f13.net

The books are better than I expected, now I'm looking forward to the movie(s) too.

The Hunger Games Theatrical Trailer (HQ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ87RdKsdEw)

Looks pretty decent, I wonder how much they'll have to play down the battle-royale elements to make it fly with the raters though.

edit: Jennifer Lawrence (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2225369/) who plays the lead was also Mystique in X-Men First Class, which she acted well I thought, so another promising touch.

Only finished the first book, thought it was ok.

This trailer looks better than I expected, may actually go see this with the wife.

What is there left to play down?  It looks pretty much exactly like Battle Royal.

Well, the bits where kids as young as 11 get violently killed. If you want to get a PG13 certificate, stuff like that will have to be cut.

Sacrificing the virgin to the dragon/witch/warlock/angry god I understand.
Why exactly is a modern looking (from the clip) society forcing its young people to fight to the death exactly? If for no other reason than simple brutal pleasure and entertainment?

If memory serves me right, it is some kind of punishment for the provinces the people come from ?

Pretty much.   The districts tried to revolt against the capital and were defeated.  Basically, as a giant fuck off we now own you, the terms of surrender mandated they were to send two 'tributes' to play in the games. 

It was a problem with "Battle Royale" as well. If I was a high school student in that universe, I wouldn't be going on any field trips, ever, just in case.

It's going to be interesting to see how they deal with this.  They can't flat out not have people die.  It'd be impossible to reconcile with the books.  

And, from the looks of it, they haven't particularly aged the actors.

I just read the books a couple of weeks ago and honestly, I was blown away. I get the impression they're actually going to film them and I'm really looking forward to the films.

Maybe the story translates better in the books.
 Because nothing says dont revolt again like ritualistically killing someone's kids once a year or so. Amirite?

So basically I was right though. The winners are doing it for entertainment.
I would automatically assume its going to fail horribly but it seems all of you liked the book. Guess I will have to wait and see.

I was reading some literary criticism of the books and it noted that young adult novels tend to have distopias and the distopias then to not make any sense. Their reading was that the details don't make as much difference. The distopia is an extended metaphor for adolescence.

I suspect it's going to be the huge franchise in the line of Potter and Twilight. Big improvement over Twilight, which is just Mormon abstinence porn. That's been it's vector in terms of the books. In terms of filming what is an extremely violent plot, I think it's another example that our long national nightmare of it taking a village to save the children is finally coming to an end.

As I recall, in Battle Royal, the idea behind the governments motives was to make it so that deep down, nobody in their society could ever trust one another.  Hammering in the fact that at any point, even your most trusted friend is capable of turning on you and killing you to save their own neck, will keep society more cowed and fearful.

Not sure how this one will potray it, but I liked that expination in terms of dystopian storytelling.

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength?

So, is this going to be another Twilight series?  I've seen a similar amount of hype and interest coming from the teenage girl/sexually repressed adult woman demographic that Twilight has, which, having not read the books, makes me think I'll be skipping this even though the premise sounds interesting.

I don't know if it will reach that level, but I wouldn't be dismayed if it did. It's a big improvement over Twilight. I've only read the first one though, the second and third I haven't because everything I've seen says the series peaks with the first.

What I know from Hunger Games, which I'll admit is not a lot, is "Mary-Sue has to choose between angelic beauty boy and impossible standards boy". The rest is, uhm, largely fancy framing, beyond the first book.

 :headscratch:

Doesn't sound very accurate. I can't even tell who you're referring to in your description.

Well, consulting Google tells me it's not entirely out there, although I probably got the cynical synopsis of a jaded boyfriend. :-P There's a love triangle that apparently takes up a lot of room and Katniss is... quite something.

Whatever the case is, it can't be as bad as Twilight.

Just finished reading these, and no, it's not even remotely Twilight.  I enjoyed all three books.  The weird banality of Twilight is pretty much non-existent.  Yeah, you have a teenaged girl torn between two guys, but for the most part it is handled decently, with minimal schlock, and it is actually woven in to the main narrative well.  Does she hem and haw a little too much at times?  Well, sure, but she IS a teenaged girl.  I've heard it happens to them from time to time.  Also, it's not eewww creepy the way Twilight is.

Katniss is definitely something, but considering her upbringing, and the setting, and the shit she goes through, and a


her behaviour becomes understandable.

I would ignore the criticisms of the second and third books.  Yeah, it does peak at the first book, but the series far from falls off a cliff afterwards.  The main flaw of the second book is that large parts of it are just re-hashes of the first, however it is still quite enjoyable.  As to the third, frankly, I don't get the criticism.  I was riveted the whole way through.

tl;dr - Seriously, NOT Twilight.  You can see why the Twilight demographic loves it, but it is actually, you know, good.

 

Alright, cool, I like what I'm seeing in the trailer looks but trailers can be extremely deceiving. Virtually any schlock that be made appealing through clever editing.

From what I understand the author of the book was largely involved in writing the script, I'm hoping that's a good sign.

They are claiming it will be very faithful to the book. Now that may mean different things to different people. I think LOTR and Harry Potter were largely faithful to the books, but there are frothing fanboys and fangirls who would tear me limb from limb for saying that.

Harry Potter and the first lotr film sure. The other 2 were dreck.

ENGAGE THREADJACK!

Heh. I only learned about this movie when I saw some toys in the local store based on the movie characters.
But the books sound neat. I'll put them on my to-read list.

The first two are grand reads, the third is pretty  :uhrr:

I just finished the third and the end of it was terrible.  I don't know if she had a deadline to meet or what but it just degrades into a complete mess imo.

