The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

Alright, what even is this 🤣

A catastrophe.

Brandon Fox2 said:Please, I can't take any more of these sarcastic teen apocalyptic survival nonsense stories!

I suppose if you actually read the third book, you might see just how much of a sarcastic teen mess it really is; honestly, it’s so poorly written that we should probably build a monument to whoever manages to pull off a decent adaptation that captures the spirit of the novel while still staying within a PG-13 rating.

New posters:

I sat through the first two movies since everyone keeps hyping them up, and I honestly still don't get the appeal. I can at least see why people dig Harry Potter, but I just don't see it with The Hunger Games. Maybe the costumes during those chariot scenes were okay. It’s not that the movies are total garbage, they're just mediocre. To me, it felt like a watered-down American version of Battle Royale, just with more filler.

Most of the characters are forgettable, except for a few who might have actually been interesting if they weren't relegated to five minutes of screen time. As for the lead... yeah, pretty average.

The world-building logic is pretty weak. The Districts aren't well-developed, and they just sort of vanish whenever the central government starts cracking under pressure. It isn't realistic, but whatever, I'll let it slide. What really makes no sense, though, is the actual Hunger Games. A government that wants to prevent rebellions wouldn't hold an event that fuels resentment among the very population they're trying to pacify every single year. That's literally the fastest way to spark a revolt.

I thought Divergent was twice as good. Sure, that movie has its own issues, but it actually had some decent moments.

If you were to compare Divergent to The Hunger Games, I feel like Divergent would be nothing more than a shallow puddle, whereas The Hunger Games is truly an ocean. If you aren't able to perceive the sheer depth within the Hunger Games series by the time you reach the end of the Divergent series, then perhaps it might be worth revisiting it with a bit more focused mental effort—that is, I suppose, one of the primary reasons (which you seem to have missed) why the THG films received such critical acclaim.

silvergardener6 said:If you were to compare Divergent to The Hunger Games, I feel like Divergent would be nothing more than a shallow puddle, whereas The Hunger Games is truly an ocean. If you aren't able to perceive the sheer depth within the Hunger Games series by the time you reach the end of the Divergent series, then perhaps it might be worth revisiting it with a bit more focused mental effort—that is, I suppose, one of the primary reasons (which you seem to have missed) why the THG films received such critical acclaim.

Divergent has scenes that are ten times deeper than anything in The Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games series has zero depth. Calling it critically acclaimed is probably the same joke as calling Citizen Kane a masterpiece when it's actually just boring and pointless. The Hunger Games is just your run-of-the-mill action/drama you see everywhere. The only thing "deep" about it is the massive plot hole at the core of the premise: the idea that the central government would organize the Hunger Games to prevent rebellions, when logic and actual sociology prove they'd just provoke the population instead. Or maybe the "depth" is that the contestants need sponsors? Or maybe it's some deep, meaningless love story? Or maybe it's the mindless slaughterhouse that the movie is? It isn't.

gentlemarlin said:Divergent has scenes that are ten times deeper than anything in The Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games series has zero depth. Calling it critically acclaimed is probably the same joke as calling Citizen Kane a masterpiece when it's actually just boring and pointless. The Hunger Games is just your run-of-the-mill action/drama you see everywhere. The only thing "deep" about it is the massive plot hole at the core of the premise: the idea that the central government would organize the Hunger Games to prevent rebellions, when logic and actual sociology prove they'd just provoke the population instead. Or maybe the "depth" is that the contestants need sponsors? Or maybe it's some deep, meaningless love story? Or maybe it's the mindless slaughterhouse that the movie is? It isn't.

😂🤣

Now, I am certainly not claiming that THG is some sort of absolute masterpiece—after all, it is still a YA film—but if you can't see the relevance of the THG series when looking at current or past global events, or perhaps the specific ideas it provokes, then I wonder what makes it a superior series compared to the somewhat superficial and hollow Divergent (which, for the record, I gave an okay rating to because it serves as decent entertainment). If you truly believe Divergent is ten times better than THG and Citizen Kane, then I suspect you might be living under a rock, viewing the world through a very shallow lens, or perhaps you are just twelve years old.

silvergardener6 said:😂🤣

Now, I am certainly not claiming that THG is some sort of absolute masterpiece—after all, it is still a YA film—but if you can't see the relevance of the THG series when looking at current or past global events, or perhaps the specific ideas it provokes, then I wonder what makes it a superior series compared to the somewhat superficial and hollow Divergent (which, for the record, I gave an okay rating to because it serves as decent entertainment). If you truly believe Divergent is ten times better than THG and Citizen Kane, then I suspect you might be living under a rock, viewing the world through a very shallow lens, or perhaps you are just twelve years old.

