Hunger Games 2012 (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Gary Ross reportedly won't return for Catching Fire
If the reports are true, Lionsgate lowballed him on a salary for the sequel and that -- coupled with an insanely tight production schedule due to only having Lawrence until Fox starts shooting the X-Men: First Class sequel in January -- led to Ross walking away.
I know Lionsgate doesn't have the war chest that the major studios have, but this guy just delivered a major blockbuster to it on an $80 million budget that was met by near universal acclaim. Treating him shabbily and then rushing the sequel into production to beat an artificial deadline doesn't seem like a great way to build on your success.

 

[DaveF]

Not a good start to "Catching Fire". As the story becomes more complex and more difficult to tell, it's not good to make production rockier as well.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Switching directors didn't really cause too much box office drop-off for the Harry Potter or Twilight franchise.

 

[DaveF]

Maybe the article is making drama where there is none. But Harry Potter had Chris Columbus directing the first two to establish the movie translations (for good and for ill). And then, as I understand it, pretty intentionally changed directors to bring in new styles.

Hunger Games, per the article, is losing the planned director unexpectedly and on a short production schedule. Sometimes hardships are the crucible of creativity. And sometimes they make a movie less good. And sometimes losing the source of success is not so good (X-Men 3 vs X-Men 1, 2)

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Chris Columbus also stayed on as producer for "Prisoner of Azkaban" to ease the transition. I have no doubt that "Catching Fire" will be a strong performer at the box office. My concern is whether it will be any good.

 

[mattCR]

Hold the horses on that rumor..

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/sources-gary-ross-has-not-withdrawn-from-hunger-games-2/

Despite reports that have spread like wildfire on showbiz websites, we hear from multiple sources close to Catching Fire that director Gary Ross has not formally withdrawn from The Hunger Games sequel. Ross is off on a family vacation and couldn’t be reached, but these internet reports that described his withdrawal as definitive are simply not accurate.

There have also been reports about a tense standoff between Lionsgate and Fox over the sequel services of Jennifer Lawrence, who will reprise her role as Mystique in the sequel to X-Men: First Class. That has also been somewhat overblown; Fox had an option deal on Lawrence way before she signed on to play Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games. That put Fox in first position. Since Lionsgate has a Catching Fire script done, Fox allowed them to go first.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Ross's departure is officially official:

"Despite recent speculation in the media, and after difficult but sincere consideration, I have decided not to direct 'Catching Fire'. As a writer and a director, I simply don’t have the time I need to write and prep the movie I would have wanted to make because of the fixed and tight production schedule.
I loved making 'The Hunger Games' – it was the happiest experience of my professional life. Lionsgate was supportive of me in a manner that few directors ever experience in a franchise: they empowered me to make the film I wanted to make and backed the movie in a way that requires no explanation beyond the remarkable results. And contrary to what has been reported, negotiations with Lionsgate have not been problematic. They have also been very understanding of me through this difficult decision.
I also cannot say enough about the people I worked with: Producer Nina Jacobson, a great collaborator and a true friend; the brilliant Suzanne Collins, who entrusted us with her most amazing and important story; the gifted and remarkable Jennifer Lawrence whose performance exceeded my wildest expectations, and the rest of the incredible cast, whom I am proud to call my friends.
To the fans I want to say thank you for your support your faith, your enthusiasm and your trust. Hard as this may be to understand I am trying to keep that trust with you. Thank you all. It’s been a wonderful experience."

So basically, he's saying that the production schedule is too rushed to make a good movie. Doesn't exactly bode well.

 

[Carlo_M]

Saw Hunger Games last night, haven't read the book (though I'll likely start reading within the month). I give it a solid 7/10 score. Felt somewhat rushed, but of course any film adaptation is going to have to do away with some important characterization moments which I'm sure will be in the book.
I liked all of the performances (and that Zathura kid has sure grown up...where does the time go?) and I thought the pacing, while a bit fast, served the story well. The climax was...not as climactic as I would have hoped. Funny during the finale and the lead baddie has an existential moment - I thought this weakened/watered down his character and said as much to the group of people I was with, and the ones who had read the book said "yeah that's not in the book".
One thing I disliked was the overuse of "shaky cam". I understand wanting to use it for battle sequences, but they seemed to use it on most shots, including stationary or low-movement shots, which really started to give me a Blair Witch Headache.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/316251/hunger-games-2012/30#post_3918134
I liked all of the performances (and that Zathura kid has sure grown up...where does the time go?) and I thought the pacing, while a bit fast, served the story well. The climax was...not as climactic as I would have hoped. Funny during the finale and the lead baddie has an existential moment - I thought this weakened/watered down his character and said as much to the group of people I was with, and the ones who had read the book said "yeah that's not in the book".

