The Hunger Games - Page 5

Ms. Garrett thought this movie was terrible.

Dana Plato had a premonition about this movie, and you know what happened there.

Terrible.

I would be quite curious if anyone noticed extra noise, or whatever in dark scenes. I am fairly picky, and their was not much grain normally but when the night scenes kicked in their was quite a bit of what looked like some noise on my projector everytime a dark scene kicked in... maybe it was just grain being more noticeable in the dark scenes somehow.

I often noticed in a few areas out in the woods, these black areas also appeared a bit washed out in areas where the mosquito noise flared up....the scene in that cave for one.

I see a few reviews mentioning washed out blacks in a couple scenes, while another mentions the extreme noise in the odd scene i was seeing as well, im just wondering if more people noticed it. It was only a couple of scenes. This review mentioned what i was seeing.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/official-dvd-blu-ray-movie-reviews/60961-hunger-games-blu-ray-review.html#post542027


"The final irritation would be the the occaisonal close up that was literally swarming with digital noise. we'd switch from a scene that's as crisp and clear as can be to an extreme close up of Katniss that would be dancing with noise. Don't get me wrong, this issues are mostly an irritant to my OCD nature rather than a large visual distraction from an otherwise pristine picture. Overall I'd say Lionsgate did an extremely faithful job of bringing this to the home market. "

Another review mentions these washed out black areas

http://www.doblu.com/2012/08/21/the-hunger-games-review/

" Critical black levels are lacking needed density as night falls, keeping shadow detail firmly intact while washing out the screen."

Not to harp on it but these couple scenes really stood out for otherwise being a nice transfer.

Here is a simple screen capture i took

http://imageshack.us/f/4/hungerp.png/
Edited by Murilo - 9/1/12 at 5:46am

Dark scene = faster stock = more grain/noise. Even with a modern DI they still have to deal with this this fact of filmmaking life, either toning down the grain to fit with the rest of the film or leaving it as is. As for the blacks, they are what they are. Some shots may not have been exposed as thickly as others, in order to preserve the shadow detail.

I think Hunger Games looks superb, because it's nigh-on identical to the digital projection I saw in the theater.

To be honest geoff I have not noticed a difference like that in many other films I have watched. I have seen it before but not that its common, but perhaps it was the directors choice. I have also seen shadow detail more well preserved in scenes with better black levels as well....although its better then crushing the detail.

I believe this is similar to some who complained about zodiac.

It was a pretty good transfer still overall though imo.

I see some in the tier thread also found some scenes overly soft. Probably a by product of how it was shot as you mentioned.
Edited by Murilo - 9/2/12 at 10:12am

The noisy shots in The Hunger Games are emphasized by some of the movie's post-production tweaking. The DI has come contrast boosting and likely sharpening applied as well.

After spending lots of money on equipment, isn't it reasonable to spend a full $10-20 on a movie rather than just $1.50?

Isn't it reasonable to expect a disc we rent to try it before we buy it would give us a proper preview of the product?

I can rent a car that will likely be outfitted far better than what I'll likely want to buy, but it sure gives me a good impression of the product.

In short, the rental should be a sales pitch for buying it. It shouldn't be the studios expressing sour grapes over a consumer who might have a tighter budget than your average movie mogul.

All these shortcuts in the rental market, lazy restorations that are merely mass dithering sessions and a slate of knockoffs, remakes and fake 3D shaky cam extravaganzas (all the while taking away week one discounts and increasing prices) have done for me is make me less willing to give them any more money than I have to.

They can take their Teal and Orange. I'll save my green.
Edited by NetworkTV - 9/3/12 at 4:08pm

A year ago, I'd say you're crazy.

Today, with this ridiculous dumbed-down Dolby Digital soundtracks on some rental discs, purchasing them is the only solution if you find a certain movie is coming to rental in diluted form.

As far as test driving it, I imagine few 'rent to buy'. The studios will never factor that into their policies.

Rental is still a good value... for now.

