[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 25 November 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Also, unlike The Bloody Hobbit (new official title), the last Hunger Games is a book which really would have benefited from being a lot longer, and spreading the film out a bit is something the story can support, I reckon.


I haven't seen Catching Fire yet, but the first one, while quite a good film, was really terrible in terms of being something someone not familiar with the books can understand. My brother watched it some time before me but after I'd read the books, and I remember essentially explaining the significance of half the plot to him afterwards even though I'd not seen it myself. It's worse than Deathly Hallows Part 2 for that.

I assume the second film is at least a little better for it?

It's really not hard to follow along with the plot for non-book readers in this one. There are no unexplained things really. And the twist worked well even on me and I've read the books.

Spoiler

That Plutarch and everyone else are actively trying to get Katniss, their symbol, OUT of the games by staging them in a very specific, unbeknownst to Snow, way. Worked like a charm on me. The only people I recall being in on the revolution were Finnick and Johanna.

But yeah, I doubt anyone would have trouble getting what's being laid down. It certainly doesn't jump to any bizarre, unrealistic scene's like the Mutts in Movie 1 being pointless monsters....whereas in the book they were fallen tributes, faces and all, thus making them have meaning that they lacked in the movie.

Spoiler

Also, it's nice to go back and think about stuff like the spinning of the cornucopia by Plutarch to keep the game up where Snow was watching, but having EVERYONE try to keep Katniss alive and not falling off. I'm pretty sure on a re-watch I'll notice other things...like Plutarch tipping Katniss off to the "clock" design of the Game arena at the party but she doesn't hear it. It's not going to be FIGHT CLUB chokced block with easter egss, but a few nice ones I have already noted. I think the only person I'm unsure of is if they will explain about Gale knowing the Revolution was leaving District 12 before the firebombimg and thus he knew about the rigged Quarter Quell before Katniss left...because they elude to him not being aware in the film when he speaks with her at the end.

[Mezla PigDog]

I saw Catching Fire today and had a refresher of the first movie yesterday. The new one is definitely stronger than the first. I can't say what it is like for non-book readers but the first movie definitely lacked something. It tried to fit too much in and just didn't go deep enough into Katniss' character so you don't root for her quite as much as in the books. The film also just doesn't convey the sense of dread leading up to the arena that you get in the book. Plus there is not enough flesh on the other tributes - I cried in the first movie when Rue died but only because of what I remembered from the book.

In reply to McLovin (you'll always be Longhorn in my head!) [Catching Fire spoiler]

Spoiler

Katniss is purposefully kept in the dark by Hamitch etc so she doesn't give stuff away to Snow. As the books are written from her perspective, the reader is also in the dark. It is one of the strengths of the second book that you are always trying to figure out what's going on - for example, you aren't sure why all the other former champion tributes want to be allies with Katniss and then once in the arena why they are all actively trying to save her but there are enough snippets to keep you hooked on the story. She's almost a passenger in the second book being manipulated as events unfold around her and she's so scared and angry that the only way they can keep control of her is through a common goal of keeping Peeta alive. So the film is faithful in that sense, the grownup politics is happening elsewhere.

Think I'm going to re-read the books! I originally read them all in a single weekend so might take more time this time around.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 26 November 2013 - 08:25 PM

[QuickTidal]

Oh man, The Mrs. made me watch THE FAMILY MAN (2000, Nick Cage & Tea Leoni) cause it's one of her fave movies and I had never seen it.

First up, Brett Ratner, with a Danny Elfman score? weird.

Basically a sort of reverse It's A Wonderful Life, Scrooge dealy...right, gotcha...

Spoiler

Second, the movie was fine for the most part...but the ending was horrible! So he gets shown how decent, loving, fullfilled, albeit tougher, his life could be if he chose the one he loved all those years ago (and not his current mega-rich corporate president stock guy with a cold life)...and he not only rails against it and tries to get back his old cold corporate money-driven life....but then Don Cheadle (is he an angel, supernatural...what is the purpose of these "Glimpses" for people? Spiritual? Alien? Dimensional?) only shows up to kind of nudge him, and then to tell him "Well, suck it up chauncy, now that you love this other life and have accepted it, I'ma take that shit away. BAck you go!"

So then he seeks out Tea Leoni in HIS universe and finds she's just as cold and corporate as he is....but they decide to have coffee together.....the end.

The kids they had don't fucking exist? The friends?

WHAT THE HELL?!

LOL

Wait wait wait Mr. Cheadle. You're saying you can ACTIVELY drop me into an Alt universe life to SHOW me how things COULD have been...but I can't STAY there? No, no, no...plug me back into the Glimpse-Matrix forever Mr. Cheadle...or you're just an asshole.


Speaking of friends, side plot with Jeremy Piven who only shows up about three times and then effs off for the rest of the movie....the next door neighbor who crushes on him and wants an affair...never dealt with again?

I don't even....

Urg. That was not a friggin Christmas movie.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 29 November 2013 - 02:41 PM

[McLovin]

Caught RUSH at the discount theater. What a great film.

[worry]

It's just weird they remade Turbo so soon.

[QuickTidal]

worry, on 29 November 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

It's just weird they remade Turbo so soon.

Weak worry, Weak.

Are you full of Turkey or something today?

[worry]

Hey if I'm wrong, why did they hire that snail-looking guy in the lead role? Explain that.

[McLovin]

Saw FROZEN. Really good.

[QuickTidal]

Teaser trailer for the new Wachowski's flick JUPITER ASCENDING.

Looks really slick, and quite frankly after the genius CLOUD ATLAS, I will see everything these two bring to the screen.

[D'rek]

That looks impressive, though I groaned when reading the synopsis. Not just because the girl's name is Jupiter, but because she seems to have fantasy orphan farm boy with a destiny syndrome.

As you say though, QT, because it is the Wachowskis I still have hope for it.

[polishgenius]

It's basically Snow White, Blade Runner edition.

And I find nothing wrong with that at all.

[QuickTidal]

Indeed. It appears that the Wachowski's are happy to bring Anime-style-stuff to the big screen. And that makes me happy.

[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 10 December 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

Teaser trailer for the new Wachowski's flick JUPITER ASCENDING.

Looks really slick, and quite frankly after the genius CLOUD ATLAS, I will see everything these two bring to the screen.

they were only responsible for about a third of cloud atlas?

But I agree the trailer looks good

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 10 December 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 December 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

Teaser trailer for the new Wachowski's flick JUPITER ASCENDING.

Looks really slick, and quite frankly after the genius CLOUD ATLAS, I will see everything these two bring to the screen.

they were only responsible for about a third of cloud atlas?

But I agree the trailer looks good

I'm not at all sure you can say that because they shared directorial duties with Tom Tykwer you can say they were responsible for a third. A collaboration is no less a tick in their box...especially after BOUND, THE MATRIX and SPEED RACER.

[stone monkey]

tbh I found Cloud Atlas to be weak. I think it had the same problem that Zack Snyder's adaptation of Watchmen did, in that it was clearly the work of very visually talented film makers who had read and loved the book, but who also, arguably, didn't understand it.

I suspect Jupiter Ascending will be extremely pretty, but also kind of hollow. Which isn't always a bad thing; Speed Racer was exactly that, and utterly perfect because of it.

[Cause]

@QuickTidal- As I remember the credits of cloud atlas it stated that the wachowski brothers/siblings (is it okay to say wow, that was unexpected) were responsible only for the neo seoul parts of the movie.

@Stone Monkey- Im curious for your thoughts, will you expand. The premise of the book or movie seems to be quite a simple one in the end. The resurrection and slow enlightenment of a soul over many lifetimes.

[stone monkey]

I would argue that the premise of the book was absolutely not reincarnation, to its detriment, I think, that one appears to have been inserted into the film. The characters in each story are aware of some of what has happened in the story before them and only find out the full truth as their own story ends. In no place in the book is reincarnation even hinted at, and at least one of the stories in the book was explicitly fictional in relation to the others, with more than one of the others having entirely unreliable narrators.

I can see the temptation, and indeed the practicality, of turning the film into an overriding story of reincarnation and enlightenment to tie it all together. But I think that that is manifestly not what the book is - if indeed, on the surface at least, it can be said to be anything more than a series of vignettes written in different styles. The book, I feel, is more about the nature of story. It demonstrates, I think, that story transcends generic pigeonholing. What is essentially the same story; a character overcoming obstacles of various sorts that are more powerful than them, is told in various different ways and genres: historical, tragic, mystery, comedic, sf, post-apocalyptic; each becomes something that may appear entirely different to the others, but that is not the case.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 10 December 2013 - 09:39 PM

[QuickTidal]

stone monkey, on 10 December 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

I would argue that the premise of the book was absolutely not reincarnation, to its detriment, I think, that one appears to have been inserted into the film. The characters in each story are aware of some of what has happened in the story before them and only find out the full truth as their own story ends. In no place in the book is reincarnation even hinted at, and at least one of the stories in the book was explicitly fictional in relation to the others, with more than one of the others having entirely unreliable narrators.

I can see the temptation, and indeed the practicality, of turning the film into an overriding story of reincarnation and enlightenment to tie it all together. But I think that that is manifestly not what the book is - if indeed, on the surface at least, it can be said to be anything more than a series of vignettes written in different styles. The book, I feel, is more about the nature of story. It demonstrates, I think, that story transcends generic pigeonholing. What is essentially the same story; a character overcoming obstacles of various sorts that are more powerful than them, is told in various different ways and genres: historical, tragic, mystery, comedic, sf, post-apocalyptic; each becomes something that may appear entirely different to the others, but that is not the case.

Disagree, one of the big threads ion the book is DEFINITELY reincarnation. That's actually the entire point of the birthmark...what book were you reading?

And dude, why say people "didn't understand something" because their subjective view of it differs from yours?

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 10 December 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

@QuickTidal- As I remember the credits of cloud atlas it stated that the wachowski brothers/siblings (is it okay to say wow, that was unexpected) were responsible only for the neo seoul parts of the movie.

Not quite. The Wachowskis directed the 19th-century story and the two set in the future, while Tykwer directed the stories set in the 1930s, the 1970s, and 2012. Thus they split the direction equally down the middle...and all three jointly wrote it.

So your comment that they are responsible for a 3rd is fairly off the mark. They are responsible for at least half....but again as a collaboration...and I watched the three of them introduce it at TIFF together and they were all very clear it was a full-on collaboration.

[stone monkey]

QuickTidal, on 10 December 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Disagree, one of the big threads ion the book is DEFINITELY reincarnation. That's actually the entire point of the birthmark...what book were you reading?

And dude, why say people "didn't understand something" because their subjective view of it differs from yours?

There's a pretty major clue as to why they can't be reincarnations because, based on their ages, Luisa Rey and Timothy Cavendish have to be alive at the same time i.e. during the early 70s. Of course, that's only the case if you're working from the assumption that Luisa isn't fictional.

So yeah...