Thread: Hunger Games?

$370 mil and counting. Looks like another billion dollar trilogy in the making.

Haven't seen it yet...but I think it's success is maybe derivative of "Worlds of Warcraft" or whatever that dungeon's and dragons type game that is so popular with teens these days. I can't see any other reason for the movie's continual success. I mean, Lord of the Rings was so successful because it was an impressively well directed and entertaining movie trilogy. Both were given the fortune of being based upon extremely popular books. But J.R. Tolkien crafted a MASTERPIECE...can't say the same for the author of the Hunger Games books.

I guess I'll have to see it and find out if all the hype and hoopla is worth it.

--

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

$370 mil and counting. Looks like another billion dollar trilogy in the making.

Haven't seen it yet...but I think it's success is maybe derivative of "Worlds of Warcraft" or whatever that dungeon's and dragons type game that is so popular with teens these days. I can't see any other reason for the movie's continual success. I mean, Lord of the Rings was so successful because it was an impressively well directed and entertaining movie trilogy. Both were given the fortune of being based upon extremely popular books. But J.R. Tolkien crafted a MASTERPIECE...can't say the same for the author of the Hunger Games books.

I guess I'll have to see it and find out if all the hype and hoopla is worth it.

--

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

I read all three books recently, they were ok. Like others said - written at a 5th grade level. The whole time I thought the author had cool ideas (if not entirely original) but didn't get the most out of them because of the plainness of the writing.

Probably gonna see the movie this weekend.

Originally Posted by schuss

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Care to fill me in? Unless you think Hunger Games is right up there with masterful trilogies such as Lord of the Rings...to which I would rightly say "Balderdash"!!

--

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

Care to fill me in? Unless you think Hunger Games is right up there with masterful trilogies such as Lord of the Rings...to which I would rightly say "Balderdash"!!

--

I'm saying it's about as close to World of Warcraft as a dog is to theoretical physics, though I suppose both Hunger Games and WoW have trees in them. No, it's not masterful, but it's more a take off of Battle Royale/Brave New World etc. dumbed down and passed through a Harry Potter/Romance filter.

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

I mean, Lord of the Rings was so successful because it was an impressively well directed and entertaining movie trilogy. Both were given the fortune of being based upon extremely popular books. But J.R. Tolkien crafted a MASTERPIECE...can't say the same for the author of the Hunger Games books.

I have to agree with schuss. While the hunger are no masterpiece, they are EXTREMELY popular, with people of ALL ages.

If you haven't read the books yet, don't bother with the movie.

read all three books and just saw the movie this weekend. Thought it was pretty good. though way too much shakey cam. made things hard to follow whenever there was action.

as far as book to movie movies i thought it was good

read the first book and saw the movie, not impressed. 22 out of 47 stars.

Originally Posted by satori

That's what I was going to say. Battle Royale By Koushun and then made into a movie by Beat Takeshi is pretty fucked up.

Finished the book last week, took about 3 nights of reading. Really pulled you along. I'm interested to see how the movie came out. In the print I read, there was an interview with both the author and director of the film. Interesting to hear their perspective.

Jennifer Lawrence makes my boy-bits all tingly...

Originally Posted by mtskier

If you haven't read the books yet, don't bother with the movie.

I disagree a tad. My pops, who is 79, and I saw the film and enjoyed it and neither of us have read any of the books.

Sure, the overall story borrows from myriad sources (short stories like "The Lottery" and "The Most Dangerous Game", books like The Handsmaid Tale, Logan's Run, and other post-apocalyptic endeavors, plus films like The Most Dangerous Game, Battle Royale, etc.), but I feel like a number of you miss the main point: the books were written for young adults, specifically. They were published by Scholastic, the book company that specializes in books for kids and young adults. Heck, when you go to check the book out on Amazon it states in the Reading Level stats: Ages 12 and up. Even one of the reviews on Amazon, from the School Library Journal suggests that the book is for Grade 7. Furthermore, the author comes from a children's television background (she wrote shows for Nickelodeon) and she wrote a 5 book series for middle school kids prior to the Hunger Games trilogy. In short, her focus has always been on young children and young adults, so of course her writing isn't going to be on a Tolkien level.

I know quite a few parents who read the books because they wanted to make sure they were appropriate for their kids. Additionally, I recall Stephen King giving The Hunger Games a pretty positive review in EW, which of course would put it on many adults' radar.

In terms of the film's success, Hollywood has been searching for the next "Harry Potter" ever since that film series started to come to an end. As a result they keep mining the caves of popular books that not only resonate with teens, but also adults (i.e. Twilight, Hunger Games, etc.). Think about the number of popular (and well-regarded) young adult fantasy book series that were rushed into films over the past few years: The Dark is Rising series by Susan Cooper (the film The Seeker tanked);
The Spiderwick Chronicles (the film tanked); A Series of Unfortunate Events (again, the film tanked); The Golden Compass (tanked), The Chronicles of Narnia (mildly successful, but the future of the franchise seems to constantly be on the brink); I Am Number Four (pretty sure the film tanked and haven't heard of plans for any sequels based on the other books); heck, while not particularly written for young adults, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy didn't transfer quite well into a Hollywood film, either. Again, Hollywood is always searching for that franchise with a built-in audience and remaking popular books into films has always been a pretty safe bet, more or less.

I am surprised that nobody has attempted to transfer the White Mountains trilogy by John Christopher or the Taran Wanderer series by Lloyd Alexander (okay, so they made an animated version of The Black Cauldron back in the '80s, but still) into feature films.

The bottomline is that Hollywood, continually bereft of any original ideas (c'mon, this summer we get Battleship, a film based on a board game which looks like nothing more than Transformers 4) is constantly on the hunt to find a successful book series (a la Harry Potter) that can be turned into an equally or greater successful film franchise. Hence Hunger Games, the film. The smart thing about Hunger Games, though, is that they made it relatively cheap and for a major fraction of what each Harry Potter film cost, therefore the $370 million is even more impressive.

But I digress, the main point I wanted to make is that I don't find it necessary to have read the books in order to enjoy the movie. It was solidly directed, well acted, and the production design was nice. It's an enjoyable bit of escapism, despite all the familiar themes and plot devices utilized. I'll go see the sequels and perhaps, if I find the time, might even read the books at some point.

Just saw this on-demand last night.

Very underwhelming. Felt like there was a good story under there somewhere. The opening scenes in district 12 seemed very well filmed and some of the scenes in the capitol kind of were well done but mostly the rest just seemed shittily and cheaply done.

I thought it was very entertaining and will see the next movie. Then again I don't expect to be mentally fellated by a film version of a teenager novel.

Originally Posted by Alaskan Rover

$370 mil and counting. Looks like another billion dollar trilogy in the making.

Haven't seen it yet...but I think it's success is maybe derivative of "Worlds of Warcraft" or whatever that dungeon's and dragons type game that is so popular with teens these days. I can't see any other reason for the movie's continual success. I mean, Lord of the Rings was so successful because it was an impressively well directed and entertaining movie trilogy. Both were given the fortune of being based upon extremely popular books. But J.R. Tolkien crafted a MASTERPIECE...can't say the same for the author of the Hunger Games books.

I guess I'll have to see it and find out if all the hype and hoopla is worth it.

--

The books are very good. Not at all good enough to be up there with Lord of the Rings. However, if you compare them to many other books for public consumption, the trilogy really is an entertaining read.

The first book leaves a good stage for the sequel and I can't wait for Catching Fire to come out of Hollywood.

Saw the movie this weekend, read the books. The first two books I liked, even though they're trash and her female teenage angst is sometimes annoying, but I thought the third book was horrible.

For some reason it really bothered me watching Jennifer Lawrence run. She's just looks really slow and awkward and it made it hard for me to believe that she would've survived/been so good at climbing trees, etc. I know its a movie, but I just figured she would've been killed in a heartbeat out there.

Originally Posted by chatton18

made it hard for me

She could have that effect on me any time she likes.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

She could have that effect on me any time she likes.

yeah, i certainly could look past the lack of athleticism on that front.

Anyone looking at picking this up at the rental, here's the real scoop:

I'm in a movie!!!

A friend/classmate did the set design for the movie... and liked my ideas enough for a coffee table at least: