I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I'm not sure what "young" constitutes, but I'm guessing if I constantly moved my head in random directions while trying to drive or talk to people I would also get slightly sick.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
That's pretty close. In the books, it's spelled out pretty clearly that his romantic feelings for her are completely legitimate, but she was putting on a show/conflicted. When he finds this out in the final scene he's pretty taken aback/wounded. Many people I know who saw the movie thought they were legitimately in love at the end.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
That's pretty close. In the books, it's spelled out pretty clearly that his romantic feelings for her are completely legitimate, but she was putting on a show/conflicted. When he finds this out in the final scene he's pretty taken aback/wounded. Many people I know who saw the movie thought they were legitimately in love at the end.
See, I imagine this is something that will be addressed at the beginning of the second film. Though I agree, it could/should have been MUCH clearer.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
That's pretty close. In the books, it's spelled out pretty clearly that his romantic feelings for her are completely legitimate, but she was putting on a show/conflicted. When he finds this out in the final scene he's pretty taken aback/wounded. Many people I know who saw the movie thought they were legitimately in love at the end.
See, I imagine this is something that will be addressed at the beginning of the second film. Though I agree, it could/should have been MUCH clearer.
Yeah, there were a number of other issues I had with Katniss the character in the movie. She's actually a lot more likable overall than she is in the books. Any coldness she has is kind of flatly stated in dialogue ("I'm so unlikable," etc), there were no fights with Haymitch, etc.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
That's pretty close. In the books, it's spelled out pretty clearly that his romantic feelings for her are completely legitimate, but she was putting on a show/conflicted. When he finds this out in the final scene he's pretty taken aback/wounded. Many people I know who saw the movie thought they were legitimately in love at the end.
See, I imagine this is something that will be addressed at the beginning of the second film. Though I agree, it could/should have been MUCH clearer.
As someone who only saw the movie, it was clear to me, although my friend who read the book also assumed I wouldn't have caught it. I liked that it was subtle, but I can easily see how a large section of the movie going public would let that go over their heads.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
That's pretty close. In the books, it's spelled out pretty clearly that his romantic feelings for her are completely legitimate, but she was putting on a show/conflicted. When he finds this out in the final scene he's pretty taken aback/wounded. Many people I know who saw the movie thought they were legitimately in love at the end.
See, I imagine this is something that will be addressed at the beginning of the second film. Though I agree, it could/should have been MUCH clearer.
Yeah, there were a number of other issues I had with Katniss the character in the movie. She's actually a lot more likable overall than she is in the books. Any coldness she has is kind of flatly stated in dialogue ("I'm so unlikable," etc), there were no fights with Haymitch, etc.
That was the other thing. I wanted the scene where Katniss and Peeta
bitch Haymitch out and force him to go sober until the games are over.
There's an element of that still, with the knife at the breakfast table, but I felt like a lot of development for all three characters was lost through that omission.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
Really? I went in knowing nearly nothing about the books or what the plot of the film would be and I never felt confused or like I didn't understand something.
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
I thought it was pretty obvious that she was putting on a show early on (the talk show bit, the sarcastic "you call that a kiss") and that by the end, she seems more open to him but it's not like she was suddenly in love with him. They still weren't holding hands when they return, though she doesn't snap away again when he lifts hers, but she clearly cared enough to not risk hurting him by shooting an arrow at Cato's face.
That's pretty close. In the books, it's spelled out pretty clearly that his romantic feelings for her are completely legitimate, but she was putting on a show/conflicted. When he finds this out in the final scene he's pretty taken aback/wounded. Many people I know who saw the movie thought they were legitimately in love at the end.
See, I imagine this is something that will be addressed at the beginning of the second film. Though I agree, it could/should have been MUCH clearer.
Yeah, there were a number of other issues I had with Katniss the character in the movie. She's actually a lot more likable overall than she is in the books. Any coldness she has is kind of flatly stated in dialogue ("I'm so unlikable," etc), there were no fights with Haymitch, etc.
