My brother-in-law and my wife carpooled themselves and a few kids (total 5 people) to see the Hunger Games.

They drove ~30 km (round trip) at about 10 km/l. Entertainment (of the masses) is what motivated their trip. ~7.8 kg of CO2 "But it's only a tiny amount!"

Meanwhile, we paid President Coriolanus Snow Jon Feltheimer (http://people.forbes.com/profile/jon-feltheimer/49627) $3.6 million for the privilege.

Ironic, or is it ironic?

How far did you drive and at what mileage?

(I guess a similar question could be asked regarding the Lorax, eh?)

Won't see it, and if I wanted to, I'd go by tram or a trolleybus. I reckon that would be much less CO2 intensive.

If I see it, I'll rent the disk when I'm at the grocery store anyways.

I am proud to be the 1% who hates the Hunger Games. I watch movies at home anyways.

It's tempting to hate it because it's popular, but it looks like a film I'd enjoy. Although one review said the action scenes were a little far fetched? Can anyone comment on that? No spoilers please. Although we all know how it ends anyways. Only downside to a film like this.

I will wait for the crowds to die down. For one, I don't like crowds. Two, people might think I'm a weirdo that a man my age would want to watch this film. I wish the film wasn't aimed entirely to teenagers, but given the character in the book is that age, what can you do. I'd rather they kept the rated R content (a lot of violence has been toned down I hear) of the books.

When I do see it, I won't drive too far. Although I may drive to where I work, since those are nicer theaters than the ones by my house. My work is 19 miles away. The theater by my house is 1 mile away. We shall see.

I walk to the Cinema

nope!

Not seeing it for the same reason I didn't see those vampire movies or Harry Potter: I am not a 13 year old girl.

Also I hear there is shaky cam stuff which I can't stand in films. Grrrrr. :mad:

As for what it's about, read the books. I haven't read them, but I did buy them for my brother for Christmas. The guys at work said it's a ripoff of the Running Man, but I don't think that's entirely true. Although I'm sure she got some ideas from that. Everything is a ripoff of everything else anyways.

Not seeing it for the same reason I didn't see those vampire movies or Harry Potter: I am not a 13 year old girl.

This movie doesn't have gay vampires in it.

This movie doesn't have gay vampires in it.

Gay wizards, gay vampires, gay teenagers in some jungle. All the same, not interested.

I'd rather they kept the rated R content (a lot of violence has been toned down I hear) of the books.

One of the sillier criticisms, in my opinion, because there sure is no lack of violence.

Also I hear there is shaky cam stuff which I can't stand in films. Grrrrr. :mad:

Oh yeah, there's a lot of that.

As for what it's about, read the books. I haven't read them, but I did buy them for my brother for Christmas. The guys at work said it's a ripoff of the Running Man, but I don't think that's entirely true. Although I'm sure she got some ideas from that. Everything is a ripoff of everything else anyways.

Hahahaha, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

It sounds more like battle royale for the twilight generation than running man...

My brother-in-law and my wife carpooled themselves and a few kids (total 5 people) to see the Hunger Games.

They drove ~30 km (round trip) at about 10 km/l. Entertainment (of the masses) is what motivated their trip. ~7.8 kg of CO2 "But it's only a tiny amount!"

Meanwhile, we paid President Coriolanus Snow Jon Feltheimer (http://people.forbes.com/profile/jon-feltheimer/49627) $3.6 million for the privilege.

Ironic, or is it ironic?

How far did you drive and at what mileage?

(I guess a similar question could be asked regarding the Lorax, eh?)

I drove for about 5 hoursover the weekend, to visit my parents, go to work, and then home. I can't believe what a selfish person I am, putting emotional needs like seeing my family for the first time in months over the shoreline of an island nation halfway around the world. :cry:

I can't legally drive. :p

The book is better than the movie. I watched it over the weekend. Didn't have to go far to see it.

Not seeing it for the same reason I didn't see those vampire movies or Harry Potter: I am not a 13 year old girl.

Whatever, Harry Potter was awesome. :)

I sold my car 2 months ago, so I travel exclusively via bus, subway, or walking....with the exception of last weekend, when I borrowed a friend's minivan to help another friend move.

Am i the only one that doesn't understand the relation between some movie and the island of Tuvalu (?)

Am i the only one that doesn't understand the relation between some movie and the island of Tuvalu (?)

