YOU GUYS!

Shirt.woot today!

GO FORTH!

Just finished the books. I thought they were excellent. I even have a blog post going up about the Roman influences later today.

On the subject of violence in the books, it's all how it is framed. Many of the scenes are not worded in a bloody violent way and that helps a lot. It happens "off screen" if you will. When people do die, I thought the characters reacted realistically to those deaths. They mourn and deal with the psychological issues.

I don't think it is any more violent than Ender's Game, or All Quiet on the Western Front, or 1984, or LOTR, or half a dozen other books I read in HS. I am hesitant to call it a tween book, but teens should be able to read it.

Orcrist42 wrote:Just finished the books. I thought they were excellent. I even have a blog post going up about the Roman influences later today.

Please be sure to link that up or send me the link, because I'd love to read it.

Orcrist42 wrote:
I don't think it is any more violent than Ender's Game, or All Quiet on the Western Front, or 1984, or LOTR, or half a dozen other books I read in HS. I am hesitant to call it a tween book, but teens should be able to read it.

Yup, that's what I was trying to say. Also, did anyone else feel like the third book was a bit rushed?

tinsoldiergt wrote:Yup, that's what I was trying to say. Also, did anyone else feel like the third book was a bit rushed?

I did indeed. The only issues I really had with the series were a few large omissions in what I things should have been fleshed out better in the last book. There was A LOT happening and I think it could have easily had another 100 pages. Though that is the bane of an epic story... the author has to wrap it up at some point. I did think it was a little rushed and one event felt a out of place. It needed more context.

Orcrist42 wrote:I did indeed. The only issues I really had with the series were a few large omissions in what I things should have been fleshed out better in the last book. There was A LOT happening and I think it could have easily had another 100 pages. Though that is the bane of an epic story... the author has to wrap it up at some point. I did think it was a little rushed and one event felt a out of place. It needed more context.

I think if the second half of the second book had been axed (did we really need another hash through a certain event? Yeah, it moved the plot, but it felt lazy to me) there would have been room to flesh out the rushed parts of book 3.

Still loved the books, just yeah. That would have fixed it.

inkycatz wrote:Please be sure to link that up or send me the link, because I'd love to read it.

Here you go:


The Hunger Games - A Historical Roman Perspective


It's kind long :D

Now that my husband has provided a dissertation on the books (and I still haven't gotten to them on the reading queue) - I thought you'd like to know that 3 6th graders will be attending the midnight showing from our school, two 4th graders are scrambling to finish by tomorrow, and a handful of 5th graders told me I better hurry up and read it. One 5th grade girl did say, "It's rather violent so be prepared."

inkycatz wrote:I think if the second half of the second book had been axed (did we really need another hash through a certain event? Yeah, it moved the plot, but it felt lazy to me) there would have been room to flesh out the rushed parts of book 3.

Still loved the books, just yeah. That would have fixed it.

Before I read the last two books, I was actually expecting the second book to be entirely consumed by the events of the first few chapters of book 2. The train journey around the country. I thought that would involve all kinds of intrigue and then it was over and the book moved on. It's okay though. I like meeting the remaining Victors. I though it really added to the story.

tinsoldiergt wrote:Some of the death scenes in the books did seem to go into a bit of unnecessary detail if the target audience is indeed preteens, although with the main point of the book being 'death games' they should be expected I guess.

This drives me crazy. The books are young adult, hence 13 or older not children's books. They are more appropriate for 8th - 12th grade. The movie is PG13 and would have been R had they not toned things down and shown things off screen.

Rhonwyn22 wrote:This drives me crazy. The books are young adult, hence 13 or older not children's books. They are more appropriate for 8th - 12th grade. The movie is PG13 and would have been R had they not toned things down and shown things off screen.

I think we're arguing the same side. I was saying they seemed a bit 'mature' for 4th-6th graders to be reading. On a side note, I went into the movie with NO EXPECTATIONS due to the constant disappointment of book-to-movie films recently (Eragon anyone?) and came out satisfied. I would say read the book first, it helps flesh out some details that get somewhat skimmed over, but overall not too shabby.

Orcrist42 wrote:. . . The only issues I really had with the series were a few large omissions in what I things should have been fleshed out better in the last book. There was A LOT happening and I think it could have easily had another 100 pages. Though that is the bane of an epic story... the author has to wrap it up at some point. I did think it was a little rushed and one event felt a out of place. It needed more context.

I agree, it would be interesting to see how the series would have turned out if the author fleshed out the 3rd book more and concluded the series in a 4th, much like the Inheritance Series ended up doing.

Rhonwyn22 wrote:This drives me crazy. The books are young adult, hence 13 or older not children's books. They are more appropriate for 8th - 12th grade. The movie is PG13 and would have been R had they not toned things down and shown things off screen.

If it makes you feel better, I don't let my daughter read them, the oldest is 7. She's not even interested. I'm simply reporting what I see in the lunch room at our charter school where I work.

I'm seeing the movie tonight at 7!!!! This work day is dragging!

just got back from seeing it. can you say AWESOME. it held really true to the book (i read all three a while back). some stuff was shortened, or left out, but you didn't really miss it, and the story was told very, very well.

i can't believe we now have to wait over a year and a half for the next movie!

and side note, i wore my district 14 shirt from shirt.woot.

spacegirlag wrote:just got back from seeing it. can you say AWESOME. it held really true to the book (i read all three a while back). some stuff was shortened, or left out, but you didn't really miss it, and the story was told very, very well.

i can't believe we now have to wait over a year and a half for the next movie!

and side note, i wore my district 14 shirt from shirt.woot.

Awesome on all fronts - did you see any other woot shirts?

spacegirlag wrote:just got back from seeing it. can you say AWESOME. it held really true to the book (i read all three a while back). some stuff was shortened, or left out, but you didn't really miss it, and the story was told very, very well.

i can't believe we now have to wait over a year and a half for the next movie!

and side note, i wore my district 14 shirt from shirt.woot.

I was just thinking about that. I read they are spreading out the 3 (possibly 4) movies over 6 years! I'll be 35 or 36 then. WEIRD.

One of my friends is living in scotland now and got to see the movie tuesday or something. I'm so jealous. I REALLY wanted to go see it at midnight last night, but I already bought tickets for tonight. so... I'll probably go see it again mon or tues.

inkycatz wrote:Awesome on all fronts - did you see any other woot shirts?

i saw a guy in line in a shirt i thought i recognized from woot, but i couldn't get close enough to tell. and i'm in a smaller city in Texas, so the crowd wasn't that big when i got to the theater.

i did get comments on my district 14 shirt, though. the guy in line ahead of us said it was "an awesome shirt".

Leahbh wrote:I was just thinking about that. I read they are spreading out the 3 (possibly 4) movies over 6 years! I'll be 35 or 36 then. WEIRD.

One of my friends is living in scotland now and got to see the movie tuesday or something. I'm so jealous. I REALLY wanted to go see it at midnight last night, but I already bought tickets for tonight. so... I'll probably go see it again mon or tues.

yeah, i don't know why they're putting SO MUCH space between the films. the books follow immediately one after the other. i understand 1 year, 1 movie, like twilight, but it should only take 3 years to show all 4 movies (i've heard they're breaking the 3rd book into 2 movies). the production time shouldn't be that long. and it's aggravating.

i hope they at least film them all right now, before any of the main characters start looking older. it was okay with harry potter, because each book was a different year. but the whole hunger games story takes place in one calendar year, so the characters obviously need to stay the same age.

enough rant, i'm done. movie was awesome, a definite must-see, even for those who haven't yet read the books. the movie will make you want to go out and get books 2 and 3.

spacegirlag wrote:yeah, (i've heard they're breaking the 3rd book into 2 movies).

This trend irritates the snot out of me. Just because Harry Potter made it work, now every series thinks they can do it.

inkycatz wrote:This trend irritates the snot out of me. Just because Harry Potter made it work, now every series thinks they can do it.

I am actually kind scared and kinda glad that the Hobbit will be 2 movies, I can't decide.

I like extended cuts of things though. So if this means the movie gets more and better adaptions of scenes from the books or just turns into a better movie experience overall, then I am cool with that.

They need to take the Kill Bill route though, if you force a split in the movie, release them a few months apart. Even better, show the first one in theaters right up till the second is released, people would see the first one again and the studios would get their money three times.

Leahbh wrote:
One of my friends is living in scotland now and got to see the movie tuesday or something. I'm so jealous. I REALLY wanted to go see it at midnight last night, but...

Meh, at this point I have to wait for my wife to finish the book before I can see it, which might be on DVD, so I find your reasons for jealousy lacking.

inkycatz wrote:This trend irritates the snot out of me. Just because Harry Potter made it work, now every series thinks they can do it.

Completely agree with the annoying and blatant money grab here! Harry pooter, I could see being split, since each book got longer and longer and by the end of the series there was just too much to cram in a single movie.

Twilight? don't know, don't care.

But Hunger games... having read the books, I'm really mad to hear that they're trying to split the last one. The books were all written with a very particular "three act" structure, and all about the same length. There is simply NO justification plot-wise or length-wise for splitting it into two movies, other than pure unabashed greed.

just got home. A MAZ ING!!! so awesome. the adaptation was excellent, i thought. that's rare. There was a little bit I didn't like, but it was more cinematography than the story. Just the way it looked at times was hard to watch. But I'm going to go see it again monday or tuesday.

Turken wrote:The books were all written with a very particular "three act" structure, and all about the same length.

Although the books are all about the same length, the time elapsed in each one is definitely not. If I remember correctly, the time elapsed in the 3rd was the longest with the 2nd also being longer than the 1st. I personally was unsatisfied with how the 3rd book seemed to rush through events, given the in-depth detail of the first 2 books. Although I would agree, the trend of 'last book = two movies' doesn't really appeal to me.

Leahbh wrote:just got home. A MAZ ING!!! so awesome. the adaptation was excellent, i thought. that's rare. There was a little bit I didn't like, but it was more cinematography than the story. Just the way it looked at times was hard to watch. But I'm going to go see it again monday or tuesday.

I agree, story accuracy and acting was beyond what I expected but the cinematography definitely wasn't up my alley. Fast cuts, weird focus pulls and a lot of 'hand held' shots started to give me a headache. Luckily once they got to the Capitol it smoothed out. It's definitely on my list of 'will see again' movies.

Orcrist42 wrote:Meh, at this point I have to wait for my wife to finish the book before I can see it, which might be on DVD, so I find your reasons for jealousy lacking.

Oh you are not blaming this on me! You are the one who says seeing movies in the theater without subtitles is like reading the cliff notes first!

Saw it last night with my 16 year old. I loved it but he did not. He didn't like the shaky cam at the beginning while I didn't even notice it. I thought it made it seem more 1st person.

The second book takes place a year later at the 75th Hunger Games where they make previous winners from each district compete instead of the kids 12 to 18. Some of the districts had some pretty geriatric tributes. The 3rd book is really a continuation from the 2nd and I don't remember there being any time lapse between 2 to 3. So movie 2 being a year later isn't too bad but 3 (and 4?) should take place quickly afterwards. I hope they are filming 2 soon.

tinsoldiergt wrote:I agree, story accuracy and acting was beyond what I expected but the cinematography definitely wasn't up my alley. Fast cuts, weird focus pulls and a lot of 'hand held' shots started to give me a headache. Luckily once they got to the Capitol it smoothed out. It's definitely on my list of 'will see again' movies.

I had a killer headache when I left. It started at the beginning of the movie with the shaky camera. I was NOT expecting that. I hope people complain about it so we don't have to sit through that again in the other movies. Next time I see it, I'll sit farther back in the theater, maybe that will help. We were pretty close to he screen in the imax theater.

Rhonwyn22 wrote:Saw it last night with my 16 year old. I loved it but he did not. He didn't like the shaky cam at the beginning while I didn't even notice it. I thought it made it seem more 1st person.

I took an 18 yr old boy who hasn't read the books and didn't really know a whole lot about the movie and he loved it. HE was invested in the characters even though he didn't know them. Although his fav was thresh and i don't even think they said his name in the movie. haha. crazy kid.

He said it was the first time he'd ever felt nauseous and got a headache in a movie and we go to a lot of movies, mostly big action movies and superhero movies.

Leahbh wrote:I took an 18 yr old boy who hasn't read the books and didn't really know a whole lot about the movie and he loved it. HE was invested in the characters even though he didn't know them. Although his fav was thresh and i don't even think they said his name in the movie. haha. crazy kid.

He said it was the first time he'd ever felt nauseous and got a headache in a movie and we go to a lot of movies, mostly big action movies and superhero movies.

Jittery camera and lots of light dark flashes will give me a full on migraine. I hope it isn't as bad as I'm reading, but I fear it is.

well, we went to see the movie this weekend.

Overall pretty good. Not too bad of a book adaption. Although I AM glad to have read the books first, because there were some things which were brushed over so lightly that if you haven't read the books you'd totally miss or not really understand.

One other nice thing about the movie was being able to see some of what was going on "behind the scenes" which you couldn't get from the books due to their first-person narrative style.

And considering how quickly the movie had to move to cover everything from the book, I suppose I'm a little more receptive now to the last book becoming two movies. Although I still detest the trend in general.

KtCallista wrote:Jittery camera and lots of light dark flashes will give me a full on migraine. I hope it isn't as bad as I'm reading, but I fear it is.

Talking as someone who spent most of Cloverfield out in the lobby wanting to puke, I actually had no issues and barely noticed. Mind you, the theater I was in has a 'balcony level' and we were sitting three rows from the back of that. So what I think I'm saying is, don't sit up front even if that's your usual style.

(Yay Cinerama and chocolate popcorn!)

I wore my Hungry Hungry Games shirt that arrived on Friday for my movie on Saturday. Didn't see any woot! style Hunger Games shirts, but did see 2 cosplayers (Peeta and Katniss!) and one regular 'mockingjay' shirt.

Some of it felt kind of rushed, but all in all I loved it. Would even go see it again if I had time these days (which I do not). Will probably rent or buy it when it comes out on dvd though.

Turns out it had a great opening weekend: $155 million!

KtCallista wrote:Oh you are not blaming this on me! You are the one who says seeing movies in the theater without subtitles is like reading the cliff notes first!

That only counts for original movies where I don't have a clue what the plot is. If I have already read the book, then there isn't much to ruin plot wise. It's just hard to follow the dialogue in whispers, overly noisy scenes, or off-screen comments.

Orcrist42 wrote:That only counts for original movies where I don't have a clue what the plot is. If I have already read the book, then there isn't much to ruin plot wise. It's just hard to follow the dialogue in whispers, overly noisy scenes, or off-screen comments.

Then, you find a babysitter and I'll sit down and see how fast I can read the book, sheesh!

dontwantaname wrote:What Tiny Flowers, you do know he lives in your house, why are you talking here?

It's this or IM, this is just as easy, plus it gets him checking woot. I don't see the issue, it's not like I'm blatantly flirting with him in the threads, this time.

Talk is good. doesn't matter where.

So, random question...Anyone else seen some of the 'controversy' from people about actor choices? Specifically, apparently there were people who were shocked to see Rue and Thresh played by blacks...but that's how they were described in the books, it's how I pictured them. Cinna was never really described, but I guess some very bigoted comments have been made.

Mavyn wrote:So, random question...Anyone else seen some of the 'controversy' from people about actor choices? Specifically, apparently there were people who were shocked to see Rue and Thresh played by blacks...but that's how they were described in the books, it's how I pictured them. Cinna was never really described, but I guess some very bigoted comments have been made.

Yeah, I read like 3 articles on that. I respect the movie for their casting sort of true to the book, in fact more of the Tributes could have had more ethnic diversity.

It's just some dumb kids on Twitter from what I can tell and the Internet mostly slapped them down.

this one was my favorite

I went and saw the movie again last night. The shaky camera didn't bother me as much as it did the first time, probably because I was a little farther away from the screen and it wasn't on imax.

It was a pretty horrible movie going experience though. Theater was not even half full and was mostly adults. But they were loud and talking most of the time. Someone brought their own drinks and decided to open the cans DURING the movie instead of before. A woman behind me had candy in her purse she was constantly getting into, right by my ear. Someone's phone actually went off halfway through the movie. People STOMPING down the stairs. At least 3 people who couldn't walk down the stairs without tripping (watch where you're walking!! it's not hard) I was ridiculous. I was with 3 other people, 1 being the friend I went with last time. He's has horrible times at movies, people drive him crazy. Last night, the seat he picked had a terrible echo. It was strange. I didn't believe him and we switched seats and he was right. WEIRD.

But even with all that, I still enjoyed the movie. It's great. I saw a lot I missed the first time.