The Hunger Games Series

[absnow54]

Let's see not forget that Peeta's wounds are big time played down in the movie. At the time Katniss was playing love sick with him he'd lost lots of blood, had a fever from an infection for most of it and had from the start written himself of for dead.

Yes, I call the Games from the first movie an "Inconvenient Camping Trip" because they downplayed the injuries to things that could be fixed with a band-aid. Katniss risks her life for some lip balm because Peeta's slightly uncomfortable and shivering at night. Katniss and Peeta threaten to eat the berries because, ugh, enough with these games already! They lost so much of the tension by not showing the severity of their injuries (when Katniss threatens to eat the berries it's because Peeta's leg has been half ripped out and he's very close to bleeding out.) And I get it, it's PG-13, but it wasn't something that had to be graphic, just implied.

 

The Hunger Games has been playing on ABC family the past few nights, and I'm always in awe by how wonderfully Gary Ross adapted the first half of the book. As soon as Rue dies though, it's all down hill, and it's really disappointing, because there are some really great scenes that were absolutely butchered as a result. 

[GaT]

the biggest problem so far is what a completely limp waste of space Peeta is. I'm halfway through the second movie, and cannot fathom why anyone likes the character at all. He's practically a non-entity, yet I'm being asked to believe that people are willing to lay down their lives for him and say things like, 'you don't deserve that boy' or whatever? Perhaps he's better in the books.

Peeta is most definitely better in the books, he has an actual personality, plus, Josh Hutcherson is completely physically wrong for the part. Peeta is supposed to be a big strong guy, I have no idea who decided to cast someone who was so short, but it's really stupid. They tried to fix it in the 2nd & 3rd movies, but it's still obvious.

 

The other dude isn't much cop either. He stays at home and does nothing in the first movie, then gets himself whipped in the second... and stays at home again. It's a love triangle with only one leg.

That's because in the books there isn't a love triangle, Gale is her friend, but they aren't romantically involved.

[stealinghome]

Yeah, the movies trying to beef up the Gale/Katniss stuff was definitely a mistake. Liam Hemsworth has the facial expressions of a rock. You can tell that whoever adapted the movies liked Gale way more than Peeta.

[lion10]

There is supposed to be a love triangle in the book in that Gale does love Katniss and Katniss is oblivious to his feelings until he kisses her at the start of the second book.  I was going to type that the first book didn't have a hint that Gale romantically liked Katniss but I remembered that Suzanne Collins didn't intend for the series to have a love triangle until her publisher or editor told her to include one.  But there's also his suggestion that the two of them run off into the woods (with all that those actions entail) so...  C'est la vie.  

 

While I think Josh Hutcherson is physically wrong for the part, as is Jennifer Lawrence; Peeta is supposed to be this guy with huge strength while Katniss is supposed to be fairly small, they both excel when it comes to acting the parts out.  I just re-watched the part where Peeta warns Katniss about the bombing on District 13 and he sees the footage of the destroyed District 12, and it's so well acted.  He puts so much emotion into the lines "Think about it.  How will this end?  What will be left?"

[Danny Franks]

Watched the third movie yesterday. It was an improvement, in terms of plot coherence. Not so much, 'this because we say so' reasoning by the writers. But they really should have shown more of the 'rebellion' before they did. It was so loosely defined that suddenly showing a district in the middle of urban warfare felt out of place. More of the movie should have focused on that, rather than on Katniss fretting over Peeta.

 

I still find Jennifer Lawrence underwhelming, and don't really get the fuss over her. And Peeta is still baffling in terms of understanding why I'm supposed to care one jot about him. He's completely useless, and Snow's plan to send him in to kill Katniss was kind of laughable. How's he going to kill her? Fall over on her? That's all he was good for in the first two movies.

 

Gale is definitely a stronger character, in terms of plot relevance, backstory and relationships. Hemsworth is no great shakes as an actor, but at least Gale actually does something. It seems backwards to have him be the one making the sacrifices for Katniss, having the angsty, 'you only notice me when I'm in pain' melodrama and the tragic first hand experience of the destruction of District 12, when he's supposed to be second fiddle to the guy who sits in a chair looking well coiffed and spouting propaganda.

 

I like Jeffrey Wright, and I like Natalie Dormer a lot. Philip Seymour Hoffman too.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Danny Franks

[JustaPerson]

Yea, I'm not a fan of how the movies chose to show Peeta and Katniss's relationship or Peeta just in general. But I don't think the rebellion really starts until after the events at the end of Catching Fire. Up until then it was small gestures of rebellion and even then it was individuals, not a full on united movement yet (well District 13 hadn't really come out of hiding.) 

[raezen]

Watched the third movie yesterday. It was an improvement, in terms of plot coherence. Not so much, 'this because we say so' reasoning by the writers. But they really should have shown more of the 'rebellion' before they did. It was so loosely defined that suddenly showing a district in the middle of urban warfare felt out of place. More of the movie should have focused on that, rather than on Katniss fretting over Peeta.

I would have to agree with you about the first part. The second book certainly had more content that indicated the spreading discontent and that it was no longer a secret from each district, word was getting out. But not about Peeta because I found with the lack of a real insight into the rebellion the characters became more important to me. In fact after seeing Catching Fire I turned to my friend and said "Is it wrong that I don't care about the rebellion I just want Peeta to get out of the Capitol and then I'm happy? " I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended response by anyone involved. In fact when I read the book the importance was first for the rebellion and then the characters. And that was Katniss 's feelings about it too.

Edited November 5, 2015 by raezen

[truthaboutluv]

You can tell that whoever adapted the movies liked Gale way more than Peeta.

 

 

I actually didn't get that impression. Yes there was that kiss after Katniss realizes she's going back into the Games in Catching Fire that wasn't in the book but I just think the screenwriter was trying to show the triangle, which much as some hate it, did actually exist. The problem was a lot of it existed in Katniss' thoughts, which is a little hard to show on screen. The fact is Catching Fire did have a lot of Katniss torn over Gale and Peeta.

 

Yes, she often didn't like to dwell on it because her feelings were confusing and she didn't want to hurt either one but it did come up quite often. So I always took the writers' emphasis on Gale and Katniss as their trying to show the two sides of the triangle. I will say that I do think there were some Peeta/Katniss moments I thought they should have shown to better sell the relationship, particularly the day they spent before going back in the arena, where they'd both accepted that they would likely die. Supposedly it was filmed but cut from the film for time. Still, there was the beach makeout that had more passion than anything that had happened between Katniss and Gale in either of the first two movies, in my opinion.

 

And whatever was lacking in the first two films with regards to Peeta/Katniss, I think they more than made up for it in MockingJay Part 1, which I thought did an excellent job of showing how much Katniss loved Peeta. It was interesting that Peeta was gone for most of the film and they barely shared a scene (save for him trying to kill her) and I thought MockingJay had the most chemistry between the two.

 

In fact after seeing Catching Fire I turned to my friend and said "Is it wrong that I don't care about the rebellion I just want Peeta to get out of the Capitol and then I'm happy? "

 

 

That was when I knew Peeta was my favorite character in the books. After I read Catching Fire, I sped through MockingJay just to see if he had lived. I didn't care about the romantic triangle and whether or not Katniss ended up with Gale at the end, I just really wanted Peeta to live. 

 

In fact when I read the book the importance was first for the rebellion and then the characters. And that was Katniss 's feelings about it too.

 

 

See I think in a way it was about both, so it was fine to care about the characters and the rebellion because the characters helped shaped the rebellion. As Katniss stated in MockingJay to Snow, she never wanted any of this. All she wanted was to keep her sister safe and then save Peeta and then her one act helped spark a fire in an already very, very unhappy and discontented nation. As she said to Snow, the government must have been very fragile if one young girl and a handful of berries could bring it down.

 

But the fact is these people were already so very angry and unhappy and that act just gave them hope. But the act was all sparked by Katniss' need and desire to keep Peeta alive no matter what, for reasons at the time she couldn't even understand. So you kind of can't separate the characters and caring about the characters from the larger rebellion. Because it was Katniss' love for Prim and Peeta (even if she didn't recognize those were her feelings at the time) that helped create a movement. 

 

He's completely useless, and Snow's plan to send him in to kill Katniss was kind of laughable. How's he going to kill her? Fall over on her?

 

 

He was going to kill her by exactly what was shown in the film - believing she was a threat and violently attacking her. If Boggs hadn't been in the room at the time, he very easily could have strangled her with his bare hands. Snow's plan with Peeta was actually brilliant in my opinion. He took Peeta's love for Katniss and through a series of manipulations, hallucinations, torture, etc. twisted it into something dark and scary where Peeta actually started seeing her as a danger and threat to him. But more importantly, he took someone Katniss loved and made him see her as something he hated and feared and wanted to hurt.

 

In other words, Peeta was either going to kill her or Katniss would have to kill him to protect herself, which would have been fine for Snow either way. Because it would be sweet irony for her to end up killing the guy she did so much to save in the first place that helped sparked the whole rebellion. It's why he reminded her while the rescue mission was happening that it's the the things we love that destroy us the most. Katniss may not have been fully aware of her own feelings but as Finnick told her, he realized and others did too that she did love Peeta. And once Snow realized it too, Peeta became the perfect weapon to use against her.

 

Gale is definitely a stronger character, in terms of plot relevance, backstory and relationships.

 

 

YMMV but even with one only watching the films and not reading the books, I can't really understand this. Is this in reference to him versus Peeta because I cannot see how Gale is in any way a stronger character in terms of plot relevance, backstory and relationships than Katniss. Not when Katniss' actions, from the moment she volunteered to take her sister's place in the Games, were what helped spark the rebellion. And as Plutarch and company stated, she was the face of the revolution. People were willing to follow her because in their minds she challenged the Capitol with that one act of defiance in the Games and lived to tell the tale, which proved that if one person can do that, as a nation they could take down the Capitol.

 

As for Peeta, I've acknowledged that he is my favorite character and I can write all the reasons I thought he was very important to larger story, the rebellion and how strong a character he was but I recognize many of the nuances of the character was lost from the books to the films and it what it is.

