THE HUNGER GAMES TRAILER

Description: A dystopic Capitol requires its twelve subjugated districts to pay tribute in the form of a teenage boy and girl who are forced to participate in the annual Hunger Games, a fight to the death on live TV. When Katniss Everdeen's little sister is chosen in the lottery, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Although persevering through hardship is commonplace for Katniss, she must start making choices that weigh survival against humanity and life against love in order to win the games and return home.

Comments (10)

  • IIISPQRIII  

    Battle Royale rip off

  • Glen  

    Man I hope they get this right. So far, the trailers show just enough to entice the readers of the novels, of which I was one, but not the whole plot, as too many movie trailers do (especially when the movie is a dog); a good sign. I so hope they get this movie right.

  • Bossuk  

    "Battle Royale rip off" - How, because they fight until they die?
    The focus here seems to be an individual and her story, rather than the whole group, which is a major change in the story. Based on your flawed logic....
    All car movies are rip offs of Bullit
    Vampire movies are rip offs of Nostradamus
    Cop movies are all rip offs of Dirty Harry.
    ..get the point yet?!?!?

  • Rakiura  

    "Rip Off" is unfair, derivative is not. It is derivative, not neccessarily of Battle Royale, there are elements of Running Man in there too. It's a survival film, there are plenty to come before, plenty to come after, people get stuck on Battle Royale because it challeneged convention thematically buy making children undertake violence that had previously been reserved for adults.

    "The focus here seems to be an individual and her story, rather than the whole group, which is a major change in the story..."

    Battle Royale was actually about 2 protagonists, this film is the same, every film needs a small amount of characterisation, even the collateral damage characters, otherwise it depersonalises their death. It is magnified by Battle Royale because these characters are easily related to, the writers being able to break down and generalise each one quickly, so a connection is felt, based on prior experience of similar types of people and personalities, the may only have a couple of minutes screen time, but their death can be empathised with at the very least. As in Battle Royale, this film has a lurking love story in the face of an "only one can survive" scenario, in the Hollywood setting, love against all odds is cinematic gold. It may not be a wholesale ripoff in the vein of something like "The Grudge" going through a Westernisation process, but there are certainly similarities that cannot be ignored between it and Battle Royale, it doesn't make either one better, or worse for that matter, but the comparison is inescapeable. Battle Royale pioneered the moral and ethical dilemmas of "survival" films by channeling it through teenagers, amplifying the effect through the childish dramas that teenagers create and experience. Hunger Games is taking the same kind of moral and ethical conflict to the bank. The purists are miffed because, unlike "The Ring" or "The Grudge" there is no nod to the key element inspiring the film. The fans are miffed because they believe that this film is more 'original' than it actually is.

    All that matters is if the film is good or not, if it's good, it will be able to stand in the genre alongide ones that came before it; if it's rubbish, it just becomes a failed attempt to cash in upon something done better before it. For fans of The Hunger Games, the film first has to be good before it can be considered better than those it is compared to, if it does that, there will be little arguement over its merit alongside Battle Royale. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm yet to see it, but the key issue should be if it does the book justice, and can stand up against any comparisons made between it and other films.

  • Rakiura  

    'Rip Off' is unfair, derivative is not. It is derivative, not neccessarily of Battle Royale, there are elements of Running Man in there too. It's a survival film, there are plenty to come before, plenty to come after, people get stuck on Battle Royale because it challeneged convention thematically buy making children undertake violence that had previously been reserved for adults. 'The focus here seems to be an individual and her story, rather than the whole group, which is a major change in the story...'

    Battle Royale was actually about 2 protagonists, this film is the same, every film needs a small amount of characterisation, even the collateral damage characters, otherwise it depersonalises their death. It is magnified by Battle Royale because these characters are easily related to, the writers being able to break down and generalise each one quickly, so a connection is felt, based on prior experience of similar types of people and personalities, the may only have a couple of minutes screen time, but their death can be empathised with at the very least. As in Battle Royale, this film has a lurking love story in the face of an "only one can survive" scenario, in the Hollywood setting, love against all odds is cinematic gold. It may not be a wholesale ripoff in the vein of something like The Grudge going through a Westernisation process, but there are certainly similarities that cannot be ignored between it and Battle Royale, it doesn't make either one better, or worse for that matter, but the comparison is inescapeable. Battle Royale pioneered the moral and ethical dilemmas of 'survival'; films by channeling it through teenagers, amplifying the effect through the childish dramas that teenagers create and experience. Hunger Games is taking the same kind of moral and ethical conflict to the bank. The purists are miffed because, The Ring or The Grudge; there is no real nod to the key elements inspiring the film. The fans are miffed because they believe that this film is more 'original' than it actually is. All that matters is if the film is good or not, if it's good, it will be able to stand in the genre alongide ones that came before it; if it's rubbish, it just becomes a failed attempt to cash in upon something done better before it. For fans of The Hunger Games, the film first has to be good before it can be considered better than those it is compared to, if it does that, there will be little arguement over its merit alongside Battle Royale. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm yet to see it, but the key issue should be if it does the book justice, and can stand up against any comparisons made between it and other films.

  • Rakiura  

    doubled up... that's irritating, how do I delete one?

  • RochelleBr  

    Wow, Awesome this is perfect sutff

  • Bossuk  

    I could quite easily take this film and add in a dozen films to compare it too.

    But ultimately it does not matter. Yes, people will compare it with Battle Royale which is silly for a multitude of reasons. The intended audience is different, the very adult orientated story telling in Battle Royale is not here. This film is trying to appeal to all audiences, something BR never did. Yes, the survival factor and randomness of it is there, but the telling of the story is not even close.
    It's been hollywood'd and as such some people will like that, some won't. But a comparison between them is a chalk and cheese comparison. Yes, you can make it, but its a pointless exercise.Different genre, different audience....different films.

  • Overrwatcher  

    Ripoff is a very strong word. I'd say "Inspired by" is better. The Hunger Games trilogy isn't focused on the Free-For-All arena called the Hunger Games. It's focused on a love triangle and a rebellion.

    For the film itself? Honestly it's a 7/10, 5/10 if you haven't read the book. The acting is superb along with the visual/audio. It's a great depiction of the books, and follows closely. However, the pacing is absolutely terrible and character/world development is almost none if you haven't read the books.

  • unliunliunli  

    I actually like how this movie was made. I was impressed with the actors and I like how each character portrayed their role according to the description in the book. I loved Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks). I also loved Josh and Jennifer. I definitely felt their chemistry in the movie. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) was great. I can't wait for the Catching Fire.