And you know why I think Atomic Ross is having such a disconnect from the rest of us who read the books first? Because the movie is utter shit on so many of these topics the books explicitly covers and is shit in many other ways, not the least of which making the places and people of the Districts, especially her district, sexy (nutrition) and romantic instead of the fucking ghetto land described in the books. Even if you have only read the first book, you are not going to have the full story because of how much of the information Katniss has in the first book is straight up Capital propaganda she learned in "school".
That's actually a big part of it. I don't feel empathy for most of these characters because even the ones that are supposed to be the worst off of all (Katniss and Peeta) still live better than many free Americans do in places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Everyone is handsome and pretty, and no real suffering is seen.
When I saw District 12 in the movie it was gorgeous. My vision of it in the book was a concrete wasteland with shitty, decaying structures that often didn't even have windows. It was ugly and desolate and the only way anybody could eat was because people went into the wilderness to find food. They skip over it in the movie, but the District 12 market is full of wild game. Even the Peacekeepers buy it, IIRC.
The whole 'plenty of food in the wilderness' thing was another aspect of the books which made it obvious to me that the President Snow was oppressing the districts to keep the Capitol in line, not because he needed the districts.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And you know why I think Atomic Ross is having such a disconnect from the rest of us who read the books first? Because the movie is utter shit on so many of these topics the books explicitly covers and is shit in many other ways, not the least of which making the places and people of the Districts, especially her district, sexy (nutrition) and romantic instead of the fucking ghetto land described in the books. Even if you have only read the first book, you are not going to have the full story because of how much of the information Katniss has in the first book is straight up Capital propaganda she learned in "school".
That's actually a big part of it. I don't feel empathy for most of these characters because even the ones that are supposed to be the worst off of all (Katniss and Peeta) still live better than many free Americans do in places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Everyone is handsome and pretty, and no real suffering is seen.
When I saw District 12 in the movie it was gorgeous. My vision of it in the book was a concrete wasteland with shitty, decaying structures that often didn't even have windows. It was ugly and desolate and the only way anybody could eat was because people went into the wilderness to find food. They skip over it in the movie, but the District 12 market is full of wild game. Even the Peacekeepers buy it, IIRC.
The whole 'plenty of food in the wilderness' thing was another aspect of the books which made it obvious to me that the President Snow was oppressing the districts to keep the Capitol in line, not because he needed the districts.
It seems obvious from the film that President Snow is basically a fascist totalitarian who runs the whole country, but he is never given any characterization beyond his actions, which is a bad way to write a character.
"Iron-fist dictator is motivated by iron-fisted dictatoring."
It's kind of the problem with the whole movie. It's as if the film is the second act of a much bigger story, and maybe not even a complete second act.
And you know why I think Atomic Ross is having such a disconnect from the rest of us who read the books first? Because the movie is utter shit on so many of these topics the books explicitly covers and is shit in many other ways, not the least of which making the places and people of the Districts, especially her district, sexy (nutrition) and romantic instead of the fucking ghetto land described in the books. Even if you have only read the first book, you are not going to have the full story because of how much of the information Katniss has in the first book is straight up Capital propaganda she learned in "school".
That's actually a big part of it. I don't feel empathy for most of these characters because even the ones that are supposed to be the worst off of all (Katniss and Peeta) still live better than many free Americans do in places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Everyone is handsome and pretty, and no real suffering is seen.
When I saw District 12 in the movie it was gorgeous. My vision of it in the book was a concrete wasteland with shitty, decaying structures that often didn't even have windows. It was ugly and desolate and the only way anybody could eat was because people went into the wilderness to find food. They skip over it in the movie, but the District 12 market is full of wild game. Even the Peacekeepers buy it, IIRC.
The whole 'plenty of food in the wilderness' thing was another aspect of the books which made it obvious to me that the President Snow was oppressing the districts to keep the Capitol in line, not because he needed the districts.
It seems obvious from the film that President Snow is basically a fascist totalitarian who runs the whole country, but he is never given any characterization beyond his actions, which is a bad way to write a character.
"Iron-fist dictator is motivated by iron-fisted dictatoring."
It's kind of the problem with the whole movie. It's as if the film is the second act of a much bigger story, and maybe not even a complete second act.
He actually had only one scene in the book, the one where he's putting the crown on Katniss while clearly considering whether he would be best served strangling her on stage himself or saving it for another time.
They spend all their resources "pissing" on the districts (or keeping them in line, if you prefer) so that they can get resources from the districts . . .
Let's think about this line of reasoning.
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
They spend all their resources "pissing" on the districts (or keeping them in line, if you prefer) so that they can get resources from the districts . . .
Let's think about this line of reasoning.
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
Shhhhh
Atomic Ross didn't like The Hunger Games. Just accept it and move on :P
They spend all their resources "pissing" on the districts (or keeping them in line, if you prefer) so that they can get resources from the districts . . .
Let's think about this line of reasoning.
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
Shhhhh
Atomic Ross didn't like The Hunger Games. Just accept it and move on :P
but
but
it's exactly what they did in 1984
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
They spend all their resources "pissing" on the districts (or keeping them in line, if you prefer) so that they can get resources from the districts . . .
Let's think about this line of reasoning.
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
It does make sense, I grant you, but the film fails to establish to what extent the Capitol and each District relies on the supplies from the other districts.
If the Capitol has stores of, well, everything that can last years and years, then they pretty much can do whatever they wish without worry. If they can't go long without production from the the Districts, each District's ability to restrict supplies to either the Capitol or the other Districts gives them a large amount of political leverage.
Despite what some here have argued, the Capitol isn't going to send its own pampered, inexperienced pansies to work in the mines or work in the tech centers or work in the plantations if the Districts either quit or get annihilated in open rebellion. The Districts may be poor, but they have the monopoly on labor and production, and several of the Districts don't explicitly need food or anything else from the Capitol to survive.
The only way the Capitol can lay claim to their authority is if, somehow (and completely unexplained in the film), they have no real need for the production of the Districts. If the Capitol is wholly self-sufficient, which I would think unlikely, they can behave in the manner they do. Otherwise, scrutiny dictates that the scenario is untenable, and in pretty short order.
I think 75 years or so is a reasonable amount of time for this issue to boil over. Long, perhaps, but not beyond reason.
Also, I'll just say I think you're expecting this movie to establish a lot more than is reasonable given the running time, and source material. If there is a scenario in which the set-up makes sense, probably reasonable just assume that is the intended scenario.
I think you're also overestimating the extent to which an oppressed underclass will realize the leverage they may or may not hold, and the faith they'll be willing to put into exercising that leverage.
Despite what some here have argued, the Capitol isn't going to send its own pampered, inexperienced pansies to work in the mines or work in the tech centers or work in the plantations if the Districts either quit or get annihilated in open rebellion. The Districts may be poor, but they have the monopoly on labor and production, and several of the Districts don't explicitly need food or anything else from the Capitol to survive.
The only way the Capitol can lay claim to their authority is if, somehow (and completely unexplained in the film), they have no real need for the production of the Districts. If the Capitol is wholly self-sufficient, which I would think unlikely, they can behave in the manner they do. Otherwise, scrutiny dictates that the scenario is untenable, and in pretty short order.
The capital basically has a monopoly on guns. That's all they need. Furthermore it's frequently stated that should someone not a fuck and try and fight back anyway they will happily target a rebel's family and associates, which surprise is also another really effective strategy of real-life fascist governments.
Like yeah if you could get literally every single person in the districts to form a giant fucking mob and fight back regardless of casualties, the Capital would fall in a day but people generally do not think/act in that way.
They spend all their resources "pissing" on the districts (or keeping them in line, if you prefer) so that they can get resources from the districts . . .
Let's think about this line of reasoning.
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
It does make sense, I grant you, but the film fails to establish to what extent the Capitol and each District relies on the supplies from the other districts.
If the Capitol has stores of, well, everything that can last years and years, then they pretty much can do whatever they wish without worry. If they can't go long without production from the the Districts, each District's ability to restrict supplies to either the Capitol or the other Districts gives them a large amount of political leverage.
Despite what some here have argued, the Capitol isn't going to send its own pampered, inexperienced pansies to work in the mines or work in the tech centers or work in the plantations if the Districts either quit or get annihilated in open rebellion. The Districts may be poor, but they have the monopoly on labor and production, and several of the Districts don't explicitly need food or anything else from the Capitol to survive.
The only way the Capitol can lay claim to their authority is if, somehow (and completely unexplained in the film), they have no real need for the production of the Districts. If the Capitol is wholly self-sufficient, which I would think unlikely, they can behave in the manner they do. Otherwise, scrutiny dictates that the scenario is untenable, and in pretty short order.
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think 75 years or so is a reasonable amount of time for this issue to boil over. Long, perhaps, but not beyond reason.
Also, I'll just say I think you're expecting this movie to establish a lot more than is reasonable given the running time, and source material. If there is a scenario in which the set-up makes sense, probably reasonable just assume that is the intended scenario.
I think you're also overestimating the extent to which an oppressed underclass will realize the leverage they may or may not hold, and the faith they'll be willing to put into exercising that leverage.
Well, the film is 150 minutes or so, and that's plenty long enough for a lot of things.
I think what I getting at, in a macro sense, is that a world that would produce something like the Hunger Games actually takes a significant amount of explanation, and the film gives you almost none of that. The political and socio-economic conditions that would allow for that kind of thing are exceedingly specific, but the film instead asks us to turn most of our focus on a TV show competition.
Say a film starts with the central conceit that the whole world is governed by, say, Poland, and their capitol city is Honolulu. Then, the plot of that film delves little into anything around that scenario, and instead focuses on the drama of a high-stakes quilting bee.
There's a lot of shit that needs to be explained in that situation if you're striving for any sense of believability or reality.
They spend all their resources "pissing" on the districts (or keeping them in line, if you prefer) so that they can get resources from the districts . . .
Let's think about this line of reasoning.
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
It does make sense, I grant you, but the film fails to establish to what extent the Capitol and each District relies on the supplies from the other districts.
If the Capitol has stores of, well, everything that can last years and years, then they pretty much can do whatever they wish without worry. If they can't go long without production from the the Districts, each District's ability to restrict supplies to either the Capitol or the other Districts gives them a large amount of political leverage.
Despite what some here have argued, the Capitol isn't going to send its own pampered, inexperienced pansies to work in the mines or work in the tech centers or work in the plantations if the Districts either quit or get annihilated in open rebellion. The Districts may be poor, but they have the monopoly on labor and production, and several of the Districts don't explicitly need food or anything else from the Capitol to survive.
The only way the Capitol can lay claim to their authority is if, somehow (and completely unexplained in the film), they have no real need for the production of the Districts. If the Capitol is wholly self-sufficient, which I would think unlikely, they can behave in the manner they do. Otherwise, scrutiny dictates that the scenario is untenable, and in pretty short order.
A) Nobody suggested that the citizens of the capitol would start producing for themselves unless totally forced to. If you hadn't noticed, there are twelve districts, meaning that there's plenty of free labor unless they all revolt simultaneously, which is try of all tyrannical systems.
2) Are you really going to claim that nothing changed for England when the British Empire collapsed, and that they just held on to the colonies for shits and giggles?
Seriously, pick up a history book sometime. I know that you'll argue that the contents of that are impossible, too, but at least you might learn one or two things.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving.
And that's one of the failings of the film. These exact things are never really demonstrated. The people in the Districts seem to be getting by (bakeries! with cake!) and who knows how far anything is from anything else. And the only person who ever seems "scared" is Prim after her name gets called.
I think 75 years or so is a reasonable amount of time for this issue to boil over. Long, perhaps, but not beyond reason.
Also, I'll just say I think you're expecting this movie to establish a lot more than is reasonable given the running time, and source material. If there is a scenario in which the set-up makes sense, probably reasonable just assume that is the intended scenario.
I think you're also overestimating the extent to which an oppressed underclass will realize the leverage they may or may not hold, and the faith they'll be willing to put into exercising that leverage.
Well, the film is 150 minutes or so, and that's plenty long enough for a lot of things.
I think what I getting at, in a macro sense, is that a world that would produce something like the Hunger Games actually takes a significant amount of explanation, and the film gives you almost none of that. The political and socio-economic conditions that would allow for that kind of thing are exceedingly specific, but the film instead asks us to turn most of our focus on a TV show competition.
Say a film starts with the central conceit that the whole world is governed by, say, Poland, and their capitol city is Honolulu. Then, the plot of that film delves little into anything around that scenario, and instead focuses on the drama of a high-stakes quilting bee.
There's a lot of shit that needs to be explained in that situation if you're striving for any sense of believability or reality.
No, honestly I wouldn't necessarily give much of a shit about Poland or its capitol. Not if I showed up excited to see a quilting bee.
And that's one of the failings of the film. These exact things are never really demonstrated. The people in the Districts seem to be getting by (bakeries! with cake!) and who knows how far anything is from anything else. And the only person who ever seems "scared" is Prim after her name gets called.
This is about the only criticism you've put forward that it reasonable. Had the movie demonstrated that the districts were isolated, and people were actually hungry, no you shouldn't necessarily be overly concerned why Poland took over the world and moved their capitol.
Which was an exaggeration anyway, since the theoretical capitol appears to be within the borders of the previous civilization.
And I'm fairly certain the most common post-disaster capitals in science fiction are Denver (and the Capital is meant to evoke Denver, I think) and Omaha, Nebraska (closest major-ish city to where the President's plan is supposed to fly to and did on 9/11).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And I'm fairly certain the most common post-disaster capitals in science fiction are Denver (and the Capital is meant to evoke Denver, I think) and Omaha, Nebraska (closest major city to where the President's plan is supposed to fly to and did on 9/11).
I assumed it was Denver as well, since that was the capital in Alas, Babylon.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A) Nobody suggested that the citizens of the capitol would start producing for themselves unless totally forced to. If you hadn't noticed, there are twelve districts, meaning that there's plenty of free labor unless they all revolt simultaneously, which is try of all tyrannical systems.
2) Are you really going to claim that nothing changed for England when the British Empire collapsed, and that they just held on to the colonies for shits and giggles?
Seriously, pick up a history book sometime. I know that you'll argue that the contents of that are impossible, too, but at least you might learn one or two things.
A) I'm pretty sure a few posters did indeed argue that. Regardless, if the Districts are dependent upon each other, the failure of one will have a chain reaction that will eventually bring all of them down, possibly including the Capitol.
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.
Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.
I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).
A) Nobody suggested that the citizens of the capitol would start producing for themselves unless totally forced to. If you hadn't noticed, there are twelve districts, meaning that there's plenty of free labor unless they all revolt simultaneously, which is try of all tyrannical systems.
2) Are you really going to claim that nothing changed for England when the British Empire collapsed, and that they just held on to the colonies for shits and giggles?
Seriously, pick up a history book sometime. I know that you'll argue that the contents of that are impossible, too, but at least you might learn one or two things.
A) I'm pretty sure a few posters did indeed argue that. Regardless, if the Districts are dependent upon each other, the failure of one will have a chain reaction that will eventually bring all of them down, possibly including the Capitol.
2) They didn't cease being England.
This is where you are full on wrong Atomic Ross (even though I agree with you that the movie is a piece of shit) but ... I don't recall if the movie ever brings up District 13 which gets the Bombing of Guernica/Dresden treatment... even then, the propaganda video at the reaping spells it out pretty clearly "Hey, you guys told us to fuck off once upon a time and we put you down so hard"
Think about this for one second, using your logic of how they depend on the Districts means the Districts are the ones having the power ... and once upon a time they did just that, rebelled. Only, The Capital won. While they didn't have control of the 12 Districts.
Safe to assume The Capital wasn't getting dick all from the Districts then, yet they won and won so hard the Districts submit to the forced human sacrifice of their children which over 74 years has become ritual and tradition, a damn annual festival. It took until until the life time of Katniss' dad for there to be enough slacking off for the fence to be a joke.
And you still hung up on this being a far flung future set in the ruins of North America, if not the world? Out of curiosity, do you have a strong dislike for other fictions set in post-apocalyptic settings?
That is one place I fill in the blanks for the book, read between the lines if you will, I think The Capital and all the people who make up the districts are the descendants of a Vault / Nuclear Bomb (Winter) Shelter City and the various genetic abominations and flying craft is holder over tech from before the bombs/biologicals/robots/etc.
CanadianWolverine on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.
Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.
I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).
Exactly.
And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.
Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?
This is where you are full on wrong Atomic Ross (even though I agree with you that the movie is a piece of shit) but ... I don't recall if the movie ever brings up District 13 which gets the Bombing of Guernica/Dresden treatment... even then, the propaganda video at the reaping spells it out pretty clearly "Hey, you guys told us to fuck off once upon a time and we put you down so hard"
Think about this for one second, using your logic of how they depend on the Districts means the Districts are the ones having the power ... and once upon a time they did just that, rebelled. Only, The Capital won. While they didn't have control of the 12 Districts.
Which is fine, if the movie showed the Capitol being capable of anything other than oppression.
The purpose of the British Empire wasn't to spend 99% of all their capital just to suppress Indians and Persians. They were establishing governmental authority, but they were also extricating resources and luxury items. They weren't sending troops over just to build forts and fuck people over for the purpose of obtaining goods they didn't really need. Much like the Spanish incursions to the New World, the concern wasn't over suppressing the populace, it was about getting all the land and resources.
In the Hunger Games world, the goods, land, and resources are all a distant second to just fucking people over in very, very, very involving and encompassing ways.
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.
Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.
I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).
Exactly.
And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.
Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?
Have you tried comparing it to Star Wars? You know, the movie where the bad guy is called Lord Darth Vader and uses evil space-magic to kill people just for making minor mistakes or delivering bad news?
I mean, seriously, it's a Potterverse-grade young-adult work of fiction. The story is; "Evil Empire is evil. Good rebellious kid stands up to Evil Empire, becomes "candle in the dark." Evil Empire begins to lose it's absolute power because of Good rebellious kid." It's a morality play of "no, you move," with an outlandishly evil enemy and an improbably successful heroine because sometimes, SOMETIMES, it's nice to have a story that's simple.
I mean I'm not even going to see this movie until one of the fans I know drags me into it but lighten up. I can think of worse messages to give to kids than, "stand up for what's right, don't give in to jerks with power."
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.
Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.
I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).
I love how your whole list is North Korea with even more facilitating circumstances.
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.
Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.
I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).
Exactly.
And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.
Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?
Either you have no idea how much effort colonialism required, or you just don't believe in the existence of Africa. The only thing the Capitol puts effort into that isn't directly related to extracting labor is gladiatorial combat, which for most of us was covered in elementary school history classes.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
where are you getting any of this? you're extrapolating so, so much.
all we saw that it took to control 12 was a handful of guards and a fence
I'm extrapolating based on what people have said about the text and what is implied by the film.
A handful of guards and a fence doesn't control jack shit, anywhere.
Oh come on, it's more than that. In the movie even, when the rebellion in 11 occurred, there were hoverships and shock troops there in minutes.
Even ignoring the techno-weapons that the Capitol could theoretically deploy whenever they felt like it, they've got enough soldiers and a fast enough reaction time to have very believable control.
Why did various empires through the ages feel the need beat the fuck out of their neighbours when they could have lived comfortably all on their own?
The Capital could cut all ties with the Districts and accept a more modest life style with few to no luxuries. In a very direct way, all the behind the scenes stuff in The Capital that allows their decadent life styles are slaves, gelded and muted. The Districts provide the building blocks for the whims of those fortunate enough to be born in the Capital to a rich trust fund or whatever. Its the ultimate gated community, plenty of work for fashionistas, while in the sewers slaves grease the gears with their deaths.
But make no mistake, even The Capital citizens are oppressed in their own ways, piss off the head cheese and you disappear, to be spoken about in hushed whispers, each citizen knowing that to speak ill of President Snow they will soon join the names of people that no one remembers quite purposefully anymore.
The books really are 1984 for the outlook of one of the kinds of people that main character probably paid for sex in the more run down areas while he worked his government job. In a really fucked up fashion, The Hunger Games are a lottery, both for wealth and sacrifice, not unlike a short story I read ages ago in school. Helicopters gunning down refugees in a boat, yo.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The only thing the Capitol puts effort into that isn't directly related to extracting labor is gladiatorial combat, which for most of us was covered in elementary school history classes.
This has to be inherently false, unless you're throwing "maintain a large system of imprisonment capable of instantly quelling any rebellion" under the cost of "extracting labor."
Someone is paying for all those hovercrafts and laser-guns and soldiers and electric fences. And their maintenance.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The only thing the Capitol puts effort into that isn't directly related to extracting labor is gladiatorial combat, which for most of us was covered in elementary school history classes.
This has to be inherently false, unless you're throwing "maintain a large system of imprisonment capable of instantly quelling any rebellion" under the cost of "extracting labor."
Someone is paying for all those hovercrafts and laser-guns and soldiers and electric fences. And their maintenance.
Given Katniss's and Gale's activities...maybe not so much as you'd think.
