May the odds be ever in your favor.

[princesss]

Haven, that's what our theater was like as well. Loud and obnoxious, but full of teenagers that were clearly SO EXCITED to see a book they loved come to life. The only thing I heard once the previews started was one girl that felt the need to try to say lines she knew from the trailer along with the characters.

I felt like it was a really great adaptation. Obviously, some things were left out, but I felt like the director handled that really well, and made sure that all changes were done in the spirit of the novel. The acting was phenominal, and I thought Jennifer Lawrence did a fantastic job keeping Katniss cold and focused, but still likeable and relateable.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I just downloaded the audiobook. I'm looking forward to it. Please tell me its better than Harry potter.

They're very different.

I think Suzanne Collins is a very skilled writer, more so than Rowling. (I loved HP, though.)

THG is about war. It was not written specifically for a younger audience, HP was. The MC in THG is a teenager, and so it was marketed to young adults. HP was, of course, written specifically for children.

I can't wait to hear what you think!

Scholastic is the publisher of the Hunger Games and has it listed as ages 11-13 and a grade level of 5.3, but I agree that the marketing has been directed toward young adults, and it seems mostly popular among adults. There must have been some realization that the series, even though they're technically readable by a 5th grader, are not appropriate. My 3rd grader decided he wanted to read it and I wasn't sure what to do, so I let him try it, but he put it down about 1/2 hr later (the hunger games is guided reading level Z and my 3rd grader is at level X). I told my older son he can read it when he's 16...but he isn't showing much interest. He's read a couple Stephen King books and I regret letting him read those.

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/book.jsp?id=1275204

 

[Cehrabehra]

I just downloaded the audiobook. I'm looking forward to it. Please tell me its better than Harry potter.

They're very different.

I think Suzanne Collins is a very skilled writer, more so than Rowling. (I loved HP, though.)

THG is about war. It was not written specifically for a younger audience, HP was. The MC in THG is a teenager, and so it was marketed to young adults. HP was, of course, written specifically for children.

I can't wait to hear what you think!

My daughter (17) read these books and hated them. She was so passionate about her dislike (rare for her) that it seems odd to me that so many people loved them. She said she only kept reading them because she hoped they'd get better but they were just horrible stories where nothing good ever happens. She said more, but I'll hold back lol I haven't read them so I don't know anything, but her description of story details seems rather bleak, no?

 

[zoebartlett]

I just started reading the first book. It's not usually a genre I love but I thought I'd give it a try since the series and movie are so popular.

Should I read all three in the series before I see the movie or is the movie about the first book only?

 

[Haven]

MC--I wouldn't put too much stock in the reading levels provided by publishers. They can be a useful tool when you know what they really mean, and they're a VERY useful tool for publishers who want people to believe that their children can only read books within a certain leveled range. But they shouldn't be the primary (or even secondary) thing you use to guide the choices you make for your children's reading material. Graded reading levels are determined by sentence length. (We look at the number of sentences and the number of syllables in 3 or more representative 100-word selections to determine grade level. Machine grade level analyzers typically look at 1,000 word selections and use the same measures to determine grade level.) Content is often ignored in this process, obviously.

Scholastic considers content in some cases, particularly texts that they level for use in their Read 180 program, but clearly they didn't take content into account when leveling THG.

Steinbeck, for example, would be graded at a very low reading level because of his writing style. Of course, we don't read Steinbeck with third graders, because the content isn't 3rd grade content, even if the writing style is written at what Scholastic would determine to be a 3rd grade level.

Cehra--The beauty of art is that it is going to mean different things to different individuals. Some people are going to hate a piece, others are going to love it. THG encourages willing readers to ask important questions about themselves, about society, and about big issues like power, control, and what it means to be free. I think this is what so many people responded to, and why these books were embraced by so many. But that doesn't mean everyone is going to like them, or the thinking they encourage readers to do.
For example, I hate TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, and I will be forever flummoxed by the fact that so many cite it on their list of favorite books. Doesn't make me question that others love it, though. It does make me wonder what I'm missing, but I've read that books so many times now that if I haven't "gotten it" yet, it's never going to happen.

ETA: Cehra--Yes, these stories are very bleak. They're about war, and as bleak as you would imagine a book about war to be. Definitely. Not for those who need a glimmer of hope in their books, that's for sure.

Zoe--You'll be fine seeing the movie after reading only the first book. They only cover THG in this first movie.

 

[zoebartlett]

Thanks Haven!

Now that I've started the book, the title of this thread makes a lot more sense!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

MC--I wouldn't put too much stock in the reading levels provided by publishers. They can be a useful tool when you know what they really mean, and they're a VERY useful tool for publishers who want people to believe that their children can only read books within a certain leveled range. But they shouldn't be the primary (or even secondary) thing you use to guide the choices you make for your children's reading material. Graded reading levels are determined by sentence length. (We look at the number of sentences and the number of syllables in 3 or more representative 100-word selections to determine grade level. Machine grade level analyzers typically look at 1,000 word selections and use the same measures to determine grade level.) Content is often ignored in this process, obviously.

Scholastic considers content in some cases, particularly texts that they level for use in their Read 180 program, but clearly they didn't take content into account when leveling THG.

Steinbeck, for example, would be graded at a very low reading level because of his writing style. Of course, we don't read Steinbeck with third graders, because the content isn't 3rd grade content, even if the writing style is written at what Scholastic would determine to be a 3rd grade level.

Haven,

Thanks so much for explaining how the graded reading levels work! I didn't realize that levels are based on sentence length. My kids pretty much pick what they want to read and both get excellent grades in reading, however, my older son's teacher said he needs to work more on combining sentences in his writing assignments. He'll write two short sentences which could flow nicely as one sentence and is stuck in that frame of writing style. The thing he's reading grade-level novels in class (he's in 5th, but his class is progressing levels - they started at 5th and will be reading 7th grade novels by the end of the year - but those can't possibly be 7th...it must be the weird way of grading that scholastic creates), so possibly that's influencing his writing style? It's a bit frustrating when he brings home thin little books from school with huge font sizes and on his own, he's reading the Hobbit!

He could easily breeze though the Hunger Games, but I don't think he'd understand the political/social aspects. He read Animal Farm a month or so ago and LOVED IT! He didn't get the deeper meaning, but thought it was funny that the pigs took over and that they drank whiskey!

 

[Haven]

MC--Your last line made me laugh! Too funny.

It's interesting how they level books, isn't it? I still think that good old fashioned adult discretion is key when it comes to helping your kids choose books to read, and it sounds like that's exactly what you're doing, anyway. Who needs Scholastic's levels?
If your son is reading THE HOBBIT, then he's doing just fine, by the way. I wouldn't worry at all.
As for improving his writing skills, that comes with time and a lot of practice. You are absolutely correct that exposure to complex sentences in reading will help him use them in his writing, definitely.

I love THE HOBBIT, and used to teach a class for gifted 4th though 6th graders entirely on that book, alone. Your son would have fit right in!

 

[April20]

OHMIMOCKINGJAY it was amazing.

DH and I went last night and I could not agree with you more!!!!!

 

[princessfeedme]

Am I the only one who did not like the movie? Although it did stay fairly close to book, there was a disconnect for me. The intrigue, politics and conspiracy did not translate well on screen. They should have developed the back story a bit more. For anyone who has not read the series, they would be very confused by the violence and colorful denizens of the Capitol. In my mind, I had pictured District 12 to be more post-apocalyptic, not the Appalachian poverty that was portrayed. The shaky way it was filmed also made dizzy. With that being said, I would still go see part 2 & 3. The series is incredible even though it was written for the young adult crowd, and I am glad that it can serve as inspiration for young girls to be strong and resourceful.

 

[missy]

I have a question for those who saw the movie. We saw my niece and nephew this weekend who were visiting from Chicago and we were discussing this movie. Their father (my dh's brother) does not want my niece to see the movie because of the violence. She read the books and very much wants to see this movie. She just turned 13 last week. Opinions? Is the movie terribly violent? It received a PG 13 movie so obviously the people in charge of the ratings think it is appropriate for a 13 year old but I am curious what PSers think.

On a side note we went to Max Brenner for dessert and OMG. A chocolate paradise is all I can say. Awesome if you have a sweet tooth!

 

[princesss]

Honestly, the violence in the movies was much harder for me to handle than the violence in the books. If I had kids I would think twice about letting them see this. Maybe that's just me, but in the end - there are scenes with kids killing kids. Violently. In ways that would make me shudder if adults were doing it to each other on screen. If I had kids, I would want them to be older than 13 before they saw this.

 

[missy]

Honestly, the violence in the movies was much harder for me to handle than the violence in the books. If I had kids I would think twice about letting them see this. Maybe that's just me, but in the end - there are scenes with kids killing kids. Violently. In ways that would make me shudder if adults were doing it to each other on screen. If I had kids, I would want them to be older than 13 before they saw this.

Thanks Princess. My BIL kept saying that more than 20 kids are killed by other kids in the movie and he found it upsetting and my poor niece was trying to convince him otherwise. He kept asking her why she wanted to see the movie and how she felt about kids killing other kids etc and then he asked me what I thought. I gave a non committal answer since I had no wish to get in the middle of this especially since I didn't even see the movie yet so couldn't give an intelligent opinion. I abhor violence and find it all too common in movies these days. It is to the point (in video games and other areas too) that I fear it is desensitizing our young people (and others) to violence in general.

 

[SweetAsscher]

Honestly, the violence in the movies was much harder for me to handle than the violence in the books. If I had kids I would think twice about letting them see this. Maybe that's just me, but in the end - there are scenes with kids killing kids. Violently. In ways that would make me shudder if adults were doing it to each other on screen. If I had kids, I would want them to be older than 13 before they saw this.

Thanks Princess. My BIL kept saying that more than 20 kids are killed by other kids in the movie and he found it upsetting and my poor niece was trying to convince him otherwise. He kept asking her why she wanted to see the movie and how she felt about kids killing other kids etc and then he asked me what I thought. I gave a non committal answer since I had no wish to get in the middle of this especially since I didn't even see the movie yet so couldn't give an intelligent opinion. I abhor violence and find it all too common in movies these days. It is to the point (in video games and other areas too) that I fear it is desensitizing our young people (and others) to violence in general.

I agree with everything here.I thought it was a very good movie, but the kids killing kids was ... unsettling...
It reminded me a bit of Lord of the Flies

 

[lulu66]

DH & i went to see the movie on saturday (i've read the series; he hasn't, yet.). i liked it. it didn't live up to my expectations though, but that's understandable for a book that i loved. also, i re-read it last week. i shouldn't have; i remembered everything from the book in too much detail. i found my self nit-picking details after the movie.

one more thing, i bought the soundtrack on tuesday & had been listening to it on repeat (it's awesome btw) and was picturing certain scenes with certain songs, getting really excited for the movie, and then not a single song from the soundtrack is in the movie. i didn't realize the movie was going to be scored only. personally, i think it could have gained a lot from using songs w/lyrics especially when so much on the story happens in the main characters head. maybe that's just me

all that said, i liked it enough that i want to see it again already. lol.

 

[iLander]

My daughter (17) read these books and hated them. She was so passionate about her dislike (rare for her) that it seems odd to me that so many people loved them. She said she only kept reading them because she hoped they'd get better but they were just horrible stories where nothing good ever happens. She said more, but I'll hold back lol I haven't read them so I don't know anything, but her description of story details seems rather bleak, no?

Thank You! I thought the same thing! I have felt like such a big wimp because I found the premise so sad, that I couldn't even start to read them. I'm glad someone else thought so, I don't feel like a big overly-sensitive woose (sp?).

Your daughter might like Sophie Kinsella's "I've Got Your Number". It just came out, and it's better than the Shopaholic series. I liked it because it was light, but fast-paced (action-packed, oddly) and cheerful.

Thread jack over.

 

[LAJennifer]

I haven't read the books. DH and I both loved the film. A little off topic, but how hot was Lenny Kravitz?

 

[Gypsy]

I haven't read the books. DH and I both loved the film. A little off topic, but how hot was Lenny Kravitz?

OMG! YES! That man is SERIOUSLY and RIDICULOUSLY hot!!!

I even said so to DH as the credits were rolling.

 

[TravelingGal]

My daughter (17) read these books and hated them. She was so passionate about her dislike (rare for her) that it seems odd to me that so many people loved them. She said she only kept reading them because she hoped they'd get better but they were just horrible stories where nothing good ever happens. She said more, but I'll hold back lol I haven't read them so I don't know anything, but her description of story details seems rather bleak, no?

Thank You! I thought the same thing! I have felt like such a big wimp because I found the premise so sad, that I couldn't even start to read them. I'm glad someone else thought so, I don't feel like a big overly-sensitive woose (sp?).

Your daughter might like Sophie Kinsella's "I've Got Your Number". It just came out, and it's better than the Shopaholic series. I liked it because it was light, but fast-paced (action-packed, oddly) and cheerful.

Thread jack over.

I like Sophie Kinsella, but I found that book awful. I just couldn't get behind anyone who was dumb enough to respond with someone else's WORK emails. Kinsella's characters tend to be kind of sweetly zany but she was too dingbat for me.

 

[Gypsy]

I just downloaded the audiobook. I'm looking forward to it. Please tell me its better than Harry potter.

They're very different.

I think Suzanne Collins is a very skilled writer, more so than Rowling. (I loved HP, though.)

THG is about war. It was not written specifically for a younger audience, HP was. The MC in THG is a teenager, and so it was marketed to young adults. HP was, of course, written specifically for children.

I can't wait to hear what you think!

My daughter (17) read these books and hated them. She was so passionate about her dislike (rare for her) that it seems odd to me that so many people loved them. She said she only kept reading them because she hoped they'd get better but they were just horrible stories where nothing good ever happens. She said more, but I'll hold back lol I haven't read them so I don't know anything, but her description of story details seems rather bleak, no?

Cehra when I was 16-17 I read the Grapes of Wrath, Lord of the Flies, and Heart of Darkness, I hated them all.

You aren't meant to enjoy these books. You should not enjoy the killing of children. It is supposed to be uncomfortable. It's supposed to make you THINK and to feel and to engage. If you read it you will hate the tyrannical society that forces these children into battle. And if you keep reading until the end of the series you would rejoice when that tyranny is ended-- while feeling sorrow at the huge cost of that victory. But as an adult you understand that easy victories aren't realistic or lasting. That it takes blood and tears and heart to win any fight worth winning. And sacrifice. And that's what this series is about: sacrifice for the greater good. And how it can go horribly wrong, or horribly right. But that in the end, it's about which horror you can live with. And that's why these books are literature to me. And why I am never surprised that people hate them. Because they think they are supposed to enjoy them. You aren't. You are supposed to experience them. And that's not for everyone.

Like someone else said, they are incorrectly billed as teen books. That doesn't mean teens won't appreciate them. Some might, but the subject matter is intense and they are more correctly viewed as literature and for adult sensibilities.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Honestly, the violence in the movies was much harder for me to handle than the violence in the books. If I had kids I would think twice about letting them see this. Maybe that's just me, but in the end - there are scenes with kids killing kids. Violently. In ways that would make me shudder if adults were doing it to each other on screen. If I had kids, I would want them to be older than 13 before they saw this.

