b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1578553 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

because it explains why each tribute has to "perform" to show their skills.
And I suspect is why there was a bow available in the arena at all.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 14:51, 1 reply, 12 years ago)
I meant the 42 thing

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 14:52, Reply)
because it was relevant to how unlucky her sister was to get selected, I assume.
Do you do this to every film you see?
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 14:55, Reply)
Why is a monkey showing a baby lion cub off to the other animal?

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 14:57, Reply)
And why doesn't the lion just outrun the wildebeest?

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 14:59, Reply)
I'm jut wondering about why question tiny plot inconsistencies
whilst ignoring the elephant in the room of the whole thing, that being the big dog things. Presumbaly they are in the book, but it's still a rather epic inconsistency.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:02, Reply)
What bugged you about the mutated dogs?

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:05, Reply)
The concept is wrong.
Direct intervention causing death. Surely, the tributes must kill each other or succumb to the environment. If rules permit the people outside can kill tributes on a whim, as they then do, what's the point of the game?
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:07, Reply)
Ah well in the book it explains/suggests that the mutations are in fact made from the other tributes DNA
So its still the tributes fighting the others in a roundabout sort of way

In the film it makes no sense.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:10, Reply)
Yeah, you wouldn't know they had the same eyes in the film
unless she actually said "Oh my gosh! They've got the same eyes as the tributes I already killed!"
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:11, Reply)
It wasn't just the eyes
They had numbers too
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:14, Reply)
I missed that
That's quite interesting.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:23, Reply)
In the books

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:30, Reply)
I'm not bothered by it making sense or not so much.
It's fiction after all. From a conceptual point of view, a story about a game like that becomes weaker without relevant rules. Maybe that's just me.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:12, Reply)
Unless the Government being a bunch of cheats is part of the story
Plus its not really a story about a game, its a story of control and rebellion.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:15, Reply)
granted, but if they are going to cheat, what's the point of the game?
might as well just feed 24 kids to bears.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:16, Reply)
They answer that in the film
Hope
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:18, Reply)
The game is televised everywhere
there wouldn't be hope if it became obvious to the districts that there was cheating going on.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:20, Reply)
The district that won wouldn't care
and the ones that lost would be just as controlled
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:23, Reply)
Yeah, they were mutants created by the capital
in the same way as the massive wasp things
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:06, Reply)
yeah but the wasps are effectively passive
the lass had to get involved to use them as a weapon. That makes sense to me. The dogs are just the controllers picking off people, which seems to go against the point really.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:08, Reply)
The book does say that the controllers do often cheat to take out certain kids
one is mentioned that went mental and ate the heart of every victim but was killed by an avalanche that she thinks was started by the controllers to stop him winning.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:10, Reply)
No
Do you defend every film you see?
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:02, Reply)
not if it's shit, no
but you're attacking this one for trivial and meaningless inconsistencies.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:04, Reply)
I hardly attacked it
I said they didn't explain things properly. If they aren't going to explain why something is said, why have it in the film. It annoyed my wife because she was asking why they said things in the film and the answers were in the book.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:06, Reply)
I haven't read the book and it caused no confusion to me
I assume my mind just produced a plausible infill. I think the problem here is that your wife asks silly questions, not an issue with the film per se.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:10, Reply)
But if she asks "Why would his name be in 42 times?" Which isn't really a silly question as it directly relates to why the are called The Hunger Games
and the answer is in the book but not the film, perhaps they should just not have bothered to have the character say it.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:12, Reply)
It was actually explained in the film.
Just later on.
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:15, Reply)
your mum was explained in the film
you pair of complete and utter cock gobblers
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:19, Reply)
My mums dead
She choked on a sock
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:20, Reply)
your mum choked to death opn your brother's cock?
I feel for you man
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:23, Reply)
Feel for my brother
Her teeth clamped down as she died
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:24, Reply)
at least it fit in her mouth

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:26, Reply)
Nah, she wasn't, I'd have noticed.

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:20, Reply)
the only thing you'd have noticed
is if a kid in a children's film aimed at children based on a kids book had a fucking NICKNAME
(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:24, Reply)
nah, I'm afraid I missed that

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:30, Reply)
yeah maybe it was a PG13 and you decided not to go

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:32, Reply)
could be, could be.

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:33, Reply)
ARGUE BACK YOU SHITCUNT

(, Tue 3 Apr 2012, 15:34, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1