Headscratchers / The Hunger Games The Games

Here is the Headscratchers for the eponymous games. To view the rest, click here.

---

The Games themselves

What is the origin of the "Hunger Games" name?

• I've only seen the film (so far) so I'm hoping this is explained in the books. Why exactly are the games called "The Hunger Games"? That's an awfully specific name so there has to be a specific reason for it. Right?
  • The name stems from the backstory of Panem: hunger crisis, war, then rebellion. USA and its successor state Panem were plagued by famine which drastically reduced the population.
  • Not really. There's any number of connections we can make — most prominently, the fact that victors become stinking rich and therefore get to escape the daily starvation that plagues the districts. But it's never spelled out directly.
  • Another possibility is because of the fact that if you put your name into the lottery additional times, the Capitol will give you a ration of grain and cooking oil, alleviating some of the hunger for the very poor.
  • If hunger was a part of the "Hunger Games", the careers would be trained to hunt for food themselves. Katniss mentions that the careers only tend to win if they have access to the supplies at the cornucopia (that's the main reason why she blows it up). If the careers can consistently win while not being trained to find their own food, then hunger and food can't be that important to winning.
    • Well, there's another connection in itself: The people who get the food from the Cornucopia are the people most likely to win. The others have to battle hunger as much as they battle each other.
    • You don't name the entire competition after something that most victors won't have to deal with. If avoiding and managing your hunger was the best way to win, then "the Hunger Games" would be a good name. The careers, however, win often and without knowing how to hunt and forage. Clearly, the Games value the ability to murder over the ability to find food. Naming the competition "the Murder Games" or something like that would be more appropriate.
    • Well, it doesn't really matter what actually happens in the games as long as the intention of the inventors were actual "Hunger Games". Killing the children by depriving them of food or using hunger as a major component to force them into a fight, because killing other tributes is the only way to get out of the games before they starve might have been the goal back then. On top of that, we never find out what happened in the first years The Hunger Games took place. It's very likely that, without any frame of reference, the first tributes didn't start killing each other until the very end of the game when others had already been taken out by hunger, dehydration or infection (which would also explain the high percentage of those causes of death mentioned in the training sessions). Besides, it's very likely that the concept of training tributes to volunteer was developed much later, probably leading to fewer killings in the earlier years.
  • I always thought it was a play-on-word type deal to go hand and hand with name 'Panem'. The gladiator games of Rome are now referred to as "panem et circenses" (or "bread and circuses") which was a tactic to appease the masses with free food and bloodsport. Now, with that in mind, look at the Capitol: overflowing with food to the point where people vomit it all up just to eat more and filled with people who can't get enough of watching children slaughter each other like it's no big deal. Bread and circuses.

How did the hunger games start?

• How did it come to sending children to fight to the death? I understand the point the government was trying to make by attempting to keep the public simultaneously terrorized and pacified but children?! No one thought that this could backfire horribly? No one thought that forcing people to sacrifice their children could foster some kind of latent Mama Bear or Papa Wolf tenancies that might lead to rebellion? This is the level of needless, deliberate cruelty the Evil Overlord List warns against! You can call me Pollyanna, say I'm crazy as a loon but how did the games last this long without some kind uproar?
  • To answer these questions, one has to literally think of how this whole competition would happen, starting from the top. The books state that the hunger games was a response to a rebellion which was a response to the governmental tyranny which came after a series of wars and natural disasters destroyed the world. So, starting from the top, there were a bunch of wars and natural disasters that wiped out the population. The people who survived very likely had become cold-blooded and hardened due to all the things they experienced in that time. And one of these heartless people rose up from the ashes and decided to reform a government, name himself ruler, create districts, and exploit all those underneath him. Now, it's most likely that there was no negotiation going on here. It's not like the districts would agree to subjugation. A guy wanted to rule, so he went out and ruled, and end of discussion. So... moving on... after what would probably have been few decades' time, his rule was challenged, the districts rebelled, they lost, and then the government had to decide what to do. Now once again, it's most likely that there was no negotiation going on. I doubt that the government gathered around a table and decided that creating a deathmatch was the best thing to do. It's most likely that the dude who was on top just went, "How dare those districts defy me! I'm going to teach them a lesson!" And the hunger games was born, end of discussion. I say all this to say, it doesn't matter whether anybody thought that the hunger games would be a bad idea or not. Of course, there were obviously people who did think it was a bad idea (or else there wouldn't have been a Capitol resistance in the books), but they had no say in whether the games would continue or not. The games are run by a dictator.
  • You're not alone. I couldn't help but groan at how stereotypically evil and Genre Blind some of the Capitol's acts were. You'd think that just after getting over a civil war, the best they could do would be to not start a tradition most likely to create bad sentiment towards their leaders, but no. They start up an event purely made to gloat over all the districts. Also, almost every reason Katniss joined the rebels was due to something the Capitol had recently started. Instead of letting the girl off with a simple warning in her mind, they had to push her and push her until she ended up doing what they feared the most. God, it's a wonder how Panem lasted this long.
  • I think the cruelty towards children is actually pretty realistic. Just think about history of real life. In the Holocaust, for example, most Nazis had no problem gassing children and there was even a case of Jewish babies in a Ghetto getting thrown out of third story windows. The government in the Hunger Games has its own sick justification for killing.
  • Except the Nazis didn't parade this fact in front of all of the invaded countries, it's not like they forced Belgium and France to watch Jewish children slowly die. And where the Capitol lasted for over 75 years, the Third Reich was ambushed and defeated before it could even reach one-sixth of that time span (and even if the Allies weren't there, Hitler would have either died from an eventual successful assassin or have his regime collapse under its own weight). While child cruelty is realistic, it's also an easy way to incite irreparable backlash that can and will lead to revolts. And you'd think that since Snow and the rest might have some semblance of previous history, they'd be genre savvy enough to know when to avoid the pitfalls of other dictators.
    • I think a point that needs to be considered here is that once the ball got rolling, it couldn't be stopped. Snow knows how feeble a structure the hunger games is. He mentions it at the beginning of Catching Fire. But even if Snow is genre savvy, what is he to do in his position? He inherited the games, and getting rid of them would turn the Capitol against him. He had no choice but to continue them even though he knew they would cause things to crumble. The games probably lasted as long as they did because, at their inception, they probably weren't nearly as bad an idea as we see they are in the 74th and 75th. The first one probably just looked like a bit of cruel fun that was easy to control and maintain, since the districts had just come off of a failed rebellion. But once the population started growing, things got harder. And by the 74th one, Snow clearly realized that things were getting out of hand - there was just nothing he could do to stop it, though he tried the best he could.
  • Dystopia Is Hard.
  • The whole point of the Hunger Games (from my understanding at least, I've only read the first one so far) was that the Capitol has such power over the districts that they can take away their children and have them kill each other for entertainment (not to mention completely wiping out District 13). They didn't think that the Hunger Games would lead to rebellion because the whole point was to show off they could do whatever they want and the districts would have to accept it, or be nuked. Also, real world dictators don't always make good decisions or look at the mistakes of others. (Hitler invaded Russia in winter, just like Napoleon.)
    • The problem with the Hunger Games is that it utterly misrepresents food politics and police states by two measures: first and foremost, the purpose of food power for a plebeian class is to cripple the economy. By starving the Districts, the Capitol is not only creating unnecessary economic problems (ergo, they could actually be more powerful) but they're stewing totally unnecessary resentment. This is why countries prefer to use food power as a "carrot-and-stick" to other countries, and not within themselves, ex. the Cuban embargo. Second, police states typically promise something in exchange for their totalitarianism... the lower class never wanders blindly into it, they're always given something in return, such as how communist states have incredible literacy rates/amounts of doctors or how older autocracies could promise protection from outside threats. Also, Napoleon invaded Russia in June. Operation Barbarossa began in the same month.
    • It's not a story about food power, it's about a girl going up against a totalitarian state
    • The thing the districts got in return for the police state is, "You get to not die."
    • Except many of them do. It still comes off as stupid for the Capitol to enact laws whose only message is "Hey, districts! We're evil and we will keep killing your kids no matter what unless you somehow happen to join together and topple us! But that's never gonna happen, now is it!" Being cruel is one thing, but it's another when all that cruelty is ensured to backfire at every opportunity.
    • Well, maybe the Hunger Games weren't meant to last forever. After all, there would be no reason to call the 25th, 50th, and 75th H.G.'s Quarter Quells if they weren't actually quarters of the total. So maybe the Hunger Games were only intended to be around a hundred years. But if that were the case, it would only have helped their cause if they'd told the districts this, so who knows?
    • Nope. In response to the above troper's comment, I found this little gem for you from pg. 172 of Catching Fire: "The little boy in white steps forward, holding out the box as he opens the lid. We can see the tidy, upright rows of yellowed envelopes. Whoever devised the Quarter Quell system had prepared for centuries of Hunger Games."
    • You're kidding right? the games fell after 75 years, the person who thought up the games was a moron since it LEADS to the downfall of things.
    • The Evil Overlord list isn't even the oldest source of "what not to do" - look The Prince. While Machiavelli argues that it's better to be feared than loved (if you can't have both) he also says that he you have to do it without inspiring hate. Forcing people's children to kill each other? That'll cook up a lot of hate.
  • As far as the people of the twelve Districts know as of the beginning of the first book, District 13 was wiped off the map and the Capitol could do the same thing to them, if they rebel again. The Hunger Games serves as a yearly reminder of the consequences of a second uprising - "we're letting you off easy by only taking two kids a year, if we wanted to, we could destroy you" - and it also gives the people of the District something to hope for as well as something to fear. They can hope that the odds will be in their favour, and that they and their loved ones will escape the reaping, and they can also hope that one of their tributes will be the Victor, and that they will reap the rewards of their victory. It also serves to cement divisions between the Districts, and between people within a District thanks to the tesserae system.
  • Think of what happened when they put adult competitors into the arena: a rebellion was instantly formed. Making adults go into the arena, say anyone over 21 would immidiately be a risk of people who are too strong, smart and experiences would get together and find a way to break out. Most teenagers (except careers) arn't trained in weapon use or real survival skills, adults might be, risking rebellion. And it may be more interesting to watch people with similar skill levels (none) fight it out, than strong miners, clever weapon technicians etc. Also, by putting a time limit, people will think "if i just survive six years i'm safe" and be more complicit. Also, also, as we see with Katniss, people will go to insane lengths to protect their own. if adults were in the hunger games, they would have nothing to lose, so a rebellion might be formed quicker, while as people would be afraid to rebel because of what failure could mean for their children. And wiping out two heads of families from each district could be disastrous. The Capitol might not want that.
    • The thing that incited the rebellion wasn't putting adults into the arena. It was Katniss and Peeta both winning the game. It showed that you could rebel against the Capitol without dying in the process.
  • One must remember this is implied to be After the End, so a) they don't have any point of comparison as to what they want instead and b) The cost of a failed rebellion is the extinction of the human race, so they basically have free reign, at least until someone successfully cheats the system like Katniss and Peeta did. Also, the point is moot since it did end up falling anyway.
  • I got the impression that not all the districts were totally against the games. The Career districts considered it an "honor" to participate. And in Mockingjay, when rebellion broke out, some of the Districts were actively supporting the Capitol. Maybe to some, the Games weren't seen as a horrible ordeal, but as the Capitol intended: like a honorable, glorious competition that you'd win or die trying, thereby bringing honor to your district.
• I'd like to point out that, as much as we criticize the capitol for the games, 75 were held annually before the regime was taken down, and apparently it took 74 of those games before any sort of organized resistance managed to get enough support. So obviously The Games fulfilled their purpose of keeping the districts in line. My guess is that between the already low population from whatever world ending disaster occurred and a bloody war that failed to accomplish their goals, the districts just thought "well, better 23 of us per year than all of us" and just fell in line.

What are the rules of the Hunger Games?

• Maybe this is because I've only seen the movie and not the books, but are the rules of the Hunger Games ever pointed out? Like why they fight each other at all? Since the Capitol clearly has the power to create hazards pretty much at will I'm mildly amazed that the kids don't just all team up and see how long they can survive wave after wave of whatever the computer can cook up. Sure just like in any survival scenario they'd lose but I'd rather be the last man standing of the twenty four people who stood together and died like champs than the last survivor who murdered a bunch of people who'd never done anything to me and whose sole crime was losing the lottery.
  • The intro of the first movie explains it. Also, if all the tributes would conspire to refuse fighting, the game makers would kill them one by one to enforce the rule to fight. Fighting gives a tribute more control over his life than waiting to get blown up by the game maker.
  • Well, there's not really a rule, but you have to consider the following (some of which isn't really made explicit by the movie, I think): The people living in different districts have literally no contact with each other. The one and only time people from different districts are together are the games. (In the books, Katniss learns a lot about district 11 from Rue.) Forming a bond under those conditions is difficult. It appears that there's some kind of unspoken agreement to not kill each other if you're from one district (well, it's not absolute, it could be different in other districts, especially if they're so big that you don't even know the other tribute), but that's it. Before the games, they can prepare a little. But can they actually form such a bond? It would involve trust, and I think that's a really difficult thing to achieve. In the end, there's only one rule, and that is: One survives. This means that - whether you regard them as such or not - everybody is your enemy. And what if somebody doesn't play fair in a group of 24 people? Who's to say that someone doesn't just kill everybody in their sleep, because they trust each other so much? If the group was smaller, then, MAYBE, it would work. But in a group of 24 strangers? Also, consider the Careers (the group of kids in the movie that ran around as if they owned the place). For them, it's a big honour to win a game, and people volunteer a lot in those districts. They've trained to kill their entire lives. Just sitting it out wouldn't be very honourable, would it? And in the end, everybody is their own person, who might have their own reasons to survive apart from surviving. For the Careers, it's honour. For Katniss, it's her family. If everybody was like Peeta, who didn't really have any reason to survive (which sounds cold, but for the purpose of the argument...) then maybe it would work. Anyway, if you're interested in slightly different dynamics, I'm sure that you might like the second book.
  • If they pulled that strategy, a lot of the deaths would be up to random chance. When Katniss cut the tracker jacker nest, Glimmer died and the others survived not because she was less competent than the others, but because she was unlucky. It wouldn't take long before one of the sneakier tributes decided to improve their chances by sabotaging the others.
  • Unfortunately I haven't yet read the books myself, but according to The Other Wiki the only hard and fast rules are "don't step off the platform before the gong sounds to start the Games". And apparently there's an unspoken "no cannibalism" rule as well. Any other rules (including There Can Only Be One) can be changed or made up on the spot if the Game controller thinks it would make for good tv.
  • I also found it very much implied that if they did that there was a good chance that the Capitol might take it out on their families for depriving them of their entertainment and so blatantly defying that the Capitol was in control.
    • I read a fanfic where the author included a reflection on the third Hunger Games where the Tributes decided not to fight and the Capitol dropped severed body parts from the Tributes' families into the Arena until they continued to fight; it might not be canon, but that's certainly something the Capitol would do.

How much do the Games cost?

• The cost of the Games. Every year a new arena is built, tons of Peacekeeps are sent around the country, and the movie shows us how mandatory attendance is done, bringing even more people to each district to track this. For several weeks the entire country effectively stops, forced to watch the Games, which requires 24 hours TV screens, both in the square and personal devices as we see in the movie, likely provided by the Capitol. In addition to this is the nearly unlimited travel, food, wardrobe and training of 24 teenagers, their mentors and escorts. Just around the Games you have a trainer at the many stations, at least a dozen Gamemakers watching them, as well as the entire television crew behind Caeser. Once the Games get started you add even more people controlling the Games, the forcefield around the arena, the weapons inside the Games. Even after all this is the Victory Tour with 13 new outfits, the house in Victor's Village and lifetime supply of food and money to the victor and a year's worth of food to the District. Even with the money gained from gifts and arena tours, it would seem the Games would be too much of a money sink to be worth their while, unless all of the Gamemakers, Peacemakers, television crew, arena builders, etc., are doing it because if they don't they'll be killed, which seems a much more effective tool for letting the country know you're in control than having kids kill each other, or there is an obscene Hunger Games tax, which seems like a more likely reason to revolt than 23 random kids dying every year.
  • The Capitol can make money off of the Games by charging for sending gifts, acting as the house for any betting going on, giving Arena tours, and whoring out the victors. I doubt this would cover everything, though.
  • Gotta create jobs in the Capitol somehow.
  • But if everyone's working on the Games, who's watching the Games? Nothing about Panem really spells out "sustainability," and this is no exception.
    • I get the impression the Capital can provide a great many things due to future technology and just creates false shortages in the districts in part by having them so specialized, and by keeping Capital citizens in debt. It seems to be implied the reasons for Capital resident debt isn't education, food, or basic apartment/housing but rather extravagant items like penthouses, skin dyes, clothing, etc.

The Games are an empty threat

• If another district rebels, it gets wiped out, but the Capitol can't keep doing it, eventually they would run out of districts to wipe out, while the Capitol would have nobody to provide resources for them. They only have 12 other live districts to oppress, and if the people are so downtrodden as to rebel, then another and another gets wiped. eventually the districts would of wised up to this probably.
  • Sure, in theory. But they wouldn't need to. How many people are going to be willing to rebel given that they would not only be risking their lives and that of their families, but that of the thousands of people in their district? And if District 12 is representative, then they keep the groups so tired, half-starved and beaten down that they couldn't effectively rebel anyway. So you'd be risking their lives on a gambit which is almost guaranteed to fail. Plus, they wouldn't need to wipe out the whole District. Just your family. And friends. Basically anyone who might be even a little important to you. And bear in mind what happened last time: all 13 Districts rose up at once, and lost. 'Badly'. So what chance does a rebellion by one District have? Or even all Districts, which are now reduced, and the Capitol is on alert for such a thing again?
  • Also, theoretically, the Districts would be dependent on each other as well. One of the more obvious examples would be District 11, which provides food that the other districts would need as well.
  • More to the point, with the kind of tech they have, the Capitol could survive without the districts. Sure, they wouldn't have anything like their current living standards, but they'd survive. Worst-case scenario, they wipe the districts out, resettle the lands with the lower tier of Capitol resident, and possibly build a more egalitarian society.

The effect of the Games on Panem's population size

• Let's walk this back a bit. How can such an underpopulated place afford to lose 23 teenagers a year, every year, for basically nothing?
  • It doesn't seem to have a population of 6 billion, but underpopulated? Where do you get that from?
    • Peeta says in his Capitol propo "We almost got extinct before. Do we really want to kill us off?" Plutarch says during the final assault that the remaining number of people is so low that killing the population of the Capitol would endanger the human race.
    • Since the population of the entire setting is never specified, it's most likely from the thousands to perhaps a couple of million, if not more. District 12 had at least two thousand people, and it lost only two teenagers per year. Still, it isn't really plausible to have such a setting where losing twenty-three teenagers per year throughout the entire country is costly.
    • The poorer districts seem to produce a lot of children. Both Gale and Peeta have at least two siblings.
    • According to the main page the population is about 100,000 total counting all the areas and as mentioned elsewhere on this page it probably tied into population control
    • The number of 100,000 is almost certainly wrong, so I removed it. 12 has a population of 8,000 - give or take - and is heavily implied to be (one of the) smallest districts, while others are several times larger. With 8,000 each you'd be already at 96,000 without the Capitol. All things taken in, I would venture a guess at a couple of hundred thousands, maybe even a small 7 digit number (as said above by somebody else). Of course the term "underpopulated" only makes sense in perspective with a system - there were self sustaining communities of only a couple of hundred during history - but with this I think you could say Panem is underpopulated.
  • In Mockingjay, the 800 or 900 people from District 12 are supposedly about 10% of the original population, meaning that there were originally about 8000 or 9000, and that was one of the least populated districts. In a population of 8000, two more dead per year wouldn't really make much of a difference.
  • The rebellion that prompted The Hunger Games supposedly killed off a large proportion of the population (a hundred-ish years ago). Compared to that, Panem seems to agree that 23 teenagers is a small enough percentage to keep everyone else in line.
  • The population of Panem is 4,556,778 people. 24 teenagers only means 0.000504% of the population dies yearly. The Capitol could very easily operate on a "the districts will just make more people to participate" method.

