Hunger Games

Alright so I finished the Hunger Games and Catching Fire. I unfortunately have to wait on getting Mockingjay.

So far, all I can say is this series is very addicting. And, despite the fact it is so damn easy to make fun of, I do generally like it.

My only complaint is what I said briefly to my professor about it: I feel as though in the Hunger Games, they should have focused more on the other tribunes so that when they died, it was more powerful. And, we should have seen more of their deaths. Because, for a majority of the games, I really don't care about the other tribunes because I don't know who they are as people. They're completely one-dimensional. So when they die (and sort of off-screen, mind you) I don't really care.

Which is actually why I kind of like the second book more: the second book MAKES you care because they cover most of the tribunes before the games start. So I do feel sorry when they die because they were actually given personalities beforehand. Also, other characters that we have spent a whole book with die as well. And they don't needlessly die like I felt with what JK Rowling did with some of her characters. They're dying for a very specific reason. There's one character in particular that I loved but he ended up dying...but his death was so amazing...if that makes any sense.

I can't say my feelings on Mockingjay since I haven't read it. I just hope the series continues on this path of killing characters for a reason instead of them dying needlessly. I really hate it when that happens. It's one thing if they were never in the series and died before the series began, it's another if they die during the series for the sake of needless drama. I already know one character dies because my sister told me XD.

Split because it should deserve its own topic. I know we have a topic for things like Anime, Video Games, and Literature, but I feel it's alright to make a topic just for it and see where it goes.

It might also engage others in more conversations. Anyways so it sounds like you're changing your thoughts on how one dimensional the characters were and their deaths beforehand.

I wonder if the author did that on purpose for the first book or just figured they needed to develop them further when people began to argue about their lack of development.

Most series I know of don't make peoples deaths useless, at least none that come to my mind right now.

^ The characters are still pretty one-dimensional (most of them anyway) in the second book too. It's just they're given personalities.

Like, in the first book, there's 24 tribunes. and we get about 6 characters with actual names. Katniss, Peeta, Rue, Cato, Glimmer, Thresh. Then there's Foxface as a nickname....and then i think that's pretty much it. The rest of them aren't even given names. not to mention, like 13 die right away. so yeah, seriously lacking development there.

second book comes around and we have Katniss, Peeta, Finnick, Mag, Wiress, Bee...(can't remember his full name), Joannah (again, name might be wrong), Brutus, and at least 4 other people whose names I don't remember at the moment. Then there's another two who I don't think we get their name but they're identifiable. So already, there's a huge significant change in terms of how the tribunes are being represented.

I don't think people argued about lack of development. From my understanding, a lot of people still love this book series. It's kind of like how everyone loved Twilight before the movie came out. Same thing except Hunger Games has a lot more going on in terms of themes.

It depends on what you mean by useless. On one hand, I get why so many people in Harry Potter die: they're fighting a war, deaths are bound to happen. However, I feel like that's the least interesting reasoning behind killing a character. Because it's war and people die. Well, no **** that happens. I think it's much better when characters' deaths hold a greater purpose. ESPECIALLY when you're killing off characters from the 'main cast'. It's one thing to kill off characters that don't really come back, that are basically red shirts for a 'useless' reason other than being a simple plot device. It's another to kill a main character and expect people to be okay with that.

And I'm not saying killing off a character to depict war is a useless way to kill a character. It can seriously affect another character that lives through it. But, what I got out of reading Harry Potter when that part happened wasn't 'omg this character died and then this character is seriously emotionally affected by it' but more like 'x,y,z die, people cry for a bit, then they move on'. I don't know, I just think that's such a waste.

Aside from the Hunger Games, the one death that really sticks out to me was Hughes from FMA. Because Hughes was the first major character to die and yet, his death essentially drove Mustang's character until the very end of the manga and anime. And that was just amazing in my mind. It was one of the rare deaths that I felt needed to happen and couldn't be avoided. With Harry Potter, anyone could have died and it would have had the same effect.

But anyway...the other thing I really like about the series so far is it's commentary on reality television. I mean, I think that is the most interesting part of the series. Which I think is a good and a bad thing. On one hand, it's good because I like the message it's trying to get across. But on the other, you'd think the most interesting part of the books would be the actual games...and it's not lol. in fact, I find the games to be the most boring part of the books XD. Luckily, I dont think there are any games in the third one...

Where's the off button! *Searches for rant mode and keeps poking LS*

Kidding kidding, I meant useless ways as in it just happens without triggering a series of climatic or serious events. That is normally what happens when mains die. At least from my understanding or what I've seen/read thus far. Not in this book of course, because I haven't read it at all.

^ then yeah JKR does that all the time lol XD. its really annoying.

id say Stephenie Meyer does it too. in fact, id say a lot of contemporary authors do that.

Hunger Games does that too obviously but so far the main character deaths have been only when its necessary for the plot. then again, ive heard some things about the third book that might change that....

Hunger Games does that too obviously but so far the main character deaths have been only when its necessary for the plot.

That's what I just said wasn't it?

^ yeah, im saying the book has useless deaths and the kind of deaths you just mentioned. its got both.

i dont know, im tired so im probably just going around in circles at this point.

It's fine, I was just slightly confused with the way your worded it.

so today my class had a discussion on the hunger games. it was hilarious.

i ran into my professor and she was telling me how she finished mockingjay and i told her i was waiting for the library to get mockingjay. and she said something like "omg you're on mockingjay already?" cause last week she saw i was reading the first one.

and then because i spoiled mockingjay for myself before i even planned on reading the book, we were talking a little bit about the series. but then there was one girl who during our class was reading it, saw that a certain character dies, and was emotionally unstable for a majority of the class because she didnt know what happened, just that the character had died.

good times, good times.

Getting stuff spoiled to you is a pain in the ass though. Sounds like you enjoyed your class though!

it was, you should have been there :p

im reading Mockingjay now. Im about...70 pages in or so.

Okay, so I have finished the series.

I have mixed feelings about it. I'm going to go into spoilers by the way...

For the most part, I do like it. I actually really appreciated the fact that most of the characters end up seriously psychologically damaged by the end of the series. It was a nice refresher. Because really, how many times have we've seen characters who go through serious traumatic events actually suffer mentally from it? I feel like this doesn't happen very often with fantasy, young adult series. Even Avatar doesn't go there to a degree. There's a very large distance where yes, the characters are traumatized but it's only temporary for the most part. They somehow manage to pull themselves out of it very well and, in many ways, go back to 'their old selves'. Despite the fact that almost everyone Harry loves dies, he's not psychologically damaged. This sort of thing doesn't happen in the Hunger Games which is one of the things I actually liked.

At first, I wasn't phased by Mockingjay. I liked it but as I'm thinking about it, I think this is largely because I already knew what happens in the book and therefore accepted the events passively. But as I think about it, I'm really kind of pissed. Especially since it was only a few days ago that I praised Catching Fire for killing characters as an essential component to the plot. Every character died for a reason (the main ones anyway, side-side characters dont really count). But now, in Mockingjay, that logic is revoked. And, again, I get that people die in war which is why some of the characters died but...holy **** I was not expecting one of my favorite characters to go down for no reason. Again, at first I wasn't bothered by this but now that I'm thinking about it, there really wasn't a reason for him to die. His death served no purpose. And his death was so short. And, AND he was a BAMF from the get-go. Total badass. He doesn't even get to die as a badass because the death is so short. I mean, if he was going to go down, he should have went down as the BAMF that he is.

I'm so pissed that Finnick was killed. WTF.

And, of course, we have to have a little melodrama in there where his wife that he JUST MARRIED BEFORE DYING ended up having his kid. Bullshit, I say!

And then I also think of the things that the author added about him in this book. Like the fact that he was forced into prostitution (swear to god, I'm not making this up), the love of his life is slightly unstable due to the Games and they're completely lost without one another, just UGH. WHY DID FINNICK HAVE TO DIE?

But other than that, it was a good series.

It's good to hear that you enjoyed the series. Though on the fact about psychological damage, most series don't tend to do that because they're visual.

Written works can do a lot more then visuals can. When things are visual, people tend to get more emotional. So if they had so many people crack, break down, or have terrible remnants, the audience would probably be too upset to even bother continuing with the series because the turmoil it puts them through as well.

For example, there's a film called Sin Nombre, which chronicles the adventures of several Mexicans as they make their way to the borders to live in a better land.

All but one of the cast die, get captured, and or deported. It depicts their adventures really well. Is it accurate? Yes. But the problem I've heard from a lot of people is that it was really well done, but they wished they had never seen it or that it was toned down.

See that word, toned down. That is why most entertainment steers that way.

But even novels don't necessarily depict psychological damage. That's why I mentioned Harry Potter. Harry Potter doesn't do that either. I would argue that it's storytelling in general and not limited to visual storytelling.

I mean, American McGee's Alice is visual yet it goes there in terms of psychological damage. I've been reading a lot of plays that do that as well. And those are visual. I think it's just main stream media that tends to not go there.

One or two series here or there are probably fine, but how would you really feel if every series you watched, read, or whatever always had the characters damaged in some way at the end?

I won't lie that that would be slightly depressing.

Well, I'm not saying I'd want every series to do that. But I do think there are a little too few. At least, there are a little too few that are extremely popular.

That's true, I can't really think of any. The only one I can think of is Cyborg 009, which is also very old and not so popular. It's about people who are captured and experimented on to become scientist experiment cyborgs.

Most of them are from different time periods, so a lot of turmoil goes on because of that. And in the ending two of the main characters die. One death could had been avoided, but they died with the main character so he didn't have to die alone.

Like I said, the only popular (and its more like semi-popular) one I can think of is American McGee's Alice. But even that is different because it starts with Alice being mad and doesn't show her completely breaking down. She's already broken.

I mean, there's a chance the movie of the Hunger Games won't go there. Though I don't see how it can be avoided.

Hollywood can find a way. I mean Disney was able to mesh together Alladin, which wasn't even how the original Alladin was. It was like a series of different works, or so I've been told.

^ Yeah but Aladdin's different. Aladdin is a fairy tale and therefore doesn't have a lot to go by in terms of story. So it's easy to manipulate. Aladdin also wasn't a new york time's best seller where everyone was desperate to read the book before the movie came out lol XD and where fans would kill the writers for changing their precious story on top of that :p

im saying its going to be hard to get around because that becomes an essential component to the last book. i dont see how they can get around something like that.

Well you're implying that they'll be making all three. Look at the Last Airbender, we haven't heard word, but we all know that Night isn't making the next two.

^ Because I'm almost positive they will make all three.

See, there's a huge difference between Last Airbender and Hunger Games:

1. Hunger Games is already getting good reviews. It's 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and the movie isn't even out yet.

2. There is no racial controversy in terms of casting so it's not like the fanbase is split. There also has been very little controversial elements in terms of how accurate the movie is going to be.

3. Hunger Games is based on a book so when the movie was announced, the books got way more fans. Last Airbender did not generate as many new fans before the movies were released. Seriously, if you think about it, a lot of fans did not jump the Avatar bandwagon when it was released. If anything, it would have gained fans if it was a good movie. But it wasn't so it didn't.

Still, don't count your chickens before they hatch. You never know what might happen. Twilight has a crazy fanbase and I hear all the time that it sucks. I wouldn't know because I never read the book or watched the movie, but I have no desire to either.

So the opposite could happen to the Hunger Games or it could just be bad and no one likes it. You never know until you see it for yourself.

Yeah but Twilight made money. Last Airbender was a failure. Hunger Games is going to make money, I'm almost positive.

This really has nothing to do with the movie or book, but when I first heard about this series, I always imagined a big giant hamburger. Yeah...I don't know.