|
The whole bloodbath at the cornucopia never bothered me at all. From the player perspective: yes the careers are going to go for the supplies to take control of the game, but the only reasons to run away right off the bat is if you know you can survive on your own or you are too scared to fight for the supplies. What if you know you can't survive on your own and your only choice is to chance going for a few supplies? Knowing that if you survive by grabbing something and running you may actually have a chance to make it on your own.
Remember none of these kids are expected to have set foot outside of a district which is a very controlled environment.
Even Katniss, who is incredibly well suited for outdoor survival, would have died without the bag she grabbed. It's again not as clear in the books, but the warmth she gets from the bag's contents and the cantina saves her life multiple times. Even the bag itself does at the start by deflecting a knife.
|
What's amazing is how the Twilight formula was cynically remade so damn quick.
|
Australia18228 Posts
I just watched the movie with a few friends, and I feel the plot didn't feel like a real survival story at all (the book might be different though, haven't read it). I came into the theatre not knowing what it was about, other than a plot similar to Battle Royale (fight to the death), but the slow beginning and low amount of action throughout made it extremely boring.
The tributes making up alliances during the game was quite stupid. There's no way you would want to stick with someone stronger than you, knowing any moment he could kill you, and the more dominant person wouldn't feel they need help and wouldn't risk the chance of being backstabbed. All four members of the alliance even slept under the same tree as Katniss, without anyone staying awake and keeping an eye on her as well as scouting. She could've basically climbed down and silently killed all of them at any moment, and they wouldn't have known. Also, can't believe that Katniss was able to sleep for a couple of days recovering from the wasps stings - while being unscouted - and being completely fine when she woke up.
The low amount of action - especially for a survival scenario - also made it quite boring. It felt like Katniss didn't really have that much of an effect on the outcome of the game, and all she did was kept Peeta alive. The only significant action I remember was her blowing up some useless/irrelevant supplies and not having killed a single person throughout the whole time. Katniss was also never in any real danger, she looked completely nourished throughout, had no trouble sleeping peacefully throughout the night and was somehow always saved by a 'luck' factor. The large amount of contestants dying in the beginning, and the rest slowly being killed off-screen, made it less impactful when the last (excluding Peeta) person was killed off. It didn't make me cheer or feel glad that it was over, but more of "that's it?".
For a 'free-for-all fight to the death survival' plot, it was extremely disappointing.
edit: There was also so much emphasis on 'sponsors' completely affecting their chances of survival, but there were only two times that sponsors actually gave gifts(?) and only once when it actually mattered. Felt like a waste of time seeing them trying to market themselves to sponsors and given how popular Katniss was, how non-rewarding it is.
|
All of that was already explained here on multiple occasions and it still gets asked and answered on almost every page.
So I will skip that, but let me ask you this. You're familiar with BR and you still find alliances stupid?
|
Australia18228 Posts
On March 30 2012 18:54 Vardant wrote:
All of that was already explained here on multiple occasions and it still gets asked and answered on almost every page.
So I will skip that, but let me ask you this. You're familiar with BR and you still find alliances stupid?
Haven't read/watched BR either, just heard of the storyline before.
Just posted my opinion because all my friends considered it a good movie and IMDB is rating it 7.8/10 stars, while it was incredibly boring for me.
|
Chick Flick.
Plain and Simple.
|
I have to note here, that as a lover of scifi and fantasy, THG is a pretty solid option IF you acknowledge it is very much designed for early teens. It's not meant to be a logical movie, it's meant to be an emotional, traumatising one (or at least it is if it really follows the books). I haven't seen the movie yet, but if it's true that katniss doesn't end up looking like a monkey that's been fucked nine ways to tuesday I am disappointed. It's clear in the books that at the end of the process she is *ruined*, she's barely cogent five months later when the next book begins.
