The Hunger Games is not a series I particularly enjoy
The first book was fairly interesting, the second book a boring rehash, and the third book was a great change of pace and seemed fairly clever until the need for a shocking surprise ending made it go dumb as hell.
By contrast, the first movie was painfully dull, the second movie was fun, and I haven't seen the third movie, because I'm waiting to see if they do the same stupid ending bullshit from the book in Third Movie Part 2.
There's nothing bullshit about the ending of the 3rd book. It's not done for "shocking surprise", it's done to bring the ideas of the series together.
This isn't a spoiler because it's a known fact with producing chinese movies, but the government
a) cannot lose
b) cannot be shown as incompetent/corrupt
c) cannot put people in danger
d) vices are not allowed to be shown in a positive light
wow, it's the Hays Code all over again.
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Hunger Games is not a series I particularly enjoy
The first book was fairly interesting, the second book a boring rehash, and the third book was a great change of pace and seemed fairly clever until the need for a shocking surprise ending made it go dumb as hell.
By contrast, the first movie was painfully dull, the second movie was fun, and I haven't seen the third movie, because I'm waiting to see if they do the same stupid ending bullshit from the book in Third Movie Part 2.
Without getting too much into it, my biggest problem stems from the obvious ways the world-building doesn't logically work.
And then, hilariously, the characters in the story later realize this and use it to their advantage.
"I don't know that I could name a characteristic of any character".
"I don't care about these dwarfs and their gold".
"wwhhhhaaaaaar".
"Out of the three this was the ... best? Which isn't saying much."
Going back to that review has reminded me why I didn't see that movie.
Five Armies was the first movie where I noticed the editing.
Like, I was taken out of the movie enough that I was able to reflect on how poorly edited some of the sequences were.
Either that or the fill buffs around here are rubbing off on me (gross, stop that).
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I watched Stephen Chow's Journey to the West and I just can't understand the good reviews it's received.
I dunno if it's watching it in Chinese or a clash of cultures but that was just absolute dreck with the occasional funny joke.
Most of the reviews I saw were bad to the point of saying don't watch it, you'll be disappointed.
I'd just glanced at the rotten tomatoes score and figured the disparity between professional and audience reviews was just due to it being a foreign film or something.
But the movie was just a bunch of set pieces edited together with no real coherence. I'm all for absurdity but characters were introduced with little to no explanation, motivations might change every few scenes, and the overarching plot was extremely weak.
It's kind of like when I was burned by Snowpiercer. Except while I personally hated it I could absolutely understand why people would enjoy it. And now I'm wondering how many of Journey's reviews were bought.
0
Options
FantastikaBetting That The Levee Will HoldRegistered Userregular
So Hong Kong cinema used to be rad. Did it kind of die when China took it back? Or did those events not coincide? My memory is poor and I'm lazy.
A good example of the before, during, and after effect is in Donnie Yen movies; Flash Point is totally hong kong, a flashy kung fu detective movie. Ip Man 1 is this great movie that used all of hong kong's knowledge about filmmaking and telling a good story about Bruce Lee's mentor thanks to the resources of mainland china, even if it had to sacrifice things like dubbing and a story that emphasized hwo Hong Kong is China's. And then Ip Man 2, the only thing going for it is the fighting, which is still good but it goes over the top in white guys being racist for no reasons (while at the same time ignoring chinese people tossing slurs at Reginald Britishton), makes no sense in terms of a timeline, and then tries to Rocky IV itself into chinese hero rallies people to his (China's) side.
Yeah, Donnie Yen films have taken a huge hit. It's sad. If you asked me like 5 years ago, I'd have called him one of the best action filmmakers on the planet but now, ugh. Have you tried to watch his latest one Kung Fu Killer? It sadly continues the trend in terms of quality. It even skimps on the fight scenes which are one of the primary reasons to see a Donnie Yen movie. They all seem to last no longer than a minute and are all flashbacks, so all the tension is sucked out of them.
I'd also throw Johnnie To in as an example as well. I liked his Hong Kong based stuff, especially Election, but I tried watching Drug War, which is supposed to be the first film he's made fully in mainland China and it's just really kind of bland and boring. China seemed to have sucked all the good out of it. None of the cops has much of a personality or anything memorable about them, they don't really have any flaws or anything. And China's drug policies aren't really criticized as part of a film that based around them. It's unfortunate.
Dude, bro, guydudebro, that was going to be my other Hong Kong-turned-terrible evidence. Drug War was the movie that really made me really go WTF and start looking at why this shit's happening, because it's so, so bad.
This isn't a spoiler because it's a known fact with producing chinese movies, but the government
a) cannot lose
b) cannot be shown as incompetent/corrupt
c) cannot put people in danger
d) vices are not allowed to be shown in a positive light
so, you take those three things, put them in a crime thriller, and you get some of the most boring storytelling. Bad guys are cartoonishly evil, any sense of the cops failing or screwing up is completely erased by the mandates from on high, there's this weird sort of propaganda going on where the bad people are deaf/mute people (basically the dregs of society), and the ending isn't really a surprise because of course it happens that way in a chinese movie.
This is why whenever people want to shit on any sort of modern jingoistic movie in America, I just go, "pssshaw" and "nah brah" and you haven't seen anything yet.
I kind of want to see that Chinese Top Gun movie now just to see how bad it is. Makes me wonder what the Chinese version of Lethal Weapon would be like.
The one thing I can't believe about Drug War is that it has an 86 on Metacritic. What film did they see?
The Hunger Games is not a series I particularly enjoy
The first book was fairly interesting, the second book a boring rehash, and the third book was a great change of pace and seemed fairly clever until the need for a shocking surprise ending made it go dumb as hell.
By contrast, the first movie was painfully dull, the second movie was fun, and I haven't seen the third movie, because I'm waiting to see if they do the same stupid ending bullshit from the book in Third Movie Part 2.
Without getting too much into it, my biggest problem stems from the obvious ways the world-building doesn't logically work.
And then, hilariously, the characters in the story later realize this and use it to their advantage.
The movie is so going to pull the same bullshit that makes no sense. My favorite (and possibly what you're even referring to I guess):
"Yeah, people need to hate the Capital even MORE, because they're already at war killing them all, we need to push it to 11! Lets do something stupid, but see it's a callback and a morality point, so it's OK!".
I'll be honest, I've seen all the films so far and still don't know exactly why they have the games or how they keep the peace. Oppressive regime, widespread poverty, society segmented into districts with a rich, upper class in the middle.. and somehow making the districts submit a child to stand a 1/12(?) chance of surviving stops them all going ballistic and overthrowing stuff. I know there's a detail I've missed but I don't remember it and the films sure don't seem to remind me, save to say that the games keep the peace.
But apart from that, I do really enjoy the films. That's not sarcasm or anything, they're really enjoyable.
The Hunger Games is not a series I particularly enjoy
The first book was fairly interesting, the second book a boring rehash, and the third book was a great change of pace and seemed fairly clever until the need for a shocking surprise ending made it go dumb as hell.
By contrast, the first movie was painfully dull, the second movie was fun, and I haven't seen the third movie, because I'm waiting to see if they do the same stupid ending bullshit from the book in Third Movie Part 2.
There's nothing bullshit about the ending of the 3rd book. It's not done for "shocking surprise", it's done to bring the ideas of the series together.
Nah, it's weak. Third book spoilers
There is zero reason for Coin to betray Katniss, and even less reason for Prim to go to the front lines of an active war zone. The idiot ball that requires all that to happen is a 99-yard hail mary.
It's like, Katniss has 1) spent three books not being interested in politics (while still being pretty good at them when she puts her mind to it) and 2) been willing to move heaven and earth to save her little sister. What did Coin think would happen when she caused Prim's death? What's really in it for her (aside from, you know, an arrow)? Katniss is one of the only people who every single district has some stake in; her use, unbroken, as a PR tool far outweighs any political risk down the road. You can still have a bittersweet ending without killing Prim. Katniss realizing that she's still a tool, but going out there and smiling and helping the districts rebuild anyway, that would've been an ending more in line with the rest of the series.
I'll be honest, I've seen all the films so far and still don't know exactly why they have the games or how they keep the peace. Oppressive regime, widespread poverty, society segmented into districts with a rich, upper class in the middle.. and somehow making the districts submit a child to stand a 1/12(?) chance of surviving stops them all going ballistic and overthrowing stuff. I know there's a detail I've missed but I don't remember it and the films sure don't seem to remind me, save to say that the games keep the peace.
But apart from that, I do really enjoy the films. That's not sarcasm or anything, they're really enjoyable.
Like many things about this series, its an aspect of the world that is explained better in the books. The games prevent violent revolt both via bread-and-circuses, keeping the population distracted through violent spectacle, and through divide-and-conquer, keeping the population focused on inter-district competition and hating the other districts for killing their children. It's not so far fetched, since it's a flavor of political strategy we see employed pretty much every day here in the U.S.
The Hunger Games is not a series I particularly enjoy
The first book was fairly interesting, the second book a boring rehash, and the third book was a great change of pace and seemed fairly clever until the need for a shocking surprise ending made it go dumb as hell.
By contrast, the first movie was painfully dull, the second movie was fun, and I haven't seen the third movie, because I'm waiting to see if they do the same stupid ending bullshit from the book in Third Movie Part 2.
There's nothing bullshit about the ending of the 3rd book. It's not done for "shocking surprise", it's done to bring the ideas of the series together.
Nah, it's weak. Third book spoilers
There is zero reason for Coin to betray Katniss, and even less reason for Prim to go to the front lines of an active war zone. The idiot ball that requires all that to happen is a 99-yard hail mary.
It's like, Katniss has 1) spent three books not being interested in politics (while still being pretty good at them when she puts her mind to it) and 2) been willing to move heaven and earth to save her little sister. What did Coin think would happen when she caused Prim's death? What's really in it for her (aside from, you know, an arrow)? Katniss is one of the only people who every single district has some stake in; her use, unbroken, as a PR tool far outweighs any political risk down the road. You can still have a bittersweet ending without killing Prim. Katniss realizing that she's still a tool, but going out there and smiling and helping the districts rebuild anyway, that would've been an ending more in line with the rest of the series.
Coin has always feared Katniss exactly because she is such a powerful PR tool. She is the face of the resistance and thus a huge risk to Coin's power. She doesn't know what Katniss' intentions are and she's exactly the type of person who would see ambition in others (ie - see herself in others) It's also not just about Katniss. Or even primarily about Katniss. She just wants Katniss out of the way and when Katniss volunteers to go on a suicide mission into the city, she's like "Welp, problem solved". The bombings are mostly a PR move designed to break the capitals resistance. You seem to have missed what was going on in the ending.
And no, what you decribe would not have been in line with the rest of the series because a big pat of the whole series that the ending deals with is what kind of person Katniss chooses to be.
The movie is so going to pull the same bullshit that makes no sense. My favorite (and possibly what you're even referring to I guess):
"Yeah, people need to hate the Capital even MORE, because they're already at war killing them all, we need to push it to 11! Lets do something stupid, but see it's a callback and a morality point, so it's OK!".
I can hardly wait!
Same as above, it's not stupid you just completely mistook what happened. It's not done for the other districts, it's done for the capital. To turn them against Snow.
I'll be honest, I've seen all the films so far and still don't know exactly why they have the games or how they keep the peace. Oppressive regime, widespread poverty, society segmented into districts with a rich, upper class in the middle.. and somehow making the districts submit a child to stand a 1/12(?) chance of surviving stops them all going ballistic and overthrowing stuff. I know there's a detail I've missed but I don't remember it and the films sure don't seem to remind me, save to say that the games keep the peace.
But apart from that, I do really enjoy the films. That's not sarcasm or anything, they're really enjoyable.
Like many things about this series, its an aspect of the world that is explained better in the books. The games prevent violent revolt both via bread-and-circuses, keeping the population distracted through violent spectacle, and through divide-and-conquer, keeping the population focused on inter-district competition and hating the other districts for killing their children. It's not so far fetched, since it's a flavor of political strategy we see employed pretty much every day here in the U.S.
Except that it's an incredibly shitty way to do it. Seriously, read that Cracked piece - they take those very arguments and dissect them.
So Hong Kong cinema used to be rad. Did it kind of die when China took it back? Or did those events not coincide? My memory is poor and I'm lazy.
A good example of the before, during, and after effect is in Donnie Yen movies; Flash Point is totally hong kong, a flashy kung fu detective movie. Ip Man 1 is this great movie that used all of hong kong's knowledge about filmmaking and telling a good story about Bruce Lee's mentor thanks to the resources of mainland china, even if it had to sacrifice things like dubbing and a story that emphasized hwo Hong Kong is China's. And then Ip Man 2, the only thing going for it is the fighting, which is still good but it goes over the top in white guys being racist for no reasons (while at the same time ignoring chinese people tossing slurs at Reginald Britishton), makes no sense in terms of a timeline, and then tries to Rocky IV itself into chinese hero rallies people to his (China's) side.
Yeah, Donnie Yen films have taken a huge hit. It's sad. If you asked me like 5 years ago, I'd have called him one of the best action filmmakers on the planet but now, ugh. Have you tried to watch his latest one Kung Fu Killer? It sadly continues the trend in terms of quality. It even skimps on the fight scenes which are one of the primary reasons to see a Donnie Yen movie. They all seem to last no longer than a minute and are all flashbacks, so all the tension is sucked out of them.
I'd also throw Johnnie To in as an example as well. I liked his Hong Kong based stuff, especially Election, but I tried watching Drug War, which is supposed to be the first film he's made fully in mainland China and it's just really kind of bland and boring. China seemed to have sucked all the good out of it. None of the cops has much of a personality or anything memorable about them, they don't really have any flaws or anything. And China's drug policies aren't really criticized as part of a film that based around them. It's unfortunate.
