It isn't our world today Brandon. It's in a world of a totalitarian government with propaganda to the nth degree. These people have been raised from birth to want to compete in these games and win, it's different. If you've ever read 1984, it's like the children in the book being raised to turn in their parents to the thought police as they are trained in school 24/7. Completely different time and place.
It's like suicide bombers (well, almost) Its what they were born and raised to think that it's all okay. Think about it, their ability to judge right from wrong has really been limited.
I would have just liked to have seen more about this. More development. Maybe I would need to read the books to "get it" better, but as an "outsider" a lot of it was very hard for me to swallow.
You really should! They are fantastic and quick reads.
They are trained from birth and volunteer for the games (even if they aren't picked) ... So it's logical that they would have a sort of bloodlust about them.
Still find it hard to believe that they would deliberately toss a spear at an unarmed 9-11 year old girl.
She was 12, the youngest someone can be reaped. And again, Cato speech explained it. They are brainwashed. Raised to believe that they need to win the Hunger Games and bring honor to their Districts.
It's not like it doesn't damage their psyche, either. We see how Cato had that breakdown at the end.
It's like suicide bombers (well, almost) Its what they were born and raised to think that it's all okay. Think about it, their ability to judge right from wrong has really been limited.
I would have just liked to have seen more about this. More development. Maybe I would need to read the books to "get it" better, but as an "outsider" a lot of it was very hard for me to swallow.
You really should! They are fantastic and quick reads.
Battle Royale is faaar more intense, violent, provoking, controversial than The Hunger Games.
Pretty much. It's far superior and daring.
And they aren't similar, so no point in bringing it up in this thread.
In the future, the Japanese government captures a class of ninth-grade students and forces them to kill each other under the revolutionary "Battle Royale" act. Forty-two students, three days, one deserted Island: welcome to Battle Royale. A group of ninth-grade students from a Japanese high school have been forced by legislation to compete in a Battle Royale. The students are each given a bag with a randomly selected weapon and a few rations of food and water and sent off to kill each other in a no-holds-barred (with a few minor rules) game to the death, which means that the students have three days to kill each other until one survives--or they all die.
She was 12, the youngest someone can be reaped. And again, Cato speech explained it. They are brainwashed. Raised to believe that they need to win the Hunger Games and bring honor to their Districts.
It's not like it doesn't damage their psyche, either. We see how Cato had that breakdown at the end.
That's cool then. I just didn't really get a feel for it during the movie, and the bad writing and bad technical aspects were making it even more jarring. Again, this is why I think a new director would be good. I just didn't like what Ross did here. I felt like there's some neat ideas going on; as many problems as I had with the story, I don't think it's a bad story, just one that needs a better story teller.
The thing is that, good or bad, I wanted this franchise to have a foundation, which it could build to be better with each film. Now, without Ross, they have to make everything from scratch. Changing screenwriter and now director, next it will be director of photography, composer, production designer, etc.
Battle Royale and The Hunger Games might not have the same background, but they definitely are similar. Both is about kids inside an Arena killing each other till one survives. So... It IS similar. There's no denying.
You really should! They are fantastic and quick reads.
I'm sure! Maybe if I like the new name that they attach to the next one, it will prompt me to read them. I went into the theater thinking that this could be the next cool thing for me to obsess about for a few years so I certainly did not walk in with some agenda to dislike it.
Battle Royale is faaar more intense, violent, provoking, controversial than The Hunger Games.
Pretty much. It's far superior and daring.
And they aren't similar, so no point in bringing it up in this thread.
In the future, the Japanese government captures a class of ninth-grade students and forces them to kill each other under the revolutionary "Battle Royale" act. Forty-two students, three days, one deserted Island: welcome to Battle Royale. A group of ninth-grade students from a Japanese high school have been forced by legislation to compete in a Battle Royale. The students are each given a bag with a randomly selected weapon and a few rations of food and water and sent off to kill each other in a no-holds-barred (with a few minor rules) game to the death, which means that the students have three days to kill each other until one survives--or they all die.
But never mind. Moving on.
The book/movie focuses on the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students, like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
Battle Royale is faaar more intense, violent, provoking, controversial than The Hunger Games.
Pretty much. It's far superior and daring.
And they aren't similar, so no point in bringing it up in this thread.
In the future, the Japanese government captures a class of ninth-grade students and forces them to kill each other under the revolutionary "Battle Royale" act. Forty-two students, three days, one deserted Island: welcome to Battle Royale. A group of ninth-grade students from a Japanese high school have been forced by legislation to compete in a Battle Royale. The students are each given a bag with a randomly selected weapon and a few rations of food and water and sent off to kill each other in a no-holds-barred (with a few minor rules) game to the death, which means that the students have three days to kill each other until one survives--or they all die.
But never mind. Moving on.
The book/movie focuses one the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students. Like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
Not have the same background, but they definitely are similar.
Battle Royale is faaar more intense, violent, provoking, controversial than The Hunger Games.
Pretty much. It's far superior and daring.
And they aren't similar, so no point in bringing it up in this thread.
In the future, the Japanese government captures a class of ninth-grade students and forces them to kill each other under the revolutionary "Battle Royale" act. Forty-two students, three days, one deserted Island: welcome to Battle Royale. A group of ninth-grade students from a Japanese high school have been forced by legislation to compete in a Battle Royale. The students are each given a bag with a randomly selected weapon and a few rations of food and water and sent off to kill each other in a no-holds-barred (with a few minor rules) game to the death, which means that the students have three days to kill each other until one survives--or they all die.
But never mind. Moving on.
The book/movie focuses one the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students. Like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
Not have the same background, but they definitely are similar.
But yeah,moving on.
The fact it's kids killing kids, sure. But other than that, no.
The book/movie focuses on the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students, like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
This obviously happens in the second book. While the first book have clues of that, it certainly focus on the games. After all, it is called The Hunger Games.
No, because the book and movie are pretty similar.
Well, the book has the advantage of not having poor technical aspects. Unless its horribly written, which would be just as bad, but what I have read of it suggests that its aptly written.
Probably not, being the epic hater of all things that I am.
I mean, if you really did hate the entire story, then you probably won't like it of course haha... But if it was more to do with the film-making and lack of details, then I'd say give it a try! You might be pleasantly surprised by the books.
No, because the book and movie are pretty similar.
Well, the book has the advantage of not having poor technical aspects. Unless its horribly written, which would be just as bad, but what I have read of it suggests that its aptly written.
It's not as well written as some books, but the characterization and storytelling is amazing (IMO).
The book/movie focuses on the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students, like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
This obviously happens in the second book. While the first book have clues of that, it certainly focus on the games. After all, it is called The Hunger Games.
I'd actually consider the games as backdrop to her growing 'rebellion' against the Capitol.
I mean, if you really did hate the entire story, then you probably won't like it of course haha... But if it was more to do with the film-making and lack of details, then I'd say give it a try! You might be pleasantly surprised by the books.
I did think the plot was kind of empty and had no real point or any twists -- or any kind of interesting hook or cliffhanger -- but yes my primary problems were most definitely with the actual filmmaking aspects.
The book/movie focuses on the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students, like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
This obviously happens in the second book. While the first book have clues of that, it certainly focus on the games. After all, it is called The Hunger Games.
I'd actually consider the games as backdrop to her growing 'rebellion' against the Capitol.
The book/movie focuses on the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students, like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
This obviously happens in the second book. While the first book have clues of that, it certainly focus on the games. After all, it is called The Hunger Games.
I'd actually consider the games as backdrop to her growing 'rebellion' against the Capitol.
Well. But this is obvious, I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying that to understand the rebellion, you have to experience the games. So, of course, the set up of the first book are the games, and not the rebellion itself.
I'm not sure how a new director could make Hunger Games feel disjointed. The first movie didn't have a visual identity, hell the cinematography and style was just all over the place, as well as the art direction.
Yeah, not seeing that. It's not like the first movie was well shot or anything. Everything about it visually was incredibly mediocre, from the camerawork, to the lackluster framing, to the shaky cam that is there to try and capture grit but fails miserably because there's no focus to it, etc. Bringing in a new director can only take the movies up from here.
I'm not sure how a new director could make Hunger Games feel disjointed. The first movie didn't have a visual identity, hell the cinematography and style was just all over the place, as well as the art direction.
Yeah, not seeing that. It's not like the first movie was well shot or anything. Everything about it visually was incredibly mediocre, from the camerawork, to the lackluster framing, to the shaky cam that is there to try and capture grit but fails miserably because there's no focus to it, etc. Bringing in a new director can only take the movies up from here.
The book/movie focuses on the way the kids react to their situation. Follows different students, like a character study. Hunger Games is about the revolution. How Katniss is igniting a spark in the districts.
So yeah, move on.
This obviously happens in the second book. While the first book have clues of that, it certainly focus on the games. After all, it is called The Hunger Games.
I'd actually consider the games as backdrop to her growing 'rebellion' against the Capitol.
Well. But this is obvious, I'm not questioning that. I'm just saying that to understand the rebellion, you have to experience the games. So, of course, the set up of the first book are the games, and not the rebellion itself.
I know. I'm just saying they can't be compared, as the games in both books are meant for different things.
I'm not sure how a new director could make Hunger Games feel disjointed. The first movie didn't have a visual identity, hell the cinematography and style was just all over the place, as well as the art direction.
Yeah, not seeing that. It's not like the first movie was well shot or anything. Everything about it visually was incredibly mediocre, from the camerawork, to the lackluster framing, to the shaky cam that is there to try and capture grit but fails miserably because there's no focus to it, etc. Bringing in a new director can only take the movies up from here.
