Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Long Walk' started by KINGSMAN129, Jan 13, 2014.
I know - isn't it great? It is light years better than FB!
AGREED, there are far too many IDIOTS on FB!
I doubt the two are related, despite a thematic similarity (I enjoyed The Hunger Games books: I like dystopian fiction, and I very much liked having a protagonist who was not actually all that likeable).
The Long Walk is high concept, a novel in which not much happens - the characters walk - but character development (and interrelationships) are paramount, and all the while tension is being driven higher and higher simply by the passage of time. Clever, and very well done.
I don't think the walk would make a very good movie. As Neil said! it's about character development and interrelationships. Those things don 'to translate well to film. On the other hand, Hunger Games has a lot more action. And Catching Fire has things that go boom. Movie goers really like when things go boom.
First thing I thought of when I heard about the Hunger Games was the movie Battle Royale from 2000 by the director Kinji Fukasaku. It seems like a toned down version of the movie to me.
In that case it should be called, Hunger, The Long Walk Game.
Royale Hunger Long Walk Running Man Games? lol
Similar themes, all, but very different treatments. Hell, let's throw in Logan's Run, too (just for fun).
And Shirley Jackson's The Lottery
I disagree that its a rip off. The stories really dont share many plot points. The Long Walk is really about people. Why do people do stupid and reckless things? How do people get along under extreme circumstances? How people have this natural bloodlust and actually enjoy watching people suffering.
The Hunger Games is a story about opression, plain and simple. It uses overwhelming violance to drive the story forwad and while we see some character deveopment it isn't the main part of the story.
As far as them both taking place in opressive society's even this is different. From what we know the Long Walk society is just a little more opressive than our own . Remember the walk is volunary and people sign up based on tradition, pride and a false sense of self. No one is being forced at gunpoint to participate .
In The Hunger Games the opression is obvious. People are drawn at random and forced to fight to the death. Much more heavy handed.
While both stories include death, a society with a taste for blood, and characters who persevere and survive I don't think you can actually say one is a rip off of the other.
I did not like the Hunger Games. I loved The Long Walk.
What about a ten minute long scene in which one of the more loved 'walkers' in the book keeps slowing down from exhaustion and is repeatedly brought back up by the other 'walkers' yelling and screaming and grabbing hold of him, forcing him to keep on going, to get up, to WALK- onlt to fall down in a heap and be shot by one of the guards? That would create almost unbearable tension in the film and could be something that happens a few times to highten the tension. I think the Long Walk would make a great movie, if done correctly, with the right actors and director.
It is easy to be consumed by trivialities. There have been many instances wherein I have drawn similarities to King's work and the first syndication of The Twilight Zone.
Broad influences may light in an author's mind, whether or not they've realized it. Strict dystopian government rule as a literary device is an issue as old as the hills.
The Long Walk is in the same vein as 1984. A man is seen as an indispensable object in the hands of the government. The Long Walk(entertainment, a false sense of patriotic endowment) VS 1984 (a collective, unquestioning worker force).
I have not read The Hunger Games yet you're assured that it's a broad, overlapping sub genre.
A movie done correctly. There's a thought.