Dude, bro, guydudebro, that was going to be my other Hong Kong-turned-terrible evidence. Drug War was the movie that really made me really go WTF and start looking at why this shit's happening, because it's so, so bad.
This isn't a spoiler because it's a known fact with producing chinese movies, but the government
a) cannot lose
b) cannot be shown as incompetent/corrupt
c) cannot put people in danger
d) vices are not allowed to be shown in a positive light
so, you take those three things, put them in a crime thriller, and you get some of the most boring storytelling. Bad guys are cartoonishly evil, any sense of the cops failing or screwing up is completely erased by the mandates from on high, there's this weird sort of propaganda going on where the bad people are deaf/mute people (basically the dregs of society), and the ending isn't really a surprise because of course it happens that way in a chinese movie.
This is why whenever people want to shit on any sort of modern jingoistic movie in America, I just go, "pssshaw" and "nah brah" and you haven't seen anything yet.
So Hong Kong cinema used to be rad. Did it kind of die when China took it back? Or did those events not coincide? My memory is poor and I'm lazy.
A good example of the before, during, and after effect is in Donnie Yen movies; Flash Point is totally hong kong, a flashy kung fu detective movie. Ip Man 1 is this great movie that used all of hong kong's knowledge about filmmaking and telling a good story about Bruce Lee's mentor thanks to the resources of mainland china, even if it had to sacrifice things like dubbing and a story that emphasized hwo Hong Kong is China's. And then Ip Man 2, the only thing going for it is the fighting, which is still good but it goes over the top in white guys being racist for no reasons (while at the same time ignoring chinese people tossing slurs at Reginald Britishton), makes no sense in terms of a timeline, and then tries to Rocky IV itself into chinese hero rallies people to his (China's) side.
Yeah, Donnie Yen films have taken a huge hit. It's sad. If you asked me like 5 years ago, I'd have called him one of the best action filmmakers on the planet but now, ugh. Have you tried to watch his latest one Kung Fu Killer? It sadly continues the trend in terms of quality. It even skimps on the fight scenes which are one of the primary reasons to see a Donnie Yen movie. They all seem to last no longer than a minute and are all flashbacks, so all the tension is sucked out of them.
I'd also throw Johnnie To in as an example as well. I liked his Hong Kong based stuff, especially Election, but I tried watching Drug War, which is supposed to be the first film he's made fully in mainland China and it's just really kind of bland and boring. China seemed to have sucked all the good out of it. None of the cops has much of a personality or anything memorable about them, they don't really have any flaws or anything. And China's drug policies aren't really criticized as part of a film that based around them. It's unfortunate.
Dude, bro, guydudebro, that was going to be my other Hong Kong-turned-terrible evidence. Drug War was the movie that really made me really go WTF and start looking at why this shit's happening, because it's so, so bad.
This isn't a spoiler because it's a known fact with producing chinese movies, but the government
a) cannot lose
b) cannot be shown as incompetent/corrupt
c) cannot put people in danger
d) vices are not allowed to be shown in a positive light
so, you take those three things, put them in a crime thriller, and you get some of the most boring storytelling. Bad guys are cartoonishly evil, any sense of the cops failing or screwing up is completely erased by the mandates from on high, there's this weird sort of propaganda going on where the bad people are deaf/mute people (basically the dregs of society), and the ending isn't really a surprise because of course it happens that way in a chinese movie.
This is why whenever people want to shit on any sort of modern jingoistic movie in America, I just go, "pssshaw" and "nah brah" and you haven't seen anything yet.
Decided to get into the Fast & Furious series as I haven't seen any since the very first one years ago. Based on suggestions, I skipped ahead to Fast Five, and after halfway through it, it's a perfectly enjoyable caper movie.
Arguing about the realism of a future dystopia is never not stupid.
"OMG, Logan's Run is so unrealistic!" said no one ever.
The point is that if the structure of your society cannot withstand five minutes of basic scrutiny, well...time to hit the drawing board.
No, that's a bad point. Cause who fucking cares?
It's a dystopia. The populace is kept in line via gladiatorial matches that distract the public and keep them divided and afraid. And you run with it.
This shit is like complaining that Star Wars or The Matrix doesn't make realistic sense. "But OMG, any sort of human energy output wouldn't be a net positive compared to feeding them plus all that energy comes from the sun anyway, which is blocked and" shut up, kungfutime.
shryke on
+4
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Arguing about the realism of a future dystopia is never not stupid.
"OMG, Logan's Run is so unrealistic!" said no one ever.
The point is that if the structure of your society cannot withstand five minutes of basic scrutiny, well...time to hit the drawing board.
