Talk:The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lkhk32, Hadasam. Peer reviewers: FatimaSani21, Ivitello, LorraineRodz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources required for cast members

Until the film is released, we need to ensure that a reliable secondary source is provided for each cast member. This particularly applies to those who did not appear in the first film. Please think twice before adding actors who are not notable: a good rule of thumb here is to check whether they have a Wikipedia article already. Cast members without a source, or actors and characters who are not particularly notable, are subject to removal. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All the tributes from the 75th Game have been cast: https://www.facebook.com/TheHungerGamesMovie/app_432927770063734 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.178.105 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I added some actors/actresses who were announced on the Facebook page but can't get them to all point to the same reference link, instead it has posted the link several times rather than abcdefg. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelrichardscott (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, the cast should be sufficiently notable for inclusion here, and your additions had no associated Wikipedia articles for the actors, and were all bit parts in the film; furthermore, Facebook is not a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had no idea that there were rules discerning which cast members may be listed and which cannot. As someone new to adding to Wikipedia, can you please point me to these guidelines? As with regards to facebook not being a reliable secondary source, I would generally agree. However, in this case, it is the official facebook page of the movie. Are there guidelines as to what sources may be used? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelrichardscott (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:FILMCAST is a bit outdated; there is actually a discussion for an overhaul on the talk page. If we were to apply it now, the working draft says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." That wording (and the rest of the draft) has gotten positive feedback so far, so I think it reflects the modern consensus that we need to bring to the guidelines. I would say that "District X Boy/Girl" roles are too minor to mention. Named roles are tricky because they're characters articulated in the book, but that may not be the case in the film itself. What we have now seems like it covers a good number of actors and roles already. I notice from current coverage that it has been noticed that the minor roles are performed by stunt people, so perhaps we could have a sentence or two mentioning that rather than listing the unknowns. I would also recommend formatting the cast list to have two columns. Hope that helps! Erik (talk | contribs) 22:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Erik. I am just testing some waters at the moment and as I become more comfortable I will take a real stab at an article. Thanks (Samuelrichardscott (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Sure, let me know if you have any other questions! :) It's another set of ropes to learn, I know, in addition to the standard editing sort. :) MOS:FILM has all of our guidelines. You can also go to WT:FILM for help with different film-related topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we remove the citations for actors and the infobox people. Now that the film is released the film is the primary source and needs no citations if taken from the filmAbramTerger (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible Extra Info

Possible extra info that could be added onto the page:

- Filming is now in Hawaii for the arena scenes and they're gonna finish off their by December - X-Men filming is now being moved to April instead (why did they take so long to move the date? cf filming seems so rushed now) - The Catching Fire logo reveal debuted infront of BD Part 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.93.192 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Awards

Catching Fire was nominated for most anticipated film of 2013 on Yahoo!'s 2012 Ultimate Movies and I'm not sure if it should be added onto this page or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not an award nomination per se or an award of any sorts, it's just a internet poll for social media and should not be considered as anything else. So no, it should not be added.-2nyte (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Development Section

Should I create a section for the development of the series? Or someone else can go ahead and do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how bold you are feeling. I say go for it! :) MisterShiney ✉ 07:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Budget

According to Forbes budget is rumored to be twice that of the first film at around $150 million (Also Yahoo UK mentions double the budget. Rumor is not enough to add it to the article though. The point of the Forbes article is to expect the sequel to make less money than the $400 million* the first made, that if it costs $150 and manages make $350* it could hardly be called a flop. [* US Domestic]
LA Times and Variety are usually the best sources for production budget. (The Hollywood Reporter sometimes gets it right too. Box Office Mojo has a habit of rounding to near figures.) -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Variety put the budget at [about $140 million. It is not clear why the figure of $130 million from Box Office Mojo has been accepted without discussion. I have seen them get it wrong enough other times that I do not consider them a reliable source only good enough to give a rough estimate. The Variety.com source should be restored and it should be made clear that the budget is estimated at between $130 and $140. Wikipedia must be more rigorous and stop accepting Box Office Mojo as a single source, especially when other sources disagree. -- 93.107.198.92 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Budget figures removed again without even a polite effort to explain the delete with an edit summary.

There is no good reason to favor Box Office Mojo over sources like Variety. -- 109.79.124.109 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you. I'll revert the edit now and invite User:Kyle121101 to add to this discussion if perhaps we're missing something and shouldn't include Variety's figure for a solid reason. iMatthew / talk 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

BoxOffice.com strikes back

This comes up far too often in budget discussions and people add BoxOffice.com in good faith to the budget figures in the Infobox. It should not be added to the Infobox. It may be appropriate to mention it in the Box Office section of an article.

The convention, the consensus, is to include the production budget in the Infobox. There are some questions and disputes if this figures should include the numbers before or after regional tax breaks and subsidies have been applied but often sources are not clear enough for use to even make those distinctions.

The small print on BoxOffice.com explains that their figures also include P&A costs, which is the cost of Prints and Advertising so their figures will be higher than The-Numbers or BoxOfficeMojo. This extra information is often worth including in the Box Office section of the article, even better if you can find other sources such as TheHollywoodReporter, Variety, LA Times, Forbes, or others that have mentioned this figures.

Summary: Do not include BoxOffice.com in the Infobox. -- 109.76.38.59 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Discussions in the past have centered on the overall consistency of using the well-established WP:RS Box Office Mojo. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Running Time

According to this article, the theater that listed this running time confirmed it with Lionsgate. http://thgaustralia.com/2013/09/23/official-catching-fire-running-time-is-2-hours-26-minutes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoIsAnonymous (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since people are moving it back and forth, it may be best to delete the runtime line from the Infobox. Let's wait until the movie is actually released to see what the is final/actual runtime.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia disallows the wikia IMDb to be used as a reference citation

Really? IMDb is being used as a reference on several other articles. --Space simian (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide examples? This is a community consensus not to use IMDb as a citation, although absolutely for an external link. See WP:RS/IMDB. BOVINEBOY2008 22:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim"

As established in countless WP:FILM talk-page discussions, WP:TONE and [{WP:PEACOCK]] preclude the use of the term "critical acclaim" for any but acknowledged classics that have stood the test of time, and rarely even then. This was hashed out in particular in the talk page discussion for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2#Critical reception. There, as elsewhere, WikiProject film is moving away from subjective interpretations ("mixed to positive" has been especially contentious) and toward simply giving the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic numbers and consensuses. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The last part is not true. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." So if the Los Angeles Times states that the film has been critically acclaimed, we can state that and attribute that to the paper. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added commentary to the start of this section per the guidelines. If there are any comments or suggestions about the commentary so far, let's have them here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the contextual commentary should go at the beginning of the section. We are able to state the general consensus in clear terms. Why would we muddle through the figures before stating in a nutshell what critics think? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's normal in any outline to go in linear fashion, in this case from general to specific. RT and Metacritic are broader and more general than The Hollywood Reporter or Entertainment Weekly, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, we're actually in agreement about subjective interpretations. I was referring to Wikipedia editors' subjective interpretations, not comments attributable to reliable sources like the LA Times, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but is saying that the reviews being positive overall not more general than the RT/MC figures? I really do think we serve readers better by saying in clear language how the film is being received. The breakdown seems like a specific element that can come after, especially with so much easily-digestible commentary available. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about two different things then. Whether one finds prose encapsulation clearer than statistics is each editor's personal preference; different people will find one or the other clearer. Personally, I find objective numbers much, much clearer than prose statements.

