Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

DoctorZombie wrote: The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

I take it you have not read the books?

AustonT wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote: The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

I take it you have not read the books?

If the only way to understand a movie adaptation is to have to read the book, then it isn't a very good adaptation. The movie should be able to stand on it's own merits. I have no idea whether OP is right or wrong in his assessment, but if he has to read the books to get it then it would seem there is merit to what he is saying.

It looks terrible.
But then, the Northern Lights film was terrible and the book was fantastic.

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote: The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

I take it you have not read the books?

If the only way to understand a movie adaptation is to have to read the book, then it isn't a very good adaptation. The movie should be able to stand on it's own merits. I have no idea whether OP is right or wrong in his assessment, but if he has to read the books to get it then it would seem there is merit to what he is saying.

I didn't read them and I followed it just fine, but when someone says "I don't get why it's so popular" and it is based on a popular book series asking if thye have read the books is logical. I'm a huge Percy Jackson fan (yes I know they are for children) but anyone who read the books walked away from the lightening thief with that "SMH WTF" feeling. My wife who has read the books said it was a faithful adaptation.

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote: The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

I take it you have not read the books?

If the only way to understand a movie adaptation is to have to read the book, then it isn't a very good adaptation. The movie should be able to stand on it's own merits. I have no idea whether OP is right or wrong in his assessment, but if he has to read the books to get it then it would seem there is merit to what he is saying.

I read the book.

Well then what the problem is, other than Districts 1 and 2 none of the kids are just stone cold killers, and in most districts they are picked by lottery. The hunger games are supposed to highlight HOW impotent and powerless the districts are by forcing thier children to fight to the death.
When I watched it it meade plenty of sense like a mix of 1984 and Gladiator.

As for why the movie is such a hit:

The movie has a number of things going for it:

1. Successful marketing. Yeah, obvious, but I didn't see much
panning the series or questioning it before it came out. All I
heard was hype.

2. Teenage protagonists have a wider appeal. Maybe this has
been proved by Harry Potter and Twilight, but both adults and
children can identify with a teen protagonist. Adult protagonists
seem to require more of a stretch to gain that wider appeal.

3. I think audiences have been waiting for something to really
come out to see. What were the other blockbusters in the past
year? I always forget.

4. Suspicion of governmental power? I don't know, this has been
a theme since Homeland Security. Maybe it's just a continuation of
that theme.

I've never read the book, saw the movie yesterday and it was actually a decent flick. Good casting, great acting all around.

DoctorZombie wrote:If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

The book makes this rather apparent cause Katniss brings it up really often (so often I'd actually say the author beats the reader with it).

P.S. I'm actually not going to bother with spoilers cause these things are fairly apparent and opened up so early in the book that knowing them doesn't really spoil anything

The capitol controls the bulk of military and technological authority and has manage to use this power to exert its will over the rest of the country. Taking the children and forcing them to die (while forcing districts to cheer for it as if it were a sporting event) serves to demoralize and humiliate them as well as show how helpless they are. Failing in the games can result in poorer districts starving to death. Richer districts can afford it because the things they make are more desired in the capitol. 24 random children aren't much of a threat to a state when 23 wind up dead and 1 winds up psychologically scared for life.

In the book, richer districts actually do train kids to be tributes, called Career Tributes and they just volunteer for it. Its officially against the rules but it gets by because proving it is nearly impossible (and the Capitol likely doesn't care as long as its kept under wraps though the first book doesn't really address that question). However the richer districts suffer less from starvation and as such are not in as dire straights as districts like 11 and 12. They look forward to the games rather than dread them.

Of course, it doesn't make perfect sense, but I found the book's narrative to be rather simple. Its easy to avoid plot holes when you keep it simple. YMMV with film adaptations.

Sorry if I'm being naive, I have not read the books nor looked to deeply into the film. But from the description of the outline story this sounds like a re-hash of Battle Royal.

How does this differ?

Battle Royale doesn't have the pageantry that they put on
display in the Hunger Games. I don't remember Battle Royale
living up the reality tv and political backdrop.

DoctorZombie wrote: The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

Unless you're Grll PWRD! enabled, you're not supposed to get it. Sorry.

GC and I have a drunken father daughter date nears my birthday to see. After all, you gets what you ant on your birthday donts we precious.

deejaybainbridge wrote:Sorry if I'm being naive, I have not read the books nor looked to deeply into the film. But from the description of the outline story this sounds like a re-hash of Battle Royal.

How does this differ?

The core ideas come from Battle Royale and the legend of Theseus and the Minotaur.

It's medium grade fiction aimed at tweens. Harry Potter isn't a good example of high quality writing either. We shouldn't expect too much from them.

That said, both series cover a lot of good material such as friendship, loyalty, courage and serious ethical matters which should introduced to children.

For me, it's more important that people are reading something than that they only read "classics".

You ever read "classics?" Must of them suck righteous ass.

I know millions of kids who would dig up Charles Dicken's corpse, stomp on it, burn it, defile it with cheese whiz, and then just get downright nasty. I am one of them.
Great Expectations. I have your great expectations right here pal!!!

I thought it was a solid book. My sister recommended it, so I was immediately hesitatant - she mostly reads trash; she is really into Twilight, for example. I found it was a nice fast read, I think I was done in about 2 hours or so. I haven't read the other 2 yet.

So far as why it became an OMGblockbuster, I guess it must all be marketing because while I liked the movie, it wasn't on, like, a Dark Knight level or whatever. It was good but I also don't get how it became a phenomenon, per se.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also don't care for many "classics" but some are solid. I really enjoyed Hemingway, and some Steinbeck.

Kilkrazy wrote:

deejaybainbridge wrote:Sorry if I'm being naive, I have not read the books nor looked to deeply into the film. But from the description of the outline story this sounds like a re-hash of Battle Royal.

How does this differ?

The core ideas come from Battle Royale and the legend of Theseus and the Minotaur.

It's medium grade fiction aimed at tweens. Harry Potter isn't a good example of high quality writing either. We shouldn't expect too much from them.

That said, both series cover a lot of good material such as friendship, loyalty, courage and serious ethical matters which should introduced to children.

For me, it's more important that people are reading something than that they only read "classics".

Cheers.

Yeah I hate harry potter and the way it was written. Read the first few books to see what the hype was about but was very disappointed at the writing.

But yes I agree, anything that is in an aim to get more people reading and more young people reading has to be a good thing. I wish I had a series like harry potter to get me into reading as a kid. Jurassic park when your 12 is not be best suited as an introduction to reading.

AustonT wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:

DoctorZombie wrote: The movie version was released last week, and has been hyped for a while. Now, I'm in this book/film's "target audiance" (I guess?), but I don't get why its so popular. It's not as bad as Twilight, but is full of continiuity and plot holes.
If you're not aquanted with it, Hungry Games takes place in a far future US ruled over by a totalitarian regime, which forces teenagers to fight to the death in an arena once a year or something. Why would you have a bunch of teenagers with guerilla warfare skills if you're supposed to be an iron fisted dictatorship? Wouldn't you want the population to be impotent and powerless to your will?

I take it you have not read the books?

If the only way to understand a movie adaptation is to have to read the book, then it isn't a very good adaptation. The movie should be able to stand on it's own merits. I have no idea whether OP is right or wrong in his assessment, but if he has to read the books to get it then it would seem there is merit to what he is saying.

I didn't read them and I followed it just fine, but when someone says "I don't get why it's so popular" and it is based on a popular book series asking if thye have read the books is logical. I'm a huge Percy Jackson fan (yes I know they are for children) but anyone who read the books walked away from the lightening thief with that "SMH WTF" feeling. My wife who has read the books said it was a faithful adaptation.

Ah, well that makes sense. It seemed you were referring them to read the books to fill in any gaps in the movie. What I have read about the film all say it is faithful to the books as well.

To understand the popularity of the movie I would suspect one would have to look at why Titanic, the James Cameron film, was popular as well as adding in a popular following from the book series. I get the impression this is the newer iteration Titanic in the sense that it is an event film that will have strong appeal to young female audiences in a way that doesn't happen to often. Usually they get rom-coms, Disney Princess, or GYRL POWER! type movies that are supposed to appeal to them but often aren't as broad as expected or try to hard. It is going to hit that sweet spot of appealing without seeming pandering while also having a lot of hype behind it.

I agree on the classics comment.. I think the classics suck personally! I hate Dickens, I hated pretty much all the gak I read in school as well.

I spent years reading gak like Lord of the flies, Of mice and men, The Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses, To kill a mockingbird, I have never had a hard on for any of them. And I'm meh about Dickens and Shakespeare.. apart from Macbeth of course.

