Master Index of Archived Threads


The Hunger Games (2012)

1 Star

0 votes

1.5 Stars

0 votes

2 Stars

0 votes

2.5 Stars

1 votes

3 Stars

2 votes

3.5 Stars

0 votes

4 Stars

1 votes

4.5 Stars

0 votes

5 Stars

0 votes

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 09:30 AM

You know the "hottest" movie of the year? The book is amazing. I'm into the second now, and it's just as good. The movie..well, the movie imo was a letdown. It's not that it's bad, it's that it missed all the opportunities to be great. It's not a 'feel good' book, but the movie misses most of of the horror involved with 24 kids being forced to fight to the death in an arena on live national television by an oppressive government. The story is about a future North American nation of a Capital region and 12 (formerly 13) tightly controlled fenced in districts. Each District, as a rememberence of rebellion, is forced to offer up 1 boy and 1 girl for Tribute to fight to the death in the yearly television show, The Hunger Games. Which is also mandatory viewing and supposed to be celebrated. The story follows Katniss, the tribute from District 12, one of the poorest districts, in her quest to survive and the trouble she causes the Capital in the process.

Frayed Knot Mar 27 2012 09:51 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Count me among those who had never heard of these books prior to the avalanche of publicity for the movie over the past two weeks. Now that I've heard of it I don't think it's something I would have ran to even if the reviews had been good. Maybe when it comes to cable.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 27 2012 10:01 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

The review in the Daily News was very good: five stars. I was willing to take my daughter to go see it (she's very eager) but it turns out that she'll be seeing it with some friends this weekend. So I'll wait for it to come to cable.

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 10:05 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

This is the review that resonated with my take of it. [url]http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/movie-review-the-hunger-games.html Definitely not missing anything by waiting for Netflix/Cable if you haven't read the book (which I highly recommend). I'm a sucker for wanting to see good books envisioned on the screen even though I know they're never as good. (The Twilight movies are better than the books imo, which says a lot about how bad the books are) I'm already looking forward to the second one though, it's got a very strong 1984 vibe to it so far in the book.

Vic Sage Mar 27 2012 10:51 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

the fact that my 14-year old daughter was instructed to read it for school, and then the school went on a class trip to see it opening day, makes me ask: "why?" I mean, i get why my daughter (whose only read the Twilight books, and whatever they make her read in school) liked it, with a girl protagonist and a love story at its core, but what is its message that is so important the school wants her to read it AND see it? that central governments are bad, states are good, and we should be in open revolt against Obama? Or am i reading too much into something i don't want to read at all? Or is there something else?

Benjamin Grimm Mar 27 2012 10:53 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

I haven't read the books or seen the movie either, but it sounds to me like it's more of an anti-1% than it is anti-Obama. But I suppose you can read whatever anti- into it that you like.

Edgy MD Mar 27 2012 10:55 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Old people steal freedom from lithe, creative, beautiful and spirited youth. They'll build a whole society around it, given half a chance, because they're bitter, jealous, murderous fucks. Vampires, really. Yeah, I don't know either.

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 11:51 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

well, kids read 1984 too. That's the parallel i keep drawing. Again i'm only 56% through the series so I'm surely missing some of the overall 'meaning' but it's not a light read or a fluff book in any sense. And it's very well written. I haven't been following the hype too closely because I only just started reading it Friday, but I think there's definitely something to the female protagonist thing and that she isn't written into one of the typical female stereotypes (which is in part because there characters are well written, so they have real depth) It's a post-apocalyptic world where the 13 districts rose up against an oppressive capital. They lost. As punishment the Capital razed the 13th district, and instituted the Hunger Games which is basically real world Survivor, where they fight to the death and one person wins. two people from each district, which are now walled-off states without any interaction between them, are chosen via random lottery. Kids can put their names in multiple times to get a ration of bread for their family. (so rich people have one entry, poor people have dozens) The Hunger Games are mandatory celebration. They have to watch in the town square. The winner is paraded around the country and rewarded with riches and fame. Each district is rife with poverty, generally the higher number the worse it is. Katniss's father was killed in a mine accident when she was 12 (mining is District 12's contribution to the economy. But he Capital controls said economy, so even if the district's thing is harvesting, doesn't mean they get to eat) and her mother went catatonic with grief, so it fell to her to feed her mother, herself and her younger sister. She nearly starves, but eventually learns to sneak out of the district to hunt in the woods, and is able to barter with what she gets. The Capital is always spying, has peacekeepers stationed in the district, and has wealth and food and all that. To them, the Hunger Games is actually just Survivor. it's a TV show and they wager on the victors and celebrate them and pick favorite players, etc. Then when she's 16 her 12 year old sister's name gets called, and she volunteers to replace her. Her actions inside the arena basically spark the beginnings of a revolution by giving people hope, and this gets her in trouble with the president. I presume an overall revolution is where the series is headed. (unlike 1984 where the government basically strikes him down)

Vic Sage Mar 27 2012 12:18 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

well, kids read 1984 too. Um, yeah, Ceetar, they do... because its one of the great works of English literature and most important statements about politics, language and society in the 20th century. Not just cuz it's a good read. as for THE HUNGER GAMES... well, the jury is going to be out for a few decades to determine whether its literature that should be studied in its own right. As for what its saying that's relevant to teach socio-politically (saying what hasn't already been said by dozens of other better books about dystopias), that's what i'm asking about. I suspect the answer is "well, its like 1984!", to which i say, "then read 1984."

