Hunger Games, review...

[Bill Mattocks]

Says the man who has never even read the books. You'll pardon me if I give your opinion very little weight.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

I've never drunk raw sewage either. I know, I know, how can I have a legitimate opinion on the merits of drinking sewage unless I have a little snort?

Unless one can gather enough information that cesspools are unhealthy without having to drink from one. What do you think, possible or not?

 

[billc]

Josh, what's with the tude? No reason to get aggressive on Bill Mattocks. He can take care of himself, but if he doesn't want to read the books, what is the big deal?

 

[Josh Oakley]

Josh, what's with the tude? No reason to get aggressive on Bill Mattocks. He can take care of himself, but if he doesn't want to read the books, what is the big deal?

I don't have a tude. But its not simply a matter of him not wanting to read the books. He has formed an opinion on them without having read them, and is speaking as if he knows what he is talking about them. He has an uninformed opinion.

Now, if this discussion were about martial arts, there would be a lot more people telling him he doesn't know what he is talking about. If he were, say, a 22 year old martial artist spouting opinions about martial arts he has never studied in depth, or a guy who does a form of Kenpo that is not EPAK putting up a bunch of videos aiming to "fix" EPAK, but showing an obvious lack of understanding about the system, even going to such lengths as to quote an expert in the system, and then when that expert shows up and tells him he doesn't know what he is talking about, starts arguing with said expert.... Well, not too many people here would value his opinion either.

It is the same situation here. Bill has read reviews about the books, maybe even read the Wikipedia entry about the books. But if he hasn't read the books, his opinion on them is uninformed and of little value.

That is not an attack on Bill. That is an attack on his opinion, and in this topic alone. I have a lot of respect for Bill in general. But as he argues from an uninformed standpoint, how can I, having seen the movie AND read the books -- twice -- give much weight to his opinion?

This is the same standard we generally hold any other topic.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I've never drunk raw sewage either. I know, I know, how can I have a legitimate opinion on the merits of drinking sewage unless I have a little snort?

Unless one can gather enough information that cesspools are unhealthy without having to drink from one. What do you think, possible or not?

Not exactly a 1-for-1 analogy, bill.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

Mr. Mattocks, here is a counter-example: the bible. I hold the opinion that the bible is an incongruous compilation of pseudohistory that, at its worst, espouse a barbaric and self-contradictory system of morality.

Obviously, many would disagree, and I am not trying to enter into a debate about the bible here. Maybe on another thread. But the thing is, I have read the book. Multiple times.

Now, because I have read the book I can enter into a meaningful conversation with other people who have read it as well.

But if I had the opinion I hold now, without even having read it, or even if I held a positive view of the bible (again, without having read it), how much weight would my opinion hold? None. None at all.

So, I think it's fair to say your opinion on the Hunger Games series is of little weight.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Mr. Mattocks, here is a counter-example: the bible. I hold the opinion that the bible is an incongruous compilation of pseudohistory that, at its worst, espouse a barbaric and self-contradictory system of morality.

Obviously, many would disagree, and I am not trying to enter into a debate about the bible here. Maybe on another thread. But the thing is, I have read the book. Multiple times.

Now, because I have read the book I can enter into a meaningful conversation with other people who have read it as well.

But if I had the opinion I hold now, without even having read it, or even if I held a positive view of the bible (again, without having read it), how much weight would my opinion hold? None. None at all.

So, I think it's fair to say your opinion on the Hunger Games series is of little weight.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

In general, I concede your point.

However, my opinion is formed by more than just the novels and the movie in question. We live in a society that increasingly sexualizes and glamorizes the young, while simultaneously sending the message that actually crossing the boundaries one is encouraged to fantasize about is a crime. This dichotomy is apparent everywhere; from billboards with under-age models posing in panties to music videos featuring girls not yet 18 slithering around on stage semi-dressed and crooning about being 'hit more time' and on to junior beauty pageants that dress tiny little girls up in adult clothing and makeup and encourage them to vamp it up for adult judges and strike alluring poses, to magazines which make no excuses for the audience to which they pander, such as Hustler's "Barely Legal."

Now, living in that environment as I do (and I presume you do too), I am aware of these ongoing efforts by media and entertainment industries to pander to what apparently (IMHO) is a national sickness; the desire to see children and young adults in adult situations.

And when I read the reviews of this movie, and saw the previews, I asked myself if the story was about anything other than seeing attractive young things murdering each other for sport. If the story is about oppressive government, that's fine. Could it not have featured adult performers? Ah, but no, it was developed from a series of novels AIMED AT CHILDREN.

So adults are going to see this movie made from novels aimed at children, but they're ignoring the prurient interest and just concentrating on the deeper meaning of government oppression and stuff.

Yes. And people used to read Playboy for the crossword puzzles.

My opinion is informed plenty, I think. I really do not feel I need to wallow in filth to know that it is muddy.

