So are we saying that the advanced technology used in this movie runs on coal?
Ours does. Where do you think our power comes from? Solar?
Aren't they using some kind of crazy space magic technology? Or is it all normal tech you can just run on normal electricity?
Let's see, they have genetic engineering, holograms, hovercraft, magrail trains....what exactly is crazy space magic? It's all feasibly real technology.
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
So are we saying that the advanced technology used in this movie runs on coal?
Ours does. Where do you think our power comes from? Solar?
Aren't they using some kind of crazy space magic technology? Or is it all normal tech you can just run on normal electricity?
Let's see, they have genetic engineering, holograms, hovercraft, magrail trains....what exactly is crazy space magic? It's all feasibly real technology.
Do you see the question where I ask what kind of technology they are using? Cause I asked what kind of technology they are using.
Thank you for the answer, now I know.
So are we saying that the advanced technology used in this movie runs on coal?
Ours does. Where do you think our power comes from? Solar?
Aren't they using some kind of crazy space magic technology? Or is it all normal tech you can just run on normal electricity?
Let's see, they have genetic engineering, holograms, hovercraft, magrail trains....what exactly is crazy space magic? It's all feasibly real technology.
Do you see the question where I ask what kind of technology they are using? Cause I asked what kind of technology they are using.
Thank you for the answer, now I know.
I'm going to thematically blame malnutrition.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think confusion lies within the question of "who is producing what for whom?"
If the Capitol needs those products, then the Districts have political leverage over them.
If the Capitol doesn't need those products, then they're spending a lot of money to support an economy they don't need.
Plus, their ability to easily engineer organic goods presupposes an lack of demand for certain products.
I have neither seen the film nor read the books, so the whole question whether they're any good isn't one I can address - but according to the conversation so far, if the Capitol needs what is produced by the Districts, that doesn't automatically give the latter political leverage. The colonial powers needed (at least in order to be economically powerful) what came out of the colonies, but this didn't really give the colonies much in the way of leverage. That sort of exploitation is still happening, and it goes hand in hand with some pretty atrocious violations of human rights. Is there a reason why the same couldn't be true for the Capitol and Districts?
Of course what I've just said may well be rendered irrelevant by my not having seen or read The Hunger Games, in which case please ignore.
One of the problems is that the film doesn't really show an oppressed populace in the Districts on par with what we've seen before with colonialism. The Districts are full of school-educated people who are high enough on the technological and economic curve to have their own small middle-class economies, where a person can have a job as a cake decorator, like Peeta. The people in the Districts may be virtually enslaved, but they are privy to a lot of things colonial powers don't generally allow those in servitude (because it usually results in successful rebellion).
And yes, I contend that if the Capitol is truly dependent on the Districts for vital resources, then the Districts have political leverage. The difference between them and comparisons to Belgian or British or other Western forms of colonialism is that most of those countries being exploited were being exploited for luxury goods and services or products that otherwise augmented and stimulated their economies, but their economies were not utterly dependent on those supply chains for sovereign existence. Britain was still Britain long before they ruled Hong Kong, Portugal was still Portugal after they lost Brazil.
If the Capitol's existence depends on the Districts, then the Districts hold the leverage.
Wasn't Peeta's family one of the more wealthy ones in District 12? Sort of like, considering just the District, Peeta would be the 1%, Katniss would be the middle class, and the really bad off people are the poor?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Wasn't Peeta's family one of the more wealthy ones in District 12? Sort of like, considering just the District, Peeta would be the 1%, Katniss would be the middle class, and the really bad off people are the poor?
Peeta was like upper middle class. And yet they were still poor enough that he'd be beaten for burning a loaf or two of bread...they were decently fed, but on stale leftovers that went unsold. He still had to yearly submit more entries to the games so they could get by, too.
The mayor's daughter was the 1%. And she was distinguished by owning a nice dress, gold pin, and never having had to submit for tesserae, or however it was put. They could eat decently without increasing her risk of having to act as tribute, that's about it.
I think confusion lies within the question of "who is producing what for whom?"
If the Capitol needs those products, then the Districts have political leverage over them.
If the Capitol doesn't need those products, then they're spending a lot of money to support an economy they don't need.
Plus, their ability to easily engineer organic goods presupposes an lack of demand for certain products.
I have neither seen the film nor read the books, so the whole question whether they're any good isn't one I can address - but according to the conversation so far, if the Capitol needs what is produced by the Districts, that doesn't automatically give the latter political leverage. The colonial powers needed (at least in order to be economically powerful) what came out of the colonies, but this didn't really give the colonies much in the way of leverage. That sort of exploitation is still happening, and it goes hand in hand with some pretty atrocious violations of human rights. Is there a reason why the same couldn't be true for the Capitol and Districts?
Of course what I've just said may well be rendered irrelevant by my not having seen or read The Hunger Games, in which case please ignore.
One of the problems is that the film doesn't really show an oppressed populace in the Districts on par with what we've seen before with colonialism. The Districts are full of school-educated people who are high enough on the technological and economic curve to have their own small middle-class economies, where a person can have a job as a cake decorator, like Peeta. The people in the Districts may be virtually enslaved, but they are privy to a lot of things colonial powers don't generally allow those in servitude (because it usually results in successful rebellion).
And yes, I contend that if the Capitol is truly dependent on the Districts for vital resources, then the Districts have political leverage. The difference between them and comparisons to Belgian or British or other Western forms of colonialism is that most of those countries being exploited were being exploited for luxury goods and services or products that otherwise augmented and stimulated their economies, but their economies were not utterly dependent on those supply chains for sovereign existence. Britain was still Britain long before they ruled Hong Kong, Portugal was still Portugal after they lost Brazil.
If the Capitol's existence depends on the Districts, then the Districts hold the leverage.
School educated? Did you see a school that I didn't? They covered the stuff like cake decorating with the "spark of hope" speech in the film.
And as has been repeated over, and over, and over, the capitol is not dependent on the districts. It is dependent on the resources in the districts, which can just as easily be harvested by people in the Capitol, should they decide to kill everyone in the districts.
I think confusion lies within the question of "who is producing what for whom?"
If the Capitol needs those products, then the Districts have political leverage over them.
If the Capitol doesn't need those products, then they're spending a lot of money to support an economy they don't need.
Plus, their ability to easily engineer organic goods presupposes an lack of demand for certain products.
I have neither seen the film nor read the books, so the whole question whether they're any good isn't one I can address - but according to the conversation so far, if the Capitol needs what is produced by the Districts, that doesn't automatically give the latter political leverage. The colonial powers needed (at least in order to be economically powerful) what came out of the colonies, but this didn't really give the colonies much in the way of leverage. That sort of exploitation is still happening, and it goes hand in hand with some pretty atrocious violations of human rights. Is there a reason why the same couldn't be true for the Capitol and Districts?
Of course what I've just said may well be rendered irrelevant by my not having seen or read The Hunger Games, in which case please ignore.
One of the problems is that the film doesn't really show an oppressed populace in the Districts on par with what we've seen before with colonialism. The Districts are full of school-educated people who are high enough on the technological and economic curve to have their own small middle-class economies, where a person can have a job as a cake decorator, like Peeta. The people in the Districts may be virtually enslaved, but they are privy to a lot of things colonial powers don't generally allow those in servitude (because it usually results in successful rebellion).
And yes, I contend that if the Capitol is truly dependent on the Districts for vital resources, then the Districts have political leverage. The difference between them and comparisons to Belgian or British or other Western forms of colonialism is that most of those countries being exploited were being exploited for luxury goods and services or products that otherwise augmented and stimulated their economies, but their economies were not utterly dependent on those supply chains for sovereign existence. Britain was still Britain long before they ruled Hong Kong, Portugal was still Portugal after they lost Brazil.
If the Capitol's existence depends on the Districts, then the Districts hold the leverage.
First off, quite a few colonial powers set up education systems in their colonies. This was partly to make sure the populace was competent to work, and partly to instill loyalty (it's noted in the books that the only class mentioned, history, was Capitol propaganda). Second, Peeta didn't have a "job," ONE OF the duties he was expected to fulfill in his parent's bakery was decorating the "cakes" (I'm not sure if it's ever stated whether they're real) to put out as advertizing. Third, cake decoration isn't a necessity for rebelion, and I would love to know who told you it was.
Lastly, Kenya produced FOOD. Food is a necessity. Sure, it was able to make do with capitalist exploitation and internal production, but why do you think it ceased to be a super power? The Blitz? Russia says "hi." And this still doesn't explain how you think ancient Egypt or feudalism existed, as the royalty of those nations sure as shit didn't produce anything for themselves.
School educated? Did you see a school that I didn't?
Did I see a school? No. Did I hear Peeta talk about going to school with Katniss? Pretty sure I did.
At the very least, the people in the Districts know basic literacy and math.
And as has been repeated over, and over, and over, the capitol is not dependent on the districts. It is dependent on the resources in the districts, which can just as easily be harvested by people in the Capitol, should they decide to kill everyone in the districts.
That's . . . not how colonialism works. When the people in Pennsylvania who are experienced coal miners refuse to work in the mines (or are killed for their sedition), the dandies and fops in Colorado don't just put on a pair of overalls and board the next maglev to the wilderness 2000 miles away.
How exactly did they destroy district 13? According to the map it's enormous
Fuckton of WMD's.
Nuclear, chemical, bioengeered weapons. It's not all that hard to imagine.
Implication from skimming the spoilerific materials is conventional bombs, LOTS of conventional bombs. While this is questionable for those of us who watch History Channel and play RTS games it still works for the purposes of simple storytelling. Also I am under the impression it was the Arizona/Utah area, which is huge but only has a few population centers. Simply bomb the cities and shoot anyone who leaves the cities. But I may be mistaken there.
The running problem folks seem to be having is the same assumption libertarians make, i.e. that everyone would be a rational actor. Capitol has the stockpiles and the weapons, they have all the power. Even if they rely on the districts they have enough resources stockpiled to kill an entire district and then replace its citizens, and even if they don't have that they might be selfish and short-sighted enough to do it anyway just because. Your average protection racket can and often will run a neighborhood out of business with their demands because they, like the polluting businessman and the Republican Chickenhawk don't care about sustainability or planning ahead they only care about their appetites right here and right now, and let the peons and victims and sheeple sort out how to keep the world from falling apart as they parasitise society.
History is full of examples of small oligarchies controlling large states, and while they inevitably fall they last a long, long time.
How exactly did they destroy district 13? According to the map it's enormous
Fuckton of WMD's.
Nuclear, chemical, bioengeered weapons. It's not all that hard to imagine.
Implication from skimming the spoilerific materials is conventional bombs, LOTS of conventional bombs. While this is questionable for those of us who watch History Channel and play RTS games it still works for the purposes of simple storytelling. Also I am under the impression it was the Arizona/Utah area, which is huge but only has a few population centers. Simply bomb the cities and shoot anyone who leaves the cities. But I may be mistaken there.
The running problem folks seem to be having is the same assumption libertarians make, i.e. that everyone would be a rational actor. Capitol has the stockpiles and the weapons, they have all the power. Even if they rely on the districts they have enough resources stockpiled to kill an entire district and then replace its citizens, and even if they don't have that they might be selfish and short-sighted enough to do it anyway just because. Your average protection racket can and often will run a neighborhood out of business with their demands because they, like the polluting businessman and the Republican Chickenhawk don't care about sustainability or planning ahead they only care about their appetites right here and right now, and let the peons and victims and sheeple sort out how to keep the world from falling apart as they parasitise society.
History is full of examples of small oligarchies controlling large states, and while they inevitably fall they last a long, long time.
How exactly did they destroy district 13? According to the map it's enormous
Fuckton of WMD's.
Nuclear, chemical, bioengeered weapons. It's not all that hard to imagine.
Implication from skimming the spoilerific materials is conventional bombs, LOTS of conventional bombs. While this is questionable for those of us who watch History Channel and play RTS games it still works for the purposes of simple storytelling. Also I am under the impression it was the Arizona/Utah area, which is huge but only has a few population centers. Simply bomb the cities and shoot anyone who leaves the cities. But I may be mistaken there.
The running problem folks seem to be having is the same assumption libertarians make, i.e. that everyone would be a rational actor. Capitol has the stockpiles and the weapons, they have all the power. Even if they rely on the districts they have enough resources stockpiled to kill an entire district and then replace its citizens, and even if they don't have that they might be selfish and short-sighted enough to do it anyway just because. Your average protection racket can and often will run a neighborhood out of business with their demands because they, like the polluting businessman and the Republican Chickenhawk don't care about sustainability or planning ahead they only care about their appetites right here and right now, and let the peons and victims and sheeple sort out how to keep the world from falling apart as they parasitise society.
History is full of examples of small oligarchies controlling large states, and while they inevitably fall they last a long, long time.
