|
This made nearly $20 mil from midnight showings 
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
Bobnumerotres posted:3. This is a movie about children killing eachother because an oppressive government seeks to punish the people for their former attempts at rebellion. It is bleak, it is horrifying, and instead of going for the art, for the gruesomeness of it all, they went for the cash-in. The PG-13 rating. I saw 12 year-old girls with loving "Team Gale" on their cheeks. The book maybe more detailed with the violence but it utterly avoids all content that may contain an ounce of sexuality beyond faux kisses for an audience, so lets not pretend the source material wasn't made for tweens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
haha good lord, the entirety of the "romance" in the book was a commentary on the obsessive need of the audience for meaningless romance in even the most high stakes and unpleasant of stories. I mean, I guess you can't expect 12 year olds to get all the subtext, but it's pretty clearly spelled out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Butt Soup Barnes posted:Reading the first book will answer most of your questions, I'll try to explain some of them. His problem with it isn't that questions are unanswered, it's that the world-building makes no sense. You don't get to have super-advanced technology and slave labor. You can't have genetic engineering technology and also the vast majority of the population starving. The districts providing one thing only is idiotic; it's a child's vision of an economic system. The axioms of this world just don't feel like they fit organically, it feels like the author just developed a world around a pastiche of ideas that don't hang together very well. I'm sure the books are enjoyable and a quick read, but it seems like really poor sci-fi. Which is fine, this is a YA novel, I just don't know why people want to build it to a transcendent, Harry Potter sized series - it just doesn't appear to be up to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Goons really, really, really hate shaky-cam goddamn. Pretty psyched about seeing this movie because of the hype. Enderzero posted:His problem with it isn't that questions are unanswered, it's that the world-building makes no sense. You don't get to have super-advanced technology and slave labor. You can't have genetic engineering technology and also the vast majority of the population starving. The districts providing one thing only is idiotic; it's a child's vision of an economic system. Are you one of those people who can't suspend their disbelief during sci-fi films that feature planets that are all one climate? Gimme a break, fella. The setting doesn't have to be ultra-realistic when it serves the story well and reinforces the author's critiques.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:His problem with it isn't that questions are unanswered, it's that the world-building makes no sense. You don't get to have super-advanced technology and slave labor. You can't have genetic engineering technology and also the vast majority of the population starving. The districts providing one thing only is idiotic; it's a child's vision of an economic system. The feeling I got when reading the book is that they could help the districts if they wanted to, but they don't. It's not like this is the first sci-fi story with slaves in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:
You are absolutely correct. The novels don't hold up to any sort of scrutiny but the movie goes above and beyond to relay the important themes. Directorman posted:
This comment is in bad form, especially when there are so many great scifi works that world build well. gohmak fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing this. I thought it was pretty good (4 stars out of 5 for those of you who like to put numbers on things). I've never read the books. Jennifer Lawrence is ace. After her rather muted performance in X-Men: First Class I was a little worried that Winters Bone was a fluke, but she absoluetly nails it. The other supporting adults are decent too, particularly an unrecognisable Elizabeth Banks as Effie. There are a few standout scenes. There was a real sense of dread during the reaping (the lottery where they pick the contestants). Katniss showing off her archery skills to the organisers put a grin on my face. Plus the first few frantic minutes of the games themselves are a highlight, with the tension of the countdown being followed by chaos as the tributes rush to grab equipment. It's not perfect. n-th'ing the needless shaky cam - an up-close camera that lurches around works well for scrappy close quarters combat (specifically Katniss vs the knife wielding girl from district 2) but is alienating when used for everyday activities. A couple of bits felt too deus ex machina (especially the convenient wasps' nest ). Worth seeing - am definitely excited for part 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Directorman posted:Goons really, really, really hate shaky-cam goddamn. Nope, I'm the opposite. I usually have no problem suspending my disbelief. Also you admit you're affected by the hype, that kind of hurts your point since it makes you look like a fanboy. Enjoy the movie! I'm not looking for ultra-realistic, I'm looking for a world that feels like it could actually develop based on how people act, their needs and desires, etc. In this case it feels like the world was readymade and then humans are just dropped into it. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Nope, I'm the opposite. I usually have no problem suspending my disbelief. Also you admit you're affected by the hype, that kind of hurts your point since it makes you look like a fanboy. Enjoy the movie! I literally couldn't tell you any of the characters' names before seeing a trailer and being media aware this past week. Fanboy it is. So, if I understand this correctly based on the Wiki: the "capitol" rules over a bunch of various districts to whom various sorts of production are delegated? All in the service of the wealthy elite who save all the best stuff for themselves while systematically opressing the lower and working classes? Yeah that sounds really out there. What society could possibly have tha--oh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Directorman posted:I literally couldn't tell you any of the characters' names before seeing a trailer and being media aware this past week. Fanboy it is. Jesus, calm down dude. It's not my fault you included a comment that torpedoed your next one. Great analogy, by the way, it's clearly correct because you, like me and most people in our society, are starving to death. Edit: Even the title is awful. The Hunger Games? Most totalitarian governments tend to deemphasize the negative things they do, so they would name them something like The Solidarity Games - anything opposite to what is actually happening, you know, starvation and all. You wouldn't give a constant reminder of what they are suffering through. This is a basic propaganda technique, but I suspect the name sounded too good to the publisher. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:haha good lord, the entirety of the "romance" in the book was a commentary on the obsessive need of the audience for meaningless romance in even the most high stakes and unpleasant of stories. I mean, I guess you can't expect 12 year olds to get all the subtext, but it's pretty clearly spelled out. I loving loved this. But they didn't show it in the movie, it seemed like genuine romance instead of Katniss thinking "we're really fooling these idiots!" as she did in the book. Their relationship is also an act of rebellion since the higher ups are smart enough to know it's a trick for the dumb and wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Great analogy, by the way, it's clearly correct because you, like me and most people in our society, are starving to death. Dial back the "omg calm down u mad" talk, man. It doesn't strengthen your position at all to think I'm freaking the gently caress out; you sound silly. The analogy doesn't work because we aren't literally starving as well? What? I don't know the author, but I would assume that the setting is the way it is not because she had a Star Wars EU level understanding of how it came to be and functions, but because it acts as a very good backdrop for her story--both in-universe and from a meta-standpoint as well. The movie/book seems to me like it's more about a critique of our own society rather than a study of the book's--so it doesn't need to stand up to the scrutiny you're applying to it. But again, I haven't seen/read it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
When I read the books I thought the various districts were supposed to recall the third world and the capitol the first world. This made it easier for me to suspend my disbelief because there are plenty of people who are literally starving as their country produces bananas solely for export.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Directorman posted:Dial back the "omg calm down u mad" talk, man. It doesn't strengthen your position at all to think I'm freaking the gently caress out; you sound silly. There's nothing to dial back, it wasn't covered in exclamation points or anything; you were the one who began by assuming I'm a sperg who can't just enjoy a movie and suspend my disbelief. You're rushing to defend a series you haven't seen or read. Ok, it's a critique of our society - that's interesting, but it doesn't make the sci-fi or world building any better, and that's what I posted about initially. You're shifting the argument, and I have no disagreement in this new arena. My original points still hold - she literally gave huge regions of the US a single trait; oh, the northwest? Lumber! North California? Electronics! (Get it?!) That's lazy as hell. thousandcranes posted:When I read the books I thought the various districts were supposed to recall the third world and the capitol the first world. This made it easier for me to suspend my disbelief because there are plenty of people who are literally starving as their country produces bananas solely for export. Yes, but those people don't have TVs everywhere. I get what you're saying and mostly agree, but the details are just so poorly done it makes it hard for me to look past them. I'm sure it's still a fun movie to watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Directorman posted:Dial back the "omg calm down u mad" talk, man. It doesn't strengthen your position at all to think I'm freaking the gently caress out; you sound silly. From what wiki has told me, the author came up with this while flipping through TV channels and seeing the fan fair of reality television and also the Iraq war and such. Enderzero posted:
It's a trilogy that is geared towards teenagers. Hell, even preteens, as my 12 year old nephew has been going wild about this movie forever. der juicen fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
On TVs: The books were definitely inspired by a number of other novels as well as our own global societal structure. The capitol and rich districts represent the top class who watch the poor from far away and feel no sympathy for them, and the hunger games, or the war, or the atrocities, are all just hot hot news to them. But then you blend it in with 1984 elements. The government's reach is endless and their eyes are everywhere, and they will go to very great lengths to remind the oppressed of this, and use double speak ("may the odds..") to insult them but keep the well-fed ignorant (cough america cough) people thinking it's all fun and entertainment. As someone else said, the TVs everywhere are the capitol's way of saying "this is your punishment, accept it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Yes, but those people don't have TVs everywhere. I get what you're saying and mostly agree, but the details are just so poorly done it makes it hard for me to look past them. I'm sure it's still a fun movie to watch. Since it is set in America, I imagined that our infrastructure would still be around, like Roman roads during the middle ages. I realize, given the state of our infrastructure, this really is a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
thousandcranes posted:When I read the books I thought the various districts were supposed to recall the third world and the capitol the first world. This made it easier for me to suspend my disbelief because there are plenty of people who are literally starving as their country produces bananas solely for export. Pretty much this. Remember Panem IS the world, as far as it's inhabitants are aware. It's all there is, there's nothing outside. Also even today, there are more people in Africa with access to mobile phones than clean water. If they're made elsewhere and become obsolete quickly, consumer goods can be obtained by even the poorest people surprisingly easily even today. Add to this the whole 1984 "we make you watch as we kill your children to prove how powerful we are" thing and people on the breadline with TVs is not beyond the realm of feasibility. It's also quite allegorical, as some people have said. Allegory is less bound by technical feasibility than it is by being an effective commentary on whatever it's actually about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Dial A For Awesome posted:A couple of bits felt too deus ex machina (especially the convenient wasps' nest ). To be fair, and I haven't seen the movie yet (tickets for 7:20) so I don't know how this plays out, but it was kinda the same way in the book. I assume she's scrambled up a tree after the big forest fire deal, and Rue points out the nest? Once she pals around with Rue in the books, she starts noticing them all over the place. My wife and I have a group of friends who asked us to go with them on Monday. We hadn't read the books, but we tentatively agreed. I picked up the book on Wednesday and finished it today, battling with work and social obligations. It was really loving good. I had to slip out and get the next two this morning because I'm now fairly well hooked. I've overlooked it in stores a hundred times, because I just assumed 'Young Adult' meant it would be below my more "finely tuned literary tastes" (read: George R.R. Martin, Brent Weeks, Joe Abercrombie, etc.) As a "fresh" fan, I'll report back after I see it tonight and voice my opinions, but I'm glad the reviews are generally favorable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
Crow_Robot posted:To stay alive longer? I can understand nasty little alliances on a reality TV show where prize money is at stake and there's no penalty for losing (you did have 15 min of fame after all). What I can't understand is how a middle school clique arises out of a life and death gladiatorial fight. As Butt Soup Barnes said, it might have made more sense if the elite tributes from the district that trains them from a young age made a brief alliance to weed out the lesser competitors more quickly. I would expect a mature hunter's mindset out of two 18 year olds who have been trained to murder for their entire teenage lives. Instead these supposed elites form a middle school bully posse out of these same lesser competitors, even though it is inevitable they must murder each other. And why the hell would these lesser members go along with this power structure? THERE IS NO WAY OUT! YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH OTHER COMPETITORS NOR THE GAMEMAKERS! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE SURVIVOR SO INEVITABLY THEY WILL MURDER YOU! WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU PUT YOURSELF CLOSER TO DANGER BY ALLYING WITH A STRONGER, OLDER AND MORE HIGHLY TRAINED TRIBUTE? YOU'RE JUST MAKING YOURSELF AN EASY TARGET AND ANYONE WITH ANY SENSE WOULD SEE THAT! JUST STEAL THE FOOD SUPPLIES AND RUN! I mean, consider the booby trapped supply dump that explodes. Why would that wimpy spear kid (who I thought was Peeta for a long while since the cinematography was so poorly done) be a part of this gang? If he had any sense he'd wait until the others are asleep, steal some food and hide in the woods. Or ally with Katniss who at least isn't bloodthirsty like the elite tributes. And the fact that he gets murdered out of anger because the trap went off makes things even more unbelievable: 1. Why would trained-for-years buff tribute bro murder this kid for the trap not going off flawlessly? It's not that far fetched for a bunch of tripmines to misfire. Why would hunter bro throw away one of his allies so easily in light of the grander scheme of the games? And why would they even ally with such a clearly ineffectual stooge in the first place? 2. How do the other members of the bully group feel about this? Does skinny middle school girl think her ultimate chances are going to fare any better than spear-wimp did against strong-bro? Especially when you can be murdered for such (relatively) small reasons? Why not try to backstab or poison the other members? At least betrayal will improve her chances, but if she had the sense to think of such things it would also be on the minds of everyone else. With so much distrust a partnership of such size would be completely impossible for that length of time. Much less a group with the social dynamics of a middle school clique. THE VERY RULES OF THE HUNGER GAMES MAKES SUCH A GROUP DYNAMIC IMPOSSIBLY IRRATIONAL. NO HUMAN BEING WOULD ACT LIKE THAT. IT'S BEYOND INSANE. IT'S UTTERLY STUPID BEYOND BELIEF. My god. I need to do a Plinkett review about this movie. I could go on for days about how utterly hosed the logic of the world is. And that's even before I could go on to criticize the actual movie-making failures as well. Forget Forgive fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
I'm actually really glad that there's this big, mainstream movie that's actually asking some fairly pointed questions and even directly criticizing much of it's potential audience (remember, we are not just Katniss, we are also Capitol). Hopefully they stick with the books, especially towards the big rebellion and war at the end, and the fall out, where it turns out there are no neat answers, no simple goodies and baddies, that in a war it's usually More Complicated Than That. The political stuff may be pretty simplistic in absolute terms (it is aimed at 13 year olds after all) but hell, it's a drat site more nuanced than a lot of mainstream news outlets and commentary. And if it gets kids thinking about stuff like global capitalism, consumerism, media issues and so on, that's a drat site better than emotionally abusive vampires
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Named Ashamed posted:complaints about alliances One vs. 24 in the beginning, or 1 vs. 4 or 5 in the end and 5 or 6 vs a kid or two throughout the games. The point is that is isn't really different from Survivor to these people and the audience, it's an annual sporting event. Your whole point hinges on the fact that death and killing is a terrible thing, but to the Capitol audience it's like watching dog fights. I also think it's funny how angry people seem about the movie so far. It was definitely not perfect, but it was a dark film aimed at teenagers that had a fair amount of depth considering the audience (compared to, say, Twilight). It sucks that some have taken to the team Peeta/Gale stuff because all that is meaningless, but that was a minority when I saw the film. A lot of the kids were enraptured, and I liked that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Named Ashamed posted:There is a HUGE difference between Survivor and a gladiatorial fight to the death. The alliances didn't make much sense in the book either, which is part of the reason it feels like she ripped off Battle Royale without "getting" the point of it. In Battle Royale, you had a middle school class forced to fight to the death, in an event in which only the end results were reported on. The alliances and such formed naturally from the pre-existing friendships that existed, which made it more interesting, since hidden agendas or disagreements would come to fore in a big way in that situation. In here, with everyone not knowing each other, there is room for a bit of temporary two people team-ups and such, but not the larger, long-standing alliances because the nature of the Hunger Games is different from Battle Royale. The whole event is televised, yearly, where you see each alliance falling apart at the end, and every contestant has a lot of pre-thought going into it. The mentality would be completely different in this than in Battle Royale because of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Jesus, calm down dude. It's not my fault you included a comment that torpedoed your next one. Not seeing the movie until tonight, but at least in the first book (haven't read the others) the "Hunger Games" thing is because it's flat-out supposed to be a punishment for a past rebellion. They're outright killing the District's kids every year to show that they could, no loving around or pretending it was something other than it was. (I think the people in the Capitol say outright that the people in the Districts are subhuman, so it's not like they'd see starving them as a bad thing). Not a sustainable plan, so I guess that's why the next two books are supposed to be about rebellion/war. eta: does the movie do that thing where it looks like katniss will need to make a really difficult/interesting decision but lo and behold something drops out of the sky (literally or figuratively) to save her just in time? because that was all over the book and super annoying. mrs. nicholas sarkozy fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Named Ashamed posted:I mean, consider the booby trapped supply dump that explodes. You are suffering from not having read the book, which explains pretty much everything. Not that I'm saying you should change your opinion of the movie; for you it did not satisfactorily explain this. For me, because I've read it, I filled it in myself. To answer The skinny boy with the spear is one whom we first learn about because he gets a really high rating despite his obviously physical disadvantage. Katniss and the reader wonder about this. Eventually in the arena, prior to the blowing up scene, Katniss realizes that the Careers have taken that boy in because he knew how to disarm and then rearm the mines. He made an alliance based on this fact. When the mines blow up, he's no longer valuable to the Careers. I went with 35 of my high schoolers this morning and I want to say 34 of them had read the book. Overall consensus was close enough to the book to be okay, although the English teacher was mad about the ending. Specifically, that the movie made it seem like Peeta was in on the pretend-love thing, which I don't agree with her. That's not how I interpreted it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Tupping Liberty posted:I went with 35 of my high schoolers this morning and I want to say 34 of them had read the book. Overall consensus was close enough to the book to be okay, although the English teacher was mad about the ending. Specifically, that the movie made it seem like Peeta was in on the pretend-love thing, which I don't agree with her. That's not how I interpreted it anyway. He literally says "I don't want to forget.". It's his final line in the film, so I have no idea how she could have come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Earned $19.5m in midnights, and THR is saying this will do between $70-$80m today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Alright so I loved the books and I just saw this it I loved it. I felt it captured the chaos and uncertainty of what was going on perfectly. Yes the shakycam was a little dumb and annoying, but these are kids (even those trained to fight etc) and the fight will just be scrabbling and clawing for a grip rather than PRECISE JUDO PUNCHING or whatever. Katniss was perfectly cast. A little concerned how it didn't fully come across how the relationship was all a ploy from Katniss, but this is an outstanding film and I would totally watch it a million times over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing this and as someone who is a fan of the books, I thought they did a fine job adapting the source material. Really enjoyed pretty much all of it, and I didn't think the shakey-cam was as egregious as everyone was making it out to be. It's about 10x worse in the 2nd and 3rd Bourne movies. All the major moments worked for me and the main cast did a solid job with their characters, in particular Lawrence and Hutcherson. Maybe it was because my expectations were tempered from the early reviews here, but now I feel like people are being hyper-critical because of the hype. This was infinitely better shot and acted than Twilight. Only thing I missed from the books were the genetically engineered mutants made from the corpses of the dead tributes. Instead we just get generic dogs. Looking forward to the next film, which should be nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
qbert posted:This was infinitely better shot and acted than Twilight. I kind of liked it too, but this is really not a "selling point" argument here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:I kind of liked it too, but this is really not a "selling point" argument here. Not trying to use it as a selling point. It just seems to me like the people who are criticizing the movie are quick to lump it into the Twilight box, and I think that's unfair. The Twilight series is basically the worst cinematic abortion of the last 5 years. Criticize Hunger Games all you want, but don't dismiss it as just more YA teen love triangle garbage (it could be garbage for other reasons, whatever).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
qbert posted:Only thing I missed from the books were the genetically engineered mutants made from the corpses of the dead tributes. Instead we just get generic dogs. I am actually glad they changed this, because I thought it was super lame in the book. Pretty much every humanoid muttation seemed like a dumb idea. Named Ashamed posted:There is a HUGE difference between Survivor and a gladiatorial fight to the death. People have already said this, but to these people, and the careers, it IS like survivor. In the book, Katniss and Rue even have a similar idea. Team up, do some damage together, and part ways late in the game and (hopefully) not have to kill each other. It seems odd that you're so confused by the careers teaming up, but not at all by Katniss and Rue teaming up. In the book, it specifically mentions that it's really common for the Careers to team up at the beginning and get rid of all of the weak people before parting ways. Since a lot of the book is third person limited, following Katniss, it was goingt o be difficult to get all of that information across on screen. And the other goon who responded is right. The whimpy kid knew how to work with the mines. When everything was destroyed, they had no reason to keep him around anymore. Edit: ALSO, SWEET JESUS, THE SHAKYCAM. It felt so stupid and pointless for most of the movie, particularly the opening. I remember one shot, where there was a guy eating chicken, and it's all shaky, like the cameraman was going "oh poo poo! What the poo poo is this??!!" and it does this quick zoom on his pile of chicken bones "oh MAN! FUCKIN BONES!" Completely stupid. Shakycam was originally used to give a movie a documentary feel, right? Because I'm pretty sure any cameraman working on a documentary, shooting basically stationary things like that would get their rear end fired. uberwekkness fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Read the first book to see what the fuss was about. I enjoyed it, while recognizing it has serious limitations. I have not seen the movie. I knew the movie would suffer from a lack of explanations, because in the book Katniss doesn't know the answers either. It's stated straight out that history is just a bunch of Capitol propaganda, and she’s worried about food, not “blather.” Dirt poor people trying to scratch out a living under a police state don’t have the big picture available. At least in the first book, we see everything through a narrator who is presented as very much inside her own head and barely willing to acknowledge her own emotions, let alone those of others. There are definitely moments where my curiosity begs for her to ask some questions – and she shows no interest in learning more. She’s only interested in immediate practical benefit. If you think she’s suffering from PTSD (I do) that makes sense, even if it’s annoying at times. From what I understand of the second and third book, they must have fleshed out the world a little more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
qbert posted:Not trying to use it as a selling point. It just seems to me like the people who are criticizing the movie are quick to lump it into the Twilight box, and I think that's unfair. The Twilight series is basically the worst cinematic abortion of the last 5 years. Criticize Hunger Games all you want, but don't dismiss it as just more YA teen love triangle garbage (it could be garbage for other reasons, whatever). That I'll certainly agree with. And like I said, I actually kind of liked the film. I have not read the books, so there were definitely parts that I feel the film didn't stand up on its own and that I was missing some fill-in-the-blank stuff by not having read the book first. But I thought the performances were enjoyable for the most part, and the film overall was fun. As much as a film about children murdering each other can be fun, mind you. As far as shaky-cam: Actually once the action started around the halfway mark, I stopped noticing it as much. What bothered me mostly was how much it seemed to be used during the set-up. We're in a tiny village in District Podunk being introduced to our world and our protagonist, camera-dude. Maybe dial back the caffeine a smidge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
I think a lot of the criticism people have about the plot and characters and such just comes from the fact that the book wasn't really that good, all things considered. I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but it was a decently good book, just not THAT good. I imagine it's pretty much standard YA fiction quality. You can't really expect top quality writing with that as a base.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I think a lot of the criticism people have about the plot and characters and such just comes from the fact that the book wasn't really that good, all things considered. I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but it was a decently good book, just not THAT good. I imagine it's pretty much standard YA fiction quality. You can't really expect top quality writing with that as a base. Yeah, I agree. It's good for what it is but not mind-blowing if you've consumed any other dystopian media ever. I do think Collins has a very cinematic/immediate writing style, which allowed her to break into the same "kids who normally don't read" market as Harry Potter/Twilight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
I thought the temporary alliances were pretty reasonable. They explain earlier that the pairs from districts 1 and 2 are trained volunteers. I makes sense for them to work as a pack to take down the tougher rivals (e.g. Katniss or the big black guy). Sure they'll have to turn on each other in the end, but it makes it more likely their district will get the glory and honour of a winner. In contrast, if they went after each other from the start then there's a risk that whichever one survives will be wounded and thus subsequently get picked off by someone else. Cowing some of the no-hopers into assisting them seems sensible too. They aren't much of a threat but may be helpful e.g. they make it very clear that they're only keeping Peter alive because they think he'll help them kill Katniss, who is the top ranked contestent and a much bigger threat. This guy gets it: Corn Thongs posted:One vs. 24 in the beginning, or 1 vs. 4 or 5 in the end and 5 or 6 vs a kid or two throughout the games. The point is that is isn't really different from Survivor to these people and the audience, it's an annual sporting event.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Dial A For Awesome posted:Cowing some of the no-hopers into assisting them seems sensible too. They aren't much of a threat but may be helpful e.g. they make it very clear that they're only keeping Peter alive because they think he'll help them kill Katniss, who is the top ranked contestent and a much bigger threat. This part actually made me scratch my head a bit. Once they find her and she's up in that tree...well....hasn't he outlived his usefulness at that point? They found her. As far as they know, there's no way she can go anywhere, so they don't need him to track her down. Why is he still breathing is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:This part actually made me scratch my head a bit. Not to mention they all go to sleep with Peter and Katniss still around without anyone on guard duty. Now that was just asking for trouble. I liked the movie, but I wanted to know more about the other contestants, like the guy from 11, and the redhead. The commentators were mostly used for exposition but I would have loved it if they had went complete "sporting event" with the premise. They'd yell excitedly like soccer commentators when someone scores a kill, they'd discuss tactics and what the audience should expect from Tribute 12 etc etc. The movie makes a big deal out of sponsors and the audience watching but you rarely see how they react to what happens during the game, so I'd like more audience reactions, late night TV shows that discuss the days' events, more scenes from the districts, and so on and so forth. I get that they wanted a more intimate and subtle movie and that it's pretty long already, though. Maybe I should just watch The Running Man again... They also should have included a scene with Kravitz and the female HG District 12 representative after the game concluded. Both of them simply disappeared when the games started. Renoistic fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 01:56
|
|
