For me, until the Hunger Games started, the movie was incredibly boring and I don't remember the book being that way. I think a lot of that is that the book can and does devote time to explain and detail the history of this world they've set up and the backstory of some of the characters, so you get a better feel for the characters' motivations and struggles. In the movie, you get a wall of blah text at the beginning, you see Katniss go under a fence with a sign you briefly see that says "Do Not Enter" or something, but you have no idea why she can't enter that or that hunting is forbidden. The movie just doesn't have time to go in to the whys of the world so when Katniss and Gale are in the forest and a ship drops down on them, you don't know why they run and hide from it.
I went with a friend who hadn't read the books before watching the movie. It apparently was clear enough for him to understand mostly what was going on, but at the end he said, "I need to read the books now." That's probably what the book authors are hoping for, but personally I feel if you haven't watched the movies or read the books, save your money and just read the books. You're just going to get a fuller, richer experience than you do with the movie.
The one thing the movie did wrong in my opinion is a trend among movies nowadays and that's that blasted shaky cam. The first half of the movie when Katniss is in the forest, the camera is shaking like there are earthquakes everywhere. Does this add anything to the movie other than nauseated customers? Whenever there is a fight, just like most movies now, the camera gets right up in the action so you can't actually see what is going at all, you just see lots of movement. I understand that this is supposed to make the fight feel action-packed, but you know what they used to do that worked better? Have fight scenes with good choreography with a camera pulled back so you could actually see what the heck is happening. I don't need to be manipulated to feel action on the screen. In fact, the more I see that, the more I realize I'm being manipulated and immediately get pulled out of the movie and start entering critique mode.
I definitely agree that they should have trained the "tributes" to fight so that the audience would get a better experience than just a shaking camera. I felt cheated out of the actual Hunger Games experience because there wasn't any actual fighting. There wasn't any emotions (ie dislike, hatred) created towards the "career" tributes which was supposed to be a big part of the book. They could have done better had they upped the rating from just pg13.
ReplyDeleteRe: the camera. OH MY GOSH YES! We got such a headache during the opening District 12 scenes because of that stupid camera. And then in the final fight between Katniss and Kato, the only reason I knew there were three people involved in the fight was because I read the book. It was just a shaky, blurry mess until finally they pulled back to a wide shot and you could clearly see Kato get Peeta in a lock and facing off with Katniss.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't help that Kato looked exactly like Peeta either. During the blurry, shaky bit, there was ONE brief shot of Kato headlocking Katniss, but if I hadn't read the book I would have thought it was Peeta.
That said, I did think the movie did a good job overall. But I hadn't seen anyone else make this complaint before and I just had to agree!
Stephanie - I forgive the movie for not getting everything right and being more shallow because it really had to be. There wasn't enough time to get everything right. That's fairly inevitable with a book to movie transition unless the movie is really shallow/short itself like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
ReplyDeleteAdam - The fight where the camera bothered me the most was between Katniss and the knife throwing chick. I feel like before directors got clever with camera tricks, actors used to be so much more skilled at fight scenes...