The Hunger Games film thread

[Sunken Valley]

I liked this.

Surprised nobody's mentioned this, especially as it had the BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND FOR A NON-SEQUEL AND 3RD BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND OF ALL TIME

Also like how few changes they made.

[Krazzman]

I have to say the same thing I said to John Carter. The Book seems to be good.

On one side the trailer suggested a more action rich movie.
But contrary to John Carter they at least created a descent environment.

The lovestory is...meh or as my Girlfriend put it: http://assets3.wordansassets.com/wordansfiles/images/2012/2/21/126572/126572_100.jpg?1329848809
Because it made the movie to cliché...

Else I found it awesome even though I didn't get some things like the riots in the maximum pigmented district...(was it 11?)

[Cespenar]

Not having read the books, the first thing I can say about the movie is that I found it a bit unclimactic. Though that's probably the book's fault rather than the movie's, since I heard the latter is pretty loyal to the former?

Also, the story was a little cliché. I felt like I'm watching an adaptation of a Drizzt Do'Urden novel for a second there.

Not bad though, overall.

[Sunken Valley]

I have to say the same thing I said to John Carter. The Book seems to be good.

On one side the trailer suggested a more action rich movie.
But contrary to John Carter they at least created a descent environment.

The lovestory is...meh or as my Girlfriend put it: http://assets3.wordansassets.com/wordansfiles/images/2012/2/21/126572/126572_100.jpg?1329848809
Because it made the movie to cliché...

Else I found it awesome even though I didn't get some things like the riots in the maximum pigmented district...(was it 11?)

Love Story
Isn't really explored that much anyways. You get more in the sequel, coming November 2013. One of the changes they made from film to book is that Katniss and Peeta don't truly love each other at that stage in the book, they're putting on a show.

Riots
Don't forget the riots, that's a sequel hook. Let's just say maximum pigmented district wasn't the only one inspired by Katniss.

[Comet]

The fact that the movie seems to be heavily advertised on the window of a particular clothing store aimed towards young women and that quite a number of things I've heard about this movie revolve around the audience choosing 'teams', like in a certain vampire/werewolf mess, leads me to believe this movie might not be for me.

Am I wrong? Does this appeal to a wider demographic? Haven't read the book, mind, so I don't have much idea about the story other than the basic premise.

[Chen]

Love Story
Isn't really explored that much anyways. You get more in the sequel, coming November 2013. One of the changes they made from film to book is that Katniss and Peeta don't truly love each other at that stage in the book, they're putting on a show.


I don't think they changed that. I think they did a very bad job at showing the audience she doesn't actually love him. The only hint we get is her "We forget about it" when they're talking on the train back

Overall the movie was good, but without having read the book there is a LOT you'd miss. That's the problem with taking a book from a first person perspective with a lot of insights into the main characters thoughts. I mean they got away with the tracker jacker thing by making it blatant exposition, but really they needed to do a bit more of that where Katniss talked to people (Haymitch, Cinna maybe even Effie) about what she was thinking. It would have made things much more clear rather than the vague way they did it (see spoiler about the love story part).

[Ashtar]

So not having read the book, but I did go see the movie last friday, here's my 2 cents (no spoilers, I think but I prefer to let people decide):

Average to good movie, but can't really decide which way to go, bad camera work, insufficient exposition of plot elements (supposedly revealed in the book) for audience to really understand (among others the meaning of the hand gesture?), some seriously dumb moments (everybody's asleep?), corny "romance" moment that is badly handled (seriously, you mean that's love supposedly being shown on screen, and anyone would fall for that?) and bit of techno-magic with the "arena" spouting fireballs and stuff from nowhere.

But after all that, it was an entertaining evening, once the movie got going, it was okay. My impression after leaving the theatre was: "It will work well in the box office and we'll have the all sequels".

In effect, the movie is "We take your kids away and then they fight to the death (poorly)".

[Ricky S]

I thought it was an ok movie. 7/10 but I dont really see what all the hype was about. It doesnt deserve the massive numbers it is getting. It is like twilight all over again.

The plot is average. Personally I think Battle Royale did a better job than the hunger games movie did. I guess I'll have to read the book to see if I love the story more.

[Durlan]

Is it just the first book or all three??

Durlan

[SamBurke]

Read the book, and thought it was fairly good. haven't seen the movie, though.

[Ashtar]

Is it just the first book or all three??

It's just the first book from what I understand.

[Selrahc]

BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND FOR A NON-SEQUEL AND 3RD BIGGEST OPENING WEEKEND OF ALL TIME

This kind of measurement always confused me. Surely with inflation, there will be a natural upwards trend in opening weekend takings? To the point where a mildly big success will eclipse the mega smashes of a past decade.

So yeah... a highly marketed movie, with a large and committed external fanbase, released in 2012 is naturally going to end pretty high on those sorts of rankings.

[Starbuck_II]

Going to see it wednesday so I'll find out then how it goes.

[Xondoure]

This kind of measurement always confused me. Surely with inflation, there will be a natural upwards trend in opening weekend takings? To the point where a mildly big success will eclipse the mega smashes of a past decade.

So yeah... a highly marketed movie, with a large and committed external fanbase, released in 2012 is naturally going to end pretty high on those sorts of rankings.

Not sure about this particular fact, but usually they account for inflation with these kind of things. The movie industry has just grown over the past century, meaning more people are going to the theaters and the mega smashes are correspondingly much bigger (and also appealing to a lower common denominator.)

I have to say while the movie wasn't perfect, it was as faithful of a sequel as we could reasonably hope for. And the fact that a book being so faithfully adapted and selling so well is always going to be a victory in my book because of what it says to the producers.

The only complaint I've really heard having ruined the movie for someone irl is the lack of exposition.

[polity4life]

I saw the movie and did not read the books.

I found the story pacing terribly slow in this film. I was bored more often than not and it wasn't because of the story or the setting; both are extremely interesting and I'm sure the book explores both far more thoroughly. The whole narrative just dragged on screen though. Some entire scenes just went on for too long and others were not given enough attention, especially in regards to explanation as to what was happening.

The cinematography was obnoxious. Way too much wobbly-cam and shots were sometimes over in less than two seconds for no real reason whatsoever. I had difficulty concentrating on anything because the editor has a very severe case of untreated ADHD.

Just my thoughts. I do have to watch this movie again in a triple date affair later this week. Methinks I'll sneak my good friend MacAllan into the theater in my tummy.

[Psyren]

I saw this years ago when they called it by its real name, Battle Royale :smalltongue:

All kidding aside, I did enjoy the movie. I saw the ending coming a mile away, and I was a little upset before I realized it was the first installment of a trilogy. Thankfully, it was such a runaway financial success (as noted in the OP) that the other two are pretty much guaranteed now.


And MovieBob again put it best - unremarkable plotwise as it may have been, teenage girls need SOME kind of role model that is not Bella Swan, so HG deserves every penny it got and then some if it can derail that particular train.

[Dante & Vergil]

And MovieBob again put it best - unremarkable plotwise as it may have been, teenage girls need SOME kind of role model that is not Bella Swan, so HG deserves every penny it got and then some if it can derail that particular train.

Hehehe, yeah, I have to agree with this.

Personally, I liked the movie, though I haven't read the books 'cause I'm busy reading another series right now. I don't know if this means much cause I'm easy to entertain, though not so much lately, so who knows.

[Avilan the Grey]

Can someone explain the appeal of the books and film to me? To me it just seems digusting, horrible and at the same time done several times before (like in Battle Royale, for example, which I also never would dream of actually seeing). I wound not dream of reading or seeing this simply because the concept makes me too disgusted.

Somehow I can see the hype for say Twilight, but I cannot understand how people I like spending time with enjoy these books and try to make me read the first one or make me watch the movie... It somehow just doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: PLEASE NOTE this is not a flame post. I am honestly curious.

Edit again: Please explain how the first book can be deemed suitable for 11 year olds?????????????
And apparently the movie will get a 11 year limit here in Sweden: I can only assume they don't actually show any killings?

[Psyren]

Can someone explain the appeal of the books and film to me?

Battle Royale's been done before as you said but it's nowhere near as popular as this was. Maybe it was just good timing coupled with the relentless marketing; I'm not certain.

It's a good premise even if it seems overdone to us. Many people have not seen Battle Royale, particularly among teens, so this is a good introduction to the concept.

And the class warfare angle in the movie is somewhat topical.

[SamBurke]

Well, if you find yourself disgusted by children killing each other in the area, as a replacement for their parents doing so, then I judge the book a success.

Because that's what she wanted to say.

That said, if you can get past the basic plot and read the book, you'll find that there's little to no violence: at least, for what you'd expect. Most of the characters die away from the first-person stream-of-conciousness narrative, and thus, the book ends up with a lot of the dread without much of the dead.

It's an interesting book that, regardless of if you want to or not, regardless of whether you like it or not, will force you to finish it. I was completely unimpressed with it, but yet I stayed up until two in the morning to read that baby.

[Avilan the Grey]

Battle Royale's been done before as you said but it's nowhere near as popular as this was. Maybe it was just good timing coupled with the relentless marketing; I'm not certain.

I just find the combination of the horrific theme, my personal complete uninterested in anything similar, and the extremely large fanbase very very strange indeed. Especially since many of the fans are people who would never watch say a Arnold movie because it is too violent.


Well, if you find yourself disgusted by children killing each other in the area, as a replacement for their parents doing so, then I judge the book a success.

Because that's what she wanted to say.

This argument feels strange too, since basically if she had not written this book, everyone in the western world already agrees that kids killing kids is much worse than grownups killing grownups. It all just feels like a big "Duh! We all knew that already!"

[Pokonic]

Can someone explain the appeal of the books and film to me? To me it just seems digusting, horrible and at the same time done several times before (like in Battle Royale, for example, which I also never would dream of actually seeing). I wound not dream of reading or seeing this simply because the concept makes me too disgusted.


Edit again: Please explain how the first book can be deemed suitable for 11 year olds?????????????


1. Well, for one, most kids are hardlyt sensitive to violance. The books themselves hardly go into detail, and the protagonist was (mildy)interesting. Also, note that by the end of the third book the games are ended for good. The whole message is basicly a critiqe of how people are perfectly fine with horrible things happening as long as they are on the other side of the screen.

2. Because it never goes into detail about the exact gory bits, and it makes as much sence as marketing the latest Batman movie to kids?

[Avilan the Grey]

1. Well, for one, most kids are hardlyt sensitive to violance. The books themselves hardly go into detail, and the protagonist was (mildy)interesting. Also, note that by the end of the third book the games are ended for good. The whole message is basicly a critiqe of how people are perfectly fine with horrible things happening as long as they are on the other side of the screen.

2. Because it never goes into detail about the exact gory bits, and it makes as much sence as marketing the latest Batman movie to kids?

The last Batman movie got a 15 yr old (aka "adult") marketing in Sweden, the highest age restriction we have, except for porn (that is 18).

And regarding your first argument... as I said, that just felt like a Duh! thing.

[SamBurke]

As a note, we have word of god from Susanne Collins that it is more or less a critique of the Iraq/Afghan wars. That's what my previous comment meant.

[Madara]

Else I found it awesome even though I didn't get some things like the riots in the maximum pigmented district...(was it 11?)

Did you see that they used firehoses? That's a little...pushing it. Especially with district 11

[Avilan the Grey]

As a note, we have word of god from Susanne Collins that it is more or less a critique of the Iraq/Afghan wars. That's what my previous comment meant.

Again, I have not read the books or seen them movie but.. how are these similar?

[SamBurke]

It's the idea of sending younger people off to fight what she perceives is a war that the old people need. I"m not defending her ideas, just saying what she said.

Obvious joke is obvious.

That's what SHE said. :smallcool:

[Pokonic]

As a note, we have word of god from Susanne Collins that it is more or less a critique of the Iraq/Afghan wars. That's what my previous comment meant.

Always thought the whole thing was somehow ment to reprisent the cold war, with the
Decadent, flamboyant nation that uses parts of itself to feed the whims of the elite, while the other is a strict, highly regimented nation that constantly attempts to take down the opposing nation. Oh, and nukes.

[SaintRidley]

Again, I have not read the books or seen them movie but.. how are these similar?

Sending the young to die while the wealthy and powerful remain behind and insulated from the effects.


The other thing is that the horribleness of the premise is in part because it's probably the only way to really get through people about one of the secondary messages - the perversion of basing so much of popular culture on exploitative reality television.

[Omergideon]

MY full review to film quality is, I thought it was good, well acted and devoted the time that was needed to explore the mental states and essence of the situation without overstaying it's welcome. I say 8 or 9/10 depending on personal preferences. And Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence (I think) is a brilliant actress in the film.

Non-review, I do not think the comparisons to Battle Royale are that apt, beyond the superficial elements of the premise. It is closer to the Running Man (the Schwarzenegger film) in tone and nature with the gaudy and lauded nature of the tributes. Or Gladiatorial contests or ancient Rome. The way they adore the tributes in the capital and the effects of that on society, as well as Katniss herself (and the need to manipulate the audience to survive) are themes that make it a VERY different film to Battle Royale or The Running Man, even if I think the second is closer.


And in general I am a fan when films imply and suggest clearly without explaining things. Like the Riot. I get why they rioted and suspect that the first dude was Rue's Dad. And yet it is not stated in bold. It is presented and we get to figure it out ourselves. I like this as a thing when done well, as I think it was in this film.

[Ursus the Grim]

Read the first two books about a year ago but only had the third in PDF which kills my enthusiasm. The complete change of plot also did it.

The movie was pretty damn good for an adaptation, and the story as a whole gets my vote because Katniss Everdeen isn't perfect, but she's a pretty decent rolemodel. Sure, it was awkward to go with my friends (most of which are post-grad), but at least I could take solace in the fact that they weren't seeing Twilight.

The books themselves aren't the best things ever written, but they're pretty good for what they are, an enjoyable romp with enough action for the boys and plenty of angst and girl power for the girls. There are a lot of little subtleties that tend to get overlooked and were omitted in the movie, such as Haymitch's past, the exact uncertainty of the relationship, and the nature of the Muttations. Admittedly, the CG on the Mutts were terrible, and trying to reveal more of what they were implied to be probably would have made that worse.

I was altogether pleased with the acting. The Citadel fashion was humorous without being too ridiculous, and the protagonists had a kind of imperfect appeal to them.

I felt the dialogues tended to be a bit stiff, particularly Katniss/Peeta speaking alone in the apartment at night. I realized I kept expecting them to do something physically, like pace, shuffle, or sit down, but they just froze while speaking. Perhaps the awkwardness was intentional, but it definitely felt forced. . . .

Also, the Battle Royale references are starting to get as annoying as Kimba and the Lion King.

[Xondoure]

I always thought the Hunger Games was more of an attack on what Suzanne Collins found disgusting in modern media. The constant themes of violence in young adult literature, the way we deconstruct people on relaity television to provide us entertainment and so on. She takes these themes and flings them back in the viewers face. Showing you exactly what would happen to children if forced to kill. And how callous those on the outside feel to those trapped within.

If anyone has read the Gregor the Overlander books PTSD seems to be a common thread.

[Pokonic]

If anyone has read the Gregor the Overlander books PTSD seems to be a common thread.

Katniss has some overtones of this.

[Xondoure]

Katniss has some overtones of this.

My point exactly. :smallsmile:

[Reverent-One]

I always thought the Hunger Games was more of an attack on what Suzanne Collins found disgusting in modern media. The constant themes of violence in young adult literature, the way we deconstruct people on relaity television to provide us entertainment and so on. She takes these themes and flings them back in the viewers face. Showing you exactly what would happen to children if forced to kill. And how callous those on the outside feel to those trapped within.

So she writes a young adult series that used themes of violence to entertain people?

[SamBurke]

So she writes a young adult series that used themes of violence to entertain people?

That people, mistaking her message, used for self-entertainment.

A difference there is.

[Reverent-One]

That people, mistaking her message, used for self-entertainment.

A difference there is.

In which case she did a really poor job in relaying her message. There's very little, if anything, in the first book at the very least that distinguishes her use of violent themes from the violent themes she's supposedly "attacking". I don't see how someone could pick up the message just from the reading the book if it wasn't told to them.

[Ursus the Grim]

That people, mistaking her message, used for self-entertainment.

A difference there is.

Admittedly, I find it greatly entertaining, but I am fully aware of the irony inherent in it. I couldn't help but notice one instance. . . .

The scene where the Game operators are tearing up, the old balding men are holding back their tears over the dramatic situation? Yeah, people were laughing at that and failing to see exactly what it could be construed to mean. . . .

[Xondoure]

In which case she did a really poor job in relaying her message. There's very little, if anything, in the first book at the very least that distinguishes her use of violent themes from the violent themes she's supposedly "attacking". I don't see how someone could pick up the message just from the reading the book if it wasn't told to them.

Because the hunger games are treated as a good thing? :smallconfused: The theme is there to me, but I suppose that such deconstructions are all subjective. Still, I felt that the movie particularly played with the idea that the audience is the Capital; what with how the announcers were used to exposite for us.

[Soras Teva Gee]

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing and I never had any interest in the Battle Royale can someone explain the appeal of this series or is it just the latest young adult series that caught popularity on the backs of tweens/teens that don't know any better?

[SaintRidley]

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing and I never had any interest in the Battle Royale can someone explain the appeal of this series or is it just the latest young adult series that caught popularity on the backs of tweens/teens that don't know any better?


Arena combat meets a bit of Brave New World with a healthy, but sarcastically laden dash of Romeo and Juliet.

[Reverent-One]

Because the hunger games are treated as a good thing? :smallconfused: The theme is there to me, but I suppose that such deconstructions are all subjective.

Of course they're not, but the games are the evil empire's doing. So we root for Katniss to beat them. Enjoying Star Wars doesn't mean we approve of building a Death Star to blow up inhabited planets, it means just the opposite in fact, that we want to see the heroes stop the bad guys, end their reign of terror. Which, from what Pokonic said, is what happens. So it seems little different from writing about the inhabitants of Redwall fighting off Cluny the Scourge, the Animorphs defeating the Yeerks, or Harry Potter killing Voldemort.


Still, I felt that the movie particularly played with the idea that the audience is the Capital; what with how the announcers were used to exposite for us.

The thing is, implying that we're like people of the Capital who enjoy watching people actually die for no reason other than our entertainment because we enjoy watching/reading a fictional conflict between good and evil makes no sense. How many people who enjoy the books would find the idea of reopening the gladiator combat of the ancient romans morally repulsive? Nearly all of them I'd wager. The comparison is made even worse when the Capital native we see the most of, Cinna, doesn't seem to approve of them either, he simply can't do anything about the evil emperor President Snow. So the evil government is made out to be the true bad guys.

The claims of subtext from the author sound a lot like retcon to make the writing seem deeper than it was. Going solely off of the the first book again, it fits the typical mold of YA fiction, there are the good guys and the bad guys, and the good guys use violence to stop the bad guys from doing bad things and it all works out in the end. This is not to say that it wasn't a well-written example of the genre or that I didn't enjoy the book, because I did (I only haven't read the other two because I want them in paperback). It's just I don't see it deconstructing many aspects of YA fiction, it plays them too straight to do that. If Katniss won without using violence, or used violence and had it backfire and make things worse, or we saw that the seemingly justified violence against the bad guys in reality wasn't, that would be a different matter.


As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing and I never had any interest in the Battle Royale can someone explain the appeal of this series or is it just the latest young adult series that caught popularity on the backs of tweens/teens that don't know any better?

Having just read the first book so far, the appeal is that it's a well-written (or at least decently-written) series that draws you in and keeps you interested. Also that it has nothing in common with Twilight other than being YA fiction. It has a lots of fans among 20-somethings as well, not just tweens and teens.

[Xondoure]

But in the first book she isn't using violence against the capital, she's using violence against other children because the capital demands it. And the fact that there ever were gladitorial arenas is sort of the point. She is exposing one of the (in her opinion) lesser aspects of human nature (bloodlust, satisfaction through violent conflict, etc.) by appealing to it.

[Reverent-One]

But in the first book she isn't using violence against the capital, she's using violence against other children because the capital demands it. And the fact that there ever were gladitorial arenas is sort of the point. She is exposing one of the (in her opinion) lesser aspects of human nature (bloodlust, satisfaction through violent conflict, etc.) by appealing to it.

Sure, and who does Katniss actually use violence against? Not other "good guys" like Peeta/Rue, but against the tributes (most/all of whom are more teenagers than children I believe) who trained to be tributes and/or want to kill the others for the prestige, the ones that buy into the capital's way, which makes them clear bad guys. Certainly humanity has been/can be/is bloodthirsty, but that's nothing new to say and doesn't deconstruct other YA fiction or make us like bloodthirsty citizens of the Capital.

Like I've said, it just doesn't seem to make a point against the YA fiction I grew up reading (or still read a bit of today). I do respect your opinion, I just don't see it myself.

[Xondoure]

Admittedly a lot of the aspects I consider deconstruction come in the later novels, and also in reaction to the other series I've read by her. (which was also intended for young adults.)

I'm curious though, what themes would you consider it to hold then?

[Avilan the Grey]

Sending the young to die while the wealthy and powerful remain behind and insulated from the effects.

The other thing is that the horribleness of the premise is in part because it's probably the only way to really get through people about one of the secondary messages - the perversion of basing so much of popular culture on exploitative reality television.

I can't really argue too much about this without sliding into IRL politics, but let's just say that I fail to see ANY resemblance to IRL events (in the modern world). Gladiator games with minors fighting to the death as entertainment are worlds away from 18-20 year olds that has volunteered into an army and fights in an actual war.

The second reason has been done at least 10 times in different media over the last 25 years, in everything from Judge Dredd, other post-apocalyptic comics, to movies such as Battle Royale. It's still not interesting to me and I get an odd mix of disgust and boredom just reading about the concept.



The movie was pretty damn good for an adaptation, and the story as a whole gets my vote because Katniss Everdeen isn't perfect, but she's a pretty decent rolemodel.

...

The books themselves aren't the best things ever written, but they're pretty good for what they are, an enjoyable romp with enough action for the boys and plenty of angst and girl power for the girls.

I guess I am just old, and the world has moved on without me (I AM almost 40 after all). I would just never dream of trying to use such a truly horrific idea as "girl power" or "role model".
Back in my day, the books aimed for this age bracket (10-13) were mystery books still, like Enid Blyton books and knockoffs of the same. Boy do I feel old...


I always thought the Hunger Games was more of an attack on what Suzanne Collins found disgusting in modern media. The constant themes of violence in young adult literature, the way we deconstruct people on relaity television to provide us entertainment and so on. She takes these themes and flings them back in the viewers face. Showing you exactly what would happen to children if forced to kill. And how callous those on the outside feel to those trapped within.

The first part might have been her intention, but since it turned out to be so very popular, it seems her books BECAME what she was attacking. If she wrote them in part to protest against the theme of violence in young adult literature, and everyone and their granddaughter is reading the books and loving them, she must have failed in her intentions.

As for game shows and reality TV... I think the logical jump from Survivor and The Colony to this is... beyond far fetched.



Admittedly, I find it greatly entertaining, but I am fully aware of the irony inherent in it.

Yes, but you are not 11 years old. The books, as well as the movies, are deliberately marketed to 11-year olds. I might be cynical, but I rather doubt that they have the mature minds to see this as any kind of Irony.

It seems indeed that she failed in her attempt.


Sure, and who does Katniss actually use violence against? Not other "good guys" like Peeta/Rue, but against the tributes (most/all of whom are more teenagers than children I believe)

Teenagers ARE children. The human brain is not fully developed until you are around 22 years old.

[Sunken Valley]

For everyone who says "the books are too violent", have any of you read Darren Shan's Demonata series? That is popular, good literature and extremely extremely violent. As you would expect from a horror series about demons from hell.

[Avilan the Grey]

For everyone who says "the books are too violent", have any of you read Darren Shan's Demonata series? That is popular, good literature and extremely extremely violent. As you would expect from a horror series about demons from hell.

My personal opinion after just reading reviews and descriptions of the books is that it is not something I would give to my sister's kids before say the age of 15. It is not the amount of violence or the description of violence as much as the target demographic (11-12 year olds!) that I find bad. Personally, I will not read it despite my age, simply because it doesn't seem like something I would enjoy at all.

I also find the huge popularity slightly jarring, to be honest.

And no, I have not heard of that series. It is not published or imported here, it seems.

[Yuini]

Personally I wasn't even going to watch Hunger Games, but after reading this thread I just might.

Just so I can form my own opinion. :smallwink:

Who knows, maybe I even find the motivation to buy and read the book...well maybe not.

[Axolotl]

It is not the amount of violence or the description of violence as much as the target demographic (11-12 year olds!) that I find bad.Just out of curiosity where are you getting those numbers? Everything I've seen indicates it's targeted at teenagers and I have to say while I haven't read or seen The Hunger Games it sounds an awful lot less violent than a lot of what I was watching and reading at that age.

[Ursus the Grim]

I guess I am just old, and the world has moved on without me (I AM almost 40 after all). I would just never dream of trying to use such a truly horrific idea as "girl power" or "role model".
Back in my day, the books aimed for this age bracket (10-13) were mystery books still, like Enid Blyton books and knockoffs of the same. Boy do I feel old...

[...]

Yes, but you are not 11 years old. The books, as well as the movies, are deliberately marketed to 11-year olds. I might be cynical, but I rather doubt that they have the mature minds to see this as any kind of Irony.

It seems indeed that she failed in her attempt.

[...]

Teenagers ARE children. The human brain is not fully developed until you are around 22 years old.

My generation is significantly younger than you, Grey, but we had our share of mystery books too. We still read the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. But we also had the Animorphs and Goosebumps. Call me young and desensitized, but I don't think the violence in the Hunger Games was terribly graphic or disturbing. No, seriously. Read the books and then watch the news, and think long and hard about which is more upsetting.

What makes you say that its marketed towards eleven-year-olds? I haven't met anyone younger than 15 who's read the books and I assure you by that point I would have at least realized there was a reason she was showing us the game operators, and honestly the violence wouldn't have phased. Then again, I'm a blood-thirsty American pig.

Your last point is mostly accurate but fails to make the distinction between biological maturity, psychological maturity, and the maturity as seen by society, which are probably roughly 15, 22, and 18-21 respectively.

[Avilan the Grey]

Just out of curiosity where are you getting those numbers? Everything I've seen indicates it's targeted at teenagers and I have to say while I haven't read or seen The Hunger Games it sounds an awful lot less violent than a lot of what I was watching and reading at that age.


What makes you say that its marketed towards eleven-year-olds? I haven't met anyone younger than 15 who's read the books and I assure you by that point I would have at least realized there was a reason she was showing us the game operators, and honestly the violence wouldn't have phased. Then again, I'm a blood-thirsty American pig..

The age restriction in theaters is 11 years old (both in the US as in Sweden, I believe). This means that a HUGE number of 11 year olds will see this. And subsequently will get these books by buy / lend / get for Christmas .

Edit: As I said, the highest maturity non XXX rated limit we have in Sweden is 15, so things like the Human Centipede and Saw 92 (or whatever they are up to now) all are available for 15 year olds. That is okay by me.

[Axolotl]

The age restriction in theaters is 11 years old (both in the US as in Sweden, I believe). This means that a HUGE number of 11 year olds will see this. And subsequently buy / lend / get for Christmas these books.There's a big difference between the minimum age that it's suitable for and being the target audience.

[Psyren]

I just find the combination of the horrific theme, my personal complete uninterested in anything similar, and the extremely large fanbase very very strange indeed. Especially since many of the fans are people who would never watch say a Arnold movie because it is too violent.

Even assuming you're correct, very few Arnold movies are PG-13. There's some gory stuff in Hunger Games but they use the handheld camera and discretion shots to hide it.


This argument feels strange too, since basically if she had not written this book, everyone in the western world already agrees that kids killing kids is much worse than grownups killing grownups. It all just feels like a big "Duh! We all knew that already!"

As others have said, it's a broader metaphor for most revolutions (and not just violent ones) originating among the disenfranchised young rather than the entrenched old.


But in the first book she isn't using violence against the capital, she's using violence against other children because the capital demands it.

I don't know about the book, but all three(?) of her kills in the movie were self-defense, and one of those was an accident to boot (she was trying to drive off her attacker rather than actively murder.)

[Avilan the Grey]

There's a big difference between the minimum age that it's suitable for and being the target audience.

In theory, yes. In practicality? Not so much. It doesn't really matter what the original intent of the writer was ("Young Adult", which I always have found a very weird definition anyway; to me a young adult is 18+; a 16 year old is a teenager.). The target audience for the movie studio is 11+. It's as simple as that. And as I said, that means tons of 11 and 12 year olds will not only see the movie, but they'll be buying the books afterwards as well.


As others have said, it's a broader metaphor for most revolutions (and not just violent ones) originating among the disenfranchised young rather than the entrenched old.

The "Duh!" still stands.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité and all that Jazz.

[Axolotl]

As others have said, it's a broader metaphor for most revolutions (and not just violent ones) originating among the disenfranchised young rather than the entrenched old.Most successful revolutions I can think of were led by people in their 40's or older so I don't think that makes much sense as a metaphor.


In theory, yes. In practicality? Not so much. It doesn't really matter what the original intent of the writer was ("Young Adult", which I always have found a very weird definition anyway; to me a young adult is 18+; a 16 year old is a teenager.). The target audience for the movie studio is 11+. It's as simple as that. And as I said, that means tons of 11 and 12 year olds will not only see the movie, but they'll be buying the books afterwards as well.Simply saying that's the target audience doesn't make it so. All the adverts I've seen have been targetted at teens, all the marketing I've seen has talked about their teen audience and all the news and reviews I've seen have talked about it's appeal to teens. You can't complain that it's being marketed to 11 year olds when it is not. Yes 11 year olds will see the film, that's because people whose job is to judge if a film is suitable for 11 year olds have watched the film and decided that it is suitable for 11 year olds.

[Lord Seth]

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing...I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to mean.

[t209]

How many came from District 12 (Applachia) and you reaction to having Appalachia in this film?

[Psyren]

Most successful revolutions I can think of were led by people in their 40's or older so I don't think that makes much sense as a metaphor.

You mean the ones who grew up under the regime? Yes, that's the whole point.

I'd cite examples but this is getting too political as it is.


The "Duh!" still stands.

I agree that it's obvious - to you and me. But nevertheless, Some Anvils Need to be Dropped. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SomeAnvilsNeedToBeDropped) I would wager that a significant portion of the audience for that movie don't regularly think about the kind of themes used in the work.

[super dark33]

I red the book. didnt see the movie. im going to wait untill it will be broadcasted on the HD movies channel on TV.

Can you tell me what story changes were there so i wont kill somone while watching it?

[Axolotl]

You mean the ones who grew up under the regime? Yes, that's the whole point.:smallconfused:Well if a shift of power is done to favour people who weren't from the place where it happens then it's not a revolution, it's an invasion. I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[Zea mays]

I saw it on Saturday and thought the film worked better than the book. I was probably biased towards liking Jennifer Lawrence from being so impressed with her in Winter's Bone.

Anybody else here seen that movie? If not, go watch it now.

[Pokonic]

...I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to mean.

I suppose it's something along the lines of "The pre-teen camp where theres bad romance and jazz while the other is a "mature"(?) choice. Anyway, it does not fit too well (I mean, replace Hellsing with Buffy and I am all ears, but comparing Twilight with Helsing is like comparing rotten, crappy fruit with a blood-soaked piece of epic).

First and formost, the books are hardly "bad". Average, yes, but bad? Nope. Also, mearly stating the idea that a series is not as good as another because it just so happens to be rather popular with teens is not a accurate way of putting things.

[Sunken Valley]

I red the book. didnt see the movie. im going to wait untill it will be broadcasted on the HD movies channel on TV.

Can you tell me what story changes were there so i wont kill somone while watching it?

Madge Undersee is cut out. Katniss finds the pin at the market and gives it to Prim who gives it back to Katniss. Makes for a more personal touch.

Cinna is downplayed.

The prep team are not named although they can be seen.

The term "Avox" is not used and Lavina is cut, although if you look closely, you see her in the background and early in the film cutting out tounges is mentioned.

Foxface is only called Foxface once, which is jarring.

Katniss's interview with Ceaser is slightly different (with a fake flame dress).

There are numerous scenes of the Hunger Games controllers in their control room. Also scenes with Seneca Crane and President Snow talking about eliminating Katniss.

No internal monologue from Katniss at all to avoid similarity with twilight so all emotions play a bigger role.

Tracker Jackers and the re-activated Mines are explained via Flickerman and Temple Smith commentating.

After Rue dies you see District 11 rioting.

The Mutts look different and they don't look like the fallen tributes.

Thresh is killed by the Mutts, not by Cato.

The ending does not make it clear whether Katniss and Peeta stay together or not.

Minor changes, probably more I've not noticed.

[Ursus the Grim]

The age restriction in theaters is 11 years old (both in the US as in Sweden, I believe). This means that a HUGE number of 11 year olds will see this. And subsequently will get these books by buy / lend / get for Christmas .

Edit: As I said, the highest maturity non XXX rated limit we have in Sweden is 15, so things like the Human Centipede and Saw 92 (or whatever they are up to now) all are available for 15 year olds. That is okay by me.

Hunger Games in the US is PG-13. Heck, even Common Sense Media, a slightly alarmist organization, thinks its okay for kids 13 and up. That's a lot closer to the age that you think is okay to watch Saw and the Human Centipede. Does that mean its marketed towards 13 in the US and 11 in Sweden? Seriously?

:smallsigh:

There's a difference between availability/fanbase and marketing, as any brony could tell you.

[Psyren]

:smallconfused:Well if a shift of power is done to favour people who weren't from the place where it happens then it's not a revolution, it's an invasion. I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

What are you talking about? If you grow up under a regime, then you are obviously from that area. Hence, revolution. :smallconfused:


RE: Katniss - I'm glad they scrapped the internal monologue, and not just to avoid Katniss Swan syndrome. You got a lot more out of her acting that way, like when she was stalking that deer in the beginning - you could see everything she was doing and more importantly know why without her having to say a word. I thought it was a really good example of "show don't tell."

When she volunteered and everyone was trying to reassure her with "You know how to hunt!" I really believed it.

[super dark33]

Ah. plot diffrences are minor.
now, can you tell me how the charecters look like in the movie?

[Psyren]

Ah. plot diffrences are minor.
now, can you tell me how the charecters look like in the movie?

Just google image their names, they're pretty uncommon :smalltongue:

Or you can check the TVTropes Character Sheet if you don't mind accidental spoilers.

[Omergideon]

What are you talking about? If you grow up under a regime, then you are obviously from that area. Hence, revolution. :smallconfused:


RE: Katniss - I'm glad they scrapped the internal monologue, and not just to avoid Katniss Swan syndrome. You got a lot more out of her acting that way, like when she was stalking that deer in the beginning - you could see everything she was doing and more importantly know why without her having to say a word. I thought it was a really good example of "show don't tell."

When she volunteered and everyone was trying to reassure her with "You know how to hunt!" I really believed it.


I always seem to find in films, especially recently, that the best performances and character stuff is not spelled out by dialogue or monologue. It is in the acting when there is no sound at all, or merely music. This was the case here without doubt.

[Reverent-One]

Admittedly a lot of the aspects I consider deconstruction come in the later novels, and also in reaction to the other series I've read by her. (which was also intended for young adults.)

I'm curious though, what themes would you consider it to hold then?

The big ones were oppressive governments and big brother. Like I said, the thing that distinguishes the bad guys from the good guys is whether they play along with the Capital's games. The games themselves exist to demonstrate the power of the Capital. And because to this, the idea of resisting the oppression and keeping some measure of individuality is also important, even if it's only a small thing. We see it in Peeta's attitude about the games and wanting to die on his terms, in Cinna sneaking the Mockingjay pin to Katniss (I am remembering that right, aren't I?), and of course, in the way the games ended.

[Xondoure]

The pin was snuck in in the film, not in the book. In the book tributes were allowed a token, though there was some small discussion if the needle on the pin could be used as a weapon.

[Reverent-One]

Huh, haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know how I got that mixed up.

[Avilan the Grey]

The big ones were oppressive governments and big brother. Like I said, the thing that distinguishes the bad guys from the good guys is whether they play along with the Capital's games. The games themselves exist to demonstrate the power of the Capital. And because to this, the idea of resisting the oppression and keeping some measure of individuality is also important, even if it's only a small thing.

Not to slide into IRL politics, but... This reminds me of a lot of political pundits in the big country across the pond.

I wonder if that is deliberate on the writer's part.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, it wasn't all that violent in shown violence, though there was much implied violence and off camera violence, the most disturbing in my opinion was the wasps. A bit of weirdness was our heroines hallucination, quoting word for word something Caesar said, but which she would have had, I assume, no way of knowing or hearing herself. She could have gotten it from a past game, but it seems odd that the wording would be so similar.
Still, the fact it wasn't as disturbing as I thought it would be, children killing each other, disturbs me somewhat.
Casting mostly adults as teenagers helped with that I guess.
I think I liked Caesar Flickerman best. Yes, he is a slimy bastard, but he is such a glittery slimy bastard.

[Saph]

So just got around to reading the book. For those who've done that and seen the film, do you think the film or the book was better?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm kind of ambivalent about the book - read all the way to the end but felt a bit unsatisfied having done it - and now I'm 50/50 on seeing the film.

[Chen]

In theory, yes. In practicality? Not so much. It doesn't really matter what the original intent of the writer was ("Young Adult", which I always have found a very weird definition anyway; to me a young adult is 18+; a 16 year old is a teenager.). The target audience for the movie studio is 11+. It's as simple as that. And as I said, that means tons of 11 and 12 year olds will not only see the movie, but they'll be buying the books afterwards as well.


This is frankly because Sweden's movie ranking system is absurd (assuming wikipedia is correct of course). There's the "everyone can see rating" then its brackets at 7, 11 and 15. Who came up with those numbers? The 11 cutoff seems pretty arbitrary since there's a fairly significant difference I'd say between 11, 12 and 13 year olds. Yet I can see hardly any difference between say a 6 year old and a 7 year old. I suppose it can be based on the earliest time puberty tends to hit (which I think is around 11) though for a general thing like movies I'd have to assume 11 and 13 is a pretty big difference in maturity.

[Psyren]

The big ones were oppressive governments and big brother. Like I said, the thing that distinguishes the bad guys from the good guys is whether they play along with the Capital's games. The games themselves exist to demonstrate the power of the Capital.

I'll add the themes of sacrifice/martyrdom (Katniss does this to protect her sister, and again in the end to attempt to deny the games their victor), and friendship/teamwork (the perpetual and capable loner Katniss only succeeds in the games due to help, both during the event and before it even starts.)

Key takeaways from the movie:

"Freedom is worth fighting for"
"No man (or woman) is an island"
"Self-sacrifice is an admirable quality worthy of emulation"

[Ursus the Grim]

Well, it wasn't all that violent in shown violence, though there was much implied violence and off camera violence, the most disturbing in my opinion was the wasps.

I've got to agree. The quick cuts and lack of gore really nerfed much of the violence, but that death scene was suitably slow and agonizing.

[Starbuck_II]

It was good.
I thought that the government cheated though.
I mean, Creating Virtual dogs and casting fireballs at her seemed unfair.
I liked the Wasp idea. I felt sorry for the youngest member, Ruth? I mean, the rest are at least a teen and she was a little girl.

I didn't understand the hand symbols though. What did it mean?

[Ravens_cry]

I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.

[Ravens_cry]

I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.

[Ursus the Grim]

It was good.
I thought that the government cheated though.
I mean, Creating Virtual dogs and casting fireballs at her seemed unfair.
I liked the Wasp idea. I felt sorry for the youngest member, Ruth? I mean, the rest are at least a teen and she was a little girl.

I didn't understand the hand symbols though. What did it mean?

That's kind of the point of the Games. Its really just a display to remind the Districts that the Capital has all the power, and it could play as unfair as it wants. The Hunger Games are essentially a show of power. The 'virtual' dogs are not exactly dogs, but they are very real and very dangerous.


I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.

Thats exactly what it means. For instance, Gale has put his name in multiple times to 'purchase' extra supplies. The point is that the Capital can help out the Districts, but chooses not to. See the above response. Another big thing is the concept of manipulation of hope. President Snow illustrates this. The system gives the Districts little hopes, like "I got extra food for my family, and chances are I won't be picked" and "Our sister was chosen, but she might survive and improve life for all of us." This is enough to keep the Districts operating without giving them big hopes like "We could rebel and beat the Capital".

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, but those who need a lot of extra supplies,. the hard scrabbling poor, are also the most likely to rebel and are the most numerous.
Really playing with fire there in my opinion.
As we saw, it doesn't take much to set them off.
And if the raw material production Districts, like 11 and 12, did rebel, what do you do?
You destroy them like you did 13 and you slit your own throat, a pyrrhic victory at best.
But don't destroy them and you show that rebellion is possible, which is incredibly dangerous for an oppressive regime.

[Xondoure]

Well clearly resentment has been building for a very long time. Initial fear after the capital crushed the districts is beginning to run thinner and thinner despite the horrific reminder of the games. That is why Snow is so set on crushing that hope into the ground in the hopes that this can maintain the peace the capital has enjoyed.

It just goes to show that in order to make people complacent about the horrible things in the world, you either need to make them comfortable with it (capital) or too hungry to do anything about it (district twelve.) It's districts like eleven that have better food supplies but equal discontent that become the problem.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, "Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down"
Of course, I doubt Snow cared much whether the structure would survive long after his death. Like Tarquin, he fundamentally only seems to care about his personal place in things, keeping things stable long enough for him to pass on.
It is a fundamentally flawed system for long term stability.

[Psyren]

I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.

Yeah, MovieBob hangs a rather large lampshade on this very point. Not only are they encouraging all their disenfranchised young people to hate the government, they're also actively encouraging them to get combat training - particularly from the ones that survive the horror and go home to their respective districts.

So yeah, it's not the most brilliant writing around but it gets the job done (entertainment.)

[Ravens_cry]

Nice to know someone else noticed it as well, that's always comforting.
Only one (usually) each year survives, but that still doesn't mean those who weren't selected won't be next year, and fact 24 will be, and so it would be indeed best to get in as much combat and survival skills as possible, skills equally useful in a guerilla war against technologically superior foe, like our friends in the white suits and (anti-gravity?) hovercraft.

[Xondoure]

Nice to know someone else noticed it as well, that's always comforting.
Only one (usually) each year survives, but that still doesn't mean those who weren't selected won't be next year, and fact 24 will be, and so it would be indeed best to get in as much combat and survival skills as possible, skills equally useful in a guerilla war against technologically superior foe, like our friends in the white suits and (anti-gravity?) hovercraft.

If I recall correctly they weren't allowed to. Training was in fact strictly prohibited (you know, unless it was a favored district that just happened to have academies where most of the tributes come from. That would be inconclusive.)

[Reverent-One]

Just saw the movie, it was well done. I especially like how they handled the switch from first-person novel to movie, by showing us more of what went behind the scenes as Katniss is doing her thing. Good casting choices overall too. They did like the shaky-cam a bit much though.

