re: Just watched "The Hunger Games" ---- wow

Of course you hated Hunger Games...it was aimed at pre-teens, not dirty old hippies wearing dog costumes.

These movies/books are marketed to kids, if you're a 40 year old professional then it likely won't appeal to you. That is like reading a Dr. Seuss book and saying, "wow! That can't even touch the genius of Charles Dickens. What a load of shite!" If you learn to tailor your expectations to a more reasonable standard, you won't go through life so miserable all the time. For example, when you start a thread, I know it is going to absolutely suck...thus, I don't expect much and am never disappointed.

That being said, I can see how kids would dig Hunger Games. Violence, sparkly things, awkward sexual tension etc. I thought it was ok, didn't blow my mind but didn't make me regret seeing it. Oh and Jennifer Lawrence was

Wasn't it the highest grossing movie that year. Somebody must have liked it.

she looks better as a brunette.... thats why i stuck with it

the book is better, but it still isn't very well written

Battle Royale owns Hunger Games. Hunger Games was fricking terrible and BORING.

quote:

---

That is like reading a Dr. Seuss book and saying, "wow! That can't even touch the genius of Charles Dickens. What a load of shite!"

---

A 40 year old watching a movie about kids killing each other is not the same difference between Dickens and Dr. Seuss.

If his giant gripe was about a kids animated movie, like say, The Lorax!, then cool, make that comparison. You're argument is dumber than his. The Hunger Games takes itself serious, and tries real hard at that, the entire movie. How much of the movie is light hearted? Hmm maybe 5 minutes total.

Of course he didn't like it, he's not a Pre teen. All the teenagers and up are breaking the rules liking. Defying the natural process. The author ad director only wanted pre teens to like it. A violent movie based off teens murdering one another, the majority of them loving doing so, was strictly aimed at grades k-5. Completely agree.

Nobody has answered my question... were holograms actually eating people? Seems that a society advanced enough to make such things would figure out how to produce food? Or that limiting population would be a better idea to combat hunger than to randomly kill some kids? Or was hunger, itself, an intentional device to keep the population in line? If so, I can't think of a stupider way to do such a thing... hungry people aren't too happy.

Guess after watching the movie I can't figure out what all the Hunger Games fuss was about.

quote:

---

Nobody has answered my question... were holograms actually eating people

---

First rule of fight club

The government controls the outer districts by regulating everything they can and cannot do. Each district has a small army there to keep them in line. Hunting, etc is forbidden so you'll be forced to accept food from the government which, in turn, makes the odds of your child going to the Hunger Games greater.

The Capitol is where the government is (obviously.). That's where all the tech and food is. The Hunger Games are the Capitol's way of reminding the outer districts that the government is in control.

The first movie is the 74th Hunger Games. You have to figure that everyone from the pre-Hunger Game era is dead, and at this point, the population just bends over and takes it. What are they supposed to do? Attack the "peace keepers" with sticks like Ewoks to Storm Troopers?

As for the holograms, they were better explained in the book and each hologram resembled a fallen tribute. It's my understanding that the arena is basically one big hologram or better yet, like The Grid in Tron. That's how the game makers control everything.