No, that's a bad point. Cause who fucking cares?
It's a dystopia. The populace is kept in line via gladiatorial matches that distract the public and keep them divided and afraid. And you run with it.
This shit is like complaining that Star Wars or The Matrix doesn't make realistic sense. "But OMG, any sort of human energy output wouldn't be a net positive compared to feeding them plus all that energy comes from the sun anyway, which is blocked and" shut up, kungfutime.
Nah. This is different, at least in the THG movies because, as I said, the characters in the film use these points of massive unsustainability as tactical points in their plans of rebellion.
"OMG, if we just break the Capitol's labor and supply chain, we'll have all the leverage!"
"Yes, if only someone would have figured out that incredibly obvious and glaring weakness in any of the 75 years we've been living under their tyranny!'
+9
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
Decided to get into the Fast & Furious series as I haven't seen any since the very first one years ago. Based on suggestions, I skipped ahead to Fast Five, and after halfway through it, it's a perfectly enjoyable caper movie.
The Hunger Games would have made reasonable enough sense if there had a been a slow and gradual decline that ultimately led to the Games, and by the time people realized what had happened they were all too scared to resist.
Instead it was just, "Okay, we need to keep you in line, INSTANT CHILD GLADIATORIAL DEATH GAMES."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Arguing about the realism of a future dystopia is never not stupid.
"OMG, Logan's Run is so unrealistic!" said no one ever.
The point is that if the structure of your society cannot withstand five minutes of basic scrutiny, well...time to hit the drawing board.
No, that's a bad point. Cause who fucking cares?
It's a dystopia. The populace is kept in line via gladiatorial matches that distract the public and keep them divided and afraid. And you run with it.
This shit is like complaining that Star Wars or The Matrix doesn't make realistic sense. "But OMG, any sort of human energy output wouldn't be a net positive compared to feeding them plus all that energy comes from the sun anyway, which is blocked and" shut up, kungfutime.
Nah. This is different, at least in the THG movies because, as I said, the characters in the film use these points of massive unsustainability as tactical points in their plans of rebellion.
"OMG, if we just break the Capitol's labor and supply chain, we'll have all the leverage!"
"Yes, if only someone would have figured out that incredibly obvious and glaring weakness in any of the 75 years we've been living under their tyranny!'
The Matrix's entire plot depends on what I just mentioned. Everything about what happens in the movie depends on the need to have humans. This objection do not make no sense.
Whether or not I give a pass on their nonsense premise depends a lot on how important it is to the story.
With the first Matrix, using people as batteries obviously didn't make sense. But that wasn't really the important part of the story. People existing unknowingly in a virtual world was the focus. And for the most part it was consistent and more or less made sense.
For Hunger Games, the oppression and rebellion of the population is the general focus. And to me at least the oppression just doesn't make any sense. Literally the only people who enjoy the games are the capitol and maybe a couple of the richer districts. There could be some neat stuff to explore regarding PTSD but it's tertiary to the main plot. There could have been some even more interesting stuff if the districts actually supported the games.
wow i haven't read the books since they came out but was the reason they hadn't fought in the last "75" years because actually just a few years before katniss was born or whatever district 13 was bombed into nothing? Like all the other districts were like...yeah we COULD rise up but then we'd all be dead and it was true?
wow i haven't read the books since they came out but was the reason they hadn't fought in the last "75" years because actually just a few years before katniss was born or whatever district 13 was bombed into nothing? Like all the other districts were like...yeah we COULD rise up but then we'd all be dead and it was true?
After a bit of wikipedia'ing:
The district system was in place already from some far past catastrophe, either environmental or otherwise, the Hunger Games came about as a direct result of 13's rebellion 75 years ago.
Whether or not I give a pass on their nonsense premise depends a lot on how important it is to the story.
With the first Matrix, using people as batteries obviously didn't make sense. But that wasn't really the important part of the story. People existing unknowingly in a virtual world was the focus. And for the most part it was consistent and more or less made sense.
For Hunger Games, the oppression and rebellion of the population is the general focus. And to me at least the oppression just doesn't make any sense. Literally the only people who enjoy the games are the capitol and maybe a couple of the richer districts. There could be some neat stuff to explore regarding PTSD but it's tertiary to the main plot. There could have been some even more interesting stuff if the districts actually supported the games.
Some of them do. The richer districts all have volunteers.
