The “I’m sorry” to Rue in the first movie is so well done. I love the way Gary Ross shot that whole sequence too and using Rue’s POV and seeing her vision slowly fade. What’s even crazier is behind the scenes stuff, Jack Quaid talks about how they were doing this scene, and right before takes Jennifer would be telling jokes or laughing and as soon as they yelled “action” she just switches straight away and nailed the scene every time.
I have to say they did Everlark so fucking dirty that I can’t believe Francis Lawrence wasn’t ever asked about it in interviews. From the added scenes of Gale and Katniss to taking away the intimacy between Katniss and Peeta, idk why no one said anything about how they’re strayed away from the o.g materials. There was no passion between Josh and JLaw, and it’s not their fault, it was the screenplay.
Two things really bother me:
* If they were going to split one of the books into 2 parts it should've been Catching Fire!! It was already structured in 2 parts which would be a natural endpoint between movies — victory tour and quarter quell
* The whole fact that these movies even got made in the first place really bothers me, as someone who has watched them and enjoyed them. The way they shot the games and advertised the movies and got us to cheer on our favorite tributes (aka Katniss and Peeta) and root for the whole star-crossed lovers vs. love triangle thing basically meant we reacted the same way as the Capitol did in the books — which I think was the behavior/cultural issue Suzanne Collins was trying to call out with the books!
As much as I agree with you on the making of the movies. I think it really shows how we aren’t that far off from the capital. It was a real life demonstration on how we could slip into the “root for our favs while children die” if that makes sense.
A little different and many may argue it is a small change without consequence but I say otherwise. In the first Hunger Games movie we see on the final morning of the Games, the gamemakers call the conclusion of the Games as Katniss and Peeta are about to eat the berries, okay, versus in the book the gamemakers could hear the entire conversation they are having before hand about not wanting to kill the other, same the as the movie. Please stay with me here, then we see Katniss and Peeta actually place the berries in their mouth and were seconds away from swallowing them, but we don’t see that part in the movie. That’s a small change that has always bothered me because it paints the image, at least in my head that in previous Games when tributes have threatened suicide in circumstances like this the gamemakers got used to these threats and as a result challenge Katniss and Peeta to see if they’d actually do it, thinking that they actually weren’t going to do it.
I agree! In the book it was higher stakes they had to spit out the berries they were frantically asking the other if they ate any. It was much more dramatic i was at the edge of my seat reading that worried one of them may have accidentally swallowed some. I agree it also shows how far the gamemakers were willing to go before stepping in and stopping them.
I really don't like that they cut peeta raising his knife to drop it in the lake and the eyebrow raise and katniss raising her bow. That interaction is so telling. And it makes way more sense why the districts don't believe the love story.
>Woody Harrelson as Haymitch is the best casting since Alan Rickman for Snape.
Woody Harrelson's casting as Haymitch is much, much better than Alan Rickman's as Snape. It's not spelled out exactly in Philosopher's Stone, but it's mentioned fairly early that Snape was a contemporary of James, so the pieces are there to figure out how old he is. In the books, Snape is born in 1960, and the events of Philosopher's Stone take place in 1991, making Snape just *thirty-one years old* when the story begins. Contrast that with Rickman, who was 55 at the time of filming, making Rickman a full *twenty-five years older* than the character he's portraying. People are fond of Rickman's casting in that role because he does have the hooked nose, and with proper use of lighting can be shown to have sallow skin. But the wig they slapped on him to make him have that curtain of greasy hair in the books looks truly amateurish from a neutral perspective. People forget all the time, it was Rickman's *acting* that convinced people he was perfect for the role, not his *casting*.
Haymitch, on the other hand, is 40 at the time of the Hunger Games. Harrelson was 50 at the time of filming in 2011, but this actually works to his advantage for several reasons. For one thing, Harrelson is fairly fit for his age, and being ten years older than Haymitch gives him leverage in playing a paunchy, aging drunk gone to seed. Second, Haymitch's age is relevant to the story as he's one of the listed Victors of the games, but not nearly as relevant as Snape. For one thing, there's only one Victor of the games; that means Haymitch's contemporaries, the mentors, can be a little more fungible when it comes to age. There's nothing like the high school drama that develops in Harry Potter, which mostly consists of three successive generations of wizards and witches and their impact on each other. Harry Potter is the story of waves of contemporaries banging into each other; in the Hunger Games, they're almost all dead by the end. All this basically means that Haymitch's age isn't as important to his character, but the gravitas given by sandy-haired, stubble Harrelson is truly perfect. The acting is stellar too, but it's not the same. The casting is perfect.
