The Hunger Games - Part 1

[Blue Sugar]

I agree that the shaky-cam and quick-cuts got a bit too much at times. But am I the only one seeing it's good features? For example in the Clove vs Katniss scene it worked great in making it very tense and exciting. Same with the trackerjacker scene.

 

[SuperBatman]

I thought the only good thing about that film was the elements they stole from Battle Royale.

It was completely unoriginal, clichéed and predictable. The fact that it was so clearly aimed at teenagers didn't help, but I won't hold it against the film cause well, blockbusters have to be aimed at somebody to guarantee a return on investment.

I wasn't thrilled nor entertained for a single second, and this is so far the worst movie if 2012 in my book.

1/10

And for God's sake, get a camera operator who doesn't suffer from Parkinson's disease and a proper editor next time...

Oh please this was nothing like Battle Royal and people need to stop comparing it to it.

 

[Mandalore464]

See my main problem with the film (technical aspects notwithstanding) is that its story doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Districts rebelled (probably because they felt oppressed, right?) so to punish them the government decided to oppress them even more? And sacrifice two of their kids every year? Yeah, like that would work.

And who believed for a second that those kids from Districts 1 and 2 were a serious threat to anyone? They were so over-the-top, arrogant loudmouths who obviously were all trying too hard to look and sound threatening. Moreover, they were just plain dumb : they team up with that annoying Pita-whatever-his-name-was just to find Katniss ("we can't kill him now otherwise we'll never find her" ... Uh... Why not?) but once they do find her they don't kill him.

Do they really think kids are stupid enough not to ask what the hell is wrong with those wusses?

All I saw was a rip-off of Battle Royale watered down for 8-years-old.

Oh please this was nothing like Battle Royal and people need to stop comparing it to it.

Of course not... A TV game with kids trapped in an inescapable arena and forced to kill each other is something we've never seen or heard of before...

Clearly this is just the most original idea somebody's ever had.

And I don't think they copied Battle Royale, but they riped-off its concept. The rest was different -different characters, different situations, etc... - but the only interesting thing about this film was its concept. So yeah, I guess they just decided to rip-off Battle Royale and make a whole new story around its concept. But that story was worthless.

And I'm not even a fan of Battle Royale.

 

[rashad]

Box Office Shocker: 'Hunger Games' Third Best Opening Weekend of All Time
8:20 AM PDT 3/25/2012 by Pamela McClintock

Lionsgate's book-to-film adaptation grosses a staggering $155 million, shattering records and surpassing any "Twilight" pic.

Making history, Lionsgate's The Hunger Games opened to an astounding $155 million at the domestic box office, the third-best debut of all time and the best for any film opening outside of summer.

Hunger Games -- the big-screen adaptation of Suzanne Collins' best-selling young-adult novel starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth -- also reeled in the biggest opening for a nonsequel.

The Gary Ross-directed tentpole came in not far behind the $158.4 million earned by The Dark Knight in its July 2008 debut. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 holds the record for best debut with $169.2 million in summer 2011.

Among the films that Hunger Games beat in its debut were Spider-Man 3 ($151.1 million in 2007), The Twilight Saga: New Moon ($142.8 million in 2009) and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 ($138.1 million last year).

Hunger Games drew an A CinemaScore overall on Friday night, with those under the age of 25 giving it a glowing A+ and those over 25 an A-. Tweens and teens turned out in force for the film, with 39 percent of the audience younger than 18, according to CinemaScore exit polling.

Part of the movie's strength is that it is appealing to males as well as females, unlike the femme-heavy Twilight franchise, another blockbuster film property based on a young-adult book series. Males made up 39 percent of Hunger Games' Friday night audience.

"The numbers just kept growing and growing. And based on the trajectory of the weekend, we are going to have an unbelievable hold. We are going to play and play," Lionsgate executive vice president of distribution David Spitz said. "I think that when we initially looked at this property, we thought we were going to have Twilight numbers in terms of females, but we didn't."

Hunger Games also played like a family film, evidenced by its strong Friday to Saturday hold. The film fell a narrow 25 percent, while the Twilight and Harry Potter films fall anywhere from 44 percent to 60 percent.

According to CinemaScore, 49 percent of those showing up to see Hunger Games were under the age of 25; Lionsgate's exit polling showed that 44 percent were under the age of 25.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...osh-hutcherson-liam-hemsworth-twilight-304028

 

[Marvin]

So Gale is only worth a reaction shot or two, not when Katniss almost has her head blown off but when she's getting cozy with Pete?

They definitely know their audience.

The movie was pretty good and the kids acted their asses off big time. But there was a lot lacking. I mostly blame the fast pacing of the film.

 

[jacobed]

Please shut up about Battle Royale, this movie and that movie are absolutely nothing a like. If you've seen both, you would know that.

 

[terry78]

Considering what some chick at the theatre told me about Catching Fire, that should catch us all up on what's really going on with everything.

 

[Speedball]

So Gale is only worth a reaction shot or two, not when Katniss almost has her head blown off but when she's getting cozy with Pete?

They definitely know their audience.

The movie was pretty good and the kids acted their asses off big time. But there was a lot lacking. I mostly blame the fast pacing of the film.

Gale is barely even in the first book, and mostly just mentioned by Katniss in her past experiences. Those reaction shots were added to the story because they switched the story from first person to third person perspective. He has a much larger part in the second and third books and movies.

 

[Still Wynning]

For those of you complaining about how The Hunger Games rips off Battle Royale, I suggest you read this very insightful article

http://io9.com/5888124/did-the-hunger-games-really-rip-off-battle-royale

Also, if you're going to say that The Hunger Games steals from Battle Royale, you might as well say that Battle Royale ripped off "The Long Walk", since it contains a lot of the same elements (i.e.- post-apocalyptic society, young children/adults, a violent and dangerous sport, an oppressive leader, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Walk

Just because elements in one story are similar to elements in another, it doesn't mean that those elements purposefully ripped-off wholesale from that story. While almost no new ideas exist nowadays, it's what you do with those ideas that sets you apart, or not, from the other.

As the old saying goes, "There's nothing new under the sun."

 

[Sentinel X]

I need to read Battle Royale before I make a final conclusion but the actual Hunger Games only happen in one book (haven't had the chance to read the other two books yet). So its really just a third of a much bigger story.

Also 155 million opening weeked ...WOW!!! That is crazy.

 

[Mandalore464]

Please shut up about Battle Royale, this movie and that movie are absolutely nothing a like. If you've seen both, you would know that.

God, so much emotion here...

I've seen both thank you very much.

And no, The Hunger Games did not rip-off Battle Royale.

For the - what, third time now?- it RIPPED OFF its concept. Yes it did.

I'm not talking about similarities here (post-apocalyptic world, violent sport, etc...), but about a very specific concept : Kids that are trapped in an arena they cannot escape and have to kill each other for a TV game enjoyed by the masses.

That's the concept of both films, and yes it's the exact same. Get over it already. No one's saying Battle Royale is the greatest film of all time or anything, just that the two films share the exact same concept, and we all know which came first.

There, I said it. Now please, you shut up.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

Battle Royale was better when it was called Lord of the Flies.

 

[Blue Sugar]

I hope the success of this movie makes people read the books, cause even though I thought the film was great it can't touch the book as a whole.

 

[Marvin]

Gale is barely even in the first book, and mostly just mentioned by Katniss in her past experiences. Those reaction shots were added to the story because they switched the story from first person to third person perspective. He has a much larger part in the second and third books and movies.

Never disputed any of that, I just noted how funny it was that the only times he was seen after the first act was in Jacob Black like reaction beats....why no reactions of him with a knife at her throat and such?

 

[dark_b]

i have a feeling that everyone will only talk about the BO and not about Lawrence's performance.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

i have a feeling that everyone will only talk about the BO and not about Lawrence's performance.

