The Hunger Games!

[Dorek]

Saw the movie friday night. Definitely not what I was expecting, but not at all in a bad way. The romance bits made everybody in the theater crack up, but the pacing and tone were fantastic, and the acting was surprisingly top-notch. Looking forward to the sequels.

[Linsanity]

I can't wait to see it this week. I wished I could have seen it at midnight the day it came out though.

[Republic Commando Fixer]

Ok guys so I just saw it again for the 2nd time and it was even better then the first time!!! I was able to see things that I didn't the first time I saw it! I would highly recommend to seeing it two times!!! I'm still on Mocking Jay chapter 8 to be exact. I CAN'T get into it like the first two! I read the first two books in 3 days! I have had Mocking Jay for a month now! haha Anywho I'm starting to LOVE the career tributes (Districts 1&2, Marvel,Glimmer,Cato and Clove) Cato is my favorite career and he is a hottie!! Clove is pretty BA with her throwing knives! Marvel is just a cutie and Glimmer is pretty chill. Do y'all like the careers? RCF

[Dorek]

I ended up seeing it again for a second time too, just because my friends tend to be pretty ridiculous. I'm thinking it was just the theater we were in this time, but the viewing experience was a bit more unpleasant than the first time. I can actually see how people would complain about the shaky-cam style of filming, which was a lot more noticeable this time around. I suppose, like a lot of things, there's just a certain way to watch it (not to mention we were in the corner of the theater for some unknown reason, so everything was dark and tilted).Still a great movie, though. And most of us had seen it, so we were obnoxious teenagers (in our early 20's, but that's irrelevant) and making awful jokes the whole time.

[Athmos]

Ugh, the book wasn't that great! It was a little less then good. It was such an easy read, it didn't take much to guess what would happen next.

[Dorek]

I missed the part where books have to be complex or difficult to be good. Yes, it doesn't have a terribly high reading level, but that doesn't make it any less compelling.Also the guy who directed I Am Legend is directing the next movie. Not entirely sure how I feel about this...

[Archer Vonn]

*ahem*Books do not necessarily need to be difficult to be good, no, but the more complex, the better. Being complex is walking a fine line, however- you can go the Dan Brown route and make everything confusing and difficult to understand, or you can go the Bioshock or Disney route- where everything that happens is intelligent. While I have not read the Hunger Games and make no comment on whether or not this happens in those books, saying that books do not need to be complex to be good is correct, but keep in mind that you need to be complex to be better. You can watch a movie and miss the witty remarks and insightful comments and still enjoy it, but you'll enjoy it better if you catch them.If that made any sense.

[Dorek]

I don't particularly define that as "complex"; it seems more like you're trying to say that books are better off if they're thought-provoking. I'm saying that books don't need intricacies or twists to still be interesting, and conversely that deep messages and allusions in turn aren't guaranteed to make books more exciting.The Hunger Games has all of the above, but that's kind of irrelevant =P. I just see a lot of people hating on the book because they see it as being beneath their intelligence level, which is silly to me.

[Jean Valjean]

I'm not entirely sure. Some people believe that less is more. I mean, I personally think that one of - if not the - greatest movies of all time is Disney's Fantasia and its sequel, Fantasia 2000. The individual segments were about as simple as you can get, but at the same time were amongst the most powerful representations of universal archetypes I have ever seen.The Hunger Games isn't really comparable to what Disney was going for. I guess it depends. I personally have learned that in some ways the simpler the conflict the easier it is to connect with. I mean, if you look at the first Star Wars film, it a basic fairy-tale plot with easily recognizable elements. My guess is that George Lucus didn't want an overly mature plot to get in the way of the initial fantasy. Personally, when it comes to successful teen books these days, I feel J.K. Rowling has really heightened the expectations for a plot's "guessability", where people almost expect books to surprise them with their plot twists as a standard way of judging its value. Really, it's ust an element of storytelling that fits better in some styles than others.I still haven't read the books yet, unfortunately. I'll get around to it over the summer and perhaps watch the movie on DVD somewhere down the line. Although I dislike shakey-camera style almost by default, so something tells me it will lack the graceful style I admire in films like Fantasia.Your Honor,Tyrannosaurus Kraggh

