Talk:The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1

query

I have a question. Was it that this film was teased in the ending sequence of Catching Fire? For that matter, the Mockingjay pendant was shown transitioning through all three of its forms throughout the series. Visokor (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna in the cast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.75.10 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

His character doesn't appear in the Mockingjay films. (He's said to have been killed after Katniss enters the arena.) Gloss / talk 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot section

I believe the Plot section should either be re-written or removed entirely. This would seem to fall under WP:CRYSTAL, since we don't really know the plot of this unreleased movie. We can speculate and make assumptions based on the plot of the book, but we don't know for sure. While assuming the plot will follow the book may be a safe bet, it's still speculation.--Asher196 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I could call it speculation. Given the first two films followed the same storyline at the books, it's safe to say this one will too and like I said previously, the current plot states the main idea without going into too much detail. Gloss • talk 19:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Turns out there was a reason it looks like a safe way to summarize the plot. I copy and pasted the lines into a google search and the same lines turns up from many results, seemingly originating from picture captions written by an outside source. Gloss • talk 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a copyvio. It was added in this edit on September 25, 2013 by established editor Wormow (talk · contribs), and a couple things are important to note: the bad grammar as it was initially introduced: "to the point of destruction to the other districts" and "with everything she cares for in the balance" would not have been perpetrated by a professional copywriter. Therefore I think the copyvio is on the part of websites which have reproduced this original Wikipedia content without attribution. I corrected this grammar in these edits in early January 2014, so I believe that the copying was done sometime between September and January and the damage is already done. Furthermore, this is such a short paragraph. Even if it were copy-pasted from somewhere else (and who among all these Google hits would dare claim original copyright?) surely it can be claimed "fair use" for a short descriptive plot to stay as is. If not, then why don't we write our own paraphrase? Does it really serve the article to have no plot outline at all? Mockingjay Part 2 has none, either. I guess we could refer people to the article on the book if they really want to know. The first two films have followed their plots extremely closely. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that there are multiple Google hits for both the original plot summary as well as the modified, grammatically-correct plot summary, as they appeared in the Wikipedia article, and I guarantee you that I copy-pasted from nobody to correct that grammar, those were my original words. Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The plot on the article right now was the old synopsis released by Lionsgate before Catching Fire was released, hence on why it was so vague. They have now released an updated version of the synopsis in the press notes for this film. Wormow (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The plot section is sloppily written, expecting the reader to already be familiar with elements in the story. For example, it says that Prim gets to keep her cat -- what cat, and why wouldn't she get to keep it? Later it says Snow left roses to taunt Katniss -- why would she consider roses a taunt? 50.180.19.238 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

If you've all noticed recently, I just added A LOT of information to the character and marketing section (will get onto the production section when I have time). I don't really edit Wikipedia articles often so I'm not sure of certain criterias but I know for sure my reference links are all messy as hell. Does anyone want to fix/clean it up for me? Thank you! Wormow (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Critical response

"E! Online reported that the film had received a favorable response from critics,"

This is not accurate. E Online avoids giving an opinion "Catching Fire premiered to rave reviews. Did its follow-up—the third of four movies—meet or exceed expectations?"

This synthesis comes (from near the end of the article) paraphrasing Joe Neumaier of The New York Daily News. E Online does attempt to provide a summary of their own. The whole sentence and reference to E Online should be removed. Also the two sentences from Telegraph and the LA Times could be condensed into a single sentence saying both summarized the reviews as mixed. -- 109.76.10.249 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

With Lkaliba (talk · contribs) editing the article, constantly reverting, you and others will have an uphill battle maintaining a very accurate Critical response section. Just ask Captain Assassin!, Erik, Sock and NinjaRobotPirate about Lkaliba's disruptive editing at the The Maze Runner (film) article. One of these days, if Lkaliba is not indefinitely blocked or does not stop editing WP:Disruptively first, I will gather all of (or a good portion of) the incriminating evidence on Lkaliba and present my case against Lkaliba at WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Locking the article seem like a total waste of time in that case. Flagged edits make much sense in general. -- 109.76.10.249 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, since I was pinged... I looked at the before and after, and I have to say that, overall, I prefer the "before" version. It's concise, well-written, and adheres to Wikipedia's standards. Count this as an endorsement of that version. I'm not sure why Lkaliba reverted, and I think, once again, such an action requires discussion here on the talk page, much as I said the last time this happened. I would urge Lkaliba to work more collaboratively. I don't know what's going on between Lkaliba and Flyer22, and I'm not terribly interested in finding out. ANI sounds like a legitimate forum if this continues. I'm tired of cleaning film-related articles of words to avoid, such as "acclaim", "hail", etc, and I'm losing my patience for the editors who add them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, NinjaRobotPirate. The only thing going on between me and Lkaliba is that I'm wholly tired of Lkaliba's WP:Disruptive editing, like I stated before. Some editors have a higher tolerance for that type of behavior; I obviously don't. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe such terms as mixed should be avoided here as it is going to cause serious debate. Maybe we should just leave the results speak for themselves as is often done in such cases as this. Lkaliba just undid quite abit of work from a short while ago with no reason provided ... Alot of these changes were disruptive to the editing and I sent him a message and undid his changes. It isn't his first time being warned and has been blocked in the past for these actions. Maybe I'm wrong but my edit of the reception area seemed to be concise. Anyway. Thanks. - An Unexpected Journey 18:25, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC

I left a message, too. I'm in diplomatic mode, so maybe I can get Lkaliba to listen to reason. If not, sure, ANI sounds good. "Mixed" is fine. The Los Angeles Times specifically uses the word "mixed" in their description of the reception ("reviews ... have been mixed"). I don't think it's a problem. In cases where we have a secondary source that describes the reception, I think it's a good idea to use it. My problem is when editors add their own commentary, especially when you get over-the-top descriptions like, "The film was hailed as a great success" or "It was acclaimed by critics". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that what An Unexpected Journey is concerned about with regard to calling the reception for this film mixed is that the review aggregators don't indicate that exactly; they are not high up there with the score for this film, but they are above what people typically think of as "mixed." And we know it's the usual case for editors to go by the review aggregators first, that editors initially give more WP:Weight to them than they do to the individual reviews. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's nothing against the term mixed being used as such ... I don't have any particular interest in these movies. It just seems more diplomatic to leave the reviews speak fir themselves. And having a source stating that the general consensus is mixed ... Or two even ... seems a lot better and more neutral than an editor saying so based on his personal evaluation of the aggregate score as there is no definitive mixed or positive response ... And the term mixed to positive is one we try to avoid (And it's too broad and based on an editors evaluation). At least that is what I think. I'm taking example of the likes of the first installment in The Hobbit trilogy and Thor The Dark World and such. It seemed to work there. Cheers. - An Unexpected Journey 19:19, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC)

Having "mixed" in there the way that it currently is, without starting off the section with it and with the inclusion of WP:Intext-attribution, seems to be the best approach if we are going to use "mixed" in this case; you know, since, for example, the film's Metacritic rating is "generally favorable reviews." Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is also the reviews used in the section. There were many "glowing" reviews used and it seemed that it was there just to include as many as possible so I condensed what was used and included two positive ... two mixed ... and two negative ... It is also somewhat reflective of the overall aggregate score. As opposed to cramming in many short sentences highlighting only the positive even in negative reviews as was done before. - An Unexpected Journey 19:19, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC)

It was a good edit to say E Online doesn't provide consensus but that edit didn't go far enough. What little is being attributed to E Online was actually said by Joe Neumaier. So as I said above the whole reference to E Online should be removed. The opinions of Joe Neumaier could be added along with the other individual critics but it should not be misrepresented as some kind of overview from E online. (As an aside I tend to find negative reviews give a better variety of opinions, the good reviews mostly praise the same things, negative reviews are more selective in their praise so give greater insight into details such as writing, cinematography, score, that the generally positive reviews overlook. I've been hit with WP:UNDUE a few times simply because I found the negative reviews more insightful, and covering more aspects of the film. You should not feel an obligation to have 2 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative.) -- 109.76.10.249 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it isn't an obligation just a starting off point as the reviews before my edited were all positive ones highlight Lawrence and the politics themes as positives ... All very redundant at this stage. At least it's a bit more varied and through to form at the moment but more can be done off course. Cheers - An Unexpected Journey 19:45, 21 Novmber 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this again the Telegraph isn't even claiming to provide an overview only that their own reviewer Robbie Collin gave it a mixed review. Similarly the LA times is not claiming to provide an overview of their own either, instead they have looked at 71% on Rotten Tomatoes given their own interpretation that that means mixed, so they aren't adding anything over what Rotten Tomatoes already says. It doesn't make sense to treat either of these as an overview of the reviews that in any way discredits the information from Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I think the extra clause is misleading and should be removed. -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

Can someone please help. A certain Lkaliba (talk · contribs) keeps making edits too the reception area that are not very insightful. The added material is slanted to highlight only the positives and has led to a sever build up of reviews. It is also poorly constructed and attempts to include as much positive hype about the film as possible (Much of which is personal opinion that is not sourced). Attempts to reason with Lkaliba have been unsuccessful and they refuse to provide any reasons for their changes. Please Help resolve the matter as I have just undone an edit that has completely disrupted the reception area and are quite drastic. Thanks. - An Unexpected Journey 18:36, 22 Novmber 2014 (UTC)

@An Unexpected Journey: If he does it again, I suggest you go to WP:ANI like Flyer22 suggested. If he's going to ignore the talk page, consensus, and requests for collaboration, then the only reasonable request is for him to be blocked until he realizes that his edits are disruptive. @Lkaliba: why won't you comment here on the talk page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Two Grammatical Errors and one Mathematical Error

I believe that under "critical response" there are two grammatical errors. It says, "he felt the it was overcrowded with "two hours of preamble with no discernible payoff." He concluded that the film "fell short" and "could not be called satisfying."[117] Henry Barnes of The Guardian also gave the film three out of five stars. He felt it offered "thrills" despite "lacking a solid structure" and featured "limp special effects." He was also critical of the "creaky script" and felt it lacked some of the "terror" of the previous installments. He did however praise the acting of Lawrence.[118]

Todd McCarthy, who reviewed the film for The Hollywood Reporter, felt the installment was "disappointingly bland and unnecessarily protracted." He was critical of the films leisurely pace and noted it felt "like a manufactured product through and through, ironic and sad given its revolutionary theme."[119] Richard Corliss of Time felt the film was a placeholder for the second installment and noted "Lawrence isn't given much opportunity to do anything spectacularly right here."[120]

Under the mathematical section it says that the film grossed $123,000,000 in North America and $67,500,000 in other countries, thereby totalling up to $275,500,000. I would recommend correcting this to $190,500,000 or correcting the numbers that add up to $275,500,000.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmail (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Box office math has been fixed--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Political Ramifications

Could you also add that protesters in Hong Kong have been using the Mockingjay three-finger salute?

Here's a primary source photo: https://twitter.com/ProfessorKenLee/status/538150168416096257

Or a proper news story: http://www.visiontimes.com/2014/11/28/hk-protesters-express-aspirations-for-freedom-with-3-finger-salute.html

24.106.216.17 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception - awkward wording

"In North America, Mockingjay – Part 1 is the third highest-grossing film in The Hunger Games franchise..." Considering that there have only been three films in the franchise released to date, calling it the "third highest" seems a bit silly as it is not actually higher than anything. In this case "third highest" is actually equivalent to "last" or "lowest", so why not say something to this effect. A minor quibble I know, but I find the current wording jarring. --Smcg8374 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Box office

According to the source (Box Office Mojo) not $810,000,000 - but $564,177,267! --SuraShoka (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

War film?

Is this really a war film? I can't find any site listing it as one. Lembrazza (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the War film article, it does appear to match criteria of one, though it is fiction. I would argue that to be a war film (even fictitious) the storyline takes place in the past whereas this is more a history of the future. "Science-fiction action movie" would be more appropriate in my opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We need to follow what reliable secondary sources say, and also be careful of adding too many genres together. The list frequently grows without too much reference to sources. I would remove the genre if there are no sources to support it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

3D error

Can someone please correct the implication that this film was not released in 3D? There is a source cited for this (112) but if you read this source then the author is actually complaining that the 3D conversion of Mockingjay part one isn't good. The film was both released in 3D in cinemas and on bluray in Europe. the European bluray can be bought on amazon here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Die-Tribute-von-Panem-Mockingjay/dp/B01H30BT36. Senhor sydney (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)