Why sacrifice children rather than adults?

• While I haven't read the books, the premise of them just seems a little... weak. And most of that is from one simple question: Why are the children being sent off for these games for the entertainment of the masses? Without children, the current generation will just grow old, die and collapse the entire government. I can understand needing to cull the population if food is tight, but still. Why the children? If the adults go, then yeah it's sad but that leaves the children behind. Since children will believe pretty much anything told to them they'll go along happily with the government, even if its evil.
  • In the books, it's said that this is to show the people how powerless they are. I don't really know how big the population of Panem is, and it may sound extremely cold, but it's just 23 dead children a year. And not in one district, but usually "just" two per district. Furthermore, they're usually not from one generation. What I'd be worried about, however, is discouraging people from getting children. Maybe not in the few districts where taking part in the games is considered a big honour, but everywhere else. And I don't think that people are getting benefits/facing sanctions if they have children/don't have children which might encourage reproduction.
    • It does discourage people from having children, that much is explicit in the text. Which is, to some degree, another facet of the control by restraining the district's population. But they do offer the tesserae-for-entries method by which some kids (notably Gale) feed their families.
    • It does beg the question of why more people in the Districts don't just stop having children, when they know there's a chance their child will end up in the Games. If the entire population of each District dies off, then the Capitol wouldn't have anyone to work for them.
    • The only way to get food from the Capitol is to submit your name for the Hunger Games, which you can only do if you're between the ages of 12 and 18. That probably influences how families are planned for in the poorer residents of Panem.
    • Who says they can stop having children that easily? When they can't afford food, it's unlikely that the residents of the Districts will have access to safe and reliable contraception, and sex is probably one of the few entertainments they have.
    • Except you can have orgasms and not get pregnant. I'd imagine that alternative sexual acts (other than sexual intercourse) would be popular in the districts for this very reason.
    • True, but that's assuming the Districts are even aware of these "alternative sexual acts" in the first place. Somehow I don't see the Capitol providing free comprehensive sex ed to all the Districts. Even if they are aware of "alternative" practices, most people tend to assume that any "alternative" practice is automatically inferior to conventional sex (I'm not saying that assumption is accurate, just that it's a common perception). If the District residents can't see themselves getting an equal or greater amount of pleasure out of alternatives that they get from straight-up sex, they'll stick with straight-up sex 99 times out of 100. And realistically speaking, District residents really need to have children. Preferably several children apiece. Children are extra mouths to feed, but they're also extra labor. And when you inevitably become too old and decrepit to work anymore you'll be glad to have grown children who can take care of you. Some of the District characters make noises about never wanting to have kids, but chances are they'll have them anyway sooner or later. They can't afford not to.
    • It's also explicitly stated in-text that many young girls from the Seam turn towards prostitution with Peace-keepers to make ends meet (Katniss even considers it as a possibility of how her life could have turned out). Young girls without sex-ed or any power, they most likely would have no chance to stop themselves from becoming pregnant or any idea on how to terminate a pregnancy.
  • They're not sending off children. They're sending off teenagers. People who are old enough to have their own opinions but too young to have completely gotten used to the current state of the world, in addition to being instinctively rebellious against authority and looking for something to whine about even when they don't have any real problems.

Why is there no resistance to the Hunger Games?

• As someone mentioned above "You know what doesn't cause riots in the books? Taking away people's children to be slaughtered for a game." For 74 years, children have been sent to their deaths. Nothing happens. This year, they send adults. A rebellion uprises. Really? From just hearing that, you'd think that the districts don't care about their children at all other than their ability to get them food.
  • You have to read between the lines of the book. When Gale gets whipped, Katniss' mom mentions "There it starts again." And it's also mentioned that she is used to heal whipping wounds. "In summer, we tried to keep the flies away from the wounds." Katniss mentions that she was told that in former times people were hanged on gallows in 12. These things must have happened sometime during the Hunger Games era. When Katniss visits district 11 she is puzzled by the massive amount of Peacekeepers, walls and overwatch towers. The people in 11 must have had rioted in the past.
    • It can even be inferred that it was after Haymitch's games that the riots in 12 occurred. They had to have been a long time before Katniss was born. By the time she first entered school they were encouraged to sing District-particular songs, without anyone being worried about it promoting any kind of District-patriotism, which one would presume the ever-paranoid Capitol would care about if there had recently been a riot. The Peacekeepers have also been very relaxed for as long as Katniss can remember. However, it was still in living memory for her mother (who is implied by her visceral reaction to her daughters' singing The Hanging Tree to have literally seen a hanging, not just a whipping). The only truly notable event in District 12 before her birth that is ever described in the book is the Capitol's murder of Haymitch's family. The death of three different teenagers, who came from both middle-class and lower-class families, and the relationship between Haymitch and Maysilee that Katniss literally compares to her relationship with Rue (which caused riots in District 11) makes it even more believable that that was the start of the revolution. Just like the second Quarter Quell, it could be argued that it was more anger at the Capitol changing the rules and going after victors than worries about adults going into the games.
  • Put yourself in the mind of a District resident. So long as the Capitol is only taking people aged 12-18, once you turn 19 you no longer have to fear being Reaped. You're essentially "safe" from the Hunger Games and can breath a sigh of relief. The Reaping is now someone else's problem. Then all of a sudden the Capitol starts taking adults for the Hunger Games. The feeling (or illusion if you prefer) of "safety" is broken and suddenly you and everyone else over 18 are vulnerable again. It sounds crass (and it is crass) but it has a twisted logic to it. It also has some historical parallels. See for instance the classic poem "First They Came...". In this analogy the communists, trade unionists, Jews, etc. are the children aged 12-18 and the narrator of the poem represents the adults.
  • And remember that the former tributes are basically beloved icons. They're gladiatorial champions and Hollywood celebrities all rolled into one. While the kids aren't generally known by anyone but their families, the victors are admired by all. Besides which, this is sort of implying that sending adults into the arena was the main factor behind the rebellion, which isn't really the case. It just sort of helped.
  • Actually the rebellion had nothing to do with them sending in Adults. It was all about Katniss being a symbol. She became a symbol of how wrong the games had become. From the moment she volunteered for her sister. She showed something that most of the districts hadn't seen in a long time. Then she gave Rue tribute, and in the end held those berries up and told the Capitol "We're done." It was a message that needed to be sent, and it was delivered perfectly. The capitol gave in, and showed it was not invulnerable. If Katniss Everedeen, a simple girl from District 12 — the poorest district, who had only two previous victors, one of which was dead and the other was a drunk, could do it, then everyone else should feel ashamed that they weren't. Her alliance with Rue also showed that the districts didn't have to be in it alone. That they shouldn't have animosity toward one another, because the real enemy is the capitol. Katniss became a symbol, and that sparked a rebellion. Them sending adults didn't matter. Rebellion was coming. The Quarter Quell only changed how the rebellion started.

Why have all the Hunger Games so far been outdoors?

• I find it puzzling that all the settings discussed for the Games themselves are exterior. Anyone who has played modern FPS games is familiar with the myriad of potential hazards created by indoor industrial spaces. I realize that there have been 73 of the things prior to the start of the first novel/movie, and there is the potential that at least one of the games may have been indoors. I just think it's interesting that every single skill shown and apparently practiced is for outdoor environments. Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
  • Up above, people were speculating about how the games were filmed, and one answer was "long-range cameras outside the arena", so it's possible that they wouldn't be able to properly film an indoor arena? Plus, if you take into account the speculation re: where the different arenas are, it might not be feasibly/possible for an indoor arena to be built to the point where it would make a good (read as "interesting") arena for the Capitol. Lastly, if part of the games are to distract the people in the Capitol, what better way to do that than to show them something they don't get to see very often (i.e. outside environments, and the skills necessary to survive them). Even if they're not used to industrial areas, the arena just being inside (i.e. not super conducive to awesome survival skills) might be boring to them.
  • Outdoor survival requires skills that most people, in their ordinary lives, aren't acquiring. The same is true of the weapons: no one is supposed to be training with a bow or a sword. And, as an aside, they're utterly impractical weapons for rebellion and warfare (Katniss's tech bow doesn't count because although it's proven to be a dangerous weapon, it's pretty much a given that most of the victories are due to conventional warfare techniques). The Capitol doesn't want the chance that people will prepare for real fighting against THEM, which is why the Tributes are never given guns. If people trained for urban warfare rather than outdoor terrain it's a manual for attacking Capitol. The games are a fantasy, far removed from the reality so that people don't ever think 'hey, we could use these skills to improve our lives'.
  • Worth noting that the 73 Hunger Games (the one before th first book/movie) was set in a ruied city. So while it was outdoors, it was still an urban environment. It may have even had partially standing buildings for people to hide in.
  • It's a lot easier to draw them out the larger the arena is. Even granting how big industrial complexes are (and I can't imagine there being too many not within the districts), I can't imagine Katniss being able to hide from the careers in a boiler room as effectively as she could in a tree. Realistically, a Hunger Games completely indoors would take maybe a few days, since the more confined space would mean the tributes would be pretty much forced to fight eachother constantly without the Gamemaker's interference. Hardly makes for good entertainment for the Capitol citizens.

Why include environmental hazards in the Games?

• In the movie, it's stated that you're more likely to get killed by being exposed to the elements than by another person. If the Games are for entertainment, why are they set up this way? Isn't the point of it to get them to kill each other?
  • The Games are intended to last for some period of time. If they were just thrown in a room where they could bludgeon each other to death, it would be over quick. There would be less tension and impact. The book does make note that the people making the arenas are careful not to make the terrain TOO challenging. Apparently there was one game where everyone just froze to death because it was cold and there was no wood to make a fire. Adding in other obstacles makes it interesting to the people watching the game. Otherwise you'd have contestants just running away the entire time while still being able to survive, and the game would last TOO long. Characters getting sick or injured also makes them more vulnerable to be killed, so again, it keeps the game from lasting too long.
    • Note that we see exactly zero characters dying from exposure and other "natural" causes in the 74th Games.
  • Also, "if they were just thrown in a room where they could bludgeon each other to death", or any other setup with a dearth of ways to die other than direct murder, certain tributes would have absolutely no chance of winning right from the beginning. Natural dangers create the possibility of non-Careers revealing helpful survival skills, and these skills being put to good use. For the Capitol, this is entertainment, adding a cerebral element and some suspense to the Games. For the people from districts which don't train in combat, this allows a glimmer of hope that their tributes might survive, which is necessary to keep up the system.
  • I agree with both of these points, but I've seen the movie again and the woman clearly states that it's "natural causes" that has the best chance to kill you, not getting exposed and then running into another tribute. Unless they have a bizarre way to count what kills the tributes, it seems that most people die due to something other than another tribute. The fact that this supposedly happens most of the time and yet it didn't during the 74th Games just makes it seem weirder. Is this mentioned in the book at all?
    • That something has a better chance of killing you than something else doesn't mean that it has to. In Annie's case, the flood drowned way more tributes than can have been average: as I remember it, the woman you refer to gives "natural causes" a thirty percent chance of killing you, which leaves a seventy percent chance of murder killing you. Also: Glimmer and possibly the girl from 4 died from wasp venom, Foxface died from eating poisonous food, guy from 10 died of an unknown cause, Cato and possibly Thresh mainly died of being hunted down by ferocious wolves that eat you flesh first and let someone else kill you a day or so later, and I'm sure at least one died of dehydration; and looking at the list of characters on wikipedia, it certainly seems that the highest chance of dying is in fact the bloodbath at the Cornucopia.
  • Remember Titus the murderous cannibal? The Gamemakers had to rig an avalanche to kill him so they didn’t have an insane victor, possibly because he was too strong for the other remaining tributes to kill. It’s a good way for offing unlikeable tributes. Plus, if the reapings are as rigged as many theorize it is, they’ve probably used that to off the tributes of anyone they wanted to make a statement to.

Why poison everything in Haymitch's Games?

• Katniss mentions that the Capitol is anti-cannibalism. Alright. Then why, in Haymitch's Games, did they make everything poisonous? The tributes still have to eat, and if only the other tributes are edible...
  • So that they fight each other for the food from the Cornucopia.
    • But you can't tell if everything is poisonous just by looking from the starting platform. The earliest a tribute would know would be after the bloodbath, and by then, the careers have already claimed all of the goodies from the cornucopia.
  • The rule about Cannibalism came about from one Tribute who tried to eat the hearts of his victims, but his Games were after Haymitch's, I do believe. Odd to think it hadn't come up in the 75 years beforehand, but it may have just been that eating the heart of person when you don't actually need the sustenance is too far, even for the Capitol.
    • I don't think there's an actual rule, so it might have come up a couple of times. Has Katniss seen every game ever?
    • It's the logic behind it that's the problem. If the Capitol is against cannibalism, then a rule should exist. If the Capitol doesn't care, then they should've let that boy eat the other tributes.
    • I don't think that they mind the cannibalism. They just don't want a cannibal to become the victor. Compared to actual reality shows, a cannibal is probably the guy who is entertaining in an uncomfortable way, but people don't actually want him to win. Also, I think that making rules for the games is a bad idea, because the more rules there are, the easier it is for people to rebel openly by breaking those rules on purpose. I mean, you've got nothing to lose once you're in the games. For example, I bet suicide isn't very popular either. But how do you punish someone who's already dead? And if you make a "no suicide" rule, people might actually start killing themselves as a big "screw you" to the Capitol.
    • The book mentions that one year, a district 6 boy named Titus killed and ate some of the tributes. The Capitol electrocuted him a few times to collect the bodies of his kills, and eventually killed him with an avalanche after a while. If the victor not being a cannibal was that important, they would have killed him after the first attempt. Also, while there aren't rules in the Arena, behavior during the Games can be punished by publicly executing the families/loved ones of misbehaving tributes afterwards to instill fear into the future tributes. It happened to Haymitch, and Katniss fears it will happen to her after shooting the apple, so there are hints that this already happens.
    • I am not entirely sure if you agree or disagree with me here, and I think lost track of who posts what. So, we agree that there is no rule against cannibalism because the Capitol is not against cannibalism per se. It's just that in this particular case, the guy went overboard? Also, I remember Katniss mentioning that it did not appeal to the audience either. As for punishing the families, this only works if the tribute actually has a family/loved ones. Johanna has nobody, for example.
    • Yeah, pretty much. If the guy had only eaten one tribute, the Capitol might have let him win. That's what makes Katniss statement of "the Capitol doesn't like cannibalism" weird. They put the kids into a situation that may require cannibalism to survive, and they don't automatically kill the tributes for trying it. Also, I assumed Johanna didn't have anyone because the Capitol killed them, but that's just me.
    • He was eating their hearts, which implies he wasn't eating them for actual sustenance. In our culture, we see cannibalism as understandable (if very disturbing) when the situation is desperate enough, like when a plane crashed into the Andes Mountains in the middle of winter. Titus was tearing open peoples chests and eating their hearts. Not good television. Also, in a lot of mythology the source of a person's power comes from their heart, perhaps Titus flipped out enough to believe the corrupted myth.
    • But again, he did this mulitple times before the Capitol killed him. I would think that if the Capitol was truly against cannibalism, they would have killed him right away. Maybe Katniss was just wrong when she said the Capitol is anti-cannibalism, because by their actions, the Capitol seems okay with it as long as the tributes don't take it too far.
  • They probably didn't mind at first since it was good - if disturbing - television, but then when they realised he was on a roll and looking likely to be the victor, figured they'd stop it. I think Katniss actually made a comment about how they didn't want a victor who was a raving loon. At least not in a way that's destructive to other people, rather than themselves.
  • Katniss explicitly commented that they poisoned everything in the arena because there were twice as much tributes, so the Capitol had to come up with something deadly to burn through the numbers faster. It’s also mentioned that food from the Capitol was safe to eat, so Cornucopia supplies and sponsors probably kept the tributes fed. Also presumably, if you somehow killed one of those carnivorous squirrels, you might have a decent piece of game.

What would the Capitol do if no one survived a Game?

• Given that the entire purpose of the Arena settings is to be an ongoing and potentially lethal hazard, it seems quite possible that some Games have no survivors to be named victors. So what would the Capitol do in such a case?
  • There was a Games in the past where everyone froze to death and the Capitol learned from their mistakes. So it's likely they're constantly on the lookout for hazards that could kill too many tributes. Possibly in a worst case scenario they declare the last person to die the winner.
    • Just making a correction because multiple people keep saying in this page that there was a game where "everyone froze to death". The direct quote from Gale is: "There’s almost always some wood," Gale says. "Since that year half of them died of cold." Half of them, not all. Katniss narration confirms that they spend a night "watching the players freeze to death", but since she doesn't refute what Gale says, I assume she means it in the sense that they watched all of them felt cold to the point of having their lives at risk, until some inevitably died. Someone did win that game. I feel like pointing this out because the whole point of the Gamemakers stopping Peeta and Katniss from eating the berries is that it would be a BIG problem to not have ANY winner, and it amazes me that people miss that. If one game had had such an "Everyone Died" result, it would've inevitably been brought up in the narrative. They (the Capitol) have to provide SOME reason, SOME public justification (yes, I know morally there isn't any) for the Hunger Games to happen, so SOMEONE has to win and live peacefully and with full bellies for the rest of their lives. That's how they justify it and that's how they sell it: a game that is cruel and brutal, but always with a prize, as long as you're the strongest.
  • Note that at the end of Katniss and Peeta's game, there's a cloaked hovercraft right there to gather them, and Capitol medicine is implied to be very near miraculous. So if someone can survive even a minute or so longer than everyone else, there's enough time for the Capitol to grab him and patch him up from there.
• They "winner" is just whoever is the last person left alive. Even in the above mentioned one that was freezing cold, all they'd have to do is get the last tribute out before they froze to death, declare them the winner and treat them for hypothermia (and considering they can apparently save someone from near disembowlement like Haymitch, I find it hard to believe they don't have a treatment for that)

Do Districts with no winners have no mentors?

• Who would be the mentor for a district before they ever had a winner? Who would gather their stuff for them? Obviously all districts have enough winners to enter in the Quarter Quell in Catching Fire, but before there were, who did that job? Who got them sponsors and such? Gave them advice? Particularly in the first 12~ hunger games.
  • Someone from the Capitol, I guess. Like the stylists, there were probably Capitol-employed mentors.
  • In the first 12 Hunger Games, it would make a certain degree of perverted sense if the mentors were chosen from the rebels as part of their punishment.
  • According to the prequel book, "twenty-four of the Academy’s best and brightest seniors had been tapped for the job" the first time mentors were assigned.
  • Even before that, I swear there was a line in the first book about how the escort would serve as the mentor in the case that one wasn't present. Granted, its been a long time since I read the books, and obviously this wasn't an issue in the next book, but I could've sworn Rue said something about not having a mentor or something.

Why is there no incentive to kill during the Games?

• If the Capitol wants the tributes to murder each other, then why is there no incentive to kill people? Send a parachute with food and water for every kill. Survival skills would be less important, as they should be, because the Capitol wants the victor to be a child murderer, not a survival expert. It would actually give the weaker tributes incentive to at least try to ambush someone, since in the books they seem to just keep to themselves until the careers kill them.
  • I think it's because people aren't really interested in the weaker tributes. Like, the Careers and whatever standouts that might end up coming from the other districts are more likely to give a good show, so why worry about the kids that can barely use a knife? Also the survival part might seem cool and exotic to the Capitol citizens, who don't have to do these things on a daily basis.
    • But people might get interested in the weaker tributes if they actually did something, like try and kill people. They would probably only aim for other weak tributes, but it's better than nothing. This would also help out the careers and standouts. Finally, there is more to survival than just collecting water and hunting/foraging for food. Making shelter, avoiding/treating injures, and navigating are all things the tributes would still have to do. (Also, I'm imagining that the reward for a kill isn't much, maybe 8 ounces of water and some trail mix. Not something you can really live off of, but something to ward off dehydration/starvation long enough so that a tribute can kill you instead.)
  • They do have this: The sponsorship system. The tributes who are doing impressive things attract sponsors who can drop small presents on them for doing well. Peeta and Katniss just gamed it a little so they were getting treats for lovey-dovey moments as opposed to kills.
  • It doesn't seem like any incentive is needed? The kids fight to the death without it, and the citizens (not just the Capitol citizens) get invested, root for their favorites, and a victor eventually emerges. Based on what we know of other games, there are years where the emphasis is on battling it out and years where survival skills play a larger role. You said, "the Capital wants the victor to be a child murderer," but really, they want entertainment, a distraction, control— basically a twisted sort of soft power over the districts and the Capitol citizens.
  • Keep in mind that the victors become celebrities after the games, to say nothing of the legal prostitution for some of them. Someone who outlasted all the others by survival skills and the occasional combat is a lot more appealing as a hero than someone who spent the entire game hacking and slashing every other tribute to pieces.

Why did the gamemakers not encourage Katniss to kill?

• In the first book, Katniss survives the bloodbath, and then walks for three days looking for water. She doesn't run into any other tributes during this time. She almost fails, but is lucky enough to literally keel over within crawling distance of a stream. Where were the Gamemakers during all of this? She's the highest ranking tribute out there, and you're letting her waste her time on finding water when she could be killing people? What if she fell a few seconds earlier? Where they going to let her die without encountering anyone?
  • They let others die in the same manner, if the comments that many participants die from their own inability to survive in the wild instead of being killed is any indication. Just because she got a high ranking doesn't make her immune to death by foolishness.
  • My question is why, though. Katniss mentions that one year, everyone froze to death, and the Capitol complained about the "bloodless deaths." It's clear that the Capitol wants blood. Katniss dying from dehydration will not give them blood. Tributes being unable to survive in the wild will not give them blood.
    • Well, there should also be a struggle for survival though. If everything just dropped into their lap, it would be boring. The Gamemakers realised that Katniss was a fighter, and that she would not just give up. Also, I suppose it's part of building up the tension. Sending her into a fight right at the beginning would have erased all tension. Better to let it build up slowly. Furthermore, I think there's a kind of "script", basically (I'm referring to the way a story is presented to the Capitol viewers.) Obviously, Katniss and Peeta were the focus. Peeta was probably more interesting at that time because he'd joined forces with the careers. They left Katniss alone in order to see how this story would develop. Imagine the nice antithesis. Peeta is sleeping in a comfortable tent, has enough to drink and eat, and then cut to Katniss, who is shaking form dehydration. All while people speculate what's going on in Peeta's mind. And keep in mind that a high score is not necessarily indicative of competence. It's all strategy. The reason they gave her the high score was possibly partially to ensure that Cato, the second-most competent, would have a personal interest in her. To the viewers, she has to "prove" herself first. If she doesn't even manage to survive without a fight, then she's not interesting.
    • Yes, there should be a struggle for survival, but dehydration isn't survivable. You find water in three days or you die. That's the main problem here: Katniss was going to die. She was going to die, and she hadn't even SEEN a tribute since the bloodbath. She wouldn't even be ABLE to kill or get killed by someone else. And if the Capitol wants blood above all else, shouldn't the Gamemakers make it impossible to get killed in a non-bloody manner in the Arena at all?
    • A few deaths by environment are acceptable. As long as some put on a good show, the people get what they want. More to the point, you can't play favorites. The games, above all else, at least have to seem fair. Fixing has to occur behind the scenes. Helping Katniss means they have to help others, then the Capitol is seen as fixing the games and the Districts get upset. They may not give a crap about their welfare, but they will give a crap if the Districts get pissed about getting cheated and rise up against them.
    • Except the Capitol did play favorites when they made the rule change that basically said "Either 2 or 12 is winning this year! Nice try Thresh and Foxface!" And helping everyone equally (by say, dropping a bottle of water for each tribute each day) won't be seen as fixing if everyone gets it.
    • The rule change didn't mean that Thresh or Foxface couldn't win, they just had a decreased chance because they didn't have a partner like Katniss/Peeta and Cato/Clove. If either Thresh or Foxface had managed to outlast the other five, they would have won. They didn't, but they still had a fighting chance. Foxface just happened to eat poison berries (or chose to commit suicide, depending on how you look at it), and Thresh pissed off Cato when he killed Clove. The Gamemakers were trying to create drama by bringing Katniss and Peeta together, but if Thresh or Foxface had managed to win I think the Capitol still would have been happy with the narrative they got out of the tragedy of the star-crossed lovers.
    • That was an unusual case. They'd never done anything like it before, and it was mainly a distraction from the riots. As for helping everyone, while they could, they have no motivation to. Again, if a few die from poor survival skills, that's fine. Hell, if Katniss had died of such, they'd have been glad. Good survival skills are also an advantage, meaning providing water is tipping the odds in favor of the stronger, stupider types, which the Careers seem to fit nicely into.
    • Also, I think that the line about "the Capitol wants blood" is more metaphorical than anything else. Tributes dying by fire can be just as "fun" as tributes dying from bleeding to death. The Capitol really likes conflict between tributes, but the Gamemakers aren't averse to letting the environment do the work for them. After all, in a way it would be just as fitting for the Girl on Fire to die the same anonymous, pathetic death as a hundred other tributes before her — proving she is nothing compared to the Capitol — as it would be for her to go down fighting.
    • True, "the Capitol wants blood" is really "the Capitol wants visually impressive deaths." I'm sure that they were happy when Katniss killed Glimmer with death-wasps, for example. However, I'm also sure that they were upset that Foxface died from eating berries. Berries that didn't disfigure her or cause agonized screaming or anything. Seems pretty boring in comparison. Also, part of the Games' purpose is to get the districts to hate each other so that they don't band together and rebel. The Games need to make the districts hate each other more than the Capitol. Watching the other districts' tributes kill your children is a good way to do that. If Katniss is shown dying because of her own inability to survive, then the people of 12 will either blame Katniss, Haymitch, or the Capitol. If Katniss is shown dying because someone from District X slit her throat, then the people of 12 will blame District X.
    • "However, I'm also sure that they were upset that Foxface died from eating berries. Berries that didn't disfigure her or cause agonized screaming or anything." The girl who spent the entire Games stealing food to live dies because the berries she stole from the favorite-to-win couple were actually poisoned. That might not be bloody or full of action, but damn if it isn't the type of irony the general public can appreciate. It might feel anticlimactic, but it's not outright boring. It also makes me believe they wouldn't have minded Katniss dying of dehydration THAT much because she was really so freaking close to water at the time. Even the commentators must've been like "If only our girl knew that those plants contain what she needs the most!" It's the kind of stuff that spectators would comment on the next day, had she died.
  • I think it's because making food and water harder to find would force the contestants to move around more, as opposed to trying to stay in one small area. Yes, the game makers can drive them out with fire and muttations, but contestants may still try to hang out or hide in one area for as long as they could. Needing to look for food or water would give them incentive to leave their safety area and force them to run the risk of coming across the other tributes.
  • Making food and water hard to find will make people move less, not more. The tributes will stay near the source they find first, since there is no guarantee that they will find another source if they leave.
    • I can't help but think that they decided at a certain point that Katniss was too stoic for them, and thought that it would still make very compelling television to watch Peeta's reaction to her death

Will there be a Capitol Games?

• We never find out whether or not there will be a Capitol Hunger Games. Did it die with Coin or is Plutarch gonna go ahead with it.
  • It's not stated directly, but I think that the answer is no.
  • And the key thing is that Coin wasn't going to announce it until after Snow's execution. So the general public wouldn't expect a games at all.
• At the end of Mockingjay, Coin proposes the Capitol Games, and Katniss kills her to stop them from happening. So far so good, but the book never says if this worked or not. Did Katniss kill Coin, only for the Games to continue as planned, or were they halted? This is pretty much the last thing we see Katniss do in the books, so it's pretty jarring that we don't even know the result.
  • My bet is that no, they never happened. The Capitol Games were originally Coin’s idea, voted and approved by the winners of previous Hunger Games, not by actual government people who took over the country’s wheels. With the whole “president was killed by Panem’s heroine”, they had little time (or mood) to organize another Game and the whole idea died with its original architect, I suppose. Also, from a narrative perspective, I think Katniss would have mentioned something about them, had they ever happened.
  • Katniss explicitly states in the epilogue that there are no more Hunger Games now. Had there been a Capitol Games, she would have mentioned that.

