The Hunger Games- reactions? - Page 2

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 12:11am

But I sawded the movie. Do I really need to read the first book?

[ChenoKahn]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 12:13am

You should, it is a very good read.

[Taryn]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 12:26am

I agree that I'm not really sure how they would have managed to illustrate the dog's eyes in a manner subtle enough for the film. Maybe if they'd actually shaped their whole faces, but.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 2:19am

after reading the first book i was like... so i wonder where the second book is gonna go.. and it was actually pretty damn good... the third one is just so completely different and i'm excited to see how they film it... which btw... there are three sequels apparently... i hope they don't split the third movie in two... i don't see a need for it!

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 12:16pm

Sorry eatlasagna- Woody Harrelson already blew that gaff. He mentioned that they had been contracted for 4 films so yes they are splitting the last book into 2 films. I can see how it would work-One half as ****** SPOILER******



Katniss works as the Mockingjay to combine the Districts and one to take the Capital and well, the finale & resolution.




one other thing. I knew they were eliminating the flashback where Gale and Catnip ( Gales's nicname for her AdamGreer) see an escapee from another district captured Only to have Katniss see her again as one of the Avoxes- it is the 1st intimation in the book that there are some elements in the districts struggling away from the Capitol control and what the punishment is for that. Instead they stuck in the riot @ 11. Frankly I'm not sure that is was an even tradeoff but IMO the riot scene should have been MUCH shorter .

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 1:51pm

the riot scene worked fine...

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 2:31pm

I don't really care for Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. Don't like Harrelson as Haymitch.

[clever name]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 3:21pm

aw, I liked both of them! Did you not like Woody or did you not like how they made Haymitch nice?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/25/12 at 11:54pm

I had a pretty mixed reaction to the movie and thought the book was so much better. Jennifer Lawrence and Elizabeth Banks were fantastic and saved the movie for me. The production value/art direction were also impressive, but I think it missed many of the overall tones of book.

I thought they screwed Haymitch up. Woody was just like Sawyer from Lost and nowhere near drunk and angry enough for me. His character was a lot less interesting.

I didn't think they set up the love interest with Peeta well enough, and his character didn't have enough development. He was funny and sarcastic in the books and I always wanted him to survive as much as I wanted Katniss to make it. Yes Katniss is a pragmatist, and faking the romance to pull through the Games, but she always has some genuine feelings for me, or at least is not sure about what she's feeling. She definitely doesn't want to hurt Peeta emotionally.

Slight Spoiler from the book
I think not amputating Peeta's leg and having him be so well before the berry stunt lessened the stakes a lot. Peeta was on is last limb, literally, it was a HUGE risk for Katniss to try and save both of their lives. Makes it more interesting.

Another example of slight details that have a strong impact on character development would be Rue's death. In the book Rue is clearly killed and then Katniss kills the boy in an act of revenge and vengeance. For the first time she is a cold-blooded killer. In the movie it all happens at the same time and I viewed it as an act of self-defense more than having a hint of bloodlust.

Some of this seems minor, but I think it shades the characters and makes them more interesting.
End slight spoilers

[violet72]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 8:46am

I have read the books and loved them and I really liked the movie. I knew some tings would be cut and I wish they hadn't cut the mutts eyes. I also agree Peeta should have been worse of in the end, because in the book that is why she does the berries to save them. Also did the end happen on the cornacopia? I forget? I also wish they had a scene at the end of them on the train when she told Peeta that she wasn't really in love with him, she pretended to save them.

Other then that I can say that I think the movie was perfectly cast. I got teary whe she took her sisters place and the Rue scene. I aso liked how the district was all muted and earth turn colors and the Capital was bright colors and over the top. Loved the control room scenes and the end with Seneca and the berries

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 11:21am

I thought the movie was pretty masterful. The ending seemed a bit rushed, but it didn't bother me too, too much. I adored the books, and was very hesitant going into the film. I was more than pleasantly surprised. I found the entire movie a bit harrowing, in the best possible way.

