Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - dashgamer (11/15/2013) [-]
I found the concept for these movies and books to be pretty stupid and I also thought the acting was terrible (except for the drunk tutor, he pulled that off pretty well).
#129 to #2 - monsterbeast (11/16/2013) [-]
finally someone who isnt obsessed with this horribly executed idea, try reading the long walk by stephen king. the book is similar, it is a metaphor for war obviously, but the idea is there are walkers who walk hundreds of miles and get shot if they stop for 2 minutes, but the writing in it is just brilliant. imho hunger games is an okay idea, but the books and movies were badly executed
finally someone who isnt obsessed with this horribly executed idea, try reading the long walk by stephen king. the book is similar, it is a metaphor for war obviously, but the idea is there are walkers who walk hundreds of miles and get shot if they stop for 2 minutes, but the writing in it is just brilliant. imho hunger games is an okay idea, but the books and movies were badly executed
User avatar #130 to #129 - dashgamer (11/16/2013) [-]
Is that the one where they go to California after a debilitating virus kills the rest of humanity?
User avatar #97 to #2 - acemcgunner (11/16/2013) [-]
the movie was ok,i just haven't read the books..
User avatar #93 to #2 - themilkisdead (11/16/2013) [-]
Hey man, its your opinion - I don't mind if you dislike the Hunger Games in general.
User avatar #87 to #2 - mapleknight (11/16/2013) [-]
Honestly I read the books but haven't seen the movie.
The books were okay, but i ******* hated Katniss and the guy who went into the hunger games, whatever his name was.
User avatar #69 to #2 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
I like the concept, however I feel it was executed much better by Battle Royal.
User avatar #70 to #69 - dashgamer (11/16/2013) [-]
I found Battle Royale to be really, really cheesy. It was all of the drama with absolutely none of the character development. At least Hunger Games was mediocre in both aspects instead of just one.
User avatar #95 to #70 - xolotyl **User deleted account** (11/16/2013) [-]
But all the characters professed their secret love for certain people. How is that NOT character development????
User avatar #72 to #70 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
Fair enough. Something about the hunger games just doesn't sit right with me though. Like it's not gritty enough. I know the trend of movie to be supper gritty and "hardcore" is kind of looked down upon, but it's weird to be in a life or death situation and have no one curse or be super violent. I haven't read the books, and I would assume (like with most) they're better than the movie, but the tone of the movie was all wrong for such a dark concept.
User avatar #107 to #72 - herpderpstrom (11/16/2013) [-]
I guess the studio didn't think scenes graphically portraying the murder of 11-14 year old kids would sit well with the general public. Somehow those sequences are much more acceptable when in writing. Maybe people have such bad imagination that the scenes look worse on screen than they did in their heads?
User avatar #109 to #107 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
Then make the characters a bit older? They did that with game of thrones and no one seemed to mind too much. Either the situation is brutal and unforgiving or it isn't. Killing a child is killing a child whether you show it or not. The " ************* " of the situation is undermined by them pussyfooting around it. It creates a dissonance between the tone of the movie and the scenario the characters are put in.
User avatar #115 to #109 - herpderpstrom (11/16/2013) [-]
Yeah I agree with you. But somehow I don't think they could make the characters older the same way GoT did. In Got, the age of the characters isn't really that important in most cases. In The Hunger Games, however, knowing how young those kids really are makes it that much more moving when they get hurt or are forced to do terrible things. To me, the thought of an 18 yo young man stabbing an 11 yo girl with a spear is much more disturbing than if they were say 16 and 23 yo respectively.
User avatar #116 to #115 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
True enough. All I'm saying is that it is more disturbing still to see it portrayed realistically. Trying to make the brutal aspects of what's ****** up about the situation less brutal takes away from the emotion it can convey.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement, but it can never hurt to be clear. c:
User avatar #117 to #116 - herpderpstrom (11/16/2013) [-]
Yup, we're in agreement! Imagine the Hunger Games with the "grittyness" of GoT
User avatar #118 to #117 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
I might actually watch them then.
User avatar #74 to #72 - dashgamer (11/16/2013) [-]
Eh, I suppose so. The Hunger Games was driven by sentiment more than it was action whereas Battle Royale was driven by action without any true depth to the characters. Both were poorly executed and I'd say that the concept is as equally bad. I'd love to see something that would be the equivalent to modern gladatorial games (hell, that's what all violent movies are: simulated bloodshed for entertainment instead of real men putting swords or bullets through each others' throats), but there should be some connection between the viscera and the people who are bleeding, one that Battle Royale failed to make, as well as a lack of sentimental ******** or presupposed caste systems, which the Hunger Games featured prominently.
That, and I think the phonetic similarity of the main character's name to the term "Cat Piss" should always be avoided. ;P
User avatar #75 to #74 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
Well said. To be fair I read Battle Royal when I was 13 or so, so literary knowledge had yet to become anything substantial. That said, I still believe, as poorly as it was executed, the fact that the atmosphere of Battle Royal matched the one and only theme it had made it a more enjoyable experience. Whereas The Hunger Games seems to be at odds with itself. Though, I suppose, a well executed turd is still a turd.
User avatar #77 to #75 - dashgamer (11/16/2013) [-]
Well, I think the horror and suspense we're looking for will be executed with style and expertise by the Five Second Films crew in their film Dude Bro Party Massacre Three. I can't wait to see Brian Firenzi chopping up college kids in his Nesquik outfit. =D
User avatar #78 to #77 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
I didn't even know that was a thing. I love Brian as the law, in VGHS, so this movie will be a must see.
User avatar #80 to #79 - retardedboss (11/16/2013) [-]
When does the feature length movie come out? I NEED IT!
User avatar #81 to #80 - dashgamer (11/16/2013) [-]
I don't know. =[
#56 to #2 - toncheky (11/15/2013) [-]
I disagree.
#57 to #56 - dashgamer (11/15/2013) [-]
I disagree as well.
User avatar #83 to #57 - steammadewalrus (11/16/2013) [-]
I disagree as well.
#85 to #83 - dashgamer (11/16/2013) [-]
I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement of his disagreement of my disagreement.
I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreement of his disagreement of my disagreement.
User avatar #51 to #2 - fuckscreennames (11/15/2013) [-]
though i am a huge fan of this series and i strongly disagree with the first half of your comment, i also strongly agree with the second half of it, so, therefore, i will not thumb either way, instead, i will simply make this comment
User avatar #49 to #2 - jibb (11/15/2013) [-]
I too think the concept is stupid, but the first two books were pretty good in my opinion. The films, however...
#50 to #41 - dashgamer (11/15/2013) [-]
I honestly thought this would be an unpopular opinion, mmkay?
I honestly thought this would be an unpopular opinion, mmkay?
User avatar #89 to #50 - drtrousersnake (11/16/2013) [-]
A lot of us feel the same way. When i saw the hunger games, I couldn't help comparing it to when i read battle royal which kind of ruined the movie for me.
#15 to #2 - MasterManiac (11/15/2013) [-]
Woody Harrelson is the 			****		.
Woody Harrelson is the **** .
User avatar #84 to #15 - nighkey (11/16/2013) [-]
ALRIGHT, FINE. After so many months of going "Should I watch/read the Hunger Games? Naaah.. I'll just put it off... ..I'm really not sure.. That's a lot of time investment..meeeh." This post made my brain snap and decide to get the damned book(s) and read them. =/
User avatar #132 to #84 - MatthewsGauss (11/16/2013) [-]
after the first book it basically becomes a contest on how many times katnip can kiss peta bread in one chapter
User avatar #104 to #84 - herpderpstrom (11/16/2013) [-]
I warmly recommend them. They aren't even close to the same league as HP and A Song of Ice and Fire, but they're still definitely worth the read!
User avatar #108 to #104 - nighkey (11/16/2013) [-]
I will enjoy it. ^_^
User avatar #73 to #15 - zaxzwim (11/16/2013) [-]
******* loved him in hungergames
User avatar #36 to #15 - samxdaxman (11/15/2013) [-]
**** yeah he is. Ever seen 7 Psychopaths with him, Christopher Walken and Sam Rockwell?
User avatar #7 to #2 - perfonator (11/15/2013) [-]
I couldn't agree more. I haven't read the book, so I am unable to judge them, but after having seen the movie, I cannot understand people who treat the movie like the best thing in existance. Honestly, I find the general idea of organising a huge battle between teenagers so the people never forget the horrible war incredibly stupid. IMO it makes no sense. Maybe the books explain it better?
