The thing is the Hunger Games were never about the gambling, or even entertainment. They were a way of saying to the districts, "Fuck you, we can do whatever we want and you can't stop us." They were originally designed to discourage rebellion by showing the capitol's absolute power, in that they are able to take the district's children and fuck with them however they want, and most of all the districts aren't able to stop them. That's what the idea behind the finale was, they were trying to make the two supposed livers fight to the death, in an attempt to show that they can do whatever the fuck they want.

As for the equipment drops, firstly they were incredibly expensive, and secondly they were controlled by the contestant's sponsor. So the sponsors didn't want to use them unless it was really needed.

 

Eh, that's fair for the most part. But I think more of my issue wasn't really with the distaste for the message, but with the fact that it wasn't executed very well. I can get behind themes that I find questionable in the extreme - hell, I rewatched Lord of War (the movie where Nicolas Cage plays an arms dealer) on Saturday and despite the junky, quasi-formulaic plot and some extremely nihilistic POVs, I can ultimately get behind and like it because it executes so damn well.

EDIT:

Okay, that makes more sense from a broadly symbolic POV, but it still doesn't hold a lot of water to me. So they change the rules at the last second to let Peeta and Katniss - while this may seem to be a symbolic victory for them, the fact Peeta and Katniss still cater to the broader audience and smile for the cheering crowds and photo-ops turn them into symbols of the system. The Games will still continue, and maybe it's a flaw of the movie versus the book, but to me, when Peeta and Katniss got off the train at the end, why was that crowd cheering? Was it because they had beaten the evil system, or rather because they were only champions that had won for their district by a sheer fluke of the rules? Does the rebellion pay off in any way, shape, or form in the film? I know it does in the books, but it would make the ending significantly stronger in the movie if Katniss and Peeta came back to a revolution, not ambiguous cheering. If we're supposed to believe that this show is such a cultural phenomenon that it can hold whole groups spell-bound, it's not hard to believe that they're just cheering because their district won, not because Katniss and Peeta stood for anything greater or special.

As for the point regarding equipment drops - that's legit, but I don't remember hearing that explained in the movie, which might be why I was confused. And considering how little was required to explain it... well, I wouldn't be surprised if I missed it, but if it wasn't there, there's a problem.

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen more films than you.

You started to lose me with the Lord of the Flies comparison, which told me you like facile comparisons based on superficial similarities. Kids killing each other; therefore, same-same? No. That's like saying Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones are the same because they both have a lot of guys running around with swords.

Then you praised Sucker Punch. I have no words. And you think Hunger Games is an "exploitation film" in that genre? Holy shit, did you just go into the theater with a list of films you assumed Hunger Games is "like" and stick to those assumptions despite all evidence to the contrary?

Then you cap it off with a Twilight comparison, because of course teenage girl = Twilight. It's not like any other movies ever have involved teenage girls with love interests. (Which you totally missed the point of, plotwise.)

And, yes, yes, we all know about Battle Royale and Logan's Run and The Running Man (which is actually another lazy comparison; King's The Long Walk is much closer, and a work that Koushun Takami himself cited as an influence). I'm weary of people spouting off those names with no meaningful comparison between them and Hunger Games, or even much evidence that they know anything about them other than that they contained vaguely similar themes.

I can't help thinking you'd go watch Winter's Bone and then trash it because it's too much like Deliverance.

 

I would wager a guess that weapons are not allowed to be sent to the tribute you are sponsoring. If they were, Katniss would have an unbelievable edge just by being sent a bow, or Finnick a net and trident (note: Finnick is a character from the 4th district who won a previous tournament and is featured in the second book, I simply brought him up as a comparison).

To continue in Delos' train of thought about the sheer expense of gifts to the tributes, the entirety of District 11 sent Katniss a loaf of bread after Rue died. This was on Day 3 or Day 4. The entirety of District 11 pooled their money for a single loaf of bread.

The gambling aspect, I would wager, is the most fun for the sponsors. They choose a tribute based on their initial rating and back them. I believe you aren't allowed to switch tributes either.

Generally speaking, as they said in the movie, the higher the number the better the tribute's odds of winning (although that doesn't mean shit, since Katniss got an 11 and the tributes from districts 1 and 2 are trained from birth to be tributes, so they had a better chance at winning than she did). That being said, Haymitch got something like a 7 and won because he out-smarted the final tribute other than himself with the edge of the arena (basically, there was some sort of repelling field at the bottom of a pit to ensure that the tributes didn't kill themselves. The career threw an ax, Haymitch dodged, then the ax got buried in her face as a result.)

