Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Hunger Games: Your imagination is racist and you should feel bad

11516171820

Posts

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    a lot of times when it comes to trilogies, the first book is years, if not decades, in the making. we're talking about a 'regular person' with a job that spends years and years thinking of and imagining a book, and then they eventually put it to paper. Then they go through dozens of drafts and go through an agent and eventually an editor. then the second book is part of a contract and is due within a year or so.

    I think this definitely happened to suzanne collins. the second and third book just aren't as clearly imagined.

    Hunger Games wasn't her debut novel. Last year was actually the first year she hadn't published a novel since '02.

    oh right

    well it's probably still the case. it was her first big book so I wouldn't be surprised if she had been kicking it around for a while.

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • AlanielAlaniel Registered User regular
    So, I saw this today and thought it was really good. I never read the books, nor do I have any desire to do so. It appears I had much lower expectations than most of the people here, so some of the stuff y'all are mentioning didn't bother me. There were a few things I really liked, and a few things that confused me.
    Spoiler:
    Overall, great movie though. I hope they make all the money they can, and do a sequel.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    I've only seen the trailer, but can anyone please explain why they're referring to this as the new Harry Potter?

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    I've only seen the trailer, but can anyone please explain why they're referring to this as the new Harry Potter?

    Kids and adults are going gaga over this and the books.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Ok, I think I've been spoiled by Battle Royale but this film just made me go 85% on RT? Really? It wasn't nearly dark enough for my tastes, I mean the tributes actually knew what was coming and could prepare plus had no prior bonds outside of the person from their district, unlike the students in BR who just get dumped with a random weapon and are told to go at it. Much more interesting too since many were friends before being forced to kill each other. Katniss was also way too much of a Mary Sue character for the story to be interesting. Unless the sequels have much better development I'm not sure I'd bother watching them.

    Dracil on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I've only seen the trailer, but can anyone please explain why they're referring to this as the new Harry Potter?

    Kids and adults are going gaga over this and the books.

    Basically this. They're Young Adult books that sold a ton as books and will do the same in theaters (unlike the 40 or so young adult books they made in movies not named Harry Potter or Twilight.)

    EmperorSeth.png
  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    Ok, I think I've been spoiled by Battle Royale but this film just made me go 85% on RT? Really? It wasn't nearly dark enough for my tastes, I mean the tributes actually knew what was coming and could prepare plus had no prior bonds outside of the person from their district, unlike the students in BR who just get dumped with a random weapon and are told to go at it. Much more interesting too since many were friends before being forced to kill each other. Katniss was also way too much of a Mary Sue character for the story to be interesting. Unless the sequels have much better development I'm not sure I'd bother watching them.

    Er, how is Katniss a Mary Sue?


    The third book suffers from a lot of wah I'm a girl leave me alone while the main plot happens in the background.

    3DS: 2509-1593-4994
    Steam Profile
    PSN ID: Dohaeris210
    Treadmill Desk Twitch Stream : status.php?streamuser=SniperGuy210
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Katniss is not a Mary Sue character.

    In the third book:
    Spoiler:

    Casually Hardcore on
    steam_sig.png
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Katniss is not a Mary Sue character.

    In the third book:
    Spoiler:

    Sorry, wut?

    (book 3 spoilers)
    Spoiler:

    steam_sig.png
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Saw this last night with my mom, wasn't really planning on seeing it but we had a gift card and she wanted to see it. I knew it was based on a YA novel so I tried to set my expectations appropriately. Still, in the end I was rather underwhelmed. I think mostly because the cinematography was terrible. Beyond even the obviously awful shaky cam and unfocused shots, just... everything. It was just very poorly filmed which made everything just have no impact, nothing really seemed to be at stake. We never really got a sense of scope about anything. The movie seemed to dwadle at the start and then rush through everything else. I feel like a ton of time was wasted on "look the districts are poor, the capital is rich!" And then so much of the hunger game itself felt glossed over. I mean, there was all this emphasis on death via starvation, exposure, etc, and then that all was a non-issue once we got to the game itself. Maybe off camera there was a ton of foraging or whatever going on, but the choice of what to film and what to show was very poor.

