Hunger game

**DSM4Life** · 04-08-2012, 06:36 AM

Who saw it? It was suppose to be the "movie of the year" but i thought it was kinda blah. I mean it wasn't a bad movie but it was no where near all the hype its been getting.

**dumb_aas** · 04-08-2012, 09:45 AM

The movie (and books) is just a knock off of the Japanese movie called battle Royale

**Tigershark** · 04-08-2012, 10:32 AM

It was blah to me too as well DSM. Kids and sexy liked it but I almost fell asleep in a few places. Seriously Jacker Trackers? WTF kind of name is that?

**spywizard** · 04-08-2012, 10:33 AM

wife read the book,,, so much was left out but it was ok.. i wouldn't say the movie of the year, and if it is, that's a sad thing

**DIESELPWR** · 04-09-2012, 03:44 AM

I thought the same.. Way too much hype especially wen u know exactly what's gonna happen

**MHouse** · 04-09-2012, 10:30 AM

Definitely not movie of the year. I read the book, to see what all the hype was about right before the movie came out. The book was better than the movie (like 99% of all books that become movies are), but the movie did a decent job getting the feel of the book.

**JohnnyVegas** · 04-09-2012, 11:16 AM

I have read two of the three books so far. They are an easy, fun read. Class warfare, oppressive government and the elements of defiance that spark a revolution...not the usual teen book.

I think the movie is better when you have already read the book because you understand so many things that they didn't have the chance to explain in the movie.

The comparison to Battle Royale is unfair, or at least an oversimplification in my view. Most of these ideas go way back, and to say a book written in 1999 is the end all, be all origination point of these plot points is shortsighted. Still, this isn't something I would argue about...because I just don't care enough.

Movie of the year? Only at the box office in my opinion.

**Nooomoto** · 04-09-2012, 12:00 PM

Battle Royale is the OG legit shit!!! BR2 sucks though, don't waste your time with it...it's really bad. As far as the Hunger Games are concerned...isn't the book like 300 pages? I'm pretty sure it's something meant for tweens. Not going to bother with it.

**SEOINAGE** · 04-09-2012, 01:03 PM

I would say definitely written for teens, not my kind of thing to read. I wasn't that impressed with the movie, and thought a lot of stuff was really stupid, and asked people if the book was equally stupid, to which I found a lot of the stuff I thought was retarded was a good depiction of how it was described in the book. I had thought about reading the books, but now I know there is no reason to.

**JohnnyVegas** · 04-09-2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

Battle Royale is the OG legit shit!!! BR2 sucks though, don't waste your time with it...it's really bad. As far as the Hunger Games are concerned...isn't the book like 300 pages? I'm pretty sure it's something meant for tweens. Not going to bother with it.

I think Theseus and the Minotaur is the OG legit shit. Heh. No idea how many pages they are since I read it on Kindle. I like to check in on things that hit that tipping point that makes them huge, so I read the first book. It is young adult fiction and won't be really stimulating if you do a lot of reading, but that is one of the things that makes it fun. I liked the Harry Potter books too, especially as they become more dark and mature.

**evander87** · 04-09-2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by JohnnyVegas

I think the movie is better when you have already read the book because you understand so many things that they didn't have the chance to explain in the movie.

I haven't watched the movie yet so I can't comment on that but the general consensus from my friends, if you read the books you tend to enjoy the movies more than my friends that didn't read them.

**Eddie_m63** · 04-09-2012, 08:12 PM

It was decent but nothing special, waiting for the avengers.

**Brohim** · 04-09-2012, 08:15 PM

Movie is about teens killing each other. Even younger than teens

**Razor** · 04-09-2012, 11:49 PM

Movie was cool

**SEOINAGE** · 04-10-2012, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Brohim

Movie is about teens killing each other. Even younger than teens

I thought it would have been more tactically oriented. They are just waltzing around the forest, no one is running from tree to tree and being sneaky really. I used to play games in the woods as a kid, anyways moved and tried playing games like that in the new place I lived and the kids had no clue how to find someone or keep themselves hidden, it sucked cause it was no longer fun. But some of those teens where highly trained supposedly yet they waltz around without a care? I was disappointed with that and a lot of other crap.

**JohnnyVegas** · 04-10-2012, 10:58 AM

^^^^ The stronger kids that formed an ******** where doing that because they could. They had strength in numbers and a cache of food. Their plan was always to dominate the cornucopia and control all the resources. They used it as a base camp and all they needed to do was watch for campfires, run through the forest and kill whoever was dumb enough to light it.

Several characters were being sneaky. It was more apparent in the books. In the books it was also made clear that the stronger kids had no interest in the training stations that taught survival skills, they were just there to kill.

**SEOINAGE** · 04-10-2012, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by JohnnyVegas

^^^^ The stronger kids that formed an ******** where doing that because they could. They had strength in numbers and a cache of food. Their plan was always to dominate the cornucopia and control all the resources. They used it as a base camp and all they needed to do was watch for campfires, run through the forest and kill whoever was dumb enough to light it.

Several characters were being sneaky. It was more apparent in the books. In the books it was also made clear that the stronger kids had no interest in the training stations that taught survival skills, they were just there to kill.

Well maybe the book portrayed it better. But if I had a decent ranged weapon and saw four idiots walking along and I was hiding in a bush or up a tree and could take out a couple before they even knew where I was and likely take out the rest cause they are waltzing around like morons I would. Or did none of them have said weapon and they for sure knew no one could surprise attack them? it just doesn't make sense.

**JohnnyVegas** · 04-10-2012, 03:27 PM

^^^^ Heh. Well, several people died from thrown tridents and knives. Katniss got the bow, but didn't want to kill anyone unless she had too. I suppose she could have snuck around sniping people, but that isn't very heroic behavior. Other than a few kids from the rich districts, they were all near-starving kids pulled from places like farming communities. They weren't Rangers. Hell, they weren't even adults. Most of them hid and made the mistake of lighting a fire when they got cold.

Interesting that I found a new censored word: a l l i a n c e