The Hunger Games- reactions? - Page 3

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 12:57am

Blaxx, I just started reading the book today, and it's explained a lot better. There were originally 13 Districts, but there was an uprising, and the capitol destroyed the 13th. The capitol is oppressive and powerful, and they do the games as a reminder to the districts of its power. If anyone questions anything about the system, they are gone like that. The people constantly live in fear, but they are forced to hide it.

You know the story The Lottery? I think part of the reaction to the games has to do with the fact that it's sort of ingrained in their society, like in that short story. But there definitely is a lot more fear than they can show.

I do agree with you about the fact that it's appalling that little children are seeing a movie in which these kids kill each other. Walking into the movie, I wasn't even sure if I wanted to see a movie so violent, although I am quite squeamish.

One more thing--have you ever heard of the Milgram experiment? In the fifties or sixties, a psychologist wanted to see how extreme of an act someone would do because of an authoritative word. The results were quite shocking, and I wouldn't easily call the idea of the Hunger Games being able to happen completely ridiculous.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 1:59am

If it's clearer in the book, I think the movie fails at showing how they got to that extreme. To me, none of the Capitol leaders or forces look threatening enough - if at all. The wole thing would have more depth and value if I could see how the population had to accept their defeat and submit to this tyranny.

As the character of Katniss seemed so strong at the beginning, I was almost sure it would end with her convincing the others to go against the organizers, and sabotage the whole thing. I was a bit shocked that all the heroes in the story were nothing but victims of the villains in the end - no winners, all losers. I truly felt I saw a film where the bad guy wins in the end, and spent two hours using the main characters for their entertainment and profit. I certainly felt awful for the "villain" kid at the end. He didn't deserve to die, he just wanted to live. I felt so wrong for having to root for one character, when in reality we should have been rooting for any or all of them.

It was so hard for me to understand why people were so calm about the event. Sure, as Taryn mentioned, it has been going on for decades. But I still needed to see mothers holding onto their childrem screaming in pain before the selection. And as Katniss mentions at the beginning of the film, it would make more sense to not have children than to risk having them go through this.

In the end, without more background related to this stage of cruelty and submission, I found the main characters weak and the villains nowhere near as deadly as to manipulate families and hundreds and people this way. If it is ingrained in society in the future, I can't relate to it in the present without more background and details.

Last but not least, it seems that people in the future will also lose all sense of fashion and will have no taste in interior decorating.

I have not heard of The Lottery, but I'll read about the Milgram experiment.

Thanks everyone for your input.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 8:13am

blaxx- I'm a big fan of the books, the second being my favorite, and they explain so much more than what was in the movie. I couldn't give a stronger recommendation to read them.

The books explain the Peacekeepers who patrol the districts and keep everyone in line. The spirit of the people has truly been broken. If families were to cry over a child dying they would be shot on the spot. In fact the dead tributes families are on the front lines of the celebration during the Victory Tour for the victor(s) who killed their kid.

The last two books are not just repeats of what happened in the first.

Katniss is strong, but she's looking to stay alive, not lead a rebellion. She doesn't care about taking down The Capitol at this point as much as keeping her sister, mother, Gale and Peeta safe.

I wish the movie had done a better job introducing Peeta and allowing you to fall in love with him. For me he is the heart and soul of the story. I liked Katniss a lot, but I told myself I'd be ok with her sacrificing herself as long as Peeta makes it through the series safe and sound.

Have you read the Twilight books or just seen the movies? Twilight is a fun read because it's often laughably poorly written and Bella is a whiny, obnoxious heroine. The Hunger Games is written at such a higher level. It's only natural for your friends to compare them to Twilight and/or Harry Potter as they're the big pop culture young adult series that come to mind. Not because they actually have so much in common.

[Taryn]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 12:33pm

There's definitely clearly context in the book about the conflict between Katniss and Gale versus survival and rebellion. Katniss is focused on staying alive to keep her family alive and feels that rebellion is pretty pointless in the first book, while Gale wants to run away or lead the fight, etc.

I think what we're seeing is that the movie didn't adequately give all the viewers a sense of the political context of what's going on for anyone who didn't already know from reading the book.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 12:43pm

Yes, I assumed Peeta must have been more in the book that in the film, as I found him weak and a bit annoying. Kinda "in the way" character. Did they let him take his make up with him? I found it so convenient that he happened to find an extensive camouflage kit, as if...

I never read the Twilight books, the first movie was enough. The comparison with this is unfair, I think, as this is a much stronger story with a lot of depth to it.

I really hope the second film does a better job at supporting the submission. I think this could have been a stronger film if they had introduced just 5 minutes of the consequences for standing up against this and other elements explained in the sequels.

Still, I think the stakes were not high enough for the children in this film. To me, they were getting ready to play Big Brother or Survivor Jr. , and never placed in a life and death scenario. All of them look rested, calm and cool during their preparation.

I think it was just the background thing that bother me the most. And not knowing what other countries did or thought about this. Without seeing how they got there, the dynamics were so confusing to me. Yes, it was set in the future, but I saw that in gadgets and technology and not in the social interaction or behaviour.

Of course, this is just me - no one I know has ever questioned this fact. Maybe I'll try the books, but as a stand alone film I found it bizarre and perhaps shallow not in themes but in characters.

Does the book explain the obvious physical disadvantage between ages, sizes and gender?

Updated On: 3/30/12 at 12:43 PM

[Taryn]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 1:29pm

Does the book explain the obvious physical disadvantage between ages, sizes and gender?

Nah. There's no real concern on the Capitol's part for a fair fight. There's mention that even people in the Capitol don't like it when kids Rue's age get picked (12), but there's no real reason for them to try to even the odds. The Hunger Games are a punishment to the districts.

I think it was just the background thing that bother me the most. And not knowing what other countries did or thought about this.

Yeah, that's not something that gets touched on even in the books. There's no concept of a world even existing outside of Panem.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/30/12 at 4:05pm

this could have been a stronger film if they had introduced just 5 minutes of the consequences for standing up against this and other elements explained in the sequels.


They made a decision not to include a flashback in the book about a young couple trying to escape and their capture being seen by Katniss & Gale . Later the girl is one of the Avoxes serving the tributes ( those weird red dressed people serving the Gamemakers in the film) Katniss makes a throw away comment about having your tounge torn out for speaking against the regime, but thats about it. Instead they went w the District 11 riot to demonstrate how the Capital dealt w disent.
There was a leetle exposition as to how the situation came to be w the titles and the propaganda film show at the Reaping. WHY that original rebellion took place is never explained.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/16/12 at 5:48pm

Finally saw the film and really enjoyed it. I was surprised at how much of it appeared almost exactly how I imagined it. For me, one of the most important elements missing was the explanation of the gift parachutes (the exorbitant price involved and one of the most symbolic gifts was cut from the film). I had to explain it to my boyfriend since he hadn't read the book. The film really glossed over what they were and the importance of sponsors when it could have been easily reinforced in a couple of short lines of dialogue during the game when the audience is more focused.

this could have been a stronger film if they had introduced just 5 minutes of the consequences for standing up against this and other elements explained in the sequels.

I think it would have added far too much time to address and considering it is the catalyst for Catching Fire, we'll have plenty of that in the next film.

Oh, and Josh Hutcherson could easily surpass any Twilight actor as the next major Hollywood heartthrob.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/16/12 at 9:21pm

I liked it quite a bit, but like most, thought the book was better. I'm surprised to hear that Katniss's ambivalence about how she feels towards Peeta was clear to people who hadn't read it, but I'm glad it was clear to people who hadn't read the book. Even having read the book, it wasn't clear to me in the film.

Did Elizabeth Banks lose her accent halfway through? When she first spoke, I thought, "Oh, that's a good idea to make what Collins kept referring to as the 'affected' Capital accent be a quasi-English one," but I guess that wasn't the intention since no one else in the Capitol had an accent and Banks didn't hold on to hers.

I do wish that more of the Capitol's excess and ridiculousness was explored - all the body modification stuff was dropped, which I guess isn't too much of a surprise, but I still think that the Capitol folks should have been more over the top.

And I think the movie's ending was a bit abrupt. I missed the scenes between the Games and the Victory Ceremony.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 4/17/12 at 2:41am

Slightly tangental here but as this will prob be the big DVD release @ Christmas, think there wll be a directors cut w a tich more of the blood and thunder? or just the standard film w maybe some outtakes?
Any whoo they better get moving on a script like yesterday, or Xmen will take Jen for that film and Mockingjay w out Katniss jes won play. (one of the reasons Ross does not want to direct- too much script to write in the time avail.)

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 11:06pm

Francis Lawrence (not related to Jennifer Lawrence) has been offered to direct 'Catching Fire'.


Francis Lawrence offered 'Catching Fire' director gig

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/19/12 at 11:36pm

Wow, I'm kinda shocked. While I thought Gary Ross was just an above average director on the film, he gave great indepth interviews about how much he loved every minute of it, how anxious he was for the sequels, how hard he fought to get the movie, etc. It sounds like he thinks there's not enough pre-production time... Kinda too bad, I think these films usually work best under one director (Harry Potter of course fluctuated sharply film by film depending who directed it).

Francis Lawrence is a hack with a good visual eye but not storytelling sense. Actually I probably like some of his music videos best... But his film record isn't great. I Am Legend? Constantine? Water for Elephants which I found a bore, and friends have insisted was a much much better book? Ruh-roh...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/20/12 at 9:29am

Bad news, indeed. The man is known for three films ranging from mediocre to bad, a couple of TV episodes, and some music videos. Are they cutting corners on the assumption that the film will sell well no matter what they do? Sort of like the Twilight films?

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 4/20/12 at 10:49am

Most news sources assumed that the reasons why Lionsgate chose him was because he was the one who was most available and he has experience with special effects. They are also on a tight schedule to finish filming the movie by the end of this year so Jennifer Lawrence can film the sequel to 'X-Men: First Class'. They also want to meet their November 2013 release date.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 4/20/12 at 3:03pm

That's where I get most confused. I know these movies take a long time to put together. But didn't the first one just start filming a year and a tiny bit ago? Yes, the second will probably take longer to film but with much of the same team in place, surely reaching a Nov 2013 date would not have been a huge issue...

[xxdrewboy85xx]

Posted: 4/20/12 at 11:26pm

The issue was that 20th century Fox has dibs on Jennifer Lawrence and there was a risk that Lionsgate would lose Lawrence or have to wait longer to film and not make the original planned release date. The deal was to finish filming Catching Fire by December or they would have to wait until after X-Men First Class finished filming and then not make their November 2013 release date.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/21/12 at 1:20pm

Finally caught the film, and I liked it. It did a great job of creating tension, but there was SO much I missed from the book. A great deal of the time I wondered how people that HADN'T read the books could be following it.

I hated the shaky cam -- I found it hard to keep my eyes on the screen. The dogs were a disappointment and they too quickly put that kid out of his misery at the end. I, too, found the ending too abrupt.

I liked most of the casting, but not all of the characterizations -- which changed from the book with writing/directing.

I'll be curious how they do with the remaining books.

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 4/22/12 at 12:54pm

I think this franchise is going to blow up, unlike Twilight that is targeted to the women only this has something for the women and men.

As a book reader (and yes you should read the books first), I felt it left out alot but that's expected. I'm glad to hear Mockinjay will be broken down in 2 films because it's ALOT packed into a single book.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/23/12 at 3:32pm

The 2-film finale treatment is just clinging on to the latest fad of milking cash on a popular franchise. If Lord of the Rings could do it in one film (yet still manage to make it seem an hour too long) and snag an Oscar for Best Picture, then Mockingjay should be a snap.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 7:10pm

Franics Lawrence has officially signed on to direct 'Catching Fire'.

“Lionsgate, the cast, and filmmakers are all thrilled to have Francis Lawrence come on board as director of Catching Fire,” Lionsgate’s president of production, Erik Feig, said in a press release. ”Suzanne’s brilliant book is the intense story of the birth of the rebellion and Katniss’ emotionally charged journey as she takes on the mantle of the Mockingjay, and we all think Francis is the perfect director to bring the story to life.”

“It is truly an honor and a privilege to bring Catching Fire, the second chapter of Suzanne’s beloved trilogy, to the big screen,” added Lawrence in the release. “I fell in love with the characters, the themes and the world she created and this chapter opens all of these elements up in such a thrilling, emotional and surprising way. I can’t wait to dive right into it and bring this chapter to life along with the truly superb cast and filmmakers involved.”

Production begins this fall and the release is still scheduled for November 22, 2013. This means that Jennifer Lawrence will be able to do both 'Catching Fire' and the sequel to 'X-Men: First Class'.


Francis Lawrence confirmed as 'Catching Fire' director

[Elphaba]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 7:15pm

I found Hunger Games followed the book almost exactly, and was happily surprised by that...there were a few things that did not happen, but nothing major. Definitely the book was better, but the movie was good...am almost done with the second book. Love it.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 7:18pm

The second book is the best of the three!

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 9:04pm

Too bad such a crap director is handling your favorite book then

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 9:23pm

Ha, I've never seen anything else he's directed, so I can't really say.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 9:43pm

Be happy, It could have been Tim Burton.