The Hunger Games

[azsportsfan01]

It was decent. I didn't mind most of the changes because you can't directly adapt a book to movie unless you have 10 hours. The pin would have taken a few minutes of scene time to an already long movie. Not worth the time.

The only change that really annoyed me was Cato already being on the cornucopia and the introductions of the mutant dogs. Wouldn't have taken any more time to set that up right.

 

[Shane]

It was decent. I didn't mind most of the changes because you can't directly adapt a book to movie unless you have 10 hours. The pin would have taken a few minutes of scene time to an already long movie. Not worth the time.

The only change that really annoyed me was Cato already being on the cornucopia and the introductions of the mutant dogs. Wouldn't have taken any more time to set that up right.

They in no way shape or form had to change how rue was killed either. In fact it would have made the movie a tad shorter. Plus the book says nothing about uprisings when she laid flowers around on her body. But the movie portrayed that there were.

 

[Griffin]

Haven't seen it yet. But the soundtrack is excellent. Very unexpected for this type of movie.

 

[azsportsfan01]

They in no way shape or form had to change how rue was killed either. In fact it would have made the movie a tad shorter. Plus the book says nothing about uprisings when she laid flowers around on her body. But the movie portrayed that there were.

The uprisings were stupid, but how Rue died didn't bother me too much. Her death was supposed to be an emotional event for Katniss and I think they got that part right. I don't like changes but this is one I could overlook since they got the emotion right.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

You guys are terrible with spoilers btw.

 

[Stout]

You guys are terrible with spoilers btw.

That's why I never read the movie thread after it releases, until I've seen the movie already.

 

[thirty-two]

Wish there was more characterization, but I understand it's hard to fit all the book into a movie. That said, I really enjoyed it.

 

[Cheesebeef]

i thought it was solid and want to see where the sequel goes. for a guy who's pretty critical... after a 2.5 hour movie, I'd say that's mission accomplished.

 

[Shane]

Wish there was more characterization, but I understand it's hard to fit all the book into a movie. That said, I really enjoyed it.

Was a lot more than just characterization that I had a problem with.

 

[Stout]

i thought it was solid and want to see where the sequel goes. for a guy who's pretty critical... after a 2.5 hour movie, I'd say that's mission accomplished.

What is your opinion on shaky camera work, cheese? And it's horrific overuse, like in the Huger Games?

 

[crisper57]

What is your opinion on shaky camera work, cheese? And it's horrific overuse, like in the Huger Games?

As someone who hates this technique, I can still understand why they did that. They frenetic camera work covered up the graphic nature of the violence, while still conveying a sense of chaos. That way they could keep it PG-13 and still target the book's original audience.

A hard R version of the movie would be interesting, because in this case, the brutality of those scenes underscores just how vile the Capitol really is. To cut away in the movie, when the characters observing the violence can't, undercuts the message to me. Still, you knew they had to make it PG-13, so I give the director credit for working his magic within that constraint.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I liked it. Didn't read the book.

 

[BigRedRage]

You guys are terrible with spoilers btw.

ive been scrolling fast when i see people detail anything = P

 

[Cheesebeef]

What is your opinion on shaky camera work, cheese? And it's horrific overuse, like in the Huger Games?

that was my biggest gripe with Hunger Games. The action was shot pretty poorly.

i didn't mind it in the Bourne movies... seemed to fit there. But here it seemed like it was used simply as a way to obscure violence and fit the movie into a PG-13 rating instead of possibly R.

 

[Stout]

As someone who hates this technique, I can still understand why they did that. They frenetic camera work covered up the graphic nature of the violence, while still conveying a sense of chaos. That way they could keep it PG-13 and still target the book's original audience.

A hard R version of the movie would be interesting, because in this case, the brutality of those scenes underscores just how vile the Capitol really is. To cut away in the movie, when the characters observing the violence can't, undercuts the message to me. Still, you knew they had to make it PG-13, so I give the director credit for working his magic within that constraint.

No reason to use shaky camera when she's eating, or hugging her sister, or frickin' WALKING.

that was my biggest gripe with Hunger Games. The action was shot pretty poorly.

i didn't mind it in the Bourne movies... seemed to fit there. But here it seemed like it was used simply as a way to obscure violence and fit the movie into a PG-13 rating instead of possibly R.

I certainly minded it in the Bourne movies, because it never fits anywhere, outside of perhaps the moments after explosions and similar events. Filmmakers for decades tried to get the camera to stay still, and now we purposely make crap. Ugh.

