Friday, April 27, 2012

Still Cooler

previous post: TypEW!

RELATED POSTS:


16 Comments

  1. True.

  2. Yeah it’s true that the Lord of the Rings are better books, but I hate how there are always comparisons, especially when the subject matter is completely different. It was the same when Twilight came out and everyone said it was better than Harry Potter.. they are two completely different books.

  3. annika mcstabbinsons

    …. the Hunger Games has three books.
    24 people die each year in the game.
    there are 12 districts.
    two tributes from each district.
    2 x 12 = 24.
    so, either you’re forgetting the protagonist (and narrator) of the book, or you can’t fucking count.

  4. #2 Wait a minute. Did you just say it’s true LOTR are BETTER books, but you HATE COMPARISONS?

    For fuck’s sake…

  5. annika…..
    There are 24 tributes each year.
    One survives… leaving 23 to die.
    Maybe you should learn how to do word problems.
    Maybe if you weren’t so vengeful and angry you could think straight.
    But it’s still wrong as there are two winners…
    Oops did I just ruin the ending for ppl?!?!?

  6. Comparisons are the only way we can get these poor saps to admit that twilight and the hunger games aren’t literary gold. I cheered every time one of those ugly bastard orc died.

  7. There is no protagonists. She murders children and is fake.

  8. Comparing The Hunger Games to Twilight is like comparing a NY Strip to a White Castle burger. They shouldn’t be in the same sentence. Twilight is poorly written crap with no redeeming value and the Hunger Games trilogy are imaginative YA fiction with strong character development and plots. The Hunger Games is being used by Middle School English teachers in curriculum while Twilight is being used by the janitors to clean up the kiddy vomit after a lunch of meat surprise. Clearly you have no experience in what makes fiction good.

  9. drchalkwitheringlicktacklefeff

    New York strip is one of the best cuts of steak there is. If you think a kid’s book is New York strip, that doesn’t leave much room further up the scale for the likes of Shakespeare. The Hunger Games books are okay, but they’re more like chuck steak. Chuck steak can be pretty good if it’s well prepared though.

  10. #8, ummmm…. The Hunger Games is basically the exact same book as Twilight. Stupid, poorly written love triangle with paper thin characters that nobody cares about. Sometimes I think I’m the only one that actually read Hunger Games. It was so lame. Katniss had to make zero hard decisions, all the people she had to kill were made out to be insane and evil, which basically robbed the book of any interesting things it could have done.

  11. I agree with you Evilcow, I couldn’t get past the first book because I was so uninterested and so bored.

  12. When sirius, albus, dobby, Fred, lupin, tonks, moody died, I cried.

  13. The only books I would consider reading are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. i read the precursor to them, “The Hobbit” and it was actually pretty good.

  14. I was waiting for a rape scene on the hunger games, that would of taken it to another level.

  15. The Hobbit’s fucking mint. No one really gives a fuck about the book once the film has been released. Except Twilight, I imagine once you’ve seen that bullshit you wish you could unsee it.

  16. slicingupeyeballs

    Hmmm, I didn’t crack the slightest semi over Harry fucking Potter, but managed to rub one out thinking about about those teen girls having all their body hair removed in the Hunger Games…

    For that reason, Hunger Games wins…

    (LOTR excempt from this comparison as I read it when I was 9, and don’t think I had learned about the awesomeness that is wanking at that stage)…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.