The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Was the Percy Jackson movies worse than the Hunger Games movies?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mbrownie has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 97616
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Percy Jackson movies were complete trash.
The books were amazing, just like the Hunger Games, but honestly, as bad as they were, Percy Jackson outranks the Hunger Games on bad movies.
The Percy Jackson movie #1- Annabeth, the main female character who had blond hair and grey eyes- was in fact a brown-headed brown eyed girl who acted similarly to anther girl in the second movie, also known as Clarisse.
Also, they never went to a museum, they never actually confronted Luke at the end, it was only Percy and he actually fought Ares instead of Luke.
Percy Jackson movie #2- Chiron had a white flank. The second one wasn't as bad as the first one, there were plenty of things that didn't happen though.


I accept your debate and good luck!

I would like to begin by stating that saying "the Percy Jackson movies were trash" is an opinion and doesn't support anything.

Secondly, every movie based upon books has some inaccuracies. From these movies to Harry Potter to the Maze Runner, all the movies make changes and leave stuff out for box office value or movie run time or any miscellaneous reasoning. Practically, the point of the first two paragraphs was to point out that the entire backing for your argument that you provided really does nothing to support your claim as everything is either an opinion or is common to all novel-based movies. Just to add to the claim, would an extra part [the museum] not make the movie better? It is extra content and a fight with a hydra after all.

One of my main reasons why Percy Jackson is better is because it is somewhat educational, as most of it is based off of Greek Mythology which many find to be an enthralling subject and you can learn about it from the movie. The Hunger Games; while entertaining, does not provide much of a real world learning experience.

To conclude this argument, I want to bring up the point that for impressionable kids Hunger Games can promote violence more so than Percy Jackson. Percy Jackson and his friends fight against evil to accomplish noble tasks; whereas innocent kids kill each other in Hunger Games. A Huffington Post writer wrote a whole article about this, the main point being that it can be inappropriate for young teens as one of the main themes is kids killing kids. {1}.

Both these films did well in box office and movie critiques, so to concretely prove the superior movie is rather difficult and can really be determined by small factors like the aforementioned ones in the previous two paragraphs.


Debate Round No. 1


I agree that my statement before was an opinion, but that does not mean that we can automatically believe that the Hunger Games were worse than the Percy Jackson movies. The Percy Jackson movies did, in fact, include killing as well. They killed monsters, and when they tried to do it for good, the monsters were still scary.
The Hunger Games had real people- and the movies did have a warning label imprinted on the description. Not literally, but according to common sense media, the label says 14+. If you get frightened and you are under that age limit, don't say they didn't warn you.

Young hero Percy is now in high school rather than middle school; his satyr friend Grover loves the ladies; and a trip that Percy, Grover, and Annabeth take to a casino has a nightclub, a full bar, and lotus flowers that all the patrons ingest (in the book, they play video and arcade games endlessly). Plus, the violence level is high for a PG-rated movie: Monsters are very frightening, especially the demonic ones -- like Hades aflame with skeletal wings and a fury sent to destroy Percy -- characters (monster and human) are impaled and slashed at with swords, and Percy's mom is crushed by a Minotaur and taken to the underworld. After Medusa's head is severed, it's dragged along on the road trip to Hades.

First on the list: characters.

Each character except Luke and Grover were supposed to be 12-year old kids, but in the movie, Annabeth was portrayed by a, wrong hair and eye colored, 20-year old. In the Hunger Games, the description was accurate and the actor were extremely accurate in accordance to the book.

Percy Jackson was supposed to be a uplifting character who was supposed to have be funny and slightly dim-witted. As the writers of the script did in fact get the dim-witted part right, Percy's actor seemed sad and almost emo-like. Percy's character was ultimately ripped in pieces as everyone realized who was actually playing Percy Jackson- and what made the movie Percy so completely different from the one in the books.

Annabeth Chase has always had a lifelong passion to be an architecture has been reduced to a flimsy "OH HEY the Parthenon is neat" shout-out. She gets a few throwaway lines about her mom Athena, but that's about it. She is merely The Girl; a Amazonian-like girl, but The Girl nonetheless. Her characterization is pretty much non-existent.

Luke Castellan was not supposed to show up at the end of the movie and confront Percy like how the movies did. According to the movie, Percy Jackson and Luke Castellan had a fight to try and get the lightning bolt.

common sense media
forever you


I would like to primarily address the "monsters are scary" claim. It is true that they can be; but if monsters are on the same level as human on human killing are "Adventure Time" and "Hunger Games" on the same intensity level? Monsters have been part of children's media for a while, but human on human generally is not.

Moving on, slight character inaccuracies really do not detract from the overall value or quality of the movie. If they did, however, I could point out many inaccuracies within the Hunger Games movies as well. Below is a list of some of these:

- The flag of Panem in the movie is never mentioned in the novel.
- Effie Trinket (the "spokesperson" who announces the tributes who eventually befriends Katniss) never has her name mentioned in the movie.
- Katniss should have black hair according to the novel but she does not.
- The same error mentioned above is made with Gale.
- Haymitch is supposed to have curly dark hair but instead has straight blonde hair.

There are several more beyond this, thus proving that regardless of their relevant inaccuracies are common among all book to movie adaptations.

My previous arguments from Round 1 stand: "more educational and less violent and violence promotion". Additionally, as for pure entertainment, expansiveness, and complexity: Percy Jackson also has some "advantages". Percy Jackson has more characters and in general the characters have more personality and likability. Leading me to the next claim that Percy Jackson clearly has more humorous content; which almost always makes a movie better. Who doesn't like to laugh when watching a movie?

Additional Sources:
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.