Yet they had no problem nailing dudes to a cross or sentencing criminals to die in an arena at the hands of professional gladiators.
This is key distinction as to why this movie doesn't work when similar movies, like Death Race 2000 and The Running Man, do. The key element in those films is the idea that a person of guilt (fairly or otherwise) can earn absolution through competition. They are grown adults who have sinned against a moral authority.
The characters in The Hunger Games are innocent, untrained children who have not committed any crime but are at the mercy of a random and needless punitive measure, which may still cheat them in the end if the ratings are not high enough.
There's no justification, no logic, and no consistency.
You are aware that the Roman empire considered runaway slaves, people wanting independence for their homelands and people worshiping Jesus criminals right? Lots of people the Romans considered criminals, would have been heroes to us. Sentenced to death for no real crime but upsetting the status quo . Bad wording on my part.
The Tributes in the book are a call back to another ancient culture: "Theseus and the Labyrinth of Crete". 24 kids where sent as tribute from Athens to Crete to be set free in the Labyrinth, there to be eaten by the Minotaur. (Probably where the capital got the idea).
Being tangentially derived from external sources doesn't suddenly legitimize or give logical consistency to the world of the Hunger Games. That world, textually, has much more association without our own than it does the civilizations of ancient Greece or Rome, so it has to play by those rules.
You can't just say, "Oh, it's just like ancient Hellenistic nations, but with all kinds of American crap, like TV shows and elevators."
This doesn't seem logical, Ross.
Which part?
There is nothing intrinsically enlightening about having TV shows and Elevators. Our technology does not dictate our society. Sociology 101.
Technology is dictated by society though. Scientific progress doesn't exist in a vacuum and involves a large base structure. It's rather dubious to think that a totalitarian starving capricious society could establish this base.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
More importantly, why does any of that matter for the story being told?
Because I (and probably others here) are incapable of deriving entertainment from things that require me to not think about them.
Problem is you think of them in a manner that is culturally specific. You judge society based on your perspective as a early 21th century person and deem them implausible. Despite the fact we have pointed out that such behavior is consistent with earlier human societies and cultural norms.
To put it bluntly: Since you can't imagine that others would want to watch kids killing each other, you refuse to believe that other people in other times and place would do so either. You also refuse to believe that such a thing could happen in the continental US. You also have a strange belief that tech makes people more moral.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's *really* not that much of a stretch that people would be interesting in watching people die.
Again, like I've already pointed out, there's a moral consistency to people watching criminals be punished, even if it is barbaric.
There's really not.
Wha?
The dehumanising of the criminal element is incredibly common place.
That doesn't really apply much to, say, people you know's children.
And you know what? I'd even allow it, as long as there was a precedent established that the people of the Capitol were racists or otherwise strongly prejudiced against the Districts and thought their unsavoriness and sin extended to even their children.
But the movie actually shows the complete and utter opposite.
Children have been used as slave labor, prostitutes, currency, and cannon fodder. Why should we presume that the life of a child would be sacred in any conceivable dystopia?
The bolded part here is very important. These things are happening right now.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
You'd be surprised what a good haircut can do.
I think if the series did a better job of establishing how long it's been, that could be fine. The Capitol is somewhere in the Denver/Cheyenne Mountain area, yeah? So maybe remnants of the military holed up there WWZ style and then spread out.
But you have to be real careful about getting bogged down in world building. With any fiction sometimes you just have to take the mulligan with THE WORLD IS X and run with it.
I thought it was a nice visual supplement to the book. But would agree they left out a lot of stuff. Didn't Harry Potter have this same problem, even early on when the books were small and wieldy?
It's *really* not that much of a stretch that people would be interesting in watching people die.
Again, like I've already pointed out, there's a moral consistency to people watching criminals be punished, even if it is barbaric.
There's really not.
Wha?
The dehumanising of the criminal element is incredibly common place.
That doesn't really apply much to, say, people you know's children.
And you know what? I'd even allow it, as long as there was a precedent established that the people of the Capitol were racists or otherwise strongly prejudiced against the Districts and thought their unsavoriness and sin extended to even their children.
But the movie actually shows the complete and utter opposite.
...no it doesn't. It shows them betting on the murder of children. It shows them so swept up in the pageantry they never care to think about the kids as fellow humans.
I will again state that this is a movie aimed at 16 year old girls.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, Young Adult novels are not where I go looking for solid, well structured literature. But mayhaps I'm a snob?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, Young Adult novels are not where I go looking for solid, well structured literature. But mayhaps I'm a snob?
I guess I'm a little confused. Am I not supposed to view this film with a critical eye towards basic competency because it's intended for people who can't be bothered by things like logical consistency and reasonable character dynamics?
I'm the asshole because I wanted to see a good movie? Because this is now two different posters who have offered such in a manner that would suggest a defense of the subject matter.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
The districts/capitol are not necessarily the direct result of the fall of the US. I don't get why everyone is so pin point fierce about the setup of the world the story wants things to take place in as a mcguffin. Especially when it takes time to go "here, this is setup, accept it, lets move on to story now". Its like watching blade runner and going "olol self destructing androids are totally inefficient they should just use mining robots and fleshlights"
Market edge on fascism and haircuts?
Oh you missed the scene where the capitol has maglev trains, hover/flying vehicles, ability to create genetically modified creatures out of thin air, and enough materials to have fashion while district twelve doesn't have paved/cobblestone streets. It's a step up from the "bring out yer dead" scene from MP's holy grail.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, Young Adult novels are not where I go looking for solid, well structured literature. But mayhaps I'm a snob?
I guess I'm a little confused. Am I not supposed to view this film with a critical eye towards basic competency because it's intended for people who can't be bothered by things like logical consistency and reasonable character dynamics?
I'm the asshole because I wanted to see a good movie? Because this is now two different posters who have offered such in a manner that would suggest a defense of the subject matter.
Ross, relax, that's not what I was saying. I was making a tertiary point. You're allowed to want/criticize/think/do whatever you want, dude. This is Murrica.
Wasn't there supposed to be a YA thread popping up? I've some ranting to do!
Also, Young Adult novels are not where I go looking for solid, well structured literature. But mayhaps I'm a snob?
I guess I'm a little confused. Am I not supposed to view this film with a critical eye towards basic competency because it's intended for people who can't be bothered by things like logical consistency and reasonable character dynamics?
I'm the asshole because I wanted to see a good movie? Because this is now two different posters who have offered such in a manner that would suggest a defense of the subject matter.
No, you're supposed to view it within the frame it is intended for. You wouldn't review LOTR in the context of how a six year old would receive it, you shouldn't review a movie intended for a 16 year old girl in the context of how a sociology professor writing a dissertation on the construction of society in a post apocalyptic world would either. It's absolutely 100% "basically competent." It just isn't necessarily super advanced because it doesn't need to be for the story it wants to tell.
There is nothing intrinsically enlightening about having TV shows and Elevators. Our technology does not dictate our society. Sociology 101.
Technology is dictated by society though. Scientific progress doesn't exist in a vacuum and involves a large base structure. It's rather dubious to think that a totalitarian starving capricious society could establish this base.
That is a fallacy. Technology makes society possible, it does not dictate what shape society takes. Just because you have technological capacity to do something doesn't mean a society is predestined to do it.
Not to argue from authority, but I tried to argue your point on my first day in sociology. The professor let me down gently. China for instance had gunpowder long before the West, but no cannon or guns until introduced by western traders(China also had superior metallurgy).
In the case of the Capital, its a post apocalyptic setting, with the Capital having a monopoly on tech. It could be that the capital was the only area that managed to hold on to its tech during the apocalypse and has remained stagnant since. Or it could be that tech and Morality have nothing to do with each other.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
Again, for like the tenth time, a government cannot have permanent authority over people that have leverage over them.
Put down a rebellion in the D12? Fine, good luck having no power. Rebellion in D11? Good luck putting down insurrection with no food for your soldiers.
Basically, the hierarchy of the Capitol is like a game of Jenga, where the Capitol sits at the top and all the pegs below are the Districts. Any of them move and the whole thing comes crashing down, and the only thing keeping this from happening is . . . . ? Guns?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
POST APOCALYPSE. SOCIETY WENT BOOM, NEW ONE TOOK ITS PLACE. first 3 minutes of the movie.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I thought it was a nice visual supplement to the book. But would agree they left out a lot of stuff. Didn't Harry Potter have this same problem, even early on when the books were small and wieldy?
Yes, same with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Except then they came out with the 5 hour long extended editions.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
Again, for like the tenth time, a government cannot have permanent authority over people that have leverage over them.
Put down a rebellion in the D12? Fine, good luck having no power. Rebellion in D11? Good luck putting down insurrection with no food for your soldiers.
Basically, the hierarchy of the Capitol is like a game of Jenga, where the Capitol sits at the top and all the pegs below are the Districts. Any of them move and the whole thing comes crashing down, and the only thing keeping this from happening is . . . . ? Guns?
Ross, they could literally murder every single person in the districts and be absolutely fine. Likewise, if the entire population of each and every district suddenly died of a horrific disease, the Capitol would still be just fine. I mentioned this already. Just take some of your lazy ass cat people and make them work in the mines/fields. Work on some extra tech to help. The reason the people are being worked isn't slavery, it's punishment. The people in the districts do not have leverage.
Well, except for (BIG ASS BOOK SPOILERS FOR FUTURE MOVIES)
It just isn't necessarily super advanced because it doesn't need to be for the story it wants to tell.
And I still haven't figured out exactly what that is, either. At least in the filmed version, The Hunger Games has nothing to say. At all.
Sure it does. It's about (movie spoilers)
a spark of hope that starts to grow and demonstrates to everyone watching that despite all the power of the Capitol, a person can fight back. Katniss is that spark. She's the girl on fire. The games need a winner and if there isn't a winner, they Capitol has failed. By almost killing herself at the same time as Peeta, she has shown that the Capitol can be defeated.They literally talk about the spark of hope. The next movie is called catching fire. I do not know how this could be any more obvious.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
Again, for like the tenth time, a government cannot have permanent authority over people that have leverage over them.
Put down a rebellion in the D12? Fine, good luck having no power. Rebellion in D11? Good luck putting down insurrection with no food for your soldiers.
Basically, the hierarchy of the Capitol is like a game of Jenga, where the Capitol sits at the top and all the pegs below are the Districts. Any of them move and the whole thing comes crashing down, and the only thing keeping this from happening is . . . . ? Guns?
Ross, they could literally murder every single person in the districts and be absolutely fine. Likewise, if the entire population of each and every district suddenly died of a horrific disease, the Capitol would still be just fine. I mentioned this already. Just take some of your lazy ass cat people and make them work in the mines/fields. Work on some extra tech to help. The reason the people are being worked isn't slavery, it's punishment. The people in the districts do not have leverage.
Well, except for (BIG ASS BOOK SPOILERS FOR FUTURE MOVIES)
District 13.
This is a good point, The book doesn't really go into very minute details but you get the idea that no single district is the sole supplier of any one resource.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
Again, for like the tenth time, a government cannot have permanent authority over people that have leverage over them.
Put down a rebellion in the D12? Fine, good luck having no power. Rebellion in D11? Good luck putting down insurrection with no food for your soldiers.
Basically, the hierarchy of the Capitol is like a game of Jenga, where the Capitol sits at the top and all the pegs below are the Districts. Any of them move and the whole thing comes crashing down, and the only thing keeping this from happening is . . . . ? Guns?
Ross, they could literally murder every single person in the districts and be absolutely fine. Likewise, if the entire population of each and every district suddenly died of a horrific disease, the Capitol would still be just fine. I mentioned this already. Just take some of your lazy ass cat people and make them work in the mines/fields. Work on some extra tech to help. The reason the people are being worked isn't slavery, it's punishment. The people in the districts do not have leverage.
Again, nothing about any of this is established in the film.
And regardless, the Districts still have the leverage because of the same reasons we still use illegal labor in the US: no one wants to do the shitty jobs.
You clear out districts that support the Capitol, it's going to be a good long while before production ramps back up. And if Capitol citizens have rights District citizens don't? Well good fucking luck getting them into the coal mines of Shitsville, Appalachia.
Besides the Capital has leverage: They can kill people and keep on killing until the survivors give up. Any district strike, its killing time. History shows that people prefer slavery to being dead.
Don't really need more, but I suspect they have stockpiles of needed goods to last them until they have killed enough to get the message across.
Edit: By the way there are plenty of governments that do this in the real world.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
No, but the West got pretty chummy with Germany and Japan real quick-like after WWII, even after we dropped nuclear weapons on them. Within 10 years of Hiroshima, the West and Japan were buddy-buddy.
What really needs to be established for any logic to take hold is how the Districts all managed to cede authority to the Capitol in the first place before the initial rebellion. The Hunger Games is a punishment for the rebellion of the Districts, but why did the Districts ever exist in the first place? And under whose authority?
I agree with that. The reason the question exists is because we don't know how Panem formed. But I would conjecture that that perhaps isn't necessary.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
a device that melts people
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
Again, for like the tenth time, a government cannot have permanent authority over people that have leverage over them.
Put down a rebellion in the D12? Fine, good luck having no power. Rebellion in D11? Good luck putting down insurrection with no food for your soldiers.
Basically, the hierarchy of the Capitol is like a game of Jenga, where the Capitol sits at the top and all the pegs below are the Districts. Any of them move and the whole thing comes crashing down, and the only thing keeping this from happening is . . . . ? Guns?
Ross, they could literally murder every single person in the districts and be absolutely fine. Likewise, if the entire population of each and every district suddenly died of a horrific disease, the Capitol would still be just fine. I mentioned this already. Just take some of your lazy ass cat people and make them work in the mines/fields. Work on some extra tech to help. The reason the people are being worked isn't slavery, it's punishment. The people in the districts do not have leverage.
Again, nothing about any of this is established in the film.
Uh, yes it is? You see tons of people in the Capitol. What part needs to be spelled out? It's very easily inferred.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It just isn't necessarily super advanced because it doesn't need to be for the story it wants to tell.
And I still haven't figured out exactly what that is, either. At least in the filmed version, The Hunger Games has nothing to say. At all.
Sure it does. It's about (movie spoilers)
a spark of hope that starts to grow and demonstrates to everyone watching that despite all the power of the Capitol, a person can fight back. Katniss is that spark. She's the girl on fire. The games need a winner and if there isn't a winner, they Capitol has failed. By almost killing herself at the same time as Peeta, she has shown that the Capitol can be defeated.They literally talk about the spark of hope. The next movie is called catching fire. I do not know how this could be any more obvious.
Oh, yeah. She nearly hurt the ratings of their favorite TV show.
She's a goddamned Martin Luther King.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
So you're saying it's unlikely. You couldn't suspend your disbelief--that we're watching a movie about this specific iteration of the Hunger Games because it's a turning point?
Are you the type of person that watches any iteration of The Incredible Hulk and stands up and leaves because it's bullshit and everyone knows radiation just kills you?
It just isn't necessarily super advanced because it doesn't need to be for the story it wants to tell.
And I still haven't figured out exactly what that is, either. At least in the filmed version, The Hunger Games has nothing to say. At all.
Sure it does. It's about (movie spoilers)
a spark of hope that starts to grow and demonstrates to everyone watching that despite all the power of the Capitol, a person can fight back. Katniss is that spark. She's the girl on fire. The games need a winner and if there isn't a winner, they Capitol has failed. By almost killing herself at the same time as Peeta, she has shown that the Capitol can be defeated.They literally talk about the spark of hope. The next movie is called catching fire. I do not know how this could be any more obvious.
Oh, yeah. She nearly hurt the ratings of their favorite TV show.
She's a goddamned Martin Luther King.
