U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-26-2012, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
696 posts, read 1,077,358 times
Reputation: 584

Advertisements

Just saw it yesterday. I had high hopes for the movie, but it is nothing more than a combination of Time Machine (the two classes of the society - the ruling class and the slave class) and The Truman Show, with some teen romance thrown in. Not a "bad" movie, but nothing original or interesting for me. Now that I know, I will pass on the sequels !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2012, 07:32 AM
 
2,848 posts, read 6,217,297 times
Reputation: 5079
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronyusa View Post
Just saw it yesterday. I had high hopes for the movie, but it is nothing more than a combination of Time Machine (the two classes of the society - the ruling class and the slave class) and The Truman Show, with some teen romance thrown in. Not a "bad" movie, but nothing original or interesting for me. Now that I know, I will pass on the sequels !!
I'm curious about your comparison to The Truman Show? Because of the "reality TV" aspect? Tell me more...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
771 posts, read 1,038,400 times
Reputation: 438
Finally saw it. Very solid and though it was pretty good. I would give it 4/5 stars. It certainly had it's flaws (shakey camera and couple relationships like Peeta/Katniss and Katniss/Rue could have been developed better). However, the flaws are something that can be overlooked.

I thought it was extremely entertaining, but no masterpiece. If you haven't seen it yet, just go in expecting to be entertained and have fun with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
696 posts, read 1,077,358 times
Reputation: 584
Yep, very much like The Truman Show...everything being done in a "set"...controlled environment...directors/makers of the "show" interfering time to time to steer the outcome/plot in different directions and watching how the characters react to the changing circumstances, both movies even show the viewers watching the "show" and commenting/reacting to it! There is some technological advancement in The Hunger Games of course, such as making artificial animals and dropping them into the set (which I thought was pretty cool btw)...but other than that it is basically people enjoying reality show at the expense of others' miseries. Only difference is that in The Truman Show Jim Carrey's character (Truman Burbank) was not aware that he was being filmed but in The Hunger Games the characters knew, but the overall theme is still the same, they were all forced into a fake reality for the entertainment of the rest!

Must say though, The Truman Show was very original for its time and a masterpiece...while The Hunger Games...not so much ...in my opinion anyway !!

Cheers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinetreelover View Post
I'm curious about your comparison to The Truman Show? Because of the "reality TV" aspect? Tell me more...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
696 posts, read 1,077,358 times
Reputation: 584
Makes you wonder where we are heading as a civilization though..I mean think about it, all the reality shows these days - the real housewives of orange county, atlanta, nyc etc., the bachelor/bachelorette, the kardashians, jersey shore -- nothing more than stupid people engaging in stupid, shallow drama and petty fights ..and their real lives are not all that different...while "we" (not me personally lol..but the viewers at large) watch them while eating pop corn and discuss them at parties. Only a matter of time before it all gets old and we start sending teenagers to kill each other in the forest while we watch it from the comforts of home.. ..but I guess that is a separate discussion that belongs in the "Great Debates" section !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
771 posts, read 1,038,400 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronyusa View Post
Makes you wonder where we are heading as a civilization though..I mean think about it, all the reality shows these days - the real housewives of orange county, atlanta, nyc etc., the bachelor/bachelorette, the kardashians, jersey shore -- nothing more than stupid people engaging in stupid, shallow drama and petty fights ..and their real lives are not all that different...while "we" (not me personally lol..but the viewers at large) watch them while eating pop corn and discuss them at parties. Only a matter of time before it all gets old and we start sending teenagers to kill each other in the forest while we watch it from the comforts of home.. ..but I guess that is a separate discussion that belongs in the "Great Debates" section !!
I do agree with some of your points. I never watch TV anymore. TV is such garbage nowadays. I shudder when I hear that my friends are watching the Jersey Shore. It's terrible. I think the problem is now that there are SO many channels that so many stupid shows need to be created as filler time. I am sure if we were limited to 10 channels or so, the quality of programming would be so much better. The only thing I watch on TV is National Geographic Channel and sports.

However, don't fret either. I think we currently some qualities that the Hunger Games is representative of.

For instance reality tv is one.

Then think about sports. MMA is becoming a big deal. It's literally a sport where people across the country enjoy watching people literally beating the s*** out of each other. People even pay extra $$$ so they can have the game broadcasted at home and then can have their MMA party and enjoy it. Same can go for boxing. Also the fighting in hockey games where the crowds cheer on the beating of another individual. It wouldn't surprise me if 20 years from now there was something similar to the Hunger Games. Not so much government sponsored, but where people were forced to live in some outdoor arena and actually die to get the prize and not get voted off.

Nowadays many (stupid) people will do anything to be on TV, especially reality TV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Asheville
7,503 posts, read 5,978,382 times
Reputation: 6811
My 16 year old Daughter recently read the book and and loved it so she was giving us constant reminders that it was coming. I didn't know what to expect, but I enjoyed it. very well done. in fact 4 of us in our group and we all like it. even my Daughter who read the book, which is rare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Nassau/Queens border
1,481 posts, read 2,673,476 times
Reputation: 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouzon View Post
I haven't read the book. Perhaps that would help. Anyway, this movie was just the most vacant, empty thing. If you think this is really about something more than kids killing each other you have officially been duped by big budget USA entertainment. This is pure spectacle. The political context...are you kidding me?! The political storyline is just window dressing meant to give people a convenient way to explain why they enjoy something so twisted.

I'm glad that I am not so desensitized or unhappy that I could actually enjoy something like this. It's really sad that this is marketed at kids.
You really need to read the book to get the full understanding of the Dystopian Society this takes place in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Nassau/Queens border
1,481 posts, read 2,673,476 times
Reputation: 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanhawk View Post
It's the stupid shaky cam fad in action movie making. It's a lazy substitute for using actual skill and talent in setting up action scenes. Just shake the camera around to create the appearance action and tension. I wish directors would get back to using actual action in scenes and skillful editing to bring it all together.
Actually what you call 'shaky cam' is a filming technique used by many film makers to make things appear more real. It is far from being a 'lazy substitute'. I realize many people don't like it.

4. Hand-held shots
The hand-held movie camera first saw widespread use during World War II, when news reporters took their windup Arriflexes and Eyemos into the heat of battle, producing some of the most arresting footage of the twentieth century. After the war, it took a while for commercially produced movies to catch up, and documentary makers led the way, demanding the production of smaller, lighter cameras that could be moved in and out of a scene with speed, producing a "fly-on-the-wall" effect.This aesthetic took a while to catch on with mainstream Hollywood, as it gives a jerky, ragged effect, totally at odds with the organised smoothness of a dolly shot. The Steadicam (a heavy contraption which is attached a camera to an operator by a harness. The camera is stabilized so it moves independently) was debuted in Marathon Man (1976), bringing a new smoothness to hand held camera movement and has been used to great effect in movies and TV shows ever since. No "walk and talk" sequence would be complete without one. Hand held cameras denote a certain kind of gritty realism, and they can make the audience feel as though they are part of a scene, rather than viewing it from a detached, frozen position.

From: Camera Angles
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Nassau/Queens border
1,481 posts, read 2,673,476 times
Reputation: 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by RjRobb2 View Post
The shaky cam isnt a fad. It has been used for a long time and it was a tool for creating drama but also a way for this movie to remain PG13 so that the main audience for this film would be allowed to see the movie. Do you really think this movie would remain PG13 if the shaky cam were not used in the opening scene in the arena? It had a hard time getting that rating as it was.

I thought the use of the shaky cam was very well done as it created the suspense and devastation of those scenes without showing the gore that it would entail if they had not.
I wish I could Rep you again. It irks me that people don't understand the actual art form of film making. I perfectly understand if someone doesn't like a specific cinematic technique but they need to do their research.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:34 AM.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top