I see that this is the latest movie that the Mail is taking a potshot at.

Yup. It's the movie's fault for parents not doing research.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

Sometimes I think people should be vetted before they have kids

It's got black actors in. Playing parts that the author describes as dark-skinned people in the book. In a dystopian version of the USA. How very dare they?

Pretty much this.

Let's imagine for a moment that there was a film franchise that, for whatever hypothetical reason, was mostly popular with children of the non-PLU community (I'm not saying THG is particularly PLU fodder, like most films it is of course aimed at a specific age group, this is just a hypothetical situation).

Imagine now that some of these children -weak ones- were coming home upset or frightened by these films, and the parents were running to the papers complaining how inapropriate it was for their little ones.

Mailites nationwide would no doubt be saying much the same thing, except with much more venom regarding what awful parents they are for letting their kids see such films ("Speaking as a mother I'd never let my children watch such trash" e.c.t).

But whenever an entitled, special little mailite mummy or daddy doesn't like what they have just let their kids see, it is of course the fault of the film makers, the censors, the film industry - in short anyone other than them themselves.

Take responsibility, or take the pill - your choice.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

Well, with The Hunger Games I have a tiny grain of sympathy - the books are really aimed at 14+ (whereas the film is 12A, I think) - so there's a little bit of a difference there.

But that's where the sympathy ends.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

My main concern is that the author clearly was too heavily influenced by Battle Royale while writing her own work.

Does nobody have any orignal ideas any more?

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

You missed the pungent aroma of Nineteen Eighty-Four?

Mind you, Nineteen Eighty-Four was heavily, heavily, HEAVILY influenced by a Russian work, but no-one seems to realise that.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

Well, I kno not Battle Royale, and i enjoyed the Hunger Games books very much indeed.

apparently she'd neither read, seen, nor heard of it, i don't know how widely read the book is outside of japan, but the film has never been made avaliable within the US*, so it's audiance there is more limited to japanophiles.
series 7, the running man, year of the sex olympics, there are already "game of death" themed stories a-plenty, and even more dystopias. the hunger games doesn't look shockingly original, but it's not that egregiously deriviative either.

*or at very least wasn't for a very long time

_________________
i have an art blog: http://procrastinationathon.blogspot.com/
and a review blog: http://blindwithwoodenhands.blogspot.com/
double blog! what does it mean?

I assumed that with it been such a hit (with even a special aniversary DVD edition and a sequel released), that it would have made it to the States somehow even if an official DVD was not availible (it has that violent Jap film thing going on that appeals to many people in the west, Asian film fans or not).

I'm still suspicious...

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

Presumably, we are referring to this article?

Why I feel I'm a bad mother for taking my girls to The Hunger Games: It's the film every child wants to see - but its violence left SHONA SIBARY'S daughters weeping and disturbed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rbing.html
No it isn't, and no it isn't.

Damn that woman, she's going to bring up her children to be exactly like her, "I went to see it, even though I heard it was awful, and took my darlings with me so they could see how awful it was. It was awful! How dare they make such a film! No child should be alowed to see this like mine did because I took them!"

I genuinely hate people like this. You had no ecxuse, you heard what it was like but you went anyway - and then had the cheek to complain how bad it was that your kids saw it too, even though you had your chance to say no.

Let's just say she is dumb enough to think that seeing films like this are damaging to children (not in any way proven). You would knowingly take them to see a film you personaly believe will upset and traumatise your own kids, just to make a point and support your self appointed right to get angry?

If you believe that then chances are your parenting is doing more damage to your kids than any film they might see ever can.

And I don't envy them going back to school after mummy told the whole world how they cried and got scarred watching a film. Poor kids.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

So as always, kids are to be protected from this, while not being wrapped up in cotton wool.

No, a cannon is fired. If you can't even get obvious details right, then why should I give any credence to the rest of what you say?

Saw the film on Saturday. Not bad, but a bit too whitebread for my liking. With such a nasty theme, I just feel that the film could and should have been a lot harsher. As rightly observed above, the original books appear aimed at the mid-teen market, and those mid-teens (with any luck) will have read stuff like Lord Of The Flies and possibly seen Battle Royale at home (18 certificate, yes, but there is a 15-cut - Japanese-made - out there somewhere).

Meanwhile, William from Widnes completely misses the point...



The film - and the books - make it abundantly clear that children killing children as entertainment is abhorrent. THAT'S ONE OF THE FILM'S MAIN POINTS, you clueless tosser...

(He's also on the comments further down, tactfully dragging James Bulger into the equation. I suppose that I should be grateful that he didn't call him "little Jamie".)

_________________
Us Amazonians always get our man...