Even as I was reading the books, I knew the dogs wouldn't have the eyes of the other tributes. The only possible way that would have worked would be to have either Peeta or Katniss melodramatically, 'They...they...HAVE THEIR EYES!' And then I would have pooped my seat and thrown my popcorn at the screen.

And can we get a little Elizabeth Banks love in this thread? She was fantastic. Not the actress I expected in the party, but she sure did surprise me!

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 11:50am

Much what Whizz said...

Woody Harrelson was good, I guess. What they did to Haymitch wasn't. I needed the drunk fools falling off the stage. I needed more drunk mayhem and foolishness to set up some of the drama for the next two books. Good things he does or advice he gives later isn't as interesting if he's a pretty good guy from the beginning. I didn't like the spliced in scenes of him getting help from the sponsors. I don't know. I just didn't like the change, I guess.

Cinna was okay. I wanted more, I guess. I loved him in the book. I didn't have time to love him in the movie.

It seemed weird that at the "feast" no one else had someone else they were caring for, but they had something they needed so bad they were willing to risk their lives for it. No one seemed injured or starving at that point. Peeta was way too healthy at the end there.

Overall, I thought it was pretty good, but thought the books were much better, of course. I was a big Peeta fan in the books, but damn, Gayle is hot.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 3:24pm

Well, The Racist Fans Have Their Panties In A Bunch. A Bunch, I Say!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 3:46pm

Well, racism does seem to be quite trendy now.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 7:49am

Walked out 11 minutes into it, hated the camera work. How hard is it to keep a camera still and try to focus on a subject?

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 11:04am

I agree about the camera work Roscoe. I thought all the fight scenes were dreadfully filmed. Also hated most of the costumes, they looked like rejects for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.
Overall I thought the movie was just boring. I kept waiting for that moment when I would really care about the characters or things would get tense but it never came.
The whole movie felt like a cop out that took a really disturbing concept and watered everything down.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 3:47pm

sometimes people are just too stupid


http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/race-controversy-over-hunger-games-182705585.html

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 8:50pm

Throw me in as another person who is not a fan of the shaky-cam. And though I ultimately enjoyed the movie (and haven't read the books yet), I was on edge through most of it because of worrying about the motion sickness I almost always feel by the end of such movies. Luckily I managed to make it out without that happening, but it is a distraction for me.

That being said, I did enjoy the movie, and look forward to seeing it again once it comes out on blu ray, as the shaky cam usually doesn't affect me on the smaller screen of a TV.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/29/12 at 8:08pm

I'm obviously missing something here and I need some guidance.

I knew of the books because teenagers and their moms who work with me, or I know, etc. said it was a good book. "A simple read, moves very fast", said one. Then I read some articles about its popularity with teenagers, so I thought it would be entertaining and light material. I was less intrigued to read the book when I heard some people saying it was better than Twilight. I thought, if you have to use Twilight as comparison, this would not be for me at all.

Then I finally heard of the premise, and I thought I was confused and this was not possible. A government that forces a conmemoration by having teenagers kill each other. I thought it couldn't be right and there was a twist to it, like it was all a dream. Certainly these moms and young kids couldn't be reading about such heavy material.

I got to the movie theater today. I sat beside a mom and her two kids, who could not be older than 6 or 7. I thought this was just going to be some romantic teenage piece of fluff.

Well, I feel I've been living under a rock. Does the book provide more back story not related to the games but of people's reactions to imposing these games on the districts? What I was very confused about, was that everyone in the movie took the games as a bummer/chore. It was like "Oh, no here this thing goes again..." Why were the kids not in absolute terror when their names were about to be selected? Did their parents care? It certainly never got the feeling it was honourable to be part of this, but just really shi**y luck. Almost as if they were asked to clean the town for a year

When the little black girl gets killed, the uprising after gave me some hope that it will all become impactful and it that would have the population go and destroy the organizers - but that never had a follow up either. It seemed more as rage for what happened, with no consequence.

