# The Hunger Games



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 11, 2012)

What do you think of it?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 11, 2012)

Is this referring to a super gritty reboot of Hungry Hungry Hippos?


----------



## darkangel5000 (Mar 11, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> What do you think of it?


Since I got my Kindle just recently, it was, that I finished reading the first Volume just 2 hours ago.
It's definately not my favourite book ever but neither is it just "ok". So I'd say, that it's a great book and therefore somewhere between "It's my fav" and "it was ok". 


/e: Looks like I forgot something.. Silly me... :/
I'm now already in the fifth chapter of Catching Fire and I'm looking forward to be reading more, since it's really thrilling :3


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 11, 2012)

My boyfriend read all the books and is going to see the movie. As for myself I haven't read the book, but I am going to see the movie


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 11, 2012)

Read the book in half a day. It was good and I enjoyed it. I know movie is gonig to suck just like the Twilight saga.

@[member='The Catboy']: I would recommend reading the book before seeing the movie.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 11, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Read the book in half a day. It was good and I enjoyed it. I know movie is gonig to suck just like the Twilight saga.
> 
> @[member='The Catboy']: I would recommend reading the book before seeing the movie.


I don't read very quickly...


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 12, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Read the book in half a day. It was good and I enjoyed it. I know movie is gonig to suck just like the Twilight saga.
> ...



It's K bro. You have a whole two weeks.


----------



## Byronic Hero (Mar 12, 2012)

The books are usually better than the movies. I don't expect this franchise to be much different, but I will go to see it anyway. 

One thing I found weird was who they cast to play Cinna, why Lenny Kravitz? xD


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 12, 2012)

Idk. Hollywoods weird like that.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Mar 13, 2012)

The first book was the best of the trilogy, IMHO [Mockingjay being the worst, again, IMHO].

Personally, if they stay as faithful to the source material as possible, then the movie adaptation should be more than satisfying. The thing about it is that half the cast in this movie will be gone by the sequel, and in 'YA' book-to-movie adaptations, that's never been done before IIRC [well, the Narnia movies, maybe, if you count that as YA, which I don't].

PS
Hopefully, this doesn't degenerate into the "Team Gale/Peeta" BS. Which looks likely. Damn fangirls...


----------



## FireEmblemGuy (Mar 19, 2012)

I read the first book a couple years ago, and it was just kinda OK. For some reason my little brother's super pumped about the movie, and bought his ticket a couple weeks ago. Read the book again last night, still found it mediocre, and if I bother to see the film it won't be until it hits the rental sites. Casting looks decent enough, anyways, with only a couple questionable choices.

Still leagues ahead of Twilight.


----------



## MelissaUS (Mar 23, 2012)

I like the books. I am not sure that the movies will be that good.


----------



## prowler (Mar 23, 2012)

I bought the book today actually, I haven't started reading it yet but I will do tonight.

Can't wait to watch the movie when I'm done!


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 23, 2012)

I guess this is the next "fad"


----------



## frogboy (Mar 23, 2012)

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Hunger Games. I might go see the movie, though.


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Mar 23, 2012)

I was expecting "more" to be honest.
They focused too much on the main character and pretty much cleared the ending since the beginning.
Really.. it was a good movie, very good concept but they should have spread it out a little more. I havent read the book but I figured out the ending before I was done watching halfway.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 26, 2012)

...And the movie just made a (using scientific measurements, here) metric crapton.

Ah, only in America is hunger a game worth $155 million dollars (first weekend alone).


----------



## prowler (Mar 26, 2012)

I finished the book, it's tempting to watch the camrip that's around the web now but I want to wait aha





Tanveer said:


> They focused too much on the main character and pretty much cleared the ending since the beginning.


The book is Katniss' words, it's supposed to be focused on her.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 26, 2012)

G Gundam Plot line + Chronicles of Narnia characters. eeh ill pass.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 26, 2012)

The movie wasn't all that. Not sure what people are getting hyped for.


----------



## nando (Mar 26, 2012)

i'm illiterate so i haven't read the book. i don't know what the premise is but judging by the title it sounds stupid.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Mar 30, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Is this referring to a super gritty reboot of Hungry Hungry Hippos?


Yes, that's precisely what it is! 

And I didn't vote, because non of the answers described me... It wasn't my fave, but I didn't think it was "eh, ok" either. I did really like it, though.


----------



## Zekrom_cool (Mar 31, 2012)

The book was fine. But any suggestions whether i should see the movie or no?


----------



## xwatchmanx (Mar 31, 2012)

Zekrom_cool said:


> The book was fine. But any suggestions whether i should see the movie or no?


I think it was a really nice adaptation... definitely among the better book-to-movie adaptations I saw. I personally recommend seeing it. It was pretty faithful to the book in all the ways that mattered


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 31, 2012)

Watching The Hunger Games killed quite a few of my brain cells.


----------



## SifJar (Mar 31, 2012)

nando said:


> i'm illiterate so i haven't read the book. i don't know what the premise is but judging by the title it sounds stupid.


Basically, the idea is that there was a revolution, and so as punishment, every year there is a competition called the hunger games. A boy and a girl from each of the 12 "districts" are put together and the 24 of them fight to the death until one remains, the victor. The whole thing is broadcast as a sort of reality tv show.

I saw the movie, haven't read the book. It was OK.


----------



## Smuff (Mar 31, 2012)

Sounds like a Westernised "Battle Royale" to me.


----------



## Gnargle (Mar 31, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Watching The Hunger Games killed quite a few of my brain cells.


Grow up.


----------



## Satangel (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm a real sucker for these kind of series, I'll surely end up watching it, maybe even going to the theatre for this.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 1, 2012)

Gnargle said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Watching The Hunger Games killed quite a few of my brain cells.
> ...



I cannot have an opinion that I believe the movie was terrible? You're the childish one here.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 1, 2012)

SmuffTheMagicDragon said:


> Sounds like a Westernised "Battle Royale" to me.


A lot of people have made that observation. The basic ideas are similar. The author claims she never heard of Battle Royale before writing the book, but who knows? lol


----------



## Edgedancer (Apr 1, 2012)

xwatchmanx said:


> SmuffTheMagicDragon said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a Westernised "Battle Royale" to me.
> ...


Its not impossible to have heard about the story, forget it but retain the idea. I know I have done that once or twice with story ideas only to scrap them when it becomes too similar.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 1, 2012)

SmuffTheMagicDragon said:


> Sounds like a Westernised "Battle Royale" to me.



I take your Battle Royale and raise you The Running Man and The Most Dangerous Game.

To be fair, though, it's an old concept that countless writers have used, so there's nothing inherently wrong with these books doing it too. It all depends on what else it brings to the table.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 1, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I take your Battle Royale and raise you The Running Man and The Most Dangerous Game.
> 
> To be fair, though, it's an old concept that countless writers have used, so there's nothing inherently wrong with these books doing it too. It all depends on what else it brings to the table.


Indeed. Harry Potter certainly wasnt the first book about a wizarding school. Heck, it wasnt even the first one about a young boy with a redheaded best friend and a smart girl that rhymed with "Arry Otter". I don't remember the book's name, but it was by Jennifer Yolen.


----------



## Gnargle (Apr 1, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Gnargle said:
> 
> 
> > Hyro-Sama said:
> ...


Not when you phrase it like that, no. That's just blatant flamebait and you should be warned for it.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 1, 2012)

I guess I might as well post this here: The Hunger Games continues to break records in the box office, and it was again the #1 film at the box office.

@[member='Gnargle']

Honestly, I don't see that's "flamebait." He has an extremely negative opinion on the movie, and expressed that in an extremely negative way. What's the problem?


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 1, 2012)

I've yet to see The Hunger Games. Read the first book and enjoyed it, though. Debating whether I should go to the theatres or just wait for a DVD rip.


Hyro-Sama said:


> Watching The Hunger Games killed quite a few of my brain cells.


>implying you had any to begin with.


oh snap.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Apr 1, 2012)

soulx said:


> I've yet to see The Hunger Games. Read the first book and enjoyed it, though. Debating whether I should go to the theatres or just wait for a DVD rip.
> 
> 
> Hyro-Sama said:
> ...



Well my lack of brain cells contributed to me making a poor decision in watching The Hunger Games movie. I should've stuck to reading the books. I stilll have to read the
Mockingjay.

@[member='Gnargle']: Learn what flamebait is. It's not someone having a different a opinion from you.


----------



## ShadowNeko003 (Apr 2, 2012)

I saw the movie (without reading the book)  I thought it was ok.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Apr 2, 2012)

People will always be disappointed, pissed off, or hating. It's like a law of nature now. I wish I could watch the movie already.

PS
Everyone who says Hunger Games is just an 'Americanized' Battle Royale obviously don't know what they're talking about. They see 'teenagers killing each other' and they go rant. There all too many 'dystopian/futuristic game show/battle to the death stories'.

PPS
Maybe, just maybe, someone will do a faithful movie adaptation of 'The Long Walk' in the near future and it'll be good. I mean, 'Running Man' was godawful, imho.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 2, 2012)

I heard some rather positive things on the movie. The guys over at Half and the Bag said they really liked it and they're usually pretty tough on movies but they know their shit.

I wouldn't base my opinion of hating the movie simply because it's one of those "overnight successes" like Twilight or Harry Potter were. I'll probably give it a watch once it gets a DVD release and I can pirate it or something. Nothing I'd really go to the theaters for though.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Apr 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I wouldn't base my opinion of hating the movie simply because it's one of those "overnight successes" like Twilight or Harry Potter were.



Wait, wait... Now, I don't give a shit about Twilight, [kill it with fire, I say] but novels aren't exactly 'overnight success' material. Writing one is already hard, let alone trying to sell it. Not everyone is Shakespeare, ya?

I mean, I'm sorry if you're sick and tired of screaming teenagers, [so am I] but speaking as someone who wants to write things for a living, seeing anyone dismiss any written story because it was an 'overnight success' is just... verily distressing, to say the least.

That's all. Peace.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 8, 2012)

Shinigami357 said:


> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't base my opinion of hating the movie simply because it's one of those "overnight successes" like Twilight or Harry Potter were.
> ...



A) Making films is, in many ways, far more difficult than writing a novel. When writing, after all, you're really just wrangling with your own imagination. Films, especially the higher profile ones, can involve hundreds of people (director, screenwriters, actors, prop men, stuntmen, special effects artists, cameramen, editors, etc.), many of whom will likely have conflicting ideas on what's best, working together to produce one product. Filming on location in different natural environments can amplify the stress and problems (whereas an author writing about, let's say a jungle, often doesn't have to write the novel in the jungle itself).

B) Overnight success is just referring to something that is released, catches on quickly, and sells extremely well. Of course some novels can be considered overnight successes.

C) Guild is just saying he's not going to hate something because it's popular. He never said he hated Twilight or Harry Potter because they were massive hits with a broad audience; I don't know where you got that impression from.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Apr 8, 2012)

A) I wasn't comparing making films to writing novels. Though I'd have to disagree. Writing is usually a solitary effort, and that means time and resources. Everything from research to theory-crafting to actual creation, and then first edits, perhaps a full rewrite. Working in solitude is hardly what people call 'easy'. At least when you're making a movie, there are dozens of people around to help.

Also, movies have budgets. Most [beginning] writers don't.

B) Ah, but that's seeing only the already-selling/already-popular final product. I don't think there's any argument that writing, getting an agent, getting a publisher and then waiting for your work to sell well is hard. In fact, most novels get rejected a few times before they even get published. There are no overnight successes to these things, because the speed something catches on is about inversely proportional to how much time and effort you put into it. You can call it 'out of the blue' maybe.

The thing you're focusing on is the '7 books, 8 films, 1 billion worth franchise' [aka Harry Potter]. You don't see the book's roots. And that's my point here. Novels [series, especially] are an accumulation, and before books start to sell like hotcakes, they sell like, well, books.

C) I wasn't reacting to the assumption that he hated Potter or Twilight [urgh]. I was reacting to the assumption that they were overnight successes. If an iSuck sells 5,000,000 worldwide on launch day, that's an overnight success; a first-time novel sells 100,000 copies of its first-print in one month wherever the publisher sends it is hardly a comparison.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 8, 2012)

A) Mind you films also need writing, the difference is that you really don't need to write out an environment, upfront descriptions, or actions. You, of course, need to be able to visualize all this and make it possible with the resources you have. It's not just a writing down of your ideas and imagination, it's envisioning it and bringing it to life. Both Gahars and I have been involved in television production and we can both tell you it's not as easy as it looks. If anything films can provide a lot more challenge, being able to add depth to your character through actions and even things as subtle as facial expressions. You have to have people see what you do, you can't just hook up your mind to a projector and have everyone see what you think. It's almost like talking to someone in a different language.

Also writing is just writing something on your own and then seeing if it's accepted by a publisher and such. Movies are a leap of faith, you have to spend a lot more money making a film than you do writing a book. And unless you're already signed into making that movie or you're a big name in the business, you'll often be taking a big risk making a film and hoping it gets attention.

B) You don't get the term "overnight success". It doesn't mean something became successful literally overnight. It means that something picked up traction quickly and grew in popularity at a fast pace. Even if a book has been out for months, it may become an "overnight success" if something prompted its popularity to skyrocket (like, I dunno, Oprah's book club).

C) See B on my definition of "overnight success".


----------



## Gahars (Apr 8, 2012)

A) While I wouldn't argue that writing is an easy process by any means, I think its solitary nature makes it an easier process than film making. With films, remember, there's the writing plus so many factors; you have to distill all these different visions into one cohesive piece.

Plus, most beginning film makers have little in the way of budgets as well and filming can be a more time consuming process; at least with writing, you might be able to squeeze in a little bit on the side of something else.

B) Again, no one says "overnight success" and means it literally and/or assumes that a book (or any piece of art) is rapidly produced. It just refers to how well it does in a short time frame after it is released.

C) Ah, I mistook the tone of what you were saying. But really, if a publisher makes a limited number of copies for the initial release and sells them off in a short amount of time, how is that not an overnight success? It's a relative term, not an objective standard.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 8, 2012)

As someone who's been writing since I was 15 (amateurly, as I've published nothing or even finished much of the things I've written), I gotta say I agree that making a movie or tv show would be much more difficult than writing a novel. With a novel, it's literally you and either paper/pen, or any old computer with word processing capabilities. After that, it's just a matter of a bit of talent (as is filmmaking) and focusing and applying and organizing your imagination to what you write, and that's it. After that, you just try your best to publish it and hope to get lucky.

With a movie, you have to do ALL that (writing the story is one of the first steps), AND a billion other things, with countless other people. And no matter what role you have in the film, the chances of your creative vision coming to be without at least a few changes by others you don't like is almost nonexistent.

Plus, there's the notion of practicality... like I said, I've been writing since I was 15, and if I wanted to and just applied myself, I could have definitely written a full novel and tried to get it published, while in school (remember Eragon? The author wrote the novel at 15). The same applies now while I'm in college. I could easily be writing novels and making money part time while in school if I wanted and as successful. But with filmmaking, you just can't do that: you can't do it "on the side" of your job or school and the like without making and real sacrifices. With writing, all you'll be sacrificing is free time.

That's how I see it.


----------



## ThePowerOutage (Apr 12, 2012)

I've been meaning to read the books for a while, and finally got round to it this week.
The books are really poor IMHO. The story and universe surrounding it is solid, but I couldn't connect with the characters at all, and Suzanne Collins writing style is just irritatingly text book.
I've yet to see the film, but I'm expecting that the director has turned it into a teenage-hype-sensation rather that the gritty and emotional masterpiece it could be.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Apr 22, 2012)

Saw the movie today (Havent read the books except the plot summaries). It was okay and I will probably see the other ones. But it certainly wasnt a life changing experiance for me like it seems to be for a lot of other people in general. So I guess I still dont see why people are aking such a big deal out of it, but to each there own, I know I like movies other people dont care about.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 22, 2012)

mysticwaterfall said:


> Saw the movie today (Havent read the books except the plot summaries). It was okay and I will probably see the other ones. But it certainly wasnt a life changing experiance for me like it seems to be for a lot of other people in general. So I guess I still dont see why people are aking such a big deal out of it, but to each there own, I know I like movies other people dont care about.


It's just the same run of the mill effect as with any movie based on a popular book, honestly. People who read the book will be geeking about it, and people who hear it's based on a book might read it and then go see it (like me, lol).


----------



## AlanWeird (Apr 22, 2012)

I've yet to read the books. I wanna do those first and then catch the movies.


----------

