The Hunger Games film thread

[Ursus the Grim]

Read the first two books about a year ago but only had the third in PDF which kills my enthusiasm. The complete change of plot also did it.

The movie was pretty damn good for an adaptation, and the story as a whole gets my vote because Katniss Everdeen isn't perfect, but she's a pretty decent rolemodel. Sure, it was awkward to go with my friends (most of which are post-grad), but at least I could take solace in the fact that they weren't seeing Twilight.

The books themselves aren't the best things ever written, but they're pretty good for what they are, an enjoyable romp with enough action for the boys and plenty of angst and girl power for the girls. There are a lot of little subtleties that tend to get overlooked and were omitted in the movie, such as Haymitch's past, the exact uncertainty of the relationship, and the nature of the Muttations. Admittedly, the CG on the Mutts were terrible, and trying to reveal more of what they were implied to be probably would have made that worse.

I was altogether pleased with the acting. The Citadel fashion was humorous without being too ridiculous, and the protagonists had a kind of imperfect appeal to them.

I felt the dialogues tended to be a bit stiff, particularly Katniss/Peeta speaking alone in the apartment at night. I realized I kept expecting them to do something physically, like pace, shuffle, or sit down, but they just froze while speaking. Perhaps the awkwardness was intentional, but it definitely felt forced. . . .

Also, the Battle Royale references are starting to get as annoying as Kimba and the Lion King.

[Xondoure]

I always thought the Hunger Games was more of an attack on what Suzanne Collins found disgusting in modern media. The constant themes of violence in young adult literature, the way we deconstruct people on relaity television to provide us entertainment and so on. She takes these themes and flings them back in the viewers face. Showing you exactly what would happen to children if forced to kill. And how callous those on the outside feel to those trapped within.

If anyone has read the Gregor the Overlander books PTSD seems to be a common thread.

[Pokonic]

If anyone has read the Gregor the Overlander books PTSD seems to be a common thread.

Katniss has some overtones of this.

[Xondoure]

Katniss has some overtones of this.

My point exactly.

[Reverent-One]

I always thought the Hunger Games was more of an attack on what Suzanne Collins found disgusting in modern media. The constant themes of violence in young adult literature, the way we deconstruct people on relaity television to provide us entertainment and so on. She takes these themes and flings them back in the viewers face. Showing you exactly what would happen to children if forced to kill. And how callous those on the outside feel to those trapped within.

So she writes a young adult series that used themes of violence to entertain people?

[SamBurke]

So she writes a young adult series that used themes of violence to entertain people?

That people, mistaking her message, used for self-entertainment.

A difference there is.

[Reverent-One]

That people, mistaking her message, used for self-entertainment.

A difference there is.

In which case she did a really poor job in relaying her message. There's very little, if anything, in the first book at the very least that distinguishes her use of violent themes from the violent themes she's supposedly "attacking". I don't see how someone could pick up the message just from the reading the book if it wasn't told to them.

[Ursus the Grim]

That people, mistaking her message, used for self-entertainment.

A difference there is.

Admittedly, I find it greatly entertaining, but I am fully aware of the irony inherent in it. I couldn't help but notice one instance. . . .

The scene where the Game operators are tearing up, the old balding men are holding back their tears over the dramatic situation? Yeah, people were laughing at that and failing to see exactly what it could be construed to mean. . . .

[Xondoure]

In which case she did a really poor job in relaying her message. There's very little, if anything, in the first book at the very least that distinguishes her use of violent themes from the violent themes she's supposedly "attacking". I don't see how someone could pick up the message just from the reading the book if it wasn't told to them.

Because the hunger games are treated as a good thing? The theme is there to me, but I suppose that such deconstructions are all subjective. Still, I felt that the movie particularly played with the idea that the audience is the Capital; what with how the announcers were used to exposite for us.

[Soras Teva Gee]

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing and I never had any interest in the Battle Royale can someone explain the appeal of this series or is it just the latest young adult series that caught popularity on the backs of tweens/teens that don't know any better?

[SaintRidley]

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing and I never had any interest in the Battle Royale can someone explain the appeal of this series or is it just the latest young adult series that caught popularity on the backs of tweens/teens that don't know any better?

Arena combat meets a bit of Brave New World with a healthy, but sarcastically laden dash of Romeo and Juliet.

[Reverent-One]

Because the hunger games are treated as a good thing? The theme is there to me, but I suppose that such deconstructions are all subjective.

