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.
There were a few things from the books that I think could've been brought in or emphasized more to improve this.
1. Katniss and Peeta absolutely stuffing their faces at every opportunity. These are people for whom bread is a luxury, and I think it was downplayed too much in the movie. Katniss eats everything she can find in the book, and in the movie she barely touches her food.
2. The Prize. The prize is almost never discussed in the movie, and relates to the above after a fashion because high-quality rations for yourself and your family, as well as a certain amount of relief for your district, is a tremendous temptation in a place where food is so scarce they eat squirrel, rat, and dog.
3. The consistency with which the first and second districters win. There are several passages in the book talking about how they depend entirely on hoarding the food and supplies early on and that the Districts closer to the Capitol don't need the games but they win so often they don't care.
4. The thirst, exposure, and starvation issues in the games themselves. All I really wanted was for Haymitch's advice about finding a water source to be brought up at some point. It's emphasized repeatedly as one of the most important elements of success in the games and it seemed like none of them (even Rue) were ever really struggling for food.
5. District 13. Without some mention of the complete destruction of District 13 after the rebellion, and with no evidence of the overwhelming technological superiority of the Capitol, it doesn't feel like the outlying districts are really oppressed to the degree that I think Collins thought they were.
6. It was never really driven home that Panem used to be America. It could have been a passing line from Effie during the train ride "Did you know where the Capitol sits was once called Colorado? How ridiculous!" Again it's something that takes no time and helps with the whole dystopia aspect.
These are all things that contribute to the kind of society where the Games are a possibility and while I enjoyed the movie a great deal I think they would've helped with mythology and atmosphere.
Yes, much of that would have embellished the film greatly. Although District 13 must have been pretty superfluous if it was wiped off the map and everyone just kept trucking. That's all part of the leverage thing that the Districts have over the Capitol; if just one refuses to submit, they can break the whole thing down.
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
And no one at any point seems hungry in this movie.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Lest we start thinking ourselves better than the Capital, Collins said she got the idea from watching the Iraq war on live television. Watching Baghdad being blown to bits with superior technology. The coverage got pretty good ratings too. Sure, we didn't see people dying in person, but every huge explosion killed scores of people.
And how exactly is that related to nearly anything in The Hunger Games? More concerningly, what's her point?
That the Hunger games is that impulse taken to its logical extreme. Watching poor people being killed from a distance leads to watching poor people being killed up close and in HD.
Its not a brilliant premise, but its not that out there.
It's quite a contortion to take the notion "people are invested in seeing the war effort on television" and turn it into "let's all gather around the TV to watch our own citizens' young children murder each other for sport at our behest."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
I was talking about how the film basically disavows any connection to modern western values, yet routinely uses shorthand and cultural trappings of modern western civilizations without acknowledgement.
Lest we start thinking ourselves better than the Capital, Collins said she got the idea from watching the Iraq war on live television. Watching Baghdad being blown to bits with superior technology. The coverage got pretty good ratings too. Sure, we didn't see people dying in person, but every huge explosion killed scores of people.
And how exactly is that related to nearly anything in The Hunger Games? More concerningly, what's her point?
That the Hunger games is that impulse taken to its logical extreme. Watching poor people being killed from a distance leads to watching poor people being killed up close and in HD.
Its not a brilliant premise, but its not that out there.
It's quite a contortion to take the notion "people are invested in seeing the war effort on television" and turn it into "let's all gather around the TV to watch our own citizens' young children murder each other for sport at our behest."
Everybody watching where motivated solely by patriotic fervor.... Right. And people only attended public executions to see justice done. And lynchings in the south where never mass rallies and public spectacles. People are blood thirsty.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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.
There were a few things from the books that I think could've been brought in or emphasized more to improve this.
1. Katniss and Peeta absolutely stuffing their faces at every opportunity. These are people for whom bread is a luxury, and I think it was downplayed too much in the movie. Katniss eats everything she can find in the book, and in the movie she barely touches her food.
