EA Forums - Banner

Catching Fire. What did you think? NO SPOILERS PLEASE

Prev1
I'm really looking forward to it. Sadly Youtube comments already spoiled it for me :evil:

Replies

  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    I haven't seen the second movie, just the first. Haven't read any of the books either since they're aimed at people half my age, and frankly - from the excerpts I've seen - it shows in the writing.

    I saw the first movie because the premise reminded me of Battle Royale (which apparently the author had never heard of - which either means she's lying, or an idiot - who has an idea for a book and doesn't Google it first to at least see what the competition is?!) but wasn't impressed with much. I did think they did a good job of bringing the setting to the screen, though. Visually it was entertaining. Plot-wise... well. Intriguing idea, but it all felt watered down to me. No real suspense, no real fear of death, no grit. Very much a polished rendition of the situation so as not to scare the teenagers reading it.

    It's such a shame. I want to like it, because the idea is good (if unoriginal) and I do love a good dystopian setting. If only it had been written for adults.
  • Indys2nd
    1906 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    It's not really a children's book, in my opinion. I've read all 3. The first book was good but the other two were excellent. You can't judge the series by the first movie or some excerpts. The first movie was awful. But the second movie, I thought, was really good. Unfortunately people see it in the young adult section of the bookstore or library and immediately decide it's not for them.

    There are some really great books that get lost there. Another book that comes to mind is The Book Thief. They are making a movie out of it and if they tone it down, because it was written "for kids", I'm sure it will be ruined.

    If you liked the series but hated the first movie, I'd give it another chance. I think why the op doesn't like it as much is because they toned this one down also. It's a very violent book and witnessing the bloodbath on the screen would have got it another rating.
  • CoffeeMars
    1058 posts
    edited November 2013
    I have read all 3 books, the first book didn't do much for me but the other two were great.
    I have seen the first movie and it served its purpose. It entertained me.

    As soon as I get a chance I will go watch it but that may not be til next weekend
  • snowyriver32
    1528 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    I read the first book before I saw the first movie.
    Unfortunately, I knew what was going to happen because the book was full of spoilers :shock:

    This time I'll watch the movie and then read the book :mrgreen:

    I have yet to see the second one but will once it comes to the dollar theater.
    I cant afford full price tickets if im saving up to buy Christmas donuts :D

  • erchin8
    265 posts
    edited November 2013
    indys2nd wrote:
    It's not really a children's book, in my opinion. I've read all 3. The first book was good but the other two were excellent. You can't judge the series by the first movie or some excerpts. The first movie was awful. But the second movie, I thought, was really good. Unfortunately people see it in the young adult section of the bookstore or library and immediately decide it's not for them.

    There are some really great books that get lost there. Another book that comes to mind is The Book Thief. They are making a movie out of it and if they tone it down, because it was written "for kids", I'm sure it will be ruined.

    If you liked the series but hated the first movie, I'd give it another chance. I think why the op doesn't like it as much is because they toned this one down also. It's a very violent book and witnessing the bloodbath on the screen would have got it another rating.

    Totally agree, both about the books and the movies.

    Though the books are not brilliant, I found them riveting and thoroughly enjoyable. I wish the first movie had more of the tenor of the books, but then it would never have gotten a PG-13 rating.

    I liked the second movie as much as I was disappointed by the first, which is to say very much!



  • ecneralc
    3182 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    The books were great the movies needed to be more violent. I did like catching fire movie though. Really hoping they do a good job on the last book which is in two movies. There's a lot of violence and mutts that appear just for the occasion in the third book.
  • darthraven0
    374 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    And besides

    <a href="http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/darthraven0/media/image-18.jpg.html&quot; target="_blank"><img src="http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n551/darthraven0/image-18.jpg&quot; /></a>
  • bee88161
    2976 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    Saw it last night. Loved it!! Want to see it again.
  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.
  • erchin8
    265 posts
    edited November 2013
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg
  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    erchin8 wrote:
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg

    I can't tell if you're trying to say that I've said something very obvious, or very difficult to believe. Nor can I tell which part of my post you're referring to.
  • erchin8
    265 posts
    edited November 2013
    erchin8 wrote:
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg

    I can't tell if you're trying to say that I've said something very obvious, or very difficult to believe. Nor can I tell which part of my post you're referring to.

    On one hand you waffle; on the other you have a firm opinion of something you've admittedly never read.

