The Hunger Games Series

[topanga]

 

This exactly also Peeta survived to hunger games and was taking down Mutts with his bare hands in those sewers he was not weak or passive by any measure. Peeta gift was more about words than anything else and this movie showed that. When everyone wants to give up and spend the rest of the war hiding in a cellar Peata gets them moving again. Which is one of the bigger points of the whole series that words and ideas are more powerful than anything else. That's why we don't see much of the battles because the war is not the point of the story. The reasons for the fight and the way everyone's words fuel the fire are thereal point of the story. Its also what make it stand out from so many other David and Goliath stories in the Hungers Games its words that speak louder than actions. . That's why its so important even thematically that Katniss winds up with Peeta because like her he uses words as weapons.

Don't forget that he can throw those 50lb sacks of flour!

 

Yes, this is a didn't kind of action movie series, and that's why I liked it (the books were better. But I still enjoyed the films). Some people didn't enjoy the movies for that same reason, however. I've heard critics say that there was too much talking and not enough action, or that Katniss was a wuss because she didn't enjoy killing people. 

 

In the book, Katniss goes into more detail about not wanting to spend her life with Gale because he's fueled by anger and violence, and Peeta desires love and peace. 

[Eyes High]

I always hated how perfunctory the romance stuff felt in the book. I always got this "You want a love triangle, assholes? I got your goddamn love triangle right here!" vibe from the writing. Suzanne Collins' writing seemed as sullen, petulant and unenthusiastic about the romance plot as Katniss was in the book.

 

In the book, Katniss goes into more detail about not wanting to spend her life with Gale because he's fueled by anger and violence, and Peeta desires love and peace.

 

Oh, yes, that epilogue was weak. "I wound up with Peeta because...something something peace and healing. Don't worry, I'm not going to show any of this to you to depict the mechanics of how or why we actually got together, other than vaguely referencing him comforting me with his lips. You're just going to have to trust me that we got together and it totally worked out. I still have PTSD, though, don't get me wrong. Oh, and I had a couple of kids after like a million years, even though I didn't want to. Peeta finally wore me down after years of resistance. Yay?"

Edited December 16, 2015 by Eyes High

[truthaboutluv]

YMMV but I feel like Peeta and Katniss' relationship was shown throughout the series building to the epilogue. It's why I agreed with some that there really wasn't a triangle. Yes, Katniss was confused about her feelings after Gale kisses her and lets it known how he feels about her because she was only 16 after all. But Katniss always came back to Peeta. When she comes to her great realization of how Gale is hers and she is his after he is badly beaten, the second she gets into bed, she thinks about needing and wanting Peeta's arms around her.

 

Katniss and Peeta was obvious in my opinion by mid-Catching Fire. It was simply a matter of getting there and I thought how they did worked for the tone and subject matter of the series. And I'll take the ending of Katniss and Peeta's story any day, where Collins didn't tidy it up neatly by making it seem like they were perfectly happy and shiny and fine after all they went through, over that nonsense Harry Potter epilogue. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[benteen]

I thought the epilogue of Harry Potter worked fine just like the end of The Hunger Games did.

[methodwriter85]

 Oh, and I had a couple of kids after like a million years, even though I didn't want to. Peeta finally wore me down after years of resistance. Yay?"

 

Yeah, that point probably gets lost because despite what David O. Russell thinks, Jennifer Lawrence doesn't look a day over her age and if we were supposed to think that she was in her late 30's and it been something like 15 years later, it doesn't translate. I loved that they didn't even try to age up Josh Hutcherson and just kept him at a distance because there was absolutely no way in hell you were going to make him look like a guy in his mid/late 30's.

[bluvelvet]

In the movie I reed that the epilogue was 5 years later even though in the books it was 15 years later.

[proserpina65]

I always hated how perfunctory the romance stuff felt in the book. I always got this "You want a love triangle, assholes? I got your goddamn love triangle right here!" vibe from the writing. Suzanne Collins' writing seemed as sullen, petulant and unenthusiastic about the romance plot as Katniss was in the book.

 

I bought the love triangle thing even less in the books than I did in the movies, and I didn't buy that Katniss was romantically attracted to either guy in the movies.  I'd have more easily believed her ending up with Haymitch than with Peeta or Gale.

[Eyes High]

I bought the love triangle thing even less in the books than I did in the movies, and I didn't buy that Katniss was romantically attracted to either guy in the movies.  I'd have more easily believed her ending up with Haymitch than with Peeta or Gale.

 

In the movies, she had the most chemistry with Cinna, in my opinion. Sexual orientation, shmexual orientation. Age difference, shmage difference. It could just be the Lenny Kravitz Effect, though; that man is walking sex.

 

As I said upthread, I bought the Peeta/Katniss connection in Mockingjay Part 2, but it was an emotional connection. I was convinced of their love for each other, and of the tenderness and sweetness of that love, but I wasn't convinced of a grand passion. On the other hand, maybe that was deliberate. It's rare that you see a genuine sexual charge between characters in films aimed at a younger audience. It's all very blandly chaste, even when the characters are actually banging. There are exceptions--Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth in the Pirates movies, Han and Leia, etc.--but they're rare.

 

I think with Gale and Peeta in the movies, we'll be arguing over the rightness of those casting choices until the inevitable remake 20 years down the road. It seems that for Peeta, they picked acting and ignored looks (and height, too), and for Gale, they picked looks and ignored acting; the results, I think, really showed the dangers of both. I really loved Josh Hutcherson's Peeta, and I think he's a very good actor, but I admit that he was physically the wrong type for the part--an elfin brunette playing a blond bruiser--and I can see why that would be distracting for some. And Liam Hemsworth looked perfect as Gale but was wooden as an actor. I refuse to believe that those castings were the best they could have done. 

 

In principle, I have no problem with deviating from the source material's requirements for a physical look if it means you'll get a better actor. Iain Glen over on Game of Thrones is fair, tall, and graceful, with aristocratic good looks, and he's playing a character who in the books is a plain, burly, dark-haired bear of a man. Iain Glen is a RADA-trained, Olivier Award-nominated acting beast, so no one cares that he doesn't look the part, even the most finicky book purists. I think with Josh Hutcherson, though, mileage clearly varies on his acting abilities, so the argument for disregarding Book Peeta's appearance to cast Hutcherson is less compelling.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Eyes High

[raezen]

Interestingly, Alexander Ludwig, who played Cato in the first movie auditioned for Peeta. He was actually smaller at the time I think and it was HG and Lone Survivor training that bulked him up a lot. I didn't think much of that although he does seem to steer towards the 'gentle giant' type of roles. Just not sure I'd buy him as the political side of Peeta.

ETA; regarding Hutcherson 's casting as Peeta, I'm pretty sure it wasn't an accident that the actors playing Katniss and Peeta were both from Kentucky. TPTB I think had an idea that the actors background would help them identify as the character and Hutcherson himself admitted to saying he was Peeta in the audition. You also have to admit if they were going for chemistry between actors (though not of the passionate variety) they couldn't have done better. I can't believe they didn't do a chemistry test with them as a matter of fact.

Edited December 17, 2015 by raezen

[Eyes High]

Interestingly, Alexander Ludwig, who played Cato in the first movie auditioned for Peeta. He was actually smaller at the time I think and it was HG and Lone Survivor training that bulked him up a lot. I didn't think much of that although he does seem to steer towards the 'gentle giant' type of roles. Just not sure I'd buy him as the political side of Peeta.

 

I remember there being a big push from certain fans for Hunter Parrish (Silas on Weeds), who certainly had the right look (blonde, handsome, blue-eyed, built), and I know he met with the THG producers, but I was never all that impressed with him on Weeds. He's also five years older than Josh Hutcherson, so maybe they dismissed him because he was too old. Other actors who auditioned for Peeta included Lucas Till, Alex Pettyfer, Evan Peters, and Liam Hemsworth. Frankly, if that was the short list and they prioritized acting ability, I'm not surprised they went with Hutcherson.

[truthaboutluv]

Oh I remember the Hunter Parrish fans very well when the movie was still being cast. I will never forget the collective outrage and anger online when the official announcement came out about Josh's casting. There were a few who were just VICIOUS and of course there was the inevitable hoping and wanting the movie to be a giant flop. Ah good times...

Edited December 17, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Eyes High]

Oh I remember the Hunter Parrish fans very well when the movie was still being cast. I will never forget the collective outrage and anger online when the official announcement came out about Josh's casting. There were a few who were just VICIOUS and of course there was the inevitable hoping and wanting the movie would be a giant flop. Ah good times...

 

I also remember there being a big push from certain fans for Kaya Scoledario as Katniss.

 

I will say that I am glad that the producers disregarded Jennifer Lawrence being physically wrong for the part--not olive-skinned, not dark-haired, muscular and robust as opposed to skinny--and cast her anyway. 

[truthaboutluv]

Kaya played Effie on Skins right? Yeah... I mean she certainly does dead in the eyes, emotionless very well, I'll give her that. 

[Eyes High]

Kaya played Effie on Skins right? Yeah... I mean she certainly does dead in the eyes, emotionless very well, I'll give her that. 

 

She would have got the "cold" part down pat, that's for sure.

 

I have to wonder whether a lot of the objection to Peeta's casting, at least as a romantic pairing for Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss, had to do with stereotypical audience/studio expectations of romantic leads:

 

The men are supposed to be tall, although not too tall (lest they dwarf their scene partners). The women are supposed to be short, although not too short (lest they have to stand on boxes for scenes with their scene partners). The men are supposed to be taller than the women. The men are supposed to be muscular and built (even in romantic comedies, nowadays). The women are supposed to be fine-boned, willowy, and slender, and if they have to be muscular, they can't be as muscular as their male leads.

 

On top of that, there are all the expectations associated with gender roles:

 

Men are supposed to be silent, strong, powerful, invulnerable, and uncomfortable with passionate displays of emotion. Women are supposed to be warm, nurturing, sensitive, expressive, emotionally savvy, and vulnerable. Men are supposed to provide for the family. Women are supposed to nurture, and if they do work, it is creative or nurturing work (a number of leads in romantic comedies run their own bakeries)...You can see where I'm going with this.

 

Of course, some of the biggest moneymakers in movies have been short leading men: RDJ, Tom Cruise, etc. They even play against women who are taller than they are. However, they have made that money playing the most alpha of alpha males, so they are "allowed" to be shorter. When you have a warm, sweet, sensitive type like Peeta played by an actor Josh Hutcherson's height, and you pair him with a cold, decisive action female lead played by an actress who's tall, strong and robust, it flies in the face of what a lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, expect from their fictional romantic pairings.

 

I think you can get away with a romantic pairing that flouts visual expectations if it doesn't flout gender roles: in Iron Man, Tony Stark is shorter than his love interest Pepper Potts (who wears stiletto heels), but they have a boss/secretary relationship, with sensitive, kindhearted Pepper providing emotional support to alpha male douchebag Tony. Similarly, you can get away with a romantic pairing that flouts gender roles if it doesn't flout visual expectations: tall, athletic Mulder towers over short, classically beautiful Scully, but he is the expressive, dreamy, sensitive, passionate, wild yin to her cool, composed, stoic yang. I think it's where you flout both sets of conventions that the audience has a problem, and Movie Katniss/Peeta seems like some sort of horrifying violation of the "natural order" of things.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Eyes High

[GaT]

I really loved Josh Hutcherson's Peeta, and I think he's a very good actor, but I admit that he was physically the wrong type for the part--an elfin brunette playing a blond bruiser--and I can see why that would be distracting for some. And Liam Hemsworth looked perfect as Gale but was wooden as an actor. I refuse to believe that those castings were the best they could have done. 

 

Oh I remember the Hunter Parrish fans very well when the movie was still being cast. I will never forget the collective outrage and anger online when the official announcement came out about Josh's casting. There were a few who were just VICIOUS and of course there was the inevitable hoping and wanting the movie to be a giant flop. Ah good times...

It  drives me absolutely crazy when they cast for movies based on books & the characters look nothing like they're described in the books. Both your posts make me think of the Twilight movies where none of the Cullens looked they were described in the books, especially Rosalie who was described as a tall, beautiful, blonde & who was cast with a short Latina who looked really bad as a blonde. When they cast Robert Pattinson as Edward, the internet lost it's mind, there were even petitions to not cast him. Of course after the movie came out he became a mega star & now all the Twihards love him as Edward. I'm guessing that Lionsgate thought the same thing would happen with Josh. They wuz wrong.

[truthaboutluv]

I don't think that really is a commentary on Josh who for the record in my opinion, from what I've seen of both, I think is a much better actor than Robert. But one, Twilight's entire lame premise was the so called gag-worthy love story of Bella and Edward and lo and behold, Kristen and Robert became a couple in real life which added to the fantasy for the viewers and hype.

 

That was not the case with The Hunger Games. For one thing, this was Katniss' story and Peeta was a supporting character as much as Haymitch, Gale, etc. And as such, the films were really a vehicle for Jennifer Lawrence. Also, it was a story about war and its effects on those who go through it and also a commentary on reality television and how desensitized society can become to others' suffering. The love story was there and an important part sure but it wasn't the entire story like Twilight and of course Jennifer and Josh were never anything more than friends. I'm sure they have their shippers, just like I know there are some who want to believe something is happening between her and Liam but far as I know, that ain't happening. So different movies and circumstances. 

 

I can certainly respect those who care a lot about the physical similarities and description and especially if something is significant to the story and character, then yeah, it's ridiculous to ignore it. Like Harry's eyes for example in the Harry Potter series. I understand why fans of the series were bothered by that because Harry's eyes are a focus of the whole series. That is, the fact that he has his mother's eyes. But for me, if it is not something truly significant to the larger story then *shrug*. For me, if it is a choice between acting ability versus perfect look, I will always go for acting ability. Of course ideally, you always want someone who perfectly captures both.

Edited December 17, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[stealinghome]

I remember there being a big push from certain fans for Hunter Parrish (Silas on Weeds), who certainly had the right look (blonde, handsome, blue-eyed, built), and I know he met with the THG producers, but I was never all that impressed with him on Weeds. He's also five years older than Josh Hutcherson, so maybe they dismissed him because he was too old. Other actors who auditioned for Peeta included Lucas Till, Alex Pettyfer, Evan Peters, and Liam Hemsworth. Frankly, if that was the short list and they prioritized acting ability, I'm not surprised they went with Hutcherson.

Lucas Till and Alex Pettyfer? Thank GOODNESS they went with Hutcherson. Those two, plus Liam Hemsworth, can't act their way out of a paper bag.

[BatmanBeatles]

Alex would have been replaced after the first movie because of his reputation for not playing well with others.

[Eyes High]

Lucas Till and Alex Pettyfer? Thank GOODNESS they went with Hutcherson. Those two, plus Liam Hemsworth, can't act their way out of a paper bag.

 

Yes. I claimed upthread that there must be no shortage of young male actors with great acting ability who fit the physical profile better than Hutcherson, but if that was the short list, maybe not so much.

 

As for Alex Pettyfer, he's certainly doing his part to combat the growing perception that British actors are on the whole better than American actors. (On that note, it's surprising that more Brits weren't cast in THG. They certainly seem to be taking over the big franchises.)

Edited December 17, 2015 by Eyes High

[proserpina65]

In the movies, she had the most chemistry with Cinna, in my opinion. Sexual orientation, shmexual orientation. Age difference, shmage difference. It could just be the Lenny Kravitz Effect, though; that man is walking sex

 

Totally.  Too bad Cinna died, because THAT connection I'd have completely gotten behind.

[absnow54]

I liked Hutcherson's version of Peeta, but I'm also kind of interested in what Evan Peters would have done with the role. I think he fits the physical description better, and I think he has the type of manipulative charm that gave Peeta's character a little edge. Hutcherson played him too nice guy imo, although I loved his work in part 2.

Edited December 18, 2015 by absnow54

[truthaboutluv]

I like Evan but from the work I've seen of him, while Josh may have played Peeta as too "nice guy" (not sure I agree just because I think Peeta was the "nice guy" in the series despite his apparently having a great way of convincing people of things with just his words), I think Evan might have had too much edge and sold the manipulative a little too well, so that Peeta would just seem like a manipulator in general. And I don't think that is how Collins wrote the character. At least that's not how I read him.

[absnow54]

I guess my point is that Katniss spent a lot of the first book not trusting Peeta and constantly questioning his motives, which the twist that he as working with the careers really interesting, as well as their fake romance because you didn't yet know how genuine Peers was. I thought movie Peers laid out his cards too early. I still liked Josh as Peers, but I missed that dynamic.

[truthaboutluv]

YMMV but I don't think Peeta was really very different in the movie. He was always perfectly nice to Katniss which is what we saw in the movie. Katniss didn't trust Peeta because they were getting ready to go into a competition where they literally had to fight each other and other people to the death. So she second guessed a lot of his actions because she wasn't sure if he was playing her to win in the arena or not but that was all her and nothing to do with Peeta and his actions.

