The Hunger Games

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first one? No

THe third one...yeah. But even though I liked Catching Fire the least. I loved how they ended it
 
Anyone else find this book deeply depressing?

some parts are but on the whole i didn't find it too depressing considering the subject matter.
 
So is this series sort of like Battle Royale. If so then thats friggin great.

I loved Battle Royale.
 
I can dig Kravitz as Cinna, so besides the role they were rumored to play, Vulture got right on all three actors. Also Toby Jones is cast as well in the movie.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/toby-jones-in-the-hunger-games/

Since it says this in the article:
Toby Jones has joined The Hunger Games, playing the host/narrator of the games alongside Stanley Tucci.

It has to be Claudius Templesmith.
 
I think Jones will do well, they could have just cast a booming voice for claudius and i would be ok, not a character you NEED to see.
 
So I finally finished reading the book, interesting read and should make for a decent flick if handled right, ending wasn't great though so I hope they change that.
 
Last edited:
What didn't you like about the ending JMC?
 
If..

They leave Rue's death untouched. It could a really really really great cinematic moment.
 
It was anticlimactic.

But it is supposed to be, it's the first book of a Triology. If your reading or have read the 2nd and 3rd you see the true ending there.
 
Last edited:
But it is supposed to be, it's the first book of a Trilogy. If your read or have read the 2nd and 3rd you see the true ending there.

Whatever the 'true' ending is meant to be is irrelevant, this one was flat out ordinary and a bit of a cop out to be honest.
 
I love sutherland as an actor but I didnt imagine him as snow, I saw a short fat balding man.
 
I imagined Snow a bit shorter too but you can't go wrong with Sutherland.
 
Snow is described as being snake like in the book, Sutherland fits that pretty well IMO.
 
he sure does look snake like
sutherland4iq.jpg
 
i actually pictures Snow a bit younger but I can dig it :up:

this movie will be bringing in people to see it just based on the cast
 
I need to get books 2 and 3, cause I really loved the first book. There are parts of it I'd change in the film, but definitely parts I'd keep the same with only minor detail changes. :up:
 
I need to get books 2 and 3, cause I really loved the first book. There are parts of it I'd change in the film, but definitely parts I'd keep the same with only minor detail changes. :up:

i could email them to you :ninja:
 
Lionsgate is obviously feeling pretty happy with themselves right now, with The Hunger Games going into production in North Carolina with a cast stacked full of talent, and all the potential in the world to become the next money-raking Twilight or Harry Potter franchise. And in fact, the studio may already be planning to make The Hunger Games similar to those two series in one key way: splitting the final book into two parts. It's possible that Deadline just made a typo in their writeup of Lionsgate's meeting with Wall Street today, but either way it clearly describes The Hunger Games as "a series of four action films that the stdio will release from the trilogy written by Suzanne Collins."

This summer will be the first time we actually see this finale-splitting in action, as the second half of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows comes to theaters in July, with every expectation to be just as huge a hit as all the films that came before it. The Twilight Saga will be trying it as well later this year, releasing the second half of Breaking Dawn in November with the next installment to come a year later. Both Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn are among the longest books in their respective series, and while the Potter film had a lot more plot to get through than the Twilight one, each had a least a reasonable excuse (beyond blatant cash-grabbing) to do the split.

The third book in the Hunger Games series, though, is Mockingjay, another neat and excitingly written book from Collins that is pretty much the exact same reasonable length as the other two books. Much as I'm excited to see these stories brought to the screen, I can't think of a single reason for them to stretch the franchise into four movies beyond a naked desire for more money. Being so tautly written The Hunger Games books actually lend themselves far better to movies than the Potter films; this kind of expansion seems only like a way to ruin that pace entirely.

Of course, this is all getting ahead of ourselves-- not only do we have no idea if Lionsgate will make enough money on The Hunger Games to go ahead with the trilogy, but this could all just be early speculation that they give up on later down the line for any number of reasons. If you want your first hint about a Hunger Games franchise even bigger than you'd imagined, though, there you have it.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Lionsgate-Could-Turn-The-Hunger-Games-Into-Four-Films-24996.html

If it's true I think it's unnecessary. With HP7, I think dividing it into two films would work (although they did divide it at a weird spot). But this is unnecessary. The 3 books divide up fine and there really isnt anything that calls for it to be released in an extra part. Especially if they divide up the last book which didnt have that much going on in it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,290
Messages
22,081,087
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"