    All the characters felt very underdeveloped, the setting felt underdeveloped (because it never really goes past the surface of: districts poor, capitals rich), and in the end it felt like not much really happened. I can see how it is setting up for the second movie pretty plainly, but... nothing much happened in THIS movie.

    Also:
    Spoiler:

    B7ozVfx.png
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Saw this last night with my mom, wasn't really planning on seeing it but we had a gift card and she wanted to see it. I knew it was based on a YA novel so I tried to set my expectations appropriately. Still, in the end I was rather underwhelmed. I think mostly because the cinematography was terrible. Beyond even the obviously awful shaky cam and unfocused shots, just... everything. It was just very poorly filmed which made everything just have no impact, nothing really seemed to be at stake. We never really got a sense of scope about anything. The movie seemed to dwadle at the start and then rush through everything else. I feel like a ton of time was wasted on "look the districts are poor, the capital is rich!" And then so much of the hunger game itself felt glossed over. I mean, there was all this emphasis on death via starvation, exposure, etc, and then that all was a non-issue once we got to the game itself. Maybe off camera there was a ton of foraging or whatever going on, but the choice of what to film and what to show was very poor.

    All the characters felt very underdeveloped, the setting felt underdeveloped (because it never really goes past the surface of: districts poor, capitals rich), and in the end it felt like not much really happened. I can see how it is setting up for the second movie pretty plainly, but... nothing much happened in THIS movie.

    Also:
    Spoiler:

    Well it was a series of poor, but understandable decisions made by the chief gamemaker -- whose name I can't remember. He was trying to satisfy multiple different goals at the same time, and he fucked up in what was actually a very human way.
    Spoiler:

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Saw this last night with my mom, wasn't really planning on seeing it but we had a gift card and she wanted to see it. I knew it was based on a YA novel so I tried to set my expectations appropriately. Still, in the end I was rather underwhelmed. I think mostly because the cinematography was terrible. Beyond even the obviously awful shaky cam and unfocused shots, just... everything. It was just very poorly filmed which made everything just have no impact, nothing really seemed to be at stake. We never really got a sense of scope about anything. The movie seemed to dwadle at the start and then rush through everything else. I feel like a ton of time was wasted on "look the districts are poor, the capital is rich!" And then so much of the hunger game itself felt glossed over. I mean, there was all this emphasis on death via starvation, exposure, etc, and then that all was a non-issue once we got to the game itself. Maybe off camera there was a ton of foraging or whatever going on, but the choice of what to film and what to show was very poor.

    All the characters felt very underdeveloped, the setting felt underdeveloped (because it never really goes past the surface of: districts poor, capitals rich), and in the end it felt like not much really happened. I can see how it is setting up for the second movie pretty plainly, but... nothing much happened in THIS movie.

    Also:
    Spoiler:

    Well it was a series of poor, but understandable decisions made by the chief gamemaker -- whose name I can't remember. He was trying to satisfy multiple different goals at the same time, and he fucked up in what was actually a very human way.
    Spoiler:

    I dunno, I quite disagree with:
    Spoiler:

    B7ozVfx.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Saw this last night with my mom, wasn't really planning on seeing it but we had a gift card and she wanted to see it. I knew it was based on a YA novel so I tried to set my expectations appropriately. Still, in the end I was rather underwhelmed. I think mostly because the cinematography was terrible. Beyond even the obviously awful shaky cam and unfocused shots, just... everything. It was just very poorly filmed which made everything just have no impact, nothing really seemed to be at stake. We never really got a sense of scope about anything. The movie seemed to dwadle at the start and then rush through everything else. I feel like a ton of time was wasted on "look the districts are poor, the capital is rich!" And then so much of the hunger game itself felt glossed over. I mean, there was all this emphasis on death via starvation, exposure, etc, and then that all was a non-issue once we got to the game itself. Maybe off camera there was a ton of foraging or whatever going on, but the choice of what to film and what to show was very poor.

    All the characters felt very underdeveloped, the setting felt underdeveloped (because it never really goes past the surface of: districts poor, capitals rich), and in the end it felt like not much really happened. I can see how it is setting up for the second movie pretty plainly, but... nothing much happened in THIS movie.

    Also:
    Spoiler:

    Well it was a series of poor, but understandable decisions made by the chief gamemaker -- whose name I can't remember. He was trying to satisfy multiple different goals at the same time, and he fucked up in what was actually a very human way.
    Spoiler:

    I dunno, I quite disagree with:
    Spoiler:

    I think we're supposed to assume that the Capitol has more modern, pro-comedy, tastes, where they personally pick someone to root for and find everything pointless and anticlimactic if there's no winner. Think of how we like there do be a winner in a sport where the two combatants punch each other into early Alzheimer's.

    Also, the rule change actually reminds me of an episode of Project Runway in which they told the contestants that they'd all have to stretch their fabrics into two complete outfits halfway through the sewing and drama section of the episode, then came out right before the runway and revealed that the second look would be going in the trash, suckers.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I've only seen the trailer, but can anyone please explain why they're referring to this as the new Harry Potter?

    Kids and adults are going gaga over this and the books.

    Basically this. They're Young Adult books that sold a ton as books and will do the same in theaters (unlike the 40 or so young adult books they made in movies not named Harry Potter or Twilight.)

    So it's popular because... people like it?

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    Ok, I think I've been spoiled by Battle Royale but this film just made me go 85% on RT? Really? It wasn't nearly dark enough for my tastes, I mean the tributes actually knew what was coming and could prepare plus had no prior bonds outside of the person from their district, unlike the students in BR who just get dumped with a random weapon and are told to go at it. Much more interesting too since many were friends before being forced to kill each other. Katniss was also way too much of a Mary Sue character for the story to be interesting. Unless the sequels have much better development I'm not sure I'd bother watching them.

    It's generally best to ignore the percentage on RT and focus on the Average Rating instead. In the case of THG that's 7.2/10. The way it's set up the percentage tells you how likely a movie is to be watchable while the average rating tells you how good it it. Subject to the problems associated with reviews and averaging them out to begin with.

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Maybe Katniss is not a Mary Sue in the *3rd* book, but based on just the first movie (I have not read the books), she's totally a Mary Sue. Look at her getting the love of all the sponsors and getting a 11 score too. Plus all that archery, hunting, and survival skills.

    Again, I'm comparing it to the kids in BR who were literally nothing more than ordinary kids with no idea what to do. It just made for a more interesting premise. The world-building for Hunger Games is a little more interesting though, and maybe the entire trilogy makes for a good story, but again, just based on the first movie, it just fell really flat.

    7.2/10 is still damn high (BR was 7.5). I honestly enjoyed Mirror, Mirror more than Hunger Games, which is 50% and 5.6 respectively.

    Dracil on
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X When you speak I hear muffinsRegistered User regular
    Well do you consider Kiriyama a Mary Sue type character? Cause in Battle Royale
    Spoiler:

    camo_sig2.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    The Battle Royale movie was so much better than the books. The more I learned about the characters, the more I hated them and wanted them to die.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    Maybe Katniss is not a Mary Sue in the *3rd* book, but based on just the first movie (I have not read the books), she's totally a Mary Sue. Look at her getting the love of all the sponsors and getting a 11 score too. Plus all that archery, hunting, and survival skills.

    Again, I'm comparing it to the kids in BR who were literally nothing more than ordinary kids with no idea what to do. It just made for a more interesting premise. The world-building for Hunger Games is a little more interesting though, and maybe the entire trilogy makes for a good story, but again, just based on the first movie, it just fell really flat.

