Is Divergent The Next The Hunger Games?

[bpgoll]

sorry failed to embed youtube :(

width=425 height=350
http://watchfree.me/10/w.png

Set in a dystopian future, Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) is devastated to discover she doesn't fit into any of society's segregated factions and is labeled a "divergent." Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet) is a ruthless faction leader set to destroy all divergents unless Tris and the mysterious Four (Theo James) can break free from their dangerous fate.

on March 21

What do you think :)

[Mauve Shirt]

Yes, yes it is.

[Kitten Champion]

No, no it's not.

[Mauve Shirt]

No, no it's not.

If the playground were Facebook I would like this. However there is no real method for indicating approval besides voicing it in a post. Let it be known that I approve.

[The Glyphstone]

It wants to be. It will probably fail.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Who knows without reading the books? Now, having seen the trailer, I can probably say yes, the movie will be. The trailer's definitely trying to surf the waves.

Unless, of course, it fails to be the next Hunger Games. In which case it's not.

[GoblinArchmage]

I can't tell whether or not the OP is a spam post.

[Mauve Shirt]

I can't tell whether or not the OP is a spam post.

I can't tell, but as far as I can judge it's a good topic of conversation.

Divergent has many similarities to The Hunger Games, and I'm told I should read the trilogy since I'm a big fan of THG. I don't think it is "the new Hunger Games" any more than The Hunger Games was the new Harry Potter. Movie producers have now begun using the Young Adult Literature section of the bookstore as an idea dartboard, making films of whatever they hit. Especially concentrating on dystopias recently. I am even more convinced of this now that The Giver is being made into a film.

[Scowling Dragon]

Its the next knockoff Twilight except now its a knockoff of the Hunger games.

[Math_Mage]

I read the better part of Divergent. It's fun to read, but it doesn't hold a candle to Hunger Games. There's less world in Divergent, less context for the events of the narrative, and less depth of social commentary. The plot feels more forced and less compelling.

[Eurus]

Having read Divergent, it seemed like it ramped up sharply in... probably the second half of the last book or so, heh. Before that, the world is sort of less engaging, yeah, and more... undirected? There's not as strong of a narrative arc going through it, and I had a few moments where I had to stop and remind myself how exactly things got to this point.

That being said, I enjoyed the series. And it ended on a surprisingly decent note. It seemed like it tried several times to get philosophical or introspective, and I think it tried going in too many directions so the overall theme was weakened, but it seemed to finally click a bit near the end.

Might make a decent movie, anyway. It's got a bit of a cinematic feel.

[MLai]

I read the better part of Divergent. It's fun to read, but it doesn't hold a candle to Hunger Games..
If it can't even hold a candle to Hunger Games of all things, then it's pretty much worthless. :smallconfused:

[Avilan the Grey]

I can't even tell if Hunger Games is the next Hunger Games :smallwink:
Last YA anything for me was Harry Potter. But to be fair I am 41 years old and back when I was young, when we had to bike up hill both ways to school and dial up internet connections were 5 years away, cellphones didn't exist and The Little Mermaid was Disney's great Comback Movie (have I established myself as Abe Simpson yet? :smallbiggrin:) Young Adult as a concept didn't exist. You went directly from kid books to "adult" literature unless you took a detour around 12 years of age to the "Books for Young People" of old, like Biggles, Enid Blyton, etc etc.

The little I know about HG though and the brief summary in the OP says "Maybe, but it sounds more like a rip off".

[Math_Mage]

If it can't even hold a candle to Hunger Games of all things, then it's pretty much worthless. :smallconfused:
Shhh, I'm trying to be polite.

[MLai]

Oh but wait, the OP is talking about the movies not the books.
Given that caveat, I will reiterate that I really liked HG movie #2, and consider the movies better than the books, especially if HG movies continue to improve in quality.

[Kitten Champion]

I read the first Divergent novel a while ago.

I'm kind of tetchy about the wave of dystopic fiction which has somehow captured the zeitgeist or what have you, but I'm particularly disenchanted with dystopic fiction which doesn't really display much insight into history, sociology, political science, or the human condition in general.

I guess what I'm saying is if you want me to take you kinda seriously there should be some kind of mirror involved. Something which the reader can hold up to see reflected in their reality, that's sort of the point of the genre in my opinion.

Hunger Games at least alludes to issues which exists, not terribly deeply, but it does. Divergent doesn't, stuff kinda happens, 'cause dystopia. It's like if the whole world was run by the goddamn Hogwarts Sorting Hat, dude ended up in Hufflepuff despite wanting to be a Gryffindor, bloody hijinx ensue.

It's not as bad as Ann Aguirre's Enclave, which is The Next Divergent, if you're curious.

[Moak]

I am even more convinced of this now that The Giver is being made into a film.

Wait. REALLY? I... can't imagine it. A movie about that book. But I LOVE that book, so... better than nothing?

[LaZodiac]

Wait. REALLY? I... can't imagine it. A movie about that book. But I LOVE that book, so... better than nothing?

The worst part about that movie is that there WILL be people who say it being in black and white is dumb and I will hate them so much.

Also, saw Divergence in the store yesterday, and the covers look like a painter's attempted to make Twilight's cover. The series is probably pretty bad.

I'd also like to note that the person apologized for failing to embed a video, but there is no "edited at X" time signature, thus proving that OP is a spam bot. I do like that we've managed to make a good conversation out of it though.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Also, saw Divergence in the store yesterday, and the covers look like a painter's attempted to make Twilight's cover. The series is probably pretty bad.
There's something nagging in my brain about judging books and covers. :smalltongue:

[LaZodiac]

There's something nagging in my brain about judging books and covers. :smalltongue:

Well yes, but from the sounds of the other people here, I'm not far off :smallwink:

Maybe I'm just biased since I'm not a fan of those types of books.

[Fiery Diamond]

I can't tell, but as far as I can judge it's a good topic of conversation.

Divergent has many similarities to The Hunger Games, and I'm told I should read the trilogy since I'm a big fan of THG. I don't think it is "the new Hunger Games" any more than The Hunger Games was the new Harry Potter. Movie producers have now begun using the Young Adult Literature section of the bookstore as an idea dartboard, making films of whatever they hit. Especially concentrating on dystopias recently. I am even more convinced of this now that The Giver is being made into a film.

You lose major aspects of the experience if it's portrayed in visual form! This is a terrible idea. I loved The Giver when I first read it as a little kid (I was younger than the main character - I don't remember by how much, though). The whole "hey, the world is in greyscale!" twist was amazing. In visual form, you lose that. In a book, you can get away with not mentioning colors and hoping the readers don't pick up on it because they're paying too much attention to the story (which is totally what happened to me as a kid) but in film the audience can see that it's greyscale and will immediately understand the seeing color. It's much easier to get into Jonas's mindset as a reader than as a viewer.

[t209]

So can we called Dark My Little Pony (Due to personality based caste system, except Pony used it with tattoos on their flank) like how many called Bioshock Infinite as Dark Disney (Well, Elizabeth look like Disney Princess and The Songbird is like the Beast)?

[The Glyphstone]

You lose major aspects of the experience if it's portrayed in visual form! This is a terrible idea. I loved The Giver when I first read it as a little kid (I was younger than the main character - I don't remember by how much, though). The whole "hey, the world is in greyscale!" twist was amazing. In visual form, you lose that. In a book, you can get away with not mentioning colors and hoping the readers don't pick up on it because they're paying too much attention to the story (which is totally what happened to me as a kid) but in film the audience can see that it's greyscale and will immediately understand the seeing color. It's much easier to get into Jonas's mindset as a reader than as a viewer.

On one hand, if they play that part faithfully (actually make the film greyscale until Jonas starts learning about color), it could make for an incredibly compelling visual aesthetic. Viewers Are Morons, after all, in Hollywood parlance, so if they don't take the cop-out route of just removing the color thing entirely, it would really hammer home the dystopian feel and what was taken away from everyone.

On the other hand, I'm not hopeful for that, because of the mania in making everything science-based and 'realistic' futures. What would you rather have, a hideously over-complicated explanation of microgenetic treatments that shut off the rods-and-cones in everyone's eyes with Jonas suffering a rare mutation that turns them back on, or surgical removal of the 'colors' subplot of Giving and Memories?

[Iruka]

You lose major aspects of the experience if it's portrayed in visual form! This is a terrible idea. I loved The Giver when I first read it as a little kid (I was younger than the main character - I don't remember by how much, though). The whole "hey, the world is in greyscale!" twist was amazing. In visual form, you lose that. In a book, you can get away with not mentioning colors and hoping the readers don't pick up on it because they're paying too much attention to the story (which is totally what happened to me as a kid) but in film the audience can see that it's greyscale and will immediately understand the seeing color. It's much easier to get into Jonas's mindset as a reader than as a viewer.

When I saw you talking about greyscale and dystopia, I thought for a moment the The Giver was the english title of Shades of Grey and was overjoyed. Then I remembered I read that book in the original english version and felt rather dumb. Especially when I noticed that the rest of your post doesn't match the book at all. :smallredface:

[Mauve Shirt]

Now I'm disturbed by a vision of The Giver mixed with 50 Shades of Grey.

[Psyren]

I can't tell whether or not the OP is a spam post.

He doesn't have a sig full of links so I'm guessing no.

I'm looking forward to Divergent just because we need more sci-fi (even soft sci-fi) with female protagonists, and I'm hoping it's successful. Anything to provide alternatives to f***ing Twilight and 50SoG.

[GoblinArchmage]

He doesn't have a sig full of links so I'm guessing no.

That did occur to me after I posted, and I never bothered to edit my post.

[ben-zayb]

Now I'm disturbed by a vision of The Giver mixed with 50 Shades of Grey.Lois Lowry's The Giver? No, no, god's NO!:smalleek:

I haven't read or watched the Hunger Games, but a friend who watched/read the respective works said claiming Divergent being similar to Hunger Games is like claiming Hunger Games being similar to Battle Royale. (And having read both, Divergent and Battle Royale far too different with each other)

[Tyndmyr]

If it can't even hold a candle to Hunger Games of all things, then it's pretty much worthless. :smallconfused:

Seems accurate, lol. Now, I watched the first movie, haven't read the books. It was...ok. Kind of predictable, and maybe a lot of chars aren't all that deep, but I straight up hated the hunger games books. Overall, I'd say it's an improvement. Maybe this is simply due to the movie improving on the books(as was also true for HG). Not sure.

I do admit to kind of wondering what great social warning these books are providing. 1984 they are not. Yeah, I guess it would be a bad idea to sort people into five distinct kinds based on personalityish traits. Er...cool. That's not really that relevant, though. I mean, sure, there are bland, generic messages they can be derived from any of them, but they lack the bite of relevance and uniqueness that dystopian fiction used to be known for.

[Velaryon]

It's like if the whole world was run by the goddamn Hogwarts Sorting Hat, dude ended up in Hufflepuff despite wanting to be a Gryffindor, bloody hijinx ensue.

This is pretty accurate, though I would also add that in addition to sorting everyone into groups based on one single personality trait, the vast majority of characters display ONLY that one personality trait.

For me Divergent was one of those books where I enjoyed the read, until I actually stopped and put the least amount of thought into it. And the more I thought about it, the worse it looked in retrospect.

I have several big complaints about the book:

1. The worst world-building I've ever encountered. The first book (which is all I read or felt motivated to read) contains no explanation for why the city is divided up into factions based entirely on one personality trait, or why anyone would think this was a good idea.
2. The main character's super power is that she's (just barely) not a one-dimensional character, unlike everyone else in the book. To my way of thinking, that is not a recipe for a good story.
3. Because of these two problems, everything in the story feels completely arbitrary to me - nothing feels like it has logic or purpose, and everything happens only because the author says it happens that way.