But that's a whole 'nother discussion from that of outline formatting, in which it's generally a linear progression: most simple to progressively more complex, general to specific, local to national to international, etc. In that respect, RT and Metacritic are more general than what any one specific magazine would say. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I came to comment on this matter because of this notification, though I'd already seen this discussion. My opinion? I feel that there should be a lead-in summary in the Critical reception section stating that the film received generally positive reviews (or similar wording), and that we should not use WP:INTEXT attribution for it; I feel that it should be supported by at least three WP:Reliable sources, so that there is nothing to question with regard to the "generally positive" report; there is nothing to question regardless on that front, given the overwhelmingly positive Rotten Tomatoes score and the Metacritic score; in fact, the Metacritic score can be one of the multiple sources used to support the lead-in summary. I feel that the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic commentary/scores should come after that, which is an approach that is still standard practice for Wikipedia Critical reception sections, despite some WP:FILM members now fighting against it. Like this and this recent discussion about this matter at WP:FILM shows, there is no consensus on Wikipedia with regard to this topic, not even among WP:FILM members. (Actually, well, WP:FILM members, including me, all seem to agree not to use wording such as "mixed to negative" and that including the Rotten Tomatoes consensus upfront or otherwise is fine.) So, yes, that's how I feel about this topic and will continue to feel about it. It doesn't make sense to me to state in the second paragraph, after the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, that the film did well with critics; that bit then comes across as an afterthought.

This article and therefore this talk page currently are not on my WP:Watchlist. So I'll check back in on them every now and then. Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the The Hollywood Reporter text is currently redundant with regard to the Metatcritic text. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! Regarding Metacritic, we could exclude the "generally favorable reviews" mention since it's already covered and just focus on the figures. For example, we can state that there were 42 positive reviews and 4 mixed reviews to reflect the general distribution (in addition to the "metascore" of 75). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22, and in general thanks for your good contributions at the Film Project overall. RE: "I feel that the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic commentary/scores should come after that." May I ask why after? There's no actual reason given --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Tenebrae. I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I very much didn't feel like getting into a debate at that time. I did give an answer for that bit you've queried: I stated that "is an approach that is still standard practice for Wikipedia Critical reception sections" and "It doesn't make sense to me to state in the second paragraph, after the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, that the film did well with critics; that bit then comes across as an afterthought." The lead-in summary of "received generally positive reviews" (or something like that) is, well, the lead-in; and like all lead-ins, we then go into details after that. To state "The film received generally positive reviews" after giving the details is a "duh" matter (meaning that it is quite obvious to anyone who has read the details that the film received generally positive reviews). Sure, one can argue something similar for not including the lead-in summary at all -- it is obvious to anyone who reads the details -- but the details need to at least make clear that the film is generally well received, not just well received at [this or that site]; it didn't do that before. And now that it does, The Hollywood Reporter text is wholly redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please STOP editing Catching Fire to 'generally' positive critical reviews. Generally positive is what Mockingjay at 66% received. Catching Fire received 89% - this is highly positive, not general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.185.67.126 (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Time aspect incorrect

Francis Lawrence confirmed at CinemaCon that shooting for Catching Fire has ended and editing is currently in session.

This is wrong because it's no longer true and it doesn't encyclopedic. It sounds like a vanity news puff piece. 173.231.137.86 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RELTIME is important. Also WP:NOTNEWS. The word "currently" should almost never appear in an encyclopedia, the edit should never have been phrased that way in the first place as it would inevitably go out of date. Be specific and say _when_ if it is important, otherwise leave out the time words. Editors have fixed this but it is a mistake that happens far too often. -- 93.107.198.92 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Plot summary

