What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Hunger Games (1 Viewer)

For those who have seen it, how young is too young for children to see this?
Depending on maturity, I would say preteens might have some issues with it. There are on-screen deaths of kids, though not a lot of gore.I read the book in a hurry at the request of my GF, who was itching to see the movie. I thought it was pretty well-done, though a bit rushed while being a bit long (if that makes any sense).
 
For those who have seen it, how young is too young for children to see this?
I have 4 boys. (5, 7, 9 & 11)11 - yes9 - yes (but only because he read the book, I think it prepared him for some of the harsher moments)7 - nope5 - nopeI f the 9 yo did not read the book, I don't think I would have let him go.It is tough because every kid is so different.
 
The casting for the second movie is in progress and the cast is shaping up with some big names. Not sure what the cost is going to be for this film but it could be much better than the first. Unfortunately we will have to wait till November of 2013 to see it. The two big ones not cast so far are Beetee and Finnick. Those two will simply add to the huge cast already.

With so many roles to be cast in Catching Fire, the second installment in the Hunger Games series, our heads are spinning.The film, which will hit theaters on Nov. 22, 2013, sees the return of the main three actors (Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth) to reprise their lead characters. Additionally, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz and Donald Sutherland will return to their roles as Effie Trinket, Haymitch Abernathy, Cinna and the terrifying President Snow, respectively. Stanley Tucci and Tobey Jones will also reprise their roles.But a whole new group of tributes had to be cast for the film, which sees victors of previous Games being required to return for the 75th Hunger Games – aka the Quarter Quell – where only one all-star victor will survive.Here, The Hollywood Reporter summarizes who has already been cast, and who still needs a face for their name. (Finnick anyone?)Plutarch Heavensbee: Philip Seymour HoffmanThe Oscar-winning actor will take on the role of the new gamekeeper. Heavensbee takes the place of Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), who was executed after the previous Hunger Games.Tributes:District 1Cashmere – Stephanie Leigh SchlundStephanie Leigh Schlund, who will appear on the new TV series The Following, will play the sister of the sibling pair who return for the Quarter Quell.Gloss: Alan RitchsonThe Blue Mountain State actor will play one half of the sibling team from District 1.District 2Enobaria: Meta GoldingCriminal Minds actress Meta Golding, who was once a competitive ice skater in Italy before turning to acting, will play District 2’s Enobaria. The tribute is a ruthless fighter who had her teeth shaved into fangs after winning her previous Hunger Games.Brutus: Bruno GunnGunn, who has had starring roles in The Office, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Oz and Prison Break, will play Brutus, a career tribute who volunteered for his first Hunger Games and returns for the Quarter Quell.District 3Wiress: Amanda PlummerPlummer, best known for roles in Pulp Fiction and The Fisher King, is an Emmy and Tony winner. She'll play the eccentic and silent tribute Wiress, whose strange ways prompt her fellow competitors to nickname her "Nuts." Beetee – Casting Not AnnouncedThe electronics expert who plays a vital part of the story has not yet been officially cast.District 4Mags: Lynn CohenBroadway veteran Lynn Cohen will play the 80-year-old Hunger Games victor who was a mentor to her teammate, Finnick. Other than her New York theater roles, Cohen also appeared in films like Steven Spielberg’s Munich and Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, NY and will be seen in the upcoming movie They Came Together with Paul Rudd and Amy Poehler.Finnick Odair – Casting Not AnnouncedFinnick Odair is described as an extremely beautiful man who, because he’s from the fishing district, is a strong competitor with a trident and a net. This is probably the most highly anticipated casting news, with speculation swirling around Robert Pattinson, Armie Hammer and more, because the character is so vital to the story.District 5Tribute Girl – Casting Not AnnouncedTribute Boy – Casting Not AnnouncedHe’s basically an unnamed drunk in the books.District 6The Morphling Girl – Casting Not AnnouncedThe Morphling addiction has had ugly physical side effects, such as turning their skin an ugly shade of yellow.The Morphling Boy – Casting Not AnnouncedBoth the strange, older tributes from District 6 are hooked on a pain killer called Morphling.District 7Johanna Mason: Jenna MaloneJenna Malone, who most recently appeared in History’s hit miniseries Hatfields & McCoys, will play Johanna Mason, a tribute who isn't afraid to shock the other victors in order to get a reaction out of them.Blight – Casting Not AnnouncedAnother former victor who is required to return for the 75th annual Hunger Games.District 8Cecelia -- Casting Not AnnouncedA 30-year-old mother of three whose maternal instincts make her an ally in the Quarter Quell.Woof -- Casting Not AnnouncedAn older tribute who is suffering from bad hearing and other health troubles that come with old age.District 9Tributes are unnamed in the books. Neither casting have been announced.District 10Tributes are unnamed in the books. Neither casting have been announced.District 11Seeder: Maria HowellSeeder is described as having silver streaks in her hair and golden brown eyes in the books. Howell’s movie credits include The Color Purple and The Blind Side, and she has appeared on TV series like Army Wives, Drop Dead Diva, The Vampire Diaries and Tyler Perry’s Meet The Browns and House of Payne.Chaff: E. Robert MitchellThe Atlanta-based actor will take on the role of Chaff. His credits include Battle: Los Angeles, The Shield, One Tree Hill and Tyler Perry projects such as Diary of a Mad Black Woman and Daddy’s Little Girls. In the books, Chaff is described as six feet tall, with dark skin and a stump for one arm due to an injury at the previous Hunger Games.
 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV.

Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.

 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
:goodposting:I won't see the sequels until they come out on DVD but my kids will want to see them in the theater. Guess I'll let them but won't like shelling out the money.
 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
:goodposting:I won't see the sequels until they come out on DVD but my kids will want to see them in the theater. Guess I'll let them but won't like shelling out the money.
I feel like he's being overly kind about the third book.
 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
:goodposting:I won't see the sequels until they come out on DVD but my kids will want to see them in the theater. Guess I'll let them but won't like shelling out the money.
I feel like he's being overly kind about the third book.
Yeah, I agree.
I wasn't thrilled about all the suicide talk in the books either. I certainly am not looking forward to how they intend to handle that in the movies.
 
I liked the flick, but I enjoyed the books more, even the last one (ok, the truth is I just wanted to see how the story ended).

 
I liked the flick, but I enjoyed the books more, even the last one (ok, the truth is I just wanted to see how the story ended).
I liked the second book the best but the third was the weakest, I felt like she wanted to end the story quick so she did it in 3 chapters and very weakly I might add.
 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
:goodposting:I won't see the sequels until they come out on DVD but my kids will want to see them in the theater. Guess I'll let them but won't like shelling out the money.
I feel like he's being overly kind about the third book.
And they're breaking the third book into two movies. Oof.
 
'Psychopav said:
'Bigboy10182000 said:
The 3rd book was THAT bad???
Pretty bad, yeah.
It's funny -- I guess I'm in the minority about this. I actually thought the third book was the most compelling of the three. It reminded the reader that war sucks, even if you win. That power currupts, and that no politicians can be trusted. It was bleak, and provided the most realistic presentation of human nature of the three books.I just assumed that people don't like the third because of the ugly place that the story goes. That may be why I like it.
 
'Psychopav said:
'Bigboy10182000 said:
The 3rd book was THAT bad???
Pretty bad, yeah.
It's funny -- I guess I'm in the minority about this. I actually thought the third book was the most compelling of the three. It reminded the reader that war sucks, even if you win. That power currupts, and that no politicians can be trusted. It was bleak, and provided the most realistic presentation of human nature of the three books.I just assumed that people don't like the third because of the ugly place that the story goes. That may be why I like it.
No I didn't like the third book because of how poorly the last 3 or 4 chapters were written, how much they were rushed and how from the point of the
parachuttes exploding in the square
until the end the writing was not the same quality of the rest of the story.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thought it was pretty well done but suffered a lot in the acting department. I loved the camera work, although many times there was too much of the shaky cam. It's hard to define when it's too much, but I knew it when I was watching it. I loved the use of sound (or lack thereof) and the "away" shots that remind me of Nolan films. The design was great, even though I couldn't stand the foppery of the elite. I know that's the point, but it was still annoying. I also thought the violence was handled pretty well with just enough to show that the savagery was real but leaving the worst up to the imagination to fill in. The real problem though was the acting. Tucci and most especially Lawrence were great. In fact I'd say Lawrence was beyond great. But other than that, except for Banks and maybe Prim, the rest were on the back side of mediocre at best. Even Woody. No chemistry, no "character". Just plain flat. Maybe because Lawrence was so far above the rest they may have seemed even worse.

Book 3 was awful. Just awful.

 
'Psychopav said:
'Bigboy10182000 said:
The 3rd book was THAT bad???
Pretty bad, yeah.
It's funny -- I guess I'm in the minority about this. I actually thought the third book was the most compelling of the three. It reminded the reader that war sucks, even if you win. That power currupts, and that no politicians can be trusted. It was bleak, and provided the most realistic presentation of human nature of the three books.I just assumed that people don't like the third because of the ugly place that the story goes. That may be why I like it.
Book 2 I thought was starting to go into an interesting direction and then it seemed mid-way through, the author got lazy and just decided to redo book 1 again.Book 3 was nothing but an abomination. The story was boring. Katniss was nothing more then a willing puppet. The ending was rushed. And Katniss comes off as an unlikeable, whiney character.
 
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/catching-fire-jeffrey-wright-cast-beetee-hunger-games-210711098.html

The Capitol has chosen another tribute for the "Hunger Games" arena.

Jeffrey Wright has been cast as Beetee in "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," Lionsgate announced on Friday.

PLAY IT NOW: The Hunger Games Cast Talks Bonding On The Set - Access Exclusive!

While former "Monk" star Tony Shalhoub had been previously considered for the role, Wright -- whose performance in HBO's "Angels in America" earned him both an Emmy and a Golden Globe award in 2004 -- will play the technologically-gifted former victor from District 3, nicknamed "Volts" for his expertise with electronics.

Wright joins a slew of new actors added to the second installment of the big screen adaption of the Suzanne Collins' bestsellers, including Sam Claflin as resident tribute hunk Finnick Odair, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee, Jena Malone as tribute Johanna Mason, Lynn Cohen as tribute Mags and Amanda Plummer as tribute Wiress (nicknamed "Nuts" by fellow tributes).

VIEW THE PHOTOS: ‘Hunger Games’ Hottie Josh Hutcherson

"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, begins shooting in the fall and is slated to hit theaters on November 22, 2013.
 
I have to go out and get this "third" book. I haven't read the first two yet, but the third one sounds like my kind of book.

 
The 3rd book was THAT bad???
Pretty bad, yeah.
It's funny -- I guess I'm in the minority about this. I actually thought the third book was the most compelling of the three. It reminded the reader that war sucks, even if you win. That power currupts, and that no politicians can be trusted. It was bleak, and provided the most realistic presentation of human nature of the three books.I just assumed that people don't like the third because of the ugly place that the story goes. That may be why I like it.
No I didn't like the third book because of how poorly the last 3 or 4 chapters were written, how much they were rushed and how from the point of the
parachuttes exploding in the square
until the end the writing was not the same quality of the rest of the story.

I also didn't care for the 3rd book, not because of the storyline (I actually kinda liked where the author was going with the story) but because the writing was really really bad. Not sure if the author was rushed, or they gave it to a junior editor, but there were numerous scenes that were just bad. I didn't care for Katniss' character in the third book, not because it was poorly thought out. I could see how the character could come to be that way, so that didn't bother me, but even then, the writing didn't continue to give the characters (including Katniss) the depth they could have had.
 
The first book was entertaining as was the movie . The second book was dissappointing because the actual "Hunger Games" setup with the clock and all was pretty weak. It should have one-upped the first. It didn't.

I barely remember the third book.

The actor who plays Peter is kind of a dweeb which is a bit of buzz kill too.

Jennifer Lawrence looks smoking in recents pics though.

 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
Battle Royale is fantastic. I didn't consider Hunger Games terrible since I like these types of movies, but it wasn't a very good movie.
 
local library will have this thing on blu-ray. im 47 on the list... looking forward to watching.

 
Watched it this weekend and enjoyed it. The premise and the story were really good, but I thought the dialogue was kind of weak and the acting was on the bland side. Sometimes it would feel like I was watching a really good movie and then it would delve into made for TV. Enjoyable rental and I'll watch the sequels.
This.
I like Battle Royal much better than this movie. The sad thing is this is the best story of the trilogy. It gets progressively worse. The third book was like pulling teeth.
Battle Royale is fantastic. I didn't consider Hunger Games terrible since I like these types of movies, but it wasn't a very good movie.
The thing I liked about Battle Royale is that there were a wide range of reactions by the participants and you got the sense that it was a very realistic depiction of the spectrum of behavior that would result from being put into such a situation.
 
Just watched the movie. Haven't read the books. It was a decent movie. My wife liked it a lot. The ending seemed a bit rushed but I know it's a trilogy (or more).

While the character development was shallow, I really like bigger plot movies and care a bit less about the details so I'm actually interested in seeing what happens politically.

 
Wished the acting was better and had developed the characters/districts more...but overall I enjoyed it.

I really did not like the dogs however. I thought the dogs were the weakest part of the first book...didn't like that concept at all...so I can appreciate Hollywood changing them but to make them just appear out of thin air? That was a ridiculous choice.

Oh...and the scene where Petta was a rock was just redamndiculous.

My son and I both laughed at that scene...it was filmed in a humorous way and was just awfully conceived. I realize our mind's eye can draw something different from a book than what we find in the movie but come on. That was awful. I felt like he should've been lying amongst the rocks and leaves with a really good camo/mud job but to actually look like a rock? How did he do that on top of his head with no mirror and no materials? My son and I still like to joke around and say in this exasperated, almost dying voice..."Katniss...I'm a raaahhhhhhhhck. Look at me Katniss...I'm down here...I'm a rock."

Absurd.

I like Sutherland but I still think the best casting choice for that role would've been Malcolm McDowell

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well deserved. The movie is pretty awesome. Much better than the first (which I did enjoy).

I'd imagine the only reason someone wouldn't like it is because we're so programed to hate anything wildly loved by teenage girls.
The movie was pretty meh. Odd but the movie is very slow moving. Should have spent more time in the games. However, the source material does not have much to work with but the movie could have been cut 10-15 minutes or so unless those minutes were devoted to the games or introducing the new victors.

I'm not sure how or why but breaking the third book into two movies is going to be a terrible idea.

 
I thought the movie was pretty good, for what it is. I liked it. My girlfriend says she thinks they're going to make Katniss more of a focus in the last part of the story than she was in the books (apparently she's more of a figurehead in the books--she thinks they're gonna change it and put her right in the center of the rebellion, on the ground). Idk if any of that's true.

 
Does the 2nd movie use the whole "shaky camera" thing? I hated that about the first one and am really hoping they ditched it for round II....

 
Jennifer Lawrence is hot, but I have a thing for Jena Malone, the girl who played Johanna. Something about her. She was Rocket in Sucker Punch, and though arguably the least attractive of the bunch, she was tops for me.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top