Global warming is supposed to be causing Tuvalu to flood.

It's the new original sin. Just as the western world liberates itself from the feeling of perpetual guilt just by virtue of being alive taught by Christianity, we're now supposed to feel guilty by virtue of doing pretty much anything because global warming will come and kill everybody thanks to our evil ways.

Society is addicted to guilt, that's my take.

Am i the only one that doesn't understand the relation between some movie and the island of Tuvalu (?)

Driving to the cinema increases global warming and Tuvalu is one of the first places to disappear if the ocean rises.
edit: Oh no crosspost

Bad environmentalism: making people feel guilty about destroying the environment.
Good environmentalism: making people feel empowered about sustainable development.

Global warming is supposed to be causing Tuvalu to flood.

It's the new original sin. Just as the western world liberates itself from the feeling of perpetual guilt just by virtue of being alive taught by Christianity, we're now supposed to feel guilty by virtue of doing pretty much anything because global warming will come and kill everybody thanks to our evil ways.

Society is addicted to guilt, that's my take.

The movie is about a decadent society abusing a weak society solely for their amusement, with an added bonus of the decadent 'elite' wildly benefiting from the scheme.

The second half of your second paragraph is entirely false

Bad environmentalism: making people feel guilty about destroying the environment.
Good environmentalism: making people feel empowered about sustainable development.
The prerequisite for achieving the latter in any substantial way, unfortunately, is to actually empower people, and that's not one of the options which conventional politics offers us. :undecide:

The "going out to go see a movie" experience doesn't really appeal to me anymore.

1. 80% of all movies that come out are crap
2. Everything is gimmicky.. 3D this, prequel that
3. The atmosphere inside the movie theatre itself isn't worth paying for - there's people using cellphones, crying kids, people talking, etc.

Why would I spend my hard earned money for an experience like that? I'd rather wait until the movie makes it to my friend's HD

Wait, so what is the relation between enviromentalism and this movie specifically and not Harry Potter or smthing ?

The "going out to go see a movie" experience doesn't really appeal to me anymore.

1. 80% of all movies that come out are crap
2. Everything is gimmicky.. 3D this, prequel that
3. The atmosphere inside the movie theatre itself isn't worth paying for - there's people using cellphones, crying kids, people talking, etc.

Why would I spend my hard earned money for an experience like that? I'd rather wait until the movie makes it to my friend's HD

You're obviously going to the wrong movies.

As for the OP, I'm going to see it on Monday (even though I haven't read the book, which I really want to get around too). I'm probably going to see it with a couple friends, all going in different cars to the same theater; because we all have a special hatred for the island of Tuvalu.

Wait, so what is the relation between enviromentalism and this movie specifically and not Harry Potter or smthing ?

Here you go:

The movie is about a decadent society abusing a weak society solely for their amusement, with an added bonus of the decadent 'elite' wildly benefiting from the scheme.

The second half of your second paragraph is entirely false

Personally, I think there's a more poignant point to be made in pointing out how American lifestyles in general are substantiated by exploitation of the workers of the world at large, and gee whiz isn't it funny how those Capitol people sure do live lives of sybaritic excess while everyone else starves, but the parallels certainly apply for doing nothing to stem the tide of environmental degradation.

Save the planet, pirate movies! ;)

I don't own a car, and don't need to use one to travel to a movie theater anyway, and, furthermore, I have not been interested in watching The Hunger Games.

I have to agree with emu's statement, that substantially it seems as though buzz for the movie blew up between a month and six weeks ago with no obvious reasoning behind it. Seems like quality marketing: nobody knows how it works (marketing's just "alcohol and guessing", as the saying goes), but it seems to have worked.

Here you go:
[........]


Personally, I think there's a more poignant point to be made in pointing out how American lifestyles in general are substantiated by exploitation of the workers of the world at large, and gee whiz isn't it funny how those Capitol people sure do live lives of sybaritic excess while everyone else starves, but the parallels certainly apply for doing nothing to stem the tide of environmental degradation.
I still don't see the direct relation between the plot of the movie and enviromental disasters. But i'll just drop the subject since it seems i'm the only one who doesn't get this association.

I don't have any interest in the Hunger Games.

I don't need to go to the movies or read the book. I have my own hunger games at home.

http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Hungry-Hungry-Hippos-Box.jpg

I still don't see the direct relation between the plot of the movie and enviromental disasters. But i'll just drop the subject since it seems i'm the only one who doesn't get this association.

Well, it makes sense if you conflate doing nothing about the environment with exploiting the Third World.

No, it's more that driving to the movie will help steal Tuvulu shoreline. Like the people in the Capitol, they went to their entertainments whose expense was directly foisted onto the poor districts. It's not doing nothing, it's aggravating the issue.

(the books were actually really good, for the genre, I've been told. There's a lot of hype because the books' popularity was somewhat viral)

I am proud to be the 1% who hates the Hunger Games. I watch movies at home anyways.
He just admitted he's a 1%er... fellas, get the rope.

Save the planet, pirate movies! ;)
I don't even rememer the last time I went to cinema... now where is my medal?

I prefer stealing the coast of Prussia to see movies.

I don't even rememer the last time I went to cinema... now where is my medal?
You only would have gotten a medal if you'd referred to it as a nickelodeon.

I prefer stealing the coast of Prussia to see movies.
Since Prussia belongs to the vile Poles and the godless Russians these days...so do I?

I rarely goto see movies, I just wait 'till I can download them & watch from the comfort of my own home. I sold my cars & quit driving a couple months ago & while the NJ public transportation system leaves much to be desired I'm still happier since I quit driving. These three chicks from a halfway house on the bus the other day were quite entertaining.

If I wanted to go out & have fun I'd rather have active fun like playing paintball or hiking (free!).

Talking of CO2 I plan to look into various electric bike stores in NYC come April. I have a gasoline powered bike engine I got for about $300 but while it's amazing when it's working it stalls out alot which sucks when I'm 10+ miles from home. I prefer electric because fewer moving parts & if I get it at a local (NY) bike shop I'll make sure to get it with a warranty.

I still don't see the direct relation between the plot of the movie and enviromental disasters. But i'll just drop the subject since it seems i'm the only one who doesn't get this association.

It's not the plot of the movie, it's driving to the theater to see it. Basically, we should feel guilty any time we drive a car or use the computer. Because both things destroy the shoreline of Tuvulu.

Yes, I feel guilty for each and every google search I do. I read an article how much electricity google uses, and it's pretty astonishing. Google is really causing global warming. But sometimes I just need to search for something.

I touched on this in an earlier thread that got deleted (for other reasons). But the only way for me to live my life guilt free would be to live in a cave, and eat cave fungus and condensation from the walls for water. Even then, I'd be depriving the cave from the use of some other animal species to use like a mountain lion. The poor animal may die from starvation.

I have since decided I will just have to live my life racked with guilt. Yes I feel guilty every time I drive, and I feel guilty ever time I use the computer. My only other choice is to just stay at home and stare at the wall. Even then, I'm paying for groceries (which are transported using trucks), and using electricity and natural gas for heating and cooling.

Or just live with Morgan's philosophy:

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

CEO Nwabudike Morgan
"The Ethics of Greed"

This thread seems to be more about fuel economy and carbon footprint than the movie. I will see the movie once it comes out on DVD. As for vehicles I drive a fully loaded 18 wheeler for leisure trips. That way I have room in the back to carry my backup SUV in case the 18 wheeler breaks down.

I have since decided I will just have to live my life racked with guilt. Yes I feel guilty every time I drive, and I feel guilty ever time I use the computer. My only other choice is to just stay at home and stare at the wall. Even then, I'm paying for groceries (which are transported using trucks), and using electricity and natural gas for heating and cooling.


That seems silly. The negative externalities of fossil fuel use are (currently) really tiny compared to the personal benefits we get from using fossil fuels. It would be vastly superior to turn your efforts to using it wisely, and to use a portion of the profits to either reduce your future damage or to mitigate the damage that's been done.

The Pacific Climate Change Science Program tells me the annual sea level rise is about 5mms and on those figures it'll take another decade at least before parts of the population need to be relocated. That's assuming that the Australia and New Zealand don't do what we do best and sort the matter out for them. I'm still not sure what the heck motivates them not to enter into free association with New Zealand. But w/e. It's our (Antipodean) problem and not America's.

To put things in perspective: 10,000 people live in Tuvalu. If the worst case scenario happens and their island is completely swallowed by the sea, this means that 10,000 people will have to gradually relocate to a different country, probably New Zealand, which already receives a small (but in relative terms substantial) amount of Tuvaluan immigrants every year.

