Quick answers for some of your issues (this is book stuff):
What are the Hunger Games?
A way for the Capitol to show that they owned your ass so hard last time you rebelled (74 years ago) that we can make you send your children to fight for our amusement.
Except no one in the Capitol appears at all bothered with the games. No one is shown watching them on TV, and during the interviews Cinna and his cohorts are shows to be actively apathetic.
Why do the districts participate?
1) They get more rations if one of their Tributes wins. This is important because none of the districts are self-sufficient.
2) The Capitol will kill the shit out of them if they don't.
1) The film in no way shows this or even really implies this.
2) The film also shows each district being patrolled by, like, a dozen dudes with rifles. District 11 seemed to hold their ground alright. And seriously, guerrilla warfare anyone? Pretty easy when your district is endless miles of mountains, trees, and caves.
What ended the rebellion?
The Districts were defeated militarily.
Again, the Districts have both the numbers and the leverage against the Capital. Not seeing the logic.
Well, the book explains how
A) The people have been defeated before so see it as futile to try again, The Capitol has technology that the districts do not have, and
C) The position of The Capitol is like a fortress that is very difficult to penetrate because there is only one way in/out.
Completely retarded strategic decisions by supposedly trained killers. Outrunning a forest fire. Ass-backward game design for entertainment by people who should be better at it after most of a century's practice.
And it that regard, how the hell is there any public support for the games when the rules are so arbitrary and the HQ can basically just kill people at whim? When they sent the forest fire after Katniss, it was a combination of her athleticism and pure luck that it didn't kill her, and it still injured her gravely. Who cheers for that shit? "Oh sorry, District 11, your last remaining champion succumbed to the stresses of a wild pack of fucking killer super-dogs that we released for the sole purpose of murdering people who are already murdering each other. Maybe next year."
As an entertainment, the Games make zero sense. This is an annual event that lasts for weeks, but half of the kids die in the first day. More die to random bullshit like wasps and super-dogs. Katniss almost dies to fireballs. According to to the book, previous years' kids have died to exposure and dehydration/starvation (which nearly happens to Wonder Woodsgirl Katniss in the book). What the hell kind of entertainment is that? At one point in the movie she's 2km from the nearest other kid. Why make the arena that big in the first place? You want a good show? Put them all in an open pit with weapons ready-to hand and watch them slaughter one another for a couple of hours. Or, instead, evenly disperse them in varied terrain with enough supplies and weapons that they won't just die of not knowing which plants are edible, then watch them hunt and kill one another over the course of a few days.
And this is a legal betting sport. Nobody won the 74th games, since there wasn't one winner. And how pissed off must the people who had money on the kid who got eaten by dogs been? It would be like someone walking out onto the track at a horse race and shooting one of the 3 lead animals twenty yards from the finish line. Yeah, his odds weren't great at that point, but he could have still brought it back, what with supposedly being a trained killer.
Speaking of which: why is training kids illegal? The Games are to put on a show, right? And everyone in them is going to die anyway, right? Why wouldn't you want trained fighters on your TV show? Is it really more fun to watch kids flail at one another than it is to watch skilled combatants fight to the death? Even the Romans figured that shit out.
Except no one in the Capitol appears at all bothered with the games. No one is shown watching them on TV, and during the interviews Cinna and his cohorts are shows to be actively apathetic.
Um, there were cheering crowds from the moment their train rolled in. The only time we're shown apathy is during Katniss's archery demonstration.
Why do the districts participate?
1) They get more rations if one of their Tributes wins. This is important because none of the districts are self-sufficient.
1) The film in no way shows this or even really implies this.
It's explicitly stated a couple of times.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I do feel like Katniss had a lot of agency and shit she had to do over the course of the book, so that she showed up to play the long game. There was more time to spend exploring her using her woodsmanship and survival skills, the bag she came out of the initial scrum with had iodine pills to purify water, she foraged and hunted, and was waiting for ye brash kids to do a lot of legwork for her.
I remember the plot not feeling as contrived, but protagonists get lucky. That's part of being a protagonist.
Clearly a number of you and I just have a difference of opinion about what 'starving' means.
If it's possible to have goats then I contend that a society should not be starving unless they are forced to starve. Since nobody is taking the goats away, I don't understand why anyone is starving. Especially in a small community who should, logically, be pressed into a tighter-knit social group than they otherwise would be by mutual dislike of their oppressors. Pigs, on the other hand, eat human food. If you have food to throw away because you don't want to eat it then cool, pigs are great. If you're starving then I don't believe you have food to throw away. Burnt bread is edible bread, and someone in a starving society wants to eat it.
The folks in District 12 are poor, but they don't appear to be starving. And this is meant to be the worst-off of all the districts. If a meager year's supply of cheap grain for one person is the reward for doubling your odds of being called in for the murder games and doesn't seem like a necessary risk for the majority population here, in the worst place, why would it be common enough in the rest of the districts to even be a thing?
The book is just full of stuff that sounds okay if you either don't think about it at all or you can maybe sort of muster an explanation for if you do enough mental contorting. Why people are starving if there are goats available. How the local economy could possibly work. Why more people don't break the law given how easy it appears to be and how great the benefits apparently are. Why the entire population puts up with annual child sacrifice rather than staging annual riots, or at least passive-aggressive civil disobedience at Reaping time. The Capital's cartoonish villainy. Dodgy woodcraft. Completely retarded strategic decisions by supposedly trained killers. Outrunning a forest fire. Ass-backward game design for entertainment by people who should be better at it after most of a century's practice. Ridiculous genetically-modified creatures with obvious and horrible flaws in their implementation given their stated design goals. The starvation thing isn't even the worst or most glaring flaw; it's just that it's right there in the title.
I thought the author was trying to convey an oppressed society rather than a starving society. I mean, Katniss explains that her family is better off than most because she is able to hunt in the woods, a skill few in the district possess (coughGalecough). But it also goes back and shows a time when Katniss was on the brink of starvation with the moment between her and Peeta and the bread. The district seems more to me like they are allowed to survive by the bare minimum, with the "tariss" rations from the games and the minimum wage they make in the coal mines. So I don't see it as a starving Ethiopian society but as more of a poor, oppressed society where the main feeling is hopelessness.
edit: And also I believe in the book Katniss explains that the stuntedness of people in her district comes from lack of protein (i.e. substantial food) not from an overall lack of food.
A) The people have been defeated before so see it as futile to try again, The Capitol has technology that the districts do not have, and
C) The position of The Capitol is like a fortress that is very difficult to penetrate because there is only one way in/out.
I have not seen the movie yet though.
I felt like the movie was very good in demonstrating that people were cowed by the oppressing government. Questions like, "Why did the districts go along with this?" don't really weigh much in my mind because I felt like the whole thing was an allegory for war in the first place. Why do people go along with sending their youths out to die in some desert across the planet? Because the TV has told them that it's Important!
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Except no one in the Capitol appears at all bothered with the games. No one is shown watching them on TV, and during the interviews Cinna and his cohorts are shows to be actively apathetic.
Um, there were cheering crowds from the moment their train rolled in. The only time we're shown apathy is during Katniss's archery demonstration.
There were crowds at all of the pre- and post-game events, and we see commentators talking about the ongoing games once or twice, but we never actually see any citizens of the Capitol watching the games that I recall. I mean, the story would make slightly more sense if the citizens of the Capitol don't watch the games and believe all of the child murder to be noble battle for the honor of their Districts or some-such, but that's not how it's presented in the book or, as I recall, the movie. This is supposed to be prime-grade entertainment for the Capitol, but I don't recall any shots of people watching the proceedings. They could easily have cut to Capitol families eating popcorn in front of the TV and reacting appropriately to various of the dramatic/exciting/romantic scenes during the games if they wanted to drive home that the Capitol citizens really get off on watching this stuff. Kind of like they did with showing the District citizens watching.
Why do the districts participate?
1) They get more rations if one of their Tributes wins. This is important because none of the districts are self-sufficient.
1) The film in no way shows this or even really implies this.
It's explicitly stated a couple of times.
No it isn't. It's stated that the tribute and his/her District get rewarded. The movie never states that the Districts aren't self-sufficient or that the Games victory reward is necessary to keep them going. The book says so, but never offers an explanation of why beyond lolevilgovernment. There aren't many people in District 12 and plenty of them don't work the mines that the District apparently exists for. It wouldn't take much for them to grow enough food to feed the District, removing food transport and distribution costs from the Capitol's budget. They don't because, I guess, they're evil.
Completely retarded strategic decisions by supposedly trained killers. Outrunning a forest fire. Ass-backward game design for entertainment by people who should be better at it after most of a century's practice.
And it that regard, how the hell is there any public support for the games when the rules are so arbitrary and the HQ can basically just kill people at whim? When they sent the forest fire after Katniss, it was a combination of her athleticism and pure luck that it didn't kill her, and it still injured her gravely. Who cheers for that shit? "Oh sorry, District 11, your last remaining champion succumbed to the stresses of a wild pack of fucking killer super-dogs that we released for the sole purpose of murdering people who are already murdering each other. Maybe next year."
In short, it's not for the entertainment of the districts. The whole thing started as a way for the capitol to show its power over the districts and ability to kill children at will, and has grown into an entertainment venue FOR THE CAPITOL.
Quick answers for some of your issues (this is book stuff):
What are the Hunger Games?
A way for the Capitol to show that they owned your ass so hard last time you rebelled (74 years ago) that we can make you send your children to fight for our amusement.
Except no one in the Capitol appears at all bothered with the games. No one is shown watching them on TV, and during the interviews Cinna and his cohorts are shows to be actively apathetic.
Why do the districts participate?
1) They get more rations if one of their Tributes wins. This is important because none of the districts are self-sufficient.
2) The Capitol will kill the shit out of them if they don't.
1) The film in no way shows this or even really implies this.
2) The film also shows each district being patrolled by, like, a dozen dudes with rifles. District 11 seemed to hold their ground alright. And seriously, guerrilla warfare anyone? Pretty easy when your district is endless miles of mountains, trees, and caves.
What ended the rebellion?
The Districts were defeated militarily.
Again, the Districts have both the numbers and the leverage against the Capital. Not seeing the logic.
I think it's telling that these objections work for colonial Africa.
1) the people of the Capitol are very intelligent, artistic, empathetic, and technologically advanced, and 2) the people of the Capitol are wholly insane, preoccupied with decadence and pageantry, not to mention the murder of very small children. They welcome the Tributes to their home and shower them with gifts and luxury, only to cheer as they are sent to their deaths. No part of this makes any sense.
Please look up "Belgian Congo." The population of Belgium found out how the king was brutalizing the (hilariously named) Congo Free State, and was aghast... at how it wasn't getting a piece of that action. This is a country that's known for fitting the description in #1.
A) The people have been defeated before so see it as futile to try again, The Capitol has technology that the districts do not have, and
C) The position of The Capitol is like a fortress that is very difficult to penetrate because there is only one way in/out.
I have not seen the movie yet though.
I felt like the movie was very good in demonstrating that people were cowed by the oppressing government. Questions like, "Why did the districts go along with this?" don't really weigh much in my mind because I felt like the whole thing was an allegory for war in the first place. Why do people go along with sending their youths out to die in some desert across the planet? Because the TV has told them that it's Important!
It's an allegory for the war in Iraq, specifically, except that America doesn't have the draft. And why don't we have the draft anymore? Because the public hates the fuck out of it. You can't demand that people send their children off to die and expect them to be okay with that.
If, however, you make it voluntary and paint it as noble, virtuous, and rewarding...people jump all over that shit. Which could have made the Hunger Games make sense. Make the sacrifice voluntary but make conditions so bad and the rewards for volunteering good enough that people will have to do it. It was even in the book: you get more food the more times you put your name in the hat. People will be signing up anyway, and you don't have the negative of demanding that, at minimum, one of their children die every year. Even in the supposedly favored inner districts, every year at least one of each of District 1 - 3's kids dies, murdered on TV for the entertainment of their next-door neighbors whom they are supplying with weapons and technology.
Well, the Hunger Games are a part of an agreement made between the districts and The Capitol after the war. The districts have to send a certain amount of their goods/products (i.e. coal in district 12, and perhaps some merchants have to send some of their products as well like Peeta's family having to send bread?) to The Capitol and then in order to remind the districts who is boss, they have to select 1 boy and 1 girl to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. Its just an annual reminder to show that "Hey, you guys screwed up and tried rebelling against us, this is what you get. Don't think about trying that one again or we'll do something worse next time." Also I think the reason the people in the Capitol are so excited about it is because honestly to me the book describes Capitol citizens as pretty unintelligent. So I imagine the people in the Capitol as lazy and dumb (think Idiocracy if any of you have seen that movie).
Well, the Hunger Games are a part of an agreement made between the districts and The Capitol after the war. The districts have to send a certain amount of their goods/products (i.e. coal in district 12, and perhaps some merchants have to send some of their products as well like Peeta's family having to send bread?) to The Capitol and then in order to remind the districts who is boss, they have to select 1 boy and 1 girl to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. Its just an annual reminder to show that "Hey, you guys screwed up and tried rebelling against us, this is what you get. Don't think about trying that one again or we'll do something worse next time."
That doesn't actually make sense, though. Beating your defeated enemies over the head in perpetuity is a good way to make them rise up again and again. If you rule through fear you only keep control for as long as their fear of your reprisal is greater than their fear of daily life. And what's the Capitol going to do? Kill them all? Every part of this nation is dependent upon every other part for goods and services. If the Capitol kills everyone in District 12 - or even a lot of them - that means not enough coal for the Capitol or the other 11 Districts.
Also I think the reason the people in the Capitol are so excited about it is because honestly to me the book describes Capitol citizens as pretty unintelligent. So I imagine the people in the Capitol as lazy and dumb (think Idiocracy if any of you have seen that movie).
Which also doesn't make sense. It's easy to say "Lol they're evil and dumb", but these are the people ruling a nation that spans most of North America. They are technological wizards and, apparently, artists. They can't be a city of total morons, and comic-book-style villainy simply doesn't exist. Nobody is evil just because.
Well, the Hunger Games are a part of an agreement made between the districts and The Capitol after the war. The districts have to send a certain amount of their goods/products (i.e. coal in district 12, and perhaps some merchants have to send some of their products as well like Peeta's family having to send bread?) to The Capitol and then in order to remind the districts who is boss, they have to select 1 boy and 1 girl to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. Its just an annual reminder to show that "Hey, you guys screwed up and tried rebelling against us, this is what you get. Don't think about trying that one again or we'll do something worse next time."
That doesn't actually make sense, though. Beating your defeated enemies over the head in perpetuity is a good way to make them rise up again and again. If you rule through fear you only keep control for as long as their fear of your reprisal is greater than their fear of daily life. And what's the Capitol going to do? Kill them all? Every part of this nation is dependent upon every other part for goods and services. If the Capitol kills everyone in District 12 - or even a lot of them - that means not enough coal for the Capitol or the other 11 Districts.
Also I think the reason the people in the Capitol are so excited about it is because honestly to me the book describes Capitol citizens as pretty unintelligent. So I imagine the people in the Capitol as lazy and dumb (think Idiocracy if any of you have seen that movie).
Which also doesn't make sense. It's easy to say "Lol they're evil and dumb", but these are the people ruling a nation that spans most of North America. They are technological wizards and, apparently, artists. They can't be a city of total morons, and comic-book-style villainy simply doesn't exist. Nobody is evil just because.
In the book almost every citizen in the Capitol is a total moron and President Snow is a comic book villain.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So I imagine the people in the Capitol as lazy and dumb (think Idiocracy if any of you have seen that movie).
Except the movie shows (and if these examples are from the source, then the book does too) that the Capitol is incredibly advanced and full of technology that borders on scientific miracles.
There's a huge disconnect between what the story needs the Capitol to be guilty of and what the story needs the Capitol to be capable of.
Well, the Hunger Games are a part of an agreement made between the districts and The Capitol after the war. The districts have to send a certain amount of their goods/products (i.e. coal in district 12, and perhaps some merchants have to send some of their products as well like Peeta's family having to send bread?) to The Capitol and then in order to remind the districts who is boss, they have to select 1 boy and 1 girl to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. Its just an annual reminder to show that "Hey, you guys screwed up and tried rebelling against us, this is what you get. Don't think about trying that one again or we'll do something worse next time."
That doesn't actually make sense, though. Beating your defeated enemies over the head in perpetuity is a good way to make them rise up again and again. If you rule through fear you only keep control for as long as their fear of your reprisal is greater than their fear of daily life. And what's the Capitol going to do? Kill them all? Every part of this nation is dependent upon every other part for goods and services. If the Capitol kills everyone in District 12 - or even a lot of them - that means not enough coal for the Capitol or the other 11 Districts.
What you're saying is true, but not at all what the Capitol is doing. They are deliberately trying to keep the districts on that thin line where quality of life isn't so much worse than the oppression so they are constantly wondering is it really worth it to rebel? The Capitol isn't killing EVERYBODY, just 2 children from each district a year and then others are dying from working in the coal mines or starving to death, but I would say a majority of the people have the basic necessities.
Also I think the reason the people in the Capitol are so excited about it is because honestly to me the book describes Capitol citizens as pretty unintelligent. So I imagine the people in the Capitol as lazy and dumb (think Idiocracy if any of you have seen that movie).
Which also doesn't make sense. It's easy to say "Lol they're evil and dumb", but these are the people ruling a nation that spans most of North America. They are technological wizards and, apparently, artists. They can't be a city of total morons, and comic-book-style villainy simply doesn't exist. Nobody is evil just because.
I didn't say the people running the Capitol are idiots, just a majority of the citizens. Obviously the president is very cold, calculating, and intelligent, and I'm sure they have a number of technological geniuses who are inventing the things used in the Hunger Games. I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
On the BR versus THG front, I liked BR a lot better. Mostly because IMHO the core of the story (teenagers fighting each other to death) seems much better thought out in BR.
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
The Incas used to sacrifice kiddies. As did a few other meso-american civs. supposedly the carthaginians did as well, but, you know our only source on that is the romans. And then there's the whole "let's send out 18 yr olds to die (and then watch on CNN) where the author claims to have been inspired.
Someone who complains about their not understanding the capitol people enjoying the hunger games when most die on the first day and they stretch it out over 2 weeks, doesn't understand reality television and or gambling.
Also they explain in the movie (athough too briefly), that you can put your name in numerous times for extra food. I think they should of shown more people starving. The lack of focus on the big deal of food in general in the movie was a bit bad.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
The Incas used to sacrifice kiddies. As did a few other meso-american civs. supposedly the carthaginians did as well, but, you know our only source on that is the romans. And then there's the whole "let's send out 18 yr olds to die (and then watch on CNN) where the author claims to have been inspired.
Are we considering amerindian civilizations among the "advanced, enlightened" crowd these days?
And if that was the author's inspiration, I really don't have any idea what point he/she was trying to get across.
I will again state, as it seemed to me and from what I can tell from people's posts, this is a much better movie if you've read the book. It's still enjoyable otherwise, just try not to overthink it.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I will again state, as it seemed to me and from what I can tell from people's posts, this is a much better movie if you've read the book. It's still enjoyable otherwise, just try not to overthink it.
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
Romans. The society in the film is clearly based on the Roman Empire. Names such as Cinna and Seneca bear this out, the name of the country is Panem the Latin word for bread. The Roman empire was technologically advanced for its time, with great philosophers and artists. Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
The way the districts support the central capital is also like the Roman empire. The movie shows it by having the outlandish costumes worn by citizens of the capital. As for the capitals advanced tech, it might be the remains of a more advanced time, which is why they don't share it with the districts.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
The Incas used to sacrifice kiddies. As did a few other meso-american civs. supposedly the carthaginians did as well, but, you know our only source on that is the romans. And then there's the whole "let's send out 18 yr olds to die (and then watch on CNN) where the author claims to have been inspired.
Are we considering amerindian civilizations among the "advanced, enlightened" crowd these days?
And if that was the author's inspiration, I really don't have any idea what point he/she was trying to get across.
I mean, if you're going to limit the sample size to the current crop of nations/civs, it will be harder to find examples of actual human sacrifice. But the point is (and the book makes it) you can teach your citizens that "the other" deserves what they're getting, whether it be sending an annual tribute of resources/teenagers or having their weddings get randomly drone striked. Especially if the government controls the media and education systems.
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
This brings us back to the point that you're looking for a reality consistent with ours in the present in a fictional book aimed at younger folks by a writer who is not stellar. You won't find any of these answers because the bottom line is there aren't any.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
This brings us back to the point that you're looking for a reality consistent with ours in the present in a fictional book aimed at younger folks by a writer who is not stellar. You won't find any of these answers because the bottom line is there aren't any.
I wonder when District 13 is going to come into this conversation. Then again, it isn't that surprising, yet another thing the movie failed to cover as it glossed right over the oppressive regime stuff.
As for the people in the Capitol, remember please that this is seventy four years along the line. With a massively successful totalitarian government ruling for that long the vast majority of people in the Capitol are used to the way things are and believe everything they are told by government, who clearly rules with an iron fist. It's not unsurprising that after that long no one in the Capitol has a problem with it.
I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
Romans. The society in the film is clearly based on the Roman Empire. Names such as Cinna and Seneca bear this out, the name of the country is Panem the Latin word for bread. The Roman empire was technologically advanced for its time, with great philosophers and artists. Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
The way the districts support the central capital is also like the Roman empire. The movie shows it by having the outlandish costumes worn by citizens of the capital. As for the capitals advanced tech, it might be the remains of a more advanced time, which is why they don't share it with the districts.
This. Just because we wouldn't consider the Romans technologically advance in the year 2012 doesn't mean they weren't "advanced, enlightened" insofar as those terms had meaning back in the day.
And honestly, I don't think it would take too many more centuries, given the right circumstances, for our collective psychology to swing around to something similar. I mean it won't happen in our lifetime, but we're never as far away from that shit as we'd like to believe.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
As for the people in the Capitol, remember please that this is seventy four years along the line. With a massively successful totalitarian government ruling for that long the vast majority of people in the Capitol are used to the way things are and believe everything they are told by government, who clearly rules with an iron fist. It's not unsurprising that after that long no one in the Capitol has a problem with it.
Then that's a separate line of moral questioning that the film needs to (but fails to) address: how culpable are the citizens of an oppressive regime in its propagation? The citizens of the Capitol aren't seen as soldiers or politicians or anything more substantial than TV producers and consumers of entertainment. They have no stakes in the events around them, and are not meant to.
Compare it to something like the Irish Troubles; would it be morally acceptable for an Irishman to walk into a remote English farmhouse and kill everyone in their beds?
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Lest we start thinking ourselves better than the Capital, Collins said she got the idea from watching the Iraq war on live television. Watching Baghdad being blown to bits with superior technology. The coverage got pretty good ratings too. Sure, we didn't see people dying in person, but every huge explosion killed scores of people.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
Being tangentially derived from external sources doesn't suddenly legitimize or give logical consistency to the world of the Hunger Games. That world, textually, has much more association without our own than it does the civilizations of ancient Greece or Rome, so it has to play by those rules.
You can't just say, "Oh, it's just like ancient Hellenistic nations, but with all kinds of American crap, like TV shows and elevators."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Lest we start thinking ourselves better than the Capital, Collins said she got the idea from watching the Iraq war on live television. Watching Baghdad being blown to bits with superior technology. The coverage got pretty good ratings too. Sure, we didn't see people dying in person, but every huge explosion killed scores of people.
And how exactly is that related to nearly anything in The Hunger Games? More concerningly, what's her point?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
Being tangentially derived from external sources doesn't suddenly legitimize or give logical consistency to the world of the Hunger Games. That world, textually, has much more association without our own than it does the civilizations of ancient Greece or Rome, so it has to play by those rules.
You can't just say, "Oh, it's just like ancient Hellenistic nations, but with all kinds of American crap, like TV shows and elevators."
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
There were a few things from the books that I think could've been brought in or emphasized more to improve this.
1. Katniss and Peeta absolutely stuffing their faces at every opportunity. These are people for whom bread is a luxury, and I think it was downplayed too much in the movie. Katniss eats everything she can find in the book, and in the movie she barely touches her food.
2. The Prize. The prize is almost never discussed in the movie, and relates to the above after a fashion because high-quality rations for yourself and your family, as well as a certain amount of relief for your district, is a tremendous temptation in a place where food is so scarce they eat squirrel, rat, and dog.
3. The consistency with which the first and second districters win. There are several passages in the book talking about how they depend entirely on hoarding the food and supplies early on and that the Districts closer to the Capitol don't need the games but they win so often they don't care.
4. The thirst, exposure, and starvation issues in the games themselves. All I really wanted was for Haymitch's advice about finding a water source to be brought up at some point. It's emphasized repeatedly as one of the most important elements of success in the games and it seemed like none of them (even Rue) were ever really struggling for food.
5. District 13. Without some mention of the complete destruction of District 13 after the rebellion, and with no evidence of the overwhelming technological superiority of the Capitol, it doesn't feel like the outlying districts are really oppressed to the degree that I think Collins thought they were.
6. It was never really driven home that Panem used to be America. It could have been a passing line from Effie during the train ride "Did you know where the Capitol sits was once called Colorado? How ridiculous!" Again it's something that takes no time and helps with the whole dystopia aspect.
These are all things that contribute to the kind of society where the Games are a possibility and while I enjoyed the movie a great deal I think they would've helped with mythology and atmosphere.
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
Being tangentially derived from external sources doesn't suddenly legitimize or give logical consistency to the world of the Hunger Games. That world, textually, has much more association without our own than it does the civilizations of ancient Greece or Rome, so it has to play by those rules.
You can't just say, "Oh, it's just like ancient Hellenistic nations, but with all kinds of American crap, like TV shows and elevators."
Lest we start thinking ourselves better than the Capital, Collins said she got the idea from watching the Iraq war on live television. Watching Baghdad being blown to bits with superior technology. The coverage got pretty good ratings too. Sure, we didn't see people dying in person, but every huge explosion killed scores of people.
And how exactly is that related to nearly anything in The Hunger Games? More concerningly, what's her point?
That the Hunger games is that impulse taken to its logical extreme. Watching poor people being killed from a distance leads to watching poor people being killed up close and in HD.
Its not a brilliant premise, but its not that out there.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
Being tangentially derived from external sources doesn't suddenly legitimize or give logical consistency to the world of the Hunger Games. That world, textually, has much more association without our own than it does the civilizations of ancient Greece or Rome, so it has to play by those rules.
You can't just say, "Oh, it's just like ancient Hellenistic nations, but with all kinds of American crap, like TV shows and elevators."
This doesn't seem logical, Ross.
Which part?
There is nothing intrinsically enlightening about having TV shows and Elevators. Our technology does not dictate our society. Sociology 101.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
Well, the book explains how
A) The people have been defeated before so see it as futile to try again,
C) The position of The Capitol is like a fortress that is very difficult to penetrate because there is only one way in/out.
I have not seen the movie yet though.
PSN: rlinkmanl
As an entertainment, the Games make zero sense. This is an annual event that lasts for weeks, but half of the kids die in the first day. More die to random bullshit like wasps and super-dogs. Katniss almost dies to fireballs. According to to the book, previous years' kids have died to exposure and dehydration/starvation (which nearly happens to Wonder Woodsgirl Katniss in the book). What the hell kind of entertainment is that? At one point in the movie she's 2km from the nearest other kid. Why make the arena that big in the first place? You want a good show? Put them all in an open pit with weapons ready-to hand and watch them slaughter one another for a couple of hours. Or, instead, evenly disperse them in varied terrain with enough supplies and weapons that they won't just die of not knowing which plants are edible, then watch them hunt and kill one another over the course of a few days.
And this is a legal betting sport. Nobody won the 74th games, since there wasn't one winner. And how pissed off must the people who had money on the kid who got eaten by dogs been? It would be like someone walking out onto the track at a horse race and shooting one of the 3 lead animals twenty yards from the finish line. Yeah, his odds weren't great at that point, but he could have still brought it back, what with supposedly being a trained killer.
Speaking of which: why is training kids illegal? The Games are to put on a show, right? And everyone in them is going to die anyway, right? Why wouldn't you want trained fighters on your TV show? Is it really more fun to watch kids flail at one another than it is to watch skilled combatants fight to the death? Even the Romans figured that shit out.
Um, there were cheering crowds from the moment their train rolled in. The only time we're shown apathy is during Katniss's archery demonstration.
It's explicitly stated a couple of times.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I remember the plot not feeling as contrived, but protagonists get lucky. That's part of being a protagonist.
I thought the author was trying to convey an oppressed society rather than a starving society. I mean, Katniss explains that her family is better off than most because she is able to hunt in the woods, a skill few in the district possess (coughGalecough). But it also goes back and shows a time when Katniss was on the brink of starvation with the moment between her and Peeta and the bread. The district seems more to me like they are allowed to survive by the bare minimum, with the "tariss" rations from the games and the minimum wage they make in the coal mines. So I don't see it as a starving Ethiopian society but as more of a poor, oppressed society where the main feeling is hopelessness.
edit: And also I believe in the book Katniss explains that the stuntedness of people in her district comes from lack of protein (i.e. substantial food) not from an overall lack of food.
PSN: rlinkmanl
I felt like the movie was very good in demonstrating that people were cowed by the oppressing government. Questions like, "Why did the districts go along with this?" don't really weigh much in my mind because I felt like the whole thing was an allegory for war in the first place. Why do people go along with sending their youths out to die in some desert across the planet? Because the TV has told them that it's Important!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There were crowds at all of the pre- and post-game events, and we see commentators talking about the ongoing games once or twice, but we never actually see any citizens of the Capitol watching the games that I recall. I mean, the story would make slightly more sense if the citizens of the Capitol don't watch the games and believe all of the child murder to be noble battle for the honor of their Districts or some-such, but that's not how it's presented in the book or, as I recall, the movie. This is supposed to be prime-grade entertainment for the Capitol, but I don't recall any shots of people watching the proceedings. They could easily have cut to Capitol families eating popcorn in front of the TV and reacting appropriately to various of the dramatic/exciting/romantic scenes during the games if they wanted to drive home that the Capitol citizens really get off on watching this stuff. Kind of like they did with showing the District citizens watching.
No it isn't. It's stated that the tribute and his/her District get rewarded. The movie never states that the Districts aren't self-sufficient or that the Games victory reward is necessary to keep them going. The book says so, but never offers an explanation of why beyond lolevilgovernment. There aren't many people in District 12 and plenty of them don't work the mines that the District apparently exists for. It wouldn't take much for them to grow enough food to feed the District, removing food transport and distribution costs from the Capitol's budget. They don't because, I guess, they're evil.
In short, it's not for the entertainment of the districts. The whole thing started as a way for the capitol to show its power over the districts and ability to kill children at will, and has grown into an entertainment venue FOR THE CAPITOL.
I think it's telling that these objections work for colonial Africa.
Please look up "Belgian Congo." The population of Belgium found out how the king was brutalizing the (hilariously named) Congo Free State, and was aghast... at how it wasn't getting a piece of that action. This is a country that's known for fitting the description in #1.
It's an allegory for the war in Iraq, specifically, except that America doesn't have the draft. And why don't we have the draft anymore? Because the public hates the fuck out of it. You can't demand that people send their children off to die and expect them to be okay with that.
If, however, you make it voluntary and paint it as noble, virtuous, and rewarding...people jump all over that shit. Which could have made the Hunger Games make sense. Make the sacrifice voluntary but make conditions so bad and the rewards for volunteering good enough that people will have to do it. It was even in the book: you get more food the more times you put your name in the hat. People will be signing up anyway, and you don't have the negative of demanding that, at minimum, one of their children die every year. Even in the supposedly favored inner districts, every year at least one of each of District 1 - 3's kids dies, murdered on TV for the entertainment of their next-door neighbors whom they are supplying with weapons and technology.
PSN: rlinkmanl
That doesn't actually make sense, though. Beating your defeated enemies over the head in perpetuity is a good way to make them rise up again and again. If you rule through fear you only keep control for as long as their fear of your reprisal is greater than their fear of daily life. And what's the Capitol going to do? Kill them all? Every part of this nation is dependent upon every other part for goods and services. If the Capitol kills everyone in District 12 - or even a lot of them - that means not enough coal for the Capitol or the other 11 Districts.
Which also doesn't make sense. It's easy to say "Lol they're evil and dumb", but these are the people ruling a nation that spans most of North America. They are technological wizards and, apparently, artists. They can't be a city of total morons, and comic-book-style villainy simply doesn't exist. Nobody is evil just because.
In the book almost every citizen in the Capitol is a total moron and President Snow is a comic book villain.
Except the movie shows (and if these examples are from the source, then the book does too) that the Capitol is incredibly advanced and full of technology that borders on scientific miracles.
There's a huge disconnect between what the story needs the Capitol to be guilty of and what the story needs the Capitol to be capable of.
What you're saying is true, but not at all what the Capitol is doing. They are deliberately trying to keep the districts on that thin line where quality of life isn't so much worse than the oppression so they are constantly wondering is it really worth it to rebel? The Capitol isn't killing EVERYBODY, just 2 children from each district a year and then others are dying from working in the coal mines or starving to death, but I would say a majority of the people have the basic necessities.
I didn't say the people running the Capitol are idiots, just a majority of the citizens. Obviously the president is very cold, calculating, and intelligent, and I'm sure they have a number of technological geniuses who are inventing the things used in the Hunger Games. I'm also not saying the Capitol citizens are evil. Just stupid to the point where they think this is something that has to be done and they don't think about the morality of it because they are stupid and ignorant of the fact that it involves children's lives.
PSN: rlinkmanl
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I'm struggling mightily to come up with an example of a technologically-advanced, artistic, enlightened society that didn't have a moral issue with children being imperiled.
The two concepts are at direct odds with one another, and it's the central conceit of the film.
The Incas used to sacrifice kiddies. As did a few other meso-american civs. supposedly the carthaginians did as well, but, you know our only source on that is the romans. And then there's the whole "let's send out 18 yr olds to die (and then watch on CNN) where the author claims to have been inspired.
Also they explain in the movie (athough too briefly), that you can put your name in numerous times for extra food. I think they should of shown more people starving. The lack of focus on the big deal of food in general in the movie was a bit bad.
Are we considering amerindian civilizations among the "advanced, enlightened" crowd these days?
And if that was the author's inspiration, I really don't have any idea what point he/she was trying to get across.
grrrrrrr
Romans. The society in the film is clearly based on the Roman Empire. Names such as Cinna and Seneca bear this out, the name of the country is Panem the Latin word for bread. The Roman empire was technologically advanced for its time, with great philosophers and artists. Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
The way the districts support the central capital is also like the Roman empire. The movie shows it by having the outlandish costumes worn by citizens of the capital. As for the capitals advanced tech, it might be the remains of a more advanced time, which is why they don't share it with the districts.
I mean, if you're going to limit the sample size to the current crop of nations/civs, it will be harder to find examples of actual human sacrifice. But the point is (and the book makes it) you can teach your citizens that "the other" deserves what they're getting, whether it be sending an annual tribute of resources/teenagers or having their weddings get randomly drone striked. Especially if the government controls the media and education systems.
This brings us back to the point that you're looking for a reality consistent with ours in the present in a fictional book aimed at younger folks by a writer who is not stellar. You won't find any of these answers because the bottom line is there aren't any.
At least this is honest.
This. Just because we wouldn't consider the Romans technologically advance in the year 2012 doesn't mean they weren't "advanced, enlightened" insofar as those terms had meaning back in the day.
And honestly, I don't think it would take too many more centuries, given the right circumstances, for our collective psychology to swing around to something similar. I mean it won't happen in our lifetime, but we're never as far away from that shit as we'd like to believe.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
Then that's a separate line of moral questioning that the film needs to (but fails to) address: how culpable are the citizens of an oppressive regime in its propagation? The citizens of the Capitol aren't seen as soldiers or politicians or anything more substantial than TV producers and consumers of entertainment. They have no stakes in the events around them, and are not meant to.
Compare it to something like the Irish Troubles; would it be morally acceptable for an Irishman to walk into a remote English farmhouse and kill everyone in their beds?
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
Being tangentially derived from external sources doesn't suddenly legitimize or give logical consistency to the world of the Hunger Games. That world, textually, has much more association without our own than it does the civilizations of ancient Greece or Rome, so it has to play by those rules.
You can't just say, "Oh, it's just like ancient Hellenistic nations, but with all kinds of American crap, like TV shows and elevators."
And how exactly is that related to nearly anything in The Hunger Games? More concerningly, what's her point?
This doesn't seem logical, Ross.
There were a few things from the books that I think could've been brought in or emphasized more to improve this.
1. Katniss and Peeta absolutely stuffing their faces at every opportunity. These are people for whom bread is a luxury, and I think it was downplayed too much in the movie. Katniss eats everything she can find in the book, and in the movie she barely touches her food.
2. The Prize. The prize is almost never discussed in the movie, and relates to the above after a fashion because high-quality rations for yourself and your family, as well as a certain amount of relief for your district, is a tremendous temptation in a place where food is so scarce they eat squirrel, rat, and dog.
3. The consistency with which the first and second districters win. There are several passages in the book talking about how they depend entirely on hoarding the food and supplies early on and that the Districts closer to the Capitol don't need the games but they win so often they don't care.
4. The thirst, exposure, and starvation issues in the games themselves. All I really wanted was for Haymitch's advice about finding a water source to be brought up at some point. It's emphasized repeatedly as one of the most important elements of success in the games and it seemed like none of them (even Rue) were ever really struggling for food.
5. District 13. Without some mention of the complete destruction of District 13 after the rebellion, and with no evidence of the overwhelming technological superiority of the Capitol, it doesn't feel like the outlying districts are really oppressed to the degree that I think Collins thought they were.
6. It was never really driven home that Panem used to be America. It could have been a passing line from Effie during the train ride "Did you know where the Capitol sits was once called Colorado? How ridiculous!" Again it's something that takes no time and helps with the whole dystopia aspect.
These are all things that contribute to the kind of society where the Games are a possibility and while I enjoyed the movie a great deal I think they would've helped with mythology and atmosphere.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Which part?
That the Hunger games is that impulse taken to its logical extreme. Watching poor people being killed from a distance leads to watching poor people being killed up close and in HD.
Its not a brilliant premise, but its not that out there.
There is nothing intrinsically enlightening about having TV shows and Elevators. Our technology does not dictate our society. Sociology 101.