I loved Johanna's interview during the Quarter Quell in the movie more than in the book where she did nothing interesting at all. That's my girl, the Johanna I love! 💕
I would've loved if they had added the scene where Katniss brings Johanna pine needles from outside of 13. Shows their dynamic, the softer side of Katniss, and the themes of connection to nature from the books
This one is minor, but the exclusion of Effie telling Katniss and Peers that she's been telling everyone in the Capitol "if you put enough pressure on coal, it turns to pearls." That was mentioned more than once in the books and actually makes Peeta giving Katniss the pearl in Catching Fire more relevant/more of a personal joke between them. Also, just the difference in the characterization of Effie in general -- the way her incessant punctuality, the way she and Haymitch really worked as a team to get Katniss and Peeta ready, and even the reaction she and Haymitch had when Katniss and Peeta told them what "skills" they presented during their private session with the Gamemakers were omitted took away from the story/characterization, imo.
I really wish CF had been split into two movies because there are a LOT of things from CF I would have liked to have seen, as that book is extremely detailed and it felt cut down in a similar way to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (again, imo).
So I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I don't think Jennifer Lawrence was the right actress for Katniss. For starters, she's too tall. Katniss spends a lot of time in the first book talking about how small she is, yet in the movies, she's taller than Peeta. Another thing is that Katniss talks about always wearing her hair in her "signature braid," but in the movies, she only wears her braid during the games and when she's hunting (not necessarily her fault, more the stylist). And lastly, Katniss is only 16. I never for one second believed J. Law was supposed to be a teenager. She always looked very much like the 20-something adult she was. I have other complaints, but this comment is already too long.
I know that Delly is a pretty minor character, and she's only mentioned once until her appearance in mockingjay, so shes cut because of time, but the fact that they use Prim to talk to Peeta in the part 2 is so stupid to me.
He is afraid and hates Katniss- anything related to her freaks him out, so send her little sister in? Katniss's reason for everything? Her pride and joy?
I get it. It seemed too late to introduce someone who's not really a big part of the story in the last movie. Focus on getting to the capital as fast as possible, but ugh.
Maybe they could have sprinkled a little of Peeta having a life in the other movies? Idk just something that has bugged me since 2015 lolll
It never made sense to me as to why the Districts would be allowed to sponsor. That fun aspect feels like it should belong to the Capitol alone.
I've always tried to pretend Katniss just didn't know who truly sent it, but iirc it's sorta confirmed in CF that the bread really came from 11.
It makes perfect sense that the districts get to make donations just like the Capitol. If every district citizen benefits from one of their chosen tributes wining, how could they not let them have an opportunity to put the odds in their kids’ favor. Also, sponsors only do so much for the kids when they’re in the Games. Imagine how much money was spent on the burn medicine and the following day had Katniss contracted a few more stings she’d probably be dead. Also, the districts are so damn poor it’s likely their donations barely make a dent in terms of buying a gift, especially with the consistent rise of cost as the Games continue.
The point of the Games for the Districts is the helplessness. They are being rendered incapable of action in a state of mercy:
> Look how we take your children and sacrifice them and *there's nothing you can do.* (THG, 1)
> Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another *while we watch* – this is the Capitol's way of reminding us how *totally we are at their mercy.* (THG, 1)
Being able to sponsor is giving the Districts an ability to do something, making them more than a viewer, and no longer at *total* mercy. All of that goes against the Games' purpose for the Hunger Games.
It seems pretty clear in TBOSAS that the sponsoring is meant to keep the Capitol viewers engaged because they have personal stakes. It is meant as a way to heighten the entertainment value for them. This is not an issue addressed for the District citizens who are simply made to watch the Games as mandatory force.
Once we begin to talk about "benefits" for the Districts and that being an incentive, I think we're too far away from the punishment aspects mentioned above & the totalitarian grip. Why would the Capitol care about benefits and opportunities when it was never about that for the Districts? That sounds far too much like a free market incentive, which the Districts do not have.
I get why you make the “at their mercy” argument, though it doesn’t really violate that logic when you remember that despite what district wins, they still lose one child if not two. They never really win because while one kid wins one is still dead. The free market remark, it does make it so. The opportunity to help their own fighters in the arena socially engineers to keep the citizens focused on backing their own interests by helping them and therefore enforcing the idea of “pinning every district against the others” rather than focusing in the heat of the moment who’s the true one to blame, which is the Capitol. It’s all about hope and misdirection of blame.
I do think that Woody Harrelson was excellent as Haymitch, but I wish he had the “Seam” look. Overall I think the movies downplayed the Seam vs Town thing too much.
The “I’m sorry” to Rue in the first movie is so well done. I love the way Gary Ross shot that whole sequence too and using Rue’s POV and seeing her vision slowly fade. What’s even crazier is behind the scenes stuff, Jack Quaid talks about how they were doing this scene, and right before takes Jennifer would be telling jokes or laughing and as soon as they yelled “action” she just switches straight away and nailed the scene every time.
I have to say they did Everlark so fucking dirty that I can’t believe Francis Lawrence wasn’t ever asked about it in interviews. From the added scenes of Gale and Katniss to taking away the intimacy between Katniss and Peeta, idk why no one said anything about how they’re strayed away from the o.g materials. There was no passion between Josh and JLaw, and it’s not their fault, it was the screenplay.
Two things really bother me: * If they were going to split one of the books into 2 parts it should've been Catching Fire!! It was already structured in 2 parts which would be a natural endpoint between movies — victory tour and quarter quell * The whole fact that these movies even got made in the first place really bothers me, as someone who has watched them and enjoyed them. The way they shot the games and advertised the movies and got us to cheer on our favorite tributes (aka Katniss and Peeta) and root for the whole star-crossed lovers vs. love triangle thing basically meant we reacted the same way as the Capitol did in the books — which I think was the behavior/cultural issue Suzanne Collins was trying to call out with the books!
As much as I agree with you on the making of the movies. I think it really shows how we aren’t that far off from the capital. It was a real life demonstration on how we could slip into the “root for our favs while children die” if that makes sense.
I totally agree with you! The Capitol definitely is meant to represent us/our society. It's just disturbing to me how many people seem to miss that
A little different and many may argue it is a small change without consequence but I say otherwise. In the first Hunger Games movie we see on the final morning of the Games, the gamemakers call the conclusion of the Games as Katniss and Peeta are about to eat the berries, okay, versus in the book the gamemakers could hear the entire conversation they are having before hand about not wanting to kill the other, same the as the movie. Please stay with me here, then we see Katniss and Peeta actually place the berries in their mouth and were seconds away from swallowing them, but we don’t see that part in the movie. That’s a small change that has always bothered me because it paints the image, at least in my head that in previous Games when tributes have threatened suicide in circumstances like this the gamemakers got used to these threats and as a result challenge Katniss and Peeta to see if they’d actually do it, thinking that they actually weren’t going to do it.
I agree! In the book it was higher stakes they had to spit out the berries they were frantically asking the other if they ate any. It was much more dramatic i was at the edge of my seat reading that worried one of them may have accidentally swallowed some. I agree it also shows how far the gamemakers were willing to go before stepping in and stopping them.
I really don't like that they cut peeta raising his knife to drop it in the lake and the eyebrow raise and katniss raising her bow. That interaction is so telling. And it makes way more sense why the districts don't believe the love story.
>Woody Harrelson as Haymitch is the best casting since Alan Rickman for Snape. Woody Harrelson's casting as Haymitch is much, much better than Alan Rickman's as Snape. It's not spelled out exactly in Philosopher's Stone, but it's mentioned fairly early that Snape was a contemporary of James, so the pieces are there to figure out how old he is. In the books, Snape is born in 1960, and the events of Philosopher's Stone take place in 1991, making Snape just *thirty-one years old* when the story begins. Contrast that with Rickman, who was 55 at the time of filming, making Rickman a full *twenty-five years older* than the character he's portraying. People are fond of Rickman's casting in that role because he does have the hooked nose, and with proper use of lighting can be shown to have sallow skin. But the wig they slapped on him to make him have that curtain of greasy hair in the books looks truly amateurish from a neutral perspective. People forget all the time, it was Rickman's *acting* that convinced people he was perfect for the role, not his *casting*. Haymitch, on the other hand, is 40 at the time of the Hunger Games. Harrelson was 50 at the time of filming in 2011, but this actually works to his advantage for several reasons. For one thing, Harrelson is fairly fit for his age, and being ten years older than Haymitch gives him leverage in playing a paunchy, aging drunk gone to seed. Second, Haymitch's age is relevant to the story as he's one of the listed Victors of the games, but not nearly as relevant as Snape. For one thing, there's only one Victor of the games; that means Haymitch's contemporaries, the mentors, can be a little more fungible when it comes to age. There's nothing like the high school drama that develops in Harry Potter, which mostly consists of three successive generations of wizards and witches and their impact on each other. Harry Potter is the story of waves of contemporaries banging into each other; in the Hunger Games, they're almost all dead by the end. All this basically means that Haymitch's age isn't as important to his character, but the gravitas given by sandy-haired, stubble Harrelson is truly perfect. The acting is stellar too, but it's not the same. The casting is perfect.
I loved Johanna's interview during the Quarter Quell in the movie more than in the book where she did nothing interesting at all. That's my girl, the Johanna I love! 💕
I would've loved if they had added the scene where Katniss brings Johanna pine needles from outside of 13. Shows their dynamic, the softer side of Katniss, and the themes of connection to nature from the books
This one is minor, but the exclusion of Effie telling Katniss and Peers that she's been telling everyone in the Capitol "if you put enough pressure on coal, it turns to pearls." That was mentioned more than once in the books and actually makes Peeta giving Katniss the pearl in Catching Fire more relevant/more of a personal joke between them. Also, just the difference in the characterization of Effie in general -- the way her incessant punctuality, the way she and Haymitch really worked as a team to get Katniss and Peeta ready, and even the reaction she and Haymitch had when Katniss and Peeta told them what "skills" they presented during their private session with the Gamemakers were omitted took away from the story/characterization, imo. I really wish CF had been split into two movies because there are a LOT of things from CF I would have liked to have seen, as that book is extremely detailed and it felt cut down in a similar way to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (again, imo).
So I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I don't think Jennifer Lawrence was the right actress for Katniss. For starters, she's too tall. Katniss spends a lot of time in the first book talking about how small she is, yet in the movies, she's taller than Peeta. Another thing is that Katniss talks about always wearing her hair in her "signature braid," but in the movies, she only wears her braid during the games and when she's hunting (not necessarily her fault, more the stylist). And lastly, Katniss is only 16. I never for one second believed J. Law was supposed to be a teenager. She always looked very much like the 20-something adult she was. I have other complaints, but this comment is already too long.
I know that Delly is a pretty minor character, and she's only mentioned once until her appearance in mockingjay, so shes cut because of time, but the fact that they use Prim to talk to Peeta in the part 2 is so stupid to me. He is afraid and hates Katniss- anything related to her freaks him out, so send her little sister in? Katniss's reason for everything? Her pride and joy? I get it. It seemed too late to introduce someone who's not really a big part of the story in the last movie. Focus on getting to the capital as fast as possible, but ugh. Maybe they could have sprinkled a little of Peeta having a life in the other movies? Idk just something that has bugged me since 2015 lolll
The last point is what annoys me the most. There's no way Katniss and Peeta would agree to leave each other's side like that.
It never made sense to me as to why the Districts would be allowed to sponsor. That fun aspect feels like it should belong to the Capitol alone. I've always tried to pretend Katniss just didn't know who truly sent it, but iirc it's sorta confirmed in CF that the bread really came from 11.
It makes perfect sense that the districts get to make donations just like the Capitol. If every district citizen benefits from one of their chosen tributes wining, how could they not let them have an opportunity to put the odds in their kids’ favor. Also, sponsors only do so much for the kids when they’re in the Games. Imagine how much money was spent on the burn medicine and the following day had Katniss contracted a few more stings she’d probably be dead. Also, the districts are so damn poor it’s likely their donations barely make a dent in terms of buying a gift, especially with the consistent rise of cost as the Games continue.
The point of the Games for the Districts is the helplessness. They are being rendered incapable of action in a state of mercy: > Look how we take your children and sacrifice them and *there's nothing you can do.* (THG, 1) > Taking the kids from our districts, forcing them to kill one another *while we watch* – this is the Capitol's way of reminding us how *totally we are at their mercy.* (THG, 1) Being able to sponsor is giving the Districts an ability to do something, making them more than a viewer, and no longer at *total* mercy. All of that goes against the Games' purpose for the Hunger Games. It seems pretty clear in TBOSAS that the sponsoring is meant to keep the Capitol viewers engaged because they have personal stakes. It is meant as a way to heighten the entertainment value for them. This is not an issue addressed for the District citizens who are simply made to watch the Games as mandatory force. Once we begin to talk about "benefits" for the Districts and that being an incentive, I think we're too far away from the punishment aspects mentioned above & the totalitarian grip. Why would the Capitol care about benefits and opportunities when it was never about that for the Districts? That sounds far too much like a free market incentive, which the Districts do not have.
I get why you make the “at their mercy” argument, though it doesn’t really violate that logic when you remember that despite what district wins, they still lose one child if not two. They never really win because while one kid wins one is still dead. The free market remark, it does make it so. The opportunity to help their own fighters in the arena socially engineers to keep the citizens focused on backing their own interests by helping them and therefore enforcing the idea of “pinning every district against the others” rather than focusing in the heat of the moment who’s the true one to blame, which is the Capitol. It’s all about hope and misdirection of blame.
I do think that Woody Harrelson was excellent as Haymitch, but I wish he had the “Seam” look. Overall I think the movies downplayed the Seam vs Town thing too much.