|
    THE HUNGER GAMES. This film, set to release March 23, 2012, is based on the ever-so-controversial young adult novels by one Suzanne Collins. Presumably it will be one in a trilogy of films following each of the three novels comprising the series, unless they pull the increasingly popular move of splitting up the source material into two final movies. As chance would have it, The Hunger Games will follow the events of the first book, same title: IMDB posted:Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match. That about sums it up. The series has attracted attention for quite some time due to the apparent gruesome nature of its contents, which involve pitting 24 child 'contestants' (two from each of 12 districts located around the continent in which all of this takes place) against one another in a last-man-standing scenario for "fame and glory". These take place in vast, unpredictable arenas rigged with constructed or bio-engineered booby traps and mutant animal freaks. Demonstrably this entire affair, the titular Hunger Games, is put on by an overbearing dictatorial government, and serves to keep the populace in check. Depending on who you're talking to, the series ranges from being shocking and brutal to tired and unacceptably unoriginal. I admit I got a fair bit of enjoyment out of the first book, but the series lost its shine after that; the political nature of the books is increasingly black-and-white and poorly explored, and the book shows its young adult nature in the heavy handedness of its messages. But hey, it's a neat idea, and a pretty colorful one at that. It draws an incredible amount of inspiration from reality television, and the juxtaposition of modern-day reality TV concepts with "kids use anything they can get their hands on to kill all the other kids" is kind of a weird read, to say the least. To be honest, though, I wasn't terribly jazzed about the film adaptation. The marketing screams Twilight, and everybody's looking for the New Big Young Adult Thing since Harry Potter's film legacy wound down; The Hunger Games is pretty trendy right now. So what got me interested enough in the film to make a thread about it? The trailer. It's surprisingly good, and if nothing else, it looks polished. This doesn't look like they threw a small budget at it and hoped it would catch on (as was the case for the first Twilight film, if I'm not mistaken). Collins isn't the most talented author in the young adult genre, let alone as a whole, but she crafted a pretty interesting world nonetheless. I thought it might come to light a little bit better on the big screen than in the limited vocab of a YA book, and when the full trailer was released I felt that to be somewhat confirmed; I'm looking forward to the movie in a way that's a bit disconnected from the source material, because I suspect they may have had a chance to make it somewhat more convincing, interesting, and original.  Why should you care about The Hunger Games? There are some interesting names on the cast list. Jennifer Lawrence from Winter's Bone is playing the central character, Katniss Everdeen, and Donald Sutherland takes the role of the rather off-putting, if a little 2D, iron-fisted dictator/general villain type. Stanley Tucci will be hamming it up in the role of entertainer and show host Caesar Flickerman (a performance I'm really looking forward to) and Woody Harrelson plays a former champion and current drunken mentor. And, uh, I guess Lenny Kravitz will also be in it as Katniss's classy and handsome stylist. I'm not familiar with Mr. Kravitz's acting chops, but I'm sure this must be enticing to someone. Besides that, the story itself resonates with a lot of people, and on top of that also has the potential to deliver an interesting and entertaining film adaptation. The books tend to suffer from slogging through drawn-out rehashes of what appears to be a very black and white, simplistic political system and two-dimensional character interactions. I have a feeling that film can do what's necessary to flesh out (or give a better appearance of fleshing out) the bare bones of the political structure and the resultant turmoil and rebellion, and to produce some pretty excellent action scenes.  The premise is boring/overused/overdone. We've seen this before. The interest here really isn't in the bare bones of the plot, but of the potential of the details. The Hunger Games as a book and as a series isn't the meatiest of fare, but the attention it has accrued isn't totally undeserved. Beyond the typical YA dystopian trope of "Big Bad Government Oppresses the Townsfolk", the details and facets of the general world have a LOT of opportunity to shine on film. Deep introspection and character growth is not necessarily going to be the draw here, but — and it's difficult to know just yet, seeing as little as we have — the potential art direction has a lot more meat to dig into. Aesthetics are a big part of The Hunger Games and for a lot of the world of the books. From what I've seen of the trailer, we don't seem to be in for a disappointment in that area just yet.  Something about Battle Royale! I'm not terribly familiar with Battle Royale, but let's try and keep the comparisons and the derails to a minimum. The Hunger Games shares a lot of common themes with a lot of different things, most notably the dystopian, post-apocalyptic, oppressive government regime theme that's been pervasive in the young adult genre for years, so there's no point splitting hairs. I don't expect The Hunger Games to be a groundbreaking, revolutionary film — but there's more to it than just "it's about people fighting!"  LINKS Original Teaser Trailer Official Trailer as of November 14th The Hunger Games (Novel) Wikipedia Page The Hunger Games — IMDB mareep fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Nov 15, 2011 |
