Using one of the book’s themes “Real-life carnage is disturbing and not a form of
entertainment,” write about how the director and movie personnel did or did not stick to this theme. Is it ironic that Suzanne Collins’ book with a theme of how gore should not be entertaining was made into a movie, or is the movie supportive of her point that we as a society don’t need the visual gore since it was rated PG-13 and not R? Did the director/movie creators abide by Suzanne Collins message about how in-our-face violence isn’t necessary and let the audience imply what was happening, or did they enhance the violence and go against what Suzanne Collins was trying to get across in The Hunger Games?
Hunger Games Comparison
ReplyDeleteThere were many comparisons between the Hunger Games movie and book...
In the book Katniss gave Peeta a sort of cough syrup to Knock him out In order to go to the feast.
In the movie the medicine that Katniss received from the feast fixed his leg Immediately and in the book It didn’t.
In the book it mentioned how Katniss’s ear was injured from the explosion and in the movie It didn’t.
In the movie at the final interview it didn’t show the highlights and replays of the Hunger Games and in the book they did.
In the book Peeta had to get a new leg and In the movie they didn’t even mention it.
In the book district 11 didn’t have a riot after rue died like the movie did.
In the movie they didn’t describe how the mutations were made like in the book.
In the movie Cato was hiding in the cornicopia at the end and in the book he was running from them in the woods.
In the book when Katniss found Rue she was stabbed right away and in the movie she was found in a trap and Katniss was able to free her.
In the Movie Katniss shot the tribute who stabbed rue in the Stomach and in the book she shot him in the throat.
The director of the Hunger Games did stick to the theme of how violence is not entertainment. The movie basically showed the same concept as the book, that carnage is not proper entertainment. The movie was similar to the movie; it had the same story line, yet with a lot of parts taken out to keep in PG 13.
ReplyDeleteIt kind of is ironic, since movies are usually forms of visual entertainment, and the whole story is about how violence shouldn't be expressed as a good, entertaining resource. Yet the movie is what that's all about. However, the movie sports a message along the same lines as the book.
The movie is supportive of Suzzane Collins' idea, and it stuck to her point, even though things were changed, like characters and different scenes. The movie wasn't as violent as it could've been, but since is was changed to PG 13, they had to keep it down. If the movie was EXACTLY like the book, it would've definitley been rated R.
I think the director/ movie personell did a very good job of sticking to the theme. I think they did stick to Suzanne Collin's "gore" theme (and did a very good job of it too). I just thought the whole entire movie was amazing
ReplyDeleteThe motition in this movie was crazy. In the book its different because,they explained how it was when they killed and died.
ReplyDeletethey did stick to the topic but not much about not being in the hunger games or ever hunting with gale the never said anything about that.i dont think the tracker jackers had any of the traites.they dint also spend much time in the diner area klike in the boook but i like the movie i rate it and eight out of ten just because the camra was shcky and evrything wasent on task
ReplyDelete