User avatar #16 to #7 - rainbowtacos (11/15/2013) [-]
The movie was really **** about explaining anything, and the books are much more thought out and clear. IMO worth the read, and shouldn't be judged by the movie.
User avatar #11 to #7 - lrevan (11/15/2013) [-]
It's not really a remembrance thing, its a show of power by the main city, the citizens of the main city find it as a form of entertainment, similar to the gladiators
#10 to #7 - urapooper (11/15/2013) [-]
I don't understand what is not to get... you have a powerful main city that is heavily forified and has control of the surrounding districts around it. The horrible war was basically the districts rebelling on the main city and then loosing. So they have a commemorate it by having the hunger games like a punishment.
User avatar #12 to #10 - perfonator (11/15/2013) [-]
Thanks for the nice reply. The picture is getting clearer now, although I still think it is a strange concept for a technological advanced city to use such medieval forms of punishment. Anyway, I still don't really like the film, but to each his own I guess.
User avatar #53 to #12 - fuckscreennames (11/15/2013) [-]
its for a little more specific remembrance the capital is going for, its to crush any further thought of rebellion among the districts. seriously a spoiler, so if you don't want to get anything ruined don't reveal it doesn't work anymore by the end of the second book
User avatar #14 to #12 - melykdubkipz (11/15/2013) [-]
not only is it punishment but it was also a form of entertainment for them
kinda like the superbowl
User avatar #46 to #14 - jbgotswag (11/15/2013) [-]
i really didn't like the ending, nothing really happen, and both from the sector survived.
it felt very superfictal
User avatar #133 to #46 - perfonator (11/16/2013) [-]
I also felt that the ending was a bit strange... nothing really happens, I felt like there should have been something big the main characters should have done, but they just didn't. Out of defiance and to end these games, they want to kill themselves, so that there is no winner. But no - suddenly it's ok again and they just go home.
#124 to #46 - fhenix (11/16/2013) [-]
the ending is executed way better in the book imo
#55 to #46 - glenncocoo (11/15/2013) [-]
I get what you mean casue I felt the same at first. But she done clever with those poison berries, and Seneca, the game master, thought it'd be better with 2 survivors rather than none. Like he said, it's a form of entertainment for the peeps in the capitol and they were all like "oooooooooooohh katniss and peeta 5ever<333", so Seneca decided it'd be best to let them live. Another game master mightve done different. And Seneca did have to pay for his decision..
User avatar #4 to #2 - Saundazzz (11/15/2013) [-]
I haven't read the books (although I hear they are really good), but have to agree with you, I thought the movie was pretty awful, it just spend like an hour building up to what I thought was going to be epic, then just turned into generic teen friendly crap. Jennifer Lawrence is still damn fine though.
User avatar #19 to #4 - ribbedandstudded (11/15/2013) [-]
Honestly, I know a lot of people who have read the books. and except for one person, no one liked Mockingjay. by that I mean no one enjoyed it. I could go into why, but it would be Spoilers R Us.
If you do start reading the books, don't get too emotionally involved unless you want you heart ripped out of your chest, the author to put a piece of masking tape over the hole and say, "it's all better now" and the light slowly fades from your eyes.
User avatar #54 to #19 - fuckscreennames (11/15/2013) [-]
not going to spoil anything, but i honestly almost threw the book reading the last few chapters it pissed me off so much. i also may or may not have cried a little
User avatar #17 to #4 - MasterManiac (11/15/2013) [-]
Just watch "Battle Royale" for the R rated version. Miles better in every aspect.
#22 to #17 - dbjorgo (11/15/2013) [-]
Personally, I found Battle Royale to be pretty shallow. Plus people treat it as if it were the first to come up with the concept when in reality, it's a fairly old idea. The Long Walk comes to mind, and I'm sure there were plenty before that was written
User avatar #28 to #22 - iridium (11/15/2013) [-]
Battle Royale as a movie had a lot more limits than the book did. And those got expanded on with a sizeable manga, which my friends tell me is miles better than the movie (and they liked the movie).
 Friends (0)