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Hey, that's a really solid OP. Nicely done! I have to admit, I'm cautiously excited about this. I'm a pretty huge fan of the books (especially the 3rd, which I think is one of the more brutal and compellingly bleak YA books I've ever read), but it seems to me that to make the movie fit the rating they'd obviously want, they'd end up having to pull some of the book's more brutal punches. Moreover, I would love to see this given to someone who could really run with the reality TV aspects and turn this into a really great modern satire while still keeping the story. I haven't gotten to see the new trailer yet, but all the positive reaction makes me quite happy. I'm almost definitely going to see this one way or the other, so I'd rather see something good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Definitely looking forward to this You do keep mentioning in the OP you were put off by the "black and white" nature of the morality. I actually found the books to be pretty good in this regard. Without giving away spoilers, there is certainly good and bad to be found throughout from all parties, be they factions or individuals (this is particularly prevalent in the third book). To me the books were more about the fluid and mutable nature of morality, how circumstance can cause you to behave in ways you might otherwise find abhorrent, how expectation and environment tend to shape us more than any inherent drive towards good or evil. There's certainly more nuance than a lot of mainstream political discourse, depressingly enough. I suppose there are one or two truly "evil" characters, but even there I see it as art imitating life: reality does throw up the occasional Pol Pot or Idi Amin whose regimes are truly and unrelentingly terrible. The dystopia of the novels may seem cartoonishly evil, but the political and material oppression pales in comparison to a lot of real history
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
This is an adaptation of one of the worst books I've read in years - it's separate from Twilight in my mind only in that it swaps Twilight's hideous self-regarding misogyny for competitive survivalist action, which is admittedly a huge improvement - but the film looks much better than I'd expected. Compared to the initial teaser, which made it look like made-for-TV garbage, this new trailer structure is good, emphasising character and setup and ending with a teaser for the 'meat' of the premise, the Hunger Game itself. Jennifer Lawrence looks good, even if her male co-stars all look like teen girl bait with faces that look like they've been pumping iron. Considering I have a pathaological need to see any adaptation of anything I've ever read (even when I hate the source material), I'll almost certainly see this, but it might even not suck completely. And, uh, I don't mean to threadshit, but banning Battle Royale comparisons seems a bit rich coming from someone who hasn't seen Battle Royale... and while I agree the stories are distinct, that they use such similar premises surely invites discussion on how well each uses it and what their implications are. BR was a very Japanese satire, but (and I think this is a major problem) THG doesn't seem to know what point it's making beyond exciting teenagers with its violent premise. The stuff about the media (and the chat show in particular) felt like the book was getting at some broader dig at society, about celebrity and sex and bloodlust, that it couldn't really articulate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:And, uh, I don't mean to threadshit, but banning Battle Royale comparisons seems a bit rich coming from someone who hasn't seen Battle Royale... and while I agree the stories are distinct, that they use such similar premises surely invites discussion on how well each uses it and what their implications are. BR was a very Japanese satire, but (and I think this is a major problem) THG doesn't seem to know what point it's making beyond exciting teenagers with its violent premise. The stuff about the media (and the chat show in particular) felt like the book was getting at some broader dig at society, about celebrity and sex and bloodlust, that it couldn't really articulate. A) The problem with Battle Royale talk is that it comes up every single time this is brought up, but only for people to say "THIS IS JUST A DUMB RIPOFF!" I think discussions of how the two are different could be interesting, tho. B) I think the series definitely has a point, one that becomes more and more clear as the series progressed. Collins said that she wrote the series as a way of exploring the effects of war on children - it's one reason that the characters don't just shrug off the book's events. There are serious PTSD issues throughout, which makes it all more complex. Yes, there's more going on in terms of social commentary and whatnot, but I think that theme very much ties it all together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:19
|
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:B) I think the series definitely has a point, one that becomes more and more clear as the series progressed. Collins said that she wrote the series as a way of exploring the effects of war on children - it's one reason that the characters don't just shrug off the book's events. There are serious PTSD issues throughout, which makes it all more complex. Yes, there's more going on in terms of social commentary and whatnot, but I think that theme very much ties it all together. Ah, well, to be fair on the series, I only read the first book. I may have dismissed it too readily because by the end of it I was so sick of the trashy 'teen lit' prose and the deus ex machinas I had no urge to continue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Ah, well, to be fair on the series, I only read the first book. I may have dismissed it too readily because by the end of it I was so sick of the trashy 'teen lit' prose and the deus ex machinas I had no urge to continue. Um yeah, if you only read 1/3 of a three act story you're probably not going to get the "point". It's like stopping at the end of Fellowship of the ring and complaining that Lord of the Rings doesn't go anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Ah, well, to be fair on the series, I only read the first book. I may have dismissed it too readily because by the end of it I was so sick of the trashy 'teen lit' prose and the deus ex machinas I had no urge to continue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
ClydeUmney posted:A) The problem with Battle Royale talk is that it comes up every single time this is brought up, but only for people to say "THIS IS JUST A DUMB RIPOFF!" I think discussions of how the two are different could be interesting, tho. Now I haven't read The Hunger Games (and perhaps this is a huge red flag that I should shut the gently caress up) but while it does seem to borrow ideas from Battle Royale, what it really seems to be doing is borrowing elements from a slew of notable dystopian sci-fi novels from years past... From my conversations with my librarian girlfriend, it seems like it's a pastiche of things; not only the aforementioned Battle Royale, but also Ender's Game, The Most Dangerous Game, Snow Crash, and a bunch of others. [edit] And this is clearly cribbing on THX 1138:
testtubebaby fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Nov 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
quote:The premise is boring/overused/overdone. We've seen this before. So basically a book you sortof liked might turn into a good movie because you liked how the trailer looked? Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
Interesting how this thread is so much more hypercritical than the one in TBB. I really enjoyed the books, read them all in 3 days. My first though after I finished the last sentence was that a Hollywood film would in no way do justice to the series. You try explaining to your uninformed peers that this film will be lacking due to its reluctance to display brutal, child on child murders. Strange looks abound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Um yeah, if you only read 1/3 of a three act story you're probably not going to get the "point". It's like stopping at the end of Fellowship of the ring and complaining that Lord of the Rings doesn't go anywhere. You shouldn't have to read an entire trilogy of books to decide whether you like them or not. If he didn't like the first book, do you really think the second two would change his mind? Anyway, I agree with foodfight that the OP really makes me far less likely to see this movie, not that I was likely to in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Klay posted:Interesting how this thread is so much more hypercritical than the one in TBB. Talas fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:You shouldn't have to read an entire trilogy of books to decide whether you like them or not. If he didn't like the first book, do you really think the second two would change his mind? It isn't about whether he liked them or not, it's that he made a judgement on the effectiveness and complexity of the story's message without actually reading the whole story. The LotR comparison is apt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
I guess I'll just have to take your word for it, I have little desire to read the Hunger Games and I gave up on Lord of the Rings after the second book. After two books, I feel I was able to judge how effective the series would be for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I guess I'll just have to take your word for it, I have little desire to read the Hunger Games and I gave up on Lord of the Rings after the second book. After two books, I feel I was able to judge how effective the series would be for me. You can judge how much you like it, sure, and stop reading it if you don't like it, but you cannot judge the complete POINT it is making, because you haven't actually read the entire story. The first book does have it's own internal themes and plots, but they tie into the wider story in ways that don't become clear until you complete the trilogy. In HG, the last book in particular is very different from the first two. The first/second books basically set up the premise, they're essentially snapshots of the world as-is. Book 3 is where stuff actually starts happening in a wider context. You need those establishing stories, and I found them to be good in their own right, but the wider metaplot I think contains the overall point of the series, and there's really not that much of it until a lot later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:You can judge how much you like it, sure, and stop reading it if you don't like it, but you cannot judge the complete POINT it is making, because you haven't actually read the entire story. The first book does have it's own internal themes and plots, but they tie into the wider story in ways that don't become clear until you complete the trilogy. That's fair enough - I can't judge how well it works as a story about child war because I haven't read that far. But the first book - and from the looks of it this movie - identifiably attempts to satirise the media's fixation on sex and bloodlust and I don't think it's unfair to discuss that on its own terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
foodfight posted:So basically a book you sortof liked might turn into a good movie because you liked how the trailer looked? Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Not at all. I think you could say that I feel like the really good parts of the series are hampered by the (poor use of?) the medium. Kind of weird, I guess, but it seemed to me like, done right, the entire world and story could translate much better in the medium of film. This might be because of the limited skill of the author, I don't know, because I didn't feel this way about 1984 or We. I think you could sum it up by saying that a lot of the Hunger Games books rely on visuals and descriptions rather than really deep ruminations on human nature or societal values, so it makes a lot more sense to have it be portrayed on film than written. Popcorn posted:And, uh, I don't mean to threadshit, but banning Battle Royale comparisons seems a bit rich coming from someone who hasn't seen Battle Royale... and while I agree the stories are distinct, that they use such similar premises surely invites discussion on how well each uses it and what their implications are. BR was a very Japanese satire, but (and I think this is a major problem) THG doesn't seem to know what point it's making beyond exciting teenagers with its violent premise. The stuff about the media (and the chat show in particular) felt like the book was getting at some broader dig at society, about celebrity and sex and bloodlust, that it couldn't really articulate. I didn't mean to imply any sort of comparison was banned. I guess I really didn't make that very clear in the OP  but yeah, I was just trying to head off any severe "THIS IS A DUMB RIP OFF" derailing that could happen. I think you proved your point really well about what the difference is between a "It's a Battle Royale copy!" post and a thoughtful, intelligent post.Fatkraken posted:Definitely looking forward to this I'm not sure whether I should spoil most of this, but I guess I will for the sake of it being the film thread: Young adult books tend to do this kind of lumping together and generalizing, so it's not really a surprise, but I felt like the people who were "bad" were immediately and irrevocably tarred with the "bad guy" brush, and by the time the third book ended I felt like it was even more so. Cartoonishly evil villains in a YA novel are a bit more excusable, but I really didn't like the shallowness of the ending that suggested that Coin, the leader of the supposed good rebellion movement, was inevitably just as cruel and overhanded as the government they worked to overthrow. As the series progressed, the theme of it just being a never-ending loop of power corrupting and human nature always trending towards evil felt like a cheap way to end things. Maybe it was realistic, and I haven't given it enough thought to try and propose some other kind of ending I would have found more acceptable, but cheap villain reveals like Coin declaring they should put all the old government members into their OWN Hunger Games, and literally killing children (on her own side) didn't really gel with me. It kind of undermined what I expected to be the actual underlying theme, which had more to do with being emotionally advanced enough to CHOOSE the better path, rather than perpetuating the cycle because you'd been subjected to it once before. It seems like up until that point, a common theme was that combatants in the Games just resigned themselves to their fate and went off to kill everyone else, and it made more sense that the culmination of the plot would result in showing that you can choose NOT to do that. I don't expect any of the major plot details to change in the film, but I think the fluidity of morality could be better explored when it isn't being explained to us in so many words. Like I said in the OP, since I really enjoyed the first book, liked the second, but was ultimately disappointed with the third, I'm not excited about the movie because of the revelatory message. I'm excited because it looks like it's going to be a lot more of a wild ride than the books were, in my opinion. I think it's going to be a case of taking decent source material and elevating it into something much better. mareep fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
TBH, I've read the series, and I didn't think it was *that* bad. Sure, it's not exactly high-class literature, but comparing it to Twilight is a bit OTT in my book. I've seen people on these forums get so angry about these books, you'd think Suzanne Collins had taken a big diarrhoea dump on their cereal or run over their dog or something. Also, re: Lenny Kravitz: He was in Precious, so he's already been in a high-profile film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
ZakAce posted:TBH, I've read the series, and I didn't think it was *that* bad. Sure, it's not exactly high-class literature, but comparing it to Twilight is a bit OTT in my book. I've seen people on these forums get so angry about these books, you'd think Suzanne Collins had taken a big diarrhoea dump on their cereal or run over their dog or something. People get mad about it for the same reason they get mad about pop music or Adam Sandler films. Low-brow? Easily accessible?! Not to MY standards?! AND WORST OF ALL SUCCESSFUL WHILE MY PRECIOUS INTELLECTUAL [thing] IS NOT?! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
weekly font posted:People get mad about it for the same reason they get mad about pop music or Adam Sandler films. Low-brow? Easily accessible?! Not to MY standards?! AND WORST OF ALL SUCCESSFUL WHILE MY PRECIOUS INTELLECTUAL [thing] IS NOT?! Or they just identify the poo poo writing, the deus ex machina-tastic plotting, the abundance of cliches... (and FYI I don't think any of my favourite novels aren't bestsellers.) But I'll concede that the Twilight comparison is lazy and probably only occurred because it's the only other trashy YA fiction I've read in recent years. "Hey, this crummy sentence about feelings is just like that crummy sentence in Twilight..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
I liked that Battle Royale realized the absurdity of the situation and didn't take itself seriously at all. It was actually really funny. This looks like it's just played straight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Or they just identify the poo poo writing, the deus ex machina-tastic plotting, the abundance of cliches... (and FYI I don't think any of my favourite novels aren't bestsellers.) Most the people up in arms about Twilight/HarPot/Hunger Games haven't read it. I haven't so I can't go either way but that IS why the majority of people get upset about popular things. Mu Zeta posted:I liked that Battle Royale realized the absurdity of the situation and didn't take itself seriously at all. It was actually really funny. This looks like it's just played straight. The cookies were...delicious
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 02:33
|
|
This movie doesn't look that good, but I will watch it regardless, I enjoyed the poo poo out of Hunger Games, so I can't wait to bitch at the adaptation and every small thing they did wrong 
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
weekly font posted:People get mad about it for the same reason they get mad about pop music or Adam Sandler films. Low-brow? Easily accessible?! Not to MY standards?! AND WORST OF ALL SUCCESSFUL WHILE MY PRECIOUS INTELLECTUAL [thing] IS NOT?! See, this analogy doesn't really support your argument because pop music and all but like three Adam Sandler films are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
What's with the title, "Hunger Games"? Are people generally hungry in the books and so this is a way to get more food? I read the synopsis on Wiki but I didn't see the answer. In the books, does it take all three books to reach the end of the games or does the story progress after they win? I like the idea that there's more to it than just a straight up murder everyone, ala B.R.. Mutants and traps around, sounds cool. The dynamic of the couple playing up the audience is interesting, as well. Edit; Thanks! VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
I've only read a the first few chapters so far but yeah everyone is hungry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
The population is starving. The kid who wins The Hunger Games wins their hometown lots of food from the evil government. There might be a metaphor involved too but you'd have to ask one of the scholars who read the whole trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:The population is starving. The kid who wins The Hunger Games wins their hometown lots of food from the evil government. There might be a metaphor involved too but you'd have to ask one of the scholars who read the whole trilogy. Sorry a book aimed at 12 year olds wasn't deep or complex enough for you. Seriously, did Suzanne Collins piss in your cornflakes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
Plus if you win the Game you become famous and your life gets much better than before you were picked (in theory at least). A game does not progress longer than the book it is started. AKA there's a separate game in the first two books(the second is a year after the first and a 100th anniversary special or something) and the third book is just a giant clusterfuck with no game
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
SGRaaize posted:This movie doesn't look that good, but I will watch it regardless, I enjoyed the poo poo out of Hunger Games, so I can't wait to bitch at the adaptation and every small thing they did wrong I feel exactly the opposite. I'm nitpicky as hell with my book to film adaptations but there really wasn't much left to the imagination in the books. Normally I'd be right there with you but I really like the idea that they can take a good concept and fill in parts... there's a weirdly claustrophobic feel in the writing, like some things are overly detailed and vivid, and others (usually locations) feel bizarrely empty, which leaves things hard to picture. For example, I had a really hard time figuring out the actual size and population of the districts, where everyone seems to know each other, yet apparently the population should be about 1/12th of that of the entire continent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
redjenova posted:I didn't mean to imply any sort of comparison was banned. I guess I really didn't make that very clear in the OP People don't seem to realize that there's a difference between Japanese game shows and the American Idol type shows that are being satirized here. Also, Hunger Games is commenting how the US enlists teens as young as 17 for its wars. Japan doesn't have that problem, and so Battle Royale comments instead on both youth crime and its perception in the media. The difference is between how one nation deals with dissidents and criminals, while the other is about the compromises a person must make in order to become an adult - or, specifically, a wage-earner. The basic idea of fighting for a group of people is the crucial bit. Fighting to supply one's family with food, and so-on. The kids in BR aren't really fighting for anything. They're just hosed by fate. BR is national where the Hunger Games are international, its nation of Panem covering the entire 'first-world' - or possibly the entire remaining world. Perhaps the most important thing that's being missed in this open disdain for "Young Adult Novels" is that Hunger Games comments on those novels the same way this film comments on blockbuster films. The character can't simply live in the woods like a hippie, but rather must look pretty, must kill people in stylish ways in order to be the franchise's heroine. The point being that if you're an 'ugly' pacifist, you're not going to end up the star of an American blockbuster. You're not going to have a book written about you. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Nov 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
redjenova posted:For example, I had a really hard time figuring out the actual size and population of the districts, where everyone seems to know each other, yet apparently the population should be about 1/12th of that of the entire continent. The continent is basically depopulated following an undefined apocalyptic event. There are probably only a few thousand people in each district, and a few tens of thousands in the capitol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 11:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Perhaps the most important thing that's being missed in this open disdain for "Young Adult Novels" is that Hunger Games comments on those novels the same way this film comments on blockbuster films. The character can't simply live in the woods like a hippie, but rather must look pretty, must kill people in stylish ways in order to be the franchise's heroine. The point being that if you're an 'ugly' pacifist, you're not going to end up the star of an American blockbuster. You're not going to have a book written about you. Further to that, she is forced to present herself as part of a fake loving relationship for the benefit of an audience. The readers are not Katniss, or the people of the districts. We are the people of Capitol, watching children die for our entertainment. As readers of YA literature we demand a love story, so the people of Capitol are given a love story, no matter how contrived or fake it might be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 11:29
|
|
|
This is probably a petty reason to hate the film without even knowing for sure, but if they are trying to turn this into a franchise like Twilight, it is going to be PG-13 garbage. How can you make a film that has brutal killings of young kids and tone it down? I haven't read the books so I don't know what levels of violence it has, but from the premise alone, I can't imagine the film not having graphic and shocking violence and death scenes every five minutes. That is the only reason I will or won't watch this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
Kush posted:This is probably a petty reason to hate the film without even knowing for sure, but if they are trying to turn this into a franchise like Twilight, it is going to be PG-13 garbage. How can you make a film that has brutal killings of young kids and tone it down? You can actually get away with a hell of a lot in PG13 as long as it doesn't involve swearing, drugs or sex. Horrific violence is OK, two people who love each other expressing that love is TERRIBLE WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN. I guess the death scenes likely won't be particularly graphic, but you don't need buckets of blood for something to be harrowing or emotionally affecting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 12:13
|
|
|
Just recently there have been films like The Dark Knight, Cloverfield, War of the Worlds, Battle: Los Angeles... All are notable for using blood very sparingly, while having lots of people end up exploded, lit on fire or crushed - as well as showing plenty of already-dead bodies strewn about. You can apparently get away with a lot by simply obscuring the exact moment of the wounding, downplaying blood, and/or rendering the violence 'impersonal' or difficult to emulate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Perhaps the most important thing that's being missed in this open disdain for "Young Adult Novels" is that Hunger Games comments on those novels the same way this film comments on blockbuster films. The character can't simply live in the woods like a hippie, but rather must look pretty, must kill people in stylish ways in order to be the franchise's heroine. The point being that if you're an 'ugly' pacifist, you're not going to end up the star of an American blockbuster. You're not going to have a book written about you. SMG, I agree with your analysis and your posts always impress me, but I do envy your ability to overlook seemingly any normal indicator of quality in favour of a theoretical reading. I mean, am I supposed to concede that The Hunger Games is a good novel after all because it may function as a discussion of the Young Adult Novel/Hollywood Blockbuster as a genre, even though it contains sentences as maddening as "now it was Peeta's turn to look surprised"? Or is this not a question of "good" for you? One of the reasons I'm optimistic about the movie is that I won't have to put up with that prose anymore. There may just be a story I can enjoy underneath it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:One of the reasons I'm optimistic about the movie is that I won't have to put up with that prose anymore. There may just be a story I can enjoy underneath it. This is one of the big reasons why I'm looking forward so much more to the film. The story was really handicapped by being dumbed down for a young adult audience. Not all young adult books have to do that, either, but I think it was a combination of choice and the range of the author's talent. She still had good ideas, though; taking it to the screen is exactly what's needed. In this case, I really agree with what SMG's saying. Not only do these kids have to go in and try to be the last one to come out alive, but they have to put on a good show, because the more entertaining their performance, the more likely wealthy sponsors on the outside will be to send in aid items like medicine or weapons. I'm not too worried about the PG-13 rating simply because a lot of the violence in Hunger Games is really descriptive but not particularly bloody, like it's grotesque in a way that will probably sneak past the rating system. Early on in the Games, one girl is stung to death by a mutated version of wasps. Katniss gets a bit of it too, and partially witnesses the girl dying/hallucinates her body bloated and covered in oozing green sores. Popcorn, I think for the most part the thing that held Hunger Games back is it really did try to tackle some important and interesting themes, but the writing really restricted it. You can see it a bit better as the series progresses; the third book is entirely Games-less, but the parallels and carried themes are really clear and actually pretty subtly done for the series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Apparently people are upset that some characters in this are black even though they're described that way in the book. Yes, There Are Black People in Your Hunger Games: The Strange Case of Rue & Cinna
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2011 22:43
|
|
