xkcd

by **Chen** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

After having enjoyed the books (first two more than the last), I saw this movie on friday and found it pretty decent.

There are aspects that I found would have been confusing if I hadn't read the books.

Book spoiler

Spoiler:

Also the shaky cam for the action scenes was somewhat annoying but I imagine that's what kept it at a PG 13 rating instead of pushing it up to an R rating. Overall though its quite accurate to the books and the movie was very visually pleasing. Even though it was 2hours 20 min it still felt a bit rushed at some points but I can see why they had to cut it down. Still an extra 15-20 min would probably have been useful to make things much more clear to those who haven't read the books (and maybe extended the last action scene a bit since it felt very rushed).

For the record, I'm going to search this thread every few days. If I see the phrase "Battle Royale" in a post in which someone tries to cleverly draw a parallel between the two (aka the "I saw/read it back when it was called Battle Royale" comment), I'm banning them from High Culture for a few days. -ST

by **Angua** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

I didn't like it. However, I haven't read the books, so that could be it.

Reasons:

Spoiler:

by **natraj** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

i thought the movie was pretty true to the book in terms of what happened but i didn't really care about it all that much. i didn't get as much of a sense of... anything. characterization. of the characters or the setting. it was more actiony and less the symbolism behind the action, which is impressive given how incredibly heavy-handed the book was at bludgeoning you with symbolism.

it was entertaining enough even so. i enjoyed it, but i didn't love it.

also, the internet is managing to sadden me yet again with the number of racist twits sputtering on twitter about how t e r r i b l e it is that rue is black and it ruins the movie for them.

by **pseudoidiot** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:48 pm UTC

Buh... it's been a few weeks since I've read the books, but wasn't she described as being black? Or at least dark-skinned? As opposed to Kat's olive-colored skin?

by **natraj** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:08 pm UTC

yes. yes she was.

pretty explicitly, because like most of the heavy-handed symbolism, District 11 was

Spoiler:

there just... seems to be a lot of racism in the fandom. Rue was sweet and innocent, therefore she was supposed to be fair and white, right? obviously.

by **pseudoidiot** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:11 pm UTC

Yeah. Wow, I read through a few pages of that. What the fuck, people?

by **Magnanimous** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

Good article about race in THG.

by **Chen** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:48 am UTC

Angua wrote:I didn't like it. However, I haven't read the books, so that could be it.

Reasons:
Spoiler:
The shaky camera was extremely annoying. The fact that the whole plot seemed kind of bleh, with some ridiculous things (like why 12-18, why not have them all similar ages unless you just want to see young children hacked to death). I was hoping for something a bit more revolutionary towards the end - them saying that they were taking the berries because they were sick of being pawns or something, leading to an overturning of the establishment. The fact that the sponsors just randomly flew stuff in seemed weird - I was expecting them to give them items from the beginning. Catness talking to her boyfriend type person at the end would have been nice too.

A lot of what you posted is what I felt people who hadn't read the books would feel, which made me wonder how well this movie would work. I'd consider reading the first book, since its a first person from Katniss' point of view. It clears things up that the movie kinda glossed over. I think they're going to need more blatant exposition to get get the main issues/points to transfer from book to movie. It probably means having to make up a few extra conversations but there are plenty of people throughout the movie she could have been talking to about feelings and like (Cinna would probably have been the least jarring, though maybe Haymitch too).

Spoiler:

by **Angua** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:45 pm UTC

I'm not going to go out and buy the books to understand the movie better.

Spoiler:

by **dbsmith** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:30 pm UTC

The movie was pretty damn close to the book and I thought it was really well done.

by **charliepanayi** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:18 pm UTC

Angua wrote:I didn't like it. However, I haven't read the books, so that could be it.

