The Hunger Games

D.A.Lewis · Post by **D.A.Lewis** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:04 pm

Jag wrote:I guessing this may be too intense for my 8 year old, which is unfortunate since the rest of us really want to see it.

Would you take your kid to see Titanic 3-D?
Because I think Titanic is way way way more intense than Hunger Games

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:11 pm

My youngest isn't yet eight, and he thought it was terrific. Certainly by no means too intense.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:24 pm

Odin wrote:My youngest isn't yet eight, and he thought it was terrific. Certainly by no means too intense.

Hmm, you took a 8 year old to see this movie?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:49 pm

Some fans are disappointed.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:56 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Some fans are disappointed.

Ah, interesting how a "smattering" of tweets becomes "many" fans. I wish I could do the same with my "smattering" paycheck

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:56 pm

I liked it better when people were complaining she was too fat.

If the author doesn't end up publishing a profanity-laced press release over the race and fat issues, I'll be disappointed. I will also add "Write a book that is clearly about white people and then for the movie make them all Latino." to my bucket list.

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:13 pm

Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:My youngest isn't yet eight, and he thought it was terrific. Certainly by no means too intense.
Hmm, you took a 8 year old to see this movie?

Of course. I was there with him. He'd already read the book. There was nothing in it that concerned me before, during, or after.

MHS · Post by **MHS** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:38 pm

I had always pictured Rue and her male counterpart as black, I'm not sure why. The facebook comments in that article are disgusting. I did question the rioting scene when discussing it with Neal after seeing the movie. Why did it have to be the primarily black district that has riots after their tribute died? What were they trying to say there? Not trying to be all PC or look for trouble where there isn't any, but it took me out of the movie a bit, thinking about that.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:14 pm

I think I pictured Rue as a physically immature 12 year old blond girl, but I'm not sure. I don't really picture characters when I read books. I'm reading On Basilisk Station right now and can't conjure up a single image for any of the characters. Some might get vague features if the author describes them, but even then I tend to skip over physical descriptions unless important to the story.

I may be guilty of ignoring written description to supplant it with my white vision of the world. *shrug*. I do remember noting that some of the characters were olive coloured, which first made me think they were green

before I dismissed that idea. Heh.

So there are racists out there. Surprise! I don't see how that has anything to do with the movie or is even interesting outside of race relations studies.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:18 pm

The quick cut aways that the commercial shows at the start of the games really captured the feel of that moment in the book for me. I'm really looking forward to that scene actually. I think a visual of that scene will convey the adrenaline, fear and speed of that scene far better than the book did. Holy crap that must have been a pumped up time for the contestants. I've been in a lot of stressful, anxious, physically demanding situations with other athletes. You are almost high with adrenaline. The same situation with your life on the line would probably overload my circuits.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:23 pm

Odin wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Odin wrote:My youngest isn't yet eight, and he thought it was terrific. Certainly by no means too intense.
Hmm, you took a 8 year old to see this movie?
Of course. I was there with him. He'd already read the book. There was nothing in it that concerned me before, during, or after.

That's obvious

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:51 pm

MHS wrote:I had always pictured Rue and her male counterpart as black, I'm not sure why. The facebook comments in that article are disgusting. I did question the rioting scene when discussing it with Neal after seeing the movie. Why did it have to be the primarily black district that has riots after their tribute died? What were they trying to say there? Not trying to be all PC or look for trouble where there isn't any, but it took me out of the movie a bit, thinking about that.

I always pictured Rue as black also. I'm reasonably certain she was described that way. It looked to me (and my family) as if that was her father who started the riots, and their tribute was the only one who was treated kindly and with respect/dignity by another tribute. It was a compressed way of reflecting the unrest that was being caused in the districts by Katniss's behaviour. I see/saw nothing racial or inappropriate about it.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:04 pm

Wife and I saw it. First movie we've seen together in the theater in years.

I thought it was ok. I honestly expected it to be better, even though I'm usually pretty good about keeping my expectations reasonable.

