If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(HitFix)   Hunger Games closes in on the $300 million mark - chances of a Hungry, Hungry Hippos adaptation called 'The Original Hunger Games' getting higher every day   (hitfix.com) divider line 66
    More: Interesting, hungry hippos, The Hunger Games, American Reunion, HitFix, Jason Biggs, Wrath of the Titans, katniss, Titanic  
•       •       •

1239 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Apr 2012 at 9:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-07 06:49:44 PM
And how did you feel, being denied these hungry, hungry hippos?
 
2012-04-07 07:20:33 PM
Wasn't there supposed to be casting news this week about Finnick Odair? I'm on farking pins and needles here. I can't remember a more anticipated casting decision.
 
2012-04-07 07:30:21 PM
I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games (new window)
Summary:

1. The world building is slapdash and sloppy.

It really takes a lot of willing suspension of disbelief to figure out how a world can function as it does in the Hunger Games.

2. The Games make no sense.

If anything, murdering two children per year ought to galvanize at least some of the people--survivors of the Games, relatives and friends of children lost in the Games, etc, etc. Suzanne Collins apparently knows very little of human nature, because there is no real force of resistance ever mentioned in the book. Petty rule breaking, sure, but only by the main character and her friend, and even that is only so the author can prove she's a superspeshulawesome hunter.

3. Suzanne Collins clearly thinks that research is optional.

If you don't eat well during your body tends to use fewer calories to try and save you--this includes having a low metabolism and growth being stunted if you're in your formative years. THAT IS A REAL LIFE FACT. In the Hunger Games verse? An allegedly starving/emaciated twelve year old is said to have been "70 pounds soaking wet." Emaciation and spending her whole childhood starving would've made her much lighter than just under 70 pounds. There is another kid from District 11 who spent childhood starving and is apparently enormous. How on earth would that work, Suzanne Collins?

4. Katniss is not a "survivor," she's a spoiled brat.

Remember the first Harry Potter book? When Hagrid gave Harry that squashed birthday cake, he was so excited just to get something decent to eat?

Katniss? She literally throws cookies out of a train window for no good reason. See, the baker (Peeta's father) gives her a package of cookies just to be supportive. Katniss, being a douche (more on that in 5) tosses them out the window because she thinks that Peeta also being nice to her is just to get in her head.

A person who has nothing does not throw food away. Peeta did not know she did this, the baker didn't know she did this. She did this as a symbolic gesture that no one saw or knew about but her. It was wasteful and made Katniss implausible as a character.

5. Katniss is a douche and a horrible judge of character.
6. Goodness, Doctor, is that huge romantic plot tumor operable?
6. Katniss has no problem with murder.
7. It's a whole world of sheeple and Katniss is one of them.

Passive resistance is never considered by anyone. Granted, not everyone will want to do that, but it was the first thing that popped into my head.

8. The characterization is pretty sexist.

Really, it's painful. Katniss is super pretty because she wears very little makeup (she doesn't have to because she's just so darn pretty, gasp!) and Effie and the Capitol's women are horrible because they wear the Capitol's fashions, or whatever.

More details in the link.

Catching Fire: In Which The Romantic Plot Tumor Eats The Rest of the Book (new window)

1. Catching Fire: Where internal continuity and logic get kicked in the face.

Gale won't take Katniss's money, but will let her hunt to feed his family. This makes no sense, for obvious reasons. If he's being honorable in not wanting to take from her, why does he feel okay taking her meat and not her money?

2. Panem: Magically Defying The Basic Logic of Economics

3. Everything's all about Katniss.

She's on the resistance banners, and apparently she gave them the strength for an uprising? She never really did anything subversive. They couldn't have acted on behalf of their own tributes? Katniss didn't do anything creative. She did something obvious. Killing yourself for the cause, the idea of martyrdom is very simple, especially in a no-win situation where death was always a large, looming possibility. It's so obvious, in fact, that they try to prevent it by keeping the helicopters and roof contained so tributes can't jump to their deaths.

4. Act of rebellion? What act of rebellion?

None of the allegedly badass, super disobedient, stick-it-to-the-man acts that Katniss/Peeta do are actually rebellious in the slightest, even though the text keeps saying they are.

5. If you can't write romance, don't.

6. Informed poverty and starvation.

Katniss doesn't behave like someone who's suffered, been in poverty, hasn't eaten: she is beautiful, educated, has conveniently good manners. She even has enough boob to point out that she's lost some, despite the complete unlikelihood of both this and her being poorly fed (one of them isn't true, and it seems like the latter). Poorly fed people aren't very traditionally attractive; hell, considering her circumstances of starving at eleven and then having to hunt and physically exert herself while still being underfed for years, she probably shouldn't even have gone through puberty-a starving body is trying to keep you alive, and puberty would fly in the face of your body's will because the more one grows the more calories one needs.

7. Informed suffering (other than starvation and poverty).

No matter how injured (physically or mentally) Katniss is, it never stops her from doing a darn thing.

8. Poor research on addictions and mental illnesses.

Haymitch does not behave like a real alcoholic. In the beginning of the last Games he just decides to keep sober enough to help them? Okay, alcoholics don't just decide not to drink when it'll be inconvenient to be drunk and succeed. If it were that simplistic, no one would have a drinking problem.

9. More sexist characterization.

No female is both contextually competent and significant to the plot except for Katniss, unless they're going to get killed or just disappear from the story.

10. The book is cowardly.

It seems like it wants to make a statement about wasteful consumerism, but instead it dances around the topic because it's scared that if it holds up the mirror to say "These frivolous, wasteful idiots in the Capitol? They are YOU," then you won't like it. It's like it's trying to do that, but failing really hard because it doesn't want to draw the direct, obvious parallels. I mean, come on, how many Hunger Games fans have been buying things like "district badges" and "mockingjay pins" without a trace of irony?

11. Evil Empiring: yer doin' it wrong!

They do nothing efficiently. When they bombed that District 8 factory and killed all those people? They were stupidly risking getting exactly what they got: Survivors. Do they not have a list of every citizen and all their info? Why didn't they have an enormous army of Peacekeepers go in, arrest and shoot them one by one? They'd know who died and, more importantly, who didn't. What if, conversely, people who weren't supposed to be there died? By doing the random bombing thing, the only thing they do is lose track of information and destroy their own factory for no adequately explained reason. They'd have a mishmash of bad information now, all because they couldn't do anything systematically. Totalitarian empires are supposed to be organized.

More details in the link.

The main problem is that the frigin JOB of an author is to create a world that we can easily slip into. In the case of "hunger Games", they story is about as easy to get into as Ft. Knox.

/Puts on asbestos underpants
 
2012-04-07 07:45:53 PM

Crosshair: [tall wall of text.]


All that and still compared to Stephenie Meyer, she comes off like farking Shakespeare...
These are books for teens, You expect far too much.
And did I mention how much more readable they are than Twilight?
 
2012-04-07 08:09:30 PM
static.stuff.co.nz
 
2012-04-07 08:15:22 PM

sno man: These are books for teens, You expect far too much.


Bullshiat.

When I was twelve I was already rockin' adult books. Hell, I read the Divine Comedy (translated of course, but still) on my own while our Lit class was still on short stories like ... I don't even remember. They weren't as interesting as the ones from high school.

You can write a great book for teens that's every bit as good as a book for adults. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one of the greatest stories for parents ever told, even though it's technically for kids.
 
2012-04-07 08:22:48 PM

doglover: sno man: These are books for teens, You expect far too much.

Bullshiat.

When I was twelve I was already rockin' adult books. Hell, I read the Divine Comedy (translated of course, but still) on my own while our Lit class was still on short stories like ... I don't even remember. They weren't as interesting as the ones from high school.

You can write a great book for teens that's every bit as good as a book for adults. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one of the greatest stories for parents ever told, even though it's technically for kids.


There are a lot of significantly more poorly written books for adults than these also.
 
2012-04-07 08:42:34 PM

sno man: doglover: sno man: These are books for teens, You expect far too much.

Bullshiat.

When I was twelve I was already rockin' adult books. Hell, I read the Divine Comedy (translated of course, but still) on my own while our Lit class was still on short stories like ... I don't even remember. They weren't as interesting as the ones from high school.

You can write a great book for teens that's every bit as good as a book for adults. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one of the greatest stories for parents ever told, even though it's technically for kids.

There are a lot of significantly more poorly written books for adults than these also.


True. But writing FOR teens doesn't excuse the crap books in whole or in part. If you write a good book, it's a good book regardless of the target audience.

We can all agree Twighlight was bad and Harry Potter was better. Hunger Games lands between the two. And Robert Lynn Asprin's books take all three series, crumple them up in a ball, and kick them out into the street in terms of writing quality. Sadly he's passed on and they're all a little too corny for a serious movie, but Another Fine Myth would look awesome on the big screen. Especially Tananda. In fact, let's just make a movie about her.
 
2012-04-07 08:50:03 PM
I love how people are whining that Katnip isn't scrawny and unattractive. Hello, movie. For teens no less.
 
2012-04-07 09:30:27 PM

doglover: sno man: doglover: sno man: These are books for teens, You expect far too much.

Bullshiat.

When I was twelve I was already rockin' adult books. Hell, I read the Divine Comedy (translated of course, but still) on my own while our Lit class was still on short stories like ... I don't even remember. They weren't as interesting as the ones from high school.

You can write a great book for teens that's every bit as good as a book for adults. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one of the greatest stories for parents ever told, even though it's technically for kids.

There are a lot of significantly more poorly written books for adults than these also.

True. But writing FOR teens doesn't excuse the crap books in whole or in part. If you write a good book, it's a good book regardless of the target audience.

We can all agree Twighlight was bad and Harry Potter was better. Hunger Games lands between the two. And Robert Lynn Asprin's books take all three series, crumple them up in a ball, and kick them out into the street in terms of writing quality. Sadly he's passed on and they're all a little too corny for a serious movie, but Another Fine Myth would look awesome on the big screen. Especially Tananda. In fact, let's just make a movie about her.


So don't watch the farking movie and get off your soap box. I haven't read a twilight book or a hunger book and I haven't seen any of the movies either. Because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like either. If you don't like them so be it. Let others have their fun.
 
2012-04-07 09:55:42 PM

doglover: sno man: These are books for teens, You expect far too much.

Bullshiat.

When I was twelve I was already rockin' adult books. Hell, I read the Divine Comedy (translated of course, but still)


Lazy piece of shiat, back in my day we were expected to be fluent in Italian by 11.
 
2012-04-07 10:00:50 PM

sno man: Crosshair: [tall wall of text.]

All that and still compared to Stephenie Meyer, she comes off like farking Shakespeare...
These are books for teens, You expect far too much.
And did I mention how much more readable they are than Twilight?


Yeah I agree with most of what was said except every character is irrelevant in the movie except those that live.

Movie was ok but at least its not a farking superhero comic book film so I want to support it, seemed to be set up for a sequel anyways.
 
2012-04-07 10:03:29 PM

steamingpile: Movie was ok but at least its not a farking superhero comic book film so I want to support it, seemed to be set up for a sequel anyways.


Four movies I think, even though it's just a trilogy of books. The "Volume 1 and 2" thing is apparently fashionable now.
 
2012-04-07 10:10:07 PM
Somebody has to mention it. May as well be me this time.
I have serious doubts that Suzanne Collins had never heard about Battle Royale until after she created this work. It's that whole Simba/Kimba scenario again.

But hey, she can buy and sell me with what her material has made. So it's all moot.
 
2012-04-07 10:14:08 PM

Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

[Lots of Highly Accurate Reasons] Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games (new window)
[snip]


It's like you wrote the review I lacked the motivation to write. :)
 
2012-04-07 10:16:53 PM

Crosshair: Suzanne Collins apparently knows very little of human nature, because there is no real force of resistance ever mentioned in


Besides the entire damn District 13 revolt that's mentioned as having happened in the novel and was brutally put down.
 
2012-04-07 10:19:40 PM
As long as at some point, Sam Jackson runs through a dark island, covered in blood, yelling over the walkie-talkie, "WE GOT TO GET OUT OF HERE NOW, THESE MUTHAFARKING HIPPOS ARE HONGRY!"
 
2012-04-07 10:21:19 PM
Hungry Hungry Hippos would work great as one of those SciFi (SyFy) made for TV movies. Basically get 4 giant hippos (one albino, one black, one brown, and one yellow or blue for some reason). They are rampaging across a small nation. To stop things earlier, the govt tries to knock them out with sedatives wrapped in big white sugar balls.

Problem is the sugar injection makes them grow bigger and hungrier as they seek out more and more and battle each other for top dog. I figure we get 80s star Fred Savage for this one along with a new model trying to "act" as the woman he accidentally saves who is in that country on humanitarian work.

At the end, humanity wins, but it turns out that one of the hippos survives and is growing bigger as it enters the water. In the distance, Mega shark is seen and the sequel writes itself.
 
2012-04-07 10:27:23 PM

Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

snip


You'll get no argument from me. I'm pretty non-critical, but the series rapidly falls apart after the first book.
 
2012-04-07 10:39:35 PM
Did no one else notice that The Lorax was expected to break the $200 mark this week?

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

A movie named The Lorax? $200 or $200 million? Never heard the name.
 
2012-04-07 10:49:41 PM
I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.
 
2012-04-07 10:54:52 PM

jmr61: A movie named The Lorax? $200 or $200 million? Never heard the name.


Dr, Seuss
 
2012-04-07 11:04:04 PM

kwirlkarphys: I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.


I don't think it is.

Were talking about a person who has been involved with writing, both television and novels. Not a layman like myself.
To say she didn't have someone in the industry who could have told her about what seems to be a pretty big deal (from a critic's point of view), to the point where it was referred to in the entertainment business as a highly regarded story for a number of years, seems disingenuous.

This isn't a sheltered writer who has no idea how the business works. She has a known history longer than a decade.
 
jvl
2012-04-07 11:08:01 PM

kwirlkarphys: I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.


I agree: it's totally stupid how Legend of the Minataur rips off Battle Royale.
 
2012-04-07 11:14:20 PM
Writers everywhere should really thank Stephen-ie Meyer, because no matter what mindless drivel anyone decides to write from now on, everyone will still say it's better than Twilight.
 
2012-04-07 11:23:38 PM

ThatBillmanGuy: Writers everywhere should really thank Stephen-ie Meyer, because no matter what mindless drivel anyone decides to write from now on, everyone will still say it's better than Twilight.


both buttons.
 
2012-04-07 11:26:25 PM

Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games (new window)
Summary:

1. The world building is slapdash and sloppy.

It really takes a lot of willing suspension of disbelief to figure out how a world can function as it does in the Hunger Games.

2. The Games make no sense.

If anything, murdering two children per year ought to galvanize at least some of the people--survivors of the Games, relatives and friends of children lost in the Games, etc, etc. Suzanne Collins apparently knows very little of human nature, because there is no real force of resistance ever mentioned in the book. Petty rule breaking, sure, but only by the main character and her friend, and even that is only so the author can prove she's a superspeshulawesome hunter.

3. Suzanne Collins clearly thinks that research is optional.

If you don't eat well during your body tends to use fewer calories to try and save you--this includes having a low metabolism and growth being stunted if you're in your formative years. THAT IS A REAL LIFE FACT. In the Hunger Games verse? An allegedly starving/emaciated twelve year old is said to have been "70 pounds soaking wet." Emaciation and spending her whole childhood starving would've made her much lighter than just under 70 pounds. There is another kid from District 11 who spent childhood starving and is apparently enormous. How on earth would that work, Suzanne Collins?

4. Katniss is not a "survivor," she's a spoiled brat.

Remember the first Harry Potter book? When Hagrid gave Harry that squashed birthday cake, he was so excited just to get something decent to eat?

Katniss? She literally throws cookies out of a train window for no good reason. See, the baker (Peeta's father) gives her a package of cookies just to be supportive. Katniss, being a douche (more on that in 5) tosses them out the window because she thinks that Peeta also being nice to her is just to get in her head.

A person wh ...


Why wouldn't Gandalf just have the eagles fly Frodo to Mt. Doom? Stupid books.
 
2012-04-07 11:42:00 PM
It's Michael Bay working on the hungry hungry Hippos movie?
 
2012-04-07 11:42:37 PM
Blatant Kevin Smith/Smodcast rip-off in that headline,,,
 
2012-04-08 12:19:27 AM
I'd put The Hunger Games on the same level as Percy Jackson. That is, they were not a waste of a few evenings, but they weren't great.

I've read better, and I've read worse. We all probably have. (Haven't seen the movie.)
 
2012-04-08 02:08:36 AM
People biatching about books and movies just shows they really have nothing going on in their lives.
 
2012-04-08 02:39:33 AM

Ashtrey: I'd put The Hunger Games on the same level as Percy Jackson. That is, they were not a waste of a few evenings, but they weren't great.

I've read better, and I've read worse. We all probably have. (Haven't seen the movie.)


I gave up on the whole "written for a 13 year old" genre on the third harry potter book.

Hunger games was a very average movie. VERY AVERAGE.

The big question is this: they have the technology to generate mutant dogs out of thin air but they apparently rely on human mined coal?

Last time i checked nanotechnology on the scale of the mutant dog cannon would more than solve all your energy needs. And your insurgant needs. Why bother with a TV show to suppress your rebels when you can plant little remote bombs inside their hearts.
 
2012-04-08 02:51:00 AM

Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games (new window)
Summary:

1. The world building is slapdash and sloppy.

It really takes a lot of willing suspension of disbelief to figure out how a world can function as it does in the Hunger Games.

2. The Games make no sense.

If anything, murdering two children per year ought to galvanize at least some of the people--survivors of the Games, relatives and friends of children lost in the Games, etc, etc. Suzanne Collins apparently knows very little of human nature, because there is no real force of resistance ever mentioned in the book. Petty rule breaking, sure, but only by the main character and her friend, and even that is only so the author can prove she's a superspeshulawesome hunter.

3. Suzanne Collins clearly thinks that research is optional.

If you don't eat well during your body tends to use fewer calories to try and save you--this includes having a low metabolism and growth being stunted if you're in your formative years. THAT IS A REAL LIFE FACT. In the Hunger Games verse? An allegedly starving/emaciated twelve year old is said to have been "70 pounds soaking wet." Emaciation and spending her whole childhood starving would've made her much lighter than just under 70 pounds. There is another kid from District 11 who spent childhood starving and is apparently enormous. How on earth would that work, Suzanne Collins?

4. Katniss is not a "survivor," she's a spoiled brat.

Remember the first Harry Potter book? When Hagrid gave Harry that squashed birthday cake, he was so excited just to get something decent to eat?

Katniss? She literally throws cookies out of a train window for no good reason. See, the baker (Peeta's father) gives her a package of cookies just to be supportive. Katniss, being a douche (more on that in 5) tosses them out the window because she thinks that Peeta also being nice to her is just to get in her head.

A person wh ...


I have only seen the movie, but I agree with everything you said. As long as we stipulate that every series written for kids has a stupidly constructed world that revolves completely around teenage mental angst and fantasy construction.

In 'snow crash' Neal Stephenson managed to draw on prior genre elements and create a believeable and fun world in a single book. I get the impression that Collins is not capable of that.

Man I wish people were smarter, I cant stand the idea of 10 more years of trite teen fiction series like this.
 
2012-04-08 03:14:41 AM
Why can't I have any given series of the Tortall Universe made into a movie series?

Really, I'd take any of them. (Well, maybe not the Trickster Duology; but any of the others)
 
2012-04-08 03:45:52 AM

Virtual Pariah: kwirlkarphys: I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.

I don't think it is.

Were talking about a person who has been involved with writing, both television and novels. Not a layman like myself.
To say she didn't have someone in the industry who could have told her about what seems to be a pretty big deal (from a critic's point of view), to the point where it was referred to in the entertainment business as a highly regarded story for a number of years, seems disingenuous.

This isn't a sheltered writer who has no idea how the business works. She has a known history longer than a decade.


Well, I just heard of it and the first thing I think of when hearing that is wrestling so its very likely that if she did know of it then she dismissed it as some wrestling/martial arts off shoot instead of a book, besides its not until the past few years that manga has went mainstream. And then again, maybe the comic just took the lord of the flies story line but injected a lot more violence into the story, hell maybe battle royale just ripped off Gymkata by replacing athletes with kids.

She may have never heard of it or she could have ripped it off the point is nobody really knows, she could have gotten influences anywhere and I would bet on a popular book and one of the cheesiest films to come out over a comic book/manga series. Most fans of these genres fail to understand nobody knows of these titles outside of their circle of friends, even if you are in the entertainment business you may not know of them.

The only one I had heard of was Gantz I think and that title tells you nothing about what the series is about and I still never finished reading it since it wasnt all online.
 
