Hunger Games discussion

[Billnew]

Just saw hunger games last night.
My first thought was this movie is to "liberal" for me. Ie the world is the extreme of a liberals worst of society.
The rich elite of one province live it up while they suck the 12 other provinces dry, leaving them barely or less then enough to survive on.
To prevent a revolt, they force each province to send two children (boy and girl) to a death match were(normally) only 1 will survive.

Then I thought about it, this is like Robinhood. It isn't the rich doing all this, it is goverment. The goverment faction sucks the peons dry, while living in luxury.
(Robinhood steals from the goverment & church and gives back to the people.)

So my question, which do you think it is? Rich or goverment or both are the same?
If the book changes the answer please specify you refer to the book. I have not read the books(and probably won't.)

Please keep the discussion civil, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this is a work of fiction so anyone could be right...I mean correct.
I considered placing this question in politics, but with the election it would have been lost in a few hours.

 

[Billnew]

In A fuedalist society, the elite own everything and govern over its use and reap the benefits of all actions in their lands. So the goverment was also the rich, and the rich were usually the goverment. Those rich that were not goverment tended to earn their money rather then take it from their subjects.

So in RobinHood, he did steal from the rich and the goverment and the tyranical church.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

I guess it depends on what kind of society you are living in: capitilistic would be different than socialistic as well as communistic...so depending on the situation the rich could be a part of the problem or the solution to the problem. They (the rich) do create jobs, but they also oppress the poor...considering this there must be a system that puts both in check (capitalism does this best). But that is another thread...The Hunger Games is what happens when civility is discarded and anarchy takes over. It happened in Rome and it can happen again.

 

[theweirdn8]

I'm looking forward to the sequel.

It was a bit strange how the poor seemed to not have any type of technology whatsoever.

 

[SoldierOfSoul]

The first book was good, after that they started going in a weird direction.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

The third and final book was terrible.

 

[Acebopata]

My great grandma tried to watch it, and she frankly thought the people who made and wrote the film where on drugs when they did it. I didn't bother with it, though.

 

[Billnew]

I'm looking forward to the sequel.

It was a bit strange how the poor seemed to not have any type of technology whatsoever.

I did not think the movie(or book even) would be entertaining, but I did like it(the movie). I usually dislike violence against kids. But the way the movie did it, I am looking forward to seeing the nobles fall.

My great grandma tried to watch it, and she frankly thought the people who made and wrote the film where on drugs when they did it. I didn't bother with it, though.

I have seen a few movies that I have thought that, but this is not one of them. It is a different type of society then we are use too, but didn't seem to be the working of a mind altered state.

Personally, I don't see a people allowing this to continue. You can buy people, you can demonize a class of people to make others hate them, but eventually people will see the truth, and it will spread.

The hunger games didn't fix the problem. They use the games to keep the people in line. It doesn't kill the strongest of the clan, just a random boy and girl. The longer a people starve, the more they seek freedom to find their own food. When the goverment takes to much from people, they will find a way to keep for themselves or steal from the goverment that steals from them.

What would the goverment of Hunger games be classed as?
Feudal-like? Comunist?(everyone gives everything and goverment decides what each persons share should be?)
Or is there a better label for it?

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

What would the goverment of Hunger games be classed as?
Feudal-like? Comunist?(everyone gives everything and goverment decides what each persons share should be?)
Or is there a better label for it?

Totalitarian

1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

 

[Billnew]

Totalitarian

1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

thanks, I didn't think the ones I pointed to were close enough to fit this goverment.