They want you to buy the movie, not rent it. End of story. This is their little way of making sure you do so.

It did not get me to buy it. I still rented and it still sounded excellent, DD and all (I am sure it is the same mix which is the biggie). Now that I have seen it and even though I enjoyed it, this is definitely one I dont need to own because I cant see myself watching it again.

GLAD I DID NOT BUY.

I for one do use rentals as a test flight type system commonly as far as whether or not to buy some discs. THG is one of those times and I am not buying.

Actually, it's their hope you'll buy it.

They can't "make" you do anything. They have to find a way to make buying more appealing, not make renting less appealing.

That's something they seem not to understand.

People pay more for a luxury car not because of the features of the car, but for the overall quality, features, service and the prestige in owning a fine quality automobile. If it were just about reliable transportation, everyone would just stick with a Honda Civic. They aren't going to step up for a couple of extra air bags, a fancy Navi system and an emblem that looks like an airplane propeller.

It's all about finding a way for the customer to feel like they're getting something for their money. For some, it's all about the package and its features. For the rest, it's all about zero down, zero interest financing.
Edited by NetworkTV - 9/4/12 at 5:05pm

I can honestly say that if I rent a title - I do not buy it. If I intend to buy it, I wait for a price I consider acceptable and buy it - I do not rent it.
Putting gimped audio tracks and forgoing extras on rentals has absolutely no impact on my purchases.
So the studios can play all the games they like wasting money contracting for, stocking, distributing, keeping track of, etc. multiple versions of titles. They are just wasting their money imo.
One thing they do that DOES have an effect on my purchases - cinavia - I generally avoid purchasing cinavia infected titles.
A cinavia infected title has to be something I very much want to own or else it is strictly a rental - or just skipped.

Having read and enjoyed the Hunger Games books, buying this title was a given for me. It's a great blu-ray and the extras disc is also very good.

I personally thought this film was average at best. Rented it and couldn't have been more bored.

Wow, if this movie bores you that much, they must mistake you for being comatose when you're in line at the DMV...

LOL no I just felt this was another teeny bopping action movie. I watch a lot of film and after coming off a couple modern masterpieces this one was for kids imo. Sorry but that is how I feel. Boring to me isn't great exposition and screenwriting and people talking like real people.

This film was full of mediocre acting based on mediocre novels.

I really don't like a lot of teenybopper fiction either. For example, I read the first Twilight book and watched the first film. I thought they were both so awful, I have not read the later Twilight novels nor seen the later Twilight films.

I suspect that you have not read any of Suzan Collins' Hunger Games Trilogy, the first book of which was the inspiration for the movie. I thought all the books were terrific. In fact, I thought the last two were at least as good as the first and that all were far better than "mediocre." Have you read any of them?

As for the acting in The Hunger Games, yours is the first comment I have seen anywhere, which characterized a Jennifer Lawrence performance as "mediocre acting."

Damned right it's not

+2!. The Hunger Games Trilogy and the first film transcend teen and children's fiction, as the Harry Potter series and films did but the Twilight series certainly did not.

I don't read teen fiction.

I come from different tastes. I barely read any of this modern crap. There is so much grammatical and linguistic incompetence in these kinds of novels it's not even worth my time. I don't want to be elitist but if you think Hunger Games is great literature.... I just have to exhale really slowly. I assume people commenting on Twilight have read that too? The fact grown adults read Twilight before they read any of the mentioned authors below makes me want to be comatose.

How about Nabakov and Barth and Kerouac and Orwell and so on and on. Sorry, teen fiction isn't my ride. But it's an opinion don't get too concerned over it. I watched the film and read about 1/4 of the book. I just cannot be bothered. It's like reading this really cool story.... from a smart 15 year old. It has no bearing at all on great literature or great minds. Our present society is just too accepting of bad taste if you ask me. Everything is great nowadays. We all are special.

