Disclaimer: I never read the books, only ever saw the films of the things listed here.

In "The Hunger Games", we are required to suspend our disbelief, and accept a universe where the people are so oppressed that they will allow their government to force upon them an annual sport where their children are required to participate in a deathmatch. Let's assume for a moment that we're already suspending our disbelief to that degree.

I recently saw the trailer for the sequel...


... and its main plot seems to be that the government goons are now surprised to discover that, after years of successful games, this sport of theirs has suddenly backfired, and that the victor of the deathmatch is, surprise surprise, now the hero of the people. The people are now, finally, after all these years, rising up and rallying behind the hero... the hero that the government created themselves by having the sport occur in the first place.

Anyone remember Rollerball? (The 1975 James Caan film, not the 2002 remake.)

Same thing.

In both cases, didn't you find that root concept to be functionally impossible? Not just that the government would fail to predict that they'd create an uncontrollable hero-of-the-people with the sport, but more specifically, that this sort of thing could go on for years without that very thing happening *every single time the sport was played*?

How could you *not* create a rogue, rebellious hero in those situations? Sure I could theoretically imagine a government that creates the sport in an effort to control/pacify/subjugate the populace. But the idea that such a sport didn't immediately backfire, the very first time they held the very first game, is crazy. Especially when the plot of the film revolves around showing us just how inevitable it is that such a thing *would* backfire.

Did that bug you, too?

I'm in the opposite camp from you: I rad the books, but haven't seen the movie(s).

In the books, at least, the purpose of the Games was to create a hero for the people and give them hope that they might someday rise to the same heights. Bread and circuses.

I liked the books very much, but am not interested in seeing the movie because it will be ... different from my expectations based on the books, and that will be unsettling. (If I'd seen the movie first, I'd probably feel that way about the books. )

tanstaafl.

Running Man.

That was the first thing I thought of.

Disclaimer: I've never read/seen the Hunger Games, and it's been ages since I saw Rollerball or Running Man...

In the Hunger Games, aren't the districts competing against each other? Perhaps the elite plan on the competitive nature of humanity to win out against any force that might try to unite them. Combine that with the anger one district would feel against another if their competitor - who is their only chance at getting more food - is killed. That just makes you dislike the other guys more. As long as all the lower people are fighting amongst themselves, the elite figure they'll be okay. I'd imagine it's not a perfect system, but it sounds like the world they live in doesn't leave them much of a choice.

I'm going to look up the origin of that phrase "Bread and circuses" so that I can understand how it relates to Hunger Games, but in the meantime...

I think that's the crux of my problem with this universe they're trying to get us to buy into. If you're an oppressive totalitarian government, when you create a hero for the people, don't pluck that hero out of the ranks of the oppressed... you're gonna get a rotten hero that way.

(Actually, you'll get a fantastic hero, but one that represents the people's view, not the government's view, i.e., the opposite of the government's goals in that case.)

Interesting. The Hunger Games takes that phrase and, depending on how you look at it, either uses it very literally, or deliberately turns it on its head. I wonder if the author intended the plot to be such a direct play on the original phrase. Back to Wikipedia...

Yep. Quoth Wikipedia:

"As revealed in the novel Mockingjay, the name Panem comes from the Latin phrase "Panem et Circenses" which means "bread and circuses.""

So that, plus the imagery of Katniss receiving the bread from Peeta, is a direct reference.

"Panem et circenses" is an old Latin (meaning Ancient Roman) say meaning that you can rule a population providing them with food and games (entertainment). If you do so, as a ruler, you will have them follow you, accept everything, and be happy. It is meant negatively to claim that most people do not have any bigger desire than to feed themselves and have some basic form of fun/entertainment.

It only applies to Hunger Games (movie - I haven't read the books either) partly, because the Circenses, the games, Romans had, involved slaves (so, non-citizens), people sentenced to death, war prisoners, or animals, so Roman people would actually not have their families at risk. Not that much, at least. I doubt they'd enjoy the games as much otherwise. Admittedly, being sentenced to death was quite easy.
Of course, if I remember well from school books.

As to the movie: it did not bug me much because, even if not so blatantly, it seems to me history is full of examples of cruel rulers pushing population to despair, causing revolts and violence and revolutions, only to crush them with even more violence. Until revolutions in 18th and 19th centuries (French, American, others throughout EU), when Democracies started to replace Kingdoms or other more or less cruel forms of gov't.
I mean, yes, the movie makes it all look more silly, I'd agree with that, but still, sadly, not so unreal if you look at even recent history.

Agreed. But in the Hunger Games universe, the games were supposedly a successful thing for many years prior to Katniss coming along. My issue was that there's no way that thing could have been successful up to that point. It would have been an utter failure on the very first year, and the revolution would have occurred immediately, long before Katniss' time.

As you said, the Bread and Circuses thing only applies when you're ritually executing criminals and war prisoners, not when you're executing the innocent children of the oppressed peoples.

Oh, I see what you mean. Agreed on that. I could imagine the game continuing in spite of population will, imposed on them. Not as a popular success.