|
On March 29 2012 11:15 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 10:06 Black and Proud wrote:
Oh yeah, and WTF was up with her friend being a part of the alliance?
"Hey, why don't we kill him now!"
"No! We need him to find the other girl!"
Uhh... No you fucking don't. And how would he know where she is anyway? "Ok we got her! Now let's all go to sleep under the tree she's in." "Wait, why? I have these knives...I'm good at throwing these knives. I could throw a knife." "No I'm the leader! It's nap time." "What about this kid from her district? Does he go to sleep with us? Why don't we kill him, we don't need him if we ever did." "Look, just...come on. Sh. Sleepy time." LATER "Katniss..I love you." "Didn't you try to kill me a little while ago? Like...literally kill me? I mean, maybe all of those dumbasses going to sleep under a wasps nest and me getting a parachute with magic cream in it was part of your plan, somehow? It seems unlikely. I mean, those two arrows they shot came really close to hitting me. I could very easily have been stuck through with a fucking arrow." "....loooooooooove." Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 11:02 tests wrote:
Movie was okay. I read the books and they were way better. Something about Jennifer Lawrence, I just can't get her out of my head. She is an extremely talented actress and so hot. Such a special girl (Yes I r jealous). I watched it with my gf. She spent the whole film saying how pretty the lead was and then turned and look at me suddenly and went 'SHE REMINDS ME OF YOUR EX.' I felt like a deer in traffic lights for some reason.
Literally LOL. Didn't expect to laugh in this thread, but this was just gold.
And I liked the movie too, props.
|
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
Second - Seriously the people saying 'Oh kids aren't ready to kill in that situation blah blah blah', you guys don't have a clue. Kids in our society today kill other people at even as young as 10 years old. Obviously in many of those situations the kid has an issue but the hunger games is set in a fucked up society. There is fear, there is starvation, there is death. ANY child growing up in that situation is going to develop a mean survival instinct. Any normal kid living in a society like ours would MOST LIKELY kill someone if they were put into the hunger games. why is this? BECAUSE SURVIVAL IS A NATURAL FUCKING INSTINCT.
-It's like me. Now at 22, I know I'm capable of killing someone to defend my own life or a friend or family members life. I would NEVER kill someone without the previous listed reason - but I know in a situation where I had too, there would not be hesitation. At a certain point of danger, a switch snaps in a person's head and they are no longer thinking rationally. Survival takes over and you defend yourself or those you care about. Now that's me at 22 in our society today. At 16 years old, I didn't know I was capable of killing someone, but if I had been placed in a situation where my life is threatened, it wouldn't matter if I knew that or not. Survival instinct would of taken over and I would of done whatever I had to, naturally.
-That is me living in a NORMAL society. These kids are born and raised in a fucked up dog eats dog world where to survive, you have to have that instinct. It would have been ingrained in their mind, and the movie did NOT portray this at all.
-thirdly - the movie made such a large point of hyping up sponsers and then they played literally like a 3 minute roll in where Kat got some medicine. Why spend 20 minutes of a movie hyping up the idea of sponsers, if they only do 1 small ass thing?
Finally - in a situation where you're fighting for your life, there should of been way more legit action, and less talk/love story between two people in which one DID NOT EVEN LOVE THE OTHER PERSON. And don't say 'showing off to the sponsers' because that's stupid since they did one thing in the entire movie, was really worth it.
|
thought it would be alot more gruesome. and that the char would actually switch over to fight/flee instincts. instead it was a predictable story with a happy ending. trailers just made it seam alot more disturbing than it was.
|
By reading some of the comment on this thread, I want to ask some questions. Seriously did the violent really toned down by that much? Were they even bloods in the movie? How was the battle between the mutated animals choreographed?
|
On March 31 2012 08:50 Xiphos wrote:
By reading some of the comment on this thread, I want to ask some questions. Seriously did the violent really toned down by that much? Were they even bloods in the movie? How was the battle between the mutated animals choreographed?
Just by going off the idea of fighting to the death, the violence was pretty tamed. When there was fighting going on, the scenes had the shaky camera style. You know what was going on, but you don't actually see them stabbing, slashing, etc in full. There was blood, but nothing over the top.
|
I think reading the book beforehand may have helped me understand the movie a lot more than some movie only watchers but it was really awesome in my opinion, don't get me wrong, there were quite a few flaws but the storyline and acting was decent in my opinion. I kinda wish we saw more violence, like at the start of the cornucopia and more moments showing just how badly a shape the characters were meant to be in (starvation, injuries, hallucinations from the tracker jackers, dehydration, no clue where others are etc.) and I think they could of done so if they just got to the hunger games quicker but I guess since it was rated 13A they couldn't do so? I really enjoyed it though, I would happily watch it again whenever a DVD copy is released.
|
On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
Second - Seriously the people saying 'Oh kids aren't ready to kill in that situation blah blah blah', you guys don't have a clue. Kids in our society today kill other people at even as young as 10 years old. Obviously in many of those situations the kid has an issue but the hunger games is set in a fucked up society. There is fear, there is starvation, there is death. ANY child growing up in that situation is going to develop a mean survival instinct. Any normal kid living in a society like ours would MOST LIKELY kill someone if they were put into the hunger games. why is this? BECAUSE SURVIVAL IS A NATURAL FUCKING INSTINCT.
-It's like me. Now at 22, I know I'm capable of killing someone to defend my own life or a friend or family members life. I would NEVER kill someone without the previous listed reason - but I know in a situation where I had too, there would not be hesitation. At a certain point of danger, a switch snaps in a person's head and they are no longer thinking rationally. Survival takes over and you defend yourself or those you care about. Now that's me at 22 in our society today. At 16 years old, I didn't know I was capable of killing someone, but if I had been placed in a situation where my life is threatened, it wouldn't matter if I knew that or not. Survival instinct would of taken over and I would of done whatever I had to, naturally.
-That is me living in a NORMAL society. These kids are born and raised in a fucked up dog eats dog world where to survive, you have to have that instinct. It would have been ingrained in their mind, and the movie did NOT portray this at all.
-thirdly - the movie made such a large point of hyping up sponsers and then they played literally like a 3 minute roll in where Kat got some medicine. Why spend 20 minutes of a movie hyping up the idea of sponsers, if they only do 1 small ass thing?
Finally - in a situation where you're fighting for your life, there should of been way more legit action, and less talk/love story between two people in which one DID NOT EVEN LOVE THE OTHER PERSON. And don't say 'showing off to the sponsers' because that's stupid since they did one thing in the entire movie, was really worth it.
Your first point is just a makeup/costuming issue, your second point isn't even a point since it's just your opinion on how you would have acted, which is in no way more valid than anyone elses opinion. I feel very sorry for you if you think that living in a poor society suddenly turns humans into mindless animals who kill and eat each other. Regardless, there are a lot of killings in this book, so I don't really know what you're referring to. And your 3rd point the sponsors did more in the book. Yes I'm referencing the book, there is no way any movie can depict every single thing that happened in the book. And in the end it was their 'love' that saved them anyway; if they didn't play up the whole love story thing that got the whole crowd involved then the Capitol would have probably just had them both executed when the games were over, or refused to conclude the games until one of them killed the other. So yeah, the love story kind of saved both their lives.
Edit: And I think you are the one who needs to calm down, there is NO NEED to type in CAPS EVERY FEW SENTENCES.
|
On March 31 2012 09:27 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
Second - Seriously the people saying 'Oh kids aren't ready to kill in that situation blah blah blah', you guys don't have a clue. Kids in our society today kill other people at even as young as 10 years old. Obviously in many of those situations the kid has an issue but the hunger games is set in a fucked up society. There is fear, there is starvation, there is death. ANY child growing up in that situation is going to develop a mean survival instinct. Any normal kid living in a society like ours would MOST LIKELY kill someone if they were put into the hunger games. why is this? BECAUSE SURVIVAL IS A NATURAL FUCKING INSTINCT.