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 12:32 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Vic Sage wrote: well, kids read 1984 too. Um, yeah, Ceetar, they do... because its one of the great works of English literature and most important statements about politics, language and society in the 20th century. Not just cuz it's a good read. as for THE HUNGER GAMES... well, the jury is going to be out for a few decades to determine whether its literature that should be studied in its own right. As for what its saying that's relevant to teach socio-politically (saying what hasn't already been said by dozens of other better books about dystopias), that's what i'm asking about. I suspect the answer is "well, its like 1984!", to which i say, "then read 1984." I suspect the Hunger Games, whether or not it's socio-political statement is compatible with the one taken from 1984, is eminently more relatedable to by today's youth than 1984. Ultimately the lesson comes from the teacher, not from the book. The book is merely a tool. So if a teacher feels the lesson can be taught similarly with a modern book, and one that's popular to boot, why not? Not only that, but having to re-apply the message to a different book reinforces the meaning to the teacher as well. Instead of teaching something that he or she learned by rote and has repeated for years.. Personally, I like the Hunger Games better than 1984, but I should reserve that until I finish the series. It just feels like a deeper story, but then it's much longer too. I only read 1984 a couple of years ago for the first time though, and I don't know if I remember much more than I'd already gleaned from it's immersion in popular culture. (Big Brother, always at war with Eurasia, etc)

Mets – Willets Point Mar 27 2012 12:56 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012) Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 27 2012 01:10 PM

I keep seeing people posting reviews on Facebook et al mentioning that they "enjoyed it." Having read the books I know that Hollywood has already failed. People should be coming out of the theaters saying that they are "profoundly disturbed" or "morally devastated," perhaps even "dedicating my life to ending child warfare." The thing that is wrong with this movie - and to a certain extent the books - is that the message is "violence is not entertainment and if we keep desensitizing ourselves to it this could be the result" but they do it in the bombastic 'splosions are cool manner that completely negates that message.

Edgy MD Mar 27 2012 01:01 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Yeah, the old "medium negates the message" issue is always there with me. The review in the Daily News was very good: five stars. Ever since the News gave a top rating to the film adaptation of Annie!, I've tended to suspect anything that got top ratings from them was something they had a stake in somehow.

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 01:07 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Edgy DC wrote: Yeah, the old "medium negates the message" issue is always there with me. That was a point made in the Vulture review I posted above, that it whitewashed some/most of the horror out of it. It's entertainment, so I still was hoping for the "I enjoyed it" aspect, but not at the expense of the "profoundly disturbed" aspect. Movies very often feel to bridge that gap.

Mets – Willets Point Mar 27 2012 01:09 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Ceetar wrote: It's entertainment, so I still was hoping for the "I enjoyed it" aspect, but not at the expense of the "profoundly disturbed" aspect. Movies very often feel to bridge that gap. They should've hired David Lynch to direct.

Edgy MD Mar 27 2012 01:12 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

When I'm typing quickly, I oft embarrassingly find later that I've mistyped a homonym in place of the word I meant to put there, but I really like the more nuanced meaning that comes out with Ceetar's feel/fail booboo above.

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 01:15 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's entertainment, so I still was hoping for the "I enjoyed it" aspect, but not at the expense of the "profoundly disturbed" aspect. Movies very often feel to bridge that gap. They should've hired David Lynch to direct. Well, I don't think they even wanted to hit on the disturbing aspect. Just the way it was marketed and people are talking about it seems like it was basically a money-grab directed at the Twilight crowd. And Twilight was initially pitched as "the next Harry Potter" (which is the only reason I read it)

Mets – Willets Point Mar 27 2012 01:16 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Edgy DC wrote: When I'm typing quickly, I oft embarrassingly find later that I've mistyped a homonym in place of the word I meant to put there, but I really like the more nuanced meaning that comes out with Ceetar's feel/fail booboo above. Funny. I actually thought Ceetar left out some words and was trying to say "Movies very often feel the need to bridge that gap."

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 01:38 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Edgy DC wrote: When I'm typing quickly, I oft embarrassingly find later that I've mistyped a homonym in place of the word I meant to put there, but I really like the more nuanced meaning that comes out with Ceetar's feel/fail booboo above. Funny. I actually thought Ceetar left out some words and was trying to say "Movies very often feel the need to bridge that gap." I do crap like this all the time. But you're both wrong. I was going to write fail but thought feel the need and ended up doing half of each. oops.

Edgy MD Mar 27 2012 01:43 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Sounds like we're both right. Anytuck, I do it all the time too.

Ceetar Mar 27 2012 01:49 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Edgy DC wrote: Sounds like we're both right. Anytuck, I do it all the time too. Well aren't we Mr. Optimism? I blame the NY state education system. And my lack of focus on things [crossout]like grammar and proofreading[/crossout] on everything.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 23 2012 09:04 PM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

I never read the book but watched the flick this weekend. I was sort of disappointed that it not only lacked the live-on-TV throttling of the smarmy host a la RUNNING MAN; it didn't even appear to be an option of the characters. I don't think it successfully sold how horrifying the whole thing ought to have been.

Edgy MD Sep 24 2012 07:03 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

I wonder how horrific it would be. I sometimes think we aren't horrified by cultures we're born into, even if we disagree with them. No matter how repulsive from an objective distance, to us, it's just the sea we spring from.

Ceetar Sep 29 2012 12:02 AM Re: The Hunger Games (2012)

Edgy DC wrote: I wonder how horrific it would be. I sometimes think we aren't horrified by cultures we're born into, even if we disagree with them. No matter how repulsive from an objective distance, to us, it's just the sea we spring from. that comes across in the book. Mostly the heroine just wants to continue living the life and meager success she'd carved out for herself. But moments like JCL mentioned do come as well.