[Ravens_cry]

If I recall correctly they weren't allowed to. Training was in fact strictly prohibited (you know, unless it was a favored district that just happened to have academies where most of the tributes come from. That would be inconclusive.)
Sorry, I only have the movie to go by.
Also, forbidden and not done are two completely different things, just ask any teenager.
The heroine was able to get enough hunting practise to pick off squirrels on a regular enough basis to be well known in a rather formal looking 'black market' with a home made bow. My point is the system encourages this form of rebellion implicitly while trying to avoid the repercussions explicitly.
And, as a I said, what do they do if they do rebel? You can't keep destroying Sectors without bringing the entire means of production, and hence your civilisation, to a screeching halt.

[Reverent-One]

Sorry, I only have the movie to go by.
Also, forbidden and not done are two completely different things. The heroine was able to get enough hunting practise to pick off squirrels on a regular enough basis to be well known in a rather formal looking 'black market' with a home made bow. My point is the system encourages this form of rebellion implicitly while trying to avoid the repercussions explicitly.
And, as a I said, what do they do if they do rebel? You can't keep destroying Sectors without bringing the entire means of production, and hence your civilisation, to a screeching halt.

You give them just enough that they have something to lose by rebelling, and any that do (which by the nature of the districts is very likely to be an isolated affair) get shut down hard, potentially using them as an example as what happens to people like them. Let the sparks die without spreading.

[Xondoure]

Sorry, I only have the movie to go by.
Also, forbidden and not done are two completely different things, just ask any teenager.
The heroine was able to get enough hunting practise to pick off squirrels on a regular enough basis to be well known in a rather formal looking 'black market' with a home made bow. My point is the system encourages this form of rebellion implicitly while trying to avoid the repercussions explicitly.
And, as a I said, what do they do if they do rebel? You can't keep destroying Sectors without bringing the entire means of production, and hence your civilisation, to a screeching halt.

It is mentioned within the story that twelve, being the poorest district has much more lax security and treatment than other districts. If they weren't all starving, they'd be much better off than most of the others. What's more Katniss is an exception not a rule. The poorer district's children very rarely win because they are malnourished, and completely unprepared as opposed to the healthier well trained champions of the districts that have benefited the most from the situation.

I'm not saying the concept is perfect but we see the system as it falls apart, and less of the seventy four years in which it worked so well as to see little change in form. Not to forget that if it hadn't been for

the stunt Katniss pulled with the berries, the system probably would have continued to work.

Which is a much bigger plothole. In that why they didn't just hit them with a sleeping drug and then have them wake up hours later without the berries and no other options (possibly walled in with only a knife so they don't try some other clever trick) is most likely because the author wanted the heroes to win and didn't think too hard about it.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Not to forget that if it hadn't been for

the stunt Katniss pulled with the berries, the system probably would have continued to work.

Which is a much bigger plothole. In that why they didn't just hit them with a sleeping drug and then have them wake up hours later without the berries and no other options (possibly walled in with only a knife so they don't try some other clever trick) is most likely because the author wanted the heroes to win and didn't think too hard about it.

I think it's because the games are televised, live, for the entire nation to see. Pretty much everybody knows that the games are rigged, but for the Gamemasters to blatantly pull a stunt like that is a whole other thing entirely. Also, everyone was paying attention to the "star-crossed lovers of District 12" narrative; quite a few people were probably pretty upset with the Gamemasters' about-face as it was.

[Reverent-One]

I'm not saying the concept is perfect but we see the system as it falls apart, and less of the seventy four years in which it worked so well as to see little change in form. Not to forget that if it hadn't been for

the stunt Katniss pulled with the berries, the system probably would have continued to work.

Which is a much bigger plothole. In that why they didn't just hit them with a sleeping drug and then have them wake up hours later without the berries and no other options (possibly walled in with only a knife so they don't try some other clever trick) is most likely because the author wanted the heroes to win and didn't think too hard about it.

Leaving aside that they only had seconds to come up with a response in the first place, if the two are willing to both kill themselves, then they will kill themselves. Leaving them with a knife for example, doesn't prevent them from killing themselves, they'll just each stab themselves to death instead.

[Agrippa]

After reading thread and others about the Hunger Games I feel the urge to come out with a versus thread. The basic idea is simple, a band of heroes was mystically conveied to just outside Panem and their plan is to attack the Capitol and kill President Snow. The heroes, or as I like to call them, The Fellowship of the Black Blade, consist of Emperor Elric VIII of Melnibone as the leader, Nemesis the Warlock as second in command, Midnighter, Basin City's Marv, the enemy of Norsefire known simply as V, Beatrix Kiddo, deadly little Miho, Lelouch vi Britannia as the tag along kid and of course the group's wise old mentor. He's retired Lt. Aldo Raine. "We ain't in the takin' prisioners business, we in the killin' peacekeepers business. And business is a boomin'!" Is something wrong with me?

[Ravens_cry]

Guys, I'm not talking about the contestants, I am talking about the potential contestants.
You know, the thousands who, thanks to the "get aid, get more of a chance of being sent to a very good chance of a rather unpleasant death" have every reason to work to be independent of such needs, and no loyalty to the larger government, who, as pointed out, are, in the lower sectors, are relatively unguarded,. Unguarded enough for a someone to gain relative expertise in a weapon that takes years of practise to gain proficiency with.
Who knows how many others, a lot of weapons have being improvised over the years from farm tools. Early pole arms developed from a a farmers sycthe reforged in an upward direction, Nunchaku and flails likely developed from grain flails, used for separating wheat from chaff.
Let's see, unguarded, hungry, resentful, independent, disloyal masses.
That's a revolution waiting to happen.
And what's worse, the elite are screwed if the Proles do rebel. I don't think some of you realize how screwed.
Let's say put down the uprising, brutally and with devastating force. Great, your production of raw materials is devastatingly disrupted, the raw materials that allow the high tech wonderland of the highest Sectors to exist.
But, let's say they are 'lenient', don't go for all out devastation, because otherwise the civilisation will collapse.
OK then, they are doomed, because tyranny can never survive when it becomes known that it can be fought against, that it can be resisted.
Think of a bully. Everyone is afraid because they think they'll get beaten, but if someone stands up to that bully, and they don't get beaten up, or not as much as feared, then the bully has no power.
The system was not stable, it was a powder keg.
Our characters set it off, but it was doomed to blow anyway.

[Chen]

See district 12 could probably get away with rebellion because they have so little. Even then they're starved so they don't really have the means to rebel in a meaningful way. It takes a rare person to be willing to throw their lives away to rebel. It takes a rarer person to throw away the lives of their family to rebel.

Spoilers from the other 2 books
The only reason the rebellion works is because District 13 is so advanced and is FULL of people who are already willing to rebel. Otherwise each district would have just been crushed under the thumb of the capital and they would have continued working. The technological superiority of the capital is too great, if district 13 weren't around

[Reverent-One]

Guys, I'm not talking about the contestants, I am talking about the potential contestants.
You know, the thousands who, thanks to the "get aid, get more of a chance of being sent to a very good chance of a rather unpleasant death" have every reason to work to be independent of such needs, and no loyalty to the larger government, who, as pointed out, are, in the lower sectors, are relatively unguarded,. Unguarded enough for a someone to gain relative expertise in a weapon that takes years of practise to gain proficiency with.
Who knows how many others, a lot of weapons have being improvised over the years from farm tools. Early pole arms developed from a a farmers sycthe reforged in an upward direction, Nunchaku and flails likely developed from grain flails, used for separating wheat from chaff.
Let's see, unguarded, hungry, resentful, independent, disloyal masses.
That's a revolution waiting to happen.
And what's worse, the elite are screwed if the Proles do rebel. I don't think some of you realize how screwed.
Let's say put down the uprising, brutally and with devastating force. Great, your production of raw materials is devastatingly disrupted, the raw materials that allow the high tech wonderland of the highest Sectors to exist.
But, let's say they are 'lenient', don't go for all out devastation, because otherwise the civilisation will collapse.
OK then, they are doomed, because tyranny can never survive when it becomes known that it can be fought against, that it can be resisted.
Think of a bully. Everyone is afraid because they think they'll get beaten, but if someone stands up to that bully, and they don't get beaten up, or not as much as feared, then the bully has no power.
The system was not stable, it was a powder keg.
Our characters set it off, but it was doomed to blow anyway.

Problem is, just because a couple of people can get away with sneaking away and hunting and gaining some useful skills without getting caught doesn't mean a large number of people can do that. A larger group of people is more likely to get noticed and make them increase security to the point that even a couple of people wouldn't be able to get away with it. Also, on this point:


Let's say put down the uprising, brutally and with devastating force. Great, your production of raw materials is devastatingly disrupted, the raw materials that allow the high tech wonderland of the highest Sectors to exist.

Then you just relocate some people from each of the other districts into the rebelling district, using the dead rebellious members as an example of what happens (and potentially subtlely increase quality of life for a while to give less incentive to rebel).

[BRC]

I don't think the Capitol was ever supposed to be an especially effective dictatorship. I've only read the first two books, but I got the impression that the only reason the Capitol lasted as long as it does is because of it's incredible technological superiority, and by making sure none of the districts can work independently.

Each district is ultra-specialized in some industry. All the districts that do not produce Food are reliant on the capital shipping them food from the districts that Do, and the districts that DO grow food are kept heavily repressed. Since communication between the districts is all but impossible, districts can't rebel without suffering the risk of starvation, unless they know that one of the agricultural districts is ALSO rebelling, and is willing to ship them food.

But in the end, it's still a very unstable system. It appears to be designed to produce the highest-possible quality of life in the Capital, rather than to ensure stability as long as possible. Consider, for example, 1984, which was an incredibly stable Dystopia, where the apparatus of state was designed to keep The Party in power by keeping the people Terrified, Brainwashed, or Mindlessly Content.

In Panem it's more like a mercantilist system, the Apparatus of state is designed to ensure that the Capital gets to live it up as much as possible. As a way to keep Rebellion down, the Hunger Games are very stupid. It's a annual humiliation that also encourages children in the districts to be prepared to fight a brutal guerrilla war. I guess it has the side effect of encouraging districts to think of each other as enemies, but that's kind of mitigated by the fact that they're all FORCED into fighting each other.

The Hunger Games is so the Capital can feel good about how powerful it is.The Capital is like Tarquin, they realize that, no matter what they do, all empires fall, and eventually their reign will end. In the meantime, they might as well live life as a 24/7 Party.

[Psyren]

If I recall correctly they weren't allowed to. Training was in fact strictly prohibited (you know, unless it was a favored district that just happened to have academies where most of the tributes come from. That would be inconclusive.)

All tributes get training prior to the games. The ones that survive get to go home. Nothing is stopping them from training other kids once they get there, though they of course have to be secretive about it.

And even without the government's training the kids can learn some stuff on their own. Katniss didn't learn how to hunt in the games after all.



And, as a I said, what do they do if they do rebel? You can't keep destroying Sectors without bringing the entire means of production, and hence your civilisation, to a screeching halt.

Yep. Snow even knows this - he explains to Caesar that the far-out districts supply coal and crops, "things we need." If they ALL revolted that would be the end of it, his only solution is to keep them mostly placated and make harsh examples of any upstarts quickly.

[Megaduck]

All tributes get training prior to the games. The ones that survive get to go home. Nothing is stopping them from training other kids once they get there, though they of course have to be secretive about it.

And even without the government's training the kids can learn some stuff on their own. Katniss didn't learn how to hunt in the games after all.



Yep. Snow even knows this - he explains to Caesar that the far-out districts supply coal and crops, "things we need." If they ALL revolted that would be the end of it, his only solution is to keep them mostly placated and make harsh examples of any upstarts quickly.

I didn't think the winners went home. I only saw the movie but I thought the mentor lived in the capital full time and that winning the games brought fame and riches.

I'm not sure how much training they could give anyway. It would be swords and bows against hovertanks and pulse rifles.

I did get the impression that the capital could be sieged if all the districts rebelled but how likely are the districts going to work together? Every year they get to see Jack from District X slaughter someone from their district. I would imagine that there is a strong rivalry between districts.

In the movie I thought that was the point of the flowers and the gesture when Rue died. Katniess showed that she actually cared about another district.

[Psyren]

I didn't think the winners went home. I only saw the movie but I thought the mentor lived in the capital full time and that winning the games brought fame and riches.

Yeah, my mistake. But past winners may simply not have wanted to go home. Even if they did though and were physically prevented, that just means the districts have to prepare for battle on their own, which has been done before in history.


I'm not sure how much training they could give anyway. It would be swords and bows against hovertanks and pulse rifles.

Now where (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%282009_film%29) have I seen that before? :smalltongue:

All kidding aside, it wouldn't be "guerilla warfare" if the other side didn't have better gear. You have to fight smart, until you can steal some of their pulse rifles and tanks, then keep fighting smart. And however high-tech the Capitol's technology is, clearly they still need necessities like coal etc., so a long bloody war will hurt them as much as it does the rebels.


I did get the impression that the capital could be sieged if all the districts rebelled but how likely are the districts going to work together? Every year they get to see Jack from District X slaughter someone from their district. I would imagine that there is a strong rivalry between districts.

In the movie I thought that was the point of the flowers and the gesture when Rue died. Katniess showed that she actually cared about another district.

And that's the point - by allowing the games to continue, you create the opportunity for more inspiring moments like that.

But as someone pointed out above, any inter-district rivalry is undermined by the fact that all the districts are in it together.

[Ravens_cry]

Problem is, just because a couple of people can get away with sneaking away and hunting and gaining some useful skills without getting caught doesn't mean a large number of people can do that. A larger group of people is more likely to get noticed and make them increase security to the point that even a couple of people wouldn't be able to get away with it. Also, on this point:

No one seemed too shocked when it was revealed she could shoot. In fact, the boy openly revealed that she got squirrels to sell, and no one seemed off put by it. The market also seemed to be a fairly open thing from what I could tell from the film, at most an open secret.


Then you just relocate some people from each of the other districts into the rebelling district, using the dead rebellious members as an example of what happens (and potentially subtlely increase quality of life for a while to give less incentive to rebel).
Even if all the physical infrastructure is still in place, which I find hard to believe, and you decided to resettle, you still got a bunch a bunch of people with no training in work that often requires at least some level of specialized training and no one to give them training.
That means poor productivity at best.

[Xondoure]

I didn't think the winners went home. I only saw the movie but I thought the mentor lived in the capital full time and that winning the games brought fame and riches.

I'm not sure how much training they could give anyway. It would be swords and bows against hovertanks and pulse rifles.

I did get the impression that the capital could be sieged if all the districts rebelled but how likely are the districts going to work together? Every year they get to see Jack from District X slaughter someone from their district. I would imagine that there is a strong rivalry between districts.

In the movie I thought that was the point of the flowers and the gesture when Rue died. Katniess showed that she actually cared about another district.

They live in big fancy mansions with lots of cameras in the center of their districts. I'm guessing most are as drunk as Haymitch.

[t209]

Each district is ultra-specialized in some industry. All the districts that do not produce Food are reliant on the capital shipping them food from the districts that Do, and the districts that DO grow food are kept heavily repressed. Since communication between the districts is all but impossible, districts can't rebel without suffering the risk of starvation, unless they know that one of the agricultural districts is ALSO rebelling, and is willing to ship them food.
So District 12 is the same dirt-poor coal miners of Applachia except they can't grow their own food or hunt on their own.

In Panem it's more like a mercantilist system, the Apparatus of state is designed to ensure that the Capital gets to live it up as much as possible. As a way to keep Rebellion down, the Hunger Games are very stupid. It's a annual humiliation that also encourages children in the districts to be prepared to fight a brutal guerrilla war. I guess it has the side effect of encouraging districts to think of each other as enemies, but that's kind of mitigated by the fact that they're all FORCED into fighting each other.
So the mercantilism as in "you ship your resources to us, not them" types system. That gotta make the districts poor since they cannot diversify their economy.

[BRC]

So the mercantilism as in "you ship your resources to us, not them" types system. That gotta make the districts poor since they cannot diversify their economy.
Which is the point. The districts can't diversify their economies, they export everything, and only import what the Capital sends to them.

[Reverent-One]

No one seemed too shocked when it was revealed she could shoot. In fact, the boy openly revealed that she got squirrels to sell, and no one seemed off put by it. The market also seemed to be a fairly open thing from what I could tell from the film, at most an open secret.

Peeta also revealed it among friends/allies, not authorities. And while Katniss does mention making some sales to Peacekeepers, there's also a difference between one of them looking the other way for a kid who can get you some stuff and ignoring widespread subversion of the government's control.


Even if all the physical infrastructure is still in place, which I find hard to believe, and you decided to resettle, you still got a bunch a bunch of people with no training in work that often requires at least some level of specialized training and no one to give them training.
That means poor productivity at best.

Poor productivity for a while as you move in the new people and retrain them is a heck of a lot better than doomed.

[Ravens_cry]

Peeta also revealed it among friends/allies, not authorities. And while Katniss does mention making some sales to Peacekeepers, there's also a difference between one of them looking the other way for a kid who can get you some stuff and ignoring widespread subversion of the government's control.


It shows that it is accepted as an open secret.


Poor productivity for a while as you move in the new people and retrain them is a heck of a lot better than doomed.
Poor Productivity at best. Who retrains them?
And, as said, that assumes the physical infrastructure remains in place.
Let's say a farming Sector rebels. Now, if I knew that the Capital was going to come to rub me out, I'd burn crops and storehouses as a last act of defiance. That means famine, huge, and wide spread enough to also affect the Capital, famine.
That is assuming the act of destroying a Sector wouldn't do it already, the film doesn't exactly make clear how Sector 13 was destroyed.
If I was an industrial Sector, same deal, sabotage and destruction, a scorched earth policy.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Asheram]

It shows that it is accepted as an open secret.

Poor Productivity at best. Who retrains them?
And, as said, that assumes the physical infrastructure remains in place.
Let's say a farming Sector rebels. Now, if I knew that the Capital was going to come to rub me out, I'd burn crops and storehouses as a last act of defiance. That means famine, huge, and wide spread enough to also affect the Capital, famine.
That is assuming the act of destroying a Sector wouldn't do it already, the film doesn't exactly make clear how Sector 13 was destroyed.
If I was an industrial Sector, same deal, sabotage and destruction, a scorched earth policy.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Sounds a bit like what Sector 11 started to do after Rue died.
Anyhow, the whole regime sort of make a lot of sense. Stupid and convoluted sense, but sense nevertheless.

Now, keep in mind that I've just seen the movie, but did they ever explain how the hunger games appeared originally? I can't imagine that they made this show overnight but it must've been some gradual shift from what snow said "putting 24 children in front of a firing squad".

[Ravens_cry]

Given the fairly short time frame we see of after the games, they may have succeeded.
We don't hear of another Sector being wiped out for rebellion, the worst looks like water cannons and other riot gear.

[Lord Seth]

Just saw the movie. While I did have a fair number of nitpicks, for the most part I liked it, and I thought it was well put together. I do think the fight scenes weren't done that well, though...it was too freaking hard to figure out what was actually happening with all the camera cuts. And the shaky-cam was rather annoying at points.

One thing that did bug me was the premise. The whole purpose of the tributes makes no sense to me. It's supposedly done to prevent the districts from rebelling...but how does it do that? By making a guarantee to randomly pick people to (most likely) die? That does the opposite. It means that the people have less incentive to obey because people will die regardless of how hard they work or how much respect they give the government. The way actual dictatorships work is that they punish dissent, they don't punish completely random people. (okay, granted, the people they punished weren't always necessarily an actual dissenter--forced confessions mean you might not have been guilty, after all--but it was people who at least looked like they might be, which of course provided incentive for everyone else to make sure they didn't look like they were rebelling)

I can't even buy into the idea that "well, it keeps the people entertained and willing to put up with their poor state," kind of like the War World episode of Justice League. That doesn't make sense either. First, this is an annual thing, so that hardly helps lift people's spirits overall because it doesn't happen that often. Second, the people dying are people that the audience who this is supposed to entertain and keep subdued knows of already. Harder to enjoy something when people you know and care about are at stake.

Granted, enjoyment of watching people kill each other has real world counterparts, the best known probably being the gladiators in Ancient Rome. But in Ancient Rome--at least from what I can tell--the gladiators were composed of people like criminals or prisoners of war, which avoided the above problems. The regular old people probably didn't care much about prisoners of war, and the criminals...well, were criminals. Thus gladiatorship allowed a form of what I was talking about: If you commit crimes, you can be forced to become a gladiator and have a high chance of death. This discouraged people committing crimes or rebelling. There were also some volunteer gladiators who did it for things like money or status, but they were...well, volunteers. So unlike The Hunger Games, they didn't just randomly pick people and somehow expect that as a way to discourage insurrection. Plus they had fights more often than just once a year, which helped keep people more entertained. And not every game had the guarantee of only one person surviving (people would frequently die, but many--possibly most--of the games did not have death as a requirement for the ending).

So the whole premise really didn't make much sense to me.

[t209]

How many of you Appalachians reacted to having a Appalachian Protagonist?
What's the difference between Appalachia and Deep South? (All I know is that Deep South is agricultural while Appalachia is rely on mining and trade since mountains is not good for farming).
Which part of Appalachia does Katniss came from?
edit: I already edited it!

[Ursus the Grim]

How many of you Appalachians reacted to having a Appalachian Protagonist? Well, District 12 is the same old Coal Mining Poverty stricken Appalachia.
Which part of Appalachia does Katniss came from?

Um. How are we defining Appalachian? Because there are a whole lot of people who live near that mountain range. I've lived in the shadow of NYC most of my life but have spent many weekends at my house in the mountains? Am I Appalachian?

I feel like something about this is a little offensive, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps its the suggestion that 'Appalachians' somehow only connote dirt poor coal miners living in the depths of American poverty? Anyone else? Nah, probably just this pony.

As for Katniss' specific region of Appalachia, I'm not certain.

[t209]

Um. How are we defining Appalachian? Because there are a whole lot of people who live near that mountain range. I've lived in the shadow of NYC most of my life but have spent many weekends at my house in the mountains? Am I Appalachian?

I feel like something about this is a little offensive, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps its the suggestion that 'Appalachians' somehow only connote dirt poor coal miners living in the depths of American poverty? Anyone else? Nah, probably just this pony.

As for Katniss' specific region of Appalachia, I'm not certain.

I thought Appalachia is located in deep south (Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia).
P.S- by your request, I changed my earlier post.

[Copper]

Um. How are we defining Appalachian? Because there are a whole lot of people who live near that mountain range. I've lived in the shadow of NYC most of my life but have spent many weekends at my house in the mountains? Am I Appalachian?

I feel like something about this is a little offensive, but I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps its the suggestion that 'Appalachians' somehow only connote dirt poor coal miners living in the depths of American poverty? Anyone else? Nah, probably just this pony.

As for Katniss' specific region of Appalachia, I'm not certain.

Well, most of the districts are based off of stereotypes of that region. For example, apparently the deep south is a heavily black giant cotton plantation and New England doesn't exist/has been blown away by nuclear war.

[Ursus the Grim]

I thought Appalachia is located in deep south (Georgia, Kentucky, and West Virginia).
P.S- by your request, I changed my earlier post.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

The Deep South generally connotes Texas to South Carolina, IIRC the first seven states to form the Confederacy. Historically this is where the bulk (but not all) plantations were.

Appalachia stretches from Mississippi up to New York. As indicated by the post that set me off a little bit, there are a lot of stereotypes. Specifically that they are inbred moonshining hillbillies. I've spent a good time in Eastern Appalachia, and everyone seems pretty fine to me. Whenever asked about those stereotypes, people say "oh, you're thinking about West Virginia." Having not been to West Virginia, I'm fairly certain most of the stereotype fails to hold up there as well. Early on it was thought logging and mining were the two moneymakers, but those really haven't worked out well for the cultural region you have in mind. Farming, by the way, is possible, but most people don't have the resources to work with the topography, despite having a decent climate and reasonably healthy soil, for certain crops, anyway.


Well, most of the districts are based off of stereotypes of that region. For example, apparently the deep south is a heavily black giant cotton plantation and New England doesn't exist/has been blown away by nuclear war.

Yeah, I think the intention was to evoke hate of the capital by implying they had set it up in such a way. Pretty sure the Peacekeepers in (8?) where white, of course.

[t209]

Well, most of the districts are based off of stereotypes of that region. For example, apparently the deep south is a heavily black giant cotton plantation and New England doesn't exist/has been blown away by nuclear war.
Actually District 11 is a typical fruit plantation in California except the farm workers were black (The author make it intentional to make an allegory on Southern Slavery minus tobacco, cotton, and iced tea).
I think District 3 is new england or district 4.

[Xondoure]

I got the impression that there wasn't really a whole lot of people left and that the districts were fairly close to one another in a geological sense (It would still take you days on foot trudging through illegal territory swarming with dangerous genetic crossbreeds and old mines. After all, there are some areas in the united states where many different types of geography appear naturally in a reasonable distance of one another.

I got this from the travelers searching for district thirteen. If these places were spread out all over the entire country; their story just got a whole lot less believable.

[Raimun]

I'm not sure if I should see this film.

On one hand I'm interested why so many people are so worked up over this piece.

On the other hand the premise itself doesn't interest me at all: "Dystopian future, yadda-yadda, death matches, etc." No offense but doesn't some action hero-wannabe actor make one of these every summer (w/cars, rollerblades or virtual reality mixed in for flavor), starting from the 80s? Didn't really help that I heard later it's a so called "young adult"-story.

Perhaps I'm just not the target demographic?

[Zale]

No one seemed too shocked when it was revealed she could shoot. In fact, the boy openly revealed that she got squirrels to sell, and no one seemed off put by it. The market also seemed to be a fairly open thing from what I could tell from the film, at most an open secret.

Even if all the physical infrastructure is still in place, which I find hard to believe, and you decided to resettle, you still got a bunch a bunch of people with no training in work that often requires at least some level of specialized training and no one to give them training.
That means poor productivity at best.

That was in what equates to a black-market. Not to mention, the Peacekeepers there are rather lax and somewhat corrupt. They let things slide.

In the later books, new peacekeepers arrive that do punish poaching. Severely.


It shows that it is accepted as an open secret.

Poor Productivity at best. Who retrains them?
And, as said, that assumes the physical infrastructure remains in place.
Let's say a farming Sector rebels. Now, if I knew that the Capital was going to come to rub me out, I'd burn crops and storehouses as a last act of defiance. That means famine, huge, and wide spread enough to also affect the Capital, famine.
That is assuming the act of destroying a Sector wouldn't do it already, the film doesn't exactly make clear how Sector 13 was destroyed.
If I was an industrial Sector, same deal, sabotage and destruction, a scorched earth policy.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's implied to be a nuke in the books. I think.

Considering they show the reporter in some kind of hazard suit, anyway.

Though the footage is just a recording that they replay over and over.


Guys, I'm not talking about the contestants, I am talking about the potential contestants.
You know, the thousands who, thanks to the "get aid, get more of a chance of being sent to a very good chance of a rather unpleasant death" have every reason to work to be independent of such needs, and no loyalty to the larger government, who, as pointed out, are, in the lower sectors, are relatively unguarded,. Unguarded enough for a someone to gain relative expertise in a weapon that takes years of practise to gain proficiency with.
Who knows how many others, a lot of weapons have being improvised over the years from farm tools. Early pole arms developed from a a farmers sycthe reforged in an upward direction, Nunchaku and flails likely developed from grain flails, used for separating wheat from chaff.
Let's see, unguarded, hungry, resentful, independent, disloyal masses.
That's a revolution waiting to happen.
And what's worse, the elite are screwed if the Proles do rebel. I don't think some of you realize how screwed.
Let's say put down the uprising, brutally and with devastating force. Great, your production of raw materials is devastatingly disrupted, the raw materials that allow the high tech wonderland of the highest Sectors to exist.
But, let's say they are 'lenient', don't go for all out devastation, because otherwise the civilisation will collapse.
OK then, they are doomed, because tyranny can never survive when it becomes known that it can be fought against, that it can be resisted.
Think of a bully. Everyone is afraid because they think they'll get beaten, but if someone stands up to that bully, and they don't get beaten up, or not as much as feared, then the bully has no power.
The system was not stable, it was a powder keg.
Our characters set it off, but it was doomed to blow anyway.

Yeah.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly what happens in the second and third books. The Districts start to riot and rebel, causing problems for the capital. President Snow paints the problems as merely a bad year for X product, and since the general resident from the capital is rather ignorant, they go with that.

[TheEmerged]

So I just got back from this movie. I won't say it was bad but... Can someone familiar with the books (that I now have no desire whatsoever to read) tell me what was I supposed to be feeling when the movie was over with? I'm having trouble putting it into words without sounding more insulting than I feel.

The closest I can come is to compare it to a sales pitch I saw at a flea market years ago. I had taken my mother who was raised in Appalachia - who had scrubbed floors with a hand brush and carried water from a creek during her lifetime. We came to this eager college student trying to sell these special washcloths, so he did the routine where he handed her an obviously-poor-quality rag and asked her to clean one messy spot up while he cleaned a different one with his special space age fibers.

She of course, having used even *worse* rags in her lifetime, did a better job on her side than he did on his, much to the laughter of everyone watching. Perhaps alone in the crowd, I felt sorry for the kid who had just embarrassed himself but was just trying to earn a buck.

This film is the college kid in that story. I left feeling that it wanted to be something big, and even tried to do something great, but had no idea what it was doing. It had all the trappings of something epic yet... there wasn't enough there there.

I couldn't feel insulted when I was being preached at. I couldn't feel inspired, I couldn't feel sorry for the victims, I couldn't hate the bad guys (I was too busy laughing at how cartoonish they were), I couldn't get into the world behind it... yet I couldn't bring myself to dislike it either.

Oatmeal for breakfast? Is that a fair comparison?

---------------

The more insulting version as a sound bite -- for me, the rest of the movie never lived up to the tribute scene.

[t209]

So I just got back from this movie. I won't say it was bad but... Can someone familiar with the books (that I now have no desire whatsoever to read) tell me what was I supposed to be feeling when the movie was over with? I'm having trouble putting it into words without sounding more insulting than I feel.

The closest I can come is to compare it to a sales pitch I saw at a flea market years ago. I had taken my mother who was raised in Appalachia - who had scrubbed floors with a hand brush and carried water from a creek during her lifetime. We came to this eager college student trying to sell these special washcloths, so he did the routine where he handed her an obviously-poor-quality rag and asked her to clean one messy spot up while he cleaned a different one with his special space age fibers.

She of course, having used even *worse* rags in her lifetime, did a better job on her side than he did on his, much to the laughter of everyone watching. Perhaps alone in the crowd, I felt sorry for the kid who had just embarrassed himself but was just trying to earn a buck.

This film is the college kid in that story. I left feeling that it wanted to be something big, and even tried to do something great, but had no idea what it was doing. It had all the trappings of something epic yet... there wasn't enough there there.

I couldn't feel insulted when I was being preached at. I couldn't feel inspired, I couldn't feel sorry for the victims, I couldn't hate the bad guys (I was too busy laughing at how cartoonish they were), I couldn't get into the world behind it... yet I couldn't bring myself to dislike it either.

Oatmeal for breakfast? Is that a fair comparison?

---------------

The more insulting version as a sound bite -- for me, the rest of the movie never lived up to the tribute scene.
Well, blame at the Panem. They're the one who try to gain resources, like coal, by promoting a region's stereotype, like Appalachia's coal mines and poverty due to lack of food coming in and banned farming.

[No brains]

Spoilers ahoy, go ahead and tl;dr.

I've been reading the thread up to page 4 and I saw a few people who had similar thoughts, but I don't think they were able to read as much into the idea as I managed to read.

This move is abominably racist.

I will stand by the above adamantly. However, I acknowledge that the levels of racism may have been intentional for purposes of impact. Being only one third of a much larger story, there is potential for the prejudiced themes to have a more meaningful impact.

I began to suspect that the movie would be so during the opening scenes. Beforehand I was given the idea that there was a war (in North America) that fractured the country and left one side dominating the other. This seemed to imply that this was written from a perspective sympathetic of the American South. The idea was cemented when I saw District 12 as a rural, wooded area with people 'toiling'. As the homeland of the protagonist, District 12 is the 'good guy base' where all the people the audience needs to care about are. There is a single black woman in the town. She does nothing but look sad when Primrose is selected. That's it. This shook me, but I still figured that this might have just been a movie with a lot of white people in it.

When I was shown other examples of black people in the film, I was taken aback by how they were put in roles of goons, overindulged city-dwellers, and plain savages. Quite a few of the enforcers in white armor were black men, presumably selected to look 'imposing'. When the protagonists get to the city, the ratio of black people increases dramatically, my guess is around one in ten. This is a substantial portion of the hedonistic, voyeurs ready to watch the slaughter of innocent children.

What I found absolutely disgusting are the black combatants in the Hunger Games. We first see a past participant smashing in another noticeably paler combatant's head in with a brick and then roaring about it. Then we get to the current participants from District 11 who are wearing ceremonial uniforms of blue overalls and white shirts. Are we supposed to believe that they are laborers/ field workers? Toward the end we get Thresh screaming for another fighter to confess the name of murdered Rue while slamming them like a rag doll against a wall. When finished with this, he spares the protagonist, but makes a clear point about it being only once and only for helping Rue. This just raises more questions. Why couldn't Thresh help Rue? Can't they cooperate? Also, when the proposed time to kill Katness comes, will he be at all hesitant about it?

Rue is handled differently, but still in an uneasy way. One scene that bothered me was a quick cut during the interviews with the tributes. In a one-second cut, the announcer asks Rue, "So you can climb trees?" Are we supposed to infer some monkey joke there? While Rue is depicted as innocent, she still falls into some stereotypical roles. She is noted for her ability to hide and make off with another Tribute's knife. Is this because being a little rogue was necessitated from an irresponsible upbringing? More upsetting is how she is neatly sacrificed to further the heroine's ends. This seems to fit the bill of a writer trying to describe the quirks of 'the one good one'. Aside, but relevant, I also noted that there is a racist tweet scandal where some fans complain that Rue is black.

As noted before by other posters, the curing of the cement in my mind was the riot in District 11 following Rue's death. A riot in a dominantly back District where anger crumbles the rule of law. In an especially harsh quelling of this, water cannons are turned on the rioters. It is incredibly strange that for the first time in the seventy four years of the Games, no other district had rioted. The conversation between the President and the Master of Ceremonies certainly makes it seem so. I heard directly after the film that this scene was not in the book. What were the filmmakers trying to prove by adding this?

The racism is not restricted to simply whites over blacks, but it instead has powerful pro-Aryan themes throughout. There are servants standing still as statues that are implied to be Asian inside of the suites before the Games. Moreover, the most potent enemy Katness faces is the picture of Aryan supremacy, being a giant muscular, blue-eyed, blond-haired Adonis whose weapon of choice is a sword seemingly modeled after a Roman gladius. Still yet, one of the controllers during the games seems to have been cast as caricature of the 'insidious Jews'.

...

As always my attempt to write intelligently is cut off by my horrible life circumstances. Please address whatever seems rushed or incomplete.

[Ursus the Grim]

Spoilers ahoy, go ahead and tl;dr.

I've been reading the thread up to page 4 and I saw a few people who had similar thoughts, but I don't think they were able to read as much into the idea as I managed to read.

This move is abominably racist.

Wow. I'm going to start here and mention that I've read your entire post a couple times over. It brings to mind an even that occured to me in high school.

I was sitting in my Math IV class. We were working through a problem as a class and my teacher asked what to do about some variable to solve the problem. I said, with no subtext intended, "We segregate it."

Keep in mind that this is a perfectly legitimate usage of the word. Perhaps I should have been more sensitive that I was going to insult somebody without intending to or even remembering the negative connotations of the word. Behind me roars a voice.

"Wow, Bryan. Way to be racist." No joking, dead serious, this girl begins to scream at as I try to assure her that I wasn't intending on offending anyone. She was just looking for offense where none was intended or even considered. Your complete analysis of the movie as addressed in the following subquotes seems similar. It is, as I like to call it, Death of a Racist Author. Book spoilers abound.


I began to suspect that the movie would be so during the opening scenes. Beforehand I was given the idea that there was a war (in North America) that fractured the country and left one side dominating the other. This seemed to imply that this was written from a perspective sympathetic of the American South. The idea was cemented when I saw District 12 as a rural, wooded area with people 'toiling'. As the homeland of the protagonist, District 12 is the 'good guy base' where all the people the audience needs to care about are. There is a single black woman in the town. She does nothing but look sad when Primrose is selected. That's it. This shook me, but I still figured that this might have just been a movie with a lot of white people in it.

First, your assumption that District 12 is the 'good guy base' is strongly subverted by the fact that it has 11 allies when it comes down to it, the Capital being the only real enemy (though District 2 is somewhat more loyal, it eventually rebels).

Second, I'm judging by the minimal accents and the more temperate mountainous region that District 12 as portrayed here is located somewhere in Central or Northern Appalachia. Taking two minutes to look up census information, we see that overall, Appalachia has approximately 9% black population, which is strongly distorted by 18% in "Southern" Appalachia. If we remove that outlier from the average, as we can by considering its more likely than not that District 12 is positioned outside of Southern Appalachia, our actual average was 4.2%. This correlates with my own personal experience, in which I noticed that Appalachia is hella full of white folk. Naturally, I haven't been to Mississippi, Alabama, nor Georgia, so I'd assume its different there.

If you take a look at the data, you'll notice a disproportionately huge portion of that population is also in urban regions. While it seems more likely to me that people living in urban areas would be more likely to have their children end up in the Capital as opposed to District 12, I'm not making that assumption.

For your convenience.
http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/Chapter3--AppalachianRegion2010CensusReport.pdf


When I was shown other examples of black people in the film, I was taken aback by how they were put in roles of goons, overindulged city-dwellers, and plain savages. Quite a few of the enforcers in white armor were black men, presumably selected to look 'imposing'. When the protagonists get to the city, the ratio of black people increases dramatically, my guess is around one in ten. This is a substantial portion of the hedonistic, voyeurs ready to watch the slaughter of innocent children.

What I found absolutely disgusting are the black combatants in the Hunger Games. We first see a past participant smashing in another noticeably paler combatant's head in with a brick and then roaring about it. Then we get to the current participants from District 11 who are wearing ceremonial uniforms of blue overalls and white shirts. Are we supposed to believe that they are laborers/ field workers? Toward the end we get Thresh screaming for another fighter to confess the name of murdered Rue while slamming them like a rag doll against a wall. When finished with this, he spares the protagonist, but makes a clear point about it being only once and only for helping Rue. This just raises more questions. Why couldn't Thresh help Rue? Can't they cooperate? Also, when the proposed time to kill Katness comes, will he be at all hesitant about it?

Rue is handled differently, but still in an uneasy way. One scene that bothered me was a quick cut during the interviews with the tributes. In a one-second cut, the announcer asks Rue, "So you can climb trees?" Are we supposed to infer some monkey joke there? While Rue is depicted as innocent, she still falls into some stereotypical roles. She is noted for her ability to hide and make off with another Tribute's knife. Is this because being a little rogue was necessitated from an irresponsible upbringing? More upsetting is how she is neatly sacrificed to further the heroine's ends. This seems to fit the bill of a writer trying to describe the quirks of 'the one good one'. Aside, but relevant, I also noted that there is a racist tweet scandal where some fans complain that Rue is black.

Can we have citation here? The only Capitol character I remember being black is Cinna. And he's pretty much the least morally corrupt character. Hell, in the books Katniss describes him like some sort of angel, its almost disgusting how much she idolizes him. He also becomes a martyr. Perhaps there were some black Peacekeepers, but let's keep in mind that America is 12% black. The Capital, which is a hodgepodge of the most affluent of the people being 1/10 black doesn't seem so jarring. If anything, that number is a little low. Then again, if there were no black people in the capital, we'd be sitting here talking about how the movie insinuates that black people can't be wealthy.

Yes. District 11 is primarily black. That's why Kresh and Rue are. Historically speaking, the majority of Blacks lived in the South, specifically Southeastern and South Central. I'm not sure if this supports or dismisses your idea that the movie is racist. Is it racist to have a district of black folk being forced to work on a plantation by a clearly evil Colonel Sanders-like President Snow? Rather, is it racist of the movie? Because your thesis seems to be that the movie bashes blacks, and if anything this would be a clear illustration of the white man ****ing people over again.

Rue was described in the books as being a good climber. Its the only reason she lived as long as she did. She's supposed to be an evasive character because she can't handle herself in a fight. Foxface was already a mildly dis-likable character that was stealthy on the ground. Rue would have been unremarkable had she not taken to the canopy. Unless you propose she burrowed to avoid captors.

No, Kresh and Rue could not have cooperated for long. Ultimately, they would have had to kill one another. I suppose Kresh might have sacrificed himself, but it would be stupid to do that before it was necessary. Kresh and Rue were also mismatched. Having Rue on the ground would have slowed down Kresh, and he doesn't have the gift for evasion that she does. I believe it's suggested in the books that he's trying to help her by killing the other tributes. Hell, if it weren't for Katniss Rue would have made it longer.

Furthermore, regarding the question of hesitation, I doubt it. He's got a family at home and people that would benefit from a victory for him. If it was Kresh and Katniss for the final fight, why would he hesitate? Dying would mean that his district and everyone he knows gets nothing, but winning would allow him to support his family and his friends, including Rue's family.


As noted before by other posters, the curing of the cement in my mind was the riot in District 11 following Rue's death. A riot in a dominantly back District where anger crumbles the rule of law. In an especially harsh quelling of this, water cannons are turned on the rioters. It is incredibly strange that for the first time in the seventy four years of the Games, no other district had rioted. The conversation between the President and the Master of Ceremonies certainly makes it seem so. I heard directly after the film that this scene was not in the book. What were the filmmakers trying to prove by adding this?

The racism is not restricted to simply whites over blacks, but it instead has powerful pro-Aryan themes throughout. There are servants standing still as statues that are implied to be Asian inside of the suites before the Games. Moreover, the most potent enemy Katness faces is the picture of Aryan supremacy, being a giant muscular, blue-eyed, blond-haired Adonis whose weapon of choice is a sword seemingly modeled after a Roman gladius. Still yet, one of the controllers during the games seems to have been cast as caricature of the 'insidious Jews'.

In no other games has there been two victors who try and screw over the capital like that. Besides the fact that there were likely riots at some point, but we are shown how fast they are put down. If 50 years ago people tried to riot and were shut down hard, would people talk about it today? Without written language and Peacekeepers monitoring much of what's said in the district? Its made really clear that District 12 is initially quite lax in terms of order, and that the other districts are pretty tightly ruled.

And our Ubermensch is an *******, a bloodthirsty lunatic. What if he were black? Would you still claim racial themes? Of course, because then he'd be a bloodthirsty savage black man in your eyes.

Jeez, I promised myself to get less worked up over things, but you're looking at beige wallpaper and seeing Nazi propaganda.

[Da'Shain]

I've been reading the thread up to page 4 and I saw a few people who had similar thoughts, but I don't think they were able to read as much into the idea as I managed to read.

This move is abominably racist.I think "read as much into" is the important part there, because I have to say, you seem to be reading a whole lot into the movie starting from the position that it is racist, not actually drawing a conclusion based on what's there.


I began to suspect that the movie would be so during the opening scenes. Beforehand I was given the idea that there was a war (in North America) that fractured the country and left one side dominating the other. This seemed to imply that this was written from a perspective sympathetic of the American South. The idea was cemented when I saw District 12 as a rural, wooded area with people 'toiling'. As the homeland of the protagonist, District 12 is the 'good guy base' where all the people the audience needs to care about are. There is a single black woman in the town. She does nothing but look sad when Primrose is selected. That's it. This shook me, but I still figured that this might have just been a movie with a lot of white people in it.The mere fact that there was a rebellion and "one side" is now dominating the other does not make it sympathetic to the American South after the Civil War. That was not the only rebellion in history, it does not encompass even close to all the possible reasons for a rebellion, and assuming from the outset that the filmmakers are trying to draw a parallel to that specifically based simply on it being a "rural, wooded area" is absurd.

District 12 certainly is a rural wooded area. It's also apparently the district known for coal mining. Which means that it's in the interior of (what used to be) the US, most likely around the Rockies or the Midwest (EDIT: It's apparently explicitly in Appalachia according to the books, probably somewhere in Western Pennsylvania, which actually fits better with the terrain shown in the movie, so thanks for pointing that out, Ursus). Which are not known for their high populations of black people at all; which, in fact, are known for having fairly large concentrations of white people and few other ethnicities.


When I was shown other examples of black people in the film, I was taken aback by how they were put in roles of goons, overindulged city-dwellers, and plain savages. Quite a few of the enforcers in white armor were black men, presumably selected to look 'imposing'. When the protagonists get to the city, the ratio of black people increases dramatically, my guess is around one in ten. This is a substantial portion of the hedonistic, voyeurs ready to watch the slaughter of innocent childrenThe only plain savages I saw in this movie were the white people who allied with one another at the beginning of the games. The overindulged city-dwellers had a higher proportion of black people because that's where the highest concentrations of black people tend to be in North America. Cities are where you'll get the actual diversity. As for the goons, I honestly can't say; you might have a point that a very high number of them were black, but I really don't remember.


What I found absolutely disgusting are the black combatants in the Hunger Games. We first see a past participant smashing in another noticeably paler combatant's head in with a brick and then roaring about it. Then we get to the current participants from District 11 who are wearing ceremonial uniforms of blue overalls and white shirts. Are we supposed to believe that they are laborers/ field workers? Toward the end we get Thresh screaming for another fighter to confess the name of murdered Rue while slamming them like a rag doll against a wall. When finished with this, he spares the protagonist, but makes a clear point about it being only once and only for helping Rue. This just raises more questions. Why couldn't Thresh help Rue? Can't they cooperate? Also, when the proposed time to kill Katness comes, will he be at all hesitant about it?This is, frankly, just silly. The winner of that previous Hunger Games looks bestial because he's just competed in a brutal competition requiring him to survive as the last out of 24 people by any means necessary; anyone will have some sort of reaction like that after being forced to murder for their own survival. The chariot outfits were all meant to be exaggerated costumes based on what each District is known for, so yes, it's possible 11's denizens do some sort of agricultural work, or other work outside. (Haven't read the book, don't know.)

On Thresh, I really don't see what the problem with his portrayal was, in any way, shape, or form. He wasn't helping Rue before because they're all supposed to kill each other. This was before the announcement was made that you could team up with the members of your district. The fact that Thresh was not helping her only means that he was not with her for unknown reasons. His reaction to Rue's killer implies that he actually did care about Rue, as does his offering of a reprieve to Katniss, which paints him as among the more civilized of the contestants (seriously, they all have to kill one another, the fact that he is acknowledging a debt of some sort is enough to mark him as one of the few decent people). He kills Rue's killer in a violent manner, yes; how does this reflect poorly on him in any way?


Rue is handled differently, but still in an uneasy way. One scene that bothered me was a quick cut during the interviews with the tributes. In a one-second cut, the announcer asks Rue, "So you can climb trees?" Are we supposed to infer some monkey joke there?If you're already looking for racist remarks, sure. You can infer what you want.
While Rue is depicted as innocent, she still falls into some stereotypical roles. She is noted for her ability to hide and make off with another Tribute's knife. Is this because being a little rogue was necessitated from an irresponsible upbringing? More upsetting is how she is neatly sacrificed to further the heroine's ends. This seems to fit the bill of a writer trying to describe the quirks of 'the one good one'. Aside, but relevant, I also noted that there is a racist tweet scandal where some fans complain that Rue is black.Rue is a 12 year old girl; the only abilities of hers that will be at all useful will be the ability to hide and be sneaky. The character would simply die within the first ten minutes if she had no useful skills, and as a child she's not going to be winning a fistfight anytime soon. The racist fan controversy seems to have spawned from the fact that Rue, in the books, is not specifically mentioned to be black or some such (I haven't read them, I don't know), which simply points to some fans being racist, not the film itself.


As noted before by other posters, the curing of the cement in my mind was the riot in District 11 following Rue's death. A riot in a dominantly back District where anger crumbles the rule of law. In an especially harsh quelling of this, water cannons are turned on the rioters. It is incredibly strange that for the first time in the seventy four years of the Games, no other district had rioted. The conversation between the President and the Master of Ceremonies certainly makes it seem so. I heard directly after the film that this scene was not in the book. What were the filmmakers trying to prove by adding this?Again, haven't read the book, but from what I can gather, the book is a tight first-person focus where Katniss wouldn't have seen the riots happening at the same time. We as the audience, though, without the benefit of Katniss's internal monologue, have no idea what's going on in the outside world or why the game-masters are getting worried without being shown; so we're shown that one of the districts had a riot start. I admit this scene came kind of out of left field and could have been explained better, but it was almost certainly added to show that people on the outside were watching the games and either being inspired or fearing that inspiration.


The racism is not restricted to simply whites over blacks, but it instead has powerful pro-Aryan themes throughout. There are servants standing still as statues that are implied to be Asian inside of the suites before the Games. Moreover, the most potent enemy Katness faces is the picture of Aryan supremacy, being a giant muscular, blue-eyed, blond-haired Adonis whose weapon of choice is a sword seemingly modeled after a Roman gladius. Still yet, one of the controllers during the games seems to have been cast as caricature of the 'insidious Jews'.This is ... really ridiculous. "Pro-Aryan themes"? The worst people in the movie were the District 1 and 2 volunteers who were all clearly bloodthirsty maniacs! The "picture of Aryan supremacy" kills children and is, by the end, so bloody and beaten that he's got a death wish! They're the clearest antagonists the movie has!

As for the others ... how are the servants "implied" to be Asian? Either they are or they aren't. And how, praytell, is the controller of the games a caricature of "insidious Jews"? Because he's white and has a beard? What?

Really, you seem to have gone into this looking to have a problem with it. You can find racism anywhere if you're looking hard enough. I'll admit the movie isn't exactly race-conscious, but to call it "abominably racist" is to read far, far too much into it.

[SaintRidley]

The racist fan controversy seems to have spawned from the fact that Rue, in the books, is not specifically mentioned to be black or some such (I haven't read them, I don't know), which simply points to some fans being racist, not the film itself.

Point of fact - Rue is described in the book as having "dark brown skin and eyes."

So the racist fans are not merely racist -- they are incapable of reading, as well.

[Ursus the Grim]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/showbiz/movies/hunger-games-black-actors/index.html

This article is highly relevant.

And Da'Shain was a lot more levelheaded with the response, though I would strongly recommend an edit. District 12 is explicitly somewhere in Appalachia, as per the books.

[t209]

Guys, I think we have to careful about racial topics here! Don't want flaming here! (Banning and locking of threads).

[Psyren]

Eh, I'm not really seeing the racism. Two of the most honorable characters in the movie are minorities (Rue and Cinna), not to mention Thresh, who was a ruthless killer in the beginning of the contest yet saved Katniss' life for her kindness to Rue.

I don't think savagery was limited to one race; The Career Pack were much more savage than anything we see out in the districts, and they were predominantly white. And there were minorities among the decadent aristocrats in the capitol.

District 11, you have a point, is predominantly black. But as to why they're the first to revolt in years, this is easily explained by them being the first district whose tribute was so well-treated by another district's tribute.

[BRC]

Personally, I'm not happy with their casting choices for the tributes from District Nine. (http://www.darksidecostumes.org/images/district_9%20prawn%20face%202.jpg)



Sorry, It had to be done.

[Ursus the Grim]

Personally, I'm not happy with their casting choices for the tributes from District Nine. (http://www.darksidecostumes.org/images/district_9%20prawn%20face%202.jpg)


Well played, good sir, well-played.

[Abies]

Personally, I'm not happy with their casting choices for the tributes from District Nine. (http://www.darksidecostumes.org/images/district_9%20prawn%20face%202.jpg)

Thank you sir, for giving me the best laugh I had in days.

I enjoyed the film. I'm not going to critique, just wanted to give a thumbs up.

One question for the folks who have read the books. What are the populations of the Districts supposed to be? Per the movie, the Capitol is obviously huge, what with 100k people attending the tribute ceremony in person (or was that number supposed to include those watching at home?). From the reaping scene in D12, there looked to be 2-3 hundred boys/girls aged 12-18(?) being chosen from. Even twice that number would not suggest a large population. As I understand the entire district is later "Destroyed", so again not so large a population.

Are the districts actual large areas where people live in dispersed populations, or are they more like city-states where everyone lives in a highly centralized population center?

[Dragonus45]

On the subject of the riot, the second book mentions it in passing,and then Katniss and Peta accidently start another one

[Ravens_cry]

Thank you sir, for giving me the best laugh I had in days.

I enjoyed the film. I'm not going to critique, just wanted to give a thumbs up.

One question for the folks who have read the books. What are the populations of the Districts supposed to be? Per the movie, the Capitol is obviously huge, what with 100k people attending the tribute ceremony in person (or was that number supposed to include those watching at home?). From the reaping scene in D12, there looked to be 2-3 hundred boys/girls aged 12-18(?) being chosen from. Even twice that number would not suggest a large population. As I understand the entire district is later "Destroyed", so again not so large a population.

Yeah, I had that problem as well. There didn't seem to be enough people in the Prole Districts to support the vast crowds seen in the Higher Class Districts. It seemed almost ridiculously top heavy as a standard D&D ecology, all predators, few prey.

[SaintRidley]

Yeah, I had that problem as well. There didn't seem to be enough people in the Prole Districts to support the vast crowds seen in the Higher Class Districts. It seemed almost ridiculously top heavy as a standard D&D ecology, all predators, few prey.


If you don't mind the spoiler and my speculation, based on what my fiancee has told me of the later plot:
District 12 gets completely wiped out (by the Capitol, I believe) all because they are pissed off at Katniss. Judging by how the Capitol seems not to care too much over the loss of a full District, my guess is that the system is top-heavy because the entire system is a show of power.

The people in charge, I believe, are keeping the populace of the Capitol placated with the games and have no real use for the Districts. The cruelty to the Districts is in large part a pure show of power on the part of those in charge. Anything they do to the people of the Districts is due to their belief that their actions go unopposed.

My guess on the treatment of District 11 is that the people who set up the government of Panem knew the history of the United States and proceeded to set up the districts as environments of maximum humiliation. The situation of District 11 is probably one of the greatest humiliations that could possibly befall the ancestors of the Districts population. If anything, District 11 being based off the antebellum South is probably a greater symbol of the unconscionable evil of the government of Panem.

[Ravens_cry]

The movie contradicts that however in Snows conversation with Seneca.
And they should, logically, matter.
Every culture needs resources, and therefore needs someone to get them.

[MLai]

@ Ravens Cry realizing the book's internal logic sucks:
Your inevitable loss of disbelief after a little fridge logic seems to surprise you. Your surprise must be based on your mistaken assumption that THG is some sort of deep literature which stands up to the scrutiny of an adult mind. Well, Tom Clancy it ain't. I've read a (admittedly biased) review blog of THG which frankly has annihilated any desire for me to ever read the books, by pointing out ever single plothole the novel has. And it has A LOT; your fridge logic has only touched the tip of the iceberg. BRC said it best, regarding your point. This thread has more geopolitics and economics than the author ever thought about, anyways.

And that is why I like the movies better. Because it doesn't monologue like the book, all the plotholes can be explained away logically by your own mind; the author does not get a chance to mess it up. I mentally compared the movie to the plotholes the blog pointed out, while watching the movie... and 90% of them got fixed in the book-to-movie transition.

The shakey cam is quite annoying. Worst I've seen in any movie so far. That's my greatest complaint about the movie.

@ TheEmerged feeling surprised that the movie didn't wow him:
Why are you so surprised...?
Seriously, this is a YA product. Even if it's popular, it doesn't mean it's objectively great.
And no, do not read the novels. Unless you feel like some popcorn reading. Personally if I was in that type of mood I'd just play a game.

@ Death of A Racist Author:
Ha. Reminds me of "black hole."

[Ravens_cry]

Surprisingly, I didn't find the shakey cam so bad.
The worst I ever saw was the Star Trek reboot. Ooh, now that, that was barfogenic in the worst way.

[No brains]

Sorry, It had to be done.
I'm more surprised it took this long to be done! :smallbiggrin:

Sorry for being upsetting. I openly admit I see things... differently... from most people, and what I saw was probably exaggerated. When it costs ten dollars to see something again to make sure you had your mind in the right frame, misconceptions can flourish. I also admit to having an illogical and Cygnus X-1 sized bias against anything that attempts to paint the South as victims. Hearing Fox News booming through the walls of your house at all hours tends to make you hateful towards something.:smallfrown:

@Ursis the Grim
I don't think though your title 'Death of a(n) Racist Author' holds up. Text certainly leaves more to the imagination of those who read it, but movies tend to be exacting in how they mean to express a scene. I'm also fairly certain film producers looking for the next don't Twilight put as much depth of thought into their work as Balzac. It is because of this that the racial content seems more jarring than socially important. Perhaps you should not let your passions color your writing.:smallwink:

@ Da'Shur
I did draw a conclusion, thank you very much. I hoped to make that evident through citing my repeated observations. Insulting me personally, especially when I admit twice the fallibility of my interpretations does not help me to come to new conclusions. It starts flame wars. I post with the intention of discussing a troubling thought I had, not to make enemies.:smallannoyed:

@MLai
That "Black Holes" deal was silly. An astronomy themed children's gift card breaking into racial slurs? Well... it might be reasonable on South Park...:smallconfused:

If any of you were on the production team of this film and found my statements personally insulting, please give me deeper insights to help us come to terms with my misguided perceptions. Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

[Saph]

If any of you were on the production team of this film and found my statements personally insulting, please give me deeper insights to help us come to terms with my misguided perceptions. Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

Well, I'd like to put you at ease, but having just seen the movie last night . . . to be honest, I'm not really sure what to tell you. The bar you're using is so skewed that I suspect pretty much anything is going to qualify as "racist" by your definition.

Without exception, all the worst people in the story are white, whereas every black character with a speaking role is one of the good guys. That's somewhere around a 50% (at best) positive portrayal of the white characters, and 100% for the black ones. Yet somehow you've managed to come away with the idea that the movie casts the black characters in a bad light. That's some seriously loopy reasoning.

[Ursus the Grim]

I'm more surprised it took this long to be done! :smallbiggrin:

Sorry for being upsetting. I openly admit I see things... differently... from most people, and what I saw was probably exaggerated. When it costs ten dollars to see something again to make sure you had your mind in the right frame, misconceptions can flourish. I also admit to having an illogical and Cygnus X-1 sized bias against anything that attempts to paint the South as victims. Hearing Fox News booming through the walls of your house at all hours tends to make you hateful towards something.:smallfrown:

@Ursis the Grim
I don't think though your title 'Death of a(n) Racist Author' holds up. Text certainly leaves more to the imagination of those who read it, but movies tend to be exacting in how they mean to express a scene. I'm also fairly certain film producers looking for the next don't Twilight put as much depth of thought into their work as Balzac. It is because of this that the racial content seems more jarring than socially important. Perhaps you should not let your passions color your writing.:smallwink:

[. . .]

If any of you were on the production team of this film and found my statements personally insulting, please give me deeper insights to help us come to terms with my misguided perceptions. Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

I'm not really upset over it anymore, and I don't believe I said anything I didn't mean. Hell, I'm not even upset or offended that you somehow managed to misspell Ursus despite there being a half-dozen reference points on this very page. My anecdote I feel still applies.

I think you're misinterpreting why I invoke the concept of DoaA. It refers to the 'fact' that once an author publishes a work, no matter how exacting he is nor what his intention was in writing it, the themes are not his to decide. Its up to the reader to decide what is meant or implied by the work. You maintain that every detail of the movie that offends you was intentional, and that clearly the producers meant it to be so. Furthermore, confronted with opinions to the contrary, you curl up and maintain "Well, I saw it this way so that's how it is." That's exactly what happens to a piece of literature. Once a book gets out there the smallest detail or lack thereof can be picked up by someone and meticulously analyzed.

Your next point suggesting that the producers didn't put as much thought into it as Balzac might directly contradicts your suggestion that they were intentionally racist. Besides, I'm not even sure how much thought Balzac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ucIWSstPqI) would actually put into a movie.

You proceed to suggest that my 'writing' was somehow tainted by my passion concerning the subject, when you just mentioned yourself that you're biased and bitter from listening to Fox News at an inappropriate volume. That excuse doesn't hold water either. As a hacker on steroids, Faux News personally offends me on a weekly basis, yet we've somehow drawn majorly different conclusions.

The rest of your 'response' really isn't a response at all. Its just claiming that people are trying to make enemies, flame you, and make you cry. You didn't ask for help putting your mind at ease. You explicitly said that you were able to read into it more than anyone else, suggesting that you were somehow better for being able to spot the rampant hateful racism in this movie. You suggested that this content disturbed you, but at no point did you say "but I'm sure I'm wrong, please help me feel better." No one started a flame war. I assure you, if people like me meant to flame you, the Playground would swing the big fuzzy Banhammer with great justice to squelch my fiery tongue. People posted their opinions in response to what they perceived as a major misinterpretation.

I mean, when even Saph says you have loopy reasoning and a skewed view, its time to really reconsider. . . .

Note that wasn't an implication that Saph is loopy or skewed himself, but rather that he's a pretty agreeable guy.

[t209]

I think we need to be careful about our post! We could get locked (found a bit politics in your own statements).

[Lord Seth]

I openly admit I see things... differently... from most people, and what I saw was probably exaggerated.Then perhaps you should have stated something like that instead of declaring point-of-fact that it was "abominably racist" and add that you will stand behind that statement adamantly.
When it costs ten dollars to see something again to make sure you had your mind in the right frame, misconceptions can flourish. I also admit to having an illogical and Cygnus X-1 sized bias against anything that attempts to paint the South as victims.Which, again, perhaps you should have considered before (in your own words) adamantly declaring that it was abominably racist. Though you have to start bending over backwards right from the start to come up with some "paints the South as victims" interpretation of the movie if you ask me.
@ Da'Shur
I did draw a conclusion, thank you very much. I hoped to make that evident through citing my repeated observations. Insulting me personally,I have no idea where Da'Shain insulted you personally.
especially when I admit twice the fallibility of my interpretationsEr, when did you admit that even once, let alone twice? Again, you adamantly stated it was abominably racist. You gave no statement that I saw that indicated you believed you might be reading too much into it or perhaps just came away with incorrect impressions.

Essentially, the conversation is like this:
You: This film is racist! I completely believe that!
(After other people point out flaws in your reasoning)
You: Hey, I said I could have been wrong, right?
does not help me to come to new conclusions. It starts flame wars. I post with the intention of discussing a troubling thought I had, not to make enemies.:smallannoyed:I find it hard to see how Da'Shain's post was somehow more likely to start a flame war than yours was.

As a side note, I do find it interesting that you really did not actually respond to the counterarguments made by people like Da'Shain or Ursus.
Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.Which is not what you did. You did not come here and post something like:

"Maybe it's just me, and I hope it is, but I feel like there's some racism in this film. <Insert list and explanations here>. Am I just overthinking this? Is there something in the books that better explains it? I'd really like to believe that I'm just reading too much into things."

Instead, you said, and I'm quoting directly from you:

"This move is abominably racist. I will stand by the above adamantly."

There is a major difference between those two, and you can't post the latter and then claim it's the former.

[LokeyITP]

So just got around to reading the book. For those who've done that and seen the film, do you think the film or the book was better?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm kind of ambivalent about the book - read all the way to the end but felt a bit unsatisfied having done it - and now I'm 50/50 on seeing the film.
Read the book, haven't seen the movie, and guess I'm more than a little ambivalent.

- Writing = flat
- Characterization = laughable
- Premise = a bit forced
- Setting = laughable, but narrator isn't omniscient

Yah, YA book, but the general theme and premise have so much promise, I find it hard to believe that there's so little good stuff in it. Sure some of the dramatic moments are done well.

Lack of description is probably because it's supposed to be you're the hero, you're friends are these characters and people you don't like are these...

[MLai]

The movie is better than the book.

1. The movie has no narration, therefore your imagination and logic can fill in the gaps the correct way, rather than the talent-lacking author messing it up for you.

2. The actors/tresses are pretty decent, and can carry the show where the author fails. I like the protag actress; she doesn't look like your typical Hollywood Barbie, which I'm frankly sick and tired of. She looks like a normal girl a bit on the pudgy side (which is good).

3. As a movie, it doesn't go into the details a book is forced to. That is good, because while this book has a promising premise, it fails in the details.

[Da'Shain]

And Da'Shain was a lot more levelheaded with the response, though I would strongly recommend an edit. District 12 is explicitly somewhere in Appalachia, as per the books.Noted, thanks!


@ Da'Shur
I did draw a conclusion, thank you very much. I hoped to make that evident through citing my repeated observations. Insulting me personally, especially when I admit twice the fallibility of my interpretations does not help me to come to new conclusions. It starts flame wars. I post with the intention of discussing a troubling thought I had, not to make enemies.:smallannoyed:Others have responded to this, but I felt I should personally. I see no place in my post where I insulted you personally, nor was such my intention. If you're referring to my comments on some of your points being "absurd", "silly" and "ridiculous", those were directed at the conclusions you drew, not you yourself, and they were phrased truthfully, not insultingly, as you do leap straight to concluding racist intent when such is not warranted. I pointed out how absurd they were to try and convince you that you were leaping to conclusions that were not justified.

Lord Seth has already gone into the lack of admitting fallibility and the rather final statement you made at the beginning of your post about the movie's content, so I won't delve into it further when I have nothing further to add.

[Xondoure]

Pudgy is not the word I would use to describe Jennifer Lawrence.

[Dragonus45]

One thing i think a lot of people dont get about the books is that they arent really about the politics, or the setting, or even the games themselves. In the third especially the bulk of the story is Katniss daling with PTSD and other various mental joys brought on from the first two bools. Everything else is just the framework for the internal journy. So of course it doesn't quite stand up to a well reasoned analysis by people who clearly understand economics and all the other stuff better than the author seems to have.

[MLai]

Jennifer Lawrence is also teenage Mystique in X-men First Class. Dude, she's definitely on the pudgy side. This is the last time I'm going to put down the disclaimer that I consider it a positive.
Ofc, she probably goes on a diet before any big Hollywood function, and her mag pictures are probably airbrushed to hell. But she didn't hide it in those 2 movies.

@ Dragonus45:
I think ppl understand that, but also tend to be anal about subjects they know. Now, an author is often forgiven if he/she shows that at least some research was done. But THG author did absolutely none.

Basically it's like watching a bad mafia film with tons of disbelief-shattering idiocy, and the excuse is "It's about the character's inner journey!" Hong Kong does this a lot.

[Ursus the Grim]

Jennifer Lawrence is also teenage Mystique in X-men First Class. Dude, she's definitely on the pudgy side. This is the last time I'm going to put down the disclaimer that I consider it a positive.
Ofc, she probably goes on a diet before any big Hollywood function, and her mag pictures are probably airbrushed to hell. But she didn't hide it in those 2 movies.


I don't know if I'd call that pudgy. Pudgy to me connotes having noticeable fat deposits above and beyond what would be considered healthy. Forcing myself through the agony of looking up images to remind myself of what she looked like in first class, I'd call that healthy, perhaps even meaty, but not pudgy.

Entirely agreed that its a good thing, whatever she is.

Back on topic, now that I've read the last book, I've got to agree with Dragonus45. Collins really hammers home that "It Gets Worse". Both Katniss and several other primary characters embark on a voyage to attempt rehabilitation.

[Avilan the Grey]

Jennifer Lawrence is also teenage Mystique in X-men First Class. Dude, she's definitely on the pudgy side.


I agree with the bear: "Pudgy" is the Unattractive version. Jennifer is CURVY.

[Raistlin1040]

I thought it was about as good as Twilight.

Coming from me, this isn't a slam because I don't think Twilight is the steaming pile of excrement that the internet hivemind has decided it is. Rather, I think Twilight and the Hunger Games are both pretty average pieces of literature that have massive fandoms. I'm a bit disappointed that the obnoxious hatedom hasn't come out of the woodwork for the Hunger Games yet, since the best the Internet can muster for all of HG's flaws is "It's Battle Royale".

More specifically to the film, Jennifer Lawrence was good, Stanley Tucci was brilliant as always, Lenny Kravitz was surprisingly good. Rue was very good, Josh Hutcherson was awful, and most of the other characters were around average. The writing was pretty average as well, except for a few completely terrible bits.

Meh. 7/10 seems about right.

[Reverent-One]

I'm a bit disappointed that the obnoxious hatedom hasn't come out of the woodwork for the Hunger Games yet, since the best the Internet can muster for all of HG's flaws is "It's Battle Royale".


Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

[The Glyphstone]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

You gotta feel sorry for Kristin Stewart in a way, what with Twilight having typecast her into the 'useless female love interest' role...a bunch of different roles as a young supporting actress, then Twilight, then the Snow White remake. My bad, I was confusing Snow White with the awful Red Riding Hood remake. Snow remains to be seen, if Stewart can play badass female lead as well.

[Reverent-One]

You gotta feel sorry for Kristin Stewart in a way, what with Twilight having typecast her into the 'useless female love interest' role...a bunch of different roles as a young supporting actress, then Twilight, then the Snow White remake.

Eh, looks like the Snow White movie is going the route of the new Alice in Wonderland movie, in which the female lead leads a rebellion against the evil queen. At least, that's what the trailer made it look like.

EDIT: I see your edit now, never mind then.

[Lord Seth]

I'm a bit disappointed that the obnoxious hatedom hasn't come out of the woodwork for the Hunger Games yet, since the best the Internet can muster for all of HG's flaws is "It's Battle Royale".I don't know why you'd be disappointed. The Twilight hatedom is annoying enough (certainly more annoying than Twilight itself if you ask me), so why in the world would you want another one like it?

[BRC]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.
Yeah. I don't see why Hunger Games would be expected to attract a Twilight-level Hatedom, unless the idea is that the Internet is suppose to reflexively generate a Hatedom for any popular female-targeted YA novel.

[North]

Probably has something to do with the fact that the Hunger Games doesn't advocate for a creepy, unhealthy relationship and the main character is likeable, badass, and played by a good actress rather than an annoying, useless author insert played by Kristin Stewart.

I agree with this statement 1000%

I havent read the books. But the movie looked cool, even though I already know Battle Royale. I saw it last night, it was good. It slightly exceeded my expectations actually. And I was intrigued enough after watching it I picked up the books today.

What I disliked was the advertising about team peeta/ team gale.... frak am I sick and tired of that meme in advertising double ugh.

Oh and on the subject of the movies directorial style and the way they showed not just told. THANK YOU director/writer! I appreciated them not assuming I was an idiot and letting me think about the guy who was probably Rues dad and not handhold me by explaining it. I liked the way it was filmed as well surprisingly low gore/violence especially considering the start of the games.

2 thumbs up

[Psyren]

I thought it was about as good as Twilight.

That bad, huh? :smallwink:

In all seriousness, there's no hatedom for HG because it's not doing much to attract one. It's not out trying to "reinterpret" vampires and werewolves for no reason, it's not relying on a female "lead" that is unconscious for half the action scenes in her own story, and who spends almost all her waking hours trying to choose between the her male protective figures instead of finding ways to defend herself.

Katniss is independent; she hunts, she can survive in the wild for days on end, and though she also has two hunks to fawn over her, they are in no way the center of her universe.

In short, Katniss is a better role model because she doesn't define herself or her self worth by the men around her. Yet she's still unmistakeably feminine, and it's sad that I have to say that because it's not that hard a balance point to hit.

[Raistlin1040]

I had a big long post typed up about the role of gender in writing, the importance of context and fairness in judging a book, and literary analysis theory, but I decided that no one would really take it seriously because it made an argument that Twilight wasn't really that bad which is a cardinal sin on the internet and also because it was long.

You don't have to like Twilight. You don't have to dislike the Hunger Games. Ultimately however, I think they are of similar quality in writing ability, characterization, and interest. The biggest difference in the way they're viewed is that the Hunger Games is younger and was able to set itself up (though marketing, and also through fans, although that isn't the actual book's fault) as Twilight for people who don't like Twilight by attempting to intellectualize itself more than the subject matter really digs into.

[Lord Seth]

I never read The Hunger Games book, so I can't compare it with the Twilight book. But I did see Twilight the movie and The Hunger Games movie, and even ignoring various other reasons, I can definitely say I thought The Hunger Games was superior simply because I was substantially less bored watching it.

[Ursus the Grim]

I had a big long post typed up about the role of gender in writing, the importance of context and fairness in judging a book, and literary analysis theory, but I decided that no one would really take it seriously because it made an argument that Twilight wasn't really that bad which is a cardinal sin on the internet and also because it was long.

You don't have to like Twilight. You don't have to dislike the Hunger Games. Ultimately however, I think they are of similar quality in writing ability, characterization, and interest. The biggest difference in the way they're viewed is that the Hunger Games is younger and was able to set itself up (though marketing, and also through fans, although that isn't the actual book's fault) as Twilight for people who don't like Twilight by attempting to intellectualize itself more than the subject matter really digs into.

You're entitled to that opinion, and I think you're already aware that the majority of posters are going to disagree with you.

I'd be interested in reading this paper, if only for the fact that my best friend is getting her Masters in some Literature subtopic for other, and she's writing about the Hunger Games as a feminist distopian novel. She despises Twilight for its portrayal of a heroine and the Swan/Cullen relationship, not for its corruption of werewolves or vampires.

She's been working on this thesis for well over a year now, and I'm excited to read it. You could provide a link, perhaps, to this paper.

[Reverent-One]

I had a big long post typed up about the role of gender in writing, the importance of context and fairness in judging a book, and literary analysis theory, but I decided that no one would really take it seriously because it made an argument that Twilight wasn't really that bad which is a cardinal sin on the internet and also because it was long.

You don't have to like Twilight. You don't have to dislike the Hunger Games. Ultimately however, I think they are of similar quality in writing ability, characterization, and interest. The biggest difference in the way they're viewed is that the Hunger Games is younger and was able to set itself up (though marketing, and also through fans, although that isn't the actual book's fault) as Twilight for people who don't like Twilight by attempting to intellectualize itself more than the subject matter really digs into.

I have to really disagree with the the bolded part, it has basically nothing in common with Twilight beyond being a YA series with a female protaganist, and Twilight doesn't have the monopoly on that. Never have I heard a description from anyone who actually read the book that went along the lines of "It's Twilight, but good/better/not crap".

[Ursus the Grim]

I have to really disagree with the the bolded part, it has basically nothing in common with Twilight beyond being a YA series with a female protaganist, and Twilight doesn't have the monopoly on that. Never have I heard a description from anyone who actually read the book that went along the lines of "It's Twilight, but good/better/not crap".

People are drawing this conclusion because it has a similar demographic in its fanbase. The only other conclusion I can draw is because it has a female protagonist with two love interests. . . but if thats the basis it might as well be a Jane Austen novel.

There is, though, unmistakable overlap between the two fanbases. This doesn't necessarily mean its intended to be "Twilight for people who don't like Twilight."

Hell, Stephen King had decent things to say about it.

[The Glyphstone]

I have to really disagree with the the bolded part, it has basically nothing in common with Twilight beyond being a YA series with a female protaganist, and Twilight doesn't have the monopoly on that. Never have I heard a description from anyone who actually read the book that went along the lines of "It's Twilight, but good/better/not crap".

Well, it apparently also has marketing in common, if they're actually trying to make it a Team Peeta/Gale setup. But that's stupid Hollywood executives, not a quality of the book itself.

[Lord Seth]

She despises Twilight for its portrayal of a heroine and the Swan/Cullen relationship, not for its corruption of werewolves or vampires.You know, I'm confused what complaint people have about "corruption" of werewolves. I understand the complaint about the "corruption" of vampires even if I disagree and think it's probably the worst reason to dislike the series, but the only thing I've seen people complain about in terms of werewolves is that they can change when it's not a full moon...just like plenty of werewolves in myth and legend.
Well, it apparently also has marketing in common, if they're actually trying to make it a Team Peeta/Gale setup. But that's stupid Hollywood executives, not a quality of the book itself.Of all the advertising I saw for the film, I didn't see any kind of Team Peeta/Gale setup, but even so...I don't see how it's "stupid" if the film broke box office records. Obviously whatever advertising they did was effective.

[Reverent-One]

I haven't seen marketing playing up a Team Gale/Peeta angle though. Maybe I've just missed it.

[t209]

I haven't seen marketing playing up a Team Gale/Peeta angle though. Maybe I've just missed it.

Well,
Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.
Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

[The Glyphstone]

Well,
Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.
Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

Uh.....

I think you have Gale confused with another character. The last mention of him in Mockingjay is alive and healthy.


What qualifies as 'redneck'?

[Xondoure]

Well,
Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.
Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

? When was Gale killed?
I mean itGale was partially responsible for Primrose's death but that's different than dying himself.

[Ursus the Grim]

Edit: Wow, double ninja'd. . .


You know, I'm confused what complaint people have about "corruption" of werewolves. I understand the complaint about the "corruption" of vampires even if I disagree and think it's probably the worst reason to dislike the series, but the only thing I've seen people complain about in terms of werewolves is that they can change when it's not a full moon...just like plenty of werewolves in myth and legend.

Well, it never really bothered me personally, but its kind of the "Our Demons are Different" trope. Technically, these werewolves aren't werewolves, but the descendants of a shape-shifting native-american spirit warrior. They also only 'phase' when vampires are nearby.

But they also use "Children of the Moon", which are entirely werewolves as traditionally considered. Confusing and frustrating, so I'll stop there.


I haven't seen marketing playing up a Team Gale/Peeta angle though. Maybe I've just missed it.

That aspect of the fandom certainly exists. I've seen kids with the Team shirts on, but I haven't seen it pushed very much in the marketing. Most of the Team shirts I've seen were actually home-made.


Well,
Gale was killed in the book! I think Film should have the same canon as the book.
Is there any characters that are treated as Draco in Leatherpants (fan over villain characters) in Hungergames?
P.S- How redneck is Hungergames?

Your spoiler is wrong. Flat-out wrong. Seriously. Go look at the book again.

I don't think we've got a Draco in Leather Pants at this point, but Finnick may count for part of Book 2.

And what do you mean, Redneck? Didn't you ask earlier how Appalachian folk felt about it being based in Appalachia? I certainly hope the two questions aren't related. . . .

[t209]

Your spoiler is wrong. Flat-out wrong. Seriously. Go look at the book again.

I don't think we've got a Draco in Leather Pants at this point, but Finnick may count for part of Book 2.

And what do you mean, Redneck? Didn't you ask earlier how Appalachian folk felt about it being based in Appalachia? I certainly hope the two questions aren't related. . . .
I think I got mixed up with The Books ending with Peeta and Katniss getting married.
Redneck (Appalachian) as in, how much redneck when compared to Deliverance, Beverly Hillybilly and Duke of Hazzard. Yes, it is not related.

[Lord Seth]

If you're going to spoil things related to future books, could you possibly mention that's what you're spoiling? I got some stuff ruined for me because I opened up spoilers I thought were for the movie but were actually for the future books.

[Battleship789]

I think I got mixed up with The Books ending with Peeta and Katniss getting married.
Redneck (Appalachian) as in, how much redneck when compared to Deliverance, Beverly Hillybilly and Duke of Hazzard. Yes, it is not related.

Uh, none? You aren't going to be seeing anyone loafing around in a red/orange/yellow pickup truck, being obtuse, smoking a cigarette and wearing a wife beater, if that's what you mean by "redneck." :smalltongue: Though, I'm not so sure about the "family tree that doesn't fork" part...the human race isn't very diverse/large in THGs world, IIRC. Yes, that is super stereotyping. And a Jeff Foxworthy joke to boot!

Think "Dystopian Society." That's it. The fact that District 12 is probably in Appalachia means nothing to the story other than providing a reasonable location for game hunting and coal mining. Book 2-3 Spoilers And Appalachia is a decent choice for an area that wouldn't get hit in a nuclear war. It would work just as well in any other semi-mountainous terrain in another location on Earth or even another planet.

[Pie Guy]

Someone asked for a hatedom:

I think the Hunger Games is undeserving of the acclaim it's getting! There were some logical holes in the universe! The style of writing irritates me! Would not recommend!

Am I doin' it right?

[SamBurke]

On that note, she really needs to take some basic biology and economics classes...

The "muttations" are "programmed" to psychologically destroy people. WUT. Seriously, woman, that is NOT HOW IT WORKS. You couldn't even do that to a flipping computer. Get DNA right, if you could, please.

Also, the entire energy sector numbers 8600. They make coal for everyone. There can be no more than
[1/2 Women, who appear not to work in that way. -4300- Innumerable guards, rulers, etc. Their families. -3800- 1/2 Children, who also do not work in such a way. -1900- Most people seem to also do other work (Bakers, Greasy Mae, Gale, Katniss, and almost everyone who's mentioned, except Katniss' father have jobs other than the mines). That leaves maybe a few hundred, let's say -600- to be extremely, extremely, generous.] 600 workers in the mines. That's being generous, too.

From what I've read, one miner with good tools can get about two tons of coal per day. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, that's 1200 tons of coal per day. Sounds like a lot, no? That's 414,000 tons of coal per year, minus the twenty or so days of the Hunger Games, during which no one can work.

There's a problem.

The US currently produces 973 MILLION tons of coal per year. That means that District 12 produces, with extremely generous figures and tons of rounding up, only 1/2,350. Oh, and that's only 23% of our energy, the 1,946,000,000,000 pounds of coal we make every year. Not even a FOURTH.

Ok, we know that there was an enormous apocalypse, and they don't use as much electricity as we do (save District 1 and the Capital...), but still... the machines need a ton, and we see no alternate form of energy. This means that there is just 1/10,000th of the energy used today available then. Or, alternately, 0.001%. Yeaaaaah. That works well. Remember, too, that this is the power for the entire continental UNITED STATES.


Again, anyone can double-check my math, I'm sure I've messed up quite a bit. Still...

[AtlanteanTroll]

Are you ... This wasn't meant as hard SciFi. Calm down.

[SamBurke]

I know, I know. I'm a Dr. Who fan. I can life with terrible math and science squishier than week old meatloaf.

But the "programming" thing annoys me quite a bit, hard or not.

[Ravens_cry]

Are you ... This wasn't meant as hard SciFi. Calm down.
Actually, it basically is. No aliens, no impossible (except perhaps the dogs and the 'fire') tech, set on Earth.
This IS hard science fiction.
Just not the worlds best written hard science fiction.
I liked the movie, but I also like being a nit-picker, especially of things I enjoy.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Actually, it basically is. No aliens, no impossible (except perhaps the dogs and the 'fire') tech, set on Earth.
This IS hard science fiction.
Just not the worlds best written hard science fiction.
I liked the movie, but I also like being a nit-picker, especially of things I enjoy.

You can have hard SciFi with aliens. Hard SciFi is characterized by accurate scientific details, not by realism. (Well, it is, but I think you know what I mean.) So by definition, no, it is not.

[Ravens_cry]

You can have hard SciFi with aliens.
Sure you can, but not having them makes it easier.
Interstellar distances are big.
Not walk to the post office big, not to the moon big, not even to the Kuiper belt big.
Just . . .big.

[BRC]

I know, I know. I'm a Dr. Who fan. I can life with terrible math and science squishier than week old meatloaf.

But the "programming" thing annoys me quite a bit, hard or not.

Fill me in on this "Programmed to psychologically destroy people" thing?

I've only read the first two books, but the closest I can get is the birds in Catching Fire that mimic the screaming sounds of the Tribute's loved ones, and those are basically just biological tape recorders.

I suppose there are the Wolf-Things in the first book that are supposed to look like the Dead Tributes, but I don't see how that's anything special beyond physical appearance.

[SamBurke]

The muttations?

It explicitly says, "they were programmed to play with their prey psychologically." That's pretty close to an actual quote... lemme see if I can find it in the book.

[Xondoure]

The muttations?

It explicitly says, "they were programmed to play with their prey psychologically." That's pretty close to an actual quote... lemme see if I can find it in the book.

Could be psychological programming. No need for that part to be genetic is there? Even if it is there is precedent for such instincts. Just look at house cats.

[Hazzardevil]

My generation is significantly younger than you, Grey, but we had our share of mystery books too. We still read the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. But we also had the Animorphs and Goosebumps. Call me young and desensitized, but I don't think the violence in the Hunger Games was terribly graphic or disturbing. No, seriously. Read the books and then watch the news, and think long and hard about which is more upsetting.

What makes you say that its marketed towards eleven-year-olds? I haven't met anyone younger than 15 who's read the books and I assure you by that point I would have at least realized there was a reason she was showing us the game operators, and honestly the violence wouldn't have phased. Then again, I'm a blood-thirsty American pig.

Your last point is mostly accurate but fails to make the distinction between biological maturity, psychological maturity, and the maturity as seen by society, which are probably roughly 15, 22, and 18-21 respectively.

I'd just like to say that in Britain England, Hampshire we have a competition each year where we read 6 books voted in by the people who are in the year above us in school. We're 12/13 at the time and the first book was voted the best book out of the 6 that year.
The books that year weren't paticuerly good that year, but Suzanne Collins didn't turn up to the award ceremony so people in hampshire are a bit jaded against her.

[Mauve Shirt]

What a terrible horrible good movie!
I've never read the books, so I can't complain about the myriad problems I'm sure there are. What I can complain about is the fact that at the beginning I was all "These rich people and the media and the government are despicable and I hope they die in a fiery explosion". The "Reaping" was just a horrible heart-wrenching scene.
Then of course the hunger games start and I start cheering for the main character and watching this battle royale as eagerly as the bad guys. SCREW YOU MOVIE!!!!
I enjoyed it and will watch the sequels and read the books.

[t209]

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/592902'
I did not watch the movie (or the book) but I think I know about the details about the Hungergames rules (spoilered due to sameness of the movies).
If you move too early before the elevator reach to the surface, it explodes.
pick up bag and run and proceed to kill each other.

[Pokonic]

Could be psychological programming. No need for that part to be genetic is there? Even if it is there is precedent for such instincts. Just look at house cats.

Yeah, this is it. Aggressiveness, willingness to kill? Sounds like they might simply stick them within a cage for most of there short lives, probably injecting them with some nasty mind-altering substances for taste, and then they have there killing mechines.

[comicshorse]

On that note, she really needs to take some basic biology and economics classes...

The "muttations" are "programmed" to psychologically destroy people. WUT. Seriously, woman, that is NOT HOW IT WORKS. You couldn't even do that to a flipping computer. Get DNA right, if you could, please.

Also, the entire energy sector numbers 8600. They make coal for everyone. There can be no more than
[1/2 Women, who appear not to work in that way. -4300- Innumerable guards, rulers, etc. Their families. -3800- 1/2 Children, who also do not work in such a way. -1900- Most people seem to also do other work (Bakers, Greasy Mae, Gale, Katniss, and almost everyone who's mentioned, except Katniss' father have jobs other than the mines). That leaves maybe a few hundred, let's say -600- to be extremely, extremely, generous.] 600 workers in the mines. That's being generous, too.



I'd think you're overestimating the number of gaurds/rulers. ( Especially as gaurds might be from the Capital and so not counted)
Also I'd guess children start working early (its not like the Capital will want them too educated)

[LokeyITP]

Reasonably sure the author researched almost nothing for the books anyway. There's just so much wrong in areas that are stupidly easy to research (i.e. 2 minutes on wikipedia) like archery, hunting, fishing, plants...

How did all that get by the 3 editors anyway?

[Psyren]

Reasonably sure the author researched almost nothing for the books anyway. There's just so much wrong in areas that are stupidly easy to research (i.e. 2 minutes on wikipedia) like archery, hunting, fishing, plants...

How did all that get by the 3 editors anyway?

If you think the majority of the audience of this movie cares about the finer points of archery and fishing, I've got a lovely bridge to sell you. :smalltongue:

All it has to do is LOOK authentic, and then only to the most rudimentarily-trained eyes at best.

[Mauve Shirt]

True fact: Authentic hunting is boring to watch.

[Avilan the Grey]

All it has to do is LOOK authentic cool, and then only to the most rudimentarily-trained eyes at best to the majority of the paying audience.

"Fixed", as it were. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, this is correct; there is a reason "Just Didn't Care", "Rule of cool", etc are tropes. If you are lucky, they are the reason, and not just "Didn't Do Their research".

[Psyren]

"Fixed", as it were. :smallbiggrin:

Oh indeed :smallsmile:

But "looking cool" is the end goal - a veneer of authenticity is how you get there. For instance, Katniss' initial hunting scene, where we see her stalking the deer - she trails it by reading stuff like bent saplings and tufts of fur caught on a rock, then whiffs her initial shot because she was upwind of the target (and uses the leaves as a brilliant way of conveying this to the audience without saying a word.) Then finally she relocates downwind and only flubs the second shot because of Jacob Gale.

There's a lot there that does apply to real hunting - moving silently, staying downwind, tracing your target by the passage it leaves. And having her use that stuff is what makes it cool. (Even if in real life, her chances of navigating the woods both silently and without her neon pastiness giving her away to the target at a distance would be pretty slim.)

[Sneaky Weasel]

What's this? The Hunger Games? You mean the Battle Royale ripoff?:smalltongue:
I'm never going to watch the movie, never going to read the books. Because frankly I suspect they will be the most underwhelming pieces of fiction since the 32nd Xanth book. I just liked Battle Royale too much to take the same plot seriously when it's a popular children's book(I know a ten year old who loves it). It should be far too horrible for children to be reading, and if it's somehow presented in a way where it's not, then it's lessening the impact severely.
Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.:smallbiggrin:

[Reverent-One]

What's this? The Hunger Games? You mean the Battle Royale ripoff?:smalltongue:
I'm never going to watch the movie, never going to read the books. Because frankly I suspect they will be the most underwhelming pieces of fiction since the 32nd Xanth book. I just liked Battle Royale too much to take the same plot seriously when it's a popular children's book(I know a ten year old who loves it). It should be far too horrible for children to be reading, and if it's somehow presented in a way where it's not, then it's lessening the impact severely.
Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.:smallbiggrin:

It's not the same plot though, it's based on the same concept (that is, kids being put in a fight to the death), but that's as far as it goes. And I do have some idea what I'm talking about, since I've seen the Battle Royal movie.

[Raymond998]

I personally just finished reading the book . been waiting to see the movie.

I started reading some of this thread, but I think I need to see the movie first, then come back.

looks like I have to watch Battle Royale and Hunger Games . no problem...

[Ursus the Grim]

It's not the same plot though, it's based on the same concept (that is, kids being put in a fight to the death), but that's as far as it goes. And I do have some idea what I'm talking about, since I've seen the Battle Royal movie.

I've personally got to agree. I don't think Susanne Collins meant to rip of Battle Royale. Specifically, the way she skirts graphic depictions of death/gore indicates that she isn't attempting to capture the essence of Battle Royale. Rather, the events of the Games themselves are just a cog in the much larger plot. The third book ties in the developments of the games themselves into something bigger than any game.

Never mind that the rules and challenges are a little different.


I personally just finished reading the book . been waiting to see the movie.

I started reading some of this thread, but I think I need to see the movie first, then come back.

looks like I have to watch Battle Royale and Hunger Games . no problem...

Yeah, people like to point their nose to the sun and say its derivative of Battle Royale. Battle Royale is certainly good, if you like heaping spoonfuls of grimdark. But it's derivative in the same way Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a ripoff of Blade. . . honestly I can't recall which of the two examples came first, but the point is that a similar premise does not a rip-off make.

[Lord Seth]

Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.:smallbiggrin:It didn't offend me, but it does make me wonder why you decided to come into the topic and post solely to announce you had no interest in the topic.

[0Megabyte]

What's this? The Hunger Games? You mean the Battle Royale ripoff?:smalltongue:
I'm never going to watch the movie, never going to read the books. Because frankly I suspect they will be the most underwhelming pieces of fiction since the 32nd Xanth book. I just liked Battle Royale too much to take the same plot seriously when it's a popular children's book(I know a ten year old who loves it). It should be far too horrible for children to be reading, and if it's somehow presented in a way where it's not, then it's lessening the impact severely.
Hope my bias doesn't offend anyone.:smallbiggrin:


What's that? Battle Royale? You mean that The Running Man ripoff?

I'm sorry, I just liked The Running Man too much to take the same plot seriously when it's just some stupid weaboo thing. I hope my bias doesn't offend you. :smallbiggrin:



Prepare sarcasm shields to maximum.

[JadedDM]

It didn't offend me, but it does make me wonder why you decided to come into the topic and post solely to announce you had no interest in the topic.

Um, obviously. So we could all be in awe of the fact that he is aware of an obscure Japanese film that never made it to the States. Soooooo coooooool. :smallamused:

[Sneaky Weasel]

Well, I just thought that this was a thread for sharing thoughts about the Hunger Games movie franchise, and so I thought I'd give my two cent's worth. If that is somehow unacceptable, than I apologize.
I've never actually seen the movie adaption of Battle Royale, merely read the book, and I do not see how knowing about either would be awe-inspiring. Or was that a joke?
I can see the similarities between Battle Royale and The Running Man, but I honestly don't think they can be compared. The Running Man has a completely different plot. Whereas Battle Royale and The Hunger Games are about ordinary people forced to fight one another to the death in an enclosed environment, The Running Man is about one man who is being hunted down by the authorities and can literally go anywhere to avoid them. Similar, but certainly different enough to both be enjoyed without feeling like you're reading the same story twice. Which you aren't.
Whereas to me, The Hunger Games has almost exactly the same story as Battle Royale, and I much prefer the writing style of the latter. Whether it is a rip-off or not is really impossible to determine, but I don't care to read a plot that has been done before, and done better, in the past. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and I am certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from reading The Hunger Games. I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not my cup of tea, let's say.

[Xondoure]

Well, I just thought that this was a thread for sharing thoughts about the Hunger Games movie franchise, and so I thought I'd give my two cent's worth. If that is somehow unacceptable, than I apologize.
I've never actually seen the movie adaption of Battle Royale, merely read the book, and I do not see how knowing about either would be awe-inspiring. Or was that a joke?
I can see the similarities between Battle Royale and The Running Man, but I honestly don't think they can be compared. The Running Man has a completely different plot. Whereas Battle Royale and The Hunger Games are about ordinary people forced to fight one another to the death in an enclosed environment, The Running Man is about one man who is being hunted down by the authorities and can literally go anywhere to avoid them. Similar, but certainly different enough to both be enjoyed without feeling like you're reading the same story twice. Which you aren't.
Whereas to me, The Hunger Games has almost exactly the same story as Battle Royale, and I much prefer the writing style of the latter. Whether it is a rip-off or not is really impossible to determine, but I don't care to read a plot that has been done before, and done better, in the past. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and I am certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from reading The Hunger Games. I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not my cup of tea, let's say.

Congratulations, all literature is meaningless under your definition. Because every story has been told (and arguably told better) in the past. People have pointed out that the Hunger Games is more than just the games themselves, and that the story it explores is different. If you still refuse to believe the story has any merit whatsoever because of a passing similarity to an older work that is your business. But if you have never actually read or viewed the material than I'm not sure you really have two cents to share.

[Sneaky Weasel]

I did once start reading The Hunger Games, but left about halfway through because I didn't really like it. And while it can be said that every story has been told before, there are many stories that are an original and thought provoking take on some other story. Or stories that have been changed so that they are unrecognizable as having been done before. To me, The Hunger Games is just too derivative. However, I do not believe that it has 'no merit whatsoever', nor have I ever stated this. If something I said led you to believe that I had such an absolute viewpoint, then it was merely a misunderstanding of my intent. As I said before, I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not one I'm interested in reading. That's just an opinion, and I'm not trying to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't read. I know there are some books that I like that have questionable merit, and I don't take offence if someone else dislikes them.

[Xondoure]

I did once start reading The Hunger Games, but left about halfway through because I didn't really like it. And while it can be said that every story has been told before, there are many stories that are an original and thought provoking take on some other story. Or stories that have been changed so that they are unrecognizable as having been done before. To me, The Hunger Games is just too derivative. However, I do not believe that it has 'no merit whatsoever', nor have I ever stated this. If something I said led you to believe that I had such an absolute viewpoint, then it was merely a misunderstanding of my intent. As I said before, I'm sure it's a worthy book, just not one I'm interested in reading. That's just an opinion, and I'm not trying to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't read. I know there are some books that I like that have questionable merit, and I don't take offence if someone else dislikes them.

Apologies, that was hyperbole on my part.

[dragonsamurai77]

Reasonably sure the author researched almost nothing for the books anyway. There's just so much wrong in areas that are stupidly easy to research (i.e. 2 minutes on wikipedia) like archery, hunting, fishing, plants...

How did all that get by the 3 editors anyway?

Read the book, just saw the movie, and what really bugs me:


The forest fire. At least from what I saw, there were only a few small streams, and the entire rest of the area would be highly flammable. Thus, the fire would spread far more quickly and further than it did (the movie explicitly shows the fire on a "minimap"). The gamemasters do have quite a bit of control over the arena, but I don't believe they could have put it out very easily; they'd probably have to douse the whole area for hours (though this could have happened offscreen). Any thoughts?

[Xondoure]

Read the book, just saw the movie, and what really bugs me:


The forest fire. At least from what I saw, there were only a few small streams, and the entire rest of the area would be highly flammable. Thus, the fire would spread far more quickly and further than it did (the movie explicitly shows the fire on a "minimap"). The gamemasters do have quite a bit of control over the arena, but I don't believe they could have put it out very easily; they'd probably have to douse the whole area for hours (though this could have happened offscreen). Any thoughts?

They seem to have pretty impressive control over their traps. A flame retardant border / flooding the area with nonflammable gas which is then vented / something else would hardly be surprising.

[dragonsamurai77]

They seem to have pretty impressive control over their traps. A flame retardant border / flooding the area with nonflammable gas which is then vented / something else would hardly be surprising.

Entirely possible. I'm not discounting them having a method of containing it, simply observing that it was never shown, nor was there any sign of the fire spreading, which I think it would if left unattended, though I'm no expert.

[Wookieetank]

Entirely possible. I'm not discounting them having a method of containing it, simply observing that it was never shown, nor was there any sign of the fire spreading, which I think it would if left unattended, though I'm no expert.

In the books they showed that the gamemasters had control over everything from the temperature, to the weather, to whether or not the streams and lakes even contained water. The fire went out off screen in the book as well, but with the rest of the craziness that the gamemaster did there, it wasn't so hard to rationalize. In the movie however, they weren't shown to have quite as much control of every aspect of the areana as in the books, and the lack of fire damage was a bit of a head scratcher.

[Ravens_cry]

In the books they showed that the gamemasters had control over everything from the temperature, to the weather, to whether or not the streams and lakes even contained water. The fire went out off screen in the book as well, but with the rest of the craziness that the gamemaster did there, it wasn't so hard to rationalize. In the movie however, they weren't shown to have quite as much control of every aspect of the areana as in the books, and the lack of fire damage was a bit of a head scratcher.
Well, they already showed they could make fake fire. Remember the dress and the parade costumes?

[Ravens_cry]

In the books they showed that the gamemasters had control over everything from the temperature, to the weather, to whether or not the streams and lakes even contained water. The fire went out off screen in the book as well, but with the rest of the craziness that the gamemaster did there, it wasn't so hard to rationalize. In the movie however, they weren't shown to have quite as much control of every aspect of the areana as in the books, and the lack of fire damage was a bit of a head scratcher.
Well, they already showed they could make fake fire. Remember the dress and the parade costumes?

[Ursus the Grim]

Well, they already showed they could make fake fire. Remember the dress and the parade costumes?

I don't think this technically counts a a spoiler, but I was pretty sure those fires were real (well, one of the parade costumes was). At least as per the books. I know the other two were done with LEDs, basically.

[dragonsamurai77]

Well, they already showed they could make fake fire. Remember the dress and the parade costumes?


That certainly wasn't the case then, though; the burn on Katniss's leg is proof enough.

[Wookieetank]

Well, they already showed they could make fake fire. Remember the dress and the parade costumes?

True, but they've made specialized clothing in real life that isn't consumed by fire, but we have huge issues getting any sort of forest fire under control (just look at the news any given summer in the US). Also clothing on fire != total environmental control, at least in my head. Just neat parlor tricks. Again, just my interpretation of it.

[Ravens_cry]

That certainly wasn't the case then, though; the burn on Katniss's leg is proof enough.
So they can add heat as well, it's just electromagnetic radiation in either case. In the film at least, the dog things also seemed to be a weird line between fake and real.

[twinkletoes]

Please explain how the first book can be deemed suitable for 11 year olds?????????????
I AM an 11 year old and pretty much half my class loves the hunger games.
11 year olds are probably their best audience.

[Lord Seth]

Edit again: Please explain how the first book can be deemed suitable for 11 year olds?????????????Haven't read the first book and only saw the movie, but quite frankly Dragon Ball Z (even the more censored version that aired on Toonami) was probably more violent.

Actually, shonen in general can be pretty violent when you get down to it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Haven't read the first book and only saw the movie, but quite frankly Dragon Ball Z (even the more censored version that aired on Toonami) was probably more violent.

Actually, shonen in general can be pretty violent when you get down to it.

What's Shonen?

[Lord Seth]

What's Shonen?A Japanese word that means boy, but is often used to describe fictional series (particularly manga) made for said demographic. So stuff like Dragonball Z, Naruto, One Piece, Bleach, Hikaru no Go, Toriko, Eyeshield 21, Death Note, Super Sentai, etc. It's most associated with action/fighting series (as you'll see by how many were in the list I made), but isn't limited to them.

[Ursus the Grim]

Here we go again. . . .


Haven't read the first book and only saw the movie, but quite frankly Dragon Ball Z (even the more censored version that aired on Toonami) was probably more violent.

Actually, shonen in general can be pretty violent when you get down to it.

Japanese shows imported and played in the US aren't going to make a strong argument here, for a variety of reasons.


What's Shonen?

Japanese anime and manga (cartoons and comics, if it must be explained), geared towards young boys, generally in their tweens and early teens.

[Avilan the Grey]

Thank you (both). :smallsmile:

[Lord Seth]

Japanese shows imported and played in the US aren't going to make a strong argument here, for a variety of reasons.Why not?
Japanese anime and manga (cartoons and comics, if it must be explained), geared towards young boys, generally in their tweens and early teens.It's not just cartoons and comics, Super Sentai is decidedly shonen but is live action.

[Tyndmyr]

I had a bit of a fridge logic moment on the reasoning behind the Hunger Games.
I have not read the books, but from what I understand, going to the Guv'ment for aid in any fashion, food, supplies, likely even medical care, is done on a system where you get another ballot in the box.
But wouldn't that engender a distrust and a desire for independence from the government as much as possible?
In fact, we see just that with Katniss and her hunting.
It just strikes me as a little Stupid Evil way to run a system, even for a culture that normally sends 23 kids to die every year.

....yes. It's also a very gameable system since apparently, any entry just stays in from year to year...until after the teen years, when they just go away. I would expect to see heavy use of the system by people in their last year...stocking wealth for the transition to adulthood. Minimal risk at that point, and the districts appear to be decently large. Taking an extra risk to get ahead is something at least some people would do...and as more people do it, the risk ends up being no greater.

I also had a lot of trouble with the apparent need for a victor, given that they had JUST released a giant swarm of dogs on them which could have easily killed them all. Those two elements do not work together.

Then, you have people like me. Id likely no longer be eligible for such a system on account of age...but if I was, I'd volunteer every year. Why? Survival/combat falls smack into my skill set. I have better odds than the average person. If you have willing volunteers, the whole system falls apart, and frankly, teens engage in all manner of risky behavior.

I also rather hated the ridiculous fashion...the whole "it's the future, so everything is weird" thing is just terrible. You can portray wealth/disconnected cultures without spraying pink over everyone.

Also, it felt a bit contrived that Katniss ended up having to fight so little, and in such morally contrived ways. Everyone going to sleep at once? Really? This is your group that has trained their entire lives for this?

As an archer, I also would have appreciated if they tried to make the bow/arrows look less obviously a terrible prop, and like an actual weapon.

It was...an acceptable movie, I suppose. I was not overly thrilled by it. Kind of predictable.

[BRC]

I've always wondered what happens if a district selects it's tribute ahead of time , since you can volunteer and bypass the whole drawing system, then everybody just puts their names in a thousand times.

[The Glyphstone]

They might just invalidate the proceedings. That seems like the sort of thing the Capitol would only allow their 'pet' districts to get away with, anyone else obviously gaming the system that way would be punished.

[Xondoure]

Problem with gaming the system is that you have to convince everyone to game the system, and if you did something like that they might just remove that option all together which would be worse for the districts when all is said and done.

And there are plenty of kids who volunteer, doesn't mean their families don't mourn when they die.

As for Katniss, I agree they should have swung at least one more ambiguous moral choice at her. (Say having the district 11 guy make it to the end instead of the district 2 one.) However the fact that she wouldn't be killing every one in the arena singlehandedly makes a good deal of sense. Hell, according to the trainers more of them should have died without anyone having to swing the blow at all.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh yeah, another thing that irked me is that they were specifically told that more people die of disease and stuff than of combat. Yet, in the actual games, we see that combat is pretty obviously the way people die.

I also disliked the way that the well trained district was so overtly populated by bad guys. I would have liked that to at least be somewhat subtle...but no, they had to rub in the "they're bad people, and thus, ok to kill" relentlessly.

[Reverent-One]

....yes. It's also a very gameable system since apparently, any entry just stays in from year to year...until after the teen years, when they just go away. I would expect to see heavy use of the system by people in their last year...stocking wealth for the transition to adulthood. Minimal risk at that point, and the districts appear to be decently large. Taking an extra risk to get ahead is something at least some people would do...and as more people do it, the risk ends up being no greater.

Barely enough goods for one person to survive for a year is wealth now?


Then, you have people like me. Id likely no longer be eligible for such a system on account of age...but if I was, I'd volunteer every year. Why? Survival/combat falls smack into my skill set. I have better odds than the average person. If you have willing volunteers, the whole system falls apart, and frankly, teens engage in all manner of risky behavior.

Not really, whether they volunteer or not, the capital gets it's pound of flesh. The Career tributes have posed no threat to the games so far.

[Tyndmyr]

Barely enough goods for one person to survive for a year is wealth now?

It's clear from the movie that both of the following are true:
A. You can enter the system more times to get additional food/other stuff.
B. There is a market for food.

So, it's trivial to turn risk of being picked into money.


Not really, whether they volunteer or not, the capital gets it's pound of flesh. The Career tributes have posed no threat to the games so far.

That's irrelevant. If you have a supply of volunteers, then the downside of having your name entered more times is no longer a downside. People have no reason NOT to take option A above.

[Reverent-One]

It's clear from the movie that both of the following are true:
A. You can enter the system more times to get additional food/other stuff.
B. There is a market for food.

So, it's trivial to turn risk of being picked into money.

Just enough money to buy just enough food for one person to survive for a year. Which if you need it to survive, doesn't help you, since you needed the food anyway, and if you don't, means you have to increase your chance of being entered into a competition in which 23 out of the 24 participants don't survive for that little bit of wealth. Some will take it for the bit of extra comfort, others won't, not a big deal either way.


That's irrelevant. If you have a supply of volunteers, then the downside of having your name entered more times is no longer a downside. People have no reason NOT to take option A above.

Ah, you were just referring to the tessera, I thought you were referring to the games as a whole, my apologies. You're right that there's little reason for the kids in districts with volunteers not to take it, but they're the better off districts anyway, so a little bit more food for the year still isn't a big deal.

[Tyndmyr]

Just enough money to buy just enough food for one person to survive for a year. Which if you need it to survive, doesn't help you, since you needed the food anyway, and if you don't, means you have to increase your chance of being entered into a competition in which 23 out of the 24 participants don't survive for that little bit of wealth. Some will take it for the bit of extra comfort, others won't, not a big deal either way.

Ah, you were just referring to the tessera, I thought you were referring to the games as a whole, my apologies. You're right that there's little reason for the kids in districts with volunteers not to take it, but they're the better off districts anyway, so a little bit more food for the year still isn't a big deal.

I believe that, in districts of any decent size, you will get volunteers for the exact same reasons you get volunteers for the military. Since the number taken annually is so low, you can basically assume that someone's gonna take it.

And even if they don't, if the habit of signing up extra for more food is popular...it's the same number of people taken in total. So, you all might as well. The risk comes out the same in the end.

[Reverent-One]

I believe that, in districts of any decent size, you will get volunteers for the exact same reasons you get volunteers for the military. Since the number taken annually is so low, you can basically assume that someone's gonna take it.

...What? Do you really think we'd have people volunteering for the military if it had a 95% mortality rate (outside of the context of a war in which you'd die/be enslaved if your nation lost)? Especially volunteers from children.


And even if they don't, if the habit of signing up extra for more food is popular...it's the same number of people taken in total. So, you all might as well. The risk comes out the same in the end.

Wrong, every tessera you take increases your chances, regardless of whether or not others take any. Doesn't matter if there's 100 names in there or 1000, your chances of being picked are lower if your name's only in there once rather than say, twice. This is why Katniss doesn't allow Prim to take any.

[Wookieetank]

Wrong, every tessera you take increases your chances, regardless of whether or not others take any. Doesn't matter if there's 100 names in there or 1000, your chances of being picked are lower if your name's only in there once rather than say, twice. This is why Katniss doesn't allow Prim to take any.

Not only that but the number of times you get your name put in gets added on to the previous years ammount. So if it was your first year and you had a family of 5, you could put in your name six times to feed your family. If the following year you didn't need to feed your family, you'd be in a minimum of 7 times due to the cumulative effect. They didn't touch on this in much depth in the movie, but in the book, Gale at 16 (17? didn't care for him so didn't keep track) had his name in 42 times due to how many times he had to put in his name in order to get enough food to feed his family.

On the topic of size of the districts, its thought that the larger districts have at most ~10,000 and the smaller/poorer ones, have much fewer people in them. The total human population is small enought that:
HUGE Spolier from book 3:
It becomes a concern that as the war between the Rebels, lead by district 13, and the Capitol rages on that there will even be enough people left alive in the end for a sustainable population of humans

[Tyndmyr]

...What? Do you really think we'd have people volunteering for the military if it had a 95% mortality rate (outside of the context of a war in which you'd die/be enslaved if your nation lost)? Especially volunteers from children.

Well, you can volunteer for the military right now at 17. People do. Plenty of younger folks can't wait to do so. And these soldiers have volunteered for missions labeled as suicidal, in which there is no reasonable chance of coming out alive. So....history says yes.


Wrong, every tessera you take increases your chances, regardless of whether or not others take any. Doesn't matter if there's 100 names in there or 1000, your chances of being picked are lower if your name's only in there once rather than say, twice. This is why Katniss doesn't allow Prim to take any.

Yeah, but the difference between "everyone's name is in once" and "everyone's name is in 100 times" does not exist. So, you would expect inflation.

[Reverent-One]

Well, you can volunteer for the military right now at 17. People do. Plenty of younger folks can't wait to do so. And these soldiers have volunteered for missions labeled as suicidal, in which there is no reasonable chance of coming out alive. So....history says yes.

Are those missions fights to death for random people's enjoyment that will accomplish little to nothing of value, while leaving your family worse off to support itself when you are gone?


Yeah, but the difference between "everyone's name is in once" and "everyone's name is in 100 times" does not exist. So, you would expect inflation.

But the difference between "everyone's name entered 100 times" and "everyone's name but mine entered 100 times" does exist. One people who don't require a tessera would be keenly aware of, and able to use to their advantage. It should also be pointed out that names can't just be entered as many times as you would like, but up to once for each member of your family.

[Tyndmyr]

Are those missions fights to death for random people's enjoyment that will accomplish little to nothing of value, while leaving your family worse off to support itself when you are gone?

I've already said that I, personally, would volunteer. It's for the same basic reason as military service. Keeping the people you grew up with safe. I've always been healthy, fit, and grew up in the woods. Better I go than someone who has no chance whatsoever.


But the difference between "everyone's name entered 100 times" and "everyone's name but mine entered 100 times" does exist. One people who don't require a tessera would be keenly aware of, and able to use to their advantage. It should also be pointed out that names can't just be entered as many times as you would like, but up to once for each member of your family.

The movie does not make this clear. Additionally, they make a point that the one guy has his name entered what...forty-some times? He must have quite the family.

[Xondoure]

I've already said that I, personally, would volunteer. It's for the same basic reason as military service. Keeping the people you grew up with safe. I've always been healthy, fit, and grew up in the woods. Better I go than someone who has no chance whatsoever.



The movie does not make this clear. Additionally, they make a point that the one guy has his name entered what...forty-some times? He must have quite the family.

Once for each member each year.

[Reverent-One]

I've already said that I, personally, would volunteer. It's for the same basic reason as military service. Keeping the people you grew up with safe. I've always been healthy, fit, and grew up in the woods. Better I go than someone who has no chance whatsoever.

And you got those skills by not living in the districts, which makes you a poor example. In Panem, you're most likely to having useful skills by growing up in one of the districts of the Career tributes, which do have volunteers most years. If you have such skills in one of the other districts, it's likely because you needed them so that you and your family could survive (examples, Katniss and Gale), which means volunteering could actually hurt more people than you save.


The movie does not make this clear. Additionally, they make a point that the one guy has his name entered what...forty-some times? He must have quite the family.


Once for each member each year.

Isn't it that they roll over to the following years? So since Katniss took 3 in her first year, she had her name entered automatically 5 times the second, with no benefit unless she enters her name more times beyond that?

[Xondoure]

And you got those skills by not living in the districts, which makes you a poor example. In Panem, you're most likely to having useful skills by growing up in one of the districts of the Career tributes, which do have volunteers most years. If you have such skills in one of the other districts, it's likely because you needed them so that you and your family could survive (examples, Katniss and Gale), which means volunteering could actually hurt more people than you save.





Isn't it that they roll over to the following years? So since Katniss took 3 in her first year, she had her name entered automatically 5 times the second, with no benefit unless she enters her name more times beyond that?

That's what I meant yeah. It's not that he draws forty seven each time, it's that each year the numbers stack. And as we've seen, entering your name additional times is still not enough food to feed a family. It just helps more than it harms.

[Tyndmyr]

And you got those skills by not living in the districts, which makes you a poor example. In Panem, you're most likely to having useful skills by growing up in one of the districts of the Career tributes, which do have volunteers most years. If you have such skills in one of the other districts, it's likely because you needed them so that you and your family could survive (examples, Katniss and Gale), which means volunteering could actually hurt more people than you save.

Well, nobody actually lives in the districts, so yeah. But if I grew up in such a place and had those skills(likely, I lived in a rural, low income area...and seriously, those are the kind of places where people learn outdoors skills), then it makes sense.

I don't get the fixation on family as opposed to other groups.


Isn't it that they roll over to the following years? So since Katniss took 3 in her first year, she had her name entered automatically 5 times the second, with no benefit unless she enters her name more times beyond that?

So, we've got risk weighted against early entries. In short, this makes last year entries significantly less risky than early year entries. Definitely pretty broken as a system.

[Xondoure]

Well, nobody actually lives in the districts, so yeah. But if I grew up in such a place and had those skills(likely, I lived in a rural, low income area...and seriously, those are the kind of places where people learn outdoors skills), then it makes sense.

I don't get the fixation on family as opposed to other groups.



So, we've got risk weighted against early entries. In short, this makes last year entries significantly less risky than early year entries. Definitely pretty broken as a system.

Yes but you're missing the part where these people need that food. If they don't have it they will die. So naturally it follows that people are forced to enter their names in at an early age, and will keep doing it because as you said the risk goes down every year. Insidious if you think about it.

[Reverent-One]

Well, nobody actually lives in the districts, so yeah. But if I grew up in such a place and had those skills(likely, I lived in a rural, low income area...and seriously, those are the kind of places where people learn outdoors skills), then it makes sense.

Except, of course, for the fact that you don't get the opportunity so easily in the districts. Getting caught can bring about severe punishments, which could mean you have little to no desire to do so, or even if you do, your parents might keep you from taking the risk. Not to mention how you might well be busy learning other skills, like Peeta, who grew up learning baking.


I don't get the fixation on family as opposed to other groups.

They're only the people who raised you and all. Why have any special feelings towards them?

Though from a cold, emotionless standpoint, if you have 2 or 3 family members that rely on you, that means leaving them to suffer is causing more harm than not volunteering for a single person.


So, we've got risk weighted against early entries. In short, this makes last year entries significantly less risky than early year entries. Definitely pretty broken as a system.

Not really, it's likely intentional, the more you use it, the more it costs you. That's kind of (read: entirely) the basic idea behind it.

[Lord Seth]

Looks like Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg are at it again and are going to bring out a spoof of this film called The Starving Games. :smallsigh:

The worst thing is that I'm sure someone could make a pretty funny parody of The Hunger Games, but the film those two produce isn't going to be that movie.

[Tyndmyr]

Except, of course, for the fact that you don't get the opportunity so easily in the districts. Getting caught can bring about severe punishments, which could mean you have little to no desire to do so, or even if you do, your parents might keep you from taking the risk. Not to mention how you might well be busy learning other skills, like Peeta, who grew up learning baking.

Yes, because all children and teens ALWAYS obey rules.




They're only the people who raised you and all. Why have any special feelings towards them?

Though from a cold, emotionless standpoint, if you have 2 or 3 family members that rely on you, that means leaving them to suffer is causing more harm than not volunteering for a single person.

This is not about a cold, emotionless standpoint. The point is that there will likely be bonds other than that of family, as is common in what seems to be a relatively small community.

In fact, going by the movie portrayal, it's almost weird that she isn't pretty familiar with Peeta already.

And you have what's obviously an accident prone area, and an increased mortality rate of at LEAST 2 people/year, families will be rather less stable than average. Lots of people won't HAVE families.


Not really, it's likely intentional, the more you use it, the more it costs you. That's kind of (read: entirely) the basic idea behind it.

...no, it doesn't. The more you use it, the less it costs you, if you time the usage right. For instance, if you have two children, one of which is older, and need a bit more food, you have the older child put his name in. Less overall risk, even leaving aside the obvious advantage older children have in the games themselvs.

[Reverent-One]

Yes, because all children and teens ALWAYS obey rules.

Enough fear and they might obey these specific ones, or getting caught and facing punishment for it.


This is not about a cold, emotionless standpoint. The point is that there will likely be bonds other than that of family, as is common in what seems to be a relatively small community.

In fact, going by the movie portrayal, it's almost weird that she isn't pretty familiar with Peeta already.

And you have what's obviously an accident prone area, and an increased mortality rate of at LEAST 2 people/year, families will be rather less stable than average. Lots of people won't HAVE families.

The children often do (perhaps because if they didn't they would not survive), beyond that is irrelevant to the topic. And while there are be bounds beyond family, that doesn't mean that people would be willing to cause problems for their family for one of those bonds, especially if their family consists of more than the one person they'd be volunteering for.


...no, it doesn't. The more you use it, the less it costs you, if you time the usage right. For instance, if you have two children, one of which is older, and need a bit more food, you have the older child put his name in. Less overall risk, even leaving aside the obvious advantage older children have in the games themselvs.

Which is still more risk than if they didn't use it at all. Still, using it for some amount while younger does cost more than using it the same amount while older, since the entries will stick around longer. But so what? If you need it when you're younger (like Katniss and Gale did), that fact does not help you at all.

[The Glyphstone]

Yes, because all children and teens ALWAYS obey rules.



When the punishments involve public beatings, whippings, or even being shot dead...that's a bigger incentive for said children and teens to obey the rules than, say, being grounded.

[Tyndmyr]

Enough fear and they might obey these specific ones, or getting caught and facing punishment for it.

Many will. Some won't. Pick any set of rules, anywhere, and plenty of people broke them, even if the punishment was death. This is especially true if following the rules might lead to death(by starvation, etc). People gladly take risks when survival is on the line.


The children often do (perhaps because if they didn't they would not survive), beyond that is irrelevant to the topic. And while there are be bounds beyond family, that doesn't mean that people would be willing to cause problems for their family for one of those bonds, especially if their family consists of more than the one person they'd be volunteering for.

Often. Not always. All you need for the system to break down is for a couple people a year to decide to volunteer. Or even most years.

Most people will have strong family ties. Some will not. And, if successful, volunteering leads to a life of wealth and fame. That's a pretty big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for someone in danger of starvation.


Which is still more risk than if they didn't use it at all. Still, using it for some amount while younger does cost more than using it the same amount while older, since the entries will stick around longer. But so what? If you need it when you're younger (like Katniss and Gale did), that fact does not help you at all.

If you're in a family, you can expect such gaming...because if family bonds ARE important, then it's extremely reasonable to do so. If it's your last year, putting your name in is viable even if you don't need it...to ensure your family is better off and is less likely to need it on the younger kids, or less likely to run out of food when they have no kids of age.

[Reverent-One]

Many will. Some won't. Pick any set of rules, anywhere, and plenty of people broke them, even if the punishment was death. This is especially true if following the rules might lead to death(by starvation, etc). People gladly take risks when survival is on the line.

Which is why Katniss and Gale break the rules, and most do not.


Often. Not always. All you need for the system to break down is for a couple people a year to decide to volunteer. Or even most years.

Which obviously doesn't happen. Nor would the system break if they did, all it would mean is that families with children of the right age would have a few years that suck a bit less than usual. Such action would only make the people more dependent on the system, and thus the games. Doubt the capital would have a problem with that.


If you're in a family, you can expect such gaming...because if family bonds ARE important, then it's extremely reasonable to do so. If it's your last year, putting your name in is viable even if you don't need it...to ensure your family is better off and is less likely to need it on the younger kids, or less likely to run out of food when they have no kids of age.

Basically what you're saying is that the system is broken because it takes advantage of the most desperate since less desperate people aren't penalized as badly. While it's true they aren't (it is better for older children to get tessera if any need to, which is why Katniss and Gale don't let their younger siblings do it), given that we're talking about the capital here, costing the most desperate the most is likely intentional. They could also want older individuals to use the tessera more, since older kids generally make for better combatants and thus, a more entertaining game. So again, what's broken about it? You haven't broken the system by realizing the point where it screws you over the least if that point still fits within the system. No one's getting rich, they still get their names in the jar more times, so the system seems to be working as intended.

[pendell]

Okay, just got back from seeing the movie in the theater. Not bad, not bad at all.

I know it's a trilogy, but haven't read the books so I'm going to treat the movie as a unit, ignoring potential sequels.

Watching this, I saw it as essentially an update of the old Roman 'bread and circuses' in a most literal sense. We have an Emperor/President figure and a rich city being kept fed by the districts, which in ancient Rome were actually the provinces. Those familiar with either the New Testament writings or the normal history of Rome well know how The City was perceived by the provinces -- a decadent, corrupt harlot drunk on blood and murder, fornicating with all the world. Roman taxgatherers took grain to feed Rome cheaply on subsidized bread (witness the wealth and technology of the capital compared with the third world conditions in the districts), and they took men and beasts to fight to the death in the Colusseum, for the pleasure and entertainment of the mob which would otherwise start rioting and upset the delicate power structure set up by Augustus and his successors.

The use of Roman-style chariots for the gladiators -- excuse me, tributes -- to ride in, and names such as 'Flavius' and 'Octavia' further cement this metaphor.

With regards to the children fighting, I was reminded of Orson Scott Card's 'Ender's Game', where the best and the brightest are taken to fight in a war far away. That war is both beneficial to the society of Ender's Game, but it also has a secondary effect of removing the great military commanders from Earth and sending them far, far , away, thus further cementing the power and control of those in charge.


If the author wished to satirize the fact that young people go off to fight for old people, I wish to call some basic biology to the author's attention which explains *why* wars are fought by young people.

Young people, to put it bluntly, are at their physical peak. Young people are at the height of their physical and mental powers but also have very little money, power, or influence to show for that. Old people typically have lots of money and power, but are no longer able to physically protect it themselves.

This is why young people are almost always the ones pushing for change in any society. You look at any protest movement, any revolutionary movement, any war, it's almost always young people who are, at bottom, hungry for more than they have. In the civil rights movement, it wasn't old gray-hairs marching in the streets. Nor was it old gray-hairs fighting in WWII, nor storming the barricades in Revolutionary France, nor conquering South America for Spain. Cortes was in his early thirties, Napolean the same age, Alexander only 22.

Young people have the power to change the world and the motive -- their own poor position -- to do so.

Old people -- the rulers -- typically DO have all the power and money, and desire most of all that it pass directly to their heirs without pause, but have no way to directly compete with the young. The goal, then, in any society is to physically prevent the young and violent from simply taking what they want, while choosing the most powerful, clever, and ruthless of the up-and-coming young to be the guardians of the system. To take Conan the Barbarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_the_Barbarian) and make him into Conan the King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Conan).

In the world of the movie, the hunger games fills this role. By taking the crop of young people every year, society eliminates potential rebels and revolutionaries who could quite reasonably ask 'why is it that they have everything in the capitol and we have nothing'?

In Ancient Greece, the tyrant Thrasybulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrasybulus_%28tyrant%29) was asked for advice on ruling. He took the messenger into a wheat field and cut down the tallest stalks, demonstrating that the ruler must eliminate the foremost among his subjects so that there can be no rival leaders to challenge his rule. This occurred even in ancient Athens, where once a year one citizen would be Ostracized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism) , banished from the city for ten years. Like the tyrants of ancient greece, the democracies also banished the best and most able of their people to prevent the status quo from being threatened.

And this is the primary function of the games -- a literal reaping, in the sense of Thrasybulus above.

And, just as it eliminates potential threats to the regime, so too it also chooses the best and most dangerous and infuses them with wealth, giving them a stake in the system. And so the system perpetuates itself into the next generation. While our heroine will no doubt prove an exception in later books, I'll wager that many hunger games survivors eventually take positions of power and responsibility and are the system's most ardent defenders, because it took they who had nothing and gave them fantastic wealth, which means that if the system ever falls not only do they go down but it also means that they killed all those people for NOTHING, nothing at all. It rips away the mask from their actions and they have to face the truth of what they are -- cold-blooded murderers who killed their fellow humans for their own gain.

As in OOTS Start of Darkness, there are a lot of people in this world who just don't have the ability to face that about themselves. So they continue down the path of rationalization , of self-delusion, buying ever more deeply into their own 'deals with the devil' and passing it on to the next generation until it becomes long-set Tradition.

As a bonus, the mechanism of sponsorship allows the rich and the powerful to tip the scales heavily in favor of their own progeny. Recall that I mentioned earlier that the wealthy and powerful desire to pass on their wealth, their position, and their power to their heirs intact , together with the social system that made them what they are and will make their heirs today. So it is not surprising that the children of the wealthy in the movie have all the advantages in terms of equipment and psychology. Many of them have gone to special academies, and they win almost every year. You'll notice that they seem to *love* the games, participating in them not to save the lives of their friends but for their own sake, for the wealth and honor that victory in the games gives.

And so the hunger games fulfills the primary function of society in the movie -- cementing the power of those who have position in society while suppressing threats to those with that power, while taking the best and brightest of the 'wolves' who would upset the order and making them sheepdogs, guardians of the order.

Were we to sit down the president of their society and critique him for the organized murder of poor people's children, his response might be something along the lines of 'There have been 74 Hunger Games, in which 23 contestants die. That's 1702 people in 74 years. By contrast, the battle of the Somme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somme_1916) killed 40,000 people in a single day. And that was only one battle on one day in one war in a century known for its wars. Yes, we murder our young people by the dozen every year. And the previous world murdered young people by the thousands every day. I think our way is better.'

Then we ask him how he got a hyperlink into a spoken sentence. He replies technology is better, too.


So perhaps that is another analogy for the hunger games in fiction -- the Thunderdome (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hQC3nkftrk).

Aunty's Thunderdome may even be the in-world predecessor to the Hunger Games, if Aunty became the ruler of the world. The previous world ended in a war that was 'damn near the death of us all'. But in Thunderdome, disputes occur in a ritualized setting , trial by combat. And the Thunderdome, like the Hunger Games, provides a spectacle to pacify the mob while simultaneously eliminating the physically powerful and violent who would otherwise challenge the system.


Of course, the Hunger Games will end, just as the Roman Empire ended. The original bread and circuses were an inherently unstable system which existed because of some very unique factors, such as Rome's control of the granaries of Egypt. When those factors disappeared, the society became unsupportable and disappeared, as no doubt the Hunger Games in the movie will disappear. Will the new world they build in its place be better? A world where young people will not murder each other on nationwide TV for the pleasure of the old? Will they build a new golden age, or will it be the Dark Ages after Rome?

I guess I'll have to wait and see.

I'm frankly surprised this is being marketed to children. I was 11 years old in 1982, and the books I read -- being young, male and violent -- encouraged me to go for a soldier, or to go for a test pilot, or an astronaut, or a policeman. Those were the openings available to the young and physically active in those days, constructive channels for the inherent love of adventure and excitement most young men of that age have. Why would young people want to watch the hunger games and *like* it? I can see this as fiction for adults, a critique of the problem of power throughout history, but if young people are watching this because they *want* to emulate their onscreen heroes -- to slaughter other children before TV cameras in order to gain wealth and prestige for themselves -- then I think there's been an error in the making of the books and the films. I think the author is trying to hold this up as an example to avoid, not an example to follow, and I agree.

As towards using it as an attack on 'television war', where people watch other people dying in real-time on TV -- well, I have a lot to say on that and none of it is board-appropriate. PM if interested.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

If the author wished to satirize the fact that young people go off to fight for old people, I wish to call some basic biology to the author's attention which explains *why* wars are fought by young people.

Having not read anything about it beforehand, I did not pick up on it being a satire of that fact at all. If it was such, it was a very ineffective satire.

And yeah, there are very, very good reasons why young people go and fight, none of which were dealt with in the slightest. It is basically only sold as a punishment, which I feel is fairly weak as explanations go. Yours is much more plausible, and the movie would have been strengthened had some similar explanation happened during the exposition from the old master of games to the new.