The Hunger Games film thread

[TheEmerged]

So I just got back from this movie. I won't say it was bad but... Can someone familiar with the books (that I now have no desire whatsoever to read) tell me what was I supposed to be feeling when the movie was over with? I'm having trouble putting it into words without sounding more insulting than I feel.

The closest I can come is to compare it to a sales pitch I saw at a flea market years ago. I had taken my mother who was raised in Appalachia - who had scrubbed floors with a hand brush and carried water from a creek during her lifetime. We came to this eager college student trying to sell these special washcloths, so he did the routine where he handed her an obviously-poor-quality rag and asked her to clean one messy spot up while he cleaned a different one with his special space age fibers.

She of course, having used even *worse* rags in her lifetime, did a better job on her side than he did on his, much to the laughter of everyone watching. Perhaps alone in the crowd, I felt sorry for the kid who had just embarrassed himself but was just trying to earn a buck.

This film is the college kid in that story. I left feeling that it wanted to be something big, and even tried to do something great, but had no idea what it was doing. It had all the trappings of something epic yet... there wasn't enough there there.

I couldn't feel insulted when I was being preached at. I couldn't feel inspired, I couldn't feel sorry for the victims, I couldn't hate the bad guys (I was too busy laughing at how cartoonish they were), I couldn't get into the world behind it... yet I couldn't bring myself to dislike it either.

Oatmeal for breakfast? Is that a fair comparison?

---------------

The more insulting version as a sound bite -- for me, the rest of the movie never lived up to the tribute scene.

[t209]

So I just got back from this movie. I won't say it was bad but... Can someone familiar with the books (that I now have no desire whatsoever to read) tell me what was I supposed to be feeling when the movie was over with? I'm having trouble putting it into words without sounding more insulting than I feel.

The closest I can come is to compare it to a sales pitch I saw at a flea market years ago. I had taken my mother who was raised in Appalachia - who had scrubbed floors with a hand brush and carried water from a creek during her lifetime. We came to this eager college student trying to sell these special washcloths, so he did the routine where he handed her an obviously-poor-quality rag and asked her to clean one messy spot up while he cleaned a different one with his special space age fibers.

She of course, having used even *worse* rags in her lifetime, did a better job on her side than he did on his, much to the laughter of everyone watching. Perhaps alone in the crowd, I felt sorry for the kid who had just embarrassed himself but was just trying to earn a buck.

This film is the college kid in that story. I left feeling that it wanted to be something big, and even tried to do something great, but had no idea what it was doing. It had all the trappings of something epic yet... there wasn't enough there there.

I couldn't feel insulted when I was being preached at. I couldn't feel inspired, I couldn't feel sorry for the victims, I couldn't hate the bad guys (I was too busy laughing at how cartoonish they were), I couldn't get into the world behind it... yet I couldn't bring myself to dislike it either.

Oatmeal for breakfast? Is that a fair comparison?

---------------

The more insulting version as a sound bite -- for me, the rest of the movie never lived up to the tribute scene.

Well, blame at the Panem. They're the one who try to gain resources, like coal, by promoting a region's stereotype, like Appalachia's coal mines and poverty due to lack of food coming in and banned farming.

[No brains]

Spoilers ahoy, go ahead and tl;dr.

I've been reading the thread up to page 4 and I saw a few people who had similar thoughts, but I don't think they were able to read as much into the idea as I managed to read.

This move is abominably racist.

I will stand by the above adamantly. However, I acknowledge that the levels of racism may have been intentional for purposes of impact. Being only one third of a much larger story, there is potential for the prejudiced themes to have a more meaningful impact.

I began to suspect that the movie would be so during the opening scenes. Beforehand I was given the idea that there was a war (in North America) that fractured the country and left one side dominating the other. This seemed to imply that this was written from a perspective sympathetic of the American South. The idea was cemented when I saw District 12 as a rural, wooded area with people 'toiling'. As the homeland of the protagonist, District 12 is the 'good guy base' where all the people the audience needs to care about are. There is a single black woman in the town. She does nothing but look sad when Primrose is selected. That's it. This shook me, but I still figured that this might have just been a movie with a lot of white people in it.

When I was shown other examples of black people in the film, I was taken aback by how they were put in roles of goons, overindulged city-dwellers, and plain savages. Quite a few of the enforcers in white armor were black men, presumably selected to look 'imposing'. When the protagonists get to the city, the ratio of black people increases dramatically, my guess is around one in ten. This is a substantial portion of the hedonistic, voyeurs ready to watch the slaughter of innocent children.

What I found absolutely disgusting are the black combatants in the Hunger Games. We first see a past participant smashing in another noticeably paler combatant's head in with a brick and then roaring about it. Then we get to the current participants from District 11 who are wearing ceremonial uniforms of blue overalls and white shirts. Are we supposed to believe that they are laborers/ field workers? Toward the end we get Thresh screaming for another fighter to confess the name of murdered Rue while slamming them like a rag doll against a wall. When finished with this, he spares the protagonist, but makes a clear point about it being only once and only for helping Rue. This just raises more questions. Why couldn't Thresh help Rue? Can't they cooperate? Also, when the proposed time to kill Katness comes, will he be at all hesitant about it?

Rue is handled differently, but still in an uneasy way. One scene that bothered me was a quick cut during the interviews with the tributes. In a one-second cut, the announcer asks Rue, "So you can climb trees?" Are we supposed to infer some monkey joke there? While Rue is depicted as innocent, she still falls into some stereotypical roles. She is noted for her ability to hide and make off with another Tribute's knife. Is this because being a little rogue was necessitated from an irresponsible upbringing? More upsetting is how she is neatly sacrificed to further the heroine's ends. This seems to fit the bill of a writer trying to describe the quirks of 'the one good one'. Aside, but relevant, I also noted that there is a racist tweet scandal where some fans complain that Rue is black.

As noted before by other posters, the curing of the cement in my mind was the riot in District 11 following Rue's death. A riot in a dominantly back District where anger crumbles the rule of law. In an especially harsh quelling of this, water cannons are turned on the rioters. It is incredibly strange that for the first time in the seventy four years of the Games, no other district had rioted. The conversation between the President and the Master of Ceremonies certainly makes it seem so. I heard directly after the film that this scene was not in the book. What were the filmmakers trying to prove by adding this?

The racism is not restricted to simply whites over blacks, but it instead has powerful pro-Aryan themes throughout. There are servants standing still as statues that are implied to be Asian inside of the suites before the Games. Moreover, the most potent enemy Katness faces is the picture of Aryan supremacy, being a giant muscular, blue-eyed, blond-haired Adonis whose weapon of choice is a sword seemingly modeled after a Roman gladius. Still yet, one of the controllers during the games seems to have been cast as caricature of the 'insidious Jews'.

...

As always my attempt to write intelligently is cut off by my horrible life circumstances. Please address whatever seems rushed or incomplete.

[Ursus the Grim]

Spoilers ahoy, go ahead and tl;dr.

I've been reading the thread up to page 4 and I saw a few people who had similar thoughts, but I don't think they were able to read as much into the idea as I managed to read.

This move is abominably racist.

Wow. I'm going to start here and mention that I've read your entire post a couple times over. It brings to mind an even that occured to me in high school.

I was sitting in my Math IV class. We were working through a problem as a class and my teacher asked what to do about some variable to solve the problem. I said, with no subtext intended, "We segregate it."

Keep in mind that this is a perfectly legitimate usage of the word. Perhaps I should have been more sensitive that I was going to insult somebody without intending to or even remembering the negative connotations of the word. Behind me roars a voice.

"Wow, Bryan. Way to be racist." No joking, dead serious, this girl begins to scream at as I try to assure her that I wasn't intending on offending anyone. She was just looking for offense where none was intended or even considered. Your complete analysis of the movie as addressed in the following subquotes seems similar. It is, as I like to call it, Death of a Racist Author. Book spoilers abound.

I began to suspect that the movie would be so during the opening scenes. Beforehand I was given the idea that there was a war (in North America) that fractured the country and left one side dominating the other. This seemed to imply that this was written from a perspective sympathetic of the American South. The idea was cemented when I saw District 12 as a rural, wooded area with people 'toiling'. As the homeland of the protagonist, District 12 is the 'good guy base' where all the people the audience needs to care about are. There is a single black woman in the town. She does nothing but look sad when Primrose is selected. That's it. This shook me, but I still figured that this might have just been a movie with a lot of white people in it.

First, your assumption that District 12 is the 'good guy base' is strongly subverted by the fact that it has 11 allies when it comes down to it, the Capital being the only real enemy (though District 2 is somewhat more loyal, it eventually rebels).

Second, I'm judging by the minimal accents and the more temperate mountainous region that District 12 as portrayed here is located somewhere in Central or Northern Appalachia. Taking two minutes to look up census information, we see that overall, Appalachia has approximately 9% black population, which is strongly distorted by 18% in "Southern" Appalachia. If we remove that outlier from the average, as we can by considering its more likely than not that District 12 is positioned outside of Southern Appalachia, our actual average was 4.2%. This correlates with my own personal experience, in which I noticed that Appalachia is hella full of white folk. Naturally, I haven't been to Mississippi, Alabama, nor Georgia, so I'd assume its different there.

If you take a look at the data, you'll notice a disproportionately huge portion of that population is also in urban regions. While it seems more likely to me that people living in urban areas would be more likely to have their children end up in the Capital as opposed to District 12, I'm not making that assumption.

For your convenience.
http://www.arc.gov/assets/research_r...nsusReport.pdf

When I was shown other examples of black people in the film, I was taken aback by how they were put in roles of goons, overindulged city-dwellers, and plain savages. Quite a few of the enforcers in white armor were black men, presumably selected to look 'imposing'. When the protagonists get to the city, the ratio of black people increases dramatically, my guess is around one in ten. This is a substantial portion of the hedonistic, voyeurs ready to watch the slaughter of innocent children.