I really thought in the end, the main character would use her bow and arrow to kill the host and producers of the games.

I was very disturbed to see these kids killing each other, cold blood , when the games started. Brutal. But more than anything, I would like someone to explain to me why the whole universe would buy into this as a glamorous and entertaining event and not a horrific situation. If it was commentary on Reality TV, I still don't get it, as in Reality TV contestants willingly participate, they are not forced to be there.

Gosh, I found nothing honourable in killing 23 kids for survival and the entertainment of others - I think it would be better to kill myself if selected, as to not have to be part of this nightmare.

Is there not a big reaction regarding its themes? I really think I feel like a 90 year old who finds things that most people have assimilated appalling.

[Taryn]

Posted: 3/29/12 at 8:18pm

Blaxx, it's very strongly presented as an abominable act in the books (and, IMO, the movie). It's not intended for the reader/viewer to see the Games as honorable. Those from the richer districts closer to the Capital buy into it more and train their children, but the story follows Katniss from the poorest District 12, and it is never presented as anything less than an annual horror. (I thought the reaping in the movie absolutely did show the terror of the children and parents, but clearly you disagree on that point.)

But the real answer is that the story was written in a trilogy. There's more of a story to be told.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/29/12 at 8:25pm

Those kids were in terror? Mmmm, ok. Yes, apparently I did not get that all. I felt they were in detention. And if they don't see it as honourable, all the selectees were certainly willing to give this a fair shot, and acted extremely amicably amongst those who they were about to destroy. They just missed them offering tea to each other. And the physical disadvantage was ridiculous. The tiny kids obviously should just have been offered as food for the 28 year old looking teenagers with 18 inch biceps.

Is this movie, also, supposed to be set in the USA in the future? Do the books ever talk about other countries reactions to this?

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 3/29/12 at 8:28pm

I FINALLY saw the film today. I was not able to read the book prior to the film due to school work and the books that I read for fun were the 'Percy Jackson' series and its spin-off series. I did not learn about 'The Hunger Games' until last year. I can honestly say that I want to kick myself for not reading the book. This is was a terrific film. It was very action-packed and also had some sad moments. Jennifer Lawrence is starting to become one of my favorite actresses. I loved her in 'X-Men: First Class', but she was even better in this. Josh Hutcherson is also really starting to become a breakout star after his success with the 'Journey to the Center of Earth' films. He was perfect for the role.

Updated On: 3/29/12 at 08:28 PM

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 3/29/12 at 8:39pm

Blaxx, you bring up some really good points, and I feel that most of them will be addressed. The second novel Catching Fire reads more like a political thriller there is more focus on the rebellion in districts and less focus on the games.

Updated On: 3/29/12 at 08:39 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/29/12 at 8:49pm

Blaxx, you bring up some really good points, and I feel that most of them will be addressed. The second novel Catching Fire reads more like a political thriller there is more focus on the rebellion in districts and less focus on the games.

That would make sense. I was thinking more of the political/social reaction to the games, more than the game itself. Everyone seemed so cool with it, that I couldn't believe the audience was so accepting of it. I was truly dumbfounded.

[Taryn]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 12:53am

The extent of the Capitol's control of the districts is clearer in the book -- including how thoroughly they destroy the people who stand against them, going after families, physically deforming people, etc. Even just in the first book. But I'm pretty confident the next two movies will have more of that as the story becomes more focused on the conflict between the districts and the Capitol.

That said, I do think that the dangers of complacency are a definite theme of the book and movie. The Hunger Games DO happen because the districts have stopped trying to fight back against oppression. And also it's about how horror can become the norm if you allow it to. (Remember, this has been going on for 74 years now.) So, in a lot of ways, I think there are definite parts of your reactions that are intended and part of the questions the story puts forth.