Nine years ago, the Hunger Games began in the cinema. The teen dystopia Hunger Games attracted three sequels and many imitators. The fact that Maze Runner and the Divergent series did not achieve the broad cultural impact of tribute is not only due to lead actress Jennifer Lawrence.
Today from 8.15 p.m. the first two parts will be shown on TV at ProSieben:
With the Battle Royal concept of the Hunger Games, which are held between the 12 districts, the franchise was able to show a gripping unique selling point. The competitions will be held once a year in the North America of the future
played. Each district sends a tribute. The young people fight against each other in the huge arena until there is only one tribute left: the winner then lives in a rush.
In Hunger Games, not everything is logical: 3 questions for the games
However, the competitions are not always really conclusive. A few Inconsistencies crepped into the Hunger Games, of which we take a closer look at 4 here.
Question 1: Why does the game management send artificial threats into the arena? Aren’t 24 young people between the age of 12 and 18, who are trained to kill and rushed towards each other in a staked out room, dangerous and exciting enough for the audience? Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) sometimes have to run away from a wall of flames, bloodhounds or poisonous fog.
From sci-fi action to MCU: 10 sequels better than the disappointing Star Wars sequels
Star Wars, Marvel and more: these are GOOD sequels.
The game management uses these dangers to control the action and also prevents possible idling. We know this from real reality shows: If it gets too boring in the jungle camp, the candidates will no longer get cigarettes.
However, the Hunger Games are, in the broadest sense, a sporting competition with at least largely fair conditions. Game management distorts competition, in any other sport, these interventions would sooner or later lead to alienation in the audience. The small goodies that the tributes can be sent to them can be evaluated similarly.
Question 2: Why are friends allowed to participate in the Hunger Games at all? Peeta and Katniss are friends and develop feelings for each other. At the end of the first part, only they are left. But Katniss rebels against the system and refuses to kill her boyfriend.
Your decision will be made as particularly noble presents. And it should be unique in the history of the Hunger Games. But is their rebellion really that unusual? Could it not be expected that not every participant suddenly throws all moral values overboard and even kills a person close to her? On the other hand, such dilemmas naturally give the games their special kick.
That with the friendship in the Hunger Games is such a thing anyway. The more upscale districts openly form alliances with each other, but the move does not seem really realistic or plausible. the temporary loyalty is maximally unstable. Anyone who constantly has to be afraid of their “own people”, who are very close by and could cut your throat on a whim, no longer has his environment in view, i.e. the other opponents. Team or lone fighter: That’s probably a type question.
Question 3: Why is Katniss allowed to volunteer at all? This is also such an organizational question. Katniss jumps into the breach for her sister Primrose, who was actually drawn by a draw. But why is this even possible? The Capitol has invented an elaborate selection process, just so that in the end someone can volunteer? That does not fit in with this strict dictatorial government.
either all tributes volunteer and are prepared for their terrible fate in the Hunger Game battle, which would mean a higher quality of competition. Combat-mad volunteers could probably always be found.
or the fate of the government is law, because otherwise chaos would reign. A case like that of Katniss and her sister certainly occurs more often, although the film also marks this decision as a special feature.
Of course, these small dents do not hurt the films at all, especially the first two parts are among the most entertaining that American blockbuster cinema produced in the 2010s.
*The link to Amazon’s offer is a so-called affiliate link. If you make a purchase via this link, we will receive a commission.
Have you noticed any other inconsistencies in the series?