In my country, 50,000 people die every year on the horrible, dangerous roads which the government fails to properly maintain. Globally, about 1.3 million people die of malaria every year.

So on my list of problems, Tuvalu is pretty much non-existent.

And didn't they already purchase land on some nearby island, or am I thinking of another small pacific island? They already planned for the future.

Need I say it? The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. While I still feel guilty, I'm not going to alter my life for them. I live in a society that necessitates fossil fuel use in order to survive. I didn't pick the society I was born into (and yes I realize neither did they).

Sounds a lot of rationalization going on here. When did we stop caring, or did we ever start in the first place? Is this the nation of narcissism? Will humans ever evolve past the point of self-interest?

The World's atmosphere contains 0.0387% carbon dioxide.

Shockingly, this may go up to a full 1% if we carry on like this for another 12,000 years or so.

So... yeah...

To put things in perspective: 10,000 people live in Tuvalu.
To put things in a different perspective, Tuvalu is an analogy for about a billion+ other people

The World's atmosphere contains 0.0387% carbon dioxide.

Shockingly, this may go up to a full 1% if we carry on like this for another 12,000 years or so.

So... yeah...

If we carry on like this we won't be here in 12,000 years. If we continue with business as usual, until we can't, it would result in a 6C degree increase in global temperatures and a runaway green house effect. It would make the planet uninhabitable.

If we continue with business as usual, until we can't, it would result in a 6C degree increase in global temperatures and a runaway green house effect. It would make the planet uninhabitable.

Except that it won't. Ah yes, that's right - it won't. :rolleyes:

Except that it won't.

An argument from ignorance apparently. :p

If we carry on like this we won't be here in 12,000 years. If we continue with business as usual, until we can't, it would result in a 6C degree increase in global temperatures and a runaway green house effect. It would make the planet uninhabitable.


It won't be uninhabitable- just a crappy place to live.

An argument from ignorance apparently. :p

Not really, but unless you really want to post up tens of thousands of pages of evidence in support of your argument, we are going to have to abstract at some level. ;)

Not really, but unless you really want to post up tens of thousands of pages of evidence in support of your argument, we are going to have to abstract at some level. ;)

We have a thread on it if you have the time to read through it.

It won't be uninhabitable- just a crappy place to live.

What do you propose, living in underground vaults?

See the book and documentary 6 degrees
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/

The World's atmosphere contains 0.0387% carbon dioxide.

Shockingly, this may go up to a full 1% if we carry on like this for another 12,000 years or so.

So... yeah...

Why? What happens at 1%?

What about 0.04%? Or 0.0388%?

Why? What happens at 1%?

What about 0.04%? Or 0.0388%?

Absolutely nothing will happen. It will take tens of thousands of years of sustained and massive pollution for us to change the climate in a significant way. Truth is, it's all good. But the sheeple like to have passing hysterical interludes and this is just one of them.

If we carry on like this we won't be here in 12,000 years. If we continue with business as usual, until we can't, it would result in a 6C degree increase in global temperatures and a runaway green house effect. It would make the planet uninhabitable.

With that post I cant take you seriously on the issue of climate.

With that post I cant take you seriously on the issue of climate.

Why not? You seriously think we can survive a runaway green house gas effect? It killed off 95% of life on Earth before and that happened over a 10,000 year period.

Why not? You seriously think we can survive a runaway green house gas effect? It killed off 95% of life on Earth before and that happened over a 10,000 year period.

Venus is a runaway greenhouse effect. 6C not so much. Humans can adapt to that kind of temperature.

Why not? You seriously think we can survive a runaway green house gas effect? It killed off 95% of life on Earth before and that happened over a 10,000 year period.

Wait.. so there was one before...


and there is still life on Earth today...


so you answered your own question, and the answer is "yes"!

Absolutely nothing will happen. It will take tens of thousands of years of sustained and massive pollution for us to change the climate in a significant way. Truth is, it's all good. But the sheeple like to have passing hysterical interludes and this is just one of them.

What about the scientists and stuff who disagree, who think that there is a problem?

If/when we see it we will be walking and/or riding our local public transit biodiesel SF [com]MUNI[st] bus.

No, it's true. A 6C rise wouldn't make things 'uninhabitable' (except that the last CO2-associated mass extinction probably had a slower influx of new CO2 compared to our current rate), but it sure would be unpleasant

It's debatable. Some scientist say that +6C warming is just too unpredictable. It could range from barely livable to uninhabitable (depending on how civilization reacts to shrinking resources.)

Certainly, there would be fewer habitable zones in which to live.

According the Lynas (Author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet) the Tropical regions would be become arid wastelands, virtually devoid of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_Hotter_Planet

But I don't think we'll let it get that bad before we decide to change our ways. Sure, it's easy to shrug off some unfortunate islanders half-a-world away, but when it's your own lands/life you don't have a choice.

I don't really think it's a nit that I want to pick. I mean, it would suck, horribly, unless we built social wealth much more quickly than we caused widespread environmental destruction.

Just watch Battle Royale.

If we carry on like this we won't be here in 12,000 years. If we continue with business as usual, until we can't, it would result in a 6C degree increase in global temperatures and a runaway green house effect. It would make the planet uninhabitable.

Why do you pick the 6C increase scenario Murky? Predictions on this line appear anywhere from 1.5C up to 6C, and without a full understanding of the feedback loops it's little more than guesswork. Yet you present 6C increase (and further extrapolations as to apocalyptic effects from this) as unquestionable fact. You may remember an earlier thread on this subject - the basic science of CO2's impact on temperature is well understood, but there is a lot of total rubbish and guesswork presented about global warming and its potential impact. There's a rather worrying trend at the moment of people pointing to the CO2 - temperature connection as sound science, and then acting like any prediction made about climate change is equally sound and unquestionable.

@El Machinae - Well, I didn't go to the movie, and as I don't run a car at the moment I guess that probably makes me "holier than thou" as far as green credentials go. But I try not to be obnoxious about it and make people feel guilty for living their life. You may not like the comparison to the concept of "original sin" earlier, but there is a noticeable resemblence. Everyone can be attacked in some aspect of their life as harming the environment, if you look at tiny enough effects. You're no exception - the very fact you use a computer is "stealing Tuvalu's shore" as you put it. It's suitably nebulous that it can't be disproved - though I do wonder if sending them a bucket of sand would be sufficient to counterbalance my tiny contribution. Short of summarily commititing suicide, there's no real way of avoiding this particular guilt trip.

If you're actually interested in getting people to be more environmentally friendly, I have to say this is a really bad line to take. Few things are more off putting than someone trying to guilt trip you over something I don't consider a "sin".

Why do you pick the 6C increase scenario

It was in response to another post that implied that we could more than double Co2 concentrations without any adverse consequences. I personally believe that we will be forced to chance long before 6C degrees will occur, so it's an unlikely worst case scenario. The idea that we can continue business as usual forever is absurd.

It was in response to another post that implied that we could more than double Co2 concentrations without any adverse consequences. I personally believe that we will be forced to chance long before 6C degrees will occur, so it's an unlikely worst case scenario. The idea that we can continue business as usual forever is absurd.

I didn't say forever - in 12,000 years time this might get serious.

Bad environmentalism: making people feel guilty about destroying the environment.
Good environmentalism: making people feel empowered about sustainable development.

I endorse this post. :goodjob:

How about we talk about global warming in that thread, and we talk about the movie here. :D

I still haven't heard any reviews from people here. Fact is, I don't trust professional reviewers anymore. They are all paid by the studios as far as I'm concerned. And IMDB closed their free forums (I think you have to pay now), so I'm asking here. Should I see this movie or not?

I didn't say forever - in 12,000 years time this might get serious.

Which is just as absurd.

I still say we'll run out of oil and fossil fuels before it really gets bad. I'm not worried about it. If humans go extinct who cares. Humans don't own the planet. Nothing says we have to exist on this planet. The planet will survive one way or another.

It's a bit the opposite. We have an ability to use some more of the oil, but it's nigh-impossible for us to safely use the easy-to-access coal deposits. This is part of the reason why there's so much concern. If dangerous levels of CO2 weren't possible with our present fossil fuel reserves, there'd be no real concern

I don't know how it compares to the books but I saw it yesterday, and from what I could tell it was pretty lacking. The movie fails to give any rational explanation as to why these kids have to fight to the death, also once you finally get to the actual fighting (like more than halfway through the film) your presented with choppy, distorted, and completely off camera death scenes which should have made the best part of the show.

So unless your some kind of fan of the book series your better of waiting for it to come out on netflix or something, save your money for 21 Jump Street or the Lorax instead.

