I thought it was a nice visual supplement to the book. But would agree they left out a lot of stuff. Didn't Harry Potter have this same problem, even early on when the books were small and wieldy?
Yes, same with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Except then they came out with the 5 hour long extended editions.
The LOTR movies did a very good job of establishing the necessary narrative elements for the story to be cohesive and make sense.
True, I was just using it as an example of a movie that had to cut out or change parts of the story to make it fit into a realistic timeframe for a feature film. The LOTR movies were one of the best examples of doing so.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I thought it was a nice visual supplement to the book. But would agree they left out a lot of stuff. Didn't Harry Potter have this same problem, even early on when the books were small and wieldy?
Yes, same with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Except then they came out with the 5 hour long extended editions.
The LOTR movies did a very good job of establishing the necessary narrative elements for the story to be cohesive and make sense.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I thought it was a nice visual supplement to the book. But would agree they left out a lot of stuff. Didn't Harry Potter have this same problem, even early on when the books were small and wieldy?
Yes, same with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Except then they came out with the 5 hour long extended editions.
The LOTR movies did a very good job of establishing the necessary narrative elements for the story to be cohesive and make sense.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
Why can't you just set a story in a post-apocalyptic ruins-of-the-US where the government is a fascist dystopia modelling itself on ancient Rome? I don't see why it's obligatory to provide an explanation for that.
Practically--it's a sci-fi setting where you can use technology that's equivalent to magic (magic parachute, magic healing ointment, magic dog monster), while remaining kosher with the familiar animals/scenery/people.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
How would explaining in detail how the capital crushed the rebellion and established the districts really change anything beyond adding more back story? The books and movie basiclly just begin from a place where that's what happened and thus, this is the world they live in.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
Good thing that isn't the explanation then, huh?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
How would explaining in detail how the capital crushed the rebellion and established the districts really change anything beyond adding more back story? The books and movie basiclly just begin from a place where that's what happened and thus, this is the world they live in.
It would provide a context for the history of the Districts in terms of what they had and what they've lost in terms of their oppression, and why everyone is just so hunky-dory about sending their kids to die for the entertainment of insane fascists.
It would establish whether life under the Capitol is worth rebelling against, or what life before the Capitol was like. It's a place without a consistent or embellished history, but every character in the movie is motivated by that history.
Your motivating factor for everything and every one can't be something the audience never really knows anything about.
Those aren't complicated motives. What you're asking is "Why do people accept this bullshit?" and the answer is a variety of overwhelming force and people will go with quite a lot of bullshit and very few people will actually rebel against authority.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
How would explaining in detail how the capital crushed the rebellion and established the districts really change anything beyond adding more back story? The books and movie basiclly just begin from a place where that's what happened and thus, this is the world they live in.
It would provide a context for the history of the Districts in terms of what they had and what they've lost in terms of their oppression, and why everyone is just so hunky-dory about sending their kids to die for the entertainment of insane fascists.
It would establish whether life under the Capitol is worth rebelling against, or what life before the Capitol was like. It's a place without a consistent or embellished history, but every character in the movie is motivated by that history.
Your motivating factor for everything and every one can't be something the audience never really knows anything about.
No one is hunky-dory about sending their kids to die.
You don't need to know what life before the Capitol is like. The main character is not motivated by fighting the Capitol at all. She is motivated to protect her little sister. The main character doesn't understand or care about overthrowing the Capitol. We understand that overthrowing totalitarianism is "worth" rebelling against. We also see that the people in the Capitol live lavish ridiculous lifestyles as opposed to the destitute scrimping districts. It is understood easily why people would want to rebel.
The motivating factors for the main characters are explicitly defined and laid out.
Those aren't complicated motives. What you're asking is "Why do people accept this bullshit?" and the answer is a variety of overwhelming force and people will go with quite a lot of bullshit and very few people will actually rebel against authority.
Not to mention 74 years is a lot of time to hammer "fuck you we're in charge don't question it" into people's heads.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
How would explaining in detail how the capital crushed the rebellion and established the districts really change anything beyond adding more back story? The books and movie basiclly just begin from a place where that's what happened and thus, this is the world they live in.
It would provide a context for the history of the Districts in terms of what they had and what they've lost in terms of their oppression, and why everyone is just so hunky-dory about sending their kids to die for the entertainment of insane fascists.
It would establish whether life under the Capitol is worth rebelling against, or what life before the Capitol was like. It's a place without a consistent or embellished history, but every character in the movie is motivated by that history.
Your motivating factor for everything and every one can't be something the audience never really knows anything about.
The books and movie do establish those things. In the books it's made very clear that pretty much every district lives in nearly abject poverty where medicine is basically herbs and similar remedies and starving to death is a real concern for many. The lives of those in the district are nothing more than finding a way of surviving until you can scrape out a life working for the capital.
The people in the districts hate the games, none of them are happy about sending their children into the games. You'll notice in the movie how none of them were pleased or even made a sound when the contestants were picked. The games are just a harsh fact of life for them. They are required under threat of physical punishment to show up for the reaping, they don't go because they enjoy it.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The motivating factors for the main characters are explicitly defined and laid out.
Everything is routed back to the origin of the Capitol.
Who is Katniss protecting? Her sister.
From what? The Games.
Why do the Games exist? The rebellion.
Why Rebellion? The Capitol were a bunch of dicks.
How did the Capitol gain authority? . . . . . ?
One would assume that during whatever disaster (in my mind, mass displacement from melting ice caps) wiped large portions of the continent out, authority was centralized in the emergency and the government pinky swore it would return self-government when the immediate problems were solved.
EDIT: Not that it matters, as I accept all kinds of ludicrous premises (Chuck, Community, Veronica Mars, Game of Thrones (figure out the size of Westeros and consider their communications technology and then decide how the Seven Kingdoms stayed even vaguely stable and under the control of one man for three centuries; also dragons/zombies/etc)) all the time. It's how people behave inside those premises that matter.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The motivating factors for the main characters are explicitly defined and laid out.
Everything is routed back to the origin of the Capitol.
Who is Katniss protecting? Her sister.
From what? The Games.
Why do the Games exist? The rebellion.
Why Rebellion? The Capitol were a bunch of dicks.
How did the Capitol gain authority? . . . . . ?
Why was Sauron evil in the LOTR movies? Why was the Empire evil in Star Wars? Do you have the same issues with those forces being portrayed in movies as simply just being evil?
The motivating factors for the main characters are explicitly defined and laid out.
Everything is routed back to the origin of the Capitol.
Who is Katniss protecting? Her sister.
From what? The Games.
Why do the Games exist? The rebellion.
Why Rebellion? The Capitol were a bunch of dicks.
How did the Capitol gain authority? . . . . . ?
See the line I separated? Why did you need to go there from "They were a bunch of dicks." Where is the logical connection between those two lines?
LOTR isn't any worse because you don't know why Sauron is evil. They're just dicks! Humans are generally power hungry and often, when the opportunity arises, will be dicks.
In the books, the main character explicitly doesn't care about any sort of rebellion and fights against the idea of being the centerpiece for it. A lot. You're wanting a different story than the one the author is trying to tell.
Thank goodness George Lucas finally explained how the Emperor seized power in the Prequel Trilogy. That totally fixed all my problems with the Star Wars movies.
Wait, I mean--man, sometimes it's better if shit is just nebulously evil, because an explanation would just make you more disappointed--probably you especially would be disappointed in whatever explanation was provided.
CowShark on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
So?
Look, the point is fairly simple: Evil Empire rules with iron fist and eeeeeevil. Kid gets caught up in the eeeeeevil and is forced to choose between becoming eeeeeeevil herself or dying, and she chooses a third option and sparks the rebellion against the Evil Empire. The rest is details, and while those details may or may not be the best, any one detail is unlikely to make or break the story.
I haven't seen the movie, a combination of hipsterism and not getting out to many movies (and watching John Carter last weekend) have kept me away. I'm in no rush, but then it doesn't need my support anyway from the sound of things, so I have to stick with what I remember from wikipedia when I looked up the story several months ago. It sounded simplistic, like Harry Potter, and better than bad, also like Harry Potter.
And while this means I don't really know what's going on with the racism thing, I also don't need to care. Instead, I'm going to find that youtube video specter posted and giggle.
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
What? This is a nonsense argument, Ross. It's a sci fi series set in the future. We don't find out why the Mayor of Laredo gets power and creates an Empire in A Canticle for Leibowitz but that isn't central to the story.
Knowing why the Capitol gained power X number of decades (centuries?) ago doesn't change the core struggle of the film. This is also why you don't need to know the cause of the zombie virus in Night of the Living Dead. It's an interesting question, it might make for an interesting story, but it isn't essential to the specific story being presented. It's a question of narrative need and narrative want.
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
Why does it matter in the slightest what the books/movie are based off of? We're discussing the behavior and motivations of the principal antagonists. You could say that both Palpatine and Sauron exist within a reality of political ramifications just as easily. Since in both cases armies are raised against them because of their actions. Just like in the Hunger Games.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
What are you basing this on besides stubborn insistence?
The world of the Hunger Games exists in a real space, with different geographical areas that supply labor and resources. It's kind of a big deal within the film. So yeah, those ramifications exist.
Just because you personally don't need them to exist is a different matter entirely.
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
What are you basing this on besides stubborn insistence?
The world of the Hunger Games exists in a real space, with different geographical areas that supply labor and resources. It's kind of a big deal within the film. So yeah, those ramifications exist.
Just because you personally don't need them to exist is a different matter entirely.
The way you are framing your argument seems to indicate that if this was set in like a parallel dimension or some shit you would be fine with it. I get the sense this is not accurate, but that is what you seem to be focused on at the moment.
And I have been trying to respond to you within your frame, but you seem to be ignoring it for whatever reason.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Knowing why the Capitol gained power X number of decades (centuries?) ago doesn't change the core struggle of the film.
I think it does. Example: go back to ANH where Ben is telling Luke about the times before the Empire. It gives a scale to what has been lost, and established that something good existed before, something worth fighting for. What's there for the people in the Districts to rally around? What have they lost? What existed before? Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
What are you basing this on besides stubborn insistence?
The world of the Hunger Games exists in a real space, with different geographical areas that supply labor and resources. It's kind of a big deal within the film. So yeah, those ramifications exist.
Just because you personally don't need them to exist is a different matter entirely.
What am I basing the idea that the societies we see in the Hunger Games are so far removed from the US today that you cannot demand that we know exactly how the US fell and these people rose to power and this society emerged?
I'm basing it on the idea that it is unnecessary for the story being told. No part of the story requires that we know any of that information. It exists in a real land mass with humans.Everything else about the society of today can be changed for the story of the Hunger Games.
This has nothing to do with "me personally." The elements you desire are not necessary for the story being told.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
What are you basing this on besides stubborn insistence?
The world of the Hunger Games exists in a real space, with different geographical areas that supply labor and resources. It's kind of a big deal within the film. So yeah, those ramifications exist.
Just because you personally don't need them to exist is a different matter entirely.
The way you are framing your argument seems to indicate that if this was set in like a parallel dimension or some shit you would be fine with it. I get the sense this is not accurate, but that is what you seem to be focused on at the moment.
And I have been trying to respond to you within your frame, but you seem to be ignoring it for whatever reason.
If the film had taken greater strides to separate itself from any hard and recognizable version of Western culture (since those things are virtually immaterial to the actual conflict in the story), I wouldn't have nearly the issues I do with the plot, because it would be basically fantasy at that point.
But like I said earlier, the film asks the audience to fill in some blanks with cultural shorthand about TV shows and coal mines and Appalachia, but then in turn wants the audience to not ask questions about what kind of world could produce the culture of the Capitol. Basically it asks, "Fill in the gaps with what you know about these things already, but if the logic starts to get sticky, don't go any further."
Knowing why the Capitol gained power X number of decades (centuries?) ago doesn't change the core struggle of the film.
I think it does. Example: go back to ANH where Ben is telling Luke about the times before the Empire. It gives a scale to what has been lost, and established that something good existed before, something worth fighting for. What's there for the people in the Districts to rally around?
The death of children, especially
Rue.
More importantly, they rally around a spark that catches fire to become a revolution. Such as the girl on fire. Again, that is so blatantly spelled out in the movie it's nearly impossible to miss.
What have they lost?
Freedom.
What existed before?
Freedom.
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Knowing why the Capitol gained power X number of decades (centuries?) ago doesn't change the core struggle of the film.
I think it does. Example: go back to ANH where Ben is telling Luke about the times before the Empire. It gives a scale to what has been lost, and established that something good existed before, something worth fighting for. What's there for the people in the Districts to rally around? What have they lost? What existed before? Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
There's nothing. No context. No scale.
Is the hunger games themselves not worse enough? Do we need to know how bad things were before the Capitol took over?
We get very little about what the Republic was and what the Empire is outside of the Imperial troops and Darth Vader being shitbags in the OT.
I absolutely hate books that go out of their way to outline their backstories in as intricate a detail like Ross is demanding. I don't need to know the year-to-year history nor the politcal machinations that led to Panem existing and ruling over the Districts, all I need to know is it exists and in what way so I can get on with the story. That type of world building is best left for supplimental material, not shoehorned into the book.
Opty on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
I don't seem to recall where LOTR and Star Wars were based in an extrapolated future scenario of the United States.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
What are you basing this on besides stubborn insistence?
The world of the Hunger Games exists in a real space, with different geographical areas that supply labor and resources. It's kind of a big deal within the film. So yeah, those ramifications exist.
Just because you personally don't need them to exist is a different matter entirely.
The way you are framing your argument seems to indicate that if this was set in like a parallel dimension or some shit you would be fine with it. I get the sense this is not accurate, but that is what you seem to be focused on at the moment.
And I have been trying to respond to you within your frame, but you seem to be ignoring it for whatever reason.
If the film had taken greater strides to separate itself from any hard and recognizable version of Western culture (since those things are virtually immaterial to the actual conflict in the story), I wouldn't have nearly the issues I do with the plot, because it would be basically fantasy at that point.
But like I said earlier, the film asks the audience to fill in some blanks with cultural shorthand about TV shows and coal mines and Appalachia, but then in turn wants the audience to not ask questions about what kind of world could produce the culture of the Capitol. Basically it asks, "Fill in the gaps with what you know about these things already, but if the logic starts to get sticky, don't go any further."
See to me, it's basically the US, taken to ridiculous extremes and falling to the most cynical interpretations of Dick Cheney. Incredibly heartless, incredibly vapid, and unbelievably superficial. I read the book as a satire, and I think it makes the most sense that way (and it somewhat saves the third book, which is worse than the first two).
From what I understand, the movie is not as successful and would have ideally (for me) broken out the "Would you like to know more?" parts of Starship Troopers. Just with decent actors instead of Casper van Diem and Denise Richards.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I absolutely hate books that go out of their way to outline their backstories in as intricate a detail like Ross is demanding. I don't need to know the year-to-year history nor the politcal machinations that led to Panem existing and ruling over the Districts, all I need to know is it exists and in what way so I can get on with the story. That type of world building is best left for supplimental material, not shoehorned into the book.
I don't think they're critical in every fantasy narrative, just ones where the central conceits are dependent on such information.
I think Hunger Games is one of those narratives. I don't need an encyclopedia entry on the History of the Capitol, 2055-current. I just need to know how the Districts were made to cede authority to a central non-representative government they seem to have a lot of leverage over.
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
No they're clearly inferred from the movie. It's obvious. It's not explicitly spelled out in a 5 minute exposition before the film.
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
you don't think the scene where Woody Harrelson is disgusted by the obviously spoiled children play fighting while his mentees prepare to die in the arena laid anything out? Or the ridiculous costuming of the members of the Capitol? Or the completely overindulgent displays of food?
of all the criticisms of the movie, this one's kinda silly
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
No they're clearly inferred from the movie. It's obvious. It's not explicitly spelled out in a 5 minute exposition before the film.
The only thing clearly inferred is that the Capitol sucks. Nothing regarding their rise to power or what the Districts lost is ever broached.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
Ross, you can't have your cake and eat it to here. One the one hand you're saying "They're so close to us, they need to show us why the Capitol is in charge!" and on the other saying "How do they know about freedom or what the Capitol took?". It's established that there was some cataclysm that destroyed the US. It's established that the Capitol is dicks and runs Panem. It is established that there was a civil war that the Capitol won and because of that we have Hunger Games.
I guess I'm just not seeing what more we need as an audience in Part One.
It's my understanding that there's a civil war or some such later on in the series, perhaps that film will give us the scene you seem to be looking for because then they'd be fighting for SOMETHING and would need a goal other than FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! (but not really, it's Hollywood)..
But in this chapter, all we need to know is the above and that Katniss wants to keep her sister from dying in the games. In my mind that's as much set up as ANH got
Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
Because the people in the districts can clearly see that they are starving while the people in the Capitol are living like wasteful kings.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
No they're clearly inferred from the movie. It's obvious. It's not explicitly spelled out in a 5 minute exposition before the film.
The only thing clearly inferred is that the Capitol sucks. Nothing regarding their rise to power or what the Districts lost is ever broached.
It's not clearly inferred that people lost their freedom when you compare the Capitol to the districts?
Posts
True, I was just using it as an example of a movie that had to cut out or change parts of the story to make it fit into a realistic timeframe for a feature film. The LOTR movies were one of the best examples of doing so.
That's the difference between a story that takes place in a foreign land where magic exists, and a story that takes place in the ruins of the US but wants us all to pretend it's a fascist utopia based on ancient Rome but doesn't want to explain how any of that happened.
Ross, they explain how it happened. You just refuse to accept the explanation.
"It happened" is a pretty shitty explanation.
Practically--it's a sci-fi setting where you can use technology that's equivalent to magic (magic parachute, magic healing ointment, magic dog monster), while remaining kosher with the familiar animals/scenery/people.
How would explaining in detail how the capital crushed the rebellion and established the districts really change anything beyond adding more back story? The books and movie basiclly just begin from a place where that's what happened and thus, this is the world they live in.
Good thing that isn't the explanation then, huh?
It would provide a context for the history of the Districts in terms of what they had and what they've lost in terms of their oppression, and why everyone is just so hunky-dory about sending their kids to die for the entertainment of insane fascists.
It would establish whether life under the Capitol is worth rebelling against, or what life before the Capitol was like. It's a place without a consistent or embellished history, but every character in the movie is motivated by that history.
Your motivating factor for everything and every one can't be something the audience never really knows anything about.
1) Katniss - keep family alive
2) Peeta - keep Katniss alive
Those aren't complicated motives. What you're asking is "Why do people accept this bullshit?" and the answer is a variety of overwhelming force and people will go with quite a lot of bullshit and very few people will actually rebel against authority.
No one is hunky-dory about sending their kids to die.
You don't need to know what life before the Capitol is like. The main character is not motivated by fighting the Capitol at all. She is motivated to protect her little sister. The main character doesn't understand or care about overthrowing the Capitol. We understand that overthrowing totalitarianism is "worth" rebelling against. We also see that the people in the Capitol live lavish ridiculous lifestyles as opposed to the destitute scrimping districts. It is understood easily why people would want to rebel.
The motivating factors for the main characters are explicitly defined and laid out.
Not to mention 74 years is a lot of time to hammer "fuck you we're in charge don't question it" into people's heads.
The books and movie do establish those things. In the books it's made very clear that pretty much every district lives in nearly abject poverty where medicine is basically herbs and similar remedies and starving to death is a real concern for many. The lives of those in the district are nothing more than finding a way of surviving until you can scrape out a life working for the capital.
The people in the districts hate the games, none of them are happy about sending their children into the games. You'll notice in the movie how none of them were pleased or even made a sound when the contestants were picked. The games are just a harsh fact of life for them. They are required under threat of physical punishment to show up for the reaping, they don't go because they enjoy it.
Everything is routed back to the origin of the Capitol.
Who is Katniss protecting? Her sister.
From what? The Games.
Why do the Games exist? The rebellion.
Why Rebellion? The Capitol were a bunch of dicks.
How did the Capitol gain authority? . . . . . ?
EDIT: Not that it matters, as I accept all kinds of ludicrous premises (Chuck, Community, Veronica Mars, Game of Thrones (figure out the size of Westeros and consider their communications technology and then decide how the Seven Kingdoms stayed even vaguely stable and under the control of one man for three centuries; also dragons/zombies/etc)) all the time. It's how people behave inside those premises that matter.
Why was Sauron evil in the LOTR movies? Why was the Empire evil in Star Wars? Do you have the same issues with those forces being portrayed in movies as simply just being evil?
See the line I separated? Why did you need to go there from "They were a bunch of dicks." Where is the logical connection between those two lines?
LOTR isn't any worse because you don't know why Sauron is evil. They're just dicks! Humans are generally power hungry and often, when the opportunity arises, will be dicks.
In the books, the main character explicitly doesn't care about any sort of rebellion and fights against the idea of being the centerpiece for it. A lot. You're wanting a different story than the one the author is trying to tell.
Wait, I mean--man, sometimes it's better if shit is just nebulously evil, because an explanation would just make you more disappointed--probably you especially would be disappointed in whatever explanation was provided.
Sauron= Magic
Palpatine= Magic
The Capitol= A regime of very human assholes who exist within a reality of geopolitical ramifications.
So?
Look, the point is fairly simple: Evil Empire rules with iron fist and eeeeeevil. Kid gets caught up in the eeeeeevil and is forced to choose between becoming eeeeeeevil herself or dying, and she chooses a third option and sparks the rebellion against the Evil Empire. The rest is details, and while those details may or may not be the best, any one detail is unlikely to make or break the story.
I haven't seen the movie, a combination of hipsterism and not getting out to many movies (and watching John Carter last weekend) have kept me away. I'm in no rush, but then it doesn't need my support anyway from the sound of things, so I have to stick with what I remember from wikipedia when I looked up the story several months ago. It sounded simplistic, like Harry Potter, and better than bad, also like Harry Potter.
And while this means I don't really know what's going on with the racism thing, I also don't need to care. Instead, I'm going to find that youtube video specter posted and giggle.
Alright, let's go with Asimov then. His entire universe is tied together by
(late Asimov spoiler goes here)
No they don't.
They exist in a magical super future many many many hundreds of years into the future so disconnected from where we live that the only reason the US is used as a reference is for the definitions of what the people may look like and what the landscape may look like. That is all.
What? This is a nonsense argument, Ross. It's a sci fi series set in the future. We don't find out why the Mayor of Laredo gets power and creates an Empire in A Canticle for Leibowitz but that isn't central to the story.
Knowing why the Capitol gained power X number of decades (centuries?) ago doesn't change the core struggle of the film. This is also why you don't need to know the cause of the zombie virus in Night of the Living Dead. It's an interesting question, it might make for an interesting story, but it isn't essential to the specific story being presented. It's a question of narrative need and narrative want.
Why does it matter in the slightest what the books/movie are based off of? We're discussing the behavior and motivations of the principal antagonists. You could say that both Palpatine and Sauron exist within a reality of political ramifications just as easily. Since in both cases armies are raised against them because of their actions. Just like in the Hunger Games.
What are you basing this on besides stubborn insistence?
The world of the Hunger Games exists in a real space, with different geographical areas that supply labor and resources. It's kind of a big deal within the film. So yeah, those ramifications exist.
Just because you personally don't need them to exist is a different matter entirely.
The way you are framing your argument seems to indicate that if this was set in like a parallel dimension or some shit you would be fine with it. I get the sense this is not accurate, but that is what you seem to be focused on at the moment.
And I have been trying to respond to you within your frame, but you seem to be ignoring it for whatever reason.
I think it does. Example: go back to ANH where Ben is telling Luke about the times before the Empire. It gives a scale to what has been lost, and established that something good existed before, something worth fighting for. What's there for the people in the Districts to rally around? What have they lost? What existed before? Why is the Capitol any worse than the previous alternative?
There's nothing. No context. No scale.
What am I basing the idea that the societies we see in the Hunger Games are so far removed from the US today that you cannot demand that we know exactly how the US fell and these people rose to power and this society emerged?
I'm basing it on the idea that it is unnecessary for the story being told. No part of the story requires that we know any of that information. It exists in a real land mass with humans. Everything else about the society of today can be changed for the story of the Hunger Games.
This has nothing to do with "me personally." The elements you desire are not necessary for the story being told.
If the film had taken greater strides to separate itself from any hard and recognizable version of Western culture (since those things are virtually immaterial to the actual conflict in the story), I wouldn't have nearly the issues I do with the plot, because it would be basically fantasy at that point.
But like I said earlier, the film asks the audience to fill in some blanks with cultural shorthand about TV shows and coal mines and Appalachia, but then in turn wants the audience to not ask questions about what kind of world could produce the culture of the Capitol. Basically it asks, "Fill in the gaps with what you know about these things already, but if the logic starts to get sticky, don't go any further."
Is the hunger games themselves not worse enough? Do we need to know how bad things were before the Capitol took over?
We get very little about what the Republic was and what the Empire is outside of the Imperial troops and Darth Vader being shitbags in the OT.
Except those things aren't established in the film. They may be in the books. I didn't read the books. I saw the movie. Nothing about the pre-Capitol history of the Districts is established. The Capitol may have been an awesome alternative, for all we know.
See to me, it's basically the US, taken to ridiculous extremes and falling to the most cynical interpretations of Dick Cheney. Incredibly heartless, incredibly vapid, and unbelievably superficial. I read the book as a satire, and I think it makes the most sense that way (and it somewhat saves the third book, which is worse than the first two).
From what I understand, the movie is not as successful and would have ideally (for me) broken out the "Would you like to know more?" parts of Starship Troopers. Just with decent actors instead of Casper van Diem and Denise Richards.
I don't think they're critical in every fantasy narrative, just ones where the central conceits are dependent on such information.
I think Hunger Games is one of those narratives. I don't need an encyclopedia entry on the History of the Capitol, 2055-current. I just need to know how the Districts were made to cede authority to a central non-representative government they seem to have a lot of leverage over.
No they're clearly inferred from the movie. It's obvious. It's not explicitly spelled out in a 5 minute exposition before the film.
of all the criticisms of the movie, this one's kinda silly
The only thing clearly inferred is that the Capitol sucks. Nothing regarding their rise to power or what the Districts lost is ever broached.
Ross, you can't have your cake and eat it to here. One the one hand you're saying "They're so close to us, they need to show us why the Capitol is in charge!" and on the other saying "How do they know about freedom or what the Capitol took?". It's established that there was some cataclysm that destroyed the US. It's established that the Capitol is dicks and runs Panem. It is established that there was a civil war that the Capitol won and because of that we have Hunger Games.
I guess I'm just not seeing what more we need as an audience in Part One.
But in this chapter, all we need to know is the above and that Katniss wants to keep her sister from dying in the games. In my mind that's as much set up as ANH got
It's not clearly inferred that people lost their freedom when you compare the Capitol to the districts?
Did you see the same movie I did?