Hmm. See, I thought that was one of the best parts; that district 1/2 have always been the "most loved" by the capital, but it doesn't mean they are immune to being killed off. In the end, the kid realized that all of this was not nearly the "proud" and "patriotic" cool thing that he had trained his whole life for, it was still slaughtering kids and he was about to be killed or would have to kill again. Cato wasn't really a bad guy.. I mean he was, but not the real bad guy, he was just another pawn for the real bad guy (Snow and the Capital)

 

[Steve_Tk]

Anyone hear that the studio wants to rush release the 2nd one and that the director has bailed on the movie? Apparently, Lawrence is schedule to shoot Xmen in Jan. So instead of waiting till April/May, they want to rush release the 2nd picture and start shooting this August to capitalize on its success. The current director said it's not possible and is going to bail.
Sure, rushing it out means you will make good money on the 2nd based on the 1st success. But that doesn't mean putting out a turd will guarantee the 3rd's success. Why not wait the 8 months and fill Q2 next year and do 2 and 3 back to back?
Heard this around the water cooler, could be completely wrong.

 

[TravisR]

I realize that people having more time to work on a movie has improved the final product but they're not making Schindler's List. It's The Hunger Games Part 2, jump in both feet first and make the damn movie. It might be a gamble but they've got more than a year and half until it comes out and they're adapting a book so it's not like they're going in totally blind. Fortune favors the bold.

 

[Carlo_M]

To be honest, Collins' books read like they're made to become movies. Very little in terms of adaptation needs to be done (the first movie was pretty much the book with few major changes). I just read the first one in literally 2 days. Writing shouldn't be the problem. While moviemakers don't want to feel rushed, this movie should be able to be made well in that timeframe.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/316251/hunger-games-2012/60#post_3919249
To be honest, Collins' books read like they're made to become movies. Very little in terms of adaptation needs to be done (the first movie was pretty much the book with few major changes). I just read the first one in literally 2 days. Writing shouldn't be the problem. While moviemakers don't want to feel rushed, this movie should be able to be made well in that timeframe.

Except the third book. Which I didn't really care for but I have no idea how you'd ever film that.. most of it happens in Katniss mind as she's losing her sanity and between that and


When the good guys basically kill tons of their own children to create moral outrage by framing the capital for doing it


I don't know how -that- would go over

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/316251/hunger-games-2012/60#post_3919249
To be honest, Collins' books read like they're made to become movies. Very little in terms of adaptation needs to be done (the first movie was pretty much the book with few major changes). I just read the first one in literally 2 days. Writing shouldn't be the problem. While moviemakers don't want to feel rushed, this movie should be able to be made well in that timeframe.

Except that, as discussed earlier, this movie had significant adaptation choices and even at 2.5 hours, was fast moving for everything cut out.

And it's worth remembering that this movie was by no means a certain hit. It easily could have been merely mediocre (City of Ember, Because of Winn Dixie, Prince Caspian...all favorite books of mine that had middling adaptations), if not disastrous.

With a successful adaptation method shown, the sequel has less to worry about. And a rush job for the sequel is less risky than for this original. But one thing I've learned in a lifetime of watching movies, is that there's no such thing as a trivially adapted book.

 

[Carlo_M]

 Except that, as discussed earlier, this movie had significant adaptation choices and even at 2.5 hours, was fast moving for everything cut out.

Sorry - joined the thread late and didn't read earlier discussions. While there were some omissions and changes, I personally do not feel a lot was changed for the adaptation. Nothing like what happened with, say, adapting the Lord of the Rings (don't get me started on that).
Seriously, having read the book just after having watched the movie, I felt the movie was very faithful to the book, inasmuch as movies can be. I can only think of a small number of movies that have been more faithful to the source material (The Shawshank Redemption springs to mind).

 

[DaveF]

I agree it was a good, faithful adaptation. I thought it really prioritized the Games, and cut out a lot of descriptions of the District 12, Katniss with Gale in the woods, stuff with her mom. And the cat. Really reduced the cat's scene. . There were lots of intentional choices made in adapting it. And stylistically, among other things, they avoided the completely literal, scene-by-scene adaptation style of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

They managed to not screw it up. Never underestimate the ability to screw up a children's book adaptation


(Or, in some cases, to do a marvelous adaptation but completely bork its marketing (Bridge to Terabithia). )

 

[TravisR]

Seriously, having read the book just after having watched the movie, I felt the movie was very faithful to the book, inasmuch as movies can be.

Same here. I've only read the book once (so I'm hardly an authority) but the movie seemed pretty faithful to the source. I imagine that the scriptwriter for the second movie will be able to sit down and use the novel as a reasonable guide to what they'll do for that script. That's not to say that adapting a book is no problem but at least the writer already knows the points that they'll have to hit.
One difference that was dissapointing to me was that was my mental image of Katniss at the end of the game was that she looked like McClane at the end of Die Hard (just bloodied and beaten to hell) and the movie didn't even come close to that.

 

[SamT]

So I finally saw this movie. It did grab my attention and I never got bored during the movie and I do want to see the rest, but when I think more about it, its not because it's a great movie, its because it's an interesting story.
In fact more I think about it, more I believe it was executed poorly. It could have been a lot better in hands of a better director. For one thing I don't understand the casting of Jennifer Lawrence. I feel she cant act at all. She has the same emotionless face all the time. Frankly I feel she has no business acting and never liked her in X-Men too.