The Hunger Games

24

Comments

  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143

    Eidt: Jawajohnny, how much did they play up the romance? Did they at all? I remember earlier in this thread that I rather ignorantly projecting they would, and as I likely won't see it any time soon, I'm curious whether they did or not.
    Also, have you seen twilight?
    Actually, they didn't play up or "exaggerate' the romance at all. It happens exactly as it does in the book, save for not more than one or two quick shots that help you "connect the dots" a bit better. Then they actually significantly trimmed a good portion of the "most important" romantic scene towards the end. In the book, there's a lengthy scene where they're holed up in a cave over a period of days... where several kisses are shared. In the film, the cave sequence is shortened considerably, and there's only one full kiss.
    So overall, I think the film features even less of a love story than the book did. In the book, Katniss describes the romance and what she thinks about it in great detail. We obviously lose this subtext in the movie... but like I mentioned earlier, they do a great job of implying this subtext. My dad hasn't read the books, and he knew exactly what was going on.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    Here's an idea: How about you go and see the movie before you pass on judgment like that? The Hunger Games is an extremely well written and acted intelligent, allegorical sci-fi film. Twilight isn't even in the same league.
    The trailer only shows footage from the first third, or maybe the first half of the movie, by the way. They really kept the size and epic-ness of the film under wraps in all the marketing material.
    Cause I have seen so many movies like it before the Hunger Games book was even written. I hate going to the theater with a lot of kids in there! I can see you like the movie and that is fine, but the idea to this movie has been done to death there is nothing original about it! You would have to go back and watch movies I mention above. The running man, several people running on a Game grid for the lives, Dear Hunter, set people in the woods to kill them, Condemned, many people on a island trying to surive from being kiled! I did not mean it was like twilight, It is targeted to teenagers mostly just like twlight and The hunger games has that kind of twlight feel to it. That is why I gave it a 1 out of 10. I saw enough trailers for the movie, so I basically have seen it. A true movie like this dont have love stories in it!
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    I will say this much, my girlfriend, huge fan of the hunger games, said it was very good. She said that the trailer and other material had her worried that it wouldn't be as good as the books, however she said she was very impressed. Though, Guitar74, you may not like it because it looks like a teen movie, like jawajohnny said, watch it and find out. Once you've seen it, and you decide that it's a "snooze fest" then feel free to say so. It's you opinion. However, ignorantly presenting your opinion about a subject that you know nothing about, is not fair to neither the subject material itself of those who you may sway away from an experience they may enjoy.
    Eidt: Jawajohnny, how much did they play up the romance? Did they at all? I remember earlier in this thread that I rather ignorantly projecting they would, and as I likely won't see it any time soon, I'm curious whether they did or not.
    Also, have you seen twilight?
    I have seen the trailer for the movie. I cant see myself wasting money on it. I've seen so many movies I can tell you after 20 minutes usually what is going to happen. Like I said there is nothing original about the movie at all! There are so many movies like this already out there! Thanks for your comment anyway!
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    Better stop making movies, everyone. guitar74 has already seen it all.
  • MatthiasClaflin
    MatthiasClaflin Posts: 674 Just Starting Out
    @Guitar 74, I'd be interested to hear a movie that was original, even in its day. As it has been said, "There is nothing new under the sun."
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited March 2012
    [quote name="guitar74"]I did not mean it was like twilight, It is targeted to teenagers mostly just like twlight and The hunger games has that kind of twlight feel to it. That is why I gave it a 1 out of 10. I saw enough trailers for the movie, so I basically have seen it. A true movie like this dont have love stories in it! [/quote]
    You can't give something a 1 out of 10 without having seen it. That's trolling. You have seen one trailer containing two-and-a-half minutes of footage from only the first half of a two hour and twenty minute film. And you think you've "basically seen it"?
    If you'd actually go and see the movie... you'd realize it bears absolutely no resemblance to Twilight. None. Twilight is a love story. There is nothing more to it. The Hunger Games has a love story in it... but there is so much more to it than that. I'm just baffled as to how you can say "a true movie like this doesn't have love stories in it". Almost every movie has a love story in it.
    Stop trolling about how you hate a movie you haven't seen... and just go see it! You'll change your mind pretty quickly. :P
  • Just some interesting facts.
    Yesterday The Hunger Games posted 68 million including a whopping 19 million in midnight screenings. That makes the Hunger Games opening day the biggest non sequel opening day of all time by FAR. Take a look at this chart.[attachment=265:H.png] All this information was taking from this website. http://www.the-numbers.com/