 

That said, I think it is unfair to sum up Peeta as sitting pretty and coiffed spouting propaganda versus Gale who was really doing stuff because it's clear Peeta was a prisoner of war being tortured, especially as evidenced by the hot mess he looked like when they rescued him (and that's why I and many others were hoping they'd have had more moments in the film showing what was happening in the Capitol to Peeta and Johanna and company). But even with his mind being twisted and manipulated, he was still able to give the warning to District 13 that the Capitol was coming which as Coin told Katniss, gave them 8 extra minutes to save everyone. 

 

And taking nothing from Gale but what did he really do other than rant and rave about the Capitol in private and then later suggest he and Katniss run away which she rightly pointed out to him was not realistic. It wasn't until Katniss went into the Games and her actions sparked the rebellion talk that anything truly started happening and of course he was all gung ho to fight and support the rebellion. Still he didn't really do much other than get beaten to near death by the new Peace Keeper (and the movies made it seem like that happened by him rescuing someone and physically attacking Thresh but in the book he actually was just caught with an illegal turkey and beaten for illegal hunting) and Katniss, along with Haymitch and Peeta had to save him. And then yes, he and others helped save some people in District 12 before the whole District got wiped out. 

 

And then he got to District 13 where he was a dutiful soldier supporting the war effort but again Katniss was the face of the revolution and Boggs was the leader of the army along with Coin as President giving all the directives. And yes he volunteered to go on the rescue mission to save Peeta and the other tributes which was great and brave of him but probably also done on some twisted level because he loved Katniss and figured she'd love him for selflessly going and rescue Peeta. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Danny Franks]

 In fact after seeing Catching Fire I turned to my friend and said "Is it wrong that I don't care about the rebellion I just want Peeta to get out of the Capitol and then I'm happy? " 

 

My reaction was the opposite. I cared not a jot for Peeta or what might happen to him. And I still don't understand why anyone in that world does, except for them being Good People.

 

Is this in reference to him versus Peeta because I cannot see how Gale is in any way a stronger character in terms of plot relevance, backstory and relationships than Katniss.

 

 

It's in reference to him versus Peeta. Because Gale actually has a storyline and emotional reactions to events during the movie. Even though he's the guy who gets left at home in the first two, I still feel like I know his personality far better than Peeta's, who seems to exist only as an adjunct of Katniss.

 

If they want the audience to feel for Peeta, they should actually give us reason to, and the reason shouldn't be Katniss shrieking about saving him every twenty minutes. There should actually be an emotional connection to the character from the audience, and I found that totally lacking.

 

The whole structure of the 'romance' is weak. I understand that Katniss is in love with Peeta because everyone keeps telling her she is, and she's all sad that he's not around. I didn't feel any of it. Same with Gale. It's just not very well executed, and none of the three actors sold me on it. There's little nuance or depth in their performances, and I remain mystified by all the plaudits Jennifer Lawrence gets. 

 

That said, I think it is unfair to sum up Peeta as sitting pretty and coiffed spouting propaganda versus Gale who was really doing stuff because it's clear Peeta was a prisoner of war being tortured, especially as evidenced by the hot mess he looked like when they rescued him (and that's why I and many others were hoping they'd have had more moments in the film showing what was happening in the Capitol to Peeta and Johanna and company). But even with his mind being twisted and manipulated, he was still able to give the warning to District 13 that the Capitol was coming which as Coin told Katniss, gave them 8 extra minutes to save everyone.

 

 

 

But they didn't show that. Which is another of my complaints about the writing. There's a disconnect between the coiffed, well dressed and articulate guy in the propaganda pieces, and the raving, emaciated, beaten up guy they rescue. And I don't see how there was either enough time for that to occur, or how Snow's people could so successfully hide the evidence of mistreatment when filming the videos. It's told too much from Katniss's eyes, and that weakens the other characters too much. We see everything only in relation to how it affects her, and that reduces what could be a powerful tale about overthrowing a violent, brutal dictatorship into some kind of personality cult rebellion.

 

And yes he volunteered to go on the rescue mission to save Peeta and the other tributes which was great and brave of him but probably also done on some twisted level because he loved Katniss and figured she'd love him for selflessly going and rescue Peeta.

 

 

I wouldn't agree with that. The one genuine emotional beat I got from him was his defeat when he complained she only sees him when he's in pain. I don't think he was expecting to win her over by saving Peeta, just doing the stereotypically noble, 'I'll sacrifice myself for her happiness' thing.

[truthaboutluv]

I wouldn't agree with that. The one genuine emotional beat I got from him was his defeat when he complained she only sees him when he's in pain. I don't think he was expecting to win her over by saving Peeta, just doing the stereotypically noble, 'I'll sacrifice myself for her happiness' thing.

 

 

I didn't say that was the only reason he did it. One does not have to automatically exclude the other. 

 

But they didn't show that. Which is another of my complaints about the writing. There's a disconnect between the coiffed, well dressed and articulate guy in the propaganda pieces, and the raving, emaciated, beaten up guy they rescue.

 

 

YMMV but I believe you do see the progression of Peeta's deterioration. By the time Peeta warns Katniss and company of the Capitol's attack, he practically had a lollipop head with how emaciated he looked and Katniss is shown actually whispering, "what are they doing to you..." because of how awful he looks from the first video interview. So it was made obvious in my opinion that Peeta was clearly being tortured even before they found him. 

 

The whole structure of the 'romance' is weak. I understand that Katniss is in love with Peeta because everyone keeps telling her she is, and she's all sad that he's not around. I didn't feel any of it. Same with Gale. It's just not very well executed, and none of the three actors sold me on it. There's little nuance or depth in their performances, and I remain mystified by all the plaudits Jennifer Lawrence gets.

 

 

And I get that, especially as this is hardly the first time I've read this. And to be fair, I am coming from the perspective of having read the books before seeing the film so I do have that bias. That said, even putting my bias aside from having read the books, I'm still not seeing all this greater story and development that Gale has had more than Peeta. I think Gale exists as much as adjunct to Katniss as Peeta. 

 

In the first film all we see is that they are friends, she goes off to the Games and he kept having a few brief moments of closeups whenever Katniss and Peeta had a moment during the Games. In the second film he was there solely as the third piece of the triangle and once again he vanishes from the film until the end when he informs Katniss that District 12 is no more.

 

Mockingjay is really his big moment because he has the most screentime but then as noted it's mainly to be a dutiful solider. He talks about the tragedy of District 12 and getting people out and that's it. But really all we really see of Gale is that he loves Katniss and he believes in the revolution against the Capitol which so does everyone else. But again, YMMV. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[lion10]

I've always seen Gale and Peeta as almost complete opposites.  Gale is bascially a male version of Katniss and like her takes on the more traditionally masculine roles.  He's a hunter and aggressive whereas Peeta takes on the more feminine role by being a better communicator and manipulator and being largely non-violent and liking to bake cakes and draw.  

 

I thought Mockingjay did a better job of laying out Gale's personality.  I would really like to see just Gale and Peeta have a conversation about Katniss or the Capitol or something just to see how the characters bounce off of each other. 

[BatmanBeatles]

I want to see Katniss and Gale quarrel over the ethics of how her prep team was treated.

 

I know they'll have to change it up a bit in the movie since the other movies didn't show Katness grow attached to her prep team. Maybe Effie gets thrown in prison?

Edited November 5, 2015 by BatmanBeatles

[truthaboutluv]

I'm pretty sure they're not showing that scene because it likely would have been in Mockingjay Part 1 because unless I'm mistaken, that happened long before they rescued Peeta and the other victors.

[BatmanBeatles]

Which is unfortunate because that part showed a chink in the Katniss/Gale relationship.

[angora]

But they didn't show that. Which is another of my complaints about the writing. There's a disconnect between the coiffed, well dressed and articulate guy in the propaganda pieces, and the raving, emaciated, beaten up guy they rescue. And I don't see how there was either enough time for that to occur, or how Snow's people could so successfully hide the evidence of mistreatment when filming the videos.

I think this is another book-movie disconnect.  I guess I didn't notice that the movie didn't clarify this (maybe, having read the books, I just filled in the gap,) but in the books, it's all but confirmed that only Peeta's last few TV appearances were filmed in relatively real time.  Most of his propaganda pieces were filmed shortly after his capture and spread out over weeks/months?  (Can't remember how long.)  That's why he looks relatively healthy and unharmed.  I believe it's only after Katniss's first video interrupts the airwaves that they make new footage, in which, IIRC, they try (and fail) to disguise how ravaged Peeta looks.  Katniss is horrified and, realizing that there's no way his physical condition could have deteriorated so much so quickly, understands that they must have been torturing Peeta the whole time and airing old videos.

 

Not that this helps your complaint, of course - if the movie didn't make it clear, then it doesn't get a pass.  Just offering some context that Peeta's early "coiffed, well dressed and articulate" early appearances are intentional.  The misstep is in not highlighting the reasons for the stark contrast between the Peeta they see on TV and the one they rescue.

[methodwriter85]

Which is unfortunate because that part showed a chink in the Katniss/Gale relationship.

 

They really haven't done much in the first part of Mockinjay to show that District 13 isn't exactly roses, either. I really thought they were going to have a subplot with Effie getting abused in place of her prep team, but they took that out. I'm hoping that gets into the last one.

 

I also really, really want to see more from Johanna. I don't think they'll allow her to be shown tapping into Katniss's IV line and talking about how it's not such a bad life to be a Morphling, but I'll be pissed if that conversation is scrubbed entirely.

 

I feel like they had an opportunity with the splitting of the two books to show more character development (which the first movie was especially good with), but I feel like it kind of leaned a bit too much on the action side.

Edited November 6, 2015 by methodwriter85

[Rick Kitchen]

 

Which is unfortunate because that part showed a chink in the Katniss/Gale relationship.

 

Prim's death is going to blow a hole into that relationship.

[stealinghome]

I think this is another book-movie disconnect. I guess I didn't notice that the movie didn't clarify this (maybe, having read the books, I just filled in the gap,) but in the books, it's all but confirmed that only Peeta's last few TV appearances were filmed in relatively real time. Most of his propaganda pieces were filmed shortly after his capture and spread out over weeks/months? (Can't remember how long.) That's why he looks relatively healthy and unharmed. I believe it's only after Katniss's first video interrupts the airwaves that they make new footage, in which, IIRC, they try (and fail) to disguise how ravaged Peeta looks. Katniss is horrified and, realizing that there's no way his physical condition could have deteriorated so much so quickly, understands that they must have been torturing Peeta the whole time and airing old videos.

Not that this helps your complaint, of course - if the movie didn't make it clear, then it doesn't get a pass. Just offering some context that Peeta's early "coiffed, well dressed and articulate" early appearances are intentional. The misstep is in not highlighting the reasons for the stark contrast between the Peeta they see on TV and the one they rescue.

ymmv but I found Peeta's physical deterioration to be pretty noticeable in each propaganda piece we saw. I hadn't read Mockingjay beforehand, but still thought it was very clear he was being tortured.

[lion10]

ymmv but I found Peeta's physical deterioration to be pretty noticeable in each propaganda piece we saw. I hadn't read Mockingjay beforehand, but still thought it was very clear he was being tortured.

 

Yeah, it was pretty obvious as he was getting gaunter and more traumatized with each TV piece.  How did viewers miss this?

[NutMeg]

Replying to some earlier posts, but also more generally about the whole franchise:

 

Katniss: while Jennifer Lawrence is very good in that role, she looks nothing like what Katniss is supposed to look like in the book - slightly malnourished, not physically strong but cunning and with a good aim with an arrow bow,

 

Peeta: ditto, I like the actor, but the character is supposed to be that huge physical force, similar to Catro's but with a softer core, who had a crush to small Katniss way back then and is still holding the flame; in the book, it seemed that Katniss saw him as out of her league from the get go, because he was so more upper class than her from the get go, but she still had warm and grateful towards him.

 

Gale, in the books, is Katniss' buddy, the male version of herself, some kind of big brother - at least from her viewpoint. At some stage he hints he's interested in her in other ways, but she goes throught a PTSD that he could not understand in a million years, and while she likes him a lot, because they are so similar dure to their econmic conditions any interaction between them seems from Katniss' part like what you'd have with a favourite remote cousin - you like that guy a lot, but he's FAMILY at the end of the day.

 

Casting didn't help, because Katniss is supposed to be that tiny bundle of energy and Peta is supposed to be the placid, strong, powerful giant. And casting gave us Katniss as a strong female towering over most, and in particular (and regarding the book's most powerful parts, that would be the major fail) Peeta, which she looks like she could easily snap in two if it took her fancy. 

 

To summarize: Book Katniss looked like she had no chance but was savvy enough to turn the tides. Movie Katniss looked like she had it in the bag from the get go. 

[KatWay]

I think the casting for these movies was bad, overall. With a few notable exceptions (Effie is perfect, Snow and Johanna are very good, Haymitch is good). But overall pretty meh and that's part of what keeps them from being truly great. Katniss should be smaller and younger, Peeta should be larger, express this clever calm presence and be allowed to display more wit (writing fail there) and Gale should have this intense fire and anger to him that Hemsworth IMO doesn't display in the slightest.

[truthaboutluv]

YMMV but as a book reader, I never really had an issue about the casting in terms of physical presence. Now if we talk about the actors' actual acting abilities, then yeah, that I care about but I've never been this purist when it comes to adapting a book to a movie. Plus I figure it's not like the non-book readers watching the films, many of whom do exist, will know these things or care. As long as the actors deliver in the performances, I'm fine.

 

This is why I wasn't like many others so caught up in the looks for the actor playing Finnick. Yes, Collins kind of set herself up for that with how much emphasis was placed on Finnick's looks but I was more interested in whether the actor could deliver and I think Claflin has done that. So I don't care that Jennifer Lawrence doesn't physically match Katniss' description in the book to the tee because in my opinion, she freaking delivers and I have always believed everything she's sold in those movies.

 

Yeah Liam is mediocre, even though he funny enough does match Gale's description fairly decently but frankly, I never found Gale this truly powerful force in the books so I don't feel like the movies truly miss much with regards to him. I admit Peeta is the most problematic which sucks for me because he's my favorite character but it's not because he's supposed to be this big guy. Because to be honest, as much as I've read the books and love Peeta, I actually often forget that physically he's supposed to look like that.

 

To me what hurts the character in the movies is that the writers have removed a lot of his snark, humor and the subtlety of how he manipulates and fights the war in his own way, just with words. So I can't really blame Josh for that. Still, as I said after Mockingjay Part I, just the little we saw of him being hijacked excited me and I'm really looking forward to seeing that storyline play out in the last film.

Edited November 7, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Demented Daisy]

I don't care if the actors look exactly like the book descriptions (including Buttercup -- how ludicrous).  

 

Love Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss.  Love Josh Hutcherson as Peeta.  Liam Hemsworth, however, doesn't convey the anger and the passion I expect from Gale.  His emotions all look pretty much the same to me.  

 

But then, I didn't get much from Julianne Moore, either, so what do I know?  ;-)

[bluvelvet]

That was when I knew Peeta was my favorite character in the books. After I read Catching Fire, I sped through MockingJay just to see if he had lived. I didn't care about the romantic triangle and whether or not Katniss ended up with Gale at the end, I just really wanted Peeta to live.

 

And whatever was lacking in the first two films with regards to Peeta/Katniss, I think they more than made up for it in MockingJay Part 1, which I thought did an excellent job of showing how much Katniss loved Peeta. It was interesting that Peeta was gone for most of the film and they barely shared a scene (save for him trying to kill her) and I thought MockingJay had the most chemistry between the two.

 

 

 

Ditto and Ditto, I also skipped through Mockingjay to see if Peeta was still alive, essentially cementing the character as my favorite in the books. Also agree about MJ1 in regards to the chemistry between Katniss/Peeta even though they only shared one scenes

 

 About the actors, since I watched the first movie prior to reading the books, the actors were already cemented in my  head as the characters in the books.

 

A lot of great points have been made about the movie-books disconnect with one of the bigger points being the characterization of Peeta's. I do wish they had included the last day before they went into the arena but it is what it is.

Edited November 8, 2015 by bluvelvet

[raezen]

I just watched what I thought was a trailer for MJ but turns out it was a Chrysler ad with a Hunger Games tie in. I don't think I even have any words for what I think.

[topanga]

Sorry if I missed this explanation upthread, but why is Katniss's hair black in MJ2? Did she dye it in the book? I admit that I rushed through the novel when I read the series a few years ago because it was my least favorite of the 3 novels. But so far, MJ Part 1 is my favorite in the movie series. I did miss Cinna, though. 

 

ETA: Corrected because "movel" is not a word

Edited November 16, 2015 by topanga

[truthaboutluv]

Sorry if I missed this explanation upthread, but why is Katniss's hair black in MJ2?

 

 

Katniss' hair is black throughout the series. 

[topanga]

It definitely looks blacker in the trailers I've seen for MJ Part 2.   In The Hunger games, her hair looked chestnut brown. In Catching Fire, it was darker but still in the dark brown family. 

 

   

[truthaboutluv]

I guess but in the books Katniss has black hair and Jennifer has been dying her hair for the films because she's a natural blonde. In fact that may be why it looks blacker because for the MockingJay films she's actually wearing a wig, since all the dying damaged her hair to the point that she had to cut it all off. 

 

eta: I read two reviews of the new film and they were both mixed, which is why I decided to read them even if I wanted to avoid being too spoiled about what is and isn't in the film. I'm okay with a mixed or negative review but for both reviews, the problem the reviewer seemed to have was that the movie was bleak and well, kind of depressing. But all I could think was, "did you read the book?"

 

They referenced a lack of enough light and funny moments and I guess I can understand not wanting to watch 2+ hours of misery and action but still it feels like a weird thing to mark a film down for, when that's staying true to the source material. I mean it's one thing if the direction or the screenplay had issues or the performances but simply disliking it because it stayed true to the source material and wasn't some happy, shiny ending makes no sense in my opinion.

 

Although funny enough, reading that just makes me more excited for it because I personally had no issues with the dark and depressing nature of Mocking Jay. Because really, the whole damn premise and trilogy of Hunger Games is bleak and depressing. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[bluvelvet]

One thing I did appreciate about the Mockingjay book was the depressing portrayal of the  games effect on people who lived through them, I loved the fact that Katniss had PTSD because of course she would.  She was a 16 year old girl who was forced to play a game that required her killing people for entertainment. Then she had to go through the same experience a second time and after that she had to live with her PTSD while imagining what was happening to Peeta. The world in Mockingjay is supposed to be dark and depressing since they districts are fighting for their very survival.

[methodwriter85]

I mean, that was pretty much how the third book was. It's pretty depressing, and there's really not a lot of sweetness and light into it. It's the reason why I haven't really re-read the book even though I own it.

[raezen]

I wonder if the dedication to sticking to the book in this case is going to divide the audience from the dedicated book fans and the casual fans who popped during Catching Fire 's height of popularity. I really think this wouldn't have happened if they had just made 3 movies.

[truthaboutluv]

Well I haven't seen the movie yet but if the only issue is that it is only action and very bleak, I'm not sure that would have been any different with just three movies because again, that's essentially the book. They are at full out war in that book coupled with Katniss' major PTSD and Peeta's being brain washed into some angry, violent person wanting to kill Katniss. That's the story and I'm not sure what the screenwriters could have really done to change that and I for one would not have wanted them to change it.

[raezen]

I just think that breaking up the book made it lose momentum. People riding high from Catching Fire would have gone straight to a final. Instead they were asked to go into a first parter that didn't even cover half of that book. A lot of people said "no thank you, Ill Netflix it before the next one" and now they are wondering if those people are even going to be doing that after 2 years.

[truthaboutluv]

Early prediction numbers for the film has it on track to make $120 -$125 million which is about 30 million less than the first film and Catching Fire but on par with Mockingjay Part I and still very good. Also, that is just the US market so it doesn't include the international numbers which are likely to be very strong as well. And after all the comments last year, I believe Mockingjay Part I still finished the year as the first or second highest grossing film of the year. 

