The Anti-Targ Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Seriously, having read the book it is the weakest in the series, IMO of course. So I am expecting 2 underwhelming movies to result for the series to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Do you think Mocking Jay has the content to satisfactorily fill out 2 movies or is this an as egregious money grab as The Hobbit and *choke* Breaking Dawn? At least in the case of the Hobbit there is the fig leaf of legit backstory not contained within the Hobbit which is used as the reason for padding out the movies. But even that doesn't justify 9-ish hours of movie given the amount of padding in the first 2. But enough of the Hobbit, we're here to talk about Mocking Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Money grab. This movie will be an example of the movie improving on the source material. Book was terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azzanadra Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Well the two thing I would like to see more fleshed out is the Exact details and events surrounding Peeta's indoctrination, and... The going-ons of the rebel group, especially through the eyes of Gale, his story arc in the final book is something that can be greatly explored her. I also hope they have more on what exactly happens to him, I defiantly feel he got shafted by the end of Mockingjay, a sin he did not receive a proper, conclusive doing other than "oh he's working in district 2 now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 This is one occasion where I'm totally fine with this sort of thing, even though the motivation is blatantly moeny. I like the last book, but for me where it was weakened was in needing to rush through events that needed time to breathe and be worked through, and hopefully making it two films will allow that. At least in the case of the Hobbit there is the fig leaf of legit backstory not contained within the Hobbit which is used as the reason for padding out the movies. But even that doesn't justify 9-ish hours of movie given the amount of padding in the first 2. But enough of the Hobbit, we're here to talk about Mocking Jay. That's a funny way of spelling 'pulled out of Peter Jackson's arse'. He's not allowed to tell the legit backstory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Money grab. The book was shit, but seeing that the Catching Fire movie was better than the book, I'm keeping an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 5, 2014 Author Share Posted August 5, 2014 Now that I think on it, that was one of the flaws of the book, that it didn't go into much depth on some plot points. Still not convinced it's 2 movies' worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Moff Mithrandir Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I blame the HP franchise for mainstreaming this practice. It would have been fine if they made one kickass final movie, but hey its all about the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Haven't even bothered to see the second movie. I read the books, after seeing the Hunger Games movie and I really don't get why such a mediocre work is turned into movies. Especially when you consider the fact that it totally rips of Battle Royale. Ah, well it's still better than Twilight I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 I blame the HP franchise for mainstreaming this practice. It would have been fine if they made one kickass final movie, but hey its all about the money. Didn't Tarantino do it first with Kill Bill? That's a movie that could have been a monumentally amazing 2 hours 30 minutes as one movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Haven't seen the second movie yet. Missed it somehow. Mockingjay was in my opinion by far the worst book, but to be honest it could do with being split in two. There's barely anything about the actual rebels fighting the Capitol, it's all just Katniss moping. She's barely there for the a lot of the important events. A part of me wants to appreciate the attempt at subverting narrative but you have to admit the end result just wasn't fun. Rescuing Peeta will probably be the climax for the first film, with Katniss put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 This is one of the few movies that is better than the books. I'm hopeful for it despite not liking the last book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Money grab. This movie will be an example of the movie improving on the source material. Book was terrible. Jesus. I have the first book somewhere around here but I don't think I'll be reading it then. The second movie was alright, even though it only really felt like a better version of the first film. They must be quite awful indeed if the movies were markedly better. Protar, you might want to put spoiler tags on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordPapa Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Didn't Tarantino do it first with Kill Bill? That's a movie that could have been a monumentally amazing 2 hours 30 minutes as one movie. wasn't it Lord of the Rings? Either or. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 It's a practice that works sometimes (HP7 parts 1 and 2), and doesn't work others (bloated Hobbit mess). Honestly, it's difficult to tell until youve watched the films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 wasn't it Lord of the Rings? ...no? But I don't think Kill Bill counts either because it wasn't an adaptation and, really, there are good reasons why it was two (although, obviously, things overlapped and there were many other influences, Vol. 1 was a cheesy Hong Kong kung-fu movie and Vol. 2 was a western, and as such the two films had a very different sort of tempo and balance). Harry Potter was definitely the progenitor of this trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 wasn't it Lord of the Rings? Either or. Squeezing LotR into 1 movie would result in a hideously long movie or one with half the content from the book missing and wouldn't have been anywhere near as good. Complain about the Hobbit being 3 movies, not LotR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordPapa Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 i'm not complaining. i am merely pointing out that Lord of the Rings did it first. a trilogy filmed all at once yet released over the course of three years in parts, which is considered to be one of the most ambitious film projects ever. harry potter would be the first franchise to adapt each book as one movie but then split the final book into two movies for more money, i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 i'm not complaining. i am merely pointing out that Lord of the Rings did it first. a trilogy filmed all at once yet released over the course of three years in parts, which is considered to be one of the most ambitious film projects ever. harry potter would be the first franchise to adapt each book as one movie but then split the final book into two movies for more money, i guess. LOTR wasn't the first to film multiple films in a series together, Back To The Future parts 2 and 3 were filmed together, there may well be earlier examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordPapa Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 i'm not complaining. i am merely pointing out that Lord of the Rings did it first. a trilogy filmed all at once yet released over the course of three years in parts, which is considered to be one of the most ambitious film projects ever. harry potter would be the first franchise to adapt each book as one movie but then split the final book into two movies for more money, i guess.I see. The difference is that HP etc did it mostly for the money. The Hobbit is the worst example I think as it could definitely have been done in 2 films if they had just stuck to the source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.