XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , Paul S. Person  wrote:   
      
   > > > Paul S. Person:   
   > > > I saw the first /Mockingjay/ movie today.   
   > >   
   > > > Wow. Oh, wow!   
   > >   
   > > > Now I just have to wait one year for the rest of it!   
   > >   
   > > Sandman:   
   > > It was total crap. Basically two hours of nothing happened. The   
   > > only good thing about it is that Katniss had more than four lines   
   > > of dialogoue in this movie, which is more than the two earlier   
   > > movies combined. Other than that it was a slow movie that was so   
   > > evidently stretched out to make two movies out of it.   
   >   
   > It's always nice to have an alternative opinion.   
      
   > This reads as if you have not read the books. So I will confine   
   > myself to pointing out that /most if not all of what you criticise   
   > is in the book/.   
      
   I've read the first book, though. Didn't enjoy it. Poorly written and   
   uninteresting story/characters.   
      
   > And I'm not sure what you mean by "character development". Katniss'   
   > charater is pretty much the same in the Epilogue as it is at the   
   > start of /The Hunger Games/. She is very resistant to change, and,   
   > without change, there can be no development.   
      
   But that's the problem. Character development doesn't necessarily mean   
   change, it means that the audience gets to know things about a character.   
   In a book, this is easy most of the time, especially if it is written in   
   first person. This way, the reader gets to experience the events form   
   inside the head of the protagonist, so her thoughts and feelings are   
   character development even if they don't change over the course of the   
   story.   
      
   In a movie, and especially a movie adaptation, this needs to be conveyed by   
   the script and more specifically the actor. The thoughts and feelings of   
   the character needs to be visualized so the viewer gets an idea of what the   
   character is thinking and feeling. Jennifer Lawrence just isn't a good   
   enough character to do this in a convincing way. But it works both ways,   
   the director is equally responsible.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > The Hobbit has the same problems, but it actually *has* more story   
   > > outside of the book to incorporate for those unneccesary scenes.   
   >   
   > Indeed it does -- but it's not JRRT's story is it?   
      
   Well, uh, sure it is. It's just spread out over different books and texts.   
   That is - the parts of The Hobbit movies that ARE lent from other sources,   
   not the superflous added stuff.   
      
   > Not JRRT's /TH/ and not JRRT's "other" story, the one involving Dol   
   > Guldur. The latter may have JRRT's names, but it is pretty much entirely   
   > made up by PJ & accomplices.   
      
   Dol Goldur isn't made up by the movie makers. Not sure what you're getting   
   at here.   
      
   > This is what you prefer to actually adapting the book?   
      
   With all its flaws, I think The Hobbit movies is a better book adaptation   
   than the Hunger Games mess, yes. But that's not what I was talking about -   
   I was comparing The Hobbit movies to Hunger games last book being split   
   into two movies where the movie makers of the Hunger Games need to add/slow   
   down the pace to a crawl because they can't invent too much out of the   
   blue, whilst the Hobbit movie makers actually have other sources to draw   
   material from.   
      
   So while the last HG book has been expanded to two movies and the first   
   part is about 50% of nothing happening to accomodate this, the Hobbit book   
   has been expanded to three movies, but from the two movies released, we   
   don't have a single scene of nothing happening. We have X% of added   
   unnecessary stuff (barrel ride, goblin escape, rabbit sleigh etc) and X% of   
   added material from other sources of JRRT's.   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > While the two first hunger games movies were a snore fest, this   
   > > went in to full coma.   
   >   
   > I found it quite exciting.   
      
   What parts were exciting, specifically? When they sta by the water and she   
   sang? When she and Gale sat in the forest doing nothing? When they D13   
   president talked and talked and talked? When Prim couldn't sleep? There was   
   some 5% action scenes in this movie, and the rest was characters walking,   
   standing, staring, talking, eating and sleeping.   
      
   The only time Katniss ever did anything in the entire movie was when she   
   shot down one of the fighters with an exploding arrow, the rest of the   
   movie she sat, or stood, or lied down, or ate, or talked sparingly with   
   someone, or watched a monitor.   
      
   > Perhaps you would prefer /Divergent/. I haven't and don't plan to   
   > read that series, but it certainly had a lot of action, at least at   
   > the end.   
      
   Please, it was even crappier. I haven't read the book, but the movie was an   
   illogical mess of nothing. At least Hunger Games have the budget for SFX,   
   Divergent was a crap movie.   
      
   > And the trailer I saw for /Insurgent/ appears to have at least one   
   > awesome sequence, even if it turns out to be a mental test or a dream.   
      
   They seem to have been given a bigger budget at least :)   
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)