I don't know to say it so I will just say it. It was not terrible. I might even read the books now.
On a side note, I find American mythology fascinating. The rugged individual thing going against the unforgiving powers of the evil unjust empire. All that enforced by movies, books and music. And then everyone is shocked when the rugged individual flower takes matters into his/hers own capable hands, but I digress..
Good times, good times.. panem et circenses indeed
I know how to say it so I will just say it. Don't bother, they're bad.
This. Suzanne Collins is a bad writer.
Hmm? Wasn't Harry Potter and @#%^phile Vampire universally decried as bad writing as well? ( I mean it was, and I did manage to pull myself through one Harry.. never again ).
I think the public has a different idea of what is bad.
#7angrymnk,
Posted:Nov 23 2013 at 10:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sure it does not. It is just those damn old men in robes and damn dictionary that seems to insist that pedophilia is an attraction to children. Here is where it gets fun so stay with me. While teenagers would like to believe that they are adults, in the eyes of the law ( and from the perspective of basic brain development ) they are still children.
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.
And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.
Sure it does not.
Technically the word you want is pederasty. Bill Donahue loves that one. I'll let y'all Google who he is and why he stresses the distinction and what make it slimy... and then take it to the Asylum if you want to continue discussing it.
Haven't seen the movie, but I've read all the books. As I recalled it goes: Hunger Games --> Hunger Games 2.0 --> Blah.
The third book ditched the premise of the first two (which was honestly the only thing that worked), and without any literary merit or cliffhangers it just became a snore. The first two books were decent because they were Battle Royale, Americanized. So they had that going for them.
I didn't make it through the first movie, although I generally enjoy Jennifer Lawrence. As such, I may watch the second when it's online and I'm drunk. Maybe.
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.
And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.
Sure it does not. It is just those damn old men in robes and damn dictionary that seems to insist that @#%^philia is an attraction to children. Here is where it gets fun so stay with me. While teenagers would like to believe that they are adults, in the eyes of the law ( and from the perspective of basic brain development ) they are still children.
On the other hand, who cares what the sorry old grey men say? Lets glorify child rape^^; I am sorry, forbidden love.
Btw I did not know you care that much about whatshisname.. Edward?
Edward is technically an ephebophile, since his attraction is to a mid-to-late adolescent (17 years old). @#%^philia, while described as the sexual attraction to children, deals specifically with young (prepubescent) children. A sexual attraction to older children is called hebephilia, or the aforementioned ephebophilia. Common for all three "disorders" is that they indicate a primary attraction to that age group. Nothing in the books or movies indicates that Edward is attracted to ONLY young girls.
And no, I don't give a sh*t about Edward, but I hate it when people throw down the @#%^philia card. It's offensive and does nothing to further the discussion. The age of consent is 15 in my country, which makes Edward and Bella's relationship perfectly legal here. And you have to remember that Edward is, biologically, a 17-year-old boy. Same age as Bella.
I think it's cute that you want to play the nitpicking game with me, though.
Spoilered the quote so that people who have the filter on does not have to watch the verbal (textual?) diarrhea above.
Edited, Nov 25th 2013 4:19pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#11angrymnk,
Posted:Nov 24 2013 at 11:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I love it when people question the premise based on the label alone. I will admit that I have not read Twilight. I simply do not care enough. I do have a question though. How long has he been 17 for?:>
Doesn't matter how old he is. @#%^philia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to a child (prepubescent in certain dictionaries) because it's a child. Edward isn't attracted to Bella because she's 17 years old. He's attracted to her because he can't read her damn mind (and because she smells delicious or some sh*t).
And even if he was attracted to her because of her age, he'd still only be a @#%^phile* in certain countries. Their relationship, while odd, would be perfectly legal in most of Europe, for instance, as only Malta and Turkey have the age of consent set to 18.
* Legally speaking. You can argue whether a psychosexual disorder can be limited by laws or not.
Edited, Nov 25th 2013 4:19pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
And no, I don't give a sh*t about Edward, but I hate it when people throw down the @#%^philia card. It's offensive and does nothing to further the discussion. The age of consent is 15 in my country, which makes Edward and Bella's relationship perfectly legal here. And you have to remember that Edward is, biologically, a 17-year-old boy. Same age as Bella.
Age of consent in Washington state is 16 anyway so their relationship would be perfectly legal there as well.
#15angrymnk,
Posted:Nov 25 2013 at 10:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cool, I would sure love to see you explain this subtle difference to a judge. Yer honor, I was not attracted to her because of her age; she just smelled so nice. Yep. I would quote uncle Ruckus, but I might get too graphic.
Why would you need to explain it to a judge? If she was under the AoC (which she wasn't in that state anyway) then it's statutory rape regardless of whether he liked her scent or psychic blocking powers or ample young boobies. But the crime isn't "Being a pedophile", it's sex with someone under the age of consent; motive isn't a consideration.
For the record, being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old (Bella's age in the first book) does not make you a @#%^phile.
And @#%^phile is not a swear word, but it's blocked here on the site because of something that happened a long time ago.
Sure it does not.
Technically the word you want is pederasty. Bill Donahue loves that one. I'll let y'all Google who he is and why he stresses the distinction and what make it slimy... and then take it to the Asylum if you want to continue discussing it.
Haven't seen the movie, but I've read all the books. As I recalled it goes: Hunger Games --> Hunger Games 2.0 --> Blah.
The third book ditched the premise of the first two (which was honestly the only thing that worked), and without any literary merit or cliffhangers it just became a snore. The first two books were decent because they were Battle Royale, Americanized. So they had that going for them.
I didn't make it through the first movie, although I generally enjoy Jennifer Lawrence. As such, I may watch the second when it's online and I'm drunk. Maybe.
Edited, Nov 24th 2013 1:53am by LockeColeMA
I read the first book yesterday. Well, I read the first third on Sunday, and the rest yesterday. I enjoyed it well enough. I didn't go into it expecting incredible literature.
I find the world she created interesting enough. The characters were hit or miss - the development was uneven. Her main antagonist in the arena was barely fleshed out, but other characters made a much stronger impression (probably because she was investing in the future books, but it was still odd).
Honestly, what annoyed me more than anything was the inconsistent tone of voice in the narration. I've finished the book, and I'm still not sure if Katniss' narration is meant to be in the moment, of if she's telling us this story. For the most part it seems like the first, but she occasionally thinks things that seem really odd in that context...
My other irritation is right where the first book left off. You have a whole book of her trying to fight her way back home, to her little sister, and the book ends right when the door off the train home opens. I'm also annoyed by how little of Effie, Haymitch, and Cinna we saw after the games.
I'll probably pick up the second book. I know what the overarching plot arc is, and a whole lot of spoilers from book 3 courtesy of an ******* on tumblr.
I also read the first book of Divergent this weekend (I apparently didn't want much higher mental effort this weekend ). That was also interesting enough. I hear the second book is good, and the third sucked. Divergent's world is less interesting to me than the Hunger Games, but I like the main character more. Not that I dislike Katniss, but I can't relate to her as well (which is harder to take in first person narration).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Doesn't matter how old he is. @#%^philia is defined as an adult being sexually attracted to a child (prepubescent in certain dictionaries) because it's a child. Edward isn't attracted to Bella because she's 17 years old. He's attracted to her because he can't read her damn mind (and because she smells delicious or some sh*t).
And even if he was attracted to her because of her age, he'd still only be a @#%^phile* in certain countries. Their relationship, while odd, would be perfectly legal in most of Europe, for instance, as only Malta and Turkey have the age of consent set to 18.
And at the risk of repeating the same old thing again, while prepubescent is only specified in some dictionaries, it's really an assumed component of the word "children" in the definition. The word (and condition it describes) has been around long before our modern societies started setting legal age of consent (much less setting it as high as 18 in some places). As Joph also pointed out, Pedophila describes a mental disorder, not a legal condition (or law to break). As such, age criteria which are purely statutory (such as our age of consent) can't be a component of the disorder. What you're doing (or want to do) is either aberrant, or it is not. It can't be a mental disorder if you're in one country, but perfectly normal if in another.
Which is why the word "children" kinda has to refer to a physiological state, not a legal one. Hence, it must mean "prepubescent" since that's the physiological condition associated with being a child versus an adult. Logic, I know.
Way better than the first movie. Hope the next two are better than the 3rd book.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
I think , Most of us who have watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,†will rate it as the second film in the blockbuster franchise based on Suzanne Collins’ hit novels. This is definitely the follow up of the previous" Hunger Games" film . Based on my review , the present movie "Catching Fire" is better, , smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking theme. This "Catching Fire" film proves compelling second installment in the Hunger Games before:)
I've read this nonsense twice, and the the only thing I can determine from reading it is that that person that wrote it is in desperate need of reading something better than Hunger Games.
Those who have watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will recognize that this is the second movie of the franchise that started with The Hunger Games and uses a unique means of organization where the movies occur in a chronological sequence. Those who watch it will be grasped by the ways the events of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire occur after the events of the first movie. In fact, the events in the end of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire occur after the events of the beginning of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Fans are sure to recognize that the next film for this franchise will be the third film due to Suzanne Collins' strategy of putting the third item after the second item. At that time, no one will mistake The Hunger Games: Catching fire as anything but the film that occurs between the first and third films.