My problem with HG's economic system is that sometimes it feels post scarcity, and sometimes it feels like the Capital is dependent on the districts, depending on what Collins needed for the specific paragraph.
The world wasn't built so much as it just seeped up between the cracks of awkward teen angst.
I mean, they use fucking VHS. There is not a way in which that makes any goddamn sense.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My problem with HG's economic system is that sometimes it feels post scarcity, and sometimes it feels like the Capital is dependent on the districts, depending on what Collins needed for the specific paragraph.
The world wasn't built so much as it just seeped up between the cracks of awkward teen angst.
I don't think it ever feels post-scarcity. There's nothing indicating they don't need resources, only that they have some pretty bitching technology at their disposal. The world building may not be airtight, but it's not slapdash. It exists to serve the story, is consistent and makes enough sense to hold the plot up. It's basically a pretty bare but not inadequate construction.
And "awkward teen angst" seems a highly unfair description.
I mean, they use fucking VHS. There is not a way in which that makes any goddamn sense.
My problem with HG's economic system is that sometimes it feels post scarcity, and sometimes it feels like the Capital is dependent on the districts, depending on what Collins needed for the specific paragraph.
The world wasn't built so much as it just seeped up between the cracks of awkward teen angst.
I mean, they use fucking VHS. There is not a way in which that makes any goddamn sense.
This is what I was thinking about last night -- how the world and plot points in this series seem to change depending on what the author needs right then. It doesn't hold up to much scrutiny at all, and the series really has no interest in trying to make it.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
McConaughey is at once totally obvious casting (given his "it guy" status) and totally fascinating casting (given the way his energy might interact with that character). I can't tell whether it's genius or the laziest possible choice or both.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And "awkward teen angst" seems a highly unfair description.
Considering the primary conflict for Katniss in this last film is whether or not they can save Peeta from captivity while, you know, thousands of rebels voluntarily giving up their lives to bring the system down, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty angsty series.
Maybe more scenes of Gale sulking about how Katniss doesn't like him enough will convince you; don't lose hope, there's always the next film, Mockingjay Part 2: Gale, Quit Moping and Help Me Find Peeta!
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
I also got the impression from the first film
The districts had no real way of communicating with each other that didn't go through the capital. Not only were there constant patrols of borders, but there's a "blink and you'll miss it" map when Katniss goes wandering around the train showing some significant distance between the districts.
So no electronic communication (unless the capital approved it), and extreme difficulty getting couriers between districts.
It's not until we see 13's aircraft and the defection of the electronics victor (BB?) hacking the communication network that a coordinated rebellion really becomes possible.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
that was the part that got me...if the food district stops producing food, EVERYONE suffers, if the coal district is supplying power for the other districts then no coal = no power for those districts. but the books never make that connection. It shouldn't have been hard to show the interdependence of the districts and how they were competing with each other but also relying on each other. the book really fails at that.
My problem with HG's economic system is that sometimes it feels post scarcity, and sometimes it feels like the Capital is dependent on the districts, depending on what Collins needed for the specific paragraph.
The world wasn't built so much as it just seeped up between the cracks of awkward teen angst.
I don't think it ever feels post-scarcity. There's nothing indicating they don't need resources, only that they have some pretty bitching technology at their disposal. The world building may not be airtight, but it's not slapdash. It exists to serve the story, is consistent and makes enough sense to hold the plot up. It's basically a pretty bare but not inadequate construction.
And "awkward teen angst" seems a highly unfair description.
I mean, they use fucking VHS. There is not a way in which that makes any goddamn sense.
When do they use VHS in the series?
First book, I think it's in the train. They're watching stuff on video tape.
And "awkward teen angst" applies more to the second book than the film, but it is basically 100 pages of Katniss moping followed by 150 pages of redoing the entire first book followed by 50 pages of something interesting and new, then the book is over.
The film is admittedly much better. Haven't seen Mockingjay yet.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The way I see it, Panem is like an antebellum plantation. the Slaveowners(capitol) live a luxurious existence with numerous servants and every whim sated. You would think that people that live such a life to be genteel, sophisticated and hospitable folks. Certainly more so then the uncouth and brutish north(District 13).
In reality its built on human misery and the Capitol needs to prevent the slaves(the Districts) from working together. The whole field hand vs house slave vs white trash overseer dynamic going on.
Then field hand Katniss comes along and the whole thing comes crashing down.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I may be remembering wrong, but aren't the districts closer to the Capitol the ones that provide the most needed supplies/items and hence they were treated better than the lower districts?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The way I see it, Panem is like an antebellum plantation. the Slaveowners(capitol) live a luxurious existence with numerous servants and every whim sated. You would think that people that live such a life to be genteel, sophisticated and hospitable folks. Certainly more so then the uncouth and brutish north(District 13).
In reality its built on human misery and the Capitol needs to prevent the slaves(the Districts) from working together. The whole field hand vs house slave vs white trash overseer dynamic going on.
Then field hand Katniss comes along and the whole thing comes crashing down.
In the antebellum South, what held the system together was 1) ruthless violence, 2) its own momentum, and 3) social stratification within the underclass (the house slave looking down on the field slave). This is not really what we get in The Hunger Games; what we're told over and over again is that the games themselves are responsible for keeping the populations in line. But it's really a terrible way of doing that--the violence is too ritualized and the Districts are always jockeying for position (as opposed to maintaining a pecking order). It's as if a movie posited that what kept the slaves in 1858 from revolting was the annual Mandingo tournament.
The author wanted to talk about reality TV and the Iraq War and all of that, but those things don't all come from the same place (Survivor might be awful but Congress didn't vote on it). Instead of portraying a complex intersectionality of independent social vectors, she sourced it all to the government (and all of the government to the President). So the problem in Panem isn't the combination of invented circumstances and human nature leading to a corrupt and unfree society, the problem is... that guy.
Astaereth on
+4
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So the problem in Panem isn't the combination of invented circumstances and human nature leading to a corrupt and unfree society, the problem is... that guy.
Fennick's speech at the end about Snow's "secrets" was the most boneheaded part of this last film.
Oh, no, Snow's a bad guy! I totally didn't see that coming! Oh, and how will the Capitol and its citizens who ritualize the annual murder of innocent children react to this?!!
And "awkward teen angst" seems a highly unfair description.
Considering the primary conflict for Katniss in this last film is whether or not they can save Peeta from captivity while, you know, thousands of rebels voluntarily giving up their lives to bring the system down, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty angsty series.
Maybe more scenes of Gale sulking about how Katniss doesn't like him enough will convince you; don't lose hope, there's always the next film, Mockingjay Part 2: Gale, Quit Moping and Help Me Find Peeta!
I'd call that actual drama, not "awkward teen angst".
shryke on
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And "awkward teen angst" seems a highly unfair description.
Considering the primary conflict for Katniss in this last film is whether or not they can save Peeta from captivity while, you know, thousands of rebels voluntarily giving up their lives to bring the system down, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty angsty series.
Maybe more scenes of Gale sulking about how Katniss doesn't like him enough will convince you; don't lose hope, there's always the next film, Mockingjay Part 2: Gale, Quit Moping and Help Me Find Peeta!
I'd call that actual drama, not "awkward teen angst".
It's not dramatic if the stakes are meaningless and your protagonist is not being very smart.
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
Right, but the thing is if they stop making bullets, the Capitol will shoot them. Cause they've still got bullets. They'll go and shoot you with those bullets you made last week until you get your ass back in line and start making more. They even show them doing stuff like this. As long as they don't have to put down too many revolts at once, it works. (maybe they show differently in the 3rd movie, but I haven't seen it and can only go off the 3rd book which works this way)
So the problem in Panem isn't the combination of invented circumstances and human nature leading to a corrupt and unfree society, the problem is... that guy.
Fennick's speech at the end about Snow's "secrets" was the most boneheaded part of this last film.
Oh, no, Snow's a bad guy! I totally didn't see that coming! Oh, and how will the Capitol and its citizens who ritualize the annual murder of innocent children react to this?!!
Eh, I kinda took it as "Dude, we need you to stall for several hours. Do your best Ted Cruz impression."