What I found absolutely disgusting are the black combatants in the Hunger Games. We first see a past participant smashing in another noticeably paler combatant's head in with a brick and then roaring about it. Then we get to the current participants from District 11 who are wearing ceremonial uniforms of blue overalls and white shirts. Are we supposed to believe that they are laborers/ field workers? Toward the end we get Thresh screaming for another fighter to confess the name of murdered Rue while slamming them like a rag doll against a wall. When finished with this, he spares the protagonist, but makes a clear point about it being only once and only for helping Rue. This just raises more questions. Why couldn't Thresh help Rue? Can't they cooperate? Also, when the proposed time to kill Katness comes, will he be at all hesitant about it?

Rue is handled differently, but still in an uneasy way. One scene that bothered me was a quick cut during the interviews with the tributes. In a one-second cut, the announcer asks Rue, "So you can climb trees?" Are we supposed to infer some monkey joke there? While Rue is depicted as innocent, she still falls into some stereotypical roles. She is noted for her ability to hide and make off with another Tribute's knife. Is this because being a little rogue was necessitated from an irresponsible upbringing? More upsetting is how she is neatly sacrificed to further the heroine's ends. This seems to fit the bill of a writer trying to describe the quirks of 'the one good one'. Aside, but relevant, I also noted that there is a racist tweet scandal where some fans complain that Rue is black.

Can we have citation here? The only Capitol character I remember being black is Cinna. And he's pretty much the least morally corrupt character. Hell, in the books Katniss describes him like some sort of angel, its almost disgusting how much she idolizes him. He also becomes a martyr. Perhaps there were some black Peacekeepers, but let's keep in mind that America is 12% black. The Capital, which is a hodgepodge of the most affluent of the people being 1/10 black doesn't seem so jarring. If anything, that number is a little low. Then again, if there were no black people in the capital, we'd be sitting here talking about how the movie insinuates that black people can't be wealthy.

Yes. District 11 is primarily black. That's why Kresh and Rue are. Historically speaking, the majority of Blacks lived in the South, specifically Southeastern and South Central. I'm not sure if this supports or dismisses your idea that the movie is racist. Is it racist to have a district of black folk being forced to work on a plantation by a clearly evil Colonel Sanders-like President Snow? Rather, is it racist of the movie? Because your thesis seems to be that the movie bashes blacks, and if anything this would be a clear illustration of the white man ****ing people over again.

Rue was described in the books as being a good climber. Its the only reason she lived as long as she did. She's supposed to be an evasive character because she can't handle herself in a fight. Foxface was already a mildly dis-likable character that was stealthy on the ground. Rue would have been unremarkable had she not taken to the canopy. Unless you propose she burrowed to avoid captors.

No, Kresh and Rue could not have cooperated for long. Ultimately, they would have had to kill one another. I suppose Kresh might have sacrificed himself, but it would be stupid to do that before it was necessary. Kresh and Rue were also mismatched. Having Rue on the ground would have slowed down Kresh, and he doesn't have the gift for evasion that she does. I believe it's suggested in the books that he's trying to help her by killing the other tributes. Hell, if it weren't for Katniss Rue would have made it longer.

Furthermore, regarding the question of hesitation, I doubt it. He's got a family at home and people that would benefit from a victory for him. If it was Kresh and Katniss for the final fight, why would he hesitate? Dying would mean that his district and everyone he knows gets nothing, but winning would allow him to support his family and his friends, including Rue's family.

As noted before by other posters, the curing of the cement in my mind was the riot in District 11 following Rue's death. A riot in a dominantly back District where anger crumbles the rule of law. In an especially harsh quelling of this, water cannons are turned on the rioters. It is incredibly strange that for the first time in the seventy four years of the Games, no other district had rioted. The conversation between the President and the Master of Ceremonies certainly makes it seem so. I heard directly after the film that this scene was not in the book. What were the filmmakers trying to prove by adding this?

The racism is not restricted to simply whites over blacks, but it instead has powerful pro-Aryan themes throughout. There are servants standing still as statues that are implied to be Asian inside of the suites before the Games. Moreover, the most potent enemy Katness faces is the picture of Aryan supremacy, being a giant muscular, blue-eyed, blond-haired Adonis whose weapon of choice is a sword seemingly modeled after a Roman gladius. Still yet, one of the controllers during the games seems to have been cast as caricature of the 'insidious Jews'.

In no other games has there been two victors who try and screw over the capital like that. Besides the fact that there were likely riots at some point, but we are shown how fast they are put down. If 50 years ago people tried to riot and were shut down hard, would people talk about it today? Without written language and Peacekeepers monitoring much of what's said in the district? Its made really clear that District 12 is initially quite lax in terms of order, and that the other districts are pretty tightly ruled.

And our Ubermensch is an *******, a bloodthirsty lunatic. What if he were black? Would you still claim racial themes? Of course, because then he'd be a bloodthirsty savage black man in your eyes.

Jeez, I promised myself to get less worked up over things, but you're looking at beige wallpaper and seeing Nazi propaganda.

[Da'Shain]

I've been reading the thread up to page 4 and I saw a few people who had similar thoughts, but I don't think they were able to read as much into the idea as I managed to read.

This move is abominably racist.

I think "read as much into" is the important part there, because I have to say, you seem to be reading a whole lot into the movie starting from the position that it is racist, not actually drawing a conclusion based on what's there.

I began to suspect that the movie would be so during the opening scenes. Beforehand I was given the idea that there was a war (in North America) that fractured the country and left one side dominating the other. This seemed to imply that this was written from a perspective sympathetic of the American South. The idea was cemented when I saw District 12 as a rural, wooded area with people 'toiling'. As the homeland of the protagonist, District 12 is the 'good guy base' where all the people the audience needs to care about are. There is a single black woman in the town. She does nothing but look sad when Primrose is selected. That's it. This shook me, but I still figured that this might have just been a movie with a lot of white people in it.

The mere fact that there was a rebellion and "one side" is now dominating the other does not make it sympathetic to the American South after the Civil War. That was not the only rebellion in history, it does not encompass even close to all the possible reasons for a rebellion, and assuming from the outset that the filmmakers are trying to draw a parallel to that specifically based simply on it being a "rural, wooded area" is absurd.

District 12 certainly is a rural wooded area. It's also apparently the district known for coal mining. Which means that it's in the interior of (what used to be) the US, most likely around the Rockies or the Midwest (EDIT: It's apparently explicitly in Appalachia according to the books, probably somewhere in Western Pennsylvania, which actually fits better with the terrain shown in the movie, so thanks for pointing that out, Ursus). Which are not known for their high populations of black people at all; which, in fact, are known for having fairly large concentrations of white people and few other ethnicities.

When I was shown other examples of black people in the film, I was taken aback by how they were put in roles of goons, overindulged city-dwellers, and plain savages. Quite a few of the enforcers in white armor were black men, presumably selected to look 'imposing'. When the protagonists get to the city, the ratio of black people increases dramatically, my guess is around one in ten. This is a substantial portion of the hedonistic, voyeurs ready to watch the slaughter of innocent children

The only plain savages I saw in this movie were the white people who allied with one another at the beginning of the games. The overindulged city-dwellers had a higher proportion of black people because that's where the highest concentrations of black people tend to be in North America. Cities are where you'll get the actual diversity. As for the goons, I honestly can't say; you might have a point that a very high number of them were black, but I really don't remember.

What I found absolutely disgusting are the black combatants in the Hunger Games. We first see a past participant smashing in another noticeably paler combatant's head in with a brick and then roaring about it. Then we get to the current participants from District 11 who are wearing ceremonial uniforms of blue overalls and white shirts. Are we supposed to believe that they are laborers/ field workers? Toward the end we get Thresh screaming for another fighter to confess the name of murdered Rue while slamming them like a rag doll against a wall. When finished with this, he spares the protagonist, but makes a clear point about it being only once and only for helping Rue. This just raises more questions. Why couldn't Thresh help Rue? Can't they cooperate? Also, when the proposed time to kill Katness comes, will he be at all hesitant about it?

This is, frankly, just silly. The winner of that previous Hunger Games looks bestial because he's just competed in a brutal competition requiring him to survive as the last out of 24 people by any means necessary; anyone will have some sort of reaction like that after being forced to murder for their own survival. The chariot outfits were all meant to be exaggerated costumes based on what each District is known for, so yes, it's possible 11's denizens do some sort of agricultural work, or other work outside. (Haven't read the book, don't know.)

On Thresh, I really don't see what the problem with his portrayal was, in any way, shape, or form. He wasn't helping Rue before because they're all supposed to kill each other. This was before the announcement was made that you could team up with the members of your district. The fact that Thresh was not helping her only means that he was not with her for unknown reasons. His reaction to Rue's killer implies that he actually did care about Rue, as does his offering of a reprieve to Katniss, which paints him as among the more civilized of the contestants (seriously, they all have to kill one another, the fact that he is acknowledging a debt of some sort is enough to mark him as one of the few decent people). He kills Rue's killer in a violent manner, yes; how does this reflect poorly on him in any way?

Rue is handled differently, but still in an uneasy way. One scene that bothered me was a quick cut during the interviews with the tributes. In a one-second cut, the announcer asks Rue, "So you can climb trees?" Are we supposed to infer some monkey joke there?

If you're already looking for racist remarks, sure. You can infer what you want.

While Rue is depicted as innocent, she still falls into some stereotypical roles. She is noted for her ability to hide and make off with another Tribute's knife. Is this because being a little rogue was necessitated from an irresponsible upbringing? More upsetting is how she is neatly sacrificed to further the heroine's ends. This seems to fit the bill of a writer trying to describe the quirks of 'the one good one'. Aside, but relevant, I also noted that there is a racist tweet scandal where some fans complain that Rue is black.

Rue is a 12 year old girl; the only abilities of hers that will be at all useful will be the ability to hide and be sneaky. The character would simply die within the first ten minutes if she had no useful skills, and as a child she's not going to be winning a fistfight anytime soon. The racist fan controversy seems to have spawned from the fact that Rue, in the books, is not specifically mentioned to be black or some such (I haven't read them, I don't know), which simply points to some fans being racist, not the film itself.

