The Hunger Games

284 posts / 0 new
Last post
[QUOTE=fabulous788;300412]Anyone geared up to go see this? Because I know I am!!! I'm going at midnight. I've been hearing many great things about the movie, including it's one of the best book to movie adaptions people have seen in ages. Can't wait![/QUOTE] I am! Hopefully tickets don't sell out because I would rather not buy them online haha.
[QUOTE=gamer73;300419]I am! Hopefully tickets don't sell out because I would rather not buy them online haha.[/QUOTE] You can always go to the theater ahead of time and buy them there.
I'm a little sad this movie exists when it could have been another X-Men movie with Jennifer Lawrence instead. Also, how is this movie different/better than The Running Man?
[QUOTE=Aereas;300425]I'm a little sad this movie exists when it could have been another X-Men movie with Jennifer Lawrence instead. Also, how is this movie different/better than The Running Man?[/QUOTE] Nothing will ever be better than The Running Man. "I think the next kill will be made by...Ben Richards. He's one mean mother****er!"
According to Stephen Fishbach, Hunger Games [url=http://********.**.***/2012/03/20/stephen-fishbach-survivor/]is a lot like Survivor[/url]. Interesting read.
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
The whole concept is just a rip off of "The Lottery" but since "John Carter" is apparently going to be a $200 million loss for Disney, I suspect sci-fi type/futuristic adaptation movies will be pulled back from production for awhile.
[QUOTE=fabulous788;300412]Anyone geared up to go see this? Because I know I am!!! I'm going at midnight. I've been hearing many great things about the movie, including it's one of the best book to movie adaptions people have seen in ages. Can't wait![/QUOTE] Very much so. I was wondering when your obsession would begin... [QUOTE=fabulous788;300423]You can always go to the theater ahead of time and buy them there.[/QUOTE] I may just have to do this as I am dragging some of my friends (some by force, some willingly) along. Friday it is.
John Carter shouldn't have cost as much to make as it did. There was no reason for it to cost more to make than Avatar. I don't think sci-fi movies will be pulled back from production at all. The Hunger Games is going to crush at the box office and Prometheus looks very promising.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;300435][B]The whole concept is just a rip off of "The Lottery"[/B] but since "John Carter" is apparently going to be a $200 million loss for Disney, I suspect sci-fi type/futuristic adaptation movies will be pulled back from production for awhile.[/QUOTE] Maybe the first part with the Reaping, but certainly not the entire movie.
[QUOTE=TheFeedMachi;300437]John Carter shouldn't have cost as much to make as it did. There was no reason for it to cost more to make than Avatar. [/quote] Agreed. It was way out of the price range it could command for what I see as a limited appeal movie (based on the trailers that ran on a loop for weeks.) If only I had seen [URL="http://writerunderground.com/2012/02/25/what-john-carter-fans-know-that-disney-doesnt/"]the fan trailer[/URL] before I formed an opinion. [quote]I don't think sci-fi movies will be pulled back from production at all. The Hunger Games is going to crush at the box office and Prometheus looks very promising.[/QUOTE] I hadn't even heard of Hunger Games until this thread was started last fall, but from what I have read and seen I have a feeling it is going to be a huge hit. The buzz is that this will become the centerpiece cultural movie trilogy over the next few years (supplanting Harry Potter and that annoying one about sparkly vampires.) I'd even consider going to see it at the theater even though it does seem to be more geared toward a "tween" demo rather than an adult male demo.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;300435]The whole concept is just a rip off of "The Lottery" but since "John Carter" is apparently going to be a $200 million loss for Disney, I suspect sci-fi type/futuristic adaptation movies will be pulled back from production for awhile.[/QUOTE] Bull****. Its all a ripoff of either Battle Royale/Lord of the Flies which a way way better to be honest. I hope Peeta and Gale eventually bite the dust so the twilight comparison can stop.
[QUOTE=Nostalgic;300568]Bull****. Its all a ripoff of either Battle Royale/Lord of the Flies which a way way better to be honest. I hope Peeta and Gale eventually bite the dust so the twilight comparison can stop.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call it a ripoff. It's similar, sure, but it's still different at the same time. I hate when people compare it to Twilight, it's nothing like it. Twilight's main story is about love, whereas The Hunger Games is more about rebellion and hard times.
