By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hunger Games: Catching Fire Theatrical Trailer

Farsala said:

I am talking about the movie here. Books are almost always better then the movie, but you can still comment on the quality of the movie.

I agree the first one could have been much better, but I'm really liking the tone of this one.

It seems to be staying close to the masterful root material while going to places we didn't explore in the books. It also has a pretty epic tone.



Around the Network
Farsala said:
I do not want to be mean but I really cannot understand why I did not like the first movie. Honestly I thought it was very much like twilight, and just copied the movie /manga Battle Royale. The main character barely did anything in the movie just sat back and watched everyone kill everyone, and went lovey dovey on the dude. Also disappointing compared to the book I heard. The trailer looks similar but slightly better.

What am I missing Hunger Games fans?

Yeaht the book, IMO, is tons better than the movie which is like most book to movie adaptations.  Really though if you didn't like it, you didn't like it.  Just not your type of movie.  I personally don't see the "twilight" in the movie.  Twilight was just all love story all the time with weird sparkly vamps.  Different strokes for different folks though.



morenoingrato said:
Farsala said:

I am talking about the movie here. Books are almost always better then the movie, but you can still comment on the quality of the movie.

I agree the first one could have been much better, but I'm really liking the tone of this one.

It seems to be staying close to the masterful root material while going to places we didn't explore in the books. It also has a pretty epic tone.

It seems a bit more epic indeed. I hope this movie is more political then the first one. Though the books give a good hint of what to expect the people who make the movie might change things.



nnodley said:
Farsala said:
I do not want to be mean but I really cannot understand why I did not like the first movie. Honestly I thought it was very much like twilight, and just copied the movie /manga Battle Royale. The main character barely did anything in the movie just sat back and watched everyone kill everyone, and went lovey dovey on the dude. Also disappointing compared to the book I heard. The trailer looks similar but slightly better.

What am I missing Hunger Games fans?

Yeaht the book, IMO, is tons better than the movie which is like most book to movie adaptations.  Really though if you didn't like it, you didn't like it.  Just not your type of movie.  I personally don't see the "twilight" in the movie.  Twilight was just all love story all the time with weird sparkly vamps.  Different strokes for different folks though.

I just feel like I am missing out, but then again I am a harsh critic sometimes.



I thought the first one was just okay. Not bad,but nothing special. It would be interesting to see were the story goes from the last one,just because I've never read the books.



Around the Network

Hunger Games should have ended at the end of the first book. Maybe the movies can salvage things, but I doubt it.



Egann said:

Hunger Games should have ended at the end of the first book. Maybe the movies can salvage things, but I doubt it.

What? Why? Each Hunger Game book got exponentially better than the previous one.



yo_john117 said:
Egann said:

Hunger Games should have ended at the end of the first book. Maybe the movies can salvage things, but I doubt it.

What? Why? Each Hunger Game book got exponentially better than the previous one.

I'm sorry you think that. Book 2 was...OK, I guess. The characters spent a long time talking, Katniss goes from being an empowered survivor to haplessly emoting, but basically it was just a nothing special sequel.

Book 3 was just plain terrible. Katniss has completed the circle and except for two or three decisions in the whole book, she's basically a figurehead of other characters, her narrative presence has long outlived it's charm, and the book as a whole is poorly thought through and even less well researched.



Egann said:
yo_john117 said:
Egann said:

Hunger Games should have ended at the end of the first book. Maybe the movies can salvage things, but I doubt it.

What? Why? Each Hunger Game book got exponentially better than the previous one.

I'm sorry you think that. Book 2 was...OK, I guess. The characters spent a long time talking, Katniss goes from being an empowered survivor to haplessly emoting, but basically it was just a nothing special sequel.

Book 3 was just plain terrible. Katniss has completed the circle and except for two or three decisions in the whole book, she's basically a figurehead of other characters, her narrative presence has long outlived it's charm, and the book as a whole is poorly thought through and even less well researched.

Well; I disagree completely. You're probably one of ten five people in the entire world that thinks each book gets progressively worse. I know there were a bunch of people that loved the third book up until the end then hated it (you either absolutely love the ending, or hate it completely) but most loved the first two books.



spurgeonryan said:
So wait? She is competing again? The hell!

Well I cannot wait to see Donald Sutherlands annoyed face when she wins again. Same face we saw when Edward Norton turned on him in The Italian Job. Lovely!


I like donald sutherland. He's been around for decades and been in a bunch of stuff. He's a bit under-rated in my opinion. I liked the italian job. See spurgeonryan-I like stuff. lol