Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:52, 12 July 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Hunger Games (film). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Hunger Games (film) at the Reference desk.

The Hunger Games (film) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 10, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Sentence needs to be updated

"The film hopes to go into production in late Spring 2011." Although I don't think the sentence will confuse most readers, it still needs to be rewritten. A film can certainly not hope. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "The film is planned to go into production in late Spril 2011". Glimmer721 20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly

Entertainment Weekly published this, and it looks like the print issue will have more information. Worth checking out. And we should probably move from "film project" to "film" soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was watching a video on YouTube when I saw that Peeta loves the cave scene more than Katniss

Move

I moved the article to The Hunger Games (film) since it is verified that filming has begun. This is one such source confirming the start of filming. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Casting call controversy

Hey does anyone think there should be a new section in the article on the Kateniss casting call controversy? Or should details about it be added to the casting section?

Considering the director, the writers and Jenifier Lawrences recent interview to try and dispell the controversy I think the issue has gained enough traction to be added to the article.

Here is a good info link if you don't know what i'm talking about here is the racebending article and here is the racebending sum up of othe media outlets. DSQ (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) DSQ

If the initial response from fans was negative and was covered from reliable sources, we can include it. I don't think we need to have a separate section for it, though. Sections like ones titled "Controversy" should be avoided whenever possible; see WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

3 more films planned

What would be the best way to write that Lionsgate is intending to make The Hunger Games triology into four feature films (like the Twilight trilogy and the Harry Potter novels)? Should it go in this film page? See The Hollywood Reporter for details. —Mike Allen 01:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest The Hunger Games universe, but it seems like that article is all in-universe. I see that The Hunger Games trilogy exists; perhaps we can move it to The Hunger Games (franchise) to at least be able to include films in the scope? Perhaps we can talk about splitting film information from the franchise article (leaving only a summary) to create a film series article when we have at least three films out? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For now I suppose its only best to add a "Sequels" section to this article. Later, when more films are out and the three or four are confirmed, it would make sense to have a "The Hunger Games (film series)" article. The Hunger Games trilogy article is about the books--similar to Twilight (series) v.s. Twilight (film series). Glimmer721 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Filming location

This article from Entertainment Weekly suggest that a filming location is being done at Hildebran, NC, but the film production nor city officials would/could confirm it. Residents are seeing the town being transformed into a filming location, roads closed, and casting calls being sent out. —Mike Allen 01:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Cast section

Is it really necessary to list almost every single person to appear in this film? Half of the people most likely won't even have any lines. I'm mostly talking about the list of actors portraying the tributes. Also, I don't really think the cast section needs to be split into three parts. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I don't think it should be split, andall the tributes who are unnamed really aren't going to be important. Glimmer721 22:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be cut down. Andrea (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I don't see much reason for the article to include the information that a person nobody knows is going to play a character of no real significance. I do think it would be of value to include a sentence that says something like, "The casting of other tributes has also been announced" and include citations there for any sources about those tributes (I notice that the current article has no citations for the last six tributes, but I assume those sources exist). Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could make the list of secondary cast and characters collapsible? That way, they're still identified but won't take up too much space. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COLLAPSE? BOVINEBOY2008 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not permitted for scrolling lists or tables. Help:Collapsing provides guidance about collapsible tables in general. For example, track listings are collapsible in some articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Tribute table

Now there is a table listing for the tributes. Isn't that very in-universe and not correct per WP:FILMCAST? Why can't we just list the cast as before, without the subsections?Glimmer721 01:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to a table because I just thought it would be easier to read. IMHO, it conveys the same information without straining your eyes. WP:TABLE#When tables are appropriate says:

Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice.

Compare the current table with:

• Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen
• Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark
• Isabelle Fuhrman as Clove (District 2)
• Alexander Ludwig as Cato (District 2)
• Amandla Stenberg as Rue (District 11)
• Dayo Okeniyi as Thresh (District 11)
• Jack Quaid as Marvel (District 1)
• Leven Rambin as Glimmer (District 1)
• Jacqueline Emerson as Foxface (District 5)
• Ian Nelson as Tribute Boy (District 3)
• Kalia Prescott as Tribute Girl (District 3)
• Ethan Jamieson as Tribute Boy (District 4)
• Tara Macken as Tribute Girl (District 4)
• Chris Mark as Tribute Boy (District 5)
• Ashton Moio as Tribute Boy (District 6)
• Kara Petesen as Tribute Girl (District 6)

Of course, I don't own the article so whatever consensus says decides I'll be okay with. For An Angel (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Tables are generally discouraged because they can be tricky for most editors to use. However, I can see the benefit of a table since there would be a third column identifying the district, which goes a long way toward understanding their roles. I'd be fine with implementing a table. Tables are not banned in their entirety; they're just more preferred because most lists will just be actors and their roles, which is easy enough to convey in list form. This case is obviously different. Tables are also used for identifying different sets of voice actors for an animated film, e.g. English-language voice actors and Japanese-language voice actors. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I can understand how they can sometimes be tricky. I tried to keep the table as simple as possible with minimal unnecessary formating (all the references make it look more complicated than it really is). I thought about separating the actors and their characters into different columns but some of them don't have character names and I thought putting "unknown" or "Unnamed tribute" for them would've gotten repetitive. Also, I noticed that a more recent version had a more complete list of the actors playing the tributes but that version was reverted probably because it wasn't in the table format. I'm not sure if the reverter just prefered the table or if they also didn't want the additions for some reason. I only used what was in the article at the time I did it but the missing tributes (for districts 7-10) are all listed on IMDB. Can we add them too? For An Angel (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies for maybe coming off rude at first. I was a little frustrated. I'm really not sure about what should be done. I doubt most of the tributes are going to be important except for the ones who are named in the book (assuming they don't go Lord of the Rings on us and flesh out a character barely in the book). Most of the big-name actors are those playing the other important characters--Gale, Effie, Haymitch, etc. I'd say one thing to do first is combine the "other important characters" with "the Capitol" section. Glimmer721 00:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry but no. The table is completely useless. People aren't going to care about the other unknown tributes. We should only list characters who are primary to the plot. I will be re-doing the entire section and cleaning it up. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to list all of the unknown tributes, that's fine. But that doesn't mean the table is 'completely' useless. The whole point of the table was to make the list easier to read. For An Angel (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Director Problem

In the little info box near the top it says that Mark Washko is directing, but farther down it says that Gary Ross is the director. Which one is really directing it? 168.103.182.71 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's Gary Ross. I have a feeling Washko was added as vandalism. Glimmer721 01:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interviews

Some helpful interviews: and . Glimmer721 00:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Runtime is 142 minutes

I posted a reliable source, which was a "tweet" from Twitter. Don't know how to post the tweet as the ref, not a big Twitter person. Sorry. Not only from there, but 142 minutes is being confirmed as the official runtime on many other sites. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sites? Someone re-added the runtime but we still have no ref in the article for it. Andrea (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Where has the poster gone?