-It's like me. Now at 22, I know I'm capable of killing someone to defend my own life or a friend or family members life. I would NEVER kill someone without the previous listed reason - but I know in a situation where I had too, there would not be hesitation. At a certain point of danger, a switch snaps in a person's head and they are no longer thinking rationally. Survival takes over and you defend yourself or those you care about. Now that's me at 22 in our society today. At 16 years old, I didn't know I was capable of killing someone, but if I had been placed in a situation where my life is threatened, it wouldn't matter if I knew that or not. Survival instinct would of taken over and I would of done whatever I had to, naturally.
-That is me living in a NORMAL society. These kids are born and raised in a fucked up dog eats dog world where to survive, you have to have that instinct. It would have been ingrained in their mind, and the movie did NOT portray this at all.
-thirdly - the movie made such a large point of hyping up sponsers and then they played literally like a 3 minute roll in where Kat got some medicine. Why spend 20 minutes of a movie hyping up the idea of sponsers, if they only do 1 small ass thing?
Finally - in a situation where you're fighting for your life, there should of been way more legit action, and less talk/love story between two people in which one DID NOT EVEN LOVE THE OTHER PERSON. And don't say 'showing off to the sponsers' because that's stupid since they did one thing in the entire movie, was really worth it.
Your first point is just a makeup/costuming issue, your second point isn't even a point since it's just your opinion on how you would have acted, which is in no way more valid than anyone elses opinion'. And your 3rd point the sponsors did more in the book. Yes I'm referencing the book, there is no way any movie can depict every single thing that happened in the book. And in the end it was their 'love' that saved them anyway; if they didn't play up the whole love story thing that got the whole crowd involved then the Capitol would have probably just had them both executed when the games were over, or refused to conclude the games until one of them killed the other. So yeah, the love story kind of saved both their lives.
Should of read the first part about fanboyism because that's all your reply post is
1). That makeup costuming issue RUINED the tone that the movie was suposed to be set in
2). My second point isn't just an opinion, take a psychology class. In a high stress survival situation, there are 2 reactions with an occasional but rare 3rd - Fight or Flight - meaning you run like hell, or you fight like a insane person. The 3rd is the 'freeze up' rabbit style reaction, but most people don't usually express that, they choose to run or fight, not just stand there.
3). Obviously, the point is that the movie shouldnt of spent so long talking about the sponsers only to have them do basically nothing in the movie. 30 minutes of wasted time that could have developed the 'love story' more or developed the action and intensity of the situation more
4). 'Love' thats the point. She didn't fucking love him. So she could of just killed him at the end, and according to people in the book she almost did. If one person DOESNT love the other you can't have a legit love story ending that's just dumb and fake.
|
On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
It doesn't mean that the kids in the arena are food deprived, watch the introduction to the movie again.
They obviously have to scavenge for food, but TBH the games take less than a week and the point is about getting for for your district, not getting food to survive. That's why it's called "the Hunger Games", because it's a contest for food between districts.
|
On March 31 2012 09:35 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 09:27 Ryder. wrote:On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
Second - Seriously the people saying 'Oh kids aren't ready to kill in that situation blah blah blah', you guys don't have a clue. Kids in our society today kill other people at even as young as 10 years old. Obviously in many of those situations the kid has an issue but the hunger games is set in a fucked up society. There is fear, there is starvation, there is death. ANY child growing up in that situation is going to develop a mean survival instinct. Any normal kid living in a society like ours would MOST LIKELY kill someone if they were put into the hunger games. why is this? BECAUSE SURVIVAL IS A NATURAL FUCKING INSTINCT.
