Who can tell me about this Hunger Games movie? Is it just another Running Man?

(no message)

I'm trying to figure out why "The Condemned" wasn't as big a hit. It appears to be the same story, only not gay.

Hunger Games IMDb

quote:

---

In a not-too-distant future, North America has collapsed, weakened by drought, fire, famine, and war to be replaced by Panem, a country divided into the Capitol and 12 districts. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal intimidation of the subjugated districts, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors, literally, with all citizens required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss' young sister, Prim, is selected as the mining district's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, will be pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.

---

Why do people want to see this?

Also see The Long Walk by Stephen King. Very similar story.

It is a weak watered down version of Battle Royale. I read the book a few weeks ago and I can't figure out the hype. It just wasn't that good.

here's cliff's notes explanation from a review I just read:

“The Hunger Games” is a movie about an authoritarian postapocalyptic world in which unwitting children are thrust into a life-or-death, winner-take-all game that uncaring adults manipulate for their own amusement — and to reinforce their control.

The Capitol, whose wealthy residents favor plastic surgery and outlandish fashion, rules the 12 districts. The outer districts hold the Capitol’s semi-enslaved workforce, kept in line through forced poverty, a heavy police presence — and the annual games, each of which pits one boy and one girl from every district in a televised showdown to the death. (think Survivor meets The Truman Show)

the two “tributes” from District 12s, journey is aided by a drunken former games winner Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) and overseen by a pair of snide TV commentators (Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones), as well as the game master, Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley).

Maybe it’s a liberal story about inequality and the class divide. Maybe it’s a libertarian epic about the evils of authoritarian government. Maybe it’s a feminist revision on the sci-fi action blockbuster. Maybe it’s a bloody satire of reality television. There’s enough “relevance” here to power every cultural studies department in the country for a decade.

quote:

---

In a not-too-distant future

---

Why add that change to the story I wonder....

In the books, it is basically after society had reestablished itself after WW3. And enough time passed for a Civil War to have been fought and resolved in the reestablished civ some 75 years prior.

It is anywhere between 350-999 years from now from what the author said.

I read the book in exchange for my girlfriend reading Game of Thrones. I also agreed to see the movie. It wasn't the worst book I'v ever read, and I would think there are much worse "chick flicks" out there. If I have to get sucked into a movie, this should beat stuff like the Vow or Valentine's Day.

(no message)