I know. That's why I mentioned the richer districts maybe enjoying them. But most of the population hates them and it doesn't make any sense why they're held. Guns and bombs keeping the districts in check makes sense. Televised child death matches every year not so much.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
There's still a problem with it being winner-takes-all. I think you'd get more buy-in if districts got additional resources (that's the carrot, right?) based on their relative performance. As written, the winning district gets hooked up and the rest get nothing. Multiple levels of prizes would work better at keeping the districts at each other's throats since there'd always be someone doing better than you that you can be jealous of, and someone else looking to eat your lunch for you to be afraid of.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I know. That's why I mentioned the richer districts maybe enjoying them. But most of the population hates them and it doesn't make any sense why they're held. Guns and bombs keeping the districts in check makes sense. Televised child death matches every year not so much.
Well, the guns and bombs are also there. The Hunger Games are basically how they remind the populace who's in charge. That's why it doesn't matter if the populace hates them, what's important is that they understand the implicit message that "We have the power. We can take your kids away and kill them and you can't stop us because if you do, we'll bomb you". It's a demonstration of power. And, to the capital, a distraction.
It exists to set up the world the story takes place in and works well for that.
shryke on
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Let's get this straight:
The Capitol bombing a district into oblivion IS THE STUPIDEST THING THEY COULD DO. They are utterly dependent on the districts for everything.
The threat of them destroying their own resources is completely empty and unenforceable.
The games also serve a dual purpose of keeping the capital fat and happy while it keeps the districts in line.
If they just bombed the districts and imposed authoritarian martial law, the capital would probably be in similar disrray because they would see their government commit explicitly horrible acts. But the games are a lavish spectacle, where the winners are raised up above their given station! Of course as viewers we see it as the atrocity it is, but for a city of people who have lived with the games all their lives, they see it as a celebration
I know. That's why I mentioned the richer districts maybe enjoying them. But most of the population hates them and it doesn't make any sense why they're held. Guns and bombs keeping the districts in check makes sense. Televised child death matches every year not so much.
Well, the guns and bombs are also there. The Hunger Games are basically how they remind the populace who's in charge. That's why it doesn't matter if the populace hates them, what's important is that they understand the implicit message that "We have the power. We can take your kids away and kill them and you can't stop us because if you do, we'll bomb you". It's a demonstration of power. And, to the capital, a distraction.
It exists to set up the world the story takes place in and works well for that.
Except that in the real world, factions that try to do that very quickly find themselves dealing with everyone hating them.
I know. That's why I mentioned the richer districts maybe enjoying them. But most of the population hates them and it doesn't make any sense why they're held. Guns and bombs keeping the districts in check makes sense. Televised child death matches every year not so much.
Well, the guns and bombs are also there. The Hunger Games are basically how they remind the populace who's in charge. That's why it doesn't matter if the populace hates them, what's important is that they understand the implicit message that "We have the power. We can take your kids away and kill them and you can't stop us because if you do, we'll bomb you". It's a demonstration of power. And, to the capital, a distraction.
It exists to set up the world the story takes place in and works well for that.
Except that in the real world, factions that try to do that very quickly find themselves dealing with everyone hating them.
In the real world, every sci-fi setting makes no sense. Like I already pointed out.
I think it just would have worked a lot better overall if it was entirely voluntary. Participants' motivation would be that much stronger and I could see all of the districts supporting it if written right.
The Capitol bombing a district into oblivion IS THE STUPIDEST THING THEY COULD DO. They are utterly dependent on the districts for everything.
The threat of them destroying their own resources is completely empty and unenforceable.
The upper classes are always dependant on the lower classes for everything. And yet oppression and violence is a system that is and was used all the time and those systems do last.
I think it just would have worked a lot better overall if it was entirely voluntary. Participants' motivation would be that much stronger and I could see all of the districts supporting it if written right.
Would negate the entire point of the story because it would completely change the main character and her motivations.
I know. That's why I mentioned the richer districts maybe enjoying them. But most of the population hates them and it doesn't make any sense why they're held. Guns and bombs keeping the districts in check makes sense. Televised child death matches every year not so much.
Well, the guns and bombs are also there. The Hunger Games are basically how they remind the populace who's in charge. That's why it doesn't matter if the populace hates them, what's important is that they understand the implicit message that "We have the power. We can take your kids away and kill them and you can't stop us because if you do, we'll bomb you". It's a demonstration of power. And, to the capital, a distraction.
It exists to set up the world the story takes place in and works well for that.
Except that in the real world, factions that try to do that very quickly find themselves dealing with everyone hating them.
In the real world, every sci-fi setting makes no sense. Like I already pointed out.
Actually, no. You brought up Star Wars earlier, but it's worth pointing out that the Empire does actually act in ways that real life empires did, in order to maintain control. They do actually employ the concept of the velvet fist (even if the velvet part is a bit thin). In comparison, Panem's structure is absolutely nonsensical.
I know. That's why I mentioned the richer districts maybe enjoying them. But most of the population hates them and it doesn't make any sense why they're held. Guns and bombs keeping the districts in check makes sense. Televised child death matches every year not so much.
Well, the guns and bombs are also there. The Hunger Games are basically how they remind the populace who's in charge. That's why it doesn't matter if the populace hates them, what's important is that they understand the implicit message that "We have the power. We can take your kids away and kill them and you can't stop us because if you do, we'll bomb you". It's a demonstration of power. And, to the capital, a distraction.
It exists to set up the world the story takes place in and works well for that.
Except that in the real world, factions that try to do that very quickly find themselves dealing with everyone hating them.
In the real world, every sci-fi setting makes no sense. Like I already pointed out.
Actually, no. You brought up Star Wars earlier, but it's worth pointing out that the Empire does actually act in ways that real life empires did, in order to maintain control. They do actually employ the concept of the velvet fist (even if the velvet part is a bit thin). In comparison, Panem's structure is absolutely nonsensical.
Actually yes.
Sorry dude, but Star Wars is full of utter bullshit that makes no sense but doesn't matter because that kind of shit doesn't matter. ESB is generally considered the best movie in the series and the timeline and spacial layout and science and everything of that entire movie is fucking clownshoes nonsense.
Even ANH shows the Empire as comically evil on a level even the government in THG doesn't match. They literally destroy an entire planet just to show they can as part of an interrogation.
shryke on
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Capitol bombing a district into oblivion IS THE STUPIDEST THING THEY COULD DO. They are utterly dependent on the districts for everything.
The threat of them destroying their own resources is completely empty and unenforceable.
The upper classes are always dependant on the lower classes for everything. And yet oppression and violence is a system that is and was used all the time and those systems do last.
Yes.
But there's a difference between centuries-old entrenched political jiggering that leads to creating and maintaining an oligarchical system of disenfranchisement that still allows for robust economic and civic freedom in the lower classes . . .
. . . and a centralized government of decadent crazy-people who somehow manage to keep power with the threat, "Rebel and we'll kill us all!" that also disincentivizes those oppressed classes by removing any reason to care about living.
Posts
There's nothing bullshit about the ending of the 3rd book. It's not done for "shocking surprise", it's done to bring the ideas of the series together.
wow, it's the Hays Code all over again.
Without getting too much into it, my biggest problem stems from the obvious ways the world-building doesn't logically work.
And then, hilariously, the characters in the story later realize this and use it to their advantage.
Five Armies was the first movie where I noticed the editing.
Like, I was taken out of the movie enough that I was able to reflect on how poorly edited some of the sequences were.
Either that or the fill buffs around here are rubbing off on me (gross, stop that).
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'd just glanced at the rotten tomatoes score and figured the disparity between professional and audience reviews was just due to it being a foreign film or something.
But the movie was just a bunch of set pieces edited together with no real coherence. I'm all for absurdity but characters were introduced with little to no explanation, motivations might change every few scenes, and the overarching plot was extremely weak.
It's kind of like when I was burned by Snowpiercer. Except while I personally hated it I could absolutely understand why people would enjoy it. And now I'm wondering how many of Journey's reviews were bought.
I kind of want to see that Chinese Top Gun movie now just to see how bad it is. Makes me wonder what the Chinese version of Lethal Weapon would be like.
The one thing I can't believe about Drug War is that it has an 86 on Metacritic. What film did they see?
The movie is so going to pull the same bullshit that makes no sense. My favorite (and possibly what you're even referring to I guess):
Cracked had a great article on that!
5 Things Movie Dystopias Get Wrong About Dictatorships
Nah, it's weak. Third book spoilers
It's like, Katniss has 1) spent three books not being interested in politics (while still being pretty good at them when she puts her mind to it) and 2) been willing to move heaven and earth to save her little sister. What did Coin think would happen when she caused Prim's death? What's really in it for her (aside from, you know, an arrow)? Katniss is one of the only people who every single district has some stake in; her use, unbroken, as a PR tool far outweighs any political risk down the road. You can still have a bittersweet ending without killing Prim. Katniss realizing that she's still a tool, but going out there and smiling and helping the districts rebuild anyway, that would've been an ending more in line with the rest of the series.
Like many things about this series, its an aspect of the world that is explained better in the books. The games prevent violent revolt both via bread-and-circuses, keeping the population distracted through violent spectacle, and through divide-and-conquer, keeping the population focused on inter-district competition and hating the other districts for killing their children. It's not so far fetched, since it's a flavor of political strategy we see employed pretty much every day here in the U.S.
And no, what you decribe would not have been in line with the rest of the series because a big pat of the whole series that the ending deals with is what kind of person Katniss chooses to be.
Except that it's an incredibly shitty way to do it. Seriously, read that Cracked piece - they take those very arguments and dissect them.
"OMG, Logan's Run is so unrealistic!" said no one ever.
Wow
That is some Comics Code Authority nonsense.
No, that's some Hays Code gooseshit.
This is the movie thread, after all.
(And those bits were pretty much ripped from the Hays Code.)
The point is that if the structure of your society cannot withstand five minutes of basic scrutiny, well...time to hit the drawing board.
No, that's a bad point. Cause who fucking cares?
It's a dystopia. The populace is kept in line via gladiatorial matches that distract the public and keep them divided and afraid. And you run with it.
This shit is like complaining that Star Wars or The Matrix doesn't make realistic sense. "But OMG, any sort of human energy output wouldn't be a net positive compared to feeding them plus all that energy comes from the sun anyway, which is blocked and" shut up, kungfutime.
Nah. This is different, at least in the THG movies because, as I said, the characters in the film use these points of massive unsustainability as tactical points in their plans of rebellion.
"OMG, if we just break the Capitol's labor and supply chain, we'll have all the leverage!"
"Yes, if only someone would have figured out that incredibly obvious and glaring weakness in any of the 75 years we've been living under their tyranny!'
Fast Five is the best one, imo.
Instead it was just, "Okay, we need to keep you in line, INSTANT CHILD GLADIATORIAL DEATH GAMES."
The Matrix's entire plot depends on what I just mentioned. Everything about what happens in the movie depends on the need to have humans. This objection do not make no sense.
With the first Matrix, using people as batteries obviously didn't make sense. But that wasn't really the important part of the story. People existing unknowingly in a virtual world was the focus. And for the most part it was consistent and more or less made sense.
For Hunger Games, the oppression and rebellion of the population is the general focus. And to me at least the oppression just doesn't make any sense. Literally the only people who enjoy the games are the capitol and maybe a couple of the richer districts. There could be some neat stuff to explore regarding PTSD but it's tertiary to the main plot. There could have been some even more interesting stuff if the districts actually supported the games.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
After a bit of wikipedia'ing:
The district system was in place already from some far past catastrophe, either environmental or otherwise, the Hunger Games came about as a direct result of 13's rebellion 75 years ago.
Bombing the district is a way better reason for people not to fight than child death games
The latter if anything leads to the exact opposite situation
Some of them do. The richer districts all have volunteers.
Well, the guns and bombs are also there. The Hunger Games are basically how they remind the populace who's in charge. That's why it doesn't matter if the populace hates them, what's important is that they understand the implicit message that "We have the power. We can take your kids away and kill them and you can't stop us because if you do, we'll bomb you". It's a demonstration of power. And, to the capital, a distraction.
It exists to set up the world the story takes place in and works well for that.
The Capitol bombing a district into oblivion IS THE STUPIDEST THING THEY COULD DO. They are utterly dependent on the districts for everything.
The threat of them destroying their own resources is completely empty and unenforceable.
If they just bombed the districts and imposed authoritarian martial law, the capital would probably be in similar disrray because they would see their government commit explicitly horrible acts. But the games are a lavish spectacle, where the winners are raised up above their given station! Of course as viewers we see it as the atrocity it is, but for a city of people who have lived with the games all their lives, they see it as a celebration
Except that in the real world, factions that try to do that very quickly find themselves dealing with everyone hating them.
In the real world, every sci-fi setting makes no sense. Like I already pointed out.
The upper classes are always dependant on the lower classes for everything. And yet oppression and violence is a system that is and was used all the time and those systems do last.
Would negate the entire point of the story because it would completely change the main character and her motivations.
Actually, no. You brought up Star Wars earlier, but it's worth pointing out that the Empire does actually act in ways that real life empires did, in order to maintain control. They do actually employ the concept of the velvet fist (even if the velvet part is a bit thin). In comparison, Panem's structure is absolutely nonsensical.
Actually yes.
Sorry dude, but Star Wars is full of utter bullshit that makes no sense but doesn't matter because that kind of shit doesn't matter. ESB is generally considered the best movie in the series and the timeline and spacial layout and science and everything of that entire movie is fucking clownshoes nonsense.
Even ANH shows the Empire as comically evil on a level even the government in THG doesn't match. They literally destroy an entire planet just to show they can as part of an interrogation.
Yes.
But there's a difference between centuries-old entrenched political jiggering that leads to creating and maintaining an oligarchical system of disenfranchisement that still allows for robust economic and civic freedom in the lower classes . . .
. . . and a centralized government of decadent crazy-people who somehow manage to keep power with the threat, "Rebel and we'll kill us all!" that also disincentivizes those oppressed classes by removing any reason to care about living.