The Hunger Games

Krusader

Worth the read before watching the film?
Are the books a bit childish?

ixoy

I've read the first book and yes, it's worth reading.
Given the plot (teenagers killing each other for the entertainment of the masses) I don't think you could call them childish either and the writing doesn't reflect that - it's done well. I'd recommend it and it's short so you'll get through it quickly.

Krusader

Does this film just encompass the 1st book

ixoy

Crosáidí wrote: »

Does this film just encompass the 1st book

Yes it's just book 1 of the trilogy. The book is quite self containing so it won't leave a load of plot threads hanging. The author's given the film her seal of approval saying she's very happy with the adaptation.

mcgovern

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's childish, but it is at least Young Adult.

QuiteInterestin

Ya worth the read, picked up a copy in Tesco at ten o'clock last night for €6.95, finished it at at quarter past 3 this morning! Quite addictive, definitely want to read the rest of the trilogy after reading the first one.

Roorah

I read the first book recently. Definitely "Young Adult", the author deals with some very deep themes but I personally found it was brought down by some very poorly written scenes, which I won't go into for spoiler reasons.

Well worth the read however.

mach1982

I download the 1st book on to my kindle app on my phone last Monday, finished with about a day ,I've since downloaded and finished Catching Fire and Mockingjay and decided to go see the move last Friday . I now fan of both the books and the movie .

I also one those who when they get obsessed with something hover every bit of info on net I can find about the the subject , as I did with Harry Potter. So here a ls of the main Fandom sites i found

http://www.thehob.org/

http://mockingjay.net/

Also I think there should be a separate forum for Hunger in Sci-FI & Fantasy

ARGINITE

Is it just me or does it sound like a watered down version of Battle Royal?

PhantomShrimp

After watching it I thought Battle Royale was based on the same book, but Battle Royale was released in 2000 and Hunger Games was first published in 2008! I know Sci Fi/Fantasy Genres can seem alike sometimes but really???

I watched Battle Royale again as soon as I got home from the cinema and it is still miles in front of Hunger Games.

Battle Royale Requiem, not so much.

Just my two cent
PS

PhantomShrimp

ARGINITE wrote: »

Is it just me or does it sound like a watered down version of Battle Royal?

Hehehehe. I think we were typing at the same time.

n0irin

PhantomShrimp wrote: »

After watching it I thought Battle Royale was based on the same book, but Battle Royale was released in 2000 and Hunger Games was first published in 2008! I know Sci Fi/Fantasy Genres can seem alike sometimes but really???

PS

And 'Battle Royale', the book that the film Battle Royale was based on, came out in the late nineties IIRC.

I haven't read The Hunger Games, but I've heard that the film is a very faithful adaptation of the book - went to see it in the cinema, and really quite enjoyed it. It does seem to be like a Young Adult version of Battle Royale though.

ARGINITE

n0irin wrote: »

And 'Battle Royale', the book that the film Battle Royale was based on, came out in the late nineties IIRC.

I haven't read The Hunger Games, but I've heard that the film is a very faithful adaptation of the book - went to see it in the cinema, and really quite enjoyed it. It does seem to be like a Young Adult version of Battle Royale though.

I was thinking more Hollywood watered down version, just like what they did to The Ring.

n0irin

ARGINITE wrote: »

I was thinking more Hollywood watered down version, just like what they did to The Ring.

I guess it could be that too - although since they're both based on books, it's likely that the book of the Hunger Games is like a watered down version of Battle Royale to begin with - since people are saying that the film is very faithful to the book.

Grassey

I heard it was battle royale meets twilight...

Morag

Grassey wrote: »

I heard it was battle royale meets twilight...

No, not it's not.

n0irin

Sharrow wrote: »

No, not it's not.

To me it seems more like Battle Royale made suitable for a Twilight age group -It's definitely tailored towards "young adult", but I don't see any other similarities to Twilight, but then not having read/watched Twilight I can't say for sure.

ixoy

n0irin wrote: »

To me it seems more like Battle Royale made suitable for a Twilight age group -It's definitely tailored towards "young adult", but I don't see any other similarities to Twilight, but then not having read/watched Twilight I can't say for sure.

I really don't think it should be compared to the "Twilight age group" - let's just say it's made for "young adults". Saying the Twilight age group implies, in my mind, a gaggle of screeching teenage girls.

"The Hunger Games" author said she'd never even heard of "Battle Royale". Yes they both contain teenagers battling to the death but I feel the world of "The Hunger Games" is more realised. We spend a lot of time seeing it beforehand, understanding some of the motives than we did in "Battle Royale". Better characters too by virtue of focusing primarily on one rather than the group.

n0irin

ixoy wrote: »

I really don't think it should be compared to the "Twilight age group" - let's just say it's made for "young adults". Saying the Twilight age group implies, in my mind, a gaggle of screeching teenage girls.

Well, that "gaggle" is the twilight 'target market', though not the age group as a whole. They're both books written for "young adults".

PhantomShrimp

n0irin wrote: »

And 'Battle Royale', the book that the film Battle Royale was based on, came out in the late nineties IIRC.

I haven't read The Hunger Games, but I've heard that the film is a very faithful adaptation of the book - went to see it in the cinema, and really quite enjoyed it. It does seem to be like a Young Adult version of Battle Royale though.

I hadn't read Hunger Games when I went to see it in the cinema either. I was disappointed with the movie a little. I thought the build up to the Games was better than the Games themselves.

I immediately re-watched Battle Royale when I got home and thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. I think I have the Battle Royale book back in the family home somewhere...

mach1982

I haven't seen Battle Royal. But a few year ago the same thing came up with Harry Potter the family of author or The Worst Whichh ( remember it on CITV) tried to sue JK Rowling as there were so many similarities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues

ixoy

n0irin wrote: »

Well, that "gaggle" is the twilight 'target market', though not the age group as a whole. They're both books written for "young adults".

It's not quite though. The Twilight movies, for example, had an 80% female audience whereas 'The Hunger Games' was 60%. It's a broader gender market which means they're pushing for a wider audience and slant it differently.

PhantomShrimp wrote:

I thought the build up to the Games was better than the Games themselves.

There's more of a survival element in this than 'Battle Royale' which is more focused on the conflict itself.

n0irin

ixoy wrote: »

It's not quite though. The Twilight movies, for example, had an 80% female audience whereas 'The Hunger Games' was 60%. It's a broader gender market which means they're pushing for a wider audience and slant it differently.

Oh yeah - I totally agree. That's the point I was trying to make - the books are written for the same broadly defined group of "young adult" (gender not being brought into question) and what I'm saying is that while they're aimed at this same general age group, they're definitely not aimed at the same audience.

PhantomShrimp

ixoy wrote: »

There's more of a survival element in this than 'Battle Royale' which is more focused on the conflict itself.

True. But for me

The love story kinda ruined it. It ended as soon as the announcement for "team survival" came out. Then the dogs! Why bother with the dogs at all?

.

As mentioned, going in I was fully convinced the two movies were based on the same book. A simple case of "learn something new, something old gets pushed out of my brain". I knew Battle Royale was based on it's own book, but somehow forgot that over the last 12 years

My own fault. :rolleyes: Just struggling with how similar they are and that Battle Royale get's left behind. Will read the entire series before the others come out. BR Requiem was fairly weak so hopefully Hunger Games get's better over the three movies.

PS

azezil

It took a potentially gruesome premis for a storyline and made it into a touchy feely feel good movie. Battle Royale did it right, this was just another Hollywood watered down Twilight like sappy adventure. I found it painful to watch, completely and utterly disappointed by this movie, I really don't see how anyone could have enjoyed it

ixoy

PhantomShrimp wrote: »

True. But for me

The love story kinda ruined it. It ended as soon as the announcement for "team survival" came out. Then the dogs! Why bother with the dogs at all?

.

Both those are expanded upon in the book, for what it's worth:

The love story is more cynical in the book, something that was hard to portray on screen because it's all internal in Katniss' head.
The dogs are different too - there's more of a point to them as the final horror. Beyond that they're also a means to finish the games and force the contestants to fight.

Just struggling with how similar they are and that Battle Royale get's left behind.

I don't really think they're that similar beyond a core concept. How they handle it is quite different. I've found "Battle Royale" to be over-rated to be honest.

azezil wrote:

It took a potentially gruesome premis for a storyline and made it into a touchy feely feel good movie.

Should leave your expectations at the door in that sense. The book is definitely more gruesome but it's still not just about the violence they inflict on each other.

Morag

Young adult fiction can be pretty hard hitting the only think which differs it from adult fiction is frankly the lack of fúcking.

But what gets aimed at children via young adult fiction gets a higher rating then 12s when it gets portrayed on film be it as a tv show or as a movie.
For example the boy in the striped pajamas and good night mr tom are both on the curriculum for 6th class and my 11 year old has read them.

The hunger games movie was always going to be made less harsh then the books,
to ensure that those 'young adults' who have read the books could see the movie.

The gritty backdrop which the story is set against was lost in the movie, which is unfortunate.

http://io9.com/5896475/everything-the-hunger-games-movie-left-out

Food is a very big deal in Suzanne Collins' books. In fact there are websites, and books dedicated to the dishes cooked up on Panem. One could even argue that the whole plot of the book is based around food — not having it, versus having it. The winning tribute returns to a world of money (so they can buy food) and their district gets to live a whole year with additional rations from The Capitol. Almost every other thought inside Katniss' head is about food, finding food, protecting the food, feeding her family, feeding herself in the games, will she have enough food? How will her future actions affect the people of District 12's food supply? Food is everything. Heck, "Hunger" is in the title! So it was surprising that not a single food item was namechecked in the movie. There was no reaping fish soup, no goat cheese bread Prim saves for her sister, no the Mellark cookies, no crescent bread delivered from District 11 which was supposedly meant for little Rue (a completely gutting moment), and of course, no lamb stew!


That's not to say the movie was devoid of all food, but the way it was handled on camera was strange. One of the first shots of District 12 shows someone chomping down on a bit of meat, thus implying that the people have food, they just prefer to eat it outside. In the novel, Katniss and Peeta spend most of their time on the train and in the Capitol stuffing their faces (because food is so scarce in District 12). While director Gary Ross treated the audience to a few shots of Capitol dishes (glasses full of blue gatorade, completely unrecognizable jellied dishes, and plates of gorgeous delicacies) we rarely see the starving kids eat! Where is the lamb stew? Even in her interview with Caesar Flickerman, Katniss brings up the lamb stew! Plus it's the very dish that Katniss and Peeta share while inside their cave of love later on in the games.

The hunger is missing from Hunger Games, even when Katniss had her flashback in the rain with Peeta. She merely looked sad, not a wreck of malnutrition desperately trying to keep her sister from starving. This is why it's SO important when Katniss makes Gale promise her family won't starve when she's gone (and if she dies) because there is no food.

azezil

Sharrow wrote: »

The gritty backdrop which the story is set against was lost in the movie, which is unfortunate.

http://io9.com/5896475/everything-the-hunger-games-movie-left-out

Food is a very big deal in Suzanne Collins' books. In fact there are websites, and books dedicated to the dishes cooked up on Panem. One could even argue that the whole plot of the book is based around food — not having it, versus having it. The winning tribute returns to a world of money (so they can buy food) and their district gets to live a whole year with additional rations from The Capitol. Almost every other thought inside Katniss' head is about food, finding food, protecting the food, feeding her family, feeding herself in the games, will she have enough food? How will her future actions affect the people of District 12's food supply? Food is everything. Heck, "Hunger" is in the title! So it was surprising that not a single food item was namechecked in the movie. There was no reaping fish soup, no goat cheese bread Prim saves for her sister, no the Mellark cookies, no crescent bread delivered from District 11 which was supposedly meant for little Rue (a completely gutting moment), and of course, no lamb stew!


That's not to say the movie was devoid of all food, but the way it was handled on camera was strange. One of the first shots of District 12 shows someone chomping down on a bit of meat, thus implying that the people have food, they just prefer to eat it outside. In the novel, Katniss and Peeta spend most of their time on the train and in the Capitol stuffing their faces (because food is so scarce in District 12). While director Gary Ross treated the audience to a few shots of Capitol dishes (glasses full of blue gatorade, completely unrecognizable jellied dishes, and plates of gorgeous delicacies) we rarely see the starving kids eat! Where is the lamb stew? Even in her interview with Caesar Flickerman, Katniss brings up the lamb stew! Plus it's the very dish that Katniss and Peeta share while inside their cave of love later on in the games.

The hunger is missing from Hunger Games, even when Katniss had her flashback in the rain with Peeta. She merely looked sad, not a wreck of malnutrition desperately trying to keep her sister from starving. This is why it's SO important when Katniss makes Gale promise her family won't starve when she's gone (and if she dies) because there is no food.

Ok now that makes the story make a lot more sense, they shouldn't have left that out / should have protrayed that better in the movie.

skittlesej

ARGINITE wrote: »

Is it just me or does it sound like a watered down version of Battle Royal?

Firstly, I haven't seen the Hunger Games movie yet, but I just read the book and thought about Battle Royale too, for obvious reasons.

I think the big difference between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games was when I asked myself what would I do in their shoes. In Battle Royale I often feel that I would just give up, first having to deal with the game and then if I won having to deal with the memories. The game seemed a lot more senseless, no real point to it.

But in Hunger games there's more at stake, the help it can give your family and district if you win, there's a whole new emotional level to that, and it makes you need to win so much more. Plus the fact that it's televised so fully. The government is using the game to control their people in both, but it's so much more in your face in The Hunger Games.

Actually, the more I think about it the more different they are. It's easy to think at first glance that they're based around the same idea, I thought so too before I sat down to write this comment, but there really is no comparison.