Jump to content

Talk:The Hunger Games (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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 talk 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:
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 talk 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 talk 01:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some interviews

Some helpful interviews: [1] and [2]. Glimmer721 talk 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 Wikipedia 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?

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

The director worked on the adaptation with the author, so with sources you should be able to mention some of the changes from the book in the Production/Writing sections. The riot scene that was added (or if you like, included from the second book) was filmed by Soderbergh, so that may be another reason to mention it but the best way to turn 'fancruft' into good article is to include a Production/Writing subsection, but even so the deletionists will prevent you from including anything but the biggest changes. I was looking for information on the extended cut on bluray, I found articles where the director apologised to fans of the book for cutting the Avox subplot and went on to say how there was no directors cut and that he was happy with the final cut (which still doesn't explain the extra minutes on the bluray). 109.76.250.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 16 September 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 Wikipedia? 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: [3] [4] [5]. 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(talk) @ 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 talk 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.[8][9] 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."[10]

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 talk 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 "[a] 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 "[j]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, "[m]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 "[t]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 "[a] 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 "[j]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 "[t]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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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, AnupamTalk 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, AnupamTalk 07:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Christianity Today source[6] is posted in the commentaries section. The Washington Times "review"[7] 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 Talk 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, AnupamTalk 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 Talk 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, AnupamTalk 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:

Original source Anupam's representation
The Hunger Games, the teen action-adventure film that opened to big numbers last weekend, 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? And undeniably a Christian allegory about the importance of finding Jesus. ([8])
The New Testament content of the film is also hard to miss — at least according to those who home in on the triangle of main characters. The New Testament content of the film is also hard to miss. ([9])

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 Talk 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, AnupamTalk 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 Talk 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, AnupamTalk 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

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 [10] 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)

Alternatively it might fit in a Release section, that some film articles have, but in this case the Release information is included under Pre-release tracking and Box Office. Might benefit from restructure when the article stabilizes. -- 109.77.112.80 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 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 talk 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*talk 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[ing] 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)==

The Atlantic argues that the film stands a better chance at being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture 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[ing] resonant commentary about society, particularly government control and corruption. They are crowd-pleasers with something to say. And the Academy loves saying something."[11] Lawrence's performance as Katniss is also argued to be eligible for a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress since her performance was very well-received commercially as well as critically, with Entertainment Weekly stating, she is "about as impressive a Hollywood incarnation of Katniss as one could ever imagine."[12] The Atlantic also agreed "Lawrence especially should from here-on-out remain part of the Oscar conversation for the intensity and gravitas she brought to Katniss Everdeen," and that she "delivered a performance that didn't just do the part justice, but shattered expectations."[11]

It has already been noted that Lawrence was praised for her performance and it would be one thing to say the performance was 'Oscar worthy' but the way this material was presented is speculative -- even if it is reviewers doing it. It is also indulgent to give this much space to a few reviews suggesting the film has Academy Award potential, without first providing the larger context of reviewers discussing other topics such as direction, cinemtography and score and other parts of the film making process as some Wikipedia film articles actually do.
Think of an encyclopedia, write in ways that will still make sense in the future, best to leave talk of the Academy Awards until they actually happen. It may still be possible to rephrase and restore the material, or use the sources differently, but for now I've removed it. -- 109.77.111.36 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 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" [11], "sci fi/fantasy" [12] and "sci-fi/action" [13], 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)
You got pwned dude lol. 201.68.113.171 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 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 (talk|contribs) 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 (talk|contribs) 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 (talk|contribs) 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 (talk|contribs) 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 (talk|contribs) 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)
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 [14] this]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
We have sources to add Adventure to hunger games dummass.... by the way, you are a genre warrior, all your edits are about cats, you are a genre vigilante who thinks movies can be only one genre and thata leon is an action film. 201.43.150.125 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. At the very least you weaken your argument with them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out, that of the citations currently being used in the article, 78, 86, 153, 154 and 160 refer to the film as as action film, while citations 78, 160 describe it as adventure. If you're going to pick one over the other based on sources used in the article, its an action film. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Those citations are ill-informed. The Hunger Novels was actionish for literature, for a novel, but for a film, it is not the same action as in die hard or terminator 2. It's an adventure film, set in an exotic forest. StarShopSTX (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, and not truth. If multiple reliable sources classify the film as an action film, then by the standard of wikipedia, it is an action film. Whether or not that is true is not relevant unless you can provide other reliable sources disputing the claim. Making edits or reaching consensus based on a personal understanding of film genre is considered original research. Granted, science fiction is the one genre every source seems to agree upon and we could just leave it as that, but I just want people to remember we shouldn't be trying to reach consensus based on personal opinion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You should not have taken out science fiction film from the lead. Most here agree on that. I've restored it. I would not be against calling it a science fiction adventure film in the lead, but I'll let someone else put in adventure if they want. I don't see why people keep replacing one Category with another on the page bottom. A film like this falls under multiple cats - I've added Category:2010s adventure films so all reasonable ones are covered. It's not like the lead, where you want to limit the listed genres. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
lol happy-melon pwned. 201.68.113.171 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012

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

the avengers is not actually a sequel to anything, just a film in a series with previous films in it which are set in the same universe. that is like saying captian america: the first avenger is a sequel to thor. just because it its 6th in a series of films, dosen't mean it is a sequel Frogkermit (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

Add cat "2010s adventure films" per [15] Please?

201.43.205.10 (talk) 15:18, 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

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)
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

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: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Consensus forms the basis of everything we do on Wikipedia. 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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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 (talk|contribs) 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[.] ... [I]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 (talk|contribs) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Genre wars, reprise

And so yet again, we find ourselves on the brink of a lame edit war over film genres. The article lead currently, as a least-offensive-solution, marks it only as a "science fiction film"; until recently, though, it was still in the categories for "action", "thriller" and "adventure". Our friendly local genre evangelist 201.x.x.x removed the action and thriller categories; which is arguably defensible on the basis that the article does not provide sources to support the categorisation. My removal of the adventure categories, which had been conveniently ignored, has been met by a revert war.

The principles of Reliable sources and Verifiability are not negotiable; assertions in an article must be supported and verified. That these principles extend to the selection of categories is absolutely clear. If the articles does not provide an appropriate balance of sources to support the classification of the film into a particular genre, it should neither be described nor categorised in such a way. Do people agree with this conclusion? Happy‑melon 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, I would not be against calling it a science fiction adventure film in the lead, but I'll let someone else put in adventure if they want. Anything more and the lead is too verbose. But I don't see why people keep replacing one Category with another on the page bottom. A film like this falls under multiple cats. It's not like the lead, where you want to limit the listed genres. If people would agree all reasonable Categories could and should be covered, as they were until two days ago, this edit warring would stop. - Gothicfilm

DVD Media

Should information on the DVD release be posted such as the fact that they had midnight release parties with the cast attending, selling over 3.8 million copies in its opening weekend, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.93.192 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"edulcorated"

under critical response, the following sentence fragment has been in place for months:

"while critic Théoden Janes of the Charlotte Observer found it too edulcorated"

i read the cited review. i cannot make heads or tails of what the final word is supposed to be. any clues? Anastrophe (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

According to The Free Dictionary, "to edulcorate" means to sweeten or sugarcoat something. The reviewer's meaning is clear enough, but it seems to be mainly a culinary term, so it should probably be changed to something a little less esoteric. —Flax5 14:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
except that the reviewer didn't actually use the word, so it seems to be the interpretation of the editor. probably best to use a quote, rather than interpretation. i'll take a stab at it. Anastrophe (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot bloat?

This edit has now been made, by the same IP, to the plot section three times in the past 24 hours. I say it's overly and unnecessarily detailed and bloats the section. What do other people think? Happy‑melon 08:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence interview

There was a bit at the article The Hunger Games regarding Lawrence's comparison of her character to Joan of Arc that I removed, since I felt that it was extraneous to that article. It could fit in well somewhere here, though, so if anyone wants to add it, here is the link. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I read that in a few articles -- actors do tend to repeat their scripts in interviews -- I hope someone can fit it back in. -- 109.76.140.20 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian Nelson --> Noah

Is it just me that has never heard about either Ian Nelson or Noah? I can't seem to find any evidence of any such character being in the movie. Is he a minor character unworthy of place in the characters section? Is it just some result of plain (though minor) page vandalism or error? Perhaps someone could enlighten me, and others, and do something (if he happens not to belong there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:59BA:C26A:ED0E:6505 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that he is non-notable with no Wikipedia article of his own, but IMDb has a page for him and he is listed by other news sources, so this is verifiable. Elizium23 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where the name Noah came from; he's the actor who plays the boy from District 3. Either way he isn't nearly important enough to be included in the page's cast list. I'm removing him. Andrea (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Hunger Games Adventures

I've just excised the following text from The Hunger Games, since it didn't appear to be directly related to the book. I was surprised to find that it wasn't mentioned here, so if someone wanted to paste the following in at an appropriate spot, that would be great:

A social network game called The Hunger Games Adventures was released for Facebook to coincide with the film's release. It is a role-playing video game developed by Lionsgate in coalition with Funtactix.[13]

Be sure to copy the bare code for all that inline citation goodness. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Katniss's age in film

The summary of the film's plot says she is 16; is this ever stated in the film, or does it come from the book? MayerG (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

She was 16 in the book, and the back of the DVD case gives that age as well. You're right though; it wasn't mentioned at all in the film itself. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
After a scene involving her, the film switches to two commentators who talk about two athletic(?) 16-year-olds, but it's only implied that they're referring to Katniss and Peeta. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Catching Fire started production today

So saith EW, so we can get started on that article anytime now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and we can now add the film to the filmographies of the actors without violating WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks for letting us know. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Action film

It amuzes me how many users think here think this is an action movie and lord of the rings not one. Hunger Games barely has 30 seconds of action, this is clearly an adventure film. 201.68.195.161 (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:FLOG applies to this line of discussion by now. Drop the stick and back away from the carcass. Happy‑melon 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The above poster is a genre-warrior who insists Hunger Games is an action film, when it is nowhere like matrix, T2 or DH. 201.68.179.118 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It's more of a sci-fi thriller than action film. I assume the television programme Gladiators is an action show just cause they fight each other? Charlr6 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to pop in and let everyone know that I walked past a Redbox earlier today and saw that they were renting DVD copies of this film, advertised with a large banner beneath the cover indicating that it was of the "ACTION" genre. I have no real opinion in the matter, but everyone, please don't edit war over it, and try to pay attention to what third-party reliable sources say. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't edit warring over anything. I didn't realise there was an edit war going on. And just because a store puts it in the action genre doesn't mean its an action film. I've seen stores put movies is the wrong genre place before. And also, I'm not saying you were, but you couldn't class Redbox as a reliable source if we were to say it was an action film because Redbox says so. Charlr6 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It is acceptable for the article to be a member of multiple categories when they are backed up by documentation in reliable secondary sources, much more so than the lede sentence, which should reflect one or two major genres which can be strongly identified with the film. I support keeping the "action film" genre in the categories, there is no need to pare them down as long as reliable sources say so, and just because you say it is not does not make it so. Elizium23 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I never said that we should change it because I said so thank you very much. James Bond has action in it, more action than The Hunger Games, but James Bond would be classed as a thriller. And if you look at the List of action films of the 2010s you'll see that most of those movies, actually have more action than the Hunger Games does. Charlr6 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I wasn't talking to you, I was referring to 201.68.179.118 with his personal attack. Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You are forgiven. But compared to The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Die Hard, the Hunger Games isn't an action film. It is currently classed as a sci-fi, The Matrix I believe is sci-fi action. And if you were to compared both The Matrix's genre of sci-fi action to The Hunger Games, you'd be able to see that The Hunger Games is much more of sci-fi dystopian thriller with mild action. Talking of dystopian, Children of Men is a "dystopian science fiction film", but also has action scenes in it but still isn't classed as an action film. I'm not saying we should add this in though. But as you mentioned two major genres, I would suggest sci-fi dystopian for The Hunger Games. Charlr6 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I am concerned that the user who keeps on adding the "adventure drama" film category appears to be an IP hopper from Brazil. He has repeatedly put the adventure drama film category over the past few days. I think the IP should simply drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead carcass, as this film is a sci-fi film, not an action film. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In doing a search engine test, it seems like "action film" for this film has a lot of hits, followed by "science fiction film" and "adventure film". I don't think there is a wrong answer here; this is just the kind of film that defies a straightforward genre classification. Can we get creative and figure out something like "action film in a dystopian science fiction setting"? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There are two issues here. (1) What is the acceptable list of genres for the lede sentence? (2) What is the acceptable list of genres for categorization purposes? So far, we have answered (1) as "science fiction only" by stability in the article. Other genres have been proposed, and reliable secondary sources documenting them have been provided, but they have all basically been shot down by consensus and plain WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. So the lede remains as it is. I have contended that the answer to (2) need not be so limited. We can place as many categories as we like without cluttering the article or making it unreadable. More categories only mean that the article is more findable through them. There is no practical limit to the number of categories we can assign here. The only limit I propose is that they be clearly supported by multiple reliable sources. A category type that is thus documented is not justly excludable. Please stop edit warring over the categories and just accept that this film fills multiple criteria and is not easily pigeonholed. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we can have numerous categories. Can you explain the discussion at #Adventure genre, though? I'm a little unclear about what editors were actually supporting. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A while back I was on the consensus of discussing The Artist genres, and we said on the talk page there if I remember, there should be three genres maximum. And only person did the "I DONT LIKE IT". And if you think about it, others are doing I LIKE IT for action. There are sources that will say its an action, thriller, sci-fi, distopian. But I'm not edit warring in anything, just so you know. I'm up for sci-fi thriller, maybe with sub-genre of action and dystopian. Charlr6 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The previous discussion about "adventure" and "epic" genres were both about expanding the lede. I see that "action" has actually been removed from the lede despite wide support and previous stability. It's a shame, really. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So it seems yet another editor is trying to remove the action film categories. Despite the agreement above that it can be listed under more than one category because it makes the film easier to find. Remind me again why it isn't considered an action adventure film? After all, a film can be more than one category. Personally, I don't think it qualifies as an Adventure film because as per Adventure films the film doesn't have the main plot elements that "include quests for lost continents, a jungle and/or desert settings, characters going on a treasure hunts and heroic journeys for the unknown." Where as in an Action film "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" would seem like a more apt description. MisterShiney ✉ 12:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So where Katniss goes is not a jungle? The arena is a jungle, there are barely scenes of destruction or fights. Die Hard, Heat, Terminator 2, Aliens and Matrix are action film, this is not one. This is an adventure film because Katniss goes to an exotic place, a forest and faces hazards, plus the info is sourced. Althemise (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a LOCATION. Completely different to a plot point which is being described. What is her "Adventure" then? Seriously though, you are going to Edit War over this? I should remind you of WP:BRD Bold = YOU. Revert = ME. Discuss = YOU. I should also point out that this isnt a conversation about the genre of the film, but the inclusion of the action movie categories. Which there is nothing to say that it can't be included. Especially when this film quite clearly has more than one genre. MisterShiney ✉ 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

'Neo-Liberal'

Under the reception/critical response section, The New Republic magazine is referred to as 'neo-liberal.' It is most definitely NOT neo-liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.199.74 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. Such a description fails our neutrality policy, so correct or incorrect, it is better gone altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Film Series Page

Now that we know that there are four films in the series, when would be an appropriate time to create a film series page for 'The Hunger Games' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 05:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Post-apocalyptic

Someone requested a citation for this term, but it was denied on the basis of WP:LEADCITE. However, the lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and must not contain anything novel or unique. The "Plot" section mentions a past rebellion. This is not the same as an apocalypse. I think that we need to remove the term "post-apocalyptic", or alternatively, describe the nature of the rebellion and why it is considered an apocalypse, and preferably, cite a reliable secondary source. This doesn't have to happen in the "Plot" section, this can be included in a new "Background" section which describes the universe and events leading up to the story of the first film. It could be drawn on canon sources such as the three novels. But if there is nobody willing to write a backstory or support the "post-apocalyptic" appellation with facts, then it needs to go. I would personally say that Panem has not undergone a real apocalypse other than District 13's alleged bombing (which of course turns out to be a ruse anyway) but rather a forced technological downgrade at the hands of a brutal totalitarian regime - think North Korea. Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't think the setting is post-apocalyptic, but Slate, the Los Angeles Times and the Huffington Post seem to think otherwise. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The book IS set in a post apocalyptic future where war destroyed the US (sorry guys) and Panem and the districts "rose up out of the ashes". Just because it isn't set in the immediate aftermath, doesnt mean it isn't Post Apocalyptic. MisterShiney ✉ 07:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Clarityfiend. LA Times reference added to "Plot" section. Elizium23 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In my day, you'd have to slog to school in knee-deep radioactive slime, fending off brain-sucking Eddie Haskells and mutant rodents of unusual size all the way, to be considered post-apocalyptic. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased

The line "Several critics have reviewed the film favorably compared with other young-adult fiction adaptations such as Harry Potter and Twilight" makes it seem as though The Hunger Games is a better movie than the Harry Potter films. In fact three of the Harry Potter films got a higher percentage on Rotten Tomatoes than The Hunger Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsBlackworld (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But many critics have said that, it's just a line. Wormow (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What Wormow said. Dont forget they are commenting on the ADAPTATION side, not necessarily the quality of film. Hunger Games is a much better adaptation, closer to the book in many ways. The Harry Potters, Although I am a fan, are poor adaptations of the books. Left out so much! But anyway. Hope that answers your question. MisterShiney ✉ 19:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot too long, typos, inaccurate

I very carefully condensed and revised, counting each revision. I could not save the final version because of edit conflict with Elizium23, who added too many words, typos, and cut out important facts to leave gaping inaccuracies. His version was 720 words, over 400-700, whereas mine, 693, was acceptable, clean, and coherent.

Caesar gives her nickname, not she "picks up the nickname". Kat takes HER bow, not "he bow". Kat's entire mourning ritual, including funeral salute, inspires riots, not "arranges flowers. When this is televised". Peeta's wound vanishes, skin smooth, no scar; to say "restores mobility" is incomplete and negates power of salve and gifts.

The top of the Cornucopia is not a house "roof". Referred to always as Seneca in script, book, and movie, his suicide engineered by Snow, to say merely "Crane is locked in a room with a bowl of Nightlock" is incomplete and meaningless. Snow "ponders the situation" is weak, and wrong. He plots revenge.

I will fix this only one more time, then leave to vandalizer reversers.

I added and used the following word count tools. http://www.wordcounttool.com/ http://www.wordcounter.net/ -->

AnEyeSpy (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? All I did was correct your template usage to the proper one for plots: from {{long}} to {{plot}}. Check the diff. Elizium23 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Split

I think this section should split into The Hunger Games: Original Motion Picture Score.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide gross

In the infobox it says that the worldwide gross was $691, but in the box office section it says $686. One of these needs to be changed to the correct gross. Frogkermit (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Excessive 'Controversies' section?

Does anyone else agree that the 'Controversies' section of this article gives too much weight to what were, ultimately, a couple of brief blog arguments? The 'controversies' over the casting and Lawrence's weight might be worth including, but not at the length and detail we give them here. Particularly since in both cases, there were very few people who actually held the critical opinion in question. I'd say a couple of lines for each should be sufficient. Robofish (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Test

Test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.96.83.46 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hunger Games (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


You can expect a review over the course of the weekend at the latest. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

One first thing before I go deeper into it: There are a number of dead links, as can be seen here. You should try to address those. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The nominator does not seem to active here, which is unfortunate. I will still finish the review, and if just for future reference, since this is an article that for most parts qualifies as a GA easily.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is very much a comprehensive article concerning a major blockbuster picture. As to be expected from an article of this scope, it does have issues however:

  • Lead: I feel that the lead is too long at parts. What I would suggest cutting is the sentence concerning Seneca Crane in the second paragraph. You deal with that later in the article and it is too specific to go into the lead. I would also cut down the information re the box office success. Everything with actual numbers should be elaborated in the article (which it is), it suffices to give abstract information in the lead (first place, third-highest grossing etc). Also, in the last paragraph there is a direct quote. While that is not prohibited under WP:LEADCITE, I feel it is a little off at this point, going into to much detail. You should also try to incorporate the sentence about the sequel into one of the paragraphs, to get the lead down to the desired four paragraphs.
  • Plot: This is my biggest issue with the article. The plot synopsis has multiple issues. You need to introduce the scenario more in the opening paragraph. Both president Snow and Seneca Crane should be mentioned before you go into the description of the Games themselves. Crane appears in the synopsis now without the reader knowing who he is supposed to be. You could also mention what Careers are earlier. I would refrain from using the names of the non-major characters such as Marvel and Glimmer, since the reader does not know who they are. It's enough to write killing one and driving the others away. Also, it is not really clear from the synopsis why Peeta joins the Careers at first when he is supposed to be in love with Katniss (now that I think of it, it is also not too clear in the movie itself, but well...). You should mention that he never had the intention of killing Katniss. The parentheses at the end of paragraph 5 are also not too stylistic. If you follow my advice of setting the scene better at the beginning of the synopsis, I believe that this insertion is no longer necessary.
  • Cast: Why aren't all cast members sourced?
  • Images of Lawrence and Hutcherson: You should state in the caption where the photos were taken. (If I remember correctly, Lawrence wore that stunning red dress to the Oscars?)
  • Most of the rest of the article is really good and informative and even meets FA criteria for the most part, imo.
  • Music/Soundtrack: Here, I moved a sentence around a bit. I also added a citation needed markup here.
  • Critical reception: Why are the infos concerning Fandango in the critical reception section?
  • Home media: Another citation needed markup there.

That's as much as I could find. Leaves the dead links that should also be taken care of as good as possible.

I give the nominator seven days to address the issues at hand. So far, still congratulations to an overall very good article! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten the synopsis several times after people have expanded it well beyond the 700 word recommended limit, and I disagree with most of your views as to its shortcomings. IMO, the setting is laid out just right. What do you think is missing? (Note it's at or just above 700 words now.) As for Snow being mentioned sooner, why? He doesn't play a significant part until the point where he is introduced. I've added Crane's title. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe I made quite clear what I think can be improved. IMO, President Snow is a character so central to the story and its universe that he should not only be referenced in one half-sentence. It leaves the reader without knowledge over his significance. The part about Crane is certainly more understandable now that his position is mentioned. I would like to re-inforce what I wrote about mentioning names without context: A sentence like Clove attacks and pins her down; she then boasts about her part in Rue's death. leaves the uninformed reader wondering Who is Clove, why is that name coming up now? I would leave the names out of it if the characters are not further described. In that sense, Thresh and Foxface are fine, since who they are can be taken from the context. Cato is different matter. He is not introduced, but he is quite important, so a small sentence about who he is and where he comes from should be added. Also, while tracker jackers are wikilinked, they should be better explained. It is Wikipedia's policy not to write articles in such a way that it makes the reader click on a wikilink to understand something. I would therefore recommend writing it more openly as well, i.e. to a nest of poisonous, genetically altered wasps. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Snow may be central to the Hunger Games universe, but he isn't to this film. And I reiterate, this is already at the recommended maximum length. Expansion is discouraged (and IMO unnecessary). Maybe I'll get around to the names issue if I have some spare time. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected a couple of the dead links in the article. Don't have time to correct the others today. I'll try to get to them soon. Thanks for the review. HollywoodCowboy (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Seven days have passed and I don't see major improvements to the points mentioned above. Furthermore, there seems to be continuing resistance to make necessary changes to the plot summary. I will be lenient, since I feel the article at most points even exceeds GA standards, and give the nominators until Sunday to address the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid, since nothing has happened, I will need to fail this a second time, which is a shame, because this is a very good article for most parts. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This article should be labeled WP:GA (Good article) status

I just read the first WP:GA review for this article, by Ankitbhatt, and what a pity indeed. This article is as good as or better than most WP:GA film articles I come across, even some WP:FA (featured article) film articles I come across (granted some film articles got their WP:GA or WP:FA status before these review processes were as strict as they are now). Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. The nomination was failed because the editor never responded. Unfortunately the GAN process can take months before the article even is looked at. I'm willing to put in some work here to clean things up and ready it for another nomination, though. It's been on my mental to-do list. And anyone interested in helping out is more than welcome. :) 'iMatthew / talk 07:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22 although I'm a little confused on why the "themes" section is now underneath the "reception" heading. I don't quite get how the movies themes are a sub-topic of the movie's reception. iMatthew / talk 08:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
IMatthew, with regard to this edit I made, look at the content. It's about what critics/other people interpreted as the themes of the film and their reviews of those themes. It is reception information. It has a lot more to do with reception than the Home media section, which is also currently a subsection of the Reception section (something that is usually not done for film articles); minutes ago, I was close to moving the Home media section out of the Reception section, with this statement: "Home media is not reception...unless discussing the reception to the home media." But then I saw that it has sales information, which is reception material. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. iMatthew / talk 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, and as seen with this edit, I moved the Home media section to the last part of the Reception section. And then noted my typo in the edit summary for the Themes section move. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, Gloss, while the refs this could use some addressing (i.e. consistencies with use of publishers) the article definitely has potential and I can definitely review if you renominate. However, to be safe I'd wait a bit and let it settle in regards to stability as I see there's been a bit of back-and-forth editing recently. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It's been nearly a year since the last discussion on this, and the edit history is looking pretty stable at the moment, so I'm nominating it again. -- HollywoodCowboy (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gloss, when removing dead links, as you did here, keep WP:Dead link (for example, Internet Archive) in mind. That is, if you don't already. The first link for the-numbers.com reference, for example, is archived here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that you are iMatthew. Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22: No worries, I'm aware of WP:Dead link, thanks! - I searched for each one, but I'm sure that I may have missed over more than just the one you found, so any help in finding those missing/dead links would be much appreciated. And yes, that's me! Had my username changed a few days ago. Gloss • talk 06:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Although over reviewing that link again, that is from the week of December 9. The link was for the chart from the week of September 9th. Unless I'm missing something? Gloss • talk 06:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I simply went to Internet Archive to see if that link was archived, and these are the archive options it shows. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
With regard to removing stuff like this (the text about female action stars), I mean where WP:Dead link states, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Or "Many local libraries have in-house subscriptions to digital databases or inter-library loan agreements, making it easier to retrieve hard-to-find sources." Or "Most citation templates have a quote= parameter that can be used to store text quotes of the source material. This can be used to store a limited amount of text from the source within the citation template. This is especially useful for sources that cannot be archived with web archiving services. It can also provide insurance against failure of the chosen web archiving service."
In the case of a dead link that can't (readily) be retrieved anywhere online, it is sometimes best to cite the source without the link instead of removing the material altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I'll go back and fix that up, thanks for the clarity. I cleared out just about all of the dead links, on the bright side. Only a few remain. Although I can't pin-point a solution to those problems.. (they also seem to be very minor problems). Gloss • talk 06:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction?

I would question whether the film is science fiction. Dystopian, perhaps, but not science fiction.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Most sources list the film as sci-fi; Lembrazza (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It happens in the future and there are some technological, non-magical advances. Sounds like science fiction to me. (The economics is ridiculous, but that's a different issue.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The definition of science fiction has nothing to do with the future - it is a work of fiction in which science or technology plays a large part. It does not in this film. Although I may be in a minority, I would suggest that a far better description is dystopian fantasy.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a rather odd definition of science fiction. For most people, anything set in the future is considered part of the genre (unless there's magic involved, e.g. The Dying Earth). The article science fiction defines it as "a genre of speculative fiction dealing with imaginative concepts such as futuristic settings, ..." By your definition, Fahrenheit 451 isn't science fiction. Then the Hugo Award people made a big mistake. Fantasy it definitely is not. There's nothing that steps outside the bounds of what technology could develop into. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ameripedia

As is usual wikipedia, you prattle on about the USA far too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.142.6 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC) \

We do have our inborn hubristic tendencies. Please do forgive and correct us. We are open to it. Especially if you are British or a former colony. Really. A loose necktie (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Hunger Games (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gemre lead

I think dystopian science-fiction adventure film is too mouthful for a lead, I think adventure film does fine. Zalooka4 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Peruse through the discussions in Archive 1 of the talk page.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hunger Games (film)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


Alright, time to refresh myself on this film series! The last GAN was six years ago, so I'm going to assume that the issues there have been more than addressed and look at this film fresh. As always, a  Working tag means that I haven't finished looking at that part of the article yet, but feel free to start making changes as soon as you see them! Kncny11 (shoot) 19:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

  • The release dates and gross numbers don't need citations in the lede as long as they appear in the body
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks to films like Endgame coming out, ref [9] no longer shows that THG had the third-largest opening weekend gross at the time of its release. Fortunately, this NYT article says it.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Shorten parentheticals to last name, as Lawrence and Hutcherson were already introduced
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Principal photography began in May 2011 and ended that September
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move comma from after "March 21, 2012" to after "in some European countries"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Japanese release is never mentioned in the body
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Plot

  • This section is sitting at 709 words, just over the 400-700 range recommended by MOS:FILMPLOT. Find a few areas to trim.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "Careers"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "dead from eating what she assumed were edible berries from watching Peeta." → "poisoned to death by the nightlock she collected after watching Peeta." (or something of that sort, just to decrease the double "from")
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The last two paragraphs both begin with "Crane then", which visually looks repetitive.
 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cast

  • Not necessary to have citations for the cast list unless there's a character description attached
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Period after "Mrs." in "Mrs. Everdeen"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Sentence structure in the first sentence is confusing atm, as it implies Color Force reportedly bought the rights for $200,000, but the Newsweek citation [27] says Lionsgate spent the money.
Removed some citations earlier and I couldn't find one from Newsweek. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • [29] doesn't show anything about the budget being "one of the largest ever"
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Same with Gary Ross
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Casting

  • strike "coveted" in role, for neutrality
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Lawrence, a fan of the books, took three days to accept the role, initially intimidated by the size of the production." → "Lawrence, a fan of the books, was originally intimidated by the size of the production, and took three days to accept the role."
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Commas around "other than Hutcherson"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Write his full name out in its first appearance
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "who was later cast as Cato" needs a citation
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "The following month"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Need a reference for "Both got the role at the time they were promoting Captain America: The First Avenger"
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's also unclear who 'both' refers to, as three names are mentioned in the preceding sentence
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Filming

  • List of possible directing candidates needs a citation (EW source doesn't mention them)
 Done Added a source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Commas around "as part of the underwriting process"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "dyed her naturally blonde hair"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Split sentence after "yoga", make separate sentence about her injury.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Citation needed for that training injury
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentence about Hutcherson and Hemsworth dying their hair should be placed next to Lawrence dyeing hers, rather than in the middle of a paragraph about her training process
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delink Hutcherson and Hemsworth, who were already mentioned above
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "digital due (in part) to the" → "digital, due in part to the"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "other scenes also took place and was filmed" → "other scenes were filmed"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Shelby/Charlotte/Asheville sentence needs a citation
 Done Added sources. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "production team found" → "production team used", to reduce repetition of "found" and reduce implication that they somehow discovered the town
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "looked at a lot of photographs"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "the 1950s in the search of a very American feel." → "the 1950s, in search of an "American" feel."
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • District should be capitalized
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "every character"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "differentiate strongly" → "strongly differentiate"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Missing period before [61]
 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Music

  • Safe & Sound only needs to be linked once, when it appears in the first sentence
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Music video release date needs a citation.
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Citation [64] should only appear once, at the end of the sentence.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Daily Princetonian is a student paper and not the best source. Hollywood Reporter has the same information.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Drop the "important and signature" descriptors, which are non-neutral and do not appear in the cited sources
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Arcade Fire's Panem national anthem" → "The resulting piece"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Strong reviews" is followed only by one review
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "a rather obscure" → "an obscure"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Name the track as "Sediment"
 Question: Could you elaborate? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move the citation to the end of the paragraph
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception

  • "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an "A" grade."
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention in first sentence of second paragraph that it was compared to Harry Potter and Twilight, as many of the reviews in this para talk about that
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Box office

  • Put this above "critical reception"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "US & Canada" → "United States and Canada"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Box Office Mojo stats don't suggest that it made the "largest worldwide opening weekend for a film not released during the summer or the holiday period", because the non-archived version has several films above that, and the archived version doesn't specify release dates.
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For that matter, many of the records need to specify "at the time of its release" or "as of", as Black Panther (Feb. 2018), Beauty and the Beast (Mar. 2017), and BvS (Mar. 2016) have since overtaken that.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mysterious space in the third paragraph with "On its first weekend"
 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Drop the "With regard to ticket sales", as the phrase is mentioned later in the sentence
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "On Fandango alone"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "advance ticket seller ever"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "according to Fandango"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Themes

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Manohla Dargis of The New York Times"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WL Huffington Post
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • comma after "published in the Star Tribune"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • comma before "while the stories contain no actual religion"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle Royale and other precedents

  • Change first sentence to "Several critics compared The Hunger Games unfavourably to ...", and include specific quotes.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Lottery" is mentioned in the second para but formally introduced in the third
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "by Shirley Jackson"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WL The Atlantic
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

  • This section is a bit long and could probably be split into subsections on race/ethnicity, weight and body image, and violence
 Question: Got any ideas for the subsection titles and where they should go? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Italicize Jezebel
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "for The New York Times"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Commas around "in certain scenes"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comma after "Slate states that"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Anderson concludes that complaints"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Accolades

  • This section is empty except for a {{main}} link
  • Any particularly significant accolades should go here with a citation, even if there's a separate page (see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a recent GA). Any award mentioned in the lede is probably a good choice to go here.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Home media

  • "and Blu-ray Disc on August 18, 2012"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "and in the rest of Europe on September 3, 2012" needs a citation
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Amazon isn't the best source, but the DVD extras are mentioned in this EW article
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Refs [172] and [173] (Three weeks after the release...) are both incomplete
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "With 10,336,637 units sold [by the end of the year?]..."
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Linked to Ultra HD Blu-ray. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Italicize Hunter Games series
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sequels

  • Four citations for Lawrence replacing Ross seems excessive
 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  • [55] (Forbes) is missing the work in the citation
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Box Office Mojo is sometimes referred to as such, sometimes as Boxofficemojo.com
 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Change the work on [44] from New York to Vulture
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Include "url-access=subscription" on [32] (LA Times), [50] (WSJ), [62] (WSJ), [127] (WSJ), [151] (WSJ)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Include "url-access=limited" on [34] (NYT), [44] (Vulture), [47] (NYT), [54] (NYT), [118] (NYT), [130] (NYT), [136] (NYT), [138] (NYT), [141] (Atlantic), and [156] (NYT)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace "Azdailysun.com" in [146] with Arizona Daily Sun and change it from publisher to work
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Something in [172] is broken
 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

General comments

  • Some scattered vandalism, but no edit warring and overall mostly stable.
  • Photos are CC or free use and all relevant to the article.
  • Earwig has been giving me grief in terms of its loading time, but it looks like the main offenders are mirror sites, and the iffy % matches are due to direct quotes.

Final comments and verdict

Sorry this took a few days to finish up! I had some personal stuff come up. Anyway, I'm going to put this article  On hold. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or if anything comes up! Kncny11 (shoot) 17:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kncny11: I have added comments for most of your suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: In which I am super not on top of things -- for "Sediment", all I meant was that the Laurie Spiegel track is called "Sediment". As for the controversies section, I see three distinct categories as potential subheads: "Race and ethnicity", "Appearance (or casting) of Lawrence", and "Violence". Kncny11 (shoot) 21:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Kncny11: Both suggestions have now been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Hell yeah! Passing now. :) Kncny11 (shoot) 21:08, 19 March 2021 (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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b Ward, Kate (April 18, 2011). "'Hunger Games' casts Thresh and Rue -- Exclusive". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 18, 2011.
  5. ^ a b 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.
  11. ^ a b Fallon, Kevin. "Why 'The Hunger Games' Has a Shot at the Best-Picture Oscar". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 3, 2012.
  12. ^ Karger, Dave. "'The Hunger Games': Can Jennifer Lawrence score a second Oscar nomination?". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved June 3, 2012.
  13. ^ "'The Hunger Games Adventures' New Facebook Game". WhatCulture!. March 28, 2012. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hunger_Games_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1141745085"