There was an review in the paper about the violence as read in the book vs. violence as seen on the movie screen and it was said that it makes a much more dramatic impression on a child when seen visually. So, although, the book may be technically okay for a particular 13 year old to read, the movie isn't necessarily appropriate. There was even a small blurb about how at one of the premiers some crying could be heard and it was assumed that someone mistook the movie as okay for small children.

I'm pretty flexible when it comes to what I let my kids watch and the reason they're not going to watch the Hunger Games is because the violence involves children attacking each other. I let them see movies where warriors go after dragons, but that clearly is fictional and they understand that. The children aspect is just not what I'm comfortable with.

 

[manderz]

I haven't read the books. DH and I both loved the film. A little off topic, but how hot was Lenny Kravitz?

OMG! YES! That man is SERIOUSLY and RIDICULOUSLY hot!!!

I even said so to DH as the credits were rolling.

ZOMG, awesome!! I didn't know he was an actor at all, and he was really good, too!!

A bunch of my friends were going to see it, and invited me along last minute. I didn't know anything about it, other than what the previews implied. I really enjoyed it, and all 4 of us that went bawled our eyes out, especially at the part with Rue

 

[Mayk]

Saw it tonight. DH read all three books. He loved 1 & 2 but not 3; I read 0.

Loved the movie....but my DD and I had our eyes closed a bunch...we are such whimps! She is 13, I have no excuse...

Loved, loved, loved Lenny.... Oh baby I hope he is in movie #2!!!!!

 

[FrekeChild]

I felt like the violence was really watered down in the movies. There wasn't any real blood and gore, especially with Cato. Violent, yes, but I think that the director was very sensitive about it. The movie had to have some violence in it, it's the whole idea behind the story, how terrible this society is, but it wasn't complete in your face violence the way a lot of movies are now. The scene at the cornucopia in particular - the violence is just a blur of action...

But....still children.

 

[Gypsy]

I felt like the violence was really watered down in the movies. There wasn't any real blood and gore, especially with Cato. Violent, yes, but I think that the director was very sensitive about it. The movie had to have some violence in it, it's the whole idea behind the story, how terrible this society is, but it wasn't complete in your face violence the way a lot of movies are now. The scene at the cornucopia in particular - the violence is just a blur of action...

But....still children.

I agree 100%

 

[distracts]

I saw it yesterday and found it much less disturbing (and much less engrossing) than the books. I would say the violence was no more disturbing than that found in Kung Fu Panda 2. I also don't see why people who haven't seen it are getting so upset about kids killing kids - again, much more disturbing in the books, but in the movie, only two really young people are killed (and do no killing themselves), everyone else looks to be in their mid-twenties. As well, though there is much less violence than in the books, as with the books it is all played for the horror of these people having to do this to each other, and I personally would be much more likely to let a kid see this movie than something that glorifies violence and makes it seem cool. But then, I also don't think you should protect children from all of life. I think if you have a thoughtful child, by the time they are ten or eleven they will be able to take in this movie. It would definitely be something you'd have to talk to them about, but they could get it. By the time they are 12 or 13, I think most would be able to get the themes and symbolism and the reason for it being so disturbing and painful on their own. By that age they have read many things with similar themes and likely levels of violence in school, so they are not unprepared. If the child has read the book on their own, well then, the movie was much less offensive to my sensibilities than the book was. Besides, if you're not monitoring carefully what your child is reading, the horse is out of the barn already on protecting them from anything. Books with themes protective parents would object to are in every corner of the bookstore and library, often in the children's and YA sections, and they are much, much easier to get a hold of than movies.

And I agree with Gyosy - Hunger Games isn't meant to be enjoyed in the sense of making you happy, it's meant to be gripping and to make you think about things. It's definitely inappropriate for anyone who cannot handle anything but fluff in their lives.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Honestly, the violence in the movies was much harder for me to handle than the violence in the books. If I had kids I would think twice about letting them see this. Maybe that's just me, but in the end - there are scenes with kids killing kids. Violently. In ways that would make me shudder if adults were doing it to each other on screen. If I had kids, I would want them to be older than 13 before they saw this.

Thanks Princess. My BIL kept saying that more than 20 kids are killed by other kids in the movie and he found it upsetting and my poor niece was trying to convince him otherwise. He kept asking her why she wanted to see the movie and how she felt about kids killing other kids etc and then he asked me what I thought. I gave a non committal answer since I had no wish to get in the middle of this especially since I didn't even see the movie yet so couldn't give an intelligent opinion. I abhor violence and find it all too common in movies these days. It is to the point (in video games and other areas too) that I fear it is desensitizing our young people (and others) to violence in general.

I'd have to agree with this after seeing it last night. Two hours of 22 kids being killed was sort of bizarre and not really something I would ordinarily go to (whether the violence was with adults or kids). The redeeming part is the main character and her strength of character, but I'd never let a younger child go see it. My 16 year old did and she had sort of neutral feelings about the movie as a whole. If the books are more graphic, then I wouldn't read them. But naturally, I want to know who the girl ends up with, and that is the hook. Do books 2 and 3 have less violence in them?

 

[Mayk]

I did not want to go... but my all of my daughter's friends had seen it and while I tried to convince her she didn't want to see it.. as I am sure you are all aware.. "I KNOW NOTHING" ... she is so much smarter ... While I do believe the scenes were watered down (thank goodness).. I will tell you I woke up this morning thinking about it.. I think I was o.k. with some of the characters being picked off... until Rue... she broke me heart.. Clearly, I'm not a good judge of a movie like this.. I used to only get to see Disney..now I find myself sitting through Twilight and Hunger Games.... I still will not let my daughter see the last Twilight... she's not happy with me.. but..there is no way I am sitting through it .. and as I always tell her.. when she can pay the rent she can watch anything she wants.... She will be 14 this summer, so at some point I will most likely have to start giving in...but I'm wondering if she will want to see the next one... the only reason we understood a lot of what was happening was because DH had read the books and provided background after the movie.. about certain aspects...

She is also mad I will not let her watch Black Swan... Teenagers... they put you to the test!

 

[FrekeChild]

Honestly, the violence in the movies was much harder for me to handle than the violence in the books. If I had kids I would think twice about letting them see this. Maybe that's just me, but in the end - there are scenes with kids killing kids. Violently. In ways that would make me shudder if adults were doing it to each other on screen. If I had kids, I would want them to be older than 13 before they saw this.

Thanks Princess. My BIL kept saying that more than 20 kids are killed by other kids in the movie and he found it upsetting and my poor niece was trying to convince him otherwise. He kept asking her why she wanted to see the movie and how she felt about kids killing other kids etc and then he asked me what I thought. I gave a non committal answer since I had no wish to get in the middle of this especially since I didn't even see the movie yet so couldn't give an intelligent opinion. I abhor violence and find it all too common in movies these days. It is to the point (in video games and other areas too) that I fear it is desensitizing our young people (and others) to violence in general.

I'd have to agree with this after seeing it last night. Two hours of 22 kids being killed was sort of bizarre and not really something I would ordinarily go to (whether the violence was with adults or kids). The redeeming part is the main character and her strength of character, but I'd never let a younger child go see it. My 16 year old did and she had sort of neutral feelings about the movie as a whole. If the books are more graphic, then I wouldn't read them. But naturally, I want to know who the girl ends up with, and that is the hook. Do books 2 and 3 have less violence in them?

I read them all in a row over two days (no easy feat with a 4 month old!) on my Kindle and from what I can differentiate, the second book was mostly revolution by the districts, but it also has a Hunger Games and the third was all out war against the Capitol. And while they try to keep Katniss as a symbol/figurehead in the 3rd book, thats against her nature, and she ends up in the midst of everything. So there will be violence in the remainder, but mostly adults this time. (I totally consider Katniss an adult btw, especially after completely supporting her family starting at the age of 12!)