I've seen this before...

[frobzwiththingz]

So, last night L and I watched _The Hunger Games_. It wasn't stellar by any means, but neither was it *bad*. There were a few things that really made me go *what???*, such as toward the end where the arena controllers reveal to the audience that their level of technology allows them to CREATE LIVING ORGANISMS and DEPOSIT THEM ANYWHERE THEY WANT... This kind of tech at the worlds disposal and they're still controlling the populace with cheesy gladiator games? Is that "lets chase the heroes with magically created attack dogs" scene in the book, or is that just a Hollywood thing? Inquiring minds want to know; if someone tells me it isn't, I may check out the books at some point. I hear a lot of decent reviews.

The above said, pretty much from the first time I caught a glimpse of the ruling class, and their world, the deja vu began to hit. I've seen this before; I'm watching a modern remake of _The Running Man_. When the inevitable last-minute rule change is announced, the first thing that popped into my mind was "Well, of course. Killian is LYING to you".

Comments

[rmd.livejournal.com]

It is, and in the book it's clear that they're somehow genetically influenced by the dead Tributes. One of them has Rue's eyes and her collar has Rue's district number on it, for instance, and it makes it one of the creepiest things in the book.

It is very Running Man. Although, really, it's a variant on the myth of Theseus, but with "you all kill each other" instead of "then the Minotaur eats you all."

The books (I've read the first two) are okay. The writing is not great but I've certainly read and enjoyed worse.

[donnad.livejournal.com]

Yeah there were a few things that had us going What? Huh? as well. For example, They have holographic technology, with that level of technology why are you powering it with coal? Why do you need coal miners?

The scene with the dogs was much creepier in the book. As rmd said, they were supposedly some how created from the dead tributes and had human eyes.

The movies are not true to the books, there are quite a few things they did differently in the movie, the books are better. The thing with the mockinjay pin was very different.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

I always assume the movies never track the book that well, and in general aren't as good (one of the few exceptions I can come up with: _A Scanner Darkly_). That's why when I have a choice, I always see the movie first. Much more likely to enjoy both of them that way.

[deguspice.livejournal.com]

"The Princess Bride" is a good exception to the rule. It helps that the original book (and the script) were written by a screenwriter.

[blk]

Having just read the novella, I can say that the Shawshank Redemption movie and book are incredibly similar. In fact, I think I'd say I prefer the movie, because the book didn't really add anything, and the parts that the movie changed were good changes.

[miss-chance.livejournal.com]

*We* don't *need* to use coal either, but we do. We use coal because other fuel sources are not as profitable... by a wide margin. It *costs* more, which is identical to saying "provides a smaller profit margin to those who control the means of production." That part, as least, was totally believable to me.

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

They're in the book. They're better explained there, though.

[skreeky]

This. The wasps with the hallucinogenic stings are genetically engineered too, as are mockingjays and a few other animals. They were originally created by the Capitol during the big war as weapons. All much better explained in the book. Actually becomes important later, as mockingjays are a terrible failure of the program and thus are a symbol for the rebellion in that "See, they are not always all-powerful" way.

[jbsegal.livejournal.com]

(but they're not the strongest bit of the books.)

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i actually liked the movie better than the book. the book is all ya-dystopia, and i don't much buy it. the movie has HOLLYWOOD!! all over it -- esp. in the costuming -- and that made it easier for me to suspend disbelief than the plaintext.

[cos]

I saw the movie a while ago, and found pretty early on that I didn't consider it believable even on its own terms, so by the end I wasn't even noticing things like that. Our main character did not seem poor at all, and I found her character completely out of phase with her supposed upbringing and background. Other than Rue, none of the other kids/teens acted their age, they all seemed to be fully adult characters.

[spoiler below]

By the time the kinds of technology they had for the games was really evident, I was more distracted by what I found as the unbelievability of Katniss' character (though in my head I was spelling it "catness" :) - either she didn't figure out that the people in charge were deliberately herding her back in towards the others with those fireballs, which was implausible given her quick cleverness and ability to figure so many other things out so easily, or she did understand it but just quietly ignored it and went along without a hint that she got it, which made even less sense given the sort of person they'd shown her being or becoming.

It was still enjoyable to watch. Just very thin.

[blk]

I enjoyed the first book. I mostly enjoyed the second book, although there was a lot of "is this tension point going to GO anywhere?" I read the third book mostly counting down the pages until the end in hopes that it had reached some kind of semi-satisfying conclusion and I could be done with the story. It was kind of exhausting to me.

[donnad.livejournal.com]

I sort of felt the same way and I was somewhat disappointed in the way it all ended.

(spoiler alert)

In the end Katniss still lost, the capitol wins and she ends up still stuck in district 12, married to Peeta (what the establishment wanted not what she wanted) and having his kids. She doesn't seem happy with that lot in life.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

i assumed a good explanation, allowing for "limited controlled environment"

"future people with limited population issues" MIGHT use simple temperature differentials for power - ocean or geo-thermal. they wouldn't NEED coal or fossil fuels once they established that. even solar (likely thermal)...

some of the other stuff? eh....

a few things? oooh.

apparently there aren't enough people to overwhelm the superior tech though.

haven't read the books, will eventually do so.

#

[jcgbigler.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed both, though I did like the books better than the movie. I think the best one-liner I read was from someone who said that one of the convenient things about writing for teenagers is that most of them haven't read enough books to see every plot twist coming from a mile away.

Pretty much every fictional world that has a subset of the population with some kind of superpowers that most of the population lacks (such as the wizards vs. muggles in the Harry Potter books) fails to create a believable explanation for how and why the power imbalance has remained stable. Suspending disbelief in the stability of the world for me is part of what it takes to enjoy these kinds of books. (I also enjoyed the Harry Potter books, which were equally full of plot holes.)

The post-apocalyptic world of the Hunger Games, with its futuristic technology powered by twentieth-century technology is not unlike the steampunk world, with its twenty-first century technology powered by nineteenth-century technology. Both require a certain level of suspension of disbelief, but both also have their fun elements.

The thing I enjoyed most about the books (and the movie, which I saw after reading the books) was getting to share them with my twelve-year-old daughter. We took turns reading the books aloud to each other, and we saw the movie afterwards. The ability to have conversations with my pre-teen about real-life issues that relate to themes in the book was priceless.