 

Obviously some will always disagree and yes, the splitting the final book thing has become an obvious cash grab by many movie franchise but I really think a lot of the complaints some had about the film was because of the book, which the movie people could not do anything about save for just changing it entirely like the Divergent people apparently have done.

 

Non-book readers in particular wanted another Katniss and company in the Games and that's simply not what Mockingjay was. It was a lot of Katniss dealing with PTSD and the true action doesn't really happen until the latter part of the book. And yes they could have put it all in a 2+ hour movie but I for one feel like a lot of things would have been missed or rushed and fallen flat. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

A movie theater where I live had a marathon showing of Mockingjay part 1 and part 2 last night. It was nice, but long, seeing the 2 movies back to back.

 

I did like part 2, but I still prefer the books. I had read all the books before the movies even came out though. There's always more I wish they could show or get into in movies, but not everything can I know.

[Guest]

I love the books and the movies, so I'm not exactly impartial.  But, I do think the movies suffered from there not being  a good way to narrate everything going on in Katniss' head.  I think Jennifer Lawrence did pretty well showing ranges of emotions, but it's not the same as the book where you see how fast on her feet and a quick thinker Katniss had to be to survive the arena.  I also felt in the first one, the bread scene lost a lot of its poignancy because of how it was shown.  I think if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have realized that was Peeta willingly taking a beating to save Katniss.

 

I thought it was pretty clear in Mockingjay that Peeta was being tortured so I'm surprised many viewers didn't pick up on it. 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing Mockingjay 2 this weekend!

[absnow54]

And after all the comments last year, I believe Mockingjay Part I still finished the year as the first or second highest grossing film of the year.

Up against Star Wars, Jurassic World, and Avengers, it'll be lucky to make the top 3, but that's only because the competition is especially tough this year.

 

I got to see the movie at an early screening on Tuesday, and I really liked it. It is pretty bleak. Mockingjay Part 1 at least had some comic relief, but Part 2 is all about the war and the aftermath. The performances are impeccable. Jennifer Lawrence gives her best performance yet as Katniss and Josh Hutcherson steals the show with the different states of Peeta's brain washing and recovery.

 

The film suffers the same lackadaisical pacing as Mockingjay Part 1, with sequences that could shave 3 - 5 minutes to be more effective, but overall the character arcs were all well done and the ending was truly satisfying.

[Hybridcookie]

So I saw it earlier and I really liked it, some random thoughts:

 

Finnick was badass in the sewers with his trident, that first shot of the mutts was pretty freaky

It was also nice to Enobaria again briefly, though I'm sure most people won't remember who she is. I liked that scene with the victors, though a random nitpicky thing - I wish they'd added a line from the book in either this film or the last about all previous victors being rounded up and arrested/executed, because it seemed odd to only have the seven surviving victors without any mention of the others. I know it was mentioned in passing in the books, but it just a nitpicky thing I noticed

Johanna stealing Katniss' morphine made me think of this forum, because I remember it being mentioned in this thread a few times

It nice was to see Gwendoline Christie and Robert Knepper (again) pop up for about 60 seconds of screentime.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Hybridcookie

[benteen]

At least Mockingjay has more material than the crapfest that was Allegiant. 

[Zuleikha]

I'm okay with a mixed or negative review but for both reviews, the problem the reviewer seemed to have was that the movie was bleak and well, kind of depressing. But all I could think was, "did you read the book?"

Wasn't that an issue with the book Mockingjay, too? I feel like with both book and movie, a segment of fans kept trying to force the story into a traditional upbeat heroic story when the books were always a serious look at the human cost of oppression and revolution.

[jcin617]

I saw it last night and I think MJ Part 2 is my favorite of the 4, maybe tied with Catching Fire.  It certainly helps that MJ2 had one of the most intense action sequences I've seen in a long time.

[Guest]

Wasn't that an issue with the book Mockingjay, too? I feel like with both book and movie, a segment of fans kept trying to force the story into a traditional upbeat heroic story when the books were always a serious look at the human cost of oppression and revolution.

 

Very much so. It would not have been true to the book at all if there had been a happy ending.  I haven't seen it yet, but I'm expecting there to be quite an emotional toll.

[truthaboutluv]

Going to see it tonight but many of the comments I've read online from people who saw it at midnight or the day before, pretty much sounds like they felt it was a more than satisfying end to the franchise and that yes it was very emotional. I read a comment or two from people who were book readers who said some non-book readers' reaction to the ending was disappointing in that again, it's clear they seemed to think Katniss was some kind of Terminator/action hero and not instead a somewhat traumatized 16 year old who ended up part of and the face of a war she never wanted to start but in the end had no choice but to fight. I definitely agree that some seemed to view the story as some kind of action hero story and not instead a very stark and brutal commentary on the reality and ugliness of war. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Rick Kitchen]

A reviewer this morning said that it shows that revolution is a lot easier than creating and sustaining a democracy.

[absnow54]

After my second viewing, I have some nitpicks with the end. So we're to believe that Katniss is sent home the same day she assassinates Coin? Effie's wearing the same outfit in her farewell scene, and we know she'd rather die than wear the same thing twice. At least in the book, Katniss was held in the Capitol for several weeks while a sham of a trial occurred on her behalf. This was an extremely volatile and fractured nation, and while Katniss was the main draw for the average rebel, it's unfathomable to think that Thirteen (the same people who were about to throw Peeta to the wolves when hew as making speeches for the Capitol) wouldn't raise hell after Katniss murdered their leader. The buildup to the revolution was so well done, but the outcome was hand waved in a rushed mess that was hard to swallow.

 

It also seemed silly that Haymitch and Katniss would return home on the train. You'd think a lot of the rail infrastructure would be destroyed during the war. (Again, in the book they take a hovercraft, which makes more sense.) It's still a terrific film, but I really wish they'd shifted some of the content from the second film into the first one, so there'd be more time to address these loose ends. Especially when so many minutes were wasted on Katniss skyping President Snow, or people climbing down stairs for 8 minutes.

 

I understand why they wanted to use the shock of Peeta's hijacking as the midpoint, but I think Katniss's big speech in District 2 could have been a natural end point as well. It's the point when all of Panem has united against the Capitol, and it's also where Katniss finally forms her own opinion about the rebellion. She doesn't trust either side now, because she recognizes the endless cycle she's been thrown into. It would have added some more action to the first film, completed the story arc of the growing rebellion, and they could have used Katniss getting shot as the cliffhanger. Then the final film could pick up with the war, and let the aftermath resonate more. It's just so bizarre to me that this movie was both too rushed and too slow at the same time.

 

On a different note, was anyone else getting major Hillary Clinton vibes when Coin struggled to become more relateable?

[methodwriter85]

It was really good- and again, I LOVED the bits with Johanna. I do wish they had hinted more about how District 13/Coin wasn't exactly all roses and all.

 

It's been a long time since I read the book, but it seemed like it stayed generally close.

Edited November 21, 2015 by methodwriter85

[benteen]

I just got back from it and I really enjoyed it.  I thought it started off slow but picked up once Katniss got to the Capitol.  I thought the scenes were adapted very well, especially as we got closer to the confrontation at the mansion.  I also thought they made great use of the smaller characters like Boggs, Jackson, Cressida, etc.  Speaking of Jackson, always nice to see Michelle "Ensign Ro" Forbes.  A shame Gwendoline Christe wasn't in it longer although her American accent was not good at all.  I thought the main cast for the most part did a really good job.  JH did a really good job playing Disturbed Peeta.

 

Definitely agree Katniss being released so quickly was ridiculously rushed.  They also had to work overtime on showing the kind of person that Coin was and I think they managed to succeed at the end.  Not enough Finnick or Johanna.  Liam Hemsworth...yeah, he wasn't very good.  HIS FACE DOESN'T MOVE.  Seriously, I thought that was really on display when Peeta arrived in the Capitol.  JL and the actor playing Boggs (I can never remember his name...I think he has a long one) sold how disturbed they were by the development.  Then we cut to Hemsworth with that same blank look on his face.  Just awful!

[absnow54]

Liam Hemsworth...yeah, he wasn't very good.  HIS FACE DOESN'T MOVE.

This will forever be the greatest description of Liam Hemsworth's acting.

[SeanC]

After my second viewing, I have some nitpicks with the end. So we're to believe that Katniss is sent home the same day she assassinates Coin? Effie's wearing the same outfit in her farewell scene, and we know she'd rather die than wear the same thing twice. At least in the book, Katniss was held in the Capitol for several weeks while a sham of a trial occurred on her behalf. This was an extremely volatile and fractured nation, and while Katniss was the main draw for the average rebel, it's unfathomable to think that Thirteen (the same people who were about to throw Peeta to the wolves when hew as making speeches for the Capitol) wouldn't raise hell after Katniss murdered their leader. The buildup to the revolution was so well done, but the outcome was hand waved in a rushed mess that was hard to swallow.

I think they were in a bit of an awkward place there, because in the book that whole series of developments is really hurried through; to dramatize effectively, they'd really have to devote a bit of time to it, and the story by that point is really over.  It's all just an epilogue.  So I can see why they went for the quicker resolution.

 

I thought the movie was very good overall.  First and foremost, I don't think there's ever been a better YA film lead performance than what Jennifer Lawrence has done in these four movies; she owns this role, and if the Academy were a bit more interesting in its choices I'd argue she should have earned at least one of her nominations for the work she does here.  The rest of the cast is generally very good, and the experience of watching leads to lots of spot-the-actor moments (I'm not sure why they got Gwendoline Christie for one scene); I guess Katniss' two romantic interests could have been handled better, though I quite like Hutcherson's work in the series.  Sutherland is an absolutely terrific villain -- he plays the bad guy a lot, so that's not novel, but it's nice to see him doing it in a first-rate production, rather than slumming, as he so often has been in the last long while.

 

It's too bad Hoffman didn't get to film his final scene with Katniss, but I thought using Haymitch instead was a decent substitute.