As noted before by other posters, the curing of the cement in my mind was the riot in District 11 following Rue's death. A riot in a dominantly back District where anger crumbles the rule of law. In an especially harsh quelling of this, water cannons are turned on the rioters. It is incredibly strange that for the first time in the seventy four years of the Games, no other district had rioted. The conversation between the President and the Master of Ceremonies certainly makes it seem so. I heard directly after the film that this scene was not in the book. What were the filmmakers trying to prove by adding this?

Again, haven't read the book, but from what I can gather, the book is a tight first-person focus where Katniss wouldn't have seen the riots happening at the same time. We as the audience, though, without the benefit of Katniss's internal monologue, have no idea what's going on in the outside world or why the game-masters are getting worried without being shown; so we're shown that one of the districts had a riot start. I admit this scene came kind of out of left field and could have been explained better, but it was almost certainly added to show that people on the outside were watching the games and either being inspired or fearing that inspiration.

The racism is not restricted to simply whites over blacks, but it instead has powerful pro-Aryan themes throughout. There are servants standing still as statues that are implied to be Asian inside of the suites before the Games. Moreover, the most potent enemy Katness faces is the picture of Aryan supremacy, being a giant muscular, blue-eyed, blond-haired Adonis whose weapon of choice is a sword seemingly modeled after a Roman gladius. Still yet, one of the controllers during the games seems to have been cast as caricature of the 'insidious Jews'.

This is ... really ridiculous. "Pro-Aryan themes"? The worst people in the movie were the District 1 and 2 volunteers who were all clearly bloodthirsty maniacs! The "picture of Aryan supremacy" kills children and is, by the end, so bloody and beaten that he's got a death wish! They're the clearest antagonists the movie has!

As for the others ... how are the servants "implied" to be Asian? Either they are or they aren't. And how, praytell, is the controller of the games a caricature of "insidious Jews"? Because he's white and has a beard? What?

Really, you seem to have gone into this looking to have a problem with it. You can find racism anywhere if you're looking hard enough. I'll admit the movie isn't exactly race-conscious, but to call it "abominably racist" is to read far, far too much into it.

[SaintRidley]

The racist fan controversy seems to have spawned from the fact that Rue, in the books, is not specifically mentioned to be black or some such (I haven't read them, I don't know), which simply points to some fans being racist, not the film itself.

Point of fact - Rue is described in the book as having "dark brown skin and eyes."

So the racist fans are not merely racist -- they are incapable of reading, as well.

[Ursus the Grim]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/showbi...ors/index.html

This article is highly relevant.

And Da'Shain was a lot more levelheaded with the response, though I would strongly recommend an edit. District 12 is explicitly somewhere in Appalachia, as per the books.

[t209]

Guys, I think we have to careful about racial topics here! Don't want flaming here! (Banning and locking of threads).

[Psyren]

Eh, I'm not really seeing the racism. Two of the most honorable characters in the movie are minorities (Rue and Cinna), not to mention Thresh, who was a ruthless killer in the beginning of the contest yet saved Katniss' life for her kindness to Rue.

I don't think savagery was limited to one race; The Career Pack were much more savage than anything we see out in the districts, and they were predominantly white. And there were minorities among the decadent aristocrats in the capitol.

District 11, you have a point, is predominantly black. But as to why they're the first to revolt in years, this is easily explained by them being the first district whose tribute was so well-treated by another district's tribute.

[BRC]

Personally, I'm not happy with their casting choices for the tributes from District Nine.



Sorry, It had to be done.

[Ursus the Grim]

Personally, I'm not happy with their casting choices for the tributes from District Nine.

Well played, good sir, well-played.

[Abies]

Personally, I'm not happy with their casting choices for the tributes from District Nine.

Thank you sir, for giving me the best laugh I had in days.

I enjoyed the film. I'm not going to critique, just wanted to give a thumbs up.

One question for the folks who have read the books. What are the populations of the Districts supposed to be? Per the movie, the Capitol is obviously huge, what with 100k people attending the tribute ceremony in person (or was that number supposed to include those watching at home?). From the reaping scene in D12, there looked to be 2-3 hundred boys/girls aged 12-18(?) being chosen from. Even twice that number would not suggest a large population. As I understand the entire district is later "Destroyed", so again not so large a population.

Are the districts actual large areas where people live in dispersed populations, or are they more like city-states where everyone lives in a highly centralized population center?

[Dragonus45]

On the subject of the riot,

Spoiler

Show

the second book mentions it in passing,and then Katniss and Peta accidently start another one

[Ravens_cry]

Thank you sir, for giving me the best laugh I had in days.

I enjoyed the film. I'm not going to critique, just wanted to give a thumbs up.

One question for the folks who have read the books. What are the populations of the Districts supposed to be? Per the movie, the Capitol is obviously huge, what with 100k people attending the tribute ceremony in person (or was that number supposed to include those watching at home?). From the reaping scene in D12, there looked to be 2-3 hundred boys/girls aged 12-18(?) being chosen from. Even twice that number would not suggest a large population. As I understand the entire district is later "Destroyed", so again not so large a population.

Yeah, I had that problem as well. There didn't seem to be enough people in the Prole Districts to support the vast crowds seen in the Higher Class Districts. It seemed almost ridiculously top heavy as a standard D&D ecology, all predators, few prey.

[SaintRidley]

Yeah, I had that problem as well. There didn't seem to be enough people in the Prole Districts to support the vast crowds seen in the Higher Class Districts. It seemed almost ridiculously top heavy as a standard D&D ecology, all predators, few prey.

If you don't mind the spoiler and my speculation, based on what my fiancee has told me of the later plot:

Spoiler

Show

District 12 gets completely wiped out (by the Capitol, I believe) all because they are pissed off at Katniss. Judging by how the Capitol seems not to care too much over the loss of a full District, my guess is that the system is top-heavy because the entire system is a show of power.

The people in charge, I believe, are keeping the populace of the Capitol placated with the games and have no real use for the Districts. The cruelty to the Districts is in large part a pure show of power on the part of those in charge. Anything they do to the people of the Districts is due to their belief that their actions go unopposed.

My guess on the treatment of District 11 is that the people who set up the government of Panem knew the history of the United States and proceeded to set up the districts as environments of maximum humiliation. The situation of District 11 is probably one of the greatest humiliations that could possibly befall the ancestors of the Districts population. If anything, District 11 being based off the antebellum South is probably a greater symbol of the unconscionable evil of the government of Panem.

[Ravens_cry]

The movie contradicts that however in Snows conversation with Seneca.
And they should, logically, matter.
Every culture needs resources, and therefore needs someone to get them.

[MLai]

@ Ravens Cry realizing the book's internal logic sucks:
Your inevitable loss of disbelief after a little fridge logic seems to surprise you. Your surprise must be based on your mistaken assumption that THG is some sort of deep literature which stands up to the scrutiny of an adult mind. Well, Tom Clancy it ain't. I've read a (admittedly biased) review blog of THG which frankly has annihilated any desire for me to ever read the books, by pointing out ever single plothole the novel has. And it has A LOT; your fridge logic has only touched the tip of the iceberg. BRC said it best, regarding your point. This thread has more geopolitics and economics than the author ever thought about, anyways.

And that is why I like the movies better. Because it doesn't monologue like the book, all the plotholes can be explained away logically by your own mind; the author does not get a chance to mess it up. I mentally compared the movie to the plotholes the blog pointed out, while watching the movie... and 90% of them got fixed in the book-to-movie transition.

The shakey cam is quite annoying. Worst I've seen in any movie so far. That's my greatest complaint about the movie.

@ TheEmerged feeling surprised that the movie didn't wow him:
Why are you so surprised...?
Seriously, this is a YA product. Even if it's popular, it doesn't mean it's objectively great.
And no, do not read the novels. Unless you feel like some popcorn reading. Personally if I was in that type of mood I'd just play a game.

@ Death of A Racist Author:
Ha. Reminds me of "black hole."

[Ravens_cry]

Surprisingly, I didn't find the shakey cam so bad.
The worst I ever saw was the Star Trek reboot. Ooh, now that, that was barfogenic in the worst way.

[No brains]

Sorry, It had to be done.

I'm more surprised it took this long to be done!

Sorry for being upsetting. I openly admit I see things... differently... from most people, and what I saw was probably exaggerated. When it costs ten dollars to see something again to make sure you had your mind in the right frame, misconceptions can flourish. I also admit to having an illogical and Cygnus X-1 sized bias against anything that attempts to paint the South as victims. Hearing Fox News booming through the walls of your house at all hours tends to make you hateful towards something.

@Ursis the Grim
I don't think though your title 'Death of a(n) Racist Author' holds up. Text certainly leaves more to the imagination of those who read it, but movies tend to be exacting in how they mean to express a scene. I'm also fairly certain film producers looking for the next don't Twilight put as much depth of thought into their work as Balzac. It is because of this that the racial content seems more jarring than socially important. Perhaps you should not let your passions color your writing.

@ Da'Shur
I did draw a conclusion, thank you very much. I hoped to make that evident through citing my repeated observations. Insulting me personally, especially when I admit twice the fallibility of my interpretations does not help me to come to new conclusions. It starts flame wars. I post with the intention of discussing a troubling thought I had, not to make enemies.

@MLai
That "Black Holes" deal was silly. An astronomy themed children's gift card breaking into racial slurs? Well... it might be reasonable on South Park...

If any of you were on the production team of this film and found my statements personally insulting, please give me deeper insights to help us come to terms with my misguided perceptions. Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

[Saph]

If any of you were on the production team of this film and found my statements personally insulting, please give me deeper insights to help us come to terms with my misguided perceptions. Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

Well, I'd like to put you at ease, but having just seen the movie last night . . . to be honest, I'm not really sure what to tell you. The bar you're using is so skewed that I suspect pretty much anything is going to qualify as "racist" by your definition.

Without exception, all the worst people in the story are white, whereas every black character with a speaking role is one of the good guys. That's somewhere around a 50% (at best) positive portrayal of the white characters, and 100% for the black ones. Yet somehow you've managed to come away with the idea that the movie casts the black characters in a bad light. That's some seriously loopy reasoning.

[Ursus the Grim]

I'm more surprised it took this long to be done!

Sorry for being upsetting. I openly admit I see things... differently... from most people, and what I saw was probably exaggerated. When it costs ten dollars to see something again to make sure you had your mind in the right frame, misconceptions can flourish. I also admit to having an illogical and Cygnus X-1 sized bias against anything that attempts to paint the South as victims. Hearing Fox News booming through the walls of your house at all hours tends to make you hateful towards something.

@Ursis the Grim
I don't think though your title 'Death of a(n) Racist Author' holds up. Text certainly leaves more to the imagination of those who read it, but movies tend to be exacting in how they mean to express a scene. I'm also fairly certain film producers looking for the next don't Twilight put as much depth of thought into their work as Balzac. It is because of this that the racial content seems more jarring than socially important. Perhaps you should not let your passions color your writing.

[. . .]

If any of you were on the production team of this film and found my statements personally insulting, please give me deeper insights to help us come to terms with my misguided perceptions. Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

I'm not really upset over it anymore, and I don't believe I said anything I didn't mean. Hell, I'm not even upset or offended that you somehow managed to misspell Ursus despite there being a half-dozen reference points on this very page. My anecdote I feel still applies.

I think you're misinterpreting why I invoke the concept of DoaA. It refers to the 'fact' that once an author publishes a work, no matter how exacting he is nor what his intention was in writing it, the themes are not his to decide. Its up to the reader to decide what is meant or implied by the work. You maintain that every detail of the movie that offends you was intentional, and that clearly the producers meant it to be so. Furthermore, confronted with opinions to the contrary, you curl up and maintain "Well, I saw it this way so that's how it is." That's exactly what happens to a piece of literature. Once a book gets out there the smallest detail or lack thereof can be picked up by someone and meticulously analyzed.

Your next point suggesting that the producers didn't put as much thought into it as Balzac might directly contradicts your suggestion that they were intentionally racist. Besides, I'm not even sure how much thought Balzac would actually put into a movie.

You proceed to suggest that my 'writing' was somehow tainted by my passion concerning the subject, when you just mentioned yourself that you're biased and bitter from listening to Fox News at an inappropriate volume. That excuse doesn't hold water either. As a hacker on steroids, Faux News personally offends me on a weekly basis, yet we've somehow drawn majorly different conclusions.

The rest of your 'response' really isn't a response at all. Its just claiming that people are trying to make enemies, flame you, and make you cry. You didn't ask for help putting your mind at ease. You explicitly said that you were able to read into it more than anyone else, suggesting that you were somehow better for being able to spot the rampant hateful racism in this movie. You suggested that this content disturbed you, but at no point did you say "but I'm sure I'm wrong, please help me feel better." No one started a flame war. I assure you, if people like me meant to flame you, the Playground would swing the big fuzzy Banhammer with great justice to squelch my fiery tongue. People posted their opinions in response to what they perceived as a major misinterpretation.

I mean, when even Saph says you have loopy reasoning and a skewed view, its time to really reconsider. . . .

Note that wasn't an implication that Saph is loopy or skewed himself, but rather that he's a pretty agreeable guy.

[t209]

I think we need to be careful about our post! We could get locked (found a bit politics in your own statements).

[Lord Seth]

I openly admit I see things... differently... from most people, and what I saw was probably exaggerated.

Then perhaps you should have stated something like that instead of declaring point-of-fact that it was "abominably racist" and add that you will stand behind that statement adamantly.

When it costs ten dollars to see something again to make sure you had your mind in the right frame, misconceptions can flourish. I also admit to having an illogical and Cygnus X-1 sized bias against anything that attempts to paint the South as victims.

Which, again, perhaps you should have considered before (in your own words) adamantly declaring that it was abominably racist. Though you have to start bending over backwards right from the start to come up with some "paints the South as victims" interpretation of the movie if you ask me.

@ Da'Shur
I did draw a conclusion, thank you very much. I hoped to make that evident through citing my repeated observations. Insulting me personally,

I have no idea where Da'Shain insulted you personally.

especially when I admit twice the fallibility of my interpretations

Er, when did you admit that even once, let alone twice? Again, you adamantly stated it was abominably racist. You gave no statement that I saw that indicated you believed you might be reading too much into it or perhaps just came away with incorrect impressions.

Essentially, the conversation is like this:
You: This film is racist! I completely believe that!
(After other people point out flaws in your reasoning)
You: Hey, I said I could have been wrong, right?

does not help me to come to new conclusions. It starts flame wars. I post with the intention of discussing a troubling thought I had, not to make enemies.

I find it hard to see how Da'Shain's post was somehow more likely to start a flame war than yours was.

As a side note, I do find it interesting that you really did not actually respond to the counterarguments made by people like Da'Shain or Ursus.

Otherwise I would appreciate not being mocked for being disturbed and asking for help to put me at ease.

Which is not what you did. You did not come here and post something like:

"Maybe it's just me, and I hope it is, but I feel like there's some racism in this film. <Insert list and explanations here>. Am I just overthinking this? Is there something in the books that better explains it? I'd really like to believe that I'm just reading too much into things."

Instead, you said, and I'm quoting directly from you:

"This move is abominably racist. I will stand by the above adamantly."

There is a major difference between those two, and you can't post the latter and then claim it's the former.

[LokeyITP]

So just got around to reading the book. For those who've done that and seen the film, do you think the film or the book was better?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm kind of ambivalent about the book - read all the way to the end but felt a bit unsatisfied having done it - and now I'm 50/50 on seeing the film.

Read the book, haven't seen the movie, and guess I'm more than a little ambivalent.

- Writing = flat
- Characterization = laughable
- Premise = a bit forced
- Setting = laughable, but narrator isn't omniscient

Yah, YA book, but the general theme and premise have so much promise, I find it hard to believe that there's so little good stuff in it. Sure some of the dramatic moments are done well.

Lack of description is probably because it's supposed to be you're the hero, you're friends are these characters and people you don't like are these...

[MLai]

The movie is better than the book.

1. The movie has no narration, therefore your imagination and logic can fill in the gaps the correct way, rather than the talent-lacking author messing it up for you.

2. The actors/tresses are pretty decent, and can carry the show where the author fails. I like the protag actress; she doesn't look like your typical Hollywood Barbie, which I'm frankly sick and tired of. She looks like a normal girl a bit on the pudgy side (which is good).

3. As a movie, it doesn't go into the details a book is forced to. That is good, because while this book has a promising premise, it fails in the details.

[Da'Shain]

And Da'Shain was a lot more levelheaded with the response, though I would strongly recommend an edit. District 12 is explicitly somewhere in Appalachia, as per the books.

Noted, thanks!

@ Da'Shur
I did draw a conclusion, thank you very much. I hoped to make that evident through citing my repeated observations. Insulting me personally, especially when I admit twice the fallibility of my interpretations does not help me to come to new conclusions. It starts flame wars. I post with the intention of discussing a troubling thought I had, not to make enemies.

Others have responded to this, but I felt I should personally. I see no place in my post where I insulted you personally, nor was such my intention. If you're referring to my comments on some of your points being "absurd", "silly" and "ridiculous", those were directed at the conclusions you drew, not you yourself, and they were phrased truthfully, not insultingly, as you do leap straight to concluding racist intent when such is not warranted. I pointed out how absurd they were to try and convince you that you were leaping to conclusions that were not justified.

Lord Seth has already gone into the lack of admitting fallibility and the rather final statement you made at the beginning of your post about the movie's content, so I won't delve into it further when I have nothing further to add.

[Xondoure]

Pudgy is not the word I would use to describe Jennifer Lawrence.

[Dragonus45]

One thing i think a lot of people dont get about the books is that they arent really about the politics, or the setting, or even the games themselves.

Spoiler

Show

In the third especially the bulk of the story is Katniss daling with PTSD and other various mental joys brought on from the first two bools.

Everything else is just the framework for the internal journy. So of course it doesn't quite stand up to a well reasoned analysis by people who clearly understand economics and all the other stuff better than the author seems to have.

[MLai]

Jennifer Lawrence is also teenage Mystique in X-men First Class. Dude, she's definitely on the pudgy side. This is the last time I'm going to put down the disclaimer that I consider it a positive.
Ofc, she probably goes on a diet before any big Hollywood function, and her mag pictures are probably airbrushed to hell. But she didn't hide it in those 2 movies.

@ Dragonus45:
I think ppl understand that, but also tend to be anal about subjects they know. Now, an author is often forgiven if he/she shows that at least some research was done. But THG author did absolutely none.

Basically it's like watching a bad mafia film with tons of disbelief-shattering idiocy, and the excuse is "It's about the character's inner journey!" Hong Kong does this a lot.

[Ursus the Grim]

Jennifer Lawrence is also teenage Mystique in X-men First Class. Dude, she's definitely on the pudgy side. This is the last time I'm going to put down the disclaimer that I consider it a positive.
Ofc, she probably goes on a diet before any big Hollywood function, and her mag pictures are probably airbrushed to hell. But she didn't hide it in those 2 movies.

I don't know if I'd call that pudgy. Pudgy to me connotes having noticeable fat deposits above and beyond what would be considered healthy. Forcing myself through the agony of looking up images to remind myself of what she looked like in first class, I'd call that healthy, perhaps even meaty, but not pudgy.

Entirely agreed that its a good thing, whatever she is.

Back on topic, now that I've read the last book, I've got to agree with Dragonus45. Collins really hammers home that "It Gets Worse". Both Katniss and several other primary characters embark on a voyage to attempt rehabilitation.