EPTEdit: Looks like the post was redacted.
[Movie] The Hunger Games - Page 25
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
Edit: Looks like the post was redacted. | ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
On March 30 2012 20:01 ddrddrddrddr wrote: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. You don't need balls to kill somebody, but killing a bunch of sleeping people next to each other, with the adrenaline rushing through your veins, where one simple slip up means, that they might all wake up? Seriously? Not easy. Only people that volunteer and are ready are from the richest districts, the Careers. They are the only one trained for it since their childhood. Others are not ready to kill, they're just kids like we were/are. Just because there are Hunger Games going on every year, doesn't mean everybody is ready to go. Most just hope not to get picked. There are wars going on in our world, I don't see kids training, because they might need it. Even in countries, that are actually in a war, this rarely happens. Surviving, killing in defense and killing somebody in their sleep are completely different things. | ||
|
thezanursic
5489 Posts
| ||
|
Panthae
Canada205 Posts
On March 30 2012 23:04 Shockk wrote: Implying adults need (convincing) violence to enjoy a movie. Convincing violence. Realistic violence. Whatever you wanna call it. If it's a violent book, it should be a violent movie. | ||
|
bzhWisa
Austria15 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I would have liked to see him/her slaughtering the other person at the end after they changed the rules back, i dont know but this super-happy end wasnt very satisfying for me | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On March 31 2012 00:10 bzhWisa wrote: I alway miss surprising ends in movies. I like if movies have a happy end, dont get me wrong, but if there would be movies which take a very sudden change and become very surprising and sad, these would be the movies i would remember for the longest. + Show Spoiler + I would have liked to see him/her slaughtering the other person at the end after they changed the rules back, i dont know but this super-happy end wasnt very satisfying for me Honestly, in the book it's a bit more surprising. When they make the announcement at the end of the games Katniss actually draws her bow on Peeta (who puts his knife to his own throat). They then have a stand-off/talk before going for the berries. Also Peeta is almost dead at this point and it's not clear for a while if he actually survives the end of the games because he's rushed off to surgery and stuff. They also have a slightly more surprising ending that wasn't really put into the movies (at least not as explicitly) so slight spoiler incase it comes out in movie #2: + Show Spoiler + At the end of the book Katniss has a talk with Peeta saying effectively, "now we can stop pretending to love each other" because that's what she thought was going on. Except that's not how Peeta saw it, so it kinda puts an awkward (in a good way) end to the book. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 31 2012 00:04 Panthae wrote: Convincing violence. Realistic violence. Whatever you wanna call it. If it's a violent book, it should be a violent movie. Too bad it isn't a violent book, but only a book about violence. People get killed, yes, some of them in a pretty gruesome manner, but the book doesn't highlight this to an extent where it warrants specific attention to violence in the movie. Even if we'd drop the PG12 rating and 1:1 implement every death and gory detail from the book, we'd not end up with a lot or very detailed violence. Book/movie "spoilers": + Show Spoiler + What exactly do we miss? The boy who killed Rue getting shot in the throat instead of the stomach? The previous games with people bludgeoning each other to death only being hinted at in the film? The only "graphical" death - Glimmer - is handled pretty much according to the book in the film. The Hunger Games isn't about violence; it's about the characters and the world they're living in. Violence happens, in some cases it's a means to an end in explaining or developing a character, but in no way, shape or form would the movie have benefitted from upping the quota of blood or gore, from showing more explicit deaths instead of hints or a shaky camera. I don't want to take away from your personal impression; if you genuinely think that the movie would have needed more violence to be convincing, sure, your cup of tea. But please realize that you're not speaking for everyone, and your initial statement of "noone is happy about the movie [because of this]" is highly questionable at best. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
I don't feel the movie had any short comings in terms of violence though, I was happy with how it was. I didn't mind the missing violence, but there were some differences. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On March 29 2012 00:46 Stiver wrote: "I don't try to think logically about it and defend its flaws." So much wrongwith this statement. If you can't think logically, why are you talking? you just admit what you are saying isn't from a place of logic. If you don't udnerstand logic, the movie is not the one with flaws, you are. "I'm talking about the guy who scared away the deer at the start. Which also reminds me - why the fuck did he do that since they're poor and hungry as fuck" This isn't even from the book, in the movie he specifically said the deer would be useless because of all the soldiers in town for the reaping. They were hunting illegally, and trying to sell a deer would lead to their arrest. The rest is just troll bait. Battle Royale is an Asian movie with a similar premise. They are wildly differnet in every other area, and the people who try and say Hunger Games is a dumbed down version has neither seen or read Hunger Games. Ahem? The first book of The Hunger Games was ridiculously similar to Battle Royal. Hell, the entire god damn premise to having them fight to the death IS EXACTLY THE SAME. Pretty much every single major critic to the first book thought the author copied the premise dispite having never heard of battle royal before. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't seen/read battle royal... If you are talking about books 2 and 3, it goes in a way different path than Battle Royals continuation, but sure as hell not before the end of the first book. Battle Royale takes place in an alternate timeline—Japan is a member region of a totalitarian state known as the Republic of Greater East Asia (大東亜共和国 Dai Tōa Kyōwakoku). Under the guise of a "study trip", a group of students from Shiroiwa Junior High School (城岩中学校 Shiroiwa Chūgakkō) in the fictional town of Shiroiwa, in Kagawa Prefecture, are gassed on a bus. They awaken in the Okishima Island School on Okishima, an isolated, evacuated island southwest of Shodoshima (modeled after the island of Ogijima). They learn that they have been placed in an event called the Program. Officially a military research project, it is a means of terrorizing the population, of creating such paranoia as to make organized insurgency impossible. IT'S THE SAME GOD DAMN PREMISE | ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
It also doesn't mean, that the books/movies are going to be inherently bad because of that. But that's what most people want to say, when they mention this. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On March 31 2012 01:14 Vardant wrote: And there's nothing wrong with it being similar. But calling it a rip-off? What if she really never heard about it? It's not that original in the first place. It also doesn't mean, that the books/movies are going to be inherently bad because of that. But that's what most people want to say, when they mention this. I never said it's a rip-off. But people who think it's wildly different are nuts. Both books follow the exact same plot to a tee with only minor differences. The Hunger Games and Battle Royal are 2 of my favourite books and made great movies. Seriously though, anyone who liked the Hunger Games needs to go Read/Watch Battle Royal right now. It's the exact same thing without the toned down violence. You will enjoy it just as much. | ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
It's different enough though, with the whole back story in place and if you take into account, that it also works as a groundwork for the rest of the story, that goes beyond Battle Royale. | ||
|
Slakkoo
Sweden1119 Posts
| ||
|
ShmeeZZy
United States254 Posts
| ||
|
Gulf
Scotland213 Posts
On March 31 2012 01:55 ShmeeZZy wrote: People do realize that we had "The Running Man" before Battle Royale right? Like the whole arena and fight to the death thing had been done before. Complaining about who copied what is a useless arguement. You either like the current story or not. Complainning about who ripped off what is just dumb. Except in the running man it is supposed to be criminals who are sent in, and arnie is some super ex soldier type, to go and fight against, trained mercenary killers. Its not really the same as untrained kids. I think the most effective book/movie has to be battle royale as the kids are untrained before selection, untrained when they get thrown in to kill each other. and have all known each other for years. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
The plot is essentially a sci-fi version of the Roman Colosseum (in case you missed the bazillions of Roman names thrown at you). Huge audiences watching fights to the death. Cults of personality around winners. A controlled environment with unique traps like vicious animals. They even have a version of the famous thumbs up/down in the sponsor system. | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
On March 31 2012 02:19 Jerubaal wrote: The plot is essentially a sci-fi version of the Roman Colosseum (in case you missed the bazillions of Roman names thrown at you). Huge audiences watching fights to the death. Cults of personality around winners. A controlled environment with unique traps like vicious animals. They even have a version of the famous thumbs up/down in the sponsor system. Agreed. If you're looking for something that's drastically different than the hundreds or thousands of arena combat movies/scenes throughout history, you don't have reasonable expectations. There's only so much you can do in a fight-to-the-death arena premise. Hunger Games attempts to distinguish itself by a) having serious disparity in the skill of the fighters, b) a love story IN the arena, c) the rich population actively participating in the form of gifts. The rest is so generic that all you can do is depend on the actors/characters to do a good job and hook the audience. Battle Royale is great imo, but it's still nothing special. The same goes for Hunger Games. | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On March 30 2012 19:04 shaftofpleasure wrote: Chick Flick. Plain and Simple. Because girls are all about wilderness survival and brutal violent fights to the death. On March 30 2012 11:33 INFDexter wrote: What's amazing is how the Twilight formula was cynically remade so damn quick. This is the kind of shit that just bothers me. The lazy trolls who clearly haven't seen the movie but feel the need to spew out hatred on anything popular. Why do people have to act like this... | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
On March 31 2012 01:17 Figgy wrote: I never said it's a rip-off. But people who think it's wildly different are nuts. Both books follow the exact same plot to a tee with only minor differences. The Hunger Games and Battle Royal are 2 of my favourite books and made great movies. Seriously though, anyone who liked the Hunger Games needs to go Read/Watch Battle Royal right now. It's the exact same thing without the toned down violence. You will enjoy it just as much. That person did not say HG has a wildly different premise from BR. He said the premise is similar but the way it is written and filmed is very different. Neither movie is heavy on plot, it's basically "people are forced into a shitty situation and here's how they deal with it", but what little plot exists is very dissimilar between the two. BR has virtually no plot, just "a class of schoolkids are forced to fight" and it begins right away. Hunger, on the other hand, takes place in the distant future with a unique setting. It's told from one person's point of view and there's a lot more story to tell before the fighting begins. Yes it does all come down to people fighting for survival, but that hardly makes them identical. If that's the case then I guess Saving Private Ryan and Inglourious Basterds is the same movie, because it's all about people carrying out missions and killing each other in World War 2, right? On March 31 2012 01:55 ShmeeZZy wrote: People do realize that we had "The Running Man" before Battle Royale right? Like the whole arena and fight to the death thing had been done before. Complaining about who copied what is a useless arguement. You either like the current story or not. Complainning about who ripped off what is just dumb. Exactly. People are only comparing them so much because there happens to not be an excess of "people fight to the death and only one survives" movies to compare to... and not because they're actually similar to each other in storyline or style. | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
overall it was pretty good, but Battle Royale(jap movie of same basis) is far superior. | ||
| ||