They avoided nuclear because that was the specific resource district 13 was harvesting. So they stuck with conventional weapons and won out. They had superior technology and infrastructure and of course it wasn't even a fair fight. This is what I've read into a little bit on the backstory for it.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If we're going with non-nuclear, the weapons would likely be some combination of chemical and incendiary dropped in a pattern. Basically, think a cross between napalm, thermite, and acid. It would burn everything flammable, melt through everything else, and leave toxic remainders. The pattern would be to encourage the wind patterns needed for self-propagation.
The comparison to ancient Egypt is apt in more ways than one and the articles about an extraction economy is excellent.
In ancient Egypt the Pharao owned everything, including all the produce (which was everything that was produced). This also meant that he could (and would) take all of the grain and give just enough back to feed the population.
This is exactly what the Capitol is doing and it's even more effective since the Districts society need more than just grain to survive. There's a quote in the book where Katniss asks Rue about bread thinking they would have more and better food since they produce the grain and Rue asks them if they get to keep the coal they mine, Katniss answers "only the pieces we track in with out boots".
Clearly the Capitol takes EVERYTHING and gives back just enough to keep the district going (11 got more bread during the harvest) which means in case of rebellion the Capitol stores are full and can last for a long while when the rebelling district would run out of essential supplies very quickly.
In Egypt as previously mentioned the Pharao also controlled the Nile, which was the only means of communication and transport.
Which is the same as the capitol. The districts simply cannot communicate or get anywhere and can sit there until the uprising could be cracked down with people from other oppressed parts.
There are schools in district 12 and the other districts but as Katniss mentions they mainly learnt stuff about coal and propaganda about the capitol. This makes sense since the mining seems to be very high tech judging from the population base (they also mentioned they had recently automated transport for the coal to the trains). The workers need to be skilled enough to mine coal so school is essential, basic math and writing is also essential for keeping the level of society needed to produce skilled workers. Schools are also an excellent place for propaganda. However they teach them noting else of value except for what they need.
Also in Egypt when the Pharao wanted some new kind of resource he didn't have the infrastructure to mine it from a distant place. He was however ruthless enough to simply move a thousand persons or so and build a new city at the mines. The capitol probably has sufficent stores to just wipe a district and then split of small parts of other districts to create a new one, or at least severely depopulate a district and add new people.
However it's unlikely they would need to resort to it. Basically the districts supply their type of goods or they quickly run out of the other 11/12 things they need to survive.
If we're going with non-nuclear, the weapons would likely be some combination of chemical and incendiary dropped in a pattern. Basically, think a cross between napalm, thermite, and acid. It would burn everything flammable, melt through everything else, and leave toxic remainders. The pattern would be to encourage the wind patterns needed for self-propagation.
It would have to be non nuclear, because if it was nuclear there would be problems.
The entire conceit of being able to keep the population of such diverse areas confined seems far fetched, given their reliance on many of the districts
What took out district 13? Well, acording to books 1 & 2:
It's said that the capital nuclear bombed them. The Capitol shows videos of the iradiated village square of district 13. They basically imply that they ended the rebellion by nuking 13 into the ground.
There are no people outside the district in sustainable numbers. If you interested in spoiling the trilogy, which has it's own problems.
No, seriously, there's a major 2nd book end, 3rd book spoiler here:
District 13 wasn't bombed off the map. Turns out neither side really had leverage because both sides had the nuke, so 13 goes, leave us alone, tell them you killed us, and we won't nuke you. There are few people who escape from the other disctricts (Katniss and Gale run into a pair trying to escape and they never get out.
How could there be no people outside the districts? That doesn't make any sense
There should be people left in just about every country, and some (like canada) would have vast habitable areas. I wonder if it's supposed to be like 1984 where the inhabitants of this world are completely isolated from the outside, and there really are other countries out there that they have no knowledge of.
How could there be no people outside the districts? That doesn't make any sense
There should be people left in just about every country, and some (like canada) would have vast habitable areas. I wonder if it's supposed to be like 1984 where the inhabitants of this world are completely isolated from the outside, and there really are other countries out there that they have no knowledge of.
Well, that's another thing. Katniss and Gale early in the film pretty easily subvert the boundary to their district with hardly a thought. There's nothing in the film that would suggest that large groups of people couldn't just slink away in the night to find their way in the wilderness.
Much like the Hunger Games themselves, any explanation as to how the Capitol could successfully maintain the cost of their constant oppression is undone by questioning why they would need to.
Basically, the Capitol spends billions of dollars in maintaining a TV show (which no one seems to watch) and subjugating its population in the Districts (which it doesn't seem to really need).
