Recent Viewing Part IV

FAG!

To a certain extend, yes. But fact is, that the media industry looked for something to fill the gap left by the Harry Potter franchise. So Twilight got hyped beyond believe.

OK. You are certainly right concerning "Hunger Games". But if I remember correctly, "Twilight" wasn't big until HP was over. At least in Germany. Wait, the first time I heard about "Twilight" was in 2008. HP books were over then, the films were not. Many of my about-12-year old girl students would go on from HP to "Twilight" in the advent of the first film because there was some actor they adored.

Now You See Me.

I wish hadn't of seen it.

-Erik-

Hunger games? Hideous, both films.

Nice score though On CD.

It really isn't about the stupid love triangle. I know it isn't exactly Orwell or anything, but I think you aren't giving the dystopian/rebellion/social-commentary angle the credit it deserves. That's where the real focus and meat of the story is. And would people quit it with the Battle Royale comparisons already. For one thing, Collins didn't know about that when she wrote her novels and she still doesn't, having refused to read it after the similarities were pointed out to her for fear of being influenced by it. For another, the originality of a premise is far, far less important than how it's executed and handled, so I'd appreciate it if more focus was put on that.

Both films I think have done a remarkably decent job of bringing them to the screen. They're better adaptation jobs than quite a few of the Potter films, I'd say, and they honestly don't pander to the fangirls by extending the love triangle stuff or anything. That's another thing - don't hate the product because of its fanbase. Just because some Twilight people happen to read/watch these books/movies and skip over all the "boring" dystopian stuff to get to the love triangle, doesn't mean that you should dismiss it entirely.

I don't see what all the fuss is about with these Hunger Games? I only managed to get through about an hour of the first film before giving up! But then I don't like Lord Of The Rings either, so what do I know...

That's fine, but it doesn't mean you have to call them "hideous!"

Just leave it at that! "Not my thing." There's plenty of stuff that I personally am not fond of (pretty much any romantic comedy, for starters) but that doesn't mean I proclaim them "hideous" as if it's FACT!!!! Something can still be well-made even if it doesn't appeal to you.

"Hunger Games" is science fiction for people who generally don't read or watch science fiction. For connoiseurs of the genre there is nothing new to be found in this franchise. It has all been covered decades ago.

Volker

It is. A heritage of the late 19th century.
I would venture that the success of STAR WARS had many reasons. The uniqueness and originality of the story was not one of them.
On second thought: Science fiction in 1977 wasn't nearly as popular as it is today. STAR TREK in the 60s was a niche phenomenon, as were the pulp magazines in the 30s-50s. STAR WARS depends heavily on these pulp stories. STAR WARS made science fiction mainstream.

If anyone were to say they thought Now You See Me is a 'clever' film with lots of surprising twists, that person is a retard. That, also, is a fact. An awful film indeed.

Wow. I thought it was dumb, sure, but at least a fairly slick and enjoyable kind of dumb. Great cast, too. Certainly not worth of any "worst ever" lists.