Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

hunger gamesFollow

#1 Nov 22 2013 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 posts

I don't know to say it so I will just say it. It was not terrible. I might even read the books now.

On a side note, I find American mythology fascinating. The rugged individual thing going against the unforgiving powers of the evil unjust empire. All that enforced by movies, books and music. And then everyone is shocked when the rugged individual flower takes matters into his/hers own capable hands, but I digress..

Good times, good times.. panem et circenses indeed
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Nov 22 2013 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I might even read the books now.


I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#3 Nov 23 2013 at 1:38 AM Rating: Good
****
5,725 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I might even read the books now.


I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.

This. Suzanne Collins is a bad writer.
____________________________
75 Rabbit/75 Sheep/75 Coeurl/75 Eft/75 Raptor/75 Hippogryph/75 Puk
75 Scorpion/75 Wamoura/75 Pixie/75 Peiste/64 Sabotender
51 Bird/41 Mandragora/40 Bee/37 Crawler/37 Bat

Items no one cares about: O
Missions no one cares about: O
Crafts no one cares about: O
#4 Nov 23 2013 at 2:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,913 posts
There were no hippos in the previews at all. How are you supposed to play the hungry hungry hippo game without hippos?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#5 Nov 23 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Karlina wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I might even read the books now.


I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.

This. Suzanne Collins is a bad writer.


Hmm? Wasn't Harry Potter and @#%^phile Vampire universally decried as bad writing as well? ( I mean it was, and I did manage to pull myself through one Harry.. never again ).

I think the public has a different idea of what is bad.

hmm, pedophile is a swear. who knew

Edited, Nov 23rd 2013 11:14am by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#6 Nov 23 2013 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a pedophile.

And pedophile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#7angrymnk, Posted: Nov 23 2013 at 10:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sure it does not. It is just those **** old men in robes and **** dictionary that seems to insist that pedophilia is an attraction to children. Here is where it gets fun so stay with me. While teenagers would like to believe that they are adults, in the eyes of the law ( and from the perspective of basic brain development ) they are still children.
#8 Nov 24 2013 at 12:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Mazra wrote:
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.


Sure it does not.


Technically the word you want is pederasty. Bill Donahue loves that one. I'll let y'all Google who he is and why he stresses the distinction and what make it slimy... and then take it to the Asylum if you want to continue discussing it.

Haven't seen the movie, but I've read all the books. As I recalled it goes:
Hunger Games --> Hunger Games 2.0 --> Blah.

The third book ditched the premise of the first two (which was honestly the only thing that worked), and without any literary merit or cliffhangers it just became a snore. The first two books were decent because they were Battle Royale, Americanized. So they had that going for them.

I didn't make it through the first movie, although I generally enjoy Jennifer Lawrence. As such, I may watch the second when it's online and I'm drunk. Maybe.

Edited, Nov 24th 2013 1:53am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#9 Nov 24 2013 at 3:13 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
angrymnk wrote:
I think the public has a different idea of what is bad.
That's why McDonald's is known as a place to get a really good burger.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Nov 24 2013 at 5:32 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Mazra wrote:
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.


Sure it does not. It is just those **** old men in robes and **** dictionary that seems to insist that @#%^philia is an attraction to children. Here is where it gets fun so stay with me. While teenagers would like to believe that they are adults, in the eyes of the law ( and from the perspective of basic brain development ) they are still children.

On the other hand, who cares what the sorry old grey men say? Lets glorify child rape^^; I am sorry, forbidden love.

Btw I did not know you care that much about whatshisname.. Edward?



Edward is technically an ephebophile, since his attraction is to a mid-to-late adolescent (17 years old). @#%^philia, while described as the sexual attraction to children, deals specifically with young (prepubescent) children. A sexual attraction to older children is called hebephilia, or the aforementioned ephebophilia. Common for all three "disorders" is that they indicate a primary attraction to that age group. Nothing in the books or movies indicates that Edward is attracted to ONLY young girls.

And no, I don't give a sh*t about Edward, but I hate it when people throw down the @#%^philia card. It's offensive and does nothing to further the discussion. The age of consent is 15 in my country, which makes Edward and Bella's relationship perfectly legal here. And you have to remember that Edward is, biologically, a 17-year-old boy. Same age as Bella.

I think it's cute that you want to play the nitpicking game with me, though.

Spoilered the quote so that people who have the filter on does not have to watch the verbal (textual?) diarrhea above.

Edited, Nov 25th 2013 4:19pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#11angrymnk, Posted: Nov 24 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I love it when people question the premise based on the label alone. I will admit that I have not read Twilight. I simply do not care enough. I do have a question though. How long has he been 17 for?:>
#12 Nov 25 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Doesn't matter how old he is. @#%^philia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to a child (prepubescent in certain dictionaries) because it's a child. Edward isn't attracted to Bella because she's 17 years old. He's attracted to her because he can't read her **** mind (and because she smells delicious or some sh*t).

And even if he was attracted to her because of her age, he'd still only be a @#%^phile* in certain countries. Their relationship, while odd, would be perfectly legal in most of Europe, for instance, as only Malta and Turkey have the age of consent set to 18.

* Legally speaking. You can argue whether a psychosexual disorder can be limited by laws or not.

Edited, Nov 25th 2013 4:19pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#13 Nov 25 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
And no, I don't give a sh*t about Edward, but I hate it when people throw down the @#%^philia card. It's offensive and does nothing to further the discussion. The age of consent is 15 in my country, which makes Edward and Bella's relationship perfectly legal here. And you have to remember that Edward is, biologically, a 17-year-old boy. Same age as Bella.

Age of consent in Washington state is 16 anyway so their relationship would be perfectly legal there as well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Nov 25 2013 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
******
49,826 posts
Tweener book relationships should be outlawed worldwide though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15angrymnk, Posted: Nov 25 2013 at 10:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cool, I would sure love to see you explain this subtle difference to a judge. Yer honor, I was not attracted to her because of her age; she just smelled so nice. Yep. I would quote uncle Ruckus, but I might get too graphic.
#16 Nov 26 2013 at 12:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why would you need to explain it to a judge? If she was under the AoC (which she wasn't in that state anyway) then it's statutory rape regardless of whether he liked her scent or psychic blocking powers or ample young boobies. But the crime isn't "Being a pedophile", it's *** with someone under the age of consent; motive isn't a consideration.

Edited, Nov 26th 2013 12:15am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Nov 26 2013 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,388 posts
You guys are creeping me out just a bit.

Just wanted to put that out there.
#18 Nov 26 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Mazra wrote:
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.

And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.


Sure it does not.


Technically the word you want is pederasty. Bill Donahue loves that one. I'll let y'all Google who he is and why he stresses the distinction and what make it slimy... and then take it to the Asylum if you want to continue discussing it.

Haven't seen the movie, but I've read all the books. As I recalled it goes:
Hunger Games --> Hunger Games 2.0 --> Blah.

The third book ditched the premise of the first two (which was honestly the only thing that worked), and without any literary merit or cliffhangers it just became a snore. The first two books were decent because they were Battle Royale, Americanized. So they had that going for them.

I didn't make it through the first movie, although I generally enjoy Jennifer Lawrence. As such, I may watch the second when it's online and I'm drunk. Maybe.

Edited, Nov 24th 2013 1:53am by LockeColeMA


I read the first book yesterday. Well, I read the first third on Sunday, and the rest yesterday. I enjoyed it well enough. I didn't go into it expecting incredible literature.

I find the world she created interesting enough. The characters were hit or miss - the development was uneven. Her main antagonist in the arena was barely fleshed out, but other characters made a much stronger impression (probably because she was investing in the future books, but it was still odd).

Honestly, what annoyed me more than anything was the inconsistent tone of voice in the narration. I've finished the book, and I'm still not sure if Katniss' narration is meant to be in the moment, of if she's telling us this story. For the most part it seems like the first, but she occasionally thinks things that seem really odd in that context...

My other irritation is right where the first book left off. You have a whole book of her trying to fight her way back home, to her little sister, and the book ends right when the door off the train home opens. I'm also annoyed by how little of Effie, Haymitch, and Cinna we saw after the games.

I'll probably pick up the second book. I know what the overarching plot arc is, and a whole lot of spoilers from book 3 courtesy of an ******* on tumblr.

I also read the first book of Divergent this weekend (I apparently didn't want much higher mental effort this weekend Smiley: lol). That was also interesting enough. I hear the second book is good, and the third sucked. Divergent's world is less interesting to me than the Hunger Games, but I like the main character more. Not that I dislike Katniss, but I can't relate to her as well (which is harder to take in first person narration).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#19 Nov 26 2013 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Mazra wrote:
Doesn't matter how old he is. @#%^philia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to a child (prepubescent in certain dictionaries) because it's a child. Edward isn't attracted to Bella because she's 17 years old. He's attracted to her because he can't read her **** mind (and because she smells delicious or some sh*t).

And even if he was attracted to her because of her age, he'd still only be a @#%^phile* in certain countries. Their relationship, while odd, would be perfectly legal in most of Europe, for instance, as only Malta and Turkey have the age of consent set to 18.


And at the risk of repeating the same old thing again, while prepubescent is only specified in some dictionaries, it's really an assumed component of the word "children" in the definition. The word (and condition it describes) has been around long before our modern societies started setting legal age of consent (much less setting it as high as 18 in some places). As Joph also pointed out, Pedophila describes a mental disorder, not a legal condition (or law to break). As such, age criteria which are purely statutory (such as our age of consent) can't be a component of the disorder. What you're doing (or want to do) is either aberrant, or it is not. It can't be a mental disorder if you're in one country, but perfectly normal if in another.

Which is why the word "children" kinda has to refer to a physiological state, not a legal one. Hence, it must mean "prepubescent" since that's the physiological condition associated with being a child versus an adult. Logic, I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Nov 26 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,264 posts
Hmm, I think I should apologize here.

I inadvertently brought asylum to the movies.

I think I wanted to say something, but I am worried I may need to agree with Gbaji again and it already happened once this month.

In any event, I am so sorry.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#21 Nov 26 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I don't even get what the argument here is.

Don't we all agree that pedophilia only has to do with an adult being attracted to a prepubescent person?

I mean, Mazra's point was that Edward wouldn't be a pedophile, regardless of how you slice it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Nov 28 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Way better than the first movie. Hope the next two are better than the 3rd book.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#24 Nov 28 2013 at 10:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
AoC varies by state, typically along with religious customs of the dominant sect.

If you are looking for somewhere with a lower number, Japan, PRC and Burma, maybe Thailand are your best bets.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#25 Nov 28 2013 at 10:40 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,553 posts
sleepydesertsand wrote:
I think , Most of us who have watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” will rate it as the second film in the blockbuster franchise based on Suzanne Collins’ hit novels. This is definitely the follow up of the previous" Hunger Games" film . Based on my review , the present movie "Catching Fire" is better, , smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking theme. This "Catching Fire" film proves compelling second installment in the Hunger Games before:)


I've read this nonsense twice, and the the only thing I can determine from reading it is that that person that wrote it is in desperate need of reading something better than Hunger Games.
#26 Nov 28 2013 at 11:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those who have watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will recognize that this is the second movie of the franchise that started with The Hunger Games and uses a unique means of organization where the movies occur in a chronological sequence. Those who watch it will be grasped by the ways the events of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire occur after the events of the first movie. In fact, the events in the end of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire occur after the events of the beginning of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Fans are sure to recognize that the next film for this franchise will be the third film due to Suzanne Collins' strategy of putting the third item after the second item. At that time, no one will mistake The Hunger Games: Catching fire as anything but the film that occurs between the first and third films.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)