The Star Wars prequels (Episodes II and III, anyway) are better than The Hunger Games
Debate Rounds (5)
Rounds 2 & 3 are arguments and rebuttals
Rounds 4 is final rebuttal
Round 5 is conclusion
There are two reasons why the tragic events that occur in the Star Wars prequels hit so much harder. 1) We get a chance to know and understand the characters before tragedy strikes. By the time Anakin's mother dies, we know that Anakin is fearful, anxious, compassionate, loving, paranoid and reckless. We have a sense of his personality and backstory. For the characters in The Hunger Games, such as Rue, Mags and Cato, we don't have enough time to get to know their personalities and who they are before they are killed, making it seem as if they were only introduced so we'd feel sorry when they eventually died. 2) The issues that characters in the prequels face have a lot more buildup. When we hear news of Anakin's visions in Episode II (His mothers death) and Episode III (Padme's death), much of the movie builds up and foreshadows these moments. It gives us plenty of tension over what these characters are going to do, and we see loads of development before the events actually occur. Neither Cato, Rue or Mags develop at all before their deaths, and while they may be predictable, there certainly isn't any tension or build up.
Use of Visuals:
Visuals can be as touching and moving as any dialogue, and I think Star Wars Episode II and III understood this a lot more than The Hunger Games, which seems to just use visuals because they "look creative and cool." The prequels use style to IMPROVE substance. It's a classic case of style over substance that plagues The Hunger Games series, particularly with the District 1 scenes. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith make great use of sunsets, sometimes symbolizing a new hope and bright future, in the case of Padme and Anakin's marriage, and sometimes symbolizing the end of a golden age, as we see when Anakin and Padme are feeling each others presence from the Jedi Temple and Padme's Apartment building. Other examples of visuals in the use of symbolism include Anakin & Dooku's lightsaber fight, where the room goes pitch black, and the red and blue sabers cross over to each other, symbolizing Anakin and Dooku, two perfect storms of light and darkness.
Now, I will admit that the acting in The Hunger Games is good, but not quite as good as what we see in Star Wars Episode II and III. Many have criticized the acting of Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, but I thought their performances were phenomenal. The two have excellent romantic chemistry, and are very good at portraying a very awkward, uncomfortable (But still sweet) love story. Hayden Christensen does an excellent job showing just how internally weak Anakin is, masterfully portraying his fear, anxieties, insecurities, rage, arrogance and cockiness. There are some scenes where he's just bursting with emotion (The fire place scene with Padme and the Tusken Slaughter), and you can truly feel his pain at several parts in the movie. Natalie Portman does an excellent job as the more reserved Padme Amidala, becoming more and more emotionally driven as the films progress and more and more insecure. Samuel L. Jackson is amazing as Mace Windu, doing an excellent job showing the emotional toll being a Jedi master can take, as he descends further and further into emotion induced darkness. As for Ian McDiarmid as Chancellor Palpatine...What more can be said about this guy? He's a terrifying, entertaining and scenery chewing force who commands presence and offers some of the best and most memorable moments of the prequels.
The characters of The Hunger Games are very much fantasy characters, and their problems aren't really treated as something that can be related to. At least not often. Many of the characters in Star Wars Episode II and III on the other hand face a multitude of internal conflicts and problems that can be related to by many. Hopeless romantics who have failed to find true love, as well as teenagers facing identity crisis or the loss of a loved one, or anyone going through major issues of fear and self loathing, can easily relate to Anakin Skywalker's plight. Strict parents who love their children but have issues controlling their rebelliousness can relate easily to Obi Wan, and understand the pain he goes through having to try and destroy Anakin in Episode III. People in love with someone who has completely changed into someone they don't even recognize could easily sympathize with the hell Padme faces with Anakin's turn in Episode III. The characters in The Hunger Games feel like, well, fantasy characters. The characters of the prequels, or at least people with their psychological profiles, could very much exist in real life.
I believe that acting in the Hunger Games is superb. Jennifer has won an Oscar (not for this movie, but that"s beside the point). None of the actors in Star Wars have ever won an Oscar. I think that this proves that acting in the Hunger Games was better.
Many of the characters in the Hunger Games are bullies, and this can be related to almost everyone who has ever been bullied or maybe was even the one who did the bullying. The Hunger Games shows that you have to stick up for what you want and never let anybody tell you otherwise.
Actually, Hayden Christensen won a Golden Globe for Life as a House, and Natalie Portman not only has a Golden Globe but an Oscar as well. Samuel L. Jackson has been nominated multiple times for Golden Globes and Oscars as well. Also, great actors can give bad performances. Look at Nicolas Cage; he's a great actor, and he was atrocious in Ghost Rider and The Wicker Man.
That is true, but they really only relate to the audience on that one level. Many characters in the prequels offer relatable personalities for almost everybody. There are victims, bullies, parental figures, awkward nerds, people in moral crisis, mourners and way more real people in the prequels than what we see in The Hunger Games. Even the major villain is more real in the prequels than in The Hunger Games. In The Hunger Games, President Snow is a cartoony bad guy with no charisma who constantly makes stupid decisions just to appear more evil. In the prequels, Palpatine acts as a father figure to Anakin and comes of as benevolent and kind until Episode III. He generally fools people into thinking he a kind, gentle, caring person until Episode III where he has everybody by the throat and shows how twisted and evil he truly is. President Snow could never exist in real life because he is so cartoonishly evil and uncharismatic. Chancellor Palpatine on the other hand is far more frightening as I could SEE somebody like this not only existing and not only convincing me he was a good guy, but actually taking a high position of power.
Every character in the Hunger Games has a different personality and are good at different things, which can make them more relatable to somebody. The audience does not need to relate to everybody in the movie. They can find that one character and follow them through because it will be just like them. Katniss is a much more relatable person than anybody in the Star Wars franchise because she is just a girl who is standing up for what she believes in no matter what anybody has to say about it.
TheMovieDoctorful forfeited this round.
I would argue that not many HG characters have that much personality. Cato is a one-dimensional bad guy (As is President Snow, probably more so), Rue only exists so we can cry when she dies, Foxface was useless. Even Katniss seems a little too much of a perfect Mary Sue to really relate too. I think somebody can relate to Anakin better than Katniss because he ISN'T perfect. He goes through horrible personal tragedies and fears, and sometimes fails, and many of those fears (Unrequited love, the death of loved ones, disapproval of father figure and issues with trust) are things we ALL go through. I can't say the same for entering an arena where kids kill each other.
I respect your opinion, and see why somebody MIGHT like The Hunger Games, but I personally don't think they are very good. I don't think the characters are very well written, the villains are over the top and cartoony, and there seems to be a huge emphasis on trying to be emotional without letting us settle in and get to know the characters. In contrast, the Star Wars prequels feature well written and relatable characters on a wide spectrum of moral grayness, villains who are sometimes good people and other times VERY good at tricking people into thinking they are good, and the movies give us time to love the characters before tragedy strikes.
Katniss is far from perfect and that is why she is relatable. Yes she has strengths but she also has weaknesses as well. She would do anything for her family and can be stubborn when she has her mind made up. When each child is killed in the movie it is a tragedy because they are young and still had their whole lives ahead of them.
The hunger games was a great movie with great plot and amazing characters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said the characters in the hunger games where not relatable but the ones on star wars where? HA! Win for con!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.