Hunger Games

[Slammr]

I just came back from seeing Hunger Games. I'm into chapter 10 or so of the second book of the trilogy. The main difference in the book and the movie is that back story, what happens before the Reaping and Games, is fed to us a sentence or two or flash back at a time, while it took several chapters to cover it in the book. Having read the book, I already knew the back story, but I think the movie successively covered it.

I liked the movie, and the book was one, once the Games started, I couldn't put down. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat, too. I enjoyed it.

I can see, if one want to be a successful author, one needs to write books that appeal to teenage girls. While there was much I didn't like about the author's writing style, her books beat the hell out of the stupid Twilight series, and this movie is better than any of the Twilight movies - in my humble opinion.

[DeaconBlues]

My son told me that the writer of "Hunger Games" did NOT in fact write or create the story, that all she did was translate a story that was originally written by a Japanese writer.

I also remember reading that the U.S. movie "The Magnificent Seven" was a direct copy scene for scene with a Japanese movie called "The Seven Samurai."

As far as "Hunger Games" being better than "Twilight," well hell, reading the telephone book is better that "Twilight."

[Dave]

I was in a Book Club and they first read TWILIGHT which I didn't make it more than 28 pages into the story before stopping three or four times. It was impossible for me to read and yet kids loved it.

When I read THE HUNGER GAMES, I went a little bit batshit crazy about the violence. I read that book and bought the next two CATCHING FIRE and MOCKINGJAY but my brother's two girls (not teens but adults) snatched them up to read. I never did get them back.

I plan to see the movie next week.

As for the controversy about BATTLE ROYALE (BR), I can't say. I don't know enough about BR to make a comment. Although, I do know that BR was not imported into the USA because of its violence and its closeness to Columbine. That much I remember.

[Slammr]

As far as "Hunger Games" being better than "Twilight," well hell, reading the telephone book is better that "Twilight."

I read the second book after seeing the first movie. Before I finished it - read it only because my grand daughter liked it so much, and I wanted to discuss it with her - I was about ready to puke, and I was cheering for the vampire that was hunting the heroine. "Just kill the bitch," I was saying.

[Slammr]

I
When I read THE HUNGER GAMES, I went a little bit batshit crazy about the violence. I read that book and bought the next two CATCHING FIRE and MOCKINGJAY but my brother's two girls (not teens but adults) snatched them up to read. I never did get them back.

It struck me as a little incongruous, all those kids getting killed, but not one "damn" or "shit" in the book. Why are killing kids OK in a young adults book, but even a little mild profanity isn't? I think the lack of it robbed the book of emotion. Orson Scott Card carried it off in Ender's Game, but I didn't think this author did. These kids were entering a game in which only one would survive. I never felt the emotion they would feel under such circumstances. Perhaps I felt it more in the movie than I did in the book. That lack of emotion was my main complaint about the book.

[Dave]

I read the second book after seeing the first movie. Before I finished it - read it only because my grand daughter liked it so much, and I wanted to discuss it with her - I was about ready to puke, and I was cheering for the vampire that was hunting the heroine. "Just kill the bitch," I was saying.

The big girls and the little one laugh at me over TWILIGHT. I refuse to even open those books.

Try these books for her:

I fell in love with Gaiman's THE GRAVEYARD BOOK. Just be careful of that first chapter. It's scary. You might sit there explaining it all night.

Also, for boys, THE MARBURY LENS, which is a stunning novel about the isolation that kids feel. Very strange and very weird. Read it first before the kid reads it.

You might also try "THE SWEETNESS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIE" which is a delightful murder mystery set early last century. The heroine is a young girl.

Added:
I read your comment about HUNGER GAMES and yes, it did seem emotionless but I think that is an adult perspective and not a kids perspective. It's the POV in the book. Katniss is sheltered and somewhat naive. She sees the games through that lens.

[Slammr]

The big girls and the little one laugh at me over TWILIGHT. I refuse to even open those books.

Try these books for her:

I fell in love with Gaiman's THE GRAVEYARD BOOK. Just be careful of that first chapter. It's scary. You might sit there explaining it all night.

Also, for boys, THE MARBURY LENS, which is a stunning novel about the isolation that kids feel. Very strange and very weird. Read it first before the kid reads it.

You might also try "THE SWEETNESS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIE" which is a delightful murder mystery set early last century. The heroine is a young girl.

I've read most of Neil Gaiman's books, including this one, but thanks for the other suggestions.

[Cainanite]

I just finished reading the trilogy yesterday. It was quite a good read, but I had trouble identifying with the heroine. She comes across as hard and capable in one chapter, then deteriorates to a puddle in the next. Back and forth, back and forth. Throughout the second and third book, she spends most of the novel's time sedated, and strapped to a hospital bed.