I will say it had a decent story just poor characterization, grammar, themes, and pretty much everything else. Didn't Battle Royale have this same kind of story? Anyway, this isn't Brave New World lofl.

I was also never a fan of Harry Potter. Seriously, maybe they transcend something in your mind but to me they are average teen fantasy, albeit decent, and pale in comparison to the better works of Jordan and his ilk in the modern sense. I gave up on Jordan because he died before he could ever get the last words out. Sad but what do you do.

I mean the fact you even think I even know what the hell Twilight is about is revolting to me. I wasn't comparing it to Twilight and I don't care to go any further with this conversation because it seems we're not going to meet anywhere. This stuff is in fact ridiculous compared to real novelists of our time just as this poor film is ridiculous compared to the real cinema of our time. Can't handle that? Oh noes.

In particular I found her acting stunted by the weak script and found Harrelson, who I usually love, way out of place. This stuff is for the masses not intellectuals. I think some people have a problem with that. Tough. We are not the same.
Edited by khronikos - 9/5/12 at 4:38pm

Look, I can enjoy the plot okay, more than the film imho. The film was very disappointing to me. And yes I do like this girl's acting. I just cannot get into this stuff. I don't like much modern fiction. It's stale and mostly poorly written. There are of course many great authors out there but there is so much older stuff that it all gets lost to me until they have aged a bit and have a few books out and a background. I am not condemning people. I don't really care to be honest what people like or dislike it's interesting conversation none the less but I will defend my opinion.

I thought the film was just too commercial like I thought Iron Man was too commercial with sloppy camerawork, acting, and script. Well, Iron Man's script was non-existent and I would definitely watch this before that but.... definitely. I hate Iron Man with a passion that knows no bounds.
Edited by khronikos - 9/5/12 at 4:59pm

Thanks for confirming that you have not read any of the The Hunger Games Books but still had the temerity to call them "mediocre novels." If you will forgive a bit of unsolicited advice: when you find your self in a hole, stop digging.

I read nearly a hundred books a year. With that kind of volume, many of them are obviously dreck but there are a number of books that are refreshingly excellent. All three of The Hunger Games Trilogy fell in that category. But I also read what the insecure seem to call "serious literature," although not Jack Kerouac, even I have my limits.

In rereading what I wrote above, I fear that I may have been a bit harsh so let me finish by saying in your defense that we all have our own tastes and movies based on teen fiction, no matter how popular, don't appeal to everyone. In fact, most of them don't appeal to me. Don't pay too much attention to me, though, I loved Iron Man enough to have bought the BD.
Edited by gwsat - 9/6/12 at 11:40am

How could Iron Man be "too commercial"? It was a COMIC-BOOK MOVIE, wasn't it?

If we're talking strictly about the three novels, I believe you are making an incorrect assumption. The final novel in particular contains some surprisingly mature material. It's not the hollow dreck you might think it is, even if it doesn't use a lot of fancy vocabulary words (which is easy to justify given the first-person perspective).

I would think that someone who boasts about reading the giants such as "Nabakov" would know how to spell his name...

khronikos, we're piling on because you came into this thread trolling and disparaging The Hunger Games novel, when you haven't even read it. Furthermore, you boasted about the literary works that you read instead. When we challenge you, you start blubbering and ranting.

If you haven't read any of Nabokov's novels for "a couple of years" why don't you boast about the works you have read in "a couple of years"?

If you don't like the movie, fine, just don't post nonsense about the source book which you haven't even read. Thanks.

Posts deleted, infraction issued...lets move on

GWSAT,

I thought Jennifer Lawrence's performance was like she was sleep walking and/or stoned for most of the movie. Her line delivery was off and half the time she seemed bored and uninterested. Winter's Bone had a much better and more lively performance... and she was nominated for an Oscar. She may be a temperamental actor like Anthony Hopkins or Ewan McGregor where if they find the script silly (pay the rent type stuff) or the director without talent, they won't perform at their best and get lazy.
Edited by Dan Hitchman - 9/7/12 at 1:57pm