The Hunger Games - Part 1

[SuperBatman]

Just bought my Midnight Tickets to the Hunger Games last night

 

[danoyse]

Got my IMAX tickets for next Saturday. Can't wait.

 

[warhorse78]

So if Ebert hates it but AICN loves it, Ebert is the one to be trusted? How exactly is that right or fair in any way? There are tons of movies I hate that both of those critics loved.

I can't speak much for AICN, don't follow them, but Ebert I kind of loathe as a critic. I just think he tends to be very bias for some genres and against others to make an honest review.

 

[The Squirrel]

This movie looks good.

 

[warhorse78]

Best sci-fi since Matrix. What if one doesn't like The Matrix?

Yeah, I never got the big interest in those movies. I was beyond bored with the first one, couldn't even finish the second, and never bothered with the third.

 

[mclay18]

Got my IMAX tickets for next Saturday. Can't wait.

You're referring to genuine, several stories tall IMAX? Because fake IMAX isn't worth the surcharge.

 

[Project862006]

The LA Times is reporting that Lionsgate is spending $45M, the most they’ve ever put into a movie’s marketing campaign, to advertise ‘The Hunger Games’. So all of those billboards people have spotted across the globe from Los Angeles to New York to the Phillipines and Taiwan are part of their largest campaign ever. The second largest campaign they spent was $40M for The Expendables,
Still, that cool $45M is less than what the major studios pipe into their major films.

Hollywood’s major studios can spend as much as $70 million to $80 million marketing their most expensive event movies domestically.

Lionsgate has the advantage, of course, of huge built-in awareness for “The Hunger Games.” The trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins on which the film is based have already sold 23.5 million copies worldwide.

this makes films like JC look bad when they spent way more than 45 million and there marketing was horrible while HG has had quite a great marketing campaign
​

 

[kickass]

You're referring to genuine, several stories tall IMAX? Because fake IMAX isn't worth the surcharge.

I've never understood why people think its "fake" IMAX if it's digital or not as big. I mean........is it another company pretending to be IMAX to fool people? IMAX are still the people who build those screens, and instaledl those digital projectors. People blame theaters for using "lieMAX" but it's IMAX who still build the thing. Why don't people blame them instead of the theaters?

Honest questions here, I'd really like to know

 

[terry78]

****, even Walgreens is getting in on it, as I think they're a part of the merchandising blitz.

 

[zanos]

Yeah I still don't understand why King's Speech was Rated R either.

Bad words.

gary ross said he wanted pg 13 for the fan base

he did'nt want them to be able to not see a film on a book they love

he did'nt want to neglect the fan base who are not 18 or over

plenty of girls 12-16 read the books

If they loved the books then it seems counter to the wishes of the fan base to alter the films. If true, this seems to coincide with my theory of why they decided to not show any of the games in the trailers. They're not just attempting to make the trailers family friendly, but the actual film as well. Thank god, Peter Jackson didn't cut down on the violence in the LOTR films simply so younger fans can watch it

 

[Project862006]

^lotr was pg 13 too buddy

 

[flickchick85]

I've never understood why people think its "fake" IMAX if it's digital or not as big. I mean........is it another company pretending to be IMAX to fool people? IMAX are still the people who build those screens, and instaledl those digital projectors. People blame theaters for using "lieMAX" but it's IMAX who still build the thing. Why don't people blame them instead of the theaters?

Honest questions here, I'd really like to know

People DO blame IMAX. That's generally where the anger was directed when they first started installing those LieMAXes in the AMCs, with people basically accusing them of selling out. Because that's what they did. "IMAX" used to be synonymous with 70mm film, which was (and is) a truly glorious thing to behold on an 8-story screen. Now IMAX is just another brand name with no particular quality standard behind it.

 

[jacobed]

Bad words.




If they loved the books then it seems counter to the wishes of the fan base to alter the films. If true, this seems to coincide with my theory of why they decided to not show any of the games in the trailers. They're not just attempting to make the trailers family friendly, but the actual film as well. Thank god, Peter Jackson didn't cut down on the violence in the LOTR films simply so younger fans can watch it

The Hunger Games isnt violent enough to warrant a rated R. Peter Jackson most definitely toned down the violence for a pg13. Im pretty sure he says that himself in one of the many documentaries.

 

[danoyse]

If they loved the books then it seems counter to the wishes of the fan base to alter the films. If true, this seems to coincide with my theory of why they decided to not show any of the games in the trailers. They're not just attempting to make the trailers family friendly, but the actual film as well. Thank god, Peter Jackson didn't cut down on the violence in the LOTR films simply so younger fans can watch it

Zanos, you've been told to drop this subject. Keep it dropped.

 

[zanos]

The Hunger Games isnt violent enough to warrant a rated R. Peter Jackson most definitely toned down the violence for a pg13. Im pretty sure he says that himself in one of the many documentaries.

Didn't Boromir take multiple arrows to the chest? What about when soldier's head were thrown over the wall of the city in the last film? I also seem to recall an endless barrage of characters were cut down by swords, stabbed, or trampled to death. There was an orgy of death and destruction in those three films. How exactly did Peter Jackson tone down the violence?