For fuck sake. She is a symbol. That they don't have to play by the Capitols rules. That the game they made them play could be beaten if you refused to go along.
She isn't the planer of the rebellion, she is the cause.
You have just decided you hate this movie. You call it unrealistic, despite us showing you real world events that are similar. We have pointed to several real events and real history to back up our claims. All you got was the aftermath of WW2 and we made a counterclaim to that. All your claims about "falling apart when you think about it", really only shows that you haven't thought about it at all. You probably decided you did't like it in the first 5 minutes and spent the rest of the movie trying to figure out a reason why. Settling on "No western society would ever do something like that" and "Its not spelled out to be in LARGE letters, so it fails". Cinematic snobbery at its worst.
Edit Oh and one city can control an entire continent if they have the TECHNOLOGY to do so! Like the ability to genetically engineer animals at will
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So you're saying it's unlikely. You couldn't suspend your disbelief--that we're watching a movie about this specific iteration of the Hunger Games because it's a turning point?
Are you the type of person that watches any iteration of The Incredible Hulk and stands up and leaves because it's bullshit and everyone knows radiation just kills you?
I couldn't suspend my disbelief because no plausible foundation existed for the world to live in and the rules were constantly changing. Nothing made sense, and when it did, it was quickly contradicted for the necessity of plot expediency.
It's a badly written story, at least what's on film.
There is nothing intrinsically enlightening about having TV shows and Elevators. Our technology does not dictate our society. Sociology 101.
Technology is dictated by society though. Scientific progress doesn't exist in a vacuum and involves a large base structure. It's rather dubious to think that a totalitarian starving capricious society could establish this base.
That is a fallacy. Technology makes society possible, it does not dictate what shape society takes. Just because you have technological capacity to do something doesn't mean a society is predestined to do it.
Not to argue from authority, but I tried to argue your point on my first day in sociology. The professor let me down gently. China for instance had gunpowder long before the West, but no cannon or guns until introduced by western traders(China also had superior metallurgy).
In the case of the Capital, its a post apocalyptic setting, with the Capital having a monopoly on tech. It could be that the capital was the only area that managed to hold on to its tech during the apocalypse and has remained stagnant since. Or it could be that tech and Morality have nothing to do with each other.
Of course you got shot down, you are maknig the wrong argument and the opposite of the one I'm making. Maybe you should read instead of assume?
I said society dictates technology, exactly as your professor here says, not the other way around as you keep implying.
Advances are developed and maintained in society based on the structure of that society. We aren't where we are today compared to 100 years ago by fluke, it's because our society creates the environment for that development to happen.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I thought it was a nice visual supplement to the book. But would agree they left out a lot of stuff. Didn't Harry Potter have this same problem, even early on when the books were small and wieldy?
Yes, same with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Except then they came out with the 5 hour long extended editions.
The LOTR movies did a very good job of establishing the necessary narrative elements for the story to be cohesive and make sense.
Posts
Technology is dictated by society though. Scientific progress doesn't exist in a vacuum and involves a large base structure. It's rather dubious to think that a totalitarian starving capricious society could establish this base.
Problem is you think of them in a manner that is culturally specific. You judge society based on your perspective as a early 21th century person and deem them implausible. Despite the fact we have pointed out that such behavior is consistent with earlier human societies and cultural norms.
To put it bluntly: Since you can't imagine that others would want to watch kids killing each other, you refuse to believe that other people in other times and place would do so either. You also refuse to believe that such a thing could happen in the continental US. You also have a strange belief that tech makes people more moral.
Maybe not, but I contend that it is because it's one of the cornerstones that the conceit is based upon. If we were dealing with a strictly fictional world, like Middle Earth or Fantasia or Tattooine, sure, go crazy and make up whatever rules you want. But Hunger Games is grounded in factual (or at least, geographical) history of the United States, so if your founding exposition is, "The Hunger Games is a punishment for rebellion against the Capitol, which created the Districts after the fall of the US," you kind of need to explain where the Capitol derives its authority from.
As it stands, the Capitol only seems to have the market edge on fascism and crazy haircuts.