Well I imagine it gets pretty sweaty running around for your life. t:

 

[The Morningstar]

God, so much emotion here...

I've seen both thank you very much.

And no, The Hunger Games did not rip-off Battle Royale.

For the - what, third time now?- it RIPPED OFF its concept. Yes it did.

I'm not talking about similarities here (post-apocalyptic world, violent sport, etc...), but about a very specific concept : Kids that are trapped in an arena they cannot escape and have to kill each other for a TV game enjoyed by the masses.

That's the concept of both films, and yes it's the exact same. Get over it already. No one's saying Battle Royale is the greatest film of all time or anything, just that the two films share the exact same concept, and we all know which came first.

There, I said it. Now please, you shut up.

The concept is different. Battle Royale is a bunch of school kids who have history with each other. They already have connections, negative or positive feelings about each other. This is a pretty important detail. Hunger Games they are all strangers, from different areas, with different lifestyles.

The idea of a future where violent sports are entertainment is nothing new or original. That concept has been used for decades in science fiction. The only similarities Hunger Games and Battle Royale have are it's children involved. But like i explain before, the context and themes are completely different.

Also Battle Royale doesn't show any of society at large, the government infrastructure etc. It's all about the actual game and the characters involved in it. There is no lead up or real presentation of the future world outside of the game.

 

[John Locke]

Considering what some chick at the theatre told me about Catching Fire, that should catch us all up on what's really going on with everything.

I don't really think the first book told much more than the movie did about what's going on. In fact I think it did told us more than the book did. An example is [BLACKOUT]The riot in District 11 didn't happen in the book and wasn't mentioned until the sequel or at least the very end of the book.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Infinity9999x]

God, so much emotion here...

I've seen both thank you very much.

And no, The Hunger Games did not rip-off Battle Royale.

For the - what, third time now?- it RIPPED OFF its concept. Yes it did.

I'm not talking about similarities here (post-apocalyptic world, violent sport, etc...), but about a very specific concept : Kids that are trapped in an arena they cannot escape and have to kill each other for a TV game enjoyed by the masses.

That's the concept of both films, and yes it's the exact same. Get over it already. No one's saying Battle Royale is the greatest film of all time or anything, just that the two films share the exact same concept, and we all know which came first.

There, I said it. Now please, you shut up.

If you had been somewhat realistic in terms of how you rated the movie, people might listen to you. But the fact that you gave this movie a 1 out of 10, in effect saying it's one of the worst movies of the year, and one of the worst movies you've ever seen, pretty much completely undermines anything you have to say. From an acting and techincal standpoint, even if you absolutely hate the concept, THG was no-where near the level of some of the films that get churned out.

So, in effect, by trying to make a point, you basically ensured that no one would take you seriously. Had you rated this more reasonably, people might have been willing to give you some credit, but instead you made yourself come off as an internet hipster who wants to go against the grain for the sake of going against the grain and rate this extremely poorly just because.

 

[dark_b]

i dont want spoilers from the second book. but is there a logical explaination why Katniss goes back in the arena? or is she going back because its a sequel and this is what they do?

 

[obin_gam]

From what I gathered the second and third books are not about the tournament at all.

 

[Infinity9999x]

i dont want spoilers from the second book. but is there a logical explaination why Katniss goes back in the arena? or is she going back because its a sequel and this is what they do?

There is a logical explanation. Also, the third book has nothing to do with the games again.

 

[Project862006]

Domestic: $155,000,000
Foreign: $59,250,000
= Worldwide: $214,250,000

WOW huge numbers and this film cost 124 Million - 78 Million Budget - 45 Million Marketing

 

[Liam_H]

Whats surprising to me is that if you remove the inflated midnight numbers of Friday this movie actually went up on Saturday. It normally drops, so that could either mean a whole bunch of kids went to see this or this thing is gonna have pretty decent legs.

 

[Blue Sugar]

The best thing about this doing so well is that the second movie will get a bigger budget, something I think it will need. The CGI can be improved a lot.