Why has the poster been deleted?Charlr6 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's back now. Seemed like someone actually deleted it from Misplaced Pages but thanks to whoever sorted it out. I would have done it myself but I don't know how to sort out images. Charlr6 (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I figured it was deleted by mistake. The administrator who deleted it said that he deleted it because it was an orphan file not being used in any articles but looking at the history, it looked like it was still in the article when it was deleted. So I just asked him to review his decision and he just reverted it :) For An Angel (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or Promotion/Fandom?

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place for "promotion" of a film. The part of the plot summary that stated, "must rely on her hunting skills, her stealth and speed, and her wits in order to survive" is not giving plot per se and comes close to being a promotion. Still, I left it without deleting it, it could be suggested that it's a short way to convey (very indirectly) parts of the "plot". Fair enough. Maybe. I would not be shocked if the powerful financial forces behind the film try to delete the short sentence I added to the plot however. It's part of their marketing strategy as they are very open about it in the New York Times interview given in teh reference, “we made a rule that we would never say ‘23 kids get killed,’ ” Mr. Palen said. “We say ‘only one wins.’ ” they're worried they might make a few million dollars less.

Before the all out assault to delete that completely revelent plot-related line I added (which does not quote Palen but merely mentions the other 23 children are killed) it is worth nothing that such details are entirely standard in Misplaced Pages plot summaries, e.g. "John then turns off the lights and seals the bathroom door, leaving Adam to die." in the Plot summary for Saw Harel (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I kind of get what you are saying. But I don't get how "must rely on her hunting skills, her stealth and speed, and her wits in order to survive" comes close to being a promotion. That line doesn't promote anything. It doesn't say "must rely on her hunting skills, her stealth and speed, and her wits in order to survive. Get a Hunter Burger from McDonalds." lol Charlr6 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Differences between book and film?

A lot of film adaptions have this section but some of the points are inaccurate: "After Rue dies, there is a riot in District 11." - There is a riot in the movie. "In the book, 11 tributes die on the first day. In the movie, you only hear 5 cannons." - We only hear 5 cannons but Katniss is counting them and she stops at 12. Maybe they are accurate and I'm just remembering the movie wrong, but some of the points are very minor and pointless. Like the one that says "Katniss gets notes from Haymitch in the movie whereas in the book she guesses what he's thinking." It's impossible to show what Katniss is thinking on screen... unless she did a voiceover, but the whole book is in 1st person so a voiceover would have been very impractical. 81.105.56.133 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly the entire section verges on fancruft.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Some of the entries are quite ridiculous. It may be an idea to let the fanboy frenzy die down a little before tackling it though. Barry Wom (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In the film, when Rue dies there is a riot. And Katniss does in fact count 12 cannons. I read that the book was in first person, and she explained in thoughts how to over-come certain things. But in the movie, such as the bee hive scene in the tree, she explains that in her mind in the book, but in the movie it is the presenter of "The Hunger Games" explaining it.Charlr6 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Spell Checked

I have spell checked the whole article, and have fixed all spelling errors.KF5LLG (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Cast List

I think we should stick with billing order for the cast list. In the credits of the film, this is the billing order:

• Jennifer Lawrence
• Josh Hutcherson
• Liam Hemsworth
• Woody Harrelson
• Elizabeth Banks
• Lenny Kravitz
• Stanley Tucci
• Donald Sutherland
• Wes Bentley
• Toby Jones
• Alexander Ludwig
• Isabelle Fuhrman
• Amandla Stenberg

I would hesitate to include any other cast members, but if the consensus is to, I would at least list it in this order first. 69.215.129.175 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine the way it was before and it made it easier for everyone. And the billing order for the cast list is listed on the side. It doesn't have to be written throughout the entire article. CloudKade11 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

...how does it make it easier for everyone, and how is it better when listed subjectively, instead of objectively as is REQUIRED of Misplaced Pages? 69.215.129.175 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rue casting controversy

There's been a lot reports of people complaining about Rue being Black in the film, even though that how she is described in the books. I am not sure if it's notable or not, but here's some sources: . JDDJS (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As you said, the first article clearly shows the evidence of Rue's characteristics being accurately portrayed in the movie based off of the book. All of the articles cite a few, in my humble opinion, idiotic movie-goers who show clear ignorance towards the described "dark brown skin" by the author. I don't think those select (poorly thought out) tweets are enough from the large number of fans to be considered notable. Rue's youthfulness and innocence is obviously portrayed in the film as was intended in the novel. (Once again that was my opinion, but honestly I don't see how fans not influenced by their underlying racist beliefs can disagree with that.) The only argument I can think of to write about this in the article would be to document the controversy, but has this argument/discussion really even been prevalent enough to be considered a controversy? – Jonadin @ 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about a 'controversy', but it's certainly notable. It's gained a lot of press, attention, and outrage. There are far more trivial matters in the 'controversies' sections in the Academy Awards, to be honest. 69.215.129.175 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The number of tweets is not what has to be evaluated to meet the criteria for inclusion, but the amount of coverage on the subject, which has become substantial. Every major news sources from Huffington to the Washington post to Forbes has an article on the subject, with commentary from author Collins herself as well as actress Amandla Stenberg. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot error

In the plot summary the following statement is incorrect.

"Katniss attempts to destroy the nest and accidentally drops it on the Careers' camp, leading to Glimmer's death". As noted in the book and reiterated in the film, cutting down the nest to land on the Careers was a deliberate act (in the film Rue makes a sawing motion then a 'down it goes' motion). Also probably worth noting that dropping the nest kills one Career and disperses the rest so that Katniss can climb down and escape.

Another plot error is mentioned here:

"Katniss develops an alliance with District 11 tribute Rue, who points out a tracker jacker nest which Katniss uses to kill two of the Careers (Glimmer and the girl from District 4)." After watching the movie, they never point out that the girl from District 4 died from this. She wasn't a career in the movie, like she was in the book, and therefore wasn't around when the nest dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.172.126 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reception and Camera Work

The Reception section includes nothing on what was the largest problem with the movie, and something that nearly every reviewer that mentioned art or style at all completely panned. The shakiness of the camera during action scenes was hated by damn-near everyone and really ought to be included. Example sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/graham-milne/shaky-cameras_b_1380069.html http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/shaky+cam http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/mar/24/review-2-hunger-games/ http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/03/hunger-games-review-the-future-is-blurry http://robynpaterson.com/?p=2305 http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/34710-hunger-games (particularly in the first video) http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-girl-on-fire-five-things-that-worked-in-the-hunger-games-and-five-that-didnt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.210.26 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole Katniss and Peeta love relationship in this plot

Although it's made clear at the end of the book that she was faking it to get sponsors and to save both of their rear-ends from death, she doesn't make it obvious or admit to Peeta she was faking her love for him in this film. I'm not sure if this means that they are changing it to where she falls in love with him earlier in the series (rather then the slow evolving feelings which happen in the trilogy, as the books go) or just making it where she admits to him earlier on in the Catching Fire film, but I'm not sure about the whole "playing the part of a young girl falling in love" thing in the film... Any other comments on this? --Rainbowroad6w (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought in the film it did seem like she was actually in love with him and actually had strong feelings.Charlr6 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I'm saying I think they changed it. We'll just have to wait 'til Catching Fire, I suppose... --Rainbowroad6w (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Marketing

Anyone interested in adding a marketing section? This might help. Glimmer721 21:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle Royale similarity criticism

I just saw the film and it is a blatant one for one ripoff of Battle Royale. I'm not alone in this common criticism, and added this paragraph to the opening for this article:

Criticism has emerged over the film's perceived similarity to Battle Royale. Susan Dominus of The New York Times reports that "the parallels are striking enough that Collins's work has been savaged on the blogosphere as a baldfaced ripoff," but argued that "there are enough possible sources for the plot line that the two authors might well have hit on the same basic setup independently."

However my change was undone by the IP address 98.203.14.233. I found it very strange that this criticism was missing from this article in the first place, and looking at the history, there are an above average number of edits from random IP addresses (non-registered users). Looking at their edits shows a biased (towards positive) editing record. Genjix (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your own admitted biases on the issue, the similarities are already explained lower in the article. It's notable enough to include, it's not such a distinguishing mark that it needs to take up half of the opening lede.--71.233.130.195 (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Check out the "Precedents in film and literature" section. The whole detailed paragraph does not need to be in the lead; it should only be briefly mentioned, and then plowed into in the body of the article. Glimmer721 01:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Boulle (author of "Planet of the Apes") wrote a book in 1971 called (in French) "Les jeux de l'esprit" in which the dystopian future government "entertains" the masses by televising gladiator games. By the end of the book, they organize a reenactment of a massive battle in which thousands die. Anyway, people rightfully compare The Hunger Games to Battle Royal, but also to other movies or books absolutely unrelated. It's kind of sad that Pierre Boulle imagined something of the sort way earlier than the other supposed "precedents", but no one seems to know about it.--Munin75 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the same thing with people accusing Super of ripping off Kick-Ass when the idea had been done in three earlier films.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is a highly glowing appraisal of this movie with lots of loaded language: "It was well received by critics, who praised Lawrence's performance and its themes and messages, whilst it was mildly criticized for its watered-down violence and its filming style."

"mildly criticized" - who decides what is mildly? And there is plenty of this throughout the article. Genjix (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Go and change it if you have an issue. A banner for one minor issue that you've pointed out is not appropriate. Go change it if you don't like it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Lawrences performance and the overall feeling of the movie were spot on, the only thing that could have been improved is its slightly less gory scenes than what was in the book"- that is mildly criticized... "Lawrences performance was spot on, but the overall feeling was definitely not accurately portrayed" THAT is criticized..--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Lawrence's weight

There has been a dispute on whether or not to include commentary on lawrence's weight for the role of Katniss. First and foremost I am a member of the BLP project and I am very adamant about keeping unnecessary information out of BLPs, which this particular article is not. This is an article covering the production and reception of a film. The statements made where not made on a whim to criticize Lawrence's weight in general but as a direct reflection on her ability to perform the role of Katniss. These statements were made by professional critics. Had it not been for these two facts I would not have considered in putting the information. And for clarification, these are not statements made by definition of slander, in which, one lies about facts. However misguided (and I literally hate these kinds of criticisms) they are opinions based on an actors ability to portray a character. I also point out that controversial statements made about Living Persons are not altogether avoided. (Ex Michael Jackson/1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson *which was well established and in place long before the singers death*, Janet Jackson/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy or numerous other examples of contentious material - a number of which I've worked on myself).

The section on racial commentary follows (almost) exactly the same vein as the one proposed on Lawrence's weight. So I'm particually puzzled as to why no one would object to one over the other. The only reasonable argument I can see at this point is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. In which case, both the racial commentary and weight commentary could be place under a "Controversy" heading, rather than having two separate sections under "Reception" (Which I admit seems awkward under that particular heading). If other editors feel the information currently overwhelms the article (meaning it draws focus away from the film) that I can understand. But to say it has no place in the article whatsoever I find baffling.

The section in question is as follows:

A number of critics expressed disappointment in Jennifer Lawrence's lead performance as Katniss in regards to her weight. Manohla Dargis, in her review of the film for the The New York Times stated " few years ago Ms. Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit for a dystopian fantasy about a people starved into submission." Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter said that in certian scenes, Lawrence displays "lingering baby fat." Such statements have sparked debate about unrealistic body image for women in Hollywood. Elizabeth Perle of The Huffington Post responded to these critiques by saying, "I can't help but wonder if they actually think Lawrence doesn't portray Katniss correctly or if they're upset she doesn't portray the ideal we are all so used to seeing when young women star in blockbuster action films -- that of the quite literally starving actress." L.V. Anderson of Slate states that "ust as living in a world with abundant calories does not automatically make everyone fat, living in a dystopian world like Panem with sporadic food access would not automatically make everyone skinny. Some bodies, I daresay, would be even bigger than Lawrence’s." Anderson also points out that none of Lawrence's male co-stars have come under the same scrutiny, despite the fact their characters are depicted as coming from the same impoverished district and concludes complaints about Lawrence's weight are inherently sexist.

MTV asked for responses from audiences on whether or not they agreed with the criticism of Lawrence's weight. According to Elizabeth Lancaster, "ost had the same message: They loved what Lawrence brought to her character and that the scrutiny is misguided. One response pointed to Collins' physical description of Katniss in The Hunger Games novel which reads "I stand straight, and while I'm thin, I'm strong. The meat and plants from the woods combined with the exertion it took to get them have given me a healthier body than most of those I see around me." Lancaster indicated that most responses included resentment for Lawrence's weight ever being called into question. Los Angeles Times writer Alexandra Le Tellier commented that "he sexist commentary along with the racist barbs made by so-called fans are as stomach-churning as the film's cultural commentary, which, in part, shines a light on the court of public opinion and its sometimes destructive power to determine someone else's fate." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been much involved with the article, but I'm completely baffled that this content has been removed as a "personal attack" or a BLP violation. Did the editors who make those claims actually read the text beyond the heading? It's not about Jennifer Lawrence being fat, it's about whether she looks like a character who's starved for much of her life. That being said, I think the issue could reasonably be covered in a single paragraph. Actually, it would seem to make sense to combine it in a section with discussion of Lawrence's race and age, as I believe people had raised issue with both in regard to whether she was appropriate to play Katniss.

Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A paragraph on this issue is fine, an entire section for someone's weight which has nothing to do with the movie is completely WP:UNDUE and not remotely appropriate. I personally don't think a couple reviewers' views on her having "lingering baby fat" appropriate in any way. How on earth is a sentence like this relevant to the movie? Simply being covered by a reliable source does not make something appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Just like the racial issues, if you're going to mention it at all it has to be done in context. The entire coverage of the incident stems from what critics specifically wrote in their reviews. Even if this were as BLP (which it isn't) relevance of these statements fall under WP:WELLKNOWN. And to reiterate, these are comments made regarding the lead actress of the film in question, in relation to her appropriateness to play the role she was awarded. In addition to the fact that the relevance is clearly explained in the section by other reporters examination (and disgust) by what was said. Just as the racial controversy, its inherent connection to the film clearly sparked dialog about social issues, such as sexism and body image. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision

A number of critics expressed disappointment in Jennifer Lawrence's casting as Katniss due to the fact her weight did not represent a character who has suffered a life of starvation. Manohla Dargis, in her review of the film for the The New York Times stated " few years ago Ms. Lawrence might have looked hungry enough to play Katniss, but now, at 21, her seductive, womanly figure makes a bad fit for a dystopian fantasy about a people starved into submission." Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter said that in certain scenes, Lawrence displays "lingering baby fat." These remarks have been rebuked by a number of journalists for pushing unrealistic body image expectations for women. L.V. Anderson of Slate states that "ust as living in a world with abundant calories does not automatically make everyone fat, living in a dystopian world like Panem with sporadic food access would not automatically make everyone skinny. Some bodies, I daresay, would be even bigger than Lawrence’s." Since none of Lawrence's male co-stars have come under the same scrutiny, Anderson concludes complaints about Lawrence's weight are inherently sexist. MTV asked for responses from audiences on the controversy and reported that most found criticism of Lawrence's weight "misguided." One response pointed to Collins' physical description of Katniss in The Hunger Games novel which reads "I stand straight, and while I'm thin, I'm strong. The meat and plants from the woods combined with the exertion it took to get them have given me a healthier body than most of those I see around me." Los Angeles Times writer Alexandra Le Tellier commented that "he sexist commentary along with the racist barbs made by so-called fans are as stomach-churning as the film's cultural commentary, which, in part, shines a light on the court of public opinion and its sometimes destructive power to determine someone else's fate." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The above text I support; so long as it's given appropriate weight. My main issue, and the one I still have, is that I feel an entire section on something as minor as this is UNDUE. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've merged both sections on racism and weight under a single subheading under casting, which should solve any weight issues. Plus it just seems more appropriate there than under Reception. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it more appropriate there than under Reception? Clearly it belongs in its own subsection under Reception. Why are you elevating the opinions of a tiny, tiny minority over everything else - the Production, the Soundtrack, Themes, mainstream critics reaction, Precedents and its record-breaking box-office are all more important to the film and its impact, and obviously should be covered before these two controversies. The racial complaints, in particular, look to me like trolls trying to get attention. The less they're given, the better. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I placed it there because they are both controversies as a result of casting. I found it odd in the reception section because because "reception" in my mind (and in most articles) usually deals with critical reviews of the film, box office scores, and awards. I'm not opposed to moving it down, as I said before it just seemed as a logical fit. I'd also like to point out, I'm not the only person editing this article or in a position to expand on other sections of the article (Ex: Seeing The Hunger Games as a Christian Allegory is a minority viewpoint which has largely developed only from Christian sources, but rather than complain about weight issues, I simply expanded the section to include more information.) As long as they are given proper WP:WEIGHT minority viewpoints always have merit in an encyclopedia. Just like everyone else I edit whatever I feel comfortable with and I happen to handle controversial topics well. If you find other sections lacking, be WP:BOLD. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the Production section should be expanded, but even in its current state it is much more important than this Controversies section. The Casting section is about the casting process, as a part of the filmmaking process. It might also cover other actors that were up for certain roles, the order actors were brought aboard is often listed, along with any people being replaced. What it does not usually cover is the reaction to the casting a year or more later - especially by a tiny minority of bloggers. One of the considerations WP:WEIGHT mentions is prominence of placement - it may be a little awkward under Reception (however part of it is mainstream critics talking about her weight), but it's much more misplaced under Casting. It draws focus away from the film, as you put it. These controversies are not the most important thing about the film. Under both WP:WEIGHT and WP:BOLD, I'm moving it down. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Themes

User:ArtifexMayhem, who followed me here after I left a comment on another article removed a large section from this article. I would like to remind him that major newspapers do meet WP:RS. According to Misplaced Pages:RS#News_organizations, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author." It also states: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability." Attribution to the authors has been done appropriately and multiple mainstream sources (each having a Misplaced Pages article) discussing the themes have been provided. If he has an issue with the section, he can comment here per WP:BRD, rather than edit warring. Thanks, Anupam 07:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The only two sources which could seem blog-ish are Christianity Today (which is a periodical, not a blog) and the one from the United Methodist, but even then there is no breach of policy and definitely no reason to remove the entire section which has other exceptionally reliable sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult, thanks for your comments. I was also very surprised to see User:ArtifexMayhem remove such a well referenced section. I also agree that the sources in that section are exceptionally reliable. If you want to remove the source from The United Methodist Church, you're more than welcome to. The same statement is buttressed by another source (the reference from The United Methodist Church was only a backup). :) Thanks again for your comments! With regards, Anupam 07:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Christianity Today source is posted in the commentaries section. The Washington Times "review" is more or less a blog post "This is the Communities at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times.". It would be good to have some reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for these "interpretations" of the film or an indication that the creators had these themes in mind. Otherwise they are WP:UNDUE. I'll leave it to the excellent editors already on the page and be gone. Thanks. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations are just that, interpretations. According to Star Tribune, Collins specifically avoided any reference to religion, but that doesn't mean its impossible to draw a religious perspective from her work. The Huffing article I added relays back to almost all the other articles that have proposed The Hunger Games as a Christian allegory. More importantly, one paragraph isn't much of a weight issue. It would simply be better to expand the section since I'm sure there are hundreds of different interpretations of themes found in the film. But articles don't grow if we simply remove content without at least making an effort to solidify different points of view. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"According to the Dallas Morning News, the Hunger Games is a Christian allegory?!?" Epic sourcing fail. The first paragraph of the source summarizes viewers' disparate reactions to the film:

The Hunger Games... is, without question, a parable of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It’s also a cautionary tale about Big Government. And undeniably a Christian allegory about the importance of finding Jesus. Or maybe a call for campaign-finance reform?

But for some odd reason, we've pulled "Christian allegory" out of this mix, removed all context, and enshrined it as the Dallas Morning News official interpretation. One could say, with just as much justification, that "according to the Dallas Morning News, the Hunger Games is without question a parable about the Occupy Wall Street movement." See the problem?

The wording should be fixed so that we're accurately representing the source. Would anyone like to take a shot at it? If not, I will. Also, we should probably note that the author herself was apparently very meticulous in avoiding any reference to religion, although of course that doesn't stop viewers from finding their own meaning in the film. MastCell  20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:MastCell, thanks for your revision of the article and comments. Rather than attributing The Dallas Morning News' comments to the viewers, however, I am going to modify your revision by attributing the statement to the authors of the article. Thanks, Anupam 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would be a mistake, since the article is summarizing viewers' reactions to the movie. The article title reads: "Viewers say it sends multiple messages". The first paragraph outlines some of the messages which viewers have found in the film, including the idea that it's a Christian allegory. MastCell  20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:MastCell, I do see a statement which states "UCLA student Nancy Gomez, 21, who came out to watch the film in Westwood in the wee hours of Friday morning, sees messages of female empowerment and the need to be politically involved." If that statement were to be included, then we could attribute the statement to a viewer. However, in regards to Christianity, the authors write that "The New Testament content of the film is also hard to miss." However, per your request, I have changed "they" to "some viewers" leaving in the authors of the article as well :) After doing some research, I also added a short paragraph on the Occupy Wall Street movement in the "Themes" section, resounding with User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult's comments to expand the section to include other perspectives. With regards, Anupam 20:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

← Can I ask you to be a bit more scrupulous about pulling quotes out of context? You've done this a couple of times now, and it's frustrating, because it makes it difficult to take your comments at face value. Maybe the problem is more obvious in table form:

Do you see how an observer might start to think that you're systematically quote-mining the source to further your viewpoint? Particularly in the second case, the religious allegory is clearly cast as some viewers' interpretation, but you selectively quote only half the sentence (without any indication you've elided the other half) to further your effort to put this in the editorial voice. MastCell  21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, "And undeniably a Christian allegory about the importance of finding Jesus" is a sentence within the article. Also, you uploaded the version of the talk page before I reedited my comment seeing as I had made a mistake the first time. If you look at the article, I included the entire quote in the reference parameter of The Dallas Morning News'. At any rate, I don't know if you saw my last comments and latest edits but I did attribute the section to the viewers. Did you see that? Also I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of furthering my viewpoint. If you saw the article and read my comments, you would have noticed that I did the research and added additional material on another theme, such as the Occupy Wall Street movement. I would kindly ask you to try to be polite to me here as I have commended your efforts from the very first comment I made here, taking into consideration your comments. Your table only points out my shortcomings, rather than the positive work I've done. Thanks, Anupam 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of the quotes in the table are currently in the article/talkpage. Neither appears to have been corrected or otherwise "re-edited", so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I appreciate your efforts and your commendation; those are both important. But it's equally important, if not more so, to be scrupulous about quoting. It's frustrating to repeatedly find quotes taken out of context, so please take this as a constructive request to be sure that you're preserving the meaning of the source when you cite or quote it. MastCell  21:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Here, I'll provide the edit summary for you. In the edit summary, I originally stated "I don't see that there" in response to your statement that the article was about viewers' response. I then modified my statement to say "I have changed 'they' to 'some viewers' leaving in the authors of the article as well :)" (look I even included a nice smiley face for you). I don't get what you're ranting about when I acknowledged that I didn't see what you were saying but then fixed the problem. The article now states "viewers" instead of "they", just how you wanted it. I didn't include the full quotes initially because they were lengthy and I didn't feel like copying all of it, not because I wanted to further a position, as you allege, but because they first clause of the sentence was all that was necessary. If I wanted to make a point, I wouldn't have followed through with your recommendation of using the word "viewers" rather than "they." At any rate, we've reached consensus about the paragraph in question and the article has improved in quality and sources. I hope you have a nice day. With regards, Anupam 22:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Overseas Ban

I'm in Vietnam right now and the movie has been delayed (or, banned) due to it's graphic scenes. I'm sure that if Vietnam has banned the movie, many are to follow (North Korea, anyone??) I found a source for the Vietnam ban - news source

Not sure if it's worth adding into the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.30.165.12 (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest adding a "Banned" section.

The Hunger Games film has been banned in Viet Nam because of "excessive violence."

I am curious if other countries have done the same. Awareness about censorship needs to be spread. I think wikipedia and this article are a great place to start.

DestryShane (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please provide the exact text you would like to add. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

RS was already provided For An Angel (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no RS presented with the request. The requester is free to use the one you supplied when they provide the wording, just as you are free to supply a source and run with the suggestion. My role as a volunteer servicing the requests which show up at WP:SPER is to get what is required from the requester and implement the change unless there is a problem. Thanks for trying to be helpful, but I don't think your post plays a useful part in that process. Celestra (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a different user, and I posted the exact same thing previously on the talk page as well as a source. 123.30.165.147 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I think this is a worthwhile request. I added a new paragraph at the end of the Controversies section. Thank you both for this suggestion. LaTeeDa (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Epic

Should "epic" be added to the film since sites are reffering it to an "epic" science fiction etc film? Here's an example: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-boxoffice-20120416,0,2599724.story--Trishstar7 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No. An epic film is a distinct genre characterized by enormous sets, large crowds of extras, grand vistas under wide lenses, and massive action. This film has none of that. In fact, the film has noticeably few sets, narrow camera work, far too few extras, and closely cropped action. It is almost the opposite of what an actual epic film is. Your link's use of the word "epic" more like a synonym for the word "movie" or "story" and none of the usual baggage implied by the word seems to have been intended. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

But Misplaced Pages is in the business of reporting what reliable sources say, and this reliable source has definitely labeled the film an "epic". I don't understand how you can read the article and then distinguish for yourself that the film is not an epic based on your own judgement - that is original research. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

epic epic epic - here are three more reliable sources reporting that the film is epic. I think the sad fact of the English language is that young people have morphed the meaning of "epic" into something akin to "awesome" or "cool" meant in days past, and now its true meaning is rather diluted. Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That being said, I think that some restraint is in order for the lede sentence. Let's look at its current state: The Hunger Games is a 2012 American science fiction action drama film. That already is five adjectives and three genres given to describe this film. I don't think it would be worthwhile shoveling "epic" onto this heap. Perhaps "drama" can be changed to "epic" - I might accept that change. But definitely no more adjectives, it just makes an unwieldy sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Jason Quinn that The Hunger Game isn't an Epic film. However, the article for an Epic acknowledges that the definition of the term has evolved in recent years to include films which previously would not have been considered as such ("the definition epic a matter of dispute"). But that actually convinces me more not to include "epic" in the description of the Hunger Games, since its flimsy. Maybe we need to wait a few decades until the definition of the term becomes clear ;).--Munin75 (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those links seem to establish that this is a movie is an "epic film" in the cinematographic sense. As all here seem to agree, the word in these references is just being used causally in a way that is not actually classifying the film. It would be a tremendous example of group think and a failure of common sense if "epic" stays. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete If the word "epic" is functioning as "cool" or "awesome", I hope it's clear to everybody that it doesn't belong in the article. Similarly, all the links using the word "epic" are clearing doing so as just as a synonym for other words like "story", "event", etc. If the word is kept, at the absolute least, the word epic then should not be linked to "epic films". Hunger Games is not epic in the "epic film" sense any more than say Slumdog Millionaire is an "epic film". In fact, these two films have a lot in common. Lastly, if the meaning of the word "epic" has been "diluted", as suggested, it begs the question: what purpose is its use serving? If the word is to carry no meaning, it is superfluous. The distinction between films that are "epic films" and those that aren't is blurry and will never be perfectly defined but this does not preclude its usefulness. It is usually clear to an educated person who knows a bit about cinema when the adjective is plausibly applied. This is not one of those cases. I call a vote. Please vote "Delete" or "keep" so that a consensus may be reached. Voting will last till 15 votes or 48 hours from now, whichever comes first. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not vote on Misplaced Pages, we achieve consensus through discussion. I have elucidated my opinion above and it is halfway between delete and keep. Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, would you please respond to my comments on your opinion. I believe they show most of your comments are very weak points or irrelevant. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide any links or proof to support your argument.--68.197.45.237 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's one: WP:COMMONSENSE Jason Quinn (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Trishstar7. Whoop whoop pull up 16:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. This is not an epic film, and it's already got three genres in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The term "epic" was surely used in a loose manner by these sources.--Munin75 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. More than 5 legitimate sites have been referring to the film as "epic".--Bluescarred (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Seems to be used by sources loosely, and inclusion does not seem to benefit the article. Epics typically take place during wars, so in this case Mockingjay would be more of an epic than The Hunger Games. Glimmer721 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Term "epic" is being used in a way that does not relate to an epic film. Andrea (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep: You all have your own varying definitions of "epic" but critics have been calling this film epic. Specically a libertarian epic film. Here are examples of top film critics calling the film epic epic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluescarred (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete At a glance, the Rolling Stone review does not call it an epic film it says it has "epic spectacle" which is a bull term and nothing to do with it's genre. There is nothing epic about this film, it is a relatively small scale personal drama about a single individual, it covers a very short period of time, and it affects very little in the world at large. It basically fails all definition of being an epic film as mentioned above and instead seemingly being used to refer to quality or opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Website!

There has been a Hunger Games website made! Here's the link: http://thecapitol.pn/ Sorry... that was random... just thought you should know.. :P Have a great day! :D Thanks, FairHelp (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Katniss shoots Cato?

In the book, Katniss shoots Peeta's hand so that Peeta and Cato don't both fall. The plot summary here says Katniss shoots Cato. Is the film different in this respect? Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In both the book and the film, she does shoot Peeta in the hand. But after Cato falls to the mutts she also shoots him. Andrea (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, she shoots Cato's hand. Peeta gestures with his index finger (right in the film, it's not specified which in the book) to the back of Cato's (right) hand which is holding him in the headlock; Katniss shoots the back of Cato's hand, and Cato involuntarily releases Peeta as he feels the impact. Peeta then escapes and either pushes Cato, or Cato falls of his own accord, into the Mutts. Then as Andrea says, Katniss shoots him again as a mercy shot. Happy‑melon 09:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke—that's correct. She shoots Cato's hand. Andrea (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Blog used in 'Controversies' section

The blog used in the 'Controversies' section, Jezebel, is a blog with little or no editorial oversight and no reputation for fact-checking, so it fails the criteria for reliable secondary sources. I do not believe it should be used in the section. The section has plenty of citations to reputable news sources and can withstand some trimming of non-RS. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason the blog is being used is because the other sources for the section all use the Jezebel article as the starting point for the coverage of the racial controversy. Ordinarily I wouldn't use a blog as a source, but in this instance, the blog itself is the source for all secondary/third party sources covering the issue, which warrants inclusion. I believe the context of its use falls under WP:USERG and/or WP:SELFSOURCE. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise I removed the link to the article while still using the Huffington post and forbes links as indication the controversy was first observed by jezebel. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Merged Score from The Hunger Games: Songs from District 12 and Beyond to here

I did this based on the title of the page and the fact that there's more information on here for the score then on the page but it can be reverted if needed. Swifty* 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I just have a complaint regarding something in the "Critical Reception" section of the article. Where it says, "The Atlantic argues that the film stands a better chance at being nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture rather than Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 did, comparing it to The Dark Knight as "not only startlingly somber twists on the standard blockbuster, but offer resonant commentary about society, particularly government control and corruption. They are crowd-pleasers with something to say. And the Academy loves saying something." I mean, it just seems a little trite to me and sort of hypocritical. I mean, for example, The Lord of the Rings trilogy had nothing to do with "resonant commentary about society, government control and corruption" and yet the LotR was Oscar gold! Besides The Dark Knight was an excellent film and, unfortunately, it wasn't even nominated for Best Picture back in 2009. Not that this is a major deal or anything and I know you're just stating a well-known magazine's opinion on the subject, but I dont think it's really necessary to have it included in the article. It kind of seems as if it's stating that Harry Potter is less a movie than The Hunger Games and The Dark Knight. Yes, they're all very different movies but all equally good, multi-dimensional and entertaining. Still, it's just my perception, so please just take this into consideration. Thank You :) Moviebuff77 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)==