2012-04-08 05:44:03 AM

steamingpile: Well, I just heard of it and the first thing I think of when hearing that is wrestling so its very likely that if she did know of it then she dismissed it as some wrestling/martial arts off shoot instead of a book, besides its not until the past few years that manga has went mainstream. And then again, maybe the comic just took the lord of the flies story line but injected a lot more violence into the story, hell maybe battle royale just ripped off Gymkata by replacing athletes with kids.


Battle Royale was released as a pretty kick ass movie in 2000, but wasn't released in the US until after The Hunger Games came out, though it was shown at film festivals in 2001. It was widely released on DVD in Europe though. And it's referenced heavily in Kill Bill.

Is The Hunger Games a rip-off? Who knows? This way may be better than having a US remake of Battle Royale, though it appears there's one underway for 2015.
 
2012-04-08 05:44:36 AM

Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games (new window)
Summary:

1. The world building is slapdash and sloppy.


Granted. But with the caveat "welcome to children's literature, man". It's designed around the assumption that the reader has the life experience and reasoning abilities of a 12-year-old, if you remember being 12 with even a tiny bit of clarity you know that this style of writing is acceptable in context.

2. The Games make no sense.

If anything, murdering two children per year ought to galvanize at least some of the people...


The games don't make any sense, but your specific objection is pretty well addressed by the fact that there's been an organized resistance for decades (implied to be since the end of the last rebellion) as well as numerous flare-ups that are kept out of the government-owned news that is the main character's main source of information.

3. Suzanne Collins clearly thinks that research is optional.
There is another kid from District 11 who spent childhood starving and is apparently enormous. How on earth would that work, Suzanne Collins?


There's a technocratic caste system in place that can alter how many calories you get depending on how many workers the family has and what they do. The lead character's family is under-nourished because there are zero working members. Father = dead, mother = too wrapped up in PTSD to work. 12 is also Appalachia and the coal district, making it the poorest of the set. The whole nation isn't in any way starving or even short of food, the government is actually pretty good at keeping people fed and goods moving. This comes up in a rather painful way when the uprisings change this in book 2 and people do start starving.

4. Katniss is not a "survivor," she's a spoiled brat.

Again, granted, but welcome to teen literature. Recall how much of a brat you were at 12, characters have to be at least kind of whiny little biatches to be relatable to the target audience.

5. Katniss is a douche and a horrible judge of character.

Again, the character is, what, 14 or 15? This is one of the more believable and realistic elements of the plot. Every teen book hero can't be a full-on Mary Sue, some of them are bound to have real flaws occasionally.

6. Goodness, Doctor, is that huge romantic plot tumor operable?

Yes, a book targeted to teen girls shouldn't address sex or relationships in any way. And all the relationships of teenagers are totally stable, adult, well-timed and sensible.

6. Katniss has no problem with murder.

So? No one in the setting has a problem with murder, so long as it's not targeted at them or their buddies. If it makes you feel better, it psychologically breaks the character.

7. It's a whole world of sheeple and Katniss is one of them.

Sure, and it's specifically addressed multiple times, and is one of the major emotional arcs of the character. She's caught in something she doesn't really even comprehend and can't control, and keeps getting told she's important when she can't actually affect anything.

Basically, that review is basically a series of some guy understanding the things the author all-but-explicitly wrote into the work and then pretending that they're fridge brilliance instead of major, unsubtle themes. Come the hell on, that has to be a troll, no one that can form a coherent sentence actually has reading comprehension that bad. Plus I've just dedicated a gigantic post to a bloody childrens' book, pretty sure that should only happen if I'm being intentionally baited.
 
2012-04-08 07:17:18 AM

Trackball: People biatching about books and movies just shows they really have nothing going on in their lives.


Not sure what that makes someone who signs on to this site to explain to everyone what lives they don't have.

Well at least you're not pretentious or obnoxious about it.
 
2012-04-08 09:10:23 AM
Hippo based hunger games have already been done (new window)
 
2012-04-08 09:29:48 AM
i112.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-08 09:45:26 AM

Virtual Pariah: To say she didn't have someone in the industry who could have told her about what seems to be a pretty big deal (from a critic's point of view), to the point where it was referred to in the entertainment business as a highly regarded story for a number of years, seems disingenuous.


Maybe she just doesn't know any weeaboos.

jvl: kwirlkarphys: I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.

I agree: it's totally stupid how Legend of the Minataur rips off Battle Royale.


House of Leaves ripped off House.
 
2012-04-08 09:52:06 AM

doglover: sno man: These are books for teens, You expect far too much.

Bullshiat.

When I was twelve I was already rockin' adult books. Hell, I read the Divine Comedy (.


The Divine Comedy was actually written for kids.
Later adults took it too seriously and read too much into it.

You would have known that if you read the original instead of a translation and knew more about the context.
 
2012-04-08 10:02:32 AM

sprawl15: Virtual Pariah: To say she didn't have someone in the industry who could have told her about what seems to be a pretty big deal (from a critic's point of view), to the point where it was referred to in the entertainment business as a highly regarded story for a number of years, seems disingenuous.

Maybe she just doesn't know any weeaboos.

jvl: kwirlkarphys: I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.

I agree: it's totally stupid how Legend of the Minataur rips off Battle Royale.

House of Leaves ripped off House.


Smokey and the Bandit totally ripped off and ruined Death Race 2000.
 
2012-04-08 10:07:04 AM

Virtual Pariah: kwirlkarphys: I had never heard of battle royale until 2-3 years ago. saying the hunger games MUST be ripping them off is stupid.

I don't think it is.

Were talking about a person who has been involved with writing, both television and novels. Not a layman like myself.
To say she didn't have someone in the industry who could have told her about what seems to be a pretty big deal (from a critic's point of view), to the point where it was referred to in the entertainment business as a highly regarded story for a number of years, seems disingenuous.

This isn't a sheltered writer who has no idea how the business works. She has a known history longer than a decade.


Have you been around longer than a decade? Because the Hunger Games is a mash-up of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and Golding's Lord of the Flies with a little Romeo and Juliet thrown in for good measure. How far back do you want to go? Battle Royale was similar, sure, but saying HG is a 'ripoff' is a stretch.


SAME!
 
2012-04-08 10:47:54 AM
Crosshair: Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games
(....followed by sizable wall o' text diatribe)

Let me guess, you show up in Star Trek threads complaining that since transporters can't exist no one should watch those movies either?
How about next time you run into an implausibility in a book you just stop reading, and spare us all?

pudding7:
Why wouldn't Gandalf just have the eagles fly Frodo to Mt. Doom? Stupid books.

that lol in your follow-up comment got you favorited.
 
2012-04-08 10:53:58 AM
sale.images.woot.com
(new window)
 
2012-04-08 11:12:26 AM

doglover: Another Fine Myth would look awesome on the big screen. Especially Tananda. In fact, let's just make a movie about her.


Mmmmmm Tananda! Imagine that casting call.

I'll be in my bunk.
 
2012-04-08 11:32:05 AM

Jim_Callahan: Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

Why I Don't Like The Hunger Games (new window)
Summary:

1. The world building is slapdash and sloppy.

Granted. But with the caveat "welcome to children's literature, man". It's designed around the assumption that the reader has the life experience and reasoning abilities of a 12-year-old, if you remember being 12 with even a tiny bit of clarity you know that this style of writing is acceptable in context.

2. The Games make no sense.

If anything, murdering two children per year ought to galvanize at least some of the people...

The games don't make any sense, but your specific objection is pretty well addressed by the fact that there's been an organized resistance for decades (implied to be since the end of the last rebellion) as well as numerous flare-ups that are kept out of the government-owned news that is the main character's main source of information.

3. Suzanne Collins clearly thinks that research is optional.
There is another kid from District 11 who spent childhood starving and is apparently enormous. How on earth would that work, Suzanne Collins?

There's a technocratic caste system in place that can alter how many calories you get depending on how many workers the family has and what they do. The lead character's family is under-nourished because there are zero working members. Father = dead, mother = too wrapped up in PTSD to work. 12 is also Appalachia and the coal district, making it the poorest of the set. The whole nation isn't in any way starving or even short of food, the government is actually pretty good at keeping people fed and goods moving. This comes up in a rather painful way when the uprisings change this in book 2 and people do start starving.

4. Katniss is not a "survivor," she's a spoiled brat.

Again, granted, but welcome to teen literature. Recall how much of a brat you were at 12, characters have to be at least kind of whiny ...


Blah, blah, blah.... You sound boring.

If you didn't like the book or the movie then don't read the rest of the series or see the other movies when they come out. I'm so tired of people complaining about the books and the movie. I enjoyed all three books and the movie. I don't feel a need to criticize it to prove how cool and smart I am (which is exactly what I think its critics are doing). Shake out the stick and stop your whining.
 
2012-04-08 11:51:51 AM

Crosshair: I'll just leave these here. The author a good job of describing the problems I see.

4. Katniss is not a "survivor," she's a spoiled brat.

Remember the first Harry Potter book? When Hagrid gave Harry that squashed birthday cake, he was so excited just to get something decent to eat?

Katniss? She literally throws cookies out of a train window for no good reason. See, the baker (Peeta's father) gives her a package of cookies just to be supportive. Katniss, being a douche (more on that in 5) tosses them out the window because she thinks that Peeta also being nice to her is just to get in her head.


Right. Katniss has supported her mother and sister from the age of eleven, and she volunteers to be sent to the death games in her sister's place. What a spoiled brat, offering to die for the people she loves! And then she decides that maybe she shouldn't get emotionally attached to the person who'll have to die if she's going to live. How stupid and unbelievable is that? If I thought I might have to kill someone, I'd instantly start making friends with them.

6. Goodness, Doctor, is that huge romantic plot tumor operable?

No, because the element of the faux romance being a 'plot hook' that engages the spectators and causes them to donate money thus providing benefits in the Arena is part of the commentary on the society, where everything belonging to oppressed people is exploited and sold, right down to their love for one another (familial and romantic).

6. Katniss has no problem with murder.

(6? Again?)

Right, so thinking about it, worrying about it, and being psychologically damaged by it... doesn't matter and means you have no problem with it? Just like every other victor we see, really. They all kill to survive, and they're all wounded by it.

8. The characterization is pretty sexist.

Really, it's painful. Katniss is super pretty because she wears very little makeup (she doesn't have to because she's just so darn pretty, gasp!) and Effie and the Capitol's women are horrible because they wear the Capitol's fashions, or whatever.


Except that Katniss is quite clearly and repeatedly said to look stunning in the Capitol's fashion and makeup? and her stylist is an important character who exploits her image to present her subversively? and the way she is marketed and portrayed is crucial to gaining sponsors and thus surviving? The message isn't that makeup is evil, it's that whether or not you wear makeup shouldn't affect your chances of survival or success. Which is not a sexist message.

Passive resistance is never considered by anyone. Granted, not everyone will want to do that, but it was the first thing that popped into my head.

Peeta and Katniss talk about it on the roof before the first games. Peeta admits that for all his desire to resist the Capitol, when his life is on the line, he's sure he'll kill. Katniss is there to protect her family, so she's not going to resist and get her mother and sister killed.

She's on the resistance banners, and apparently she gave them the strength for an uprising? She never really did anything subversive. They couldn't have acted on behalf of their own tributes? Katniss didn't do anything creative. She did something obvious. Killing yourself for the cause, the idea of martyrdom is very simple, especially in a no-win situation where death was always a large, looming possibility. It's so obvious, in fact, that they try to prevent it by keeping the helicopters and roof contained so tributes can't jump to their deaths.

No, she became the symbol of an uprising that was already boiling. If it hadn't been her, it would have been something else in time. You say she didn't do anything subversive; what she did was cause the Capitol to show weakness. The Capitol said they had to kill each other, and they refused. You know, they did that thing you said they never even discussed? Katniss could have lived if she were willing to kill Peeta. She chose to risk death to save them both. (Just like she risked death to save Peeta when she went for the medicine for him.) That's a powerful symbolic act - she defied the Capitol and gained what they said she couldn't have, at the moment when everyone was watching, and became a common symbol - promoted by the already-extant resistance run from District 13.

No matter how injured (physically or mentally) Katniss is, it never stops her from doing a darn thing.

Whoever said this basically never read the books. That's ridiculous.

Remember kids, you can volunteer to face near-certain death for the people you love, but it doesn't matter - if you throw away cookies, you're a douche.
 
2012-04-08 12:25:32 PM
I don't like it because the younger sister dies in a bullshiat way, and despite learning that there is no 'good' side she still continues to have children with Gale and bring them into that mess of a world.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report