Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's curious that so many people are dismissing Hunger Games because it's "derivative" of other movies. What romantic comedies, or gangster movies, or horror movies, or murder mysteries are completely original and have no shared plot elements with other movies of their type? Hunger Games is a wildly popular movie based on a wildly popular series of books. It is what it is. It doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable.
I think because for some people the derivative peices seem very awkwardly bolted together for sole purpose of making the most marketable product possible, to certain demographics. This is where you get the comments about the movie being 'soul-less', which I keep seeing.
There are 2 reasons I watch movies: 1.) to be entertained, and 2.) to learn something new (eg new insight into human nature, new twists of age-old problems/conflicts, etc). Hunger Games didn't deliver on either score. The hype and box office success are out of proportion to the quality of the actual movie. What made the difference here is shrewd corporate advertising and the resulting herd mentality.
I suppose on a slow day when one is bored and has nothing else to do, Hunger Games will provide adequate diversion from whatever it is one wants to be diverted from.
An example of a movie that meets my criteria is Pixar's The Incredibles. Very entertaining, funny movie. Also provides humorous insights into the dynamics of a family that was driven underground by society's preference for mediocrity. In the sci-fi genre, I vote for Bladerunner. Entertaining fast paced action, with philosophical musings into the essence of humanity.
The flaw? How about the fact that the movie (and I suppose the book) resorted to the cheap plot technique of "deus ex machina" to solve the dilemma of killing off the main characters if the plot were to be brought to its logical conclusion?
I'm talking about how this story was supposed to be a zero sum game where only one "tribute" will survive. That means either Katniss or Peeta would have had to die. But since that would close the possibility of sequels, and end a profitable franchise, the plot had to introduce a deus ex machina by having the rules of the game changed to allow 2 survivors.
Then at the climax, the rules where changed again such that Katniss and Peeta would have had to kill each other. Now the director could have ended it there gracefully by making Katniss and Peeta eat the poisonous fruit in an act of defiant suicide. I could have appreciated that and elevated my opinion of this movie. It would have driven home the point that violence against children is abhorrent more forcefully.
But no, the deus ex machina had to be interjected again to save their lives. Just so we can expect more sequels. Lousy lousy movie.
An example of a movie that meets my criteria is Pixar's The Incredibles. Very entertaining, funny movie. Also provides humorous insights into the dynamics of a family that was driven underground by society's preference for mediocrity. In the sci-fi genre, I vote for Bladerunner. Entertaining fast paced action, with philosophical musings into the essence of humanity.
Both great choices. Two of my all-time favorite films.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
Hunger Games? How exactly did it float your boat?
Movies are a lot like food.
Sometimes a gourmet meal is great. The presentation is fantastic. It not only tastes delicious, but it tastes unique. Something you'll remember. But very often after you're done, you realize you're still hungry. This is where I put things like Ingmar Bermgan and Woody Allen movies. Yes, I love them. I appreciate them as great art. But I sure don't want them all the time.
And sometimes you just want a good hamburger, pizza, or burrito. Nothing to write home about, but it tastes good and fills you up. This is where I put Jackie Chan flicks, most action movies, most romantic comedies, and stuff like that. It isn't going to haunt you, but it's a fun way to spend a couple of hours.
The perfect meal has the flavor and surprise of the gourmet meal but still fills you up. Here we have Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, Blade Runner, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Citizen Kane, The Incredibles, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, and probably a bunch of others. They are the classics. They are not only great art, but they're entertaining as well.
So did Hunger Games float my boat?
It was a damned good cheeseburger. Criticizing it for not being arancini or a Maine lobster seems to be colossally missing the point. It was a fun action flick. It certainly didn't even approach the depth of Blade Runner, but it raised enough interesting questions that I hope it makes some of the younger audience think beyond the romance and wilderness survival.
The flaw? How about the fact that the movie (and I suppose the book) resorted to the cheap plot technique of "deus ex machina" to solve the dilemma of killing off the main characters if the plot were to be brought to its logical conclusion?
I'm talking about how this story was supposed to be a zero sum game where only one "tribute" will survive. That means either Katniss or Peeta would have had to die. But since that would close the possibility of sequels, and end a profitable franchise, the plot had to introduce a deus ex machina by having the rules of the game changed to allow 2 survivors.
Then at the climax, the rules where changed again such that Katniss and Peeta would have had to kill each other. Now the director could have ended it there gracefully by making Katniss and Peeta eat the poisonous fruit in an act of defiant suicide. I could have appreciated that and elevated my opinion of this movie. It would have driven home the point that violence against children is abhorrent more forcefully.
But no, the deus ex machina had to be interjected again to save their lives. Just so we can expect more sequels. Lousy lousy movie.
Obviously you haven't read the books. It was a ploy to have the lovers think they were both going to survive but then for entertainment watch them kill each other. Their decision to commit suicide rather than kill each other was a show of resistance to the Capitol. This action sets up the next two books where Peeta and Katniss' resistance motivates the districts to revolt and eventually the Capitol falls to the revolution. This is why PresidentnSnow became so angry at the end of the movie. On a national stage, the last two individuals defied the Capitol and also embarrassed it by not following their rules. Giving the already angry people of all the districts hope.
^^^ This, plus the Hunger Games didn't spring from nowhere. They're based on an extremely popular series of young adult novels. No director or movie studio would shoot themselves in the foot and risk alienating their core audience or write themselves into a corner where they would lose profit from the inevitable movie sequels. Katniss would no more lose the Hunger Games and die than Harry Potter would be killed by Voldemort, or Lisbeth Salander would get thrown in a mental hospital forever, or Bella would choose neither Edward or Jacob and go off to college in Seattle. Never going to happen.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 03-27-2012 at 07:54 AM..
Obviously you haven't read the books. It was a ploy to have the lovers think they were both going to survive but then for entertainment watch them kill each other. Their decision to commit suicide rather than kill each other was a show of resistance to the Capitol. This action sets up the next two books where Peeta and Katniss' resistance motivates the districts to revolt and eventually the Capitol falls to the revolution. This is why PresidentnSnow became so angry at the end of the movie. On a national stage, the last two individuals defied the Capitol and also embarrassed it by not following their rules. Giving the already angry people of all the districts hope.
The book on which the movie is based is weak. When an author uses the deus ex machina as a literary device to save the main characters so the story can move forward, or to provide a happy ending - that's a dead giveaway of weak writing and lack of creativity, of an author who has run out of things to say.
In the movie, the deus ex machina happened 3 times (revoking the rules to allow 2 survivors, then changing it back to the original rule, then stopping the characters from committing suicide). I mean, come on. Maybe use it once, but three times? Epic fail.
BTW, using the defense that "you haven't read the book, therefore you can't possibly understand the movie" is a cop out. The movie should stand on its own merit. A good movie should be understandable and internally consistent, independent of the book on which it is based. Viewers shouldn't have to read the book in order to understand a movie. And viewers of the first movie shouldn't have to wait for sequels to understand the movie. Star Wars is a good example of this: the first movie was outstanding in and of itself, without assistance from sequels or prequels.
The flaw? How about the fact that the movie (and I suppose the book) resorted to the cheap plot technique of "deus ex machina" to solve the dilemma of killing off the main characters if the plot were to be brought to its logical conclusion?
I'm talking about how this story was supposed to be a zero sum game where only one "tribute" will survive. That means either Katniss or Peeta would have had to die. But since that would close the possibility of sequels, and end a profitable franchise, the plot had to introduce a deus ex machina by having the rules of the game changed to allow 2 survivors.
Then at the climax, the rules where changed again such that Katniss and Peeta would have had to kill each other. Now the director could have ended it there gracefully by making Katniss and Peeta eat the poisonous fruit in an act of defiant suicide. I could have appreciated that and elevated my opinion of this movie. It would have driven home the point that violence against children is abhorrent more forcefully.
But no, the deus ex machina had to be interjected again to save their lives. Just so we can expect more sequels. Lousy lousy movie.
You do realize that this movie is based on a book, right? A book that is part of a trilogy? Your points arent valid when you dont know what happens next.
By the way, good job on spoiling the movie for those that havent seen it
The book on which the movie is based is weak. When an author uses the deus ex machina as a literary device to save the main characters so the story can move forward, or to provide a happy ending - that's a dead giveaway of weak writing and lack of creativity, of an author who has run out of things to say.
In the movie, the deus ex machina happened 3 times (revoking the rules to allow 2 survivors, then changing it back to the original rule, then stopping the characters from committing suicide). I mean, come on. Maybe use it once, but three times? Epic fail.
BTW, using the defense that "you haven't read the book, therefore you can't possibly understand the movie" is a cop out. The movie should stand on its own merit. A good movie should be understandable and internally consistent, independent of the book on which it is based. Viewers shouldn't have to read the book in order to understand a movie. And viewers of the first movie shouldn't have to wait for sequels to understand the movie. Star Wars is a good example of this: the first movie was outstanding in and of itself, without assistance from sequels or prequels.
Whatever dude. You obviously don't get it. Did you not see how the gamemakers controlled the game with the fire and the mutations they set loose? They were doing the same thing with Katniss and Peeta. They ALWAYS intended it for it to be only one survivor. They decided to change the rule because it would be more amusing to the audience that the couple would think that they both could live. Only so that when they find out in the end one must kill the other. Happens all the time in reality TV where the rules are changed. Then when Katniss and Peeta were not going to kill each other, it was a total defiance and went against everything the Capitol had planned. Kind of like if the 2 finalists on a reality show decided not to compete anymore and walk off stage it would totally defy and embarrass that show. The reason both Katniss and Peeta survive is because they are BOTH intergral character of the sequel.
If you were walking into the Hunger Games and expecting it to be like Star Wars in its greatness, you are obviously a fool. It's an entertaining TEEN book and entertaining movie. It's okay if you don't like it, but you are certainly in the minority. It's no classic, but it is an interesting tale of survival. I don't thin k it was a happy ending either. What makes you think it was a happy ending?
The book on which the movie is based is weak. When an author uses the deus ex machina as a literary device to save the main characters so the story can move forward, or to provide a happy ending - that's a dead giveaway of weak writing and lack of creativity, of an author who has run out of things to say.
I remember the scene you're talking about. I didn't see it as a deus ex machina. I saw it as driving home the point that the State was manipulating these people's lives for their own benefit, that life had become a matter of the whim of the State. Kat defied that. And I'd hardly call it a happy ending.
We can quibble over whether or not that's a weak resolution to the story. But it isn't a deus ex machina. For a real deux ex machine that makes you want to bang your head on the wall, check out the H.P. Lovecraft story "The Picture in the House."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
