EPT[Movie] The Hunger Games - Page 28
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
cscarfo1
United States307 Posts
| ||
|
PartyBiscuit
Canada4525 Posts
Also a side note to people discussing rape and such, I didn't bother to read the pointless arguments of those here, but although obviously it happens in situations of lawlessness or similar desperate situations, the Hunger Games are supposed to be controlled entertainment with only killing going on. The make a point of noting that the tributes need sponsors - nobody is going to sponsor the guy who is raping the little 12 year old. Rape, cannibalistic intents, whatever depraved acts that go on in history and would go on (i.e. in a zombie apocalypse) DON'T here because the purpose of the games are to entertain. The book quickly mentions that one year there was a guy who used to eat the people he killed - this wasn't great for the audience - so the Gamemakers killed him. Going quickly over the movie to book comparisons: 1) I don't mind the lack of blood, but at the very least the scene with Rue could have been done to be more poignant. It looked like she got flicked with a stick and her acting was just hard to watch (yes, I'm aware it's a child actor, but still...it flows much better in the books). *also, the end scene could afford a tiny bit of blood after the muttations....Peeta had NO damage to his leg (which is cut off in the book) and Katniss had also no injuries (deafness etc). 2) Everything on screen is much more rushed but I was ok with them using the TV commentary to fill in the narrative gaps, still felt a bit hollow overall. 3) I don't mind them sort of skimming the major points of Peeta/Katniss romance since I'm a big boy and that's tween stuff, but I felt the last 20 minutes were the film's worst. The cave scenes were very stilted, the berry scene was so rushed, and the rescue/pick up had NO points of discussion about Peeta realizing Katniss was doing it for show. 4) Elizabeth Banks & Stanley Tucci were easily the most entertaining and convincing, Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) was terribly bad. edit: Honestly, if you feel there are some gaping plot holes (why Peeta didn't just stab everyone who was sleeping at the base of the tree), you should just read the books because the movie spliced a lot of material. Book 2-3 are much better anyway, though it's too bad if some of you are already turned off the series. | ||
|
redviper
Pakistan2333 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I remember crying profusely after Rue dies in the books, but in the movie I felt literally nothing. The food from D11 was a lot more powerful than the riot. Also foxface was my favourite tribute and I thought they really glossed over her parts  Now this is not to say that I didn't like the movie. It was awesome. Was engaging, only one or two pointless portions where i felt my attention getting diverted and the cinematography and music was top notch (don't know why people hate shaky cam- it was nicely used). Also I am thinking it would be hard to continue into book 2 and 3 with the lack of relationships formed with people at the capitol. The next games will be a lot less impactful because all the winner/mentors were not given attention in this movie. | ||
|
TehPrime
United States180 Posts
Lack of gore and blood, but then its rated pg13, so its to be expected They could've portrayed the capitol military force much more menacing? I mean, all dressed in white looks lame, but then again, their sense of fashion style overall is a complete whack. | ||
|
Polar Mania
9 Posts
And what was the point of showing off Peter's bread flour throwing abilities if he never used it throughout the whole games? | ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
The Careers were laughing at Peeta, they weren't taking him seriously, so he had to show them something to shut them up. Otherwise, they would have targeted him for his weakness and they would never consider letting him in their alliance. On April 01 2012 09:53 gn0m wrote:That was some serious kick-ass camouflage, especially considering he that didn’t have any paint and was severely injured. He most definitely had access to camouflage. Remember the big pile of supplies in the middle? He was part of the group in charge of all that. | ||
|
Polar Mania
9 Posts
On April 01 2012 16:28 Vardant wrote: They only used the fireballs on her, because she was too far from the others and it would have probably taken several days if not over a week to find her. You want action in a TV Show and this would have been boring for the audience. So put some fucking barriers in instead of disadvantaging someone who is obviosuly smarter than the others. It's like hey if you're too good at surviving we're going to shoot a dozen fireballs at you, each coming within inches of killing you, and send a wall of flame despite doing it to none of the other candidates. The Careers were laughing at Peeta, they weren't taking him seriously, so he had to show them something to shut them up. Otherwise, they would have targeted him for his weakness and they would never consider letting him in their alliance. He most definitely had access to camouflage. Remember the big pile of supplies in the middle? He was part of the group in charge of all that. There is zero rational reason why they would have included Peter in the group. Likewise with the guy guarding the supplies - hey, I spotted a little girl running! I'm just going to leave everything here and when it blows up I'll come right back to let Kato snap my neck! Jesus Christ I'm smart! Such horrible acting, horrible plot, horrible romance. The only difference between this movie and Twilight is that instead of teenage fangirls defending it it's teenage nerdboys acting like they're Katniss' white knights coming to the rescue. | ||
|
Polar Mania
9 Posts
On April 01 2012 16:28 Vardant wrote: He most definitely had access to camouflage. Remember the big pile of supplies in the middle? He was part of the group in charge of all that. Oh hey, and we'll also let Peter have something that could prevent us from finding him and killing him later! | ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
On April 01 2012 16:40 Polar Mania wrote: So put some fucking barriers in instead of disadvantaging someone who is obviosuly smarter than the others. It's like hey if you're too good at surviving we're going to shoot a dozen fireballs at you, each coming within inches of killing you, and send a wall of flame despite doing it to none of the other candidates. They do have barriers set up, still doesn't change the fact, that they want you closer to the others. And exactly, if you're too good at surviving, they will throw something at you, to make you move. That was the whole point, to show what happens, if you're too good at this. On April 01 2012 16:40 Polar Mania wrote: There is zero rational reason why they would have included Peter in the group. Likewise with the guy guarding the supplies - hey, I spotted a little girl running! I'm just going to leave everything here and when it blows up I'll come right back to let Kato snap my neck! Jesus Christ I'm smart! The reason they took Peeta with them was because he told them he can track Katniss, but he was trying to steer them away. They were trained for this their whole life, that gives you a better chance of winning, but also makes you arrogant. They think he's not a real threat to them and they weren't that wrong. The guardian was a little kid, throwing somebody into the arena doesn't make him instantly smarter. On April 01 2012 16:41 Polar Mania wrote:Oh hey, and we'll also let Peter have something that could prevent us from finding him and killing him later! They didn't know that about him though. Certain stuff is only shown to the sponsors. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
There's was little to no reason to like the characters. The "bearded bad guy" had little to no development or sceen time. The main characters had practically no backstory. The actual "hunger" part wasn't focused on at all and the main characters looked nothing like they were having problems finding food or make up. There's no explanation of the actual war that caused all this more than a shitty propaganda clip. When the actual games happened so much stupid shit happened that i don't know where to start. Trained killers acting like high school brats? Trained killers trying to shoot arrows up a tree from a impossible angle instead of circling around trying to find a clear shot. Remote control killer dogs that appear out of the ground. Fireballs with great accuracy able to be fired in any direction. Main character plot armor where she dodges everything thrown at her and when she's finally caught by the "bad girl" has to talk for what feels like 5 minutes. Magical salves that heal you practically instantly. No focus on survival only on people killing eachother or acting like idiots. I guess it might be better if you've read the book but i felt like the movie had alot of potential but it was thrown away by making a teen oriented popcorn flick. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On April 01 2012 17:51 karpo wrote: There's was little to no reason to like the characters. General empathy, for a start? The "bearded bad guy" had little to no development or sceen time. He's not even mentioned in the first book, but only shown in the movie to explain the backstory and game development. The main characters had practically no backstory. What is there to have when their life so far has been little more than living in a run-down exploited district under strict surveillance? The little acts of defiance - poaching, black market deals - and various things from their lives - like the mine accident - are more than "no backstory". The actual "hunger" part wasn't focused on at all and the main characters looked nothing like they were having problems finding food or make up. Because the Hunger Games are a show, propaganda and entertainment both. It'd fail horribly at either if the tributes would be starving and ugly as hell. There's no explanation of the actual war that caused all this more than a shitty propaganda clip. Oh no, the viewer's actually required to use his imagination instead of having a world laid out piece by piece. When the actual games happened so much stupid shit happened that i don't know where to start. Trained killers acting like high school brats? Trained killers trying to shoot arrows up a tree from a impossible angle instead of circling around trying to find a clear shot. I'll give you that, the career tributes could have been protrayed better. As for the arrows, that's a difference from the book - none of them can shoot in the book. Remote control killer dogs that appear out of the ground. Fireballs with great accuracy able to be fired in any direction. Magical salves that heal you practically instantly. It is set in the future, you know. Some technological advances have made it through the last war. Main character plot armor where she dodges everything thrown at her and when she's finally caught by the "bad girl" has to talk for what feels like 5 minutes. The moment Clove catches Katniss, they're down to six tributes. Two of them (Katniss, Tresh) are a threat to Clove and Cato at this point, and Cato's nearby, watching Clove. So she gets overeager and talks before the kill, enough for Thresh to get her. This may not be the most perfect storytelling of all times, but it's not completely cheap or comically bad either. No focus on survival only on people killing eachother or acting like idiots. Well, people killing each other is the point. As for the survival part, both Katniss' hunting, snaring and water supply and the little "supply base" of the careers are highlighted; so is Foxface's strategy of stealing and laying low. I guess it might be better if you've read the book but i felt like the movie had alot of potential but it was thrown away by making a teen oriented popcorn flick. I realize nothing will make you like the movie if you didn't enjoy it, but either you're lacking comparison in form of other movies, or you're just trying to claw for reasons not to like it like so many other people in this thread. Yes, the target audience probably isn't 40-50. But it's not a "teen popcorn flick". | ||
|
JerKy
Korea (South)3013 Posts
I don't mean to bash on it, but just a short summary as to why: The plot was obvious. It was painfully transparent, predictable, and cheesy. (I'm someone who hasn't read the book, will explain about that later). I feel if a movie (or any story at all) is to be "good", its plot needs to be entertaining, thrilling, or something interesting. Hunger Games failed to deliver a storyline that appealed to the viewer I disagreed with the PG 13 rating it received. It received the PG 13 rating because the action scenes did not show much gore, but rather blurry movements and figures. Based on the ideas the movie presented, it should have been rated R, although most people would disagree with this element The costumes in the movie were just... absurd. I understand they were trying to show a future society with a huge disparity between the upper and lower classes, but I just couldnt look at those outfits and not facepalm. They were just bad. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
Good movies usually build characters that you either like or sympathize with (see Star Wars, Bourne Identity, The Road, and endless amounts of other films). This movie had generic characters so i guess you're right that general empathy is more or less the only thing that makes you care at all. He's not even mentioned in the first book, but only shown in the movie to explain the backstory and game development. Good movies present interesting characters, especially "bad guys" (no need for examples as there's tons and tons) yet this movie uses Donald Sutherland only as a cardboard cutout to explain the back story. Gotcha! What is there to have when their life so far has been little more than living in a run-down exploited district under strict surveillance? The little acts of defiance - poaching, black market deals - and various things from their lives - like the mine accident - are more than "no backstory". Maybe add some interaction with the other people from the community, have someone talk about the war or have some backstory cut like who taught the main character to hunt like a pro. Because the Hunger Games are a show, propaganda and entertainment both. It'd fail horribly at either if the tributes would be starving and ugly as hell. Yeah but there seemed to be a generic supply and food shortage where everyone looked gray and skinny, yet the main characters look like your average american high school flick cast. The girl looks hot with a nice piece of ass and the guys are buff. Oh no, the viewer's actually required to use his imagination instead of having a world laid out piece by piece. I have no trouble with movies that doesn't explain everything but the whole backstory to this extreme difference in life quality was the war yet there's no focus on the actual war. How hard would it be to just spend a minute or two integrating someone talking about the experience or something. No, there's no time to spend on stuff like that. It is set in the future, you know. Some technological advances have made it through the last war. So because it's the future we should accept shitty writing and stupid ideas? Dogs that spawn from the ground on demand and aimable fireball guns are shitty writing and they could easily have come up with a better solution. The moment Clove catches Katniss, they're down to six tributes. Two of them (Katniss, Tresh) are a threat to Clove and Cato at this point, and Cato's nearby, watching Clove. So she gets overeager and talks before the kill, enough for Thresh to get her. This may not be the most perfect storytelling of all times, but it's not completely cheap or comically bad either. I don't really remember but doesn't Tresh come out and spend a good deal of time strangling Clove yet there's no Cato around to save her? It's just a small part of what makes the movie bad. It's the tired old bad guy talks while giving time for someone to rescue the main character or the main character finds a weapon or way to fight back. It's 100% predictable and adds no excitement at all. You already know someone is either