The Hunger Games

[DailyRich]

In that sense, it felt a lot like the last two Harry Potter films, which seemed to exist solely to show moments from the book people who'd read it would remember without really involving anyone who hadn't. I'm sure Citta giving Katniss the mocking jay pin was a huge squee moment for fans of the books, but my thought was, "Okay, why should I care about this? Because you haven't made me."

[Gumboot]

So many problems with the entire premise. If this has been going on for 75 years, why isn't every district training their children to survive this thing instead of sitting around hoping they don't get picked? If volunteers are allowed, why doesn't every district offer up trained, fit 18-year olds instead of taking the chance some poor 12-year old gets picked at random?

You're talking about Nash Equilibrium, but as the Prisoner's Dilemma shows us, large groups of people very seldom enter the equilibrium because they don't perceive it as in their interest. Or to put it more succinctly; because people are selfish.

Second to this, in a place where the slightest sign of martial behaviour is seen as a sign of rebellion, where exactly are they supposed to train children to be fighters? How do people who are struggling to survive from day to day find time (or the expertise) to train expert warriors?

If this is the television spectacle it's depicted to be, why are any of the tributes remotely surprised by anything they encounter, since it seems like every step of the process is documented by dozens of cameras?

Seeing something on TV and seeing it and experiencing it for yourself are quite different things, believe me. It's also obvious from the film that the process isn't documented every step of the way; rather there's the reaping, then the presentation at the Capitol, then a set-piece media event (the interviews) and the next time we see them is the Arena.

It just feels like Collins hit on the "teens as gladiators" idea and didn't fully think through the implications. Now, if this had been the story of the very first Hunger Games, all those problems go away. But then you'd lose the reality TV aspect that she seems insistent on including.

I got the impression the first story is nothing more than a set up.

Another issue is that Katniss never really has to make any hard moral choices. The tributes she kills are clearly portrayed a psychopathic bad guys. She's never forced into the decision to kill someone who's just as terrified as she is or be killed herself. It's all just too neat and neutered for something that's supposedly such a vicious blood sport.

I kind of think that's the point... although I disagree on the lack of moral choices. I think she had to make a tonne of hard moral choices, they just didn't relate to killing people.

And what's with films these days thinking they have to hold our hands? We get the opening title cards that explain how the Hunger Games came about, then we go to the interview with Wes Bentley further explaining them, then we go to District 12 and eventually the propaganda video explaining the Games again. Why not keep us in the dark? Why not have us wondering what it is everyone is getting so worked up about? Why not have the moment Sutherland appears on-screen explaining the Games be when we realize what's about to happen to these kids? That's effective filmmaking. What they did her was just fan-service.

I'm guessing because the games aren't meant to be a twist or a surprise. Everyone in the entire country knows exactly what they are, and lives in dread of them. The mood is one of growing impending doom. It doesn't make any sense at all to make the entire thing a surprise.

[Gumboot]

A lot of the issues you raise were addressed in the book but you are right to complain. One of the main shortcomings of the movie IMO is that it didn't get across a lot of important things from the book!

I saw the film before I read the books, and to be honest I didn't feel like the books added any important crucial information (although they did add lots of interesting little details), and in some ways undermined the film.

For example, one of the single most powerful moments in the film was the three-finger salute gesture, which in the film was implied to be some sort of gesture of rebellion against the Capitol.

Katniss' deliberate gesture of defiance and solidarity with the people of District 11 (resulting in the riots) was the best moment in the film.

So you can imagine my enormous disappoint when I read the book only to discover that in the context of the book it's merely a gesture of affection used at funerals, and that Katniss made it to Rue, not the people of District 11.

[DailyRich]

Second to this, in a place where the slightest sign of martial behaviour is seen as a sign of rebellion, where exactly are they supposed to train children to be fighters? How do people who are struggling to survive from day to day find time (or the expertise) to train expert warriors?

Katniss and her friend seemed to manage pretty well sneaking off into the woods on their own.

I got the impression the first story is nothing more than a set up.

That's nice, but I paid to see a complete film, not a two hour prologue to the good stuff.

[txshusker]

I'm beginning to wonder if I should ever read a book before the movie comes out. I'm certain my reaction would be different.

I'm not disappointed in changes or what was left out. Although, a huge glaring hole was the romance with Peeta... I'm mean, one bowl of boullion and a note that says "you call that a kiss" didn't really get the point across without book knowledge.

I felt like this was similar to HP movies in that if I hadn't read it, I probably would have been much less invested in the characters and much less up to speed on what was going on.

DRs problems stem from what I consider illogical choices and evolutions created by Collins in the book. But if you get past that, the books aren't bad action stories. Although the ultimate conclusion was senseless to me.

I thought this movie was tenser leading up to the games than in the games, and the action sequences average at best. (I hate shaky camera, personally, and if they'd get rid of it, the Bourne trilogy would be even more AWESOME). Perhaps it's because I knew how it ended... I though the relationship between Katniss and Prim and most of the set up to the reaping well done. I was much more drawn in there than during the games.

[DDCOrange]

I finally saw it last week (I've read the books last year) and thought that it was pretty faithful to the story. The acting was excellent, particularly Jennifer Lawrence and Stanley Tucci. What I liked was the way the players and the entertainment industry try to out-manipulate each other (i.e. is the "star-crossed lovers" thing real or a put-on in order to survive?). I got that sense in the book as well.
As far as the Games themselves, yes the violence and gore were either offscreen or done with jumpy hand-held cameras (the opening sequence or the battles around the Corpuconica were perhaps the most graphic), but you have to remember that the production needed a PG-13 rating (here in the states) to get the maximum audience. More violence would push it up into R territory and lose alot of the teen audience whom the books were targeted towards. A purely profit driven decision perhaps....
Overall though, a good start that I would recommend.

[Foxface Fan]

I also saw the movie then read the books. Kind of an interesting take in that direction.

So I liked the movies but I do enjoy the books more. The Avox addition, going into character development a bit more, more background on Katniss' father. I liked the story being told from Katniss' viewpoint. I didn't even mind the drug out areas such as sleeping in the makeshift cave. It built it up for me

All in all I love it

[Chuffalump]

Haven't seen the film yet but I've just read the trilogy over the last three or four days. Enjoyed it as long as I did a fair bit of suspending my disbelief. The action and story were entertaining (if YA) but the use of technology was truly ill thought out. I'm looking forward to seeing how the film handles it.

[oceanworld]

Haven't read the series yet but do hear it is a great series to read. Did watch the movie and I enjoyed watching it.

[sifutofu]

I think I was immediately put off by all the colored hair. It just seems a cheap move to make the movie appear, "futuristic".
Then again I'm also the guy who thinks that Warf's big "roach-head" in the Star Trek series should be a protective covering for the brain when bighorn sheep-type mating rituals erupt. Or maybe the seams in it could glow as if containing some sort of cosmic energy, as well as emit vapors, etc.
Movie-going has gotten so expensive these days, one might as well wait for a movie to come out in Redbox, especially if one has a big-screen TV.

[sifutofu]

Check out the vid on a certain popular website, where her hair is blonde on David Letterman (And oh, how about those dachsunds!) I can see why Brad Pitt is infatuated with her, and it has zero to do with sex. It's just heartwarming to see such a young person becoming so successful so quickly in life. I'm sure I will follow her career in the future. I almost feel protective of her, cognizant of the nest of vipers in which she practices her craft.
I saw her in, "Winter's Bone"...a bit slow-moving, but her acting was superb.

[DungeonMaster]

What gets me about the movie and the book is that kids were supposed to kill eachother to win, but half of them ganged up against the heroes as if that wasn't case. Why were they friends and not trying to kill eachother. Its stupid.

It just goes to show that publishers and movie makers have no clue as to what makes great fantasy. I mean, throw the cast of Beverly Hills 90210 in a field full of weapons and you have the Hunger Games.

I have never been more dissapointed than I have been with published fantasy over the last few years.