The Hunger Games: Grade, Review, Discuss, Sequel news **SPOILERS**

[Temis the Vorta]

Finally saw it (with The Avengers opening, the theater was nice and roomy ). I found it refreshingly unpredictable, compared with a lot of paint-by-number stories out there.

1. I figured Peta had to be gay, or Katniss' secret brother or something, so that the incipient love triangle would be smothered at birth. It ain't right that Kat's blameless boyfriend back home gets kicked to the curb like that. As kicked he must be, because even if he's hunkier than little Peeta, there's no getting past the intense experience those two have shared. I was astonished that there was no last minute twist that the whole thing was cooked up between Woody Harrelson and Peeta (who are probably sleeping together, which accounts for his secretiveness at the Capitol condo) to increase the odds that both 12ers would survive.

2. I knew beforehand that Peeta survives due to reading an interview w/Josh Hutcherson, but I was certain more kids would survive and they would form the nucleus of a revolution! that Katniss spreads across the land! At the end of the movie! (Am I getting ahead of myself?) I thought the red-headed girl would make it (due to the foreshadowing that she and Kat didn't kill each other at the very start) and whichever of the 1 and 2 district kids was the sole survivor. Threatening to commit suicide wasn't much of a revolt. If that's all it takes to rattle the Capitol dandies, then how have they kept an iron fist of oppressive rule going for 75 years? Yeesh.

3. The fire dress was way cool! Me want! Me want!

I've started to read the book after having seen the movie. I've only read the first 4-5 chapters so far, but it's mentioned that not only that the winner gets a life of ease, but the district of the winner is showered with prizes, mostly consisting of food, during the next year, until the next Hunger Games.

I also knew that from discussion of the books, and they really should have emphasized that more in the movie. For one, it explains what the title means!

 

[Captain Craig]

The Hunger Games has officially crossed the $400m domestic mark as of this weekend!! It's worldwide now stands at $648m. It should finish around $405m domestic, enough to not ever be said it was fudged over the mark.

2012 is looking good at the mid way point now with 2 $400m films officially on the book with TDKR and Hobbit both on the horizon. Good rebound from 2011 where the box office was in a slump(like most of the economy) and there were ZERO $400m films.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Phew, I thought I killed the thread. Just showed up to the party too late, huh?

The Hunger Games' BO is even more impressive considering weak foreign numbers. Usually big popcorn action movies do at least 50/50, but this movie is 62%/38% domestic/foreign.

That reminded me of something...Star Trek XI, which netted out at 67%/33%.

Someday I'll figure out what the commonality is...it's not that they're "too American," not with rah-rah Battleship at 20%/80%...

 

[CaptainCanada]

The commonality is weak foreign brand recognition.

Something I imagine will be a top priority for the sequels to both.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But why is The Avengers doing so well? Did it really have more global brand recognition than Star Trek XI? I would think the reverse would be true.

Maybe The Avengers benefitted from having the various characters' movies preceding it, but then, what kind of brand recognition did Iron Man or Thor have when they came out?

And that's not even talking about movies like Avatar, which have no previous brand at all.

Also, sometimes poor brand recognition can be a good thing. I think that's what saved Battleship's foreign BO. They didn't realize it was based on a dumb board game, and had no bad memories of how we all used to cheat at it as kids...

Speaking of that, we're getting more board-game-based movies whether we want it or not.

Eh, I'd check out Ouija: The Movie. And Monopoly could be very interesting. Moneybags vs. the 99%?

 

[Trekker4747]

I look forward to "Guess Who?" the movie.

 

[JRoss]

I know that this is veering off-topic, but I have to reply. The new toy movies make me both sad and have a headache.

 

[DevilEyes]

Finally saw it (with The Avengers opening, the theater was nice and roomy ). I found it refreshingly unpredictable, compared with a lot of paint-by-number stories out there.

1. I figured Peta had to be gay, or Katniss' secret brother or something, so that the incipient love triangle would be smothered at birth. It ain't right that Kat's blameless boyfriend back home gets kicked to the curb like that. As kicked he must be, because even if he's hunkier than little Peeta, there's no getting past the intense experience those two have shared. I was astonished that there was no last minute twist that the whole thing was cooked up between Woody Harrelson and Peeta (who are probably sleeping together, which accounts for his secretiveness at the Capitol condo) to increase the odds that both 12ers would survive.

Gale is not Katniss' boyfriend. I'm surprised that people who haven't read the book jump to that conclusion, since I just saw them as best friends when I watched the movie, which is what they are, as confirmed by the book which I read after seeing the movie (and proceeded to read the next two as well). Yeah, Gale has fallen for Katniss unbeknown to her, but Katniss never thought there was anything romantic between them, which doesn't mean there couldn't be. It's Gale who is more of a "brother" figure to Katniss (not that he would want to see it like that, obviously) since they were best buddies since she was 12 and he was 14, hunting out together, they're even described as looking very similar, and he's the one she leaves to protect her family.

Spoiler: Catching Fire

The Panem media go on to make up the story that he's Katniss' cousin, so not to endanger their story about Katniss and Peeta as 'star crossed lovers' - which works because Gale and Katniss are similar enough in looks and personality that they can pass for family members.

Peeta cooking up the idea with Haymitch wouldn't have been a 'twist' since this is exactly what Katniss thought Peeta was doing, as seen in the scene where she angrily shoves him into the wall right after the interview. She didn't believe he was really in love with her right until the end of the book and she wasn't 100% sure if she trusted him as an ally, either - in the book, her first thought when he pulls the knife was that he was going to try to kill her, and she felt embarrassed to realize he was actually asking her to kill him so she would be the winner. Katniss isn't quick to trust people, so she can be very wrong about their motivations.

The 'twist' for Katniss is that Peeta actually was in love with her all along; in the book, the last scene is an awkward moment where Peeta realizes that Katniss was pretending all along, while Katniss realizes that he wasn't. She did, however, come to care about him and trust him in the Arena, and there were moments when she felt something that might have been real.

Katniss hasn't had a boyfriend or been in love so far. She's a bit of a late bloomer when it comes to romantic interest. But she could develop feelings for her best friend or she could develop real feelings for the boy she spent the intense time in the arena and had to pretend to be in love with. Obviously, that would be spoilers. All I'm gonna say is that the 'love triangle' is not jarring for once, but well developed and incorporated in the overall story.

Spoiler: the next books

It was only during Mockingjay that I realized that Gale and Peeta represented not just two boys/love interests, but two approaches to life and two sides of Katniss' personality: Gale = the warrior spirit, Peeta = the humane, caring side. It's probably why I prefer her to both of them - she has both in spades, which makes her a much more complete and interesting character.

Spoiler: Mockingjay

Once you understand that, it becomes much clearer how the story has to end. Especially when it became clear that Gale's revolutionary anger was ruthless and too revenge-driven and when he started making those death traps to kill people indiscriminately, which is where I thought Katniss really shouldn't end up with him by any means. What happened to Prim was the deal breaker and I liked their last scene and the fact that Gale understood it was over (Katniss would never be able to look at him and not think of those death traps) - sadly even the friendship.

2. I knew beforehand that Peeta survives due to reading an interview w/Josh Hutcherson, but I was certain more kids would survive and they would form the nucleus of a revolution! that Katniss spreads across the land! At the end of the movie! (Am I getting ahead of myself?)

Yes, you're getting quite ahead... I can't tell you how much since that would be a spoiler.

You seem to have expected the story to be much less dark than it is...

 

[Harvey]

But why is The Avengers doing so well? Did it really have more global brand recognition than Star Trek XI? I would think the reverse would be true.

Despite the Paramount publicity machine about Star Trek being a worldwide phenomenon, the films have always done rather poorly outside of the United States.

The Avengers is doing very well because it had several previous Marvel movies to build brand recognition overseas, in addition to being the kind of straight-forward good guys vs. bad guys type of film that translates well because it doesn't require audiences to have to focus on the subtitles. Star Trek -- even Abram's version -- is more dialogue driven.

 

[DevilEyes]

But why is The Avengers doing so well? Did it really have more global brand recognition than Star Trek XI? I would think the reverse would be true.

Despite the Paramount publicity machine about Star Trek being a worldwide phenomenon, the films have always done rather poorly outside of the United States.

The Avengers is doing very well because it had several previous Marvel movies to build brand recognition overseas, in addition to being the kind of straight-forward good guys vs. bad guys type of film that translates well because it doesn't require audiences to have to focus on the subtitles. Star Trek -- even Abram's version -- is more dialogue driven.

The Avengers is very dialogue-driven - it's the funny one-liners, witty dialogue and character interaction that the audience was enjoying the most in the cinema when I watched it. If it was just about action scenes, there's no reason why it would be more popular than many other action superhero blockbusters.

And contrary to what Americans and other people not used to subtitles think, subtitles are very easy to read and require to particular effort.

 

[nvek86]

And contrary to what Americans and other people not used to subtitles think, subtitles are very easy to read and require to particular effort.

Also, quite a few countries simply dub foreign language films. Wikipedia has a nice map of Europe and which countries use dubbing (blue countries use subtitles, red countries use dubbing):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dubbing_films_in_Europe1.png

 

[Harvey]

And contrary to what Americans and other people not used to subtitles think, subtitles are very easy to read and require to particular effort.

Didn't mean to knock subtitles; I have no problem with them myself. But, the box office has proven that movies with simple narratives do a better job travelling across borders than ones that are more complex.

 

[Set Harth]

And contrary to what Americans and other people not used to subtitles think, subtitles are very easy to read and require to particular effort.

Depends on the film, and depends on the scene. Subtitles are often not especially easy to read for various reasons. The size of the subtitles may be too small on home screens. The occasional use of two concurrent subtitle tracks, one at the top of the screen and one at the bottom, can obviously be distracting and difficult to follow. And when the background of the part of the frame over which the subtitles appear is the same color as the subtitles, good luck.

 

[DevilEyes]

And contrary to what Americans and other people not used to subtitles think, subtitles are very easy to read and require to particular effort.

Didn't mean to knock subtitles; I have no problem with them myself. But, the box office has proven that movies with simple narratives do a better job travelling across borders than ones that are more complex.

Do you have any examples?

In the example of Star Trek vs The Avengers, I don't see Star Trek's narrative as being any more complex than the one of The Avengers. Both stories are pretty standard and not too original. And if anything, the dialogue is more prominent in The Avengers, what with it being written by Joss Whedon.

(This is really off-topic; how did this become a thread about The Avengers and Star Trek?)

And contrary to what Americans and other people not used to subtitles think, subtitles are very easy to read and require to particular effort.

Depends on the film, and depends on the scene. Subtitles are often not especially easy to read for various reasons. The size of the subtitles may be too small on home screens. The occasional use of two concurrent subtitle tracks, one at the top of the screen and one at the bottom, can obviously be distracting and difficult to follow. And when the background of the part of the frame over which the subtitles appear is the same color as the subtitles, good luck.

I don't remember seeing 1), and 2) and 3) very rarely happen. Subtitles are usually very easy to read. Although maybe not if you're not used to them. When you've been reading them all your life on TV and in cinema, it's really easy.

 

[Set Harth]

2) only happens in rare and specific circumstances, I admit that. But 3) happens comparatively often, not consistently throughout any film, of course, but intermittently.

 

[DevilEyes]

Back to The Hunger Games - some news about the sequel: Philip Seymour Hoffman has been offered the role of Plutarch Heavensbee. http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/11/catching-fire-philip-seymour-hoffman-plutarch/

I didn't have anyone in mind for Plutarch previously, but PSH would be a great choice.

 

[superdeluxe]

I love Philip Seymour Hoffman!