I Don't Get It : Hunger Games

I simply do not understand a great deal about the Hunger Games. Not like it was too complext or deep and I just can't figure it out, but a lot of the motivations of the charecters seem unclear. I still don't actually understand the entire premise of The Games. The president said that they were to instill fear, but also small amounts of hope. Hope for what? It's not like hope that you'll win the lottery, people seem to not want to participate, with the exceptions of the death-match prep school kids.

And why were Peeta and Katnis were allowed to survive rather than being allowed to die? Why would the government undermine its point of making the Hunger Games a way to subjugate the people by keeping them in fear and at the same time, which is never really explained in the movie, grants them small amounts of hope that they might enter the Capitol? Why does it matter that they were going to throw away their win? Why is that less preferable than being shown that an entire government can be outsmarted by two kids from the sticks?

I just don't get it.

Okay, as someone who read the entire cuntthrusting series, let me think.

-Point of the Games
Resistance is futile, the Capitol always wins and controls you, your loved ones are dying because someone defied the Capitol a while ago, etc. It's an incentive to conform and follow the Capitol, while proving that gladiator fights don't have to stop in Roman times

-Peeta and Katniss' survival
Read the explanation above. Y'see how it goes with this idea that Capitol = totalitarian dicknozzles? Well, as you would expect, that causes people to rebel. The books went into more detail about how Katniss-Peeta was playing the whole star-crossed lovers thing to death so people would love them. And, when people like seeing them, they also hate watching them die. Watching them die because the Capitol is doing their job of being dicknozzles makes people mad enough to want to rebel. D'un matter how good your government is if everyone rebels, especially when the rebellion of one District can cripple an entire monopoly of essentials (as seen with District 11 -- if they rebel, no one at all gets crops. Period. You still have eleven other working districts, but they don't grow crops, and that means nobody is getting them.)

Plus, the nightlock suicide at the end was an act national of defiance. It was saying 'wassup people of the world, here's a sign that I can say "fuck da rules" with a handful of berries'. The Capitol was not going to let Katniss-Peeta have the last laugh by breaking the rules, so they changed the rules. Plus plus plus, seeing both of the star-crossed lovers died would have caused the shit to be flipped.

YellowCellPhone has already hit most of it but another few things to add to the point.

*Note: I have read the books but I have not gone to see the movie yet.

Point:
Who is the most likely to have the fire and energy to rebel? The teenagers of the world. Who gets picked up to fight to the death? The teenagers.

Survival:
I think that the Capital made a quick decision that ultimately wasn't the correct one. The people of the Capital would have been pissed for a while that they didn't have a winner but it would have eventually passed. The caretaker made a snap decision to allow the two to survive to avoid the short-term problem (angry Capital citizens, possible small-rebellion by District 12) but they obviously didn't see the long-term problem that would crop up by doing this.

The problem with the whole deal is that it is ineffective. By dissasociation the act of rebellion with the punishment, ie, we will continue to punish you even if you do nothing wrong, the government removes all incentive for compliance. That is not even being evil, it is just stupid.

A rational totalitarian government punishes with overwhelming force, if you rebel, we will ventilate you, burn down your house and shoot your dog. This has the promise of safety for compliance and the promise of negative consequences for disobediance. In the system of the hunger games, you will be punished if you comply, and also punished if you don't comply, so if this system was placed on real people rather than the rather poorly envisioned society of the books and movies, it would fall within one or two cycles.

And before anyone claims that gladitorial games are a viable method of punishment because Rome, never forget that the gladiators were drawn from the other, barbarians, criminals, traitors or volunteers. It was never a method of oppression of the masses, and never really a method of oppression for the conquered. The whole point was not to instil fear into the citizens, but to give them a blood and nationalism instilled high over what their group was capable of doing to others.

Next up, teenagers may be the most likely to rebel in the 'i will wear eyeliner and listen to music because no one understands me' sense, but normally, the revolutionairy caste has come from the 24-30 age bracket, and the effective power in any rebelion comes from defecting sections of the military or veterans of previous wars.

Seriously though, it is just a book, so I wouldn't care so much if its fans did not insist on claiming that 'this government would be evil, but it could totally work you guys!'

Hunger Games is a rip-off of Battle Royale. I saw the movie and I thought it was shit. personally myself, who cares if we don't get it. People that like it are still going to praise it and they have every right. Of course I am with Movie Bob on this one when it came to the chicks name. Was laughing my ass off everytime they said Katniss. Don't know why it angers me so much, it just does. Okay people my present name is Frank. Now in the future, my name is Frankblublu, lol.

Shawn MacDonald:
snip

How does it rip of Battle Royal other than the kids fighting to the death?

DailonCmann:
Hope for what? It's not like hope that you'll win the lottery, people seem to not want to participate, with the exceptions of the death-match prep school kids.

They failed to mention it in the movie but the winner and their family gets all they need (food, clothing, nice housing) for as long as the winner is alive. I believe that their family is also exempt from any future hunger games until the winner dies.

Why is that less preferable than being shown that an entire government can be outsmarted by two kids from the sticks?

I just don't get it.

What it comes down to is, they had the choice between having no winner on their show and letting the two of them live. now people from the capitol bet on these kids and having no winner would really cause chaos in their bets, and push more people towards open rebellion, whereas if they let the two live they can fix their mistake at a later time.

the clockmaker:
Snip

They aren't worried about rebellion because each district is reliant on the Capitol for food and other essential items, not to mention that the capitol has total technological and air superiority. Another thing they left out of the movie is that each district exports one thing to the capitol, the one the main characters come from is coal, another is fruit (the one the little girl came from) and the closer ones provide luxury items, weapons, and electronics. These closer ones get special treatment, better living arrangements, better food, etc. The capitol treats the people who provide the most essential items the best to help prevent a wide spread organized rebellion.

Shawn MacDonald:
Hunger Games is a rip-off of Battle Royale. I saw the movie and I thought it was shit. personally myself, who cares if we don't get it. People that like it are still going to praise it and they have every right. Of course I am with Movie Bob on this one when it came to the chicks name. Was laughing my ass off everytime they said Katniss. Don't know why it angers me so much, it just does. Okay people my present name is Frank. Now in the future, my name is Frankblublu, lol.

Okay... look if you really want to argue it, Battle Royale was a rip off of "The Most Dangerous Game" because it was about human hunting human on an island.

Look I'm a huuugggeeee Battle Royale fan, I have no intention of seeing Hunger Games, but I am a writer. Just because you find out someone else has done a simmaler idea doesn't mean you shouldn't write it. If anything it means you should write it and try to spin it from a different angle. Here works in the Reality-TV aspect of it, the playing a charade to force the government hands... You could argue it's really more closer to The Condemned then Battle Royale.

In Battle Royale, Noriko and Shuya's love was real. There was no audience (It's only mentioned in the english translation of the manga). Also, the government wins in the end. Shuuya's attempts to get everyone not to kill each other fails, which was okay because it wasn't his story. It was about Shogo, his revenge on the Government, and his regaining of his humanity and hope after seeing Shuuya and Noriko fall in love, trying to do some good before his inevitable death. Yeah, the Government doesn't get a winner at the end, but Shuuya and Noriko escaping doesn't stop the government from being dickheads and doing a Battle Royale next year.

Like I said, I haven't seen hunger games and have no intention to because the marketing is all like "Twilight Girl with arrows running amongst trees"... But from what I gather, as a writer, this is NOT American Battle Royale. Calling it a rip-off of Battle Royale you may as well call it a rip off of Running Man as well.

If you are talking about the movie then yeah the book explained things a lot better.
As for why they both lived, people were already rioting after rue. Imagine what would have happened if they both died.

you have to look at a piece of work thats much older than battle royale, etc.. you have to head to ancient greece and the story of theseus and the minotaur.. king in charge orders vassel kingdoms to deliver groups of children each year to be sacrificed as tribute

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked