Reaction to the Hunger Games
Arielle Juanito
2010-26123
The Hunger Games 1. Reality competitive shows and survival shows are still part of almost every channel’s line-up of shows to this day. These shows feature competitors such as models, singers, dancers, fashion designers, and even chefs. Airing these shows is a win-win situation, because they aren’t only entertaining, but they are cheap to produce as well. There are no high talent fees or scripts to write, just the perfect assortment of characters thrown in, challenges for them to accomplish and a grand prize to await the winner. The viewers in turn get hooked because they are presented with potential heroes to root for, to hate and/or to sympathize with. The fact that it is a “reality” show naturally gives it that element of genuineness and also of surprise. They somehow live vicariously through the competitors. On the other hand, they are also interested in the way they suffer.
However, things aren’t as real as they seem behind the cameras. Televisions are the viewers’ way of escaping reality, so the producers have to be at par with all the other nonrealistic shows. They do this by deliberately manipulating what they can like the characters or the challenges. In The Hunger Games, Katniss is made over before she goes into the arena. This seems unnecessary to me. Besides that is the fabricated love story between her and Peeta. I also don’t understand why, towards the end, they are fooled by a certain change in the rules. It reflects the producers’ need to appeal to the audience every way they can, and they do this by transforming into every genre possible: action, drama, romance and comedy. Clearly, there are no special producers for reality shows. They are all run by the same creative, money-hungry men. The bottom line is that reality shows aren’t that realistic. We don’t need to appeal to any sponsors to survive. In fact, The Hunger Games should have been as fair as it could get, considering the lives at stake.
2. Peeta
2010-26123
The Hunger Games 1. Reality competitive shows and survival shows are still part of almost every channel’s line-up of shows to this day. These shows feature competitors such as models, singers, dancers, fashion designers, and even chefs. Airing these shows is a win-win situation, because they aren’t only entertaining, but they are cheap to produce as well. There are no high talent fees or scripts to write, just the perfect assortment of characters thrown in, challenges for them to accomplish and a grand prize to await the winner. The viewers in turn get hooked because they are presented with potential heroes to root for, to hate and/or to sympathize with. The fact that it is a “reality” show naturally gives it that element of genuineness and also of surprise. They somehow live vicariously through the competitors. On the other hand, they are also interested in the way they suffer.
However, things aren’t as real as they seem behind the cameras. Televisions are the viewers’ way of escaping reality, so the producers have to be at par with all the other nonrealistic shows. They do this by deliberately manipulating what they can like the characters or the challenges. In The Hunger Games, Katniss is made over before she goes into the arena. This seems unnecessary to me. Besides that is the fabricated love story between her and Peeta. I also don’t understand why, towards the end, they are fooled by a certain change in the rules. It reflects the producers’ need to appeal to the audience every way they can, and they do this by transforming into every genre possible: action, drama, romance and comedy. Clearly, there are no special producers for reality shows. They are all run by the same creative, money-hungry men. The bottom line is that reality shows aren’t that realistic. We don’t need to appeal to any sponsors to survive. In fact, The Hunger Games should have been as fair as it could get, considering the lives at stake.
2. Peeta