The prerelease screening consensus from critics is 100% fresh at rottentomatoes, presently. And they managed to weasel it in to PG-13 by abusing how ridiculous the MPAA rules are. Good job.

How violent/Gorey is this?

From what I read, they cut out any graphic gore so it could get the pg13 rating, but still have all the teens murdering each other (so I imagine last second cut away's).

 :ye_gods: So much for seeing this ever...

(edit: wow, i fail at spoiler tags)

Possibly fake. But I was amused, and so shall you be.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1217291/Misc/Hunger-games-sold-out-fight-to-death-funny.jpg)

This is a very good movie, watch it.

Agreed, I wonder if this is partially a result of having the writer of the book so involved in the screen play and production?

But it makes me hope that if they do a third movie they will change it enough to make it actually good, unlike the third book.  :uhrr:

Maybe, but I doubt it.   I mean, wasnt the writer heavily involved in the movie production for Golden Compass, and that turned out to be complete shit compared to the book.

Is this in any way related to the Japanese movie Battle Royale?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/

It seems almost identical from the descriptions I am hearing.

I saw this on Saturday night. It's okay. It's nowhere near as good as people are saying. Lenny Kravitz was good. The rest of the movie was patchy.

The plot device for why children fight, rather than champions of any age, is inadequate. The portrayal of an elite society that enjoys watching children kill each other is kind of weak. And they have all this insanely advanced tech, but still use people with helmets and lamps to dig the coal their society needs.

Sitting in an audience of teenagers watching kids bloodily kill other kids is creepy. Any allegories were lost on them.

Hunger Games takes $155,000,000 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17507922) in opening weekend, breaks records set by previous teen-lit Twilight series.

John Carter takes $33,000,000 on opening weekend, looks set to be biggest flop of all time.

America. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Marketing. John Carter had nothing while the Hunger Games had months and months of hype.

Just saw it, its pretty good.  I really liked Woody Harrelson's character and Lenny Kravitz.  Some overly convenient deaths saved the main character from having to do anything too unpalatable, but overall I could excuse those as well as the absurdly unbalanced tech from the capitol to the districts.  

One scene where a lot of the young and weak kids die was pretty hard to watch though.

Edit to add:Battle Royale is better, I'll have to dig that up and rewatch that now.

Officially no, but it is a transparent rip off. Albeit a good transparent rip off.

I dont know.  Wasnt the entire motivation for the "battle royale" battle completely different from the one for the Hunger Games?  I mean, saying Hunger Games is a ripoff of Battle Royale is kind of like trying to say Star Wars is a rip-off of Star Treck (or vice versa) based on the fact that both involve starships and alien planets or something.

It's not what I'd call a 1:1 ripoff. Twilight is as much a ripoff of dracula....oh god, no it's not twilight...I'm so sorry....

The relationship between the Hunger Games and Battle Royale is much more specific than that. Whether it's a ripoff or not who knows, but it's pretty similar.

Reviews. I've seen several reviews of John Carter that really, really panned it. e.g. :  "John Carter is one of those films that is so stultifying, so oppressive and so mysteriously and interminably long that I felt as if someone had dragged me into the kitchen of my local Greggs, and was baking my head into the centre of a colossal cube of white bread."

I think all the reviews of Hunger Games I've seen have been positive. I don't put a vast amount of stock into reviews myself since my tastes frequently differ from reviewers, but plenty of people do, especially when going to the cinema is so expensive these days.

The thing is, I don't actually know anyone who went to see John Carter who didn't like it. Everyone I've spoken to who actually bothered really enjoyed it.

The reviews read like these people have seen an entirely different film. Even Mark Kermode, a man whose opinion I respect in general even if I don't always agree with, is completely off.
It comes across like some sort of planned assassination attempt, and it's truly baffling.

It's what the buzz was, so it's what they review.

I think the Hunger Games film is quite good, and I like the series as well. I'm getting really sick of the "it's just Battle Royale", because Battle Royale could just be said to be Lord of the Flies, or really any "most dangerous game" sort of story or trope.

What's good and specific about The Hunger Games is not "teens fight to the death", it's the extremely pointed and quite well-timed critique of our own social moment. The Hunger Games is 2012's The Grapes of Wrath. Folks who are all like, "Oh, the tech would be more evenly distributed" need to: a) read some history and b) travel a bit in the world we actually live in. And maybe c) listen to the world-building in the film/books that makes it clear that the technological deprivation of most of the districts is programmatic, deliberate oppression in retaliation for an insurrection 74 years ago. You can certainly say, "But that's a stupid society" and congratulations, you'd be getting one of the underlying points of the story. If you want to tell me that's definitionally unrealistic, you're really not paying as much attention as you should to actually existing human examples of similar stupidity past and present.

Battle Royale has some similar critiques going on, but the fascist society in that book/film is making a different point with its teen-killing competition, I think--largely that this is how you make a society where no one trusts anyone else in order to make them more dependent upon the state.

Can you really say this is true when the audience for this is largely teens and pre-teens who for the most part do not notice or care about any of this stuff?

The cynic in me says this is like a movie that claims to have a message about violence that is filled with violence shot in a super-cool fashion.

Just because those who find it most enjoyable miss the underlying message does not discredit the underlying message.  The books are clearly about repression.  The movie seems to have not abandoned that.  Some minority of viewers will get it.  That is how art/literature works.

Yup. I mean, early seasons of "The Simpsons" sometimes stuck it pretty hard to some sacred cows in American life, but I think some sizeable subset of its audience just saw "Funny sitcom with cartoon people" instead. Doesn't mean that the message won't sink in later. Heck, there were probably people who saw "The Grapes of Wrath" when it premiered and thought, "Them Joads is nice folks, shame about their troubles."

This movie was decidedly NOT filled with violence, much less than I had imagined knowing the premise going in.  The whole competition from cat's perspective is much more about surviving against the wild and predators than it is "rawr, blood, kill"

Yeah, that's certainly true. (Meaning: the last couple posts excluding Lakov's) But there are also plenty of things that purport to have some sort of message (or get one ascribed to them) that either do not have one or sabotage it.

For example I think many people would view Natural Born Killers that way. I personally view Starship Troopers that way, as well as A Clockwork Orange to some degree.

I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder. And whatever message Hunger games may or may not have has got to be better than Twilight's.

As far as the violence goes, I see a ton of people hoping for an unrated / R cut. Make of that what you may.

In the 2h30m runtime I think maybe 60min of that was the actual competition? Even then, you really don't see a lot of the killing which is surprising. I can see people wanting more blood but the movie had a lot more depth than I was expecting and I think the points the books are trying to make do come across.  It's hard not to see the sort of reality tv american idol aspect of our society in the movie.

Sure. the point is not that HG or Twilight lack messages, it's that one has a much more interesting and IMHO resonant-at-this-moment message. Twilight's messaging is in some ways better disguised, particularly the call-out to Mormonism. It takes a bit of willfulness not to see what The Hunger Games is saying.

Though I have been struck at how many people are into cosplaying as Katniss. HG is not a happy world--feels very different to me to embrace being Katniss than it does to embrace being a student at Hogwart's during the Harry Potter series, for all that both of their lives are filled with conflict and pain. Katniss is a great character (and very well acted in the film, in my view) but taking up the bow in the games doesn't even have the grim satisfaction that Maximus in "Gladiator" finds when he calls out the audience at the North African arena for their enjoyment of death and pain.

Because rangers are cheap. Takes skill to be a warrior.  :grin:

Saw it Sunday at an early matinee showing, the next time slot had a line stretching around the theater.

It was a good flick, no suspense for me, as having read the book the only interest was seeing what was added and subtracted. I wondered how they would handle video translation, seeing that the book (have not read volumes 2 & 3 yet) is entirely from Katniss perspective, and there is a lot of her figuring and ruminating, which serves to layout the world and storyline.

The violence was too sanitized, but that's what they had to do to earn a PG-13 rating. Still, you have to wonder about kids under high school age, how they could possibly process the metaphor and meaning of the tale. I saw some toddlers in the audience too, which baffled me.

Lots of silly reviews are trying to paint this as a tea party tale or left wing overture or even Christian homage -- over thinking it, though it is a commentary on contemporary "bread and circuses" -- a world with grotesque wealth holdings with most of the world existing at a subsistence level.

There is no effective conveying of social commentary in this movie. Yes, it's like our reality TV shows, but it doesn't say anything revolutionary about them or about our society. It's certainly not comparable to The Grapes of Wrath. It's not bad, but it's not a great film. Perhaps the book says more, but people who only see the film are watching children stab each other and a couple of bad kisses.

(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1hasanDUs1rqcceqo1_400.png)

More  :facepalm: to be had here (note there are significant story spoilers):

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

This makes more sense if you know that in certain circles, the dominance of the Districts by the Capitol was seen as a metaphor for civil rights and/or Reconstruction.  So, much as they flipped out over Heimdall being played by a black actor in Thor, they are seeing the casting of black actors for the sympathetic victims of the Hunger Games as a betrayal of what they saw as the "real message" of the book.

--Dave

EDIT: Here's an example (http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-hunger-games-america-s-hideous-destiny) of what I mean, almost certainly written before this "controversy" (VDare is only a little less open in their racism than Stormfront).  Any more than this, and we're heading straight for Politics.

I enjoyed the film, but the shaky-cam in the first thirty minutes almost made me literally ill. My daughter too; I thought we were going to have to leave the theater for a moment, but thankfully it smoothed out. I don't usually have problems with vertigo but we both were extremely affected. I left the theater with a slight headache.

Shaky-cam is the worst cinematographic technique ever. I know they were going for emotion, confusion, fear, etc., but try not to make me sick in the process? I've seen smoother video from a teenager waving around an iPod.

I'm surprised, not by the racism, but that people would be shocked and surprised that the District 11 tributes were black.  In the books, it was pretty heavily implied (though not explicitly explained as such) that the "agriculture district" had, if not an entirely black population, then at least a significant portion.  The feeling I got was Antebellum South minus the Antebellum.  It was one more way the Capitol exerted control over the districts, by dividing them along cultural and ethnic lines.

I agree. After reading reviews about the shaky-cam I decided not to see this movie. If I wanted shaky-cam I'd watch my dad's old home movies. When I go to a movie I go to see professionals at work not shaky-cam bullshit. It's why there is only 1 Bourne movie in my 'trilogy'.

As far as I can tell, only racists are surprised.

And I didn't even notice any shakycam.

Aside: I could never manage to watch NBK for those reasons you describe. But I didn't feel like that with the other two, so maybe it is a personal thing.

Also, NBK is not a good film.

Also, fuck Oliver Stone.

Yeah, NBK had a great soundtrack but was a complete cluster fuck as a film.

Just saw this. Thought it was strictly worse than Battle Royale or Running Man. Everything was way too convenient, the world wasn't nearly fleshed out enough (more on this), and there was way too much deus ex machina going on. I know the sponsor stuff was on purpose, but really?

So, the girlfriend has read the books, here are things I got wrong based on only seeing the movie:
1. I thought the capital was District 1.
2. I know In Time came after the books, but that terrible Justin Timberlake movie did a better job showing and explaining the differences between the districts (same setup as Hunger Games, except there was no capital, just a 1st District).
3. People were complaining about racism on Twitter, but I wanted to know why the only 2 relevant black people came from the same district and then that district was the only one that rioted. Was it Philadelphia? I don't get it. Why even show that shit?
4. The capital was just a pack of overfed, overdressed ponce nancies and other than having a police force, I couldn't actually figure out how they controlled the rest of, what was it, Pan Am?
5. Guy who did the screenplay, the director, and cinematographer had absolutely no skill when it came to establishing sympathy or even garnering any measure of hope for the characters.

6. As a side note, the trailer for Prometheus looked fucking amazing. And I know what I'll be seeing this summer, EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE: http://drafthouse.com/1982

1. This distinction didn't really matter to me, I figured the capital was district one myself but that it's not doesn't seem to matter.

2. Possible, I avoid Timberlake like the plague.

3. I don't think district 11's rioting had anything to do with the race, it was about an innocent young girl being killed for no good reason.  Maybe there's supposed to be some subtle context about black people already having taken a lot of shit but I didn't get it.

4.  So, just like real life?

5. Completely agree here, I think the direction was one of the weaker points but the actress who played katniss stood out to me in spite of direction.

6. Prometheus has my hopes WAY too high.

On 3 & 4, let's just say those are guns on the mantlepiece that get fired off in the sequels. District 11 is only the beginning. And yeah, as for how the Capitol keeps control? That's the whole point: its control rests on a knife's edge all the time, just like in tons of real life situations. "Power is a shadow on the wall", as they're saying over in Game of Thrones.

I know what happens in the next 2 books because I refused to believe they could possibly make sequels out of this.

Then I remembered Battle Royale 2 and that they clearly just want to make 3 movies out of those two.

I have a morbid curiosity to see the 3rd Hunger Games movie just because the 3rd book was mostly terrible.

In the book, everything is entirely from the perspective of Katniss -- so the movie interloped with president / game maker perspective, though I believe it (I have not read the 2nd and 3rd books) consistent with the story. That kind of explains #1 and #2 and confirms my thoughts that moviegoers who did not read the books would still not get the plot setup, despite the shift in perspective.

District #11 is the "agricultural" district, and presumed to be south / midwest, and thus the great "dark skin / brown eyes" population. It is absurd, that in a land ravaged by climate change, that this would be still be a region of food harvesting. But if only that was the extent of the plot setting absurdities…

It is "Panem", and is the Latin word for "bread".  I believe the entire tale is a twist on panem et circenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses). And the capital represents the overlords, with the districts subservient to their whims and needs.

Actually have seen the movie twice now, as the office took off last Friday en masse for a matinee showing. And the shaky camera was more annoying the 2nd time.

I remember thinking when district 11 started rioting, "Wow, those assholes didn't care until the adorable twelve-year-old who got killed was from their own district, huh?"  It would've sat better with me had a district that wasn't her home decided that enough was enough and brought the noise at that point.  Although if we're following any sort of common sense, the civil war would've been back on the moment some idiot told them, "Gee guys, we have this great idea, how about you let us murder your children every year?" so I guess I shouldn't nitpick that nobody else seemed to give a fuck about cute kids getting spears through their chests.

It also amused me how clean and Hollywood-groomed everyone was despite supposedly rolling around in a forest for days; back-home boyfriend in the starvation-wracked coal mining town had a perfect haircut the whole movie.

I still enjoyed the movie, but felt that Running Man was better.  Cheesy schlock and Ahnold, but immensely entertaining.

Again, that rioting is not in the book IIRC (perhaps it's a foreshadowing of books #2 and #3).


Yeah, it looks like the movie maker was going more for teen hunk heartthrob to pump up the teenybopper adoration meter.

Rioting isn't in the book, and the books make it clear that it's been going on once a year for something like 80 years. That's 80 rues. There's no real reason to riot over a single year. One thing the book lacked was perspective, and I didn't really like it (or the sequels). I haven't seen the movie yet. Probably won't until I don't have to pay for it.

You pretty much nailed my thoughts on the movie.  I felt like the film makers assumed people seeing their movie had also read the books, which I didn't, so it was confusing on what was going on and there was very little background info on why things were the way they were other than the little propaganda film shown before the draw in Dist. 12.  When I went to see the Harry Potter movies and, as horrible as it was, the first Twilight movie, I didn't feel like I missed anything by not reading the books.  I didn't feel that way about The Hunger Games.  The only character that was really fleshed out in the film was Woody Harrelson's.  Its not that the actors did a bad job, because they were mostly good, its just that I knew hardly anything about them and really didn't give a shit about any of them because of it.  Overall, I enjoyed John Carter a little more than this and if I had to choose, I watch that again over The Hunger Games.  I'm now officially indifferent as to my anticipation for the next movies in the series.

I just got back from watching this (go, go matinees!) and enjoyed it.  I'll definitely be reading the books because now I want to see what was different/left out/added/explained in more detail.  I didn't get the feeling I was missing a lot of backstory, although the explanations for why things are as they are was a bit thin, but that was also coming from those in charge.  History is written by the victors, after all.

The husband and I confused the hell out of the ticket-taker guy at the theater though, since we were obviously together but seeing different movies. He wanted to see Titanic 3D and I didn't, so Hunger Games it was. 

