The Hunger Games; I just don't get it...
- Thread starter shwnbob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Must...resist...urge...to make..."Topic about not getting why people like the Hunger Games; I don't get it..." topic...
I read all three, thought the first two were excellent and the last progressed in a logical but not particularly interesting direction, and saw parts of the movie - thought it could have turned out a lot worse.
After I'd read the first two books, I discovered to my surprise the book was for girls/people thought the books were girls' books/girls thought the books were girls' books/some combination of the previous. Now, I'm not the brightest knife in the shed, but I think "it's like anti-twilight or something" is selling it short.
Here, how about this: People like them because they're really good.
There. The mystery has been explained. You can all go home now.
I read all three, thought the first two were excellent and the last progressed in a logical but not particularly interesting direction, and saw parts of the movie - thought it could have turned out a lot worse.
After I'd read the first two books, I discovered to my surprise the book was for girls/people thought the books were girls' books/girls thought the books were girls' books/some combination of the previous. Now, I'm not the brightest knife in the shed, but I think "it's like anti-twilight or something" is selling it short.
Here, how about this: People like them because they're really good.
There. The mystery has been explained. You can all go home now.
honestly the hunger games seems a fairly inconsequential series, it doesn't seem that incredibly popular, look at how by-the-numbers the movie was, it wouldn't surprise me me to see the movies drop off just like how the movies set on "his dark materials" didn't take off after "the golden compass"
Maybe it's just the UK but twilight I would estimate is at a minimum, 5 times more popular.
I don't consider HGames and Glittervamp/wolfboy/tabula rasa to have really that much to do with each other, but lots of people do.
Maybe it's just the UK but twilight I would estimate is at a minimum, 5 times more popular.
I don't consider HGames and Glittervamp/wolfboy/tabula rasa to have really that much to do with each other, but lots of people do.
PTSD?Bravo Company said:
Not that I'm defending the books, I thought they were a little crudely written.
I don't know how much of this distaste comes from a rather tragic end to a relationship with a girl who loved those books, though, so...
I'm kind of turned off the series by the fact that I have a friend who seems to think that the books are made of pure magic golden lasers that can cure cancer and shit out cotton candy ice cream. Also, teenagers as protagonists are something that I never really liked (except in Super 8). I can see why people like it, but it just isn't to my personal tastes.
Also, because I'm sure I could write something better with the same basic idea. In fact, I shall. It shall be called 'The Time that Kids had to fight on television in a dystopian future, except this time there are dinosaurs and robots and sword fights on exploding mountains'.
Also, because I'm sure I could write something better with the same basic idea. In fact, I shall. It shall be called 'The Time that Kids had to fight on television in a dystopian future, except this time there are dinosaurs and robots and sword fights on exploding mountains'.
Meh I read the first book ages ago and for ?shit aimed at teenage girls? it was alright. Could have done with less kissing in caves, the writing wasn't the best and it?s not great but then most stuff aimed at teens in general isn?t great.
At least the protagonist is actually capable and somewhat badass rather than being a useless sack of shit who cries while the men do everything.
Of course I very much doubt you even want to know why people like it. ?I don?t get why X is liked. Pleas enlighten me? threads are almost always just an excuse to hate on something.
At least the protagonist is actually capable and somewhat badass rather than being a useless sack of shit who cries while the men do everything.
Of course I very much doubt you even want to know why people like it. ?I don?t get why X is liked. Pleas enlighten me? threads are almost always just an excuse to hate on something.
I read the books out of curiosity . They were okay at best . I didn't like how katniss turn from strong female , to bubblering idiot in the second book , to being a mere symbole in the last .
As for the movie well the first one was boring as hell . That book does not translate well into a movie . At all . I will go see the other movies if only to facepalm at the incoherence of it all .
As for the movie well the first one was boring as hell . That book does not translate well into a movie . At all . I will go see the other movies if only to facepalm at the incoherence of it all .
You read the book. It didn't resonate with your particular tastes. There's nothing else anyone can do for you other than tell you the things we like that you already know about.shwnbob said:
tangoprime said:
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.
I've read all three books one summer, and I can see why people enjoy them. The first one anyway. The other two come off as much less interesting, and not as well written.
Katniss is not a likable character at all (except for maybe when she volunteers as tribute in her sister's place), and most of the supporting characters come off the same way. The 'romance' (if you could call it that) is super forced and one sided. The ending of the third comes off as very rushed and cluttered.
Katniss is not a likable character at all (except for maybe when she volunteers as tribute in her sister's place), and most of the supporting characters come off the same way. The 'romance' (if you could call it that) is super forced and one sided. The ending of the third comes off as very rushed and cluttered.
I can see why people like them, Katniss is an appealing lead character, and I agree it is nice to see a strong female protagonist in books and now in movies(diminished somewhat by the boy-drama in the second book). But I'm not a huge fan of the books in general.
To me it comes down to the writing sytle. She seems to take a tell instead of show approach to character development. Especially with characters like Rue. She tells you that Rue reminds Katniss of her sister, and tells you that she feels a connection with Rue, but I never seem to see that from their interactions, which are minimal for the emphasis they put on the character.
Some characters are better. People like Finnick actually seemed to have character motivation and a believable development. But overall I felt like I spent a lot of time reading them being dropped out of the experience to go "what???"
To me it comes down to the writing sytle. She seems to take a tell instead of show approach to character development. Especially with characters like Rue. She tells you that Rue reminds Katniss of her sister, and tells you that she feels a connection with Rue, but I never seem to see that from their interactions, which are minimal for the emphasis they put on the character.
Some characters are better. People like Finnick actually seemed to have character motivation and a believable development. But overall I felt like I spent a lot of time reading them being dropped out of the experience to go "what???"
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?DrRockor said:
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
Oh, it's forced on the population. Every district /has/ to send a boy and a girl to every game. Basically, kids of the right age have the option to volunteer, but if nobody does, someone is chosen by lottery anyway.BNguyen said:
<spoiler=spoiler for the second book>District 12 (the district that Katniss comes from) was a backwater that the government pretty much ignored. The other districts were much more directly and oppressively controlled
As for the arenas, they weren't simulated per se. The stuff in them was real, it was just built like a combination Coliseum and theme park, with things like trap doors to release genetically engineered monsters from embedded in the ground. The highest level of technology we see in the books is genetic engineering, cloaking systems, and force fields. No free standing holograms or anything like that.
Oh, also, what you said about Battle Royale 2? First of all, that clashes pretty heavily with the book, which basically came to the conclusion that Japanese society as a whole was too conformist to ever rise up. It was a book written by an Otaku about how much being an outcast in Japanese society sucked[footnote]I understand the director of the movie was a survivor of some World War II bombing runs, and put a very different slant on it than the author of the book[/footnote]. But also, that's what the second and third Hunger Games books are all about. The basic theme of the series is the ability of the right individual in the right place and time to act as a catalyst to get everyone else moving.
And I'm starting to sound like a fanboy. I'm just someone who has read and enjoyed both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, and is therefore actually qualified to talk about the differences between the two XD
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.Owyn_Merrilin said:
I read all three books and enjoyed the first two, but god was the third one bad. I had to force myself through it, it's horribly written, there's no story progression and I lost all interest in the characters. Also what a horribly rushed ending. There is a question been asked through the trilogy about which of the two handsome beacons of perfection Kat piss would pick and it's very badly addressed. It tries to be deep and just flops. As for the movie, it was average but man that shaky Camera ruined it. It receives so much hype AND hate because it's one of those things associated with the 'Tween Wave'