I think there is a significant portion of the plot being left out in the plot summary. The current summary goes from the reaping straight to the beginning of the games. A large part of the film takes place between these two events. My edit, in which I inserted the part of the plot I thought was missing, got deleted completely. I am aware that, ideally, plot summaries should not exceed 700 words. However, I believe that a substantial amount of the story is being sacrificed because of this rule. Is there a way the plot section can be extended to give a more thorough summary of the events? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Every movie based on a pop-culture property goes through this, with every fan thinking that a movie they like should be the exception. Believe me, WikiProject Film goes through this all the time. If Titanic (1997 film) and MIssion: Impossible — Ghost Protocol — to name just two long films with very involved plots — can be summarized in 700 words, so can this. If something truly important to the plot is missing, find a way to word something else in more general terms. This film's plot, like any other, can fit within WP:FILMPLOT. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this. I'll leave the summary as it is. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is probably room to tighten up the phrasing and include a few more plot points while keeping under 700 words. (I felt there was room to fit the savage beating of Cinna, a plot point again showing the cruelty of the regime.) The plot is a bit tedious at the moment, if we are serious about cutting down to the core plot points, it seems unnecessary to use full names and get into the specific of explaining districts. The level verbosity and some of specifics seem a little strange if we are careful to exclude information from the books, and only go by what is actually shown in the film. (Which is why I say Cinna was beaten but make no assumptions about his death.) No doubt the section will be rewritten many times in the next few weeks, I hope it gets better rather than worse. -- 109.78.63.100 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Another edit added some good plot points but they were reverted for the sake of brevity. I hope some more of the verbiage can be cut out and some of those plot points can be incorporated in a succinct way. -- 93.107.68.125 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's 632 words as of this moment, so there's a fair amount of room to add details. Two tricks to trim without changing content are: 1) Remove that word "that" when you can — a sentence will often read the same without it. 2) Change passive voice to active voice: "The cat was pick up by John" > "John picked up the cat" saves two words and makes for a more dynamic sentence. Old writers' trick. Ahem, old writers' "technique." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if any of my edits/reverts have come off as harsh or possessive, that wasn't my intention whatsoever. I tried to incorporate some of the plot points from that diff back into the summary. Namely, I've re-included the points about the wedding dress in the interview/Cinna being beaten, and the actions taken in completing Beetee's plan. It's up to 703 words, which is good. I don't think the conversation on the train between P/K or the fact that they slept together to comfort each other are really crucial plot points but if others think so, we can work on getting them in there. iMatthew / talk 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Brought it from 703 to 678 virtually entirely by rephrasing to trim verbiage without changing content. The one content item I did change was a sentence with parallel structure comparing "intelligent tributes" vs. "a female tribute" -- I presume no one meant to suggest female tributes are unintelligent. (Also, like the Olympic Games, a proper noun referred to as "the Games," wouldn't the proper-noun Hunger Games also be referred to as "the Games" with cap G?) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! I've never been really sure if "games" or "Games" would be correct but given your example, I'm more convinced that a capital G is the way to go. iMatthew / talk 22:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning out the verbiage, it definitely reads better now. iMatthew your reverts were reasonable, (wasn't my edits you reverted) but out so sight is out of mind and often reverting or deleting does not push people to improve articles. Copyediting takes a lot more work than deleting. Clearly though you are making the effort, and thanks for working to include more details, Cinna being beaten now has proper context.

Shame the article is locked again, so much for openness. -- 109.79.124.109 (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's been on the receiving end of a lot of vandalism lately. Of course you are able to make an account, though! iMatthew / talk 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles should got to reviewed edits before going to a full lock. If Wikipedia is going to continue to claim to be open and interested in a wider base of contributors. If everyone has to get an account so be it, but frankly the current approach is half-assed, inconsistent, and just adds to the cliquey mess that puts people off editing wikipedia. -- 109.79.124.109 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request "Overseas"

WP:MOSFILM#Box_office specifically warns editors to be careful about phrases like domestic, and to refer to other territories as "international" but unfortunately this article is yet another example of editors who think it is appropriate to describe everyone outside of North America as "overseas". This shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. Articles should be set to flagged edits requiring review before they are locked -- if Wikipedia is going to continue to claim to be open -- so I shouldn't have to ask someone else to edit it either. -- 109.76.110.108 (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Production Notes

Official production notes from Lionsgate are here: http://www.lionsgatepublicity.com/uploads/assets/CATCHING%20FIRE%20FINAL%20PRODUCTION%20NOTES%20PDF.pdf

Who wants to take the honor of filling the article up with all the info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Another remarcable review

Website "Reviews and the city" gave a three-and-half stars (out of five). The critic said: "” The Hunger Games : Catching Fire ” shares some of the errors of the first part, but attenuated". Also said: "where ” The Hunger Games ” is beginning to stumble past the initial 40 minutes, which is where it comes in line with the first part" and "in the next hour cloned portions of its predecessor : play a game again , again should get allies , one more time survival , training, etc. . There are some details here and there, and several accelerated things for no rating as an exact repetition , but fails to modify the heated substance". He concludes "Perhaps the error of ” The Hunger Games : Catching Fire ” is the audience : the franchise quickly became a huge phenomenon , whereby one believed that now then was the time of the rebellion and epic battles , The style of Helm’s Deep “Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers .” Instead, it is a sequel in the strict term : a repetition of the formula of ” The Hunger Games ” without being better or worse" and "“Catching Fires ” should be enjoyed from entertainment and therefore qualifies three-and-half stars out of five, but does not hold either individually or together" http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/68127617255/the-hunger-games-catching-fire-film-review

Thedefinitivewiki (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this appears to be a blog, and the writing is so poor as to be almost unintelligible. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Quarter Quell

"Snow announces Panem's third Quarter Quell, a version of the Hunger Games every 25 years that contains a special provision: all tributes are selected from the existing pool of victors."

Could someone edit this to make it more specific? Not every Quarter Quell returns previous victors to the arena, just the 75th Hunger Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoIsAnonymous (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, and all taken care of. Thanks! iMatthew / talk 05:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote box

The quote by Erik Feig, Lionsgate’s President of Production, is just a press-release promotional blurb, written by the publicity department and not intended to illuminate but simply as a marketing tool. It's not something he said to the press where he could be questioned, challenged and asked to specify and clarify. I'm not sure what the encyclopedic value is of publishing something that the movie's publicity department would love to see given the imprimatur and gravitas of being in an encyclopedia — in a special box, no less! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Italics

An anon IP appears to believe it's common practice to italicize a proper noun in footnotes but then not italicize it in text. Nowhere in any standard footnote formatting or any standard grammar or style is the same proper noun italicized in one place and not italicized in another. Not only does that go against Wikipedia consensus for years — in which Rotten Tomatoes is not italicized — but it goes against standard grammar to both italicize and not italicize the very same words in the same document. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not care even slightly about using bold or italics, as I said in the edit summary I care that publisher information be included in references. I am simply using Template:Cite web and allowing it to automatically apply formatting in a standard and consistent way.

To show good faith I have included extra italic marks to override the formatting the Template applies. I hope this will satisfy your requirements and be enough that you will not delete the publisher information.

Rotten Tomatoes might not be biased but I think it is better to make it clear they are published by Warner Bros. and also to make it clear that Metacritic is published by CBS. In the past Sony went so far as to make up a fake critic so I think caution is warranted, and the extra detail is worth including. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly a fair middle ground. In fact, if we put both entities — Rotten Tomatoes and Warner Bros. — within the the "publisher" field, we don't even have to insert countervailing italics to Romanize them. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot section

I have restored the plot to a good version which was achieved in November. Unfortunately that version did not have wikilinks, so I went through and wikified it. The links to the districts (District 12, District 7, etc) (see this revision) were removed and I wish to have them restored. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The current Plot Summary still has problems, relying on readers to already know the story. For example, Snow is described as being furious at Katniss over "what she did" during the Hunger Games, but the summary does not describe what she did. Later it says Johanna cut out Katniss's "tracker"; no explanation of what a tracker is or why Johanna did that. Plot Summaries should be written on the assumption that the reader does not know background and has come to Wikipedia to find out. 71.59.43.26 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The guideline that we work with is 400-700 words allowed for plot synopsis. I agree that we can explain what a tracker is, preferably by a wikilink such as Real-time locating system. However, I do not agree that we should use valuable space explaining what Katniss did in the 74th Hunger Games, because this plot synopsis is for the film, and to my recollection, the film is very economical in explaining what Katniss did, I think there is a visual-only shot of her sharing Nightlock berries with Peeta, and that's about it. Again, a wikilink to the plot synopsis of the first Hunger Games film should suffice here, or at most a couple of words about her suicide attempt. Right now, the plot is 646 words, so we actually do have some space to use. Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, Elizium23 is referring to WP:FILMPLOT...though WP:FILMPLOT does make exceptions for extending the word count beyond 700 words, and also suggests that editors "[d]iscuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with my colleagues Elizium23 and Flyer22. I'd go further and note that the exception is primarily for films with a particularly complicated structure, like the flash-forward / flashback non-linear narrative of Pulp Fiction. Many of us have found that with genre films in particular, fans want to get in as many details as possible and have often written 900- to 1,200-word plots. (This one is 633 at the moment, we've plenty of margin.) Yet even films as long and as plot-heavy as Titanic and Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol, Wikipedia editors have been able to keep the word-count to 700 without sacrificing encyclopedic details. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Critical Acclaim/Positive Reviews

Just what is the criteria for whether a film has received critical acclaim or positive reviews?

Doesn't really make any sense on why this film has 'received positive reviews' when it very obviously has been critically acclaimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, we need to directly attribute the overall critical response. The Hollywood Reporter, CNN, and Entertainment Weekly reported their overviews in the second paragraph, but I have moved them up so we do not need to worry about paraphrasing if that is an issue. The terms "critical acclaim" and "positive reviews" need to be sourced to something if at all possible. We cannot determine for ourselves what it is; it is original research. Any paraphrasing needs to be clearly based on the given source(s). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When I look at any other film the RT/Meta/aggregate-reviewers paragraph is first, followed by specific individual reviews. That MOS should really be followed. The only question is what defines critical acclaim or positive reviews.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: The guidelines do not state that we have to put Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic upfront. It is just a standard to usually report the consensus upfront, and we do not need Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic to do that. RT and MC are useful to report the general breakdown of reviews, although RT is weaker because it does not bother to state any middle ground, just if a review is positive or negative. That's why films like this one and The Avengers will look better on Rotten Tomatoes than on Metacritic, which can categorize reviews as "mixed". We need to be able to attribute claims of critical acclaim or positive reviews to a source. We cannot just try to figure out how to interpret Rotten Tomatoes's score to that end. Also pinging 109.78.203.40. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit claiming negative responses was utter nonsense and should have been reverted on sight. I have manually deleted it since (if you revert my edit, you must be sure to revert that earlier nonsense too). It is not in any way supported by sources, it is contradicted by CinemaScore. It has incited I do not see the need for reordering of the critical response section. The prose overview is fine but it is overcomplicating things to present it before the simpler overview provided by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Also briefly discussed on my temporary talk page, but comments about articles are better placed on article talk pages. The way I read the discussion on WP:MOSFILM was to not say "critical acclaim" at all and just stick with "positive". -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Rotten Tomatoes says 25 reviews out of 240 are negative... though Metacritic only identifies positive and mixed reviews, nothing negative. Most films are not going to be immaculate in their critical reception; there's frequently a kind of mix. At what point is a film "critically acclaimed", anyway? What source would we use to base such a claim? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

On rare occasions Metacritic says ~ critical acclaim ~ in their descriptive overview. For 12 years a slave they wrote "universal acclaim". I see no other reason to use that wording unless it is directly sourced, feels too much like hyperbole otherwise. On the other end of the scale, you wouldn't call a film "a flop" without direct sources. Keep it simple and decisive, it is an overview, redundant to say "generally" or "overall", just say negative, mixed, or positive. The numbers and the reviews that follow will provide further detail and clarity if it is needed.

Walking_with_Dinosaurs_(film)#Critical_reception is well written but I'd still put Rotten Tomatoes before the more prosaic and descriptive overviews. -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In the #"Critical acclaim" discussion above, I've already stated my feelings on how the Critical reception section should be. This format that is currently in the article is the better format in my opinion (with the exception of the redundant The Hollywood Reporter text). That the film received generally positive reviews is clear. And, Erik, Metacritic does indeed state that a film has received generally negative reviews, just like it states "generally favorable reviews" or "mixed or average reviews." Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it extremely odd that the text reads "generally<!-- Do not add equivocations. --> positive reviews". "Generally" is an equivocation. So either remove the equivocation or modify the hidden comment. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP with the 109. range added that hidden note, which is more so aimed at wording like "critically acclaimed." As noted above on the talk page, I support use of "generally." Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have adjusted the comment accordingly. Elizium23 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cast Lists

I ordered the cast in the order they were billed in the film and pruned the cast list to just those billed per WP:FILMCAST guidelines. I also removed names from the infobox that were not in the billing block per Template:Infobox film guidelinesAbramTerger (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed all the extra unbilled actors per WP:CASTLIST. I also removed all the overlinking. The linking of the people with articles is fine. linking the rest to the same article seems overkill to me since there is a link at the top to the article.AbramTerger (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Caesar Flickerman Track 30

Trying to do some research on the official score. To my knowledge, there was an 8 minute, Track 30, called Caesar Flickerman. However, the lists I quickly looked up only lists 29 tracks at the moment. The following track from youtube (Found on two other official scores) is the only source I have, besides memory of seeing it on Itunes for a short period of time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJU2j9unf80 I've tried comparing it to variations of War from Brass Hypnotic Ensemble, but it doesn't appear to be a loop or a tasteful mashup. Any information would be great? (Lawsuit removal, official recreation from James Howard, forgery) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.64.183 (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

Hello, I understood that Mags sacrificed herself so that Finnick could help carry Peeta (who was required by the plan to accompany Katniss) after he succumbed to the poison and Katniss was too weak to carry him by herself Perhaps change 'Mags sacrifices herself so as to avoid slowing them down' to 'Mags sacrifices herself so Finnick could help Katniss carry the incapacitated Peeta' way526 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mags had no way of knowing when she sacrificed herself that Finnick would later have to help Peeta. You are entitled to your point of view, but articles on Wikipedia need to maintain a neutral point of view. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It was right there in the moment of the scene, though, not "later". Peeta couldn't walk, Katniss says she can't carry him, and Mags takes off into the acid fog; total time elapsed is less than 10 seconds. It's not like it's an abstract "may have to help him hours from now" it was right then, in the scene, mere seconds before she killed herself. At that point in the film, the plan and Peeta's inadvertent place in it have not yet been revealed, but even without that knowledge, it's a quick series of events and statements that are connected. And it directly relates to later plot points about the escape plan including Peeta to motivate Katniss.

I would argue, however, that Mags's motivation isn't presented out loud, so the IP's suggested edit I would tweak to say: "Mags sacrifices herself in the acid fog, allowing Finnick to help Katniss carry the incapacitated Peeta." This shows the sequence of events without assuming her motivation. If some feel that "sacrafices herself" specifically is too interpretative, it would be easy to tweak that half of the sentence ("walks to her death in the acid fog" might be one solution). Millahnna (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars in Infobox

I have again rounded the Box Office dollars per MOS:LARGENUM. If there are reasons for us to NOT use the established WP style, let's discuss and come to a consensus about the reasons for the deviation. Styles are established to try and maintain consistency between articles.AbramTerger (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Rounded date again, no indication given for wanting to deviate from MOS:LARGENUM. AbramTerger (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lkaliba: I agree with rounding the box office figures per the guidelines; see the link above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I looked at List of highest-grossing films and the movies within them. None of them are rounded. MOS:LARGENUM does not apply, the value is an exact number as reported by Box Office Mojo, not an approximation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where do you think that MOS:LARGENUM is indicated to be not applicable to grosses? If you had looked at the source information to the link you provided, some are clearly approximations even though the total is reported to the dollar. I did not check all, but 4 of the top 5 films are approximate totals. The foreign dollars are often rounded making the total an approximation. And even if they were exact, what is the point of needing the values to the nearest dollar?AbramTerger (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that "unimportant for the article's purposes" is what best applies here. For list of highest-grossing films, I think it is more relevant to write out the full figures there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the articles of those films, not at the list itself. When I look at the film articles they have gross to the dollar, not rounded.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That just means these articles need to have their figures rounded as well. Please understand, Wikipedia for many years has written the full figures across many film articles. I personally started rounding a year or two ago on articles that I develop, both because it is more directly readable (seeing "million" instead of five unimportant figures) and because reliable sources that cover films' box offices performances do round as well. MOS:LARGENUM was not a guideline I cited at the time, but now it makes sense to apply it to film articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lkaliba: Please discuss and gain consensus before choosing to go against established guidelines.AbramTerger (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: I think that it is best that we should keep the full figures across the film articles because that's how it's been done on Wikipedia, and also the box office performances don't round they give the exact amount of what the film has made worldwide. (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Lkaliba, doing something for a long time does not necessarily mean we should continue doing that thing. As for rounding, it is the database sources that do not round box office figures. However, sources that write prose do round. If you Google "box office", you will find examples like this that perform rounding. It is more direct language for the reader. It does not add anything to include the five unimportant figures. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lkaliba:Some of Box Office Mojo are rounded (esp the foreign contribution) so when added the total becoms approximate, making even more reason for not using an inexact value. You have still not provided a reason to deviate from the established WP style for rounding large numbers. As editors, we should try and adhere to styles to maintain consistency and deviate only when there is a justifiable reason and consensus of opinions to do so. AbramTerger (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lkaliba:If you are going to continue an edit war without discussing, justifying, and/or gaining a consensus before going against established style, do we have to take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would hope that this could be done via discussion, but you don't seem to leave much leeway.AbramTerger (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lkaliba:Could you please discuss and try and gain consensus. You have not provided a reason why you want to go against the established established style. When there are valid reasons to go against style, we do so, otherwise we keep to the style for consistency.AbramTerger (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger: Fine do it your way, it doesn't really matter to me anymore (talk) 9:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lkaliba: Just it clarify, it is not my way, it is the style chosen by wikipedia.AbramTerger (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@65.188.237.83: I rounded the dollars per established style guidlines. What are your reasons for wanting to go against the established style and add more figures? If there is we can discuss here and get a consensus before changing.AbramTerger (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How come there is no MPAA film rating posted?

Since censorship in the United States is one of the key methods for preventing media from being produced in the U.S. and in many other countries, how come there is no MPAA film rating for this film listed? In fact, why isn't the film's MPAA rating a standardized listing for movies' Infobox information, in general? Isn't this the first thing that even determines whether a film gets released, or for those people with children who may want to use Wikipedia as a source of information to review a movie, to determine whether they want their children to view the film content. It would be very helpful in that regard. It would also serve to enlighten the Wikipedia userbase as to why some films do well at the boxoffice and others flounder or fail... But it certainly ought to be included in this article and it ought to be a standardized part of the Infobox information... Less is not more... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at both WP:FILMRATING and Template: infobox film#Ratings.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Since the movie WAS produced in the US, and since MPAA didn't "prevent it", what is the relevance of the first sentence here? I suspect the MPAA rating was omitted because Wikipedia is international, and MPAA is only relevant in the US. 2001:558:6011:1:E406:4A65:5CD1:785C (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

netflix

should we add the 4 films limited release on netflix to the article? Liminalspaaces (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)