|
If they can finish Oliver Reed's scenes in 'Gladiator' 14 years ago, I sure hope they can add PSH back into The Hunger Games.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:If they can finish Oliver Reed's scenes in 'Gladiator' 14 years ago, I sure hope they can add PSH back into The Hunger Games. Well, they're finishing Paul Walkers scenes in fast and furious 32, so they should be able to do that too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Comic Con teaser trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzcYyzCZdiM
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Looks good - I say that because it matches fairly well the images in my head when I read the (first half of the) third book, though because Movie! it's much better lit. Movies can't do real darkness, so everybody underground always has plenty of big bright lights around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Natalie Dormer  She should keep that hairstyle. Looks amazing on her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
So I saw the first movie and I really don’t get the appeal. Without being mean I just found it really boring and poorly thought through. The world in The Hunger Games makes absolutely no sense, but it demands to be treated with total seriousness. The Reaping is supposed to subjugate the districts but in any logical universe it would achieve the opposite, unifying the people against their oppressors, and really it just seems to be conducted for shits and giggles. So the film takes this artificial nonsense scenario in order to force drama, but my real problem is that some goofy and fun ‘deathmatch’ films are actually MORE rational and believable. The Running Man features a deadly ice-hockey assassin, but a society sporting televised deathmatches for convicted serial killers still sounds much more coherent than a society founded on televised deathmatches for innocent children. In fact I’m really struggling to think of a sci-fi dystopia which makes less sense than this one, unless I start counting direct to video releases. I don’t have a problem with dumb movies nor serious movies, but I do have a problem with dumb movies that want to be taken seriously and this one completely falls apart if you don’t buy into its central drama. The commentary and themes that people seem so quick to celebrate really don’t hold any weight to me. Highlighting the media glorification of violence is meaningless and hypocritical when the film does the same thing itself, and I’d argue that people’s ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality has already been well demonstrated (simply by observing that society hasn’t collapsed into a Mad Max wasteland in the last two decades). Criticizing manufactured fake romances accomplishes little when the film follows up by pushing the same pairing and also teases at a completely unconvincing love triangle. I don’t think it works as an indictment of reality TV and fame seeking because the underlying motivation is completely different (nearly the exact opposite even). What message are people drawing from this? That class inequality is unfair? That forcing children to compete with each other can hurt them? Uhh, okay? It certainly mentions ideas, but that’s quite different from exploring them and I thought film critics were giving it far too much credit in this regard. Katniss is the only character with any depth but she spends most of the movie trying to disengage from everything. Running away as much as possible is a sound strategy but I didn’t find it entertaining and it contributed to the action being sparse and sporadic. Looking through the topic I see many of those criticisms have been raised before so I’m kinda glad it’s not just me. I know that this film was made with a rather different audience in mind, but still I was baffled by its success.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
I think at least part of the goal is to try and give the feeling of "that bastard from District 7 killed my daughter" and get the districts more angry and distrustful with each other then they are of the Capitol. Of course, when they take great pains to stamp the Capitol's face on the Hunger Games 24/7, that excuse falls apart something hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Sports in the US are about a hairbreadth away from literal Gladiator type stuff so that was meant more as a commentary on how bloodthirsty the public can be than about realistic reactions. Plus it's literally been around for 75 years so it's a baked in tradition at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Elite posted:In fact I’m really struggling to think of a sci-fi dystopia which makes less sense than this one, unless I start counting direct to video releases. This is a movie franchise based on a series of fairly lovely dystopian YA novels that are generic and derivative as gently caress. YA is just meant to resonate with its audience, it doesn't really have to strive for gritty realism. FWIW, that Diveregent series is the same premise taken to the nth level of retardation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Elite posted:So I saw the first movie and I really don’t get the appeal. Without being mean I just found it really boring and poorly thought through. For what it's worth, I completely agree. I read the books a couple years ago after my students started getting really into them and I just didn't understand the appeal, even putting myself in the perspective of what I liked as a teenager. There's no logic to the world THG creates, as you explained. Death Race 2000 is masterful social commentary compared to this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
So you didn't like the movies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:Comic Con teaser trailer: This looks pretty decent. In regard's to Elite's post, I agree with a lot of that and actually really dislike the books for the most part. Growing up I was a massive sucker for YA dystopian novels but as an adult I think the content works better in films, since YA writing tends to be so obviously bad when you're not a preteen anymore. The first movie is still pretty bad but I thought the second one was a lot better (especially with appropriate expectations as set by the first movie). I think why I actually appreciate these films to some degree is that it's a decent introduction to younger kids to think about, you know, things actually being kind of bullshit. Other popular YA material, Twilight being a great example, is not only pure schlock but also straight up feel-good fantasy garbage. At an age where you're usually consuming a lot of YA material, I appreciate that it's a good outlet to talk about really unpleasant subject matter. It paints in extremely broad strokes, which makes it a little hard not to pick it apart as an adult. I've not read the Divergent series but it does seem like a good example of the whole dystopian YA thing finally accelerating into overt stupidity and trash, but when I was a kid, stuff like The Giver was enthralling to me. I would kind of describe things like HG as 'Baby's First Intro to Things That Are Bad". Things tend to be extremely black and white (dictatorships bad, starving oppressed people bad, cruel and unusual punishment bad) but it provides a foundation for people to learn more about and build on as they get older instead of shoveling more Twilight La La Romance down their throats. At the end of the day I don't think HG is worthy of defense as some kind of cutting or insightful commentary on the subjects it explores, but I appreciate what that kind of YA entertainment is attempting to do and I thought the second movie is fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
The Giver is a really good example of how "dystopian YA" can outgrow its categorization as YA and just be a really thoughtful and important work of fiction. In the Hunger Games you have fall down drunk slapstick humor in between conversations about kids killing each other, and not done in a way that draws attention to the absurdity of the situation and how messed up that is, but just to sprinkle in some exposition. In reading the books I never felt like the author believed in the validity and congruency of the world she created, and that her characters never felt real to me as a result. It bothered me that Katniss was saved from ever having to kill somebody who wasn't already established to be a bad guy, and that in fact circumstances saved her from ever making a questionably immoral act. If you really want to introduce young adults to the general "messed upness" of the world, then you do that by putting your good characters in a situation where they must do evil. There are so many contrivances in the novels where Katniss is saved from making a truly hard decision that it becomes really distracting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Having seen a screening of The Giver, I wouldn't expect anything good if I were you. I haven't read the YA novel but the movie is far from a Hunger Games movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
That's too bad  Admittedly I had huge hopes for it from the get go, but realistically I'm not expecting it to be anything so hot. I tend not to trust trailers anymore so I'll see it sooner or later no matter what, but it looks like it could go either way based on what I've seen so far.exquisite tea posted:The Giver is a really good example of how "dystopian YA" can outgrow its categorization as YA and just be a really thoughtful and important work of fiction. In the Hunger Games you have fall down drunk slapstick humor in between conversations about kids killing each other, and not done in a way that draws attention to the absurdity of the situation and how messed up that is, but just to sprinkle in some exposition. In reading the books I never felt like the author believed in the validity and congruency of the world she created, and that her characters never felt real to me as a result. It bothered me that Katniss was saved from ever having to kill somebody who wasn't already established to be a bad guy, and that in fact circumstances saved her from ever making a questionably immoral act. If you really want to introduce young adults to the general "messed upness" of the world, then you do that by putting your good characters in a situation where they must do evil. There are so many contrivances in the novels where Katniss is saved from making a truly hard decision that it becomes really distracting. I think you're right for the most part, but one of the things that I think makes the books really pretty boring is that the writing is pretty bad, and Katniss is a completely useless character. The whole 'point' the book is trying to make revolves around societal/class differences and corrupt dictatorial leadership, but it wastes a lot of time on exploring characters that are pretty flat and uninteresting. I don't agree that most of the events don't draw attention to how absurd the situation is, though, just that it's not really on a level that does much for you if you're not 12 anymore. On the other hand, I agree that the entire concept and story is hampered by noticeable toothlessness, and a lot of things that would have more impact are conveniently worked around (like all the kids Katniss actually combats in the first movie being overtly 'bad'). I think it suffers from the poor writing and the fact that Katniss is more of a blank slate than an actual character. Most of the character writing in the books feels like a waste of time. The movie's best scenes are Capitol scenes and, well, anything with Philip Seymour Hoffman in it. mareep fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Hm, interesting discussion. Too bad I can't think of any way to segue it into talking about the new movie. Honestly I was expecting more recent posts, since this is coming out next week and has a decent shot at being the top-grossing film of the year. Having seen the Mockingjay, I could just write my impressions. Or, we could give up on this thread entirely and move all content into a new YA Adaptation Thread. This would also give us an on-topic excuse to discuss the series in relations to other films, since everyone keeps throwing up comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
I kind of forgot about it... And haven't had much time for movies lately. But the trailer was underwhelming and although I wasn't too in love with any of the books, the third one bored me out of my skull. I've watched Catching Fire a couple times now and still find it pretty decent as a popcorn movie with friends. But I dunno, I'm not hearing any buzz about the upcoming from anyone lately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
I'm probably not seeing it in theaters (same thing happened with the other two, and I enjoyed those) but it looks like it could be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
I saw Part 1 this evening, as part of some company's promotional something or other. Some of the scenes fell flat for me. Though the scenes that work, work very well, those that don't really don't. Overall, I enjoyed the film, and I think it complements the book well. One of the spoilers below concerns Part 2, so beware. I'm too tired to recall specifics, but there were a few things changed from the book (as always). I was initially confused by the portrayal of President Coin, but I figure it'll make the 13 twist surprising, rather than incredibly obvious. Moore's contacts look awful. Jennifer Lawrence has a lovely singing voice, and PSH looks awful in his first scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Just saw Part 1. I don't think any scenes really fell flat for me, but it did feel kind of long. Would have been better in the second half if it was cut tighter. I've read the books, so I can't really tell if Peeta's volte face was really suspenseful, but I wish it was more suspenseful so it could end on a nasty cliffhanger.  Regardless I really wanted to see Part 2 immediately, so I think the movie did its job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Haha I really wanted the film to end at Peeta trying to kill Katniss. Had I not just finished the books, I would have been flipping out. I think the actors did that one very well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
AGirlWonder posted:Haha I really wanted the film to end at Peeta trying to kill Katniss. Had I not just finished the books, I would have been flipping out. I think the actors did that one very well. There was a very intentional dip to black that lasted for a while there, which was certainly a nod to how the book ended. I don't blame them for wanting to show a little more, but it could very well have just ended there and driven twice the maddening need to see the next one. Overall it was just okay I guess, the action pieces were very engaging and well done but the rest of it was just sort of forgettable and bland. It handled a lot of things from the book very ineloquently (which is saying a lot considering the source material is YA), like how Finnick's speech essentially just bundled a lot of really relevant character developing information into a placid speech nobody in the audience is listening to anyway, since A) it was droll and B) it was intercut with a kick-rear end infiltration team sequence that was a lot more attention-grabbing. Katniss experiences all of that information in a much more personal way that makes it interesting and important (and makes a specific scene in the end of the last book much more poignant), and they just kind of have some guy reading it like a grocery list he's too bored to care about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
I'm kind of amazed that we got a mainstream pg13 film where the heroes are an insurgent movement that uses suicide bombers and propaganda videos. Hoffman looked awful in his first scene and his language was super stilted there so I assume that was his CGI double? He looked human in the rest of the film. A lot of the movie looked really TV style, with lots of head on medium shots of people talking, but it kind of worked for the whole insurgent video studio thing they had going. Haymitch and Effie felt severely underused. I felt like there must have been an interesting story behind how Effie got here and we're given none of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Hoffman got all of his parts for this movie filmed before his death, I thought? It's part 2 that they need to find a workaround for. As far as Effie, she's not in District 13 in the books so I think the "yeah Plutarch brought me here" line is hand-waving and the most we're gonna get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Hoffman looked awful in his first scene and his language was super stilted there so I assume that was his CGI double? He looked human in the rest of the film. Francis Lawrence did an interview and said the CGI Hoffman was a dumb rumor that got started. He filmed almost all his scenes for both movies except for 2 dialogue scenes (1 in each movie), and all they did was give that dialogue to Effie in this one and to Haymitch in the next one. They didn't CGI him into any scene in either movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:I'm kind of amazed that we got a mainstream pg13 film where the heroes are an insurgent movement that uses suicide bombers and propaganda videos. BSG did it first. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
I didn't really like the movie. I felt like Katniss was just dragged from point A to point B and told to do a thing, and then that was repeated over and over again throughout the entire movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I didn't really like the movie. I felt like Katniss was just dragged from point A to point B and told to do a thing, and then that was repeated over and over again throughout the entire movie. To be fair that's kind of the point. We'll be seeing the consequences of that being dragged around next movie. Did it make for engaging cinema? Debatable. But the story is very aware that she's the cat chasing the laser pointer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
qbert posted:Francis Lawrence did an interview and said the CGI Hoffman was a dumb rumor that got started. He filmed almost all his scenes for both movies except for 2 dialogue scenes (1 in each movie), and all they did was give that dialogue to Effie in this one and to Haymitch in the next one. They didn't CGI him into any scene in either movie. Interesting, both his speaking and his face in that opening looked really wrong compared to every other scene, and much of his lines were read with his face off screen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Interesting, both his speaking and his face in that opening looked really wrong compared to every other scene, and much of his lines were read with his face off screen. Well it's possible they would have done reshoots if he was alive but they just had to make do with what they had?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
True. It's just unfortunate that it's his first scene because it set kind of a terrible tone for me, while the rest was fine, but that's not really something they could work around. I liked that when the military raid to save Peeta happened we got some shots of Katniss watching it as a six player split screen first person shooter. More probably could have been done with that. Also, cheering for the heroes shooting down/blowing up bad guys while being told this is a propaganda film kind of made it a family friendly Inglorious Basterds. The one moment of violence at the end that's actually shocking is the one "unscripted" moment that the rebels didn't see coming. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
That entire sequence was very well filmed, choreographed, and cut together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:There was a very intentional dip to black that lasted for a while there, which was certainly a nod to how the book ended. I don't blame them for wanting to show a little more, but it could very well have just ended there and driven twice the maddening need to see the next one. I don't think it would have driven the unspoiled to want to see the next one--it just would have annoyed them. It would have annoyed me, and I know the reason for it. (Not to mention that anybody who was really curious about the reason he did it would just ask their friends/go on the internet long before the next movie came out.) It's just not a good enough cliffhanger to end a movie on. I don't know what would have been a better place to cut, though--I didn't like how they chose to end it any better. (During the fade to black after that scene, the guy in front of me just audibly whispered "THAT WAS AWESOME" and everyone around him started giggling.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
aslan posted:I don't think it would have driven the unspoiled to want to see the next one--it just would have annoyed them. It would have annoyed me, and I know the reason for it. (Not to mention that anybody who was really curious about the reason he did it would just ask their friends/go on the internet long before the next movie came out.) It's just not a good enough cliffhanger to end a movie on. I don't know what would have been a better place to cut, though--I didn't like how they chose to end it any better. Not very sure about that, since they beat you in the head with what's coming for about 20 minutes before it happens. These films aren't known for their subtlety (for good reason I guess). Out of the two hanging endings in the film I'm not ready to say one is necessarily better than the other, just that the extra exposition after the first didn't really add anything critical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:
I'm pretty sure I heard that Effie is to be used in place of Plutarch for the more important scenes that Philip Seymore-Hoffman didn't film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Gaz2k21 posted:I'm pretty sure I heard that Effie is to be used in place of Plutarch for the more important scenes that Philip Seymore-Hoffman didn't film. The scene where Effie hands Katniss Cinna's sketchbook for her costume was originally supposed to be Plutarch and Katniss. That's the only Plutarch scene given to Effie because of Hoffman's death. The other dialogue scene he didn't film is in Part 2, and was given to Haymitch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
This one had a lot more time to breathe. They were able to better explore mood and tension and set up the emotional stuff.... which actually made it feel a little slow in places, very unlike the first two. There was one scene in which Phillip Seymour Hoffman looked really stoned, which we know now that he probably was. Sad. My 9yo's review was, "I didn't like it, nothing happened" but I liked it because I think it is a good part 1 of a two part movie. Part 2 has been set up properly. Bring on the denouement. Elite posted:The world in The Hunger Games makes absolutely no sense, but it demands to be treated with total seriousness. The Reaping is supposed to subjugate the districts but in any logical universe it would achieve the opposite, unifying the people against their oppressors, and really it just seems to be conducted for shits and giggles. I just try to imagine how badly the Districts must have all gotten beaten during the war, and how oppressive Capitol must have been, that deciding to just randomly sacrifice 2 of their children every year seemed, to the Districts, like a really good tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Just got out of it. Was surprisingly impressed with the first two, but this one felt like it had First Part Of Two Part Trilogy Ending syndrome: it's setting up all the stuff for the Real Ending, but in and of itself there's not a lot of meat there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:It handled a lot of things from the book very ineloquently (which is saying a lot considering the source material is YA), like how Finnick's speech essentially just bundled a lot of really relevant character developing information into a placid speech nobody in the audience is listening to anyway, since A) it was droll and B) it was intercut with a kick-rear end infiltration team sequence that was a lot more attention-grabbing. Katniss experiences all of that information in a much more personal way that makes it interesting and important (and makes a specific scene in the end of the last book much more poignant), and they just kind of have some guy reading it like a grocery list he's too bored to care about. I agree with this. The scene bothered me because I first thought they would totally skip over it, and then because the rescue scene overshadowed it. In the book, Finnick's speech is really troubling and interesting, but the film cuts it into too-small pieces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Since it's not like it's a thing that any sort of Wiki would have posted, could you go ahead and spoil the whole thing? I was actually more interested in that, than I was in The Raid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:31
|
|