So just finished the first book. Am I the only one who thought that (very end of the games spoilers):
The Gamemakers' "SURPRISE BACKSIES NOW YOU HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER" move was completely illogical and them them go from genuinely clever and manipulative to cartoon-villain evil? Allowing both tributes to win as a team would have a been a great way to increase tribe loyalty and sow division between the 12, especially if having both make it out alive ment a greater reward for the winning district or something. It would also build up a great deal of excitement and tension for future games, all the more so because it would show low-class district that they can still do incredible things at the games and would give the Career districts extra motivation for revenge. They have everything to gain from letting both win, but don't because they're just that super-duper evil or something, I guess.
If Kat and Peeta threatening to eat the berries was that important to include as a sign of rebellion, it would have made more sense to just leave out the team rule entirely and have them do it at the end anyway. It would look like even more of a gamble because they (and the reader) wouldn't know that the Gamemakers just dick around with the rules as they like, and it's not like they don't have motivation to work together without the rule, since either of them winning means a year of plenty for their family and friends.
So just finished the first book. Am I the only one who thought that (very end of the games spoilers):
The Gamemakers' "SURPRISE BACKSIES NOW YOU HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER" move was completely illogical and them them go from genuinely clever and manipulative to cartoon-villain evil? Allowing both tributes to win as a team would have a been a great way to increase tribe loyalty and sow division between the 12, especially if having both make it out alive ment a greater reward for the winning tribe or something. It would also build up a great deal of excitement and tension for future games, all the more so because it would show low-class tribes that they can still do incredible things at the games and would give the Career tribes extra motivation for revenge. They have everything to gain from letting both win, but don't because they're just that super-duper evil or something, I guess.
If Kat and Peeta threatening to eat the berries was that important to include as a sign of rebellion, it would have made more sense to just leave out the team rule entirely and have them do it at the end anyway. It would look like even more of a gamble because they (and the reader) wouldn't know that the Gamemakers just dick around with the rules as they like, and it's not like they don't have motivation to work together without the rule, since either of them winning means a year of plenty for their family and friends.
They didn't want to use it as a means to make people love them. It's a means to go "We can do whatever the fuck we want, so get back in the goddam mine." They rule the districts through fear.
Uh, yes it is? You see tons of people in the Capitol. What part needs to be spelled out? It's very easily inferred.
Well, due to the film's issues with spacial perception, I actually have no idea how big the Capitol is vs. any other district. All we see is a single city, and not one that's all that big. Plus, one city can't exert military control over a huge nation of people in the event of rebellion.
And at no point in the film is there any indication that the Capitol has a contingency plan for labor if the Districts rebel.
It's implied, at least in the books, that it's not a huge nation of people. By my memory, at least.
It's like 13 midsize rural districts with a small city in each. Every district is penned in like animals by a giant electric fence, and if they catch you outside that fence they will kill you. If you are lucky. These districts are then connected to the Capitol by trains, which pull out whatever goods or resources are produced, and bring in some subsistence level from the other districts.
They control this "huge nation of people" by keeping them geographically separated, isolated, hungry, and presumably (through hunger) the populations relatively small. That and the threat of "Hey, remember District 13? No, you don't."
The real question is just how much of the resources from the districts they need in the Capitol. Some they fairly clearly do, some they fairly clearly do not (I get the impression that the coal mined in the Seam is intended for other districts, not the Capitol).
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.
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?
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
So just finished the first book. Am I the only one who thought that (very end of the games spoilers):
The Gamemakers' "SURPRISE BACKSIES NOW YOU HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER" move was completely illogical and them them go from genuinely clever and manipulative to cartoon-villain evil? Allowing both tributes to win as a team would have a been a great way to increase tribe loyalty and sow division between the 12, especially if having both make it out alive ment a greater reward for the winning district or something. It would also build up a great deal of excitement and tension for future games, all the more so because it would show low-class district that they can still do incredible things at the games and would give the Career districts extra motivation for revenge. They have everything to gain from letting both win, but don't because they're just that super-duper evil or something, I guess.
If Kat and Peeta threatening to eat the berries was that important to include as a sign of rebellion, it would have made more sense to just leave out the team rule entirely and have them do it at the end anyway. It would look like even more of a gamble because they (and the reader) wouldn't know that the Gamemakers just dick around with the rules as they like, and it's not like they don't have motivation to work together without the rule, since either of them winning means a year of plenty for their family and friends.
I said this earlier, but it makes more sense if you think of it as a TV show. The shocking twist ending is such a cliche, even in reality, that it didn't surprise me at all.
The FIRST rule change is the mistake the capital makes, because it's a sop to the audience and demonstrates they have power, and thus the outcome is partially in their hands. The second one is a demonstration that no, no do you not.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
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?
Did you see the same movie I did?
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
But we don't need to know this. Especially not in the western world/hollywood film, where Freedom is its own ends.
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?
Did you see the same movie I did?
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
It is clear that some people have a helluva lot more freedom. The people in the capitol live in excess, forcing others to work in squalor.
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
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?
Did you see the same movie I did?
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
It is clear that some people have a helluva lot more freedom. The people in the capitol live in excess, forcing others to work in squalor.
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
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?
Did you see the same movie I did?
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
It is clear that some people have a helluva lot more freedom. The people in the capitol live in excess, forcing others to work in squalor.
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
I thought the districts were created after the rebellion. Which would make sense seeing how they are each surrounded by electric fences with large distanecs between each of them.
So just finished the first book. Am I the only one who thought that (very end of the games spoilers):
The Gamemakers' "SURPRISE BACKSIES NOW YOU HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER" move was completely illogical and them them go from genuinely clever and manipulative to cartoon-villain evil? Allowing both tributes to win as a team would have a been a great way to increase tribe loyalty and sow division between the 12, especially if having both make it out alive ment a greater reward for the winning district or something. It would also build up a great deal of excitement and tension for future games, all the more so because it would show low-class district that they can still do incredible things at the games and would give the Career districts extra motivation for revenge. They have everything to gain from letting both win, but don't because they're just that super-duper evil or something, I guess.
If Kat and Peeta threatening to eat the berries was that important to include as a sign of rebellion, it would have made more sense to just leave out the team rule entirely and have them do it at the end anyway. It would look like even more of a gamble because they (and the reader) wouldn't know that the Gamemakers just dick around with the rules as they like, and it's not like they don't have motivation to work together without the rule, since either of them winning means a year of plenty for their family and friends.
I said this earlier, but it makes more sense if you think of it as a TV show. The shocking twist ending is such a cliche, even in reality, that it didn't surprise me at all.
The FIRST rule change is the mistake the capital makes, because it's a sop to the audience and demonstrates they have power, and thus the outcome is partially in their hands. The second one is a demonstration that no, no do you not.
also:
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
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?
Did you see the same movie I did?
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
It is clear that some people have a helluva lot more freedom. The people in the capitol live in excess, forcing others to work in squalor.
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
I thought the districts were created after the rebellion. Which would make sense seeing how they are each surrounded by electric fences with large distanecs between each of them.
I googled, from the Hunger Games Wiki:
Seventy-five years before the 74th games, the thirteen districts of Panem revolted against the Capitol. Together, they stood strong, but when District 13 was obliterated by the Capitol, resistance became impossible, as 13 was the driving force behind the rebellion. The remaining Districts submitted to the Capitol and lost their hope for change.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Psycho Internet Hawk on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
Well, I guess it could all depend on your POV. In the film Effie shows, narrated by Snow, at the start of the film, Snow says that the "districts rebelled and the games are their punishment." He seems to imply that the Districts existed prior to the games, which if true, really makes me wonder about the nature of their political and socio-economic structure before the rebellion.
If true, what freedoms did the Districts have prior to the games? If the change was little or nothing after the games, why would the loss of two children per year stifle insurrection, especially if the sacrifice was virtually guaranteed? How did the Capitol maintain control before the Games? And how is that situation different now?
See? That's the kind of stuff that my mind needs to have in place before I get engaged with a narrative.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
She pretty much murdered the guy who threw the spear at her.
Marathon on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
Even if you don't count the two she killed when she dropped the nest on them, she also killed the guy from District 1 that killed Rue. So, at least two, at most 4.
Blackjack on
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
This is the best way to play this style of game, to be honest.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
Even if you don't count the two she killed when she dropped the nest on them, she also killed the guy from District 1 that killed Rue. So, at least two, at most 4.
Well, I was talking about killing someone of her own volition, which she arguably possibly never does. She's responsible for the deaths of four competitors, but she was only really active in one (maybe two) of those.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
Uh, no?
Trackerjackers, arrowed two people, destroyed supplies.
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
Well, I guess it could all depend on your POV. In the film Effie shows, narrated by Snow, at the start of the film, Snow says that the "districts rebelled and the games are their punishment." He seems to imply that the Districts existed prior to the games, which if true, really makes me wonder about the nature of their political and socio-economic structure before the rebellion.
If true, what freedoms did the Districts have prior to the games? If the change was little or nothing after the games, why would the loss of two children per year stifle insurrection, especially if the sacrifice was virtually guaranteed? How did the Capitol maintain control before the Games? And how is that situation different now?
See? That's the kind of stuff that my mind needs to have in place before I get engaged with a narrative.
Thing is, it was still a dystopia before the rebellion. The rebellion didn't create the dystopia. It was a part of the dystopia.
How we got to the 13 districts is never addressed. And honestly, the story doesn't care, and neither does 99.9% of the audience.
The destruction of District 13 is a pretty big motivator, though. It says that even if we band together, we'll probably still lose and they may well pick one (or more) of us to wipe off the map. Whereas if we go along and send one kid a year, we get to live our meager lives.
Well, dystopian societies tend to only have convincing backgrounds if there's a specific ideology that they embody which can be tied to their rise to power. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of this: Gilead's origin is closely tied in with what it represents.
The Capital doesn't seem to really have any strong ideals beyond "fuck the poor, got mine" so barring some sort of Ron Paul 2012 scenario it's hard to envision a logical origin story for it. Which is fine by me, I like THG more if it exists in its own little universe.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
This is the best way to play this style of game, to be honest.
I felt, by the end, it was more of a contrived method to keep Katniss "good" and still have her win.
Foxface was the worst example. I mean, I get how it could happen, but given all the rest it really made the whole thing feel like a cop-out.
There absolutely were districts, since before the rebellion there was a District 13, and after the rebellion there was a smoking pile of rubble.
So District 13 had the plot convenience of being the source of something absolutely vital to the rebellion, but completely irrelevant to the Capitol?
Uh, this is actually huge huge spoilers for the future movies and books:
District 13 is the nuclear district. It wasn't destroyed. It instead got into a MAD situation where the Capitol won't touch it because they'll nuke them and they won't touch the Capitol because they'll be wiped out. The top is mostly smoking ruin, but they live almost entirely in a massive complex underground.
We should probably put a spoiler tag in the thread title since people seem to be eschewing use of spoiler tags entirely.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And somebody help me:
Was the subplot about Peeta selling her out to the D1/D2 kids ever resolved? It just seemed like Peeta disappeared from the story for a while after forming an alliance with the douchekids, and then is suddenly found injured, wherein Katniss forgets to ever bring up the fact that he tried to get her killed.
Foxface was the worst example. I mean, I get how it could happen, but given all the rest it really made the whole thing feel like a cop-out.
I was kind of disappointed that Foxface got so little time and died in a boring way off-screen, so to speak. She was by far the most interesting tribute.
I mean given her play style, yeah, it makes sense, but still some background or just one close encounter would have been nice.
Was the subplot about Peeta selling her out to the D1/D2 kids ever resolved? It just seemed like Peeta disappeared from the story for a while after forming an alliance with the douchekids, and then is suddenly found injured, wherein Katniss forgets to ever bring up the fact that he tried to get her killed.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
Even if you don't count the two she killed when she dropped the nest on them, she also killed the guy from District 1 that killed Rue. So, at least two, at most 4.
Well, I was talking about killing someone of her own volition, which she arguably possibly never does. She's responsible for the deaths of four competitors, but she was only really active in one (maybe two) of those.
Four.
She is active in four of her four kills.
She didn't accidentally knock that nest down.
The dude that killed Rue didn't trip and impale his neck on an arrow.
I could almost see an argument for Cato, as she more put him out of his misery, since the dogs refused to finish him off, but even then she chose to shoot him in the head.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, dystopian societies tend to only have convincing backgrounds if there's a specific ideology that they embody which can be tied to their rise to power. The Handmaid's Tale is a good example of this: Gilead's origin is closely tied in with what it represents.
The Capital doesn't seem to really have any strong ideals beyond "fuck the poor, got mine" so barring some sort of Ron Paul 2012 scenario it's hard to envision a logical origin story for it. Which is fine by me, I like THG more if it exists in its own little universe.
Well, right. The HG universe doesn't make much sense under any scrutiny, so I wish they tried a little harder to separate it from any source reality instead of requiring the audience to do so much of the work for them vis a vis cultural shorthand.
Was the subplot about Peeta selling her out to the D1/D2 kids ever resolved? It just seemed like Peeta disappeared from the story for a while after forming an alliance with the douchekids, and then is suddenly found injured, wherein Katniss forgets to ever bring up the fact that he tried to get her killed.
When they discuss his wound he mentions that it was from "a sword" which is clearly what Cato was using. He also convinced them to stop attacking her in the tree. He pretty clearly was doing it to trick them/stay alive for a while.
If Katniss kills Peeta, she's no longer a heroine who's beaten the system, but a helpless pawn in the Capitol's power
But without the final rule change, or the berries trick, she hasn't beaten anything in the first place. Until the very, very end of the games, Kat symbolizes nothing more than just another tribute with a ton of luck on her side. The Capitol shoots themselves in the foot in the last 10 seconds for no reason, because until then it's business as usual.
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
This is the best way to play this style of game, to be honest.
I felt, by the end, it was more of a contrived method to keep Katniss "good" and still have her win.
Foxface was the worst example. I mean, I get how it could happen, but given all the rest it really made the whole thing feel like a cop-out.
I'm more speaking as someone who has watched a fair number of elimination competitions, like Survivor. The only two time winner is basically entirely passive and her voting philosophy is "I will vote for whoever you want me to, as long as it is not me." She's got two million dollars in two tries.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
If Kat and Peeta threatening to eat the berries was that important to include as a sign of rebellion, it would have made more sense to just leave out the team rule entirely and have them do it at the end anyway. It would look like even more of a gamble because they (and the reader) wouldn't know that the Gamemakers just dick around with the rules as they like, and it's not like they don't have motivation to work together without the rule, since either of them winning means a year of plenty for their family and friends.
They didn't want to use it as a means to make people love them. It's a means to go "We can do whatever the fuck we want, so get back in the goddam mine." They rule the districts through fear.
It's implied, at least in the books, that it's not a huge nation of people. By my memory, at least.
It's like 13 midsize rural districts with a small city in each. Every district is penned in like animals by a giant electric fence, and if they catch you outside that fence they will kill you. If you are lucky. These districts are then connected to the Capitol by trains, which pull out whatever goods or resources are produced, and bring in some subsistence level from the other districts.
They control this "huge nation of people" by keeping them geographically separated, isolated, hungry, and presumably (through hunger) the populations relatively small. That and the threat of "Hey, remember District 13? No, you don't."
The real question is just how much of the resources from the districts they need in the Capitol. Some they fairly clearly do, some they fairly clearly do not (I get the impression that the coal mined in the Seam is intended for other districts, not the Capitol).
The Capitol and Districts both existed before the rebellion that resulted in the Hunger Games. It's not clear when the Districts lost their freedom, or if they ever had any.
the capitol beats the other districts because
I agree that the movie doesn't do a good job of explaining this, but it isn't entirely necessary for the story to make sense.
The FIRST rule change is the mistake the capital makes, because it's a sop to the audience and demonstrates they have power, and thus the outcome is partially in their hands. The second one is a demonstration that no, no do you not.
But we don't need to know this. Especially not in the western world/hollywood film, where Freedom is its own ends.
It is clear that some people have a helluva lot more freedom. The people in the capitol live in excess, forcing others to work in squalor.
Did the districts exist before the hunger games rebellion? I'm not certain on that one.
I'm nearly positive they did.
I thought the districts were created after the rebellion. Which would make sense seeing how they are each surrounded by electric fences with large distanecs between each of them.
also:
Yes, they did. After all, district 13 can't get destroyed unless the other 12 exist.
I googled, from the Hunger Games Wiki:
Well, I guess it could all depend on your POV. In the film Effie shows, narrated by Snow, at the start of the film, Snow says that the "districts rebelled and the games are their punishment." He seems to imply that the Districts existed prior to the games, which if true, really makes me wonder about the nature of their political and socio-economic structure before the rebellion.
If true, what freedoms did the Districts have prior to the games? If the change was little or nothing after the games, why would the loss of two children per year stifle insurrection, especially if the sacrifice was virtually guaranteed? How did the Capitol maintain control before the Games? And how is that situation different now?
See? That's the kind of stuff that my mind needs to have in place before I get engaged with a narrative.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Yes, Katniss is a terribly passive competitor in the games. At most, she can claim full responsibility for one single kill, and that was against the baddest dude in the game, and even then she didn't really kill him, she just ensured his death via plot-dogs.
She pretty much murdered the guy who threw the spear at her.
So District 13 had the plot convenience of being the source of something absolutely vital to the rebellion, but completely irrelevant to the Capitol?
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
But only after Rue took the spear for her and alerted her to the attack.
This is the best way to play this style of game, to be honest.
Well, I was talking about killing someone of her own volition, which she arguably possibly never does. She's responsible for the deaths of four competitors, but she was only really active in one (maybe two) of those.
Uh, no?
She's hardly passive.
Thing is, it was still a dystopia before the rebellion. The rebellion didn't create the dystopia. It was a part of the dystopia.
How we got to the 13 districts is never addressed. And honestly, the story doesn't care, and neither does 99.9% of the audience.
The destruction of District 13 is a pretty big motivator, though. It says that even if we band together, we'll probably still lose and they may well pick one (or more) of us to wipe off the map. Whereas if we go along and send one kid a year, we get to live our meager lives.
Nope! They were just the most obstinate and so got made an example. Their contribution was pretty neat though.
The Capital doesn't seem to really have any strong ideals beyond "fuck the poor, got mine" so barring some sort of Ron Paul 2012 scenario it's hard to envision a logical origin story for it. Which is fine by me, I like THG more if it exists in its own little universe.
I felt, by the end, it was more of a contrived method to keep Katniss "good" and still have her win.
Foxface was the worst example. I mean, I get how it could happen, but given all the rest it really made the whole thing feel like a cop-out.
Uh, this is actually huge huge spoilers for the future movies and books:
Was the subplot about Peeta selling her out to the D1/D2 kids ever resolved? It just seemed like Peeta disappeared from the story for a while after forming an alliance with the douchekids, and then is suddenly found injured, wherein Katniss forgets to ever bring up the fact that he tried to get her killed.
I mean given her play style, yeah, it makes sense, but still some background or just one close encounter would have been nice.
In the book it is (he never sold her out).
Haven't seen the film yet.
She is active in four of her four kills.
She didn't accidentally knock that nest down.
The dude that killed Rue didn't trip and impale his neck on an arrow.
I could almost see an argument for Cato, as she more put him out of his misery, since the dogs refused to finish him off, but even then she chose to shoot him in the head.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Well, right. The HG universe doesn't make much sense under any scrutiny, so I wish they tried a little harder to separate it from any source reality instead of requiring the audience to do so much of the work for them vis a vis cultural shorthand.
When they discuss his wound he mentions that it was from "a sword" which is clearly what Cato was using. He also convinced them to stop attacking her in the tree. He pretty clearly was doing it to trick them/stay alive for a while.
I'm more speaking as someone who has watched a fair number of elimination competitions, like Survivor. The only two time winner is basically entirely passive and her voting philosophy is "I will vote for whoever you want me to, as long as it is not me." She's got two million dollars in two tries.