON can make it out alive - but you're going to spare Katniss "for now" because she was nice to Rue? You're going to have to kill her eventually anyways.
|
Didn't read the books but was less than impressed with the movie. Visuals and violence aside, the story avoided the kind of character conflict that would have made it really interesting with deus ex machina.
|
On March 28 2012 13:55 Hambone636 wrote:
Good production and acting
But unfortunately the plot is bullshit and has a million holes ... so the movie sucked
I thought it might be good for the first 45 minutes until the actual Game began, everything went to shit then, and it just kept getting worse
I just do not understand how people can enjoy a movie with such a terrible plot
I have several questions
A plothole is not "I would do things differently," they are impossibilities.
For example, a character opening a door with a key whilst we know the key is actually in the possesion of another character. That is a plothole.
A character opening a door with his left hand whilst you would open it with your right hand, is not a plothole.
If the game is free-for-all fight to the death with one winner, why are they befriending and helping each other? what is this
People start saving each other, even though they are just going to kill them later? really
By teaming up they increase their own chances of winning, almost guarenteeing that the winner will be someone from district one or district two, the career players.
And why would you be upset when a competitior (the little black girl) dies ... one step closer to winning and staying alive
Why would you be upset if one of your siblings died? Surely that just means a larger share of the inheritance for you, right? People aren't logical creatures.
The pack of 4 or 5 kids go to sleep on the ground, why doesn't one of them just slit all over the other people's throats, that would help
That would come into play when the competition is dead or close to dead. The earlier it is in the game, the less likely they are to betray each other, each of them still has too much to gain.
It also bothers me that the little girl with throwing knives that weighs 70 or so pounds, completely manhandles the main character, who is twice her size and age
The girl with the knives was just as big as the main character. She was also one of the careers from the first or second district, people who train all their life to join the hunger games. Makes sense she would be stronger than a girl that never intended to be picked.
Towards the end when the sponsors give the remaining contestants a goody bag in the center common ground, everybody is gathered around outside in the woods to take cover, then the girl who is supposed to be the smartest one darts into the open first, and if you are going to do that, you might as well take all four of the goody bags. Then this same girl that is supposed to be smart dies from poisoning herself .. doesn't seem smart to me
In the book the bags are slowly raised from the elevators. The girl dashes out straight away. She expects the others to be too busy planning and scheming, so she just runs out without anyone expecting it.
She doesn't take the other bags because each one contains something that they desperately needs. If she takes the others she will be weighed down and almost force them to hunt her down. By only taking her own bag, she avoids anyone chasing her. Her whole plan was to avoid people as much as possible.
She eventually steals the berries from Peeta because Peeta didn't know they were poison berries. She was clever, but because Peeta genuinely believed he was picking normal berries, she didn't see a trap, because there wasn't any trap planned.
It is stupid how towards the end of the movie, the announcer changes the rules 3 different times back and forth
One more thing, at the end when she shoots the antagonist in the arm to free Peeta, if that was real the arrow would have penetrated through the boy's hand an into Peeta's chest, killing them both
The rules are changed because of one very simple reason. The Hunger Games are television. They are the height of entertainment, they are an event.
The rules were changed to create a love story that the people in the capitol wanted to see. In the end the rules were changed back because that would make for better television, forcing one lover to kill the other.
In the end he changes them back because they threaten to commit suicide together. Without a winner, the show would have been a disaster and he would have been held accountable. Of course, in the end he is still held accountable, but his goal was to create exciting television, each of his rule changes were for that specific goal and all make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
