You could definitely get a sense of hardship from them, the movie focused almost entirely on the action which is fine. That is, after all, a strong part of Hunger Games. HOWEVER what really made it better for me specifically was the sense of how difficult it was to live in that harsh environment and the raw survival that was needed to stay alive. THEY EVEN SAY IN THE MOVIE you have more of a chance of dying from the elements than you do of your fellow tributes. They DID NOT show this at all for the most part. Granted no one died from the elements in the book they definitely were a large factor in their desperation. In the movie it was fight here, fight there, and it ends. The only character that did show any sort of torture and punishment was Cato in the end, just as you said. Peeta, who was more fucked up in the books, was basically fine most of the time in the movie.
The whole point of character development is to make you care about the characters and the movie did this poorly. I doubt anyone cared that Katniss takes over for Prim in the movie because Prim was a hollow character in the movie. In the book she wasn't a whole lot better but the author did try and instill a sense of sacrifice by treating Prim as a lovable pacifist. In the movie shes just a weird hollow shell.
I think me saying "I am quite positive that movie would have not made a whole lot of sense" may be a bit exaggerated. But there are certainly parts that don't make any sense, which are explained in the book, that a viewer would shrug off. For example the three finger salute thing. Sweet salute, what the fuck does it mean? Well if you read the book you would know but it was not explained at all in the movie and I'm sure people who haven't read it get some sense of what it was supposed to mean but ultimately it has little impact. If they don't want to give you a meaning behind it then just cut it out of the movie like the did so much other stuff.
I don't think the scene with Rue in the books was just as hollow as the movie, but that is my opinion. From a standpoint of a film-goer I thought that scene was just shit. Had I not read the books and saw the movie I would still think it was bad. She just sat there with a blank expression when she just got hit with a spear . What the fuck? That is just terrible.
I'm not saying that the books were way better than the movie. After watching the movie I felt like there was a lot they could have done more with the book. But one thing is for sure, the book gave me a much better sense of the struggle the tributes had during the Hunger Games and I think it is something that should have been much easier to show than to explain with words, but I believe they dropped the ball.
Keep in mind this is all my opinion, I've just seen much better acting and cinematography display emotion much better than this movie did. It still kept my attention but there was room to do so much more with it. And I don't see how my age should affect your perception of my opinion. If it does then I just won't argue with you anymore.
I heard people in the crowd at the theater asking that question. It really wasn't clear the first time around, but was made more clear the second time around in district 11.
Things like her ability to "get help" and how the healing ointment was magic or the dogs magically appeared. Also one friend seems to have not picked up on how the districts filled different primary roles, or how the leaf-wraps worked. Also apparently there was confusion about how or why the group of "careers" were sticking together, but that's also muddy in the book. Of course, they were not critical to understanding the basic plot. The basic plot is only a part of the narrative though.
I will say that the movie did leave a lot of things implied by simple depiction and expected the audience to connect the things together. I thought it was pretty obvious in all cases, but I suppose some people might need more obvious connections drawn. I mean, leaf-wraps to cure poison is a plot device in pretty much every fantasy/science-fiction/mythological story. If not leaf-wraps, some kind of "herbal" or "alternative" medicine sees use in many different kinds of stories.
I thought they outright stated that different districts fulfilled different roles in the movie.
I thought the "careers" sticking together in the movie was pretty clear-cut, and in the book it was painfully obvious: they're the "cool kids" in school that band together and make life hell for everyone else. The jocks and bullies and all that. Poor Katniss and Peeta are the losers who sit by themselves and get food hurled at them.
Which makes that scene with Cato towards the end quite powerful - the "cool kid" facade cracks and he reveals himself to be just as scared as everyone else. An important thing for angst-ridden teenagers to learn.
Also the "affection" in the movie is a bit odd because it's probably impossible to portray Katniss manipulativeness and second thoughts on everything... that would probably go over most peoples heads and such in the movie.
Really, because I caught that too. Katniss is very clever, and she's very quick to adapt to the life the Capitol has forced on her. It had an element of being too goody-goody to be believable, and her face didn't really make it that believable either. There was definitely a current that it could be real, though - but then again, in the book, she admitted to being confused about her feelings anyhow. So having it be muddy like that is good for the story anyhow.
Some things I think the movie could have done is show more of the other districts reapings, or more of the reactions and attitudes of different districts including the capital.
I really really really wanted to see reapings from other districts too. It would have reinforced the strict separation and different lifestyles of the different districts.
I also wish they had played up the intra-district conflicts a bit more, just to show how completely divisive this society is. I extrapolated it from the movie and pieced it together, but that's something that could have been displayed very readily without adding significant length to the movie.
I heard people in the crowd at the theater asking that question. It really wasn't clear the first time around, but was made more clear the second time around in district 11.
It's more poignant in that scene, but clearly there could have been better ways to show through careful shots in the reaping scene what this means.
Interestingly, that's very similar to the boyscout salute. The hand is identical, you just hold it at arm's length, rather than at shoulder level, or to your brow.
My Coworker said that they actually did the archery really well.
They really did, it's quite impressive. Apparently, the actor was trained by an ex-olympic archer during filming.
I watch the Hunger Games and enjoyed it without having read the books. Most of the stuff you're complaining about not coming across came across just fine, I think this is really just a case of not understanding that film and novels have to convey stories in different ways.
And I don't see how my age should affect your perception of my opinion. If it does then I just won't argue with you anymore.
Well, it doesn't affect my sense of your opinion in the way you're probably thinking about it.
As I said, I hated the shit out of Katniss in the book. I mean hated. I figured out that she was a fucked-up mess in the movie anyhow - I didn't need her internal monologue to figure out that she was damaged. But the first chapter of the book made me see her as an outright sociopath, damaged to the point of not feeling. Which I'm sure is part of the point.
The problem then becomes that I am locked into viewing the world through the perspective of a character to whom I feel no attachment. And she doesn't even develop as a character - she really has no personality to speak of, because she's never had the luxury to develop one. That part was reflected quite well in the movie.
So, that also limits my ability to develop any attachment to any other character, since I'm again viewing it through this lens of a self-centered angsty-teenager. She doesn't care about anyone else, really - she looks after Prim and her mother out of a combined sense of obligation and entitlement resulting from the hardships she's suffered - so I never get a chance to really care about anyone else either. That's why the scene with Rue rang so hollow with me in both media - I never really got to connect with her except in the most superficial of ways.
And again, I actually think that's part of the point of the story in each medium - that Katniss is all superficial, and there is no real motivation beyond "survive" underlying any of it. And the movie portrays that well.
But what does this have to do with age? Well, at age 14, or 15, or 16, your problems are your entire world. You don't have perspective because many days are a struggle to figure out who you are and what you want, and a fight to preserve your dignity and ego. Katniss is a perfectly-written angst-riddled 16 year old girl.
The problem I have as an adult is that I'm past that point in my life, so I have difficulty really connecting with Katniss. I mean, sure, I say "Oh yeah, I was 16 once and I remember what it was like," but remembering how it was and experiencing how it is create two totally different perceptions of the same story.
So, in other words, age can affect one's perception of the story because of emotional proximity. So someone who is younger might be very very tuned-in to Katniss and the world because her experiences are closer to theirs. As an adult, I'm no longer interested in that, and I instead want to see how her actions affect people outside of her.
Neither is more valid than the other - it's just a matter of differing experiences. I'm curious about your age because I'm wondering how my hypothesis maps to reality.
tl;dr: Age could be a factor in how well the audience is able to connect with Katniss. A teenager going through those angsty self-loathing years of uncertainty will probably find much more in common with Katniss than would an adult who's already been there, and that creates two very distinct but equally valid perspectives on the book.
My Coworker said that they actually did the archery really well.
