History Headscratchers / TheHungerGames

1st Mar '17 8:15:59 AM Cornucopia
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** It wasn't an evil act at all. What kind of insane moral theory are some of the above people subscribing to in which it is in any way immoral to kill someone who would otherwise die slowly? Or in which it's immoral to allow someone to be tortured when you have absolutely zero chance of stopping it, and trying would only serve to get yourself killed and prevent you from doing any good at all? Also, for people saying every victor is a murderer...it's the HUNGER GAMES! You can kill or be killed, and any innocent people you kill would almost certainly die anyway. Are you people seriously going to say that a man conscripted into a war is acting immorally for shooting an enemy conscript instead of letting himself be shot?
21st Jan '17 2:35:19 PM lowlyyouarenice
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Why is so hard for some people to believe that '''The Hunger Games''' is not a rip-off of '''Battle Royale'''? Many of the elements that are similar in both works have a long history in western society, which as an educated person, Suzanne Collins would have known about. These include: the taking of children for sacrifice (Theseus and the Minotaur, Ancient Greece); fighting to the death for the entertainment of others (Gladiator fights, Ancient Rome); setting is dystopian in the future (George Orwell's '''1984''', 1949); incredible amount of bloodshed (again, gladiatorial battles, Ancient Rome); and star crossed lovers (Shakespeare's '''Romeo and Juliet''' c. 1591). Further more, before '''The Hunger Games''' came out in 2007, '''Battle Royale''' was an obscure work to American audiences. With the exception of appearing in the Seattle Film Festival in 2001, thousands of miles away from where Collins lived, it did not gain a wide release until 2011. The book was relatively unknown during development of '''The Hunger Games''' in the USA, and it is unlikely that she would have known about it.

to:

* Why is so hard for some people to believe that '''The Hunger Games''' is not a rip-off of '''Battle Royale'''? Many of the elements that are similar in both works have a long history in western society, which as an educated person, Suzanne Collins would have known about. These include: the taking of children for sacrifice (Theseus and the Minotaur, Ancient Greece); fighting to the death for the entertainment of others (Gladiator fights, Ancient Rome); setting is dystopian in the future (George Orwell's '''1984''', 1949); incredible amount of bloodshed (again, gladiatorial battles, Ancient Rome); and star crossed lovers (Shakespeare's '''Romeo and Juliet''' c. 1591). Further more, before '''The Hunger Games''' came out in 2007, 2008, '''Battle Royale''' was an obscure work to American audiences. With the exception of appearing in the Seattle Film Festival in 2001, thousands of miles away from where Collins lived, it did not gain a wide release until 2011. The book was relatively unknown during development of '''The Hunger Games''' in the USA, and it is unlikely that she would have known about it.
10th Dec '16 1:00:09 AM rufusluciusivan
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Let's not forget that Cato ''is'' a strong fighter too. After all, he's able to fight off a group of muttations by himself and after being exhausted by a long run for quite some time before being overwhelmed. While Thresh has the advantage in terms of strength, Cato has his training and his sword (Thresh hasn't been shown with a weapon, he killed Clove with a rock). So I guess Cato has a legitimate chance to win against Thresh without receiving any help. We don't see the actual fight. Because of the rain, Cato may have been able to surprise him.



** Let's not forget that Cato ''is'' a strong fighter too. After all, he's able to fight off a group of muttations by himself and after being exhausted by a long tun for quite some time before being overwhelmed. While Thresh has the advantage in terms of strength, Cato has his training and his sword (Thresh hasn't been shown with a weapon, he killed Clove with a rock). So I guess Cato has a legitimate chance to win against Thresh without receiving any help. We don't see the actual fight. Because of the rain, Cato may have been able to surprise him.

to:

** Let's not forget that Cato ''is'' a strong fighter too. After all, he's able to fight off a group of muttations by himself and after being exhausted by a long tun run for quite some time before being overwhelmed. While Thresh has the advantage in terms of strength, Cato has his training and his sword (Thresh hasn't been shown with a weapon, he killed Clove with a rock). So I guess Cato has a legitimate chance to win against Thresh without receiving any help. We don't see the actual fight. Because of the rain, Cato may have been able to surprise him.
9th Dec '16 8:30:46 PM HartiganBook
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** Well atheism would fit Panem's current state of tyranny and hedonism. Peter Hitchens did say atheism is a license for ruthlessness and appeals to the ruthless.
9th Dec '16 8:28:15 PM HartiganBook
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** It's likely that whichever tyrannical regime founded Panem in its current state looked to stamp out religion. In real-life, several tyrannical dictators have attempted this (Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro to name a few) and historically nations that have tried to stamp out religion have been ones ruled by tyrannical dictators (North Korea's Kim Dynasty are a modern example). It's likely most of the characters living do not know of anything about religion (though Plutarch mentions the idea of a Republic, which Katniss doesn't understand). Otherwise a violent decadent society like Panem would be full of [[TurbulentPriest turbulent priests]] who would've either curtailed some of Panem's atrocities or mobilized a resistance. [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement Whatever one's views on religion, or a particular religion, the fact remains that most promote good values and are a major part of regulating behavior in society]]. Since Suzanne Collins (the author of the Hunger Games) is Catholic, it's not out of anti-religious sentiment.
5th Dec '16 8:04:31 PM AnotherWanderingGhost
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** "Intermittent variable rewards" have been found to be more addicting than predictable rewards. If you have dramatic battles happening and happening and happening... eventually people are going to get bored and tune out. With lulls (as long as they don't get too long, and the Gamemakers can control that with the forest fire, etc.), people will keep watching because they don't want to miss something exciting.
21st Nov '16 5:55:38 PM Evighet
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** For what it's worth, ''Katniss'' most certainly doesn't feel like she chose Peeta in the end because he was the only eligible guy around. In fact she says that the two of them ending up together "would have happened anyway". The only guy trying to pressure her in any way or guilt her into anything was Gale. Peeta told her (and everyone else) that he had a crush on her, then he thought she reciprocated her feelings, then he was heartbroken when he learned she didn't, then he withdrew, then he only carried on with the fake romance because he had no other choice. Then he was hijacked and forced to get to know her all over again, eventually falling in love with who she truly was. Katniss ends the series in love with Peeta and convinced she would have fallen in love with him no matter what. And let's not forget that after the hijacking (and months thereafter) Peeta no longer cared for her. There was nothing there to build a relationship on, yet Katniss remained devoted to him (to the point that she would rather die than be with Gale or live alone without Peeta). Both of them had their feelings for one another put to the test and their choice, in the end, was one another.
15th Nov '16 7:56:19 AM LiamXDin
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** And because we don't know it hasn't happened. Katniss is District 12's first, but not the first. To volunteer for a sibling you need
a) to be the same gender as the Reaped sibling b) to also be within the Reaping age bracket. That's true of Katniss but probably not all that many people. Older siblings like Katniss are likely to be taking tessara, making them more likely to be Reaped. Young kids like Prim, with their one name among the thousands of others, have a relatively small chance of being Reaped. Now, that doesn't mean it can't happen (that's the point of the Hunger Games, after all, the odds weren't in Prim's favour even though statistically she had a tiny shot) but it means that it would be even less likely for all the factors to be in play a) sibling of same gender b) older sibling being within the age bracket c) 12 year old with no tessara even being picked in the first place.
15th Nov '16 7:44:26 AM LiamXDin
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* You can have one name in your 1st year. Another is added each year, but they're cumulative so by 18 you have seven names in the pot before you even start tessarae. This means that, statistically, older kids are more likely to be reaped. If you have tessarae you can add one name for yourself and one for each member of your family. So a 12 year old with their one name, one for themselves and one for each parent and three siblings has the same odds as an eighteen year old who never took tessarae. A 12 year old with one name, one for themselves, two parents and FOUR ssiblings has higher odds than that 18 year old. But these are still cumulative. If you want tessarae next year, all the names from last year are aadded THEN your new one for another birthday, another for your tessarae, another five for your siblings. An eighteen year old with five family members who always took tessarae therefore has incredibly high odds. Because there is always a different pool of people to reap (new 12 year olds in, 19 year olds out) and they have unequal families you can't say that everyone has the same odds if they all take their tessarae.
15th Nov '16 7:34:30 AM LiamXDin
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*The Tessarae system allows you to add your name an additional time for yourself and for each member of your family. Katniss puts her name in an extra three times for herself, Prim and their motherís extra rations. Gale is stated to have his name in many times more because he has lots of siblings. You can put in multiple children and claim for each other (Katniss says that she didnít let Prim take tesserae, meaning she could have done if she wanted to) so using the tesserae to feed up a child to Career standards is only viable if you have lots of children who can claim for each other or every other member of the family is happy to go without the extra rations to feed this one child. The Career districts have the lowest amount of Tessarae claims because they usually win and because they have the most valuable resources. Not to mention, if every District had two well trained tributes every year, it would stop the entertainment value and the equal education means that they would have the same advantageÖ meaning no advantage.
This list shows the last 10 events of 1048. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheHungerGames