On April 03 2012 01:10 Black Civil Rights wrote: To further clarify - this isn't like Survivor (or Big Brother), where the prizes are material. When survival instinct kicks in, you don't keep your enemies close - you get the fuck out.
I disagree.
It's natural to form an alliance, because you will be safe for longer.
It's like ... someone stronger than you say, stay with me and we'll kill them together, you figure ... hell yeah, this way, I have some chance to reach the end and he could be hurt before that.
We unite against a common enemy.
United States and Soviet against Germany. How long did that alliance last once Germany was beaten?
I think this situation is a bit different, because in there end there can only be one winner. While during WWII there wasn't any rule that made it so only the US or Soviet would win, or they definitely wouldn't have helped each other.
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
This thread is hilarious.
My guess is your definition of plagiarism is not the common definition of plagiarism.
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
I agree completely. I fell asleep during the movie for like 20 minutes. The worst part was the ending. Holy shit how bad can you make an ending. A copy of Battle Royale for kids.
Saw Battle Royale the other day. Potential "inspiration" aside, Hunger Games is still the better movie. Even considering all the differences - Japan vs. Hollywood, 4mil vs. 78mil budget, two dozen leads vs. just two - THG does a better job at explaining the background, at presenting and developing the characters and at delivering a coherent, (semi-)logical storyline.
It's a good movie. But it's certainly not the grand work of art Hunger Games steals from, as some folks here make it out to be. Even more so than THG, it requires the viewer's attention and imagination to make it work, as besides showing ridiculous weapon usage, lots of film blood and teenagers in various stages of fright, madness and grief, it explains little and shows even less.
Almost as if a part of the critics here took the attitude that made BR work for them and decided not to apply it to THG, for whatever reasons (movie-hipsterdom, probably).
On April 03 2012 09:11 Ryder. wrote: It's not only unrealistic expectations, it's that people come in here with an inflated sense of self importance thinking that because the characters didn't act how they think they should have, then the plot/movie is somehow flawed. As if watching and reading various types of fiction over the years makes them a credible source on how teenagers should act in these situations.
Couldn't have said it better myself. The following behaviour is pretty common if a character does something "stupid" or unexpected: Saw the movie expecting a master piece (from reviews, imdb etc) -> Take a moment to wonder why the character might a have acted this way and finds easy explanation. Saw the movie expecting or wanting to see crap -> "Omg such an idiotic movie with characters behaving like this"
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
This thread is hilarious.
My guess is your definition of plagiarism is not the common definition of plagiarism.
Well I don't know what you consider the common definition. Here's one that pretty much sums up my impression of it, as someone working the plagiarism minefield that is literary studies.
Plagiarism: "the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own." -wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The themes are obviously well traveled (Lord of the Flies, Rollerball, Rollerball Murder, Battle Royale... I could go on) but more importantly plot events of The Hunger Games are dangerously close to those of Battle Royale specifically. Thematic influence is unavoidable. Plot events this similar do justify a closer look.
Also, please take note that I said it is "bordering on plagiarism". This is a widely held belief, amongst many people a great deal smarter than I am. I also said that I didn't have an overbearing problem with this.
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
This thread is hilarious.
My guess is your definition of plagiarism is not the common definition of plagiarism.
Well I don't know what you consider the common definition. Here's one that pretty much sums up my impression of it, as someone working the plagiarism minefield that is literary studies.
Plagiarism: "the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own." -wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The themes are obviously well traveled (Lord of the Flies, Rollerball, Rollerball Murder, Battle Royale... I could go on) but more importantly plot events of The Hunger Games are dangerously close to those of Battle Royale specifically. Thematic influence is unavoidable. Plot events this similar do justify a closer look.
Also, please take note that I said it is "bordering on plagiarism". This is a widely held belief, amongst many people a great deal smarter than I am. I also said that I didn't have an overbearing problem with this.
So when Suzanne Collins and the makers of Battle Royale both credit mythology as an influence, the former is plagiarising the latter? All the properties you mentioned above are about survival, but they all treat it differently. There's a huge political element in The Hunger Games that is absent in Battle Royale - doesn't necessarily make it better, or deeper, but it does give a different cast to every action and event. If anything, it's the structure, not the ideas, that is similar between the two, and no one "owns" structure.
It also seems somewhat ironic that you used "widely held belief" as a buttress for your statement talking about the themes of the movie. I guess you really did find it mentally taxing.
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
This thread is hilarious.
My guess is your definition of plagiarism is not the common definition of plagiarism.
Well I don't know what you consider the common definition. Here's one that pretty much sums up my impression of it, as someone working the plagiarism minefield that is literary studies.
