Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Collapsed late last night and watched The Hunger Games with Cara Sposa. What a letdown! The plot was full of holes, the acting wooden (Jennifer Lawrence in particular seemed to have had pre-emptive botox treatment over 90% of her face), the characters shallow and dull, and the motivations unclear, and the projected world logically inconsistent.

Now, to be fair, this is having seen Battle Royale beforehand, which had some world-building flaws but at least had consistent plot and believable characters...

...and not having read the HG books. Somebody please tell me they're better.

But come on, Hollywood. It's nice that you feel that SFnal things are worth putting out now. But this? And the remake of Nikita, and the remake of Being Human...

Cara Sposa had the right attitude: "Logan's Run was better. And Logan's Run was shit."


( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 15th, 2012 04:16 pm (UTC)
So you're saying I shouldn't bother to rent it?
Aug. 15th, 2012 04:20 pm (UTC)
YRMV. I'd suggest Battle Royale, but I'm a card-carrying curmudgeon. BR captured the horror of the story much more directly, and didn't have a generally anaesthetized feel to it.
Aug. 15th, 2012 04:26 pm (UTC)
Of my two Hunger-Games-aged daughters, one loved the books (but admitted the worldbuilding had serious weaknesses) and one hated them (and expostulated over the worldbuilding weaknesses).

I do gather you get much much more sense of the characters' motivations and personalities--Katniss's, anyway--in the books.

Logan's Run! I read the book after seeing the movie. The book had a totally different ending! One notable thing about the book was that you were only allowed to live to 21, not 30. I found that very interesting: the moviemakers clearly didn't want to have to deal with an all-teen cast back in whenever-it-was that that movie was made. Nowadays maybe they'd try. In terms of story, having people only live to 21 makes the story much more drastic, really makes it clear that you've only got children, with no time to "deepen," to use Madeleine L'Engle's term from A Wind in the Door. If you allow people to live to 30, they actually do have a good decade of real adulthood to experience.

Aug. 15th, 2012 05:22 pm (UTC)
Yes; I actually liked the book, and I understand why they put the 30 years change in (both for actor choice and because of Abbie Hoffman, IMO).

But the better use of the trope, I think, was in Arthur Clarke's The City and the Stars. Did you ever read it?
Aug. 15th, 2012 05:50 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I figured the Abby Hoffman thing gave them a justification for the older date.

No, I've never read The City and the Stars. Tell me about it?
Aug. 15th, 2012 05:59 pm (UTC)
Very interesting. The idea was technology so advanced that there are no moving parts whatsoever. Sort of a precursor to the idea of the holodeck. An entire civilization shelled away from holocaust, living a fantasy life like World of Warcraft in 3D immersion. And written in......... 1956!

Amazing foresight, whatever else you can say about the man. It was actually mandatory reading in one of my philosophy classes in University.

Edited at 2012-08-15 09:59 pm (UTC)
Aug. 15th, 2012 05:08 pm (UTC)
The worldbuilding sucks in the books, and the writing is heavy-handed and obvious to an experienced reader, but for the audience they are aimed at, they work!
Aug. 15th, 2012 05:20 pm (UTC)
Good to know. Do they at least have camp value? Cara Sposa would like to know.
Aug. 15th, 2012 05:21 pm (UTC)
I thought the first one a real page turner, even if I could see the authorial hand pushing things about. (I didn't bother with the movie.)
Aug. 15th, 2012 05:22 pm (UTC)
Thanks. I'll let her know that #1 is at least worth checking out of the library!
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )