Hunger Games Overhyped, or is it Just the Young Adult Fiction...

It’s not that I dislike the Hunger Games. I don’t dislike the Hunger Games. The fact that I repeated that twice makes it half as believable.  But really I didn’t dislike it.  But, I would also add, the book and the movie were not as good as they were hyped to be.  But how does one engage a hype-o-meter anyhow?  What is the measure of hype versus the actual product?  How does one gauge the reality distortion field of what they claim it is in comparison to what it actually is?  I bet there is an App for that on my iPad.

I read all three of the books.  The first one was the quickest read, the other two almost felt at times heavy in that I just wasn’t liking them or interested.  Part of the problem with the Hunger games in and of itself is that we never got an idea of what the Hunger Games were before Katniss disrupted them.  I wanted a good flashback sequence showing the final victor, completely uprooted and destroyed from the inside out knowing the cost of winning.  We had a hint of it with Haymitch in the book, but we needed something to prove it.  I wanted evidence.  But these characters and their problems were not laid out, I assume because there is an agenda to present young adults with concepts without showing them in graphic detail.  There is a dichotomy at work to provide and protect, and the push and pull has a tendency to “dumb down” or “nerf” the material itself.

The reason why I wasn’t interested in the other two books was that the characters just didn’t do it for me.  There was the inference of depth, but there was no actual depth.  And what fun is fiction if you are in the shallows?  Part of the “playground” of fiction is the ability to become someone else, to walk in their shoes, and to safely leave when the book is done, or the situations become too intense.

But that’s the problem I have, it is not the book itself, but the genre.  It’s more the whole young adult reading thing.  It gives the illusion of depth without the actual depiction of it.

Back when I was in High school, our Hunger Games was the required reading of “The Outsiders.”  We had discussions about the Socs (soashes) versus the Greasers, and the main character Pony Boy.  There were rumbles in this book and later on I thought of them as the chaotic version of the choreography in Michael Jackson’s “Bad” video.

Also, these books took place in the sixties.  So, there was an element of detachment and nostalgia for that time attached to the books themselves, as if they were quaint representations of gangs, further reinforced by the musical Grease. Using that setting, they could offer the concepts of peer pressure and cliques to present day adolescents without sounding too preachy about learning to be yourself in a river where conformity is king.

 And while I liked the material at hand, there was something missing in it.  Even then I knew there were things either omitted or at the very least glossed over.  Because when I am what is termed “a young adult.” my thoughts are a lot more unedited than those on the page.  I think in profanity and pornography, and also the shame of thinking in those terms as well.  I think as an adult and yet at times as a child seeing adult matters for the first time.  I get/got disenchanted with the sucrose superficiality of cartoon-like two dimensions and dig deeper.  Archie Bunker becomes much more than a mere screaming moron who scared me.

I get the feeling that either the writing for young adults is restrained and edited, or that the author them-self has had some sort of literary lobotomy that only allows them to hint at things that are better off just being said than beaten around.  Or at least they have a filter that prevents them from revealing something interesting.  I also cannot discount the fact that because I have so many hours of reading under my belt, that a remedial form of fiction just doesn’t do it for me anymore.  This in turn leads me to some rather extreme judgements.

The first of which is, with some notable exceptions, writing for young adults is for hacks who can’t write for adults.  I feel the same about a lot of “children’s literature” in that I see it as childish and bad writing.  “Of course it is childish, it’s children’s fiction.” the ready made answer is there for the taking.

I should be kind and think “these movies were not targeted toward my demographic, that being males over the age of 20, but then I remember.  There are great movies out there that are geared not only to young adults, but to kids, and yet adults can also find them entertaining and worthy.  Pixar comes to mind.  There is so much to a movie by Pixar that it applies not only to kids who seem to dig it, but to adults, who also get the subtle nuances and adult humor that will be missed to the kids.

Pixar focuses on writing good stories.  I am sure demographics come into it somewhere along the line.  They have to have screenings of it etc. beforehand.  But, I think they feel they would be cheating their audience if they didn’t crank out something they themselves did not think was worth disseminating.

Have we dumbed down writing and in turn has our reading skills become so basic that we can find value in the superficial?

With Hunger Games, there has been talk that it is based on a Japanese movie or work called the “Battle Royale.”  But there is nothing new under the sun and when I first read the Hunger Games it reminded me of some of Stephen King’s “The Bachman Books.”  Two of them came to mind, The Running Man, and the Long Walk.  In both of these books, in my opinion, it fleshes out characters many times better than in the Hunger Games.  I get a feel for the people, I know who I like and don’t like, and the characters don’t have names that call attention to themselves.  Katniss. Peeta. Gale. Really?

I love dystopian literature.  It gives us a chance to stretch and see the endgame of proposed “slippery slopes.”  What would happen if government subjugated its people rather than served them?  What would happen if resources grew tighter and order and rationing needed to be established?  

But I think that Young Adult Fiction, even dystopian does a disservice when breaking the conventions of fiction.  Show, do not tell, and when showing, let it live and breath, not wiped clean and sterilized.

The Social Game: WoW and the High Maintenance Raid Member

Art imitates life, the same could also be said for gaming.  Here, in an MMO like World of Warcraft, it takes all kinds, and one would argue it is exacerbated both by anonymity and just the type of people attracted to these games to begin with.  Like flies to paper, or moths to a bug light, these people come running to the MMO to get their douche on, both intentionally and unintentionally.  And I get to complain about it.

On the list of people who are like a blight on a raid or a given group event in WOW is the high maintenance raid member.  What do I mean by high maintenance?  I mean that these people are like a void in which you have to throw your time, attention, and resources at in order to get a positive result, or any result at all.  

Let me first pre-empt this by saying that the high maintenance raid member is usually, if not always, very good at their game, as in they perform their role well.  They are, at least on paper, an asset to the game.  The same could be said for the high maintenance person in real life.  They have a value and thus those around them are more likely to forgive their maintenance in favor of what they have to offer.  Maybe they are a hot chick, or a dude with some major cache.  Whatever the reason, they are a wanted commodity and for whatever reason, time, effort, and resources are spent on them.

You don’t blow cool-downs, burn through resources if the person sucks.  If they don’t show up, the world does not stop as they try to find these people.  It would be like going on a treasure hunt for an empty chest.  That’s not going to happen.  Thus, it is hard to find a high-maintenance substandard raider because they usually find themselves alone and talking to themselves in trade chat more often than not.

The high maintenance raid member can be identified a number of ways, most of them involve burning time and calories.  Ever get stuck in a raid where your waiting a half an hour because someone is texting/calling a friend to get them into a raid and it always seems to be the same person? Getting them to join your raid is like pulling teeth.  They have a girlfriend/boyfriend, real life issues, talking to someone on the phone.  This is one of the characteristics of the high maintenance raid member.

Listen, we are happy that you have a real life outside of this one.  The problem is, we all do, and yet most of us, most of the time, don’t let it bleed into our raiding, or if we do, the footprint on the raid is soft of barely perceived.

A second way to identify them is they come to the raid unprepared, and I don’t mean without food/potions because that is usually handled by the guild.  No, they come to the raid without enchants, without any mats for the enchants, without gems, and other mats that are class specific that could otherwise help themselves be at optimum raid efficiency.  

Their value is that they do show up consistently and have helped the guild in another way to ensures a place in the raid.  The problem is that it becomes more like a burden as time goes on.  The opportunity cost of that value goes down in conjunction to the net drag on the raid group.

And of course, the third form of high maintenance involves simply prompting the person.  They are tabbed out doing something else, maybe they are texting.  Maybe they are in Facebook commenting on cute kitten photos, or playing Farmville, or tiddlywinks for all I know.

The reason why these forms of “maintenance” are annoying is because they involve to some degree or another a lack of consideration of someone else’s time and effort to be in a raid on time, to be “prepared” for the raid, and to make the whole experience of raiding as pleasant as possible.

Or maybe there is a piece missing.  There may have been a conversation among the officers at one time.  There might be conditions, and special cases made.  Maybe the raider in question has made it known that they need to be called, texted, prompted, geared and chanted as a condition to their raiding.  If this is so, someone sign me up for this plan!

Maybe the status of the person is they wants to be handled in a casual manner.  Maybe he has many things to do and raiding is an option, but its only one option in many.  If so, let’s make his status clear from the start.  He is a a casual player who will pick up a game if invited.  If that is so, have one person designated the wrangler and have done with it.  If you’re okay with burning the calories and calling the player in question, just do it.  Or the person without the enchants and buffs to raid at peak efficiency, maybe they have limited time to raid and can’t earn gold for enchants, if that’s so then please sign me up for the WoW welfare plan as well!

The game of WoW isn’t fair.  If you’re a dps or “damage” in a raid, you can be replaced far more easily than if your a tank or a heals.  So it is understandable how a raid can hurry up and wait those nights that one of those roles isn’t on.  But even with that, there are those you have to burn calories and dance for to get them to come. But for those who are for the most part there on time, prepared, and ready to go on raid nights, why are they taken for granted?  Is it fair that time needs to be taken for those not so prepared, or present for those that are?

Why must we burn calories and dance to make these people come to the party?  If they want to be there, they will be there, prepared, and focussed.  Every opportunity has been afforded.  Yes, these people are good players if your looking at their numbers.  They know the in’s and the out’s of their toons, they got their rotation down, they even give you buffs when they are in the raid.

My belief is that the drag of these people on the raid in the end is not worth the return of having them in the raid to begin with.  So, you can do either one of two things.  Cut them loose, or be prepared to lose others because of the eventual dissension they cause in the group.

The sad part of it is that usually the latter occurs before the former.  Because in addition to value on an overall raid level of their ability, they usually have one friend supporting them, or more.  Maybe in the future there will be a discussion of the enabler, the person that supports and encourages this behavior.

Survivor One World, Is Chivalry Dead or Does it Fade with a Million Bucks On The Line?

It’s time for another season of...Survivor. This time around it’s men vs. women and they are in the same “camp.”  So, it is two tribes, not merged, one camp.  And there are no rules except for the ones that are made in the contract that probably include not turning the camp into Lord of the Flies.

And it’s another season of social experimentation.  This time once again relying on the old tried and true battle of the sexes with a million dollars at stake.  Let us not casually forget the million dollars, as it is the engine that motivates a lot of behavior we see on the island.   Well that, and cameras filming their every move.  I imagine cameras tend to make us do things we would not normally do.

In episode one, we have seen the men steal goods that the women removed from the truck.  This resonates with Rupertian nostalgia.  We have seen the women begin to “eat their own” at tribal council.  But one event really stood out in the whole episode.  

During the challenge one of the women, Courtney, hurt them self and was later removed from the game due to surgery needed on a broken wrist.  The men were ahead, but the challenge was called due to the injury. However, the men were given a choice to continue the competition making it 8 against 8, or to call the challenge having them called the winners due to forfeit.  The men chose the latter.

After this decision one of the women, Kim the Bridal Shop owner, voiced disapproval wherein she said that in similar circumstances outside of the game men would have shown chivalry, and continued the competition evening the playing field.

I would defy that these men she knows who are chivalrous would consider it dishonorable to be divided into teams of men and women to begin with.  They would be inclined to work in cooperation with them instead of against them.  They might even consider the reward for a million dollars a dent to their chivalry.

Another problem with that assertion is that in the cases outside of the game of Survivor where “Chivalry” and words like “honor” and “fairness” were in play, was a million dollars on the line?  

And it is because of that question that this game is so interesting.  To what lengths will people go to win a million dollars?  What will change with their behavior, what will change because of the hot sun and lack of food?  It’s easy for me to judge with piped in air and electricity to deem who is worthy and not of a million dollars.  But until I have walked in those same footsteps, and had the same thing on the line, I wonder what I would do different.

One thing I would do is if we won a challenge and we didn’t do anything directly to hurt the other team, I would take that win.  If a player hurt them self and they had to forfeit, so be it.  Would the women act differently if the roles were reversed?  That is irrelevant since it did not happen.  If it does happen in the future, it would be interesting to see their decision.

And as to chivalry, it goes out the window, and only one reason needs to be given “because it gets us closer to the million dollars.”  Outside the game the stakes are different.  There are friends, people we are attracted to, there is love possibly around the corner, and there is reputation.  But inside the game, along with those possibilities, there is the million dollars.

The line to walk is the one wherein I win the million dollars without doing anything too damaging to myself and to those around me.  The problem is that we might be similar, but to each of us that line is different.  One person might consider stealing camping equipment of the other tribe to be shady, to someone else it is the game, in the same way as stealing an ember of the other tribes fire is also part of the game.

In the end, if someone dehydrates or starves due to the actions of another tribe, there is medical ready to jump in, so we aren’t talking a zombie invasion, we are talking a game here.  But within that game, if there is a way to win while remaining honorable or chivalrous, why not try it out?

Third Row Center With Spoiler Alerts: Ghost Rider 2 - Spirit of Vengeance

Ghostrider: Spirit of Vengeance is, unless any of you doubt it, a sequel that should never have been made.  It reprises the role of Johnny Blaze, played by Nicolas Cage, as “The Ghost Rider” who is cursed with being possessed by a demon that comes out and wreaks havoc on good guys and bad alike.  It has flaming skulls, chains and all it is missing is a very strange clown played by John Leguizamo (see also Spawn).

This time around the Ghost Rider is out to save Danny, a kid who is groomed to be the next “antichrist” or host body for the devil to inhabit.  The basic plot of the film is Johnny gets the kid and is to bring him to a secret monastery where he is to be protected until the time of possession passes.

There are a lot of car chases, a lot of flaming skulls, and a lot of bad acting as the tortured soul of Johnny Blaze fights of the monkey on his back, or the Ghost Rider.  There is a scene where you see Nicolas Cage struggling not to let out the ghost rider and it is almost laughable.

I confess, I like Nicolas Cage.  I like him in movies like Honeymoon in Vegas, The Weatherman, Lord of War, and his more serious work like Leaving Las Vegas and Adaptation. I also liked him in the  sci fi movies like Next, and Knowing. But this material is weak to begin with.  The only thing redeeming in it is a Twinkie joke, that and the 3D made it slightly more interesting than it was fated to be.

But even with 3D and some humor sprinkled in, the movie falls flat.  I don’t feel anything for Johnny Blaze who made a deal with the devil and once again ended up getting the short end of the stick which is the definition of a deal with the devil.  I feel sorry for the kid in this movie, but the plot is so cliche it cries out.  A movie that had this same dynamic in it that worked well was the Terminator 2 movie.

Another reason why this movie was doomed to fail was that before the movie opened there was talk of “how it was made.”  It showed the director doing stunts in order to get that perfect shot.  Maybe then they should have filmed a documentary on the making of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and showed that in the theater instead of the movie itself.

I wouldn’t make an effort to see this movie on purpose as it is just a waste of time.  But if you happen to see it streaming on Netflix and you’ve exhausted all your other options, then why not catch a gander.

Third Row Center With Spoiler Alerts: The Vow

“The Vow” stars Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams.  It opened right in time for Valentines day.  Sadly, it falls short.  First of all, they say that it is based on reality.  The last thing a romance needs is some half-baked mash up of a real story.  Either give it to us real, or let us enjoy the fantasy.

The basic premise of the movie is that there really was a woman who got in a car accident and it wiped out her memory and she spent the rest of her time participating in a do over while her husband fights to get her back.

The problem is this movie should have stayed true to the material instead of ending up in some semi standard romantic comedy no man’s land.  They could really have amped it up and made it more about the woman reconnecting parts of her life once her etch-o-sketch was shaken.  Instead it seems more about him having to love by letting go.

They also add in some dramatic twists to make the story more interesting, but what is really more interesting than someone who seems in perpetual shock about a world two years in the future and the choices she made to get where she was.  And even the situations that occurred that drove her from her parents, from law to art school, and from Jeremy (her old fiancee) to Leo (her husband) don’t seem to be much of a reason.

The problem is they make out her life right up to her accident as a departure from her previous life.  She has new interests, she has a different fashion sense, and it is almost as if she became a different person.  A question that should have been asked is, why did she become this different person?  They never really quite answer it.

The question of identity is one that hits us all.  I have had some people close who have lost their memories, yet they are still who they are.  Even with all memories gone, they still exhibit the same attitude toward life they did before.  It may be a little less censored, it may be a little more raw and not encumbered by social affect, but it is still them.

This movie tends to also agree with that theory.  We might lose our memory, but we still are who we are.  Also, in this digital age of having so much of our lives documented, it would be hard to so firmly extricate yourself from it.  You may deny that you “feel” the same about someone you did when you remembered them, but you could also show the video tape, the memories, many times even time stamped to get to the points you may not remember.

This movie gave up way too early on “fighting” for the woman the husband loved, and she seemed all too quick to throw off the new and get back to the old.  If i were her husband, that would have hurt more than anything, how quick she became in not giving a chance their previous lives.

The movie ended in a way that seemed incomplete, as if they ran over-budget.  They give a small explanation at the end, but in reality it just left me shrugging my shoulders wondering why I should even care.