    7.2/10 is still damn high (BR was 7.5). I honestly enjoyed Mirror, Mirror more than Hunger Games, which is 50% and 5.6 respectively.

    You're essentially saying that she's a Mary sue because she had relevant skills. She earned her eleven. It wasn't just oh she's so interesting and cool lets give her an 11!

    Plus a MS generally has a silly not really a flaw flaw. Like how Bella is "clumsy". Katniss lacked any really physical ability and was very abrasive. Getting her 11 through a very risky gambit and getting peoples attention because she was couched, pushed and helped.

    I would argue that the writing didn't give her much to do and made her somewhat flat but not a Mary Sue.

    Quire.jpg
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Besides, didn't getting 11 make her a target? Not exactly an advantage (book 1 spoiler)
    Spoiler:

    steam_sig.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    It should also be pointed out(because I didn't know this when I watched the movie) but her 11 was on a scale of 12 not 10.

    Quire.jpg
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well do you consider Kiriyama a Mary Sue type character? Cause in Battle Royale
    Spoiler:

    He was more of a super villain/big bad boss for the protagonists to overcome. Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters are more of a protagonist role and are boring because of the lack of tension.

    Maybe it is the whole flatness of Katniss that I'm really complaining about. Plus the relation between her and Peeta just felt rather forced in the movie.

    Dracil on
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Besides, didn't getting 11 make her a target? Not exactly an advantage (book 1 spoiler)
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    Dracil on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I've only seen the trailer, but can anyone please explain why they're referring to this as the new Harry Potter?

    Kids and adults are going gaga over this and the books.

    Basically this. They're Young Adult books that sold a ton as books and will do the same in theaters (unlike the 40 or so young adult books they made in movies not named Harry Potter or Twilight.)

    So it's popular because... people like it?

    What? Yes, that's one way to become popular.

    steam_sig.png
  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    So I saw it yesterday after being a fan of the book. I wish the Avox thing was pushed more, which would have explained the feeling of never 'escaping' the districts. I loved foxface, thought that was a good casting.

    I see many small complaints in this thread, and I'm sorry you all didn't enjoy the movie. I'm not sure what you were expecting, but it was a good spring flick for me, and I got my money's worth out of it.

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    Katniss and Peeta relationship was forced. Peers was friendzoned and Katniss put up an act in orderr to save both her and Peers.

    steam_sig.png
  • histronichistronic Registered User regular
    Dracil wrote: »
    Besides, didn't getting 11 make her a target? Not exactly an advantage (book 1 spoiler)
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    WiiU Friend Code: rlinkmanl
    PSN: rlinkmanl
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Jdarksun: Your end-of-book-3 spoiler is kind of unmarked.

    Drez on
    steam_sig.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    "Tracker Jacker" makes sense as a piece of backwoods slang (DARE lists sillier terms for nightcrawlers coming from the south). The movie made it into the official term.

  • The_TuninatorThe_Tuninator Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The one thing I really wish they'd done with the movie is left in the scene with Thresh as it was in the book; the movie's version of that didn't do much for me, and it also didn't really make sense.

    Fun film overall, though, and I thought that they did a remarkably good job of adapting the source material, given the difficulty of translating a novel which relies heavily on a character's thoughts as a narrative mechanism.

    The_Tuninator on
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Jdarksun: Your end-of-book-3 spoiler is kind of unmarked.
    What? Where? Under the books discussion spoiler?

    Yes. :( You were just talking about the first movie, so I assumed the spoiler would just be over the first book. It's more marked now though, that's good.

    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Stream - Offline
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
  • The_TuninatorThe_Tuninator Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Saw this last night with my mom, wasn't really planning on seeing it but we had a gift card and she wanted to see it. I knew it was based on a YA novel so I tried to set my expectations appropriately. Still, in the end I was rather underwhelmed. I think mostly because the cinematography was terrible. Beyond even the obviously awful shaky cam and unfocused shots, just... everything. It was just very poorly filmed which made everything just have no impact, nothing really seemed to be at stake. We never really got a sense of scope about anything. The movie seemed to dwadle at the start and then rush through everything else. I feel like a ton of time was wasted on "look the districts are poor, the capital is rich!" And then so much of the hunger game itself felt glossed over. I mean, there was all this emphasis on death via starvation, exposure, etc, and then that all was a non-issue once we got to the game itself. Maybe off camera there was a ton of foraging or whatever going on, but the choice of what to film and what to show was very poor.

    All the characters felt very underdeveloped, the setting felt underdeveloped (because it never really goes past the surface of: districts poor, capitals rich), and in the end it felt like not much really happened. I can see how it is setting up for the second movie pretty plainly, but... nothing much happened in THIS movie.

    Also:
    Spoiler:

    Well it was a series of poor, but understandable decisions made by the chief gamemaker -- whose name I can't remember. He was trying to satisfy multiple different goals at the same time, and he fucked up in what was actually a very human way.
    Spoiler:

    I dunno, I quite disagree with:
    Spoiler:

    I think the comparison to make would be, say, the World Series, Super Bowl, or even the World Cup ending
    Spoiler:

    The_Tuninator on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Saw this last night with my mom, wasn't really planning on seeing it but we had a gift card and she wanted to see it. I knew it was based on a YA novel so I tried to set my expectations appropriately. Still, in the end I was rather underwhelmed. I think mostly because the cinematography was terrible. Beyond even the obviously awful shaky cam and unfocused shots, just... everything. It was just very poorly filmed which made everything just have no impact, nothing really seemed to be at stake. We never really got a sense of scope about anything. The movie seemed to dwadle at the start and then rush through everything else. I feel like a ton of time was wasted on "look the districts are poor, the capital is rich!" And then so much of the hunger game itself felt glossed over. I mean, there was all this emphasis on death via starvation, exposure, etc, and then that all was a non-issue once we got to the game itself. Maybe off camera there was a ton of foraging or whatever going on, but the choice of what to film and what to show was very poor.

    All the characters felt very underdeveloped, the setting felt underdeveloped (because it never really goes past the surface of: districts poor, capitals rich), and in the end it felt like not much really happened. I can see how it is setting up for the second movie pretty plainly, but... nothing much happened in THIS movie.

    Also:
    Spoiler:

    Well it was a series of poor, but understandable decisions made by the chief gamemaker -- whose name I can't remember. He was trying to satisfy multiple different goals at the same time, and he fucked up in what was actually a very human way.
    Spoiler:

    I dunno, I quite disagree with:
    Spoiler:

    I think the comparison to make would be, say, the World Series, Super Bowl, or even the World Cup ending
    Spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?

    the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.

    Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.

    Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.

    I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).

    Exactly.

    And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.

    Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?

    The way I interpretted this in the book was that the technology of the Capitol made all this oppressing the districts stuff pointless, they didn't need the coal and fish, most of it just got dumped back in a hole. President Snow (and his predecessors) had set the system up in order to get the things that their technology couldn't just whip up, fear, respect and power over others. So the entire purpose of the districts was to keep the people in the capitol afraid enough that they wouldn't think of questioning president Snow, and to allow him to maintain a large enough standing army of indoctrinated thugs to arrest anyone who spoke against him.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Jdarksun: Your end-of-book-3 spoiler is kind of unmarked.
    What? Where? Under the books discussion spoiler?
    Yes. :( You were just talking about the first movie, so I assumed the spoiler would just be over the first book. It's more marked now though, that's good.
    Gah, I'm really sorry @Drez and @kime. Let me know if there's some sort of penance for my crimes. :(

    Muahahahahahaha

    ...... I'll get back to you on that :P

    No worries though, I only read the first few words, so I'm just convincing myself I didn't read enough to understand what you were talking about or remember, haha

    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Stream - Offline
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    tbloxham wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?

    the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.

    Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.

    Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.

    I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).

    Exactly.

    And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.

    Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?

    The way I interpretted this in the book was that the technology of the Capitol made all this oppressing the districts stuff pointless, they didn't need the coal and fish, most of it just got dumped back in a hole. President Snow (and his predecessors) had set the system up in order to get the things that their technology couldn't just whip up, fear, respect and power over others. So the entire purpose of the districts was to keep the people in the capitol afraid enough that they wouldn't think of questioning president Snow, and to allow him to maintain a large enough standing army of indoctrinated thugs to arrest anyone who spoke against him.


    So reading through this thread it looks like the movies did a piss poor job setting up just how oppresive and decedant the Capitol is and why the Hunger Games take place. I have yet to see the movie as I dont want to have a ton of teens in the theatre when I do see it. It just doesnt make an enjoyable movie experience these days.

    If you want to know more about the Capitol from the quotes above read the spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    Jubal77 on
    steam_sig.png
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?

    the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.

    Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.

    Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.

    I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).

    Exactly.

    And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.

    Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?

    The way I interpretted this in the book was that the technology of the Capitol made all this oppressing the districts stuff pointless, they didn't need the coal and fish, most of it just got dumped back in a hole. President Snow (and his predecessors) had set the system up in order to get the things that their technology couldn't just whip up, fear, respect and power over others. So the entire purpose of the districts was to keep the people in the capitol afraid enough that they wouldn't think of questioning president Snow, and to allow him to maintain a large enough standing army of indoctrinated thugs to arrest anyone who spoke against him.


    So reading through this thread it looks like the movies did a piss poor job setting up just how oppresive and decedant the Capitol is and why the Hunger Games take place. I have yet to see the movie as I dont want to have a ton of teens in the theatre when I do see it. It just doesnt make an enjoyable movie experience these days.

    If you want to know more about the Capitol from the quotes above read the spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    The movie does a better job of showing these things than this thread would have you believe, in all honesty. But it could've been better. Still, some of the additions to the movie were great.

    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Stream - Offline
    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    kime wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Jdarksun: Your end-of-book-3 spoiler is kind of unmarked.
    What? Where? Under the books discussion spoiler?
    Yes. :( You were just talking about the first movie, so I assumed the spoiler would just be over the first book. It's more marked now though, that's good.
    Gah, I'm really sorry @Drez and @kime. Let me know if there's some sort of penance for my crimes. :(

    Muahahahahahaha

    ...... I'll get back to you on that :P

    No worries though, I only read the first few words, so I'm just convincing myself I didn't read enough to understand what you were talking about or remember, haha

    I read all three books so it didn't really affect me in a direct way - I'm just polishing my Junior Spoiler Policeman's badge.

    steam_sig.png
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    They don't give badges to us spoiler criminals, just monies and women if you live long enough :P

    steam_sig.png
  • ShawnaseeShawnasee Registered User regular
    I've never seen someone so doggedly attack something as Ross did with this movie. The more I read your complaints the more I kept thinking you just wanted to hate it because it's popular.


    Regardless, my wife and I read the books and we have been waiting on this movie since we first heard it was being made. So we went in with high hopes.

    It exceeded all of our expectations.

    Lawrence was fabulous but the dude that played Peeta was genuinely making me feel for him when he got called for the reaping. Just shock. He portrayed that well. He was fabulous too.
    The weak link in the acting department was Thor's little brother, the dude that played Gale and Kravitz. Wasn't feeling them at all.

    I liked the cinematography and the shaky cam didn't distract me in this movie as it does with so many others.

    I walked out of a 2 and a half hour movie wanting more and I contemplated going back in and seeing it again.

    To me, it was a good movie, not just a good movie/book adaptation but just a really, really good movie.

    Chanus wrote: »

    Your wang is a better man than you.
Sign In or Register to comment.