Why was the Quarter Quell less impressive than the hunger games?

• Okay, here's one: the Quarter Quell was supposed to be spectacular. Why, then, did it actively have less natural hazards and dangers than the arena in the first book? Once you've figured out the clock, there are no real natural hazards —- if anything, it's much easier to avoid being killer death wasp'd or wall of fire'd to death than in the previous year's normal games. The Quarter Quell is supposed to be really special, but beyond a cornucopia filled with weapons and a bunch of ex-tribute tributes it was actually a lot tamer than either the first games Katniss was in or any of the many games mentioned in passing. There's no water, but you can tap it from trees; non of the shellfish etc are poisonous and non of the wildlife are dangerous for more than one hour in twelve. Other than boredom, there isn't even any incentive for the combatants to fight each other rather than keep going round on opposite sides of the clock. It all seems to make for an incredibly boring Games.
  • Every hour has a different natural hazard. But you might die in figuring them out, like the girl who drowned in the 10 o'clock wave. The only hour that's not deadly is the Jabberjays. The safest place is the Cornucopia, there you only have to avoid the 10 o'clock wave.
  • Well, Plutarch Heavensbee is designing them. He probably wants as few tributes to die as possible before the hovercrafts can rescue them. In the meantime, having a tricky arena like that would at least keep the audience at home interested as they tried to figure out the trick themselves, placed bets, etc. As long as the audience is engaged, the Gamekeepers don't have to come up with more arbitrary cruelties to force a conflict.
  • The "drama" was supposed to come from matching much more capable adults. Also consider that after the Blast Out at the Cornucopia, the majority of the surviving tributes were allied with each other to protect Katniss and Peeta, while the Careers hid the forest from the much larger group. It was only the combined information from that group that figured out the system. Also, the first "gift" they receive is the tap to get water from the trees. Had the Games gone on the way Snow wanted, it would have been much bloodier and more of the traps would have worked.
  • Plutarch gives Katniss the key to surviving before she goes in. The arena is explicitly designed to be very easily survivable once you've figured out its secret, which is also why it conveniently provides a huge source of electricity right next to the weak spot in the force field. Its sole purpose is to keep Beetee and Katniss and/or Peeta alive long enough to escape and start the rebellion.
  • Actually, Plutarch stated (I think at the beginning of Mockingjay) that he didn't know that the Victors were supposed to be competing. He gave Katniss the hint because he hoped to gain her trust by giving her an edge in being a mentor.
    • If that's true, then the Arena was designed before the Quarter Quell was announced, which means that it can't have been designed with the adult tributes in mind. Also, I got the impression that the only reason they broke into the Arena was because the former victors were in there, and that the rebellion wouldn't have bothered if it was just random teenagers.
  • Also keep in mind that the traps being somewhat predictable for the contestants also makes them predictable for the home audience. Come back every hour on the hour to watch the next new dastardly trick.
  • Define "less natural hazards". How many Tributes died of natural hazards in the 74 Games? Glimmer died from the Wasps, another Tribute may have been killed by the Wasps as well, Thresh was apparently killed by the mutts (in the film at least), one might have died of dehydration, and at least one's cause of death is unknown. That's a maximum of 5. In the Quarter Quell, Mags dies from the evil fog, the female Morphling is killed by the monkey Mutts, and that one female tribute is killed by the wave, so that's 3. The movie has Peeta drown an opponent in the opening moments, and while that's human caused, he was only able to do so due to the fact that they started out in water. Blight was killed when he hit the edge of the arena, and that's a "standard" jazard. Some of the causes of death, such as the male Morphling, are not revealed. The fog also damn near killed Katniss' entire team. The only reason it didn't is that they got beyond that section. The mutts also didn't persue beyond their section. The Jabberjays and rain of blood (as long as you don't swallow too much) sections might not be lethal to be caught in, but they are clearly horrifying to experience. The need for drinkabe water was already said, and there's always the need for food. I doubt you can eat mutts, you aren't "supposed" to eat each other, and if the only real source of food was the water around the Cornucopia (fish and oysters), then the Tributes would have to regularly come back there to eat. As noted the only gurranteed safe place was the Cornucopia, but that can be made to spin around and fling you off, so you can't stay there. Had the games gone on longer (and Plutarch not been a member of the Resistance), maybe they would have changed it up. "Oh, you think you're safe zone 8-9 at 4'oclock? Suprise, here's the acid fog just to screw with you!" Suddenly nowhere is safe, any danger can go off in any zone at any time.

Where are all the cameras in the games and where did the mutations come from?

• 1. It is repeatedly pointed out that the games are being televised. However, I am left wondering where the cameras are and how they can get such good shots of the tributes. Is every tree and rock equipped with a concealed camera? I can suspend disbelief at the genetically engineered animals, but have a hard time suspending disbelief at the idea of such a huge arena having every square inch monitored both visually and aurally. 2. What was with the muttations? At the end of the book when they appeared it is implied that they are created from the DNA of the dead tributes. What exactly is the point of this? Does this mean that they have the minds and memories of the other tributes? These questions are never answered or even mentioned again, leading to one Big-Lipped Alligator Moment.
  • On the first point: It's the future, and the Capitol is on the bleeding edge. They probably have cameras everywhere. My best bet could be that there are super-cameras that follow each tribute (via tracker) outside the confines of the arena that can zoom in very close, as well as some cameras near the Cournicopia and other key areas in the games, like water sources. I always assumed the cameras had super-zoom or something, and that more were hidden and could be activated. Also, I bet microphones are wired into the tracker chips or something.
  • On the second point: That was left ambiguous for a reason. However, I just thought that the mutts had the same color prosthetic eyes, not the actual ones. The idea that they would be the real eyes and minds of the tributes is just sort of a waste of money when you can get psychological tricks for cheap. The tributes were so scared by this point, they would believe anything. I just thought they were "likenesses".
    • While the first book goes way into the direction of them being created from the fallen tributes, in Mockingjay Katniss goes back on this and places them into the Mind Rape camp, along with the mockingjays from Catching Fire.
  • Peeta seems pretty sure that the Capitol made the muttations seem like they had been made with Tributes' DNA, but weren't really. I think it was to create some nice Mind Rape for the remaining Tributes. I thought that the "Rue" muttation was snarling in hatred at Katniss was a hint that it wasn't really Rue, even if its eyes looked like hers. There's another muttation scene in Catching Fire that seems to support the idea that it's easier for the Capitol to fake involving humans in the creation of muttations, and it gets the same horrified results. I'm hoping that Collins will follow through on this in Mockingjay.
    • About the cameras - if you've read the series the arenas are surrounded by a one-way force field. The cameras could float above the field and use boom mikes to pick up sound and zoom lenses to get close-ups. Exactly the way TV crews do it today, but probably with fancier technology than a guy hanging from a crane.
    • Though how, using that technology, they were able to film inside a deliberately concealed cave is anyone's guess, unless they planted cameras in places that they expected people to hide, or fly-on-the-wall'd it.
    • Or it could always be that they have little flying camera drones that are cloaked. Y'know, kinda like the cloaked hovercrafts. I'm sure that if they could make it so something as big and noisy as a hovercraft can go unnoticed, they can do the same for a little flying camera. And there, they can follow the tributes, they can get inside caves, trees are no problem, and the only danger is that it might get blown up in the crossfire. Better TV, that way.
  • The Mutts seemed to be partially based off the tributes, e.g. the "Rue" being the most effective climber, but quite what was up with that was left deliberately ambiguous.
  • And btw, in the movie, we can see that yes, every tree and rock can and will have a camera.
    • A modern consumer-grade wireless camera can be as small as a tube of lipstick if you don't try to add sound pickups, and a sound pickup could be added to the tributes' tracking implant quite easily, given the Capitol's technology. In fact, this would make more sense than trying to mike the Arena. Even today, there are prototype wireless cameras barely larger than match heads that give decent picture quality. For the Capitol, panopticon coverage of the Arena is easy to do.
    • It’s also possible some of the wildlife (such as the mockingjays) might have spy cams attached to them. BBC Earth often uses robot animals to film animal activity.

Why do ratings matter?

• This one's kind of bugged me a little since I read the books. While I may have glossed over something explaining it (don't we all?), I have to wonder: Why are ratings so important to the Hunger Games if viewing is mandatory? I know the District inhabitants are forced to watch, but if the games have lasted 74 years and will continue to do so as a form of control, why does it matter if people from the Capital are watching?
  • I imagine they have advertising breaks just like other reality television, so the numbers in the Capitol would affect how much money they make (and probably a large portion of the Arena building and such comes from that and the rest has to be made up in taxes). Plus it's a means of control as in intimidation for the districts; it's a means of control as in bloody entertainment for the residents of the Capitol. They want to keep them satisfied so they don't question the government.
    • Sounds good, hadn't thought of it that way, cheers!
  • In professional wrestling they can gauge someone's popularity by how the ratings are during their segments. If the numbers are going up whenever a particular person appears, that's a safe bet that the audience likes them. Perhaps they're not above tweaking the odds to favor a tribute who seems to be doing well with the public?
  • Also, the Capitol isn't forced to watch. They just want to. Like all television spectacles, I assumed people had opinions on "better" seasons.
• If the ratings drop, the Capitol citizens might start questioning the ethics of sending kids to their deaths. Keeping the ratings up is the way to brainwash the Capitol into thinking it’s all fun and games, a good show.

Why do the Hunger Games not have a set Season finale?

• Isn't it kind of unfeasible that the Hunger Games don't have a set end point? Wouldn't you want the finale on during primetime for the best ratings?
  • Who says they're broadcast live? Remember that communication between the Capitol and the Districts is fully controlled.
  • The Districts have to watch, so they don't matter. I was thinking more about the Capitol audience, since the Games are suppose to cater to them. Although, you bring up a good point: do the District and Capitol citizens even see the same footage? Do all the districts see the same thing? On the one hand, it's more work to cut and edit multiple films for all the different audiences, but on the other hand, some things might have to be cut for the districts, lest they start riots.
  • The Games must be broadcast live otherwise there'd be no way for sponsors to send gifts to the Tributes on the spot. Since we see never see anyone in the Capitol working or doing anything other than watching tv during the Games, it's possible that the Hunger Games also become an extended holiday for all non-essential people. In that case, the concept of "primetime" no longer applies, since no one has to leave their television sets to go to school or work.
  • Chances are they were edited similar to the way that the Olympics were edited here. You can watch it all live, but the "good stuff" is rebroadcast all together with the "boring bits" taken out. Sure, not everyone agrees what the "good" and "boring" bits are, but that's what the live broadcast was for.
  • There probably isn't such a thing as "prime time" as we understand it. Prime time is when something good happens, which is also shown over and over again.
  • They do have a set Season Finale. Once it has been decided by the Gamemakers and Capitol citizens that the Games have gone on long enough, they force a final confrontation. Annie's Games had an earthquake that caused a massive tidal wave which drowned everyone else. That was obviously caused by the Gamemakers, so people were probably told "tune in for the exicting end". In the 74th Games, the mutts were unleashed to force the remaining Tributes into one location where they have a final showdown. In the movie, it even suddenly goes from day to night right before this happens, making it even more obvious.
  • Also, there may be occasions where Tributes manage to find and kill each other quicker than inticipated, bringing the games to a sudden end. Imagine if the Feast in the 74th Games went this way: Clove stabs Foxface before the latter can actually get her gift, she then overpowers Katniss but doesn't waste time in gloating, and just kills her. Thresh arrives, but Cato decided to come to protect Clove, together they overpower and kill Thresh. Now its just Peeta who's dying of a leg injury, Cato and Clove . Cato decides to try to track Peeta down, only for Clove (the little psycho) to throw a knife into the back of his head. Suddenly the only Tributes left are Clove and the dying Peeta. Maybe Clove waits around for Peeta to die, maybe she tracks him down, maybe the cave he's in "suddenly collapses" and kills him. When you force a bunch of people to fight to the death, there's a chance they'll kill each other too quickly and anticlimaticly.

Are the Hunger Games broadcast 24/7?

• A question about the Capitol audience: do they watch the Games 24/7? Deaths happen around the clock, it would suck if you bet or sent aid to someone and they died while you were sleeping or working or doing anything else other than watching. The Gamemakers can kind of control when people die by controlling the sun and when the tributes sleep by association, but what would happen if some epic throwdown happened in the middle of the night? Would the audience just miss out on the action?
  • The tributes need their sleep too. Also, the truly epic throwdowns don't usually happen until the very end, since usually half the tributes are killed early and the remaining ones scatter. They might also have phone alerts of when tributes get within a kilometer or so of each other.
  • It seems that the only interesting parts are the beginning and the end. The middle is full of tributes hiding, with a death here and there. Pretty boring if you ask me.
  • Think of it like a reality show(what it is, indeed), there is 24h coverage, not everyone will be watching 24h but someone probably will be. Then they show the best moments at some set time of the day for the people. I mean, the people still need to work during this time, right?
  • The Games aren't really exciting all the time, especially at night when the tributes are mostly sleeping. They probably give updates in the morning, if anything big happened at night, and worse comes to worst, you can probably catch it on rerun. I'm sure that, in this technologically advanced future, everyone has some form of Tivo, so if your chosen tribute dies in the middle of the night, you can go back and watch it at your leisure.
  • The Capitol is suppose to be starved for drama and entertainment, and the Games are suppose to be the cure for that, but I can't see the Games as being that good of a spectator sport or a reality show due to the long stretches of nothing happening. An hour or two of nothing may up the suspense, but days? The entire Capitol had nothing better to do than to watch with bated breath as some sickly tributes sleep in a cave? The only way this works is if the Hunger Games are the only entertainment in the Capitol, but given the level of technology they have, I doubt this is true.
    • Well, during periods of nothing happening, they show interviews and other stuff. Also, they probably can switch to any camera they want. Peeta is lying around? Let's switch to those careers. Hunger Games boring? Let's switch to the interviews with the stylists. Let's watch the families watching.
    • I get that they can show other game-related stuff during the lulls in the action, but question is more about why the Games are designed so that these lulls can happen in the first place. The Games are primarily about entertainment and bloodlust, so why are there stretches of days where neither of those things happen? Commercial time? Does all of Capitol society has a weird obsession with watching teenagers live and hide in the wild? Because that's what most of the video from the Hunger Games is composed of. The Gamemakers can clearly force the tributes to interact more, since we saw them do it when they corralled Katniss toward the careers with a forest fire. They also have mutts. Hell, they could just build a smaller arena. Why don't they do these things? Some tributes would still naturally try to hide, but they'll be found easier, leading to more blood, which is exactly what the Capitol wants.
    • I wouldn't say the Capitol is starved for entertainment. If that's the case, then Americans must be starved for entertainment until the Super Bowl. They probably have other things all year, but the Hunger Games are just the main event everyone looks forward to.
    • "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.
  • They probably just have a highlight reel, and people could watch on mobile devices.
  • Big Brother was a show were 12 contestants were locked into a house and watched for 24 hours a day for a few months, so it's a vaguely comparable situation. They had a live webcast in later years, but there was always a 'Big Brother Daily' show that played every night of the week - extra length on weekends, and if something big/interesting (for a given value of interesting) happened in the house during a time when the daily show wasn't airing, they'd have a 'Big Brother update' in the next ad break. I figured the Games would have a similar setup for broadcast, as well as extra shows focusing on, yes, the designers and the Tributes journey's to the Arena.

Why does the Capitol not try and make each Game last as long as possible?

• The typical misunderstandings about gladiatorial combat abound, and no one is surprised. This troper has learned to ignore that. What she can't ignore is the fact that despite wanting the Hunger Games to last a long time, the Capitol does everything in its power to make sure that's impossible. Most of the tributes have no training (and only get three days to train), many of them are underfed and/or sickly, and a cornucopia is set up at the very beginning of the Games, full of weapons and supplies. The ensuing bloodbath over said supplies usually wipes out about half the contestants.
  • Supplies cost money, money that can be used to build the next arena. The Capitol wants blood and drama, and it doesn't matter for how long. Besides, human survival instinct is strong- the Games Katniss was in (you know, the legit ones) lasted a few weeks with sickly contestants.
    • And three days with healthy adult contestants.
  • They don't want them to last 'as along as possible', just not be over too quickly and the rush for supplies with the ensuing bloodbath is a 'kick-off' event to get the crowds cheering and engrossed in the Hunger Games.
    • Introduce a Game Show-style quiz round in place of the cornucopia. Put the Games on a hard time limit, say, 24 hours including the quiz round. Anyone who's not dead at the end of 24 hours goes home free with the traditional year's supply of Rice-A-Roni, The San Francisco Treat (TM). Result? One day of excruciatingly boring television as everybody plays dull. The Capitol will whine to no end about the new-look Hunger Games, but who cares what they think?
    • Or better yet, give a timer, but threaten to kill them at the end unless there is only one survivor. That gives the tributes incentive to go after each other rather than hide, and makes the Gamemaker traps unnecessary.
    • Nice argument, as this is actually used in Battle Royale (you know, the book of which many people whine Hunger Games is supposedly a rip-off of) - in Battle Royale, unless there's at least one death every day, everybody dies.
  • I think that one of the interesting parts of this is that you watch a bunch of average teens acting purely on instinct. How does a human react to such danger? How far will he go? Is he ready to kill for it? In which ways will the killing affect him? How much can a human endure? How long does it take to strip away the humanity? And well, not to mention that there's probably woobiefication and choosing your favourites. Think of it as those "celebrity do gross things in the jungle" shows. Only that you can't interview them afterwards. If you use people who are actually trained for such situations, it's probably "enjoyable" too, but it's an entirely different experience. Also, there are the careers, so you actually get "professionals" vs. "normal people".
    • If one of the interesting parts of this is getting to watch a bunch of average teens acting purely on instinct, why don't we get to see that? Katniss isn't an average teen, she has had survival training from early childhood, Rue has supernatural tree jumping skills, and all the careers have also trained from childhood - other than Peeta, those are the only characters we really see and none are average. Also, if the interesting part is watching them make important moral decisions, how come we never get to see Katniss make any moral decisions? To her, murdering the careers is always 100% justifiable and (coincidentally) she is never in a position to murder anyone except careers. Frankly, the book you described would probably be really cool - it's a shame that this is not that book.
    • Saying that Katniss and Rue are trained for The Hunger Games is like saying that people who read books are trained for spelling bees, or that people who play tag are trained for marathons. They weren't training just because they happened to have skills that helped them out. And the story doesn't follow "normal" characters (which really means skill-less characters the way you're using it), because the characters without any skills would have to get killed quickly. It wouldn't make sense for a character who couldn't do anything in the arena to make it any further than the bloodbath. Katniss makes a number of moral (and immoral) decisions throughout the book, she doesn't always see the career murders as justifiable (hates herself for killing Marvel; shoots Cato out of pity), and she finds herself in a position to murder Peeta, Rue, and Foxface.
  • The Capital will probably rather have the disctricts under its heel than securing strong contestants and end up with riots (there are theories saying that middle class is more likely to revolt than any other due to a better life being seemingly within their reach). Also, note that the Hunger Games aren't that different from present day reality shows; usually the first and the last episodes are the most interesting, because they want to get people hooked on the show and keep them motivated to follow through until the end. That way they can slack off a bit on the episodes between rather than holding unrealistic ambitions of making every episode sensational on its own.

Why remove the joint-win rule at the last second?