2. The Prize. The prize is almost never discussed in the movie, and relates to the above after a fashion because high-quality rations for yourself and your family, as well as a certain amount of relief for your district, is a tremendous temptation in a place where food is so scarce they eat squirrel, rat, and dog.
3. The consistency with which the first and second districters win. There are several passages in the book talking about how they depend entirely on hoarding the food and supplies early on and that the Districts closer to the Capitol don't need the games but they win so often they don't care.
4. The thirst, exposure, and starvation issues in the games themselves. All I really wanted was for Haymitch's advice about finding a water source to be brought up at some point. It's emphasized repeatedly as one of the most important elements of success in the games and it seemed like none of them (even Rue) were ever really struggling for food.
5. District 13. Without some mention of the complete destruction of District 13 after the rebellion, and with no evidence of the overwhelming technological superiority of the Capitol, it doesn't feel like the outlying districts are really oppressed to the degree that I think Collins thought they were.
6. It was never really driven home that Panem used to be America. It could have been a passing line from Effie during the train ride "Did you know where the Capitol sits was once called Colorado? How ridiculous!" Again it's something that takes no time and helps with the whole dystopia aspect.
These are all things that contribute to the kind of society where the Games are a possibility and while I enjoyed the movie a great deal I think they would've helped with mythology and atmosphere.
Yes, much of that would have embellished the film greatly. Although District 13 must have been pretty superfluous if it was wiped off the map and everyone just kept trucking. That's all part of the leverage thing that the Districts have over the Capitol; if just one refuses to submit, they can break the whole thing down.
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
And no one at any point seems hungry in this movie.
Uh, how about when Katniss and Gale tear into that tiny piece of bread at the beginning? They seemed pretty hungry then.
I think a lot of you are trying to put characteristics of an adult film into this movie where it doesn't need them though. It's aimed at 16 year old girls. Massive portions of the books are not about the games, but instead about her internal "OMG BOYS!" thoughts. The world as presented works fine until you attempt to set it as something that would actually work. You have to suspend disbelief and go with it, which for the vast majority of the time, works fine, until you nitpick to something far beyond what a 16 year old girl would. At that point, you've moved to making it an adult novel and/or movie, which it is not. Which is why I said to not overthink it. Remember, this is a movie for kids. It does not need to explicitly lay out the population of a district or the mechanics of how the supply trains work.
I do think not mentioning District 13 was a rather large oversight though.
And that shaky cam!
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
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.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
This I'll agree with. I think what the Games do to people is better handled in the second book.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
You just defined the consistency though. In this society, the "innocent" children are the people from the district. They are being punished for daring to rebel against the capitol so many years ago. The people who rebelled originally are being punished by watching their kids and grandkids and so on have to fight to the death. In the eyes of the Capitol they are criminals. If the people want to rebel again they have to consider that if they lose, something even worse will happen.
edit: And while 12 is the most destitute of the districts and 1 is the best off, it's certainly still plenty poor. Cato has plenty to gain by winning. Plus, you know, glory.
SniperGuy on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
It's implied at the beginning of the film that Katniss and Peeta know of Haymitch, but it's never really explained what their history is or where Haymitch comes from. All that we learn is that:
- Haymitch is their mentor
- He's rich
- He's won the Hunger Games before
- He possibly comes from District 12
The first time we see him is when the kids board the train with Effie, and Haymitch is already onboard in his car. I just assumed he arrived from the Capitol with Effie.
The whole movie does a terrible job with establishing spacial relationships of certain places. I have no idea what District 12 is supposed to look like or how big it is, nor did I ever know how big the playing field was for the Hunger Games.
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
It's implied at the beginning of the film that Katniss and Peeta know of Haymitch, but it's never really explained what their history is or where Haymitch comes from. All that we learn is that:
- Haymitch is their mentor
- He's rich
- He's won the Hunger Games before
- He possibly comes from District 12
The first time we see him is when the kids board the train with Effie, and Haymitch is already onboard in his car. I just assumed he arrived from the Capitol with Effie.
The whole movie does a terrible job with establishing spacial relationships of certain places. I have no idea what District 12 is supposed to look like or how big it is, nor did I ever know how big the playing field was for the Hunger Games.