The book's not ALL bad: the action scenes are pretty well done, even if the reason for them (when there even is one) is usually paper-thin and feels artificial. The pacing is very good too. I've been told that all the things that make no sense and make the world feel stupidly artificial are explained in the sequels, but I just don't care enough to find out for myself.


As for comparisons with The Hunger Games - while those may not be most people's definition of "great literature," they are leaps and bounds better than Divergent (speaking solely of the books here).

[Jayngfet]

Far as I'm concerned, it's like this:

Young Adult movies, even based on books, tend to bomb regularly and bomb hard. For every Hunger Games, there's half a dozen Vampire Academies. It's a surprisingly unforgiving marketplace with surprisignly jaded customers who will tear you alive if you aren't what they want. Twilight made it, the Hunger Games made it, and of course Harry Potter made it, but there is so much that's truly awful that didn't.

Divergent made it. It's performing just under Hunger Games at the box office, meaning that the people who are supposed to want to see it do want to. It's a reasonably rare financial success in a business that's often unpredictable and bizarre. It's a success that did everything it needed to, however it managed that.

So yes, Divergent is the next Hunger Games. Which is good for a lot of people. Lionsgate has never been king of the hill and this niche is the only thing they can really afford to compete in. Having both series and the rights to Twilight is letting them throw a lot of money around and is cutting off one of the big giants like Disney from taking on total dominance of the marketplace. A very legitimate concern for many given the amount of money and time they can afford to throw around. Though there's a huge personal aspect involved since a large number of people in various corporate camps probably hold personal resentments towards each other, but that's a much longer post for another day.

[Psyren]

I saw it. I'm glad it's successful (for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread) but it wasn't very good. It was bloated, weirdly paced, its basic premise was very poorly defined, and the ending was rushed sequel-fodder. Hopefully the inevitable sequel will be able to tighten things up a bit.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah, my sister said she liked the movie, but then she proceeded to rip it apart in comparison to the books, which she absolutely loves.

[Chen]

Yeah, my sister said she liked the movie, but then she proceeded to rip it apart in comparison to the books, which she absolutely loves.

I felt it stayed pretty true to the books. Clearly there are differences but none of the choices seemed really "off" to me.

[Xondoure]

The worst part about that movie is that there WILL be people who say it being in black and white is dumb and I will hate them so much.

Also, saw Divergence in the store yesterday, and the covers look like a painter's attempted to make Twilight's cover. The series is probably pretty bad.

I'd also like to note that the person apologized for failing to embed a video, but there is no "edited at X" time signature, thus proving that OP is a spam bot. I do like that we've managed to make a good conversation out of it though.

Not necessarily. They could have tried to preview the post and not figured it out. You may be right, it's just not proof.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I felt it stayed pretty true to the books. Clearly there are differences but none of the choices seemed really "off" to me.

She said that some scenes had less impact because of less time spent on character interactions, and that one was also at a different locale than in the book.

[Ceiling_Squid]

It did well in the box office? Greeeeat.

Now we get to see more crappy dystopian YA literature, and movies derived from it.

Seriously, these YA writers completely miss the point of the dystopian genre, which usually involves legitimate social commentary. With Divergent, we get a nonsensical premise, and the silly "main character is a special snowflake and the chosen one" trope. Again.

It's just wish fulfillment for teens, nothing particularly special. Same old thing in brand new drag.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, the "chosen one" is fine and dandy for a standard plot, but the entire premise of your book shouldn't hang on that. Maybe if the society in Divergent was something other than a poor excuse for justifying a "chosen one" plot, I might give it more credit. As an actual social model or commentary, it's nonsense and window dressing.

[Tyndmyr]

She said that some scenes had less impact because of less time spent on character interactions, and that one was also at a different locale than in the book.

Having not read the book, I can't say with certainty which is better...but a locale change is not necessarily a bad thing. I am generally satisfied if the spirit of the movie is adhered to. Making superman a punchy killer of mass destruction? Ehhh. Changing his origin story up a bit, go nuts.

[Eurus]

So, spoilers ahead, but it's not quite as dumb and one-dimensional as it sounds. But like I said, the second and third books take a weird turn that you wouldn't really anticipate from the first one. I almost wonder if the series was just kind of improvised, heh.

It's less of a heavy-handed "cliques are bad yo" and veers into... genetic engineering, social engineering, the GATTACA-style ethics thereof, and an unexpected side-theme of... persistent identity and the implications of memory-wiping compared to killing? It's a little fractured, like I said. It doesn't cleave to one theme and develop it as well as the Hunger Games. But it does get a little more interesting, even if it's still not exactly the next great novel.

[LordHavelock]

It did well in the box office? Greeeeat.

Now we get to see more crappy dystopian YA literature, and movies derived from it.

Seriously, these YA writers completely miss the point of the dystopian genre, which usually involves legitimate social commentary. With Divergent, we get a nonsensical premise, and the silly "main character is a special snowflake and the chosen one" trope. Again.

It's just wish fulfillment for teens, nothing particularly special. Same old thing in brand new drag.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, the "chosen one" is fine and dandy for a standard plot, but the entire premise of your book shouldn't hang on that. Maybe if the society in Divergent was something other than a poor excuse for justifying a "chosen one" plot, I might give it more credit. As an actual social model or commentary, it's nonsense and window dressing.

See, I think part of the success of Hunger Games as a book series, and one of the reasons I prefer it, is because it foists that notion of "The Chosen One" on it's own petard. That's the main reason I enjoyed the books so much, but it's something the movie has a hard time (or is deliberately) not conveying, quite possibly for the sake of that teen wish fulfillment, she's-a-special-snowflake tripe.

A lot of what I got from the Hunger Games, is that Katniss herself doesn't really matter, so much as she, as an impetus for the revolution is very important, and that comes through that the revolution, really very much carries on no matter what she does, and quite literally in-spite of what she does, and most importantly, it does so all because during the initial events, she was pretending to be someone she wasn't (a young romantic girl in love). A lot of this really only comes out in the final book, which, unsurprisingly is not the most popular in the series, especially in that at the end, in the final battle, the sum total of Katniss's military efforts, sacrifices, and daring, comes to just about nothing. She doesn't get the bad guy, she doesn't save the day, she even gets shot despite a heartfelt and meaningful plea to give up arms. The revolution carries on because that's what needed to happen, and Katniss as the Mockingjay needs to be the symbol for it, no matter what or who she really is.

Of course, she's also a powerful and compelling character in her own right, which is where the special snowflake bit comes in, but because that's important only to her and her closest friends, it doesn't rub me the wrong way because the fate of the world doesn't come to a screeching halt every time she's in emotional turmoil. The leaders of District 13 and other revolutionaries just set her aside and carry on with what they were doing, using what they already have of her to make their own goals come true.

To me, it's much more comparable to Frank Herbert's Dune, than any YA literature of the previous decades, and even in that, Paul Atreides as the Kwisatz Haderach is in fact the chosen one, but Herbert's overall message in the book and those of the sequels that weren't ghost written, is to beware hero-worship and the giving over of control and authority to charismatic or messianic figures.

Divergent, by contrast, seems to be the fulfillment of that very trope: The intrepid heroine who comes from nothing overthrows the evil regime through sheer pluck. It touches upon some metahumanist themes, but it doesn't actually explore any of them any more deeply than to move the plot along. I can't ultimately blame it for that, because that's some pretty heavy hard sci-fi philosophy to try and make palatable to a young-adult audience (and don't we all love underestimating young adults?) and it's only the same thing Star Wars does when everyone doesn't stop everything to consider the metaphysical implications of what the Force actually does and must be in order to do those things (the manifestation of sentient control over quantum forces? :smalleek:).