• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Hunger Games (Dir. Gary Ross) |OT| May The Odds Be Ever In Your Favor

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the books are not so good, will the movie be at least better than the source material? I heard Katniss is like a cold bitch in the book, but Jennifer Lawrence makes her likeable.

I really did not like the book, but I think the premise could make a better movie. The writing certainly couldn't be more dull.
 
If the books are not so good, will the movie be at least better than the source material? I heard Katniss is like a cold bitch in the book, but Jennifer Lawrence makes her likeable.

She's not a cold bitch, just very singly minded on survival and oblivious the other peoples' feelings.
 
The books are good.

Kat is a confused teen with too much responsibility which can be annoying if you don't care about that aspect of the story.

the movie is not told in 1st person so it should be more palatable.

One thing I read about this is while it is better in most ways for the film it makes it very difficult for the audience to understand what Kat is thinking
regarding the whole romance thing with Peeta. In the book she is pretty sure it is all a game and she is just playing into that strategy, but in the movie you don't get that inner monologue so it comes off kind of confusing that she is so ambivalent about the whole thing.

BTW, Ebert's reviews are great if only for quips like this:

Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), who suggests what Donald Trump might do with his hair if he had enough of it.
 
Ebert's review is up.

It's a positive review, and I'm sure his critiques are fair (I can't say for certain since I haven't seen the film, of course). That said, the sequels definitely delve more into the societal aspects of Panem than the first book does, so I'm sure he'll enjoy Catching Fire a lot.
So Ebert sounded disappointed the movie didn't use the film to push an agenda about societal ills, but he says the movie makes for good entertainment.

And I'm ok with that.
 
She's not a cold bitch, just very singly minded on survival and oblivious the other peoples' feelings.

That's only half true, she did everything for her family from risking her life and safety to provide for them and again when (early first book)
when she took her sisters place at the culling
. She also ended up doing a lot for
Haymitch
and obviously cared for her Capital prep team. I will agree that she was oblivious to a lot though, but I wonder how much of that was effected by the Games...

One thing I read about this is while it is better in most ways for the film it makes it very difficult for the audience to understand what Kat is thinking
regarding the whole romance thing with Peeta. In the book she is pretty sure it is all a game and she is just playing into that strategy, but in the movie you don't get that inner monologue so it comes off kind of confusing that she is so ambivalent about the whole thing.

BTW, Ebert's reviews are great if only for quips like this:

Did they really not make that clear in the movie? That would be a pretty significant thing not to make a point of...


EDIT: Back to back cat avatar power!
 
Quote from that New Yorker piece

In Scott Westerfeld’s popular “Uglies” series, for example, all sixteen-year-olds undergo surgery to conform to a universal standard of prettiness determined by evolutionary biology


This Scott Westerfeld guy is a hack. That's an episode of The Twilight Zone. It's called "Number 12 Looks Just Like You". From the Wikipedia summary:

The guy borrowed a very basic premise from a 22-minute television show and turned it into a series of 3 novels. How does that make him a hack?

More provocatively, how does it make him more of a hack than a lady who took the premise of Running Man/Battle Royale and turned it into 3 novels?
 
One thing I read about this is while it is better in most ways for the film it makes it very difficult for the audience to understand what Kat is thinking
regarding the whole romance thing with Peeta. In the book she is pretty sure it is all a game and she is just playing into that strategy, but in the movie you don't get that inner monologue so it comes off kind of confusing that she is so ambivalent about the whole thing.
I like Katniss as a character so that would be missed. The thing I empathize with is that she is so confused and clueless unless she figures it all out herself
(She does this until the very end of the trilogy)
and it's going to be tough to convey that unless written well. They would have to show in some way or fashion
that she's playing to the audience
. It depends on whether they are setting this up for an obvious sequel or if it's just hinted at.

Given the reviews, I'll assume they figured it out.
 
91% on rotten tomatoes with 66 reviews. Guaranteed to stay fresh at this point. Loved the book and I'm really glad the movie's getting good reviews.
 
How did this movie get away with a PG-13 rating? I'm interested to know if they just don't show some of the more violent scenes or do quick camera cut-aways.
 
How did this movie get away with a PG-13 rating? I'm interested to know if they just don't show some of the more violent scenes or do quick camera cut-aways.

I loved the surprising violence in the books but pretty sure it will be much more subtle to keep it PG13.
 
How did this movie get away with a PG-13 rating? I'm interested to know if they just don't show some of the more violent scenes or do quick camera cut-aways.
the first 2 are easy to avoid and the nudity (The bigger concern imo) is toned down with the toning down of the Capital.

The 3rd book is going to have to be altered if made into a movie.
 
I don't want to waste that much money for a cinema ticket.

Is the movie genuinely good from people who haven't read the books or is this just hype praise? What do Expendable., swoon, jarosh, and the other GAF critics think about it?

Are there any twists or any deeper social satire to the movie? Basically, does it feel like Battle Royale/Running Man or just a boilerplate action movie with a cooler premise?
 
I don't want to waste that much money for a cinema ticket.

Is the movie genuinely good from people who haven't read the books or is this just hype praise? What do Expendable., swoon, jarosh, and the other GAF critics think about it?

