The inevitable Hunger Games thread

the 'break the last book of a series up into 2 movies' trend is kind of silly and transparently greedy, but probably even pretty short novels usually have enough happening that you can get 4-5 hours of film out of it as easily as 2 so i'm kinda like ah go for it who cares.

yeah it's obv a cash grab but p much all the HP movies after the third one had enough stuff going on to warrant split movies, and the three that weren't split had so much incomprehensible crap crammed into a couple hours and they sucked for it. the first three books fit pretty perfectly so it's going to be a problem when the next four books are more than twice as long but WB keeps the same time limit on the movies. deathly hallows movies weren't great movies but they at least had enough room to be good movies (in the hands of a less boring director and screenwriter)

problem with this is the hunger games books are all the same length and the first book adapted very easily

probably even pretty short novels usually have enough happening that you can get 4-5 hours of film out of it as easily as 2

yeah one of the best novel-to-film adaptations i've seen was brokeback mtn, which was tellingly a slim 100-page novella - the film had so much space to breathe and linger on stuff rather than having to cram plot points and exposition in at every turn

OK, Melissa Leo is in talks to play Mags? I know haggard-looking characters are kind of her thing, but she's like 30 years younger than the character.

its cool how the 'capital' is this place with all this fascist architecture and everyone who lives there is a humongous fruit, really makes you yearn for the simple honest country folk of the districts

― Hungry4Ass, Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:11 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i mean really

plus what several people said upthread about how katniss never has to confront the conflict that the entire premise of the movie points to with big flashing arrows: what happens when allies have disposed of their enemies? at the very least let's see how the band of baddies deals with this situation? but it's completely elided in favor of what, a kind of disheartening ending where the heroes become what they aren't, the very thing peeta said he was determined not to do, and it sort of dribbles out.

NB i have not read the book

and i mean the districts' down-by-the-old-mill aesthetic is picturesque but in a society where inequality is stretched to such extremes having clothes in an entirely different vocabulary doesn't make sense; they'd be living on cast-offs, kansas city mega-chiefs championship jerseys from 8 years ago, a birthday frock worn once by a capitol citizen and then donated selflessly to the hoi polloi, subsequently mended 20 times but still retaining a spangle here and there

also wtf with "anti-chekhov's brooch" - constantly referred to, zero payoff

You mean the mockingjay pin? That'll become more significant in later films.

the last book is called it

kansas city mega-chiefs championship jerseys from 8 years ago

i was gonna answer this with "this world would have practically no memory of any current sport" but then i started wondering just WHEN this all takes place? the way katniss talks about how little she knows of 'when panem was america' and the entire structure of the country being different made me think it was 500-1000+ years in the future. but their most advanced technology (CHOOSE-YOUR-OWN-SHOWERS) seems to be pretty much attainable to us now, or in the near future if we really wanted to make genetically modified killer animals.

I'm not sure if it's even clear if there's much in the way of books? Though this is related to the questions above re: what's on the TV the rest of the time?

plus what several people said upthread about how katniss never has to confront the conflict that the entire premise of the movie points to with big flashing arrows: what happens when allies have disposed of their enemies? at the very least let's see how the band of baddies deals with this situation? but it's completely elided in favor of what, a kind of disheartening ending where the heroes become what they aren't, the very thing peeta said he was determined not to do, and it sort of dribbles out.

Well, I don't think that's accidental, like - the story, and the characters inside the story interested in "a good story" are very deliberate about providing the obvious tensions, and when they run out, Katniss and Peeta have to face that question, attempt mutual suicide. And when they decide against that (because their other motivation, to bring food back home for their Sector, kicks in), then it's C for Complicity.

i was gonna answer this with "this world would have practically no memory of any current sport"

then depression-era clothes make even less sense! i just meant that as an example, though. my point is that the exploited of our world live off the scraps and leftovers of the rich yet in this movie they appear to have their own separate haberdashery or something.

right andrew i understand what's happening at the end of the movie, it just feels hollow and tremendously unsatisfying. you can argue that it's a brave subversive thing for a movie to attempt, this kind of non-resolution, and maybe you'd be right, i dunno? something to do with what "we" need from a narrative, and katniss and peeta provide it, but it's bullshit? and that reveals something about how we're similar to the capitol viewership of this future society? or something?

