From what I’ve read “fucking stupid” sums up the books pretty well.
Haven’t read the books. The movie was, um, not good. It might have been okay if it was about half as long. Whoever compared it earlier to a checklist was pretty much on. A boring, tedious checklist with no soul. I’m predisposed to liking dystopia settings, but I’ll pass on any sequels.
Yeah, the “muttations” in the book is where it really started to go off the rails for me in the book. Hybrid clones of the dead children turned into attack monsters!? Say what? Was this to make it more horrifying? I fully expected in later chapters to hear about Katniss eating an engineered ham sandwich that had Rue’s face on it to make the plot even more “heart-wrenching.”
I don’t know. The image of the last guy, (the bad guy?) being eaten alive by either the others that he had killed or by his “friends” could have been good. Of course it adds another mustache twirl for the show. We don’t just make your children fight to the death, we make your dead children into monsters and fight as well. No resting in peace for them you descendents of rebel scum.
Hey, people make bets on reality shows like “Survivor”, and those shows don’t hesitate to make all kinds of phoney-baloney changes to the rules either.
You must be a riot at parties.
PandaKid and I saw it yesterday. She’s halfway through the first book; I haven’t read any of them.
Meh. Was ok. Certainly not worth the $14.50 I shelled out for tickets, though.
The camerawork at the beginning was awful. About 15 minutes into the movie I got queasy and broke out into a sweat from head to toe - motion sickness 
(I can’t play first person shooters for this reason, either, or read in a moving vehicle.)
Effie creeped me out and it took a while for me to realize she’s a woman; I thought she was some guy in drag. WTF was she supposed to be, anyway? Some government suit?
One thing I couldn’t figure out … were Katniss and the guy from her district really into each other, or were they faking to make themselves more likeable to the audience watching the Games?
Peeta really did have a crush on Katniss. That wasn’t fakery. I think he made it more of a “huge unrequited love” deal rather than a quiet crush in order to capitalize on the audience in the Capitol. I also think that during the Games he was sick and confused enough that he did believe Katniss fell in love with him, but that he realized when the Games were over that she was faking it all.
Katniss doesn’t really love anyone but her family. She likes Gale (the boy from home that never does anything in this movie), but that’s because he helps her feed her family, and likes sneaking around in the woods with her being all huntery and stuff.
She really is gobsmacked that Peeta 1) liked her, and 2) was willing to use that as a ploy to gain advantage in the Games.
Haymitch (the drunken mentor) encourages Katniss to get over herself and to pretend to fall for Peeta in order to get more favor from the audience.
I personally think that she grows from indifference to at least fondness over the course of the book/movie, but all of the “I love him more than life” crap is played for the cameras and to allay suspicion of their defiance at the end of the Games by being willing to suicide instead of trying to kill each other.
No actually I’m pretty shy.
So what year is the book set in? Can anyone tell me?
It’s been 74 (?) years since the end of the uprising. The uprising occurred in America the “districts” rose up against the, well not really named but they lost. What was their cause?
The cause was (probably) because the Capitol people were being a bunch of dicks to the District people.
For the record, The Hunger Games was written while Bush was in office, and was published on September 14, 2008, a month before Barack Obama won the election.
Even though the term wasn’t coined (or at least, in popular use), the Capitol people are the “1%” and the District people are the “99%” and anyone who thinks that the book or movie is any kind of a rail against President Obama/Democrats/liberalism seriously needs to get a life.
Really. I don’t see why I need to be attacked personally for anything that I posted.
Was the speech about Hope by the president in the book? Because the screen play was written more recently.
Now if you can’t discuss this rationally, instead of “someone doesn’t like The Hunger Games, he’s a big poo poo head” shut the fuck up and stop violating board rules.
Now I admit that I haven’t read the books, and based on the writing in the movie, I won’t waste my money on it. So I ask questions about the books looking for a clarification, not for insults.
I do apologize for the personal insult, but it was not about “someone doesn’t like The Hunger Games, he’s a big poo poo head” because I don’t care if you or anyone else likes or doesn’t like it.
My main beef was that you’d think it was glorifying a right-wing agenda, as if the filmmakers were saying that Barack Obama represents the Capitol POV while teabaggers represent the District POV, when, if there is any political subplot, real or imagined, it’s the exact opposite.
I say again, without the insult this time, the Capitol people are the “1%” and the District people are the “99%.” It’s pretty obvious to me, but your mileage obviously varies.
I have this theory that bad books can make great movies but great books often don’t translate well in movies.
Directors and script writers can more easily create images and insight from a bad-written but good plot novel-basis whereas very good litterature is about much more than the plot itself, which makes it more difficult to “make your own” as a director (not always true, of course, but often I find it so)
Both of you need to dial back the invective.
As I was reading the book, it occurred to me that part of the reason the Capitol picks up the bodies of the tributes after each one dies (something absent from the film) might be to capture their genetic material and use it to make the muttations at the end. A more likely scenario, I thought, was that they likely already had one mutt made to resemble each tribute, and were just saving them up for the Grand Finale to really get the audience fired up.
Peeta and Katniss decided to stick to their cave, so the Gamemakers turned off the nearby stream, forcing them to return to the lake near the Cornucopia or risk dehydration. Katniss suspected Cato would be waiting for them.
In the book, it’s not clear who has killed whom by this point - District 11’s Thresh is the only other tribute left alive - until Cato comes bursting out of the brush at full tilt, running across the meadow to the Cornucopia with the mutt pack on his heels.
The design of the mutts, in the book at least, was specifically to make them psychologically disturbing. Each one had attributes that would make them familiar to anyone who had known the tribute in life: the Glimmer mutt had curly blonde fur, the Rue mutt was small and dark, and they all had the same eyes as the humans they were patterned after.
That’s exactly what she is. Effie is from the Capitol and acts as the liaison to District 12. That she’s assigned to such a small, impoverished district constantly weighs on her, but she’s rather shallow and selfish, like most of the characters from the Capitol.
Elizabeth Banks is actually very attractive for a 38-year-old. They must’ve had to work pretty hard to turn her into Effie for the movie.
The Hunger Games is one of those books that became so popular that it demanded the movie be made. I would put Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in that same camp.
On the other hand, there are books like The Running Man and Howl’s Moving Castle where you enjoy the movie and only later find out that it was, in fact, based on a book.
I read somewhere it was the other way around. Being turned into a movie sparked the sudden popularity of the book. I think it was Newsweek, but I could be misremembering.
Maybe with adult audiences, but the books have been insanely popular with YA audiences for several years now.
Nope. The book spent 100 some weeks on the NYT bestseller’s list by September 2010
OK, here is more of my take.
The “heartland” vs “the urban areas” has been around for a while. Predating the book. “The Real America” doesn’t include NYC or LA or Detroit.
I live in NYC and I know people who think NYC is rather like how the capitol was shown in the film. People dressed in outlandish costumes and wearing tons of makeup and are basically clueless and cruel.
Have you ever noticed how movies usually have lots of good looking people? At least better than average and up? In the capitol in the film, there were tons of crowds. All extras. Occasionally there are some close ups of individual crowd members reacting to something. It was like this in district 12 during the lottery. In the capitol, the people in these shots are not attractive. Not because of their clothing and makeup but they are not your typical movie extra. This is a choice by the film makers. These people, by movie standards, are ugly. Of course the people in 12 are really not. They are a little more typical in the casting mode.
So, any clue as to why there was a civil war in America. A civil war that ultimately fails but the government changes. So the people who lost the war, the districts, are the real Americans and the people who won that war, go ahead and change the name of the country and ditch the constitution. It is described that the districts were the ones who started the war. In a civil war, people generally raise up against some sort of oppression. What was it? And why did the victors in the future American Civil War, abandon the name America and the constitution?
Yes, I can see that the capitol is rich and the districts are poor. I can see that. but the book, by far, more predates that idea than it does the Heartland is the real America.
The thing with this book is EVERYONE see their exact ideology in it. Look around, you will see a number of reviewers saying the symbology is “heavy handed and obvious” but none of them agree what the message is!
I have heard everything from “obviously pro-war” to “obviously anti-war” to “obviously an indictment of the Boomer generation” to “obviously represents the 1%er movement” to “obviously represent the Tea Partier movement” --the “obviously right wing” and “obviously left wing” factions seem to be about equal in number – and many others besides.
In the end, my conclusion is that its a bit of a cipher that people can endlessly project their ideas on to. It is not “obviously” anything except a story about a girl, a boy, and a situation.
ETA: the initial cause of war was environmental collapse and the race for resources.