Now I will say this - I am not attempting to persuade anyone to see things my way and agree with me and stay away from the movie. I offered my opinion and explained my reasons for it. My opinion really is as good as yours or anyone else's, I think. You do not have to agree, and it's clear you do not. That's cool.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, I have to say that I thought pretty much the same as Bill when I heard about this, making my judgement on hearing no more than the premise of the movie - I didn't even know it was based on a series of books with a deeper political message. It just sounded distasteful.

Even now I know more, thanks in no small part to this thread, I am still in no hurry to see a film that appears to be, in concept, a mix of Running Man and Rollerball, based on an idea partially inspired by Logan's Run. I know I am making all sorts of judgements based on very limited information but, sadly, that is what people tend to do, especially if it's about something that is not seriously important to them.

Oddly, because the medium is very different, I might be interested in reading the books as the ideas and themes will come out of the pages a good deal better than they will the movie screen.

 

[decepticon]

Bill, are you aware that the movie is based on the first of a series of three novels and that the producers plan to do movies of each of the other two? The second in the series involves the heros from the first movie's Hunger Game being paraded as victors around to each of the districts, where they become aware of a growing spirit of rebellion while at the same time becoming aware of the intense and nefarious plot of the government to crush that rebellion. There is a second version of the Hunger Game, the Quarter Quell, in which previous victors are forced to fight again(some of which are by that time elderly adults). The third book tells the story of the actual rebellion, has no Game, but does have a lot of fighting between the government and the rebels, most of whom are adult and a few of whom are teens.

I think the main reason for teens being used in the initial Hunger Games was twofold, first to make it clear to parents that the government could take at will that most precious to them, and secondly, to communicate to the community that the government could and would remove their hope for the future if they stepped out of line. Also, since the author was writing Young Adult fiction, I think she selected characters that her audience would feel most empathetic toward. I doubt she ever expected the books to gain the wider audience that they have. (Just as you might write a book about 20yo martial arts guys, geared to them as the intended audience, and be surprised when it found a strong audience among the 60yo male and female crowd.)

I believe that the movie was about much more than the fighting. Nearly half of it focused on the period of time prior to the Game. In future installments, the "kids killing kids" will occupy even less screen time. The PG-13 rating was reflective of the fact that the director chose to imply much of the violence or to shoot "around" the actual violence rather than showing it directly. It could have been much bloodier and more graphic than it was, if the intent was to draw an audience looking for "kids killing each other in a government-sanctioned gladiatorial combat, [as their] main, prurient, interest."

Sure, we all have the right to an opion, even one that may be based more on speculation than reality. However, we should not be surprised when others denigrate the value of that opinion. I have not seen many of the martial arts movies that are so often mentioned here on this site. But I do think that I have a basic idea of what they are about. If I started bad mouthing them, and those sickos who wish to watch them, particularly without having even seen them myself, I would expect to be burned to a virtual crisp by the heat I would get from others here. It comes with the territory of commenting on material we have not seen.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I appreciate your argument, but it is an argument that both the books and the movie make as well. Nowhere in either format are the games considered a good thing. They are thoroughly presented as a bad thing. The citizens of the capitol are presented as shallow, callous, and hopelessly foolish when it comes to THEIR idolization of the games.

If anything, the books and movie are a social commentary on how rapidly addicted to macabre entertainment our own society is, and one of the underlying questions posed by both is "where does it stop? At what point do we draw the line? Is this what we are headed towards?"

However, you and I can't really argue these points, because you don't even have a textual basis off of which to work. That would be like me talking about the problems with the council of nice or the fact that we don't have any of the original documentary as if they made up the whole debate on the bible. (For the record, people have done exactly that in their criticism of the bible: focus on the issues surrounding it without ever having read it).

So I maintain that your opinion is not informed, when it comes to this topic. Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion, and I am glad you are not trying to persuade anyone of it, but no, your opinion is frankly not as good as someone who has read the book.

One more counter example: the marines. Someone might know a lot about the marines. May have studied many books about their history, their training. May have even gone to war with some marines.

If they have never been a marine, though, never been through boot camp, never served in the marines, is their opinion of the marines really as well informed, as realistic, as "good"... as a marines?

I'm reminded of Robin Williams's monologue in Good Will Hunting that contains: "But you can't tell me what the Sisteen Chapel SMELLS like."

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, are you aware that the movie is based on the first of a series of three novels and that the producers plan to do movies of each of the other two?

Honestly? No. I've gone about as far into finding out more about the movie and the books as I care to; I find them distasteful enough based on what I've read already. But again, that simply opens me up to the "well if you are not an expert, your opinion does not count" argument. Fine, fine.

I say this without rancor, but with some degree of exasperation. I remember all too well when the 'Britney' risqué music videos first came out - even though she was underage. I heard many adults tell me they admired her musical talent and her dancing abilities, it had nothing to do with her sexual attraction, and they frankly resented any such implication. But reading the comments on the videos, all one read was adults saying "Yeah, I'd hit that." So my reaction is "Oh, puhleeze." Mud is dirty. Playboy is not about crossword puzzles. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

That does not mean that I think everyone who goes to see this movie - or any subsequent sequels - is of that mind. It does mean I think that prurient interest is the market being aimed at, and that's more than enough to squick me and make me not want to see the movie.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Honestly? No. I've gone about as far into finding out more about the movie and the books as I care to; I find them distasteful enough based on what I've read already. But again, that simply opens me up to the "well if you are not an expert, your opinion does not count" argument. Fine, fine.

