The Hunger Games

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, I get your reaction. My guess is that for most viewers the movie was a chance to see the book on screen. We did not miss the details you mention because we read the books. Even many who did not had heard bits and pieces from the fans who likely took them. Also, even in the trilogy, the true origin of the Hunger Games does not come out full force until the end of the third book.

Most reviewers said that if the movie faulted it was in trying to follow the book too closely--by including too many details. I was one of those readers who found it so very cool to see the story on screen. My memory of the books filled in any blanks in the movie. Also, I was amazed at how quickly those 2.5 hours passed.

[Blocky]

I have yet to see the movies, but I read the books. I think the point Collins is trying to make is a social one, not necessarily a political one. The people of Capitol City weren't necessarily bad, yet I remember being shocked to read about how they would eat so much food, throw it up, and eat more just because it was there, completely oblivious to what was happening in the outer districts. And, although they seemed to be in a state of bliss or pleasure, there were many of them that did not like being subjected to President Snow's rule, finally realizing that pleasure is not happiness.

@Tyler: What Windseeker said was that the story takes place in North America, not representing it.

Also, sure, we have enough money and food to go around, but there are many places where it is pretty much impossible to get it to the people because of a corrupt government. We'd help if we could.

I agree. I don't think the author was trying to draw any hard parallels with today's politics. I think the message was for us as individuals to THINK.

I think the authors for both Twilight and Hunger Games were both excellent story tellers but not the best of writers. I don't really want to see any of the movies because I like my mental versions of books more than the movie versions every time.

[Dravin]

And then, of course, the reason for the Hunger Games was just so flimsy it's almost comical... the districts rebelled so we created the games...uh, yeah, like, why would the districts just go for that for 74 years and not rebel by year 10? The book made the whole set-up much more believable.

Heh, Beefche was giving me a brief overview of the book after she finished it and that was the first question out of my mouth.

[Backroads]

I'm one of those people who thought The Hunger Games books were highly overrated... I thought the writing and characterization were kind of lousy... I didn't even bother to worry about political meanings.

That being said, I always thought the books would make better movies.

[kristina12]

I have read the books before the movie, and seen the movie. I enjoyed it, I do wish that the pin Katniss wears would have been given to her by Madge rather than her sister, just to show the friendship. I also miss Haymitch at the reaping. In general there are a few bits and pieces I miss that I wish had been in the movie, but I do like it. It will be interesting to see how it develops, now with the 75th hunger games coming up.

[yjacket]

As much as I like science fiction (I love Asimov, Ray Bradbury, etc.), in this arena I believe history is more exciting than fiction. I'd rather read When Money Dies (about hyperinflation in Germany- which helped give rise to Hitler), The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, or Conceived in Liberty (about the founding of the colonies and the Revolution). Reading actual political history about tyrannical governments and their overthrow is much better than reading a fictional story about it IMO. I haven't read The Hunger Games, but I've taken it's something akin to Atlas Shrugged-minus the whole going Galt thing. If it gets people thinking that is a good thing.

But one thing I have learned in reading actual history of tyrannical governments is that people always get the government they deserve. No dictator can maintain power and influence without the will of the populace - which is why it is foolish to "save" or "free" other countries from dictators-the populace has to overthrow them. Government is people and people determine what kind of a government they get.

[John11111]

Should have a spoiler alert somewhere for people who havnt read the book or watched the movie -.- I dont even like to watch trailers because of that oh well thanks alot everyone =p

Edited April 2, 2012 by John11111

[prisonchaplain]

One review I read pointed out that this movie is seeped in postmodernism. It is a godless society, with precious little hope. Survival is the primary motivator, and the future seems only mildly better. Additionally, there is actually little judgment--even against Capitol, President Snow, or the oppressive nature of the society. It is all sort of understood.

None of the above makes the movie bad or unworthy. However, it is the one reason I find modern movies and culture somewhat disheartening. Perhaps, sometime before the second coming, we'll have more top-quality religious movies that can garner good reviews for something other than the message alone.

[Dravin]

One review I read pointed out that this movie is seeped in postmodernism. It is a godless society, with precious little hope. Survival is the primary motivator, and the future seems only mildly better. Additionally, there is actually little judgment--even against Capitol, President Snow, or the oppressive nature of the society. It is all sort of understood.

It is the first part of a trilogy though. It's not uncommon for them to start out bleak with a slight glimmer of hope towards the end of the first book/movie which further develops until it's realized in the final movie/book. Consider that it's the moral individuals who win, those who try to survive at any cost, without any humanity, end up loosing.

[Bos5]

I personally watched the Hunger Games twice and enjoyed it.

[Backroads]

Still haven't bothered to see it. I wanted to the other week, but now the excitement is quickly draining from me.

[embleau]

I've read all the books and saw the movie. Loved them all. Thought provoking to me. It kept me guessing through Mockingjay. The movie was a good translation of the book. Only issues I had was the broadcasting of Katniss putting the flowers around Rue and then showing District 11 revolting, that didn't happen in the book. Crane cut the transmission so the districts did NOT see the flowers around rue and there was no mention of district 11 revolting, they really sent her a bread with a mockingjay on it as a sponsor gift as a thank you for singing to Rue. Plus they didn't show or say anything about the hovercrafts collecting the bodies or saying anything about the avoxes really. but minor things really i guess...

[prisonchaplain]

It is the first part of a trilogy though. It's not uncommon for them to start out bleak with a slight glimmer of hope towards the end of the first book/movie which further develops until it's realized in the final movie/book. Consider that it's the moral individuals who win, those who try to survive at any cost, without any humanity, end up loosing.

I've read all three books, and do not want to spoil it for those who haven't. In spite of how the story actually did end, how it almost ended would have fit post-modernism to a T. Even the ending we got still felt rather empty. Again, I'm not criticizing the book, or the story. It's my impression of a post-modern world, devoid of spirituality.

[Traveler]

Okay, because of pressure from my wife and kids I went to see the movie. I was not pleased at all and unlike so many others I cannot say I enjoyed it. I was most disturbed and upset by the willingness of characters to kill. The bad guys are portrayed as those that enjoyed killing everybody and the good guys as the reluctant killers. But – I think what disturbed me the most was that the characters are all minors – in essence children.

For some time I have found myself at odds with the popular notion in entertainment that the only real difference between good guys and bad guys is that the good guys hunt down and murder only the bad guys that deserve it. Bad guys just kill anybody. The problem is that I have never met anyone that had caused another harm did not believe that the “others” deserved it – for one reason or another.

The final thing that disturbs me about this movie – is that so many (otherwise righteous?) enjoy being entertained by children killing each other – for me the only intelligent character in the movie was the one person that wanted to not watch the “Hunger Games”. But then even he was tempted beyond his ability to resist (another not so good message too easily swallowed).

The Traveler

[embleau]

Okay, because of pressure from my wife and kids I went to see the movie. I was not pleased at all and unlike so many others I cannot say I enjoyed it. I was most disturbed and upset by the willingness of characters to kill. The bad guys are portrayed as those that enjoyed killing everybody and the good guys as the reluctant killers. But – I think what disturbed me the most was that the characters are all minors – in essence children.

For some time I have found myself at odds with the popular notion in entertainment that the only real difference between good guys and bad guys is that the good guys hunt down and murder only the bad guys that deserve it. Bad guys just kill anybody. The problem is that I have never met anyone that had caused another harm did not believe that the “others” deserved it – for one reason or another.

The final thing that disturbs me about this movie – is that so many (otherwise righteous?) enjoy being entertained by children killing each other – for me the only intelligent character in the movie was the one person that wanted to not watch the “Hunger Games”. But then even he was tempted beyond his ability to resist (another not so good message too easily swallowed).

The Traveler

I think you missed the message of the story. It's FAR from a celebration of killing. Hunger Games is just the first part of a larger story. The main point of the whole story is political and social corruption and showing that one small spark of hope can set the world a fire.

[Traveler]

I think you missed the message of the story. It's FAR from a celebration of killing. Hunger Games is just the first part of a larger story. The main point of the whole story is political and social corruption and showing that one small spark of hope can set the world a fire.

I did miss the message - now that I know - it makes the abuse of children and the violance so much more fun, exciting and entertaining. Thanks for helping me with that.

BTW - Joseph Goebbels, considered the world's leading expert in brain washing techniques stated that entertainment is the most successful method of brainwashing - that what people find as entertaining - they will eventually tolerate, then embrace.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Okay, because of pressure from my wife and kids I went to see the movie. I was not pleased at all and unlike so many others I cannot say I enjoyed it. I was most disturbed and upset by the willingness of characters to kill. The bad guys are portrayed as those that enjoyed killing everybody and the good guys as the reluctant killers. But – I think what disturbed me the most was that the characters are all minors – in essence children.

For some time I have found myself at odds with the popular notion in entertainment that the only real difference between good guys and bad guys is that the good guys hunt down and murder only the bad guys that deserve it. Bad guys just kill anybody. The problem is that I have never met anyone that had caused another harm did not believe that the “others” deserved it – for one reason or another.

The final thing that disturbs me about this movie – is that so many (otherwise righteous?) enjoy being entertained by children killing each other – for me the only intelligent character in the movie was the one person that wanted to not watch the “Hunger Games”. But then even he was tempted beyond his ability to resist (another not so good message too easily swallowed).

The Traveler

The entire reason for the PG-13 rating was the very idea of adolescents fighting to the death. It is obscene. Yet, it is plausible. We can imagine such a world. This tells me that the root of the very evil you speak of is entrenched within us.

I admit to enjoying this movie for its social, political, and science fiction elements. The violence was not endorsed, was not gratuituous, nor was it even the main element. It was, in fact, an after thought. President Snow (a character) asked his game maker why they even have these games. After all, they could intimidate the districts by simply killing the tributes each year. Hope, he says, is powerful--just a little though--not too much.

To me the Hunger Games was a condemnation of postmodernism and the emptiness it offers. I doubt Suzanne Collins (the author) intended this message, but that's my takeaway.

[Traveler]

The entire reason for the PG-13 rating was the very idea of adolescents fighting to the death. It is obscene. Yet, it is plausible. We can imagine such a world. This tells me that the root of the very evil you speak of is entrenched within us.

I admit to enjoying this movie for its social, political, and science fiction elements. The violence was not endorsed, was not gratuituous, nor was it even the main element. It was, in fact, an after thought. President Snow (a character) asked his game maker why they even have these games. After all, they could intimidate the districts by simply killing the tributes each year. Hope, he says, is powerful--just a little though--not too much.

To me the Hunger Games was a condemnation of postmodernism and the emptiness it offers. I doubt Suzanne Collins (the author) intended this message, but that's my takeaway.

Just wondering - what is worse enjoying a movie with explicit violence or sex. Anciently in Israel the Israelites were condemned for indulging in the “entertaining” part of the religion of Baal. Most Christians agree that the religion of Baal was evil thought few know anything about it – the epoch of Baal is rather interesting and the main message really is not that different from Hunger games.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Just wondering - what is worse enjoying a movie with explicit violence or sex. Anciently in Israel the Israelites were condemned for indulging in the “entertaining” part of the religion of Baal. Most Christians agree that the religion of Baal was evil thought few know anything about it – the epoch of Baal is rather interesting and the main message really is not that different from Hunger games.

The Traveler

In most cases I would say that sexual entertainment is worse, because most of us will struggle with on-going tempting thoughts weeks and months after the initial viewing. Most violent movies are so over-the-top ridiculous that we have no on-going thoughts of blowing up the bad guys or dishing out some five-knuckle justice. So, from the perspective of avoiding lust (whether for violence or sex) I'd suggest that sexually provocative entertainment is worse.

There are some cases where these may be flipped. Additionally, I could understand how those who have engaged in combat might find violence entertainment particularly offensive.

If violence is used to tell a story that is real and has depth and thoughtfulness to it, I am admittedly permissive. If the story is a mere excuse for the violence, then I am more inclined to urge caution.

Some here even thought the Passion of the Christ was violence entertainment. I found it a shocking and realistic meditation on Christ's suffering.

With the Hunger Games, the actual violence was not so great. What is difficult is the very idea of kids fighting to the death. That idea is either provocative for its potential to actually happen, or it is outside the realm of decent thought. I found the danger of too possible to ignore.