Movie Moan - The Hungrover Part II: Catching Monkeys
Mon, November 25, 2013 
We don't need monkeys!
If Phil has one problem with the otherwise fantastic sequel to 'The Hunger Games', it's that all these wonderfully buff folks playing the Tributes have had their months of training thrown down the crapper so they can appear on screen for a few seconds while Katniss battles killer mist and evil baboons.
Otherwise, Phil is joined in his jubilation for 'Catching Fire' by the awesome box office master Mr Shawn Robbins, and countered with slightly less enthusiasm for it by Jamie.
So join us for a meaty 75 minute discussion on a rare franchise movie which, in spite of a terrible 'see you in a year' ending, is genuinely exciting and moving.
Why can't Thor be like this?
Play the podcast via Soundcloud or download the MP3 version right here:
Reader Comments (5)
Excellent discussion of the film. I’m firmly in the “really, really liked it” camp when it comes to CATCHING FIRE. I think - in general - it's more interesting and compelling than the first film… even if, yes, it does retread a few elements from that movie. I know you guys didn’t have much use for the cliffhanger ending, but I love that kind of stuff, be it BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II, DEAD MAN’S CHEST, or heck, even ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE (which, granted, wasn’t adequately paid-off in DIAMONDS). I think cliffhangers - done well - are exciting in the way they can get you thinking about (and looking forward to) what could happen next.
By the way, love the new audio intro, Phil!
Great show guys, missig Satriani, but loving the new orchestral 'Hawks theme. I literally lolled when I heard it. You two are like a relevant better Wittertainment with more swearing, and I like the other guys.
Great discussion gents.
Sorry it was never brought up in the discussion beyond Katniss's loss of control of her personal but the complete lack of awareness - as per the book - on how she is being turned into a figurehead.
Which in turns undercuts her agency in the story and makes her a less interesting character.
If I may weigh in here, being, like Kristina, a fan of the books: Phil, if it makes you feel any better, there were fights in the books between the tributes that happened 'off-screen' , which is one reason they shortchanged them in the movie (if I remember the book correctly, Peeta is the one who kills Brutus or as you called him, He Man dude).
But the other reason is time; much like the arena in the first movie, all the major events from the books were there but they were condensed because otherwise, the movie would've been too long. So for instance, there could've been a cool fight staged between Peeta and Brutus (though Bruno Gunn is like 4 times of Josh Hutcherson, okay, let's say there was), it would've unnecessarily dragged the movie out too long. I think Shawn is right: in the first book, the enemy is tribute against tribute. In this book, the real enemy is the Capitol, so there's no real need to see them battling each other. Yes, the tributes who aren't in on what's really happening will die anyway but even in the books, their deaths are quick and minimal (and yes, Katniss kills them with an arrow because otherwise they'd be no match for them). They have to be that way or they take the focus away from the real underlying motive of the Games. Hope that made sense.
@Lou, that's not entirely true, at least not in the book. In the book, Katniss does suspect something strange is going on and the other tributes are trying to protect her and Peeta but it doesn't hit home for her till it's confirmed at the end because she doesn't see how it's possible. So she does have some awareness but she questions it, less in the movie maybe but I feel like she suspected something was afoot in the movie too and they just didn't make it clear enough.
Which brings me to another point about not making things clear: I'm debating mentioning this because I thought it was a spoiler but realizing we've all seen the movie, it's not a spoiler and should be made clear but wasn't. In the books (though there is a big debate about it with the book fans), there is no real love triangle in the story. If you read the books, it's clear who Katniss's true affection lies with as the story progresses. Unfortunately neither movie has done that great a job of showing that if you haven't read the books, it seems. In this book Catching Fire, there's no kiss between Katniss and Gale in the woods. And she doesn't kiss him, Gale kisses her, and she kind of backs off and goes whoa, yeah, sorry, not a good time. The problem is so much of the nuances of Katniss's feelings are lost because they're explained in the book but here they don't do a voiceover for her. She starts to develop real feelings for Peeta throughout the victory tour (there's a passage in the book about how she kisses Peeta after he gives her winnings to Rue's survivors). They spend the nights cuddling on the train (her idea) and also in the Capitol apartment. She kisses him on the beach by the end because she's finally falling in love with him for real. And some other details of how they get close which I don't remember, but the point is, she's not being manipulative of either Peeta or Gale's feelings and it's never been a real love triangle which, from what I've heard, there is in Twilight where the audience can't tell who Bella will choose. In the HG, books and movies, it's supposed to be pretty clear who Katniss will choose. Hope that makes sense. It is one of the frustrating things about this franchise that there is a lot of character stuff lost in translation from book to movie.