I say this without rancor, but with some degree of exasperation. I remember all too well when the 'Britney' risqué music videos first came out - even though she was underage. I heard many adults tell me they admired her musical talent and her dancing abilities, it had nothing to do with her sexual attraction, and they frankly resented any such implication. But reading the comments on the videos, all one read was adults saying "Yeah, I'd hit that." So my reaction is "Oh, puhleeze." Mud is dirty. Playboy is not about crossword puzzles. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

That does not mean that I think everyone who goes to see this movie - or any subsequent sequels - is of that mind. It does mean I think that prurient interest is the market being aimed at, and that's more than enough to squick me and make me not want to see the movie.

I am not saying you have to be an expert on the books or movie for your opinion to count. Just that you have READ them. That is a huge bit of difference.

Side note: The thought of Brittany Spears being thought of as a good dancer or singer makes me giggle.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am not saying you have to be an expert on the books or movie for your opinion to count. Just that you have READ them. That is a huge bit of difference.

Then you'll have to consider my opinion invalid, because I am not going to subject myself to that.

Side note: The thought of Brittany Spears being thought of as a good dancer or singer makes me giggle.

Yeah, pretty much my point. You may not remember the debate, but there was one (not on MT). It was the same thing with the Calvin Klein jeans and that child actress, I forget her name. And the 'heroin chic' billboard ads with half-naked kids wearing underwear as fashion. And so on.

Every time it happens, people who like that sort of thing react angrily to any notion that it might be due to purient interest. No, it always has some sort of merit, literary or musical or artistic, or it has a powerful social message, or some such. Well look. Maybe it does to some. I have no idea what's in their hearts and minds. But although I was born at night, I was not born LAST night. I've been around the block enough to know BS when I hear it. When clothing companies that sell clothes to adults put pictures of nearly naked children in their ads, they have something other than biting social commentary in mind. If it is wrong for me to hold that opinion, oh well. I can live with the criticism; I know sick when I see it.

Regardless of your excellent points regarding my ability to discern the difference between literature and smut because I refuse to immerse myself in it, I won't be going to see the movie, and my opinion hasn't changed on what it represents.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6283.html

"I read Playboy for the articles": Justifying and Rationalizing Questionable Preferences
Published: September 24, 2009
Paper Released: September 2009
Authors: Zoë Chance and Michael I. Norton

Executive Summary:

We want others to find us good, fair, responsible and logical; and we place even more importance on thinking of ourselves this way. Therefore, when people behave in ways that might appear selfish, prejudiced, or perverted, they tend to engage a host of strategies designed to justify questionable behavior with rational excuses: "I hired my son because he's more qualified." "I promoted Ashley because she does a better job than Aisha." Or, "I read Playboy for the articles." In this chapter from a forthcoming book, HBS doctoral student Zoë Chance and professor Michael I. Norton describe various means of coping with one's own questionable behavior: through preemptive actions and concurrent strategies for re-framing uncomfortable situations, forgoing decisions, and forgetting those decisions altogether.

That's all I'm saying. Hooters may serve good food. And that's why people go there. RIIIIIIIGHT.

 

[jks9199]

Gents, what I'm seeing here is a difference of opinion. Josh seems to be saying that you can't have an opinion unless you've fully experienced something; in this case, read the book and/or seen the movie. On the other hand, Bill says he can indeed have an opinion, if limited, based on doing some research into it; in this case, he researched the books and especially the movie enough to say they're not to his taste, and that they seem to cater to some tastes he dislikes. I haven't seen Bill say, in so many words, that the movies shouldn't have been made, or the books shouldn't have been written. Nor has he said that nobody should see them. I think you can indeed form an opinion based on what you learn about something, without experiencing it directly. But you also have accept and admit that it's a limited experience.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure that either the books or movies are something I need or desire to experience. I do agree with Bill's larger concern: Our society, over the last few decades, has increasingly begun to glamorize some pretty unsavory things, and things that cause me serious concern. Ten, maybe even five years ago, I probably would have been seeing the movie and reading the books. My opinion has shifted by work exposure, by parenthood, and probably by simply getting older.

 

[Josh Oakley]

No, I didn't say you can't have an opinion. I said that it wouldn't have much weight. And I hold that to be true for ANY book or ANY movie.

If one has never seen the movie or read the book, it simply is not an informed opinion.

As an example from my own life, I have never seen the movie, "The Human Centipede", nor do I care to, because it doesn't look like a movie I would enjoy in the slightest. But I make no allusions as to my opinion being informed. I freely admit ignorance about the movie. I still have no plans on never seeing it.

But I am not going to make any cultural arguments about it one way or the other, because I really don't have enough information to do so.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

Then you'll have to consider my opinion invalid, because I am not going to subject myself to that.

Not invalid. Unsound.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk