Battle Royale or The Hunger Games?

Banned 9 years ago

You won't find a bunch of Hunger Games lovers on here.

I would embed this Arnold parody but a few foul words are sung by Running Man in the "The Running Man/Hunger Games MUSICAL SPECTACULAR"

youtube.com/watch?v=Rwb2glCshzY#!

They both received great ratings from critics and movie goers alike on Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/battle_royale_3d/

This is an interesting article written back in 2012 on what came before The Hunger Games...

What came before “The Hunger Games” - Salon.com

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9732851].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Actually, I LIKE the hunger games! OK, OK, I only saw ONE, the last one, and checked out the notes in wikipedia, but I like it.

IT, and the running man, ARE very different, as I remember running man, and have heard about the hunger games. They BOTH have at least one person running for their life, but that is IT.

As I remember running man, it is effectively the same as what russia came up with a bit over 20 years ago, IIRC. Maybe ONE ****FELON**** would get a chance on a game show. The prize was his FREEDOM. He would be against,with NO weapons, various others trying to maim him, etc.., . Arnolds character was a cop that apparently knew too much, and was framed, and put into the circuit. The Richard Dawson character was the shows host, much as he has been elsewhere, but he owned and controlled it ALSO, and had a LOT of governmental power. In the end, he gets exposed, and is released to meet HIS fate, The Arnold Character of course wins everything because he overcomes all the traps and uses the special weapons, that people used to maim/kill HIM, against them.

The goal was SUPPOSED to be to get rid of the felon, and make a bundle off of advertising while advertising the futility of crime.

In the HUNGER GAMES, it speaks of a "society" much like the UN wants us to be(subservient, docile, living in squalor, etc...). 13 districts! One is rumored to be DEAD, but THEY and district 1(AKA the capital) know BETTER! 3 districts are favored by the first, and have people groomed to fight. The others basically must do effectively ONLY what they are told to, though they also must fight at times. Apparently the people chosen to fight are chosen, and district 1 bets on them. They may get more rations if they do well, and that may be how it is. Oh yeah, they are armed, even if not as well as district 1 or 13. 13, of course, doesn't participate in the games.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9732997].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

I like The Hunger Games - I read the books first and was thoroughly impressed that they pretty much nailed the movies so far.

Steve, you have to watch the fist 2 movies if you can - better yet, read the books -

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9733229].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

I like The Hunger Games - I read the books first and was thoroughly impressed that they pretty much nailed the movies so far.

Steve, you have to watch the fist 2 movies if you can - better yet, read the books -

Yeah, time seems to pass too quickly lately. I'll think about it. I actually have the second movie around here somewhere.

I have moved a LOT of stuff all over.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9733296].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 9 years ago

Where were you Hunger Games fans at on this thread!!! Holy smokes!

http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ear-boyos.html

Steve, if you liked Mockingjay, then you should love the first two movies. Yeah, I have enjoyed the series so far. FWIW, Mockingjay gets the lowest rating among critics and movie goers on RT, and Catching Fire gets the highest. I also think if you rewatch Running Man and you see the first two Hunger Games offerings you may see a few more parallels between them. Most folks will tell you that the first 2 movies are quite a bit different from the 3rd...

I believe it was Yaphet Kotto, who played William Laughlin in Running Man, who allegedly said it was a "ripoff". In-fact my brother, after watching the second Hunger Games, mentioned to me that the movie seemed to take from Running Man which had come before it. We had not discussed anything of the like, and he had no idea of Kotto or anyone else making any statements. Since he had not seen the the original Hunger Games, I told him he needs to watch the first movie and left it at that...

Cheers

-don

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9733453].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

I made the mistake of watching the last one.

And if you want 2 hours to take a nap, or go out of the cinema screaming then it is idea!!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9734062].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

I made the mistake of watching the last one.

And if you want 2 hours to take a nap, or go out of the cinema screaming then it is idea!!

GEE!!!!!!!

Of course, I DID watch a review that said the SECOND part was the one that should have gotten two videos. He was against splitting the third.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9734551].message }}

IamNotCheffoi

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

GEE!!!!!!!

Of course, I DID watch a review that said the SECOND part was the one that should have gotten two videos. He was against splitting the third.

Steve

As a moviegoer it just sucks that they need to divide a movie into 2 different parts which can be done in a single film just so they can earn more money. If this goes on, moviegoers are gonna have to pay twice the price just to watch a single movie!

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735436].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by IamNotCheffoi

As a moviegoer it just sucks that they need to divide a movie into 2 different parts which can be done in a single film just so they can earn more money. If this goes on, moviegoers are gonna have to pay twice the price just to watch a single movie!

YEAH, they ARE paying twice! It is a trend. At least it helps give people more time. The third movie in the hunger games ends with a strong cliffhanger that is SCARY! It occurs RIGHT AFTER a peace that gives one great hope. But that HOPE becomes INTENSE FEAR at the POTENTIAL after seeing that cliff hanger. In a way, it could be said to be a trojan horse. All these people come in and all SEEM to want peace. ONE, seeing a trigger, tries to bring disaster, and it makes one wonder about the rest!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735563].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by IamNotCheffoi

As a moviegoer it just sucks that they need to divide a movie into 2 different parts which can be done in a single film just so they can earn more money.

At the same time they're totally bewildered as to why there's so much piracy.

(BTW I'm not condoning piracy).

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735580].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

At the same time they're totally bewildered as to why there's so much piracy.

(BTW I'm not condoning piracy).

You can say THAT again! Theaters used to be THEATERS to sell MOVIES! NOW, they say theaters are there to sell CANDY and the like. Supposedly, the film is THAT expensive. HEY, they have to come up with SOME way to pay those HUGE salaries!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735657].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 9 years ago

Two thumbs down to piracy... I paid DISH $5.99 per movie for an entire house full of people to watch the first two Hunger Games movies. The good microwave popcorn cost me about 50 to 75 cents a bag and a case of soda cost me about $6.00.

You don't need to spend a fortune to watch movies these days as long as you don't mind waiting a bit until they are released on PPV.

Cheers

-don

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735670].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

GEE!!!!!!!

Of course, I DID watch a review that said the SECOND part was the one that should have gotten two videos. He was against splitting the third.

Steve

Splitting the third, l bet, people would be hanging themselves or slashing their wrists, on mass! It would be like a cult suicide!

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Don't ask me what possessed me but I caught the first one on TV a week or so, ago. I really don't see what all the hoopla was about. It was a smidgen above mediocre and Jennifer Lawrence seemed like an average talent to me. It's the only thing I have ever seen her in, so I'll reserve final judgement but if this is the role that propelled her to stardom - I'm packing my bags and heading to Hollywood 'cuz I'm better than she was. Way, better.

Woody Harrelson phoned in his performance and should give the money back.

The problem is, when you reach my age you have a lifetime of incredibly great movies that you can compare others to. Additionally, this film's intended audience is certainly not old codgers, like myself. I'm sure that if I were a 'tween' I might have found it more interesting, just like I might then think that Taylor Swift is talented and not the incredible lightweight I find her to be.

I've said it before and I'll say it, again. "Youth is wasted on the young."

Cheers. - Frank

Taylor swift is reasonably hot, and can act, probably the only reason l stayed for 45 minutes?

Originally Posted by seasoned

YEAH, they ARE paying twice! It is a trend. At least it helps give people more time. The third movie in the hunger games ends with a strong cliffhanger that is SCARY! It occurs RIGHT AFTER a peace that gives one great hope. But that HOPE becomes INTENSE FEAR at the POTENTIAL after seeing that cliff hanger. In a way, it could be said to be a trojan horse. All these people come in and all SEEM to want peace. ONE, seeing a trigger, tries to bring disaster, and it makes one wonder about the rest!

Steve

Yes, they should press the button after 2 hours of drugery. Or a more boring version or Gattica/Matrix/?

Originally Posted by seasoned

You can say THAT again! Theaters used to be THEATERS to sell MOVIES! NOW, they say theaters are there to sell CANDY and the like. Supposedly, the film is THAT expensive. HEY, they have to come up with SOME way to pay those HUGE salaries!

Steve

Niah, just smuggle a can of coke and some chocolate through and you can save yourself a packet!

Although l did brake with tradition and got one of those icee - pink things, (probably cost me $6) when l finally saw Instellar, (almost 3 hours, good story, and good visuals) although l am glad l didn't go to IMAX, not worth it)!

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Two thumbs down to piracy... I paid DISH $5.99 per movie for an entire house full of people to watch the first two Hunger Games movies. The good microwave popcorn cost me about 50 to 75 cents a bag and a case of soda cost me about $6.00.