On the other hand, all this chatter about how you would have done it or how illogical it is is durp. These are kids high on adrenaline. You tell me how logical you would be if everyone around you was trying to kill you and you still hadn't grown a full set of short and curlies. The books do an excelent job of making you think you're smarter than her and then throwing things in that ruin the natural plans (eg, why not just hide until everyone else kills each other: answer, that's not entertaining enough so the game maker types will set you on fire just for laughs etc)
|
If the guy had time to point out a nest of killer wasps in trees, and the woman had the time to saw out a tree limb, and the noise from the sawing didn't wake anyone, the simpler solution is to cut every single one of them in their sleep. The guy at the very least should have had the opportunity.
|
Slicing throats, while they sleep gets tossed around like it's a cakewalk. Would you honestly have the balls for that? I mean, you're trying to kill multiple people lying next to each other. You're around 15, you make one mistake and you're dead. You've also never killed anyone before.
Anyone thinking this is easy is a psycho or honestly stupid.
|
Didn't read the book, and to be honest as a film it seems silly. Guess it addressed to those who've read the book, can't see why anyone would want to watch it who hasn't read it.
|
On March 30 2012 19:23 Vardant wrote:
Slicing throats, while they sleep gets tossed around like it's a cakewalk. Would you honestly have the balls for that? I mean, you're trying to kill multiple people lying next to each other. You're around 15, you make one mistake and you're dead. You've also never killed anyone before.
Anyone thinking this is easy is a psycho or honestly stupid.
Why would I need to have the balls to kill? Their situation doesn't correspond to anyone here. In their world, these kids know the hunger games as a matter of fact. They know what happens and they volunteered for it. They were conditioned before hand for it as well. She's seen people being bludgeoned to death in front of her and she's had a few brushes with death already. It was a matter of survival since she's been driven up a tree with death waiting below. The guy also had a romantic interest to consider on top of life and death. They don't have to be psychotic, it's pure pragmatism that would drive them to kill. To come out of the hunger games with situations such as this with clean hands is just impossible without an incredible amount of idealistic bs and copious amount of deus ex machina, which was actually the case.
It's not a cake walk, it's a necessity. And I believe realistically that someone in their situation would have been able to kill to not be killed.
|
On March 30 2012 19:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
Chick Flick.
Plain and Simple.
I don't get why so many people in this thread will readily dismiss the movie in either derogatory or horribly exaggerated terms. I just picked your post because it's the shortest and it's off from reality by the biggest margin, but I could have picked any other one from the last few pages.
I'd already have defended the movie against most of these pointless "reviews" because as a standalone piece of entertainment, I thought it was well done. And while maybe not being everyone's cup of tea, it doesn't have any major technical flaws or truly flawed characters.
But since reading the books - I pretty much devoured the first two over the last days and have now started the third - I appreciate the movie even more. It truly captured the spirit of both the story told and the universe pictured, and it's even more amazing that very little of all of that is lost due to the rating and thus the adaption to the younger audience (read: reduced violence).
The movie could easily have used all of the dystopian elements of the story as a backdrop for a cheap action or romance flick, but instead it's incorporated nicely. It's not a piece about young love, or a naive girl's coming of age. Why anyone would call it a "chick flick" or actually compare it to the atrocity that is Twilight (both movie and book, and yes, I did see/read the first one to know what I'm talking about) is beyond me.
Chocobo said it a well a couple of posts ago and the more replies I read in this thread, the more I agree with him. Quite a number of people here apparently dismiss the movie because it's new, it's popular, and maybe even because the main character is a teenage girl. There's no other reason I could come up with to explain the disproportionate amount of ridiculous criticism it receives here.
|
On March 30 2012 20:20 Shockk wrote:I don't get why so many people in this thread will readily dismiss the movie in either derogatory or horribly exaggerated terms. I just picked your post because it's the shortest and it's off from reality by the biggest margin, but I could have picked any other one from the last few pages. I'd already have defended the movie against most of these pointless "reviews" because as a standalone piece of entertainment, I thought it was well done. And while maybe not being everyone's cup of tea, it doesn't have any major technical flaws or truly flawed characters. But since reading the books - I pretty much devoured the first two over the last days and have now started the third - I appreciate the movie even more. It truly captured the spirit of both the story told and the universe pictured, and it's even more amazing that very little of all of that is lost due to the rating and thus the adaption to the younger audience (read: reduced violence). The movie could easily have used all of the dystopian elements of the story as a backdrop for a cheap action or romance flick, but instead it's incorporated nicely. It's not a piece about young love, or a naive girl's coming of age. Why anyone would call it a "chick flick" or actually compare it to the atrocity that is Twilight (both movie and book, and yes, I did see/read the first one to know what I'm talking about) is beyond me. Chocobo said it a well a couple of posts ago and the more replies I read in this thread, the more I agree with him. Quite a number of people here apparently dismiss the movie because it's new, it's popular, and maybe even because the main character is a teenage girl. There's no other reason I could come up with to explain the disproportionate amount of ridiculous criticism it receives here.
Well said. This just appeared on my radar and I will give it a shot because I am curious. No reason to dismiss it without giving it a chance.
|
On March 30 2012 11:33 INFDexter wrote:
What's amazing is how the Twilight formula was cynically remade so damn quick.
On March 30 2012 19:04 shaftofpleasure wrote:
Chick Flick.
Plain and Simple.
I'm not sure that either of these people watched the movie. According to Wikipedia, a chick flick is
a slang term for a film mainly dealing with love and romance designed to appeal to a female target audience
While there were elements of romance in the story, if you want to call the movie "mainly" dealing with love and romance, then it is plainly obvious that you did not watch the movie, and as such have very little comprehension of the plot. Furthermore, if you consider this to be a "chick flick", then by the same definition all of the Harry Potter movies, and nearly every single movie with a PG-13 rating made in the past ten years would be one.
Watch the movie first, make ignorant comments later.
On Twilight: I'd be willing to bet that you never read the books. I have read all of them, seen the movies, and will now address your ignorance. Twilight is a series in which a helpless high school girl falls in love with a mysterious vampire and encounter a number of vampire/supernatural issues.
Is this sounding like the Hunger Games to you? If so, then just stop reading right here, because you're beyond help.
Katniss is a capable young girl who realizes that creating the semblance of a romance with Peeta is her best chance at getting sponsors. This is clearly shown throughout the film, what Haymich's notes and her reactions to them. Furthermore, Twilight has a plot so bad that it is almost painful to watch/read.
To the contrary, this was a very watchable movie with clearly defined characters and excellent acting on the part of the leads.
I hope that you now find the time to actually watch this movie instead of making blind categorizations.
|
Is this movie a feminized version of Battle Royale?
|
On March 30 2012 22:31 teer wrote:
Is this movie a feminized version of Battle Royale?
No.
|
The books are very good. Best series I've read recently.
|
Overall it was a well made movie, good acting, decent effects, gritty environment. My issue is more with the violent side of things.
There seems to be a sad consensus among mainstream movies nowadays that you can't be too violent because it alienates the younger audience from the viewing experience. So they soften it up to a point where it's too violent for any child to see, but not violent enough for any adult that wants to see. So movies like this and, notably, Harry Potter end up in a weird limbo where noone is happy about the movie because it's only half-good for both audiences.
Also to be noted is the first person narrative from the book. The book is interesting because you can read Katniss' thoughts throughout the whole book, the indecisions, the flaws, the dilemmas... That's what's keeping it interesting, but with a movie, it comes off like she's just another troubled teen. I feel the movie could've used more ''in my head'' narrative to punch you with the complexity of the character instead of showing us just another teen who's finding herself.
All in all though it's a good movie though. Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson embody their characters very well. I'd recommend the books first for anyone new to the series, they really are better. Hunger Games is a revamped Battle Royale with a more accessible storyline.
|
On March 30 2012 22:42 Panthae wrote:
There seems to be a sad consensus among mainstream movies nowadays that you can't be too violent because it alienates the younger audience from the viewing experience. So they soften it up to a point where it's too violent for any child to see, but not violent enough for any adult that wants to see. So movies like this and, notably, Harry Potter end up in a weird limbo where noone is happy about the movie because it's only half-good for both audiences.
Implying adults need (convincing) violence to enjoy a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