• Why on earth did they remove the joint-win rule at the last second? That has got to be the stupidest thing I could have done. Was it just Seneca Crane's (Beard) Jerkass tendancies, or did they just want to add one more twist to the games? If they hadnt done that, Peeta and Katniss would have been a couple, the revolution probably wouldnt have happened, and the Capitol would have stayed in power. See, I know there wouldnt be a 2nd and 3rd book, and I love those, but still...
  • Because the Capitol people are feeding on the tragedy of other people.
  • The intention was never to have two victors anyway. The people in charge wanted the story to go as follows: two young lovers outlast everyone else, but then, tragically, one has to kill the other. Unfortunately for them, Katniss avoids Peeta in the Arena. That won't do, she's ruining the plot! Thus they have to make the "two victors" rule change, to force them together. That's the only reason the rule even exists; if they had allied together from the start, it wouldn't have happened. After everyone else is dead, they revoke the now unneeded rule, and wait for the carnage. Katniss had other ideas.
    • They were really in a win-win situation at that point-they basically had 2, 12, and two "solo" players (11 and 5) left. If halves of the 'couples' get picked off, you have your normal battle to the death, with the added bonus of a potential bereaved "star-crossed lover" as a solo victor (which, as they didn't know for Katniss it was faking, even provides a potential pre-broken Victor they don't even have to threaten). If it comes down to 12, you have the "star-crossed lovers fight to the death" scenario. If it comes down to 2, you have a guaranteed psycho battle as neither Clove nor Cato would have gone down easily. It was only Katniss pulling the Take a Third Option than wrecked a nearly foolproof dramatic ending.
• Why did the people in charge revoke the rules change at the end of the 74th Games? The revocation only makes them look petty and spiteful, and triggers massive unrest, outrage, and uprisings. Snow is not stupid, he must have known those were likely consequences.
  • I think the game-master was the one calling the shots in the Games themselves with President Snow being a bit disconnected from them. At least in the film version of the Hunger Games Snow tells the game-master, Seneca Crane to be careful. Apparently Crane didn't take this advice to heart, costing him his life.
    • Yes, much as Snow blames Katniss for the outcome, withdrawing the 'two winners' option was what set it in motion. Leave the option in place, and some viewers at least get the idea that the Capitol can be generous if it chooses to (not weak, as no-one else pushed their offer into place; it was their whim). Even if there had been no suicide pact, withdrawing the offer at the last moment is going to make them look like bigger jerks, and also fan any ideas against them.
  • In fact, maybe they should have even considered keeping the "two winners from the same district" thing as a new rule. It would encourage more deep friendships and gripping romances to keep the Capitol citizens enthralled with the show, and would make it more likely to result in tributes sticking together, providing more content to look at instead of just watching tributes walk through the arena alone in silence. The only real thing it would effect is discouraging interdistrict alliances (aside from the careers teaming up as usual), which, considering the sheer amount of influence the Rue and Katniss alliance had on the rebellion, might actually be in the Capitol's best interest.

Is there a way to sabotage the platform your opponent is standing on?

• 1. If the mines before the games are so sensitive that a token can set them off, why doesn't anyone simply ask for a necklace with objects on it as their token, detach the objects and chuck them at their neighbors mines? You could take out the whole career pack, and anyone else that's dangerous, that way and they wouldn't be able to do a thing. Then you have a shot at getting some weapons or having more people die early on. 2. How did the people from District 7 not survive that long in Katniss' games? I mean, they're said to be really good with axes, and were in a forest which is there home environment. They should've aced that Games. 3. If the Hunger Games has been going on for 75 years, and is supposed to go on for centuries, how are the Gamemakers supposed to come up with original environments. There would be only so much games before old concepts had to be reused and then everyone who can remember [insert environment here] and how the victor survived would have an edge.
  • I’ve read the books a long time ago, but I’ll try to answer: 1. Isn’t it forbidden to do anything during the time in which the Tributes have to stay on the metal circles? What happened with the token was an accident. I think you're not supposed to use such an strategy, and besides, I doubt they’d let someone go on the Games with such a canny device as a “necklace with objects on”; 2. It’s true, technically they would have an advantage. But just familiarity with an environment isn’t enough. First of all, if the Careers thought the same as you, then the guys from District 7 were priority kills, hunted by basically trained soldiers. Also, there’s always the possibility that they never actually got their hands on an axe during those Games, or that some of the other traps killed them; 3. It’s just a matter of the Gamemakers being as creative as their jobs require them to be. You may throw all the Tributes in a forest that is similar to one from another Game, but change all the traps (and the people making the games seem to be very imaginative about this kind of thing). Even if some smart Tribute watched old Games and tried that strategy, yeah, he would have some minor advantage, but it’s likely that the Gamemakers would caught up on that very quickly.
  • 1. It was forbidden to step off the metal circles if IIRC, since I think the Gamemakers main concern was giving the people with quicker reactions the advantage when they arrived in the arena, and they wanted to have some good shots of the tributes standing ready to go. And, sure, you're not supposed to, but, it's pretty much a free-for-all in the arena and, to the tributes when they're in the game, nothing's off the table if it helps you to survive. 2. Fair enough, I concede that point. 3. Except there aren't any traps, or at least there weren't any in the first Games (while the second was ridiculously complicated because it was a Quarter Quell, as was the one Haymitch was in), which implies that only the Quarter Quells are made special.
    • Well, it's not exactly free-for-all. Look at what Haymitch did. He won the game by using the mechanics of the arena to his advantage. Sounds 100% okay, right? But they killed his family and girlfriend, because it wasn't okay. The same thing would probably apply to attacking tributes during those 60 seconds. You are not supposed to attack during this time. (Hell, the poor boy who re-activated the mines probably wasn't exactly looking towards a bright future either, but they might have let him live because his alliance with the Careers was interesting.) Haymitch and Katniss broke the rules, but they did it at the end of the game, so the gamemakers couldn't touch them. Pull this shit at the beginning, and you can bet that you won't make it out alive. Also, let's not forget the cannibal guy who died in an "accident". He didn't break the rules per se, but the gamemakers didn't approve of his actions, so he had to go. There's also a chance that the general public would think you're unfair for attacking people during those 60 seconds, which is also akin to a death sentence.
    • Regarding the traps, it doesn't have to be anything huge, but there are many things you can change to prevent two arenas from being the same. For example, the first arena had a forest part and a field part, divided by the lake. The forest was generally regarded as safer. So, easy change, what if you make the open field safer? You can also change the temperature, so what if you make the night hot and the days cold, instead of the other way round? What if only nocturnal animals are safe to eat? Another important factor is the cornucopia. What sort of weapons are provided? Are weapons provided? What about food and other things?
    • But the people in the districts don't know about these things (save for the victors), so why should a tribute? Especially since the mentors are probably threatened for their silence. So it makes sense for an unknowing tribute to try and game the Hunger Games then have an Oh, Crap!! moment when he/she realizes why the Gamemakers are gunning for him/her. About changing what people would expect, that would trip up pretty much all the tributes but after the initial surprise, some Capitol citizens (another important factor) would start to become disillusioned when they realize it's, to them, a cheap way to try an reuse an arena. And wouldn't the reusing of an environment have had to occur already if the games been going for 75 years?
  • re 1: You are not supposed to use your token as a weapon, which is why they are screened. Also, the game is not supposed to start until the countdown is finished. Finally, there's enough space between the mines that they only kill one person. One dead career probably improves your odds, but good luck surviving the night, when the gamemakers and the remaining careers are pissed at you.
  • re 2: Just because the environment is familiar does not guarantee that you win. Everybody can die during the initial bloodshed.
  • re 3: You don't know what the arena is like until you see it, and even then it does not mean it will be exactly the same as before. Of course, eventually certain types of arenas will be repeated, but there are just so many additional factors that have to be considered. Also, not everybody is a career who has probably studied all games in detail. You might vaguely remember that about a hundred years ago there was a similar arena, but that's not really a big help.

1) Firstly, that’s assuming that you’d even be allowed a ‘necklace with objects’. Probably not, because of their myriad potential weapon uses (throwing, poison, stick them in food and choke someone else) and survival uses (sparking and starting fire). You get one item of sentimental value for your tribute token, they’re probably not going to pass a charm bracelet. Secondly, you’re assuming that you can accurately throw at least four small objects onto small podiums. The closest ones are going to be about fourteen feet away from you. Presumably the objects are small, like bells or charms. It’s going to take some skill to throw one, under pressure and get a hit. If the tributes you most want to kill aren’t either side of you, you’ve got to throw clean across the ring. Katniss states in Catching Fire that the Cornucopia is 40 yards away from her, so the Tribute on the other side is 80 yards away from her. You’ve got wind to account for, there is the Cornucopia blocking some of them. A tribute to have the skill to activate the mines from such a distance, in such a short amount of time doesn’t need to do it. They wait the 60 seconds, grab a couple of knives and throw them.2) Being in trees, however much you like them, doesn’t stop a Career splattering your brains with a quickly grabbed weapon.3) A) They can make infinite environments, and even if they have to repeat a few major features, the average lifespan of a Capitol resident doesn’t appear to be much longer than people can expect to live now. Even if we assume each Capitol resident will live to be 110, they probably didn’t really pay attention to their first five games, won’t remember many details before 10 and then that gives them 100 games before they die of old age and excessive eyeliner. Repeats of terrain after 100 years probably won’t get many complaints because few will remember.B) The arenas themselves aren’t going to factor in the deaths of most tributes, it’s the other tributes. Fair enough, you might have watched a couple of games set in certain environments and learned general survival tips but you cannot be sure that one of the other tributes isn’t going to be a crack crossbow sniper who takes you out as soon as you approach a tree you think you can hide in.

• On question three, I just have to say, I think it's funny you mention Gamemakers reusing settings on a website... about tropes...