Reply to: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

[FiveTimes]

taking the kids to see it on Saturday

I thought it was ok, eldest thought it was excellent and the youngest didnt quite get the theme of it all.

[AtW]

True, but so much of the Hunger Games core premise seems to have been copied from other books/films, it's a bit hard to think of it as 'awesome.'

Most of cores premises in books and movies were copied from a few authors dating back few hundred years

[d000hg]

True, but so much of the Hunger Games core premise seems to have been copied from other books/films, it's a bit hard to think of it as 'awesome.'

They're good stories but nobody will remember them in 10 years.

[Platypus]

But he can still watch Walkabout

Ha ha ha ha ha. What a dreadful film, apart from 19 yo Jenny Agutter in the buff.







I watched it last weekend

[MicrosoftBob]

I've seen BR and like it, however Hunger Games are NOT Battle Royal - there is more time taken to show story BEFORE battle takes place, where as in Battle Royal most of time spent showing different ways poor kids had to die.

It's Battle Royale for Twilight fans, BR seemed genuinely shocking at the time, rather than run of the mill holywood fodder

Hunger Games isn't a bad film but neither is it ever going to set the world alight, it's been way overhyped for what it is

[edison]

I've seen BR and like it, however Hunger Games are NOT Battle Royal - there is more time taken to show story BEFORE battle takes place, where as in Battle Royal most of time spent showing different ways poor kids had to die.

True, but so much of the Hunger Games core premise seems to have been copied from other books/films, it's a bit hard to think of it as 'awesome.'

[AtW]

Maybe - if you hadn't seen Battle Royale...

I've seen BR and like it, however Hunger Games are NOT Battle Royal - there is more time taken to show story BEFORE battle takes place, where as in Battle Royal most of time spent showing different ways poor kids had to die.

[edison]

First film was awesome IMO.

Maybe - if you hadn't seen Battle Royale...

[d000hg]

I'm aware of what the story is all about

As the eldest is 17 and has read all the books she quite fancies watching this and seeing how it compares to the books. The youngest who is 10 enjoyed the first film and is has a good understanding of what was happening and what to expect.

It would just be better as a 15 IMO.

But every big film seems to be a 12-A these days, to get all the kiddie tickets. I think the 12-A classification was a bad idea.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

I liked the first one, hadn't read the book though. I would watch anything with Jennifer Lawerence in it though

First film was awesome IMO.

[FiveTimes]

That's the problem. By turning it into a film suitable for kids, you lose pretty much everything that makes the story stand out. It's a story about children aged 12-18 forced to murder each other in hand-to-hand combat!

I'm aware of what the story is all about

As the eldest is 17 and has read all the books she quite fancies watching this and seeing how it compares to the books. The youngest who is 10 enjoyed the first film and is has a good understanding of what was happening and what to expect.

[MicrosoftBob]

Your parole terms will apply.

But he can still watch Walkabout

[Old Greg]

Isn't that a kids film about a 12 year old girl?

Your parole terms will apply.

[russell]

No, and no. It's a novel for [young] adults about a 16 year old girl. Well she turns 17 during the course of book/film 2.

The first film was a big disappointment so I don't have high hopes for the new one, but the books are actually quite good stories if not literary classics.

I liked the first one, hadn't read the book though. I would watch anything with Jennifer Lawerence in it though

[d000hg]

taking the kids to see it on Saturday

That's the problem. By turning it into a film suitable for kids, you lose pretty much everything that makes the story stand out. It's a story about children aged 12-18 forced to murder each other in hand-to-hand combat!