[Republic Commando Fixer]

@ Dorek, Yes the camera work was pretty bad. But the only reason why was because they wanted to make it child and family friendly.@Emperor Kraghh, In the right sitiuation less can be more. I would say see the movie first, then read the books. All my friends and I read the book first and we had out expectations really high. The movie was so close to meeting them though! So just for kicks try it that way! (:RCF

Edited May 5, 2012 by Republic Commando Fixer

[Alyska]

@ Dorek, Yes the camera work was pretty bad. But the only reason why was because they wanted to make it child and family friendly.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I've read the first book. I can see why they would do something like that, but I'm going to raise the question of whether they should be trying to make a movie like this "family friendly", given the content....

[Republic Commando Fixer]

@ Dorek, Yes the camera work was pretty bad. But the only reason why was because they wanted to make it child and family friendly.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I've read the first book. I can see why they would do something like that, but I'm going to raise the question of whether they should be trying to make a movie like this "family friendly", given the content....

What "content" are you talking about? The premise of the books it totally fine. Everyone is saying how inappropriate it is for children and young teens etc. But in reality there are MANY worse movies and books out there that kids are reading. So I think people need to take a chill pill on the Hunger Games as a series and calm down a little bit. RCF

[BenLuke]

Of course it's inappropriate for kids, people DIE!

[Archer Vonn]

What "content" are you talking about? The premise of the books it totally fine. Everyone is saying how inappropriate it is for children and young teens etc. But in reality there are MANY worse movies and books out there that kids are reading. So I think people need to take a chill pill on the Hunger Games as a series and calm down a little bit. RCF

THE BOOK IS ABOUT KIDS GOING INTO THE WOODS AND KILLING EACH OTHERI'd apologize for caps but I am not sorry

[dotcom]

What "content" are you talking about? The premise of the books it totally fine. Everyone is saying how inappropriate it is for children and young teens etc. But in reality there are MANY worse movies and books out there that kids are reading. So I think people need to take a chill pill on the Hunger Games as a series and calm down a little bit. RCF

THE BOOK IS ABOUT KIDS GOING INTO THE WOODS AND KILLING EACH OTHERI'd apologize for caps but I am not sorry

Just because there's violence in things doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for young people, nor that it won't appeal to them. Like, Animorphs or whatever. Anime. Of course, it's not particularly appropriate for young kids, but teenagers read and see this sort of stuff, and worse, all the time. It's really not a big deal.The reason they made it PG-13, however, is because it wouldn't have sold as well any other way. Although, doubtlessly, many would have still gone to see it with an R rating, I also know many parents draw the line at PG-13. It's a matter of profit. Edited May 6, 2012 by Panty Anarchy

[BenLuke]

^ I'm pretty sure JC was being sarcastic. I was, at least.

Edited May 12, 2012 by BenLuke-116

[Archer Vonn]

Just because there's violence in things doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for young people, nor that it won't appeal to them.

You will make a great parent

[dotcom]

^ I'm pretty sure JC was being sarcasticI was, at least.

One can hope.

Just because there's violence in things doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for young people, nor that it won't appeal to them.

You will make a great parent

I guess so, if, you know, the people in question being parented are known to capable to handle violent stuff. Each person is different.Although, you may just be trolling me, in which case, I guess I apologize? Let's go with yes. I do that.

[Archer Vonn]

People can handle violence if they've been exposed to it long enough to become desensitized. Which is, unfortunately, the case for a lot of children.