-It's like me. Now at 22, I know I'm capable of killing someone to defend my own life or a friend or family members life. I would NEVER kill someone without the previous listed reason - but I know in a situation where I had too, there would not be hesitation. At a certain point of danger, a switch snaps in a person's head and they are no longer thinking rationally. Survival takes over and you defend yourself or those you care about. Now that's me at 22 in our society today. At 16 years old, I didn't know I was capable of killing someone, but if I had been placed in a situation where my life is threatened, it wouldn't matter if I knew that or not. Survival instinct would of taken over and I would of done whatever I had to, naturally.
-That is me living in a NORMAL society. These kids are born and raised in a fucked up dog eats dog world where to survive, you have to have that instinct. It would have been ingrained in their mind, and the movie did NOT portray this at all.
-thirdly - the movie made such a large point of hyping up sponsers and then they played literally like a 3 minute roll in where Kat got some medicine. Why spend 20 minutes of a movie hyping up the idea of sponsers, if they only do 1 small ass thing?
Finally - in a situation where you're fighting for your life, there should of been way more legit action, and less talk/love story between two people in which one DID NOT EVEN LOVE THE OTHER PERSON. And don't say 'showing off to the sponsers' because that's stupid since they did one thing in the entire movie, was really worth it.
Your first point is just a makeup/costuming issue, your second point isn't even a point since it's just your opinion on how you would have acted, which is in no way more valid than anyone elses opinion'. And your 3rd point the sponsors did more in the book. Yes I'm referencing the book, there is no way any movie can depict every single thing that happened in the book. And in the end it was their 'love' that saved them anyway; if they didn't play up the whole love story thing that got the whole crowd involved then the Capitol would have probably just had them both executed when the games were over, or refused to conclude the games until one of them killed the other. So yeah, the love story kind of saved both their lives. Should of read the first part about fanboyism because that's all your reply post is 1). That makeup costuming issue RUINED the tone that the movie was suposed to be set in 2). My second point isn't just an opinion, take a psychology class. In a high stress survival situation, there are 2 reactions with an occasional but rare 3rd - Fight or Flight - meaning you run like hell, or you fight like a insane person. The 3rd is the 'freeze up' rabbit style reaction, but most people don't usually express that, they choose to run or fight, not just stand there. 3). Obviously, the point is that the movie shouldnt of spent so long talking about the sponsers only to have them do basically nothing in the movie. 30 minutes of wasted time that could have developed the 'love story' more or developed the action and intensity of the situation more 4). 'Love' thats the point. She didn't fucking love him. So she could of just killed him at the end, and according to people in the book she almost did. If one person DOESNT love the other you can't have a legit love story ending that's just dumb and fake.
Read my edits. Also, who said it was a legit love story? They never tried to make it look legit, the whole purpose of it was always in order to win over the crowd and sponsors. Regardless of the fact it wasn't real, it saved their lives. What more of a purpose than that do you need?!
And yes it is your opinion. There were killings and deaths in the book, people fought and people fled. What part of the movie are you contesting here? Nobody just 'stands there', yeah they make alliances, are you trying to tell me that would never happen either? Just look at all those stupid reality shows live survivor; only one person can win but they still make aliances to try increase their chance of winning.
Again, give me specific examples of what is troubling you so much, your post just makes you look like you're frothing from the mouth with no real substance
Edit: ^ Praetorial is right, there were extremely well fed before the start of the hunger games anyway. Add to that all the drops and pickups, a lot of the contestants weren't exactly starving throughout the whole games.
|
3). Obviously, the point is that the movie shouldnt of spent so long talking about the sponsers only to have them do basically nothing in the movie. 30 minutes of wasted time that could have developed the 'love story' more or developed the action and intensity of the situation more
Sponsors were the "love story".
It was the girls only motivation for farcing the romance.
|
Having read the books and watched the movie, I think they did a pretty good job covering the entire storyline. However, I was surprised at the demographic of people who watched this movie. It seemed to appeal to the same demographic that Twilight did, which surprised me because of its far darker content and more serious content. I guess they were attracted by the "love triangle" between Katniss, Gale, and Peeta. I always thought that was more of a background story to better define the characters, and the story was realy about the games being a view of human society taken to its extreme (People valuing attention more than food)
So aside from being in a theatre full of screaming teenage girls, the movie was great :D.
|
On March 31 2012 00:42 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 00:04 Panthae wrote:On March 30 2012 23:04 Shockk wrote: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. 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.
