# Hunger Games



## Rikilamaro

Read the books, thought they were decent. 

To see the movie or not to see the movie is the question now. Opinions?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I'm seeing it tonight, I'll tell y'all how it is after  (I haven't read the books but I know the premise)


----------



## Rikilamaro

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I'm seeing it tonight, I'll tell y'all how it is after  (I haven't read the books but I know the premise)



Hope you enjoy it.  Let me know.


----------



## gerald.parson

Haven't read the books and have yet to catch a full preview, whats the premise?


----------



## Kelise

The movie is the closest book-to-movie adaption I've ever seen.

Premise is basically Battle Royale, if you've heard of that. Or apparently Stephen King's 'The Long Walk' (which I haven't read, so I can't confirm). Youths are thrown into an arena where they have to kill each other to survive - last one standing gets to go home again. They have to be under 18 years old and are randomly selected, get a week or two to train and that's it.


----------



## gerald.parson

why? population control?


----------



## Rikilamaro

No, it's more a punishment of the rebellious states that tried to break apart from the almighty Capitol. They have these games every year and take a boy and girl from each state (or district) ages 12-18 to fight.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

The movie was pretty good. I started reading the book this morning and I'm about halfway through it now. The movie hewed pretty close, although unless you're a big fan of Jennifer Lawrence I would recommend just reading the book instead.


----------



## Kelise

And the Hunger Games is pretty much their version of reality tv. It's a massive event for them, people bet on it and cheer on their district and so on.


----------



## Steerpike

I liked the book well enough, though never read the sequels.

I do not like the choice of actress for Katniss. She doesn't seem to fit the part, and I think that would hamper my enjoyment of the movie somewhat.


----------



## topazfire

I read the books around Christmas and went to an imax midnight opening. I loved the movie but have heard that some people who did not read the book had a hard time following along. 

There is, of course, more detail in  the book, but they stayed very close, especially since the author was one of the screenwriters. I loved Jennifer Lawrence in the role. I had only seen her in X-men first class, but she is an Oscar nominee for Winter's Bone. The girl can act. 

The main comment I heard about her was that her figure was 'too good'. Seriously!? It was nice to see a real woman's body on the screen despite the fact that the character was supposed to be near starved at the beginning (hence all of the food they were being given to eat - which was not actually explained in the movie). 

The book was more graphic and had the movie stayed completely faithful, it might not have been given a pg13 rating - it would have been up over 14A likely. 

Anyways, loved it, go see it, and read the book if you are confused after.


----------



## KellyB

I saw the movie last night with my daughter.  I had not read the book and was able to understand the movie, it wasn't confusing to me at all.  It was a good movie.

On the way home from the movie, we stopped at the book store and got the book, so I will be reading it soon.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Thanks ladies. I'm hoping to see it Monday. I bought the last in the series today.


----------



## Kelise

Steerpike said:


> I liked the book well enough, though never read the sequels.
> 
> I do not like the choice of actress for Katniss. She doesn't seem to fit the part, and I think that would hamper my enjoyment of the movie somewhat.



I think she did a really good job of it, actually. It was always going to be hard for whoever acted Katiss as we get to know her through her own thoughts (first person narrative, etc) but thankfully the actress manages to get a lot of it told through her reactions and facial expressions. I enjoyed her as Katniss a load better than as Raven in X-men First Class.


----------



## gerald.parson

Just got back from taking my niece to the movie. She didn't care for it, I thought it was ok. Not bad, not that good.


----------



## Rikilamaro

gerald.parson said:


> Just got back from taking my niece to the movie. She didn't care for it, I thought it was ok. Not bad, not that good.



Well I guess I'll see tomorrow. 

Thanks.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I had honestly never heard of the Hunger Games until I saw advertisement for the movie. I suppose that goes to show how out of touch I've been in recent years.

To be honest, it doesn't sound like the kind of story I'd enjoy. There is something about the who "an oppressive goverment is needlessly cruel to random citizens for ridiculous reasons" premise I just can't stand.


----------



## Xanados

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I had honestly never heard of the Hunger Games until I saw advertisement for the movie. I suppose that goes to show how out of touch I've been in recent years.



No need to beat yourself up for not knowing about some pop-culture drivel.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I had honestly never heard of the Hunger Games until I saw advertisement for the movie. I suppose that goes to show how out of touch I've been in recent years.
> 
> To be honest, it doesn't sound like the kind of story I'd enjoy. There is something about the who "an oppressive goverment is needlessly cruel to random citizens for ridiculous reasons" premise I just can't stand.



I'm not as excited about it as most of my friends, but it's great conversation fodder.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I had honestly never heard of the Hunger Games until I saw advertisement for the movie. I suppose that goes to show how out of touch I've been in recent years.
> 
> To be honest, it doesn't sound like the kind of story I'd enjoy. There is something about the who "an oppressive goverment is needlessly cruel to random citizens for ridiculous reasons" premise I just can't stand.



What makes you think the reasons are ridiculous? They're explained in the story. What Panem does to its citizens is pretty awful, and still a lot less bad than things that have been done in the real world by real governments.


----------



## Muqtada

I read the books on the suggestion of my sister (and afterwards read Battle Royale, so there). I thought the first and third book of the series were pretty good, although I'd probably still say the first book was my favorite of the series. Haven't seen the movie yet, but my friends who have said they weren't too impressed.

I've heard a lot of argument about the 'oppressive government' angle, and I've been surprised because that's not really what I took away from the book anyway. In the majority of fantasy or sci-fi books I've read, the establishment is oppressive is some way because that just makes a better story. What hooked me was the premise of 24 go in, one comes out. Add to that that the dude likes the girl, knows the girl doesn't like him, and still works to try to have her survive (willing to forfeit his life for someone who doesn't care about him) was a vein of characterization gold, and working in the reality show aspect of it was a wonderful idea.

To me it was more a message of how if we see something on tv we can separate ourselves from the reality of the scenario. This applies to reality tv shows in america--if you met someone who acted like that on the street you'd be appalled, but somehow putting them on television it's okay?

Anyway, my two cents, a tournament of fighting to the death is awesome


----------



## topazfire

Xanados said:


> No need to beat yourself up for not knowing about some pop-culture drivel.



Except that this pop culture drivel has an excellent message about youth standing up to a corrupt government, which is particulary poignant in todays society. It is better to have this message in pop culture than a simpering girl obsessed with her glittery boyfriend.


----------



## myrddin173

Xanados said:


> No need to beat yourself up for not knowing about some pop-culture drivel.



Dem's fightin' words.

Now if you said _Twilight_ was pop-culture drivel I would agree.

First of all, have you actually read the books?  Because I am of the opinion that you have to read the book before you can pass judgement on it.  I quite enjoyed the series,  the first is my favorite followed by the third.  I truly think it is a compelling and awesome story and can't wait to see the movie.

By the way a Review of the movie is coming up in the next few weeks in the article rotation, so look forward to that...


----------



## Rikilamaro

myrddin173 said:


> Dem's fightin' words.
> 
> Now if you said _Twilight_ was pop-culture drivel I would agree.
> 
> First of all, have you actually read the books?



I'm one of those weirdos that likes Twilight. You caught me.

I just started Mockingjay today since my friend canceled on seeing the movie. We're going tomorrow night instead. hopefully it'll be wonderfully compelling. I've heard mixed reviews about it though, and I'm wondering if a lot of the people who didn't like it feel that way because they go into it not understanding the basic premise. It would be odd if you hadn't read the books because it does take a bit to assimilate the society into your brain and understand that this is the way the characters live in this author's world.

Kinda like Ender's Game, which is being made into a movie. I mean, how dare a society regulate how many children you have, implant computer monitoring devices in their heads and occasionally take them to space to train as warriors against invading aliens. Geesh. Comes out Summer of 2013 and I'm stoked for that one.


----------



## Devora

To me the story is Ender's Game meets The Running Man meets Lord of the Flies & Battle Royale


----------



## Rikilamaro

Christopher Mahaney said:


> To me the story is Ender's Game meets The Running Man meets Lord of the Flies & Battle Royale



Ok, apparently I need to read Battle Royale. You're like the fourth person to say something about it to me.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Xanados said:


> No need to beat yourself up for not knowing about some pop-culture drivel.



Well, thing is, I _do_ like to keep tabs on what's popular. I mean, I even payed attention to Twilight simply because I think anyone who sells that many books is probably on to _something_.

This thing just completely slipped under my radar, though.



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> What makes you think the reasons are ridiculous? They're explained in the story. What Panem does to its citizens is pretty awful, and still a lot less bad than things that have been done in the real world by real governments.



Well, this is just my impressions from having read up on the basic premise, but I just think it seems like kind of a farfetched thing to come up with just to punish an attempted rebellion. Like, they could just have had the most troublesome people shot and used that budget for better propaganda instead. Also, it all seems very counter productive.

As I see it, the key to a successful totalitarian faschist state is to convince your people that as bad as things may be, it's still in their interest to keep the situation stable. Your leaders may not be nice people but as long as you stay in line and don't try any funny business, you probably won't get dragged away by military men in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. That ensures that the idealistic ones get disappeared first and the ones who remain just want to stay alive and untortured. You can feel somewhat safe as long as you remain obedient, but that of course hinges on your goverment _not _murdering people completely at random.

Now, apparently the Hunger Games are supposed to dissuade further uprisings. But what these people are actually doing should realistically just ensure that _everyone _between the age of 12 and 18 will have a _very _good reason to want to see the goverment go away forever. The people in charge are playing an advanced game of russian roulette with an entire generation of exactly the part of the populace most likely to want to take action against them. (Because teenagers are less rational and more emotional then adults, and generally don't respond well to oppressive authorities.) 

And even if you do make it to 19 alive, you're probably still going to be kinda bitter about having been put through the Lottery of Death Via Gladiatory Games for six years straight, essentially as punishment for the crime of having been born. _And_ you will be somewhat desentizised to the threat of dying by then. _And_ if you've learned anything from the Hunger Games, it's that sometimes the only way to get through a bad situation is to violently murder the people standing in the way.

(Oh, and on top of it all, every year the games produce another trained and battle-hardened killer.)

So, yeah, it seems to me like what they've done here is create the perfect breeding ground for a major resistance movement. Great idea!


----------



## Steerpike

Rikilamaro said:


> I'm one of those weirdos that likes Twilight. You caught me.



Don't worry Rikilamaro, it's not bad. You won't lack for people compelled to hate it, especially on a writing site.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Steerpike said:


> Don't worry Rikilamaro, it's not bad. You won't lack for people compelled to hate it, especially on a writing site.



And I don't really understand why. Because it has no long lasting moral lesson? Why do people hate it? Enlighten me.


----------



## Steerpike

Rikilamaro said:


> And I don't really understand why. Because it has no long lasting moral lesson? Why do people hate it? Enlighten me.



I could tell you why, but I know from having done so before that it will insult most of those who have jumped on the bandwagon to dislike it (which, ironically, is more rabid than the fans in some respects). So I'll refrain


----------



## myrddin173

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, this is just my impressions from having read up on the basic premise, but I just think it seems like kind of a farfetched thing to come up with just to punish an attempted rebellion. Like, they could just have had the most troublesome people shot and used that budget for better propaganda instead. Also, it all seems very counter productive.
> 
> As I see it, the key to a successful totalitarian faschist state is to convince your people that as bad as things may be, it's still in their interest to keep the situation stable. Your leaders may not be nice people but as long as you stay in line and don't try any funny business, you probably won't get dragged away by military men in the middle of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. That ensures that the idealistic ones get disappeared first and the ones who remain just want to stay alive and untortured. You can feel somewhat safe as long as you remain obedient, but that of course hinges on your goverment _not _murdering people completely at random.
> 
> Now, apparently the Hunger Games are supposed to dissuade further uprisings. But what these people are actually doing should realistically just ensure that _everyone _between the age of 12 and 18 will have a _very _good reason to want to see the goverment go away forever. The people in charge are playing an advanced game of russian roulette with an entire generation of exactly the part of the populace most likely to want to take action against them. (Because teenagers are less rational and more emotional then adults, and generally don't respond well to oppressive authorities.)
> 
> And even if you do make it to 19 alive, you're probably still going to be kinda bitter about having been put through the Lottery of Death Via Gladiatory Games for six years straight, essentially as punishment for the crime of having been born. _And_ you will be somewhat desentizised to the threat of dying by then. _And_ if you've learned anything from the Hunger Games, it's that sometimes the only way to get through a bad situation is to violently murder the people standing in the way.
> 
> (Oh, and on top of it all, every year the games produce another trained and battle-hardened killer.)
> 
> So, yeah, it seems to me like what they've done here is create the perfect breeding ground for a major resistance movement. Great idea!



It's not as simple as that.  The Capitol rules the Twelve Districts, only there used to be a Thirteenth.  District Thirteen rose up in rebellion, as far as anyone knows, no one survived.  The Capitol controls all of the high-tech weaponry stuff, far outmatching the districts.  Also you are operating under the belief that no one wants to participate in the Games.  As seen in some trailers Katniss volunteers to replace her younger sister, but in some of the wealthier districts closer to the Capitol some people nicknamed "Carriers" train all their life for a chance to be in the games.  Also the District of the winner gets heaps of prizes throughout the year, until the next Game and the Winner himself/herself gets fame and glory and becomes a Capitol Celebrity.  

The Hunger Games do dissuade future rebellions because they show just how much power the Capitol has over the Districts.


----------



## Rikilamaro

myrddin173 said:


> It's not as simple as that.  The Capitol rules the Twelve Districts, only there used to be a Thirteenth.  District Thirteen rose up in rebellion, as far as anyone knows, no one survived.  The Capitol controls all of the high-tech weaponry stuff, far outmatching the districts.  Also you are operating under the belief that no one wants to participate in the Games.  As seen in some trailers Katniss volunteers to replace her younger sister, but in some of the wealthier districts closer to the Capitol some people nicknamed "Carriers" train all their life for a chance to be in the games.  Also the District of the winner gets heaps of prizes throughout the year, until the next Game and the Winner himself/herself gets fame and glory and becomes a Capitol Celebrity.
> 
> The Hunger Games do dissuade future rebellions because they show just how much power the Capitol has over the Districts.



I agree. Perhaps reading the book would be beneficial instead of an overview. Just sayin'.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Christopher Mahaney said:


> To me the story is Ender's Game meets The Running Man meets Lord of the Flies & Battle Royale



Honestly, I don't see Ender's Game in it at all, aside from the main character being a legal minor, and even then, Katniss is several years older than Ender. Ender came from wealth and privilege; Katniss from dirt. Ender thinks it's all just training; Katniss knows it's real.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Honestly, I don't see Ender's Game in it at all, aside from the main character being a legal minor, and even then, Katniss is several years older than Ender. Ender came from wealth and privilege; Katniss from dirt. Ender thinks it's all just training; Katniss knows it's real.



I see Ender's Game in the training, yes, but also in the manipulation of the main character. Ender didn't know it was real, but the people around him did.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Rikilamaro said:


> I see Ender's Game in the training, yes, but also in the manipulation of the main character. Ender didn't know it was real, but the people around him did.



I'm not sure what training you mean in THG; Katniss's "training" is a lifetime of growing up dirt-poor and having to scrounge to stay alive. The "training" before the Games is a couple of days playing around in a gymnasium.


----------



## gerald.parson

myrddin173 said:


> It's not as simple as that.  The Capitol rules the Twelve Districts, only there used to be a Thirteenth.  District Thirteen rose up in rebellion, as far as anyone knows, no one survived.  The Capitol controls all of the high-tech weaponry stuff, far outmatching the districts.  Also you are operating under the belief that no one wants to participate in the Games.  As seen in some trailers Katniss volunteers to replace her younger sister, but in some of the wealthier districts closer to the Capitol some people nicknamed "Carriers" train all their life for a chance to be in the games.  Also the District of the winner gets heaps of prizes throughout the year, until the next Game and the Winner himself/herself gets fame and glory and becomes a Capitol Celebrity.
> 
> The Hunger Games do dissuade future rebellions because they show just how much power the Capitol has over the Districts.



I think Anders brings up a lot of good points though. I had a hard time wrapping my head around the whole story, and my niece simply thought is was the dumbest shit she has ever seen. Granted she is only 13. But there was several things that just never sat well with me. One being how freely people offered up their children, I'm sorry, I just don't see that happening no matter what the circumstance. Also, going along with the story, if that is going to occur then why need prepare them? It was clearly stated that a couple of districts do just that, but if you know there is no way to get out of these "hunger games" then why not prepare your children as best you can? Also, these districts had resources available to them, that was made clear with Katnip having a bow. If one person can have a bow then anyone and everyone can have a bow, and while a bow might not be as nearly effective as machine guns (assuming thats what the opposition had) they still had the advantage of knowing the terrain and turning it into an urban combat scenario.  From what I gathered it was the 75th  annual Hunger Games, so in 75 years no one thought to simply rally the kids and refuse to fight? I mean look how much trouble it gave the whole institution when the last two where going to kill each other. And then when Rue died, her district rioted.... Doesn't that go against the whole premise that this games are meant to keep order and intimidate the districts? In 74 other hunger games with  close to 2,000 contestants this never popped up? And why wait till she is dead to riot, when not do it when she is selected? I mean seriously. Don't get me wrong there are things that I found to be kinda cool in the movie, few and far between, but for the most part things just didn't add up. It was like a sales pitch of an idea and you weren't suppose to think about it that hard.