I...I just don't even know where to start with that.  :ye_gods:

It does have a happy ending.... Leo dies...

Well, when I asked him how the movie was, he did say the boat still sinks.  I think it was more to see how the 3D was than anything else and because he likes Titanic stuff in a historical sense. 

I thought the book had a good premise, though I thought the writing was shit and couldn't really enjoy it.

Figured the movie might do a better job telling the story, but I thought the movie was worse than the book. It's like a Twilight/Lord of the Flies hybrid for 15 year old girls.

Not sure where the Twilight comparison comes in.  I mean, Twilight was a vomit enducing teen-angst riddled mess passing itself off as some kind of great "romantic-find-true-love" adventure story, where as I don't get that in any way from Hunger Games.  Unless the second and third book take a severe left turn into wierd-romantic love triangles crap, the only thing even remotely "romance" like in Hunger Games was Peeta having a crush on Kat, and Kat having some feelings for whatever the guy's name is that she spends all of like 5 minutes of the movie with.

This movie was crap.

I have not read the books.  Went this weekend with the wife.  Yes, the story has some holes but I thought the movie explained what it had to explain well enough to support character sympathy and dramatic intensity.  I liked it quite a bit.  I liked the most recent MI more as a comparison, though.  It isn't as good as the box office might suggest.

Generally, anything based on books aimed at teens isn't of the best quality.  As much as I liked the Harry Potter series, it was way over rated and I don't think more has to be said how bad the Twilight movies are.  Same thing here.  Decent movie but nothing special.  And I enjoyed the last Mission Impossible a lot more as well.

Yeah, your husband needs to turn in his fucking man card.

Yeah.  I'll get right on letting him know a bunch of anonymous internet folks his wife talks to online are judging him for his taste in movies.  I'll get back to you on his reply.  :oh_i_see:

Gee, would you Sarge ?  I'd like that.

/SecureThatShit.

Nah he just wanted to see kate winslet in 3D!

It shouldn't take stereoscopic 3D and Kate Winslet's breasts to figure out what happens when you slam a boat made out of pot metal into a metric fuckton of ice.

Man, the list of shit that happened in April is fucking grim.  Unless you're a Mongol.  Or enjoy watching people die in chlorine gas attacks.

George Lucas, JJ Abrams and Michael Bay.....Present: Titanic SUPER 3D!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJxj1mou03M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJxj1mou03M)

Now with more monsters!

I still cant believe nobody has made a speclal edition with the Leo and Kate show cut out. I've nothing against them as actors but goddamit the movie would have been far better without them

Um ?

Wouldnt that kind of be like trying to do Romeo and Juliet without Romeo and Juliet?

You mean Romeo and Juliet without Leo and Claire?  :why_so_serious:

The entire Leo/Kate storyline made the movie unwatchable - except for the scene where she gets the girls out. Other than that, fast forward to the last 20 minutes to see the only interesting thing in the whole goddamn mess.

No it would be like a movie of Pearl Harbour without a stupid romance. The movie was called Titanic, not "Leo and Kate take a trip on some boat"

Titanic, still inspiring hate after more than a decade  :awesome_for_real:

At some point you have to let it go dude.

I'm more intrigued at the idea that they should just have done a film about the boat sinking.  There are other films that did that and they suck.

Dundee man lost at sea.

Inspiring.

(http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/203506d1334027466-funny-strange-random-pics-titanic_2a454d_2286943.jpg)

And then the captain was like "... to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee." and then the movie was over.  I was pissed, what the fuck was that?  I barely even got to see the whale.

I would watch a film where Titanic was sunk by the White Whale.

You saw the captain right?  :rimshot:

"... but at least we got to see over an hour of emotional heartrending romantic scenes from the 2 Tweenies on the boat. Can't wait to read how the love scenes were in the novel"

I havent even bitched about Celine Dion yet...

(http://www.captainandtennille.net/images/images-tonis-take/daryl_bdaycheck03.jpg)

Captain Smith loses his shit and rams Moby Dick.  I think that story needs to be told.

I think I saw that one... Star Trek II. It was AWESOME!

I thought they did a decent job following the books, but as has been mentioned earlier, I thought the direction of the movie was terrible. The shakycam was brutal, especially at the beginning of the movie. The wife, who hasn't read the books, liked it a lot more than I did, which surprised me as I thought the 'kids killing kids' would be a dealbreaker for her.

Wait, kids killing kids?

Go on... I am listening..  :awesome_for_real:

This movie is still steaming along at the box office. I may have to throw some money at it when it hits the discount theaters.

This movie was still crap.

Shakycam was dumb (kept giving me a BSG vibe for some reason), but overall I liked the movie.  Really liked Harrelson and Sutherland in their roles.  Loved the City 17 aesthetic at the beginning of the movie.

One thing I thought they did a bad job with plot-wise was setting up the importance of the food supplies.  I understand they had to cut a lot of the survival skills stuff out to tighten things up, but given that food and water were by all appearances very plentiful, the whole risky sabotage operation didn't make as much sense or have as much dramatic impact as it did in the book.

I enjoyed the movie.  The only complaint I had was they did a horrible job of giving you a good perspective of how society is set up.  I had to have my wife, who read the books, explain in better detail what the fuck was going on.

Just caught a late showing of this; wasn't really impressed. It just felt like a Battle Royale rip off for the Twilight generation. The shakycam shit was annoying, particularly after the wasp scene. I also didn't like the wanton conjuring of shit (fires, dogs, etc.) by the game masters; that ruined a lot of the immersion for me because it just seemed silly.

