# The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Official Trailer



## Daf57 (Jul 24, 2013)

I enjoyed the books and the first movie - I hope this one is good as well.


----------



## Shakkyl (Aug 7, 2013)

I had to read the book in my College English class, I didn't know what to expect. I ended up loving it, and the movie. I haven't read any farther into the series, but I love the first one enough to for sure read them, and i'll for sure watch the movie in theaters.


----------



## jordanky (Aug 7, 2013)

I'm stoked... I loved all the books as well as the first film. I'll definitely be at a midnight premiere somewhere, thinking of giving Jennifer Lawrence MY arrow if you know what I mean.


----------



## Watty (Aug 7, 2013)

Although I never read the books, I was surprised at how.....well, gay the futuristic society was made out to be. I mean, I know there should exist a gap between the social classes in a dystopia, but come one.....that was overly flamboyant for absolutely no reason.



jordanky said:


> I'm stoked... I loved all the books as well as the first film. I'll definitely be at a midnight premiere somewhere, thinking of giving Jennifer Lawrence MY arrow if you know what I mean.



Eh, she'd be much more attractive without all the makeup it's really obvious she's wearing in most of the shots above.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 8, 2013)

Shakkyl said:


> I had to read the book in my College English class, I didn't know what to expect. I ended up loving it, and the movie. I haven't read any farther into the series, but I love the first one enough to for sure read them, and i'll for sure watch the movie in theaters.



Really? I mean I enjoyed the books, but they are definitely lower reading level (like early intermediate). She has atrocious grammar/sentence structure for it to be used in a college English class too.

I think the second movie will be pretty good too. I absolutely hated the third book though.



Watty said:


> Although I never read the books, I was surprised at how.....well, gay the futuristic society was made out to be. I mean, I know there should exist a gap between the social classes in a dystopia, but come one.....that was overly flamboyant for absolutely no reason.
> 
> Eh, she'd be much more attractive without all the makeup it's really obvious she's wearing in most of the shots above.



The books are written that way. It isn't just to show social divide, but to show how vane and obsessed with appearances they were (think Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers type of obsession gone wrong).


----------



## Shakkyl (Aug 8, 2013)

Yea the other book we read was The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawntreader. I'm not going to complain that my college classes are easy, as long as I get credits for them.


----------



## petereanima (Aug 8, 2013)

Hm, I think I will give this a try...I found the first movie "not bad", but nohting special. I think I had my expectations up too high, because of the hype surrounding it. 

I then listened to all of the "Oh, you must read the books"-people around me (because usually, I am the one saying this), and stopped pretty early. Don't know if the german translation made it even worse, but I always had the impression I am reading a childs book (which is not automatically a bad thing; but in this case I mean it in a bad way).


----------



## Murmel (Aug 8, 2013)

I imagine the books being similar to Harry Potter in structure and grammar.
After seeing the HP movies, I went on reading the first book... Not expecting a children's book, I was disappointed to say the least 

Not saying it was bad, but it could've been much better. Sometimes it's nice reading stuff that's easy on the eyes too.

Ont: I thought the first movie was somewhere around a 5/10. Didn't enjoy it particularly, but I'm still going to catch the next one.
I've also seen the movie which supposedly gave inspiration to Hunger Games, Battle Royale. 
I'm not sure what to expect out of Japanese acting because I don't know the language at all, but I thought it was pretty terrible except for a few moments. It was way more brutal though.


----------



## jonajon91 (Aug 8, 2013)

book 1 > book 2 > book 3
I think that after reading the first book the film was excessively lackluster. I was also relatively annoyed by the second book and the last one just straight up pissed me off it was so bad. Perhaps this could be an opportunity for the films to out do the book? It has to happen one day.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 8, 2013)

Murmel said:


> I imagine the books being similar to Harry Potter in structure and grammar.



There weren't extremely complex sentence structures or college level vocabulary in Harry Potter (of which the books are similar), but Harry Potter was at least structurally and grammatically correct. At times Hunger Games was just a huge run on sentence. 

It'd be nice if they could improve upon the books in the movies, but the first book was genuinely better than the first movie so it is too early to tell. All of the books dragged through the boring parts for too long and the third book was just bad IMO. After the first book, the romance and love triangle become a lot more center stage. If it wasn't for the action sequences in the second book I would have stopped reading. I only finished the third out of pure obligation to complete the story line. I'm looking forward to the arena in the second book manifesting on the big screen though.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 8, 2013)

Murmel said:


> I've also seen the movie which supposedly gave inspiration to Hunger Games, Battle Royale.



Apparently the author of THG is on record saying she wasn't aware of the existence of Battle Royale when she wrote her books.

I'll probably see this movie. The first one was pretty mediocre, although it had some occasionally great moments. However, it was BEYOND overt in its efforts to criticize the public thirst for violence. There was literally no subtlety in the entire thing.


----------



## Shakkyl (Aug 8, 2013)

Murmel said:


> I imagine the books being similar to Harry Potter in structure and grammar.
> After seeing the HP movies, I went on reading the first book... Not expecting a children's book, I was disappointed to say the least
> 
> Not saying it was bad, but it could've been much better. Sometimes it's nice reading stuff that's easy on the eyes too.
> ...




Harry Potter even while being children books is pretty amazing. The ending to the series still gives me chills.


----------



## Shakkyl (Aug 8, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Apparently the author of THG is on record saying she wasn't aware of the existence of Battle Royale when she wrote her books.
> 
> I'll probably see this movie. The first one was pretty mediocre, although it had some occasionally great moments. However, it was BEYOND overt in its efforts to criticize the public thirst for violence. There was literally no subtlety in the entire thing.



Yea, that is what I was thinking when watching it. It really seemed to grasp that concept by the reigns.


----------



## Murmel (Aug 8, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Apparently the author of THG is on record saying she wasn't aware of the existence of Battle Royale when she wrote her books.


I wouldn't be surprised. For some reason I don't think putting children in survival mode and on the hunt for eachother is that original of an idea


----------



## Shakkyl (Aug 8, 2013)

Murmel said:


> I wouldn't be surprised. For some reason I don't think putting children in survival mode and on the hunt for eachother is that original of an idea



xD


----------



## wankerness (Aug 8, 2013)

Well, Battle Royale also had the same plot concept that the kids were killing each other in some weird government-funded spectacle that's watched by millions that will somehow keep the poor people in check. Coincidentally, neither movie really manages to give any ways in which the government's doing this will achieve this goal. Battle Royale at least doesn't treat it too ponderously, even though it makes less sense and doesn't have Jennifer Lawrence in it, so if you're going to watch a movie about kids killing each other for the entertainment of millions I'd say go for Battle Royale.

I think the Arnold Schwarzenegger adaptation of "The Running Man" has pretty much the same concept, it just wasn't with kids, so yeah it's entirely possible she never saw Battle Royale. 

I only watched The Hunger Games cause I loved Jennifer Lawrence so much in Winter's Bone. It wasn't bad, and it had some good scenes before it started throwing in CGI dog monsters and shit, but from what I hear the plots of the second and third books basically neuter her character into yet another boring Twilight style character that's defined more by her waiting around for her boyfriend than by anything she actually does. Bleh. I might watch it anyway just cause now I love Jennifer Lawrence even more cause of Silver Linings Playbook, though "house at the end of the street" certainly proved that she alone can't make something watchable.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 8, 2013)

wankerness said:


> Well, Battle Royale also had the same plot concept that the kids were killing each other in some weird government-funded spectacle that's watched by millions that will somehow keep the poor people in check. Coincidentally, neither movie really manages to give any ways in which the government's doing this will achieve this goal. Battle Royale at least doesn't treat it too ponderously, even though it makes less sense and doesn't have Jennifer Lawrence in it, so if you're going to watch a movie about kids killing each other for the entertainment of millions I'd say go for Battle Royale.



They spend the second and third book expanding on the government aspect of things. The only part that explained the reason for the event is in the very beginning of the movie where they show a video prior to them pulling the names out of the bowls.



wankerness said:


> I only watched The Hunger Games cause I loved Jennifer Lawrence so much in Winter's Bone. It wasn't bad, and it had some good scenes before it started throwing in CGI dog monsters and shit, but from what I hear the plots of the second and third books basically neuter her character into yet another boring Twilight style character that's defined more by her waiting around for her boyfriend than by anything she actually does. Bleh. I might watch it anyway just cause now I love Jennifer Lawrence even more cause of Silver Linings Playbook, though "house at the end of the street" certainly proved that she alone can't make something watchable.



Not so much in the second, aside from the love interests, but by the third book she spends most of it crying and having a nervous breakdown AND the love interest gets even dumber. They both have their good moments though.


----------



## Rick (Aug 9, 2013)

I would plow Jennifer Lawrence like a Kentucky farm.


----------



## Shakkyl (Aug 9, 2013)

Rick said:


> I would plow Jennifer Lawrence like a Kentucky farm.



I'm from Kentucky, and I can confirm that is pretty hard.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 9, 2013)

I also saw the movie mostly for Jennifer Lawrence. Not only because she's quite attractive, but she was _fantastic_ in Winter's Bone.

It's one thing that hasn't really been brought up, but considering how mediocre a lot of aspects of THG movie were, the acting was actually quite good overall. The only actors that I didn't like in it were Woody Harrelson and Don Sutherland.


----------



## MFB (Aug 9, 2013)

wankerness said:


> Well, Battle Royale also had the same plot concept that the kids were killing each other in some weird government-funded spectacle that's watched by millions that will somehow keep the poor people in check. Coincidentally, neither movie really manages to give any ways in which the government's doing this will achieve this goal. Battle Royale at least doesn't treat it too ponderously, even though it makes less sense and doesn't have Jennifer Lawrence in it, so if you're going to watch a movie about kids killing each other for the entertainment of millions I'd say go for Battle Royale.



Uh, no?

Battle Royale's concept of the survival game is that it's population control and no the only ones watching the game as it happens are the one who run it, the general public only see the survivor at the end and generally the parents of the kids are also killed since they get so pissed off at the government agents who are telling them they've been selected that they try to harm them. 

There was a sequel to it but it had very little to do with the first since Shuya isn't in it until the end I believe, and there wasn't even a book to judge by so it's just all totally at the writer's discretion.


----------



## wankerness (Aug 9, 2013)

Where in Battle Royale is there that detail about the parents?

And population control? What in the hell? What's the point of having them go down to the last survivor, who then gets on the news, if it's "population control" and isn't televised? Having 25 kids kill each other every year, that'll sure keep the population in check! Why not just gas a few thousand poor people whenever the population needs controlling or something?

I guess that movie makes even LESS sense than I remember! That is an achievement indeed. I read the novel too and don't remember that making much more sense other than at least the "TRANSFER STUDENT" wasn't a transfer student.

EDIT: OK, here's the paste from wikipedia. It apparently isn't what either of us remember, and also is nonsensical.


> Battle Royale takes place in 1997 in an alternate timeline&#8212;Japan is a member region of an authoritarian state known as the Republic of Greater East Asia (&#22823;&#26481;&#20124;&#20849;&#21644;&#22269;?, Dai T&#333;a Ky&#333;wakoku). Under the guise of a "study trip", a group of students from Shiroiwa Junior High School (&#22478;&#23721;&#20013;&#23398;&#26657; Shiroiwa Ch&#363;gakk&#333;?) in the fictional town of Shiroiwa, in Kagawa Prefecture, are gassed on a bus. They awaken in the Okishima Island School on Okishima, an isolated, evacuated island southwest of Shodoshima (modeled after the island of Ogijima). They learn that they have been placed in an event called the Program. Officially a military research project, it is a means of terrorizing the population, of creating enough paranoia to make organized insurgency impossible.
> The first Program was held in 1947. Fifty third-year junior high school classes are selected (prior to 1950, forty-seven classes were selected) annually to participate in the Program for research purposes. The students from a single class are isolated and are required to fight the other members of their class to the death. The Program ends when only one student remains, with that student being declared the winner and receiving a government funded pension. Their movements are tracked by metal collars, which contain tracking and listening devices; if any student should attempt to escape the Program, or enter declared forbidden zones (which are randomly selected at the hours of 12 and 6, both a.m. and p.m.), a bomb will be detonated in the collar, killing the wearer. If no one dies within any 24-hour period, every collar will detonate simultaneously and there will be no winner.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 10, 2013)

Ha, they are more similar than I remember. Trying to stop an insurgency was essentially the whole point in the hunger games as well. I find it hard to believe she never heard of Battle Royale.


----------



## MFB (Aug 10, 2013)

wankerness said:


> Where in Battle Royale is there that detail about the parents?
> 
> And population control? What in the hell? What's the point of having them go down to the last survivor, who then gets on the news, if it's "population control" and isn't televised? Having 25 kids kill each other every year, that'll sure keep the population in check! Why not just gas a few thousand poor people whenever the population needs controlling or something?
> 
> ...



Hmmm, is that from the movie Wiki or the book cause I could've swore that there was never any mention of trying to stop any insurgency - nor was there any talk of ANYONE even trying to do that  Sure the people were unhappy, but the Greater Republic of Asia or whatever country they were in was called was just a metaphor for China (I believe) and their at-the-time situation where people were unhappy but nobody was able to do anything; and the Program was just rubbing salt in the wound.

The parent bit was taken from the book itself where it mentioned several of the parents being killed when they're first being informed of their selection. Don't know/can't remember if it happens in the movie.

The population control I've never understood either  Maybe it's a long run type scenario where they're like, "25 kids every year, from here on in... Hmmm, yeah, that could work!"


----------



## wankerness (Aug 10, 2013)

That was from the book wiki. The movie wiki gives no explanation other than "THE BR ACT WAS IMPLEMENTED AFTER 80,000 KIDS WALKED OUT OF SCHOOL ONE DAY!" I think I vaguely remember a title screen at the beginning of the movie saying that. "This'll keep those kids from protesting against the government, kill a random class on a set schedule instead of punishing the protesters!"


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Aug 27, 2013)

The first one really surprised me, I'm interested to see how this one turns out


----------



## Xaios (Nov 27, 2013)

Alrighty. Saw this movie last night. Verdict? Definitely an improvement over the first movie. A good number of the problems I had with the first movie have been remedied.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 27, 2013)

I don't know if I can justify seeing it in the theater but I watched the first one strictly for Jennifer Lawrence (ever since Winter's Bone she's been one of my favorite actors) and ended up liking it alright. Everything I've heard is that this movie is even better.

Apparently all the book fans say the third book is by far the worst of the three though, and they're splitting it into two movies to milk the most money out of the franchise possible, so that's unfortunate I guess?!


----------



## Xaios (Nov 27, 2013)

wankerness said:


> Apparently all the book fans say the third book is by far the worst of the three though, and they're splitting it into two movies to milk the most money out of the franchise possible, so that's unfortunate I guess?!



As someone who's never read the books, I can't speak to its quality. However, splitting it into two movies, even if it's motivated by MOAR PROFITS!!! isn't a guarantee that bad movies will result. Deathly Hallows 1 & 2 were EASILY two of the three best movies in the Harry Potter series, alongside Prisoner of Azkaban.


----------



## Tyler (Nov 27, 2013)

i hated the first movie with a burning passion. it was so childish and had so many missing things. 

This movie however restored my faith in how the rest will play out. Only a few things left out and definitely more visual in terms of the violence etc


----------



## wankerness (Nov 28, 2013)

Xaios said:


> As someone who's never read the books, I can't speak to its quality. However, splitting it into two movies, even if it's motivated by MOAR PROFITS!!! isn't a guarantee that bad movies will result. Deathly Hallows 1 & 2 were EASILY two of the three best movies in the Harry Potter series, alongside Prisoner of Azkaban.



I think harry potter was an example of doing it cause the story called for it, while if I remember right the people behind Twilight even admitted they did it cause of Harry Potter. Since this is another super-popular teen girl series I think they're probably again following the cash train, but hey, what do I know. Maybe the book that no one likes is also by far the longest.

EDIT: Research has shown that Mockingjay is 390 pages, while Catching Fire is 391. Damn, no excuse! Even "Breaking Dawn" was well over 700.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 28, 2013)

Very good film, loved it. Looking forward to the next one. Haven't read the books so the end was a nice surprise. 
My first Imax film too


----------



## Xaios (Nov 28, 2013)

Woody Harrelson's character was a huge improvement over the first movie. I didn't like him at all in the first one, but he was much more interesting this time around.

Something that bugged me was that, as soon as you're introduced to Philip Seymour Hoffman, you just _know_ that whatever he appears to be isn't going to be what he actually is, because he's Philip Seymour ....ing Hoffman. He's kind of like a reverse-Malcolm McDowell. 

One thing I still don't like about this universe is that the government is pretty much just overtly evil. There's absolutely no subtlety, no nuance. Just "We're Evil. Deal with it." Even the Nazis have received more sympathetic film treatment than this. I guess YA novels aren't exactly interested in exploring the complexities of politics, though.


----------