That was the other thing. I wanted the scene where Katniss and Peeta
bitch Haymitch out and force him to go sober until the games are over.
There's an element of that still, with the knife at the breakfast table, but I felt like a lot of development for all three characters was lost through that omission.
That is mahogany!
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
0
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
I also wish they went a little bit more of how much of a death sentence it is for someone from district 12 to go into the games, and explain why Haymitch doesn't give much of a fuck.
Also, my Haymitch head image was fatter and lazier then movie Haymitch, but that's a minor point.
I also wish they went a little bit more of how much of a death sentence it is for someone from district 12 to go into the games, and explain why Haymitch doesn't give much of a fuck.
Also, my Haymitch head image was fatter and lazier then movie Haymitch, but that's a minor point.
Yeah. Woody Harrelson was absolutely not someone I would have picked for the role, and I was extremely worried about the movie when I heard he had been cast.
But honestly he kinda knocked it out of the park, IMHO.
shooting the apple out of the pig's mouth, and how everyone was just kind of stoked about it. I really liked her "Oh my God I've just killed my family." reaction in the book.
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism.
As to your follow up post, other than its spoilery-ness, I fail to see how the article is "atrocious" - it is one of the tamest Jezebel articles I've ever seen. It's merely reporting on what I consider to be a very obvious and disturbing racist twitter trend regarding the skin color of some actors/characters. The only atrocious aspect of that article are the twits who were called out for their racist tweets.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
I haven't read the books but from my understanding of the movie their relationship was..
Katniss doesn't care that much for Peeta other than as a fellow human being she shared difficult times with. The whole love angle is nothing more than playing along for the show and increased survival odds. She obviously has stronger feelings for that guy in district 12 I don't remember the name of.
Peeta on the other hand has genuinely been obsessed by her for a while now. Typical guy who likes a girl but is too shy/scared to do anything about it. My guess is down the line he realises that Katniss was just playing along and he'll be pissed about that.
As for my comments on the movie overall, I went in having pretty much no idea what this was other than the fact that there was a lot of hype surrounding this. I don't regret watching it but I didn't think it was anything special. Their version of violent deadly games to entertain the masses didn't really bring anything new or interesting to the table. I found it hard to care about the characters other than Katniss. Also I would've enjoyed seeing more post-game things happen as a lot of the stuff happening during the game wasn't that interesting.
Although I'll say it was nice for a change to have the female lead be powerful and dominant vs the main male character who was more submissive and more weak-willed overall.
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
I feel like the movie is an excellent collection of scenes, but kind of fails as an overall entity on its own. It makes too many assumptions about the viewer's knowledge of the book. I spoke with several people who hadn't seen read the books and their confusion over the Katniss/Peeta relationship was pretty intense. There were other details and decisions that weren't very clear, like Katniss destroying the food, or the survival aspect of the games.
Still, dat reaping scene, so good.
I haven't read the books but from my understanding of the movie their relationship was..
Katniss doesn't care that much for Peeta other than as a fellow human being she shared difficult times with. The whole love angle is nothing more than playing along for the show and increased survival odds. She obviously has stronger feelings for that guy in district 12 I don't remember the name of.
Peeta on the other hand has genuinely been obsessed by her for a while now. Typical guy who likes a girl but is too shy/scared to do anything about it. My guess is down the line he realises that Katniss was just playing along and he'll be pissed about that.
Your spoiler is right on about Peeta, only it is very clearly stated at the end of the first book, instead of just "I dont want to forget". I am guessing it will be a big ass part of the start of the second movie.
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
I don't see how anyone could read those tweets and argue that they are not racist. Not just the worst ones presented, but all of them. They quite unambiguously are racist.
And yes it is racist to be uniquely and profoundly surprised at a totally irrelevant racial deviation from source material especially if no other deviation was just as surprising to you. Haymitch, for instance, is portrayed somewhat differently in the book. Much more differently than the completely irrelevant distinction of Rue's skin color. If you're not sitting there "surprised" at every deviation as much as you are at totally irrelevant racial ones, then yes, you damn well fucking are a racist.