I don't see it, but feel free to explain if I missed something. I'm not a fan of abstract arguments.

I already explained why THG isn't relevant to anything happening now, in the past, or in the future. The basic premise of the movie is just illogical and unrealistic—regular public executions used as a way to keep neighbors from rioting, while nobody even knows who's next on the list a year from now.

the ideas it provokes

Like what..?

what makes it a good series compared to the shallow and mindless Divergent (which I gave an OK rating to because it's decent entertainment) while simultaneously claiming it's 10 times better than THG and Citizen Kane—then you probably live under a rock, have a very superficial view of the world, or you're twelve years old.

There's actually a third option here: I might just perceive depth differently than you do. For a large chunk of film critics, "depth" means an actor hysterically overacting or showing massive emotion. Or playing some lunatic. That automatically makes them an Oscar contender. To me, depth is when something reminds me of states of being that transcend normal human functioning, where scenes and characters trigger emotions outside the everyday human spectrum. From that perspective, Divergent at least has scenes where they face fear and deal with it in different ways, whereas I can't think of anything like that in THG.

The core premise of Divergent is that being different makes someone a threat to society, and one faction wants to seize control through mental manipulation. It's actually quite grounded, and we've seen stuff like this play out in reality. Sure, the movie has holes and the ending sucks, but at least there are standout scenes. I can't recall a single one in the Hunger Games.

As for Citizen Kane, it's total garbage. I can't remember a single redeeming quality or a single memorable scene. I'd rather watch the Hunger Games ten more times than sit through Citizen Kane once. Citizen Kane is the textbook definition of the kind of "depth" that doesn't mean anything to me.

@silvergardener6

Seriously, quit with the ''you live under a rock'' or ''you're twelve years old'' insults during a debate. If someone is laying out a perfectly solid case for why a certain movie works better—or even just giving their take—those little jabs aren't actual arguments... they don't really mean anything in a real conversation. Just explain your point—what, how, and why—or if you can't quite get there, maybe just don't go after the other person. I'm deleting any comments like that moving forward.

briskhound2 said:@silvergardener6

Seriously, quit with the ''you live under a rock'' or ''you're twelve years old'' insults during a debate. If someone is laying out a perfectly solid case for why a certain movie works better—or even just giving their take—those little jabs aren't actual arguments... they don't really mean anything in a real conversation. Just explain your point—what, how, and why—or if you can't quite get there, maybe just don't go after the other person. I'm deleting any comments like that moving forward.

This isn't really a debate. 😂 I don't particularly feel the need to engage in a massive, drawn-out argument with someone who insists that > times deeper than is complete trash.
There's a general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes;

Smart, smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking themes, Catching Fire proves a thoroughly compelling second installment in the Hunger Games series.

But why? In my opinion, it seems pretty obvious—at least to anyone paying attention to the regimes and conflicts within that world (interestingly, I recently read a news story about protesters using a hand gesture identical to the one seen in the THG series http://www.wired.com/2014/06/hunger-...lute-thailand/—which shares some DNA with Divergent—regarding facing fear and embracing individuality 😂). One could probably find much more detailed analyses in any of the hundreds of reviews out there, which are likely far more thorough and insightful than anything I could write here regarding a topic that isn't even about Catching Fire or The Hunger Games, but rather Mockingjay part 1.

silvergardener6, don't take this personally, but I've never actually heard you voice an original thought in a debate. Most of the time, you just lean on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic as if they're actual "arguments." You constantly bring up critics like they're the only proof you need.

And when someone doesn't agree with you, you immediately start belittling them just because they won't accept those critic scores as "arguments."

bluenomad2 said:silvergardener6, don't take this personally, but I've never actually heard you voice an original thought in a debate. Most of the time, you just lean on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic as if they're actual "arguments." You constantly bring up critics like they're the only proof you need.

And when someone doesn't agree with you, you immediately start belittling them just because they won't accept those critic scores as "arguments."

For instance?

When you call someone out, I suspect you usually have more to say than just an ad hoc comment.

Perhaps it's accurate here, since it's quite obvious to me that the parallels between the Hunger Games series and current events are visible, regardless of whether one thinks the movie is terrible or great. I find myself wondering why protesters would choose to align themselves with the film, yet you insist that it "never" happens and that critics are your "only" source.

The only film I've had a truly serious discussion about on this subforum is Gravity; everything else has just been casual chit-chat on the same level as the people I'm debating.

What actual arguments did that Divergent fan provide? Honestly, nothing substantial or critical.

silvergardener6 said:This isn't really a debate. 😂 I don't particularly feel the need to engage in a massive, drawn-out argument with someone who insists that > times deeper than is complete trash.
There's a general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes;

Smart, smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking themes, Catching Fire proves a thoroughly compelling second installment in the Hunger Games series.

But why? In my opinion, it seems pretty obvious—at least to anyone paying attention to the regimes and conflicts within that world (interestingly, I recently read a news story about protesters using a hand gesture identical to the one seen in the THG series http://www.wired.com/2014/06/hunger-...lute-thailand/—which shares some DNA with Divergent—regarding facing fear and embracing individuality 😂). One could probably find much more detailed analyses in any of the hundreds of reviews out there, which are likely far more thorough and insightful than anything I could write here regarding a topic that isn't even about Catching Fire or The Hunger Games, but rather Mockingjay part 1.

Then go start a blog or just hit "like" on Facebook. You've dropped a few replies to my posts, but not once have you actually said anything substantive because apparently, doing so is "beneath you."

There's a consensus on Rotten Tomatoes.

Argumentum ad populum.

Why? In my opinion, it's as obvious as it gets—at least to anyone who actually follows global regimes and conflicts.

It’s not obvious because you haven't made a single actual point in any of your posts. All you've done is claim the film is relevant or timely just because there are rebellions happening in the world. I already countered that by explaining why the way they depict it in the movie is totally illogical and unrealistic.

(fun fact—I recently read news that protesters used the exact same hand gesture seen in the THG series)

A few fans of the Hunger Games series gathered and started imitating the movie. What exactly is that supposed to prove? People started speaking Spanish after watching soap operas, and people started getting haircuts like their favorite football players.

Well, let’s see what you actually explained:

gentlemarlin said:I don't see it, but feel free to explain if I missed something. I'm not a fan of abstract arguments.

I already explained why THG isn't relevant to anything happening now, in the past, or in the future. The basic premise of the movie is just illogical and unrealistic—regular public executions used as a way to keep neighbors from rioting, while nobody even knows who's next on the list a year from now.

the ideas it provokes

Like what..?

what makes it a good series compared to the shallow and mindless Divergent (which I gave an OK rating to because it's decent entertainment) while simultaneously claiming it's 10 times better than THG and Citizen Kane—then you probably live under a rock, have a very superficial view of the world, or you're twelve years old.

There's actually a third option here: I might just perceive depth differently than you do. For a large chunk of film critics, "depth" means an actor hysterically overacting or showing massive emotion. Or playing some lunatic. That automatically makes them an Oscar contender. To me, depth is when something reminds me of states of being that transcend normal human functioning, where scenes and characters trigger emotions outside the everyday human spectrum. From that perspective, Divergent at least has scenes where they face fear and deal with it in different ways, whereas I can't think of anything like that in THG.

The core premise of Divergent is that being different makes someone a threat to society, and one faction wants to seize control through mental manipulation. It's actually quite grounded, and we've seen stuff like this play out in reality. Sure, the movie has holes and the ending sucks, but at least there are standout scenes. I can't recall a single one in the Hunger Games.

As for Citizen Kane, it's total garbage. I can't remember a single redeeming quality or a single memorable scene. I'd rather watch the Hunger Games ten more times than sit through Citizen Kane once. Citizen Kane is the textbook definition of the kind of "depth" that doesn't mean anything to me.

It shows.