That's just an example of what you can get away with with a PG-13 rating. If Ross can play within those same limits then I'm fine with the rating. Unfortunately, based on what Project has said, I'm imagining something very different.

 

[Project862006]

^orcs were allowed to get beheaded and what not because they were not real people same reaso nsucker punch got pg 13 violence against non human characters is allowed

you cant have kids at ages of 12 getting butchered in pg 13

 

[zanos]

Human soldiers were beheaded, not orcs. I don't even count orc deaths. As long as you don't show red blood on screen you can show any manner of a person dying without the rating having to be altered from PG-13 to R. This may or may not fly with rating systems in other countries, but who cares about them.

 

[John Locke]

The difference between LOTR and HG is that we've seen LOTR. We know how violent it is. We won't know that about HG until Friday because the trailers haven't shown it to us. You mention Return of the King but when's the last time you've seen a trailer from that movie? There is only one or two shots of action or violence at the end of a three minute trailer. That's barely more than a HG trailer and they definitely didn't show the human heads at Minas Tirith. So until we see the movie this conversation is pointless. Let's pick this up Friday and see what happens.

 

[jacobed]

Plus with LOTR most of our memories now are of the extended editions and what not which show much more violence than the theatrical release ever showed. Humans were hardly ever cut down in those movies, the swords were treated more as blunt instruments than sharp when it came to the humans getting hit.

 

[zanos]

The difference between LOTR and HG is that we've seen LOTR. We know how violent it is. We won't know that about HG until Friday because the trailers haven't shown it to us. You mention Return of the King but when's the last time you've seen a trailer from that movie? There is only one or two shots of action or violence at the end of a three minute trailer. That's barely more than a HG trailer and they definitely didn't show the human heads at Minas Tirith. So until we see the movie this conversation is pointless. Let's pick this up Friday and see what happens.

I'm not talking about the trailers; I am discussing what Jackson was able to do, violence wise, under the PG-13 rating, in his LOTR films. In any case, you are correct, we haven't seen the HG yet, and don't know for certain what we will and won't see, but I think it's safe to assume by now that HG has been made kid friendly based on what some reviewers have said about the violence. Everything up till this point has been preparing us for this very eventuality. I have not been shown anything to prove otherwise, even in an implied way.

Plus with LOTR most of our memories now are of the extended editions and what not which show much more violence than the theatrical release ever showed. Humans were hardly ever cut down in those movies, the swords were treated more as blunt instruments than sharp when it came to the humans getting hit.

As far as I could tell, the great extent of deleted and extended scenes weren't even of battles necessarily and weren't cut for violence, but for pacing. If you don't remember humans being cut down and massacred then you have must have early on set Alzheimers

 

[Raiden]

Didn't Boromir take multiple arrows to the chest? What about when soldier's head were thrown over the wall of the city in the last film? I also seem to recall an endless barrage of characters were cut down by swords, stabbed, or trampled to death. There was an orgy of death and destruction in those three films. How exactly did Peter Jackson tone down the violence?

That's just an example of what you can get away with with a PG-13 rating. If Ross can play within those same limits then I'm fine with the rating. Unfortunately, based on what Project has said, I'm imagining something very different.

I think it is different to see monsters like Orcs and Uruk-Hai getting beheaded or killed in the movies, but in THG we'll be seeing kids killing each other. It's like apples and oranges, so obviously they aren't the same kind of violence.

 

[Poeman]

I grew up on Harry Potter books/films, LOTR films and became a huge fan of those.

My initial thoughts was this Hunger Games series was going to be very Twilight like so I must avoid, but reviews from Rotten Tomatoes (15 so far) have it at 100% and are saying this franchise will have a long future.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games/

Probably will give this one a chance...

Are the books any good? Or are they cheesy and too girly like Twilight? I never read Twilight books, but is Hunger Games more appealing to someone who enjoys Potter?

 

[Infinity9999x]

I grew up on Harry Potter books/films, LOTR films and became a huge fan of those.

My initial thoughts was this Hunger Games series was going to be very Twilight like so I must avoid, but reviews from Rotten Tomatoes (15 so far) have it at 100% and are saying this franchise will have a long future.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games/

Probably will give this one a chance...

Are the books any good? Or are they cheesy and too girly like Twilight? I never read Twilight books, but is Hunger Games more appealing to someone who enjoys Potter?

I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, and I loved the Hunger Games. THG are far and away more mature then Twilight, or Potter. They're pretty much the most "adult" a young adult series can be. They're far darker, grittier, and brutal.

 

[Project862006]

just started reading and i quite like it alot it is'nt girly at all i like katniss she always keeps her guard up does'nt let many people in and is always aware of her surroundings when it comes to survival

also i cant wait to see the girl on fire scene

 

[ComicChick]

ok i'm avoiding this thread for the rest of the week so nothing is spoiled for me so everyone please behave haha

and i too cannot wait for the Girl on Fire scene. i'm also looking forward to the trackerjackers