Reasons:
Spoiler:
The shaky camera was extremely annoying. The fact that the whole plot seemed kind of bleh, with some ridiculous things (like why 12-18, why not have them all similar ages unless you just want to see young children hacked to death). I was hoping for something a bit more revolutionary towards the end - them saying that they were taking the berries because they were sick of being pawns or something, leading to an overturning of the establishment. The fact that the sponsors just randomly flew stuff in seemed weird - I was expecting them to give them items from the beginning. Catness talking to her boyfriend type person at the end would have been nice too.

I don't think reading the books would really have made a difference with most of those reasons.

by **Weeks** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:53 pm UTC

I didn't like

Spoiler:

On a different note, I confused the actress (Jennifer Lawrence) for the one from Narnia (Anna Popplewell). I blame the archery.

I liked

Spoiler:

Going with friends was a plus here. I think it was...okay.

by **Joeldi** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:08 pm UTC

pseudoidiot wrote:Yeah. Wow, I read through a few pages of that. What the fuck, people?

I didn't get off the first page and I feel physically sick! And racism is usually something I can at least deal with. What The Fuck.

Angua wrote:I was hoping for something a bit more revolutionary towards the end - them saying that they were taking the berries because they were sick of being pawns or something, leading to an overturning of the establishment.

This is coming from a book, not a movie perspective, but I liked that it was small and subtle. You're a average teenager locked inside a deathtrap. What can and will you realistically do to rebel? Do you even care that much? (Remember it was Peeta that wanted to give the Capitol the middle finger. Katniss just wanted to get home to her sister.)

EDIT:

Magnanimous wrote:Good article about race in THG.

It's an interesting read, but I don't get why she keeps saying 'The Global South'. Is that the new ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? way of saying Third World? Because there's totally no rich and stable countries in the South, and totally no poor or corrupt countries in the north, amirite.

by **LaserGuy** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:15 am UTC

Angua wrote:The shaky camera was extremely annoying. The fact that the whole plot seemed kind of bleh, with some ridiculous things (like why 12-18, why not have them all similar ages unless you just want to see young children hacked to death). I was hoping for something a bit more revolutionary towards the end - them saying that they were taking the berries because they were sick of being pawns or something, leading to an overturning of the establishment. The fact that the sponsors just randomly flew stuff in seemed weird - I was expecting them to give them items from the beginning. Catness talking to her boyfriend type person at the end would have been nice too.

The shaky cam drove me nuts for the first 45 minutes or so. I had to look away from the screen every few minutes because I was starting to feel nauseous. I think I noticed it more early on because they kept doing really jittery close-ups of people's faces. In the wilderness parts, I didn't notice so much.

I haven't read the books, but I found the plot pretty interesting, and had some very good social commentary. Lord of the Flies meets the Truman show with a touch of Dickens thrown in.

I also would have liked to have seen some discussion of the fairness in having 12 year olds fighting 18 year olds (especially considering that one of the groups was, IIRC, gaming the system by always sending 18 year olds who were specifically trained to win this particular tournament). Not necessarily that the organizers would have recognized or cared about the inherent unfairness of such a circumstance, but surely the tributes would have. For that matter, none of the tributes except Peeta (and Katniss' friend at the beginning) seemed to question the inherent immorality of their circumstances or their actions at all.

by **Weeks** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:04 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:For that matter, none of the tributes except Peeta (and Katniss' friend at the beginning) seemed to question the inherent immorality of their circumstances or their actions at all.

Apart from Katniss, I don't recall the rest of the tributes having much characterization beyond being spooked teens fighting for their lives (or being lethal assholes).

by **Magnanimous** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:19 am UTC

Weeks wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:For that matter, none of the tributes except Peeta (and Katniss' friend at the beginning) seemed to question the inherent immorality of their circumstances or their actions at all.
Apart from Katniss, I don't recall the rest of the tributes having much characterization beyond being spooked teens fighting for their lives (or being lethal assholes).

This is one of the things I hated about the book. It would have been so much more powerful if the Capitol took one class of schoolchildren each year to kill each other, and the district cycles every year. This would also fix the problem of 18-year-olds fighting 12-year-olds.

by **Joeldi** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:35 am UTC

Magnanimous wrote:This would also fix the problem of 18-year-olds fighting 12-year-olds.