Right, not like most games we play--manipulative shit intended to produce certain patterns of gameplay never happens.

It was more that the technology seemed "magic" and a bit out of whack with the rest of the world as presented.  Especially the were-dog-things, which it looked like they had just designed in a CAD program on the fly and then brought to life via some kind of Star Trek replicator.  The book had the dog things but it was implied that they'd been created in a lab and then airlifted (or something) into the arena, not materialized out of thin fucking air.

The Capital has some pretty impressive cloaking tech, doesn't it?

Has Giant Holodeck, not solved poverty. Still use coal.

(http://i.imgur.com/3AeNk.jpg) (http://imgur.com/3AeNk)

Heh.

Saw this a few weeks ago.  It was ok.  Plot moved along at a decent pace and nothing really angered me.  But Battle Royal was much better. 

Nerd mode: 

Kids in this, despite being trained, where just walking around the forest making all sorts of noise and not acting tactical at all.  Or even trying to hide.  She should have been able to bow and arrow half those fuckers sitting on the cornucopia from the woods before they could do anything.  Not nearly enough visceral killing and hunting, and the sponsor system wasn't fleshed out well at all.  I haven't read the books, but I'm assuming it was used more.  I could see it being neat, where every contestant had a constant stream of random useful objects parachuted into them as rich spectators cheered and laughed (But again this is ruined by having the cornucopia, which gives one group everything).  As the movie ran, it was only used at exact moments to Deus Ex the main characters out of hard spots.  And again, the fighting/hunting/survival in general was just too low.  Also, too much teenage love/drama/bullshit (but I was prepared for that anyways, and even battle royal had a lot of that).

But hey, I liked the world and the build up in general.  Just had its flaws.  So overall, it was just Meh for me, which was sort of a let down since I was really hoping for some good fun.

I got the feeling that the training they got was not as super extensive as all that.  Remember, they only had about 3 weeks (?) of training, and it probably covered a huge range of topics.  Thats probably a lot for normal kids to absorb and apply in that short of a time. It is pretty obvious many of them did not really pick up on all the wilderness survival skills etc that they should have (or basic common sense things either, such as "dont light a giant ass fire in the middle of the night when 20 odd other people are out there waiting to kill you).

If anything, at least from what the movie tells us (havent read the books yet), they may have slightly underplayed the deadlyness of the "careers" from district 1 / 2 (was unclear how extensive their training pre-games was, but it was supposed to be years?), though to be fair the opening rush on the cornucopia did a fair job on that i think, as the D1 and 2 guys prob accounted for nearly all the fatalities generated there.

And sure, Kat could have probably gone all hawkeye on their asses once she got the bow, but they made it fairly obvious that she really wasnt mentally ready to start putting arrows into people at that point in the games.

The implication in the books is that the tributes from Sectors 1 and 2 are often trained prior to entering the tournament.

That was sin the movie too. Because, like, apparently those Sectors do not have to haul coal in burlap sacks all day, or something.

District 1 and 2 tend to be treated better by the Capitol and are also producers of stuff that is more valuable (I forget what offhand). Their citizens tend to be better fed/trained than those in other districts. The series of books makes it pretty clear that this is done, in part, to minimize the chances of revolution -- most districts are too poor and underfed to do much of anything but haul coal in burlap sacks.

District One produced all the high-tech stuff, and District Two supplied the bulk of the military/police.

--Dave

I thought 3 had the high tech stuff. Wasn't the

Looking it up, you were right.  District One produced luxury goods and entertainment, District 3 was electronics.

--Dave

From the movies, I got the impression that the districts were ranked in order of wealth/success/freedom from 1 to 12.

From the movie, with the way the Tributes from district 1 + 2 were described, I got the impression that they were intentionally trained from a fairly early age to be in the games and then intentionally "volunteered" for the games to represent their district, which was supposed to make them signifigantly more dangerous then the average tribute from the other districts.

Which also makes me wonder: if there is no rule saying that you can't volunteer, why wouldnt more districts do something similar?  I would think that intentionally prepping a small number of people and volunteering them for the games each year would be more productive then living with the constant dread of being randomly selected by lottery for 7 or so years of your life.

It has to do with how miserable life is in the poor Districts. Most people are on the edge of malnutrition in Katniss' District, for example. I don't think there's the surplus energy, resources or will to do that sort of thing. Not to mention that Districts 1 and 2 do it because that's the cost of Capitol's "favoring" of them--underneath it all, they don't like it any better, it's *their* kids. (Only one can live, so even if they win, they lose someone.)

RISE!

Finally got around to watching this on Netflix with the wife. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would, despite its many flaws. I am glad the initial slaughter at the start was as short and fuzzy as it was...I was still horrified by it. Large children killing smaller children  :cry:

I am going to have to read the books now so I have a better grasp on the background stuff. Thought the cast did a very good job overall. At first Harrelson (who I normally can take or leave as an actor) and his wig really bothered me, but later on I realized he sort of grew into the hair and the role. I was impressed by Kravitz as well, which is very hard for me to admit (since I LOATHE him and his music career). Haven't seen all of Jennifer Lawrence's work yet, but she has been great in the stuff I have seen.

Re-read the thread found the link about all the semi-literate racist mouthbreathing fuckheads. When Rue's character was introduced I remembered the article about it and mentioned it to my wife, who was baffled (as any sane person who doesn't spend much time sifting through the filth on the Internet would be). Now I am angry all over again, since I now 'know' the character and the actress.

Have I mentioned I didn't like this movie? Surprise, right?

I found it far too shallow. I really bugged my willing suspension of disbelief. Battle Royale is so so much better.

I don't get it.  Outside of a cute actress, this movie didn't have enough of anything to be worthy of a strong opinion one way or another.  I don't think it is even worth writing a full review about.  It is

I devoured the books in a week home with the parents and I was really excited about the movie, but I was also disappointed.  It seemed very rushed, even though it's not even that long of a book.  Also, if you wanna see J. Lawrence engaging in strenuous physical activity she looks hotter doing it in "Silver Linings Playbook"  :grin:

I, for one, enjoyed the movie far more than the book. The writing style (yes, I realize the intended audience is young adult) way too sophomoric and riddled with numerous plot absurdities.

I thought it was a fair adaption of the book.  Both were good, IMO, for what they are.  

I'm interested in how the next two movies turn out, because the books were fucking dreadful.  Book 3 was about as fun as colonoscopy prep.

I read all the books. The style grated on me the whole way as well. The second book in particular might as well not exist. As much as people didn't like 3 for going completely off the rails, two just seemed like a complete do over of book 1.

It felt to me like Jennifer Lawrence was asked to remain relatively emotionless so that they could add narration and use the Kuleshov_Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect) to make her look brilliant... and then somebody vetoed the narration at the last moment and they didn't have time to re-edit her scenes other than by cutting them. Most of the time she comes off as bored or slightly pissed rather than afraid, determined, or deeply moved. It's very hard to connect with her as a character.

Also the ending was terrible. Sure, the undead human/dog hybrids from the book are probably unfilmable... so better to cut them entirely than to make weird unexplained CG dogs. A simple confrontation with established characters would have had a lot more narrative weight.

The book is over-rated too, but at least it has a running inner monologue to make Katniss sympathetic.

Basically, the "children fight each other" theme is mostly a question of what you are trying to say either about: a) human beings or b) the society that supports children fighting each other.

In Lord of the Flies, since there isn't a society that is egging kids on, the statement is about human beings in general: that they will fight each other even as children if there are no rules. Basically Hobbes.

In Battle Royale, it's about "what if Japan gave into its fascistic tendencies?"

In Hunger Games, it's "This is where American society and its class politics is heading".

In part if you like any or all of these, it's because you find the message or argument at least interesting or valid and maybe think it's sharpened by presentation in a format where you feel a certain voyeuristic thrill in the narrative action of the combat or struggle even when you think you shouldn't.

Jennifer Lawrence didn't even look good in Hunger Games :( I had forgotten she was in it by the time I saw Silver Linings Playbook and she had become America's new Sweetheart.

She has a very unique facial bone structure which wasn't complemented by the super tight camera angles the director was partial to using. She is stealthily busty, so that made up for much of it  :grin:

Ain't that the truth.

(http://img.pandawhale.com/50409-Jennifer-Lawrence-boobs-gif-S4B0.gif)

~/ My eyes have seen the glory /~

Biggest problem I had with the movie was the casting on the male lead. I'm pretty sure we were supposed to believe that she fell for him during the course of events, but I couldn't get over the fact that he came across as a whiny douche with a Justin Bieber haircut. If the audience doesn't buy the romance between your leads, your movie has a problem.

To be fair, I barely bought the romance in the book either. It was pretty ham-fisted.

To continue to be fair, there wasn't meant to be any real romance in the books.  That was part of the 'conflict.'

Even by the end of the last book,

Love the books, loved the movie, can't wait for the next one. I love YA and NA in general though, particularly angsty first person stuff.

I thought we were supposed to believe she pretended to fall for him in order to get the audience onside, but secretly has the hots for that jerk she was hanging with at the start.

I guess the problem is terrible acting competing with terrible plotting. Oh well.

Yeah....this.  I think they come out and literally say that she has no real feelings of romance for blondie at all aside from on camera stuff.  There are a couple scenes after the games end that demonstrate this as well.

Well now, that is no longer stealthy.

I just wanted to post that pic again. WOW.

THEY'RE COMING RIGHT FOR US!  :grin:

I rather like a more stoic performance. It's certainly part of my problem with the new Star Trek movies, where Spock is a Vulcan supressing his emotions except when he's FREAKING THE FUCK OUT! Which he seems to manage at least once per movie to let us know he's simmering with logical angst.

Everything Wrong With The Hunger Games In 3 Minutes Or Less

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn0LXWaPxnQ

That video makes me want to sign somethings...

That's not your pen....

--Dave

Amazing how talent and a great body can overcome an average face.

Is this movie out on video now?  I've never seen it.

 :geezer:

Should be. It is streaming on Netflix, which generally means it is available on physical media. I would imagine it would be hitting the pay cable channels sometime soon as well.

:)

I laughed.  Jerks.

Hey, I knew exactly what you meant and didn't even think about it.

Soooo old.

At least he didn't say "VHS" like some folks I know still do.

Then again I know guys who didn't own DVD players until 3 years ago. Kentucky is weird.

My mother skipped DVD completely, she got by with her VHS until my daughter moved in with her and brought her media player.  She was surprised to find out there were about a hundred movies and a couple of hundred TV episodes in a box the size of a hardcover book (my daughter got my old media player from a few years back, half a terabyte but a fairly large case).

--Dave

Less nerd talk more pics of Jennifer Lawrence.   :awesome_for_real:

(http://images.sugarscape.com/userfiles/image/AAAAAJULY2013/LINDS/Week1/3Weds/tumblr_inline_molrddNWGH1qz4rgp.gif)

I love the expressions of the people around her, especially whoever that is sitting beside her.

