Link: http://www.zhihu.com/question/37681042/answer/73117155
Source : Zhihu
To tell the truth, I don’t quite understand bad words, and even give failing points.
If you use a line from the movie to evaluate the finale of The Hunger Games, it is:
Katniss, you are never disappointing.
To be honest, the third book of the original (and possibly due to the translation) is very boring, especially for this kind of leader. It's going bad, it's going to die, the protagonist is being used, it's really not enough in the face of the feudal monarchy of more than two thousand years in China.
The most terrible thing is that almost all of them are first-person perspectives, and readers are completely unaware of the events and situations in which Katniss is not present.
The effect of the film is much better than that of the novel, not only reflected in the three-dimensional sense and richness.
Of course, many people think that many parts of the movie are not loyal to the original. If all the original stuff (especially the third one) is moved in, it will be really bad. Personally, I think that the deletion and modification is more in place, and it is an addition rather than a deviation to the final general direction, not to mention that the screenwriter is the author himself.
Of course, it is undeniable that this movie still has many flaws: from the continuity of the plot to the details, there are some shortcomings, the lack of character introduction, no proper flashback, partial ideas of the novel have not been fully expressed, etc...
But it is still one. Good work, The Hunger Games is also a good series, and there are really not many such series now.
I don’t know if many people have noticed the echoes and details of the plot instead of focusing on the plot.
(Some people have suggested that it is because I have seen the original work. Actually, it is not important. I carefully taste a movie, especially when the movie has so many plot details instead of the shooting details that are not very useful.)
1. It is probably the most superficial to say that the war is over sloppy, and you don't know how to win the war. As Snow said, he and Katniss only pay attention to each other, and it is President Coyne that is profiting from each other.
2. This story began when Katniss volunteered to participate in the game in order to protect her sister from being killed for participating in the game, and the story ended when Prim, eventually died (btw Katniss’s mother kept getting stronger and stronger in this independent movie Lack of representation).
3. Finnick’s original work has no sense of existence in the third part. The scenes in the movie at least well reflect the value of his death. This is applicable to many cannon fodder characters in the movie. The movie is more three-dimensional, and The wedding scene echoes behind.
4. I don’t know if people who haven’t read the original can accurately associate the inductive bomb (second-order explosion) made by Beetee from the last dialogue. A setting in the original is not clearly stated in the movie, that is The second explosion, the one that killed Prim, was to bring the masses' resentment against Snow to a peak.
5. Saying that the big cousin is ugly, has a fat face, has a bad figure, and has an ugly makeup, I would like to send you a comment from the media after the release of The Hunger Games 1 [Jennifer Lawrence was born for the role of mockingbird], and another question Her acting skills really don’t come to show the lower limit...
6. Natalie Dormer’s female director role may have noticed that she was brave and casual at the beginning, only focusing on shooting, but she was later caught Surrounded by fear, it shows how much the Hunger Games can destroy a person's spirit from the side, but I really like her look! ! goddess! ! She really shaved half of her hair for this character.
7. There is a place where the translation is not reflected. In the end, the Primrose (Primrose) planted by Pitta has the same sound as Prim, and it is also the source of Primrose's name.
8. The role of Pella is indeed imperfect. She became president in the movie and can even be said to be inexplicable, but there are actually many descriptions of her positive image in the original book.
9. It’s been a few years since I read the original work, and I can’t remember clearly, but in my impression, the novels are all first-person perspectives except for the narration, which means that many of the plots of the movies where Katniss is not present are almost original. Recall the scenes in the four movies, especially the many scenes from Snow’s perspective. His treacherous and gloomy echoes with Katniss’s fear constantly. Many deletions and changes in the movie were caught, but my feelings are: The film hardly makes any changes that are not conducive to the expression of the story.
10. I saw an answer that Hoffman’s role didn’t work anywhere. I understand it this way: It’s just a game designer period. Every time he talks with Snow, he always comes up with ideas. He The ideas presented are beneficial to the Congress District, but they all have one characteristic. His ideas are all to kill Katniss or destroy the image of Mockingjay, not to quell the rebellion.
Snow's focus at this time should be to quell the rebellion, but Hoffman turned his attention to Katniss, and Hoffman clearly knew that they would rescue Katniss, so, do you still think he is useless?
11. Regarding that Mockingjay III (Part 1) is protracted and has no effect on the plot, I totally oppose it. If it is from the perspective of filming, I don't understand, so I have nothing to say, but if after watching Mockingjay III (Part 2), I still feel that Shang has no effect on the plot, then I can only say that you still don't understand the role of Katniss. After the end of the 75th HG, she was actually full of fear for Snow, so she just wanted to go home. After learning that her home was destroyed, she just wanted to get Pita back, and Mockingjay III (Part 1) was the one who constantly forced her to explode. Until the voluntary assassination of Snow.
Is Katniss brave? Yes. Is Katniss cowardly? Yes. Contradictory? Not contradictory.
Katniss is like Shinji Ikura in EVA to some extent. She will not take the initiative to resist. She will always give priority to the pigeon strategy. All her decisions are based on emotions. As she said, all of this is about personal. : She voluntarily participated in the competition out of emotion, and she wanted to kill Snow, not for the revolution, but because she felt that only the people around her could be safe and survive when Snow died.
It wasn’t until Prim’s death that she realized that Snow was not the culprit that caused her to live like a nightmare, so she killed Cohen and ended the Hunger Games on the surface, but actually ended the system and her controlled life. Revenge for Prim.
12. Some people say that there is no Hunger Games in the third part (not to be divided), but in fact, from Finnick’s ridicule and the final Cohen’s vote, it can be seen that the 451 team’s action is the 76th Hunger Games. Cohen and Snow jointly arranged for Katniss. The last Hunger Games.
The third (below) criticized a lot is because of the lack of war scenes. The first reason I mentioned in 1, the second reason is that the whole story revolves around the Hunger Games. If the 74th is compared to the "cause", The 75th session was "transition", and the final hunger game was "end".
There is no description of war in the novel. If you want to see war, you can go to the Lord of the Rings.
Katniss was never going to participate in war. Her destiny is the Hunger Games. Instead, I think the novels and movies are handled very well. War is not the point at all.
This is the purest story about [The Hunger Games].
13. In another question, the question of the ending was raised. I partly agree that Katniss’s mental collapse after shooting Cohen is not shown in the movie (it is caused by many aspects, but in the novel it can be inferred that the most important thing is Primm’s death), a lot of the scenes about her missing Primm and her continued awakening from nightmares are omitted from the movie (but this is mentioned at the end of the movie).
To a certain extent, the novel expresses that all of them are the victims of the Hunger Games and the war, while the film focuses more on expressing that although they still have wounds that cannot be healed, even though great people are forgotten, everything is finally peaceful.
Simply put, I feel that the novel wants to say that the wound cannot heal, while the movie wants to express that the wound is healing.
At this point, I can't say who is more intelligent, only the benevolent sees the benevolent and the wise sees the wisdom.
Many people may think that I pretend to be forceful, they may feel that I really hate, or they may agree with my following point of view:
I think mockingbirds are not good-looking from top to bottom, even from The Hunger Games 1 to 3. It may not be a problem with the original work, or it may not be a problem with the filming, but your problem: you didn’t look carefully at all. I didn't pay attention to acting, let alone think about the plot. After watching a series, you don't know what kind of person Katniss is, but you say that this movie is disappointing? Maybe you let this movie down.
View more about The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 reviews