    First you say that you wish a set of young-adult books was written for adults, rather than for people half your age. Then you "entirely agree" with Darthraven0 that any book that's hard to put down is a good one. Then you say you don't think the Hunger Games series "meets that criteria." Then you admit you haven't read them.

    I'm skeptical when someone strongly claims an opinion about an author without delving into that author's work.

    The bottom line is that whatever you say, I'll take it with a larger grain of salt than I would other posts.
  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    erchin8 wrote:
    erchin8 wrote:
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg

    I can't tell if you're trying to say that I've said something very obvious, or very difficult to believe. Nor can I tell which part of my post you're referring to.

    On one hand you waffle; on the other you have a firm opinion of something you've admittedly never read.

    First you say that you wish a set of young-adult books was written for adults, rather than for people half your age. Then you "entirely agree" with Darthraven0 that any book that's hard to put down is a good one. Then you say you don't think the Hunger Games series "meets that criteria." Then you admit you haven't read them.

    I'm skeptical when someone strongly claims an opinion about an author without delving into that author's work.

    The bottom line is that whatever you say, I'll take it with a larger grain of salt than I would other posts.

    I posted on this thread because I suspected that most of the replies would be generic "I love it" posts. I was hoping that by expressing my opinion on the books and the first film, something would come up in conversation that would either cement or change my opinion, since there were things I liked about the first film, and I wanted to like the books. Instead, I get backlash for daring to have a different opinion. Should've seen that coming, really.

    I do entirely agree that any book that's hard to put down must be a good one. (Friendly reminder: "good" is subjective.) But if, after reading the blurb and excerpts on Amazon, I don't want to pick it up, then that's definitely not meeting that criteria. I don't see what's inconsistent about that. How else are you supposed to decide if you'd like to read a book or not?
  • erchin8
    265 posts
    edited November 2013
    erchin8 wrote:
    erchin8 wrote:
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg

    I can't tell if you're trying to say that I've said something very obvious, or very difficult to believe. Nor can I tell which part of my post you're referring to.

    On one hand you waffle; on the other you have a firm opinion of something you've admittedly never read.

    First you say that you wish a set of young-adult books was written for adults, rather than for people half your age. Then you "entirely agree" with Darthraven0 that any book that's hard to put down is a good one. Then you say you don't think the Hunger Games series "meets that criteria." Then you admit you haven't read them.

    I'm skeptical when someone strongly claims an opinion about an author without delving into that author's work.

    The bottom line is that whatever you say, I'll take it with a larger grain of salt than I would other posts.

    I posted on this thread because I suspected that most of the replies would be generic "I love it" posts. I was hoping that by expressing my opinion on the books and the first film, something would come up in conversation that would either cement or change my opinion, since there were things I liked about the first film, and I wanted to like the books. Instead, I get backlash for daring to have a different opinion. Should've seen that coming, really.

    I do entirely agree that any book that's hard to put down must be a good one. (Friendly reminder: "good" is subjective.) But if, after reading the blurb and excerpts on Amazon, I don't want to pick it up, then that's definitely not meeting that criteria. I don't see what's inconsistent about that. How else are you supposed to decide if you'd like to read a book or not?

    My response to you has nothing to do with you having a different opinion. Clearly, my view of The Hunger Games isn't a simple "I love it." Nor do I think it backlash, though I can see why you're sensitive to that based on responses to you in other threads.

    If you had posed questions along the lines of what's compelling about the books, or is it worth reading, perhaps you would have gotten a straightforward answer.

    You don't actually need your opinion about the books or the movies changed. It wouldn't budge anyway.

    Now where's that salt shaker...
  • ecneralc
    3182 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    erchin8 wrote:
    erchin8 wrote:
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg

    I can't tell if you're trying to say that I've said something very obvious, or very difficult to believe. Nor can I tell which part of my post you're referring to.

    On one hand you waffle; on the other you have a firm opinion of something you've admittedly never read.

    First you say that you wish a set of young-adult books was written for adults, rather than for people half your age. Then you "entirely agree" with Darthraven0 that any book that's hard to put down is a good one. Then you say you don't think the Hunger Games series "meets that criteria." Then you admit you haven't read them.

    I'm skeptical when someone strongly claims an opinion about an author without delving into that author's work.

    The bottom line is that whatever you say, I'll take it with a larger grain of salt than I would other posts.

    I posted on this thread because I suspected that most of the replies would be generic "I love it" posts. I was hoping that by expressing my opinion on the books and the first film, something would come up in conversation that would either cement or change my opinion, since there were things I liked about the first film, and I wanted to like the books. Instead, I get backlash for daring to have a different opinion. Should've seen that coming, really.