You don't need to spend a fortune to watch movies these days as long as you don't mind waiting a bit until they are released on PPV.

Cheers

-don

Niah, it should be released on tv, in about 5 to 6 years, or until FOXTEL has thrashed it?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735784].message }}

ForumGuru Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Splitting the third, l bet, people would be hanging themselves or slashing their wrists, on mass! It would be like a cult suicide!

They did split the third book --> and Part 1 of it is the second highest grossing movie of 2014 and it was just released a couple of weeks ago. By the end of the year it may be the biggest movie of the year.

Taylor swift is reasonably hot, and can act, probably the only reason l stayed for 45 minutes?

FYI, she did not do any acting in any of the Hunger Games films.

Yes, they should press the button after 2 hours of drugery. Or a more boring version or Gattica/Matrix/?

The 4th movie will be another blockbuster, just like the previous three have been.

Niah, just smuggle a can of coke and some chocolate through and you can save yourself a packet!

Break the rules, got it.

Niah, it should be released on tv, in about 5 to 6 years, or until FOXTEL has thrashed it?

My nieces, nephews and millions of other folks don't/didn't want to wait 5 or 6 years. I'm not sure what you mean by FOXTEL thrashing it...

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - foxtel movies

Cheers

-don
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735831].message }}

Karen Blundell

9 years ago

I too was kind of upset that they split Mockingjay into 2 movies and we now have to wait another year to watch the better part of Mockingjay

as for Jennifer Lawrence's talent - I have yet to watch any other movies she has acted in, so I can only base my opinion on her role in The Hunger Games -

I think she does a great job. But then again - I am easy to please - and though she is no Meryl Streep - she certainly can act, in my humble opinion.

The Hunger Games are really geared to a younger audience - I happen to be very young-at-heart and some of the more "adult" movies out right now simply don't interest me.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735838].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

I too was kind of upset that they split Mockingjay into 2 movies and we now have to wait another year to watch the better part of Mockingjay

as for Jennifer Lawrence's talent - I have yet to watch any other movies she has acted in, so I can only base my opinion on her role in The Hunger Games -

I think she does a great job. But then again - I am easy to please - and though she is no Meryl Streep - she certainly can act, in my humble opinion.

I thought she did well ALSO, and she IS easy on the eyes!

The Hunger Games are really geared to a younger audience - I happen to be very young-at-heart and some of the more "adult" movies out right now simply don't interest me.

YEAH, I hope ALL take movies like this to heart. We are headed down the road to a similar dystopia. SERIOUSLY! Look at "modern times", or "1984", and to today. Some stuff THEN merely BOARDERED on POSSIBLE, and seemed ABSURD! NOW, it is REALITY. Oh SURE, some of the worst isn't fully apparent yet, but it is leaking out, the facade is coming off, and **I** see it already. And I DON'T like the current trend! All the "laws" and the infrastructure and all is THERE! And I am all for having cameras on cops, but IMAGINE the flip side! NOT GOOD! HECK, look at eyeborgs! The repurposing has been done, and the law used in eyeborgs sounds a *****LOT***** like the "patriot act"! We HAVE the cameras, and the idea of ripping up WHOLE CITIES to take care of a politician's whim has PLENTY of precedent. The eyeborg concept is ALREADY possible.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735887].message }}

IamNotCheffoi

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

You don't need to spend a fortune to watch movies these days as long as you don't mind waiting a bit until they are released on PPV.

It still feels different if you're watching a movie in a cinema rather than a widescreen at home even if you have a complete entertainment system. Anyways, regarding what you said earlier in a post, I totally forgot about The Running Man! I hope they'll make a sequel or prequel that won't ruin the movie.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736819].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by IamNotCheffoi

I totally forgot about The Running Man!

Every time I have seen The Running Man referenced in this thread, I'm like - what the hell are these people talking about?

Then I realized that my drug-addled brain, or what's left of it was pulling up 'Marathon Man.' lol

Cheers. - Frank

P.S. Fourteen months of being cannabis-free, today. I'm not sure that it has sufficiently offset the 50 years that I wasn't. :-) No - wait - I'm sure. It hasn't!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736838].message }}

Richard Van

9 years ago

Just a quick thanks to Frank and Shane for getting their Christmas avatars on.

Well done Frank for your 14 months off.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736873].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Richard Van

Just a quick thanks to Frank and Shane for getting their Christmas avatars on.

The Christmas spirit is beginning to stir. :-)

Well done Frank for your 14 months off.

My VA shrink is incredulous. She warned me against quitting as she has always felt that it was the only thing separating me from me and my PTSD from a life-sentence in prison for committing homicide. I don't play well with others.

Truth be told, I think it's one of the best things I have ever done. I was spending $10K a year on average, was lazy, stupid and paranoid most of the time.

Besides saving 10 grand, financially I have had the best year in the past 20 from actual 'work' that I have produced, the work has been the absolute best I have ever turned-out and probably as good as I am capable of and I am quite happy spending 12 hours a day at the computer.

I have spent close to $10K on myself for Christmas - new maxed out computer, tons of high-end accessories, radio and TV broadcasting goodies, audio and video equipment, a few household gadgets - and the way I look at it, it was all 'free' when I factor in my pot savings before even considering the increased revenue stream. You can't beat that deal with a stick. All I had to show for my $10K last year was dirty ashtrays and 20 extra pounds.

While it has been a positive experience for me, I have NOT turned into some anti-cannabis zealot. I'm an all or nothing person. My life has always been black and white with no discernible shades of gray. The word 'moderation' is simply not in my vocabulary, so it was either go cold-turkey or smoke pot until my last breath. Once I put it down there were no weak moments, no temptation and I can even allow friends to partake when they come by, even though they are considerate enough to not want to do so. I actually enjoy the proximity of the temptation and get-off on how easy it would be to partake while totally resisting the challenge. That's how I work on building and strengthening my character.

The funny part is that I'm actually much more mellow that I have been in a very long time. I laugh more and it's honest laughter that comes from a good place that I had lost touch with and my former black and white world, besides now exhibiting some shades of gray has a tinge of pastel coloration. That's a good thing, me thinks.

I honestly don't miss it. It was just another bad habit and I convinced myself that I could not survive without it. I should have known better. I can survive anything life throws at me and I have a proven track record to substantiate that claim.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736974].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

The Christmas spirit is beginning to stir. :-)

While it has been a positive experience for me, I have NOT turned into some anti-cannabis zealot. I'm an all or nothing person. My life has always been black and white with no discernible shades of gray. The word 'moderation' is simply not in my vocabulary, so it was either go cold-turkey or smoke pot until my last breath. Once I put it down there were no weak moments, no temptation and I can even allow friends to partake when they come by, even though they are considerate enough to not want to do so. I actually enjoy the proximity of the temptation and get-off on how easy it would be to partake while totally resisting the challenge. That's how I work on building and strengthening my character.

No 50 shades of Gray then????

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9737128].message }}

Isabella 9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

No 50 shades of Gray then????

Speaking of 50 Shades of Gray who's going to attempt to watch it?
- Thanks
Signature

Message me about WarriorForum!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9737137].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by IamNotCheffoi

It still feels different if you're watching a movie in a cinema rather than a widescreen at home even if you have a complete entertainment system. Anyways, regarding what you said earlier in a post, I totally forgot about The Running Man! I hope they'll make a sequel or prequel that won't ruin the movie.

Yeah, many people feel that way but not myself. I was in the TV business from 1986 to 1996 for the company that had more big screens on display than any other company in the US at that time. In 1996 I opened up the first Dish Network satellite sales and service facility in northern Illinois. Having spent more than 15 years in the business, I much prefer seeing a movie at my house. The rare exception would be an IMAX movie, and in that case, nothing at home compares.

I have a Bose Lifestyle system so the sound (and feel) is great and I have the ability to legally record the movie on my DVR. I can pause the movie and make myself some food or a drink, I can rewind the movie and rewatch a scene, I can watch a scene in slow motion if I want to, I can add close caption if needed etc. etc. I have my entire house wired so I can move from my family room, to the dining room, to my office, to my bedroom, to the rec room, and to the kitchen and not miss a thing. I am quite sure people have larger installed, but I even have a 27" in the kitchen. If I want the picture really big I just sit a little closer to the flatscreen...

I used to see a lot of movies at the theater when I was a kid, but it's no big deal for me these days. In-fact many years ago when I first started in the satellite TV business I had four different services installed at my home --> 3 satellite + cable. Dish Network, DirecTV, Primestar and cable... Yeah, I have seen a lot of movies.

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9737391].message }}

Rick Rodd

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

You can say THAT again! Theaters used to be THEATERS to sell MOVIES! NOW, they say theaters are there to sell CANDY and the like. Supposedly, the film is THAT expensive. HEY, they have to come up with SOME way to pay those HUGE salaries!

Steve

Actually, blockbuster films are going meta on all this piracy stuff happening. It's like dividing a whole movie download into Part 1 and Part 2 all compiled in a .bin or .rar file. If they can't combat their films from losing money from lucky downloaders, they push the hype to the fan base. Being from said fan base, yeah, looking forward to watch them on the big screen.

On a sidenote, the concept of Stone Cold Steve Austin's Condemned is mediocre at best, but looks promising in real life.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Please follow our Warrior Forum Rules and Regulations!
WSO Marketplace Rules[/URL]

Do You have any Questions, Comments or Suggestions?
Warrior Forum Knowledgebase ▪ Warrior Forum Help Desk ▪ Suggestions Forum

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736471].message }}

Richard Van 9 years ago

I think it's safe to say with 3 moderators taking part in this thread that they all like films, but who doesn't.

Like the sad little git that I am I've only seen the first Hunger Games and I have to say I enjoyed it. I rather like the concept and fancy reading the books. As for Battle Royale I'm afraid I'd not heard of it. I just watched the trailer and I like the concept of that too. Not sure who the actor is playing the teacher but I've seen him in other films and I always find him a good actor, especially when he's being menacing.

Think I'll try and watch BR and the second HG's this weekend but I might wait for part 2 of the third so I can have a nice marathon film session in a years time.
- Thanks
Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736800].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Rick Rodd

Actually, blockbuster films are going meta on all this piracy stuff happening. It's like dividing a whole movie download into Part 1 and Part 2 all compiled in a .bin or .rar file. If they can't combat their films from losing money from lucky downloaders, they push the hype to the fan base. Being from said fan base, yeah, looking forward to watch them on the big screen.

On a sidenote, the concept of Stone Cold Steve Austin's Condemned is mediocre at best, but looks promising in real life.

Just to make it clear, I am against piracy also. One thing that many producers have to realize though is that the more they price something outside of their market, the more rampant piracy will be. And pirating digital goods is now EASY, FAST, and CHEAP, so many do it. Companies, like microsoft, for at least a couple decades have tried to mitigate it by actually pricing things to selected markets. They may have like 8 different prices for virtually the same thing in the same area. For example, I recently bought MS/SQL for a low price on a FULL version that had a few soft limitations, for developers. I got an even BETTER deal from Oracle. AND, of course, many will just patiently wait for it to be released to the public in some way.

Corporations want support and features the others may not have, as well as use by many tools, so they may pay the price that could even go into the millions.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736938].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Where were you Hunger Games fans at on this thread!!! Holy smokes!

http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ear-boyos.html

Steve, if you liked Mockingjay, then you should love the first two movies. Yeah, I have enjoyed the series so far. FWIW, Mockingjay gets the lowest rating among critics and movie goers on RT, and Catching Fire gets the highest.

I haven't seen catching fire, but I can understand why RT would give mockingjay the lowest ratings. I LOVE to see such things in dystopias. The "STATE" has absolute control, and fantastic weapons, and an impervious network. SOME HOW, the fighters manage to defeat the weapons with relative TOYS, and get through the network. UHOH! The network deal was a TRAP! The fighters get past, and save all, and the easter egg ends up failing!

I LOVE THAT! Places like the Russia government HATE even RUMORS that such a concept EXISTS!

I also think if you rewatch Running Man and you see the first two Hunger Games offerings you may see a few more parallels between them. Most folks will tell you that the first 2 movies are quite a bit different from the 3rd...

POSSIBLE, and they may SEEM the same, but the surrounding purpose and method is different. If you overlook enough of the purpose and method, a LOT of movies seem alike. SO MANY, that it wouldn't be worth goingto the movies to find the couple exceptions you might see every decade.

I believe it was Yaphet Kotto, who played William Laughlin in Running Man, who allegedly said it was a "ripoff". In-fact my brother, after watching the second Hunger Games, mentioned to me that the movie seemed to take from Running Man which had come before it. We had not discussed anything of the like, and he had no idea of Kotto or anyone else making any statements. Since he had not seen the the original Hunger Games, I told him he needs to watch the first movie and left it at that...

STILL, I liked the running man. Ironically, it was NOT the COMMON DYSTOPIA! It was NOT the COMMON SHOW CONCEPT! It was NOT the COMMON FIGHT for a GOAL(COMMONLY THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE)! It was NOT the COMMON EXPOSURE! It was NOT the COMMON DISCOVERY of allies! It was the variations on them.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9734550].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I haven't seen catching fire, but I can understand why RT would give mockingjay the lowest ratings.

Just an FYI for those that may not know... The RT scoring system is based on two things ---> the fist score is the percentage of critics that have given the film a positive review. In the case of the Hunger Games films, they have been reviewed by hundreds critics and only a handful of those are actual RT staff members.

The second score is the percentage of positive reviews given by the movie going public in general. In the case of the Hunger Games films, that's about 1.5 million folks that have scored the HG movies on RT.

So while it's RT that publishes the percentages, it's the critics AND regular movie goers that are actually "rating" the movies and that is why you always see 2 scores...one determined by the critics, and the other determined by the general audience. In-fact they also have a third score (to which I pay little attention), which based only on the "top" critic scores.

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9734907].message }}

Isabella

9 years ago

The two are pretty similar but I'm more of a Battle Royale fan in terms of the movie. Hunger Games wasn't so bad in the book the movies kind of ruined it for me.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Message me about WarriorForum!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9734938].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by EasySimmons

The two are pretty similar but I'm more of a Battle Royale fan in terms of the movie. Hunger Games wasn't so bad in the book the movies kind of ruined it for me.

Yeah, that is often the way it is. I guess watching the movies is just a quick/lazy way to do it.

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735113].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Don't ask me what possessed me but I caught the first one on TV a week or so, ago. I really don't see what all the hoopla was about. It was a smidgen above mediocre and Jennifer Lawrence seemed like an average talent to me. It's the only thing I have ever seen her in, so I'll reserve final judgement but if this is the role that propelled her to stardom - I'm packing my bags and heading to Hollywood 'cuz I'm better than she was. Way, better.

Woody Harrelson phoned in his performance and should give the money back.

The problem is, when you reach my age you have a lifetime of incredibly great movies that you can compare others to. Additionally, this film's intended audience is certainly not old codgers, like myself. I'm sure that if I were a 'tween' I might have found it more interesting, just like I might then think that Taylor Swift is talented and not the incredible lightweight I find her to be.

I've said it before and I'll say it, again. "Youth is wasted on the young."

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735154].message }}

Midnight Oil 9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Jennifer Lawrence seemed like an average talent to me. It's the only thing I have ever seen her in, so I'll reserve final judgement

You should check out Winter's Bone. Very good performance. Not at all a tweener movie.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735225].message }}
- BigFrank Banned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Midnight Oil
  
  You should check out Winter's Bone. Very good performance. Not at all a tweener movie.
  
  I was curious to see her in that 'something, something Playbook', movie but some friends said it was about PTSD and that I probably shouldn't watch. Like I'm a freakin' periwinkle or something.
  
  I'll read up on Winter's Bone as I think I saw the promos and it looked a little dark. I try not to do a whole lot of 'dark' these days. :-)
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735259].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Don't ask me what possessed me but I caught the first one on TV a week or so, ago. I really don't see what all the hoopla was about. It was a smidgen above mediocre and Jennifer Lawrence seemed like an average talent to me. It's the only thing I have ever seen her in, so I'll reserve final judgement but if this is the role that propelled her to stardom - I'm packing my bags and heading to Hollywood 'cuz I'm better than she was. Way, better.

Woody Harrelson phoned in his performance and should give the money back.

The problem is, when you reach my age you have a lifetime of incredibly great movies that you can compare others to. Additionally, this film's intended audience is certainly not old codgers, like myself. I'm sure that if I were a 'tween' I might have found it more interesting, just like I might then think that Taylor Swift is talented and not the incredible lightweight I find her to be.

I've said it before and I'll say it, again. "Youth is wasted on the young."

Cheers. - Frank

Yeah, I DID feel like hating it after I saw Woody. But the part WAS basically him, so it was easy for him.

Taylor swift if she indeed does as much as is claimed, IS talented. I get SHOCKED at how some cacophonies are put together by kids that can't read music, and people claim they are talented, and then harmonies with a message are so often overlooked. If mozart didn't make his music work, he would have been lost in history LONG ago like so many millions before him.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735546].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Taylor swift if she indeed does as much as is claimed, IS talented.