The author seemed confused about what to do with the character when something truly dynamic was about to occur. She usually resorted to knocking the character out at the critical moment, then when she comes to, giving her delirium until someone can explain the the resolution to her. The author seemed afraid of writing the climax. It was easier to have the main character get knocked out, stunned, burnt to a crisp or whatever, then wake up weeks later for someone to tell her what we should have experienced with the main character. I felt cheated. This was especially prominent in Catching Fire and Mocking Jay. In the first book Katniss Everdeen was more of a participant. By the third book the author resorts to knocking her main character out just before the climax of something exciting no less than three times. Each time, she has to have some supporting character, say something like, "We broke you out. There was a lot of fighting. You are safe now." Grrrrrrrr.

The first book is by far the strongest. I'm looking forward to the movie. I'm going to see it later this afternoon.

Despite the book's problems, it is vastly superior to those Twilight books. Even though Katniss is usually a dimorphic emotional mess after something exciting, she never waits around for her sparkly vampire boy-crush to come and save her. Katniss comes across as an actual person, invested in her own life, and I appreciate that kind of writing.

[Slammr]

I just finished the second book, and I was disappointed with it. I agree with Cainanite. she started out strong in the first book, the second was weak. Putting them back in a second game was lame. It was as if she couldn't figure out where to take the story after the first book, so she just did a rehash of the first one, writing a much weaker version of the first that had no discernable ending to it. So far, I'm hating the third book, and like Cainanite, I'm becoming disgusted with this whining, self-pitying, Katniss.

Peeta is the only character in the book, so far, that evidences any morality. Never has he killed anyone to survive. His only concern is to protect Katniss. I can't say as much for her. I would have more respect for a tribute that allowed herself/himself be killed rather than participate in the Games, but I realize that one has to look at these kids from their perspective and culture. Kids that joined the Hitler Youth didn't join because they were bad kids, they joined because their culture expected them to join.

I grew up a White kid in Texas during segregation. I was just as prejudiced against Blacks as any other White kid at the time. It wasn't until I joined the Army and left Texas that I realized how wrong that was. Unfortunately, when I go back to Texas, I realize that, while I've changed, so many of them, my old friends, haven't.

[moi621]

I just came back from seeing Hunger Games. I'm into chapter 10 or so of the second book of the trilogy. The main difference in the book and the movie is that back story, what happens before the Reaping and Games, is fed to us a sentence or two or flash back at a time, while it took several chapters to cover it in the book. Having read the book, I already knew the back story, but I think the movie successively covered it.

I liked the movie, and the book was one, once the Games started, I couldn't put down. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat, too. I enjoyed it.

I can see, if one want to be a successful author, one needs to write books that appeal to teenage girls. While there was much I didn't like about the author's writing style, her books beat the hell out of the stupid Twilight series, and this movie is better than any of the Twilight movies - in my humble opinion.

Please share the back story.

[Dave]

>>Gee!
>>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1378173.html

Sorry, Bella. When it comes to box-office odds, Katniss Everdeen had everything in her favor. "The Hunger Games" scored $155 million in North American ticket sales this weekend, the third highest opening weekend of all time, according to estimates from Lionsgate.

Only "The Dark Knight" ($158.4 million) and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" ($169.1 million) have had stronger opening weekend showings, giving "The Hunger Games" the highest non-sequel weekend premiere ever. The $155 million bounty also outranked every entry in the "Twilight" series, including the franchise's biggest opener, "New Moon," which started with $142.8 million when it bowed in November of 2009.

[Slammr]

The movie was true to the book. I only hope the second and third movies aren't true to the books, because the more I think about how this author screwed up what could have been a good story, the more pissed I get. If you read the book, stop after reading the first one, or like me, you might find yourself rooting for President Snow. At least, he doesn't whine and feel sorry for himself throughout the book.

[justjustin]

A horrible idea that kids have to kill each other for a feed, but as always, violence, no matter how extreme, seems to be accepted. Was there nudity or even sex??

[Slammr]

A horrible idea that kids have to kill each other for a feed, but as always, violence, no matter how extreme, seems to be accepted. Was there nudity or even sex??

The Hunger Games are more like gladiator games. 24 kids are put into an arena, one that covers several square miles, but it is surrounded by a force field that comes into play in book two. Only one kid is supposed to come out alive. Each kid has a tracker device implanted beneath the skin of the forearm, and cameras are strewn throughout the arena so the populace can follow the action on TV. The winner becomes rich and famous. The others are just dead. Nudity is mentioned often in the book, but there is none in the movie. A kiss or two is all the sex there is.

In books for kids, it's OK to kill other kids, but any fucking is out of the question.

[Dave]

A horrible idea that kids have to kill each other for a feed, but as always, violence, no matter how extreme, seems to be accepted. Was there nudity or even sex??

The movie kept a PG-13 rating. That implies no blood and very vanilla sex.

I came back to add that this bit of backstory...
-- the story is that these 12 districts rebelled years and years before and their punishment was to send a "tribute" in the form of a 12 to 18 year old to fight in the games. The winning district got more supplies during the next year. The losing districts gave up food and supplies during the next year.