Thread: The Hunger Games (Books/Movie) [Spoilers possible]

I havn't read the books or seen the film. But if you like the hunger games you'll definitly love Battle Royale. It's the same concept, a bunch of highschool aged kids brought together to kill eachother off, it was very popular in japan a decade ago. Except for in this, all of the kids know eachother, so it's much more personal. The book is the best novel I have ever read in my life I think. I'm sure if you've been reading about the hunger games, you've come across people talking about battle royale. I know a lot of fans of Battle Royale think this concept was copied in the hunger games, but I don't believe that anyone has any truly original ideas. So I'm not going to debate it at all.

I have heard of Battle Royal. I haven't watched it yet though.
I'm not sure if Battle Royal is like this, but the Hunger Games is much more than just teens killing each other in a battle field.

It encompasses themes of: love, betrayal, government control, will to live, power, struggle, our memories and minds, the subconscious, personality (inner strength or lack thereof), the government apparatus, secrets, lies, etc etc. It really is comprehensive.

You know what they call the Hunger Games in Europe? A Battle Royale with cheese =P

Was it just me or did they change the ending a bit for the movie? Weren't the dogs supposed to be the revived tributes?

also I didn't picture the cornicopia so... basic. lolpolygons.

Ya. The Movie left some stuff out. The way people died was a bit different in some cases. And yes, the muttations were supposed to have the eyes of the dead tributes.
Also, seneca crane was hanged in the book if I'm not mistaken, not left in a room with nightlock.

Still, an amazing movie and amazing acting performance. It grossed #5 top box office for an opening weekend if I'm not mistaken. Can't wait for the next movies!

Originally Posted by SaMaster14

It encompasses themes of: love, betrayal, government control, will to live, power, struggle, our memories and minds, the subconscious, personality (inner strength or lack thereof), the government apparatus, secrets, lies, etc etc. It really is comprehensive.

= All things Battle Royale has. Also I was mostly refering to the book Battle Royale, not the movie. The movie's good, but it's not in english, so it is tricky to follow, especially when your trying to keep track of all the characters in battle royale.

Also I'm a big fan of how the Japanese don't saturate all their stories with complicated love stories. Battle Royale has a lot of soul to it, but it never gets distracted from by two characters who begin to act all dramatic, illogical, or cold because they can't stand person A or person B who usually loves them, and they don't realize it until the end. I havn't read the hunger games, but I've read a bit about it's general themes. In Battle royale, you still have love, but it's much more subtle, and never distracts from the main story in my opinion.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm debating between books, I really have no right to do that, since I haven't read both.

Interesting. I had no idea Battle Royal was a book too. I'll be sure to read it.

Maybe I'm just a bit of a romantic and like how the love thing plays out in Hunger Games. I've never seem twilight, but I know that is just way over the top...

I loved the books a lot... But I absolutely hated the movie.

Originally Posted by SaMaster14

Interesting. I had no idea Battle Royal was a book too. I'll be sure to read it.

It's also a manga series, but its really screwed up (more so than Battle Royale is normally lol)

That manga was pretty crazy, I kind of liked that it was so "raw" though and brash. I never finished it though, kept getting distracted, perhaps someday I will.

Originally Posted by Solarflare

I loved the books a lot... But I absolutely hated the movie.

Why? Any particular reason? I thought the acting was superb, and the costume design and special effects were awesome.

The movie definitely left some things out and was much less explicit than the book, but they did that so younger kids could see it.

Originally Posted by SaMaster14

Why? Any particular reason? I thought the acting was superb, and the costume design and special effects were awesome.

The movie definitely left some things out and was much less explicit than the book, but they did that so younger kids could see it.

Everything just felt a little.... subpar compared to the book, like it didn't feel complete or something >_>

Originally Posted by Solarflare

Everything just felt a little.... subpar compared to the book, like it didn't feel complete or something >_>

Makes sense. I actually read the books after seeing the movie and then saw the movie again after. I definitely appreciated the movie more after I read the books, when I saw it first I was a bit confused. The movie obviously can't have everything in it, and it also can't be super explicit like the book because of the movie's target audience.

I can see why you would see it as rushed or incomplete. But I really enjoyed the acting and stuff. I also wasn't expecting much (I knew nothing about the trilogy and hadn't read the books), so I was pleasantly surprised.

I've read all three books and loved the movie. Most of my friends who have read the books as well didn't praise it as I did, in fact they didn't like it very much at all. People need to understand that the movie is not meant to be a visual word-for-word version of the book. I did feel like it only touched briefly on a lot of the main parts, and if I had not read the books in advance, I would have been really lost at some parts. But really, it's hard to transfer a whole novel into only 2 and a half hours.
The casting was okay, Katniss was pretty close to how I imagined her, and Peeta kind of grew on me.
Overall I loved it.
^___^

Originally Posted by SaMaster14

Makes sense. I actually read the books after seeing the movie and then saw the movie again after. I definitely appreciated the movie more after I read the books, when I saw it first I was a bit confused. The movie obviously can't have everything in it, and it also can't be super explicit like the book because of the movie's target audience.

I can see why you would see it as rushed or incomplete. But I really enjoyed the acting and stuff. I also wasn't expecting much (I knew nothing about the trilogy and hadn't read the books), so I was pleasantly surprised.

Yea, and it's not because its incomplete that I dislike it, its because it was... boring to say the least.

How will they make 'Mockingjay' PG-13? | PopWatch | EW.com

People who have read the books, is this true? I've just seen the first two movies and I thought they were great so I'm totally committed to seeing the conclusion. Is it going to be a soul-crushing downer of a movie?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

How will they make 'Mockingjay' PG-13? | PopWatch | EW.com

People who have read the books, is this true? I've just seen the first two movies and I thought they were great so I'm totally committed to seeing the conclusion. Is it going to be a soul-crushing downer of a movie?

This article has actually moved me to read the series now. I actually liked Hunger Games, it gripped me like I never expected it to. I know everyone claims it was an Americanized Battle Royale rip off and frankly I could give less shits because I still haven't seen or read Battle Royale. I'm sure when I do I'll think it was better, too. But I'm not going to be a stubborn little hipster and dismiss the emotionally gripping experience Hunger Games can serve you.

Catching Fire felt like the same old shit when I was hoping to get into a god damned revolt already. Maybe the book touched more on the revolt side of things but I wasn't looking at the movie to predict how the book differed, I just wanted a good movie and what Hunger Games hyped me up for was a good ole fashioned kill the atrocious government sequel. Instead it went back to the sporting event with slightly higher stakes, again promising the real revolution will come in the finale.

Hearing the SPOIULERS from that article actually makes me think that the epic revolution I was promised will finally be delivered, and moreso (at least in the book version) it won't be delivered as some childish, absolutist excuse of a pandering to our inner rebel like V for Vendetta or Equilibrium but may actually examine the naked truth of what it really means to challenge incumbent power when it's become as far reaching as ours.

Every dystopia ends in just a few ways. Either it ends hopelessly, like 1984 and Brave New World, or it coughs out some deus ex machina like Equilibrium and V for Vendetta, or it calls in an even higher and benevolent force of government like Robin Hood, Enemy of the State or Mission Impossible 3. When corruption has become all pervasive and untouchable, like Hunger Games showcases, the only other option I've seen in such a bleak atmosphere that ends on something even reminiscent of a high note can be found in the very bleakest of the bleak, Children of Men and The Road, where the very last drop of hope is that the film ends with the reminder that drops of hope continue to exist somewhere and somehow, no matter what. Children of Men ends with a living baby and a sighting of that ship, called exactly what the image points to: Road to Tomorrow. The Road ends with the son demanding to a family of strangers "Do you carry the fire?!" and an honest looking man, bewildered by the question answering affirmatively. Though he doesn't know what it means, his sincerity reveals his answer's authenticity. All you can really hope for, in times like those fictionalized, is for a few to carry the fire. Carrying the Fire, in fact, is a major theme of Walking Dead. If they'd ever read Manly Palmer Hall's Initiates of the Flame I'm sure they'd have alluded to it by now, as well. For he paraphrases in that book that through the bleakest of the dark ages and the dystopian rulership of an overreaching Catholic Church, still even then existed groups like the Rosicrucians, holding in secret the wisdom of the ancients and continuing to teach it through the passage of time.

I expected Hunger Games to end more like Equilibrium and V for Vendetta. I guess, according to the SPOIULERS from the article, there will at least be a cost.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Every dystopia ends in just a few ways. Either it ends hopelessly, like 1984 and Brave New World, or it coughs out some deus ex machina like Equilibrium and V for Vendetta, or it calls in an even higher and benevolent force of government like Robin Hood or Mission Impossible 3.

Or the the dystopia is violently overthrown. Or the dystopia just falls apart. (See: real life).

Sadly the actor who played Plutarch died today. He was very well suited to the part.

No spoilers, but yes, the 3rd book doesn't follow the same line as the others. It has a much more shadowy feeling to it, and imo, it was what made the story great. Can safely say Hunger Games would be a massive let-down (for my tastes) if it wasn't for the last book.

But in a way, you slowly realize that the perspective of the story unfolds throughout the 2nd book/movie: the "field of vision" widens beyond katniss compared to the first book, and thankfully it keeps raising the quality of the story.

Originally Posted by Xei

Or the the dystopia is violently overthrown. Or the dystopia just falls apart. (See: real life).

Sadly the actor who played Plutarch died today. He was very well suited to the part.

He was only 7 scenes from finishing so it's not too big a deal for the franchise. It's much more devastating toward all the really amazing films he would have been in we'll never get to see. At least he got to do things like the Master and Charlie Wilson's War before kicking the bucket. Heath Ledger was just barely proving his value for those types of films before he died.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Catching Fire felt like the same old shit when I was hoping to get into a god damned revolt already. Maybe the book touched more on the revolt side of things but I wasn't looking at the movie to predict how the book differed, I just wanted a good movie and what Hunger Games hyped me up for was a good ole fashioned kill the atrocious government sequel. Instead it went back to the sporting event with slightly higher stakes, again promising the real revolution will come in the finale.

Hearing the SPOIULERS from that article actually makes me think that the epic revolution I was promised will finally be delivered, and moreso (at least in the book version) it won't be delivered as some childish, absolutist excuse of a pandering to our inner rebel like V for Vendetta or Equilibrium but may actually examine the naked truth of what it really means to challenge incumbent power when it's become as far reaching as ours.

It's a very unpopular opinion in the fandom, but the third book is my favourite. I find it as realistic as a YA book can be when it comes to revolution/war. I found Catching Fire, the book, extremely annoying and, honestly, repetitive. I almost quit the series then. The film made it much more interesting, probably because of the amazing effects and cast.

The third book, however... SPOILERS





It deals with how even a revolution against a dystopian government is based on propaganda and, why not just come out and say it, lies too. It also deals with how a war can affect people. Katniss is seriously depressed for about 90% of the book. People complain about how boring that is, but I loved it. It felt real.





As for Battle Royale, I only saw the film. The concept was absolutely fascinating, but I didn't enjoy the story itself. Again, this is also a unpopular opinion.

No spoilers here...

director Francis Lawrence and Mockingjay producer Nina Jacobson also opened up about finishing Philip Seymour Hoffman's scenes after he tragically died from a heroine overdose during filming.

"We finished the majority of his work [before he died]," Lawrence said in the new interview. "I think he might have had 8 to 10 days left on our schedule. In most of the scenes, Philip didn't have any dialogue. We are going to put him into those scenes, but we're only using real footage. We're not creating anything digital or a robotic version of him."

Jacobson added, "We had to rewrite the dialogue scenes that he had left and there's no question that shooting those scenes is painful without him. We might give a line of Plutarch's to Haymitch or Effie, but only in circumstances that we are able to do that without undermining the intent of the scene."

I REALLY hated the first movie. The camera during fights, to obscure the violence, reminded me of someone tying a string to a camera and spinning it. The motivations of the characters were not there, and Katniss was boring, contrived, and a Mary Sue. Having her volunteer for her sister makes her a brave character. That I can work with, but having her being the best archer ever and the best fighter ever is just unbelieveable in the way the movie framed it. The convoluted love triangle that wasn't really one wasn't really that interesting either.

I haven't read the books, but the first one killed any interest for me.