  • Pooky
    Pooky Posts: 46
    edited March 2012
    "Do you know what they call The Hunger Games in France? Battle Royale with cheese."
    Ended up seeing this with some friends the other day. It's good, pretty fun, has two really excellent moments (involving fire and a talk-show host). The main actress is easily the best thing about the film, by miles and miles. Second best thing would probably be the costume design and makeup. Worst thing is the action scenes that suffer from some truly horrendous shakycam.
    Storywise, it's very obviously written for teenagers. The writing is very cheesy (but it's directed in a way that almost hides all the cheese) - people don't behave like normal people would, and the story is chock full of lazy solutions to problems (things literally drop from the sky to save the heroine's life). It's more violent than you'd expect a teen movie to be, but it's also very obviously toned down compared to what it WOULD BE either in real life or if the writing had made more sense.
    I can't complain about any movie that introduces teen girls to futuristic dystopias, but for the rest of us it's nothing more than an enthusiastic, albeit uninspired showcase of Jennifer Lawrence's excellent acting.
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited March 2012
    [quote name="Pooky"]...and the story is chock full of lazy solutions to problems (things literally drop from the sky to save the heroine's life).[/quote]
    Well when you put it like that, it sounds silly. But really, they're much more than just "lazy solutions" to problems. It's like real-life reality TV. The most "likeable" contestants are often given more help throughout the competition --- so they'll stick around longer and boost the ratings. Most of Haymitch's advice to Katniss is "make people like you". The more wealthy people in the Capitol like you and want to see you advance... the more likely Haymitch is able to find a "sponsor" to pay for the supplies needed to keep you alive. The silver parachutes are a vital part of the story --- as they're the only means of "communication" (however limited) that the tributes have with the "outside world".
    Remember, the "Gamekeepers" are in complete control of the game --- so it is quite logical for them to offer up the supplies that the remaining contestants need (in the "Feast"). Giving the Tributes supplies that help them recover or whatever, makes for a more interesting finale to the Games.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    You can't give something a 1 out of 10 without having seen it. That's trolling. You have seen one trailer containing two-and-a-half minutes of footage from only the first half of a two hour and twenty minute film. And you think you've "basically seen it"?
    If you'd actually go and see the movie... you'd realize it bears absolutely no resemblance to Twilight. None. Twilight is a love story. There is nothing more to it. The Hunger Games has a love story in it... but there is so much more to it than that. I'm just baffled as to how you can say "a true movie like this doesn't have love stories in it". Almost every movie has a love story in it.
    Stop trolling about how you hate a movie you haven't seen... and just go see it! You'll change your mind pretty quickly. :P
    Seen more than one trailer. Did you see the movies I mention? If I got a free ticket to the movies I would go. Other than that a lot of reviews from real people that are not under 18, not liking it to much.
  • Pooky
    Pooky Posts: 46
    edited March 2012
    Spoilers.
    [color="#FFFFFF"]
    Yeah but I was expecting them to do something more original with the sponsors than perfectly-timed magical parachutes. Make it a challenge that you need to win, or something, at least. That one time where they need to go get their gift in the middle of the field was better, for example, but even that was pretty simplistic.
    [/color]
    End spoilers.
    But yeah that wasn't the only lazy writing: pretty much every problem was solved with a conjured up solution if you think about it, which is all conveniently marked off as being part of the reality show nature of the games. The truth is, if any reality show were this obviously scripted, everybody would hate it: people die off or survive based on the whims of the organizers and nothing more. Nobody ever really dies on their own, it's nearly always forced on them.
    And that ending. God, what a cop-out that was!
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    Everyone does hate it, that's the point. They all know they're playing the Capitol's game... and the Capitol's intent is to instill fear. Remember, the Games are "punishment" for a failed uprising long ago (75 years, I believe).
    Which ending are you talking about? The ending of the Games, or the ending of the whole film?
  • StaffOnly
    StaffOnly Posts: 78 Just Starting Out
    Remember, the "Gamekeepers" are in complete control of the game
    The Gamemakers.
    Please tell me they didn't change that in the film just for fun (like the Dark Forest/Forbidden Forest-thing in HP)?
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    Ah... no... that's my bad. You're right... they're the Gamemakers.
  • StaffOnly
    StaffOnly Posts: 78 Just Starting Out
    edited March 2012
    Ah, okey. :)
    Looking forward to seeing the film in a week when I get home.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,448 Enthusiast