I've already explained why THG isn't relevant to past, present, or future global situations, mainly because the movie's core premise feels illogical and unrealistic—the idea of regular public executions just to keep neighbors compliant, where nobody even knows who might be next in a year's time.

Oh, what an incredible argument and explanation. You find it unrealistic and illogical. Honestly, I'm almost speechless at this line of reasoning. It's just... irrelevant. You seem to have completely ignored the entire history of uprisings, the existence of District 13, and the way fascist regimes have systematically manipulated public opinion throughout history. To me, the unrealistic part would be believing that people fight wars over imaginary, politically constructed borders or false religious ideologies. It seems totally unconvincing to you, but once you convince people that it's for their nation, for their own good, or for some higher purpose—that it's a necessary sacrifice—then every brave soul will march off to war. The situation in THG isn't different at all. Is the Donetsk People's Republic a convincing enough reason for someone to go out and risk their life? Military drafts and training are really just preparation for the games themselves, where everyone is fighting to emerge as a winner. Humans are irrational creatures who often fail to grasp true reality, and THG captures that perfectly. Revolutions are moments of clarity—as Karl Marx might say, moments when a society begins to realize how unsustainable the systems they are trapped in actually are. Governments defend themselves much like how Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reached for military control to suppress his own people just to maintain his hold on power, and now he's been chosen as president; the people were undermined and lost their way, drifting back toward a hollow, puppet-like democracy. That isn't happening—or won't happen—to the people in THG.

There's also a third possibility here: that I am perceiving depth differently than you are.

wow, such a powerful argument.

For a large portion of film critics, "depth" simply means an actor hysterically displaying as much emotion as possible. Or playing some sort of madman. In those cases, they automatically become an Oscar contender.

That has nothing to do with depth—which is why I pointed to the consensus on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm not using an ad populum argument to claim the majority is always right; rather, I'm noting that there is a consensus, which happens to align with my own view, and you could easily find reviews that support this without any trouble.

Quote:
Confronting fear—wow—what original pathos and depth; it’s basically a cliché you’d find in an elementary school essay.

To me, depth occurs when a story touches upon states of being or situations that transcend standard human functioning, specifically when scenes and characters evoke emotions that don't quite fit into our everyday spectrum. From that particular perspective, I suppose the Divergent bar has certain moments, like those where characters face their fears and choose to resolve them in unconventional ways, whereas I can't really think of anything like that in THG.

The same applies to those tired tropes about being "different." It feels entirely too grounded in reality, doesn't it? Honestly, did you actually watch how they supposedly took control through "mental" means? That seems zero percent realistic to me, and I doubt something like that could ever actually happen. The whole faction division feels a bit nonsensical and unrealistic for a very clear reason: it lacks any biological basis. Those tests and the supposed "exceptionalism" of people who don't fit into specific factions—which are clearly socially constructed—are presented as if they were biologically predetermined, even though such distinctions have never existed in their world or any other.

As for Citizen Kane, I personally find it to be complete garbage. I can't recall a single redeeming quality or even one memorable scene. I would much rather watch the Hunger Games series ten more times than sit through Citizen Kane once. To me, Citizen Kane is just a textbook example of that kind of "depth" that doesn't actually feel deep at all.

No comment.

Here is another parallel to consider:



I suppose we can't quite manage to feed the hungry in the Districts, yet somehow we find ways to pour massive amounts of money into The Hunger Games, all while trying to convince everyone that their sacrifices are absolutely necessary just to maintain the "prosperity" we currently enjoy. It feels like we could just as easily spend those funds on a military meant to suppress any dissent and exert control over people who don't have a fair fighting chance—essentially an "our way or the highway" approach to governance.

The Hunger Games are real : WE are The Districts http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-g...b_4337956.html

Hunger Games salute banned by Thai military http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...anned-thailand

A real-life 'The Hunger Games' http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr...camps-20120404

camps-20120404 The Hunger Games : Comparing and Contrasting http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/ac...d-Contrasting/

The Hunger Games and real World Parallels : Can Kids ' All Become Katniss Everdeen http://movieline.com/2012/03/13/the-...niss-everdeen/

silvergardener6 said:This isn't really a debate. 😂 I don't particularly feel the need to engage in a massive, drawn-out argument with someone who insists that > times deeper than is complete trash.
There's a general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes;

Smart, smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking themes, Catching Fire proves a thoroughly compelling second installment in the Hunger Games series.

