EPT*sigh*
After that I watched Cloudy with a chance a meatballs and it was way better.
[Movie] The Hunger Games - Page 27
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
*sigh* After that I watched Cloudy with a chance a meatballs and it was way better. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
"So unrealistic, I would slit their throats in their sleep and skullfuck them." | ||
|
terran0330
New Zealand106 Posts
Coming from someone who hasn't read the book, I really disliked the film. The production quality, narration, and character development just seemed so cliche. A blockbuster money maker, nothing more. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On March 31 2012 19:48 zalz wrote: TL sure has a lot of sociopaths... "So unrealistic, I would slit their throats in their sleep and skullfuck them." So true. "It's survival instinct, sticking a dagger into someone's gut is the most natural thing in the world npnp". This thread so far has literally been a showcase of how many people have absolutely no idea how human psyche works. To make it more ironic, it feels like many people's perception of how people would behave in a hypothetical situation is greatly skewed by consumption of modern-day entertainment / fiction and completely out of touch with reality. -_- | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On March 31 2012 20:39 Talin wrote: So true. "It's survival instinct, sticking a dagger into someone's gut is the most natural thing in the world npnp". This thread so far has literally been a showcase of how many people have absolutely no idea how human psyche works. To make it more ironic, it feels like many people's perception of how people would behave in a hypothetical situation is greatly skewed by consumption of modern-day entertainment / fiction and completely out of touch with reality. -_- Beside your name is written Montenegro. I assume you know what happen during the Yougoslav wars. Don't be naïve and pretend it was a nice and loving time to be born in. Rape, murder for personal gain or motives, theft happens all the time during wartime. I don't see how it is far-fetched to assume it wouldn't happen in a closed area where you are legitimately motivated to do so. It wouldn't certainly happen as commonly described : it would be more violent and gruesome, but that doesn't mean some people wouldn't be helping each other. Shades of gray ... | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On March 31 2012 21:15 Otolia wrote: Beside your name is written Montenegro. I assume you know what happen during the Yougoslav wars. Don't be naïve and pretend it was a nice and loving time to be born in. Rape, murder for personal gain or motives, theft happens all the time during wartime. I don't see how it is far-fetched to assume it wouldn't happen in a closed area where you are legitimately motivated to do so. It wouldn't certainly happen as commonly described : it would be more violent and gruesome, but that doesn't mean some people wouldn't be helping each other. Shades of gray ... And how exactly did we get from discussing the movie to this? That's some twisted hybrid of off-topic, ad-hominem, sociopathic rambling. Just stop. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 31 2012 21:15 Otolia wrote: Beside your name is written Montenegro. I assume you know what happen during the Yougoslav wars. Don't be naïve and pretend it was a nice and loving time to be born in. Rape, murder for personal gain or motives, theft happens all the time during wartime. I don't see how it is far-fetched to assume it wouldn't happen in a closed area where you are legitimately motivated to do so. It wouldn't certainly happen as commonly described : it would be more violent and gruesome, but that doesn't mean some people wouldn't be helping each other. Shades of gray ... This sounds like the reasonable argument put forth by a man who is of sound mind. | ||
|
ppdealer
Canada163 Posts
On March 31 2012 21:29 Shockk wrote: And how exactly did we get from discussing the movie to this? That's some twisted hybrid of off-topic, ad-hominem, sociopathic rambling. Just stop. It's not sociopathic. It's reality. Go read some history bro. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On March 31 2012 21:15 Otolia wrote: Beside your name is written Montenegro. I assume you know what happen during the Yougoslav wars. Don't be naïve and pretend it was a nice and loving time to be born in. Rape, murder for personal gain or motives, theft happens all the time during wartime. I don't see how it is far-fetched to assume it wouldn't happen in a closed area where you are legitimately motivated to do so. It wouldn't certainly happen as commonly described : it would be more violent and gruesome, but that doesn't mean some people wouldn't be helping each other. Shades of gray ... You do realize that a civil war situation is a completely different context to putting a some kids in a freaking forest? People are driven by nationalistic and/or religious hatred, they disregard their own humanity almost as much as they disregard that of their victims. The mindset and motivation are not even remotely comparable. It's extremely far fetched to assume that a bunch of clueless teenagers would suddenly develop a killer instinct (let alone a taste for excessive violence) due to an artificial arena environment, especially directed at people who are in the same situation and share a common enemy, thus natural to empathize with. If anything, the concept of hunger games is implausible because it assumes that the kids would actually play along and kill each other until there is only one left for 70+ years, not because they are not "violent enough". | ||
Inflicted
Australia18228 Posts
On March 31 2012 19:48 zalz wrote: TL sure has a lot of sociopaths... "So unrealistic, I would slit their throats in their sleep and skullfuck them." Go watch one of the Saw movies, and see how many people would consider their actions to be illogical given the circumstances. In a survival scenario, especially while being surrounded by ruthless violence, there's no way you would not be willing to kill people without even thinking twice about how moral your actions are. I came into the theatre expecting a tale about a survival story - how far someone was willing to go to stay alive, but instead never once got the feeling that she was in any real danger or put into a situation where she was forced to do desperate/irrational actions. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 31 2012 22:07 Inflicted_ wrote: Go watch one of the Saw movies, and see how many people would consider their actions to be illogical given the circumstances. Yeah, the average TLer laughs at Saw. Who wouldn't chop off his own leg without breaking a sweat? So unrealistic. In a survival scenario, especially while being surrounded by ruthless violence, there's no way you would not be willing to kill people without even thinking twice about how moral your actions are. This literally gets adressed in the film. There is a scene where a character literally admits that when push comes to shove, he will kill people. The story is filled with people killing each other, despite the best of their intentions. There is no way they would not be willing to kill? What movie did you watch? The main character killed like 3 people. I came into the theatre expecting a tale about a survival story - how far someone was willing to go to stay alive, but instead never once got the feeling that she was in any real danger or put into a situation where she was forced to do desperate/irrational actions. The only 'complaint' people manage to produce is that she isn't insane enough. As if every human has a switch in his brain which makes him a sociopathic serial killer, only by the introduction of a small bit of danger. People are delusional in just what the survival instinct is. The average TLer seems to confuse the survival instinct, with an assasins creed persona that pops up at the slightest hint of danger. And if you didn't see that she ended up in danger several times, you should try watching the movie. | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
On March 31 2012 22:06 Talin wrote: You do realize that a civil war situation is a completely different context to putting a some kids in a freaking forest? People are driven by nationalistic and/or religious hatred, they disregard their own humanity almost as much as they disregard that of their victims. The mindset and motivation are not even remotely comparable. It's extremely far fetched to assume that a bunch of clueless teenagers would suddenly develop a killer instinct (let alone a taste for excessive violence) due to an artificial arena environment, especially directed at people who are in the same situation and share a common enemy, thus natural to empathize with. If anything, the concept of hunger games is implausible because it assumes that the kids would actually play along and kill each other until there is only one left for 70+ years, not because they are not "violent enough". Your arguments are good but they are flawed. If such games were to be organised in a meaningful way, there would be 'incentives' for them to fight. Especially considering people are betting on it and want to see actions and not tears of happiness. So yes, in the situation presented by the movie, it is very unlikely the kids would murder each other. But in a situation where people refusing to fight would see their family killed, their villages burned, suddenly the situation is different. The concept of Hunger Games is improbable but the idea of violent games to satisfy the mass isn't something new. One of the best SciFi book on this is Les Jeux de l'esprit (1971; tr. in 1973 as Desperate Games by Patricia Wolf). | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On March 31 2012 23:21 Otolia wrote: Your arguments are good but they are flawed. If such games were to be organised in a meaningful way, there would be 'incentives' for them to fight. Especially considering people are betting on it and want to see actions and not tears of happiness. So yes, in the situation presented by the movie, it is very unlikely the kids would murder each other. But in a situation where people refusing to fight would see their family killed, their villages burned, suddenly the situation is different. The concept of Hunger Games is improbable but the idea of violent games to satisfy the mass isn't something new. One of the best SciFi book on this is Les Jeux de l'esprit (1971; tr. in 1973 as Desperate Games by Patricia Wolf). There is incentive to win. You get personal fame and fortune and your district gets a prize. Maybe at first they were "forced," but in that situation one person will always cave. There is no way to have a united front of randomly selected teenagers take a stand. And from there it just became part of life. Accepted as a means to "avoid the wars that came before." | ||
|
redviper
Pakistan2333 Posts
On March 31 2012 19:44 Otolia wrote: After watching the movie in a bad quality, I have to say I could give the authors a lesson on cruelty, autocratic regimes and bloody games between hot teenagers - I mean if you want make a movie where people fight to death why don't you make them rape each other. *sigh* After that I watched Cloudy with a chance a meatballs and it was way better. The games weren't about curelty for the sake of cruelty. It was cruelty for the sake of spectacle. The central population saw themselves so far removed from the districts that they weren't horrified by it, they thought the kids were fighting because they wanted to. The people in the district were also captivated by their own candidates, by the small sliver of hope it gave them. Even if people were digusted by the show, they saw this as a plausible way out of poverty/desperation. I actually think it would be a surprisingly good way to keep the population focused on things other than the gross inequality of the system. Its sort of like why countries go to to external war when faced with rising internal tensions. The external enemy can be used as a focus for hate for the population. To the district residents the other districts were the enemy, not central. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
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? Lets put it this way. The movie was rated PG. | ||
|
AzierMordan
1 Post
It was PG-13. Get you're facts straight before you make thinly veiled insults. As for "toning down the violence" I don't really understand how you measure that. I mean all the deaths that happened in the book happened in the movie, and at least a couple were shown directly on screen. Past that, the level of violence in a book is almost completely up to the imagination of the reader. There is definetly blood, several blood sprays in fact, most notably when: + Show Spoiler + Cato slashes the neck of a 14 year old kid.Is that seriously not enough for some of you? I mean you can't enjoy a movie without a full view of a young kid getting his/her throat torn? And just to be clear, I'm not saying including that would've made it a bad movie or that anyone who wanted that is a sicko, but hating the movie becasue they chose not to alienate 75% of their audience is silly. If you really want that imagery use your imagination, it is a powerful thing. The Muttation battle: + Show Spoiler + Wasn't as scary/thrilling as the book mostly becasue they removed Cato's hours long fight with the muttations and they didn't put the faces of the dead tributes on them, which kind of removes the whole "holey crap are those the tributes actual faces!?!?" factor, but I understand why they didn't do that. It would kind of be hard to translate that to screen, and you'd probably get an involuntary laugh from the audinece if the mashup looks funny. To the people saying nothing was different at the end of the movie, did you miss Haymitch's whole little "Katniss, you made people pissssed." speech at the end? The movie took a step back from the games themselves to focus on the overarching + Show Spoiler + rebellion story Near the beginning when Gale and Katniss are talking. I can't remember exactly what was said but it was along the lines of Katniss: I have no chance. Glae: Sure you do, you're a hunter. Katniss: Yeah, of animals not people. Gale: There's no difference. Katniss: ... which forshadows Gale's disregard for human life later in the series to the point that + Show Spoiler + he'll kill people from his own district to further his goals. Most of the stuff in this post probably didn't need to be spoilered but whatever. Anyways, stop haitin. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
The shaky cam was a little annoying, and the president wasn't as skin crawly as in the book. However, given the constraints of the film, Rue was developed well, the violent scenes were as violent as you can get without being R, and the actors in general were pretty good. I thought they did the sponsor thing decently, but maybe that's because i was already aware of that aspect of the games. Thresh is a fucking boss, black power. | ||
|
lundell100
Sweden232 Posts
 | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
| ||
| ||