Like I said earlier, at least in the film, the Capitol has no real agency outside of spending tons of money to fuck people over for little or no gain.
How could there be no people outside the districts? That doesn't make any sense
There should be people left in just about every country, and some (like canada) would have vast habitable areas. I wonder if it's supposed to be like 1984 where the inhabitants of this world are completely isolated from the outside, and there really are other countries out there that they have no knowledge of.
Panem is the entire continent of North America, supposedly.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So, as someone who saw the movie, but never read the books, I enjoyed it. I don’t know if I would see the sequel.
I don’t know if it was just my subconscious knowing that this was based of a Scholastic book, but the movie seemed a bit heavy handed with literary devices. Like my 8th grade teachers was popping up in the back of my head and saying: “Notice the contrast in the colorful wardrobe of those living in the capitol with the drab cloths of those in the districts. This is an example of symbolism.”
If you’re discussing plot points: It seems to me that if you want to pacify a large populous and prevent a rebellion, forcing their children to participate in fight to the death is just about the last thing a rational person would come up with.
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If you’re discussing plot points: It seems to me that if you want to pacify a large populous and prevent a rebellion, forcing their children to participate in fight to the death is just about the last thing a rational person would come up with.
No, apparently the best way to quell a rebellious society is to remind them yearly of their sedition through a painful and needless sacrifice.
The Capitol benefits from one of the most conveniently-plotted existences of all time. I haven't read the books, but I can't imagine that if everything I've argued about in this thread has been prevented by the Capitol's endless resources, ingenuity, and ubiquity, I can't imagine any realistic context where rebellion would even be possible.
Well, that's another thing. Katniss and Gale early in the film pretty easily subvert the boundary to their district with hardly a thought. There's nothing in the film that would suggest that large groups of people couldn't just slink away in the night to find their way in the wilderness.
Other than the huge patrol ships that Katniss and Gale have to hide from? Large groups could not hide as easily, and certainly couldn't create any sort of stable lifestyle.
And I know it's not directly addressed in the film, but
the Tracker Jackers were specifically engineered and then seeded throughout the wilderness to render it much less suitable for habitation -- another reason it would be a bad idea for a large group, unfamiliar with the territory, to go dancing off through the trees. It's much easier for one person who knows the lay of the land and is trained in woodsmanship to avoid such hazards, but all you need is one idiot who's not paying attention to doom the entire group.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, that's another thing. Katniss and Gale early in the film pretty easily subvert the boundary to their district with hardly a thought. There's nothing in the film that would suggest that large groups of people couldn't just slink away in the night to find their way in the wilderness.
Other than the huge patrol ships that Katniss and Gale have to hide from? Large groups could not hide as easily, and certainly couldn't create any sort of stable lifestyle.
And I know it's not directly addressed in the film, but
the Tracker Jackers were specifically engineered and then seeded throughout the wilderness to render it much less suitable for habitation -- another reason it would be a bad idea for a large group, unfamiliar with the territory, to go dancing off through the trees. It's much easier for one person who knows the lay of the land and is trained in woodsmanship to avoid such hazards, but all you need is one idiot who's not paying attention to doom the entire group.
Does the Capitol have enough wherewithal to control the entire country from one modestly-size city?
And why is the Capitol so intent on spending what looks like literally ALL of their money on pissing on the Districts? Seems like an awful lot of trouble.
Well, that's another thing. Katniss and Gale early in the film pretty easily subvert the boundary to their district with hardly a thought. There's nothing in the film that would suggest that large groups of people couldn't just slink away in the night to find their way in the wilderness.
Other than the huge patrol ships that Katniss and Gale have to hide from? Large groups could not hide as easily, and certainly couldn't create any sort of stable lifestyle.
And I know it's not directly addressed in the film, but
the Tracker Jackers were specifically engineered and then seeded throughout the wilderness to render it much less suitable for habitation -- another reason it would be a bad idea for a large group, unfamiliar with the territory, to go dancing off through the trees. It's much easier for one person who knows the lay of the land and is trained in woodsmanship to avoid such hazards, but all you need is one idiot who's not paying attention to doom the entire group.
Does the Capitol have enough wherewithal to control the entire country from one modestly-size city?
And why is the Capitol so intent on spending what looks like literally ALL of their money on pissing on the Districts? Seems like an awful lot of trouble.
Do we really have to explain the existence of gladiatorial combat to you, now?
A thing that sat in my craw was when Gale and Katniss chow down on the hunk of bread, she mockingly says "May the odds be ever in your favor," but in a sort of pseudo-British accent.
From the book I know she's supposed to be mocking the way Effie Trinket says it every year (andwho's actual delivery of that line is not really similar to Katniss's)--but over the course of the movie, not one dang person every shows up with an accent anything like that. And given the setting, Katniss probably shouldn't know about such accents.
Nobody from 12 sounds like West Virginia hillbillies either, but that's something I was more ready to concede, far-flung future setting, after all.
How could there be no people outside the districts? That doesn't make any sense
There should be people left in just about every country, and some (like canada) would have vast habitable areas. I wonder if it's supposed to be like 1984 where the inhabitants of this world are completely isolated from the outside, and there really are other countries out there that they have no knowledge of.
Panem is the entire continent of North America, supposedly.
Okay so the districts are absolutely astonishing in size
Well, that's another thing. Katniss and Gale early in the film pretty easily subvert the boundary to their district with hardly a thought. There's nothing in the film that would suggest that large groups of people couldn't just slink away in the night to find their way in the wilderness.
Other than the huge patrol ships that Katniss and Gale have to hide from? Large groups could not hide as easily, and certainly couldn't create any sort of stable lifestyle.
And I know it's not directly addressed in the film, but
the Tracker Jackers were specifically engineered and then seeded throughout the wilderness to render it much less suitable for habitation -- another reason it would be a bad idea for a large group, unfamiliar with the territory, to go dancing off through the trees. It's much easier for one person who knows the lay of the land and is trained in woodsmanship to avoid such hazards, but all you need is one idiot who's not paying attention to doom the entire group.
Does the Capitol have enough wherewithal to control the entire country from one modestly-size city?
And why is the Capitol so intent on spending what looks like literally ALL of their money on pissing on the Districts? Seems like an awful lot of trouble.
Do we really have to explain the existence of gladiatorial combat to you, now?
Gladiatorial combat, as I understand it, was a net gain to Rome's economy. The Hunger Games seem like they'd cost an absolutely enormous amount of resources to maintain, keeping the districts under tight wraps and all.
If people started disappearing off into the woods the Capitol would notice. Katniss can do it because she comes back. Don't know about the movie but iirc in the book they take attendance for the Reaping, and for other mandatory assemblies.
They know who lived in the districts, and presumably any groups that wandered off would be hunted down, get their district punished, or most likely both.
If people started disappearing off into the woods the Capitol would notice. Katniss can do it because she comes back. Don't know about the movie but iirc in the book they take attendance for the Reaping, and for other mandatory assemblies.
They know who lived in the districts, and presumably any groups that wandered off would be hunted down, get their district punished, or most likely both.
Plus, D13's non-destruction is a secret through most of the series, thanks to their pact with the Capitol.
If people started disappearing off into the woods the Capitol would notice. Katniss can do it because she comes back. Don't know about the movie but iirc in the book they take attendance for the Reaping, and for other mandatory assemblies.
They know who lived in the districts, and presumably any groups that wandered off would be hunted down, get their district punished, or most likely both.
Plus, D13's non-destruction is a secret through most of the series, thanks to their pact with the Capitol
.
You, uh, might want to spoiler that. Seeing how it's a fairly major event at the end of book 2, and sets the stage for book 3.
Posts
Why does it matter? You just need more power stations. The destroyed district 13 is critical here too.
Let's see, they have genetic engineering, holograms, hovercraft, magrail trains....what exactly is crazy space magic? It's all feasibly real technology.
Do you see the question where I ask what kind of technology they are using? Cause I asked what kind of technology they are using.
Thank you for the answer, now I know.
I'm going to thematically blame malnutrition.
One of the problems is that the film doesn't really show an oppressed populace in the Districts on par with what we've seen before with colonialism. The Districts are full of school-educated people who are high enough on the technological and economic curve to have their own small middle-class economies, where a person can have a job as a cake decorator, like Peeta. The people in the Districts may be virtually enslaved, but they are privy to a lot of things colonial powers don't generally allow those in servitude (because it usually results in successful rebellion).
And yes, I contend that if the Capitol is truly dependent on the Districts for vital resources, then the Districts have political leverage. The difference between them and comparisons to Belgian or British or other Western forms of colonialism is that most of those countries being exploited were being exploited for luxury goods and services or products that otherwise augmented and stimulated their economies, but their economies were not utterly dependent on those supply chains for sovereign existence. Britain was still Britain long before they ruled Hong Kong, Portugal was still Portugal after they lost Brazil.
If the Capitol's existence depends on the Districts, then the Districts hold the leverage.
I'm pretty sure it was plot-missiles.
Peeta was like upper middle class. And yet they were still poor enough that he'd be beaten for burning a loaf or two of bread...they were decently fed, but on stale leftovers that went unsold. He still had to yearly submit more entries to the games so they could get by, too.
The mayor's daughter was the 1%. And she was distinguished by owning a nice dress, gold pin, and never having had to submit for tesserae, or however it was put. They could eat decently without increasing her risk of having to act as tribute, that's about it.
School educated? Did you see a school that I didn't? They covered the stuff like cake decorating with the "spark of hope" speech in the film.
And as has been repeated over, and over, and over, the capitol is not dependent on the districts. It is dependent on the resources in the districts, which can just as easily be harvested by people in the Capitol, should they decide to kill everyone in the districts.
Or you know, regular missiles. Potentially nuclear missiles.
First off, quite a few colonial powers set up education systems in their colonies. This was partly to make sure the populace was competent to work, and partly to instill loyalty (it's noted in the books that the only class mentioned, history, was Capitol propaganda). Second, Peeta didn't have a "job," ONE OF the duties he was expected to fulfill in his parent's bakery was decorating the "cakes" (I'm not sure if it's ever stated whether they're real) to put out as advertizing. Third, cake decoration isn't a necessity for rebelion, and I would love to know who told you it was.
Lastly, Kenya produced FOOD. Food is a necessity. Sure, it was able to make do with capitalist exploitation and internal production, but why do you think it ceased to be a super power? The Blitz? Russia says "hi." And this still doesn't explain how you think ancient Egypt or feudalism existed, as the royalty of those nations sure as shit didn't produce anything for themselves.
Fuckton of WMD's.
Did I see a school? No. Did I hear Peeta talk about going to school with Katniss? Pretty sure I did.
At the very least, the people in the Districts know basic literacy and math.
That's . . . not how colonialism works. When the people in Pennsylvania who are experienced coal miners refuse to work in the mines (or are killed for their sedition), the dandies and fops in Colorado don't just put on a pair of overalls and board the next maglev to the wilderness 2000 miles away.
The Hunger Games would make a good Fallout: New Vegas mod.
Nuclear, chemical, bioengeered weapons. It's not all that hard to imagine.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Implication from skimming the spoilerific materials is conventional bombs, LOTS of conventional bombs. While this is questionable for those of us who watch History Channel and play RTS games it still works for the purposes of simple storytelling. Also I am under the impression it was the Arizona/Utah area, which is huge but only has a few population centers. Simply bomb the cities and shoot anyone who leaves the cities. But I may be mistaken there.
The running problem folks seem to be having is the same assumption libertarians make, i.e. that everyone would be a rational actor. Capitol has the stockpiles and the weapons, they have all the power. Even if they rely on the districts they have enough resources stockpiled to kill an entire district and then replace its citizens, and even if they don't have that they might be selfish and short-sighted enough to do it anyway just because. Your average protection racket can and often will run a neighborhood out of business with their demands because they, like the polluting businessman and the Republican Chickenhawk don't care about sustainability or planning ahead they only care about their appetites right here and right now, and let the peons and victims and sheeple sort out how to keep the world from falling apart as they parasitise society.
History is full of examples of small oligarchies controlling large states, and while they inevitably fall they last a long, long time.
"Capitol"
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
In ancient Egypt the Pharao owned everything, including all the produce (which was everything that was produced). This also meant that he could (and would) take all of the grain and give just enough back to feed the population.
This is exactly what the Capitol is doing and it's even more effective since the Districts society need more than just grain to survive. There's a quote in the book where Katniss asks Rue about bread thinking they would have more and better food since they produce the grain and Rue asks them if they get to keep the coal they mine, Katniss answers "only the pieces we track in with out boots".
Clearly the Capitol takes EVERYTHING and gives back just enough to keep the district going (11 got more bread during the harvest) which means in case of rebellion the Capitol stores are full and can last for a long while when the rebelling district would run out of essential supplies very quickly.
In Egypt as previously mentioned the Pharao also controlled the Nile, which was the only means of communication and transport.
Which is the same as the capitol. The districts simply cannot communicate or get anywhere and can sit there until the uprising could be cracked down with people from other oppressed parts.
There are schools in district 12 and the other districts but as Katniss mentions they mainly learnt stuff about coal and propaganda about the capitol. This makes sense since the mining seems to be very high tech judging from the population base (they also mentioned they had recently automated transport for the coal to the trains). The workers need to be skilled enough to mine coal so school is essential, basic math and writing is also essential for keeping the level of society needed to produce skilled workers. Schools are also an excellent place for propaganda. However they teach them noting else of value except for what they need.
Also in Egypt when the Pharao wanted some new kind of resource he didn't have the infrastructure to mine it from a distant place. He was however ruthless enough to simply move a thousand persons or so and build a new city at the mines. The capitol probably has sufficent stores to just wipe a district and then split of small parts of other districts to create a new one, or at least severely depopulate a district and add new people.
However it's unlikely they would need to resort to it. Basically the districts supply their type of goods or they quickly run out of the other 11/12 things they need to survive.
It would have to be non nuclear, because if it was nuclear there would be problems.
The entire conceit of being able to keep the population of such diverse areas confined seems far fetched, given their reliance on many of the districts
Indeed, all maps are speculation. There is no map in the books.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
What about people outside the districts?
Are there people outside the districts? The first book didn't indicate that...
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There are no people outside the district in sustainable numbers. If you interested in spoiling the trilogy, which has it's own problems.
There should be people left in just about every country, and some (like canada) would have vast habitable areas. I wonder if it's supposed to be like 1984 where the inhabitants of this world are completely isolated from the outside, and there really are other countries out there that they have no knowledge of.
Well, that's another thing. Katniss and Gale early in the film pretty easily subvert the boundary to their district with hardly a thought. There's nothing in the film that would suggest that large groups of people couldn't just slink away in the night to find their way in the wilderness.
Much like the Hunger Games themselves, any explanation as to how the Capitol could successfully maintain the cost of their constant oppression is undone by questioning why they would need to.
Basically, the Capitol spends billions of dollars in maintaining a TV show (which no one seems to watch) and subjugating its population in the Districts (which it doesn't seem to really need).
Like I said earlier, at least in the film, the Capitol has no real agency outside of spending tons of money to fuck people over for little or no gain.
Panem is the entire continent of North America, supposedly.
I don’t know if it was just my subconscious knowing that this was based of a Scholastic book, but the movie seemed a bit heavy handed with literary devices. Like my 8th grade teachers was popping up in the back of my head and saying: “Notice the contrast in the colorful wardrobe of those living in the capitol with the drab cloths of those in the districts. This is an example of symbolism.”
If you’re discussing plot points: It seems to me that if you want to pacify a large populous and prevent a rebellion, forcing their children to participate in fight to the death is just about the last thing a rational person would come up with.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
No, apparently the best way to quell a rebellious society is to remind them yearly of their sedition through a painful and needless sacrifice.
The Capitol benefits from one of the most conveniently-plotted existences of all time. I haven't read the books, but I can't imagine that if everything I've argued about in this thread has been prevented by the Capitol's endless resources, ingenuity, and ubiquity, I can't imagine any realistic context where rebellion would even be possible.
Other than the huge patrol ships that Katniss and Gale have to hide from? Large groups could not hide as easily, and certainly couldn't create any sort of stable lifestyle.
And I know it's not directly addressed in the film, but
Does the Capitol have enough wherewithal to control the entire country from one modestly-size city?
And why is the Capitol so intent on spending what looks like literally ALL of their money on pissing on the Districts? Seems like an awful lot of trouble.
Do we really have to explain the existence of gladiatorial combat to you, now?
From the book I know she's supposed to be mocking the way Effie Trinket says it every year (andwho's actual delivery of that line is not really similar to Katniss's)--but over the course of the movie, not one dang person every shows up with an accent anything like that. And given the setting, Katniss probably shouldn't know about such accents.
Nobody from 12 sounds like West Virginia hillbillies either, but that's something I was more ready to concede, far-flung future setting, after all.
Okay so the districts are absolutely astonishing in size
Yeah that's kinda bonkers
Gladiatorial combat, as I understand it, was a net gain to Rome's economy. The Hunger Games seem like they'd cost an absolutely enormous amount of resources to maintain, keeping the districts under tight wraps and all.
They know who lived in the districts, and presumably any groups that wandered off would be hunted down, get their district punished, or most likely both.