As someone who doesn't normally even notice shakycam, what the fuck was the director thinking? Katniss is getting up in the morning, putting on her boots and walking to the meadow and you think this is a good time to use shaky cam? It was terrible. And shaky cam is the blair witch project. This was hire a victim of cerebal palsy as your camera man day. It was RIDICULOUS and completely unwarranted. It wasn't just that the center of the scene moved around slightly. The center of the scene flew off the screen sideways at times, fast enough to blur. Honestly, this is appropriate for someone walking quietly and calmly alone in the morning? Stupid.

I watched the riot closely to see if I could detect the racist overtones MHS brought to our attention, and quite frankly I probably wouldn't have noticed if she hadn't mentioned anything. The crowd was of mixed races, the hands tipping things over were a mix of colours. The only possible racial overtones were the moment when the riot started, but that was gone in a flash and it was the whole, multiracial district going nuts.

The actress might be a good actress, I have no idea. The number of scenes where she was required to act was about 3. Now this is probably not her fault, given the nature of the character she was playing, but I don't understand the accolades for her in this movie. She's stone faced, has limited meaningful dialogue and generally is part of the scenery for large portions of the movie. Now I understand this character is mostly internal dialogue in the book, but the director decided not go that direction, and replaced it with exactly nothing. I give her character and thus her representation of that character a big meh. She's cute at least.

Spoiler:

and it had nothing to do with her race. She's clearly out of her element. She's 12 going on 8 or 9 in the book. Her voice breaks, she tries to put on a brave face but she is very clearly a child put in an adult situation that she can't fully grasp. I had almost no connection to Rue in the movie. She just did not come across as someone who causes your heart to break JUST because she's put into the arena, let alone the events as the story plays out. It's ok though, I seriously suspected that they wouldn't be able to translate her well not because it's impossible, just because it takes skill from both the director and the actress and cinematic history is riddled with lots of attempts but few hits.

And WTF was Gale? He's supposed to be an older 18 to Katniss's 16 years old or so. He's definitely an older love interest, but the actor cast in his role looked like a full grown man. I get that 18 year olds can look mature, but this guy looked like an extra on Melrose Place. And because of that I found their relationship creepy as hell, not one side of a teenage love triangle.

The movie was a good effort, and I've only written about the things I didn't like, versus what I did, so this is coming across as more negative than I actually feel about the movie.

I give it a solid 7, maybe 7.5 out of 10.

My first reaction coming out of the theater was that of course there would be a sequel, but that I seriously, seriously doubt it would have anywhere near the hype and anticipation this movie had from the public. I don't feel the movie did the book justice (although it did try very hard and succeeded in places), and I never felt the books were works of art to begin with. It's a shame.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:12 pm

MHS wrote:I had always pictured Rue and her male counterpart as black, I'm not sure why. The facebook comments in that article are disgusting. I did question the rioting scene when discussing it with Neal after seeing the movie. Why did it have to be the primarily black district that has riots after their tribute died? What were they trying to say there? Not trying to be all PC or look for trouble where there isn't any, but it took me out of the movie a bit, thinking about that.

I was talking with my daughter last night and she said both her and my older daughter had always envisioned a few of the characters as being black.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:19 pm

Scuzz wrote:I was talking with my daughter last night and she said both her and my older daughter had always envisioned a few of the characters as being black.

With good reason. The author talks about skin colour many times in the book and she definitely covers the gamut of possible skin tones.

Bakhtosh · Post by **Bakhtosh** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:00 pm

I'm pretty sure both of the District 8 tributes were black in the book.