My point isnt that the movie should only be about violence, just that it doesnt achieve in telling me what you're saying, because it isn't violent enough. Don't go putting words in my mouth and try to have a deeper thought than reading a line and flipping out about it. Reflection is clearly not your strongsuit, perhaps that's why you don't understand my point?
|
What an odd name for a main character...
|
On March 31 2012 09:39 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
It doesn't mean that the kids in the arena are food deprived, watch the introduction to the movie again. They obviously have to scavenge for food, but TBH the games take less than a week and the point is about getting for for your district, not getting food to survive. That's why it's called "the Hunger Games", because it's a contest for food between districts.
This barely comes across in the movie, hell I don't even remember them mentionning it.
|
On March 31 2012 12:21 Panthae wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 09:39 Praetorial wrote:On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
It doesn't mean that the kids in the arena are food deprived, watch the introduction to the movie again. They obviously have to scavenge for food, but TBH the games take less than a week and the point is about getting for for your district, not getting food to survive. That's why it's called "the Hunger Games", because it's a contest for food between districts. This barely comes across in the movie, hell I don't even remember them mentionning it.
The winning district gets a massive victory feast.
I really liked the movie after reading the books. But they left some important stuff out. Like what was in the dist 1/2 gifts at the end. Cato's armour was important as shit and led to his excruciating death by the mutts. And thresh dying to the Mutts was a total cop out... Cato and him duelling in the field was way more epic. Oh well...
I love how all the "edgy" kids come and bash whatever is popular at the moment to earn internet cool points lol
|
I haven't seen the movie, but the book was pretty good except the last one it was kind of confusing, but still ok.
The book discribed the arena pretty well and how bad of the kids were something from what I've read has been done badly in the movie. The book obviously has more time to explain why Katniss doesn't just kill Peeta. It's partly due to sense of owth to Peeta for saving her life (twice) and for the end where she doesn't just kill him it's more about her not being able to face the people at district 12 when she came back. The sponsors have a deeper role in the book than the movie, but on this point the book could have done more about the, but it's still a fairly big role.
|
On March 28 2012 23:28 Black and Proud wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 20:11 Chocobo wrote:On March 28 2012 13:55 Hambone636 wrote:
unfortunately the plot is bullshit and has a million holes ... so the movie sucked
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
I don't mean to be rude but it's kind of mind-boggling that not only do you disagree with their actions, but you can't even conceive of how it could make sense. There were no plot holes and all of the characters' actions made sense, it seems like we must have seen completely different movies. Making alliances makes perfect sense. Doing this ensures that you and your partners make it to the final 4 or so people, and that a weak player doesn't win simply by hiding and evading. If you are part of the alliance you have greatly increased your chances to survive. Slitting their throats early on defeats the purpose of having an alliance... though I suppose it's not an awful idea either. But just because it's a viable strategy, that doesn't mean a character is required to use it or else the movie is ruined. It's completely natural that a person would be upset about an innocent 12 year old girl being forced into a warzone and being violently killed. The girl with the throwing knives is a trained soldier who is the same size as the main character, I'm not sure why you thought otherwise. The girl who grabbed her bag from the table first... she grabbed her own bag because it contained something she personally needed. It's likely she would not need what's in the other bags, and taking one would invite everyone to hunt her down next - it's not worth it. Again yes it's a strategy that could have been used, but to call it a plot hole when a character doesn't use your own ideas isn't exactly accurate. Fanboy cognitive dissonance level of Chocobo... It's over 9,000! Movie kicked ass, I enjoyed it, even though the plot made my brain hurt. I hate it more when I think about how shit the plot was (for example, how easily killed the little sister would have been had she gone, or the fact that the guy who used to hunt with the main character didn't also volunteer with her like a real man would, or why not every single kid would be training like fuck all their poor ass lives knowing that they be selected to enter the games at some point), but while I was in the theatre I enjoyed it and liked the fact that the forest scene lasted longer than I had expected.
There are a lot of good criticisms in this thread, but yours are just...stupid
The first part about her sister. Well duhh that's why her sister volunteered for her. The Captiol doesn't care for equal chances it's just about the fear factor that comes with it. Gale didn't volunteer for her because there was nobody else to feed her family. For the last complaint besides district 12 which is the smallest district with 1000 potential tributes the other districts are a lot bigger as in hundred of thousands even soo the chances of being picked out of that crowd is pretty small and training outside the arena is illegal, but the rich districts who are in good favor with the Captiol get away with it.
Ohh and what people are missing is not the story, but the rich world the author came up with. It's a dystopian world and a good one at that (google it).
|
On March 31 2012 08:33 gayfius173 wrote:
Fanboys seriously need to calm down in this thread. We get if you've READ THE BOOK then you UNDERSTAND MORE IN THE MOVIE than someone who has NOT READ THE BOOK does. This is a discussion about how good the MOVIE was however.
That being said, I thought the movie was ok but there were some SERIOUS flaws with it (and maybe with the logic of the book too).
First - It's the fucking hunger games. These kids are suposed to be in a super messed up situation, starving, being sick, being injured, and killing eachother. NONE of those kids, at any point in the movie, looked like they were in bad shape. Even when Kat/Peeta was hurt, they only look hurt, not in bad shape though. Maybe that's poor acting or poor makeup effects, but the point is, the lack of that situation really took away from how into the movie someone with half a brain could get.
Second - Seriously the people saying 'Oh kids aren't ready to kill in that situation blah blah blah', you guys don't have a clue. Kids in our society today kill other people at even as young as 10 years old. Obviously in many of those situations the kid has an issue but the hunger games is set in a fucked up society. There is fear, there is starvation, there is death. ANY child growing up in that situation is going to develop a mean survival instinct. Any normal kid living in a society like ours would MOST LIKELY kill someone if they were put into the hunger games. why is this? BECAUSE SURVIVAL IS A NATURAL FUCKING INSTINCT.
-It's like me. Now at 22, I know I'm capable of killing someone to defend my own life or a friend or family members life. I would NEVER kill someone without the previous listed reason - but I know in a situation where I had too, there would not be hesitation. At a certain point of danger, a switch snaps in a person's head and they are no longer thinking rationally. Survival takes over and you defend yourself or those you care about. Now that's me at 22 in our society today. At 16 years old, I didn't know I was capable of killing someone, but if I had been placed in a situation where my life is threatened, it wouldn't matter if I knew that or not. Survival instinct would of taken over and I would of done whatever I had to, naturally.
-That is me living in a NORMAL society. These kids are born and raised in a fucked up dog eats dog world where to survive, you have to have that instinct. It would have been ingrained in their mind, and the movie did NOT portray this at all.
-thirdly - the movie made such a large point of hyping up sponsers and then they played literally like a 3 minute roll in where Kat got some medicine. Why spend 20 minutes of a movie hyping up the idea of sponsers, if they only do 1 small ass thing?
Finally - in a situation where you're fighting for your life, there should of been way more legit action, and less talk/love story between two people in which one DID NOT EVEN LOVE THE OTHER PERSON. And don't say 'showing off to the sponsers' because that's stupid since they did one thing in the entire movie, was really worth it.
Oh my, did you keep a straigth face while typing that incoherent rambling? I wouldn't even know where to begin dissecting that if I wanted to. There's no chance we'll have a decent discussion about the movie if people like you keep "contributing" to this thread.
Go read the book, and go calm down.
|
Seems like a lot of people are saying I would have understood more if I read the book, and thats all I could keep thinking during the film. Usually not a good sign.
Hunger Games left me hungry for blood... my own blood
Can anyone out there honestly tell me they enjoyed this movie that I just watched....? Just so that I can tell you how endlessly vapid your head is just like I told everyone who said I should watch this waste of film.
It was like eating cake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. By that I mean there was no down time.... never took a second to let you and this Katniss chick catch up to what is happening/just happened in the story. Right when you think they're going to have a scene where they talk for more than 1minute they throw you into another 1 minute conversation after another.
Yeah it was relatively exciting and it keeps your interest for the most part. But you're always getting new things thrown at you before you have time to reflect on the other new shit that just happened. More people, more ideas, more places, but none of it ever gets rolled out into its own thing.
I don't mind the lack of explanation for, well just about everything, but if you're going to have someone competing in the games and we're following her story then why wouldn't they have a part where they explain the fucking thing she's competing in? Do they not tell her anything? I guess not since she did seem kindof confused when it started. Soooo fucking talk about that, make that a thing to feel invested in so it makes the audience more nervous for her.
Who wrote this script? If I had to guess I'd say it was done by a committee of the fangirls of the book and they just threw in all their favorie scenes and no one could decide on what the best bits of it were so they just threw in all of em together.
What was the point of having that singer guy in there whats his name the black dude....? He essentially had the same role as Harrelson except he's not as important. So many scenes that seems like they shot twice as much for them and they had to cut the movie to shit just to get it down to under 2and1/2hours. Really should have skipped so many things and instead have a part of the movie where the characters actually can develop an arc in their story.
The end of my review will be quick and erratic in honor of this piece of shit movie:
-Every time something interesting happens the camera man goes into seizures. But the director thought it would be more suspenseful to leave in the seizing cameraman's work apparently even tho you cantevenfuckingtellwhatshappeninghalfthetime. (Director's note: cameraman Joe choked on his own tongue and died, but as he went down he shot a glorius fight scene between blur1 and blur2, worth it)
-She's apparently supposed to be some badass hunter chick who is not just skilled but also smart, yeah? Well why the fuck when you have someone chasing you, literally 30 feet behind you, why in the hell would you climb a tree? You would keep running and stay low in some bushes or something. Not higher up out into clear daylight in a tree without any fucking leaves on it. And then when her brilliant go-to plan would have worked... really the only time it woulda worked... when the dogs were chasing her, she just keeps running. Facepalm.
-She has so many chances to shoot everyone in the fucking face but she just sits there watching them.....
-They never explain why or how people started to team up like that. I get the 2 trained killers from the same district being together but then they have like 3 other people with them. But uhhh weren't these people trying to kill eachtoehr 3 minutes ago? When did they get the time to have a nice little chat about the pro's and con's of joining forces. We'll never know cause cool lets just keep the camera on her the entire time even if it means we have no idea what the hell is even happening half the time. OH WAIT WE DO CUT TO PEOPLE IN A GIANT COMPUTER CONTROL ROOM THROWING TREES AND FIREBALLS AT PEOPLE THRU THE COMP!!!! WHY THO???.. i thought theyr supposed to be fighting eachother and uhhm wasn't hiding and staying alive a tactic she was gonna use?? Nope fireballs.
-If you're going to have a film about people fighting to the death, show the fighting to the death part. And actually have the main girl do something badass...... not one of the kills were tactful. The only interesting death was delivered by mother nature for fucksake when a chick ate some poison berries.
So overall I give this 2 big floppy donkey dicks out of 4. The acting was good and thats really it. So much ineptness in the writing and pacing that I was patiently awaiting the end and praying they would off themselves. That would have been a good ending. Nope we need to make 2 more, or however many more books they want to ruin and cram into 2 hours.
I could see this being an entirely different child of adaptaton if they had gone the smart route and made this into a series for showtime or anyone. This 1 movie would have been more than enough for the first season. In fact it felt like I was watching one really long, "on the last season of the hunger games", summary where you have no sense of the time passing as it just flies past.
That reminds me.... SUNDAY BABY!!! GameOfThrones' triumphant return Sunday at 9. Can't possibly be more hyped~
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