As far as 'logic' or 'sense', did you not notice the Peace Keepers? The white-uniformed, vaguely militaristic people throughout the film? If the Hunger Games didn't manage to keep the districts in check, the Peace Keepers did, as shown by the riot in District 11 (even though the entire events shown there happened in book 2, but I digress).

Back to the betting. That's what makes it exciting for them, because bets are all gathered before the games actually start. As a better, you have no idea what the arena will look like or the traps therein, all you know is what rating the game-makers gave the tribute and what district they're from.

Addressing the rule-changes you brought up, Delos did it better than I did, but I'll re-iterate. This was unprecedented. In the previous 73 Games, there had never been a rule-change.

Also, you have to remember that the residents of Panem view this as one big show. It's like... The Real World, for them.

EDIT:

What was wrong with Sucker Punch? Sure, it was a ridiculous movie, and most definitely exploitation, and most definitely aimed at 16-26 year old guys, but it was self-aware. The people making the movie knew exactly what kind of movie they were making, and that was what they made. A ridiculous movie with a whole lot of action, a whole lot of camp, a whole lot of awesome, and a whole lot of T&A. I could go into a synopsis of the plot if you like, but, to sum things up, the entire plot of the movie was an escape attempt from that asylum, and the 'fantasy' scenes were Emily Browning's character being unable to deal with reality after her sister was killed by her step-father.

 

I agree. I've read the first book and it was fast-paced enough to keep me reading to the end. I thought that for what it is (aimed at adolescents) it was quite good. My 10-year-old daughter devoured it and is jonesing to see the movie.

Well, that settles my dilemma of whether to read the second and third books...

Yeah, reading the first book I pictured Paul Giamatti as the perfect Hamish, so my disappointment at the casting of Woody Harrelson was immense.

Thanks. I'll check it out for my daughter if it's age-appropriate. Your thoughts?

I think that was the main reason my daughter liked it as well. Katniss was not a dainty flower but wasn't *too* good either. She was a fairly young girl trying to save her sister and then just trying to survive.

Aaannnddd NOW the thread can be closed, with the obligatory Silens Way-TL;DR thread-shitting disguised as an upper-crust movie review.

I love how you gleefully deconstruct a movie about a book you haven't read, because y'know, you obviously know how it *should* have been done, despite knowing fuck-all about the actual characters or their motivations in Part 1 of what is a 3-Part series.

But by all means, lay on, Macduff.

I like how even in derision you, ah, wax poetic.

I can't comment on the acting since I haven't seen the film, but I'm going to assume Lawrence was playing the part as directed and as the character is written in the book, which is as a teenage girl who has closed herself off even before taking her sister's place, as she's been somewhat betrayed and abandoned by first her father and then her mother. All she has left is her sister, really, and as she fully expects to die throughout the majority of the story, I can forgive her reticence to connect with anyone.

This is certainly true, but the villains in the book are more of a lurking constant than present in the scenes, and as the book is from a first-person perspective, you can't expect a lot of character development for the villains in any case.

You miss the point, I think. Again, it's first-person, so there is by definition a limited exposure to the other contestants and their motivations aside from their obvious desire to win and therefore survive. And of course there's going to be black-and-white villains - it's a YA book. Did you bitch this much about Snape when you read Philosopher's Stone?

As for the exploitation and shock value you claim, since the protagonist does not kill the majority of the others, or even *see* most of them be killed, then of course that is off-screen violence in the book. The shock of the deaths is shown as a building horror at the injustice of the entire situation, and if that wasn't conveyed to your satisfaction, oh well.

More waxing. Wax On, Wax Off!

No, actually. The message is that while most of the people of the Capital view it as great and gory entertainment, the Districts are forced to view it, all the while rooting for their own children (naturally) to find a way to *kill* all the other children in this mockery of sport, just so *one* of those two tribute children can come "home" and have to live with what he or she was forced to do.

The message you should have gotten is the horror of the games for not only the contestants but for everyone in all the Districts as well. Again, I can't comment on the film, but either the filmmakers failed to show this or you simply failed to grasp it. Wanna guess which one I'm betting on?

That is not how the book was written. Yes, she has some feelings for Peeta but more than anything, she wants to survive, and as he *does* risk everything just to give her a chance to survive a little longer, I think she can be forgiven for her conflicted feelings in an actual life-and-death situation.

I'll say again that this was only the first book of three. I have not read the other books, but if Katniss and Peeta had gone through with killing themselves, that would sort of make subsequent books difficult, doncha think?

And do you honestly think that a 16-year-old girl, who has overcome so many odds and actually gotten to the endgame - with her teammate, no less - and manipulated the controllers into letting them both live would, in the face of living and keeping her friend alive despite it all, go ahead and KILL HERSELF? If you do, then you really are fucking stupid.

That would be a momentously stupid as Harry Potter deciding to stay dead at the end of DH. An even better analogy would be Harry discovering a way to get rid of the Scarcrux and defeat Voldemort once and for all without dying, but instead of doing that, he decides "Ah, fuck it, it'll be a whole lot easier to just let him murder me, since that would be the noble thing to do."

Yes, why - why - didn't this 16-year-old complete a Rube Goldberg-esque master plan in the time between almost dying and wondering when the other shoe will drop? I mean, she's perfectly safe now that she's won and there'll be no hard feelings from the ruling party, right? No doubt she'll be left to her own devices and allowed to run around unsupervised now that they've won.

I can't imagine how convoluted you must imagine everything to be if you think that would be realistic in the slightest. Did I mention she's a socially-awkward teenager who has abandonment issues and just might still be in shock that she isn't dead as a hammer? And you're pissed that she didn't go all Che Guevara the instant she's out of the arena?

Again, the specifics of those in the Capital is not the point, and are you really critiquing the plausibility of the betting system in a post-Apocalyptic Dystopia?

While I appreciate your lovely social commentary, you missed the fact that the people in the Districts are *forced* to watch the games, and even if they weren't there'd be a serious thirst for game information because everyone would want to know if their own District's children were dead or alive.

Laugh Out, ah, Loud.

 

It's implied in the book that the gamesmasters gave Katniss such a high score to put a target on her back, because she pissed them off.

I think it was trying to be, but it was doing so in that faux-ironic way that says "Look, we're totally giving you exploitative half-naked chick eye-candy but we're doing it with a wink so you can say it's artsy and shit."

 

Agreed, but I was discussing how betting is done, not why they gave her the score.

Again, like I said, the movie was self-aware. They didn't have to try hard to make it believable, they were simply making a movie that was so ridiculous it took your suspension of disbelief and shoved it up your ass.

---------- Post automerged at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

Fuck that noise. The second book is great, since it explores a Hunger Games that pits previous winners against previous winners. How is that not awesome?

What I've read of the third book is pretty damn good so far, since it revolves around Katniss essentially being a figurehead for the revolution.

 

More backstory in coming. Not all Districts are like 12, the lower numbers (mainly 1-3) actually live a pretty decent life. 12 is, quite simply, a ghetto.

Now, when Katniss and Peeta step off the train, two things are going on. 1) The were the only pair of tributes in the history of the games to both make it out. Definitely something worth cheering for. 2) When a District wins they are rewarded as a whole. They receive extra food and clothes, their quotas on product supplied to the Capital are lowered for that year etc. Winning is a big deal. Its why Districts would even consider letting kids train for it. 2b) District 12 has not won in 24 years now, Haymitch being the most recent.

 

I thought the second book was actually the weakest, since it's basically a redux of book one. New characters, same story.

The third one was good, though I wasn't in love with the epilogue. (My review.)

 

I didn´t like the story. Found it pretty unlogical and hard to believe. Things like the decision to leave the plane, walking during the night, leaving their friend just because he has no energy, jumping into river and not getting killed by the cold. And while those were things I could ignore the strange behavior of the wolves was just too much. Are those things really that bloodthirsty?

 

So anyone who didn't read the book has failed and is at fault for not understanding the plot and characters? A movie that cannot explain the characters in it's own story is a shitty movie, just as a book that requires you to read supplementary stories to understand basic characterisation would be a shitty book, adaptation or no. Silens could have misread their characters but that doesn't change the fact that the argument is just dumb. Reading the books should help with nuance, not decide if you understand anything at all.

The idea that movies can lay off characterization until the sequels is also dumb. The characterization of the characters should fit the events of the first movie. There is no need to show growth beyond that. Show the characters in a way that is internally consistent with their movie actions, no more, no less.

And the movie is? Different medium, different rules. Styles used in written media may not always work for the big screen. For that matter, the book and the movie should be judged as seperate material. That defence doesn't work for the movie because they had no reason to stick to it.

I can understand trying to make them ominous and far-away and in the dark or whatever, but doing so simply to stick to the book can end up bad.

See above. If the deaths were shown on-screen then it undercuts the horror if we don't give a shit about them. It's permissible in a FP novel to not flesh them out and focus on whatsherface, but even the tightest POV movie has to show these people and why we should care for them since we can't see whatherface's thoughts.

They can try to emulate the first person perspective in a movie, but it's most likely going to be shit. Very few people have done that well, at least the way I think you mean it.

How these arguments work for the movie is beyond me. It's the job of the film makers to show us these things, not to direct us to a copy of Hunger Games and tell us to go see how it was written. Plenty of people are going to come into this having not seen the books. Are they to be penalised?

As for your argument that this is the first book of three, it's nonsensical and I'm fucking tired of hearing people use it. If you're gonna argue from an in-universe perspective do it, but don't just jump out when it suits you.

And the funny thing is, you have a perfectly valid explanation for this, you just chose to throw this in as well for some reason.

I don't disagree with most of what you said, I just think that particular type of argument is just cheap and has no bearing on anything. It's more than possible Silens misread the movie. But him being wrong because the book says he's wrong is ludicrous. The movie stands on it's own.

 

Damn, haven't seen a DLP thread turn sour this quick since the last time someone mentioned Yudkowsky --








Oh, shit.

 

Fuel for your fires... Mother Jones's take on the movie

Hunger Games Film a Child-Slaughtering Time Waster

 

Did you miss the part where the wolves were defending their den? Or the part where this takes place in Alaska? Leaving the plane was a smart thing to do, because there was no way in hell they'd be found before the wolves finished killing them. At the very least, they'd be able to attempt to find some form of civilization.

The wolves weren't killing the group just to kill them, they were killing the group because they were near the wolves' den. It's basic instinct for them. The pack is everything to them, which means so is the den.

 

Got dragged to it at midnight by my girlfriend. Actually glad I saw it. Plot was a bit "meh" at times, but that can be chalked up to it being a YA book adaptation. Same with the romance. Anyone who gives the movie a bad rep because of contrived "romance" happening in the midst of life or death battle needs to STFU and lower their standards. It comprises all of fifteen minutes and can easily be overlooked if it's not your thing.

The plot, while predictable, was pretty good, and the acting itself was pretty high quality. Lawrence was fantastic IMO, and the guy who played Peeta wasn't bad either.

All in all: good, not great, but worth whatever ticket prices are in your area.

 

Wasn't it explained somewhere in the movie that the romance was just to appeal to the Capitol Audience so that they could get sponsors? I mean, Katniss looked ready to break Peta's neck when he announced that he loved her.

 

More or less. In the book it's flat out explained. In the movie it isn't as blunt but Kravitz explains that his move won't make her look weak, but likable, which will earn her sponsors. Then of course there's the Haymitch card saying "You call that a kiss?" and her general reluctance to show him affection.

 

That's because she was. Like Churchey said, though, Cinna (Lenny Kravtiz' character) made her change her mind. Peeta's little stunt made her desirable. It helped that he (Peeta) was actually sincere about it.

 

Consider the Reaping scene if you want an example of bad cinematography.

When Effie Trinket comes up to pick from the drawing boxes, the camera is inches from her face and shaking. Rather than providing a panoramic view of the crowd to show how still and tense they all were while waiting for the names to be read, the camera is moving rapidly between characters' faces close enough to see nose hairs.

Some crews work the shaking camera for some added dramatic effect; others rapidly move between shots of scenery and characters with a still camera to do the same. This one tried to do both and made people in the audience around me sick.

When Katniss and Peeta were fighting the last guy from District 1 on top of that central area during the finale, I couldn't for the life of me tell who was who. The camera got so close we were looking at half their torsos moving rapidly back and forth, while the camera shook as if the cameraman was in on the battle!

I've never read the books and didn't know a thing about the romance prior. By the end of the movie, I had assumed that in the midst of death, pain, and fear she fell for Peeta. It never even crossed my mind that they were faking to play the system.

That's not good when it's a pretty big plot point for the romance...

All in all, I thought the movie followed the book event wise, but failed to reach me emotionally or provide a vector to lead me to the next movie in the series. I felt like they had done there thing and, as Katniss said on the ride home, would just try to forget it had every happened.