Started by stormycrane3 · · 👁 13 views · 146 replies
…
John Sullivan5 said:Potential spoilers ahead, though nothing game-changing for the next movie.
Look, as a massive book nerd, I gotta say—after being absolutely floored by how they handled the last movie (Flame is hands down my favorite in the trilogy too), I walked out of the theater feeling kind of meh.
The biggest issue right out of the gate is how they chopped the book in half. I get it, the whole thing with Peeta is a shocker, and splitting the film works great for people who haven't read the books, but personally? It would’ve been way more impactful if the pacing was just tighter—like, making the attack on District 2 (if I remember correctly) and the moment they shoot Katniss feel much punchier. Instead, we got this totally manufactured climax. In the book, they just tell her Peeta’s safe and Gale was out on a mission, but here they threw in this fake high-stakes moment that felt more like a teaser for the actual action. Also, what was the deal with Finnick uncovering the secret about the white roses and President Snow's bleeding mouth? If memory serves, they found that out from the lady in The Capitol who gives them the coats for the final assault (and if they cut that out of the next part, then seriously 👎). That scene where she sings Hanging Tree also fell flat for me. They really should have dug into the backstory of the song since that was such a standout part of the third book. Plus, the tempo she uses is the exact opposite of how I pictured it (but hey, that's just me—glad some people dug it).
Honestly, throwing Effie into the mix (which doesn't happen at all in the third book until the very end) and giving Alma Coin so much screen time is actually the one decent change they made compared to the book.
stormycrane3 said:I guess the last installment was probably the best one in the series so far. 🙂
Karen Richardson3 said:Honestly, I’m actually pleasantly surprised here. 🙂
To me, the second installment felt like a bit of a mess in terms of adaptation; you could really feel the influence of the Summit too much. That whole Katniss-Peeta-Gale love triangle was pushed way too hard into the spotlight, and the fight scenes felt way too polished and "Hollywood," which just missed the mark for me.
So, I went into the third book's adaptation with the same expectations—that they’d throw in random fights for the sake of it and try to reshape Katniss into this fearless warrior who never breaks down.
But man, she *has* to break down. That’s literally the entire point of her character—she’s completely overwhelmed by everything happening, not some untouchable superhero saving the world.
Given how much younger audiences at the local AMC usually complain (you know, saying things are boring or lack action), and considering that a huge chunk of readers don't even like the third book anyway—I assume because they aren't in the arena fighting anymore, which is apparently the only thing people care about?—it's a bold move to risk splitting such a book into two movies.
Still, from my perspective, I really have to thank the director for sticking so closely to the book, which is easily my favorite one in the trilogy.
It actually caught me off guard how emotional some of those scenes were. Hanging Tree was absolutely beautiful 👍, even though I had a totally different melody playing in my head while reading.
If I had to nitpick, maybe they could have explained the inner workings of District 13 a little more clearly, but then again, someone who hasn't read the books wouldn't be able to tell.
The male leads are still my biggest issue, though. In my opinion, the casting was a total swing and a miss. I can tolerate the guy playing Gale as long as he stays quiet, but the second he starts talking, it becomes almost impossible to watch.
And Peeta... 🕺
2 John Sullivan5:
I was expecting them to cut it off right when Peeta starts choking (which is basically where the book ends), but I guess they wanted to include the teaser for the attack on District 2. Honestly, I didn't mind the ending at all—having Coin giving that big speech while cutting back to the broken state of Katniss and Peeta worked really well for me.
As for Finnick, I can't quite recall who uncovered the whole rose and poison thing, but Finnick gave a speech where he was exposing secrets... they might be cutting out that female character you mentioned.
Emily Garcia3 said:In the book, Finnick says exactly what he says in the movie, so it feels like that monologue was lifted almost word-for-word for the film 😁
Maybe that theory gets confirmed when they meet up with that woman, but in the books, Finnick is the first one to start talking about it.
I actually liked having Effie in the movie too, even though she shouldn't really be there according to the book... her commentary honestly just brightened things up for me. 😁
Karen Richardson3 said:Honestly, I’m actually pleasantly surprised here. 🙂
To me, the second installment felt like a bit of a mess in terms of adaptation; you could really feel the influence of the Summit too much. That whole Katniss-Peeta-Gale love triangle was pushed way too hard into the spotlight, and the fight scenes felt way too polished and "Hollywood," which just missed the mark for me.
So, I went into the third book's adaptation with the same expectations—that they’d throw in random fights for the sake of it and try to reshape Katniss into this fearless warrior who never breaks down.
But man, she *has* to break down. That’s literally the entire point of her character—she’s completely overwhelmed by everything happening, not some untouchable superhero saving the world.
Given how much younger audiences at the local AMC usually complain (you know, saying things are boring or lack action), and considering that a huge chunk of readers don't even like the third book anyway—I assume because they aren't in the arena fighting anymore, which is apparently the only thing people care about?—it's a bold move to risk splitting such a book into two movies.
Still, from my perspective, I really have to thank the director for sticking so closely to the book, which is easily my favorite one in the trilogy.
It actually caught me off guard how emotional some of those scenes were. Hanging Tree was absolutely beautiful 👍, even though I had a totally different melody playing in my head while reading.
If I had to nitpick, maybe they could have explained the inner workings of District 13 a little more clearly, but then again, someone who hasn't read the books wouldn't be able to tell.
The male leads are still my biggest issue, though. In my opinion, the casting was a total swing and a miss. I can tolerate the guy playing Gale as long as he stays quiet, but the second he starts talking, it becomes almost impossible to watch.
And Peeta... 🕺
2 John Sullivan5:
I was expecting them to cut it off right when Peeta starts choking (which is basically where the book ends), but I guess they wanted to include the teaser for the attack on District 2. Honestly, I didn't mind the ending at all—having Coin giving that big speech while cutting back to the broken state of Katniss and Peeta worked really well for me.
As for Finnick, I can't quite recall who uncovered the whole rose and poison thing, but Finnick gave a speech where he was exposing secrets... they might be cutting out that female character you mentioned.
John Sullivan5 said:Fair point, I might have just mixed up the timeline regarding when it all comes out, so no biggie if that's the case. 👍
Man, if they had cut it during the choking part, I would've been absolutely livid. 😵 Nah, what they did was pretty effective. Almin's speech paired with Peeta acting mentally unstable while Katniss watches was actually great. But I can't shake the feeling that things would've been better if they sped up the stuff happening in District 2—like, imagine if the final book was entirely focused on the assault on The Capitol and everything that follows.
I just looked it up, and Tigris was a woman. If they cut her, they might also ditch that scene where Gale and Peeta are in her basement talking about who he's going to end up with while she's "sleeping," which would be a huge bummer. We'll see, though. 😁
Now we just gotta survive another year. There's so much potential for some brutal, amazing scenes that this is gonna be a blast to watch.
Kimberly Castillo22 said:The movie was a bit slow, honestly. I haven't read the books or anything, but I found it pretty interesting mostly because they didn't portray him like some kind of Ramb. Like, he's not just gonna step up and take charge of everything, you know? He’s more like a guy who’s just totally crushed by it all.
I guess it would've been super cliché and typical American if she turned into some big-shot general standing in front of troops, giving orders and stuff.
That scene where Peeta starts choking was really good, and the one at the end was even better. It actually kind of shook me up, I guess.
Overall, I’ll probably have to watch it again before the final part just to refresh my memory, but yeah, it was okay.
The only thing I didn't really get was what they did to Peet with those wasps? That part flew right over my head.
Karen Richardson3 said:Honestly, I wouldn't even want that scene included because the whole "love triangle" thing feels so poorly executed to me... and I think adding a scene like that would be totally pointless since the movie didn't even do a good job explaining why Peeta matters so much to Katniss in the first place.
To be real with you guys, based on how the first movie played out, I spent most of my time thinking Peeta was actually kind of a jerk. And that whole bread scene? It was handled so clumsily and made so little sense that I don't even feel like getting into it. 😁
Megan Morales10 said:By the way, @silvergardener6. For someone who wields such an impressive vocabulary during debates, your actual depth of thought is surprisingly shallow. I’m referring back to your exchange with that "A stranger" user. I have a special kind of disdain for people who operate under the delusion that their perspective is the ultimate objective truth while everyone else is just wrong. Your dismissal of the argument "I perceive depth differently than you" as being anything less than valid was a massive facepalm.
Divergent has scenes that are ten times deeper than anything found in Hunger Games.
silvergardener6 said:Well, let’s see what you actually explained:
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.
