Places to Chat
Hunger Games....
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Hunger Games....
Hunger Games....
Hey buggies! I'm back. I wanted to talk about the Hunger Games, and this was the best place I could think of to share my opinion.
I want to start off by saying that I'm totally willing to hear and consider anyone's argument that is contrary to my opinion. I want to know what you have to say, otherwise I wouldn't be posting. Here goes.
I don't like the Hunger Games. I can't even begin to express my abhorence for the graphic and disturbing content that it contains. Kids killing kids. Think about that. Kids killing kids. Kids being burned, speared, shot at--the carnage of dozens of kids lying around a bloody battlefield. It's one thing to have adults fighting in a just war, but kids killing each other merely to win a game? It's absolutely ghastly. I understand that the author is trying to convey a point about reality TV and totalitarian goverment, but what it all boils down to is the brutal killings of kids. I also understand that it's an exciting series, but just take a moment to think about it. When you watch that movie, you are watching kids being slaughtered in front of your face--kids being brutally murdered--this is NOT appropriate pre-teen/teen material! I simply don't understand why the author had to use such a barbaric premise to convey her thoughts. One might say, well, people were opposed to Harry Potter and kids were dying there too! Yes, they were, but they were fighting an ultimate evil; they were fighting a battle for peace. But in the Hunger Games, it's all a GAME. Just look how today teens are being completely desensitized to violence. It's just sad.
Whew. I'm glad I got that off my chest. Admins, I will understand if you need to take out some of my graphic descriptions, but I would appreciate it if you would not edit it so much that the buggies reading this won't get how violent it is.
submitted by Mary Jo, age 16!!, here
(April 9, 2012 - 6:33 pm)
(April 9, 2012 - 6:33 pm)
I don't think she has a twisted imagination to think of kids killing kids. She has an age group she is trying to market to, the books would hardly sell if the participants in the Hunger Games were adults. It would be hard for teenagers to identify with them.
I totally agree with you that of course kids don't find it as disturbing because most of the tributes are the same age if not older than them. But you have to see it from the adult's point of view. How would you feel if it was seven-year-olds? I know it's not exactly the same; in many cultures people are considered adults from the age of twelve. But it's close enough to see their point.
(April 11, 2012 - 10:58 pm)
@Tiffany W.- Sorry... I didn't mean that badly. I guess you're right that it isn't about the age but more the maturity. I certainly would've been old enough for them at eleven. It depends on what you can handle...
(April 12, 2012 - 1:12 pm)
I think we don't find it as disturbing because we are just reading them from an "just for the enjoyment" point of view. Just reading the books for entertainment. Parents pick up and read the books we children are reading for entertainment and are horrified by what passes as an interesting read for kids these days. Not all parents though. My mom thought they were disturbing, of course, but believed they really showed things about the government getting too much control, etc.
I don't think these books matter on the maturity of the child. If a young child is always shown violence, and (like in the second book) suggestive topics, then they are going to believe that's normal. Which is what the world is trying to do with all these inappropriate movies and television shows, and heck, even commercials out these days! You get a nine year old kid watching Glee and that child thinks those things are completely normal and okay. Which they are completely NOT. If boundaries aren't set for a child, then bad things happen.
(April 12, 2012 - 1:52 pm)
Wait, what's wrong with Glee (other than autotune, of course, which I'm guessing was not what you were talking about? /doesnotwatch
(April 12, 2012 - 10:30 pm)
I've only seen a couple episodes at a friend's house and from what I got from them is that they're totally inappropriate and sinful... I really can't get into more detail then that, but you know what I mean. :/ It seems, that in today's world, that kind of show (you know, the show just going for the "WOW factor") IS normal... I just completely disagree with it which of course is my own opinion.
(April 13, 2012 - 1:40 pm)
You have a really good point there. If you think about it, that's actually how it does work in the world.
(April 12, 2012 - 6:12 pm)
RE: Percy Jackson: I wouldn't say Percy has more violence than The Hunger Games. It does have violence, but it's not really the same as Hunger Game violence (if you know what I mean). I find that in both books the violence isn't described much... I would say that The Hunger Games has more violence than Percy.
(April 12, 2012 - 1:14 pm)
That's why my mom won't let me see the movie. She says that it is way too violent and I'd have to wait. It is pretty scary, but that's what helps us relate to them. The fact that they're kids. If they were adults we wouldn't be able to understand their feelings as well.
And there is no way Percy Jackson is as violent as the Hunger Games. It's not the same. It's not as descriptive of the bloody parts and no one is interested in killing kids for the fun of it. Well, Kronos kind of is, but he actualy has a purpose. The capital people do it for fun.
(April 13, 2012 - 3:28 pm)
Yeah, Percy Jackson is 100 percent mythical fighting. HG is kinda real... futuristic real... and the way they kill each other isn't with magical swords and super powers.
(April 14, 2012 - 1:55 pm)
Percy Jackson, from what I've read, seems like Harry Potter violence: fighting, but not brutal killing like in HG. HG just seems really...bad. Harry Potter has fighting, but there are good lessons and morals but HG just seems like killing for fun. It sounds like a very unholy and brutal idea for a novel.
(April 14, 2012 - 2:51 pm)
A thought occured to me a few days ago while I was rewatching the movie. And I posted it on FB so I'm copy-pasting to here because I can.
Anyway the point is, even though the Capitol's wealthy, its resources aren't enough to sustain the whole country without rationing. But do you really think the revolutionaries and hungry Districts are gonna care or even think about that? No. It'll be food and fun for all, except all those nasty Capitol/Career Districts people who deserve a taste of oppression.
What happens when the food runs out? When the lights go off because there's no one to work the factories or mine the coal?
When the people from the Capitol and the Career Districts get fed up of the discrimination and hate they will almost certainly receive, and fight back? It won't take long. Capitol people aren't used to hunger and the Career Districts are raised to fight from birth.
In with the new boss, same as the old?
A friend of mine added this:
Arguably it could be worse depending upon one's views on District 13. They always struck me as more totalitarian as the Capital.
To which I said this:
And quite frankly I can't see Katniss caring much about what happens to the rest of the world as long as it doesn't hurt her family. Peeta might, but he's not a soldier. No one else has enough power in the new regime to stop Coin's second-in-command from stepping into power... Remember what happened to the prep team when they broke the rules?
Thoughts?
(April 14, 2012 - 8:06 pm)
In the Hunger Games children are killed for entertainment on television that caters to people of a "Capitol". The Capitol people wear eccentric clothes and live comfortably with their televisions and other hi-tech appliances.
These days, most people see what people like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry wear and think that they would never wear that, but aren't fifth-grade boys low-riding and showing off their boxers thinking that they "got swag" by doing it? They're just copying those rappers who are "cool". A lot of girls wear showy clothing because they want people to like them or they're being influenced by people.
The people in the Capitol accept the Hunger Games because it's what they're used to (the book took place during the 74th games) and the government who they look up to endorses it. People nowadays probably wouldn't accept the Hunger Games, but who's to say in a few years they won't, especially if they grew up with it? In public schools, there's drugs, swearing. There's always been bad stuff. We accept that. We know what will happen, that's why we try to put a stop to it, but we do accept the fact that some people will turn a deaf ear.
If you were born in a place where kids killing kids is perfectly acceptable, would you have any questions? Probably, but if your parents just saw it as entertainment, you wouldn't be too curious. Parents play a big role in how their kids grow up, and don't start about how they should know better. Even if they did they would get killed, and, as I said earlier, the book starts during the 74th games. All the citizens of the Capitol probably grew up with it. Besides, they don't know better. The government says it's perfectly fine and there aren't any rebels or District citizens there to tell them otherwise.
I'm not trying to defend the (fictional) Capitol citizens. I'm just trying to show how easily it is to be influenced. I think that is what the author is trying to show through this book.
And why is everyone suddenly so against violence? Last time I checked, everyone's played Black Ops. Or a violent movie. Heck, Tintin even had violence and death and nobody said anything about that. And there's no blood and guts? That's true. But say that about Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
And the movie is not violent. The camera moves too much to be able to tell what's going on half the time. And there is a total of three clear shots of injuries. And if that can't be handled, watch the cut UK version.
(April 14, 2012 - 8:36 pm)
Good points, Olive. Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are practically worshipped by most girls around here and I'm sure all over, so if either of them ever get a clothes line... I can imagine plenty of people wearing it. I have nothing against violence; as I've said in another thread, I actually wish they would have rated it R and done it correctly, meaning NO CRAZY SHAKEY I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING IS THAT CATO OR PEETA camera work.
(April 15, 2012 - 11:32 am)
If they'd rated the movie R then the movie people would get in big trouble because the majority of the Hunger Games' readers are teens and not old enough to watch an R movie. They basically had to do all the shaky stuff.
(April 16, 2012 - 7:54 am)
As other people have said, I think it really depends on the individual more than age. Individuals differ. I read it when I was 11 with no problems, and my parents know that, and they don't mind; my dad is reading the book, and he doesn't feel that I was too young. I'm sure there are 11-year-olds who are not ready to read The Hunger Games. There may be 13-year-olds who aren't. I wasn't one of them, and saying that everyone of a certain age group should not read this book or see the movie is, in my opinion, going too far.
As for the people who say that they personally dislike the book and/or movie because of the violence, that is reasonable. There is nothing wrong with being disturbed by reading about brutal things. I'm not sure why you would read/watch it to begin with, but I don't feel I have any right to argue that your emotions should change, anymore than you have a right to argue that mine should.
(April 16, 2012 - 5:14 pm)