I want to see Frozen too, wild rose. I can't say I care much for the hunger games, I actually find the fact that we call it entertainment fairly sickening. That we would entertain ideas like this even in a theoretical world doesn't even seem right to me. No judgments for people who do go see it...i just can't seem to stomach it myself.

Moonlight, The Hunger Games series is meant to make us look at ourselves as a society. It doesn't glorify violence. It's a disturbing social commentary and that's its point. The movies, more the books though, show that the Hunger Games are a horrible event and that the lower-class people suffer but the killing games are viewed as entertainment by the higher-ups in society. This moral dilemma drives the main character Katniss to do something about this injustice.

Aaggh, I want to see Frozen so badly, but I haven't been able to! I am trying to avoid spoilers. I'm probably going to see it this weekend. I look forward to reading your thoughts on it, Wrose!

Has anyone seen The Book Thief? Unfortunately, I won't be able to see it in theaters, but it looks pretty good. I like the design of the film (sets, costumes, casting), so I'm looking forward to seeing it when it comes out on video.

I might see Catching Fire; I had mixed feelings about the book, largely due to the Katniss/Peeta/Gale thing. As for the violence... I do feel that the book condemns it. However, I am disappointed by the marketing for Catching Fire, like the Capitol makeup... I think that painting the fandom in that way misses the message of the book.

I might see Catching Fire; I had mixed feelings about the book, largely due to the Katniss/Peeta/Gale thing. As for the violence... I do feel that the book condemns it. However, I am disappointed by the marketing for Catching Fire, like the Capitol makeup... I think that painting the fandom in that way misses the message of the book.

You're exactly right there. If there were just the usual - the books and the movies, that would be okay. But the accompanying movie products do seem to be rather ironic, given the nature of the books, even the movies.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.... What can I say? In order for me to enjoy this film I had to separate the book and movie. I went into the theatre knowing that if I was expecting a good adaptation of the book I would be severely disappointed. So I viewed this film as a film not as an adaptation.

Smaug is officially the greatest dragon ever! The CGI on Smaug is absolutely incredible and the exchange between Bilbo and Smaug is the equivalent of the Bilbo/Gollum scene in the first film.

Visually the film is fantastic from the Necromancer to the Spiders in Mirkwood. And thankfuly Azog looks 10 times better than he did in the first film. The film suffers from bloated scenes and video game action scenes *cough cough Legolas* much like An Unexpected Journey , but its an entertaining film and I'm really excited for the final instalment next year!

7.5 out of 10 Stars

Regarding catching fire, and the Hunger Games in general, I have to say that the plot is very contrived. Even though the protagonist Katniss is designed to evoke sympathy from the reader/viewer, the source of entertainment is still the "games" and the kill or be killed mentality. It is even mentioned in the movie that the "games" would not exist if people not watch or follow it. So my take is that even though everyone is rooting for Katniss we are still finding some entertainment value in the violence and killing of children, which is just too disturbing for me to stomach and support. That is why I won't go to see the movie. Again it's a personal decision and I don't judge others who go to see it.

Anyone have any other thoughts?

Regarding catching fire, and the Hunger Games in general, I have to say that the plot is very contrived. Even though the protagonist Katniss is designed to evoke sympathy from the reader/viewer, the source of entertainment is still the "games" and the kill or be killed mentality. It is even mentioned in the movie that the "games" would not exist if people not watch or follow it. So my take is that even though everyone is rooting for Katniss we are still finding some entertainment value in the violence and killing of children, which is just too disturbing for me to stomach and support. That is why I won't go to see the movie. Again it's a personal decision and I don't judge others who go to see it.

I don't know of anyone who gets any enjoyment out of the games or the killing of children while watching/reading The Hunger Games. Everyone I've ever talked to about them has said that the games are horrendous, and that the reason why they read the books is because they want to see the games stopped/the Capitol defeated. Many of them also read/watch The Hunger Games because they believe the books/movies make a good point about society - that someday, society in real life might become so bad that it might one day create something such as the games; and so they read the books to see what points it makes concerning it, and what we can do to prevent such a society from happening.

As for the part in the story where it says the games would not exist if people not watch or follow it, I'm not sure what that has to do with real audiences. The people who watch and follow the games in the story are either forced to do so, or choose to do so because they are evil bad guys that the real-life viewers/readers are rooting against. This doesn't say anything about people in real life who read the books or watch the movies.

~Riella

Moonlight, fair enough if you can't stomach "The Hunger Games" but please at least read my previous post that addresses your concerns about glorifying the killing of children as a form of entertainment. Either way, Riella expressed my thoughts concerning the series far better than I in her above post, so try reading it to see what we mean. Thanks.

Moonlight, The Hunger Games series is meant to make us look at ourselves as a society. It doesn't glorify violence. It's a disturbing social commentary and that's its point. The movies, more the books though, show that the Hunger Games are a horrible event and that the lower-class people suffer but the killing games are viewed as entertainment by the higher-ups in society. This moral dilemma drives the main character Katniss to do something about this injustice.

Here's the thing: as entertainment, we root for Katniss as both the "hero" and "victim." Even the higher ups in the books did the same thing as they rooted for Katniss and sent her donations throughout the games. That is why I'm saying we as viewers or fans of the hunger games are playing the same part as the capital residents do simply by giving these types of ideas an audience.

The universe is contrived by the author. The "games" are contrived by the author and even Katniss is carefully sculpted to evoke our sympathy. Even though the book paints it as bad, it is still a carefully contrived universe designed to evoke our emotions. We get so caught up in Katniss's survival that we advocate the kill or be killed mentality. It even becomes acceptable for Katniss to directly or indirectly kill other children, due to the fact that these "born killers" were desensitized at an early age.

I personally do not believe that the author wrote the book to consider potential downfalls of society because the truth is no such games would ever exist; there would be wars and parents would die long before sending their children to be sacrificed. The author wrote this book knowing that the intensity of such a disturbing situation would catch people's interest.

Can't comment on the second book and movie. I've read the first book out of curiosity, only seen bits and pieces of the movie. As far as exploring potential downfalls of society, we need go no further than to examine history and look at the world around us.

At the end of the day however, I just feel in my heart that my time is better spent doing other things than giving thought and life to violence and disturbing ideas. Perhaps it's because I'm a teacher and I see all the levels of damage that this type of society would do to children and their development, so from my perspective it's probably more disturbing to me than to others.

Here's the thing: as entertainment, we root for Katniss as both the "hero" and "victim." Even the higher ups in the books did the same thing as they rooted for Katniss and sent her donations throughout the games. That is why I'm saying we as viewers or fans of the hunger games are playing the same part as the capital residents do simply by giving these types of ideas an audience.

There is a difference between rooting for her to survive via self-defense and rooting for her to kill in an immoral way. There were some people she was forced to kill, but these were murderous people who were eager to partake in the games. Not every "contestant" was sent into the games against their will. Many dreamed to go because they were wicked and liked to murder - and these were the ones Katniss was forced to kill, in self-defense. Rooting for Katniss in such a situation as this is no different than rooting for Legolas when he is shooting orcs, or rooting for any hero in any movie when they defend themselves against the bad guy. It would be much different if we were rooting for Katniss if she were trying to kill, say, Rue or someone who (like Katniss) was there against their will. But this didn't happen.

The universe is contrived by the author. The "games" are contrived by the author and even Katniss is carefully sculpted to evoke our sympathy. Even though the book paints it as bad, it is still a carefully contrived universe designed to evoke our emotions. We get so caught up in Katniss's survival that we advocate the kill or be killed mentality. It even becomes acceptable for Katniss to directly or indirectly kill other children, due to the fact that these "born killers" were desensitized at an early age.

There's nothing wrong with an author evoking sympathy for the hero, and making us want the hero to defeat the bad guys. When we watch a movie like Die Hard or other action films, where the hero has to kill the bad guys or be killed, it's the same situation. As I said before, the people Katniss had to kill were quite eager to murder. They were not just "desensitized". They eagerly killed innocent people while mocking their victims and congratulating themselves. I can understand if their age bothers some people; but while their age makes it more sad, it doesn't make Katniss's actions wrong. Every murderer was once a child. And if an eagerly bloodthirsty 16-year-old comes at you with a knife, you're going to defend yourself. And be much within your right to do so. I think it would be very foolish to just sit back and say, "Well, they're going to kill me if I don't do something. But I'm just going to sit here and let them do it, because they're underage, and hurting them to defend myself would be morally wrong."

I personally do not believe that the author wrote the book to consider potential downfalls of society because the truth is no such games would ever exist; there would be wars and parents would die long before sending their children to be sacrificed. The author wrote this book knowing that the intensity of such a disturbing situation would catch people's interest.

It's highly likely the author chose to write about this to consider potential downfalls of society. That's the intention of most authors who write dystopian sci-fi. And it actually is very possible such a thing as the games could exist sometime in the future. Societies are capable of terrible things, and one only has to look at history to observe this. Young children have been taken into slavery, prostitution, etc. and their parents were not able to prevent it. Not everyone has the means to start a war, and attempts at defending others and self-sacrifices don't always work. When people are weak, poor, and powerless, they do not always have the means to stop those who are in power from doing horrible things and taking away the ones they love. Powerful rulers are quite capable of terrorizing their subjects, without the subjects being able to stop it. That's why books/movies like The Hunger Games are necessary: to show people these situations are possible, and that freedom and safety are not nearly as secure as we think. And once we lose that, we are not always able to get it back.

As far as exploring potential downfalls of society, we need go no further than to examine history and look at the world around us.

True, looking at history will teach us many things. But that doesn't mean we can't write books about those things as well.

At the end of the day however, I just feel in my heart that my time is better spent doing other things than giving thought and life to violence and disturbing ideas. Perhaps it's because I'm a teacher and I see all the levels of damage that this type of society would do to children and their development, so from my perspective it's probably more disturbing to me than to others.

You have every right to avoid reading/watching them, if you don't personally like them. Especially if you personally find them disturbing. But if someone claims the author herself was somehow immoral for writing them, or that the filmmakers are immoral for adapting them to the screen, that's another subject entirely, and it will definitely evoke discussion.

~Riella

I would reply to your comments Ithilwen but I'm afraid it would be a very long post and I don't want to clog up the thread where other people might want to discuss other movies. Perhaps I should PM you or ask the mods about starting a new thread. I appreciate your thoughts and I understand your perspective thank you for keeping this an interesting and respectful discussion. Perhaps warrior might want to weigh in.

I saw Frozen last night. It was great. There was very good music and some awesome special effects.

I didn't enjoy going to the movies alone when I was a teen or early 20s, but I quite enjoy it now. Not all the time, but once in awhile. Particularly if it is a more serious movie ... watching on my own allows more reflective time.

I had not been to the theatre in months this past year as nothing interested me, but all of a sudden, more or less, there are three films that have released recently I would really like to go see over the holidays: The Book Thief (for the second time); Ender's Game (which has finally come to our 'cheap' theatre, hurrah!); Saving Mr. Banks. Trouble is, there are a number of Christmas gatherings going on, but somehow in between 'em, I sure hope we can fit in two of the movies, anyway.

Moonlight, I have nothing else to say, really. I too am a teacher and I understand the implications of children being exposed to such books but we must keep in mind that the series isn't aimed at children, but mature teens (ha - is there such a thing?). Ithilwen has already shared many of my views on the subject. I will add that Collins, the author wrote the book in response to reality TV shows (like Survivour) and the horror stories she heard from her dad who fought in the war (Korean or Vietnam, I can't remember). So, the author is definitely anti-violence, as is the series. I'd go so far as to say Katniss isn't even your traditional hero.

I recently watched the Hobbit. I did not go in expecting it to be like the book and so I wasn’t very disappointed. In fact, I was actually pleased with how well it turned out, since I’d seen some stuff before hand that made me doubt I’d like it.
I know a lot of people didn’t like Tauriel, but I actually liked her as a character. One of my problems with the Hobbit, when I was younger, was that it had no girls with main parts. So you could say that I didn’t mind her being there that much.

I liked when
I have some predictions about the next movie: