NDRU said:

My GF sure got sucked into the books.

I wanted to read them, but now they are seeming like a chick/twilight thing, and I am not so sure anymore.

Believe me...they are nothing like Twilight.

NDRU said:

My GF sure got sucked into the books.

I wanted to read them, but now they are seeming like a chick/twilight thing, and I am not so sure anymore.

That's why I didn't get into it too and i'm a girl (not a teenage girl ) but that just wasn't my thing. I see a lot of guys like the hunger games though.

babybugz said:

noimageatall said:

Me too. I read it because my DIL bought it. I've read every book in the house so I thought I'd see what all the fuss is about. I really didn't like that aspect at all. The only thing I want to see now is the destruction of the Capitol. But I don't want to read the other books to find out if that happens.

Nothing like the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo books...once I started reading I had to read all three in a week.

OMG gurll don't get me started on that. I LOVE THAT STORY. I like the swedish films but rooney mara is my favorite lisbeth. I can't put those books down it's addicting.

[Edited 3/22/12 11:55am]

I actually liked the American films better. I watched all three of the Swedish ones so I know what to expect when the American versions come out. I like Daniel Craig better and I also like Rooney better than Noomi.

didn't mean to hijack.

noimageatall said:

NDRU said:

My GF sure got sucked into the books.

I wanted to read them, but now they are seeming like a chick/twilight thing, and I am not so sure anymore.

Believe me...they are nothing like Twilight.

You were hoping they would be, I guess?

NDRU said:

noimageatall said:

Believe me...they are nothing like Twilight.

You were hoping they would be, I guess?

No...but people were comparing them and when I read the first book I was like..no, not even close.

noimageatall said:

babybugz said:

OMG gurll don't get me started on that. I LOVE THAT STORY. I like the swedish films but rooney mara is my favorite lisbeth. I can't put those books down it's addicting.

[Edited 3/22/12 11:55am]

I actually liked the American films better. I watched all three of the Swedish ones so I know what to expect when the American versions come out. I like Daniel Craig better and I also like Rooney better than Noomi.

didn't mean to hijack.

I didn't see the third swedish one yet but I own all three but they not touching the american version. I only think of Rooney now as the girl . I feel the American One is more like the book.

noimageatall said:

NDRU said:

You were hoping they would be, I guess?

No...but people were comparing them and when I read the first book I was like..no, not even close.

Yes, I expect they are not the same. I guess what I meant is that the audience is the same.

NDRU said:

noimageatall said:

No...but people were comparing them and when I read the first book I was like..no, not even close.

Yes, I expect they are not the same. I guess what I meant is that the audience is the same.

The media try to force the comparison but the audience is mixed with the hunger games. There are guy fans like I said. They show the fangirls more though..

babybugz said:

NDRU said:

Yes, I expect they are not the same. I guess what I meant is that the audience is the same.

The media try to force the comparison but the audience is mixed with the hunger games. There are guy fans like I said. They show the fangirls more though..

Yeah I suppose they want it to be "the next Twilight"

I will reserve judgement for now. Untill I start seeing bare chested werewolf pictures

PurpleJedi said:

So is this a pre-quel to the Arnold classic....?

When I heard the plot of this movie Running Man was the first thing that popped into my mind. I hope it's good!

Wow, this movie is huge. Folks in these parts were lined up yesterday first thing in the morning just to get one of the 5,000 seats for the midnight viewing. It's been a while since I've heard of a movie opening that big. I might wander through there to see, maybe. If it's twilightish I'm push somebody over though.

The film is getting rave reviews from all the top critics, and it's on track for a humongous opening weekend. I'm going to check it out tonight.

Got suckered into coming to see this tonight.

I saw it last night and was surprised how good it was, though for some reason the audience ended up getting the giggles (a girl fell off her chair, everyone jumping at something, the medicine looking dodgy etc) and it annoyed a few people. Overall I'd recommend it to people though it definately helps to read the book first.

NDRU said:

babybugz said:

The media try to force the comparison but the audience is mixed with the hunger games. There are guy fans like I said. They show the fangirls more though..

Yeah I suppose they want it to be "the next Twilight"

I will reserve judgement for now. Untill I start seeing bare chested werewolf pictures

(warning--may be some spoilers)

I never did think this was for kids...

Why I'm NOT Taking My 8-Year Old To The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games hits theaters tonight. It could well be the biggest box office hit of the year, at least until The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 comes along in November. It is rated PG-13. Nearly two dozen kids aged 12 to 18 die by machete, sword, blows with a brick, a spear to the chest, arrows, having their necks snapped. All damage inflicted by each other.

As a movie critic and reader who sucked down the entirety of Suzanne Collins’s trilogy for young adults in one weekend, I can find plenty of positive things to say about director Gary Ross’s moving and provocative adaptation. The big screen Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone) won me over completely. On the page, she tends to petulance. In the movie, Lawrence highlights instead Katniss’s unease with being in the limelight, turning it into a kind of humility that only makes her more likeable. She’s a bold, brave heroine.

But there’s absolutely no compelling reason your elementary school aged child – or mine – should see The Hunger Games. None. Not one. It’s not necessary or appropriate to take your eight year-old to see a movie where teenagers kill each other as part of a punishing sporting event sponsored by a cruel, morally corrupt futuristic society. Panem, a nation that seems a lot like North America, forces 24 kids to fight to the televised death every year. The Capital chooses these “tributes” (a boy and girl from each of the 12 far flung districts) by lottery. They’re made over and feted like contestants on today’s reality shows, then dropped into a carefully cultivated wilderness arena to battle as penance for a failed rebellion long ago. Twenty-three of them must die for a victor to emerge.

Collins wrote the book as a response to our violence-crazy, reality show-watching society. She has said the trilogy is about war, for adolescents. I bet she’d tell you to leave the little ones at home. But there seems to be some debate about this. Even in my sedate New England town, parents are anguishing over whether or not to let their preteens see the movie at the first available, late night screening. This week, TIME Ideas contributor and psychology professor Christopher Ferguson wrote about his intention to take his eight year-old to see the movie, and the research he believes supports that validity of that choice. In this case, I’ll take common sense over “some” research that could well be disproved tomorrow.

Even if you’re sitting right next to little Theo or Emma telling them it’s just a movie, which Ferguson plans to do, why is he or she there? Entertainment? You wouldn’t let your second-grader watch Game of Thrones with you. Edification? Surely there is no rush to get your child up to speed on dystopia. The recession and war seem bad enough.

(there's much more here)

http://ideas.time.com/201...z1q1bTcD9M

The Hunger Games received a strong "A" CinemaScore, and should finish the weekend with anywhere from $135 million to $160 million. (Via Boxofficemojo.com)

Saw it yesterday. I haven't read the books but definitely got the impression from the movie that there were things missing.

Seemed to take the 'stupid' way out of every bind. Not stupid per se, but way too convenient.

I'd give it 3.5/5

I saw it and really liked it. They stayed true to the story and only altered a few things. The only complaint I had is they didn't focus much on the character's home life. I understand why they didn't (the movie was over 2 hours long as it was) but I do feel that people that hadn't read the book weren't able to get as emotionally invested in the characters because of it.

Saw it tonight. I thought it was ok, not bad but not like amazing. I was a bit confused a few times, like was the whole environment digital, and how the hell can digital things kill? I dunno, maybe the book takes the time to explain what the movie doesn't. Some parts were a little cheesed out as well.

I found it a little predictable and it's DEFINITELY like Battle Royale.

JustErin said:

Saw it tonight. I thought it was ok, not bad but not like amazing. I was a bit confused a few times, like was the whole environment digital, and how the hell can digital things kill? I dunno, maybe the book takes the time to explain what the movie doesn't. Some parts were a little cheesed out as well.

I found it a little predictable and it's DEFINITELY like Battle Royale.

I love that that is where your suspension of disbelief breaks with this film.

The Hunger Games Opens To $155M in North America

March 25, 2012

Link

Lionsgate hit a bull's-eye with The Hunger Games this weekend, as the story of expert archer Katniss Everdeen and her battle for survival debuted with a record-breaking $155 million at the box office.

The film starring Jennifer Lawrence posted the third-highest domestic debut of all time, behind only the $169.2-million opening for the final Harry Potter installment and the $158.4-million launch of The Dark Knight. That means The movie also grossed more on its opening weekend than any other non-sequel.

The astronomical level of receipts began rolling in after midnight on Friday, when the movie raked in nearly $20 million on just its first night in theaters.

Moviegoers immediately responded positively to the film about teenagers in a fight to the death, assigning the picture an average grade of A, according to market research firm CinemaScore. That's good news for Lionsgate, as it means the movie could have legs with fans who didn't rush out to see the movie during its first weekend in theaters.

The crowd who saw the film this weekend was slightly more female, as 61% of the audience were women. By comparison, the most recent Twilight film attracted an 80% female contingent back in November, indicating part of the success of The Hunger Games had to do with its appeal to both genders. Both adults and teenagers showed up to the multiplex as well, with 56% of the audience over the age of 25.

"People were walking out of the initial screenings saying 'Wow, this is a real movie,'" said David Spitz, Lionsgate's executive vice president of distribution. "And that was because of the critical response, and what [director] Gary Ross did in hiring Jennifer Lawrence and actors like Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson."

Based on the first novel in author Suzanne Collins’ bestselling young-adult trilogy, The Hunger Games did go over well with critics, notching a 86% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie features 21-year-old Oscar nominee Lawrence in her biggest role to date, and also stars young newcomers Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth. The next installment in the series, "Catching Fire," is slated to hit theaters in November 2013.

The movie played well across the country, in New York and Boston as well as in Salt Lake City, where a Utah theater had the weekend's highest gross for "The Hunger Games." On Friday and Saturday, Megaplex Theatre in South Jordan, Utah, collected $276,000 in sales.

The location is part of a six-theater circuit that has drummed up interest in the movie through special film-themed events, including a reenactment of the Hunger Games themselves.

The movie will be the biggest success thus far for independent studio Lionsgate, which produced the film for a little over $80 million after tax credits from North Carolina, where it was shot. After its opening weekend alone, The Hunger Games is already the studio's highest-grossing film, besting Michael Moore's 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which collected $119.2 million by the end of its run.

Overseas, the movie opened in most foreign countries. To limit its financial risk, Lionsgate sold off the film's international distribution rights, and has already recouped over half of the film's production budget. But that means that if the film is a blockbuster abroad, the studio won't see as many of the benefits.

I was a little sceptical at first because I LOVE Battle Royale (it's one of my favorite films EVER) and I thought they'd just straight up jacked the storyline, but I ended up really enjoying it. It has a different vibe to it. I liked when District 11 rioted after the little girl was killed.

My favorite characters were Woody Harrelson's character and Lenny Kravitz's. They were both awesome

TheResistor said:

This looks like a rip-off of of the short story from the 1920s, "The Most Dangerous Game," by Richard Connell.

I'll pass.

LOVE that story. I wouldn't mind seeing a movie adaption. But if Hollywood got their hands on it, the movie would probably suck ass.

Spinlight said:

JustErin said:

Saw it tonight. I thought it was ok, not bad but not like amazing. I was a bit confused a few times, like was the whole environment digital, and how the hell can digital things kill? I dunno, maybe the book takes the time to explain what the movie doesn't. Some parts were a little cheesed out as well.

I found it a little predictable and it's DEFINITELY like Battle Royale.

I love that that is where your suspension of disbelief breaks with this film.

Other stuff made sense, this one wasn't explained at all.

The Hunger Games Lenny Kravitz and Amandla Stenberg Attacked in Racist Tweets
March 28, 2012

The Hunger Games' young characters battle it out to the death in a brutal televised bloodsport, but several of the film's stars are now at the center of vicious and real-life attacks of their own.

Lenny Kravitz and Amandla Stenberg have come under fire by fans of the book who question why filmmakers cast black actors to play two pivotal roles in the movie.

And based on these fans' shocking tweets, their verbal knives are just as slicing and lethal as the ones wielded by the movie's tributes.

A Hunger Games fan has put together a Tumblr page that collects ignorant tweets from so-called fans of Suzanne Collins' best-selling Y.A. series.

But the page ended up exposing jaw-dropping tweets about the film's casting. Many of them are directed at Stenberg, who plays angelic Rue and whose character is actually described in the book by Collins as having "dark brown skin and eyes."

One person wrote, "why does rue have to be black not gonna lie kinda ruined the movie."

Another, who also questioned the casting of Kravitz as sympathetic stylist Cinna, tweeted, "cinna and rue werent suppose to be black," before adding, "why did the producer make all the good characters Black."

In one particularly horrible tweet, a user—spoiler alert!—didn't regret Rue's demise, saying, "call me racist but when i found out rue was black her death wasn't as sad #ihatemyself."

Many of the accounts have reportedly been deleted, but if these tweeters are, indeed, fans of The Hunger Games, then it looks like the series' message of compassion and emancipation was lost on them.

Link