Wait, he's rich? When do they imply that? Cause as far as I remember from the books he isn't rich.
The rest though is true. Reinforcing my "the movie is a visual guide for the books" point.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
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
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
horrible genetic monstrosities.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
It's implied at the beginning of the film that Katniss and Peeta know of Haymitch, but it's never really explained what their history is or where Haymitch comes from. All that we learn is that:
- Haymitch is their mentor
- He's rich
- He's won the Hunger Games before
- He possibly comes from District 12
The first time we see him is when the kids board the train with Effie, and Haymitch is already onboard in his car. I just assumed he arrived from the Capitol with Effie.
The whole movie does a terrible job with establishing spacial relationships of certain places. I have no idea what District 12 is supposed to look like or how big it is, nor did I ever know how big the playing field was for the Hunger Games.
Wait, he's rich? When do they imply that? Cause as far as I remember from the books he isn't rich.
The rest though is true. Reinforcing my "the movie is a visual guide for the books" point.
It's implied that the kids from Districts 1 & 2 are trained from a young age for the competition, which would inherently imply some degree of financial comfort. It's implied their districts are well-off and don't need the prizes won by the victors.
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
It's implied at the beginning of the film that Katniss and Peeta know of Haymitch, but it's never really explained what their history is or where Haymitch comes from. All that we learn is that:
- Haymitch is their mentor
- He's rich
- He's won the Hunger Games before
- He possibly comes from District 12
The first time we see him is when the kids board the train with Effie, and Haymitch is already onboard in his car. I just assumed he arrived from the Capitol with Effie.
The whole movie does a terrible job with establishing spacial relationships of certain places. I have no idea what District 12 is supposed to look like or how big it is, nor did I ever know how big the playing field was for the Hunger Games.
Again, this falls into the Mythology point I made before.
A quick mention of "The Capitol is in what used to be the Rockies" and "District 12 was called 'The Appalachians' once" would've helped with all of this immensely in my opinion. Even a few recognizable landmarks from those areas when showing the vistas might have been enough. I'm reminded of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within when they go to Arizona and the mountains look exactly the same despite it being a CGI film. It creates a sense of familiarity that helps ground movies like this.
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
It's implied at the beginning of the film that Katniss and Peeta know of Haymitch, but it's never really explained what their history is or where Haymitch comes from. All that we learn is that:
- Haymitch is their mentor
- He's rich
- He's won the Hunger Games before
- He possibly comes from District 12
The first time we see him is when the kids board the train with Effie, and Haymitch is already onboard in his car. I just assumed he arrived from the Capitol with Effie.
The whole movie does a terrible job with establishing spacial relationships of certain places. I have no idea what District 12 is supposed to look like or how big it is, nor did I ever know how big the playing field was for the Hunger Games.
Wait, he's rich? When do they imply that? Cause as far as I remember from the books he isn't rich.
The rest though is true. Reinforcing my "the movie is a visual guide for the books" point.
It's implied that the kids from Districts 1 & 2 are trained from a young age for the competition, which would inherently imply some degree of financial comfort. It's implied their districts are well-off and don't need the prizes won by the victors.
Have you read the book? This is simply not true. If the movie implied it, it's a failing of the movie, but the districts are all in bad shape. 1 and 2 are just the most well fed of the beggars. Also I'm not sure what part of my quote you were directing this at.
SniperGuy on
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
horrible genetic monstrosities.
You're obviously either doing some mental gymnastics or bring up things from the book not mentioned in the film.
Either way, the film is incomplete.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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?
That Panem wouldn't look back to Greece and Rome but must certainly follow America. Who's to say that whatever cataclysm destroyed 21st century life didn't make those who rebuilt look back to a more glorious past, moving away from the decadence of American culture? It's fairly bog standard to bring up classical society with modern technology, but I don't know that it has to play by the rules of 2012 America just because the author and readership is influenced by that society.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
horrible genetic monstrosities.
You're obviously either doing some mental gymnastics or bring up things from the book not mentioned in the film.
Either way, the film is incomplete.
Er, what? It's the 74th annual hunger games. They explicitly state that. They show you a nice video that explains why we have the hunger games, because people rebelled against the capitol and now the districts will forever be punished for it. The spoiler isn't ever mentioned in the movie, no. Is that what you were referring to?
Thats a good point actually. After all thats what the USA did when it was founded. Its why there is a senate, but not a parliament. Congress with representatives.
The center of Washington DC is filled with Grecco-Roman architecture.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
horrible genetic monstrosities.
You're obviously either doing some mental gymnastics or bring up things from the book not mentioned in the film.
Either way, the film is incomplete.
Er, what? It's the 74th annual hunger games. They explicitly state that. They show you a nice video that explains why we have the hunger games, because people rebelled against the capitol and now the districts will forever be punished for it. The spoiler isn't ever mentioned in the movie, no. Is that what you were referring to?
That doesn't explain your assertion that the people of the Capitol would be conditioned into admiring and supporting people they wanted to see killed in poorly-wrought combat.
Same reason people loved the gladiators of ancient Rome. They where slaves that fought for the entertainment of the masses. They even did endorsements.
Edit: People are fame whores. The Kids are the hottest thing on TV, the primary entertainment event of the year.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
horrible genetic monstrosities.
You're obviously either doing some mental gymnastics or bring up things from the book not mentioned in the film.
Either way, the film is incomplete.
Er, what? It's the 74th annual hunger games. They explicitly state that. They show you a nice video that explains why we have the hunger games, because people rebelled against the capitol and now the districts will forever be punished for it. The spoiler isn't ever mentioned in the movie, no. Is that what you were referring to?
That doesn't explain your assertion that the people of the Capitol would be conditioned into admiring and supporting people they wanted to see killed in poorly-wrought combat.
I figured we could assume that since it's still going for 74 years, and this is clearly a totalitarian government, that open resistance has been crushed. Can we not assume that? Am I missing something about evil totalitarian governments? I also completely disagree with "poorly-wrought combat." Those arenas are carefully constructed. The entire thing is for show. It honestly surprises you that a government with the capacity to construct that and have as much technology as they have would have no trouble putting down outspoken opponents? There's even the conversation between Snow and the head gamemaker, discussing how best to control the population by using just the spark of hope.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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?
That Panem wouldn't look back to Greece and Rome but must certainly follow America. Who's to say that whatever cataclysm destroyed 21st century life didn't make those who rebuilt look back to a more glorious past, moving away from the decadence of American culture? It's fairly bog standard to bring up classical society with modern technology, but I don't know that it has to play by the rules of 2012 America just because the author and readership is influenced by that society.
I think at the very least, to consider an enlightened western society would freely both simultaneously advance into one that created scientific and technological marvels and devolve into one that enjoyed watching children hack each other apart takes more explanation and groundwork than just handwaving and saying, "You know, like Rome!"
Obviously by their standards of dress and culture, the America of old wasn't that far removed from their collective history, so why the virtues of that bygone culture would be completely expunged makes no sense without the necessary embellishment.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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?
That Panem wouldn't look back to Greece and Rome but must certainly follow America. Who's to say that whatever cataclysm destroyed 21st century life didn't make those who rebuilt look back to a more glorious past, moving away from the decadence of American culture? It's fairly bog standard to bring up classical society with modern technology, but I don't know that it has to play by the rules of 2012 America just because the author and readership is influenced by that society.
I think at the very least, to consider an enlightened western society would freely both simultaneously advance into one that created scientific and technological marvels and devolve into one that enjoyed watching children hack each other apart takes more explanation and groundwork than just handwaving and saying, "You know, like Rome!"
Obviously by their standards of dress and culture, the America of old wasn't that far removed from their collective history, so why the virtues of that bygone culture would be completely expunged makes no sense without the necessary embellishment.
That makes sense. I think it's hard to determine without knowing exactly how long it's been and what caused the end of our society. I mean, obviously it will always be closer to American than Roman culture, but I could see a future where things change. Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
Though it bothers me in shows like The Walking Dead, Jericho, Survivors, etc. that civilization collapses so easily and everyone but the protagonist is a savage. This doesn't ring true to me. But this is perhaps a discussion for another thread.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I also completely disagree with "poorly-wrought combat." Those arenas are carefully constructed. The entire thing is for show.
I'm talking about the quality of combat. A 12 year old child with minimal weapons and survival training can't be all that interesting. It's why we have a Super Bowl but not a Pop Warner World Fucking Amazing Championship Sunday Brought To You By Coors Light and ESPN.
It honestly surprises you that a government with the capacity to construct that and have as much technology as they have would have no trouble putting down outspoken opponents? There's even the conversation between Snow and the head gamemaker, discussing how best to control the population by using just the spark of hope.
The only thing that surprises me is that the oppression works at all. Like many other people here have already pointed out, you can't successfully oppress the people you are dependent upon for any length of time. They have the leverage, not you.
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?
That Panem wouldn't look back to Greece and Rome but must certainly follow America. Who's to say that whatever cataclysm destroyed 21st century life didn't make those who rebuilt look back to a more glorious past, moving away from the decadence of American culture? It's fairly bog standard to bring up classical society with modern technology, but I don't know that it has to play by the rules of 2012 America just because the author and readership is influenced by that society.
I think at the very least, to consider an enlightened western society would freely both simultaneously advance into one that created scientific and technological marvels and devolve into one that enjoyed watching children hack each other apart takes more explanation and groundwork than just handwaving and saying, "You know, like Rome!"
Obviously by their standards of dress and culture, the America of old wasn't that far removed from their collective history, so why the virtues of that bygone culture would be completely expunged makes no sense without the necessary embellishment.
There is a simple hand-wave actually: Post apocalyptic times. Society advanced, then collapsed, then was rebuilt into Panem. And the fashions where more court of Versailles then anything current. At least in the Capital. Rest of the country they wear the same style of clothes they have worn since the pilgrims. Its not like Pants, Shirts and Skirts have changed that much.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
horrible genetic monstrosities.
You're obviously either doing some mental gymnastics or bring up things from the book not mentioned in the film.
Either way, the film is incomplete.
Er, what? It's the 74th annual hunger games. They explicitly state that. They show you a nice video that explains why we have the hunger games, because people rebelled against the capitol and now the districts will forever be punished for it. The spoiler isn't ever mentioned in the movie, no. Is that what you were referring to?
This is another thing that could've been talked about for a couple of seconds, especially with the format change that involved more Stanley Tucci. Discussing how previous games weren't successful or got poor ratings if too many died of exposure or if the arena wasn't interesting, or that paragraph about the kid who went nuts and started eating the other children so he was conveniently killed by a landslide.
I also completely disagree with "poorly-wrought combat." Those arenas are carefully constructed. The entire thing is for show.
I'm talking about the quality of combat. A 12 year old child with minimal weapons and survival training can't be all that interesting. It's why we have a Super Bowl but not a Pop Warner World Fucking Amazing Championship Sunday Brought To You By Coors Light and ESPN.
It honestly surprises you that a government with the capacity to construct that and have as much technology as they have would have no trouble putting down outspoken opponents? There's even the conversation between Snow and the head gamemaker, discussing how best to control the population by using just the spark of hope.
The only thing that surprises me is that the oppression works at all. Like many other people here have already pointed out, you can't successfully oppress the people you are dependent upon for any length of time. They have the leverage, not you.
They're not completely dependent on them. If they wanted to systematically murder everyone in each district and replace them with people the Capitol they could. But they'd rather be lazy and put on fancy makeup and pretend to be cats while forcing the other people to work for them. The people in the districts have no leverage whatsoever.
edit: as for combat quality, that's partially why the first two districts get training, and I disagree that watching 12 year olds fight wouldn't be "entertaining" in a strictly horrifying sense. The drama is what's interesting. That's what the "You call that a kiss?" message is all about. People will sponsor them because they like the drama, not because they think Peeta is a good straight up murderer.
SniperGuy on
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
I guess I just don't see this as an intrinsic inconsistency - at least, any more than the inconsistency inherent in treating any human being as subhuman, whether adult or child or felon or nonfelon or black or white.
Just because 20th/21st century America uses felons as our general-purpose objects for dehumanization doesn't mean that every society in history (or imaginable) restricts their dehumanization to that particular class.
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?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
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?
After learning the hard way what happens if you don't with Germany in WWI. That is entry level world history 101 Ross.
And even then there where plenty of people that wanted to put all of Germany in prison camps for the rest of eternity. Or at the very least turn it into a massive agricultural territory without industry so it could never rise again. Same with Japan. Germany did get occupied and split in two for almost 50 years and the only reason Japan didn't suffer the same fate was because the US was entering a cold war with the Soviet Union and wanted to rebuild Japan as an ally.
As for the districts becoming part of Panem. The Capital may have just straight up conquered them with its superior tech. The Capital might have been the one area that kept its tech intact and used it to conquer the continent.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
Yes, much of that would have embellished the film greatly. Although District 13 must have been pretty superfluous if it was wiped off the map and everyone just kept trucking. That's all part of the leverage thing that the Districts have over the Capitol; if just one refuses to submit, they can break the whole thing down.
And yes, I went the whole film not knowing at all what the prize actually was. I thought for a while that their reward was getting to move to the Capitol, since Haymitch lived there and I thought he was from District 12.
And no one at any point seems hungry in this movie.
It's quite a contortion to take the notion "people are invested in seeing the war effort on television" and turn it into "let's all gather around the TV to watch our own citizens' young children murder each other for sport at our behest."
I was talking about how the film basically disavows any connection to modern western values, yet routinely uses shorthand and cultural trappings of modern western civilizations without acknowledgement.
Everybody watching where motivated solely by patriotic fervor.... Right. And people only attended public executions to see justice done. And lynchings in the south where never mass rallies and public spectacles. People are blood thirsty.
Uh, how about when Katniss and Gale tear into that tiny piece of bread at the beginning? They seemed pretty hungry then.
I think a lot of you are trying to put characteristics of an adult film into this movie where it doesn't need them though. It's aimed at 16 year old girls. Massive portions of the books are not about the games, but instead about her internal "OMG BOYS!" thoughts. The world as presented works fine until you attempt to set it as something that would actually work. You have to suspend disbelief and go with it, which for the vast majority of the time, works fine, until you nitpick to something far beyond what a 16 year old girl would. At that point, you've moved to making it an adult novel and/or movie, which it is not. Which is why I said to not overthink it. Remember, this is a movie for kids. It does not need to explicitly lay out the population of a district or the mechanics of how the supply trains work.
I do think not mentioning District 13 was a rather large oversight though.
And that shaky cam!
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 no consistency in an advanced culture taking innocent, sometime very young children from their homes and forcing them to fight to the death.
However, above all of that, the film's worst crime is not offering any commentary on the phenomenon from anyone within the system other than passive condoning. The character of Cato, at the very least, should have been a font of commentary; here's a child who has been raised his whole life for the purpose of killing other, weaker children. Has he questioned this? Has he questioned himself? If his district has nothing to gain from this, why is he so driven?
Nope. He's just a scowly psychopath.
I haven't seen the movie, but if it implies this it did a bad job. Winners of the Games are given an extremely nice house for themselves and their family to live in within their District in an area specifically sectioned off for just those homes. As such, Haymitch lives in District 12 and Katniss moves in next door to him.
Also if you didn't like this book/movie then avoid the rest because it all goes downhill in quality from here.
There's really not.
This I'll agree with. I think what the Games do to people is better handled in the second book.
You just defined the consistency though. In this society, the "innocent" children are the people from the district. They are being punished for daring to rebel against the capitol so many years ago. The people who rebelled originally are being punished by watching their kids and grandkids and so on have to fight to the death. In the eyes of the Capitol they are criminals. If the people want to rebel again they have to consider that if they lose, something even worse will happen.
edit: And while 12 is the most destitute of the districts and 1 is the best off, it's certainly still plenty poor. Cato has plenty to gain by winning. Plus, you know, glory.
