- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 3/18/13 at 8:27 am to SG_Geaux
quote:I think the cinematography issues have been brouoght up since it was released. That was one of my first and biggest gripes.
Is Hunger Games the new cool movie to hate on now?
Besides that, I've always thought the idea behind the book was pretty dumb. Seriously? Kids killing each other? I cant think of a worse way to keep a population "in line".
Posted on 3/18/13 at 8:45 am to Rex
Of course you hated Hunger Games...it was aimed at pre-teens, not dirty old hippies wearing dog costumes.
These movies/books are marketed to kids, if you're a 40 year old professional then it likely won't appeal to you. That is like reading a Dr. Seuss book and saying, "wow! That can't even touch the genius of Charles Dickens. What a load of shite!" If you learn to tailor your expectations to a more reasonable standard, you won't go through life so miserable all the time. For example, when you start a thread, I know it is going to absolutely suck...thus, I don't expect much and am never disappointed.
That being said, I can see how kids would dig Hunger Games. Violence, sparkly things, awkward sexual tension etc. I thought it was ok, didn't blow my mind but didn't make me regret seeing it. Oh and Jennifer Lawrence was
These movies/books are marketed to kids, if you're a 40 year old professional then it likely won't appeal to you. That is like reading a Dr. Seuss book and saying, "wow! That can't even touch the genius of Charles Dickens. What a load of shite!" If you learn to tailor your expectations to a more reasonable standard, you won't go through life so miserable all the time. For example, when you start a thread, I know it is going to absolutely suck...thus, I don't expect much and am never disappointed.
That being said, I can see how kids would dig Hunger Games. Violence, sparkly things, awkward sexual tension etc. I thought it was ok, didn't blow my mind but didn't make me regret seeing it. Oh and Jennifer Lawrence was
Posted on 3/18/13 at 8:47 am to alajones
quote:
Besides that, I've always thought the idea behind the book was pretty dumb. Seriously? Kids killing each other? I cant think of a worse way to keep a population "in line".
I agree with some of the other stuff that I've read on the books themselves that point out that the biggest flaw with the books is the opposite of more Sci-Fi. The "world" is pathetic at the very least. It doesn't make any sense how it is set up or how it works. The characters are slightly better, though Katniss is pretty heinous.
The first book is actually very good if you ignore the fact that the stated motivations and reasons for the Hunger Games even existing doesn't make a lick of sense.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:02 am to CrippleCreek
Wasn't it the highest grossing movie that year. Somebody must have liked it.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:03 am to Rex
quote:
Just watched "The Hunger Games" ---- wow
It was bad but then it was pretty much what I expected from B movie material. Jennifer Lawrence makes it worth one watch.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:14 am to Rex
she looks better as a brunette.... thats why i stuck with it
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:29 am to Wooly
Wasn't the biggest fan of this movie but it entertained me enough to finish it. The all out brawl scene with kids killing each other was interesting
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:30 am to Rex
the book is better, but it still isn't very well written
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:48 am to Rex
I thought it blew Battle Royale out of the fricking water. That movie sucked arse. Yeah, I said it.
Though the casting of Peeta was fricking abysmal. The "strong man" can't be smaller than the leading lady. That's just dumb.
Though the casting of Peeta was fricking abysmal. The "strong man" can't be smaller than the leading lady. That's just dumb.
This post was edited on 3/18/13 at 9:50 am
Posted on 3/18/13 at 9:57 am to LoveThatMoney
At least battle royale made a semblance of sense.
sending the bad kids to fight to the death might actually keep discipline of kids under control.
plus not fair to compare a low budget Japanese flick with big budget Hollywood.
sending the bad kids to fight to the death might actually keep discipline of kids under control.
plus not fair to compare a low budget Japanese flick with big budget Hollywood.
This post was edited on 3/18/13 at 9:59 am
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:00 am to TigerMyth36
Battle Royale owns Hunger Games. Hunger Games was fricking terrible and BORING.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:10 am to TigerMyth36
quote:
At least battle royale made a semblance of sense.
No it didn't.
quote:
plus not fair to compare a low budget Japanese flick with big budget Hollywood.
People before me had already done it. Moreover, many people compare the two films. The problem with Battle Royale is I literally didn't give a frick about any of the students. And what the hell was the motivation of the teacher, who is all the sudden a cold-hearted prick? Was just a stupid fricking movie designed to attract an audience that likes violence. The only interesting scene in the movie was when (SPOILER I GUESS)
The girls in the lighthouse all killed each other. That was a pretty good look at human nature.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:17 am to ArtooDetoo
quote:
That is like reading a Dr. Seuss book and saying, "wow! That can't even touch the genius of Charles Dickens. What a load of shite!"
A 40 year old watching a movie about kids killing each other is not the same difference between Dickens and Dr. Seuss.
If his giant gripe was about a kids animated movie, like say, The Lorax!, then cool, make that comparison. You're argument is dumber than his. The Hunger Games takes itself serious, and tries real hard at that, the entire movie. How much of the movie is light hearted? Hmm maybe 5 minutes total.
Of course he didn't like it, he's not a Pre teen. All the teenagers and up are breaking the rules liking. Defying the natural process. The author ad director only wanted pre teens to like it. A violent movie based off teens murdering one another, the majority of them loving doing so, was strictly aimed at grades k-5. Completely agree.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:24 am to TigerMyth36
I didn't mind the books, the first being the best obviously. I stalk Jennifer Lawrence, a hot chick, not JGL. So I didn't mind the movie either, despite terrible cinematography. I enjoyed the books pretty good actually.
I haven't watched Battle Royale and doubt I will. It was released in 2000. The Hunger Games book was released in 2008. The timing would be spaced out enough that THG could have been ripped off of Battle Royal, did it have that many similarities?
I haven't watched Battle Royale and doubt I will. It was released in 2000. The Hunger Games book was released in 2008. The timing would be spaced out enough that THG could have been ripped off of Battle Royal, did it have that many similarities?
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:25 am to LoveThatMoney
Nobody has answered my question... were holograms actually eating people? Seems that a society advanced enough to make such things would figure out how to produce food? Or that limiting population would be a better idea to combat hunger than to randomly kill some kids? Or was hunger, itself, an intentional device to keep the population in line? If so, I can't think of a stupider way to do such a thing... hungry people aren't too happy.
Guess after watching the movie I can't figure out what all the Hunger Games fuss was about.
Guess after watching the movie I can't figure out what all the Hunger Games fuss was about.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:29 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The movie is a watered-down version of the book. It removed some of the novel's more violent and adult themes to secure a PG-13 rating.
My biggest worry about Ender's Game.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:31 am to Rex
quote:
Nobody has answered my question... were holograms actually eating people
First rule of fight club
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:33 am to iwyLSUiwy
The target age range is roughly 10-19, so perhaps I should have included teenagers. Either way, it is a far cry from 5 and 6 year olds, which is not what I meant.
Also, let's look at other books/movies involving "teenage death" that are aimed at the same target audience: Twilight, Ender's Game and Harry Potter. Yes, there are adult themes incorporated but they are not aimed at adults, can you see the difference?
I agree that the Dickens comparison is a bit off, but all I was trying to say is that it shouldn't be a shocker that a middle-aged man dislikes/can't relate to a film targeting primarily pre-teens/teenagers/tweens whatever.
Also, let's look at other books/movies involving "teenage death" that are aimed at the same target audience: Twilight, Ender's Game and Harry Potter. Yes, there are adult themes incorporated but they are not aimed at adults, can you see the difference?
I agree that the Dickens comparison is a bit off, but all I was trying to say is that it shouldn't be a shocker that a middle-aged man dislikes/can't relate to a film targeting primarily pre-teens/teenagers/tweens whatever.
Posted on 3/18/13 at 10:44 am to Rex
The government controls the outer districts by regulating everything they can and cannot do. Each district has a small army there to keep them in line. Hunting, etc is forbidden so you'll be forced to accept food from the government which, in turn, makes the odds of your child going to the Hunger Games greater.
The Capitol is where the government is (obviously.). That's where all the tech and food is. The Hunger Games are the Capitol's way of reminding the outer districts that the government is in control.
The first movie is the 74th Hunger Games. You have to figure that everyone from the pre-Hunger Game era is dead, and at this point, the population just bends over and takes it. What are they supposed to do? Attack the "peace keepers" with sticks like Ewoks to Storm Troopers?
As for the holograms, they were better explained in the book and each hologram resembled a fallen tribute. It's my understanding that the arena is basically one big hologram or better yet, like The Grid in Tron. That's how the game makers control everything.
The Capitol is where the government is (obviously.). That's where all the tech and food is. The Hunger Games are the Capitol's way of reminding the outer districts that the government is in control.
The first movie is the 74th Hunger Games. You have to figure that everyone from the pre-Hunger Game era is dead, and at this point, the population just bends over and takes it. What are they supposed to do? Attack the "peace keepers" with sticks like Ewoks to Storm Troopers?
As for the holograms, they were better explained in the book and each hologram resembled a fallen tribute. It's my understanding that the arena is basically one big hologram or better yet, like The Grid in Tron. That's how the game makers control everything.
This post was edited on 3/18/13 at 10:48 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News