Adventure genre

I do not believe that one source calling this an 'adventure drama' is sufficient to change the genre entirely. So far we have agreed on 'science fiction action film' so I believe any further changes to genre will need to achieve a good consensus here first. Elizium23 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The film as well as the novel is an adventure story, let's see the elements of adventure in this film. 1. An exotic location, a jungle where Katniss has to survive. 2. The source material is well agreed an adventure story, in the hunger games novel it is listed under adventure, the book is more adventurous than the film, but the film is still adventurous. 3. Survival is the theme of many adventure films, such as Predator and others. 201.92.132.248 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that if the novel is classified as an "adventure" novel, then the movie (being a relatively well-made adaption) should be also. However, according to the article Adventure film, films seem to have a more precise way of defining the adventure genre. A novel that "has adventure, an exciting undertaking involving risk and physical danger, as its main storyline" (from Adventure novel) is a much more general description of the "adventure" genre that applies to novels. Although, I must say that I know very little of genre characteristics and these articles do not seem to be very well sourced. – Jonadin93 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is completely lacking basis in reality. The Hunger Games is not identified as an adventure novel, and rightly so. Nor are Predator (film) or any of its sequels; they are all rightly identified as 'sci-fi/action'. From the top tier of 'quality' reviews of THG we have it described as "fantasy thriller" , "sci fi/fantasy" and "sci-fi/action" , and classified under "sci-fi" and "action heroine" on BOM. I haven't seen any other sources supporting the adventure genre.

While I agree with Jonadin that adventure film is not very well sourced, how does THG in any way allow the viewer to "live vicariously through the travels, conquests, explorations, creation of empires, struggles and situations that confront the main characters"?? A temperate forest is hardly an "exotic location", and her presence there is in no way a quest or adventure; rather it is a setting for some really quite brutal (if carefully framed) action sequences. Portraying THG as an adventure contradicts both the balance of sources and common sense. Happy‑melon 00:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL @ Happy-melon's definition of Adventure. The Hunger Games is barely an action film, the fights are nothing like martial arts films or matrixesque, the fights are merely not part of the action genre, it's like listing a romantic comedy with catfight scenes as action because two women fight. I watched the movie twice and there is no action but an awesome EXOTIC ARENA OF A FORREST WITH Lots of travelling and hazards to face. It's an adventure film. 189.46.27.109 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol at the IP's belief that (links to copyvios removed) are not action scenes. :P Happy‑melon 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

rolmao. Those are action scenes? since when those kind of scenes are action scenes? by the way they are not long enough to constitute part of the action genre or an action scene as the genre requires. Lol Happy Melon may think Die Hard is romance, and Terminator 2 a war film lol~, go watch real action movies bub, hunger games is an adventure film, because it takes place in the arena, a forest, an exotic place, I have watched million action films and hunger games doesn't fit the genre 189.46.27.109 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear your opinion, to which you are of course welcome. I'll be even more glad to see you support your opinion with the balance of reliable sources. Happy‑melon 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/hunger-games-a-t-look-away-masterpiece-a-movie-article-1.1047256 i's a pretty clear source that lists it as adventure film that a certain "user" is ignoring. He might as well think casablanca is an action movie, actually, Harry Potter is more of an action film than Hunger games. 201.43.205.10 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Adventure" genre straw poll

Since this discussion is quickly becoming disorganized, I've decided to create a section to centralize all arguments and to hopefully obtain a consensus sometime soon. !Vote below. Evanh2008 21:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per multiple sources, though I think it's odd that some are acting as though "action" and "adventure" are mutually exclusive. They are not. Evanh2008 21:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - There are enough RELIABLE sources considering it adventure. 201.68.110.150 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per reliable sources cited. Elizium23 (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Let's be clear, the original discussion above was about the IP replacing "action" with "adventure", first with no source at all, and then in defiance of the balance of sources. Now we have reliable sources (the NYPost and Daily Mail sources below are reliable, the rest are blogs and SPSs) to support "adventure" in addition to "action", I have no problem with both being added; the fact that I don't personally believe it's an adventure is as irrelevant as the IP's belief that it's not action. As Evanh says, the two are not mutually exclusive. Happy‑melon 14:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm prepared to be bold and make the change here shortly, as I'm not seeing much opposition to it. Speak now, or hold your peace until consensus changes. Evanh2008 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is this for replacement or addition? Certainly

The Hunger Games is a 2012 American science fiction action adventure film

is overly verbose. It doesn't strike me as really an action film, either. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I probably should have specified when creating the poll. All the support votes so far seem to be indicative of an addition, not replacing "action". I don't think "action adventure" is overly verbose, as it is a commonly used phrase, but I can see your point that having "Science fiction" in there as well does make it look a bit cluttered. Where do the majority of RS's stand on it being a "Science fiction" film, anyway? I'll confess that I haven't looked into that part too much. Evanh2008 01:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It may not have flying cars or space travel, but it's science fiction. I'd say lose "action" in the lead. It always bugged me seeing it there, but I never addressed it. Bigger priorities. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The article Action film defines the action genre as "a film genre where one or more heroes is thrust into a series of challenges that require physical feats, extended fights and frenetic chases. They tend to feature a resourceful character struggling against incredible odds, which may involve life-threatening situations, an evil villain, and/or being pursued, with victory achieved at the end after difficult physical efforts and violence." Does that not match up with the film, in your opinion? (Of course, RS's are going to play a major role in whatever the genre classification ends up being, but individual input should be valued, too.) I've not actually seen the film, so I'm not sure I can offer anything of great importance to the conversation. Evanh2008 01:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Action films usually have certain expectations this one does not meet. One can debate that, but we do not list every genre a film can be considered to be in the lead - because it would be overly verbose. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Put me down as being against calling it a science fiction action adventure film in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per reliable sources. 201.68.108.192 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't put genres up for a vote as that is not how wikipedia works. Find me rules suggesting voting is how this is handled and it should remain. As we don't have a citation for this, I suggest we remove it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourced stuff, there are other sources calling this an adventure film. By the way, Katniss goes to an exotic placer (a forest), something the characters of Inglourious Basterds don't do. I don't think this is action, as the lord of the rfilms have 45 minutes of action and are not considered action films for imdb, but they have 100000x more action than this film and leon the professional. By the way, Hunger Games has 1000000000x more adventure than inglourious basterds. 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.150.125 (talk)