I was always taught to anchor by the corner of my mouth. The under-the-chin anchor bothered me every single time. I have no idea if it's right or wrong.
I'll say that it never occurred to me that the "careers" were the "popular kids" and that Katniss "angst" never became a theme in the books to me. That she was quite possibly a sociopath did come through though, specifically because it came from other character's dialogue rather than the thoughts of the protagonist. When Haymitch or Peeta were explaining how people by-and-large perceived her, that gave me a great deal more insight into the character than her inner workings.
I never really focused on Katniss as a relatable character but more of a viewport to the world that she lives in. She seems like a typical 16 year old that has lost a loved one and closes out the world. Maybe I do connect with her on some level because I've been in that situation where you just feel numb to everything and you want to escape. I'm 22 but those are memories that will always stay with me. I don't really see how this is such a big deal having to relate so closely with a character, I never connected with Frodo in Lord of the Rings but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. If you can empathize with a character that is what hits home more for me.
Well, it's the degree of empathy that makes a difference, I think. The more you empathize, the more she can become your viewport. I had so little "real" empathy for her that all of her relationships were intellectual exercises for me, rather than emotional investments. And I think it's easier to empathize with Katniss when your experiences are more recently like her own.
RE: the careers as the "cool kids": I got the impression from the movie, but there was a scene in the book where all the careers sat together in the cafeteria of the training center. If that doesn't scream "cool kids," I don't know what does.
My Coworker said that they actually did the archery really well.
I was always taught to anchor by the corner of my mouth. The under-the-chin anchor bothered me every single time. I have no idea if it's right or wrong.
As someone who did not read the book, I had no fucking idea what the bread flashback scene was about until Lyddi explained it to me. Other than that, it was a pretty decent movie. I wish the costuming was better for the capital citizens. From what I understand, they were really into body mutilation.
I'm not saying you were wrong on that, just that I didn't notice or clue in on any of it. Which is interesting to me, because I went to relatively large highschool with a large variety of cliques and such. I can't actually ascertain why that went over or under my radar.
Well, it's the degree of empathy that makes a difference, I think. The more you empathize, the more she can become your viewport. I had so little "real" empathy for her that all of her relationships were intellectual exercises for me, rather than emotional investments. And I think it's easier to empathize with Katniss when your experiences are more recently like her own.
RE: the careers as the "cool kids": I got the impression from the movie, but there was a scene in the book where all the careers sat together in the cafeteria of the training center. If that doesn't scream "cool kids," I don't know what does.
That's true, if your connection to the character is too outlandish then you don't really care about the characters. Also, I thought the "cool kids" persona of the Careers was way more obvious in the movie than in the book. It is pretty evident in the book but they make it sound a little more like a viable strategy whereas in the movie it's all just bros and hoes.
I find it kinda off-putting when people clamored for "more gore!" or "more graphic deaths!". I mean, the Capitol residents are portrayed as evil for glamorizing the killing of these children, yet some fans want the deaths to be more vivid and explicit.
I understand the desire for more detail, but I can't help but feel put-off by that idea.
There was absolutely no way they were going to get more graphic without escalating to an R rating, which I can understand but it detracted from the impact that the deaths had. I felt like this sort of strayed away from the
I watch the Hunger Games and enjoyed it without having read the books. Most of the stuff you're complaining about not coming across came across just fine, I think this is really just a case of not understanding that film and novels have to convey stories in different ways.
I read the first 5 Harry Potter books and enjoyed all of the movies so far. Also Clockwork Orange is one of my favorite books and favorite movies and I think Stanley Kubrick did an exceptional job of translating the book into a movie. I understand that since this is a book from a first person view it absolutely needs to be portrayed in a different way. I felt like this was one of the strengths of the movie. It was able to explain a lot of what Katniss describes through inner monologue through use of the commentators and the interactions between Snow and that other guy (can't remember his name). It's the parts of the book that should have translated exceptionally to a movie that I thought they did poorly. But to me that was the best part of the book. Literally the only death they did better than in the book was the Cato scene.