Plagiarism: "the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own." -wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The themes are obviously well traveled (Lord of the Flies, Rollerball, Rollerball Murder, Battle Royale... I could go on) but more importantly plot events of The Hunger Games are dangerously close to those of Battle Royale specifically. Thematic influence is unavoidable. Plot events this similar do justify a closer look.
Also, please take note that I said it is "bordering on plagiarism". This is a widely held belief, amongst many people a great deal smarter than I am. I also said that I didn't have an overbearing problem with this.
So when Suzanne Collins and the makers of Battle Royale both credit mythology as an influence, the former is plagiarising the latter? All the properties you mentioned above are about survival, but they all treat it differently. There's a huge political element in The Hunger Games that is absent in Battle Royale - doesn't necessarily make it better, or deeper, but it does give a different cast to every action and event. If anything, it's the structure, not the ideas, that is similar between the two, and no one "owns" structure.
It also seems somewhat ironic that you used "widely held belief" as a buttress for your statement talking about the themes of the movie. I guess you really did find it mentally taxing.
My guess is your definition of irony is not the common definition of irony.
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
This thread is hilarious.
My guess is your definition of plagiarism is not the common definition of plagiarism.
Well I don't know what you consider the common definition. Here's one that pretty much sums up my impression of it, as someone working the plagiarism minefield that is literary studies.
Plagiarism: "the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own." -wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The themes are obviously well traveled (Lord of the Flies, Rollerball, Rollerball Murder, Battle Royale... I could go on) but more importantly plot events of The Hunger Games are dangerously close to those of Battle Royale specifically. Thematic influence is unavoidable. Plot events this similar do justify a closer look.
Also, please take note that I said it is "bordering on plagiarism". This is a widely held belief, amongst many people a great deal smarter than I am. I also said that I didn't have an overbearing problem with this.
So when Suzanne Collins and the makers of Battle Royale both credit mythology as an influence, the former is plagiarising the latter? All the properties you mentioned above are about survival, but they all treat it differently. There's a huge political element in The Hunger Games that is absent in Battle Royale - doesn't necessarily make it better, or deeper, but it does give a different cast to every action and event. If anything, it's the structure, not the ideas, that is similar between the two, and no one "owns" structure.
It also seems somewhat ironic that you used "widely held belief" as a buttress for your statement talking about the themes of the movie. I guess you really did find it mentally taxing.
My guess is your definition of irony is not the common definition of irony.
S: (adj) dry, ironic, ironical, wry (humorously sarcastic or mocking) "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" S: (adj) ironic, ironical ([b]characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is[/b)] "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely"
You argued that something was a "widely held belief" to support your argument for not liking a film that is largely about subverting widely held beliefs, which would be incongruent behaviour for someone who claims to have understood the story's themes well enough to draw comparisons to other story's themes.
On April 05 2012 14:25 hmmm... wrote: what was the song playing at the end of the movie as the guy with the weirdly-shaved beard was being forced to eat the berries behind locked doors?
Ha! I knew I wasn't the only one fascinated by that particular track. It's this one, though the movie version is a bit altered (and I haven't found it anywhere so far).
I started to like the movie up until the actual Hunger Games event. After that, the acting and overall movie quality seemed to go downhill. Especially with the ending, which was fuckin' terrible. I never read the books, but people that did have told me the actual Hunger Games event was done horribly in the movie.
My alternate ending: Either one of them or both of them die as a martyr, inspiring the other 11 districts to rebel against the Capitol and reform the nation. Oh, and the scene at the very end where they say "I guess we'll have to try and forget [The Hunger Games]" will be included as a blooper during the end credits, since it was so fucking cheesy and terrible.
On April 05 2012 18:19 TheToaster wrote: I started to like the movie up until the actual Hunger Games event. After that, the acting and overall movie quality seemed to go downhill. Especially with the ending, which was fuckin' terrible. I never read the books, but people that did have told me the actual Hunger Games event was done horribly in the movie.
My alternate ending: Either one of them or both of them die as a martyr, inspiring the other 11 districts to rebel against the Capitol and reform the nation. Oh, and the scene at the very end where they say "I guess we'll have to try and forget [The Hunger Games]" will be included as a blooper during the end credits, since it was so fucking cheesy and terrible.
This was exactly how I felt.
First half of the movie was done really well, I thought they did a really good job of what was to come. My expectations were really high, and I couldnt wait.
Then suddenly it started to go downhill, and I was like "what... the fuck?". Best way to describe how bad it was, was to compare it to your typical scifi channel movie.
On April 03 2012 06:13 Kojaimea wrote: I can make my peace with PG-13 violence. I can make my peace with influence bordering on plagiarism. I can make my peace with filmmakers and authors alike denying any knowledge of said influence.
I cannot make my peace with a boring, boring, BORING(!!!!) movie, that is over 2 hours long. This piece of tripe was physically and mentally draining to sit through. There is no merit from a film-making standpoint, there isn't a singe character i give two shits about, and the action is just dull. Really poor show...
This thread is hilarious.
My guess is your definition of plagiarism is not the common definition of plagiarism.
Well I don't know what you consider the common definition. Here's one that pretty much sums up my impression of it, as someone working the plagiarism minefield that is literary studies.
Plagiarism: "the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own." -wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
The themes are obviously well traveled (Lord of the Flies, Rollerball, Rollerball Murder, Battle Royale... I could go on) but more importantly plot events of The Hunger Games are dangerously close to those of Battle Royale specifically. Thematic influence is unavoidable. Plot events this similar do justify a closer look.
Also, please take note that I said it is "bordering on plagiarism". This is a widely held belief, amongst many people a great deal smarter than I am. I also said that I didn't have an overbearing problem with this.
So when Suzanne Collins and the makers of Battle Royale both credit mythology as an influence, the former is plagiarising the latter? All the properties you mentioned above are about survival, but they all treat it differently. There's a huge political element in The Hunger Games that is absent in Battle Royale - doesn't necessarily make it better, or deeper, but it does give a different cast to every action and event. If anything, it's the structure, not the ideas, that is similar between the two, and no one "owns" structure.
It also seems somewhat ironic that you used "widely held belief" as a buttress for your statement talking about the themes of the movie. I guess you really did find it mentally taxing.
You have to be joking? In Battle Royale, it is a fascist government using the Battle Royale for entertainment and scaring/punishing the population. In The Hunger Games, it is a fascist governement using the Hunger Games for entertainment and scaring/punishing the population. However, this might be not so obvious if you have not read the source material.
Comparisons of Hunger Games to Battle Royale are shallow at best. The conflict of Battle Royale was entirely derived from how all the students previously associated. Each character held a significant role in the life of each other character and so every killing took on another level of intrigue. As such the combat tournament was the ENTIRE focus of Battle Royale (think Lord of the Flies).
In the Hunger games the true conflict is never between tributes. The conflict is between the lower and upper classes and the games are simply a framing device for the rise of the main character as a leader within the bigger picture. In contrast, at the end of Battle Royale you do not get the sense that any problems were solved or progress made, since that was never the point. Just because both fictional universes resolve their problems similarly, it does not make their problems similar.
tl/dr: They are completely different stories in every way that matters.
On April 05 2012 18:57 Velocirapture wrote: Comparisons of Hunger Games to Battle Royale are shallow at best. The conflict of Battle Royale was entirely derived from how all the students previously associated. Each character held a significant role in the life of each other character and so every killing took on another level of intrigue. As such the combat tournament was the ENTIRE focus of Battle Royale (think Lord of the Flies).
In the Hunger games the true conflict is never between tributes. The conflict is between the lower and upper classes and the games are simply a framing device for the rise of the main character as a leader within the bigger picture. In contrast, at the end of Battle Royale you do not get the sense that any problems were solved or progress made, since that was never the point. Just because both fictional universes resolve their problems similarly, it does not make their problems similar.
tl/dr: They are completely different stories in every way that matters.
While you are correct, I think we have a case of "haters gonna hate".
Saying "The Hunger Games is based on Battle Royale" is like saying "Daybreakers is based on Underworld". They have a similar plot element (death matches and vampires), but the stories are entirely different. A lot of people say Battle Royale is even based on Lord of the Flies which isn't entirely accurate since the former is "survival of the fittest" while the latter is "a return to primitivism". But hey, that's a different discussion for a different day.
*spoilers incoming*
To put it in perspective, the entire Hunger Games trilogy describes the trouble of the main character finding herself while everyone else wants to use her. The first book uses her as entertainment, the second book uses her as a way to quell an uprising, and the third book uses her as the symbol of the rebellion. All the while she has seemingly no control over her life and wouldn't really know what to do with it if she suddenly received it. The layers of the story aren't revealed until the sequels. Compare this to Battle Royale where all the students are friends and they struggle with the reality of "kill or be killed" either by each other or the collars. Sure, the game is used to subjugate the people in an authoritarian society in both stories, but as I mentioned earlier, that's where the similarities stop. For the book, at least. If you watched Battle Royale 2 you may be inclined to think that Shuya starting a terrorist cell is the same as Katniss falling in with Panem rebels, but that's as shallow as the comparison I made in the first paragraph.
Not like whatever I'm saying is going to matter anyway. Haters are still going to hate. This makes me wonder if everyone would be so critical if the movie had a typical opening weekend.
EPT
