Film: Why The Hunger Games was NOT an amazing movie

[darkdemonofthemist]

I, an expert amateur movie critic, will explain to you the many faults of this highly anticipated movie.

So here we go.

Spoiler:

1. Rushed plot points: They spent way too much time on the minor parts of the story, leaving everything up to the training too quick and choppy. There was no smoothness in scene and event transitioning.
2. Unnecessary reaction shots of Gale: A main contributor to the rushed plot points. If they would've cut out the random minute or so of the several times they showed Gale watching the Hunger Games, they could've used that to spend a little more time letting things develop properly. They never showed Gale's family, or what Katniss's mom was like when she "tuned out."
3. Key aspects unexplained: The books made a big deal about the outfits Katniss wore during her interviews. The main dress she wore before the Hunger Games was supposed to make her extremely beautiful, thus boosting her popularity. The yellow dress she wore during her victory interview was very important! It was supposed to make her look very innocent so that people would believe her story about not being able to live without Peeta, and yet they never even mentioned it. The wolf monsters at the end of the Games were supposed to look like the previous tributes, but nope. Nothing was said about that. Once again, if they didn't show the random shots of Gale...
   
   But the most important thing they never explained is the fake love between Katniss and Peeta. It was actually a plan to get sponsors. However, the movie made it seem like it was spontaneous, as if Katniss really did like Peeta. That wasn't true! She just wanted sponsors! How could they leave that out!?
4. Distorted time: Obviously, Katniss spent more than a day with Rue before she died. They completely torched that. Who would cry over somebody they've only started talking to less than 12 hours ago? And yet the movie was 2 and a half hours long.
5. Plot changes: There's a little hut in the woods Katniss and Gale go to sometimes. What happened to that? Katniss is supposed to be an amazing singer, so why didn't they even attempt to make Jennifer Lawrence sound better? Katniss also got the Mockingjay pin from Madge, not the Hob. Also, Rue was supposed to be really good at finding food and climbing trees, but they only showed her in a tree once, not in any action. And the whole thing with Gale being way more involved than he should've been.
6. Unstable camera angles: While attempting to show movement or spanning over several objects, the camera angles were really weird and hurt my eyes, almost making me feel sick.
7. Gayness: When Katniss and Peeta were in the cave, and she was trying to convince him to let her go to the feast in the cornucopia, she kissed him and he went "Now there's no way I could let you go." My immediate thoughts were "I am about to throw up right here in the movie theater."
   

I totally called it. I knew the movie was going to have some serious faults. But I still went to see the midnight premiere anyway. You know, so I could prevent others from thinking it's awesome.

Who else agrees with me?

[kakashi uzumaki]

Did you actually read the book?

[darkdemonofthemist]

Originally Posted by kakashi uzumaki

Did you actually read the book?

I've read all three, of course!

[Seven]

I saw this movie last night, it was pretty good but also very sad.

[Kuromaki]

I'm going to bump this just because I love The Hunger Games. The movie may have its faults, but you can't fit everything from the book into the movie. Though one aspect I hated was the extremely shaky camera. For some of the fight scenes it worked, but it was overused. Also, Madge should have been in the movie. How hard would it have been to write her into the script? That pretty much ruins the Haymitch thing in Catching Fire too.

[darkdemonofthemist]

Originally Posted by Kuromaki

I'm going to bump this just because I love The Hunger Games. The movie may have its faults, but you can't fit everything from the book into the movie. Though one aspect I hated was the extremely shaky camera. For some of the fight scenes it worked, but it was overused. Also, Madge should have been in the movie. How hard would it have been to write her into the script? That pretty much ruins the Haymitch thing in Catching Fire too.

This is a firm but fair statement!

I would think that more people would be interested in this since it's pretty much the most popular movie out right now.

[Zatamizu Yougan]

I'd say the movie could better but I've no doubt the movie wasn't bad....

[Nābris]

You forgot to mention it's surprising similarity to the book "Battle Royale".

[Kingsnoke]

Originally Posted by Nābris

You forgot to mention it's surprising similarity to the book "Battle Royale".

By this logic does Nābris consider The Lord of the Rings to be a rip off of Wagner's Ring Cycle?

[Konoha'sGreenThunder]

The point I really agree with is the camera angles thing. I understand the whole shaky camera if the character is, say, running downhill, but they did it constantly. I couldn't see what was happening, and it was irritating.

[Wooster]

*looks at the screenshots*

How was the heroine able to keep her eyebrows perfectly plucked out in the wilderness?
You know how ridiculously movies made in this time are going to look 50 year? And it's all the fault of women and their obsession with removing every misplaced hair follicle...

[Thebattlemonster]

Obviously its not going to be perfect but imagine the whole book trying to put in a movie that is impossible !

Name me any movie that also has a long book and it has been a total succes

[Nābris]

Originally Posted by Kingsnoke

By this logic does Nābris consider The Lord of the Rings to be a rip off of Wagner's Ring Cycle?

A 'rip-off' would imply that Tolkien copy-pasta'd Der Ring des Nibelungen and only changed very, very few details. I honestly know very little about Wagner's operas, and therefore cannot give you an answer on that.

Let me clarify though: I don't mean to say that Hunger Games is a direct 'rip-off' of Battle Royal, because there are some key differences. However, they do have a lot of similar themes, and that just made me enjoy the film less.

[Wooster]

It also has similarities with The Most Dangerous Game(The Hounds of Zaroff), Running Man, and The Longest Walk. All of which were written before Battle Royale.

[tsuki]

I think the problem was that there should have done a thing where katiness thought's are heard. Then they would have been able to explain a lot more things. and they would have been able chop out the "notes from Haymitch" that were actually just Katiness' interpretation of the gifts in the book.

Also on your point on the rue time. In the movie Rue says Katiness had been asleep for a2-3 days, so technically they were together for a long period of time, lol.

Oh and I hated that Peeta just fell asleep during the movie, instead of Katiness giving him sleeping potion.

I also thought the guy from 11(thresh?) was badly cast. In the book he seemed like a giant. In the movie Katiness was almost as tall as him.

But I have to say it was a pretty faithful adaptation of the book compared with some other movies *coughHP4coughHP6coughHp1cough*

[AgentShayd]

This is why I NEVER listen to critics... they always like the movies I hate, and hate the movies I like...=/

[deadtaka]

Thresh didn't beat the girl's head in with a rock.
/topic

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

It also has similarities with The Most Dangerous Game(The Hounds of Zaroff), Running Man, and The Longest Walk. All of which were written before Battle Royale.

Are any of those about a government program where people
are contained together and are not allowed to leave until only
the people kill each other off until only person is left?

Because if not then they are only really similar in how Star Wars and Star Trek both take place in outer space.

Both Hunger Games and Battle Royale deal with the dynamic of
such a totalitarian program designed to prevent or stay rebellions.
Though as someone who has read Battle Royale and saw the Hunger
Games movie I can tell you that they do this in VERY different ways.

The Most Dangerous Game is different from both Battle Royale and Hunger Games in it's basic premise. The difference is the lack of a third party.
In The Most Dangerous Game, General Zaroff plays a game of cat and mouse with Sanger Rainsford. General Zaroff is the cat and Sanger
Rainsford is the mouse. However the twist is that the mouse wins.
Now as to why Zaroff is the cat and not the mouse despite losing.
The reason why is because how he acts is more like a cat that
plays with it's prey before killing it while Sanger is more like the
mouse who is simply doing whatever it can to survive. Since Zaroff
is the one who initiates this "most dangerous game" between himself
and Rainsford the comparison to Hunger Games or Battle Royale falls
short because there you have the third party of the government
forcing the 1st and 2nd party (the students) to fight each other to the death.

I haven't read the other examples so I can't comment on them.

But probably the most similar story to Hunger Games and Battle Royale

would be either...



or




In Gladiator and Spartacus the protagonist is put in a position where
a third party forces them to fight someone else to the death.
In Gladiator this third party is Ancient Rome. In Battle Royale it is
The Republic of Greater East Asia. In Hunger Games it is The Capitol
of Panem. Battle Royale would be closer to Gladiator as both are
more about the actual games. Hunger Games would be more like
Spartacus as the games seem more a back drop and are more
about the rebellion. Though it seems like Hunger Games may be
a tragic love story.

[Wooster]

The most important similarity is survial against another humans, and in this case surival against nature at the same time. In that way, they are all similar.

I am not claiming they are exactly the same, but essenitally all these things take their cue form The Most Dangerous Game and back to the the Roman Coliseum. That has the added eliminte of scape goating, which is lacking in The Most Dangerous Game.

But Running Man and The Longest Walk are governement enforced if that floats your boat.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I agree with everything you said that I know about, especially the camera angles that made me dizzy. I thought the game was poorly developed. They spent so much time getting into the game that the game just wasn't up to par. The players of the game got no development aside from Katnis and Peeta. I loved Rue but I didn't even get a chance to get to know her. I didn't feel any emotion during the final fight either. Mainly because the players in the alliance never defined themselves as individuals. I was amused by the movie, but not impressed. I felt no climax or emotion and the relationship between Katnis and Peeta never really hooked me in. I did like some of the names of characters and some of the costume designs before the game.