Please note the above edit and adventure edit is from an IP hopping vandal who likes being a genre warrior and all edits by IP hopping vandals are to be deleted. See User:Pé de Chinelo and this]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My name is mentioned in this entry incorrectly. I am a reporter for the Independent Tribune who wrote an article about Andy Langford's paper regarding religious themes in "The Hunger Games." He lives in Concord, NC and is the one making this statement, but I am not. The article may be found and cited correctly using this link: http://www2.independenttribune.com/lifestyles/2012/mar/21/pastors-find-religious-themes-hunger-games-ar-2071082/. Thank you, Jessica Groover 166.82.227.114 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done thank you for bringing this to our attention. Elizium23 (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequel record

The article states that "it set records for opening day ($67.3 million) and opening weekend for a non-sequel, both which were later surpassed by The Avengers," but The Avengers is a sequel film. Our own article on it lists it as the sixth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series, and Box Office Mojo lists it under "Series: Avengers." I think we should either remove the second half of the sentence (simply stating that Hunger Games set the non-sequel record at the time, which is definitely true, and ignoring whether or not it still holds that record), or remove the sentence entirely. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I support the former proposition. There is no compelling reason to note that it has been surpassed. Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the former; I'm not convinced that it has been surpassed, as you say; but we definitely have sources to confirm that it was a record at the time without speculating as to which of its successors might have surpassed it. Happy‑melon 10:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add cat "2010s adventure films" per Please?

201.43.205.10 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Don't see a reason why it shouldn't be added. Done. Monty₈₄₅ 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted; see #Adventure genre above. And it's not even the right year. Happy‑melon 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy-melon, the 2010S is the decade not the year friend. By the logic, we should also remove 2010s science fiction films, 2010s thriller films, 2010s action films cats as well lol because HG is of 2012. lol /facepalm. 201.43.205.10 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh have they finally got rid of the individual year categories? Good. So now it's just lacking in consensus rather than outright wrong. Happy‑melon 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, there was never a consensus why this movie is action, they just tagged it with action cats because some people wer calling it action. they are wrong. First off, it's not up to consensus, if I give a source, and that is reliable, I can use it there was no consensus to classify Black Swan as a Horror film and yet the horror genre has been accepted because the source has the director saying it is a horror film. So, only somethings are up to consensus, I gave you a cite, please add cat "2010s adventure films" and "American adventure drama films", 201.27.171.33 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

happy-melon doesn't agree this is an adventure film even though it is set in adventure jungle full of hazards and the info sources and 2010s adventure films is the decade of the film and not the year. I suggest the readding of the 2010S adventure films, as the "ingenuous" Happy-Mellon doesn't know the difference between 2010 and 2010s. Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/hunger-games-a-t-look-away-masterpiece-a-movie-article-1.1047256 201.43.205.10 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

201.43.205.10 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave the {{esp}} template up because it's a good way of attracting more eyes to the discussion, but I would be surprised to see anyone support it. As noted above the claim that this is an adventure film is dubious by common sense, but is more importantly unsupported by the balance of reliable sources. Happy‑melon 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Sci-Fi-Action-Adventure", "dytopic adventure", "sci-fi adventure" & "science-fiction action-adventure for girls". Seems sufficient. IMDb (non-RS) agrees. Dru of Id (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller"
• "This cracking adventure of the future"
• "adventure literature" (referring to the book on which it's based) Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So can anyone add "2010s adventure films" cat since we have enough sources considering The Hunger Games an Adventure film?; 201.68.113.187 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are sources that support "adventure" genre does not mean it will be added; see above where there are adequate sources to support the "epic" description but people opposed it based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Elizium23 (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't like that they added Horror to Black Swan, but they added because the poster gave a reliable source. I am giving a reliable source saying THG is an adventure film. 201.68.113.187 (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: No consensus for change Mdann52 (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are enough sources listing The Hunger Games as Adventure film. If they can add Horror to Black Swan, You can add Adventure for Hunger Games. It's not a matter of consensus.

Bump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.108.147 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

201.68.113.187 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Consensus forms the basis of everything we do on Misplaced Pages. Rivertorch (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I have taken the liberty of nominating this article for WP:GA. I hope it is not premature. Now until the evaluation begins would be a good time to review the article for ourselves, tighten up anything that needs tightening, and of course settle the minor dispute above regarding the "adventure" genre. I think that with a little effort, this can easily pass GA requirements. Elizium23 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hunger Games (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 06:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

First set of comments

I shall take a look at the lead for now, and its not satisfactory.

• The lead is emphasizing too heavily on the plot. The paragraph needs trimming, and should ideally be merged with the first paragraph.

• The lead is not summarizing the article at all. There is no mention of the filming process, effects, preparations etc. that should be summarized. This is important, so please fix it quickly.

I'm sorry for not being able to take up a more thorough review at the moment; I'll be back in a couple of hours and continue the review. I saw the Plot section and its excellent, so that's two parts down. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the inactivity of this review despite a note on the nominator's talk, I am failing this article. Pity, since this had real potential. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think it needs some more time to get to a stable version anyway. There are a number of recent/ongoing disputes on the talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 02:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Catching Fire Movie Page

Is it time for Catching Fire to receive its own page now that we have quite a bit of information such as new directors, plot, casting, filming location, release dates, etc? Wormow (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not according to WP:NFF. Evanh2008 08:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's the criteria? Wormow (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to that link I posted, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles ... nformation on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." So, for now, let's keep the majority of the information at Catching Fire, with occasional updates to this article when appropriate. Evanh2008 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Joshua L. Weinstein (March 16, 2011). "Exclusive: Jennifer Lawrence Gets Lead Role in 'The Hunger Games'". The Wrap. Retrieved March 17, 2011.
2. Sperling, Nicole (April 4, 2011). "'The Hunger Games': Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth complete the love triangle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
3. ^ Schaefer, Sandy (MaOkay 11, 2011). "'The Hunger Games' Casts Its Cato & Clove". Screen Rant. Retrieved May 11, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. ^ Ward, Kate (April 18, 2011). "'Hunger Games' casts Thresh and Rue -- Exclusive". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 18, 2011.
5. ^ Fleming, Mike (April 19, 2011). "'Hunger Games' Sets Leven Rambin For Glimmer Role". Deadline.com. Retrieved April 22, 2011.
6. Ng, Philiana (April 29, 2011). "'Hunger Games' Casts Its Foxface". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 8, 2011.
7. Valby, Karen (April 26, 2011). "'The Hunger Games': District 3 Tributes cast". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
8. http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/03/23/the-hunger-games-vs-battle-royale/
9. http://kotaku.com/5896673/before-there-was-the-hunger-games-japan-had-this
10. Dominus, Susan (April 8, 2011). "Suzanne Collins's War Stories for Kids". The New York Times. Retrieved November 14, 2011.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class science fiction articles
• Low-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles
• Former good article nominees