----------



## Steerpike

topazfire said:


> The main comment I heard about her was that her figure was 'too good'. Seriously!? It was nice to see a real woman's body on the screen despite the fact that the character was supposed to be near starved at the beginning (hence all of the food they were being given to eat - which was not actually explained in the movie).



You seem to misunderstand the criticism, despite stating the reason for it. No one is complaining about her body in and of itself, they're simply saying that it doesn't fit the character as described in the story. That's a perfectly valid criticism. Apparently, the actress did just fine in the movie, but I'd prefer an actress who looked more like the character described in the books.


----------



## Rullenzar

I enjoyed the movie, i thought Jennifer Lawrence was good in the part. I haven't read the books but I hear their decent and a trilogy. 

The plot is in past events a rebellion broke out against the Capitol and lost. As punishment and a way to keep all the Districts in this post apocalyptic world in line they created a televised event called the hunger games. This televised event features 24 children that are randomly drawn from the 12 districts. Each district offers up 1 boy and 1 girl between the ages of 12-18. Districts 1 and 2 are the hardcore of the bunch and have tributes that volunteer and train all their lives for the games. Katniss is the main character whom in an effort to save her younger sister when she was drawn out of the hat becomes the first ever volunteer for the hunger games. Did I mention only one can come out alive?

That about sums it up, any further and spoilers will surface.

Neat story in my opinion with the twist on children, but it has been done before. The televised battle royale was featured in the movie Condemned. I'm sure there is more I just can't think of any. Worth a read or a watch.


----------



## Kit

gerald.parson said:


> I think Anders brings up a lot of good points though. I had a hard time wrapping my head around the whole story, and my niece simply thought is was the dumbest shit she has ever seen. Granted she is only 13. But there was several things that just never sat well with me. One being how freely people offered up their children, I'm sorry, I just don't see that happening no matter what the circumstance. Also, going along with the story, if that is going to occur then why need prepare them? It was clearly stated that a couple of districts do just that, but if you know there is no way to get out of these "hunger games" then why not prepare your children as best you can? Also, these districts had resources available to them, that was made clear with Katnip having a bow. If one person can have a bow then anyone and everyone can have a bow, and while a bow might not be as nearly effective as machine guns (assuming thats what the opposition had) they still had the advantage of knowing the terrain and turning it into an urban combat scenario.  From what I gathered it was the 75th  annual Hunger Games, so in 75 years no one thought to simply rally the kids and refuse to fight? I mean look how much trouble it gave the whole institution when the last two where going to kill each other. And then when Rue died, her district rioted.... Doesn't that go against the whole premise that this games are meant to keep order and intimidate the districts? In 74 other hunger games with  close to 2,000 contestants this never popped up? And why wait till she is dead to riot, when not do it when she is selected? I mean seriously. Don't get me wrong there are things that I found to be kinda cool in the movie, few and far between, but for the most part things just didn't add up. It was like a sales pitch of an idea and you weren't suppose to think about it that hard.



Organizing a rebellion is not an easy thing to do. Communication is suppressed. The first person to poke their head up gets it blown off. The last district to rebel was bombed off the map and the earth salted. People under that sort of repression are not going to fight back until they are at the point where they are ready to die, since many of them surely will.


----------



## Sheilawisz

When I first heard the title "Hunger Games" I imagined that the movie would be about some serial killer, maybe kidnapping victims and then starving them to death to have fun... after following this thread, I will go and watch the movie this week =)


----------



## gerald.parson

Kit said:


> Organizing a rebellion is not an easy thing to do. Communication is suppressed. The first person to poke their head up gets it blown off. The last district to rebel was bombed off the map and the earth salted. People under that sort of repression are not going to fight back until they are at the point where they are ready to die, since many of them surely will.



    I'm not really sure what your point is. I agree that organizing a rebellion, or at least an organized rebellion, is not an easy task given certain circumstances, I just don't see, or agree, that the circumstances in the movie proved that to be the case. There are two districts that train their children ( future combatants ) that in itself throws a wrench in the "All mighty oppressive tyrannical government". Again, as stated above, when Rue was killed, her district rioted. Was it organized? No. Was it effective? Who the hell knows. Point is 75 years of Hunger Games, nearly 2,000 combatants, I find it hard to believe this would only be the only occasion people reacted as such. You know what, it's not that important. It is a Y.A. book and was written and created as such. Not my cup of tea. No big deal. It is full of wholes but that doesn't matter, its selling point is a "strong female character", and that's cool. Keep in mind my only perspective is that of what I saw in the film, I have not read the books and have no intention of doing so. But I give the movie over all a D+ or C-


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

gerald.parson said:


> There are two districts that train their children ( future combatants ) that in itself throws a wrench in the "All mighty oppressive tyrannical government".



How so? The districts are not uniformly poor; some of the districts produce electronics and luxury goods, and the quality of life is correspondingly better there. They still have to provide tributes, but they can afford to train tributes who then volunteer and have a much higher chance of winning. Training a small corps of future tributes is not the same as organizing a rebellion.



> Again, as stated above, when Rue was killed, her district rioted. Was it organized? No. Was it effective? Who the hell knows. Point is 75 years of Hunger Games, nearly 2,000 combatants, I find it hard to believe this would only be the only occasion people reacted as such.



Who said that the riot in District 11 was the only time in the history of the Games that a riot occurred? The movie didn't make that claim. It's not even _in_ the first book; the whole book is from Katniss's perspective and she has no idea what's going on in 11 while she's in the arena. For all we know, there have periodically been riots in this district or that. Nothing in the movie says this was the first riot ever.

Nobody's insisting you like the movie; I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away. It's just that your arguments about why it "makes no sense" aren't really supported by evidence.


----------



## Kit

gerald.parson said:


> I'm not really sure what your point is. -



My point is that you seem to not sympathize with how scared and beaten down people will get when they are repressed to this degree. You seem to think it's surprising that people don't fight back more. They are being viciously slaughtered for the insurrection of whistling a five-note tune. The only way you can make the tiniest token protest and have any hope in hell of *not* getting viciously slaughtered is if a whole bunch of other people do it at the same time.  (And for the district that got nuked off the map, even THAT didn't work.) To make even the tiniest protest, you have to be already resigned to throwing your life away for it. A lot of those people have families who are barely surviving, and throwing your life away probably means your family will die too.

I'm sure that there were individuals and small groups uprising all along the timeline- and they were immediately and viciously slaughtered.


----------



## Rikilamaro

So I finally saw the movie. Took me long enough. Let me just say that I was ok with the actress for Katniss. I was extremely disappointed in Peeta! Too short, too wimpy, not nearly charismatic enough. Bad casting choice.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Well, yesterday I finally went to watch this Hunger Games movie at the Mall to see what all the fuss is about... and now I must say that I really loved this movie!! It was great, very exciting even though it gets a little boring sometimes, and I was on the edge of my seat until the very end of the story =)

The only part of the movie that I disliked was that the people in the capital city looked really stupid wearing those clothes and strange styles in their hair and beards, like it was a comedy movie... also, why are the Games called "hunger" games??

Why are the Games supposed to be an intimidation tactic by the government if only two teenagers from each district take part in the battles? The Games remind me a lot of the Triwizard Tournament from Harry Potter and also Susan Pevensie from the Prince Caspian Narnia movie: Susan would win the Hunger Games in no time =)


----------



## Rikilamaro

Susan would win, hands down!

The costumes of the capitol are meant to portray their frivolous lifestyle and disregard for the people starving in the Districts. They are called the 'hunger' games because during the revolution when District 13 revolted the people went hungry. Not just the districts, but the Capitol too. 

The intimidation factor comes from the fact that these children have no choice (unless they train like Districts 1 and 2) and are sacrificed. It's a control/power play. The difference between the triwizard tournament and the hunger games is that the children die. They're not supposed to die in the TT. 

I'm glad you enjoyed it. The book is better, and fills in a lot of the gaps.  Next movie June 2013!


----------



## Devor

I saw the movie but haven't read the books.  I enjoyed it, but to be honest, if it wasn't for the production value and the high-impact concept, I would've said it was a weak story.  As it is, I'll say it's a good experience.

The things which bothered me most were the decisions of the people behind the scenes.  Messing with children, historically, is a sure way to cause massive uprisings (like the Visgoths who sacked Rome), although I could believe that it might take a long time.  And with the end, wouldn't it have been better for them to let it play out? - or else to force the outcome they wanted?  The rule change seemed weird given her unlikely chances of survival at that point.

I have real doubts about the plausibility of the games before the "careers" developed.  It seems like the kids would've just run around playing pretend and having fun, dying by accident.  Or else sit in a circle singing kumbaya in protest - something which, incidentally, could still be coordinated with volunteers.  But I suppose the careers could have been part of the plan.

Also, a few of the deaths and some of the main events seemed contrived to whittle down their resources and conveniently maintain the MC's status of "good-guy," which I think is a little strange because she loses that status a bit on the relationship level.  I would've liked to see her kill even one of the villains like the sniper she should have been.

And as I saw mentioned in the one review I read, there was never even an effort to suggest the worst possible outcomes.

Despite all that, I mostly enjoyed the movie quite a bit.




Rikilamaro said:


> I was extremely disappointed in Peeta! Too short, too wimpy, not nearly charismatic enough. Bad casting choice.



I thought he was very charismatic during the two interviews, but not elsewhere in the film.


----------



## Sheilawisz

@Rikilamaro: Thanks for your answers!! I have been researching about the universe of The Hunger Games series since I watched the movie, quite interesting as a world, and it really sounds like reading the books would be much better than just watching the movies... Anyway, I still disagree with the idea that the Games would be a good punishment or intimidation tactic by the Capitol against the Districts:

The loss of two teenagers every year would not be a shock for each District, think about it: In those twelve months, many more teenagers or children would die from other causes like illnesses, accidents, starvation, infected wounds or suicide, especially considering the very low quality of life in these districts!! In my opinion the Games would need to take many more tributes to really be effective as a psychological weapon, like claiming a thousand of them from each district every year and making them fight as a team in several large battles.

Surely, not all of them would die and many would return home at the end of the Games (many of them crippled and psychologically scarred for the rest of their lives) so the Games would be far more effective and entertaining this way...

What is the name of the song in the credits of the movie?? I loved it! XD!!


----------



## topazfire

Devor said:


> The things which bothered me most were the decisions of the people behind the scenes.  Messing with children, historically, is a sure way to cause massive uprisings (like the Visgoths who sacked Rome), although I could believe that it might take a long time.  And with the end, wouldn't it have been better for them to let it play out? - or else to force the outcome they wanted?  The rule change seemed weird given her unlikely chances of survival at that point.



This part was better explained in the book. Since it is written in first person, you only experience what Katniss does. However, they are in a 'reality tv show' and creating the outcome that the gamemaker wanted was really about the entertainment value for the citizens of the Capitol - which was also the reason for the rule change - the people wanted to cheer for the 'starcrossed lovers' - all for entertainment.


----------



## Devor

topazfire said:


> However, they are in a 'reality tv show' and creating the outcome that the gamemaker wanted was really about the entertainment value for the citizens of the Capitol . . .



I picked that up from the movie.  What I don't understand is why they would use children when it would inevitably lead to revolt, and why letting them both die would have been so bad for the games.  Tragedies make good TV, too.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Devor said:


> I thought he was very charismatic during the two interviews, but not elsewhere in the film.



I have to agree. I like Josh Hutcherson and I think he's a really good actor (he was great in _The Kids Are All Right_). I saw the movie before I read the book, and in the movie he seemed weak and ineffectual. In the book, Peeta isn't particularly spectacular either but you at least get the sense that he's kinda tough. Josh Hutcherson doesn't seem tough at all.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Sheilawisz said:


> @Rikilamaro: Thanks for your answers!! I have been researching about the universe of The Hunger Games series since I watched the movie, quite interesting as a world, and it really sounds like reading the books would be much better than just watching the movies... Anyway, I still disagree with the idea that the Games would be a good punishment or intimidation tactic by the Capitol against the Districts:
> 
> The loss of two teenagers every year would not be a shock for each District, think about it: In those twelve months, many more teenagers or children would die from other causes like illnesses, accidents, starvation, infected wounds or suicide, especially considering the very low quality of life in these districts!! In my opinion the Games would need to take many more tributes to really be effective as a psychological weapon, like claiming a thousand of them from each district every year and making them fight as a team in several large battles.
> 
> Surely, not all of them would die and many would return home at the end of the Games (many of them crippled and psychologically scarred for the rest of their lives) so the Games would be far more effective and entertaining this way...
> 
> What is the name of the song in the credits of the movie?? I loved it! XD!!



I don't know the name of the song. I loved it too! I'll find out for you though.

You're thinking of the districts in a much bigger scope. There aren't thousand of people in each district. The Hunger Games is set in a post WW III time frame, humanity has killed off a lot of itself, and are struggling to survive as a species. There are only about 500 people in District 12.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Rikilamaro said:


> I don't know the name of the song. I loved it too! I'll find out for you though.
> 
> You're thinking of the districts in a much bigger scope. There aren't thousand of people in each district. The Hunger Games is set in a post WW III time frame, humanity has killed off a lot of itself, and are struggling to survive as a species. There are only about 500 people in District 12.



No, the population of District 12 is about 8,000. ("The square's quite large, but not enough to hold District 12's population of about eight thousand." - _The Hunger Games_, Chapter 1)


----------



## Leif GS Notae

I haven't bothered watching it myself, but I read a few pages from the book. I see the reason why there is a huge debate on whether or not the author was inspired by the Japanese movie from the 90's or not.

All I know is that the conspiracy theorists are looking at this movie as the blueprint for modern society in ten years. 

On the book side of things, I talked to a few people about it over drinks and they say they were less than impressed with the books themselves. Lots of premise issues and leaving out critical details until the last book (when they could have been used as hooks in the first one)...

I think I'll wait. Never was a movie watcher myself, I think that might be another way that I am broken...


----------



## Rikilamaro

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> No, the population of District 12 is about 8,000. ("The square's quite large, but not enough to hold District 12's population of about eight thousand." - _The Hunger Games_, Chapter 1)



Thanks, Ben. 

I stand corrected.


----------



## Penpilot

Just came back from watching the movie. Went in sceptical, came out liking it quite a lot. There are some bits here and there that I wasn't thrilled with, but overall I can see how this story is reaching a lot of people. If you strip away the details, the emotional core and the foundation everything is build on is rock solid. Going to check out the books now.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Penpilot said:


> Just came back from watching the movie. Went in sceptical, came out liking it quite a lot. There are some bits here and there that I wasn't thrilled with, but overall I can see how this story is reaching a lot of people. If you strip away the details, the emotional core and the foundation everything is build on is rock solid. Going to check out the books now.



I'm glad you waited to read the books until after seeing the movie. I wish I had. Perhaps the movie wouldn't have been a let down for me.


----------



## Penpilot

Rikilamaro said:


> I'm glad you waited to read the books until after seeing the movie. I wish I had. Perhaps the movie wouldn't have been a let down for me.



I've had a friend tell me this too.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Penpilot said:


> I've had a friend tell me this too.



I got sucked into the hype and just HAD to read it. Tsk, tsk. I should have learned by now. Maybe next time.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I had no idea that the Districts had such a low population!! Well, considering that they are just a few thousand people each, then taking two teenagers yearly from every district is indeed a serious blow =(


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

From the first book, at least, we don't know the populations of the other districts. It wouldn't be implausible for D12 to have a pop of 8,000 and for (some of? most of?) the other districts to have populations five or ten times that size. (California's population is 66 times Wyoming's, for example.) There's no reason why D12 has to be comparable in size to the other districts.

That said, it's possible that books 2/3 reveal details about the populations of the rest of Panem; I haven't read them yet.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thanks Benjamin!! Well, it would not matter really if the other districts have a population five or ten times the size of District 12... I was thinking that the population of every district would be at least a few million, so now I agree that the Games are really a punishment by taking the lives of 23 and sometimes more teenagers every year.

My favourite song from the movie's soundtrack is Abraham's Daughter by Arcade Fire, I am listening to it right now!! =)

In the book, what happened to the character called Thresh??


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Sheilawisz said:


> Thanks Benjamin!! Well, it would not matter really if the other districts have a population five or ten times the size of District 12... I was thinking that the population of every district would be at least a few million, so now I agree that the Games are really a punishment by taking the lives of 23 and sometimes more teenagers every year.
> 
> My favourite song from the movie's soundtrack is Abraham's Daughter by Arcade Fire, I am listening to it right now!! =)
> 
> In the book, what happened to the character called Thresh??



He dies, but how it happend is not revealed to Katniss. (Although presumably she could have found out afterward.)


----------



## Rikilamaro

Books 2 and 3 do expound upon the populations of the other districts. 

Book one also reveals how Thresh died during the live television broadcast before the winners head home. They recap the entire games for the winners to view on stage.


----------

