Avengers or Hunger Games?

[Beholder]

I'm bored out of my mind, they're both playing in the theatre near my house in an hour, which should I see?

 

[Mello]

Both.

 

[Pistoli]

If you were born in the 90's-Present any one of those will do. If you were born 1990 or earlier, save your money and wait for "Prometheus" or "Moonrise Kingdom", imo.

 

[Beholder]

Eh, it doesn't matter, I misread the showing times, they were last night.

 

[Mello]

Go tomorrow?

 

[DetachedRetina]

Hunger Games was unbelievably stupid.

Okay I never read the book so go ahead and tell me I have no right to criticize now.

But seriously, first of all watch "Battle Royale."

Second of all go read the short story "The Lottery"

Thirdly, read anything by Ayn Rand.

Now rewatch Hunger Games, look me in the eye, and tell me you liked it.

It was insanely unoriginal. Also, the dialogue was contrived, the characters reacted in a very unrealistic way, and the government was supremely bad at controlling the population. Seriously? You are going to make a father watch his daughter get murdered and expect rebellions not to happen? Finally the science fiction aspect made no sense at all. They were able to import magical beasts into the battle-ground that could actually eat you, but they aren't able to import coal (instead of having district 12-the coal mining district-) or food (presumably some of the other districts) or anything like that?

There were so many plotholes I just wanted to get up and leave, but I was in the theatre with people so I didn't want to be rude.

Was this movie supposed to be some sort of political comment or something?

Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have a good grasp of how governments control their populations and doesn't have a good grasp of how humans react in situations of extreme stress.

aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggghhh It pissed me off.

 

[Roran]

Hunger Games was unbelievably stupid.

Okay I never read the book so go ahead and tell me I have no right to criticize now.

But seriously, first of all watch "Battle Royale."

Second of all go read the short story "The Lottery"

Thirdly, read anything by Ayn Rand.

Now rewatch Hunger Games, look me in the eye, and tell me you liked it.

It was insanely unoriginal. Also, the dialogue was contrived, the characters reacted in a very unrealistic way, and the government was supremely bad at controlling the population. Seriously? You are going to make a father watch his daughter get murdered and expect rebellions not to happen? Finally the science fiction aspect made no sense at all. They were able to import magical beasts into the battle-ground that could actually eat you, but they aren't able to import coal (instead of having district 12-the coal mining district-) or food (presumably some of the other districts) or anything like that?

There were so many plotholes I just wanted to get up and leave, but I was in the theatre with people so I didn't want to be rude.

Was this movie supposed to be some sort of political comment or something?

Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have a good grasp of how governments control their populations and doesn't have a good grasp of how humans react in situations of extreme stress.

aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggghhh It pissed me off.

The books were a shitload more realistic, and this is why I almost never watch movies based on books.

 

[DetachedRetina]

The books were a shitload more realistic, and this is why I almost never watch movies based on books.

I figured

 

[Puffy]

I say use youtube as an alternative. So many classics can be found for free legally on sites such as Youtube, no offence, but Avengers and Hunger Games really don't seem worth it to me in comparison.

 

[Irishpenguin]

Funny how my friends just asked me this exact same question.

with the Hunger Games, I honestly think that you should read the books and then watch the movie, to me it basically seemed perfectly tailored for the people that read the books, otherwise you might be confused on parts where you don't know who or what exactly is happening. Though I did personally enjoy the movie, the book was just better (of course)

And with the Avengers it's a simpler answer. Regarding this movie, if you are any kind of nerd and have interest in the Marvel universe or even watched some of the movies leading up to it, well, this movie is just FUCKING. AMAZING. ....like srysly yeah just go and watch this shit first, I walked out of the movie theater with a big-ass smile of my face

(I.E. all the characters are relevant, the action is great, and the dialogue is genuinely funny) ~ Written and directed by Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, Dollhouse, and he also wrote for The Astonishing X-Men for 3 years)

 

[Jennywocky]

Hunger Games was unbelievably stupid.

The book kicked ass.

Despite the wonderful score on RottenTomatoes, however, and the great casting of Katniss, I found the movie flat and lackluster. I'm glad they got a new director for the next movie, but since the source material worsens at this stage, I'm not really excited to see it. Collins' book #2 and #3 just weren't up to the standard of the first book.

But seriously, first of all watch "Battle Royale."

Second of all go read the short story "The Lottery"

Thirdly, read anything by Ayn Rand.

Now rewatch Hunger Games, look me in the eye, and tell me you liked it.

If I'll criticize anything here, it's about this kind of judgment... who gives a flying fig if those other items were better? Judge the movie on its own merits. Just because one thing is better doesn't mean something else is good OR bad.

aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggghhh It pissed me off.

That's obvious. Sorry it sucked so bad for you.

I found Avengers to be better than Hunger Games, but not nearly what I had hoped it would be. At least the NYC battle kicked ass. I would position it as better than Thor but worse than Iron Man and Captain America. maybe on par with the second Incredible hulk, or right under it.

I've been really disappointed with Rotten Tomatoes recently. I guess the rankings there just whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down, and a movie with a score in the 90's really only means the majority of critics found it to be marginally better rather than marginally worse. Mission Impossible 4, Hunger Games, and Avengers weren't nearly as good as I had hoped, although not horrible.

 

[Pistoli]

But seriously, first of all watch "Battle Royale."

Second of all go read the short story "The Lottery"

Thirdly, read anything by Ayn Rand.

Now rewatch Hunger Games, look me in the eye, and tell me you liked it.

I'm kinda aligned with this. I'm thinking it's an age thing(I'm 30). Movies like the "Hunger Games" or "Twilght" seem contrived to me. While the books may qualify as having some kind of real substance, the movies are hollow money making devices.

As for Marvel/DC Universe movies, well, I can't really stand them. Movies like "300", "Sin City", "Watchmen" and, oddly the most recent "Superman" movie prove you can make a film about a comicbook for the fans of the series. No need to dumb down and explain the characters and their origins for a new audience. Those movies just throw you right into their universe, which is awesome.

After growing up with films like "Pulp Fiction" "DieHard" and "Seven" combined with the appreciation and curiosity of previous generations,, I think we just find those films silly and offensive.

 

[DetachedRetina]

If I'll criticize anything here, it's about this kind of judgment... who gives a flying fig if those other items were better? Judge the movie on its own merits. Just because one thing is better doesn't mean something else is good OR bad.

I would have been okay with this movie if it were not talked about by my peers as if it were some eye-opening science fiction masterpiece that serves as a cautionary tale or something.

It was entertaining enough to watch I guess, kind of like watching a James Bond movie. But I think I was in a mood and reacting against a group of opinions which perhaps you have not encountered.

Again, I didn't read the book, so maybe the author has a much better sense for human emotions and government control than the movie implied.

In a nutshell, I appreciated the movie as a summer action flick about teenagers fighting to the death, but I reject the idea that it is artistic or ingenious in any way.

 

[Puffy]

I'm with detachedretina on this last post, I think.

But I'm just a film snob, I guess. I don't have anything against films that are intended for pure entertainment, (I had a very amusing discussion following 'The Brave Little Toaster' just the other day ), I simply wish that people my age would consider films of artistic and intellectual merit as well. As they, largely, don't, I think I'm a bit unfair about films like the Hunger Games.

 

[TriflinThomas]

I found the Avengers to be annoyingly predictable. Except for the giant, flying, alien shellfish...

 

[RedN]

i didnt like the hunger games really. it gave me a feel that its ... its just like... twilight's take on vampires and werewolves - its a bit weird?

avengers was simple, nothing special just better than the hunger games i think. and robert downey was there so... yay.