The Hunger Games; I just don't get it...

[Dr. Cakey]

Must...resist...urge...to make..."Topic about not getting why people like the Hunger Games; I don't get it..." topic...

I read all three, thought the first two were excellent and the last progressed in a logical but not particularly interesting direction, and saw parts of the movie - thought it could have turned out a lot worse.

After I'd read the first two books, I discovered to my surprise the book was for girls/people thought the books were girls' books/girls thought the books were girls' books/some combination of the previous. Now, I'm not the brightest knife in the shed, but I think "it's like anti-twilight or something" is selling it short.

Here, how about this: People like them because they're really good.

There. The mystery has been explained. You can all go home now.

 

[jamesworkshop]

honestly the hunger games seems a fairly inconsequential series, it doesn't seem that incredibly popular, look at how by-the-numbers the movie was, it wouldn't surprise me me to see the movies drop off just like how the movies set on "his dark materials" didn't take off after "the golden compass"

Maybe it's just the UK but twilight I would estimate is at a minimum, 5 times more popular.

I don't consider HGames and Glittervamp/wolfboy/tabula rasa to have really that much to do with each other, but lots of people do.

 

[The Funslinger]

Spoiler

How can she go from killing people relentlessly to crying into a corner and going crazy in the 2nd/3rd books? I just don't get it

PTSD?

Not that I'm defending the books, I thought they were a little crudely written.

I don't know how much of this distaste comes from a rather tragic end to a relationship with a girl who loved those books, though, so...

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I'm kind of turned off the series by the fact that I have a friend who seems to think that the books are made of pure magic golden lasers that can cure cancer and shit out cotton candy ice cream. Also, teenagers as protagonists are something that I never really liked (except in Super 8). I can see why people like it, but it just isn't to my personal tastes.

Also, because I'm sure I could write something better with the same basic idea. In fact, I shall. It shall be called 'The Time that Kids had to fight on television in a dystopian future, except this time there are dinosaurs and robots and sword fights on exploding mountains'.

 

[DementedSheep]

Meh I read the first book ages ago and for ?shit aimed at teenage girls? it was alright. Could have done with less kissing in caves, the writing wasn't the best and it?s not great but then most stuff aimed at teens in general isn?t great.
At least the protagonist is actually capable and somewhat badass rather than being a useless sack of shit who cries while the men do everything.

Of course I very much doubt you even want to know why people like it. ?I don?t get why X is liked. Pleas enlighten me? threads are almost always just an excuse to hate on something.

 

[krazykidd]

I read the books out of curiosity . They were okay at best . I didn't like how katniss turn from strong female , to bubblering idiot in the second book , to being a mere symbole in the last .

As for the movie well the first one was boring as hell . That book does not translate well into a movie . At all . I will go see the other movies if only to facepalm at the incoherence of it all .

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Why do people love this book series so much? All my friends, (you know, the ones who actually read books,) rave about these books saying it's a great love story and that Katniss is such a cool character. I personally hated the first book deeply and while the second one did redeem the series a little bit the third book was just awful. It was the most boring out of the three and the big action filled ending at the end, ended with Katniss getting knocked out and then getting told what happened while she was out. How could anybody like this book series so much? Is there just something I'm not getting? Please, enlighten me.

You read the book. It didn't resonate with your particular tastes. There's nothing else anyone can do for you other than tell you the things we like that you already know about.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Hate to be this guy... but I liked the Japanese Version better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale

I tried, but all I could think about was how this feels like a stupid SciFi version of Battle Royale, and couldn't get into it. That is all.

The Hunger Games is about as different from Battle Royale as 1984 is from Brave New World. If you haven't read the latter two books, 1984 is a much more pessimistic dystopia, being one that nobody in the general population is happy about, they just don't have a choice because the government is so powerful. Brave New World is about a dystopia where the people are kept in line with entertainment, mainly sex, drugs, and full body pornos. They're so happy that they don't care they aren't free.

Anyway, Battle Royale is 1984 in this comparison. It's a very Japanese story about the futility of trying to change society, how alone anyone different from the norm is, and how such misfits need to stick together. The Hunger Games is a very American story about one individual being a catalyst for a revolution. Similar premise, opposite conclusion. Before I read The Hunger Games, I was always confused at how people said it was about the politics, while Battle Royale was about the killing -- because at its core, that's not what its about. The more accurate way of putting it is that they're both about politics, but one is about the weakness of the individual on the national stage, and the other is about the power of the individual on that same stage.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Opinions: that is the only answer you need.

 

[soren7550]

I've read all three books one summer, and I can see why people enjoy them. The first one anyway. The other two come off as much less interesting, and not as well written.

Katniss is not a likable character at all (except for maybe when she volunteers as tribute in her sister's place), and most of the supporting characters come off the same way. The 'romance' (if you could call it that) is super forced and one sided. The ending of the third comes off as very rushed and cluttered.

 

[Occams_Razor]

I can see why people like them, Katniss is an appealing lead character, and I agree it is nice to see a strong female protagonist in books and now in movies(diminished somewhat by the boy-drama in the second book). But I'm not a huge fan of the books in general.

To me it comes down to the writing sytle. She seems to take a tell instead of show approach to character development. Especially with characters like Rue. She tells you that Rue reminds Katniss of her sister, and tells you that she feels a connection with Rue, but I never seem to see that from their interactions, which are minimal for the emphasis they put on the character.

Some characters are better. People like Finnick actually seemed to have character motivation and a believable development. But overall I felt like I spent a lot of time reading them being dropped out of the experience to go "what???"

 

[BNguyen]

Hate to be this guy... but I liked the Japanese Version better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale

I tried, but all I could think about was how this feels like a stupid SciFi version of Battle Royale, and couldn't get into it. That is all.

I agree, to me, the Hunger Games felt like it was trying to trivialize actual events by turning it into what it is - basically a sci-fi version of gladiators but with children

 

[BNguyen]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

 

[Vhite]

Because some people are trying to find the void that Harry Potter left them in after the Deathly Hallows.

I would say that Enders Game/Speaker for the Dead/Shadows series would be a great alternative for people who grew up with HP and are now ready for something proper but there are no movies and sci-fi scares people.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

Oh, it's forced on the population. Every district /has/ to send a boy and a girl to every game. Basically, kids of the right age have the option to volunteer, but if nobody does, someone is chosen by lottery anyway.

<spoiler=spoiler for the second book>District 12 (the district that Katniss comes from) was a backwater that the government pretty much ignored. The other districts were much more directly and oppressively controlled

As for the arenas, they weren't simulated per se. The stuff in them was real, it was just built like a combination Coliseum and theme park, with things like trap doors to release genetically engineered monsters from embedded in the ground. The highest level of technology we see in the books is genetic engineering, cloaking systems, and force fields. No free standing holograms or anything like that.

Oh, also, what you said about Battle Royale 2? First of all, that clashes pretty heavily with the book, which basically came to the conclusion that Japanese society as a whole was too conformist to ever rise up. It was a book written by an Otaku about how much being an outcast in Japanese society sucked[footnote]I understand the director of the movie was a survivor of some World War II bombing runs, and put a very different slant on it than the author of the book[/footnote]. But also, that's what the second and third Hunger Games books are all about. The basic theme of the series is the ability of the right individual in the right place and time to act as a catalyst to get everyone else moving.

And I'm starting to sound like a fanboy. I'm just someone who has read and enjoyed both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, and is therefore actually qualified to talk about the differences between the two XD

 

[klaynexas3]

Hate to be this guy... but I liked the Japanese Version better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale

I tried, but all I could think about was how this feels like a stupid SciFi version of Battle Royale, and couldn't get into it. That is all.

The Hunger Games is about as different from Battle Royale as 1984 is from Brave New World. If you haven't read the latter two books, 1984 is a much more pessimistic dystopia, being one that nobody in the general population is happy about, they just don't have a choice because the government is so powerful. Brave New World is about a dystopia where the people are kept in line with entertainment, mainly sex, drugs, and full body pornos. They're so happy that they don't care they aren't free.

Anyway, Battle Royale is 1984 in this comparison. It's a very Japanese story about the futility of trying to change society, how alone anyone different from the norm is, and how such misfits need to stick together. The Hunger Games is a very American story about one individual being a catalyst for a revolution. Similar premise, opposite conclusion. Before I read The Hunger Games, I was always confused at how people said it was about the politics, while Battle Royale was about the killing -- because at its core, that's not what its about. The more accurate way of putting it is that they're both about politics, but one is about the weakness of the individual on the national stage, and the other is about the power of the individual on that same stage.

While I will agree with you on that they both take similar situations but run in different directions for them, I still think it's a very valid comparison, and that Battle Royal was still better. Granted, I've only seen the movie, and only read the first two Hunger Games books, but the one Battle Royal movie was better than the two Hunger Games books. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Hunger Games, they just aren't great or anything.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I read all three books and enjoyed the first two, but god was the third one bad. I had to force myself through it, it's horribly written, there's no story progression and I lost all interest in the characters. Also what a horribly rushed ending. There is a question been asked through the trilogy about which of the two handsome beacons of perfection Kat piss would pick and it's very badly addressed. It tries to be deep and just flops. As for the movie, it was average but man that shaky Camera ruined it. It receives so much hype AND hate because it's one of those things associated with the 'Tween Wave'

 

[artanis_neravar]

not read the books and I though that the film had some cool ideas, with the whole marxism if the Proletariat rose up and lost thing and the costum design for all the rich people was cool but I was bored because the competition doesn't start for an hour. I watched Battle Royale afterwards to see teenagers fighting to death done right.
My opinion though. I had a very uninteresting feel for Katniss

based on what little I know about the Hunger Games, it seems as though the elite don't exactly force the games onto the poor and the poor seem to vastly outnumber the elite, so why not rise up?
And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?
at least in Battle Royale, the games were forced onto the kids and they couldn't do anything about it - which seems much more realistic, after all, the kids didn't live in a society where they had to kill one another to survive, they were realistic in terms of the types of people you'd find in modern society, not a bunch of pretty much willing livestock like Hunger Games
and in Battle Royale 2, the kids who survive actually take up arms against the society that forces them to participate in the killing event
At least Battle Royale has an excuse for the fighting areas - it's the near future (supposed to be taking place right around now if I recall correctly

They do force the districts to supply children for the games. Also each district has a specialty product (12 is coal for example) and need to get anything else from the other districts (clothes, grain, fish, livestock) so in order for a revolution to occur every district would be required. The capitol also has great control over all advanced weaponry (until the discovery in the second book)

And the whole part about the fighting area being simulated? Why does it go bland and just use a forest? Simulation means you can make interesting locations, so why not do it?

Because it wasn't like the holodeck, everything in the arena is man made or naturally grown. And they only have a year to build it.

 

[artanis_neravar]

While I will agree with you on that they both take similar situations but run in different directions for them, I still think it's a very valid comparison, and that Battle Royal was still better. Granted, I've only seen the movie, and only read the first two Hunger Games books, but the one Battle Royal movie was better than the two Hunger Games books. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Hunger Games, they just aren't great or anything.

Ender's Game was a better book to. My point is that you can compare anything to Hunger Games and say if it's better or worse, but using Battle Royal (especially because it is the go to "Hunger Games ripped it off" movie) as a comparison of quality tends to give the impression of "did the same thing but better" at which point people will argue, that it was not actually the same thing at all.

 

[Woodsey]

It's a book series for 14-year-olds from what I gather, what's to get?