• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Hunger Games

Muqtada

Scribe
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

Minstrel
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

Maester
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

Inkling
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. :)
 
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.

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!
 
Last edited:

Rikilamaro

Inkling
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Maester
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

Inkling
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'.
 
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

Inkling
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.
 
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

Troubadour
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Troubadour
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

Maester
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

Queen of Titania
Moderator
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 =)
 
Top