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
Right, but the thing is if they stop making bullets, the Capitol will shoot them. Cause they've still got bullets. They'll go and shoot you with those bullets you made last week until you get your ass back in line and start making more. They even show them doing stuff like this. As long as they don't have to put down too many revolts at once, it works. (maybe they show differently in the 3rd movie, but I haven't seen it and can only go off the 3rd book which works this way)
It was a metaphor. The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, and eventually they'll need each district pulling in the quotas.
It's M.A.D., which means that neither side should have the advantage, yet the Capitol is portrayed as having ALL the advantage.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I also thought Donald Sutherland had a great gig for this film. He probably didn't work a week and still got paid. Every scene of his is shot in the same room.
It's directed by the guy who did Safety Not Guaranteed which I liked, but was a very different kind of movie than this so who knows. The trailer doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me, but I'm still excited for it.
+1
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The way I see it, Panem is like an antebellum plantation. the Slaveowners(capitol) live a luxurious existence with numerous servants and every whim sated. You would think that people that live such a life to be genteel, sophisticated and hospitable folks. Certainly more so then the uncouth and brutish north(District 13).
In reality its built on human misery and the Capitol needs to prevent the slaves(the Districts) from working together. The whole field hand vs house slave vs white trash overseer dynamic going on.
Then field hand Katniss comes along and the whole thing comes crashing down.
In the antebellum South, what held the system together was 1) ruthless violence, 2) its own momentum, and 3) social stratification within the underclass (the house slave looking down on the field slave). This is not really what we get in The Hunger Games; what we're told over and over again is that the games themselves are responsible for keeping the populations in line. But it's really a terrible way of doing that--the violence is too ritualized and the Districts are always jockeying for position (as opposed to maintaining a pecking order). It's as if a movie posited that what kept the slaves in 1858 from revolting was the annual Mandingo tournament.
What keeps the Districts in line is violence and a huge technology advantage. The Hunger Games is more a piece of propaganda to remind them who's boss.
The author wanted to talk about reality TV and the Iraq War and all of that, but those things don't all come from the same place (Survivor might be awful but Congress didn't vote on it). Instead of portraying a complex intersectionality of independent social vectors, she sourced it all to the government (and all of the government to the President). So the problem in Panem isn't the combination of invented circumstances and human nature leading to a corrupt and unfree society, the problem is... that guy.
This misses what the author is trying to talk about. It's inspired by the Iraq War being shown as if it were reality TV. It's not about what caused the Iraq War, it's about the idea of propaganda. The series is not about how propaganda creates an unfree society or how it is used by government to start wars, it's about what it feels like to be propaganda. And how symbols can take on a life of their own.
The entire series is about Katniss' struggle with becoming a piece of propaganda. She creates her own image in Part 1, spends Part 2 desperately trying to control it and Parts 2 & 3 suffering the consequences of being propaganda.
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
Right, but the thing is if they stop making bullets, the Capitol will shoot them. Cause they've still got bullets. They'll go and shoot you with those bullets you made last week until you get your ass back in line and start making more. They even show them doing stuff like this. As long as they don't have to put down too many revolts at once, it works. (maybe they show differently in the 3rd movie, but I haven't seen it and can only go off the 3rd book which works this way)
It was a metaphor. The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, and eventually they'll need each district pulling in the quotas.
It's M.A.D., which means that neither side should have the advantage, yet the Capitol is portrayed as having ALL the advantage.
The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, but they don't have zero resources either. You are right that they eventually need each district pulling in the quotas, but the key word is "eventually".
It's not MAD. There's no mutually assured destruction here. There is just group in power with the technological advantage to dominate the other groups. That they need those other groups to survive is no different then almost any oppressive system ever. The nobility needed food too. That didn't help the peasantry.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
Right, but the thing is if they stop making bullets, the Capitol will shoot them. Cause they've still got bullets. They'll go and shoot you with those bullets you made last week until you get your ass back in line and start making more. They even show them doing stuff like this. As long as they don't have to put down too many revolts at once, it works. (maybe they show differently in the 3rd movie, but I haven't seen it and can only go off the 3rd book which works this way)
It was a metaphor. The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, and eventually they'll need each district pulling in the quotas.
It's M.A.D., which means that neither side should have the advantage, yet the Capitol is portrayed as having ALL the advantage.
The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, but they don't have zero resources either. You are right that they eventually need each district pulling in the quotas, but the key word is "eventually".
It's not MAD. There's no mutually assured destruction here. There is just group in power with the technological advantage to dominate the other groups. That they need those other groups to survive is no different then almost any oppressive system ever. The nobility needed food too. That didn't help the peasantry.
The nobility didn't make a practice of terrorizing their own people as a national charter. People farmed and served in the military and made goods because they were part of an interconnected economy and it benefited them.
I think it's a little funny that one of my gripes about the first Hunger Games movies has become the focus point of the last two, e.g.,
The shitty labor division arrangement the Capitol insisted upon where they became utterly dependent on their oppressed classes.
It's really frustrating that a movie series with this kind of budget and casting can't elevate the plotting just a little. It seems like with a film filled with that many Academy Award nominees the script could tolerate a little nuance.
What specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps my biggest plotting complaint with the series from its inception is that the Capitol has a completely broken economic system where they are completely at the mercy of the people they are subjugating -- and, what's more -- they stratify each district into unique partitions of goods and services (i.e., District 13 makes military stuff, District 12 does mining, District 8 does manufacturing) so that if one single district wholly rebels, the entire economy collapses.
So, the plot of the latest film was the district alliance coming to recognize this completely obvious fact and exploit for their gain . . . . something apparently never thought of in the 75 years of oppression under the Capitol.
The acting in these movies are fine, the direction is fine, the cinematography and art direction are all fine, but these stories are just not well thought out.
My understanding of it
Well, that was the entire point of the games and keeping the districts separate.
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
But they didn't need to collectively combine their resources to successfully rebel. Each district was critically responsible for the Capitol's economy, so the failure of any single district could disrupt everything, as we saw in this film with District Seven's attack on the power grid.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
Right, but the thing is if they stop making bullets, the Capitol will shoot them. Cause they've still got bullets. They'll go and shoot you with those bullets you made last week until you get your ass back in line and start making more. They even show them doing stuff like this. As long as they don't have to put down too many revolts at once, it works. (maybe they show differently in the 3rd movie, but I haven't seen it and can only go off the 3rd book which works this way)
It was a metaphor. The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, and eventually they'll need each district pulling in the quotas.
It's M.A.D., which means that neither side should have the advantage, yet the Capitol is portrayed as having ALL the advantage.
The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, but they don't have zero resources either. You are right that they eventually need each district pulling in the quotas, but the key word is "eventually".
It's not MAD. There's no mutually assured destruction here. There is just group in power with the technological advantage to dominate the other groups. That they need those other groups to survive is no different then almost any oppressive system ever. The nobility needed food too. That didn't help the peasantry.
The nobility didn't make a practice of terrorizing their own people as a national charter. People farmed and served in the military and made goods because they were part of an interconnected economy and it benefited them.
It just doesn't make sense.
Uh, I can assure you they didn't do it just cause it benefited them. There's a reason the French monarchy ended in shitloads of dead people. The peasantry were very much oppressed and very much felt it. (Though obviously, like any oppressed group, they don't all fight back. Some just accept it and get on with their lives.)
I gotta say I agree with shryke on this, although I have to add that I haven't read the novels and have only seen the first film, which may invalidate my point. 1984 doesn't work if you think about it in terms of realism, nor does Brave New World, but that's not what most dystopias aim for anyway. They condense, they satirise, they exaggerate in order to stress certain themes. Ideally the individual parts resonate emotionally and/or thematically, but expecting a literary or cinematic dystopia, or any invented world that strives to say something about our world, to hold up as something that could really work in narrowly realistic doesn't strike me as an entirely fair criticism.
If The Hunger Games doesn't hold up as fiction, if it's at cross-purposes with itself in emotional and thematic terms, that's one thing, but Atomika et al., some your criticism here (and in earlier Hunger Games threads) strikes me too much as looking at fiction as if it were supposed to be a direct representation of reality, a bit like the people who criticise The Matrix because it wouldn't make sense to use human beings as batteries, which may be true but is still entirely beside the point.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I gotta say I agree with shryke on this, although I have to add that I haven't read the novels and have only seen the first film, which may invalidate my point. 1984 doesn't work if you think about it in terms of realism, nor does Brave New World, but that's not what most dystopias aim for anyway. They condense, they satirise, they exaggerate in order to stress certain themes. Ideally the individual parts resonate emotionally and/or thematically, but expecting a literary or cinematic dystopia, or any invented world that strives to say something about our world, to hold up as something that could really work in narrowly realistic doesn't strike me as an entirely fair criticism.
If The Hunger Games doesn't hold up as fiction, if it's at cross-purposes with itself in emotional and thematic terms, that's one thing, but Atomika et al., some your criticism here (and in earlier Hunger Games threads) strikes me too much as looking at fiction as if it were supposed to be a direct representation of reality, a bit like the people who criticise The Matrix because it wouldn't make sense to use human beings as batteries, which may be true but is still entirely beside the point.
It's more the fact that it tries to have it's cake and eat it too. We're expected to believe that the Capital is powerful enough to construct truly massive arenas, project energy shields over them, have the technological capability to create the absolute ridiculous outfits that border on requiring nano technology...but they still rely on a couple thousand people in District twelve who are literally mining by hand to support the raw resource needs of a futuristic city of 5 million people? And they are so dependent on them for survival that they wiped them all out without a second thought?
The important thing about The Hunger Games is that the Friedberg and Selzter rip off bombed horribly, possibly scotching any further movies from them. Hopefully.
I like how the wiki just lists the things the Friedberg/Seltzer movie purports to parody, in exactly the same way the movie wheels them out, waits for you to get the reference, then wheels them off again.
Harry Potter
The Expendables
Angry Birds
Psy (Dancing "Gangnam Style")
Taylor Swift
Avatar
Oz the Great and Powerful
McDonalds (Advertisement)
Annoying Orange
Fruit Ninja
The Hobbit
The Avengers
We have included these pop culture references. Please recognize and applaud when you see them.
I will say that Vampires Suck was a guilty pleasure.
McConaughey is at once totally obvious casting (given his "it guy" status) and totally fascinating casting (given the way his energy might interact with that character). I can't tell whether it's genius or the laziest possible choice or both.
After True Detective give McConaughey any role he wants. He's earned it.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I gotta say I agree with shryke on this, although I have to add that I haven't read the novels and have only seen the first film, which may invalidate my point. 1984 doesn't work if you think about it in terms of realism, nor does Brave New World, but that's not what most dystopias aim for anyway. They condense, they satirise, they exaggerate in order to stress certain themes. Ideally the individual parts resonate emotionally and/or thematically, but expecting a literary or cinematic dystopia, or any invented world that strives to say something about our world, to hold up as something that could really work in narrowly realistic doesn't strike me as an entirely fair criticism.
If The Hunger Games doesn't hold up as fiction, if it's at cross-purposes with itself in emotional and thematic terms, that's one thing, but Atomika et al., some your criticism here (and in earlier Hunger Games threads) strikes me too much as looking at fiction as if it were supposed to be a direct representation of reality, a bit like the people who criticise The Matrix because it wouldn't make sense to use human beings as batteries, which may be true but is still entirely beside the point.
I guess because I don't think the series as whole has a strong or clear statement to make about forces of oppression or propaganda, I find myself thinking about the logical responses to the implications of the worldbuilding.
And the Hunger Games worldbuilding is pretty lacking.
I gotta say I agree with shryke on this, although I have to add that I haven't read the novels and have only seen the first film, which may invalidate my point. 1984 doesn't work if you think about it in terms of realism, nor does Brave New World, but that's not what most dystopias aim for anyway. They condense, they satirise, they exaggerate in order to stress certain themes. Ideally the individual parts resonate emotionally and/or thematically, but expecting a literary or cinematic dystopia, or any invented world that strives to say something about our world, to hold up as something that could really work in narrowly realistic doesn't strike me as an entirely fair criticism.
If The Hunger Games doesn't hold up as fiction, if it's at cross-purposes with itself in emotional and thematic terms, that's one thing, but Atomika et al., some your criticism here (and in earlier Hunger Games threads) strikes me too much as looking at fiction as if it were supposed to be a direct representation of reality, a bit like the people who criticise The Matrix because it wouldn't make sense to use human beings as batteries, which may be true but is still entirely beside the point.
I guess because I don't think the series as whole has a strong or clear statement to make about forces of oppression or propaganda, I find myself thinking about the logical responses to the implications of the worldbuilding.
And the Hunger Games worldbuilding is pretty lacking.
The Hunger Games film series certainly feels like it misses some of the nuances of the series based on losing the first-person perspective and based on being a blockbuster. Though really, most readers missed most of the nuances of the series too.
Posts
The world wasn't built so much as it just seeped up between the cracks of awkward teen angst.
I mean, they use fucking VHS. There is not a way in which that makes any goddamn sense.
I don't think it ever feels post-scarcity. There's nothing indicating they don't need resources, only that they have some pretty bitching technology at their disposal. The world building may not be airtight, but it's not slapdash. It exists to serve the story, is consistent and makes enough sense to hold the plot up. It's basically a pretty bare but not inadequate construction.
And "awkward teen angst" seems a highly unfair description.
When do they use VHS in the series?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/24/matthew-mcconaughey-the-stand-stephen-king-adaptation
I guess one movie for each part, with the last one split.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
This is what I was thinking about last night -- how the world and plot points in this series seem to change depending on what the author needs right then. It doesn't hold up to much scrutiny at all, and the series really has no interest in trying to make it.
That news is kinda old, and McConaughey isn't signed for anything yet. The producers have only talked about wanting McConaughey.
Honestly, I'll eat my hat if this ever gets off the ground. A four-film Stand series isn't marketable.
McConaughey is at once totally obvious casting (given his "it guy" status) and totally fascinating casting (given the way his energy might interact with that character). I can't tell whether it's genius or the laziest possible choice or both.
Considering the primary conflict for Katniss in this last film is whether or not they can save Peeta from captivity while, you know, thousands of rebels voluntarily giving up their lives to bring the system down, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty angsty series.
Maybe more scenes of Gale sulking about how Katniss doesn't like him enough will convince you; don't lose hope, there's always the next film, Mockingjay Part 2: Gale, Quit Moping and Help Me Find Peeta!
My understanding of it
The Capitol assumed no district would ever rebel if they saw each other as competitors and didn't really have a chance to communicate or collude. And for the most part they were right. Even when District 13 turned agaisnt the capitol it was just that district, and they looked out after themselves rather than think of a bigger goal.
Like the book and movie shows, it took Katniss to bring them all together.
I also got the impression from the first film
So no electronic communication (unless the capital approved it), and extreme difficulty getting couriers between districts.
It's not until we see 13's aircraft and the defection of the electronics victor (BB?) hacking the communication network that a coordinated rebellion really becomes possible.
The Capitol's system of oppression was basically, "If you don't keep making bullets, we'll shoot you."
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
First book, I think it's in the train. They're watching stuff on video tape.
And "awkward teen angst" applies more to the second book than the film, but it is basically 100 pages of Katniss moping followed by 150 pages of redoing the entire first book followed by 50 pages of something interesting and new, then the book is over.
The film is admittedly much better. Haven't seen Mockingjay yet.
In reality its built on human misery and the Capitol needs to prevent the slaves(the Districts) from working together. The whole field hand vs house slave vs white trash overseer dynamic going on.
Then field hand Katniss comes along and the whole thing comes crashing down.
In the antebellum South, what held the system together was 1) ruthless violence, 2) its own momentum, and 3) social stratification within the underclass (the house slave looking down on the field slave). This is not really what we get in The Hunger Games; what we're told over and over again is that the games themselves are responsible for keeping the populations in line. But it's really a terrible way of doing that--the violence is too ritualized and the Districts are always jockeying for position (as opposed to maintaining a pecking order). It's as if a movie posited that what kept the slaves in 1858 from revolting was the annual Mandingo tournament.
The author wanted to talk about reality TV and the Iraq War and all of that, but those things don't all come from the same place (Survivor might be awful but Congress didn't vote on it). Instead of portraying a complex intersectionality of independent social vectors, she sourced it all to the government (and all of the government to the President). So the problem in Panem isn't the combination of invented circumstances and human nature leading to a corrupt and unfree society, the problem is... that guy.
Oh, no, Snow's a bad guy! I totally didn't see that coming! Oh, and how will the Capitol and its citizens who ritualize the annual murder of innocent children react to this?!!
I'd call that actual drama, not "awkward teen angst".
It's not dramatic if the stakes are meaningless and your protagonist is not being very smart.
Right, but the thing is if they stop making bullets, the Capitol will shoot them. Cause they've still got bullets. They'll go and shoot you with those bullets you made last week until you get your ass back in line and start making more. They even show them doing stuff like this. As long as they don't have to put down too many revolts at once, it works. (maybe they show differently in the 3rd movie, but I haven't seen it and can only go off the 3rd book which works this way)
It was a metaphor. The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, and eventually they'll need each district pulling in the quotas.
It's M.A.D., which means that neither side should have the advantage, yet the Capitol is portrayed as having ALL the advantage.
Hope: it's awesome.
Fear: it's Deep Blue Sea with a T-Rex instead of sharks.
What keeps the Districts in line is violence and a huge technology advantage. The Hunger Games is more a piece of propaganda to remind them who's boss.
This misses what the author is trying to talk about. It's inspired by the Iraq War being shown as if it were reality TV. It's not about what caused the Iraq War, it's about the idea of propaganda. The series is not about how propaganda creates an unfree society or how it is used by government to start wars, it's about what it feels like to be propaganda. And how symbols can take on a life of their own.
The entire series is about Katniss' struggle with becoming a piece of propaganda. She creates her own image in Part 1, spends Part 2 desperately trying to control it and Parts 2 & 3 suffering the consequences of being propaganda.
The Capitol doesn't have infinite resources, but they don't have zero resources either. You are right that they eventually need each district pulling in the quotas, but the key word is "eventually".
It's not MAD. There's no mutually assured destruction here. There is just group in power with the technological advantage to dominate the other groups. That they need those other groups to survive is no different then almost any oppressive system ever. The nobility needed food too. That didn't help the peasantry.
The nobility didn't make a practice of terrorizing their own people as a national charter. People farmed and served in the military and made goods because they were part of an interconnected economy and it benefited them.
It just doesn't make sense.
Uh, I can assure you they didn't do it just cause it benefited them. There's a reason the French monarchy ended in shitloads of dead people. The peasantry were very much oppressed and very much felt it. (Though obviously, like any oppressed group, they don't all fight back. Some just accept it and get on with their lives.)
If The Hunger Games doesn't hold up as fiction, if it's at cross-purposes with itself in emotional and thematic terms, that's one thing, but Atomika et al., some your criticism here (and in earlier Hunger Games threads) strikes me too much as looking at fiction as if it were supposed to be a direct representation of reality, a bit like the people who criticise The Matrix because it wouldn't make sense to use human beings as batteries, which may be true but is still entirely beside the point.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
because I'm in
It's more the fact that it tries to have it's cake and eat it too. We're expected to believe that the Capital is powerful enough to construct truly massive arenas, project energy shields over them, have the technological capability to create the absolute ridiculous outfits that border on requiring nano technology...but they still rely on a couple thousand people in District twelve who are literally mining by hand to support the raw resource needs of a futuristic city of 5 million people? And they are so dependent on them for survival that they wiped them all out without a second thought?
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Goodbye-Blu-ray-Elliot-Gould/dp/B00MYMTANU/ref=sr_1_9?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1416940432&sr=1-9&pebp=1416940442996
See the movie that gets referenced in a shit ton of later movies!
pleasepaypreacher.net
The cover art makes it look like a movie about Mitt Romney shooting people.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I will say that Vampires Suck was a guilty pleasure.
After True Detective give McConaughey any role he wants. He's earned it.
I guess because I don't think the series as whole has a strong or clear statement to make about forces of oppression or propaganda, I find myself thinking about the logical responses to the implications of the worldbuilding.
And the Hunger Games worldbuilding is pretty lacking.
The Hunger Games film series certainly feels like it misses some of the nuances of the series based on losing the first-person perspective and based on being a blockbuster. Though really, most readers missed most of the nuances of the series too.