 

[ajcardfan]

i haven't read the books and saw it yesterday. I'd say it was slightly above average, I didn't mind laying down the money it took for my whole familly, plus one of their friends, to see it in the theaters.

THANK GOD, it was much, much better than the awful first Twilight movie. That's what I comparing it to, since pressure from my pre-teen to young teen daughters is really the only reason I went to see either one.

 

[AzStevenCal]

i haven't read the books and saw it yesterday. I'd say it was slightly above average, I didn't mind laying down the money it took for my whole familly, plus one of their friends, to see it in the theaters.

THANK GOD, it was much, much better than the awful first Twilight movie. That's what I comparing it to, since pressure from my pre-teen to young teen daughters is really the only reason I went to see either one.

I've read the Twilight books and watched the first three movies and I've read Hunger Games. Twilight is clearly aimed at the young teen female although the books come closer to appealing to a mainstream audience than the movies do. Hunger Games is also written for young adults but at no time does it feel that way. It's just an incredibly well written book that should be appreciated by just about everyone. I'm not sure what my point is relative to your comment other than I'm not surprised the movie was less annoying than the first Twilight movie.

Steve

 

[Stout]

I've read the Twilight books and watched the first three movies and I've read Hunger Games. Twilight is clearly aimed at the young teen female although the books come closer to appealing to a mainstream audience than the movies do. Hunger Games is also written for young adults but at no time does it feel that way. It's just an incredibly well written book that should be appreciated by just about everyone. I'm not sure what my point is relative to your comment other than I'm not surprised the movie was less annoying than the first Twilight movie.

Steve

Well, I wouldn't say it was incredibly well written. The writing was good, a little above average, but nothing to write home about. Twilight, on the other hand, was just plain garbage writing. I finished the book in about two hours because there was nothing in it--it was all fluff.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Well, I wouldn't say it was incredibly well written. The writing was good, a little above average, but nothing to write home about. Twilight, on the other hand, was just plain garbage writing. I finished the book in about two hours because there was nothing in it--it was all fluff.

I was mesmerized by her ability to tell a story in such a simple and straightforward manner. She knew her audience, brought them in quickly and kept them on the edge of their seat from beginning to end. IMO, a typical author (if there is such a thing) would have needed a lot more words to tell that same story. Perhaps, instead of "incredibly well-written", I should have said her style was remarkable but considering her targeted readers, I don't think "incredibly well written" is that far off.

Steve

 

[Gaddabout]

I've neither read the books nor seen this movie (or read this thread). I just want to know how similar it is to Logan's Run, and if I have these books/this movie to blame for the purported remake in production.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I've neither read the books nor seen this movie (or read this thread). I just want to know how similar it is to Logan's Run, and if I have these books/this movie to blame for the purported remake in production.

It's nothing like Logan's Run. Also, hasn't there been a purported remake of LR for the past 20 years or so? I don't know who to blame for the latest remake threat but my money would be on Hollywood itself.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

It's nothing like Logan's Run. Also, hasn't there been a purported remake of LR for the past 20 years or so? I don't know who to blame for the latest remake threat but my money would be on Hollywood itself.

Steve

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402344/

 

[jw7]

Ok I just finished the book a day ago and it is really fresh in my mind... This movie was complete garbage.. That is all.

Disagree. I liked it, but I read the book over a year ago so it is not as fresh in my mind. Good movie 7/10 if you haven't read it, but I can see a lower rating if you just read the book.

Wish there was more characterization, but I understand it's hard to fit all the book into a movie. That said, I really enjoyed it.

Agree. 2:22 is a long movie, but it kept my interest. The books are much better but it seemed like a trade off for character development (lacking) and plot (I think they hit the key plot points pretty well) Could not pack that all in in 2 hours.

I'll probably get it on DVD and watch again.

I didn't mind the shaky camera. It kind of captured the mood of the book. Best shaky camera scene of all time was the first 10 mins of "Saving Private Ryan" This was not comparable, but OK for me.

Someone should start a thread on what movies were better than the book. I can think of 2 off the top of my head. This was not one of them but still very enjoyable.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

The movie blows...the first thirty minutes of stupid shaky camera work that seemed to be shot by a director with parkinsons really pissed me off. THE ACTING WAS marginal mostly due to a flat script IMO. I NEVER read the book and will not be watching the sequel.

 

[thirty-two]

Saw it again, liked it even more the second time around. The shaky camera didn't bother me as much as the first time around. I will probably buy this movie when it comes out.