Hunger Games Quadrilogy

[YmirGF]

So, here I am, seated here on my island paradise and finally managed to get around to watching all 4 Hunger Games movies. First, I did watch each of them, in their entirety, so that IS saying something, but at the end of the 4th movie I was just sitting here rolling my eyes, muttering, "What, that's it?" After 9 plus hours of movie that was the best they could come up with. I don't know, it was just such a cheap ending that almost made the entire series pointless. Am I missing something?

Don't get me wrong, I did like some aspects of the story. The acting was not bad, the overall story-line was not bad. The special effects were pretty good ... and no, I've not read the books, but based on the movies, I'm not so sure I want to read them. Thoughts?

 

[Draka]

I read all the books and I actually think they did well on holding to them with the movies. And yes, the movie ends much the same as the books. I liked them quite a bit. The only thing about watching the movies is that they move so fast that you really don't get as much emotion from them as the books. Certain deaths not as much impact as the books. The last book, I was crying while reading several times. The movie got some tears from me, but not as powerful. Still a fan though.

 

[YmirGF]

Best part of the movie was Cressida's hair.

I certainly did a double-take when Dormer hit the screen. It was odd seeing Anne Boleyn with a groovy new hair do.

 

[Draka]

Oh, and at least the books explain more than the movie. Puts things a little more in perspective to know Panem is the U.S. and which districts are what part of the country and so on. Background and details are nice and you don't get that much with movies.

 

[Shusha]

Not even Jennifer Lawrence can save bad writing. The flaws in the movie are a direct result of the flaws in the books. Its a writing problem. (So, no, you don't want to read the books).

 

[Shusha]

Yeah, this is one of the few franchises where I consider the movies to be better than the books.

Agree. At least the movie had the talented actors, the special effects, the music, the costumes and makeup and some big explosions to distract you from the bad writing.

 

[Draka]

I simply don't see the flaws in the books the others here seem to see. There was quite a bit more to the books than the movies, they went into quite a bit more in history, detail, emotion, relationships. I mean, yes, I think the movies were good, but like most movies made from books I don't see how one can think the movies were better than the books.

And bad writing? Really? They may not have been the best books ever, but I certainly wouldn't classify them as the products of "bad writing". Given the pure sales numbers in both the books and the movies, perhaps it just isn't a "bad writing" thing and more just a personal preference thing?

 

[Shusha]

I consider it bad writing when an action hero becomes transformed into an ineffective, pointless character at the climax of the book. The movie did a better job in its portrayal of Katniss than the books did (mostly because of J-Law).

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I try to judge the series fairly by keeping in mind that it's a YA series made for teens, and all the drawbacks that it comes with. If it seems like a derivative 'baby's first dystopian fiction' that's because it was (though the first book's reliance on Battle Royal which is also a YA dystopian children's battle to the death got a bit obnoxious.) But I can forgive the cheap romance and much simplified world building as being a genre thing.
Of course I'd rather them skip directly to more nuanced dystopian sci-fi like Snow Crash but hey, at least it got kids more interested in reading and created a world interested enough in sci-fi that we can have gold nuggets like Expanse get a tv series.

 

[Draka]

People can like the story without thinking the writing is good. Sales also don't really reflect anything as one can buy a book series without enjoying it or without thinking the writing is good.

I agree that it is purely opinion based, also my bar for something being considered good writing could be higher than the average reader.

Or perhaps your bar for something being considered good writing could be just placed differently...rather than higher.


Also, people who don't enjoy a book don't tend to buy the sequels. I have bought the first book in a series before and, though having made myself read it all the way through, had absolutely no interest in buying the next in the series. Series depend upon people becoming invested in the story, and that is done with the writing. If the writing isn't at least somewhat good enough to invest the readers then the series isn't going to get much of a following. Hunger Games did. Therefore it makes it quite a stretch to try to say that the books are an example of "bad writing".