Maybe relying more on willingness to kill the shit out of people over actual routine physical control.
Posts
The whole 'plenty of food in the wilderness' thing was another aspect of the books which made it obvious to me that the President Snow was oppressing the districts to keep the Capitol in line, not because he needed the districts.
It seems obvious from the film that President Snow is basically a fascist totalitarian who runs the whole country, but he is never given any characterization beyond his actions, which is a bad way to write a character.
"Iron-fist dictator is motivated by iron-fisted dictatoring."
It's kind of the problem with the whole movie. It's as if the film is the second act of a much bigger story, and maybe not even a complete second act.
He actually had only one scene in the book, the one where he's putting the crown on Katniss while clearly considering whether he would be best served strangling her on stage himself or saving it for another time.
the gamemakers planning and everything seemed so right.
and district 12 was pretty, but it was also god damn awful
it's what they did in 1984, creating artificial scarcity so the ruling elite get the best goods. didn't you read animal farm?
pretty much all facist governments tightly control resources. they get to dole it out to the ruling class, solidifying their favor with the wealthy and powerful. the government in hunger games mirrors a lot of feudal governments, where you have an opulent court life supported by stripping the resources from poverty stricken hinterlands.
Place looked like a pure shithole
Shhhhh
Atomic Ross didn't like The Hunger Games. Just accept it and move on :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
well presumably it's the blue ridge mountains in the summer which is one of the prettiest places ever
even if you're hunting squirrels to survive
but
but
it's exactly what they did in 1984
It does make sense, I grant you, but the film fails to establish to what extent the Capitol and each District relies on the supplies from the other districts.
If the Capitol has stores of, well, everything that can last years and years, then they pretty much can do whatever they wish without worry. If they can't go long without production from the the Districts, each District's ability to restrict supplies to either the Capitol or the other Districts gives them a large amount of political leverage.
Despite what some here have argued, the Capitol isn't going to send its own pampered, inexperienced pansies to work in the mines or work in the tech centers or work in the plantations if the Districts either quit or get annihilated in open rebellion. The Districts may be poor, but they have the monopoly on labor and production, and several of the Districts don't explicitly need food or anything else from the Capitol to survive.
The only way the Capitol can lay claim to their authority is if, somehow (and completely unexplained in the film), they have no real need for the production of the Districts. If the Capitol is wholly self-sufficient, which I would think unlikely, they can behave in the manner they do. Otherwise, scrutiny dictates that the scenario is untenable, and in pretty short order.
The mountains sure look nice when your shitting in a bucket and working 16 hours a day in a deadly coal mine.
Also, I'll just say I think you're expecting this movie to establish a lot more than is reasonable given the running time, and source material. If there is a scenario in which the set-up makes sense, probably reasonable just assume that is the intended scenario.
I think you're also overestimating the extent to which an oppressed underclass will realize the leverage they may or may not hold, and the faith they'll be willing to put into exercising that leverage.
The capital basically has a monopoly on guns. That's all they need. Furthermore it's frequently stated that should someone not a fuck and try and fight back anyway they will happily target a rebel's family and associates, which surprise is also another really effective strategy of real-life fascist governments.
Like yeah if you could get literally every single person in the districts to form a giant fucking mob and fight back regardless of casualties, the Capital would fall in a day but people generally do not think/act in that way.
you've just described every autocracy ever. Like. every one. There may be a few exceptions but in pretty much every instance that there's been a strongman, if every citizen simultaneously rose up and cut off the ruling class, they could topple the government in short order, or at least lay siege to them. Kings and monarchs and dictators are rarely in power because they have more REAL power than the entire country put together. In this case, they control distribution of resources. each district produces one thing that is useful but they can't survive off of. in exchange they get just enough of other resources to survive. and did you notice the greatest military weapon district 12 could bring to bear was a bow and arrow? what do you think the capitol's fleet is like, if they can manipulate an arena this size with ease every year?
the districts are isolated, scared, and barely surviving. the capital, while technically vulnerable, holds all the cards because they have soft power over the citizenry, which is again, the case in virtually every dictatorship ever.
Well, the film is 150 minutes or so, and that's plenty long enough for a lot of things.
I think what I getting at, in a macro sense, is that a world that would produce something like the Hunger Games actually takes a significant amount of explanation, and the film gives you almost none of that. The political and socio-economic conditions that would allow for that kind of thing are exceedingly specific, but the film instead asks us to turn most of our focus on a TV show competition.
Say a film starts with the central conceit that the whole world is governed by, say, Poland, and their capitol city is Honolulu. Then, the plot of that film delves little into anything around that scenario, and instead focuses on the drama of a high-stakes quilting bee.
There's a lot of shit that needs to be explained in that situation if you're striving for any sense of believability or reality.
A) Nobody suggested that the citizens of the capitol would start producing for themselves unless totally forced to. If you hadn't noticed, there are twelve districts, meaning that there's plenty of free labor unless they all revolt simultaneously, which is try of all tyrannical systems.
2) Are you really going to claim that nothing changed for England when the British Empire collapsed, and that they just held on to the colonies for shits and giggles?
Seriously, pick up a history book sometime. I know that you'll argue that the contents of that are impossible, too, but at least you might learn one or two things.
And that's one of the failings of the film. These exact things are never really demonstrated. The people in the Districts seem to be getting by (bakeries! with cake!) and who knows how far anything is from anything else. And the only person who ever seems "scared" is Prim after her name gets called.
No, honestly I wouldn't necessarily give much of a shit about Poland or its capitol. Not if I showed up excited to see a quilting bee.
This is about the only criticism you've put forward that it reasonable. Had the movie demonstrated that the districts were isolated, and people were actually hungry, no you shouldn't necessarily be overly concerned why Poland took over the world and moved their capitol.
Which was an exaggeration anyway, since the theoretical capitol appears to be within the borders of the previous civilization.
I assumed it was Denver as well, since that was the capital in Alas, Babylon.
A) I'm pretty sure a few posters did indeed argue that. Regardless, if the Districts are dependent upon each other, the failure of one will have a chain reaction that will eventually bring all of them down, possibly including the Capitol.
2) They didn't cease being England.
you could have saved us some typing by just saying that
Very few of the old autocratic regimes were centralized. There were constant wars, both civil wars and foreign wars, as a result: The old French empire, for example, was largely a collection of vassal states that acted in concert with France out of fear of aggression from the British empire, the Portuguese and/or Castille.
Could you name a particular medieval empire that behaves in the way the Capitol does in Hunger Games? That is, it has totalitarian centralized control over a wide range of vassal states, with no apparent outside aggressors to fight against or rally a cause against, it has all of the resources & manpower to not only police but omnisciently monitor the activities of every vassal and it somehow is able to unilaterally crush any vassal state that rebels without inciting a full-blown civil war.
I don't think you'll be able to , because that's never happened, because that's not the way autocratic empires work (and it's certainly not the way totalitarian empires work).
and well no, I can't really name a medieval empire that acts a fictional future country in post apocalyptic america
I said that a long time ago. Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to keep talking about it.
This is where you are full on wrong Atomic Ross (even though I agree with you that the movie is a piece of shit) but ... I don't recall if the movie ever brings up District 13 which gets the Bombing of Guernica/Dresden treatment... even then, the propaganda video at the reaping spells it out pretty clearly "Hey, you guys told us to fuck off once upon a time and we put you down so hard"
Think about this for one second, using your logic of how they depend on the Districts means the Districts are the ones having the power ... and once upon a time they did just that, rebelled. Only, The Capital won. While they didn't have control of the 12 Districts.
Safe to assume The Capital wasn't getting dick all from the Districts then, yet they won and won so hard the Districts submit to the forced human sacrifice of their children which over 74 years has become ritual and tradition, a damn annual festival. It took until until the life time of Katniss' dad for there to be enough slacking off for the fence to be a joke.
And you still hung up on this being a far flung future set in the ruins of North America, if not the world? Out of curiosity, do you have a strong dislike for other fictions set in post-apocalyptic settings?
That is one place I fill in the blanks for the book, read between the lines if you will, I think The Capital and all the people who make up the districts are the descendants of a Vault / Nuclear Bomb (Winter) Shelter City and the various genetic abominations and flying craft is holder over tech from before the bombs/biologicals/robots/etc.
Exactly.
And while I'm prepared to allow the Capitol to not be a completely rational actor, I have significant difficulty believing that the Capitol would have the desire and mandate to spend the appalling amount of money and time and resources it would take to micromanage and enforce law in the Districts as the text (and its defenders) would imply.