 

Again Peeta was perfectly polite and nice to Katniss always and then the crush reveal did happen which is what also started the "is he just saying that as strategy or is it real..." And I remember reading a lot of comments from non-book readers when the movie came out who didn't know if he was lying or not. I thought the movie did make it ambiguous at first, just like some viewers really thought he was working with the Careers when they showed him with them. But yeah in the book itself, once Katniss finds Peeta near death, he is pretty much all in with her and his feelings for her.

 

To me Peeta was always very open and heart on his sleeves about his feelings for Katniss. Katniss was the one who was wary and distrustful at first because it's just who she was and after they won the Games, she was the one people suspected of faking the whole thing. People absolutely believed and knew Peeta's feelings for Katniss was real. That's what Finnick told her in Mockingjay, that people weren't sure that the whole romance was real and especially her feelings but it wasn't until he saw her reaction to thinking Peeta was dead in the second arena, that he believed she loved him. 

[Anela]

I've finally watched the last movie, and I liked it. I liked Hutcherson, too - I hate any sort of love triangle, and rolled my eyes a bit when Katniss kissed him to "bring him back" out of one of those states he was programmed with, but I liked the ending, too. Although I did say to my dad, when Gale was talking about how Katniss wouldn't be forced to make a choice between them, if any of them were killed, "I love how they assume that she would choose *either* of them!" 

 

I cried when she found the cat in the kitchen, and started yelling about her sister being gone for good. 

[Demented Daisy]

I've finally watched the last movie, and I liked it. I liked Hutcherson, too - I hate any sort of love triangle, and rolled my eyes a bit when Katniss kissed him to "bring him back" out of one of those states he was programmed with, but I liked the ending, too. Although I did say to my dad, when Gale was talking about how Katniss wouldn't be forced to make a choice between them, if any of them were killed, "I love how they assume that she would choose *either* of them!" 

 

For what it's worth, in the book, Katniss overhears their conversation and is not particularly happy about what they're saying.  At that point, she decides she can live without either of them quite easily.  I wish they had conveyed that better in the movie.

[raezen]

I watched the last movie and found it to be a let down. I have read the books, I cried at the last one and lost a nights sleep over it. By comparison this film was extremely anti climatic. It's pacing felt bizarre to me, while the last one seem to be stretching a small amount of time out this one seem to wiz by. Months of war and prep and training seemed to fit into days. All the actors were doing well but their performances seemed to float by me.

And I hated that scene when Katniss was asleep and the boys are talking about her.I disliked it in the book and would have been happy had it been left out.

[Anela]

For what it's worth, in the book, Katniss overhears their conversation and is not particularly happy about what they're saying.  At that point, she decides she can live without either of them quite easily.  I wish they had conveyed that better in the movie.

I read the book five years ago, but I should have remembered that. I always liked that she didn't want to just run off with a boy, she knew how to take care of herself. 

[VCRTracking]

The most exciting parts were in the middle especially the sewer scenes and the mutts.

Her yelling at Prim's cat at the end and breaking down was effective but I thought Jennifer Lawrence's best scene was early on in District 2 when she was talking down the prisoner who had a gun on her. It wasn't "flat" or "shrieking" as someone complained she was only capable of being.

I wish Phillip Seymour Hoffman had a chance to finish the movie. He was definitely supposed to say the things in person Haymitch reads in a letter. I think the change works well but it still would have been nice to have one last scene with Plutarch.

Edited September 8, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Scarlett45]

On 9/8/2016 at 3:05 AM, VCRTracking said:

The most exciting parts were in the middle especially the sewer scenes and the mutts.

Her yelling at Prim's cat at the end and breaking down was effective but I thought Jennifer Lawrence's best scene was early on in District 2 when she was talking down the prisoner who had a gun on her. It wasn't "flat" or "shrieking" as someone complained she was only capable of being.

I wish Phillip Seymour Hoffman had a chance to finish the movie. He was definitely supposed to say the things in person Haymitch reads in a letter. I think the change works well but it still would have been nice to have one last scene with Plutarch.

I just came online to coment regarding the scene with Katniss and Prim's cat. Also ditto regarding the letter Haymitch read. 

The epilogue fell a little flat, I would've liked to have scene a montogue of Peeta and Katniss getting back into District 12 life, a wedding shot, and then the final scene in the field. 

[HunterHunted]

These movies are on all the time. Despite Plutarch's efforts as the leader of the rebellion, I feel like Cinna's creation of the Mokingjay wedding gown was the first real effort galvanizing the various disaffected groups in each of the districts. Each of the districts had their own individual skirmishes with the peacekeepers, but that dress was the first centralized message and symbol for every district. In my head, there is a tribute to Cinna created after the war.

[VCRTracking]

Watching Catching Fire again on TV.  Definitely the best HG movie. Still enjoyable to watch years later.

Edited January 25, 2018 by VCRTracking

[methodwriter85]

Yeah. Definitely.

It's really funny to think about how there was SO much debate about who would be cast as Finnick O'Dair, and his character screentime really just wasn't that much. Sam Claflin did grow on me though I really, really wanted Armie Hammer for it.

I'm still bitter that they didn't use the Mockingjay split to add more Johanna and Haymitch backstory. I also thought that if they were going to go to the trouble of bringing Effie to District 13, they should have transferred the book part where the assistants are severely punished for taking an extra roll of bread to Effie.

Edited January 25, 2018 by methodwriter85

[VCRTracking]

6 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

Yeah. Definitely.

It's really funny to think about how there was SO much debate about who would be cast as Finnick O'Dair, and his character screentime really just wasn't that much. Sam Claflin did grow on me though I really, really wanted Armie Hammer for it.

Hammer would have been great but I like Claflin a lot. I after Finnick revives Peeta after he got hit by the force field and Katniss freaks out over him that it wasn't all an act for the public. That she does really love Peeta.

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I like Armie Hammer, but imo he looks too old to be Finnick. I know he's only 4 years older than JL in real life, but I think he looks at least 10 years older than her (which is not to say that he looks ancient or bad or anything--he's very pretty!--but he looks not-insignificantly older than his years to me). Claflin looks more like where Finnick is supposed to be relative to Katniss, a little bit older but not that much. (Ironically, Sam Claflin and JL are the same age.)

I agree that Catching Fire is the most satisfying HG movie to watch. The script, editing, and performances are all really great, and the synergy between all pieces of the movie is just there. The other movies have great moments, but from start to finish Catching Fire just works in a way the other movies don't achieve consistently.

[methodwriter85]

Sam is actually the same age as Armie Hammer. I will say I wound up being pretty happy with his performance here.

[absnow54]

I really wanted Garret Hedlund for Finnick, but Sam Claflin grew on me.

I'm still bitter that they didn't use the Mockingjay split to add more Johanna and Haymitch backstory.

The book really didn't need to be split into two movies, and with the extra run time, not only did they pass on fleshing out Johanna and Haymitch's backstories, they also really parred down Finnick and Peeta.

[afterbite]

I really wanted Jesse Williams for Finnick. I was also dead set on Kristin Bell for Johanna. I don't know how I arrived at these head canons, but they seemed perfect to me and seeing other actors playing them in the movie was a disappointment. Lesson learned on getting too attached to your head canon casting.

[Maelstrom]

Agreed, CF is arguably the best of all the movies. And I say that as someone who loved the first one. But CF really elevates everything - the story, the characters, the look of the world - and if I see it on tv while I'm channel surfing, I always end up watching it. Even though there are bits from the book I would've loved to have seen on the screen, overall I thought they did a great job of adapting the story for film. (Mockingjay is another story, however. I still haven't even seen the final movie. Someday I will, probably.)

Though I enjoyed his performance, especially once they reached the arena, I wasn't sure about Sam Clafin as Finnick initially, either. Mostly because in my head, as I was reading, Finnick looked more like Indian actor Hrithik Roshan:

 

ETA - Afterbite, even though I thought Jena Malone was pitch-perfect, Kristen Bell would've made an interesting Johanna, too.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Maelstrom

[festivus]

I pictured Finnick as a young Jensen Ackles when I was reading the book. It was rare for me because I usually don't picture anyone I know of as any of the characters when I'm reading a book.

 

Yeah, I was channel surfing the other night and came upon CF and I had to watch it. It was my favorite of the books and my favorite of the movies. I thought the casting was pretty good, I thought Jena Malone was a good choice for Johanna.

 

ETA: I don't know of the actor above, but yeah he looks like he would have made a good Finnick.

Edited January 25, 2018 by festivus

[scarynikki12]

I wanted them to invent time travel and cast a young Brad Pitt but I really enjoy Sam’s portrayal.

 The Mockingjay movies Made no effort to expand the story when they should have. When the series gets rebooted in however many years they need to remember that.

[methodwriter85]

I'm positive Jena Malone got cast because of her turn in Hatfields vs. McCoy's. Her character in that played sweet until turning vicious. I would have loved Kristen Bell but Jena and Elizabeth Banks are hands down my favorite castings of the series. Not a note wrong with either of them. I also loved that Elizabeth gave Effie a depth that she never had in the books. She played Effie as someone who truly believed the Capital ways were right, until the bullshit Quarter Quell put Katniss back into the arena.

[VCRTracking]

The bigger budget and better FX alone helps Catching Fire put it above the first movie but also that the game was no longer being played by children. I had already watched years earlier, Battle Royale, the Japanese movie people say Suzanne Collins ripped off  but there the hyper violence is so crazy OTT  that you can't help see it as a very black comedy with thrills. Director Gary Ross though was going for very a realistic tone the horror and tragedy while also trying not to be too explicit. They wanted to show how messed up this Dystopian world was but it was also trying not to be exploitative itself. Also having a lot of the players be teenagers made it feel like a heightened version of high school, which I would normally enjoy but again not outrageous enough like Battle Royale to be fun. The opponents being adults and seasoned veterans makes it more exciting and you can watch it guilt free.  The past tributes were also much more interesting character. In the first movie you were just waiting to get to the game and when it got there it felt like it went on too long. In CF I actually found the lead up to the Quarter Quell just as entertaining and the game itself lasted just enough. Also Katniss has so much more going on in CF than just surviving the game: Struggling with PTSD, being a reluctant symbol for the growing rebellion, forced to put on this act of a fake marriage when she's not sure what her real feelings for Peeta are, etc. There's much better reasons for her to be so surly!

Edited January 25, 2018 by VCRTracking

[topanga]

With the Hunger Games prequel book coming out, I wonder if it will be made into a movie. 

I actually hope it doesn't. I enjoyed the movies less and less with each new installment. 

And sadly, I think the popularity of teen/YA movies has waned. Somehow I don't think this one would do well. Unless maybe the cast included someone who was popular as JLaw was at the time of this franchise. 

[JessePinkman]

45 minutes ago, topanga said:

With the Hunger Games prequel book coming out, I wonder if it will be made into a movie. 

It's in talks. I didn't care for the last two movies, so I'm definitely more interested in the novel than the movie. BUT I do like the idea of revisiting the world without having to watch Jennifer Lawrence stare into the middle distance for 8 hours.

[BetterButter]

‘The Hunger Games’ Turns 10: Director Gary Ross Reflects on Filming, Story’s Resonant Themes

[topanga]

17 hours ago, BetterButter said:

‘The Hunger Games’ Turns 10: Director Gary Ross Reflects on Filming, Story’s Resonant Themes

It's been 10 years? Man, that makes me feel old. LOL

[ShadowHunter]

On 6/21/2019 at 3:44 PM, topanga said:

With the Hunger Games prequel book coming out, I wonder if it will be made into a movie. 

I actually hope it doesn't. I enjoyed the movies less and less with each new installment. 

And sadly, I think the popularity of teen/YA movies has waned. Somehow I don't think this one would do well. Unless maybe the cast included someone who was popular as JLaw was at the time of this franchise. 

Honestly I almost forgot about this franchise lol.  Catching Fire was my favorite book and movie in the series. Many of these YA books and movies feel so forgotten.

[Enero]

2 hours ago, ShadowHunter said:

Honestly I almost forgot about this franchise lol.  Catching Fire was my favorite book and movie in the series. Many of these YA books and movies feel so forgotten.

It does feel like it was the craze back then as there were numerous YA movies being released around the same time. However, none of them were able to have the type of memorable entertainment impact like a Jurassic Park or Star Wars.  The book series of Hunger Games were really good. The movies were on average good when first released, but haven’t held up over time, IMO.
 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Enero

[absnow54]

With all the streaming services looking for "original" content to up their viewers, I think this franchise would be perfect to be adapted into a series, especially since the movies are only really remembered for launching Jennifer Lawrence into super stardom at this point. The first two books really are wonderful, and I think those first two films suffered from having to do a lot of world building at the detriment of fleshing out the supporting characters (Peeta, for example, is so dull in the movies, but is one of my favorite characters ever in the books.) I would definitely tune in for a couple of 8-10 episode seasons to get a more complete adaptation.