I think I'm an extremely well read bloke because Its a habit I picked up in the military. We were often without TV and radio, but I always had a book and a headtorch. So to this day, I retire at least a half hour early and read until im tired and I swear, the books I recommend to my nephew are books I think he will genuinely enjoy, not books that experts deem to be classics. I very very rarely read a classic and actually enjoy it, I think the last one I read and liked was about 6 years ago (missus gave me Fahrenheit 451) but I dont think they "give" more to a child. A kid can read the Gruffalo and have it be deeper and more thought provoking than the author intended it to be!

I gave him Vlad the Drac by Ann Jungman for example, an excellent kids book my Dad read me, and ive got him on comics, and when he is older I will be giving him great books by the likes of David Gemmell and George R Martin over some book that pretentious blokes in berets think are "marvellous"

School can make him read the important books, ill give him the enjoyable ones.

Macbeth is good.

I'm convinced they make you red the other books because
1. they were forced to 2. so they can pick them apart word by word and come up with pathetic nonsense that is well, pathetic.

Having said that i really liked Lord of the Flies. It speaks to me... To kill a mocking bird is decent but the original movie is light years ahead because of the absolutely excellent acting.

What some publisher needs to do is reintroduce Lloyd Alexander's "Prydain Chronicles." If you could get these preteens/teens thinking that it's "new," I have to think it'd be a smash hit.

deejaybainbridge wrote:Sorry if I'm being naive, I have not read the books nor looked to deeply into the film. But from the description of the outline story this sounds like a re-hash of Battle Royal.

How does this differ?

TBH this is one of the reasons I'm curious about seeing it.

So its not this classic game then?

mattyrm wrote: I agree on the classics comment.. I think the classics suck personally! I hate Dickens, I hated pretty much all the gak I read in school as well.

I spent years reading gak like Lord of the flies, Of mice and men, The Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses, To kill a mockingbird, I have never had a hard on for any of them. And I'm meh about Dickens and Shakespeare.. apart from Macbeth of course.

I think I'm an extremely well read bloke because Its a habit I picked up in the military. We were often without TV and radio, but I always had a book and a headtorch. So to this day, I retire at least a half hour early and read until im tired and I swear, the books I recommend to my nephew are books I think he will genuinely enjoy, not books that experts deem to be classics. I very very rarely read a classic and actually enjoy it, I think the last one I read and liked was about 6 years ago (missus gave me Fahrenheit 451) but I dont think they "give" more to a child. A kid can read the Gruffalo and have it be deeper and more thought provoking than the author intended it to be!

I gave him Vlad the Drac by Ann Jungman for example, an excellent kids book my Dad read me, and ive got him on comics, and when he is older I will be giving him great books by the likes of David Gemmell and George R Martin over some book that pretentious blokes in berets think are "marvellous"

School can make him read the important books, ill give him the enjoyable ones.

I'm not sure if they still make them but Golden Books did a run of classics: Moby Dick, Time Machine, Jeckyl and Hyde, etc. In 4inx4in abridged and sparsely illustrated newsprint. My parents got them for me when I learned to read in English, haveing also read the unabridged versions I heartily reccomend them for young readers...mine are in a box somewhere waiting for my own children. Ivanhoe is a classic worth reading at any age. I'm actually a military Sci-Fi fanatic but inside of that genre I have yet to reccomend a book to someone and have them tell me they hated it...mostly because my chosen audience is other violent, right-wing type, current or former .mils

I read the book, haven't seen the flick. It's good to see more films with strong female protagonists (ie: Nothing like Twilight).

I'm a huge Battle Royale fan, so that tarnished my enjoyment of the Hunger Games. They use very, very similar concepts, but go in different directions. While Battle Royale deals with the serious emotional trauma inherent in the violence the characters are being forced to endure, Hunger Games focuses more on the media circus. They both have a strong theme of resistance against government oppression.

Great Expectations is a fantastic book.

Books that fall under the term "classics" do so because they are generally regarded as good books. Hence if your going to give a class of kids of differing taste a book to read they are a good place to start. Rather than giving something a few people like give them something popular instead. I had an uncle who used to give me his quirky taste of off the wall books when I was young, they ended up in the charity shop. It's not that I don't like books which don't get called classics but people have different tastes.

The hunger games are to show how the capitol has such power over the other districts. It shows the otehr districts that they can send their children to die, and there is nothing they can do. The hunger games are also about keeping the districts devided. One girl from say district 9 kills someone in district 4, the people in district 4 will then dislike district 9 for doing so. It keeps the districts devided so they cant revolt again.

It's like if George Orwell wrote 1984 with a hangover.