Like I said earlier in the thread, it appears the entire Capitol economy runs on the purpose of pointless oppression, like poverty and submission is some kind of tangible commodity. Even assuming the people of the Capitol have a working economy, it would appear that almost all of their GDP and federal expenditures are spent on keeping hillbillies poor and hungry. It's simple math; if you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the round-the-clock degradation of a nation of people, where is your income coming from? More over, what are you getting from it?
Which is fine, if the movie showed the Capitol being capable of anything other than oppression.
The purpose of the British Empire wasn't to spend 99% of all their capital just to suppress Indians and Persians. They were establishing governmental authority, but they were also extricating resources and luxury items. They weren't sending troops over just to build forts and fuck people over for the purpose of obtaining goods they didn't really need. Much like the Spanish incursions to the New World, the concern wasn't over suppressing the populace, it was about getting all the land and resources.
In the Hunger Games world, the goods, land, and resources are all a distant second to just fucking people over in very, very, very involving and encompassing ways.
all we saw that it took to control 12 was a handful of guards and a fence
Also a willingness to kill the shit out of you, and maybe your family, and maybe cut your tongue out and use you as a slave.
Have you tried comparing it to Star Wars? You know, the movie where the bad guy is called Lord Darth Vader and uses evil space-magic to kill people just for making minor mistakes or delivering bad news?
I mean, seriously, it's a Potterverse-grade young-adult work of fiction. The story is; "Evil Empire is evil. Good rebellious kid stands up to Evil Empire, becomes "candle in the dark." Evil Empire begins to lose it's absolute power because of Good rebellious kid." It's a morality play of "no, you move," with an outlandishly evil enemy and an improbably successful heroine because sometimes, SOMETIMES, it's nice to have a story that's simple.
I mean I'm not even going to see this movie until one of the fans I know drags me into it but lighten up. I can think of worse messages to give to kids than, "stand up for what's right, don't give in to jerks with power."
I love how your whole list is North Korea with even more facilitating circumstances.
Either you have no idea how much effort colonialism required, or you just don't believe in the existence of Africa. The only thing the Capitol puts effort into that isn't directly related to extracting labor is gladiatorial combat, which for most of us was covered in elementary school history classes.
I'm extrapolating based on what people have said about the text and what is implied by the film.
A handful of guards and a fence doesn't control jack shit, anywhere.
And the threat of nuclear weapons. You are aware that those exist, right?
Oh come on, it's more than that. In the movie even, when the rebellion in 11 occurred, there were hoverships and shock troops there in minutes.
Even ignoring the techno-weapons that the Capitol could theoretically deploy whenever they felt like it, they've got enough soldiers and a fast enough reaction time to have very believable control.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Why did various empires through the ages feel the need beat the fuck out of their neighbours when they could have lived comfortably all on their own?
The Capital could cut all ties with the Districts and accept a more modest life style with few to no luxuries. In a very direct way, all the behind the scenes stuff in The Capital that allows their decadent life styles are slaves, gelded and muted. The Districts provide the building blocks for the whims of those fortunate enough to be born in the Capital to a rich trust fund or whatever. Its the ultimate gated community, plenty of work for fashionistas, while in the sewers slaves grease the gears with their deaths.
But make no mistake, even The Capital citizens are oppressed in their own ways, piss off the head cheese and you disappear, to be spoken about in hushed whispers, each citizen knowing that to speak ill of President Snow they will soon join the names of people that no one remembers quite purposefully anymore.
The books really are 1984 for the outlook of one of the kinds of people that main character probably paid for sex in the more run down areas while he worked his government job. In a really fucked up fashion, The Hunger Games are a lottery, both for wealth and sacrifice, not unlike a short story I read ages ago in school. Helicopters gunning down refugees in a boat, yo.
This has to be inherently false, unless you're throwing "maintain a large system of imprisonment capable of instantly quelling any rebellion" under the cost of "extracting labor."
Someone is paying for all those hovercrafts and laser-guns and soldiers and electric fences. And their maintenance.
It's a MAD situation. If the Capitol and the Districts depend on coal or grain or whatever, the threat of nuclear annihilation is a joke.
Given Katniss's and Gale's activities...maybe not so much as you'd think.
Maybe relying more on willingness to kill the shit out of people over actual routine physical control.