i could buy that. worse to me is the dodging of the question of what happens once alliances in the game crumble. when you have to kill a friend. or a frenemy. surely this alone is the drama that has sustained this television show/ritual for seven decades despite all the other reasons why it makes no sense. but we never see this conflict addressed. i felt surely the gang of baddies would provide a "safe" way for us to see how this might play out, as a kind of warm-up for how our heroine's going to face the same issue - with rue, with the red-haired girl, with peeta, whomever.

also to echo the wtfs upthread about sponsorships. such a big deal is made of them in the movie, it's the justification upon which rests the need to appeal to the public, to get a high score in the assessment, etc - we are constantly told by woody that sponsorships are absolutely critical to success because you can get a leg up with equipment and supplies. but then we are.... never shown anyone receiving anything from a sponsor? in the game? unless i missed something?

guys, i don't think Suzanne Collins put much thought into her future world

but then we are.... never shown anyone receiving anything from a sponsor? in the game? unless i missed something?

yeah we are, at least twice - medicine both times i think

that's not from a sponsor she "won" through being appealing it's a special treat from her mentor isn't it?

the beginning of the game was thrilling and nightmarish, when they're all on those pedestals and the corcnucopia is waiting for them, and the first dash which cuts the number of contestants in half

i was sort of wondering why everyone is so stupid as to run straight for the goodies when they've presumably seen the results of such a strategy (and every strategy) every year on their TVs

no it's def from a sponsor

and because they think they're big and strong enough to survive, esp if they're from the trained districts

i also think a lot of the things we're not shown, that could be entire stories in themselves, are kinda key to why this has become such a phenomenon - creating a fantasy world and leaving tons of room for your imagination to fill in the blanks is what's always made this kind of literature compelling (as opposed to, like, the prose). and that's especially the case when kids nowadays are relating to the material through online discussions, fan fiction etc etc - the story does not end at the actual story as written by the author and suzanne collins understands this

yeah, that sounds very right

i dunno i just figured we were gonna get some treasure-of-the-sierra-madre type paranoid shiz out of this, it's the whole reason i watched. it had nothing, i repeat nothing to do with watching the impossibly gorgeous jennifer lawrence shoot magically replenishing arrows around the place in tight clothing

i think we were shown very brief shots of haymitch chatting up some rich people, presumably convincing them to be sponsors. then haymitch is the one in charge of sending items along using that sponsorship money. it makes more sense in the movie than the book actually, because in the book it gets MORE expensive to send things the farther along in the game it is...for some reason? and the districts themselves send along, like, a chunk of bread to their player and it represents incredible cost and sacrifice for them to do so. idk

Oh i see, Woody's the go-between! Ahhh. I was confused because in the movie he's watching her on TV, we see her wincing in pain from her wound and then we cut to him looking determined and striding purposefully away, like he's about to "get on the case" somehow and then next thing you know there's a parachute floating toward her with a note from him inside. I guess he went to his contact list of sponsors and was like "OK now's the time to make good on your promises, this girl's goin down"

i think we covered upthread how the "hunger games as tv show" was a bit of a missed opportunity from the perspective of seeing it through the viewers' eyes

the "hunger games as moral dilemma" was a missed opportunity as well, which leaves you with nothing much left over, other than close-ups of jennifer lawrence looking gorgeous which, you know what i'm OK with that actually

My memory is that Woody gladhanding is inbetween the "Katniss needs help" and "Katniss gets help" scenes, I think. What's not as clear in the movie is that being the only person from District 12 to win the games doesn't actually confer much status on him - he's basically the town drunk 51 weeks of the year.

I thought he lived in the Capitol cause of his celeb status

Maybe I should have watched this movie at some point before 1am

They established this very neatly in the book, but I can see why the scene where he first meets Katniss and Peeta and then throws up all over the floor might've been the first to go.

I felt with the clothing that the more working class districts had kept to sort of functional, plain wear because they have to work in them. Harder to work in a castoff bright blue wig and fake McQueen heels or whatever! Also: they probably sew their own clothes, so a simpler pattern would be easier/use less fabric? It's been a while since I read the books so not certain if that's touched upon. The Capitol people by and large are very wasteful [TINY SPOILER: they have a pill or drink that makes them throw up so they can gorge themselves on food at parties!], unlikely that they'd even think to donate!

