Why does everybody like the Hunger Games ?

[Werewolf]

seriously .... Man .... Whatever.
Lets just hate on Everything and Put it in this Thread .

I meant nothing personal by it. I'm sure they are all very good movies. Like I said, I'm just not into the post-apocalyptic genre.

[spacecaps]

I read the Hunger Games on the recommendation of a student I had in class before the movie was released. I enjoyed the book at the time I read it even though I thought the writing was weak in some places. It reminded me of The Long Walk by Stephen King, which was a really fun book of his. (I didn't see or read Battle Royale because I don't go for Japanese entertainment. I've tried it and find it weird and pretty terrible on several levels and I'm not gonna like it no matter how many times someone tells me, how good Ghost in the Machine or Akira is.) Anyway, I was looking forward to the film and then the promos started. Team this/team that. Marketing saturation. Couldn't escape it. I would say it be like really liking this song you keep hearing on the radio and then finding out it's by Justin Beiber or something. That's not to say I immediately disowned liking the Hunger Games, I just didn't like the way it was being presented as "The Next Twilight" because it's better than that. Then again, most things are better than Twilight. Then I got into the second book and it was like the literary equivalent to the Matrix. The story just ran out somewhere in the middle of part two. It got painful to read and in no way should have ever been a trilogy. Book one is a fun and entertaining read. Book 2 was a snooze fest to the point where I didn't even bother with part 3. I'll see the movie but I didn't want to read it.

As for the first Hunger Games movie, I didn't mind the shaky cam or the gritty approach and I thought the casting was really good too. For something that was supposed to be made for teens, it held my interest enough. That's saying something because a lot of these kids books turned into movies are usually down right terrible. Mainly thats because the source material isn't all that great to begin with like Lemony Snicket, The Golden Compass, Narnia and I'm quite certain Ender's Game will drop a huge deuce at the box office too because that book was just a heaping pile of crap. The Spiderwick Chronicles actually had some potential until they decided to take seven books and cram them into one film. That's what makes Harry Potter so special. The books were incredibly well written and the films were handled in the best way possible. Hunger Games isn't Harry Potter though and the movie was just a movie. They did hack about 1/3 of the plot out of the film from the book too. I'll see the second one but I'm not holding my breath till it comes out.

[ctc]

>Ender's Game will drop a huge deuce at the box office too because that book was just a heaping pile of crap.

No, seriously.... tell us how you REALLY feel....

A LOT of my more nerdly friends LOVE the original short story, but almost universally think the book was way too padded and vastly inferior to the original story. I'm leary of the film. The ads look really.... well.... I dunno. There's Han Solo, and Darth Maul's Romulan cousin from the first of the new Trek films.... and they're debating abouyt telling the kid what's REALLY going on.... which I've seen a LOT, having been alive in the 90's.... and a kid from the 1950's who looks real intense.... and HOLEE SMOKES could they sneak ONE MORE "game" related cliche/catchphrase into that ad?!?!?

For me the sticking point is that I've seen every permutation of "there are aliens.... AND WE FIGHT!" possible; so when that kind of story comes around it doesn't thrill me. That's kinda what killed the Hunger Games for me: the idea of "bread and circuses" has been a standard of sci-fi for a while. I think every 70's sci-fi tv show did an episode. Original Trek did a few. Logan's Run was almost entirely based around the idea. So again, for me it's hard to imagine a new twist.

>Team this/team that. Marketing saturation. Couldn't escape it.

I think that's a BIG problem for the nerdly arts any more; especially those catering to the oldster fans. For the youngsters who haven't seen too much it's still novel; and I certainly don't want to dim that for them.... but for us old folks we've seen it. The marketing either irritates 'cos we can name what the "big new thing" was called ten, twenty, thirty years back; or for stuff we have a predisposition to like it sets up unreasonable expectations, which inevitably lead to disappointment. (I still think "The Phantom Menace" cvouldn't have POSSIBLY lived up to the expectation, no matter how good it was.) In the last decade or so the marketing has been amped up, worsening the effect. (AND neccessating an ever accelerationg turnaround rate, since fans can get bored of something WAY before it comes out these days.)

Don C.

[PNGwynne]

... a lot of these kids books turned into movies are usually down right terrible. Mainly thats because the source material isn't all that great to begin with like ... Narnia.

Wow. It might not be LOTR (which isn't perfect, either), but Lewis's carefully-crafted Narnia has stood the test of time in a way some of the other books you cite probably will not. Part of the problem is adapting "children's" literature for the valuable 18-35 demographic. Heck, even the beloved Wizard of Oz film musical has eclipsed the bizarre whimsy of Baum's originals--and I'm willing to bet many more have read Maguires' adult updates of Oz ("Wicked", etc.) than the originals.

[bobws]

I won't be reading the books, but my nephew did and liked them and that's the point. The books and movies are aimed at the tween, teen and early twenties kids and not us older folks. We will go see a movie like this once, the younger set will go see it again and again like we did to our favorites 20-30 years ago. I liked the first movie and will go see the next one and even Ender's Game but don't expect to go crazy for either.

[Gorn Captain]

Battle Royale >>>>>>>>>> Hunger Games

Exactly.
There's nothing original about Hunger Games, it's aimed at a younger audience that just wants to see Twilight style action with pretty boys and girls. I was bored during and after the first movie, don't need to see more. See Battle Royale, and you'll never watch Hunger Games again.

The story has nothing to do with Mad Max or Escape from NY, so I don't really see the comparison with Hunger Games.
Max and Escape are terrific movies IMO. Max I and II had a raw edge that Hunger Games fans can only dream of.
Max and Snake eat Hunger Games contestants for breakfast.

[spacecaps]

Wow. It might not be LOTR (which isn't perfect, either), but Lewis's carefully-crafted Narnia has stood the test of time in a way some of the other books you cite probably will not. Part of the problem is adapting "children's" literature for the valuable 18-35 demographic. Heck, even the beloved Wizard of Oz film musical has eclipsed the bizarre whimsy of Baum's originals--and I'm willing to bet many more have read Maguires' adult updates of Oz ("Wicked", etc.) than the originals.

I mean Narnia has been around for a while sure but I think it was relatively forgotten about until Harry Potter/Lord of The Rings came along. The the revival of "lets make every fantasy type story we can into a film" came about. Now I love the Potter books but the Narnia series is just long winded and the thinly veiled Christian metaphors were just in your face all the time. Not that I have anything against Christianity but it was basically, change this name from the bible to this made-up name and call it a day. That's probably why it's so popular in the first place. Lord of The Rings is not perfect either, unless you enjoy reading 15 pages at a time of how a stream travels around the bend and other landscaping excitement. I think in Narnia's case, the movies hurt the books. Those movies are all around BAD. (Are they even making anymore of them or did they just abandoned the series) whereas the Lord of The rings actually enhanced the books legacy. The Wizard of Oz movie is so loosely based off the book, it doesn't even count. The Oz books are all incredibly dated that to follow the source material verbatim would insure a box office disaster. Most people that know the movie and try to work backwards into the books are surprised to find just how different they are. There's also like 20 of them and by about book 15 or so, Baum was pretty much phoning it in. Now one of my all-time favorite books, Alice In Wonderland, has never been made into a decent movie despite having tremendous source material. The best Alice movie was the Disney one from the 50's and that was a combination of Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass (not that there's anything wrong with that) but it's crazy that in the 120 every live action version of the film has missed terribly and has mostly looked like nightmare fuel when it was completed (and yes, that holds true for the Burton/Depp debacle from a few years ago that should have been called "The Mad Hatter")

As for Ender's Game. It was one of the worst books I've ever read. A few years ago I had to teach that book to High School Freshman. I can teach pretty much any novel ever. I can get kids to love embrace Shakespeare or appreciate the Odyssey but Ender's Game was hands down the worst book I've ever had to teach. The premise (a six year old piloting a military fleet) was maybe the dumbest thing ever. The training montages in zero gravity where Ender showcases his skill and agility were so shoddily written they were confusing as all hell and the characters were so underdeveloped that you just didn't care about any of them. I'm actually curious to see the film just to see how they turned it into a movie but from the trailer, it looks every bit as bad as I thought it would be (Ben Kingsley's fave is a good start.). They do a good job distracting you with spaceships and explosions but that first book is basically the first half of Full Metal Jacket only without any memorable characters, or anything interesting happening, and with kids. From the marketing you can see that they're going for The Hunger Games for boys.

[ctc]

>The Oz books are all incredibly dated that to follow the source material verbatim would insure a box office disaster.

I was just discussing this with a freind of mine who's a HUGE fan of the books. The probelms with doing a straight adaption of the books is that there's a LOT of really questionable, violent and disturbing stuff in the books. (I'm thinkin' of the reason the Tin Woodsman needs a heart....) Doing them like the books would freak a lot of folks out.... then the wailing and gnashing of online teeth would begin.

>it's aimed at a younger audience that just wants to see Twilight style action with pretty boys and girls

I don't think the Twilight comparison.... popular as it is.... is a fair one. Things actually HAPPEN in the Hunger Games, whereas Twilight is entirely consequence free.

Don C.

[spacecaps]

I don't think the Twilight comparison.... popular as it is.... is a fair one. Things actually HAPPEN in the Hunger Games, whereas Twilight is entirely consequence free.

Best review of Twilight I've ever read:

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing
what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it
is to have a boyfriend.”

Stephen King comparing the Potter series to the Twilight series.

[Brazoo]

Everyone I trust about these things told me it was boring, and I had very little interest, so I'll probably just keep on ignoring it.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

Best review of Twilight I ever read:

"It's basically the X-Men for girls."

Don C.

[jacoblb]

The books are the reason why THG are a big deal. In this day and age where people don't read books, the younger readers are supporting some stand out titles like: Twilight, Hunger Games, and Harry Potter.
My 12-year old daughter has read THG books more than once (and her school is making her read them again) and she loved the movie and owns THG memorabilia. This story about a strong female character....well,, I liken it to how Star Wars was for me when I was a child. It's not my cup of tea, but at least she likes something. It even got her interested in archery.
Sure, the movies doing gangbusters at the box office, but the books outpaced a lot of other titles and received rave reviews.

[PNGwynne]

I think the problem with "Alice..." is that it's vivid visually, but also verbally, and those latter elements don't translate well onto film. Almost every adaptation has presented Wonderland as a stripped-down fairy-tale quest reliant upon stunt-casting. Don't even get me started in the Burton version--which is getting a sequel I believe!

I agree that Oz is dated. So is Universal Horror & ST: TOS, but we can still love them for what they are, for their best elements. You may be right that Oz serves best as inspiration, not adaptation...I do think there's a lot of untapped potential in the Oz canon, and I, for one, liked Henson's "Return to Oz."

As for Narnia's allegory--that fact that it exists is not a flaw, but rather that it is so heavy-handed by Book 7. Of course, I'd rather read "The Hobbit" than "The Silmarillion", too.

[Saroyan]

I enjoyed the Hunger Games. The third book is a little clunky but I still enjoyed it. The movie left a lot to be desired as their is so much inner dialog they can't convey.