Hunger Games

[CRAMBAM]

Did anyone see it?

[TrekBeatTK]

I saw it and was thoroughly disappointed. Good cast, I liked Lenny Kravitz and Jennifer Lawrence especially. But the overall premise didn't make sense, or wasn't made clear enough for me. I can't judge it as an adaptation, having not read the book, but I felt like it failed at building a believable world.

I hated the way it was shot and the way it was edited.

Whatever big point Collins was trying to make about reality TV or whatever comes of as sloppy and naive.

And there's certainly nothing original about it. I mean, Star Trek did televised fights to the death in 1968!

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

Did you read the books? I didn't. I actually really liked the movie. I'm wondering if reading the books caused disappointment.

[TrekBeatTK]

I did not read the books. I just didn't get it. I don't understand how these "games" (which aren't even games, certainly not plural) quell uprising. I would think they encourage it! We saw a riot break out in District 11 after what happened to Rue. It was never clear to me whether it was just individuals competing or whether the districts are competing, with the tributes as their representatives. What do you win besides survival? I would think the district has to get something for winning, or there is no point in continuing. And if it's just Districts fighting, then why does there have to be one winner?

Similarly, I don't understand what the sponsors get out of backing dogs in this fight.

I don't think much of this makes for good television. It seems to be televised live, which has to be boring since it lasted days. Remember Katniss was unconscious for 2 days. Modern reality TV is manufactured in its set-up but also in its editing. you can't do a live TV event like the Olympics as if it were Survivor.

I don't understand why the nation is broken into 12 districts. It seems foolish to me to have "games" that seem to have no rules. It also seems to discourage people from procreating, which means ultimately it could destroy their society. I just don't think the premise is well though-out.

Collins has said she came up with it by flipping channels between reality TV and Iraq war coverage. If there's supposed to be a political component here, it fails. If this were Vietnam, I could maybe understand it. But our military does not currently draft soldiers (hence, no fishbowl lottery to choose tributes). Nor do we fight among ourselves. And that makes me question what the rest of the world looks like, and don't these Hunger Games make a mockery of the nation, since the rest of the world would see that they kill their own annually just because they can?

Had it been a real gladiatorial event, or been some sort of tournament I might have gone with it more. I just think it's all fundamentally flawed, coasting on the shock value of kids killing kids (which happens all the time, let's be honest). And I have a hard time believing everyone has gone along with it for 74 years, especially given there was already a rebellion once before. Totalitarian governments don't last that way that long.

[CRAMBAM]

I thought the district DOES get something for winning, like more food. The winner itself would likely get riches.

I would think that since it's a TV show, sponsors gain by supporting tributes the people like. That's why Woody told them to do things to make the people like them. Presumably, this is a class based society, and those in the capitol at minimum have some sort of money.

I would think as is the case even with us, TV tastes change. There are shows today that would likely bore people from the 1950s to tears, and vice versa.

I would also think that maybe it wasn't all live at once. With so many contestants, there would certainly be enough out there to not show Katniss sleeping. Plus, I suppose that maybe they don't show it 24/7, but an edited highlight clip.

I would almost think that's a must since they want the people to see what they want.

Very interesting critiques. It might be interesting to find other Hunger Games fans and see what they would think about your issues. They're fair.

[CRAMBAM]

I also wonder if some of these details are covered in the books.

[TrekBeatTK]

Mar 27, 2012 13:30:10 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I thought the district DOES get something for winning, like more food. The winner itself would likely get riches.

I would think that since it's a TV show, sponsors gain by supporting tributes the people like. That's why Woody told them to do things to make the people like them. Presumably, this is a class based society, and those in the capitol at minimum have some sort of money.

I would also think that maybe it wasn't all live at once. With so many contestants, there would certainly be enough out there to not show Katniss sleeping. Plus, I suppose that maybe they don't show it 24/7, but an edited highlight clip.

If the district gets something for winning, the movie certainly didn't say so. Yes, it would make sense (in fact, it's the only way it makes sense), but there was no indication of that. I still ask, if they do, then why must there be one winner? Why did they have to change the rules to allow the possibility of two from the same district surviving? There don't seem to be any riches for the survivor beyond a crown. They didn't seem any richer afterward. If that were a motivation, you'd think they'd have said so.

I don't understand the economics of this world. Hamitch told them to be likable in order to get sponsors. You have to get sponsors to help you survive. But what do the sponsors get for their trouble? What do they gain by supporting these kids, especially when odds are they will lose? Sponsors seem to be just rich individuals, like investors and not companies that need to maintain a good public image. I wanted the movie to make this clearer so I could understand the motivations.

There are really too many logical inconsistencies with the televised aspect of it for me to get into anyway. But I agree it only really makes sense if stuff is being edited, but it seemed that District 11 was watching a live feed.

Even if I could have turned my brain off and ignored all of these elements, I still felt like as a movie it was frustrating to watch, with its shaky camera and unnecessarily quick edits. I kept wondering how Stanley Kubrick would have directed it.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

It seems like these games are punishment for the rebellion, which was put down, and I would guess that if the district doesn't participate, there would be mass slaughter.

District 11 saw the death of Rue, but that doesn't mean they saw it live.

I HATE the shaky camera technique.

I guess when I read the book, I'll get an idea about the sponsors.

[Mel]

I didn't see it (and haven't read the books) but I'm blown away by the box office gross. The budget was $78 million. The movie grossed $155 million in the US, breaking records to become the third highest opening weekend gross. It grossed about $215 world wide. Cowabunga!

[CRAMBAM]

You sure the budget was that low?

[Mel]

You sure the budget was that low?

I got it from imdb.com, but it does say "estimated" next to the $78 million. In an article from this month, the producer said the film was made for less than the $80 million figure that's been tossed around. He was adamant about keeping movie costs down because he wanted as big a profit as possible, and that included filming in a state with a good-sized rebate on various expenses.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/hunger-games-budget_n_1362859.html

[CRAMBAM]

So I'm reading the books now, and I believe I have an answer as to the point of sponsors.

Sponsors are not corporations. They are people who live in the Capitol. If you think of the Hunger Games as similar to gladiator fighting in Roman Times, the people in the Capitol are the Romans. The Hunger Games are for their entertainment, as sick as it may be.

The people in the Capitol are the people with the power, the wealth, and all that comes with it. They are the elite. They don't suffer like those in the Districts. The Hunger Games are as much for their amusement as they are a punishment.

As is the case with most sports, there's betting. People in the Capitol pick their favorite contestants, and bet on them. These people become the sponsors. They sponsor them because a) it helps them win their bets, and b) there's a certain status to picking the winner.

There's also some things about the movie that I found a little confusing. Namely, did Katniss really care about Peeta, or did she fake it to get sponsors?

Also, what was the deal with Gale--the guy at the beginning of the movie? The book so far, answered this question. He was a brotherly figure to her, not a boyfriend. I'm not to a point in the book where the Peeta question is answered, but it does seem that it's possible her feelings for him are indeed real.

She definitely has a soft spot since he did feed her in defiance of his mother.

[TrekBeatTK]

I'm about two-thirds through the book right now. While certain questions are answered, the whole premise is still silly and not well-planned. At least though I know what you get for winning the Games, which not being mentioned in the movie makes the film an automatic failure.

I immediately got the whole gladiatorial aspect, I just think it's weak. Collins even tries to give Roman-sounding names to a lot of the characters. But the realities of it as a televised event are still weak, it's still NOT "games" plural. It's like she wants it to almost be like deadly Olympics but doesn't write it that way. I think it would have made much more sense to send the tributes fighting each other at random a few at a time (like "Gamesters of Triskelion"?). As I mentioned, Trek already did live televised gladiator fights to the death, and did it better.

I still really don't get the POINT of sponsors. I understand people placing bets, but I just don't see why the are allowed to get involved. Presumably, the games could turn on the generosity of sponsors, but that would make it a war between sponsors. And they DON'T get involved all that often, just once or twice. Are there rules governing sponsorship too in this free-for-all? And it still seems like throwing money away since the majority of those tributes will die. I'd think if they already had money on the line, and were allowed to spend more money to make sure they win, then sponsors would be more involved than they are. It just feels like Collins wanted there to be some metaphor about making audiences like you and couldn't find a good way to make it work. So the sponsors just become dei ex machina the few times in the book Katniss needs something. It would have been better had there been some sort of audience vote involved, like with current reality television, tied to the classic "thumb up or down" of gladiator fights; This would be another way to have audience favor equal survival.

I'm also frustrated that at times the gamemakers seem to be actively trying to kill Tributes, which goes against the idea of them killing each other. So again, what is the objective of these games? Do they just want to whittle everyone down until there's a winner and don't care how?

A little later in the book there's a few hints that she might have feelings for Gale, but doesn't acknowledge them.

As to whether she cares about Peeta or faked it, I think it's a little of both.

...and part of me keeps wondering why there are no guns at all...

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

You're ahead of my pace (about a chapter a day), so I had to stop reading your post about a paragraph in (except for the last sentence, which I see as I type this).

I'm guessing that they don't use guns because if people get to them, they can kill too quickly, which would make the games boring. They said in the books that one reason they choose arenas with lots of trees is to extend the games. In open areas, they end too fast.

[StarFuryG7]

I just saw it over the weekend and it was pretty good, however, the outfits and hairdos of the very rich folk bugged me because it all looked so ridiculous. Then about halfway through the picture it suddenly occurred to me just where they took those costume ideas from: Pink Floyd's "The Wall", and the group should get royalties because of it.

[TrekBeatTK]

the garish outfits are referenced in the book too, and I also found them excessive and ridiculous in many instances. I mean, there was a guy with an Elizabethan collar ruffle!

I finished the book today. While there are a few areas where the film helped or improved things, on the whole I still think that there are way too many holes in the concept. I think high school girls dig it for the love story (same as with Twilight). For the few questions from the movie that were answered by the book, there were other bits still vague, and more that seemed even sillier. I mean, even just the question of how big these districts are yet each is governed by one mayor?

And part of me wonders why they even bother having 24 tributes, since Collins kills off half of them right away. It seems obvious to me she was just trying to cover for the fact that she can't juggle that many characters at once.

I think had they been looser with the adaptation, and gotten a good director (I kept thinking about Kubrick, though he's dead), this could have been a much better movie.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

Well, the next movie should have a different director, and I'm fine with that, given how much I hate the jittery camera.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 16, 2012 12:05:13 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

the garish outfits are referenced in the book too, and I also found them excessive and ridiculous in many instances. I mean, there was a guy with an Elizabethan collar ruffle!

I'm sure the outfits were commented on in the book, but that doesn't mean they would have come out looking the same in the film necessarily. For all I know, what the author of the novel had in mind may have been considerably different than how the costumes in the film were designed.

Apr 16, 2012 12:05:13 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

And part of me wonders why they even bother having 24 tributes, since Collins kills off half of them right away. It seems obvious to me she was just trying to cover for the fact that she can't juggle that many characters at once.

It makes sense that many of them would die right away though, since once the game begins and they all go scrambling for whatever supplies and weapons they can get their hands on, that some of them would also begin killing off their perceived competition immediately. I think only five or six of them die in that scene in the film, but I could easily see eight, or ten or twelve of them dying at that point under that kind of scenario.

However, I haven't read any of the books and didn't even know of this book series until this movie was released, so I can't really comment on any of the novels and their perceived quality or lack thereof.

[CRAMBAM]

Did you see the movie yet?

[TrekBeatTK]

Apr 16, 2012 12:05:13 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

And part of me wonders why they even bother having 24 tributes, since Collins kills off half of them right away. It seems obvious to me she was just trying to cover for the fact that she can't juggle that many characters at once.

It makes sense that many of them would die right away though, since once the game begins and they all go scrambling for whatever supplies and weapons they can get their hands on, that some of them would also begin killing off their perceived competition immediately. I think only five or six of them die in that scene in the film, but I could easily see eight, or ten or twelve of them dying at that point under that kind of scenario.
[/quote]

In the film, as in the book, 11 tributes die in that scene. I actually thought the movie worked a little better here. The book is told in the first person, so we don't really get much sense of what happened because Katniss just grabs the bag and takes off, only interacting with two others. I liked seeing it all, but hated the way it was shot so you could barely tell what happened.

In theory that would happen in the free-for-all ruleless event, but I feel it was all manufactured by the author specifically to kill off a bunch of them and not have to track them for the rest of the games. I think she could have told the same story with one tribute from each district, but she wanted to put in a relationship between Katniss and Peeta. That necessitated two tributes from each, which left an unruly 24 to deal with, hence she sets it up to kill off a bunch of them at the outset. It felt very artificial to me, but that's the nature of these "games" and part of what I dislike about the scenario.

I also don't see why, given the savagery on display there, any of them would have teamed up into alliances right after. I'd think they'd keep killing until the others were scattered or dead. Even if the strong survivors were sort of congratulatory of each other right away, I have a hard time believing they would have gotten Peeta with them right away. I know they had their reasons, but why wouldn't he be dead already too? But then, the whole notion of quick-forming alliances like this felt silly to me from the outset anyway. Mutual respect between tributes from the same district, or one or two others I get, but packs of four or five? No.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

You know that's the biggest problem I had with the movie. I think this is a technique used by a lot of directors today (notable the Jason Bourne movies). I hate it. That jittery camera. I'm not experience chaos by doing that. I get annoyed because I can't tell what's going on.

Compare that to say, a Rocky fight, when you can see and feel the punches.

I would think that in such a situation, in most cases, people would die that fast. But at the same time, one would realize that such a thing happens enough that better strategies would be formed.

I don't know if the alliances were that quick forming. I think they were formed during the training.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 16, 2012 13:59:36 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

In the film, as in the book, 11 tributes die in that scene.

I only recall them showing five of the contestants (I don't like the term "tributes" as an identifier) once that scene was over, although there may well have been a passing reference that followed about eleven of them having died. Frankly, I don't recall.

Apr 16, 2012 13:59:36 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I actually thought the movie worked a little better here. The book is told in the first person, so we don't really get much sense of what happened because Katniss just grabs the bag and takes off, only interacting with two others. I liked seeing it all, but hated the way it was shot so you could barely tell what happened.

I didn't have a problem with that at all because it was mayhem, and that was what the director was making it a point to convey. You get the sense that if you, as a passive viewer, were in that situation yourself instead what it might (and probably would) feel like. And Katniss was not a killer --not in the sense that she wasn't a hunter; she was forced to kill animals for food, but killing people...she just wasn't a murderer by nature, so for her it was a crazy, chaotic scene, and I think the director did a fine job of getting that across to the audience.

Apr 16, 2012 13:59:36 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

In theory that would happen in the free-for-all ruleless event, but I feel it was all manufactured by the author specifically to kill off a bunch of them and not have to track them for the rest of the games.

To that I say So what? She could have just as easily designed the games with ten contestants (again, I don't like the term "tributes" as a means of describing these characters) and focused on just those ten characters, which would have made it easier for her, but then, how would the craziness that ensues at the opening of the games come across? As more unrealistic probably, so she probably chose that number of characters with the intention of killing half of them off at the outset. In other words, whereas you're attributing it as an arbitrary convenience on her part, it may have been intentionally strategized by her instead.

Apr 16, 2012 13:59:36 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I also don't see why, given the savagery on display there, any of them would have teamed up into alliances right after. I'd think they'd keep killing until the others were scattered or dead. Even if the strong survivors were sort of congratulatory of each other right away, I have a hard time believing they would have gotten Peeta with them right away. I know they had their reasons, but why wouldn't he be dead already too? But then, the whole notion of quick-forming alliances like this felt silly to me from the outset anyway. Mutual respect between tributes from the same district, or one or two others I get, but packs of four or five? No.

Again, I don't have much of a problem with that either, except to say that I think such temporary alliances would have dissolved quicker than was depicted. For example, I had a problem with the contestants falling asleep as Katniss was up in the tree afraid to come down. How could you simply go to sleep in a situation like that when you know YOUR LIFE is on the line, and that any one of the people you're allied with might turn on you at any second, and simply slit your throat as you slept? There was nothing that indicated that such a cowardly way of killing off your competition would have been viewed as unacceptable or against the rules of the game. And I think that such alliances would have already started to take shape during the training and before they all ended up there to begin training. The point was made earlier on in the film that some of them had opted in for the games earlier in their lives and spent most of their time training for when the competition finally arrived. So that some of them would have had prior relationships that extended into the 74th Annual Game wasn't hard to believe, but their waiting to start killing each other off until later was a bit of a stretch.

[CRAMBAM]

Traditionally, there were people from certain districts who basically train for the games and volunteer. And traditionally, they form alliances. I guess the idea is to kill the rest before turning.

You are right--at any point that could have happened, but I guess the trust level was there and to that extent, there was some level of honor. I would think the theory is that if you really believe the alliance is a good idea, you won't turn so fast.

I agree that killing people like that would not be unacceptable. In fact, any way of killing should be fine.

In the book, the seeds for the alliances DID happen during training.

[TrekBeatTK]

But frankly, I don't understand why they are allowed to train together anyway. Why build relationships with people you are being trained to kill? And if there's an alliance that slaughters everyone right away, doesn't that deaden the sport of it all? Wouldn't that ultimately harm the entertainment value of watching the games (and let's remember that's a prime element here)?

I think it's much better to have one or two people team up in the arena out of mutual respect that might be tentative like Katniss and Rue than to start banding together in training.

And remember that especially in the book Katniss and Peeta were discouraged from training with the other tributes, and ultimately Katniss and Peeta starting training individually.

As I said before, I can understand people from the same district teaming up (and still don't understand why there has to be one winner), or similar districts, but only to a point.

And these supposedly trained tributes (which in the book we learn is technically against the rules anyway) are just really stupid. I think I've already mentioned how annoyed I was that the girl with the bow didn't try shooting at Katniss in the tree BEFORE the other one went up with the sword. But the worst one was the girl who had the knife to Katniss' throat toward the end. She just babbled like a Bond villain taunting her instead of killing her, and I'm screaming "Just kill her already!" It sort of happens like this in the book, but doesn't go on as long. Besides, the book was about experiencing the suspense of imminent death from Katniss' point of view. When you actually see it dragged out like that, the girl comes off as STUPID. The movie tries to bluff this by putting in the line about arrogance being a weakness early on, but really the only reason she keeps talking is to buy time for Thresh to save the day. I bet her district was just as annoyed as I was.

I sort of wish we saw a bit of life in all the districts in the movie. That way, we might have felt more shock at the situation of all of these kids being thrust there. By following the book and keeping focus tight on District 12 (and 11 a bit), the other tributes become villainous bullies and we root for them to die, which we shouldn't be doing. And the movie did a bit of something trying to put some feeling into Cato's mouth at the end, but it wasn't enough for me and came too late.

As I've said before, there is a good movie in here somewhere, but I think it needed more liberty taken to bring it out. Instead, we got unnecessary scenes with the gamemaker and the president.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

Different districts have different strategies.

Plus, not all districts are equal. The career tributes are much more well off. They are better fed, and spend lifetimes training for the games. They have had success as their districts win more often, so this is their game plan.

Haymitch was I believe one of just 2 winners from District 12 in the entire 74 years.

District 12 is the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy. They usually ARE the slaughtered.

The other districts would only look down on them.

The arrogance of the trained districts led to the stupidity, not unlike the Bond villain.

Katniss was actually pretty well suited because her district was so poor that she had to know how to survive and hunt. She learned useful skills.

She was smart enough to try to use the career tributes' upbringing and training against them. By being well fed, they weren't used to getting food when it wasn't handed to them. Taking out their food supply was a brilliant move.

[TrekBeatTK]

Apr 20, 2012 6:32:29 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Haymitch was I believe one of just 2 winners from District 12 in the entire 74 years.

And that is yet another problem I have with the conceit. The way it works, as I understand it, is this:
former winners become mentors for the new tributes.
these mentors not only assist in training and preparation, but are necessary for gaining sponsorship. It is the mentors' responsibility to coordinate these gifts and the parachute drops.
Sponsorship can mean the difference between life and death or between winning and losing.

BUT, unless this is a recent development, there would have been long periods early on when there were no mentors, at least for most of the districts. The first Games would have had none. The next few would not have had many until each district won. Since there is only one winner, it would take at least 12 years before every district had a mentor, and far more likely to be longer since some districts would win more than others. For district 12 to only have winners that can be counted on one hand means this system likely can't have been in place very long. What did they do before that? And again, this speaks to the nonsense of sponsorship.

...I'd also like to know how these little parachutes are delivered and get right to the intended tribute? Why is nobody stealing someone else's supplies? (and no, Katniss eating Rue's bread doesn't count because Rue would have had it if she weren't dead).

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

The origins of the games and the specifics aren't covered. Part of the point of the games is to show that there is an advantage to winning in the past. So yeah, being from a better district is not a bad thing.

The parachutes are a futuristic technology. Though the society seems backward, it does take place in the far future, so they have better medicines and obviously an advanced delivery system.

As for stealing supplies, I believe they do that. One of the major scenes was Katniss destroying the food of the career tributes. And Katniss also grabbed the other tribute's bow after the tracker attack.

[TrekBeatTK]

But the food and the weapons were up for grabs from the start of the games. We have no idea whether anyone stole from sponsor-bought parachute items.

Even the final "something everyone needs" bags were provided by gamemakers, not sponsors from what I can tell. Those some would have tried to steal to allow their competition to die off.

All of this continues to exemplify my feelings that the world just wasn't planned out fully or presented fully to us. I constantly question every aspect of it, and I find that makes it very hard to enjoy. Contrast that with Tolkien, which was thought out over and over, and the only questions that come up are things like "why can't they just use the Eagles?" which was answered anyway.

A good imagined world is one that I don't immediately need to question.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

It's very possible the delivery system is such that it would be hard to steal, since they are delivered and controlled right to the tribute.

That said, when a tribute dies, I would think anything from the sponsor that is unused would be taken if possible.

I believe you are correct that the Gamesmakers provided the "something everyone needs" at the end. And yes, they were stealable.

But if you steal that, you become a big time target for the tribute from whom you stole. Katniss actually discussed this in the book. She was only interested in getting her stuff so she could get back to Peeta and help him. At the time, there were only 5 tributes left. Two of them were monsters, two were girls, and one was not able to stand.

One of the girls' strategy was to hit and run. She was stealthy and smart, rather than aggressive. She moved fast, took what she needed, and got out fast.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 20, 2012 10:47:10 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

All of this continues to exemplify my feelings that the world just wasn't planned out fully or presented fully to us. I constantly question every aspect of it, and I find that makes it very hard to enjoy.

I can't comment on the novel obviously, not having read it, but if the movie was consistent in that regard, my biggest problem with the story was the lack of background explaining the existence of that kind of post-apocalyptic environment. Yes, the short film when they arrived at the district, narrated by Snow (Sutherland), gave a cursory explanation for it, but otherwise it wasn't really fleshed out and seemed like a very illogical structure as a devised society.