• 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.
Watched it tonight, while it wasn't bad I didn't come away thinking anything positive either.

For a movie where kids are thrown into an arena and asked to kill one another, how did the completely skirt the characters feeling guilty, remorseful, emotionally conflicted or reacting to fucking people dying around them?
After cutting down the conveniently placed wasp hive Katniss is directly responsible for the death of the blonde girl. She doesn't reflect on that fact whatsoever (the hallucination perhaps?). Peeta was with the careers when they killed the girl that started the fire, he doesn't reflect on that either; nor is he particularly remorseful for killing the red headed girl (accident or otherwise)
Like, I would have at least expected them to be affected under the circumstances; distraught, paranoid, anything?

Rather than an exploration of a... I don't know, KIDS KILLING EACH OTHER ON TV and how deplorable and disgusting a situation it is; it just kind of works itself out in the neatest fashion possible.

I'd give it a 6 for the wacky threads in The Capitol and Lenny Kravitz' eye shadow.
 
Replicant said:
That sounds kind of sexist. Katniss wasn't written in relation to the male characters. In fact, half of the movie she wasn't even interacting with the main male character. She was busy crafting her own identity and survival techniques. Moreover, she didn't have to parade around in skimpy bikini like the Princess in "John Carter", just to get a few lines in the film.

You want to talk about awful female representation? You don't need to look further than John Carter where the female lead need help from the male lead to save her. Meanwhile the girls in Hunger Games fight for themselves and die for themselves.
Click to expand...

I find the writing in The Hunger Games to be more sexist, imo. It suggests that she can only be a leader precisely because the men around her are completely and utterly useless.

In John Carter, both can fight. Did you forget their first meeting? 'Maybe I oughta get behind you.' Then yes, rather than try to escape by running great distances or plummeting to her death, she smartly and willingly accepts the help of the man who can jump great distances and heights.

All I was really doing was pointing out that the same teen girl wish fulfillment angle that is super ridiculous in Twilight is being played here, somewhat.
 
Scullibundo said:
I find the writing in The Hunger Games to be more sexist, imo. It suggests that she can only be a leader precisely because the men around her are completely and utterly useless.
Click to expand...
What men are you talking about? There's only 1 guy who pines for her and he's no slouch either in battle. The rest of the guys are vicious killers and I don't think any of them entertain the idea of crushing on her.
 
Replicant said:
What men are you talking about? There's only 1 guy who pines for her and he's no slouch either in battle. The rest of the guys are vicious killers and I don't think any of them entertain the idea of crushing on her.
Click to expand...

I must have imagined the cuts back to the farm boy looking all teary-eyed.
 
toasty_T said:
Watched it tonight, while it wasn't bad I didn't come away thinking anything positive either.

For a movie where kids are thrown into an arena and asked to kill one another, how did the completely skirt the characters feeling guilty, remorseful, emotionally conflicted or reacting to fucking people dying around them?
After cutting down the conveniently placed wasp hive Katniss is directly responsible for the death of the blonde girl. She doesn't reflect on that fact whatsoever (the hallucination perhaps?). Peeta was with the careers when they killed the girl that started the fire, he doesn't reflect on that either; nor is he particularly remorseful for killing the red headed girl (accident or otherwise)
Like, I would have at least expected them to be affected under the circumstances; distraught, paranoid, anything?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the movie yet, but have read the books, and my guess is because they already know that that is how the Games work. Remember that the Hunger Games isn't some competition thrown now and then, it is an annual event 'celebrated' throughout all the Districts.
 
Scullibundo said:
The scenes between the main characters of The Hunger Games were Stephanie Meyer bad. I will say it again; a strong heroine isn't strong because every male character around her is written as a sobbing, blubbering pussy defined by the fact that can't possibly spare a second without pining for the female lead. Pretty much every emotional beat in The Hunger Games fell flat to the point of comedy.
Click to expand...

I can definitely agree with you about Katniss not being a great example of a strong female character. I had this feeling after having read the books. I don't think she's as strongly written as even Hermione Granger for example, who also has bounds more character depth despite not being a POV character in the HP books.

All 3 book spoilers:
In the Hunger Games books, it feels like a lot of the time Katniss is being dragged along inside the story as things happen around her. This is a sign of bad characterization in the first place: your characters should drive the story, your story should not be driving the characters. Katniss is manipulated, and left out of important plans and details, simply pulled through the motions. Which would possibly have even worked if Katniss had ben forced to at some point make some hard or morally conflicting decisions herself -- but she never is. I found it particularly irritating in the third book when she spends so much time on the verge of a mental breakdown, drugged up or worse -- she is literally powerless most of the time... how can she be considered a strong female character?
 
Scullibundo said:
I must have imagined the cuts back to the farm boy looking all teary-eyed.
Click to expand...
So? He wasn't even in the game. He can't help her. Him moping has nothing to do with her skill. To imply that she's good because the men can't do anything is sexist because it's not like he could do anything to change the situation or show off his skill.
 
Replicant said:
So? He wasn't even in the game. He can't help her. Him moping has nothing to do with her skill. To imply that she's good because the men can't do anything is sexist because it's not like he could do anything to change the situation.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting she's good/strong because of that, I'm saying that it is what the movie is suggesting.

But anyway, the characters as a whole acted unbelievably. The story was hackneyed, cowardly and full of cheap shots that fell flat. That is the writing side of it. On the other side of table, it was similarly disappointing outside of a few performances in Lawrence, Banks and Tucci.

BertramCooper said:
God, just STFU about John Carter already.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to? I didn't bring it up. I responded to claims leveled against the movie.
 
DirtRiver said:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but have read the books, and my guess is because they already know that that is how the Games work. Remember that the Hunger Games isn't some competition thrown now and then, it is an annual event 'celebrated' throughout all the Districts.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they knew about the game and what it involved/implications but knowing and reacting are two different things
ignoring the careers
. The president or whatever mentions that they could just round up a bunch of kids
and execute them instead. Had that been the plot of the book/movie would I be made to expect them to think, "A well, fuck it. I had a good run"?

I was pretty impressed by how stone faced and unaffected they were. It seemed very unrealistic. Moreover, it not being a central theme came across as very odd.
 
My apology. I was simply responding to Sculli's earlier remark that Carter is better than this, which I thought is ridiculous. Just based on the story itself, this is far more engaging IMO.
 
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I went into Hunger Games just looking for a decent bit of popcorn fun after I saw it was getting good reviews. I came out angry that I had wasted my money and time on it because I felt like I was being short-changed at every turn.
 
Scullibundo said:
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I went into Hunger Games just looking for a decent bit of popcorn fun after I saw it was getting good reviews. I came out angry that I had wasted my money and time on it because I felt like I was being short-changed at every turn.
Click to expand...

Fine, but your criticisms are really getting over-the-top. Not a single moment of this film was "Stephenie Meyer bad."
 
Scullibundo said:
The scenes
in the cave between Katniss and her loyal puppy dog definitely came across that way to me. I was embarrassed for everybody in the theater.
Click to expand...

The book is far worse than the film in that regard. Kudos to Gary Ross for taking scenes that were kind of cringeworthy in the book and making them at least somewhat compelling in the film.
 
BertramCooper said:
The book is far worse than the film in that regard. Kudos to Gary Ross for taking scenes that were kind of cringeworthy in the book and making them at least somewhat compelling in the film.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well perhaps it doesn't seem so bad to you because you know how bad it could have been. The film is my only contact with the material.
 
The movie was very boring and drawn out. They could have fleshed out a few of the characters better. The themes and the nature of the game could have had an emotional impact, but it just fell really flat since I didn't know who any of the characters were and didn't care about them. I was happy when the movie ended just to get out of there.
 
I liked this movie. I also liked John Carter.

I thought the cave scene was good. It felt about as genuine as it could. It was forced by the circumstance they were in.
Not just the life and death element, but also the fact that people behind the scenes were manipulating them. It was explicit too. I haven't read the books but I would guess the sequels show a rocky relationship between the two.

I also don't find it sexist, and neither was John Carter. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.
 
just finished reading book 1. After I watched the movie. Whatever I thought of the celluloid version before; it captures the book very well; great companion pieces. And also; despite knowing the big moments in the film; it still held up very well as literature. Due to the nature of print; its more descriptive of the fights/challenges faced by the contestants vs what is visual so it felt like a different experience.

Gale+Katniss's relationship was a lot more clearly defined in the book; good finale as per the movie as well. I can't wait to read the other books and the sequels now.

One thing the book made quite clear that the movie did is the
career tributes.
I never really got the sense from the movie

a lot of things that people complained about in this thread specifically scullibundo; the book did address
(eg...food/exploding the stash of goodiess)
the plan was to take out the food - district 12+13 are poorer and used to hunger wherelse the other districts weren't. District 1-4 had more wealth and could afford people who spent all their lives training to be tributes (even when they aren't allowed to) - plus they tend to be "volunteers". District 11/12 volunteers = instant dead and are almost unheard of
Her plan wasn't to kill them to kill them via an explosion; but to destroy their food supplies so these overprivledged tributes will have to deal with hunger and would throw their strategy out the window
there was also an earlier paragraph @ Rue's death where she riffles through Distinct 1's bag and finds only 1 bag of dried fruits; and she is appalled at their arrogance with regards to this food situtation


The hunger games is actually quite a great name and apt for the franchise
 
Pachterballs, all that stuff seemed obvious to me while watching the movie. Pretty much everything Katniss did I would've done. I thought as characters the other tributes could've been better defined though.
 
Scullibundo said:
The scenes
in the cave between Katniss and her loyal puppy dog definitely came across that way to me. I was embarrassed for everybody in the theater.
Click to expand...

I didn't find that scene to be cringeworthy or anything, but I also think the film didn't do a great job delving more into
Katniss' inner debate as to whether this is an act for her or she might start to feel something, too. I suspect that's what Catching Fire as a movie will deal with, though.

I personally thought when it came time for the games themselves the film should have just left it as is without the cuts back to Seneca Crane at the control center.

Edit: On another note, I get that the novel is told from a first-person narrative, but what exactly was the audience who might not have read it supposed to think or how to react to Gale? He just felt... there...
 
After the introduction to the tributes on the chariot, why was that hot stud staring at Woody Harrelson.

I assume Legends character is more important in the books.
Katnss playing up the romance in the cave was kind of terrible jsut awkward and cheesy, didn't help peeta has kind been useless the entire movie.


I did love the world they created, I hope some cool stuff can come from it, the dichotomy between the capital and districts was really striking.
 
Was I the only one that found
Peeta camouflaging himself as a rock
fucking hilarious? There was a group of teenage girls behind me that were almost in tears from laughing.
 
Mr. Sam said:
Was I the only one that found
Peeta camouflaging himself as a rock
fucking hilarious? There was a group of teenage girls behind me that were almost in tears from laughing.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of that awkward scene between Sirius and Harry, where Sirius' face was molded into the fireplace, from Goblet of Fire. So yeah, kind of jarring. Camo Index 90%
 
Dany M said:
After the introduction to the tributes on the chariot, why was that hot stud staring at Woody Harrelson.

I assume Legends character is more important in the books.
Katnss playing up the romance in the cave was kind of terrible jsut awkward and cheesy, didn't help peeta has kind been useless the entire movie.


I did love the world they created, I hope some cool stuff can come from it, the dichotomy between the capital and districts was really striking.
Click to expand...

You should really spoiler that. Plus it's like that in the books as well. It serves a purpose.
 
Mr. Sam said:
Was I the only one that found
Peeta camouflaging himself as a rock
fucking hilarious? There was a group of teenage girls behind me that were almost in tears from laughing.
Click to expand...

waiting for an inevitable "They told me I could be anything, so I became the ground" picture meme to start popping up
 
Watched it yesterday and thought it was fantastic. It was exactly what I was expecting. The perfect adaptation.

I'd probably enjoy it more if it wasn't PG-13, but it had enough violence. And I'm also glad they didn't go ahead with the whole
mutts are tributes
thing.

Can't wait for Catching Fire. Too bad the promotional material will have to spoil the twist.
 
Glad i didn't go see it the other day, getting a lot of negative feedback which judging from the trailers doesn't surprise me.

I will still see the film but now i will wait for the blu-ray and rent it.
 
Saw this last night. Me and a friend went in to see it having not heard anything about the movie or books.

He liked it but I was bored and slightly disappointed. You know, I thought the movie itself was shot alright (expect for the odd uses of shaky cam) but I didn't feel anything for the characters so much or the world around them.

I think I was expecting to see more survival/killing but it ended up being a teenage romance deal. No biggie but it wasn;t for me. I laughed when they cut to Glen/Glam, (that's not right is it) looking forlorn because it just felt too hokey. I couldn't help but think of Battle Royale the whole time.

Just bored all the way around really. Lotta people were seeing it though, I bet it'll do pretty well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sinners might be the greatest genre film ever?
2
72
741
AJUMP23 replied
Your opinion, the Ghost in the Shell universe.
2
66
864
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
beets are the worst thing I ever tried
Opinion  2
58
442
Days like these... replied
The Mandalorian and Grogu | Official Trailer | In Theaters May 22, 2026
2 3
120
2K
EverydayBeast replied
  • Poll
Which one of these would you wanna be in your 70s?
30
490
ahtlas7 replied
Top Bottom