Talent extends along a very long sliding scale. I would place Ms. Swift's efforts at barely moving the needle. I'm sure if I were a 16 year-old horn-dog, I would have an entirely different opinion, but I'm not - so I don't. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736822].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Talent extends along a very long sliding scale. I would place Ms. Swift's efforts at barely moving the needle. I'm sure if I were a 16 year-old horn-dog, I would have an entirely different opinion, but I'm not - so I don't. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

ACTUALLY, it is more like a LOT of LITTLE sliding scales! With TAYLOR, I am talking about the scale covering music and related shows. Would I classify her as a genius in either? NO WAY! Would I classify her as ABOVE AVERAGE? CERTAINLY! Of course *****MOST***** "artists" effectively PLAGIARIZE, MOST of the remaining are effectively managed. But SOME, and maybe taylor, do all the creative stuff.

As for ME? My talents are on another scale. I would be a lot lower than taylor on her scale, and she would be lower on mine.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736878].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

They did split the third book --> and Part 1 of it is the second highest grossing movie of 2014 and it was just released a couple of weeks ago. By the end of the year it may be the biggest movie of the year.

Right, so the latest drugery was popular, eventhough it is a seriously crap movie!

A bit like saying the last Superman movie was a blockbuster even though it wasn't that good?

It seems that if the first few are good it has enough impetus to get the last one over the line!

Ok, fair enough, but the last one, or 2014 is still seriously crap!

FYI, she did not do any acting in any of the Hunger Games films.

Ok, l stand corrected!

The 4th movie will be another blockbuster, just like the previous three have been.

Yes, previous, (probably great or good ones as well as books help with that) because if this was released without any books or previous movies, (which are better, well l am betting they were) it would have flopped!

Break the rules, got it.

Break the rules, l am not paying $6 or $7 for a flippin drink!!!!

They are still getting a b*** on a seat in a virtually empty cinema! I am doing them a favour!

Fair enough that you are loaded, but after dealing with subcreatures and the like this year, l am not exactly rolling in it, and would rather have some decent entertainment occasionally than the S*** on tv, or wait 10 years to see it if l am lucky!!!

My nieces, nephews and millions of other folks don't/didn't want to wait 5 or 6 years. I'm not sure what you mean by FOXTEL thrashing it...

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - foxtel movies

Cheers

-don

Not sure that the link above will work in AU, but most movie sites online don't work in AU!

Thanks

Signature

Archimedes Forum, Sign up l won't bite

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9736925].message }}

Isabella

9 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Yeah, that is often the way it is. I guess watching the movies is just a quick/lazy way to do it.

Steve

Definitely. The whole Hunger Games verse seemed cooler in my head, same goes with the characters. The most horrible part of the whole series was the romance. It could have stood without the whole Peeta Katniss love story.

Anyway, quality-wise I enjoyed the gore and struggle with Battle Royale more. I should freshen up my memory with those. Definitely should watch it again.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Message me about WarriorForum!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735264].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by EasySimmons

Definitely. The whole Hunger Games verse seemed cooler in my head, same goes with the characters. The most horrible part of the whole series was the romance. It could have stood without the whole Peeta Katniss love story.

Many WANT love interests, and Katniss would not have pushed as hard as she did, and trusted peeta so much, without that affection. Although one could argue that she could fight out of patriotism, a strong love is often more common and thus more believable. So the love becomes a driving force for a uniting and furthers the piece.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9735549].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Jennifer Lawrence seemed like an average talent to me. It's the only thing I have ever seen her in, so I'll reserve final judgement but if this is the role that propelled her to stardom - I'm packing my bags and heading to Hollywood 'cuz I'm better than she was. Way, better.

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I was curious to see her in that 'something, something Playbook', movie

Jennifer Lawrence won the Academy Award (Best Lead Actress) and the Golden Globe for her role in Silver Linings Playbook (2012 release). She is the second youngest actor/actress to ever win an Oscar in a leading role at just 22 years and 193 days old. Audrey Hepburn won when she was 24, Grace Kelly when she was 25, Hillary Swank also won when she was 25, and Vivien Leigh won at 26. She was nominated for, but did not win, the Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role for Winter's Bone (2010 release).

I believe she has met with the Ghostbusters 3 director, that's one the old timers can't miss.

Cheers

-don