[QUOTE=Bella;300413]Why would the Twilight stars be banned from the event?[/QUOTE] They weren't banned from an event, they were banned from casting. The directors didn't want The Hunger Games to be associated with Twilight. [QUOTE] Actor Kellan Lutz, who plays Emmett Cullen in The Twilight Saga, has revealed that he was banned from auditioning for The Hunger Games. While attending Audi's Super Bowl party over the weekend, the 26-year-old actor admitted that he loved the Hunger Games script and really wanted to audition, but was snubbed because of his role in Twilight. The boss peeps over at Lionsgate/Summit Entertainment reportedly banned any "crossover" between the two franchises — including their cast. What a bummer![/QUOTE] [URL="http://dolly.ninemsn.com.au/dollywood/gossip/8416740/twilight-star-banned-from-the-hunger-games"]via[/URL]
So quick touch base post and my opinion on the film. I really liked the movie and I'm completely on board with the way they cast it now after seeing it. The major points that bugged me weren't the things they changed or left out from the book, but the shaky camera and horrible focusing at points got me. I couldn't shake that from my head at all. I'll keep quiet about what was changed/left out in case people don't want to know :D Overall a decent book to film adaptation and I want to see it again just to make sure it wasn't just that I was tired. B+
[QUOTE=fabulous788;300719]So quick touch base post and my opinion on the film. I really liked the movie and I'm completely on board with the way they cast it now after seeing it. The major points that bugged me weren't the things they changed or left out from the book, but the shaky camera and horrible focusing at points got me. I couldn't shake that from my head at all. I'll keep quiet about what was changed/left out in case people don't want to know :D Overall a decent book to film adaptation and I want to see it again just to make sure it wasn't just that I was tired. B+[/QUOTE] Alright Fabulous and others so I lied about it. I am schedule to see this movie today at either 11 am or 1 o clock. I heard its like 2 and a half hours so I'm hoping that I actually get my money's worth. Also I see reviews on GDNY that many people say that its a first in a long time where they stick to the content all the way through and don't change up anything. And I think thats whats cool about it. Can't wait for part 2.
It was great! I loved everything about it. It actually makes me want to read the book, and I'm not much of a reader lol.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/4z2SF.gif[/img]
LOL! I'm assuming there were a lot of shaky scenes in the movie? That's what I heard.
[QUOTE=Raymond21;300763]LOL! I'm assuming there were a lot of shaky scenes in the movie? That's what I heard.[/QUOTE] There was alot of shakiness, but mostly in the action scenes though, because i'm sure not alot of people wanna see children murdering each other.
[QUOTE=BillyBear231;300766]There was alot of shakiness, but mostly in the action scenes though, because i'm sure not alot of people wanna see children murdering each other.[/QUOTE] I beg to differ. Or there would be no Battle Royales, LOTFlies, etc. Besides this series is pretty weak where the book was not.
[QUOTE=Nostalgic;300770]I beg to differ. Or there would be no Battle Royales, [B]LOTFlies[/B], etc. Besides this series is pretty weak where the book was not.[/QUOTE] Really?
[QUOTE=fabulous788;300719]So quick touch base post and my opinion on the film. I really liked the movie and I'm completely on board with the way they cast it now after seeing it. The major points that bugged me weren't the things they changed or left out from the book, but the shaky camera and horrible focusing at points got me. I couldn't shake that from my head at all. I'll keep quiet about what was changed/left out in case people don't want to know :D Overall a decent book to film adaptation and I want to see it again just to make sure it wasn't just that I was tired. B+[/QUOTE] Idk, I was not a huge fan of the film, it was just ok for me, maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10. I haven't asked anyone who haven't read the book yet who watched the movie, but for some reason, I felt that if they hadn't read the book, they might have been lost as certain points that were not explained. I will have to ask around tho.... [QUOTE=Nostalgic;300721]Alright Fabulous and others so I lied about it. I am schedule to see this movie today at either 11 am or 1 o clock. I heard its like 2 and a half hours so I'm hoping that I actually get my money's worth. Also I see reviews on GDNY that many people say that its a first in a long time where they stick to the content all the way through and don't change up anything. And I think thats whats cool about it. Can't wait for part 2.[/QUOTE] Really, I didn't think it was that accurate. I actually understood that they had to leave out stuff, obviously, but they added some stuff too. Not sure how I feel about Cato's little speech. I have to agree that the cast was good. Rue's character- awesome. There were 1 or 2 scenes, well a couple lines actually where I didn't like Jennifer Lawrence's nor Hucherson's(sp?) acting, but for the rest of the movie, they nailed it I would say.
[QUOTE=cryssy19;300861][B]Idk, I was not a huge fan of the film, it was just ok for me, maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10. I haven't asked anyone who haven't read the book yet who watched the movie, but for some reason, I felt that if they hadn't read the book, they might have been lost as certain points that were not explained. I will have to ask around tho.... [/B] Really, I didn't think it was that accurate. I actually understood that they had to leave out stuff, obviously, but they added some stuff too. Not sure how I feel about Cato's little speech. I have to agree that the cast was good. Rue's character- awesome. There were 1 or 2 scenes, well a couple lines actually where I didn't like Jennifer Lawrence's nor Huchinson's(sp?) acting, but for the rest of the movie, they nailed it I would say.[/QUOTE] This is what my friend said about the movie (she had never read any of the books)... "A "Hunger Games" Virgin Analysis: Good movie!! BUT (here begins my critique!) they did not explain AT ALL what the significance of the 3 fingers raised hand gesture that they make after Katniss volunteers and after Rue dies. What's the significance of the Mockingjay? Why is it so important (other than how Katniss and Rue used them in the woods) and why does it bring protection? I think on the whole it lacked some depth...we enter into a world that is unknown and are expected to "connect" with it, which I did not immediately. The Wiki article on the plot of the book gives me more insight than the movie itself...the movie left me thinking that Katniss actually had feelings for Peeta and I'm a bit disappointed to find that the book (or at least the Wiki entry) seems to indicate otherwise!" I definitely agree with my friend the more that I think about it, and can see why people aren't feeling it. I personally liked it, but I know they could have done better.
[QUOTE=fabulous788;300864]This is what my friend said about the movie (she had never read any of the books)... "A "Hunger Games" Virgin Analysis: Good movie!! BUT (here begins my critique!) they did not explain AT ALL what the significance of the 3 fingers raised hand gesture that they make after Katniss volunteers and after Rue dies. What's the significance of the Mockingjay? Why is it so important (other than how Katniss and Rue used them in the woods) and why does it bring protection? I think on the whole it lacked some depth...we enter into a world that is unknown and are expected to "connect" with it, which I did not immediately. The Wiki article on the plot of the book gives me more insight than the movie itself...[B]the movie left me thinking that Katniss actually had feelings for Peeta[/B] and I'm a bit disappointed to find that the book (or at least the Wiki entry) seems to indicate otherwise!" I definitely agree with my friend the more that I think about it, and can see why people aren't feeling it. I personally liked it, but I know they could have done better.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I was more upset that it may have seemed kinda.... superficial to people who hadn't read the books. They didn't really go in depth with a lot of stuff. The movie, although it was a decent time, felt kind of rushed I feel. Totally agree with the bolded part, she was left looking like a love sick little girl who actually fell in love with Peeta, which may have been weird to a "Hunger Games virgin." [SPOILER]Plus I just feel like they are going to have a hard time explaining who Marge is, some other stuff and most importantly, they will have a hard time explaining why Katniss is so scarred from the Hunger Games and why it is so horrible for her to go in a second time. To a neutral audience, it was just a couple days' game that she won easily.[/SPOILER] I mean, she didn't even sweat, and barely had a mark on her when she ran through the woods etc. That made it kinda unrealistic and to me undermined the gruesomeness(?) and difficulty of the games. So I definitely understand where your friend is coming from. I would still advise anyone to read the books though.
I agree with Fab I give the movie a B+ The acting was great (Jennifer Lawrance is AMAZING!), but I had a few issues with the movie (mostly because I'm a book junkie, and read the series multiple of times). There were things I wish they explained more to the general audience, just so they could see how cruel the Capitol is! I miss Madge & the Avox storyline, and how the mutts were mutations (in my opinion) of the tributes that died. The violence in the book was also much more cruel, and gory in my opinion. I do understand that it's a PG-13 film, and that's why they couldn't show deadly scenes. I also felt like the CGI could have been a little bit better, and I assume they will with the next film since the budget will be higher (I assume, since the movie already made up for it's cost debuting with $155 Million in 3 days alone). I took into consideration that they had to keep the violence at a minimum, and there's only a certain time limit to translate the book into film. It's impossible to include everything! Plus, it's the first film. That's why I'm going to be considerate and give it a B+, but I have HIGH expectations for Catching Fire! Overall my friends that never read the books, actually loved it! I also liked it a lot, and plan on seeing it a second time this week, or next week. I hope that Lionsgate noticed they have a wider audience with this movie, and they don't cater it to young fan girls. Read an article the studio was surprised at the male attendance, and also people over the age of 25. Hopefully they include more action scenes on the next one, and also make it a little more adult oriented. By the way, by far the best scene was the bloodbath!! It gives me nightmares! It's the reason I'm wide awake now! Haha
[QUOTE=cryssy19;300870][SPOILER]Plus I just feel like they are going to have a hard time explaining who Marge is, some other stuff and most importantly, they will have a hard time explaining why Katniss is so scarred from the Hunger Games and why it is so horrible for her to go in a second time. To a neutral audience, it was just a couple days' game that she won easily.[/SPOILER] I mean, she didn't even sweat, and barely had a mark on her when she ran through the woods etc. That made it kinda unrealistic and to me undermined the gruesomeness(?) and difficulty of the games. So I definitely understand where your friend is coming from. I would still advise anyone to read the books though.[/QUOTE] My sentiments exactly, the whole thing was okay best nothing special. And at certain points was it rushed, I agree with Molds when she described the shakiness of it all. They needed to make this better, IMHO. Hell the only reason why this was PG-13 is because of VT and other school shootings which also affected as of right now why Neal Moritz placed the US!Battle Royale on hold. I can't wait to see part 2 to see if it measures up too. I have a feeling they'll pull a Twilight and call it, "The Hunger Games Saga: Catching Fire/Mockingjay". lol. [QUOTE=gamer73;300800]Really?[/QUOTE] Yes, really... [QUOTE=producer88;300889]I agree with Fab I give the movie a B+ The acting was great (Jennifer Lawrance is AMAZING!), The violence in the book was also much more cruel, and gory in my opinion. I do understand that it's a PG-13 film, and that's why they couldn't show deadly scenes. I also felt like the CGI could have been a little bit better, and I assume they will with the next film since the budget will be higher (I assume, since the movie already made up for it's cost debuting with $155 Million in 3 days alone). I took into consideration that they had to keep the violence at a minimum, and there's only a certain time limit to translate the book into film. It's impossible to include everything! Plus, it's the first film. That's why I'm going to be considerate and give it a B+, but I have HIGH expectations for Catching Fire! Overall my friends that never read the books, actually loved it! I also liked it a lot, and plan on seeing it a second time this week, or next week. I hope that Lionsgate noticed they have a wider audience with this movie, and they don't cater it to young fan girls. Read an article the studio was surprised at the male attendance, and also people over the age of 25. Hopefully they include more action scenes on the next one, and also make it a little more adult oriented. By the way, by far the best scene was the bloodbath!! It gives me nightmares! It's the reason I'm wide awake now! Haha[/QUOTE] You captured my exact thoughts to a T, Producer. *Dap all around* and yeah this just rasied the bar for Lionsgate films past TP flicks and Saw Movies. I guess we can surely say the made their (THG) money back. Caliente, indeed. And yeah the male attendance was awesome, so glad I was not one of the only males who attented the showing. And you're spot on about it not catering to young fan girls, which I was afraid of it might do, yet in actuality that's what it was when JL appeared on GMA last week.
I didn't read the books although my girlfriend did go out and buy the book after the movie lol. I enjoyed the movie very much and my only complaint is that much of the story is about kids killing kids. I know that isn't the whole premise of the movie but I just can't seem to get that out of my head.
[QUOTE=flyers014;300909] I enjoyed the movie very much and my only complaint is that much of the story is about kids killing kids. I know that isn't the whole premise of the movie but I just can't seem to get that out of my head.[/QUOTE] Its not the first or the last, I just wish people would see this and realize that.
[url=http://********.**.***/2012/03/28/the-hunger-games-never-read-the-book/]'The Hunger Games': Doc Jensen, Panem outsider, checks in | PopWatch | EW.com[/url] And this one as well... [url]http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20419951_20582206,00.html#21138881[/url]
[QUOTE=fabulous788;300571]I wouldn't call it a ripoff. It's similar, sure, but it's still different at the same time.[/QUOTE] [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13075][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/14f7368bb43173.jpg[/img][/url]

Pages