SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Mar 24 2012 12:08 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Klimbatize wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Klimbatize wrote:

Cattivo wrote:

The thing is that it doesn't look like it's adding anything worthwhile to it, so why bother seeing it?

I'm not saying you should see it. I don't plan on seeing this myself. I was just making a comment on the biggest critique I've heard from everyone (especially from people I know in my real life) about this movie. Stuff like, "Yeah, I read 'The Most Dangerous Game', so no need to see this." Just because it borrows concepts from other stories doesn't mean it's unwatchable. Again, if we followed that logic then we wouldn't watch anything nowadays. Execution of an overused concept (see: Walking Dead) is what can make it worthwhile.

Terrible example. As I understand it the last 2 or 3 episodes of season 2 finally got better, but most of The Walking Dead was a boring, unwatchable pile of shit.

"As I understand it..."? So you didn't watch the show but are just basing your opinion on what others have said. And that's why Walking Dead is a bad example? LOL, way to form your own opinions.

Nice try, asshole. I watched the entire show except the last 3 episodes. I've been told they got better, but hard to believe.

Well, asshole, you still can't be stupid enough to not understand my point. No surprise you edited out the part of my post that has the most relevance to the conversation.

Klimbatize wrote:

Fine, but you still get my point. Just sub "Walking Dead" out with some other show/comic/movie/slashfic you actually watched/read/watched/masturbated to and deemed good.

Get it yet, or do you want to continue trolling?

Posted: Mar 24 2012 01:07 pm

aeonic wrote:

Because it will be. Film-wise and book-wise, especially if they can figure out a way to stretch the third film into two parts. This, I think, is a good thing. As I'd said earlier, I made it a few chapters into The Hunger Games before I decided I couldn't get into it. I made it about three paragraphs into Twilight. The main character's less Mary Sue, the love interests less Marty Stu. I saw part of the movie online (yes, it's there already), as I've seen part of Twilight on DVD (we had a drinking game going to see how many times Kristen Stewart could give the same facial expression; we did not make it far). Even from the brief comparisons, it's better, and doesn't promote, amongst other things, the idea that stalking a girl and alienating her from friends/family is love and not abuse. The fact that I would rather see Jeebus shoot projectile diarrhea on a stack of commons while fucking Jon Medina through a hole drilled into his skull than have anything else to do with Twilight notwithstanding, Hunger Games is a far better series, at least from what little I've witnessed and from everyone that I know who's talked of either or both of the two seems to indicate.

I think you're translating quality into success, which isn't always a good assumption. I think Twilight will still be the more commercially successful franchise because it appeals more to a large demographic that doesn't, by and large know what the difference between good writing and shitty writing is.

Title: an horse Joined: Feb 26 2012 Posts: 169

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

aeonic wrote:

Because it will be. Film-wise and book-wise, especially if they can figure out a way to stretch the third film into two parts. This, I think, is a good thing. As I'd said earlier, I made it a few chapters into The Hunger Games before I decided I couldn't get into it. I made it about three paragraphs into Twilight. The main character's less Mary Sue, the love interests less Marty Stu. I saw part of the movie online (yes, it's there already), as I've seen part of Twilight on DVD (we had a drinking game going to see how many times Kristen Stewart could give the same facial expression; we did not make it far). Even from the brief comparisons, it's better, and doesn't promote, amongst other things, the idea that stalking a girl and alienating her from friends/family is love and not abuse. The fact that I would rather see Jeebus shoot projectile diarrhea on a stack of commons while fucking Jon Medina through a hole drilled into his skull than have anything else to do with Twilight notwithstanding, Hunger Games is a far better series, at least from what little I've witnessed and from everyone that I know who's talked of either or both of the two seems to indicate.

I think you're translating quality into success, which isn't always a good assumption. I think Twilight will still be the more commercially successful franchise because it appeals more to a large demographic that doesn't, by and large know what the difference between good writing and shitty writing is.

This. I'm not trying to bash Hunger Games - maybe it's fucking fantastic, but does it mean we're due for another outbreak of people dressing up like the characters and hearing about nothing but it for the next few years?

What is PG in the states? PG here is like, for little kids - but may have to have parents explain some things. Then we have M15 for mature ie. violence and maybe a boob shot and 'fuck' word etc.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Mar 24 2012 04:29 pm

I liked it. Don't really have much else to say. I can see this being the new Harry Potter.

Quote:

What is PG in the states? PG here is like, for little kids - but may have to have parents explain some things. Then we have M15 for mature ie. violence and maybe a boob shot and 'fuck' word etc.

Parental Guidance Suggested. It's pretty much the same thing here.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

"British censors demanded that The Hunger Games shave seven seconds of footage for its UK release in order to receive the equivalent rating in the States, PG-13. 12A allows 12 year olds to see the film without supervision.

The film would have received a 15 certificate without the cuts, but producers wanted to ensure they would make more money/reach their core audience, so they agreed to the minor changes for their fans' sake."

England, lol.