My Coworker said that they actually did the archery really well.
I was always taught to anchor by the corner of my mouth. The under-the-chin anchor bothered me every single time. I have no idea if it's right or wrong.
But good shooting on her part.
I can speak on this. Corner of the mouth anchor point is standard, but some people (like me) are taught to switch to a low anchor point to increase range. That's where the chin anchor comes into play. For me, it's because of my bow weight; I simply can't pull a heavy bow, so I shoot a lighter bow and need the low anchor point to get the range.
In short: they are both right as long as you know what you're doing and use them appropriately.
The only thing that bothered me about her shooting was when she would occasionally fling her hand away after releasing the string instead of following through.
I'm not saying you were wrong on that, just that I didn't notice or clue in on any of it. Which is interesting to me, because I went to relatively large highschool with a large variety of cliques and such. I can't actually ascertain why that went over or under my radar.
I was just putting it out to see if other people saw it/agreed with my assessment.
I didn't think I'd wind up discussing this book and movie to this extent. Guess it's meatier than I thought.
Man, now I really really want to buy a bow and get shooting again.
Modern hunting is also an entirely impractical way to get food. Who cares?
Hunters, Ted Nugent, and me.
Raising your own food is way more expensive and time consuming then letting it raise itself and shooting it in the head.
Lets say a cow costs you 1300$ a year to feed and you need to care for it 1 hr a day. The cow also takes up space. Space most people don't have. I don't have space to raise a cow, yet... I don't think you do either. I'm also not living in a area where I'd be allowed to raise livestock on my land, yet... You probably don't either. I much rather just go to the store and buy that shit. I eat a lot of beef, but I don't think I eat 1300$ a year.
You can say that you'd milk the cow. Are you going to drink that milk raw??? I hope not. You better have time and energy to process that stuff.
I can however own a gun. Which doesn't take up much space and can be purchase for about $500. Cheaper if you want, but I'd put that at a good mid range. Bullets are about 1$ each.
Time is a variable here. I know I can find a deer in less then 365 hours. That time is also time in the wood which I enjoy. I don't see myself enjoying shovling cow shit for 365hrs. You probably don't either.
I can go kill a deer for far less $ and much less of a time investment. Sure, a single deer doesn't weight as much as a single cow, but given enough motivation I could legally harvest 3 deer from my Zone* and travel to another Zone of NY to get 3 more.
Now lets tie this back to Hunger Games: Katniss hunts for food because it's more practical then raising a cow.
Modern hunting is also an entirely impractical way to get food. Who cares?
Impractical? Depends. Cost effective? Yes. Beyond time (and cost of a weapon and ammo) all you pay for is butchering, which is anywhere from $50 - $150 depending on the animal. If you enjoy the sport of hunting then you are basically sacrificing a small amount of money for a large amount of food.
Also - A real good hunting bow, the sort you'd want for taking down larger game like deer or pigs, will run you far more than a cheap rifle. Broad-tip hunting arrows, not so cheap, either.
It's not practical for everyone to persue it. If enough people wanted to hunt for food, the prices would increase too quickly till it approached a luxury. At that point, the prices would quickly shift in farmings favor.
In the grand scheme of things, bow-hunting is usually on a different license in a different season around here... so you probably would want to persue both.
Man, now I really really want to buy a bow and get shooting again.
Longbows are fun to play with but entirely impractical for modern hunting.
I'm not interested in bowhunting - just target shooting. And you can make a shorter straight bow or flat bow. Granted, a recurve will give you more power in the same total bow height.
So I saw Iron Sky today. And it was good. As a comedy it succeeded by having some funny parts and few absolutely hilarious scenes that got the whole full theater in a burst of laughter. As a action movie first two acts were little low key, but third act had lots of spaceships and explosions. If I would have to seek negatives about the move I'd say that only main character had any character development and even that was a bit rushed. The move flipped between different focuspoints and different characters so it didn't have time to give any one of them the necessary time to develop and change.
But in the end it was highly enjoyable movie that I can easily recommend.
Comments
The whole point of character development is to make you care about the characters and the movie did this poorly. I doubt anyone cared that Katniss takes over for Prim in the movie because Prim was a hollow character in the movie. In the book she wasn't a whole lot better but the author did try and instill a sense of sacrifice by treating Prim as a lovable pacifist. In the movie shes just a weird hollow shell.
I think me saying "I am quite positive that movie would have not made a whole lot of sense" may be a bit exaggerated. But there are certainly parts that don't make any sense, which are explained in the book, that a viewer would shrug off. For example the three finger salute thing. Sweet salute, what the fuck does it mean? Well if you read the book you would know but it was not explained at all in the movie and I'm sure people who haven't read it get some sense of what it was supposed to mean but ultimately it has little impact. If they don't want to give you a meaning behind it then just cut it out of the movie like the did so much other stuff.
I don't think the scene with Rue in the books was just as hollow as the movie, but that is my opinion. From a standpoint of a film-goer I thought that scene was just shit. Had I not read the books and saw the movie I would still think it was bad. She just sat there with a blank expression when she just got hit with a spear . What the fuck? That is just terrible.
I'm not saying that the books were way better than the movie. After watching the movie I felt like there was a lot they could have done more with the book. But one thing is for sure, the book gave me a much better sense of the struggle the tributes had during the Hunger Games and I think it is something that should have been much easier to show than to explain with words, but I believe they dropped the ball.
Keep in mind this is all my opinion, I've just seen much better acting and cinematography display emotion much better than this movie did. It still kept my attention but there was room to do so much more with it. And I don't see how my age should affect your perception of my opinion. If it does then I just won't argue with you anymore.
I thought they outright stated that different districts fulfilled different roles in the movie.
I thought the "careers" sticking together in the movie was pretty clear-cut, and in the book it was painfully obvious: they're the "cool kids" in school that band together and make life hell for everyone else. The jocks and bullies and all that. Poor Katniss and Peeta are the losers who sit by themselves and get food hurled at them.
Which makes that scene with Cato towards the end quite powerful - the "cool kid" facade cracks and he reveals himself to be just as scared as everyone else. An important thing for angst-ridden teenagers to learn. Really, because I caught that too. Katniss is very clever, and she's very quick to adapt to the life the Capitol has forced on her. It had an element of being too goody-goody to be believable, and her face didn't really make it that believable either. There was definitely a current that it could be real, though - but then again, in the book, she admitted to being confused about her feelings anyhow. So having it be muddy like that is good for the story anyhow. I really really really wanted to see reapings from other districts too. It would have reinforced the strict separation and different lifestyles of the different districts.
I also wish they had played up the intra-district conflicts a bit more, just to show how completely divisive this society is. I extrapolated it from the movie and pieced it together, but that's something that could have been displayed very readily without adding significant length to the movie.
As I said, I hated the shit out of Katniss in the book. I mean hated. I figured out that she was a fucked-up mess in the movie anyhow - I didn't need her internal monologue to figure out that she was damaged. But the first chapter of the book made me see her as an outright sociopath, damaged to the point of not feeling. Which I'm sure is part of the point.
The problem then becomes that I am locked into viewing the world through the perspective of a character to whom I feel no attachment. And she doesn't even develop as a character - she really has no personality to speak of, because she's never had the luxury to develop one. That part was reflected quite well in the movie.
So, that also limits my ability to develop any attachment to any other character, since I'm again viewing it through this lens of a self-centered angsty-teenager. She doesn't care about anyone else, really - she looks after Prim and her mother out of a combined sense of obligation and entitlement resulting from the hardships she's suffered - so I never get a chance to really care about anyone else either. That's why the scene with Rue rang so hollow with me in both media - I never really got to connect with her except in the most superficial of ways.
