Movie Debate #41: The Hunger Games

[Reed Rothchild | 9,520]

 

[Gloves | 11,776]

I'm the jerk that read Battle Royale and saw the movie version of that before Hunger Games, so I had a pretty low opinion of HG at first. In the end I warmed to it a bit, but I really can't stand the main actress, so it's like... meh.

[Jeevan | 8,910]

The books are fricking amazing.  The movies are ok.

[AstralSoul | 502]

6 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

The books are fricking amazing.  The movies are ok.

Ain't that always the case.

Edited October 26, 2020 by AstralSoul

[JamesRobot | 5,798]

5 ½ rounded up to 6.  Read all the books and enjoyed the movies in the theater.  Definitely derivative of Battle Royale which I much prefer but it's still it's own thing.

New book out that I need to read...

[DefaultGen | 5,401]

4/10. Battle Royale is cool because it’s rated R and leans into its ridiculous, depressing teenage murder premise rather than quick cutting away from it. Not that I think Hunger Games would really be up my alley with blood and guts.

Edited October 26, 2020 by DefaultGen

[Jeevan | 8,910]

2 hours ago, AstralSoul said:

Ain't that always the case.

pretty much.  

[Hammerfestus | 3,833]

I thought the movies were decent.  I too saw Battle Royale first and much prefer it.  And I also always make sure to comment about how BR was better when these movies come up.  

[RH | 4,903]

I gave it a 7.  My wife read this after reading the Twilight series, so I saw both series of films with her.  In her words, Twilight was just a just a fun train wreck of bad writing, intended to appeal to teens and was a textbooks case of a guilty pleasure for adults.  The subsequent films followed suit.

These books, however, were well written, easy to consume since they were intended for older children, but they were a legit good read.  The movies were, subsequently enjoyable though nothing like the book.

So, I carried that knowledge going into a viewing.  As someone who's only seen the films, I found it fun but not amazing.  It seemed creative but now that I'm hearing you guys talk about "Battle Royale", then that changes my past thoughts.  I gave it a 7.  This was another film where I felt somewhere between a 6 and a 7.  I agree with the description of the 6 vote, but I felt more incline to rate it slightly higher.

I enjoyed it and I could probably watch it again.  I don't think I'd want to watch it more than that, though.  Or rather, this is a good film that you'd want to watch after flipping through all of the channels on a Saturday afternoon and seeing this is the only worthwhile movie on TV.  Yeah, I'd watch this in that context multiple times, but I don't love it.

[RH | 4,903]

Sub-question, can you guys think of any movies based on novels that were better than the books?  I feel like I have observed this but I'm drawing a blank on an example.  I feel like it was a long time ago.

[TDIRunner | 2,733]

I've never had any desire to watch any of those movies.  

[Reed Rothchild | 9,520]

3 hours ago, RH said:

Sub-question, can you guys think of any movies based on novels that were better than the books?  I feel like I have observed this but I'm drawing a blank on an example.  I feel like it was a long time ago.

The Running Man, (arguably) American Psycho, (arguably) Fight Club, Naked Lunch, Jaws, (arguably) A Clockwork Orange, (arguably) The Shawshank Redemption, (arguably) Stand By Me, Jurassic Park, Fantastic Mr. Fox, (arguably) Let the Right One In

[RH | 4,903]

1 minute ago, Reed Rothchild said:

The Running Man, (arguably) American Psycho, (arguably) Fight Club, Naked Lunch, Jaws, (arguably) A Clockwork Orange, (arguably) The Shawshank Redemption, (arguably) Stand By Me, Jurassic Park, Fantastic Mr. Fox, (arguably) Let the Right One In

There are books that are written, become movies and the book is superiors.  There are movies that have novels written of them and as such, the movie is better.

Then there's Crichton novels where I was certain that he wrote the majority of his books so they would become movies.  I enjoyed JP a novel.  It's been probably 15 years since I re-read it but I felt it was good and equal to the movie.  Regardless, I just feel like after Crichton received a bit of notoriety, he wrote ever subsequent novel with the intent of it being made into a film.  I mean, I'm sure many novelists hope their books become movies because that's a lot of serious income, but I feel like his books take it to a new level.  So yes, I could easily see why anyone would feel like the movie was better than the book.  The book was just a required stepping stone to get to the movie--a glorified screenplay, if you will.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,520]

The book is a solid B/B+ if you're into that sorta thing.

The movie is an A

[Hammerfestus | 3,833]

5 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

The Running Man

I see you’ve lost your damn mind.  I mean the book had, you know, a plot.  
 

I actually had no idea this movie (which is one of my favorite action movies) was based on a book let alone a Stephen King book.  I thought the book was excellent.  Not what I was expecting.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,520]

Just now, Hammerfestus said:

I see you’ve lost your damn mind.  I mean the book had, you know, a plot.  
 

I actually had no idea this movie (which is one of my favorite action movies) was based on a book let alone a Stephen King book.  I thought the book was excellent.  Not what I was expecting.

Well, I read the book over 20 years ago so I guess I can't really defend myself now can I!

[Tabonga | 2,317]

Just like the books, I liked the movies best  in descending order.  As long as the action was in the arena it was pretty interesting,  The rest of the storyline was nothing special - group of (mostly) young people rebels against a tyrannical government and faces setbacks to eventually win. A pretty standard trope since when I was in junior high (a lot of Heinlein's stuff was of this ilk).  Not bad but nothing really new about that part of the storyline.

[Hammerfestus | 3,833]

5 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Well, I read the book over 20 years ago so I guess I can't really defend myself now can I!

Lol.  I’ll take a win by forfeit.  Those were my best wrestling matches back in the day. 

[Andy_Bogomil | 815]

Never read the book but didn't like the movie. 2. 

[Tabonga | 2,317]

8 hours ago, RH said:

Sub-question, can you guys think of any movies based on novels that were better than the books?  I feel like I have observed this but I'm drawing a blank on an example.  I feel like it was a long time ago.

It was based on a novella ("Who Goes There?" by John W, Campbell)  but John Carpenters The Thing was an excellent movie - it had the advantage of being made at a time when the special effects were far beyond what would have been envisioned in 1938 when the novella was written.

There was an earlier movie called The Thing from Another World (1951) that is considered a classic in scifi circles that suffered from the lack of effects capability that made it deviate from the novella quite a bit.  John Carpenters version was much more faithful to the novella and really wasn't a remake as such of the earlier film.