I agree.
Me too;
I disagree.... muahahahahah! lol
(I honestly don't feel like arguing it though. I respect your opinions)
I'm not sure how a new director could make Hunger Games feel disjointed. The first movie didn't have a visual identity, hell the cinematography and style was just all over the place, as well as the art direction.
Yeah, not seeing that. It's not like the first movie was well shot or anything. Everything about it visually was incredibly mediocre, from the camerawork, to the lackluster framing, to the shaky cam that is there to try and capture grit but fails miserably because there's no focus to it, etc. Bringing in a new director can only take the movies up from here.
Serious questions, can someone explain the following to me:
-you have these districts surrounding this super futuristic society so advanced that they can create whatever they want to in a virtual reality space, but there's no way that they can, like, share? -about the virtual reality stuff, is that explained in the books, how they can just create whatever in the computers and apply it to the arena?
It just seemed weird and forced to me in the movie. When they created those dogs in the computers I was just like... wat
THG is the only story (besides Watchmen) where I prefer poor technicals, but still made with hard work and respectful to the source material, that a movie with great technical work but made with no heart and no love for the material. Though both don't have anything bad in the technical area other than the shakycam (made just for the pg-13).
Serious question, can someone explain the following to me:
-you have these districts surrounding this super futuristic society so advanced that they can create whatever they want to in a virtual reality space, but there's no way that they can, like, share? -about the virtual reality stuff, is that explained in the books, how they can just create whatever in the computers and apply it to the arena?
It just seemed weird and forced to me in the movies. When they created those dogs in the computers I was just like... wat
Like many totalitarian governments throughout history, they control the people out of fear and oppression. The capitol pretty much uses the districts to get what they want while keeping the spark of rebellion under wraps.
And the technical specifics of the arena are not explained in the books, but why would you want it to be? It's a futuristic advanced society that has far superior technology to what we have now. That's a good enough explanation to me.
Serious questions, can someone explain the following to me:
-you have these districts surrounding this super futuristic society so advanced that they can create whatever they want to in a virtual reality space, but there's no way that they can, like, share? -about the virtual reality stuff, is that explained in the books, how they can just create whatever in the computers and apply it to the arena?
It just seemed weird and forced to me in the movie. When they created those dogs in the computers I was just like... wat
-Because the District are there to serve the Capitol, not indulge in the Capitol's luxury. It's a dictatorship.
-That window scene and how the dogs are created digitally was movie canon. It's not like that in the book.
I'm a little disappointed at this announcement, but I've sort of been expecting it ever since the negotiations these past few weeks. I still don't see why they feel the need to fix something that wasn't quite broken, but I'm warming up to the idea of a new director. I suppose a fresher, newer take on the Games would avoid repetition because the book was seriously repetitive. Hopefully they don't deviate too much from Ross' vision, however, because it's hard to do that with a trilogy. It worked with Potter because of the sheer mass of the series; there were so many volumes and every few films the tone and setting needed to drastically change (POA, HBP, etc.) and so I'm not completely disappointed. There's definitely still hope.
So, that basically confirms that in this story, everyone running the government is a complete asshole.
For me, that's one of the flaws of the saga. The villains are purely unidimensional characters.
I mean it's fine if that's what the author wanted in her book, but like you said, I mean you'd just think that some people may have a problem with this. I just found the entire thing to be very forced, like all this horrible shit is happening to people, but no one seems to care. Like there's no reason for any of it, it just "is." It would be one thing if this stuff were explained better or if what we saw in the film justified everything that was happening, but hardly any of it was.
Comments
Yeah its sad but that just shows how brutal ppl are and what theyd do to stay alive.
It's not like it doesn't damage their psyche, either. We see how Cato had that breakdown at the end.
Mysterious thing time.
But never mind. Moving on.
Mysterious thing time.
Mysterious thing time.
So yeah, move on.
But yeah,moving on.
Mysterious thing time.
So enough on that.
THATS IT lol.
Mysterious thing time.
(I honestly don't feel like arguing it though. I respect your opinions)
We met at traffic school, you had crashed your car and we were so happy to meet the teacher kicked us out and we took pics and posted it on HPF.
It was epic and this is a true story. Youre the first HPF member Ive dreamt of (I think) lol.
-you have these districts surrounding this super futuristic society so advanced that they can create whatever they want to in a virtual reality space, but there's no way that they can, like, share?
-about the virtual reality stuff, is that explained in the books, how they can just create whatever in the computers and apply it to the arena?
It just seemed weird and forced to me in the movie. When they created those dogs in the computers I was just like... wat
And the technical specifics of the arena are not explained in the books, but why would you want it to be? It's a futuristic advanced society that has far superior technology to what we have now. That's a good enough explanation to me.
-That window scene and how the dogs are created digitally was movie canon. It's not like that in the book.