Are there any twists or any deeper social satire to the movie? Basically, does it feel like Battle Royale/Running Man or just a boilerplate action movie with a cooler premise?

There are plenty of reviews up now on rottentomatoes from all sorts of people. Those who liked the book, hated the book, and those who never read the books.

All in all very positive.

I wish they kept the nudity in the movie :(
 
I'm glad it's supposed to be good. I enjoyed the book (only read the first so far) and immediately thought it would make a good movie. I was kind of bummed that it was PG-13 considering some of the stuff that happened in the book but it doesn't seem to detract from the movie. Not that I wasn't expecting it to be PG-13 considering the source.
 
Just what I was looking for! Guess I'll be happy checking it out, knowing it's not just a stupid teenage pandering movie. Everyone kept on bringing up Twilight (like with I Am Number Four, Red Riding Hood, Beastly), so I was apprehensive.

Soderbergh in with the help :P What is the job of a 2nd unit anyway? Does one team do the normal dialogue stuff, and the other team the action?

Yeah, nothing really like those movies at all. Oddly a lot better than the marketing would suggest which is a rarity. Judging from the shots in the movie, it looks like Soderbergh handled some establishing shots. There are two in particular that look a lot something he would come up with. 2nd unit mostly does set-ups that don't involve the main talent. Andy Serkis, for example, is 2nd unit on The Hobbit so he captures a lot of landscapes and stuff like that.
 
Holy shit..

EXCLUSIVE: I’ve just learned that The Hunger Games will receive the largest release in the history of Lionsgate with an opening weekend North American count of 4,137 locations. The studio will have just under 10,000 prints playing throughout the U.S. and Canada and that number keeps going up daily. More than 75% of the prints are in digital, with 268 IMAX theatres across North America playing the hotly anticipated pic. More later.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/hunger-games-opening-in-4137-theaters/
 
That's just the record for Lionsgate. I think that number is in line with most blockbusters. Widest opening thus far has been Twilight: Eclipse's 4,468 theatre tally.


By the way @ Expendable, love how you explained the reaping scene. Seems like it was shot fabulously.
 
That print count is ridiculous. It's the kind of screen saturation reserved only for the biggest blockbuster sequels.


That's just the record for Lionsgate. I think that number is in line with most blockbusters. Widest opening thus far has been Twilight: Eclipse's 4,468 theatre tally.
It's actually the widest opening ever for a non-sequel.
 
It's actually the widest opening ever for a non-sequel.
Oh.

I don't think the world is ready for what's about to be unleashed this weekend.

iYQFd5NqPvlSI.gif
 
Is the movie genuinely good from people who haven't read the books or is this just hype praise? What do Expendable., swoon, jarosh, and the other GAF critics think about it?

jarosh and i are seeing it tomorrow, i'm sure he'll share his opinion here as soon as we're back home. he hasn't read any of the books (actually, i'm the only one who has of all the people we're seeing it with) so it'll be interesting to compare opinions after the film.
 
Why are we randomly bolding words?

I'm hopefully going to catch this on Friday with my niece, I DID not expect this to become an instant blockbuster.
 
so, the film is not in 3d? i thought they did a 3d conversion for this.
will watch it because of the positive reviews, didnt care much for the trailers.
 
Yeah, nothing really like those movies at all. Oddly a lot better than the marketing would suggest which is a rarity. Judging from the shots in the movie, it looks like Soderbergh handled some establishing shots. There are two in particular that look a lot something he would come up with. 2nd unit mostly does set-ups that don't involve the main talent. Andy Serkis, for example, is 2nd unit on The Hobbit so he captures a lot of landscapes and stuff like that.

Cool to know!
 
Oh, ok.


I'm personally elated because there's nothing worse than converted 3D. Yuck.

I hate the effect that 3D conversions have on my mind. When a film has one available and I'm watching it, I never like it. But if instead I'm watching the regular version of such film, I feel like I must be missing something knowing that there's a 3D version.

And I never learn.
 
I'm expecting at least $125 million for the weekend, but I wouldn't be shocked if it gets as high as $150. Arclight Hollywood now has 11 midnight showings, most of which are sold out.
 
Insane how estimates were in the $70 million range not long ago. The hype has gone out of control.

It's also important to note that this movie will likely have better legs than all the Potter and Twilight sequels since it's the first in the series. I wouldn't be shocked if the total gross ends up in the $400 million range.


Suzanne Collins must be thrilled.
 
My fiance just read the book. So did her mother and her brother. I was told I should check it out...I very well might so I can go see this with her when I see her again.
 
I thought many parts of the book were very cheesy, so hopefully the movie doesn't have that same vibe. All the shit with the stylists was AWFUL. And there were a lot of other eye rolling moments when I read the book.

Still interested in seeing the film though. Definitely not this weekend, but maybe in a week or two
 
The 3rd book is going to have to be altered if made into a movie.
Can you further explain without spoilering?

Amazon reviews for the 3rd book are disappointing.
Can I read the 2nd book and just ignore the 3rd? Or will the 2nd end with a huge spoiler?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom