Actually in the book, Katniss remembers one kiss (out of many) from the cave from the first Hunger Games that gave her true happiness, and it was not an act. So she tells Peeta at the end of HG1 that not ALL of it was an act. However, she is confused about her feelings. She always remembers the 'boy with the bread' (not referred to in the movie) and she has special feelings for him. It's just that it took longer for her to realize her true feelings for Peeta, while everyone else seemed to know what they were.
Originally Posted by sodapop
P.S. The elevator scene was GREAT! The humor really helped in an otherwise serious movie.
The HG movies have an awesome cast. I love the additions.
Jennifer Lawrence's facial expressions during the elevator scene were just so utterly perfect, I was dying.
If you didn't like that you may have some issues with Mockingjay, in particular the ending. But, to be fair, that's pretty much exactly how it was in the book...
Originally Posted by DAngel
Can I just say that slap she gave Haymitch was crazy! I mean, it looked like she slapped the piss out of him! I really liked that part as well...
The reason the deal (to save Peeta) sounds like it's out of nowhere is that the movie did not develop Katniss/Peeta relationship adequately prior to that. In the book it's clear how much Peeta means to Katniss. She sees him as the superior/better person who deserves to live, rather than herself (and she loves him but does not know it yet). When she discovers that during the first HG, Haymitch had planned on saving her but not Peeta (he had to make a choice between the two), she feels that this time he should save Peeta.
Originally Posted by DAngel
They both want to protect each other and both make deals to that effect with Haymitch in CF. In Hunger Games I, they were willing to die to save the other's life, and that continues in the second movie, so it was not totally out of the blue. Still, CF could have done a better job of developing the K-P relationship, so her demand that Peeta be saved at the cost of her own life would not have sounded like 'out of nowhere'.
In the thunder/lightening/tree scene at the end, partly yes to your question. According to the plan Katniss & Johanna go away from the tree, and the three men (Beetee, Peeta, Finnick) remain near it to set up the wire. The five are in alliance, but the other three (Enobaria, Chaff and I forget the third's name) are still alive, and ready to attack. The plan is to electrify the lake so the three non-alliance tributes will die, but they attack before that.
Johanna knocks out Katniss and removes the tracker from her arm (so she is not detected by the Capitol later), tells her to stay down, with blood on her throat. This is a part of the rebel plan. She is left for dead by the still alive tributes. Two of the non-alliance are killed by (IIRC) Finnick and Johanna. When Finnick reminds her of who the real enemy is (Capitol/Snow)Katniss shoots the arrow into the force field and disables everything. She is picked up by the rebel hovercraft; the Capitol hovercraft cannot find her. Peeta and Johanna (and Enobaria) are picked up by the Capitol because they still have the trackers in their arms.
The way the movie ended is exactly how the book ended, and I like that ending.
If the movie had ended the way you wanted it to, the audience would have missed crucial information on why some things happened the way they did. The scenes on the rebel hovercraft explain that Plutarch, Haymitch & others were part of the rebel alliance (K&P don't know this but some of the tributes do- those in the alliance) and the plan was to keep Katniss alive, but keeping Peeta alive was also essential to the plan- for Katniss's sake- (that's why some tributes died to save him). However, when they (Plutarch, etc.) had to choose between K&P, they chose K. The audience wouldn't have known what happened to Peeta and Johanna, and that District 12 was completely destroyed by the Capitol, if the movie had ended with just an unconscious Katniss. This gives a good starting point for the next movie.
Last edited by Vash01; 12-18-2013 at 06:07 PM.
To be honest, it would have been a better cinematic ending, as a "to be continued", to have ended on Katniss being picked up - the scenes that came after would have made a stronger opening to the next film. I know it's not the way the books were divided, but 1) Collins didn't have the benefit of knowing the entire trilogy story arc when writing, and/or may have been pressured to put a few expository scenes at the end by the publishers and 2) the final book will already be divided into 2 films (ugh, even though it worked well for HP, I loathe this trend), so we're already going to get some futzing with the book-to-film timeline. There are plenty of changes in adaptations - why not make one that suits the medium better?
Originally Posted by Vash01
Q: Why can't I read the competition threads?
A: Competition forums on the board are available to those with a Season Pass or a premium membership How to View Kiss & Cry
I prefer a movie being faithful to the book it's based on. This one is relatively good, despite some of its flaws. Some of the worst adaptations are nothing like the books at all (e.g. The best exotic Marigold hotel, Slumdog millionaire, The horse whisperer).
In Mockingjay they actually had the opportunity to cut out the boring parts and minimize the darkness, but with two movies I am afraid we may have to sit through those.
Well, Katniss is a very fractured person in Mockingjay...lots of struggles with PTSD and physical injuries. No honest-to-goodness real person would be able to go through what Katniss went through in HG and CF and emerge unscathed. It is very realistic for Katniss to be struggling mentally and emotionally.
THAT being said, I think Mockingjay will be a little less...arduous, if you can say that, on the viewer than in the book, because we're viewing it as a third party and not as part of Katniss' mind, which is a hot mess the entire time. But no, Katniss is not going to get off that helicopter and be all, "okay, let's kick some Capitol butt!".
The plan was to electrify the lake to kill Brutus and Enobaria, both of whom were careers. It doesn't appear as if Chaff was in an alliance with them, as Katniss doesn't see him once the Games begin.
Originally Posted by Vash01
It was a mystery to me why he didn't try to hook up with Katniss and her crew after the Games started. Haymitch told Katniss that the tributes from District 11 had at least some knowledge of the plot to break Katniss out from the arena.
I also wondered if the morphling who saved Peeta from the killer monkey had been shadowing them all along and they just didn't notice her. It seemed like she knew about camouflage, does anyone else think she'd been close by all along?
This may be obvious )so forgive me if I repeat what everyone already knows), but the whole "fry the lake" thing wasn't the "real" plan; it was the cover story for the real plan which was actually executed fairly decently. Beetee was planning to do what Katniss did and blow up the force field using the electricity, except he tried to jam a knife into the chink and was nearly killed in the process. When Katniss came across him on the ground and realized what he'd been trying to do, she decided to try with her bow and arrow and was much more successful.
It's possible Chaff didn't hook up with the Katniss group because he was helping them out by drawing other Tributes away from them and keep them hunting him instead.
I understand that sentiment, and it's one I used to share. But I no longer view it in quite so black & white terms. Books and films are two very different media, and what works on the page doesn't always work on screen, and vice versa. I'd rather see them make a change that works than keep something in just because it was in the book.
Originally Posted by Vash01
Not all changes are improvements (*ahem* Hobbit and The Book Thief to name but two recent examples), but many are. And of course it's very difficult to make changes when adapting a book that's so beloved (like the Hunger Games or Harry Potter). But I think that, on balance, the changes they made for the two Hunger Games films have been good choices, both on a storytelling level and a cinematic one.
After all, if I wanted the movie to be exactly like the book ... well what would be the point, I'd just re-read the book.
Somewhat OT here but ...
I know I'm not the target market for this, but surely I'm not the only one who thinks this is a ridiculous movie tie-in marketing campaign: Cover Girl Capitol Beauty Studio
I saw an ad for this at the movie theatre and just about choked on my popcorn. I mean, aside from the OTT looks that could only appeal to a very tiny segment of the population, do they not understand that the "Capital Look" (makeup-wise) is a focus of ridicule and contempt, not something sought-after?
Ok, I'm putting waaay to much thought into this. Gotta back off now ...
I did not know that... was this explained in the movie? Or will it be explained in the sequels? It didn't seem like Katniss realized what Beetee was trying to do... And she did what she did because she was reminded who the real enemy is.
Originally Posted by Spareoom
There was a long, lingering shot of Katniss looking at Beetee, the spear he'd made with the coil, and then up at the forcefield before Finnick showed up and she panicked. It wasn't overt but it was there.
Hmm I probably missed that because I was busy trying to piece together what's happening in that scene. I found it quite confusing... Second viewing would help
Originally Posted by michiruwater
Throwing my hat into the Hunger Games vs. Battle Royale debate:
I think Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games shares a lot of common elements with Battle Royale, but it has more than enough differences to make it unique from BR. I also think comparing the films are like apples and oranges because IMO they belong to two different genres - I viewed Hunger Games as more of a sci fi/adventure flick while I though of Battle Royale as more of a horror story.
That being said, I think there are way too many tropes in common with BR to think that Suzanne Collins came up with them all independently:
- Introductory text explaining the reason and law enacted for the battle/games
- Dystopian/authoritarian government behind the games
- Media blitz/celebrity surrounding the winner
- Contestant selection by national lottery
- Trackers keeping contestants under surveillance
- Initial supply backpacks for each contestant
- Danger zones/perimeters set up on an hourly basis to force more encounters
- Daily announcements recapping who died
- Characters volunteering for the battle/games (HG: Katniss, Peeta, Mags BR: Kiriyama, BR2: Shiori)
- Past winners being forced into battle (All of Catching Fire, BR: Kawada)
- Professionals/ringers in the battle/game line up (HG: Careers, BR: Kiriyama)
- Rules bent to allow the protagonist couple to live (Shogo's plan)
- Protagonists become enemy of the state (BR2)
- A faction of contestants with a brainy leader use the arena's resources to break out/disrupt the game (Mimura's team)
I think HG paints a far more complete world than BR, but I wouldn't argue that the characters are better. HG follows around a central protagonist trying to survive and make sense of her ever-changing world. In BR there are many more characters with pre-established relationships, and it is more like Lord of the Flies in the way we see relationships crumble and the erosion of characters' morals and innocence. Even the movies' taglines reflect the different moods - contrast "May the Odds be Ever in your Favor" with "Could You Kill Your Best Friend?"
That being said, I don't believe Collins one bit when she says she never heard of Battle Royale before she wrote The Hunger Games.