 

[Shusha]

Let me be clear. There are plenty of elements of really great writing in the book series. An author can have strengths and weaknesses in their writing, or even in individual books. I'm not saying the author is a "bad" writer. I enjoyed the first two books. The last book, though, had a serious flaw at the climax of the book. And it was so serious that I consider it one of the worst books I've ever read. One of the reasons why I consider it "bad" is that I don't believe the author intended Katniss to be inconsistent or ineffective. Which means something happened the author did not intend. And that (!) is bad writing.

 

[YmirGF]

Let me be clear. There are plenty of elements of really great writing in the book series. An author can have strengths and weaknesses in their writing, or even in individual books. I'm not saying the author is a "bad" writer. I enjoyed the first two books. The last book, though, had a serious flaw at the climax of the book. And it was so serious that I consider it one of the worst books I've ever read. One of the reasons why I consider it "bad" is that I don't believe the author intended Katniss to be inconsistent or ineffective. Which means something happened the author did not intend. And that (!) is bad writing.

I did giggle a bit when they blew the dam up. They go through the bother of dragging those crates to 3 locations and then detonating them, and then running to get away... Ah, you cannot outrun the rushing water from a dam breach. Just, no. I was willing to let that slide though. Was the book account different? Was there a hovercraft or summin?

 

[Draka]

Let me be clear. There are plenty of elements of really great writing in the book series. An author can have strengths and weaknesses in their writing, or even in individual books. I'm not saying the author is a "bad" writer. I enjoyed the first two books. The last book, though, had a serious flaw at the climax of the book. And it was so serious that I consider it one of the worst books I've ever read. One of the reasons why I consider it "bad" is that I don't believe the author intended Katniss to be inconsistent or ineffective. Which means something happened the author did not intend. And that (!) is bad writing.

FWIW, people who suffer from PTSD aren't exactly themselves all the time and are inconsistent as well. Katniss was supposed be messed up.

I did giggle a bit when they blew the dam up. They go through the bother of dragging those crates to 3 locations and then detonating them, and then running to get away... Ah, you cannot outrun the rushing water from a dam breach. Just, no. I was willing to let that slide though. Was the book account different? Was there a hovercraft or summin?

As I recall, that wasn't in the book at all. Neither was the part with District 7 and the people climbing trees. Those things were added just for the movie. I'm flipping through the book now and I believe I'm right. Yeah, the dam is just a passing mention. A news blip that it was blown.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I saw the first movie in theaters. At first, I thought I liked it. Then I soon realized it was rubbish. I haven't bothered watching any of the sequels as I really can't stand Jennifer Lawrence. I much prefer the Divergent series. Better story, better acting, better everything.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I find divergence to be a combination of the maze runner and hunger games distopian cliches.

They're all cliched (just like every single genre there is), but at least one does it better.

 

[AnnaCzereda]

I really liked Hunger Games, all four parts, though the first part was the best in my opinion. The plot was interesting, the special effects rocked too. However, I'm not very demanding when it comes to the movies. If I'm intrigued by the overall story, I don't pay much attention to details. Also cliches and minor plot inconsistencies don't bother me that much. I can agree with you though that the ending was a bit disappointing. I hoped Katniss would become a president.

Divergent and The Maze Runner are also very good movies. Then again, when it comes to the Maze Runner, the first part was better than the second one. I admired the scenery, I mean that maze, absolutely gorgeous.

 

[Iti oj]

People can like the story without thinking the writing is good. Sales also don't really reflect anything as one can buy a book series without enjoying it or without thinking the writing is good.

I agree that it is purely opinion based, also my bar for something being considered good writing could be higher than the average reader.

i bought and read twilight...it helped me get laid.

 

[Draka]

i bought and read twilight...it helped me get laid.

I've never read the Twilight series.

One series that I think would be awesome for movies would be the Iron Fey series. The 7th book just came out and I've just started it. May be too long for movies, but not as if it hasn't been done before. Another that may work for movies would be another series by the same author, The Blood of Eden series. I sped through those books.