Dang, now I'm gonna have to re-read that part.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:22 pm

The article Fed linked includes the excerpt of Collins' description of both of those characters as being dark-skinned. Not exactly sure how anyone reading the article could have missed that.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:33 pm

Wasn't there a section in the book where she briefly talks about the people of the capital changing their skin color pretty regularly using cosmetics/surgery? For some reason I feel like one of the make-up people was an odd color (I picture orange in my head). Also, I'm serious and not messing with you. Thought I'd make that clear when I looked at the post and thought "quit fucking with me" on reading it. I loaned my copy out so I can not even check when I get home.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:38 pm

At least one of the prep team has modified skin that isn't a natural color. For residents of the Capital, exotic appearances are de rigueur. Everything is about entertainment, novelty, and status symbols.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:23 pm

silverjon wrote:At least one of the prep team has modified skin that isn't a natural color. For residents of the Capital, exotic appearances are de rigueur. Everything is about entertainment, novelty, and status symbols.

This is well protrayed in the movie, I felt. Reminds me a bit of 5th Element in that way.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:29 pm

I'm likely to end up in the theatre for this one, which is a rare experience for me, though I'm likely to hold off the date for at least another week or so.

At least I don't have to worry about spoilers.

miltonite · Post by **miltonite** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:43 pm

Remus West wrote:Wasn't there a section in the book where she briefly talks about the people of the capital changing their skin color pretty regularly using cosmetics/surgery? For some reason I feel like one of the make-up people was an odd color (I picture orange in my head). Also, I'm serious and not messing with you. Thought I'd make that clear when I looked at the post and thought "quit fucking with me" on reading it. I loaned my copy out so I can not even check when I get home.

Octavia (Katniss's prep team member) has green skin.

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:04 am

D.A.Lewis wrote:
Jag wrote:I guessing this may be too intense for my 8 year old, which is unfortunate since the rest of us really want to see it.
Would you take your kid to see Titanic 3-D?
Because I think Titanic is way way way more intense than Hunger Games

Been a loooong time since I seen Titanic, but I don't remember seeing any children dying in a very graphic manner. Also, don't remember seeing much blood in Titanic. So, at least on that level, I think Hunger Games is significantly more intense (violent, disturbing) than Titanic, even though a lot more people died in Titanic. Just my two cents though.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:35 am

Toe wrote:
D.A.Lewis wrote:
Jag wrote:I guessing this may be too intense for my 8 year old, which is unfortunate since the rest of us really want to see it.
Would you take your kid to see Titanic 3-D?
Because I think Titanic is way way way more intense than Hunger Games
Been a loooong time since I seen Titanic, but I don't remember seeing any children dying in a very graphic manner. Also, don't remember seeing much blood in Titanic. So, at least on that level, I think Hunger Games is significantly more intense (violent, disturbing) than Titanic, even though a lot more people died in Titanic. Just my two cents though.

There is the one scene with the old couple in their stateroom that just lie in bed as the water rises. Good luck explaining that one to the kids. If they make the connection to that and death by drowning then good luck getting them back in the bath or the pool

Peoux · Post by **Peoux** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:35 am

I hear Donald Trump is already trying to prove that Rue wasn't even BORN in Panem.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:26 am

I saw it last night at the Magnolia in Uptown. I thought it was pretty good, but as others have said, I probably wouldn't have really cared much about some of the characters if I hadn't already known the backstory.

Also, seeing a 2.5 hour movie on $17 wine bottle night at the Magnolia might be one of my poorer decisions.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:48 am

Fretmute wrote:I saw it last night at the Magnolia in Uptown. I thought it was pretty good, but as others have said, I probably wouldn't have really cared much about some of the characters if I hadn't already known the backstory.

Also, seeing a 2.5 hour movie on $17 wine bottle night at the Magnolia might be one of my poorer decisions.

But it shines in comparison to the decision to get a handjob from that transvestite in the bathroom after.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:51 am

GreenGoo wrote:The actress might be a good actress, I have no idea. The number of scenes where she was required to act was about 3. Now this is probably not her fault, given the nature of the character she was playing, but I don't understand the accolades for her in this movie. She's stone faced, has limited meaningful dialogue and generally is part of the scenery for large portions of the movie. Now I understand this character is mostly internal dialogue in the book, but the director decided not go that direction, and replaced it with exactly nothing. I give her character and thus her representation of that character a big meh. She's cute at least.

For me her acting worked brilliantly because I was never less than completely interested in what her character was going to do next. She is a cipher in the movie, that is due to some choices they made in adapting the book. She still managed to make the character work though, imo, because there was never a moment where I thought "I wish this movie was about THAT OTHER character instead". I've had plenty of those moments in other movies, that's usually due to a poor lead character, which is usually the fault of an actor not up to the task.

In a way, her character here is similar to a character like Ryan Gosling plays in Drive, the text is only going to give you so much, the actor and subtext give you the majority.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:51 am

GreenGoo wrote:
Fretmute wrote:I saw it last night at the Magnolia in Uptown. I thought it was pretty good, but as others have said, I probably wouldn't have really cared much about some of the characters if I hadn't already known the backstory.

Also, seeing a 2.5 hour movie on $17 wine bottle night at the Magnolia might be one of my poorer decisions.
But it shines in comparison to the decision to get a handjob from that transvestite in the bathroom after.

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:33 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Fretmute wrote:I saw it last night at the Magnolia in Uptown. I thought it was pretty good, but as others have said, I probably wouldn't have really cared much about some of the characters if I hadn't already known the backstory.

Also, seeing a 2.5 hour movie on $17 wine bottle night at the Magnolia might be one of my poorer decisions.
But it shines in comparison to the decision to get a handjob from that transvestite in the bathroom after.

A Hot Pocket for 20 cents is a steal any day of the week.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:50 pm

Fretmute wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Fretmute wrote:I saw it last night at the Magnolia in Uptown. I thought it was pretty good, but as others have said, I probably wouldn't have really cared much about some of the characters if I hadn't already known the backstory.

Also, seeing a 2.5 hour movie on $17 wine bottle night at the Magnolia might be one of my poorer decisions.
But it shines in comparison to the decision to get a handjob from that transvestite in the bathroom after.
A Hot Pocket for 20 cents is a steal any day of the week.

I think you sold yourself cheap. You probably could have held out for more.

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:27 pm

GreenGoo wrote:The actress might be a good actress, I have no idea. The number of scenes where she was required to act was about 3. Now this is probably not her fault, given the nature of the character she was playing, but I don't understand the accolades for her in this movie. She's stone faced, has limited meaningful dialogue and generally is part of the scenery for large portions of the movie. Now I understand this character is mostly internal dialogue in the book, but the director decided not go that direction, and replaced it with exactly nothing. I give her character and thus her representation of that character a big meh. She'

Yeah, I agree. I was not impressed with her performance, for largely the same reason. I never felt connected or really cared much about her in the movie (even though I have read the books and was sympathetic to her plight then). Which, as you pointed out, could be directly related to the lack of dialogue she had. She is an above-average actor for her age in my opinion though, just don't think the script gave her much to work with.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:01 am

Saw it. The race thing is bullshit. I thought the actress *was* too fat to play Katniss -- not because I demand hot slim actresses but because I pictured someone in that situation (scarce resources) who went hunting everyday to not look like they eat twinkies. It just made it more difficult for me to connect with her as the character. Several parts of the movie required the viewer to have read the book to get the full impact or understanding of what was going on. I spoke with some kids who hadn't read the books and proffered that the movie really sucked. I can understand why they'd say that.

The whole thing was just meh.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:54 am

Smutly wrote:Saw it. The race thing is bullshit. I thought the actress *was* too fat to play Katniss -- not because I demand hot slim actresses but because I pictured someone in that situation (scarce resources) who went hunting everyday to not look like they eat twinkies. It just made it more difficult for me to connect with her as the character. Several parts of the movie required the viewer to have read the book to get the full impact or understanding of what was going on. I spoke with some kids who hadn't read the books and proffered that the movie really sucked. I can understand why they'd say that.

The whole thing was just meh.

You're right. I was just thinking yesterday that she had some meat on her bones, which is my personal preference, and good for her. I wouldn't call her fat by any stretch of the imagination, but it was obvious she wasn't starving. While Katniss was made out to be doing better than the average person in District 12 due to her extra income from hunting, the impression was still that if she missed a day or two of hunting that she and her family would begin starving. For her character, she definitely needed to be far thinner. And perhaps not run quite so uncoordinatedly. The few times she ran the camera did not stay on her long, and that is part of it. She runs like a cool clique girl in high school. i.e. Not very well. Given that it's a skill that she needed to survive, I expected her to be better at it. I usually give these sorts of things a pass, and I did in this movie too, but it's something I noticed.

And speaking of shakycam misuse, one of the first times she draws a bow, the director makes a big deal about it. Camera angle here, camera angle there. Close up on her lips as she breathes out. Close up on her fingers as she draws back the string, etc, etc. The whole thing was supposed to give the impression of skill. The problem is, a skilled archer is not moving around all over the place. The shakycam gave the whole thing a dynamic, unstable appearance, when what the director should have been aiming for was complete, rock steady stillness. Complete focus and concentration. The scene he shot made it look like everything was all over the place, and that she hit her target despite her lack of skill. It really jumped out at me as terrible.

In a discussion with a co-worker about the movie, we came across many scenes where we both commented that without prior knowledge from the book certain scenes wouldn't make sense or at least wouldn't have seemed as significant. I consider that a sort of tribute to the book readers, but too much use of that sort of thing will leave non-readers in the dark, and that's not good either.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:25 am

Smutly wrote:Saw it. The race thing is bullshit. I thought the actress *was* too fat to play Katniss -- not because I demand hot slim actresses but because I pictured someone in that situation (scarce resources) who went hunting everyday to not look like they eat twinkies. It just made it more difficult for me to connect with her as the character.

What. The. Fuck.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:35 am

I can understand that. When I found out that they actually used a guy in a rubber suit to play Godzilla, I lost any sense of connection I might have had with the character.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:12 am

I'm not following. Everyone in the district was on the brink of starvation. Katniss and Gale were two people who were obviously not anywhere near starvation in the movie. In the book she specifically ate like a pig in the Capital to put on a few pounds in preparation for the Games.

The games are called the Hunger Games for a reason, I thought.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:32 am

About Katniss and how thin or "hungry" she should look. From The Hunger Games book:

Spoiler:

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:40 am

GreenGoo wrote:I'm not following. Everyone in the district was on the brink of starvation. Katniss and Gale were two people who were obviously not anywhere near starvation in the movie. In the book she specifically ate like a pig in the Capital to put on a few pounds in preparation for the Games.

The games are called the Hunger Games for a reason, I thought.

In chapter one of the book Gale and Katniss gather enough food for both families do some trading, and have a snack. Sure there was hunger and starvation, but those two in particular were fairly successful providers. Jennifer Lawrence is NOT fat. Sharp elbows maybe. Fat? nope. Google her; you'll need a bunk, and she could use a sandwich.

It's the round cheeks and jaw, it makes faces look more weighty than they are.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:05 am

raydude wrote:About Katniss and how thin or "hungry" she should look. From The Hunger Games book:
Spoiler:
I stand straight, and while I’m thin, I’m strong. The meat and plants from the woods combined with the exertion it took to get them have given me a healthier body than most of those I see around me.

If she's healthier than most of the tributes from OTHER districts then she probably stands out in District 12.

She doesn't look thin and strong in the movie though. She looks round (meaning curvey, not fat) and soft.

And Gale looks like someone who works out regularly.

Listen, I get that they eat better than others. They simply don't look any different from people living a somewhat normal life in North America. NA is not known for doing without.

I have no issue with how the actress looks. She just doesn't fit the physical profile of the character, that's all. And neither does Gale. This is not about her sex, it's about her appearance, and Gale's appearance as compared to their circumstances in the book.