Decent...But I Liked This Premise Better When It was Called "Battle Royale"

I'll never really understand the, "because it's not as good it sucks," premise that comes from the snarky, snobby "Battle Royale, was better crowd," concerning this movie (I like Battle Royale better but I'm not quite sure the premise here is EXACTLY Battle Royale... especially considering the story isn't done yet)., but I do know that my review was definitely spot on in contrast to yours.  In my review I actually said myself that people would not like this because it didn't dive in nearly as deep as they thought it should.  But there is a reason for that: Because it's actually a trilogy.  It dives into those social and moral issues later.  If anything this isn't meant to mimic Battle Royale.  Suzanne Collins (the author, of course) has written SEVERAL stories about child combatants.  It's her trick of trade.  It's what she does.  And anyone who has taken five minutes to simply read about the book already knows it's inspired by Battle Royale.  It was never a secret.  No one ever made it one and it's why I don't understand the snarky, "I liked it better when it was Battle Royale," comments from people because... it's not a big secret and neither is it a big deal.  It's not as though people who've heard of Battle Royale or read the book are some exclusive club or something that isn't known.  But for those willing to dive into the books and who will eventually see the future films that ARE coming... there's quite a big difference between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games.  Those who read Battle Royale don't know it because they've simply "heard about the premise," but aren't exactly paying attention to the story.  Each book, for instance, was intentionally left with unanswered questions that either challenged the reader to think for themselves, or answered it later down the line.  Again, no big secret.  It's something everyone knows she did.  It's how the books were marketed.  It's how the movies were marketed... and it's why in the first film the audience is left without answers but only challenges and more questions.  So it's not that the script doesn't actually dive into the social rules or survival, it's that we are introduced to a world that works in such a way it doesn't have to... but eventually it does in the later books.  The entire point of the story is, eventually, about survival.   

As I mentioned in my review, it's actually a strange thing about the film.  Audiences who DIDN'T read the book aren't given enough info because it's supposed to be intentionally left out.  It also suffers from the same pitfall of the book: That being they hope their audience knows it's supposed to be continued.  The book actually tells you by saying "End of Book One."  The film just ends hoping the audience knows there are three books.  Nothing conclusive is given to the film when it ends and THAT'S going to bug anyone who HASN'T read the book.  It's not that The Hunger Games isn't challenging or anything, it's that it takes a little longer to tell its story.

As for the Teen angst and love, though... if there's one thing that I think we HAVE to give leeway to with movies such as Twilight, Harry Potter etc... it IS that we ARE dealing with adolescents.  There's angst here, but you should expect it given the age of those involved.  It's a lot like saying, "Why is a twenty-one year old drinking and panicking about his unknown future."  Well... because he's twenty-one... duh.  But love is not the emphasis on The Hunger Games... it's survival.  The angst is there, mostly because it's there for everyone in the districts.  Not just the teen cast involved.  The difference is that Katniss is young enough, naive enough and stupid enough to try and challenge the capital (and how she does it is by accident).  So I don't think it's fair to criticize the teenagers in a movie for, well, being teenagers.  It's annoying, but only because you and I are not exactly teenagers and thus we understand it's no big deal.  But the movie isn't exactly made for our age group (although I'm not usually bothered by that... remember, I didn't like Bella because she was a Mary Sue character... not because she was brooding).  But even that is shown to be something entirely different later.

But as for the anime inspired stuff... I think that was more for the film than the book.  But as I said, I really don't think that The Hunger Games is suddenly bad or mediocre because it isn't Battle Royale... or even becaue Battle Royale is better.  I get it... the premise is similar, but what I'll NEVER understand is this strange, snarky behavior that both crowds have which disallows them to see them as two separate entities.  The Hunger Games isn't supposed to be Battle Royale, for instance.  Sorry, if you couldn't tell, people tell me this a lot... and they always do it in this tone which suggest that I haven't heard of Battle Royale or read it or seen the movie.  And after a while it's just something I get so sick of hearing.  It wouldn't be so bad if these people just picked up the books already and actually read them.  Mostly I'm just tired of it.  And I certainly think that while the comparison is warranted (rightfully so) there's something odd about the Battle Royale fans inability to think that both might be okay (especially considering the audiences of both books is quite different) or that they might both even be able to be good.  That's something I've never understood.  Not that The Hunger Games fanbase doesn't do that as well.  Although they mostly torture Twilight fans which is both strange and annoying all on its own.  But I've never accepted nor will I ever accept, "This movie isn't as good as this movie," as a valid reason why one movie is necessarily mediocre or something along those lines. 

But in truth, I think the biggest problem with the movie is that it is specifically made for those who actually read the books.  Until all the movies are out... it seems strangely inconclusive on its own.  But it's not something on its own.  And that made reviewing the movie somewhat difficult.  I'm HOPING that when my review is read people will understand there ARE going to be more films to come (a contract has been drawn up and everything).  I don't know, I guess I loved the film.  It may, in part be because I love the books.  But I can already see the tides of backlash coming against The Hunger Games.  Won't be long before the, "It's popular and mainstream therefore it sucks," crowd shows up.  At the very least your review is insightful, but I think you might want to check out my review.  There is one part in particular I think might help one who hasn't read the book gain a better understanding.