I don't know how it compares to the books but I saw it yesterday, and from what I could tell it was pretty lacking. The movie fails to give any rational explanation as to why these kids have to fight to the death, also once you finally get to the actual fighting (like more than halfway through the film) your presented with choppy, distorted, and completely off camera death scenes which should have made the best part of the show.

So unless your some kind of fan of the book series your better of waiting for it to come out on netflix or something, save your money for 21 Jump Street or the Lorax instead.

hmm, sounds disappointing. That's my only beef with those kinds of movies. As bad as society can be, I can't see anything like that happening. It's why I never bothered to see the Japanese movie with the similar theme. Even the Running Man was pretty silly. Society will never get the way portrayed in the film. A lot of films do the nightmare futuristic society, and they go overboard in their depiction imho.

The movie was lacking and I think much of it was due to the limitation of the medium. There is quite a bit of important introspection that takes place in the book that didn't show through well in the movie. I'm not sure how well I would have been able to follow the movie if I hadn't read the book first. The whole movie felt quite rushed and lost much of its meaning.

I am proud to be the 1% who hates the Hunger Games. I watch movies at home anyways.
This.

Also, kind of relevant:
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/properties/mallardfillmore/art_images/cg4f614b13af67b.tiff_lr.jpg

hmm, sounds disappointing. That's my only beef with those kinds of movies. As bad as society can be, I can't see anything like that happening. It's why I never bothered to see the Japanese movie with the similar theme. Even the Running Man was pretty silly. Society will never get the way portrayed in the film. A lot of films do the nightmare futuristic society, and they go overboard in their depiction imho.

Well, the vagaries of the society in The Hunger Games aren't really the important part of the novel, it's just a framing device.

I probably drove 3-4 miles round trip (to pick up a friend, then go to the Theater.. at 18ish MPG

I'm doing my bit by not seeing the movie, although Jennifer Lawrence does look quite hot.

I hate Tuvalu, so I may just go joyriding after this post. A Tuvaluan once insulted my grandfather, if you must know.

I haven't seen the movie, but the books are pretty good. They're a quick read. Nothing to warrant the hype, but still good.

also once you finally get to the actual fighting (like more than halfway through the film) your presented with choppy, distorted, and completely off camera death scenes which should have made the best part of the show.
This happens in the books, too. Much of the action takes place where Katniss can't see it happening, & since it's entirely written in the first person, the reader doesn't "see" it either. I think she only directly kills one person out of the 24 kids, so it's not real action-y in the book, either.

The movie was lacking and I think much of it was due to the limitation of the medium. There is quite a bit of important introspection that takes place in the book that didn't show through well in the movie.
This, too. She does a lot of reflecting on society & sometimes playing up to the cameras (The Hunger Games are broadcast to the rest of the country, for those wondering) while you hear her internal monologue about what's she's trying to convey, so I don't know how they handled all that in the movie.

This, too. She does a lot of reflecting on society & sometimes playing up to the cameras (The Hunger Games are broadcast to the rest of the country, for those wondering) while you hear her internal monologue about what's she's trying to convey, so I don't know how they handled all that in the movie.

"Not well," is the short answer. The long answer is that they preserved a sense of ambiguity that certainly pervades the books by never explicitly, out-and-out stating any of the characters' feelings, which is an interesting approach stylistically but one which I am not sure is entirely effective.

Of course, I can certainly appreciate the old college try. But people I saw the movie with who had not read the books were, for example, very confused by the romance aspect, which is explicitly stated in the books as an act but which in the movie is left up to the viewers' interpretation.

The apologist in me wants to say that was a conscious decision, as we the viewers occupy a position similar to the population of Panem as onlookers, and are similarly disengaged from the reality of the matter, but I think that's stretching it a bit.

Nothing I had heard about Hunger Games piqued my interest - until I realized that Jennifer Lawrence is the lead.

She was absolutely brilliant in Winter's Bone. Gotta see the movie.

Watched the movie with my friends. It was entertaining, but there was essentially no character development beyond stated roles.

There was a bunch of bread puns related to the bakery worker Peeta; as his namesake suggests, he is flat and never rises to the occasion.

I don't get what this thread is about.

Watched it at the drive-in. The movie was inane and I had a very hard time understanding why it got such good reviews. To me it was no better than the Twilight movies. The whole concept behind the stories seems inane to me and I honestly don't think I'll be reading the books either.

On the bright side, my gf had a great time at the drive-in!