And again, I actually think that's part of the point of the story in each medium - that Katniss is all superficial, and there is no real motivation beyond "survive" underlying any of it. And the movie portrays that well.
But what does this have to do with age? Well, at age 14, or 15, or 16, your problems are your entire world. You don't have perspective because many days are a struggle to figure out who you are and what you want, and a fight to preserve your dignity and ego. Katniss is a perfectly-written angst-riddled 16 year old girl.
The problem I have as an adult is that I'm past that point in my life, so I have difficulty really connecting with Katniss. I mean, sure, I say "Oh yeah, I was 16 once and I remember what it was like," but remembering how it was and experiencing how it is create two totally different perceptions of the same story.
So, in other words, age can affect one's perception of the story because of emotional proximity. So someone who is younger might be very very tuned-in to Katniss and the world because her experiences are closer to theirs. As an adult, I'm no longer interested in that, and I instead want to see how her actions affect people outside of her.
Neither is more valid than the other - it's just a matter of differing experiences. I'm curious about your age because I'm wondering how my hypothesis maps to reality.
tl;dr: Age could be a factor in how well the audience is able to connect with Katniss. A teenager going through those angsty self-loathing years of uncertainty will probably find much more in common with Katniss than would an adult who's already been there, and that creates two very distinct but equally valid perspectives on the book.
But good shooting on her part.
RE: the careers as the "cool kids": I got the impression from the movie, but there was a scene in the book where all the careers sat together in the cafeteria of the training center. If that doesn't scream "cool kids," I don't know what does.
In short: they are both right as long as you know what you're doing and use them appropriately.
The only thing that bothered me about her shooting was when she would occasionally fling her hand away after releasing the string instead of following through.
I didn't think I'd wind up discussing this book and movie to this extent. Guess it's meatier than I thought.
Man, now I really really want to buy a bow and get shooting again.
Raising your own food is way more expensive and time consuming then letting it raise itself and shooting it in the head.
Lets say a cow costs you 1300$ a year to feed and you need to care for it 1 hr a day. The cow also takes up space. Space most people don't have. I don't have space to raise a cow, yet... I don't think you do either. I'm also not living in a area where I'd be allowed to raise livestock on my land, yet... You probably don't either. I much rather just go to the store and buy that shit. I eat a lot of beef, but I don't think I eat 1300$ a year.
You can say that you'd milk the cow. Are you going to drink that milk raw??? I hope not. You better have time and energy to process that stuff.
I can however own a gun. Which doesn't take up much space and can be purchase for about $500. Cheaper if you want, but I'd put that at a good mid range. Bullets are about 1$ each.
Time is a variable here. I know I can find a deer in less then 365 hours. That time is also time in the wood which I enjoy. I don't see myself enjoying shovling cow shit for 365hrs. You probably don't either.
I can go kill a deer for far less $ and much less of a time investment. Sure, a single deer doesn't weight as much as a single cow, but given enough motivation I could legally harvest 3 deer from my Zone* and travel to another Zone of NY to get 3 more.
Now lets tie this back to Hunger Games: Katniss hunts for food because it's more practical then raising a cow.
Info I found:
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/heifermgmt/documents/CostofRaisingHeifersFactSheet.pdf
http://www.montanacowboycollege.com/docs/The Economics of Ranching.pdf
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100615205558AAwgfE5
In short: Farming sucks! I prefer my hunter gather ways.
For realz, farming wins on a civilization level, but hunting is more effective for the individual if given the right enviroment.
Zone*= http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/28605.html
Cost effective? Yes.
Beyond time (and cost of a weapon and ammo) all you pay for is butchering, which is anywhere from $50 - $150 depending on the animal. If you enjoy the sport of hunting then you are basically sacrificing a small amount of money for a large amount of food.
In the grand scheme of things, bow-hunting is usually on a different license in a different season around here... so you probably would want to persue both.
But in the end it was highly enjoyable movie that I can easily recommend.