It's implied at the beginning of the film that Katniss and Peeta know of Haymitch, but it's never really explained what their history is or where Haymitch comes from. All that we learn is that:
- Haymitch is their mentor
- He's rich
- He's won the Hunger Games before
- He possibly comes from District 12
The first time we see him is when the kids board the train with Effie, and Haymitch is already onboard in his car. I just assumed he arrived from the Capitol with Effie.
The whole movie does a terrible job with establishing spacial relationships of certain places. I have no idea what District 12 is supposed to look like or how big it is, nor did I ever know how big the playing field was for the Hunger Games.
Wait, he's rich? When do they imply that? Cause as far as I remember from the books he isn't rich.
The rest though is true. Reinforcing my "the movie is a visual guide for the books" point.
And you are pretending that morality has always been the same or at the very least always gone in the upwards direction. Attitudes change, morals change, not always for the better. You also make the assumption that because we think the kids are innocent, that they would be considered innocent by the Capital. Sins of the fathers?
There have been societies where watching kids from a formerly rebellious province fight to the death would have been okay. Romans would not have had a problem with it. There are societies where forcing kids to pay for the crimes of their parents is okay. or that some people have tainted blood because of a "crime" in the past.
Edit: Technology =/= Morality. More Tech does not equal more morality.
Except in those cases outsiders are almost universally reviled. But in the case of the Hunger Games, the Capitol fawns over the tributes and puts on elaborate shows for them, and to an extent loves them as we do celebrities already.
There's no hatred for the kids from the outer districts. In fact, there's is love and admiration and patronage. That's not something people give to people they want to see brutally murdered.
They don't see them as people. They're criminals. They love the show of it because they've been trained for 70+ years that they have to love the show of it. Do people protest? Quite possibly they did in the early few years. And then the Capitol murdered them, and their families, and turned them into
It's implied that the kids from Districts 1 & 2 are trained from a young age for the competition, which would inherently imply some degree of financial comfort. It's implied their districts are well-off and don't need the prizes won by the victors.
Again, this falls into the Mythology point I made before.
A quick mention of "The Capitol is in what used to be the Rockies" and "District 12 was called 'The Appalachians' once" would've helped with all of this immensely in my opinion. Even a few recognizable landmarks from those areas when showing the vistas might have been enough. I'm reminded of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within when they go to Arizona and the mountains look exactly the same despite it being a CGI film. It creates a sense of familiarity that helps ground movies like this.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Have you read the book? This is simply not true. If the movie implied it, it's a failing of the movie, but the districts are all in bad shape. 1 and 2 are just the most well fed of the beggars. Also I'm not sure what part of my quote you were directing this at.
You're obviously either doing some mental gymnastics or bring up things from the book not mentioned in the film.
Either way, the film is incomplete.
That Panem wouldn't look back to Greece and Rome but must certainly follow America. Who's to say that whatever cataclysm destroyed 21st century life didn't make those who rebuilt look back to a more glorious past, moving away from the decadence of American culture? It's fairly bog standard to bring up classical society with modern technology, but I don't know that it has to play by the rules of 2012 America just because the author and readership is influenced by that society.
Er, what? It's the 74th annual hunger games. They explicitly state that. They show you a nice video that explains why we have the hunger games, because people rebelled against the capitol and now the districts will forever be punished for it. The spoiler isn't ever mentioned in the movie, no. Is that what you were referring to?
The center of Washington DC is filled with Grecco-Roman architecture.
That doesn't explain your assertion that the people of the Capitol would be conditioned into admiring and supporting people they wanted to see killed in poorly-wrought combat.
Edit: People are fame whores. The Kids are the hottest thing on TV, the primary entertainment event of the year.
I figured we could assume that since it's still going for 74 years, and this is clearly a totalitarian government, that open resistance has been crushed. Can we not assume that? Am I missing something about evil totalitarian governments? I also completely disagree with "poorly-wrought combat." Those arenas are carefully constructed. The entire thing is for show. It honestly surprises you that a government with the capacity to construct that and have as much technology as they have would have no trouble putting down outspoken opponents? There's even the conversation between Snow and the head gamemaker, discussing how best to control the population by using just the spark of hope.
I think at the very least, to consider an enlightened western society would freely both simultaneously advance into one that created scientific and technological marvels and devolve into one that enjoyed watching children hack each other apart takes more explanation and groundwork than just handwaving and saying, "You know, like Rome!"
Obviously by their standards of dress and culture, the America of old wasn't that far removed from their collective history, so why the virtues of that bygone culture would be completely expunged makes no sense without the necessary embellishment.
That makes sense. I think it's hard to determine without knowing exactly how long it's been and what caused the end of our society. I mean, obviously it will always be closer to American than Roman culture, but I could see a future where things change. Culture and morality isn't static, especially not after wars and cataclysm.
Though it bothers me in shows like The Walking Dead, Jericho, Survivors, etc. that civilization collapses so easily and everyone but the protagonist is a savage. This doesn't ring true to me. But this is perhaps a discussion for another thread.
I'm talking about the quality of combat. A 12 year old child with minimal weapons and survival training can't be all that interesting. It's why we have a Super Bowl but not a Pop Warner World Fucking Amazing Championship Sunday Brought To You By Coors Light and ESPN.
The only thing that surprises me is that the oppression works at all. Like many other people here have already pointed out, you can't successfully oppress the people you are dependent upon for any length of time. They have the leverage, not you.
There is a simple hand-wave actually: Post apocalyptic times. Society advanced, then collapsed, then was rebuilt into Panem. And the fashions where more court of Versailles then anything current. At least in the Capital. Rest of the country they wear the same style of clothes they have worn since the pilgrims. Its not like Pants, Shirts and Skirts have changed that much.
This is another thing that could've been talked about for a couple of seconds, especially with the format change that involved more Stanley Tucci. Discussing how previous games weren't successful or got poor ratings if too many died of exposure or if the arena wasn't interesting, or that paragraph about the kid who went nuts and started eating the other children so he was conveniently killed by a landslide.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
They're not completely dependent on them. If they wanted to systematically murder everyone in each district and replace them with people the Capitol they could. But they'd rather be lazy and put on fancy makeup and pretend to be cats while forcing the other people to work for them. The people in the districts have no leverage whatsoever.
edit: as for combat quality, that's partially why the first two districts get training, and I disagree that watching 12 year olds fight wouldn't be "entertaining" in a strictly horrifying sense. The drama is what's interesting. That's what the "You call that a kiss?" message is all about. People will sponsor them because they like the drama, not because they think Peeta is a good straight up murderer.
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?
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.
Because I (and probably others here) are incapable of deriving entertainment from things that require me to not think about them.
I guess I just don't see this as an intrinsic inconsistency - at least, any more than the inconsistency inherent in treating any human being as subhuman, whether adult or child or felon or nonfelon or black or white.
Just because 20th/21st century America uses felons as our general-purpose objects for dehumanization doesn't mean that every society in history (or imaginable) restricts their dehumanization to that particular class.
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 "no true scotch man" fallacy.
After learning the hard way what happens if you don't with Germany in WWI. That is entry level world history 101 Ross.
And even then there where plenty of people that wanted to put all of Germany in prison camps for the rest of eternity. Or at the very least turn it into a massive agricultural territory without industry so it could never rise again. Same with Japan. Germany did get occupied and split in two for almost 50 years and the only reason Japan didn't suffer the same fate was because the US was entering a cold war with the Soviet Union and wanted to rebuild Japan as an ally.
As for the districts becoming part of Panem. The Capital may have just straight up conquered them with its superior tech. The Capital might have been the one area that kept its tech intact and used it to conquer the continent.
Wha?
The dehumanising of the criminal element is incredibly common place.
That doesn't really apply much to, say, people you know's children.
So why is it okay that the material ignores this fact?