    I hate to say it, but there are a few movies this reminds me of where it looks like the author of the book got a lot of ideas. The Running man, The Dear Hunter, Condemned, and a lot of others. So, there it is, someone taking others ideas and changing the story a little bit and that is it.
    Welcome to the creative process! :) Seriously, this is how pretty much every story ever has been conceived. The success of the result depends on the skill of the storytellers, of course, but building on older ideas is what pretty much every storyteller does at some point or another.
    Heard a few mixed reports on this. I look forward to finding out about it for myself.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    edited March 2012

    Welcome to the creative process! :) Seriously, this is how pretty much every story ever has been conceived. The success of the result depends on the skill of the storytellers, of course, but building on older ideas is what pretty much every storyteller does at some point or another.
    Heard a few mixed reports on this. I look forward to finding out about it for myself.
    Simon I just hate that people do that to stories or movies. I have seen a few original movies in the last few years and to my knowledge these ideas were new or new to me. Like Dream House, The black hole, Inception, and etc. If it was me and I used other ideas, I would feel ashamed for doing that. I will wait for DVD... Twilight is a very, very Creeped out story!!

    Better stop making movies, everyone. guitar74 has already seen it all.
    Actual a lot of these trailers that people make are interesting and to me not stealing ideas from other people. Now someone did a starwars saber battle that was really great and nicely shot. I watch a lot of movies and little tv shows. I have not seen everything, but a lot of junk I have seen. I just hate the idea that ideas are taken from other original movies.

    @Guitar 74, I'd be interested to hear a movie that was original, even in its day. As it has been said, "There is nothing new under the sun."
    I have never seen a movie like Inception, Star Wars, Star Trek, A-Team, Dream House, Transformers (based off of a cartoon) but still. The Borg, not a movie, but that is a original idea. There are a lot of original ideas, even from people posting ideas on here, but Hollywood is just to stupid to try harder for a good story.
  • fredclips
    fredclips Posts: 228
    edited March 2012

    I have never seen a movie like Inception, Star Wars, Star Trek, A-Team, Dream House, Transformers (based off of a cartoon) but still. The Borg, not a movie, but that is a original idea. There are a lot of original ideas, even from people posting ideas on here, but Hollywood is just to stupid to try harder for a good story.
    Someone had to say this; so I thought I may as well be that someone! :)
    (and on a side note, it backs up my really disliking Christopher Nolan movies...)
    It looks like there was an old comic of Scrooge McDuck that had a similar plot to Inception.
    Have a look here
    http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html
    What bit of Inception were you considering original?
    The dream-in-dream bit? (like almost every horror movie ever)
    Or the entering dreams to get something? (dreamscape *any one remember this one? I loved the snake guy*, The Cell)
    Or creating stuff in the dreams to fight? (Nightmare on elm st 3 or 4, etc)
    Sorry if I'm stuck on the Nolan example, but I heard great things about Inception and just found the entire thing boring and predictable.

    The Borg, not a movie, but that is a original idea.
    Sorry, just saw that one. (couldn't read past Inception)
    Do you mean the Borg in Star Trek? Which are a complete rip-off the Cybermen in Dr Who?
    I believe the Cybermen were well established in TV WAY before Star Trek introduced their own version.
    I cannot help but think peoples definition of original is entirely dependent on how old their are!
    To the younger readers (and now viewers) of The Hunger Games this is fresh!
    They are too young to remember The Running Man or Battle Royale. (or most other examples)
    Battle Royale was released (overseas) in 2000, The Running Man in 1987...
    It is almost as if the kids (23 and under) are only now discovering the 'stories' for the first time.
    As other have said, I don't think that is a problem... as long as it's well done.
  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,255 Staff
    edited March 2012
    I find it interesting that guitar74 mentions Star Trek, A-team and Transformers, all of which are direct remakes based on rather old, well-established, and very popular material, as examples of 'original ideas.'
    Also, The Running Man and Battle Royale were both ripped off from both The Naked Prey (1966), a much earlier film, and the short story The Most Dangerous Game, written by Richard Connell in 1924. Which further reinforces the idea that basically all fiction borrows ideas from what came before. Does Hunger Games borrow elements from these four predecessors? Yes, it does. Is the story the same, or even similar? No, its not.
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,448 Enthusiast
    Inception's setup is also pretty much the same as the Psychonauts computer game, which came out many years before.
    As you can see, Guitar74, just because you aren't aware of the previous material doesn't make the film Completely Original.
    But the more important point is that it doesn't matter. Art, like science, is built upon what has come before. That's how it gets better.
    Pretty much any sci-fi movie you can think of will have already been done in some form in sci-fi literature. Does that mean movies shouldn't bother? No, of course not. A story consists of two primary elements: plot and narrative (which you could also call 'storytelling'). You can have an unoriginal plot with an original narrative (see: Pulp Fiction) and get a good story. Or you can get an original plot with a traditional narrative and get a good story.
    In other words: originality as a concept is very much over-rated. It's not actually very important: it's the unique combination of all the different (potentially very familiar when taken individually) elements that is important.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    And even if a story has unique elements, every story, when broken down, is going to be drawn from a handful of core conflicts and conceits that man has used for centuries to tell stories.
    In music, the chromatic scale contains only 12 notes. Yet, western musicians have used those same notes to create countless works that are all unique. There will never come a time when the chromatic scale becomes worn out or overplayed, because there are an infinite number of ways to combine the notes to make original pieces. To rate a film you haven't seen based on a trailer that reminds you of something you have, is akin to refusing to listen to a new song because you know it was written using the notes in the chromatic scale, which you've heard before.
    Yeah that's right, I'm bringing back the ol' Fxhome "Analogies are always useful, even when they're not" thing. ;)
  • Biq
    Biq Posts: 159

    Better stop making movies, everyone. guitar74 has already seen it all.
    No, just stop watching them. You just do what Hollywood does, target the young demographics (they ain't seen nuttin ;)

    In music, the chromatic scale contains only 12 notes. Yet, western musicians have used those same notes to create countless works that are all unique.
    Strange how so much of it sound the same.

    As you can see, Guitar74, just because you aren't aware of the previous material doesn't make the film Completely Original.
    Ah, like this story: An artificial lifeform designed to survive on an alien world is mentally controlled by paraplegic man in a wheelchair. In the end the cripple decides to leave his human compatriots and go 'native' in the fully functioning alien body.
    Sounds familiar? It's Poul Andersons story "Call Me Joe" from 1957 - it hasn't been filmed yet (though some would argue that point ;-) )

    But the more important point is that it doesn't matter. Art, like science, is built upon what has come before. That's how it gets better.
    That doesn't explain George Lucas :D
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited March 2012

    Strange how so much of it sound the same.
    Why? That's like saying it's strange how many words look similar to one another because the alphabet only has so many letters.
  • Pooky
    Pooky Posts: 46
    Here's what I find really ironic: all the people who are complaining about rehashed concepts being annoying back this up by saying that they can notice it because they've seen a lot of movies... when in fact, it's precisely by seeing MORE movies that Aculag and Simon are able to disprove your point!
  • SimonKJones
    SimonKJones Posts: 4,448 Enthusiast
    It's probably also worth mentioning that trailers are usually made by the marketing department, not the filmmakers. And marketing want to make their product look like something else, so that people go see it. Marketing the Hunger Games to seem a bit like Twilight makes a lot of sense, in terms of getting bums on seats. It doesn't mean that the film itself is anything like it.
    Of course, you do get occasional exceptions when either the filmmakers are directly involved or the marketing team are particularly talented and in tune with the film itself - Prometheus seems to be a good example of this.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    I actually think the Prometheus trailers have been pretty misleading as well. At least in the US trailer, there's soooo much action in those two minutes, and notice they've been showing the same action sequences in all of the teasers too. Michael Fassbender has said that Prometheus is "a slow burn", so I'm sure they've filled the trailer with adventure and action to get that crowd in. I seriously doubt it's as action-packed as they're making it look. At least, I hope not.
    But I could talk about Prometheus all day, and this is the Hunger Games thread. ;)
  • Keegan
    Keegan Posts: 294 Just Starting Out

    Why? That's like saying it's strange how many words look similar to one another because the alphabet only has so many letters.
    That was one of the most profound things I've heard in a while.... Maybe I'm thinking too much.
    The Hunger Games movie was good but not great. The director was not-so-good at shooting action. It was hard to tell what happened until AFTER the action scene was over and the camera stopped shaking wildly. A lot of movies try to go with the "Shaky Camcorder" approach to action in an attempt to make things more gritty. Children of Men was extremely gritty and raw and yet the action was so beautifully choreographed. The action scenes in Children of Men demanded much more emotional response than the cam-corder action scenes from the Bourne movies or The Hunger Games.
    I'm not saying we should glorify violence, however. We should portray it in a way that can evoke an emotion instead of "wtf is going on?!"
  • This movie was awesome!
    I absolutely loved every bit of it when I was watching it in theaters!
    I would recommend it for everyone!
  • RodyPolis
    RodyPolis Posts: 612 Just Starting Out*
    Saw it last week. Good movie! I liked everything about it except the action scenes (if you can call them that). It would've been a great movie for me in the director didn't think zooming in while shaking the camera is action. I also don't buy the "they couldn't show kids killing kids" excuse; it's not about the killing, but the choreography, the camera angles etc.
    I don't mind camera shakiness at all (love Bourne and Michael Bay stuff), but the action in the hunger games was a disgrace.
    Other than that, cool movie!
  • jawajohnny
    jawajohnny Posts: 143
    edited April 2012
    [quote name="RodyPolis"]
    I don't mind camera shakiness at all (love Bourne and Michael Bay stuff), but the action in the hunger games was a disgrace.[/quote]
    Well there really aren't any "action" scenes in the film. It's a movie about kids killing kids... so it's not like it can exactly "glorify" the killings with glamorous cinematography and choreography. I believe the shaky-cam is there for two primary reason. First of all, it is used to emulate the first-person perspective (of Katniss) that the book is written in. Basically, when we're in the Arena, we see the Games through the eyes of Katniss. Second of all, the shaky-cam allowed the filmmakers to keep the violence of the book, while also maintaining a PG-13 rating. Essentially, all of the violence, blood, and gore is there... but it is shot in a way that obscures the horrifying imagery, while also not really lessening the "impact" of those scenes.
    I'm a big fan of shaky, handheld camerawork when it is used appropriately. By "used appropriately", I sort of mean that it has to be used within the context of the film. For example, the shaky-cam is perfectly acceptable in the Bourne movies, because it is used specifically to put us right in the middle of the action with Jason Bourne. The same goes for "The Hunger Games"... in that we are meant to see the action that way. A poor example of shaky-cam would be "Quantum of Solace". In that film, I feel the overused handheld cameras render the "action" mostly incomprehensible... in a film where we want to see James Bond in action. Basically, in standard action movies... an action scene should make us say "Oh, that was cool!". Whereas the "action" in The Hunger Games is meant to stir up a "Oh my god, this is awful" type of emotional response.
    I was afraid that the film adaptation would suffer from not allowing us inside Katniss' head as the book does, but the shaky cam greatly makes up for that loss. The only "action" we really get to see is shown through her eyes, unless we're treated to an angle shot by one of the TV cameras in the arena. I for one, am glad the filmmakers didn't succumb to the temptation to "stage" any action scenes. Instead, they chose to remain faithful to the source, only allowing us to see the deaths that Katniss is there to see. Expanding the scope of the fighting or "glorifying" the violence in any other way would have been missing the point of the novel, I think. Does that make sense?
    I'm really looking forward to seeing this again. I'm hoping to catch it sometime this week, if I make enough of a dent in the vfx work I've been doing. Meanwhile, I've been listening a lot to James Newton Howard's score for The Hunger Games, and I think it's rather excellent. It's a really simple, but emotionally powerful compliment to the film. I can definitely hear some "Firefly" in there, too.