That's not a 'problem'. That's 'the point'. As a reader you're meant to go 'wow, that's really fucked up', and the residents of the Capitol are meant to get behind the teeny tiny underdog because it's so much more entertaining when they win.

by **Lucrece** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:39 am UTC

Yeah, I think when you get to the pointof forcing people into death matches as a form of intimidation, an image of fairness is not one of your concerns. The entire scenario is supposed to be morally repulsive.

Also, in regards to the tributes not being particularly thoughtful of the circumstances: That's not how survival mode works. The priority for these people is to get out alive, and the primary concern when going into this situation is the doubt of whether the other tributes will be as reasonable as you under similar pressure and with weapons involved. You don't have time to ponder the ethical points of the games because doing so inhibits your killer instinct, which is what will keep you alive.

by **Angua** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:31 am UTC

The Capital was trying to pretend it was semi-civilised and fair. I don't see how they can do that with 12 year olds fighting 18 year olds.

by **Magnanimous** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:24 am UTC

Joeldi wrote:
Magnanimous wrote:This would also fix the problem of 18-year-olds fighting 12-year-olds.

That's not a 'problem'. That's 'the point'. As a reader you're meant to go 'wow, that's really fucked up', and the residents of the Capitol are meant to get behind the teeny tiny underdog because it's so much more entertaining when they win.

Oh, I hadn't considered that. If you take an entire classroom though, there's bound to be underdogs. (Sucks to your asmar, Piggy!)

Also, screw volunteering. That was an almost painful plot device to get Katniss in the games, and it wouldn't make sense to give the districts that agency.

by **Hawknc** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:40 am UTC

Volunteering makes pretty good sense when you consider it as a form of reality TV. A bunch of scared kids trying to stay away from each other? Not very good television. Participants who willingly sign up to put on a good show for the chance at a life of luxury for them and their families? Great television.

by **quantumcat42** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:52 pm UTC

I really enjoyed the added perspective of the Game Director in the movie.

Spoiler:

by **Obby** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

quantumcat42 wrote:I really enjoyed the added perspective of the Game Director in the movie.
Spoiler:
His conversations with the President give a better justification for the dilemma presented at the end of the game than is really developed in the book, and his story shows real repercussions rather than just nervous warnings about a vague threat of consequences for Katniss' and Peeta's defiance.

Spoiler:

by **quantumcat42** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:57 pm UTC

Obby wrote:
quantumcat42 wrote:I really enjoyed the added perspective of the Game Director in the movie.
Spoiler:
His conversations with the President give a better justification for the dilemma presented at the end of the game than is really developed in the book, and his story shows real repercussions rather than just nervous warnings about a vague threat of consequences for Katniss' and Peeta's defiance.

Spoiler:
It's not all that vague in the book. Granted, it's explained in much greater detail at the beginning of book 2, but Haymitch pretty clearly states that the stunt with the berries was a very dangerous thing to do, not just for Katniss but for her family, and Peeta and his family as well, due to the rebellious nature of it. Besides, the whole bit with the Gamekeeper was more so they didn't need to explain some things in the movie for book 2, since in book 1 you never actually see any of those scenes with him that were in the movie. It's all talked about after-the-fact in book 2. Same with the revolts in District 11, that actually isn't discussed at all until book 2.

Well, I should probably read book 2, then!

Spoiler:

by **cephalopod9** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:18 am UTC

Hawknc wrote:Volunteering makes pretty good sense when you consider it as a form of reality TV. A bunch of scared kids trying to stay away from each other? Not very good television. Participants who willingly sign up to put on a good show for the chance at a life of luxury for them and their families? Great television.

Yeah, it kinda surprises me the extent to which people don't seem to get the Capitals motives or means.

Spoiler:

I am impressed with how on point, and topical the story is.

A few things I was disappointed with. Way too much shaky cam.
I kept hoping they'd spend just a few moments on the other tributes. We only caught glimpses of them, and I know the film was really long as is, but 10 or 15 second on each one/pair would only add 3 or 4 minutes to the run-time.

by **Weeks** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:11 am UTC

I rewatched it in English and it was much better. Not sure I can blame the dubbers, but whatever.

Spoiler:

by **LaserGuy** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:59 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:I kept hoping they'd spend just a few moments on the other tributes. We only caught glimpses of them, and I know the film was really long as is, but 10 or 15 second on each one/pair would only add 3 or 4 minutes to the run-time.

Well, the way they were portrayed in the movie was fairly consistent with how they were in the book. You know basically nothing about them other than what Katniss observes when see spots them in the field, so you don't really have much of a sense of what their personalities are, or what they were doing for most of the event. Most of them she never speaks to, or even bothers to learn their names. I suppose they could have introduced them and given a bit of background, but probably whatever they would have done would have caused a furor among the fandom, I would think.

by **cephalopod9** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:42 am UTC

I think the movie had some opportunities to go above and beyond the book. I read the first book, and it was a good stry,in a decent, but sort of crudely written book, and I saw a lot of potential for a film to add depth and polish a lot of things. The film moved outside of Katniss point of view, and descriptions that would have been cumbersome, and out of place in the novel, could have been concise and less disruptive to the film.

It was a faithful adaptation, and there were a lot of things they did very well, but also quite a few places where I thought they stopped short.

Spoiler:

Although, by the time I went to see it, my expectations were set pretty low by the "lets have the actors talk directly to the audience about how they felt about making the movie" t.v. spots, which are almost always a bad sign. So the movie got to surprise me in a good way.

I kinda feel like they didn't quite know how to sell it. It is a little hard to categorize it (my dad keeps calling it a 'girl movie', sorta joking, he liked it) and pick out the strong selling points.

by **Zarq** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:46 pm UTC

What I don't get: why don't more people volunteer? There's a 1 in 24 chance of fame and glory, you'd expect there'd be at least a couple people training for that in the poor districts. Hell, in the 74 years it has been going on, there had to be at least 1 psycho in all of District 11 who'd volunteer just so he could kill people.

by **Weeks** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:53 pm UTC

Why District 11?

by **Zarq** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:55 pm UTC

That's the only one of which it is stated explicitly that there hadn't been any volunteers before Catniss.

by **gmalivuk** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:05 am UTC

Angua wrote:I'm not going to go out and buy the books to understand the movie better.

Fair enough, but at least acknowledge that it's the first part of a trilogy, and therefore you can't really expect closure at the end. So far a lot of your complaints sound like people who saw Fellowship of the Ring and got pissed at the end because we never find out whether Sam and Frodo make it.

Angua wrote:The Capital was trying to pretend it was semi-civilised and fair. I don't see how they can do that with 12 year olds fighting 18 year olds.

Rome considered itself more than semi-civilized, and yet gladiatorial fights to the death aren't something Suzanne Collins invented.

Zarq wrote:That's the only one of which it is stated explicitly that there hadn't been any volunteers before Catniss.

Katniss is from 12...

by **Weeks** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:19 am UTC

But the Romans didn't pick their gladiators from poor regions as tribute for their solidarity.

by **LaserGuy** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:28 am UTC

Zarq wrote:What I don't get: why don't more people volunteer? There's a 1 in 24 chance of fame and glory, you'd expect there'd be at least a couple people training for that in the poor districts. Hell, in the 74 years it has been going on, there had to be at least 1 psycho in all of District 11 who'd volunteer just so he could kill people.

Well, I think there's a lot of double standards going on between the Districts. Katniss, IIRC, mentions that she always has to hide her bow, because if she were to bring it into the village, the Peacekeepers would probably arrest her for attempting to incite violence or something. On the other hand, it's fairly clear that people in the more favoured Districts 1 and 2 must be allowed access to weapons, since they in fact do train their kids like how you describe, and have their 18 year old trained killers always volunteer (eg. Cato). While it's possible that somebody in District 11/12 could train in secret for the games and volunteer (arguably that's what Katniss was doing, although she didn't think of it that way), it's doubtful you could get an organized system in place. There's also the problem that people who are on the brink of starvation all the time probably don't have a lot of spare time to spend worrying about training.

I think it's somewhat clear from the story that, for whatever reason (I haven't read the next two books yet, so maybe this is explained later), the Capitol is rather intentionally screwing over Districts 11 and 12 at the expense of 1 and 2 in particular, and this is one more manifestation of that inequity.

by **Angua** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:02 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Fair enough, but at least acknowledge that it's the first part of a trilogy, and therefore you can't really expect closure at the end. So far a lot of your complaints sound like people who saw Fellowship of the Ring and got pissed at the end because we never find out whether Sam and Frodo make it.

You generally expect some sort of hintthat there was going to be a continuation of some sort at the end of a movie if it's meant to have sequels though - if you're not going to have that hint, then I expect some sort of closure. I had no idea that the hunger games was a trilogy until after I'd watched it, came back and read the threads on it here to figure out why on earth people liked the book so much.

edit - The thing is, if you just leave it that unfulfilling and people don't realise that you're going to be doing this stuff in the next installment, then it just falls flat (or at least, did for me). The movie ends like an actual ending - not like a semi-ending where you can tell that your heroine will rise again or whatever.

edit2 - What Weeks said about the fighting thing. They are giving justifications for these games that include solidarity and a semblance of fairness in the tributes - which I don't think can be justified with 12 year olds vs 18 year olds. It's not the gladitorial nature that I'm against per se, just the fact that it's in no way a fair fight (which you would have seen if I'd said that it would be better if everyone was 18 or something like that).

by **gmalivuk** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:23 pm UTC

Angua wrote:if you just leave it that unfulfilling and people don't realise that you're going to be doing this stuff in the next installment, then it just falls flat

This movie was a little bit too directed at people who'd already read the book(s), admittedly. But I would still argue that to some extent it's those people's own fault if they think the completely closureless ending is a final ending rather than a hint that there's more to follow.

by **Jesse** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

The fact it's not a fair fight is, arguably, part of the point. It's a representation of the districts rising up against the Capitol, so they should be reminded that violence isn't always a 'fair fight', and that if they rise up they'll be more Rue than Katniss.

by **maybeagnostic** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:01 pm UTC

Angua wrote:edit2 - What Weeks said about the fighting thing. They are giving justifications for these games that include solidarity and a semblance of fairness in the tributes - which I don't think can be justified with 12 year olds vs 18 year olds. It's not the gladitorial nature that I'm against per se, just the fact that it's in no way a fair fight (which you would have seen if I'd said that it would be better if everyone was 18 or something like that).

I haven't seen the movie yet but one of the big points of the first book was this disassociation between the Games (reality tv) and normal life for the citizens of the Capitol. Katniss has some really blunt observations about how the citizens of the Capitol adore her and Peeta but accept their participation in the Games as a given. In that sense 12-year-olds fighting 18-year-olds is horrifying but they still don't see it as something they are responsible for or can influence. It is so far removed from their own reality, they don't really see it as real.

by **Angua** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:18 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Angua wrote:if you just leave it that unfulfilling and people don't realise that you're going to be doing this stuff in the next installment, then it just falls flat
This movie was a little bit too directed at people who'd already read the book(s), admittedly. But I would still argue that to some extent it's those people's own fault if they think the completely closureless ending is a final ending rather than a hint that there's more to follow.

I took it as poor writing that they didn't give a very good ending, rather than the possibility that there might be another one which is going to be better. The people with me did as well. Thus, I felt it was a bad movie.

by **Yakk** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

I've read book 1, and a chapter or two of book 2, but have not seen the movie. This shouldn't contain spoilers beyond the movie:

Spoiler:

Meta-spoilers:

Spoiler:

Who is online