    I do entirely agree that any book that's hard to put down must be a good one. (Friendly reminder: "good" is subjective.) But if, after reading the blurb and excerpts on Amazon, I don't want to pick it up, then that's definitely not meeting that criteria. I don't see what's inconsistent about that. How else are you supposed to decide if you'd like to read a book or not?

    Well the movie is no where near as good as the book. 1 in the book they give a brief history about the time it's based in, it's in the future in North America after plagues, famine, war, and natural disasters have basically destroyed it. From the ashes of North America panam is born with 13 districts the capital is built on the western side of the Rocky Mountains which is why the districts lost the war 74 years previous and district 13 was destroyed. 2 there's a lot more that happens in the arena the injury peeta sustains is so bad that he needs an artificial leg when they win. The dog creatures that attack them near the end are genetically engineered from the DNA of the other tributes that were killed in the arena, they have the hair colour and eyes some facial features so that when you look at this dog that's about to rip out your throat you're like omg that's the girl I killed from district 6. You also find out why the mocking jay is such an offensive symbol to the capital.
  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    erchin8 wrote:
    erchin8 wrote:
    erchin8 wrote:
    I may not be exactly young but I do believe any book that you start to read and have trouble putting done is a good one.

    I entirely agree. I just disagree that the Hunger Games series meets that criteria, or in fact any criteria I have for books I want to read. Obviously since I haven't read them I can't be sure. But on the other hand, I didn't need to hear an entire Britney Spears song to know I didn't like that because, while peppy and catchy, it didn't demonstrate any level of musical skill. Same issue here. I just don't think they're well written books, and therefore I wouldn't enjoy reading them.

    Though of course that doesn't mean the films can't be good. One of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which is based on a short story by Stephen King, who is one of the worst popular writers I've ever read. (The title of worst is a toss-up between Dan Brown, J K Plagiarist - I mean, Rowling - and Stephanie Meyer.) And of course a good book doesn't mean it'll make a good film. Just look at... well. Pretty much every film based on a book. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of excellence in literature translating to trash on screen, but really, any will do.

    Really?

    PjpBRx1.jpg

    I can't tell if you're trying to say that I've said something very obvious, or very difficult to believe. Nor can I tell which part of my post you're referring to.

    On one hand you waffle; on the other you have a firm opinion of something you've admittedly never read.

    First you say that you wish a set of young-adult books was written for adults, rather than for people half your age. Then you "entirely agree" with Darthraven0 that any book that's hard to put down is a good one. Then you say you don't think the Hunger Games series "meets that criteria." Then you admit you haven't read them.

    I'm skeptical when someone strongly claims an opinion about an author without delving into that author's work.

    The bottom line is that whatever you say, I'll take it with a larger grain of salt than I would other posts.

    I posted on this thread because I suspected that most of the replies would be generic "I love it" posts. I was hoping that by expressing my opinion on the books and the first film, something would come up in conversation that would either cement or change my opinion, since there were things I liked about the first film, and I wanted to like the books. Instead, I get backlash for daring to have a different opinion. Should've seen that coming, really.

    I do entirely agree that any book that's hard to put down must be a good one. (Friendly reminder: "good" is subjective.) But if, after reading the blurb and excerpts on Amazon, I don't want to pick it up, then that's definitely not meeting that criteria. I don't see what's inconsistent about that. How else are you supposed to decide if you'd like to read a book or not?

    My response to you has nothing to do with you having a different opinion. Clearly, my view of The Hunger Games isn't a simple "I love it." Nor do I think it backlash, though I can see why you're sensitive to that based on responses to you in other threads.

    If you had posed questions along the lines of what's compelling about the books, or is it worth reading, perhaps you would have gotten a straightforward answer.

    You don't actually need your opinion about the books or the movies changed. It wouldn't budge anyway.

    Now where's that salt shaker...

    Argumentum ad hominem. It's what you're doing, and it's a fallacy. It makes you, quite simply, irrelevant. So, 'bye.
  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    ecneralc wrote:
    Well the movie is no where near as good as the book. 1 in the book they give a brief history about the time it's based in, it's in the future in North America after plagues, famine, war, and natural disasters have basically destroyed it. From the ashes of North America panam is born with 13 districts the capital is built on the western side of the Rocky Mountains which is why the districts lost the war 74 years previous and district 13 was destroyed. 2 there's a lot more that happens in the arena the injury peeta sustains is so bad that he needs an artificial leg when they win. The dog creatures that attack them near the end are genetically engineered from the DNA of the other tributes that were killed in the arena, they have the hair colour and eyes some facial features so that when you look at this dog that's about to rip out your throat you're like omg that's the girl I killed from district 6. You also find out why the mocking jay is such an offensive symbol to the capital.

    Thank you! The history sounds interesting, and I didn't know the part about the dogs. That's a nice touch, especially if it goes into the emotional side of having to kill someone to survive, and then they're still there attacking you - makes the whole situation seem hopeless. That was one of the parts I liked about the film - though it was less "I think that's been done well", and more, "I WANT one of those". Not the dogs. The magical command centre where you can terraform and throw in animals and stuff. :)
  • ecneralc
    3182 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    ecneralc wrote:
    Well the movie is no where near as good as the book. 1 in the book they give a brief history about the time it's based in, it's in the future in North America after plagues, famine, war, and natural disasters have basically destroyed it. From the ashes of North America panam is born with 13 districts the capital is built on the western side of the Rocky Mountains which is why the districts lost the war 74 years previous and district 13 was destroyed. 2 there's a lot more that happens in the arena the injury peeta sustains is so bad that he needs an artificial leg when they win. The dog creatures that attack them near the end are genetically engineered from the DNA of the other tributes that were killed in the arena, they have the hair colour and eyes some facial features so that when you look at this dog that's about to rip out your throat you're like omg that's the girl I killed from district 6. You also find out why the mocking jay is such an offensive symbol to the capital.

    Thank you! The history sounds interesting, and I didn't know the part about the dogs. That's a nice touch, especially if it goes into the emotional side of having to kill someone to survive, and then they're still there attacking you - makes the whole situation seem hopeless. That was one of the parts I liked about the film - though it was less "I think that's been done well", and more, "I WANT one of those". Not the dogs. The magical command centre where you can terraform and throw in animals and stuff. :)

    You're welcome. I like the movies for the simple reason that they did change it from the book but kept a lot of it the same. The books are all from catniss' point of view, where the movies bring in the point of view from the capital kinda explaining some of the things that happens in the book. You can guess that was the reason when reading it, but it's only a theory till proven correct. Also to your point of the dogs Catniss freaks out when she sees one of the dogs looks like rue the girl she had befriended in the arena.
  • Arlandria606
    519 posts
    edited November 2013
    ecneralc wrote:
    ecneralc wrote:
    Well the movie is no where near as good as the book. 1 in the book they give a brief history about the time it's based in, it's in the future in North America after plagues, famine, war, and natural disasters have basically destroyed it. From the ashes of North America panam is born with 13 districts the capital is built on the western side of the Rocky Mountains which is why the districts lost the war 74 years previous and district 13 was destroyed. 2 there's a lot more that happens in the arena the injury peeta sustains is so bad that he needs an artificial leg when they win. The dog creatures that attack them near the end are genetically engineered from the DNA of the other tributes that were killed in the arena, they have the hair colour and eyes some facial features so that when you look at this dog that's about to rip out your throat you're like omg that's the girl I killed from district 6. You also find out why the mocking jay is such an offensive symbol to the capital.

    Thank you! The history sounds interesting, and I didn't know the part about the dogs. That's a nice touch, especially if it goes into the emotional side of having to kill someone to survive, and then they're still there attacking you - makes the whole situation seem hopeless. That was one of the parts I liked about the film - though it was less "I think that's been done well", and more, "I WANT one of those". Not the dogs. The magical command centre where you can terraform and throw in animals and stuff. :)

    You're welcome. I like the movies for the simple reason that they did change it from the book but kept a lot of it the same. The books are all from catniss' point of view, where the movies bring in the point of view from the capital kinda explaining some of the things that happens in the book. You can guess that was the reason when reading it, but it's only a theory till proven correct. Also to your point of the dogs Catniss freaks out when she sees one of the dogs looks like rue the girl she had befriended in the arena.

    That makes a lot of sense, I remember that part of the film.

    If I wanted to give the series in general another chance, would I be right in thinking you'd recommend reading the first book over seeing the second movie?
  • mwdalton
    11548 posts Member
    edited November 2013
    I would say the writing in the books were much better than Twilight, but not as good as Harry Potter. If you disliked both of those series, though, you're gonna have a bad time. :lol:
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!