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
I don't see how anyone could read those tweets and argue that they are not racist. Not just the worst ones presented, but all of them. They quite unambiguously are racist.
And yes it is racist to be uniquely and profoundly surprised at a totally irrelevant racial deviation from source material especially if no other deviation was just as surprising to you. Haymitch, for instance, is portrayed somewhat differently in the book. Much more differently than the completely irrelevant distinction of Rue's skin color. If you're not sitting there "surprised" at every deviation as much as you are at totally irrelevant racial ones, then yes, you damn well fucking are a racist.
It's racist only in the context of noticing the skin color. It's not a negative thing in any way. When many people read books, they visualize things described as places familiar to them, or characters as looking similar to the people they know. If you're white, and live primarily near white people, and miss the one line that describes a character's skin color, going "oh, she's black? Really?" when you see the film is a perfectly normal and not negative reaction. It doesn't make you "a racist."
There are people that racist about this, but simply not realizing a character had a certain skin color does not demonstrate that the person is secretly a racist hatemonger.
I think we all agree that there were very racists tweets there.
The issue is whether or not imagining a character a certain way and then being surprised when they aren't that way is racist if it deals with their skin color.
It's kind of weird to me for people to expect a character who is described as "dark-skinned" in the book to be white. Even the mildest of those tweets seem less surprised to me than upset.
It's kind of weird to me for people to expect a character who is described as "dark-skinned" in the book to be white. Even the mildest of those tweets seem less surprised to me than upset.
Yes, those tweets are stupid.
Let's get back to talking about how cool Capital technology is.
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
Perhaps, but would you ever take to Twitter and post how shocked- shocked!- you were that Kingpin was black?
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
Perhaps, but would you ever take to Twitter and post how shocked- shocked!- you were that Kingpin was black?
Now think about the sort of person who would.
Would you discuss that it surprised you with your friends?
That's the exact same thing as posting it on twitter for the vast majority of twitter users. It is purely there to talk to friends.
It does not make a person racist. To think so is ridiculous.
But being surprised that Rue was black is not indicative of that. It's just what happens when you watch a movie based on a book, there's always a surprising disconnect with the details.
Many of the people who tweeted about it are racist, but not because they were "surprised". Because they said revolting things about how her being black made her life worthless, etc. etc.
I don't think "didn't catch the one line describing the skin color of a person and thus is caught off guard when a character is not what one pictured for several hundred pages" counts as racist. Gawker media again shows their desire for pageviews over actual news.
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
Perhaps, but would you ever take to Twitter and post how shocked- shocked!- you were that Kingpin was black?
Now think about the sort of person who would.
Would you discuss that it surprised you with your friends?
That's the exact same thing as posting it on twitter for the vast majority of twitter users. It is purely there to talk to friends.
It does not make a person racist. To think so is ridiculous.
It's racism. It's not the kind of racism where you wear a white hat and go around setting crosses on fire on people's lawns. Instead, it's the kind of racism where you wear white skin and assume that every literary character without an explicitly defined skin color is also white. Or, worse, the kind of racism where your brain just skips/rejects the actual description that is offered and assumes the character is white, which seems to be the case here.
Yes, I think that falls under the umbrella of racism. Call it mild, everyday racism if that makes you feel better. For my money, though, I found the Jezebel article to be spot-on and that every single tweet re-posted in the article is representative of some of the most disgustingly biased bullshit that still exists in modern society.
Also, it's all fine and good to hand wave all this with "it's just one line in the book," but that doesn't explain why it's okay to then assume the character is white and on top of that to be "surprised" and "shocked" and apparently outraged when the screen adaptation shows the character is black. Add to this the fact that it literally doesn't matter if Rue is white, black, or represented by any other human ethnicity or culture. It has absolutely no literary impact on Rue's character, or the story. So the surprise/shock/outrage is nothing but complete and total racism.
There's no other way for me to conceptualize the twitter feedback. If I hadn't seen the movie yet and someone came up to me and said "bro, Rue is black in the movie" my only response would be "so fucking what?" I mean, I didn't remember the line about her skin being black in the book going into the movie. But I didn't really give a shit. People who did give a shit - enough of a shit to mention it on twitter? - they are racists. Not cross-burning racists, but still racists.
Drez, you've got two different thoughts. One, that the people tweeting about it are racists, which is reasonable (and I agree). Two, that everyone who was surprised or shocked is racist.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
Surprise is not racist. It's normal to visualize characters as people you're familiar with, to the extent that you're not paying attention to the written description. Different people do this to different degrees. I am terrible about this, in fact -- I can almost never remember anything but the most emphasized aspects of a character's appearance. ("Ron Weasley has red hair.")
Being upset that the character didn't match your mental image is also not racist. It's normal.
Being upset that the character was black/Asian/whatever, specifically? Without textual basis, OK, that's racist.
People love to throw the R word around a lot, which just ends up trivializing the real thing. People are stupid, in short.
Drez, you've got two different thoughts. One, that the people tweeting about it are racists, which is reasonable (and I agree). Two, that everyone who was surprised or shocked is racist.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
"People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised."
That's exactly what's wrong - that people have an idea of "how things should look".
What you are defending is an attitude where it's okay for people to think people should look white.
How is that not the crux of racism?
Unless you think it's literally a biological reflex to assume that unsubscribed people share the same racial characteristics as you (which I don't believe), then really this is not a good defense that surprise/shock doesn't equal racism.
Drez, you've got two different thoughts. One, that the people tweeting about it are racists, which is reasonable (and I agree). Two, that everyone who was surprised or shocked is racist.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
"People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised."
That's exactly what's wrong - that people have an idea of "how things should look".
What you are defending is an attitude where it's okay for people to think people should look white.
How is that not the crux of racism?
Unless you think it's literally a biological reflex to assume that unsubscribed people share the same racial characteristics as you (which I don't believe), then really this is not a good defense that surprise/shock doesn't equal racism.
No, but it is a normal reflex to picture unsubscribed people, things and events in ways that are familiar to you personally.
I mean this has been said several times now. And I'm not really sure how that statement, in itself, can be disagreed with -- is that not everyone's experience?
Hell, I pictured President Snow as Major Monogram from Phineas & Ferb for a long time because I was watching a lot of P&F around the time I read the Hunger Games, and all I took the time to remember from Snow's description was "white hair, authority figure".
Physical appearance is not something I give a lot of fucks about, though.
Drez, you've got two different thoughts. One, that the people tweeting about it are racists, which is reasonable (and I agree). Two, that everyone who was surprised or shocked is racist.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
"People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised."
That's exactly what's wrong - that people have an idea of "how things should look".
What you are defending is an attitude where it's okay for people to think people should look white.
How is that not the crux of racism?
Unless you think it's literally a biological reflex to assume that unsubscribed people share the same racial characteristics as you (which I don't believe), then really this is not a good defense that surprise/shock doesn't equal racism.
You should have some idea of how people look in your imagination. Whether you pictured Rue as white, Native American, Asian, whatever, it doesn't matter, double-taking when you see her is natural and not racist. I had the same reaction with Katniss in the opposite direction, so am I doubly-racist?
If you picture everyone in fiction ever as white, then perhaps there's something to talk about. But that's not what we're talking about.
Surprise is not racist. It's normal to visualize characters as people you're familiar with, to the extent that you're not paying attention to the written description. Different people do this to different degrees. I am terrible about this, in fact -- I can almost never remember anything but the most emphasized aspects of a character's appearance. ("Ron Weasley has red hair.")
Being upset that the character didn't match your mental image is also not racist. It's normal.
Being upset that the character was black/Asian/whatever, specifically? Without textual basis, OK, that's racist.
People love to throw the R word around a lot, which just ends up trivializing the real thing. People are stupid, in short.
I don't agree. Surprise is racist. Mild surprise is also probably normal. I think almost everyone is racist to some degree. We're not even nearly at the point yet where we can pat ourselves on the back and consider ourselves unbiased paragons of cultural and racial indifference.
Even those of us that actually strive for that are informed by dozens, maybe hundreds of biases, and some of those biases are racial. I'll even admit - when I saw Rue, I said "oh, she's black, huh?" I actually did do that. And I forgot the line in the book, which I did read. And my reaction, after that, was some mild shame. Of course, I didn't hop on twitter right after and denounce the filmmakers as ruining the movie because they dared "change" a white character in the book (who was actually black) to a black character in the film.
Also, something being "normal" doesn't mean it's "right." Just because it's "normal" to assume undescribed characters are white doesn't mean it isn't also racist to make that assumption.
Surprise is not racist. It's normal to visualize characters as people you're familiar with, to the extent that you're not paying attention to the written description. Different people do this to different degrees. I am terrible about this, in fact -- I can almost never remember anything but the most emphasized aspects of a character's appearance. ("Ron Weasley has red hair.")
Being upset that the character didn't match your mental image is also not racist. It's normal.
Being upset that the character was black/Asian/whatever, specifically? Without textual basis, OK, that's racist.
People love to throw the R word around a lot, which just ends up trivializing the real thing. People are stupid, in short.
I don't agree. Surprise is racist. Mild surprise is also probably normal. I think almost everyone is racist to some degree. We're not even nearly at the point yet where we can pat ourselves on the back and consider ourselves unbiased paragons of cultural and racial indifference.
Even those of us that actually strive for that are informed by dozens, maybe hundreds of biases, and some of those biases are racial. I'll even admit - when I saw Rue, I said "oh, she's black, huh?" I actually did do that. And I forgot the line in the book, which I did read. And my reaction, after that, was some mild shame. Of course, I didn't hop on twitter right after and denounce the filmmakers as ruining the movie because they dared "change" a white character in the book (who was actually black) to a black character in the film.
Also, something being "normal" doesn't mean it's "right." Just because it's "normal" to assume undescribed characters are white doesn't mean it isn't also racist to make that assumption.
This is what I'm talking about when I say people are overusing and thereby trivializing the term "racism". This is exactly what I'm talking about. You felt shame for being surprised that a character didn't match your mental image.
Posts
During the later portions of the games, and at the end of the movie, what are Katniss's feelings for Peeta?
If you don't mind answering those questions in a spoiler, it would be interesting. Most of the people I spoke to had wildly different answers. They're spelled out really clearly in the books.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
See, I imagine this is something that will be addressed at the beginning of the second film. Though I agree, it could/should have been MUCH clearer.
Yeah, there were a number of other issues I had with Katniss the character in the movie. She's actually a lot more likable overall than she is in the books. Any coldness she has is kind of flatly stated in dialogue ("I'm so unlikable," etc), there were no fights with Haymitch, etc.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
As someone who only saw the movie, it was clear to me, although my friend who read the book also assumed I wouldn't have caught it. I liked that it was subtle, but I can easily see how a large section of the movie going public would let that go over their heads.
That was the other thing. I wanted the scene where Katniss and Peeta
There's an element of that still, with the knife at the breakfast table, but I felt like a lot of development for all three characters was lost through that omission.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Also, my Haymitch head image was fatter and lazier then movie Haymitch, but that's a minor point.
Yeah. Woody Harrelson was absolutely not someone I would have picked for the role, and I was extremely worried about the movie when I heard he had been cast.
But honestly he kinda knocked it out of the park, IMHO.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
How about this, then?
It's racist to be "surprised" that Thresh and Rue were black, even if Suzanne Collins didn't describe their skin color in any way.
In fact, even if Collins explicitly said they were white in the book, then unless their whiteness was somehow central to their character, I would still say that "surprise" here would reveal racism.