going to save Katniss OR Katniss breaks free and kills Clove. Well, people killing each other is the point. As for the survival part, both Katniss' hunting, snaring and water supply and the little "supply base" of the careers are highlighted; so is Foxface's strategy of stealing and laying low. Yet Woody talks about water being such an essential thing and infection being a problem yet in the movie there's no focus on the problems of finding food nor any kind of long term survival. Yeah, the game shows Katniss making one trap, filling her waterbottle one time, and the bad guys dumping all the supplies in a huge pile. I realize nothing will make you like the movie if you didn't enjoy it, but either you're lacking comparison in form of other movies, or you're just trying to claw for reasons not to like it like so many other people in this thread. Yes, the target audience probably isn't 40-50. But it's not a "teen popcorn flick". I felt the movie could have been much better. The concept is awesome yet i feel everything was thrown away by making this movie a safe boxoffice hit. I mean it's a teen popcorn flick in the sense that it's easy to follow, has practically no hard choices or moral ambiguity (it's almost all good vs bad), the casting is that of a teen high school movie, it's fast paced, and it spends almost no time on backstory or character development. I think the focus audience is about 13 to 20 tops. And no i'm not trying to claw for reasons to not like the movie, i actually really tried to enjoy it but about halfway though i just couldn't. There was potential but it was squandered by shitty directing and the fact that it's clearly aimed at kids. Not going to post again as these endless long post-reply arguments never go anywhere. | ||
|
Cops
United Kingdom172 Posts
I felt the movie could have been much better. The concept is awesome yet i feel everything was thrown away by making this movie a safe boxoffice hit. I mean it's a teen popcorn flick in the sense that it's easy to follow, has practically no hard choices or moral ambiguity, the casting is that of a teen high school movie, it's fast paced, and it spends almost no time on backstory or character development. I think the focus audience is about 13 to 20 tops. And no i'm not trying to claw for reasons to not like the movie, i actually really tried to enjoy it but about halfway though i just couldn't. There was potential but it was squandered by shitty directing and the fact that it's clearly aimed for a younger audience. Well said. I agree with all of the points you have made. My feeling is that such a potentially interesting concept was simplified and the action watered down to a degree where it hardly made any sense and was not enjoyable so that it could hit a larger and more lucrative demographic at the box office. Fair enough it was aimed at teens, yes it is a cliché popcorn flick and that is perfectly fine. But I cant see how it and it's multitude of shortcomings are defended so vehemently, it's like the hype created by the studios got it's claws into people so they had made their mind up that it was a good movie before they even saw it. It is a poor to average teen movie, and nothing more. | ||
|
HTOMario
United States439 Posts
| ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote:Good movies usually build characters that you either like or sympathize with (see Star Wars, Bourne Identity, The Road, and endless amounts of other films). This movie had generic characters so i guess you're right that general empathy is more or less the only thing that makes you care at all. So a girl, that lost her father in a mining accident, her mother collapsed, so she had to take care of her little sister, had to hunt for food, otherwise they would starve to death is not enough? She had to go through reaping several times, worry about her friends, Gale had his name in the lottery 42 times etc. Generic stuff right there, sure. On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: Good movies present interesting characters, especially "bad guys" (no need for examples as there's tons and tons) yet this movie uses Donald Sutherland only as a cardboard cutout to explain the back story. Gotcha! There is no main bad guy in the first movie, the whole Capitol is to blame for this, they are the ultimate bad guys in this. He was there to explain some of the intricacies of the Hunger Games, that the general population had no way of knowing about. On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: Maybe add some interaction with the other people from the community, have someone talk about the war or have some backstory cut like who taught the main character to hunt like a pro. It's 74 years after the war. Do you see people on the streets talking about the WWII much these days? On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: Yeah but there seemed to be a generic supply and food shortage where everyone looked gray and skinny, yet the main characters look like your average american high school flick cast. The girl looks hot with a nice piece of ass and the guys are buff. Did you miss the part, where they were all taken through a "beauty salon"? They even mention, that they will probably have to shower Katniss twice. They are wearing make-up to make them look even more pretty for the TV. And seriously, how many movies have you seen, where they cast ugly people... On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: I have no trouble with movies that doesn't explain everything but the whole backstory to this extreme difference in life quality was the war yet there's no focus on the actual war. How hard would it be to just spend a minute or two integrating someone talking about the experience or something. No, there's no time to spend on stuff like that. Why do you need to know about the war? The kids might not even know and they certainly don't care. It's not gonna help them. It could have been anything, wars are not exactly known for being sensible. There are plenty of other movies, where the starting point of war is never mentioned, because it's never really needed. On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: So because it's the future we should accept shitty writing and stupid ideas? Dogs that spawn from the ground on demand and aimable fireball guns are shitty writing and they could easily have come up with a better solution. Have you seen Star Wars? Light sabers are stupid right? Guns firing lasers too? What about the Holo deck in Star Trek? They can re-create anything, the simulations can even hurt you. But somehow, this being a teen flick makes it stupid, I get it... On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: She's the main character, of course she's going to survive this. This is in almost every movie. This is exactly the part, where you can tell, that you're hating for the sake of hating.I don't really remember but doesn't Tresh come out and spend a good deal of time strangling Clove yet there's no Cato around to save her? It's just a small part of what makes the movie bad. It's the tired old bad guy talks while giving time for someone to rescue the main character or the main character finds a weapon or way to fight back. It's 100% predictable and adds no excitement at all. You already know someone is either going to save Katniss OR Katniss breaks free and kills Clove. On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: Yet Woody talks about water being such an essential thing and infection being a problem yet in the movie there's no focus on the problems of finding food nor any kind of long term survival. Yeah, the game shows Katniss making one trap, filling her waterbottle one time, and the bad guys dumping all the supplies in a huge pile. He also talks about sponsors a lot and that they can be integral part of your strategy to survive. If it wasn't for them, she would have probably died from infection, after she was hurt in the fire. You're also seeing the movie from a perspective of somebody, who can take care of themselves and hunt in the wilderness. They're not going to be the one having trouble with this kind of stuff. On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: I felt the movie could have been much better. The concept is awesome yet i feel everything was thrown away by making this movie a safe boxoffice hit. I mean it's a teen popcorn flick in the sense that it's easy to follow, has practically no hard choices or moral ambiguity (it's almost all good vs bad), the casting is that of a teen high school movie, it's fast paced, and it spends almost no time on backstory or character development. The movie follows the book pretty accurately. The only stuff that was thrown out wasn't important. No backstory? You must have missed the first half of the movie then. On April 01 2012 18:56 karpo wrote: I think the focus audience is about 13 to 20 tops. And no i'm not trying to claw for reasons to not like the movie, i actually really tried to enjoy it but about halfway though i just couldn't. There was potential but it was squandered by shitty directing and the fact that it's clearly aimed at kids. It's based on a young-adult novel. So the target audience should be obvious, but this doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if you're older. | ||
|
Rossen
Denmark177 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
So a girl, that lost her father in a mining accident, her mother collapsed, so she had to take care of her little sister, had to hunt for food, otherwise they would starve to death is not enough? She had to go through reaping several times, worry about her friends, Gale had his name in the lottery 42 times etc. Generic stuff right there, sure. Not to mention that she, in her eyes, sentences herself to death to save her little sister. | ||
|
exalted
United States3612 Posts
I have read the book; to add my criticisms to the thread: 1. I think there should have been 10 districts, not 12. Two districts could have been cut and it wouldn't have affected anything. Perhaps the author just wanted to further the mystery of District 13 by using "13". 2. Peeta giving bread to Katniss was an important memory/flashback, and I disliked the way they told it in the movie. I think a lot of people would not have correctly understood the meaning of the flashback, etc., where it is pretty clear-cut in the book. | ||
|
Polar Mania
9 Posts
On April 01 2012 23:32 exalted wrote: The people who are complaining about the "shaky cam" during violent scenes are not realizing that they probably purposely choreographed it as such to get away with a PG-13 rating. The movie is already controversial with the kids killing kids theme - can anyone name other movie examples that involve kids getting graphically killed? Seen this? ![[image loading]](http://battleshippretension.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/james-gunn-super-movie-2-600x400.jpg) Edit: Making link work. | ||
| ||