Joined: Apr 17 2011 Location: US Posts: 58

I had no desire to see this movie until a friend handed me the book and begged me to read it in time to see the movie with her. I went in knowing that everyone was complaining about it being a Battle Royale ripoff, but I must say, I enjoyed THG more. I only just saw BR last year and I loved it to death, but with The Hunger Games I like that there's more back story and general meat to the world. Honestly I don't think the series is really about the games at all anyway since in the movie they don't even start until an hour and ten minutes in.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Mar 24 2012 05:41 pm

JoshWoodzy wrote:

"British censors demanded that The Hunger Games shave seven seconds of footage for its UK release in order to receive the equivalent rating in the States, PG-13. 12A allows 12 year olds to see the film without supervision.

The film would have received a 15 certificate without the cuts, but producers wanted to ensure they would make more money/reach their core audience, so they agreed to the minor changes for their fans' sake."

England, lol.

The US does this ALL the time. There have been tons of films that have made some cuts to drop the rating down a notch (usually from NC-17 to R), and some actually add footage to get themselves up to an R rating.

Makes perfect sense to me to modify their product so that the target audience can see it.

Posted: Mar 25 2012 12:48 pm

I've read all three books when I was 15 for school. Not saying they are the best books ever written, but they were a good, quick read and I enjoyed them.

I am, however, far more impressed with the movie. I honestly think it's the best book-to-movie adaptation I have /ever/ seen. Like they didn't leave any thing out or alter anything. Also, the casting was phenomenal. I think Jennifer Lawrence was the perfect choice for Katniss. I think the only detail I wasn't satisfied with was having Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, but it wasn't bad either.

Posted: Mar 25 2012 03:43 pm

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

aeonic wrote:

Because it will be. Film-wise and book-wise, especially if they can figure out a way to stretch the third film into two parts. This, I think, is a good thing. As I'd said earlier, I made it a few chapters into The Hunger Games before I decided I couldn't get into it. I made it about three paragraphs into Twilight. The main character's less Mary Sue, the love interests less Marty Stu. I saw part of the movie online (yes, it's there already), as I've seen part of Twilight on DVD (we had a drinking game going to see how many times Kristen Stewart could give the same facial expression; we did not make it far). Even from the brief comparisons, it's better, and doesn't promote, amongst other things, the idea that stalking a girl and alienating her from friends/family is love and not abuse. The fact that I would rather see Jeebus shoot projectile diarrhea on a stack of commons while fucking Jon Medina through a hole drilled into his skull than have anything else to do with Twilight notwithstanding, Hunger Games is a far better series, at least from what little I've witnessed and from everyone that I know who's talked of either or both of the two seems to indicate.

I think you're translating quality into success, which isn't always a good assumption. I think Twilight will still be the more commercially successful franchise because it appeals more to a large demographic that doesn't, by and large know what the difference between good writing and shitty writing is.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/box-office-shocker-hunger-games-third-best-opening-154614434.html

Beat the ass out of Twilight this weekend, and since there's a lot of rabid fans of the series, I imagine some will see it more than once, something that helped carry the Twilight series (I do not know what these rabid fans are called; let's assume it's Hungerers? Works for me).

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Mar 25 2012 04:00 pm

Something bugs me...just why -do- they call them "The Hunger Games"?

Posted: Mar 25 2012 04:10 pm

The winner gets food for their district.

Title: Alexz Aficionado Joined: May 21 2008 Posts: 2889

aeonic wrote:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/box-office-shocker-hunger-games-third-best-opening-154614434.html

Beat the ass out of Twilight this weekend, and since there's a lot of rabid fans of the series, I imagine some will see it more than once, something that helped carry the Twilight series (I do not know what these rabid fans are called; let's assume it's Hungerers? Works for me).

Apparently they call themselves "Tributes".

As fan names go, they kind of missed the entire point of being a Tribute. It's not a good thing. That'd be like Twilight fans calling themselves "Cullens".

Posted: Mar 25 2012 07:48 pm

Saw it today. Rather enjoyed it. Have to disagree with Schnitz though. There was alterations aplenty, (poor Madge), and I thought Peeta's deer-in-the-headlights look at the reaping was really good.

Joined: Apr 17 2011 Location: US Posts: 58

Just got back from seeing it a second time. As much as I enjoyed the book, I think I may be one of the rare few who would say the movie is better. Somehow I think the movie gets the feeling of dread and hatred towards the capitol across better than the book does. However I'm probably a poor judge of something like that because 90% of the time it's visuals, sound effects and music that get my emotions in a stir, better than my own imagination can when just reading. This is definitely one of my favorite series in a long time.

Posted: Mar 25 2012 11:33 pm

Valdronius wrote:

Saw it today. Rather enjoyed it. Have to disagree with Schnitz though. There was alterations aplenty, (poor Madge), and I thought Peeta's deer-in-the-headlights look at the reaping was really good.

I read the books when I was 15, and I haven't read them since (so about three years). I probably did miss quite a few alterations but it seemed rather true to the book. Madge?
EDIT: Looked it up. Totally forgot about that character. Proves how memorable she is. Razz

ChaoticIgnorance wrote:

Just got back from seeing it a second time. As much as I enjoyed the book, I think I may be one of the rare few who would say the movie is better. Somehow I think the movie gets the feeling of dread and hatred towards the capitol across better than the book does. However I'm probably a poor judge of something like that because 90% of the time it's visuals, sound effects and music that get my emotions in a stir, better than my own imagination can when just reading. This is definitely one of my favorite series in a long time.

I agree with this. I'm not one to ever say this, but the movie is far better than the book. I honestly will probably see the second movie, should they make it, but I loathed the third book so I will not see the movie.

Posted: Mar 26 2012 01:47 am

ChaoticIgnorance wrote:

Honestly I don't think the series is really about the games at all anyway since in the movie they don't even start until an hour and ten minutes in.

THANK YOU! This articulates EXACTLY why I like the movie (and the book) so much. The whole "games" thing isn't just a gimmick; the story does one of the best world building jobs I've ever seen.

Joined: Jun 29 2010 Posts: 1818

I'm just going to leave this here... (It's not how I feel about the movie, but I thought it was hilarious):

Posted: Mar 27 2012 04:59 pm

Heh, that was funny, Sehk.

Posted: Mar 27 2012 05:14 pm

lol people are pissed some of the characters are black:
http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

Posted: Mar 27 2012 07:13 pm

username wrote:

lol people are pissed some of the characters are black:
http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

For all of those people, the only thing I can say is... pretty sure those people were born that way. Oh, and shut the fuck up, that's what I would say to them. They're fictional characters, they can cast whoever the fuck they want. That's like complaining that Dennis Hopper wasn't part reptile but they cast him as King Koopa.

Posted: Mar 27 2012 07:18 pm

Wait, he's not?

Posted: Mar 27 2012 07:29 pm

aeonic wrote:

username wrote:

lol people are pissed some of the characters are black:
http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

For all of those people, the only thing I can say is... pretty sure those people were born that way. Oh, and shut the fuck up, that's what I would say to them. They're fictional characters, they can cast whoever the fuck they want. That's like complaining that Dennis Hopper wasn't part reptile but they cast him as King Koopa.

You know the most hilarious part of this? Rue and most of District 11 ARE described as black, or at least dark skinned according to that article. The people who are complaining didn't pay attention. Even *I* picked that up when I read the book. (In fairness I had seen the movie first, but still. It's RIGHT THERE in the description of the character.)

The olive skin thing for Katniss did catch me off guard though. I didn't picture her as Native American; when I hear olive skin and dark hair, I immediately thought Italian, maybe Spanish. *shrug* Honestly though, I'd rather have someone who can act the part well, than someone who looks the part. The whole cast did a fine job I thought. Especially Lenny Kravitz. I think Cinna was probably my favorite character in the whole movie. He may not have been a badass like Katniss, but he was badass in his own way. Kravitz did a bang up job of getting across (in like three scenes) how very much he cares for her and wants to help. Bravo, sir.

Posted: Mar 27 2012 08:25 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

The whole cast... ...Lenny Kravitz.

Hopefully he is not in this movie for long, and also, hopefully, he doesn't sing.

Posted: Mar 27 2012 09:26 pm

@om*d wrote:

SoldierHawk wrote:

The whole cast... ...Lenny Kravitz.

Hopefully he is not in this movie for long, and also, hopefully, he doesn't sing.

He's not, he doesn't, and he is absolutely one of the best parts of the movie imho.

Title: Alexz Aficionado Joined: May 21 2008 Posts: 2889

SoldierHawk wrote:

@om*d wrote:

SoldierHawk wrote:

The whole cast... ...Lenny Kravitz.

Hopefully he is not in this movie for long, and also, hopefully, he doesn't sing.

He's not, he doesn't, and he is absolutely one of the best parts of the movie imho.

As with most film adaptions this character's role, Cinna, was much bigger in the book. I was hoping for more Cinna time since it's an important relationship. Katniss' Stylist gang also only got 1 quick scene if I'm not mistaken. They also have scattered apperances as support characters in later books and are used to illustrate a change in lifestyle and District later on.

While I'm on book/movie comparisons...

The excess of The Capitol wasn't well protrayed to me. They were more focused on costumes and the look of the citizens than, to me, a much more important matter. How vast the difference in way of life and lifestyle was in the Capitol to outlying Districts. District 12, where Katniss from, is a direct example of that. Not enough was shown of 11 after Rue, though the emotion was all there in their anger.

How quick they took some scenes where the small things matters, expressions, people they meet, even the train ride to the Capitol makes me hope they put additional time on these smaller things which can have some bearings, in small ways, on Catching Fire and Mockingjay.

I also know things need to be rewritten for the screen, shown since we can's see thoughts, and written in an economical and streamlined way that makes it filmable. I think the Director's Cut, if there is on, will address my issues though.

Later movies will have the same book to screen problem, which is difficult to fix in a book that is told through the eyes of it's lead.