NOTE: This post contains potential spoilers. But lets be real, you've had a couple years now. :)
--
The answer to this title has two parts:
1. I read The Hunger Games trilogy and enjoyed the first book as much as the next person. The world Suzanne Collins created was extremely fascinating to me. First of all, if you read my last blog, you'll know that her version of the messed up future seems as possible as the next as far as I can tell. A capitol that pits its dying colonies against each other is certainly a brilliant plan for keeping them separated. And seeing that Survivor is coming up on season 27, there is clearly a market for stories of survival, betrayal, and a last man standing, or woman in the case of The Hunger Games.
Though I had a few issues with the first book, the point where I drew the line and declared official distaste began with Catching Fire. In Catching Fire, Katniss, who has survived the first Hunger Games, learns that the survivors of the previous games will yet again enter the ring and fight to the death. One book removed from Collins' social commentary on a sick world obsessed with violence, she takes her protagonist and shoves her right back into that violence. Yes, it makes for a somewhat interesting story. But what sets me off about this is that Collins uses that same violence she attempts to comment on as a hook to draw her readers in. We are no longer looking at it with clean and cautioned eyes, but rather excited, frightened, and ultimately, as interested in it as the people of The Capitol.
What got me through all of this was the hope of redemption so often promised. It does not show, or at least, not in a way that seemed like the rest of it was worth it. And because I read the books, I'm pretty certain that it won't show in the films either. As I'm sure I will post about in the future, the big screen is a precious place for us to work out our greatest emotions. The Hunger Games does little more than peak our inherent excitement surrounding violence.
2. I've (rightfully) heard complaints about the studio system and its way of making movies recently. More and more films like Mud and The Kings of Summer (my two favorite films of 2013) are being dropped for huge budget projects like The Avengers and The Hunger Games (For those keeping score at home, the Avengers budget alone could have produced 22 films with the budget of Mud. That's 21 other directors, 21 casts, 21 different stories to tell etc. that don't get that chance). The first two are brand new stories with small budgets and the others are established stories with existing and exploitable fan bases. By buying a ticket to a film, you are essentially casting a vote to the studios that says "Yes, make more movies like this." By going even out of curiosity to the second Hunger Games, you are saying, "Yes, I will pay you to keep making films like these." In this case I am simply standing on my belief that just because a series is popular, does not make it valid and just because you pump a bunch of money into a movie does not mean that we should see it.
