The Hunger Games

[SierraLea]

Hunger Games is definitely not my favorite series, but I'm curious--why you don't want to read the sequels, if you liked the first book?

The first book was like a one-shot manga, good on its own terms. I don't want to see those characters without that format, since it seemed to bring out really interesting things about them. I also don't want to spoil the image of good storytelling that the first one gave me.

[Ally-Ann]

I read the first and second book, and am now reading the third. The first was definitely the best, by far. The second was pretty good, but I felt that it was a bit rushed and slightly vague towards the middle and end. I have a feeling Mockingjay won't be any better based on what I've read so far (I'm only on chapter 3, though...).
Hopefully the Catching Fire movie will at least be better than the first Hunger Games movie. I PRAY FOR NO SHAKING CAMERA.

[TheMewster]

I read some Christian reviews of that movie, and now I think God gave me the conviction not to watch it. Besides, I probably just wanted to for the sake of fitting in, which is t a good idea. I decided that I don't wanna entertain myself with teens murdering other teens. Not trying to judge y'all for watching it, it just isn't something I wanna do anymore.

Oh and since the books are even more graphic than the movie, so I definitely don't plan to read them anymore.

[Atria35]

I read some Christian reviews of that movie, and now I think God gave me the conviction not to watch it.

The issue is -which- Christian reviews you read. No offense, but I've noticed a strong tendency to maglign or read things into movies that aren't necessarily there (depending on the site!). It's worth checking out a few other reviews of movies you have seen by that reviewer to see if you can trust or agree with their opinion.

Example: Plugged In gave the my friend the impression that Mona Lisa Smile was against pretty much everything she believes in concerning women's education and liberalization (i.e. says that being traditional is a bad thing). I begged and pleaded with her to watch it regardless, and she discovered that the person who had reviewed that move for that site was an idiot who had no idea what the movie was actually trying to say. It changed her whole opinion of that review site.

The whole thing about Hunger Games is that the killing *isn't* about entertainment. It's not meant to entertain you, like the stuff in Avengers obviously is. It's showing the horrific ways people inure themselves to other's pain, why it's a bad thing, the horror that someone goes through it experiences (not much different from a war documentary, actually), and how love can come about despire or in spite of such horriffic circumstances.

[Maokun]

I echo the sentiment about reviewers especially Christian ones. As the great Anton Ego famously monologued:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read."

Christian reviewers are prone to take this to the next step where they seek to gain moral authority by telling you what you can see and what you cannot. In fact, they are much more likely to tell you what you cannot see, which is absolutely risk-free compared to recommending something and having disgruntled viewers disagreeing with the review. They sit down and actively and finely strain the thing being judged, fine-picking for details they can over-expose as evidence of their pre-fabricated views.

The Bible encourages us to test everything and retain what's of worth, not to search for the opinions of others and follow it.

[minamikaome]

I can't bring myself to read it because I feel it's a bit of rip off from the beautifully written Battle Royale. From my understanding allowing the children to train loses the rawness and the fear that BR has not mention the relationship aspect. In BR the kids knew each other causing emotions of regret and loyality to each other which from what I understand HG they don't know each other previously.

[Atria35]

In BR the kids knew each other causing emotions of regret and loyality to each other which from what I understand HG they don't know each other previously.

Yes, but that's because of the world they're raised in. It makes no sense within the context of the HG world for the children to have known each other - and part of what makes the bonds formed during the games that much stronger and interesting. [spoiler]They are living in a post-apocalyptic world where the government is in fear of uprising by the people, so they divide and seperate to try and stem it. "Divide and Conquer" is an age-old and very effective way to rule over others. So that they're able to overcome having no contact previously and be able to empathize regardless of the desperate need to win really is very impressive.[/spoiler]

[Atria35]

Finally finished this series, and am highly torn about the ending. To a certain extent I have enjoyed the series. Some time away and watching the movie helped a lot.

First off, needed more Cinna. I didn't feel as attached to him through the book as I really should have. The movie helped, but the book needed more.

I liked the twist on Peeta's character in the third book - thank goodness.

But, to quote Mao,

She's crippingly dense, self-sabotagingly stubborn and appallingly reluctant to deal with her own feelings, no matter how many times it puts herself, her loved ones, total strangers and even the fate of a whole nation in mortal danger. In spite of all the times her emotional cowardice and short-tempered stupidity have hurt herself and others, she displays almost nil character growth after two books packed with what for any other human being would be paradigm-shifting events.

Even in the third book. I get that she has emotional trauma, but she has so much common sense in the first book... it pretty much entirely disappears. The love trianlge... unsatisfactory. Especially when Gale becomes a miserable character in the third book.

Overall enjoyable, but seriously flawed.

[ForeverInspired]

It was a decent series, but I believe that Divergent is better.

[Yuki-Anne]

I read some Christian reviews of that movie, and now I think God gave me the conviction not to watch it.

The issue is -which- Christian reviews you read. No offense, but I've noticed a strong tendency to maglign or read things into movies that aren't necessarily there (depending on the site!). It's worth checking out a few other reviews of movies you have seen by that reviewer to see if you can trust or agree with their opinion.

Example: Plugged In gave the my friend the impression that Mona Lisa Smile was against pretty much everything she believes in concerning women's education and liberalization (i.e. says that being traditional is a bad thing). I begged and pleaded with her to watch it regardless, and she discovered that the person who had reviewed that move for that site was an idiot who had no idea what the movie was actually trying to say. It changed her whole opinion of that review site.

This. Especially Plugged In. It's okay if you're wanting to filter out content for kids, but they often deliver pretty subjective moral judgments.

And, as Atria pointed out, the whole "kids killing kids for entertainment" is exactly what is being portrayed as horrifying. What's more, with the second movie having come out, they do a FANTASTIC job portraying the long-term damage that such an experience would have on a person. I mean, in that respect I'd say this is less objectionable than most superhero films because plenty of people suffer and die in those films and it's blown over like it doesn't matter.

Okay, yeah, it's a faulty comparison, but I appreciate the rawness of Hunger Games. People die and the survivors are NOT okay. They DON'T move on.

Also, can we just stop with the Battle Royale comparisons? Isn't it possible to enjoy them BOTH as similar yet separate pieces of entertainment?