But why? In my opinion, it seems pretty obvious—at least to anyone paying attention to the regimes and conflicts within that world (interestingly, I recently read a news story about protesters using a hand gesture identical to the one seen in the THG series http://www.wired.com/2014/06/hunger-...lute-thailand/—which shares some DNA with Divergent—regarding facing fear and embracing individuality 😂). One could probably find much more detailed analyses in any of the hundreds of reviews out there, which are likely far more thorough and insightful than anything I could write here regarding a topic that isn't even about Catching Fire or The Hunger Games, but rather Mockingjay part 1.

Maybe you thought I was begging for your opinion just so I could back down... but I'm not.

If you want an actual discussion, try meeting me halfway, otherwise there's no point in talking. Skip the personal jabs, and honestly, everything else—like your constant failure to explain yourself or constantly hiding behind critics—isn't my problem to solve...

briskhound2 said:Maybe you thought I was begging for your opinion just so I could back down... but I'm not.

If you want an actual discussion, try meeting me halfway, otherwise there's no point in talking. Skip the personal jabs, and honestly, everything else—like your constant failure to explain yourself or constantly hiding behind critics—isn't my problem to solve...

I suppose my comment about things being "obvious" wasn't entirely accurate, but I still stand by the core idea. I was just trying to show how many people pick up on the social commentary in The Hunger Games because it's so blatant, regardless of how they feel about the movie itself, so I don't think there's any reason to take that observation as a personal insult. That’s the part I’m willing to concede, but when it comes to other matters, like whether someone's response is actually "perfectly explained," I guess we can always rely on the admins to step in and judge if there's a bias involved, which I think you're already aware of.

A random comment from post #23 actually makes more sense than most. You really ought to include a desperate, vacant-eyed heroine played by Jennifer Lawrence to complete the picture. She’s such an overrated actress... out of all the films I've sat through, maybe Winter's Bone had some merit, but only because the role actually demanded that kind of grit.
Still, I suppose I'll give this a watch since it has its own certain charm, though I seriously doubt it's anything close to high quality. Projects like this are forgotten within a couple of years, much like Lady Gaga (who seems to be fading from the spotlight already).

Jessica Morris6 said:A random comment from post #23 actually makes more sense than most. You really ought to include a desperate, vacant-eyed heroine played by Jennifer Lawrence to complete the picture. She’s such an overrated actress... out of all the films I've sat through, maybe Winter's Bone had some merit, but only because the role actually demanded that kind of grit.
Still, I suppose I'll give this a watch since it has its own certain charm, though I seriously doubt it's anything close to high quality. Projects like this are forgotten within a couple of years, much like Lady Gaga (who seems to be fading from the spotlight already).

I hear you, but I guess the point wasn't really about Lawrence, or whether you enjoyed Catching Fire or if it holds up as good cinema. The conversation was actually centered on whether we can see reflections of current or past global events within The Hunger Games series—specifically, whether it possesses thought-provoking themes and elements of social critique. You can recognize those elements even if you think the movie itself is garbage. The issue I'm seeing is that people seem unable to separate their personal enjoyment of the film from its substance, dismissing it as shallow or even shallower than the Divergent series just because they don't see any immediate political relevance.

I suppose the experiences gained from the first two films fall under the themes established by them. As the director mentioned, the final two installments will ultimately define the entire purpose of The Hunger Games series. This is quite evident in the third book, which many fans didn't particularly care for because the portrayal of war felt too cold and detached; the author killed off beloved characters far too quickly and mass-scale, which I guess is simply how war works.

That’s exactly my point, though you also have to consider J. Lawrence and the previous installments, since they really set the stage for this movie... I can't exactly sit here and critique a film that hasn't even hit theaters yet, can I?
There's obviously some sort of social commentary buried in there, but honestly, it all falls flat because the filmmaking itself is just mediocre. If a movie wants to deliver a powerful message, it actually needs to be well-made first... I can't speak for the books, but I'd assume they hold more weight than the films. It shouldn't be such an uphill battle to get it right.

New poster