[Alyska]

See, that's the thing- kids should not be becoming desensitised to violence. They shouldn't be able to watch a 12-year-old girl get brutally murdered in a film and just go "Meh." So should the death of said character be somehow censored so that children can watch another kid die without being traumatised?I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't enjoy the books or film, but if they are, I would expect that they take in the overall horror of the situation, rather than just go for the spectacle, the costumes or the action sequences. Because when you forget that the story is about tragic, horrific things happening to kids, you become no better than the in-universe audience that watches The Hunger Games on TV. I found the events of the book horrifying, and the ending left me temporarily with little faith in humanity, but I got the impression that that was the entire point of the book. That I was meant to feel that way about the entire premise and the people involved.I read an article recently about a rise in comments on Twitter along the lines of "Why did they cast a black kid as Rue? She's not black in the book!" (actually, the book does explicitly describe her as having brown skin, but that's beside the point) and "Call me racist, but Rue's death didn't seem as sad when I found out she was black".Now, the latter comment is possibly the result of desensitisation towards violent acts happening to a particular group. Certain ethnic minorities- African Americans in particular- tend to get killed off a lot in action and horror movies, and generally, their deaths are not treated as being particularly tragic or as having much emotional impact- they're really just there to show the audience how dangerous the monster is. Once you notice this, you can't un-notice it. You start predicting which characters are going to die simply based on the colour of their skin. You automatically know that these characters are not worth paying much attention to or investing emotional attachment in because they'll be dead in twenty minutes. And that's horrible. I shouldn't be thinking like this, but I do, and I'm right 90% of the time. My little brother has even made a game of pointing out which characters are going to die, and snarking about it.But I think that if you don't consciously notice patterns like this, it's even worse. You start devaluing characters of certain ethnic minorities, and you don't even realise you're doing it. You are subconsciously taught that people of certain races are not worth getting emotionally attached to, because they're expendable. And I think that subconscious desensitisation is a big part of what causes those kinds of comments from ignorant teenagers on Twitter.Now, The Hunger Games, to its credit, did treat Rue's death as being suitably tragic and heartbreaking. She was far more than just another expendable ethnic minority, and I'm not criticising the book in the slightest. But, the thing is, because of past experience with film and TV, the impact was lost on a lot of people. In this case, it's desensitisation to violence against a particular group of people, but in some cases, I'm sure that a lot of young people get desensitised to violence and death in general (the aforementioned little brother is a definite example)....Ugh, I got onto a ramble and forgot what my original point was. Anyway, I look forward to further discussion/arguments on the subject...

Edited May 6, 2012 by Alyska

[Lyichir]

I think kids these days can be far too sheltered. I once saw an article about a group of parents who rated movies for themselves, since the MPAA ratings weren't good enough for them. For instance, they criticized the offscreen violence in Finding Nemo where most of Nemo's family is eaten by a barracuda. This to me is way over the top.In the real world, people die. Sometimes in unpleasant ways. Things that glorify violence and death may be out of bounds for kids, but things which approach the topic maturely and dutifully explain the horror of it can be important for kids to see. The Hunger Games never are treated, in-story, as anything less than atrocious.The reason they wanted the rating lower is so that the target audience of the book (teens) would be free to watch the movie. There can often be a sort of double standard on violence in media, where it's acceptable in one form but not in another. Usually this doesn't become a problem except in the case of adaptations like this. But in this case, it becomes essential that the audience of the book can go to see the movie. I'm glad that they managed to lower the rating suitably through the shaky-cam, instead of trying to tone down the violence altogether, which would have diluted the book's message.

[Jean Valjean]

Of course it's inappropriate for kids, people DIE!

By the time I was a year old, I watched several Holocaust films, various other films about World War II, and a few bloody Arnold Schwartzeneggar films including Total Recall. I don't regret the psychological impact that has had on me, since it taught me right away to accept hard ideas, including the concept of death, and I always understood that people die in the real world. I'm glad also that among the violent films I watched, most of them included the Holcaust, so I didn't grow up glorifying violence.Now in contrast, my godfather has a daughter who's around six-ish years old, and she's not allowed to see Beauty and the Beast because Gaston dies at the end. I think that's sheltering her by quite a bit (but nevertheless, I love that he's opinionated).Now, to my understanding, The Hunger Games decries teen violence. It's not the same thing as a holocaust film or Hotel Rwanda (there are different forms of violence, after all), but I think that I'd let my kids watch it if I was a parent.Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

[Aanchir]

OK, let's get some things straight. First of all, the movie is not entirely family-friendly, but it would have been stupid to have filmed it for a higher rating than PG-13. It's based on a young adult novel, and as such teenagers and young adults are the story's intended audience. Alienating them would have been a bad business move and an insult to the source material.Also, people can be mature about violence without being desensitized to it. "Desensitized" implies that violence is no longer disturbing or frightening, and that's the opposite of what The Hunger Games is about. We as an audience are meant to understand that the very nature of these violent games is bad and wrong, and that it's a moral failing on the part of those people who treat them as pure entertainment. Violence and death are not trivialized or treated as "normal" or "acceptable" in The Hunger Games. In fact, Katniss-- the character the audience is meant to identify with-- does the opposite when she mourns Rue's death. And even if Katniss and the other characters in the games are prepared to kill, the characters we are meant to identify with don't do this with a clean conscience.Anyway, I think that in most (not all) cases, the shaky-cam and quick cuts made the storytelling more authentic, especially during the Hunger Games themselves. If Katniss's heart is racing, the audience's heart should be racing. If Katniss only has a moment to take in her surroundings, so should the audience. Hopefully these camera techniques will help the audience identify with Katniss in many cases by encouraging them to be constantly alert. And if Katniss's eyes should settle for a split-secnd on a disturbing image that sticks with her, hopefully it will stick with the audience just as much even if it was only on the screen for that long.In some cases the shaky-cam felt unnecessary. But it's more than just a handy censorship tool. If anything, these camera techniques help to make up for one of the things I was most worried about after reading the book-- that a movie might make it harder to identify with Katniss since we would no longer have convenient access to her first-person, present-tense narration.

[Toa Zaz]

The problem is that the violence in the Hunger Games is subdued (in order to enhance box office performance) to the point where it lacks impact and thus abandones much of the book's meaning.Also, the argument of "isolating the target audience" is somewhat moot, considering the much higher levels of violence that have been in PG-13 movies before.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Toa Zaz

[BZCoolness]

The problem is that the violence in the Hunger Games is subdued (in order to enhance box office performance) to the point where it lacks impact and thus abandones much of the book's meaning.Also, the argument of "isolating the target audience" is somewhat moot, considering the much higher levels of violence that have been in PG-13 movies before.

I totally agree. It's very subdued and, in my opinion, it's a bittersweet decision. It's bad because it takes away from what the book really was. (a bunch of kids gathering around with weapons and killing each other in ruthless ways.)On the other hand, I don't think that people would have been thrilled if they had kept all the violence and the like in, because then the movie would be rated R and be way too bloody and violent for a lot of people (myself included).I've read the first two books. I've been procrastinating in reading Mockingjay, but I'll get around to it never eventually soon. In terms of the movie I really think that it could have been better overall, not just the whole "the book was much more violent" argument that I agree with. The camera work wasn't all that great and the soundtrack, aside from Horn of Plenty, leaves something to be desired. I'm glad that Suzanne Collins was on the committee creating the movie because that allowed for a more rigid following of the book, which is something that I haven't seen a lot of in film adaptations of books (I'm looking at you, Eragon). It is rather unfortunate that some of the backstory was taken out, but I can also see why they did it (because if they kept it all in, the movie would probably be at least another 90 minutes longer).When I first read the book I kind of imagined the Capitol to be a lot more ruthless and dark than it was portrayed in the movie; for example, I imagined the Capitol, and Panem as a whole, being less integrated, by that I mean having less minorities than they did (aside, of course, from District 11). Now that I think about it, though, Collins did say that since it was a while along in the future, Panem was very mixed when it comes to race.I also imagined the Capitol to be very bloodthirsty and violent, and imagined President Snow to be kind of like Krushchev when it comes to personality and a lot younger than he was portrayed, probably late 30s, early 40s.It's not like it matters. A lot of the thoughts I envisioned in my head when I read it didn't make it into the movie, and it's not like they gathered around in a group, looked at me, and said "You know, I wonder what he's envisioned The Hunger Games to be. Let's take his ideas and put them in!" (Although, to be honest, it would be kind of cool to have that happen, not to mention odd. ) Edited May 8, 2012 by BZCoolness

[Dorek]

I'm surprised at the amount of people complaining about the lack of violence =P. Obviously there's not a lot of zooming in on gruesome wounds, but really, we have broken necks everywhere, kids sliced up all over, and a girl speared through the chest. There's plenty of violence to go around.And really, violence isn't actually the point, it's the expression of the point.

[Aanchir]

You also have to consider that if there was too much explicit violence, more people might go to the movie just to see kids killing each other, which would go against the message of the book to an alarming degree. Again, a major message of the story is that it's wrong to enjoy that sort of thing.

[Toa Zaz]

If the violence was portrayed in a desensitized way (like in an exploitation film), people might go for it. However, it wasn't portrayed like that; it simply wasn't portrayed much at all, even for a PG-13, just to bring in more money at the box office; one guy bloodlessly shot with an arrow, a really harmlessly portrayed neck being broken, a blurry, quick and rather cheesy looking shot of bee stings, and one character being poked with a spear. That's all. Tintin was more violent. Basically, instead of thinking "Oh my god, twenty-three kids just died," like they did with the book, viewers are thinking more along the lines of "Yay! Go, Katniss!" etc. The subdued violence was just as desensitizing as enhanced violence would have been.

[Republic Commando Fixer]

So it would seem that we are still on the violence topic! Yes granted the movies and books are pretty violent I think that the public is going a little overbored on the whole issue! I mean c'mon guys yes there is violence in the books and movie but we just need to calm down lol. We seem to be attacking books with good and moral character. That is just my opinion. RCF

[Dorek]

Yeah, it was a little strange about how people thought it wasn't "violent enough". That, to me, only serves to further the point; that the violence shown in the movie actually doesn't reach the threshold of what a lot of us would consider "violent" means that we have already been desensitized to it.

[Athmos]

The plot of the Hunger Games, at least for the first one, is actually based off something that supposedly happened. The story goes like this: After WW2 in Japan, certain villages couldn't get enough food. So each village choose a child from each family that lived in that village, made them fight to the death and then gave the winning child's family what food the village had. It's a story, but I'm not sure if it actually happened or not. I'm trying to find info about this, but so far, nothing.

[Republic Commando Fixer]

Yeah, it was a little strange about how people thought it wasn't "violent enough". That, to me, only serves to further the point; that the violence shown in the movie actually doesn't reach the threshold of what a lot of us would consider "violent" means that we have already been desensitized to it.

The books were even more violent then the movie! I don't understand people sometimes! RCF

[Lyichir]

The plot of the Hunger Games, at least for the first one, is actually based off something that supposedly happened.The story goes like this:After WW2 in Japan, certain villages couldn't get enough food. So each village choose a child from each family that lived in that village, made them fight to the death and then gave the winning child's family what food the village had.It's a story, but I'm not sure if it actually happened or not.I'm trying to find info about this, but so far, nothing.

I doubt that story has anything to do with the books or the film. I can't tell whether that it's even legit or not, but in any case the author always talks about how the idea came to her as she flipped through channels on the TV and the imagery from reality shows like Survivor and news coverage from the Iraq War started to blend together. There's also similarities to the ancient Roman idea of "bread and circuses" which is actually lampshaded in the third novel.

[Dorek]

The plot of the Hunger Games, at least for the first one, is actually based off something that supposedly happened.The story goes like this:After WW2 in Japan, certain villages couldn't get enough food. So each village choose a child from each family that lived in that village, made them fight to the death and then gave the winning child's family what food the village had.It's a story, but I'm not sure if it actually happened or not.I'm trying to find info about this, but so far, nothing.

Are you talking about Battle Royale, the Japanese novel? That was, in fact, a book, not based on real-life events.

[Athmos]

The plot of the Hunger Games, at least for the first one, is actually based off something that supposedly happened.The story goes like this:After WW2 in Japan, certain villages couldn't get enough food. So each village choose a child from each family that lived in that village, made them fight to the death and then gave the winning child's family what food the village had.It's a story, but I'm not sure if it actually happened or not.I'm trying to find info about this, but so far, nothing.

I doubt that story has anything to do with the books or the film. I can't tell whether that it's even legit or not, but in any case the author always talks about how the idea came to her as she flipped through channels on the TV and the imagery from reality shows like Survivor and news coverage from the Iraq War started to blend together. There's also similarities to the ancient Roman idea of "bread and circuses" which is actually lampshaded in the third novel.

It was just something I heard. I can't even tell either. Surivior and the Iraq War? That makes sense, kinda. I don't see how the Iraq War really works into the book. @Dorek: I don't know. Again, it was something I heard, I found it interesting and I can't find anything to support it yet.

[Toa Zaz]

So it would seem that we are still on the violence topic! Yes granted the movies and books are pretty violent I think that the public is going a little overbored on the whole issue! I mean c'mon guys yes there is violence in the books and movie but we just need to calm down lol. We seem to be attacking books with good and moral character. That is just my opinion. RCF

We're arguing that there's not enough violence in the movie, not too much.

Yeah, it was a little strange about how people thought it wasn't "violent enough". That, to me, only serves to further the point; that the violence shown in the movie actually doesn't reach the threshold of what a lot of us would consider "violent" means that we have already been desensitized to it.

(Sigh) We thought the violence in the movie wasn't enough because it was subdued compared to the book (which we were plenty sensitive to) in order to make more money and ended up weakening the message.

[Lyichir]

The plot of the Hunger Games, at least for the first one, is actually based off something that supposedly happened.The story goes like this:After WW2 in Japan, certain villages couldn't get enough food. So each village choose a child from each family that lived in that village, made them fight to the death and then gave the winning child's family what food the village had.It's a story, but I'm not sure if it actually happened or not.I'm trying to find info about this, but so far, nothing.

I doubt that story has anything to do with the books or the film. I can't tell whether that it's even legit or not, but in any case the author always talks about how the idea came to her as she flipped through channels on the TV and the imagery from reality shows like Survivor and news coverage from the Iraq War started to blend together. There's also similarities to the ancient Roman idea of "bread and circuses" which is actually lampshaded in the third novel.

It was just something I heard. I can't even tell either.Surivior and the Iraq War? That makes sense, kinda. I don't see how the Iraq War really works into the book.@Dorek: I don't know. Again, it was something I heard, I found it interesting and I can't find anything to support it yet.

It has nothing to do with the Iraq War as opposed to any other war, except for that that war broke ground in how close reporters could get to the action. The violent imagery was the important part.

[Knave]

I recently decided to start reading The Hunger Games, and I had to buy it instead of getting from the library. The reason being that every single copy of the book in every library in my area was either checked out or being held. When I did choose to try and hold one, I ended up as queue number 200-something. So far, it's pretty good.

[Dorek]

So it would seem that we are still on the violence topic! Yes granted the movies and books are pretty violent I think that the public is going a little overbored on the whole issue! I mean c'mon guys yes there is violence in the books and movie but we just need to calm down lol. We seem to be attacking books with good and moral character. That is just my opinion. RCF

We're arguing that there's not enough violence in the movie, not too much.

Yeah, it was a little strange about how people thought it wasn't "violent enough". That, to me, only serves to further the point; that the violence shown in the movie actually doesn't reach the threshold of what a lot of us would consider "violent" means that we have already been desensitized to it.

(Sigh) We thought the violence in the movie wasn't enough because it was subdued compared to the book (which we were plenty sensitive to) in order to make more money and ended up weakening the message.

And the way I see it, that in and of itself misses the point the book (and the movie) is trying to get across. The book is a condemnation of violence as entertainment by using the meta-irony of violence as entertainment. Thinking that it needs more violence just sends that idea off into the stratosphere.

[Alyska]

Good point, Dorek. As Aanchir said, it's hard to know what level of violence to go for when some people are going to enjoy the violence no matter what, and from what I heard, the film emphasises emotional impact over gore. My main objection was people thinking that the film should be made/considered "kid-friendly", which is missing the point altogether.Of course, your point also raises the question of how you make the audience feel that their love of violence is inappropriate... without putting them off from seeing the sequel?