Of course they're not, but the games are the evil empire's doing. So we root for Katniss to beat them. Enjoying Star Wars doesn't mean we approve of building a Death Star to blow up inhabited planets, it means just the opposite in fact, that we want to see the heroes stop the bad guys, end their reign of terror. Which, from what Pokonic said, is what happens. So it seems little different from writing about the inhabitants of Redwall fighting off Cluny the Scourge, the Animorphs defeating the Yeerks, or Harry Potter killing Voldemort.

Still, I felt that the movie particularly played with the idea that the audience is the Capital; what with how the announcers were used to exposite for us.

The thing is, implying that we're like people of the Capital who enjoy watching people actually die for no reason other than our entertainment because we enjoy watching/reading a fictional conflict between good and evil makes no sense. How many people who enjoy the books would find the idea of reopening the gladiator combat of the ancient romans morally repulsive? Nearly all of them I'd wager. The comparison is made even worse when the Capital native we see the most of, Cinna, doesn't seem to approve of them either, he simply can't do anything about the evil emperor President Snow. So the evil government is made out to be the true bad guys.

The claims of subtext from the author sound a lot like retcon to make the writing seem deeper than it was. Going solely off of the the first book again, it fits the typical mold of YA fiction, there are the good guys and the bad guys, and the good guys use violence to stop the bad guys from doing bad things and it all works out in the end. This is not to say that it wasn't a well-written example of the genre or that I didn't enjoy the book, because I did (I only haven't read the other two because I want them in paperback). It's just I don't see it deconstructing many aspects of YA fiction, it plays them too straight to do that. If Katniss won without using violence, or used violence and had it backfire and make things worse, or we saw that the seemingly justified violence against the bad guys in reality wasn't, that would be a different matter.

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing and I never had any interest in the Battle Royale can someone explain the appeal of this series or is it just the latest young adult series that caught popularity on the backs of tweens/teens that don't know any better?

Having just read the first book so far, the appeal is that it's a well-written (or at least decently-written) series that draws you in and keeps you interested. Also that it has nothing in common with Twilight other than being YA fiction. It has a lots of fans among 20-somethings as well, not just tweens and teens.

[Xondoure]

But in the first book she isn't using violence against the capital, she's using violence against other children because the capital demands it. And the fact that there ever were gladitorial arenas is sort of the point. She is exposing one of the (in her opinion) lesser aspects of human nature (bloodlust, satisfaction through violent conflict, etc.) by appealing to it.

[Reverent-One]

But in the first book she isn't using violence against the capital, she's using violence against other children because the capital demands it. And the fact that there ever were gladitorial arenas is sort of the point. She is exposing one of the (in her opinion) lesser aspects of human nature (bloodlust, satisfaction through violent conflict, etc.) by appealing to it.

Sure, and who does Katniss actually use violence against? Not other "good guys" like Peeta/Rue, but against the tributes (most/all of whom are more teenagers than children I believe) who trained to be tributes and/or want to kill the others for the prestige, the ones that buy into the capital's way, which makes them clear bad guys. Certainly humanity has been/can be/is bloodthirsty, but that's nothing new to say and doesn't deconstruct other YA fiction or make us like bloodthirsty citizens of the Capital.

Like I've said, it just doesn't seem to make a point against the YA fiction I grew up reading (or still read a bit of today). I do respect your opinion, I just don't see it myself.

[Xondoure]

Admittedly a lot of the aspects I consider deconstruction come in the later novels, and also in reaction to the other series I've read by her. (which was also intended for young adults.)

I'm curious though, what themes would you consider it to hold then?

[Avilan the Grey]

Sending the young to die while the wealthy and powerful remain behind and insulated from the effects.

The other thing is that the horribleness of the premise is in part because it's probably the only way to really get through people about one of the secondary messages - the perversion of basing so much of popular culture on exploitative reality television.

I can't really argue too much about this without sliding into IRL politics, but let's just say that I fail to see ANY resemblance to IRL events (in the modern world). Gladiator games with minors fighting to the death as entertainment are worlds away from 18-20 year olds that has volunteered into an army and fights in an actual war.

The second reason has been done at least 10 times in different media over the last 25 years, in everything from Judge Dredd, other post-apocalyptic comics, to movies such as Battle Royale. It's still not interesting to me and I get an odd mix of disgust and boredom just reading about the concept.

The movie was pretty damn good for an adaptation, and the story as a whole gets my vote because Katniss Everdeen isn't perfect, but she's a pretty decent rolemodel.

...

The books themselves aren't the best things ever written, but they're pretty good for what they are, an enjoyable romp with enough action for the boys and plenty of angst and girl power for the girls.

I guess I am just old, and the world has moved on without me (I AM almost 40 after all). I would just never dream of trying to use such a truly horrific idea as "girl power" or "role model".
Back in my day, the books aimed for this age bracket (10-13) were mystery books still, like Enid Blyton books and knockoffs of the same. Boy do I feel old...

I always thought the Hunger Games was more of an attack on what Suzanne Collins found disgusting in modern media. The constant themes of violence in young adult literature, the way we deconstruct people on relaity television to provide us entertainment and so on. She takes these themes and flings them back in the viewers face. Showing you exactly what would happen to children if forced to kill. And how callous those on the outside feel to those trapped within.

The first part might have been her intention, but since it turned out to be so very popular, it seems her books BECAME what she was attacking. If she wrote them in part to protest against the theme of violence in young adult literature, and everyone and their granddaughter is reading the books and loving them, she must have failed in her intentions.

As for game shows and reality TV... I think the logical jump from Survivor and The Colony to this is... beyond far fetched.

Admittedly, I find it greatly entertaining, but I am fully aware of the irony inherent in it.

Yes, but you are not 11 years old. The books, as well as the movies, are deliberately marketed to 11-year olds. I might be cynical, but I rather doubt that they have the mature minds to see this as any kind of Irony.

It seems indeed that she failed in her attempt.

Sure, and who does Katniss actually use violence against? Not other "good guys" like Peeta/Rue, but against the tributes (most/all of whom are more teenagers than children I believe)

Teenagers ARE children. The human brain is not fully developed until you are around 22 years old.

[Sunken Valley]

For everyone who says "the books are too violent", have any of you read Darren Shan's Demonata series? That is popular, good literature and extremely extremely violent. As you would expect from a horror series about demons from hell.

[Avilan the Grey]

For everyone who says "the books are too violent", have any of you read Darren Shan's Demonata series? That is popular, good literature and extremely extremely violent. As you would expect from a horror series about demons from hell.

My personal opinion after just reading reviews and descriptions of the books is that it is not something I would give to my sister's kids before say the age of 15. It is not the amount of violence or the description of violence as much as the target demographic (11-12 year olds!) that I find bad. Personally, I will not read it despite my age, simply because it doesn't seem like something I would enjoy at all.

I also find the huge popularity slightly jarring, to be honest.

And no, I have not heard of that series. It is not published or imported here, it seems.

[Yuini]

Personally I wasn't even going to watch Hunger Games, but after reading this thread I just might.

Just so I can form my own opinion.

Who knows, maybe I even find the motivation to buy and read the book...well maybe not.

[Axolotl]

It is not the amount of violence or the description of violence as much as the target demographic (11-12 year olds!) that I find bad.

Just out of curiosity where are you getting those numbers? Everything I've seen indicates it's targeted at teenagers and I have to say while I haven't read or seen The Hunger Games it sounds an awful lot less violent than a lot of what I was watching and reading at that age.

[Ursus the Grim]

I guess I am just old, and the world has moved on without me (I AM almost 40 after all). I would just never dream of trying to use such a truly horrific idea as "girl power" or "role model".
Back in my day, the books aimed for this age bracket (10-13) were mystery books still, like Enid Blyton books and knockoffs of the same. Boy do I feel old...

[...]

Yes, but you are not 11 years old. The books, as well as the movies, are deliberately marketed to 11-year olds. I might be cynical, but I rather doubt that they have the mature minds to see this as any kind of Irony.

It seems indeed that she failed in her attempt.

[...]

Teenagers ARE children. The human brain is not fully developed until you are around 22 years old.

My generation is significantly younger than you, Grey, but we had our share of mystery books too. We still read the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. But we also had the Animorphs and Goosebumps. Call me young and desensitized, but I don't think the violence in the Hunger Games was terribly graphic or disturbing. No, seriously. Read the books and then watch the news, and think long and hard about which is more upsetting.

What makes you say that its marketed towards eleven-year-olds? I haven't met anyone younger than 15 who's read the books and I assure you by that point I would have at least realized there was a reason she was showing us the game operators, and honestly the violence wouldn't have phased. Then again, I'm a blood-thirsty American pig.

Your last point is mostly accurate but fails to make the distinction between biological maturity, psychological maturity, and the maturity as seen by society, which are probably roughly 15, 22, and 18-21 respectively.

[Avilan the Grey]

Just out of curiosity where are you getting those numbers? Everything I've seen indicates it's targeted at teenagers and I have to say while I haven't read or seen The Hunger Games it sounds an awful lot less violent than a lot of what I was watching and reading at that age.