It does make me curious about what was happening.  Everyone else seems to be either shocked, annoyed, or freaked out about whatever is going on.  I only watched this gif about forty or fifty times before noticing it, but it's there!

We saw your boobs! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTKEDXNQAcc)

BWAHAHAHAHA, that makes the gif even better.

You all are going to laugh at me, but I never new Seth voiced so many of his characters.

Although he can be kinda lazy about his jokes and gags in Family Guy, that man is pretty damn talented.

Just a further side note to that gif and the McFarlane song, the Jennifer Lawrence reaction (and the other actresses) were recorded specifically for the Oscar telecast or taken from other award reaction shots. Also the bit was supposedly cleared with most of those mentioned beforehand.

On Hunger Games news, the second movie is supposed to have nudity (although I still have doubts >hint PG13) but it's going to be Jena Malone and not Jennifer Lawrence.

Saw the new sequel today.  A little better than the first but I still don't see what the big deal is about this series.  Also, why are all those black folks in the same agricultural district?  In the future, have they all been reduced to being sharecroppers?

How many fascist post-apocalyptic governments do you know that are also racially sensitive?

Ya, thought having all the black folks in the "cotton picking district" was a bit on the nose, but overall I enjoyed it. I think the stuff in the arena is the least interesting part of the whole thing.   

Some thoughts....

As others have said, Lawrence, and pretty much the whole cast, are great.

But this film badly needs about 30 minutes off the running time, mostly from the arena section. The interminable period between meeting the guy with the obvious solution and Katniss working out what to do was fucking painful. Espeicially given the 'Bond meets Q' scene earlier in the film.

Still found it difficult to accept the premise of the games. Given how much time Snow gets as some Machiavellian super politician, his plans are fucking stupid. PSH's plans are also stupid, and the film is flabby enough that you have time to realise how stupid along the way. Editing could have fixed this.

Anyway, aside from the editing, pretty good, and better than the first one. I came out of HG1 rooting for president Snow.

Snow's plans may be written badly in the script but damn Sutherland can be menacing.

Really?  I never find him menacing.  He just looks perpetually frustrated to me. 

In the first movie he came across to me as pretty smart, and frustrated that the people around him were fucking idiots.

This time he did menacing well enough with Katniss, and managed to sound smart while proposing something idiotic.

I haven't read the books so the ending was a small surprise, though they telegraphed something was going on.  I feel like the book must have had more from other perspectives, though.  Of course, that would have dragged the movie down.  And just as I thought PSH was a good guy, he spins the water wheel thing which seemed really risky given the eventual reveal.

Tempted again to read the books but I am sure that will pass again.

All three books are written entirely from the perspective of Katniss.  The third book in particular is a muddled mess because of it.

Funny enough my friend who has read the books said the PSH part at the party was way more telegraphed in the books.  Crazy because I thought the movie was pretty heavy handed about it.

In the movie it was heavy handed only because PSH chose to chew scenery, for a hack author to do that in a novel needed more lines.

Spinning the wheel was a daft risk, but only 1% as daft as putting her in there in the first place, where even with 60% of the tributes on her side, the odds were against her survival. Given the reveal, engineering a revolution on the tour would have been the logical approach. The plot doesn't stand scrutiny, other stuff about the film is pretty good, but the plot makes no sense whatsoever.

Though I think the 3rd book is a mess, I always assumed that

I didn't watch the first movie, but did read the first book way after the fact. And I didn't read book 2 and 3 but I wiki'ed and plan to see the last two movies because the girlfriend likes this series. Personally after watching my first hunger games movie and having a pretty good idea where the third film is going....

This is literally a middle of the road film. Nothing I really liked. Nothing I really hated. I came out nodding. I'm not looking forward to the third one but will end up watching it anyway....

Actually 2 more. They broke up the 3rd book into two movies.

That seems to be the standard play these days. See Harry Potter and Twilight.

My suffering will be immense....

The the last third of the third book is an author in over their head and under a deadline cranking out crap.  If they split the last book in half, that means the third movie will have a great buildup, and then the fourth will just *suck*.

--Dave

There is at least one event late in the 3rd book that I thought was really ballsy that makes Katniss' character work really well, but if it gets drawn out as a plot element, it's going to suck big time.

Since even the most hardcore fans of the books say the third is by far the weakest, I can't imagine the movies not getting a bit of a re-write when it comes down to those parts.

I suspect they say it is the weakest because they didn't like the ending. The particular message of the series is not something violence loving Americans want to hear.

I don't think it's the ending, at least not all of it. The plot is just a mess.

It's just an awful book and completely falls apart about half way through.  Has nothing to do with the message.

It reads like a first draft. It has a lot of stuff that seems to go nowhere in particular and it overall feels rough and disjointed.

I actually quite like the ending.

Why doesn't the author just re-write the shit?  The publisher could re-sell the new edition.  Fans would appreciate it.  Why the hell not?

Fans would appreciate it? Yeah, the rabid fanbase who might consider buying another edition usually respond real well to editing of the canon.

While they are at it, the publishers should get a rewrite done on the Two Towers, maybe give George Lucas another go at Empire Strikes Back.

Maybe let Han shoot first or have a CGI Jabba the Hutt...

Saw this last night, really enjoyed it. It did go a bit longer than I expected, but was reasonably satisfied with the ending. Glad PSH was a good guy, since I have a hetero mancrush on him  :grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbDcnUH6rOc

"I just sharted.  I tried to fart and shit came out."