^^This. I remember being impressed with how human Katniss was in the book. She wasn't a superhero with superhuman capabilities, but a normal person who has to deal with stuff like dehydration, getting injured, almost dying in a firestorm, etc. It was very apparent that she could have been one of the ones to die instead.
And sorry. I saw this on deviantArt and just had to share. The Hunger Games
Yes, Mokingjay was the weakest of the trilogy, while I think Catching Fire is the best. I didn't even feel anything when
Prim died
and I find the final battle to be unimpressive and just a glorified obstacle course. The descriptions for the monsters didn't help I kept on imagining philosoraptor.
I agree with this. Mockingjay had a lot of weirdly written parts that make you just wonder what the heck was actually happening. In comparison to the first two books that at least had a certain "orderliness" to it, Mockingjay was just all over the place and sometimes hard to follow. For me, anyway.
I guess we can chalk it up to the fact that
Katniss was in a very stressful situation which makes it hard for her to "keep up" with the "narration"
but I still think it could have been done better.
As for
Prim dying
, I had to go back to the part where Katniss describes the event before I finally understood what happened. Again, all this can just be because of how crazy the situation was at the time, but the description for it was lacking the impact it should have.
I thought the final battle was pretty cool in some parts though, at least the obstacle course part and how
Katniss' companions met their demise; I mean, a beam of light that melts you? Awesome.
For the monsters I kept imagining a Cloverfield situation. XD
I can't wait for the next movie though. Catching Fire is actually my favorite book out of the three, not sure why.
Anyone have any other similar sci-fi epics to read? The Hunger Games trilogy was a highlight of my summer last year, really quick and got to the point.
Battle Royale. Similar concept to The Hunger Games just much, much darker and gory, some people say The Hunger Games ripped off the plot from Battle Royale. Mitsuko and Kazuo make Cato and Clover look like wimps.
Same. I didn't understand either. It all happened so fast and I don't think the event was described well. I'm not very good at reading and taking things in, but that's the only time in the trilogy I had to re-read multiple pages to actually understand all that was happening there.
I'm willing to beleive Collins when she says that she had never heard of "Battle Royale" at the time she began writing. From writing my own novel, I know how easy it is to be working on an idea that you think is awesome and original, only to discover that someone has already done something similar just a couple years sooner.
It is fair to point out that Koushun Takami the writer of Battle Royale said it was possible for Collins to come up with the same concept he did. I'm really not a fan of Battle Royale, nothing against the story it's just too damn dark and gory for my liking, also Shuya sucks as a protagonist and
No, I do know about Battle Royale, but I meant something less laborious and familar to me. I don't think it's copied either, gladiator stuff is generally part of our primordial stew. On a deeper level its the Moloch/Satan/Abel sacrifice thing.
I suppose the details of Battle Royale have similarities but child death is at the heart of every criticism regarding any totalitarian system so I didn't even notice.
I'm typing this because I keep seeing this criticism pop up, and I'm not sure if its just to deride it because the new generation are enjoying it. Competition against Batman and The Hobbit. Battle Royale always seemed to be more of a quick thrill 'hey you see the film where kids kill each other lol' than something of genuine fondness.
If you're going for dystopian stuff, I recomend the Divergent series by Veronica Roth. It's more into ideas then war stuff, but I find the dystopia in it more realistic then the one in Hunger Games. The Divergent dystopia is based on splitting people up into groups by their personalities/aptitudes buy an aptitude test at age 16. I thought it was a great example of stereotyping taken to the extreme.
In terms movies, I like Hunger Games way more than Battle Royale. It's all because of the main characters. I hated the BR protagonists, all they know is to whine and get lucky while Katniss and Peeta had to do all sorts of stuff to survive.
In terms movies, I like Hunger Games way more than Battle Royale. It's all because of the main characters. I hated the BR protagonists, all they know is to whine and get lucky while Katniss and Peeta had to do all sorts of stuff to survive.
But it's also so much different. In Hunger Games most of the children are unknown to each other where as in Battle Royal the kids know everyone they are supposed to kill. Also in Hunger Games every one knows it's a possibility that they will be chosen, and they get ready and are even coatched how to survive. In Battle Royal the kids have no idea. They are just suddenly put on an island and told to kill each other. Of course its more chaotic. And that's one of the reasons I prefere the Battle Royal from the two movies, because it potrays the horror the children go through. The Hunger Games movie had to have a low rating because it was directed at teenagers and it couldn't really portray much horror. That's why I also like the book better than the movie, because it has that feeling that anything can happen and at any time, and it has the reader on the edge all the time.
That's also why I think the comparing of Battle Royal and Hunger Games is a bit unnecessary because they are in two completely different genres. Battle Royal is supposed to be gory, because it's a horror movie. I can tell you that the manga is even worse, it's disgusting. And the book is somewhere in between (I'll admit I haven't read it all yet). Then again Hunger Games is a book that is mainly targeted for teenagers, and it's more critical to society, where as I think Battle Royal leaves that to the audience.
Also I want to say that I prefered the first Hunger Games book. I think the second one was good/ok and the third book...well I don't know if Collins could have made it much worse. I love stories about surviving and that was why I loved the first one so much. Second one was just, well, it didn't have the same feel to it, maybe because you know that Katniss isn't going to survive it and go happily back home. Also I have to say that I didn't really like Finnick that much and I practicly hated Johanna. And the basic points why I didn't like the third books is because
Katniss is not allowed to do anything untill the end of the book, she doesn't get back together with Peeta untill the end of the book and the battle in the end was a joke. Also the great revelation about Coin being bad was no revelation at all, I knew it already at that point.
And that is just couple things that I didn't like.
i like the hunger games when i read them two years ago. ok i loved them. but now that i think back....the books arent all that good. writing wise, at least. its even a bit painful to work through. the reason why i like the series then (and now) is mainly because of how the government can be portrayed as. evil, conniving,cunning, all the stuff i like. which is also why i loved VII in the first place.
but outside of that? there are a ton of cons.
peeta is very much annoying with his "omg i lurve you katniss ill do anything 4 u" and she is annoying with her "whut whut whut whut whut" because she doesnt even know anyone loves her in like more than half the series. then
she keeps switching almost like a whore the ENTIRE SERIES going from "gale! peeta! gale! peeta! i really want gale! i really want peeta! ok THATS IT IM GOING WITH GALE!........PEETA I WANT YOUR CHURLDREN"
that gets super annoying.
the character development is a bit lukewarm if there is any at all, gale is the most realistic character in the whole series IMO and collins wrote him down into the ground. the end gets chaotic and doesnt make sense at all (im not sayin' spoilers dont worry). my favorite book is C.F because one, the 1st book is what made me want to see more, and two, its the most interesting part of the book (if i overlook some things). C.F. just leaves you hanging and you really want to see what happens but she ruins it. by far the second is the best.
id have to say my current favorite characters are gale (before his written rape) and haymitch. haymitch actually has character and makes me want to read on. if collins is smart, she should make a mini series of his life of drunkenness and how he won the games. hes really interesting.
prim, i dont care for. she gets 1% (if not 0) development
and i was kinda relieved when she died at the end
and her mother is just as useless. i can count on my hands how many times they actually APPEAR.
......really, the government is the only good thing. she had a brilliant idea, but she wrote it wrong (outside of the gov.). she should have asked for someone else to write it.
please dont think im a basher. i really do like this series. its just not excellent in writing development.
i do plan looking at the 2nd movie next week. i re-read the 2nd book just to get a fresh idea on whats going on before i watch.
she keeps switching almost like a whore the ENTIRE SERIES going from "gale! peeta! gale! peeta! i really want gale! i really want peeta! ok THATS IT IM GOING WITH GALE!........PEETA I WANT YOUR CHURLDREN"
that gets super annoying.
please dont think im a basher. i really do like this series. its just not excellent in writing development.
idk, does borderline-slut shame counts as bashing?
as for the series, i've read the books because i was constantly bugged by a couple of friends, and thought it was okay. nothing extraordinary but not shitty either.
in the movie front, i really like the casting. jennifer lawrence is a pretty powerfull actress; first movie was neat, hopefully the second isn't inferior to the first.
Oh Tres. You're just like a big teddy bear full of thanks and optimistic discussion and useful information. That's why when you make posts like that I usually end up having to wipe stuff off my screen. Never stop being you <3.
OT: Orah, have a look at some of my previous posts in this thread and see what you think. Some of it annoyed me too, but yeah I don't really see where you're coming from with a lot of that.
OT: Orah, have a look at some of my previous posts in this thread and see what you think. Some of it annoyed me too, but yeah I don't really see where you're coming from with a lot of that.
Okay, I just saw the Mockingjay part 1 and I feel like I have to say something about it.
To tell you guys the truth, I actually liked it. I was not really sure what to expect when I went to see it, since I thought that the last book was the worst of the series and a big disappointment. Also I wasn't really enthusiastic that they decided to divide the last book into two movies. However I liked both of the previous movies, and I thought the second one was even better than the first so you can maybe understand my mixed feelings.
I was actually really surprised about how they managed to make such a good movie from the book but still keeping it pretty faithful to the original source. Of course a few things had been changed but nothing big really. I'm still not convinced that they needed to divide the last book into two movies, but I can't say that there was a time when I felt bored or that the movie was dragging on unnecessarily.
I have to say that I was very impressed by Jennifer Lawrence. I mean I knew that she's a great actor but I've never seen her like this. There was a scene quite near the beginning where I actually thought that she deserves an oscar. I've seen Silver Linings Playbook but even though she did well on that I didn't think it was necessarily oscar worthy. This was. Also even though Peeta is barely in this movie, Josh Hutcherson did a great job too. I loved that the few times you see him on the screen you can also see multiple dimensions in his character, and that was really great. I still think he was the right choice for the role. And of course Donald Sutherland. God that man can be creepy.
I wasn't really sure what to think when I saw that Julianne Moore would be playing President Coin. I thought that in the books Coin was always quite distant and unpleasant and Julianne Moore just isn't. But she wasn't too bad. I think the movies try to make her more pleasant than the character was in the books and I'm not sure where it's going but I guess I have to see the next movie for that.
The thing that I've always liked with the movies is how they show you what's happening in different places and that still works well. Especially now that there is a rebellion going it gives you a bigger perspective when you see for example how President Snow is still living in luxury and how his life has barely changed, even though there's a war going on.
All in all I think it was a good film and I don't regret seeing it the first night. I'm surprised how the film got me so emotionally involved in the setting and in the war. There was a scene close to the end
where they are saving Peeta
where even though I knew what was going to happen, my heart was beating fast and I felt nervous. I have to say I'm looking forward to the last film.
TLDR: If you liked the previous films, you should go to see this one too. It's not as good as the second one I think (then again the last time I saw Catching Fire was a year ago) but it is definitely as good, if not better than the first one. And it's worth seeing if just for Jennifer Lawrence's acting. It's pretty great.
Many movies these days seem to come to Europe first. It was the same with the two first Hobbit movies and I think will be the same with the last one as well.
Yeah, I was at the midnight screening and I just had to write my thoughts about it immediately.
Many movies these days seem to come to Europe first. It was the same with the two first Hobbit movies and I think will be the same with the last one as well.
Yeah, I was at the midnight screening and I just had to write my thoughts about it immediately.