What makes you say that its marketed towards eleven-year-olds? I haven't met anyone younger than 15 who's read the books and I assure you by that point I would have at least realized there was a reason she was showing us the game operators, and honestly the violence wouldn't have phased. Then again, I'm a blood-thirsty American pig..

The age restriction in theaters is 11 years old (both in the US as in Sweden, I believe). This means that a HUGE number of 11 year olds will see this. And subsequently will get these books by buy / lend / get for Christmas .

Edit: As I said, the highest maturity non XXX rated limit we have in Sweden is 15, so things like the Human Centipede and Saw 92 (or whatever they are up to now) all are available for 15 year olds. That is okay by me.

[Axolotl]

The age restriction in theaters is 11 years old (both in the US as in Sweden, I believe). This means that a HUGE number of 11 year olds will see this. And subsequently buy / lend / get for Christmas these books.

There's a big difference between the minimum age that it's suitable for and being the target audience.

[Psyren]

I just find the combination of the horrific theme, my personal complete uninterested in anything similar, and the extremely large fanbase very very strange indeed. Especially since many of the fans are people who would never watch say a Arnold movie because it is too violent.

Even assuming you're correct, very few Arnold movies are PG-13. There's some gory stuff in Hunger Games but they use the handheld camera and discretion shots to hide it.

This argument feels strange too, since basically if she had not written this book, everyone in the western world already agrees that kids killing kids is much worse than grownups killing grownups. It all just feels like a big "Duh! We all knew that already!"

As others have said, it's a broader metaphor for most revolutions (and not just violent ones) originating among the disenfranchised young rather than the entrenched old.

But in the first book she isn't using violence against the capital, she's using violence against other children because the capital demands it.

I don't know about the book, but all three(?) of her kills in the movie were self-defense, and one of those was an accident to boot (she was trying to drive off her attacker rather than actively murder.)

[Avilan the Grey]

There's a big difference between the minimum age that it's suitable for and being the target audience.

In theory, yes. In practicality? Not so much. It doesn't really matter what the original intent of the writer was ("Young Adult", which I always have found a very weird definition anyway; to me a young adult is 18+; a 16 year old is a teenager.). The target audience for the movie studio is 11+. It's as simple as that. And as I said, that means tons of 11 and 12 year olds will not only see the movie, but they'll be buying the books afterwards as well.

As others have said, it's a broader metaphor for most revolutions (and not just violent ones) originating among the disenfranchised young rather than the entrenched old.

The "Duh!" still stands.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité and all that Jazz.

[Axolotl]

As others have said, it's a broader metaphor for most revolutions (and not just violent ones) originating among the disenfranchised young rather than the entrenched old.

Most successful revolutions I can think of were led by people in their 40's or older so I don't think that makes much sense as a metaphor.

In theory, yes. In practicality? Not so much. It doesn't really matter what the original intent of the writer was ("Young Adult", which I always have found a very weird definition anyway; to me a young adult is 18+; a 16 year old is a teenager.). The target audience for the movie studio is 11+. It's as simple as that. And as I said, that means tons of 11 and 12 year olds will not only see the movie, but they'll be buying the books afterwards as well.

Simply saying that's the target audience doesn't make it so. All the adverts I've seen have been targetted at teens, all the marketing I've seen has talked about their teen audience and all the news and reviews I've seen have talked about it's appeal to teens. You can't complain that it's being marketed to 11 year olds when it is not. Yes 11 year olds will see the film, that's because people whose job is to judge if a film is suitable for 11 year olds have watched the film and decided that it is suitable for 11 year olds.

[Lord Seth]

As apparently the Hunger Games is to Battle Royale what Twilight is to Hellsing

...I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to mean.

[t209]

How many came from District 12 (Applachia) and you reaction to having Appalachia in this film?

[Psyren]

Most successful revolutions I can think of were led by people in their 40's or older so I don't think that makes much sense as a metaphor.

You mean the ones who grew up under the regime? Yes, that's the whole point.

I'd cite examples but this is getting too political as it is.

The "Duh!" still stands.

I agree that it's obvious - to you and me. But nevertheless, Some Anvils Need to be Dropped. I would wager that a significant portion of the audience for that movie don't regularly think about the kind of themes used in the work.

[super dark33]

I red the book. didnt see the movie. im going to wait untill it will be broadcasted on the HD movies channel on TV.

Can you tell me what story changes were there so i wont kill somone while watching it?