The Hunger Games Movie

books always have smooth cameras......


Anyway I keep hearing this movie is pretty decent, not that excited about shakey camera in battles though.


Cause I love fight scenes.
 
Is it just a shaky camera, or a filming technique?

There's one technique that involves moving the camera in unison with someone's action, for example if there's a fist fight then the camera moves back and forth same as the fists. Hard to explain.
 
Mario4Ever said:
There was no shaky camera in the book....
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the book was kind of lame in comparison with the movie, so it all evens out.



Anyway, the shaky camera is actually used to really good effect (when it's used at all), making the battle scenes as chaotic and disorienting to the audience as they are to Katniss. It really helps the viewer get into the film and see it from the characters' perspectives.
 
I felt the camera was shaky throughout the movie though, not just the battle scenes
 
I never read the book but I can tell that major changes were made that made the movie kind of crappy.
 
If it has anything to do with Peeta being a atrocious character, then don't worry. That was in the book too.
 
The characters in the movie feels static, somehow, not dynamic. Is the book the same? It's been w while since I read it.

Also, the shaky camera makes it hard to see the setting of the District Katniss is living in. The shaky camera is present throughout the movie, not just in battle sequences.
 
I didn't even keep track of the characters' names. It's just the transition from book to movie wasn't properly done.

Ornithologist Mario said:
Also, the shaky camera makes it hard to see the setting of the District Katniss is living in. The shaky camera is present throughout the movie, not just in battle sequences.
Click to expand...
I hate the shaky camera, I couldn't focus on anything when that happen. If they are going to shake the camera, they should at least have some grip on the camera because it seemed like they just fling it around by the strap. What would of been better is they use the same technique that was deployed on the charging bear scene in Prince Caspien.
 
Huh, and some characters were different in appearance than what I expect, especially Rue. However, it doesn't bother me a tiny bit.

I'm not a big fan of the shaky camera. It's hard for me to focus on the scene. I suppose it's supposed to make the viewer fell like he or she is in the movie as well, but everything is so blurry. It's hard to see the setting in some places and what is going on during a fight.
 
I bet you they purposely did that so viewers won't be able to see the low budget aspects of the scene
 
Maybe, considering that I read on Wikipedia that the budget limited the movie somewhat (there are citations to those statistics as well, supporting this fact).
 
Marika Soresi said:
I never read the book but I can tell that major changes were made that made the movie kind of crappy.
Click to expand...

There were no major changes; sounds like you just don't really like the Hunger Games. Which is fine, everyone's got opinions.
 
One thing good I have to say about the movie is that it got me frustrated, it pulled me into the movie. If they weren't going to have a sequel, then this movie is fucked up.
 
So I just saw the movie - definitely the best movie I've ever seen. I really liked the scenes they put in that weren't in the book:

The riot in District 11 after Rue died and what happens to Seneca at the end of the movie.

but being a Thresh fan I wished they gave him more lines :[
 
The reason why I didn't like the movie is that the characters were static so some scenes came out or felt awkward or just plain random.
 
^True, like that scene with the conversation between game makers.
 
Marika Soresi said:
The reason why I didn't like the movie is that the characters were static so some scenes came out or felt awkward or just plain random.
Click to expand...

Do you know what 'static' means?

Red Barchetta said:
So I just saw the movie - definitely the best movie I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

That seems an exaggeration, but great movie nonetheless.
 
Yeah... static characters do not undergo a major change after realizing a lesson while dynamic characters do.

Katniss is basically the same person throughout the movie.

Maybe the wording of the post was confusing....
 
Nosferatu Man said:
Marika Soresi said:
The reason why I didn't like the movie is that the characters were static so some scenes came out or felt awkward or just plain random.
Click to expand...

Do you know what 'static' means?

Red Barchetta said:
So I just saw the movie - definitely the best movie I've ever seen. I really liked the scenes they put in that weren't in the book:

The riot in District 11 after Rue died and what happens to Seneca at the end of the movie.

but being a Thresh fan I wished they gave him more lines :[
Click to expand...

Great movie, but... best? Really?
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe I overreacted a bit because of how much I loved it after seeing it - I definitely say it's in my top 3, though, along with The Muppets and Yellow Submarine.
 
La Marionette said:
Yeah... static characters do not undergo a major change after realizing a lesson while dynamic characters do.

Katniss is basically the same person throughout the movie.

Maybe the wording of the post was confusing....
Click to expand...

The movie is part one of a trilogy; she changes a lot throughout it, though the changes aren't really noticeable in the first book. Still, your post didn't make much sense:

Marika Soresi said:
The reason why I didn't like the movie is that the characters were static so some scenes came out or felt awkward or just plain random.
Click to expand...

The problem with characters being static is that they're less interesting, I don't see how scenes being awkward is a problem. I probably just misunderstood :P

Red Barchetta said:
Nosferatu Man said:
Marika Soresi said:
The reason why I didn't like the movie is that the characters were static so some scenes came out or felt awkward or just plain random.
Click to expand...

Do you know what 'static' means?

Red Barchetta said:
So I just saw the movie - definitely the best movie I've ever seen. I really liked the scenes they put in that weren't in the book:

The riot in District 11 after Rue died and what happens to Seneca at the end of the movie.

but being a Thresh fan I wished they gave him more lines :[
Click to expand...

Great movie, but... best? Really?
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe I overreacted a bit because of how much I loved it after seeing it - I definitely say it's in my top 3, though, along with The Muppets and Yellow Submarine.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I haven't seen Yellow Submarine, but Muppets and Hunger Games are both great movies.

I'd have to say my favorites are Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Coraline, and Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows pt 1. Hunger Games is up there, though; it was amazing.
 
The thin I don't like The Hunger Games overall is the hunger games themselves, the reason behind it is dumb and probably out-lived the people associated with it. If I recall correctly, the movie never mention why it is call the hunger games or how it came to be.

When I was watching the movie, I made a hunch why there are hunger games, which is a lot better than what the author made. In the book, the hunger games were made because 74 years ago the districts revolted against capitol and ever since then, they held the hunger games.

My hunch was, since it is a post-apocalyptic setting, I thought that a population did survive and a group was able to govern this new civilization, but they soon find out that they were running low on food so they had to ration it to the districts and the hunger games were held so that the winner of it will get a years supply of more food.

Another idea emerged dealing with natural selection but I didn't build on that.

Another thing I didn't like about the movie is their unrealistic scenes.
 
I think the Hunger Games is based on the Roman Coliseum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back