As to your follow up post, other than its spoilery-ness, I fail to see how the article is "atrocious" - it is one of the tamest Jezebel articles I've ever seen. It's merely reporting on what I consider to be a very obvious and disturbing racist twitter trend regarding the skin color of some actors/characters. The only atrocious aspect of that article are the twits who were called out for their racist tweets.
I haven't read the books but from my understanding of the movie their relationship was..
Peeta on the other hand has genuinely been obsessed by her for a while now. Typical guy who likes a girl but is too shy/scared to do anything about it. My guess is down the line he realises that Katniss was just playing along and he'll be pissed about that.
As for my comments on the movie overall, I went in having pretty much no idea what this was other than the fact that there was a lot of hype surrounding this. I don't regret watching it but I didn't think it was anything special. Their version of violent deadly games to entertain the masses didn't really bring anything new or interesting to the table. I found it hard to care about the characters other than Katniss. Also I would've enjoyed seeing more post-game things happen as a lot of the stuff happening during the game wasn't that interesting.
Although I'll say it was nice for a change to have the female lead be powerful and dominant vs the main male character who was more submissive and more weak-willed overall.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
No, no it fucking isn't
If someone is clearly described as Asian in a book, and then they are black or white in the film adaptation, you can definitely be surprised by that without it being racist. It is a diversion from the source material. It's something you're familiar with that has been changed. That's the goddamn definition of a surprise. Remember when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as Kingpin in Daredevil? I was hells of surprised by that. I didn't despise the change or anything, but it certainly caught me off-guard that someone that had been displayed for decades as a large white man was now a large black man.
Please don't be an idiot.
As for those tweets, yes, they were terrible insofar as them saying that they cared less about the characters because of their skin tone. But that's it.
I need more evil Donald Sutherland in my life
Your spoiler is right on about Peeta, only it is very clearly stated at the end of the first book, instead of just "I dont want to forget". I am guessing it will be a big ass part of the start of the second movie.
Heh.
I don't see how anyone could read those tweets and argue that they are not racist. Not just the worst ones presented, but all of them. They quite unambiguously are racist.
And yes it is racist to be uniquely and profoundly surprised at a totally irrelevant racial deviation from source material especially if no other deviation was just as surprising to you. Haymitch, for instance, is portrayed somewhat differently in the book. Much more differently than the completely irrelevant distinction of Rue's skin color. If you're not sitting there "surprised" at every deviation as much as you are at totally irrelevant racial ones, then yes, you damn well fucking are a racist.
It's racist only in the context of noticing the skin color. It's not a negative thing in any way. When many people read books, they visualize things described as places familiar to them, or characters as looking similar to the people they know. If you're white, and live primarily near white people, and miss the one line that describes a character's skin color, going "oh, she's black? Really?" when you see the film is a perfectly normal and not negative reaction. It doesn't make you "a racist."
There are people that racist about this, but simply not realizing a character had a certain skin color does not demonstrate that the person is secretly a racist hatemonger.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
no racism here nope
I think we all agree that there were very racists tweets there.
The issue is whether or not imagining a character a certain way and then being surprised when they aren't that way is racist if it deals with their skin color.
Which it obviously isn't :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Yes, those tweets are stupid.
Let's get back to talking about how cool Capital technology is.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Spoiler, Rue is black.
Anyways, go see the movie. It's very good, especially if you've read the book.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Perhaps, but would you ever take to Twitter and post how shocked- shocked!- you were that Kingpin was black?
Now think about the sort of person who would.
Would you discuss that it surprised you with your friends?
That's the exact same thing as posting it on twitter for the vast majority of twitter users. It is purely there to talk to friends.
It does not make a person racist. To think so is ridiculous.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
All I'm saying is that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM
But being surprised that Rue was black is not indicative of that. It's just what happens when you watch a movie based on a book, there's always a surprising disconnect with the details.
Many of the people who tweeted about it are racist, but not because they were "surprised". Because they said revolting things about how her being black made her life worthless, etc. etc.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's racism. It's not the kind of racism where you wear a white hat and go around setting crosses on fire on people's lawns. Instead, it's the kind of racism where you wear white skin and assume that every literary character without an explicitly defined skin color is also white. Or, worse, the kind of racism where your brain just skips/rejects the actual description that is offered and assumes the character is white, which seems to be the case here.
Yes, I think that falls under the umbrella of racism. Call it mild, everyday racism if that makes you feel better. For my money, though, I found the Jezebel article to be spot-on and that every single tweet re-posted in the article is representative of some of the most disgustingly biased bullshit that still exists in modern society.
Also, it's all fine and good to hand wave all this with "it's just one line in the book," but that doesn't explain why it's okay to then assume the character is white and on top of that to be "surprised" and "shocked" and apparently outraged when the screen adaptation shows the character is black. Add to this the fact that it literally doesn't matter if Rue is white, black, or represented by any other human ethnicity or culture. It has absolutely no literary impact on Rue's character, or the story. So the surprise/shock/outrage is nothing but complete and total racism.
There's no other way for me to conceptualize the twitter feedback. If I hadn't seen the movie yet and someone came up to me and said "bro, Rue is black in the movie" my only response would be "so fucking what?" I mean, I didn't remember the line about her skin being black in the book going into the movie. But I didn't really give a shit. People who did give a shit - enough of a shit to mention it on twitter? - they are racists. Not cross-burning racists, but still racists.
I don't see surprise here. I see people saying "Why is Rue black??", like there's a reason that affects the movie in any possible way.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Being upset that the character didn't match your mental image is also not racist. It's normal.
Being upset that the character was black/Asian/whatever, specifically? Without textual basis, OK, that's racist.
People love to throw the R word around a lot, which just ends up trivializing the real thing. People are stupid, in short.
"People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised."
That's exactly what's wrong - that people have an idea of "how things should look".
What you are defending is an attitude where it's okay for people to think people should look white.
How is that not the crux of racism?
Unless you think it's literally a biological reflex to assume that unsubscribed people share the same racial characteristics as you (which I don't believe), then really this is not a good defense that surprise/shock doesn't equal racism.
No, but it is a normal reflex to picture unsubscribed people, things and events in ways that are familiar to you personally.
I mean this has been said several times now. And I'm not really sure how that statement, in itself, can be disagreed with -- is that not everyone's experience?
Hell, I pictured President Snow as Major Monogram from Phineas & Ferb for a long time because I was watching a lot of P&F around the time I read the Hunger Games, and all I took the time to remember from Snow's description was "white hair, authority figure".
Physical appearance is not something I give a lot of fucks about, though.
You should have some idea of how people look in your imagination. Whether you pictured Rue as white, Native American, Asian, whatever, it doesn't matter, double-taking when you see her is natural and not racist. I had the same reaction with Katniss in the opposite direction, so am I doubly-racist?
If you picture everyone in fiction ever as white, then perhaps there's something to talk about. But that's not what we're talking about.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I don't agree. Surprise is racist. Mild surprise is also probably normal. I think almost everyone is racist to some degree. We're not even nearly at the point yet where we can pat ourselves on the back and consider ourselves unbiased paragons of cultural and racial indifference.
Even those of us that actually strive for that are informed by dozens, maybe hundreds of biases, and some of those biases are racial. I'll even admit - when I saw Rue, I said "oh, she's black, huh?" I actually did do that. And I forgot the line in the book, which I did read. And my reaction, after that, was some mild shame. Of course, I didn't hop on twitter right after and denounce the filmmakers as ruining the movie because they dared "change" a white character in the book (who was actually black) to a black character in the film.
Also, something being "normal" doesn't mean it's "right." Just because it's "normal" to assume undescribed characters are white doesn't mean it isn't also racist to make that assumption.
This is what I'm talking about when I say people are overusing and thereby trivializing the term "racism". This is exactly what I'm talking about. You felt shame for being surprised that a character didn't match your mental image.