The sponsorship thing could definitely have been clearer in the movie - I almost missed the scene of Woody talking to them, iirc you can't even hear what he's saying? Poor planning for those who hadn't read the books! It was pretty shit to cut out the scene where Rue's district sends Katniss a piece of their distinctive bread after Rue's death. That was a pretty touching moment in the books. Because the district is so poor, she assumes almost everyone in the district chipped in to get that piece to her.

functional's one thing but heritage vintage patterns from ca. 300 years ago?

well, if they are even using patterns? just simple, functional clothes imo. what would you have them wear?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ayV4QQAggPY/T4LxSdCW1DI/AAAAAAAAHOk/P3vBvM1dtEg/s1600/katniss+reaping+sign.jpg

I haven't seen the movie but please, those are not somehow fashion-neutral "simple, functional" clothes. Simple and functional would be T-tunics and shapeless, pull-on pants with drawstring waists. There would be no pleats, no gathers, no belts, and one size would fit most. Every single person in that picture is wearing something that has extra, unnecessary fabric and work in it.

Buttons? BUTTONS? Do you know how much work buttonholes are??? The poors of the future will be wearing shapeless pull-over tunics made of recycled fibers flattened into a colorless mulch.

iirc (from teh books) that dress was her mother's 'fancy' dress and her mother came from a higher-class than her father and had kept a bunch of fancier stuff

well, I was talking about in comparison to the Capitol's dress, which is the 'current fashion' in Panem:

http://theinsider.retailmenot.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2012/03/Capitol-citizens.jpg

just cuz they're poor doesn't mean they don't deserve buttons ;_; I had forgotten about that detail, rrobyn!

and everybody kind of dressed up for that day
xp

Well then that was a poor choice of photos to show people wearing "simple, functional" clothes, wasn't it.

such is my memory, haha - i can remember little details about people's lives but i can't remember the name of the day people get picked to go to the hunger games
xp

meow meow!
lol ;)
xp

Laurel, I feel like you're being a bit condescending? Maybe you don't mean to be. I was simply responding to TH's post where he says "in a society where inequality is stretched to such extremes having clothes in an entirely different vocabulary doesn't make sense; they'd be living on cast-offs, ... subsequently mended 20 times but still retaining a spangle here and there"

Do you disagree with my ideas that the Capitol people probably *don't* donate a lot of castoffs to the districts, or that the clothes they wear are useless for working in anyway? Next time I will say simpleR to appease the seamstresses around, but those outfits (and as rrobyn pointed out - those are their fineries, they dress up because that is a big 'event') are still much more functional than the crazy shit going on in the capitol. And it's set in the future, would be weird to have them decided to throw all construction knowledge aside and go back to draw-string pants.

So the riches of the future will dress like insane, colorblind Victorians, good to know.

i think there's def a "movie ugly" thing going on with costumes though, yknow, the designer sack

i just thought the aping of Depression-era tech and fashion was obviously v effective as a shorthand for "these people have it tough" but unimaginative and pretty unlikely, not two qualities i really want from speculative fiction

and there are still seamstresses and dressmakers and tailors in district 12 i would think
and katniss has her dad's leather jacket and who knows where that came from - the past! i assume
the hunger games is obv so full of holes, as previously pointed out, but whatevs!

TH otm. I hate this movie and I haven't even seen it.

this conversation reminds me of how my parents rave over a movie or tv programme's attention to costume detail and barely care about the plot or characters while i'm the other way around

you are all probably right that the costumery is inaccurate but it's not something that matters to me, really

there's no "accuracy" here, it's sci-fi, it just seems dumb, much like the plot and the characters

it's a shame because the PREMISE and the general outline of the setting is just killer (no pun intended), sort of a mashup of lord of the flies, the lottery, the most dangerous game, battle royale and brave new world - right in my wheelhouse

Catching Fire trailer. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's in this?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jyPnQw_Lqds

I didn't know where else to put this but LOLOLOL

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/767569614.gif?1367957167