The Hunger Games; I just don't get it...

[artanis_neravar]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

They do force the districts to supply children for the games. Also each district has a specialty product (12 is coal for example) and need to get anything else from the other districts (clothes, grain, fish, livestock) so in order for a revolution to occur every district would be required. The capitol also has great control over all advanced weaponry (until the discovery in the second book)

And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?

Because it wasn't like the holodeck, everything in the arena is man made or naturally grown. And they only have a year to build it.

 

[artanis_neravar]

While I will agree with you on that they both take similar situations but run in different directions for them, I still think it's a very valid comparison, and that Battle Royal was still better. Granted, I've only seen the movie, and only read the first two Hunger Games books, but the one Battle Royal movie was better than the two Hunger Games books. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Hunger Games, they just aren't great or anything.

Ender's Game was a better book to. My point is that you can compare anything to Hunger Games and say if it's better or worse, but using Battle Royal (especially because it is the go to "Hunger Games ripped it off" movie) as a comparison of quality tends to give the impression of "did the same thing but better" at which point people will argue, that it was not actually the same thing at all.

 

[Woodsey]

It's a book series for 14-year-olds from what I gather, what's to get?

 

[artanis_neravar]

Because some people are trying to find the void that Harry Potter left them in after the Deathly Hallows.

I would say that Enders Game/Speaker for the Dead/Shadows series would be a great alternative for people who grew up with HP and are now ready for something proper but there are no movies and sci-fi scares people.

And the one they are working on will be an abomination. But yes Ender's Game is an amazing book for any Sci-fi fans.

 

[Tdoodle]

I've only read the first book but thought it was pretty shoddy. Katniss struck me as emotionally dead for the most part so I really struggled to enjoy the story from her perspective.

Good film though.

 

[teebeeohh]

it was ok
probably one of the better examples of novels aimed at teenage girls since at least it has a strong protagonist and while i liked how dark it got in the third book and how she basically slowly went insane i felt it was being held together way too much by plot-convenience glue.

Spoiler

like i don't get why what's his face hunter guy childhood friend is so angry with her that he never ever visits her after the war, sure she didn't kill him when he was captured like they agreed to but they decided to do that because they didn't want the other to slowly get tortured to death and by that point the capitol had no time to torture anyone, the rebels had won and katniss and hunter guy knew that, they were deliberately making a push for the palace to be there before the army to get to kill the president

and oh dear lord is katniss passing out, wandering around the base high for weeks at a time lazy way to advance the plot.

oh yeah and the way the romance is resolved? it isn't. she just picks the guy who is as damaged as she is because she doesn't want to be all alone

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Hate to be this guy... but I liked the Japanese Version better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale

I tried, but all I could think about was how this feels like a stupid SciFi version of Battle Royale, and couldn't get into it. That is all.

The Hunger Games is about as different from Battle Royale as 1984 is from Brave New World. If you haven't read the latter two books, 1984 is a much more pessimistic dystopia, being one that nobody in the general population is happy about, they just don't have a choice because the government is so powerful. Brave New World is about a dystopia where the people are kept in line with entertainment, mainly sex, drugs, and full body pornos. They're so happy that they don't care they aren't free.

Anyway, Battle Royale is 1984 in this comparison. It's a very Japanese story about the futility of trying to change society, how alone anyone different from the norm is, and how such misfits need to stick together. The Hunger Games is a very American story about one individual being a catalyst for a revolution. Similar premise, opposite conclusion. Before I read The Hunger Games, I was always confused at how people said it was about the politics, while Battle Royale was about the killing -- because at its core, that's not what its about. The more accurate way of putting it is that they're both about politics, but one is about the weakness of the individual on the national stage, and the other is about the power of the individual on that same stage.

However, one of them has the ultra bad-ass Shogo Kawada.

That ***** with the arrows wouldn't of lasted 5 minutes in a game against Kiriyama.

In all seriousness, that's a pretty good beneath the words analysis of Battle Royale... Is it not popular to consider Battle Royale a love story in it's own right? I mean the theme song of the whole damn thing is Bruce Springsteen's Born To Run

 

[GTwander]

How could anybody like this book series so much? Is there just something I'm not getting? Please, enlighten me.

What's to explain?
The largest demographic of readers are female, and the book's main character is a strong/independent female. It sells itself.

 

[BNguyen]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

They do force the districts to supply children for the games. Also each district has a specialty product (12 is coal for example) and need to get anything else from the other districts (clothes, grain, fish, livestock) so in order for a revolution to occur every district would be required. The capitol also has great control over all advanced weaponry (until the discovery in the second book)

And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?

Because it wasn't like the holodeck, everything in the arena is man made or naturally grown. And they only have a year to build it.

but like someone posted before, the government has the technology to build force fields and cloaking systems - at least an artificial battleground with controllable and adjustable components can be built. I mean, we already can do things like that today and in a future like that we can't even do something that simple? Just holes in the ground with monsters? really?

 

[artanis_neravar]

but like someone posted before, the government has the technology to build force fields and cloaking systems - at least an artificial battleground with controllable and adjustable components can be built. I mean, we already can do things like that today and in a future like that we can't even do something that simple? Just holes in the ground with monsters? really?

Well they completely control the weather, and have a variety of natural disasters on hand, fire, flood etc.

however the simplest answer is, that's what the people in the capitol want to see. The point of the games is a combination of punishment and control for the districts and entertainment for the capitol

 

[Shocksplicer]

The first two were good in my opinion. The third was just fucking awful though, and the movie was worse...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

They do force the districts to supply children for the games. Also each district has a specialty product (12 is coal for example) and need to get anything else from the other districts (clothes, grain, fish, livestock) so in order for a revolution to occur every district would be required. The capitol also has great control over all advanced weaponry (until the discovery in the second book)

And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?

Because it wasn't like the holodeck, everything in the arena is man made or naturally grown. And they only have a year to build it.

but like someone posted before, the government has the technology to build force fields and cloaking systems - at least an artificial battleground with controllable and adjustable components can be built. I mean, we already can do things like that today and in a future like that we can't even do something that simple? Just holes in the ground with monsters? really?

Simple answer: the government pimps out the old arenas as tourist destinations. Capitol citizens pay good money to go on vacation there, something you couldn't do to the same degree with holograms.

 

[BNguyen]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

They do force the districts to supply children for the games. Also each district has a specialty product (12 is coal for example) and need to get anything else from the other districts (clothes, grain, fish, livestock) so in order for a revolution to occur every district would be required. The capitol also has great control over all advanced weaponry (until the discovery in the second book)

And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?

Because it wasn't like the holodeck, everything in the arena is man made or naturally grown. And they only have a year to build it.

but like someone posted before, the government has the technology to build force fields and cloaking systems - at least an artificial battleground with controllable and adjustable components can be built. I mean, we already can do things like that today and in a future like that we can't even do something that simple? Just holes in the ground with monsters? really?

Simple answer: the government pimps out the old arenas as tourist destinations. Capitol citizens pay good money to go on vacation there, something you couldn't do to the same degree with holograms.

didn't say holograms or anything like that - I'm talking about like traps, or platforms that change locations, something like a stage in a drama production - it'd make the fighting much more interesting if you keep the kids on their toes and could scare them
it'd be like what they did in Death Race, except in Hunger Games, it'd be Death Race minus the Mariokart-esque power-up pads that they run over, just a race with guns

 

[BNguyen]

but like someone posted before, the government has the technology to build force fields and cloaking systems - at least an artificial battleground with controllable and adjustable components can be built. I mean, we already can do things like that today and in a future like that we can't even do something that simple? Just holes in the ground with monsters? really?

Well they completely control the weather, and have a variety of natural disasters on hand, fire, flood etc.

however the simplest answer is, that's what the people in the capitol want to see. The point of the games is a combination of punishment and control for the districts and entertainment for the capitol

So basically, the answer you're giving me is "Hey, we have all this great crap we can throw at them to show how powerful we are but let's just have them run around in the woods for a while" yeah, really interesting watch - it sounds about as interesting as a paintball match

 

[artanis_neravar]

but like someone posted before, the government has the technology to build force fields and cloaking systems - at least an artificial battleground with controllable and adjustable components can be built. I mean, we already can do things like that today and in a future like that we can't even do something that simple? Just holes in the ground with monsters? really?

Well they completely control the weather, and have a variety of natural disasters on hand, fire, flood etc.

however the simplest answer is, that's what the people in the capitol want to see. The point of the games is a combination of punishment and control for the districts and entertainment for the capitol

So basically, the answer you're giving me is "Hey, we have all this great crap we can throw at them to show how powerful we are but let's just have them run around in the woods for a while" yeah, really interesting watch - it sounds about as interesting as a paintball match

Well, they don't want to kill them. and the very fact that they are able to force all the people to surrender their children is enough of a display of their power.

 

[Reaper195]

Probably because it's a young adult book? I have no idea how old the OP is, but by the time I was seventeen and was reading Stephen King and George RR Martin....I found it impossible to read anything for teenagers and not outright adults.