They clearly derive their authority through power. They won the rebellion. They have the biggest toys to blow people up with? What more do you need?
Hell, in the third book they have
And you know what? I'd even allow it, as long as there was a precedent established that the people of the Capitol were racists or otherwise strongly prejudiced against the Districts and thought their unsavoriness and sin extended to even their children.
But the movie actually shows the complete and utter opposite.
The bolded part here is very important. These things are happening right now.
You'd be surprised what a good haircut can do.
I think if the series did a better job of establishing how long it's been, that could be fine. The Capitol is somewhere in the Denver/Cheyenne Mountain area, yeah? So maybe remnants of the military holed up there WWZ style and then spread out.
But you have to be real careful about getting bogged down in world building. With any fiction sometimes you just have to take the mulligan with THE WORLD IS X and run with it.
...no it doesn't. It shows them betting on the murder of children. It shows them so swept up in the pageantry they never care to think about the kids as fellow humans.
I will again state that this is a movie aimed at 16 year old girls.
Yes, but WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?
Progressive representative democracy has be the growing cornerstone of the West for going on 300 years, and is the default governmental position for most of the free world.
If you're going to establish a Western society that is completely antithetical to that, complete with slavery and gladiatorial combat of children, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I thought "people with the biggest guns after the collapse of the USA" was plenty of explanation. There was an apocalypse of some sort. When the US collapsed, the scary "holy shit future guns" people took over. Then, when people rebelled, they put them down hard and established the Hunger Games. What more do you want? Their names and ranks? Anymore detail is wholly unnecessary to this story.
I guess I'm a little confused. Am I not supposed to view this film with a critical eye towards basic competency because it's intended for people who can't be bothered by things like logical consistency and reasonable character dynamics?
I'm the asshole because I wanted to see a good movie? Because this is now two different posters who have offered such in a manner that would suggest a defense of the subject matter.
The districts/capitol are not necessarily the direct result of the fall of the US. I don't get why everyone is so pin point fierce about the setup of the world the story wants things to take place in as a mcguffin. Especially when it takes time to go "here, this is setup, accept it, lets move on to story now". Its like watching blade runner and going "olol self destructing androids are totally inefficient they should just use mining robots and fleshlights"
Market edge on fascism and haircuts?
Oh you missed the scene where the capitol has maglev trains, hover/flying vehicles, ability to create genetically modified creatures out of thin air, and enough materials to have fashion while district twelve doesn't have paved/cobblestone streets. It's a step up from the "bring out yer dead" scene from MP's holy grail.
Ross, relax, that's not what I was saying. I was making a tertiary point. You're allowed to want/criticize/think/do whatever you want, dude. This is Murrica.
Wasn't there supposed to be a YA thread popping up? I've some ranting to do!
No, you're supposed to view it within the frame it is intended for. You wouldn't review LOTR in the context of how a six year old would receive it, you shouldn't review a movie intended for a 16 year old girl in the context of how a sociology professor writing a dissertation on the construction of society in a post apocalyptic world would either. It's absolutely 100% "basically competent." It just isn't necessarily super advanced because it doesn't need to be for the story it wants to tell.
That is a fallacy. Technology makes society possible, it does not dictate what shape society takes. Just because you have technological capacity to do something doesn't mean a society is predestined to do it.
Not to argue from authority, but I tried to argue your point on my first day in sociology. The professor let me down gently. China for instance had gunpowder long before the West, but no cannon or guns until introduced by western traders(China also had superior metallurgy).
In the case of the Capital, its a post apocalyptic setting, with the Capital having a monopoly on tech. It could be that the capital was the only area that managed to hold on to its tech during the apocalypse and has remained stagnant since. Or it could be that tech and Morality have nothing to do with each other.
Again, for like the tenth time, a government cannot have permanent authority over people that have leverage over them.
Put down a rebellion in the D12? Fine, good luck having no power. Rebellion in D11? Good luck putting down insurrection with no food for your soldiers.
Basically, the hierarchy of the Capitol is like a game of Jenga, where the Capitol sits at the top and all the pegs below are the Districts. Any of them move and the whole thing comes crashing down, and the only thing keeping this from happening is . . . . ? Guns?
POST APOCALYPSE. SOCIETY WENT BOOM, NEW ONE TOOK ITS PLACE. first 3 minutes of the movie.
And I still haven't figured out exactly what that is, either. At least in the filmed version, The Hunger Games has nothing to say. At all.
Yes, same with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Except then they came out with the 5 hour long extended editions.
Ross, they could literally murder every single person in the districts and be absolutely fine. Likewise, if the entire population of each and every district suddenly died of a horrific disease, the Capitol would still be just fine. I mentioned this already. Just take some of your lazy ass cat people and make them work in the mines/fields. Work on some extra tech to help. The reason the people are being worked isn't slavery, it's punishment. The people in the districts do not have leverage.
Well, except for (BIG ASS BOOK SPOILERS FOR FUTURE MOVIES)
Sure it does. It's about (movie spoilers)
This is a good point, The book doesn't really go into very minute details but you get the idea that no single district is the sole supplier of any one resource.
Again, nothing about any of this is established in the film.
And regardless, the Districts still have the leverage because of the same reasons we still use illegal labor in the US: no one wants to do the shitty jobs.
You clear out districts that support the Capitol, it's going to be a good long while before production ramps back up. And if Capitol citizens have rights District citizens don't? Well good fucking luck getting them into the coal mines of Shitsville, Appalachia.
Don't really need more, but I suspect they have stockpiles of needed goods to last them until they have killed enough to get the message across.
Edit: By the way there are plenty of governments that do this in the real world.
Uh, yes it is? You see tons of people in the Capitol. What part needs to be spelled out? It's very easily inferred.
Oh, yeah. She nearly hurt the ratings of their favorite TV show.
She's a goddamned Martin Luther King.
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.
That's symbolic man. It's like you weren't paying attention.
It's a game that's stacked against all the players because the Capitol can control the outcomes, so who gives a shit?
And in 1752 previous players of the game, NO ONE had the idea to kill themselves instead of face murder or the rules of the ruling class? Really?
They were never given the option of having 2 winners before.
Are you the type of person that watches any iteration of The Incredible Hulk and stands up and leaves because it's bullshit and everyone knows radiation just kills you?
For fuck sake. She is a symbol. That they don't have to play by the Capitols rules. That the game they made them play could be beaten if you refused to go along.
She isn't the planer of the rebellion, she is the cause.
You have just decided you hate this movie. You call it unrealistic, despite us showing you real world events that are similar. We have pointed to several real events and real history to back up our claims. All you got was the aftermath of WW2 and we made a counterclaim to that. All your claims about "falling apart when you think about it", really only shows that you haven't thought about it at all. You probably decided you did't like it in the first 5 minutes and spent the rest of the movie trying to figure out a reason why. Settling on "No western society would ever do something like that" and "Its not spelled out to be in LARGE letters, so it fails". Cinematic snobbery at its worst.
Edit Oh and one city can control an entire continent if they have the TECHNOLOGY to do so! Like the ability to genetically engineer animals at will
I couldn't suspend my disbelief because no plausible foundation existed for the world to live in and the rules were constantly changing. Nothing made sense, and when it did, it was quickly contradicted for the necessity of plot expediency.
It's a badly written story, at least what's on film.
Of course you got shot down, you are maknig the wrong argument and the opposite of the one I'm making. Maybe you should read instead of assume?
I said society dictates technology, exactly as your professor here says, not the other way around as you keep implying.
Advances are developed and maintained in society based on the structure of that society. We aren't where we are today compared to 100 years ago by fluke, it's because our society creates the environment for that development to happen.
Wouldn't that presuppose an ability to genetically engineer, say, food at will? Or fuel?
Or is that kind of technology strictly limited to incidences when it's expedient to the plot?
Fuel isn't genetic, man.
The LOTR movies did a very good job of establishing the necessary narrative elements for the story to be cohesive and make sense.