Snarf came back from watching it a few night ago and mentioned that the camera angles and the use of 'SHAKE THE CAMERA FUCKING EVERYWHERE' really got to him and ruined what could have been a decent plot.

I haven't seen it yet, so I don't have much more to say. Anyone else who has seen it want to comment on the camera usage? I want some more opinions than just Snarf's before I decide to call it shit and be done with the whole idea.

 

I've never read the books. Nor do I really want to. The movie doesn't look particularly interesting either. My brother likes them though, so I might end up seeing it anyway eventually. If I see it and I remember, I'll post my opinion here.

 

I haven't seen it, and I have no intentions of seeing it, but one of my friends posted about it recently (well a lot did, but this was the only one that amused me). This was after they all left to go to the movies together, sounding somewhat excited.

 

Somebody massaged the right pockets. It seems the success of films these days is mostly decided by the media industry telling us if something is good or bad and that is obviously based on money or whatever political back room deals are going on there.

Just look at the John Carter film. Not really a bad film compared to similar fantasy/SF type of films. IMHO it's mostly a matter of taste. But the last weeks you could only read everywhere how bad it has done in box office and that some anonymous people at Disney hated it. So less and less people actually bothered to watch it which is a shame. With a marketing budget of allegedly 100M$ you're really starting to wonder why this bad PR tsunami happened and who initiated it.

 

I saw the movie today. It wasn't bad per se, but it certainly wasn't great either. The script was pretty poor, but the acting wasn't unbearable. Jennifer Lawrence is surprisingly good. Like someone mentioned, the camera definitely went through some Cloverfield-esque earthquake periods that made me want to vomit.

In terms of other movies I've seen recently, I liked it more than I liked John Carter... which apart from whatsherface being ridiculously hot, held few positive qualities.

My friend says the books are written in first person, so I have zero interest in reading them and giving fair evaluation of their transition to the big screen.

My overall opinion: 5.5/10

Go see it if you have nothing better to do. If you don't catch it, you're not missing anything groundbreaking.

 

Whoa, what?

Does this mean you don't read The Dresden Files? For shame.

You're severely limiting your reading options if all you bother with is third person narrative.

OT: I've read the books, wasn't thrilled, and I'll probably watch the movie when it comes out on DVD, or on a flight or something.

 

A matter of taste or reasons you think are objectively bad? Personally I'm not into the fantasy/fake SF genre but I can't really call that film bad if I compare it to Dune, Star Wars and ok Avatar. They have all their individual strengths and flaws. I felt the film had some honest old time story telling and directing vibe with nice camera work. Something you rarely see these days where film scenes are edited to dull brains with some staccato rhythm so they don't notice lazy directing/dull action sequences.

 

I've read Dresden because everyone I met told me Dresden was fucking awesome. But as awesome as Dresden is, the first person still annoys me. I just... don't like it. As for Hunger games, I have no interest in a first-person book that my friends and family say is only so-so.

A little of both. I like sci-fi, but not sci-fi that tries to beat you about the head with how amazing the main character is. In John Carter, the title character becomes a super-hero, a tribal savior, an amazing warrior (confederate cavalry training should not have prepared him for fighting off hordes of aliens single-handedly), and a leader of a nation. He's a Gary Fucking Stu if ever there was one. Add on substandard acting, a shitty script, and half-an-hour of screen time that the film could have cut without taking out anything remotely important, well... you get a pretty poor movie.

I'm not saying it was god-awful. It just wasn't worth 14 dollars.

Edit: And certainly not worth the 300 mil they spent making and marketing it.

 

I've been saying it for awhile, but these stories are way overhyped. The movie was vaguely entertaining, but I would not have saw it if I was going by myself. I remember seeing an old trailer (or maybe it was one of those large cardboard cutouts) that said "the best thing since Twilight." 'nuff said. The author got lucky that somehow her books caught on, but I don't think they're really 'the new best thing'. Unremarkable at best, but just a bit better than awful

 

I'm not going to trust your opinion on movies after this..
https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=549984&postcount=731

 

Sounds good.

 

I read the Hunger Games trilogy and liked it. It's lightweight (being YA) but not too bad, though the tacked-on love triangle was completely unnecessary, and like Rowling, Collins kind of punted in her epilogue.

And before someone mentions Battle Royale: I've read it and seen the movie, too. The similarities are really only superficial.

I haven't seen the Hunger Games movie yet, but plan to.

I saw John Carter, and thought it was pretty good for what it is. (My thoughts here.)

 

I really didn't think it was bad, and I enjoyed it minus the shaking cameras which were annoying as shit most of the time. The movie follows very very closely to the book, and really does a better job of replicating itself in movie form then most books do. I thought that the acting was well done and costumes were very well done. Frankly, the movie is everything I expected it to be. I have read the books though, and knew exactly what to expect. I think the first book is an entertaining read that is by no means a literary great. The next two books are crap, and I have 0 intentions of going to see those movies.

 

I read the first book; it was meh.

Every time I see a spot for it that says it made 65 gazillion dollars on the first day I keep asking why? I can understand Twilight garnering the attention because it pulls at every teen girl's need for angst, vampires, werewolves, necrophilia & bestiality, so of course that one would sell.

But for Hunger Games... I am disappoint and will wait for the DVD.

And it has Woody Harrelson in it, so autofail for me.

Divergent, in the same dystopian genre and feel, was a better read (though just as cliched and predictable) and would have made a better movie.

 

It's sort of a mash-up between Twilight and Battle Royale utilising the camera work of Michael Bay. I think the vague political rhetoric has certainly aided support for the franchise. Fox News likes how it proves 'big government' is evil while this Marxist blog thinks it's ultimately a critique of capitalist society. The ambiguity has essentially allowed reader/viewers to put their own spin on it and see the film as reflecting on their own political opinions.

One thing that's refreshing to see in teenage franchises is women not acting like it's their sole purpose to please men. There are strong female characters in this that have motivations beyond pleasing a male character. Still, if you want to read some dystopic gladiatoral death match read Stephan King's The Long Walk (alternatively, if you want to watch some dystopian gladiatoral combat watch the original Rollerball).

 

eh, it's all about the new big thing. Harry Potter's dying down so those fans need something. Add in some twilight fans and there you have it. Build enough hype and you'll get amazing opening day ticket sales.

 

I was just glad that my girlfriend was reading something other than Twilight. She asked me to read the books and they weren't bad, but you could tell they were aimed at young girls.

I saw it and enjoyed it quite a bit. It isn't Harry Potter and it is certainly young adult, but I thought it was a better book-to-movie adaptation than anything else I've ever seen. It stayed very true to the book. My friend went to see it the same night back home with his girl and he enjoyed it even without reading the books.

I think a large part of it was that she was so excited to see it and it became truly infectious.

 

My brother-in-law saw it, enjoyed it, and promptly went out and bought the books. For the record, he is 26 and not in a relationship, and recently went back to school.

My wife and I, in our early thirties and knee-deep in real jobs, tried to read the first book and gave up two chapters in.

Take that as you will, but I have a funny feeling Hunger Games is slowly becoming the Catcher in the Rye of the currently 'woe-is-me' generation, who feel like life is hell and everyone's out to get them.

I'd honestly like to know how many people outside that 16-26 age group went to see this.