The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

[Snicket]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Confirmed today by Lionsgate, releasing in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Rumored for some time, the third chapter of the The Hunger Games trilogy is officially set to be split into two films. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 will be released on November 21, 2014 with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 arriving on November 20, 2015.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Tony208]

sadly, this is the future of hollywood

splitting films when they don't need to creatively so they can get more $

Potter

Twilight

Hobbit

[fatediesel]

There was no question Mockingjay was going to be 2 movies. They've seen how successful Harry Potter and Twilight have done by breaking their final books into 2 movies and know they can make a lot of extra money this way. I think this is a pretty good thing though. To try and make Mockingjay into 1 movie would have been very difficult and they would have had to cut a lot of the book out.

[The Apocalypse]

Ideally, when two-parter movies are released, our ticket for the first part should also be valid for the second, or we should get another ticket, either for free or at a reduced price until such time as the second part is released.

[Snicket]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why not split it into 3? Or 4? If you don't give a rats ass about the source material why limit yourself to just two?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by fatediesel

There was no question Mockingjay was going to be 2 movies. They've seen how successful Harry Potter and Twilight have done by breaking their final books into 2 movies and know they can make a lot of extra money this way. I think this is a pretty good thing though. To try and make Mockingjay into 1 movie would have been very difficult and they would have had to cut a lot of the book out.

In no way does Mockingjay warrant 2 films. It's not even that long of a book and Katniss spends most of her time in a state of teen angst doing absolutely nothing, or she is doing nothing while being drugged up.

[SethRex]

I agree. In the case of Harry Potter, it was a great decision and each part I felt benefited from the split. I can't say the same for Twilight as I've never read the book and again for Mockingjay.

[Bucky]

I will wait and see how it turns out. Mockingjay was my least favorite of the trilogy because I thought it felt rushed, so maybe splitting it into two will allow it to be fleshed out a bit more.

At least Lionsgate learned from the mistakes of others and signed the actors to four films in the beginning so they do not have to rework their deals.

[jpthomas27]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

Ideally, when two-parter movies are released, our ticket for the first part should also be valid for the second, or we should get another ticket, either for free or at a reduced price until such time as the second part is released.

That's simply rediculous!

Originally Posted by Snicket

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why not split it into 3? Or 4? If you don't give a rats ass about the source material why limit yourself to just two?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In the end the entire thing is one story. I don't hear anyone complaining that it was split into 3 books? No one is complaining they had to buy three seperate books instead of one book that was rediculously long.

The bottom line is the author thought it was best to split it into three books. And in order to tell the story as effectively as possible in the film media it was decided that 4 movies would better allow them to do it than 3, or 2 or 5...suck it up people!

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Snicket

In no way does Mockingjay warrant 2 films. It's not even that long of a book and Katniss spends most of her time in a state of teen angst doing absolutely nothing, or she is doing nothing while being drugged up.

+1

She just sits underground while everyone else is off fighting the war.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by jpthomas27

In the end the entire thing is one story. I don't hear anyone complaining that it was split into 3 books? No one is complaining they had to buy three seperate books instead of one book that was rediculously long.

The bottom line is the author thought it was best to split it into three books. And in order to tell the story as effectively as possible in the film media it was decided that 4 movies would better allow them to do it than 3, or 2 or 5...suck it up people!

I believe this is incorrect sir.

Each book has a beginning, a middle and an end. They are 3 separate stories. The overall story arc might have been conceived as one story in a very broad and obtuse sense but each book stands on its own as its own story. Thats why there are 3 books.

"As effectively as possible" in Hollywood language this translates roughly as "Oh **** grab as much money as you can while you can!!!!!" If you really believe Lionsgate did this to give justice to the story in the book you are way off base.

[Edword]

I knew this was going to happen Splitting it into two films is going to make it drag on IMO.

[NARMAK]

I have no problems with them splitting movies based on books into two IF they actually manage to get the majority of the stuff outta the books and onto the big screen and balance it all so well that the story has good pacing.

Otherwise as mentioned, it's just a blatant cash grab by the studios.

[Agent Bond]

Just do yourself a favor and skip Part 1. I regret not doing that with Deathly Hallows.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Tony208

sadly, this is the future of hollywood
splitting films when they don't need to creatively so they can get more $

Potter
Twilight
Hobbit

Hobbit was split so that it wouldn't feel "anticlimactic" that it was one short and rather trivial story when the fans were expecting another "epic trilogy"

And we often lost sight that Potter was split because it was eight hundred pages long, and had two very distinct halves with separately climactic tones (even if Pt. 1 didn't feel like it had a story).
Dates back to when Warner thought they had to slavishly transcribe every word in the books, looked at the six-hundred page "Goblet of Fire", and thought they had to do two movies--Instead, the failure of the Matrix sequels talked them into doing just one movie, and they ended up doing one of the best and cleanest Readers' Digest book condensations of the entire series....But that little gremlin stayed inside gnawing at their brains, and they were just waiting for a chance to try it again.

So was everyone else, for the above reason--They just saw an excuse to sell the same title twice, since it would be all over too quickly if they only sold it once.

Originally Posted by Snicket

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Well, that should technically be

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

as in, not only the color of money, but the color of Green-Eyed Franchise Jealousy as well.

(Just the other week, I was taking a focus group for '13's next teen-franchise movie series of The Mortal Instruments and had, and I only wish I was kidding, almost a dozen questions of "How would you describe Clary (the heroine) vs. Bella?" "What adjectives would you use to describe Katniss vs. Clary?"
O-kay, I get the point!: Every publisher with a movie deal now thinks they own Grrly-March all to themselves, and each one now thinks they have to do a two-part Deathly Hallows at the Breaking Dawn...)

[keb33509]

The Hobbit needed to be split.

[BluRoo98]

I personally like when the epic films are extended into more parts. It leaves you hanging and keeps the anticipation high for the next release. Star wars started a trend of telling a story over many films whereas other sequels (jaws, jurassic park) are merely sequels. The fact that potter happened over almost a decade makes it fun to think back to everything that happened in my life during that time.

[mredman]

So instead of a trilogy now this will be 4 movies is this really necessary

[Rudeboy2025]

As someone who read and finished the series after watching the first movie, it's absolutely not necessary to split the last book.

It needed to be done with Harry Potter and The Hobbit is epic (I am biased if you can't tell), so I'm ok with that being split into two.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Rudeboy2025

As someone who read and finished the series after watching the first movie, it's absolutely not necessary to split the last book.

It needed to be done with Harry Potter and The Hobbit is epic (I am biased if you can't tell), so I'm ok with that being split into two.

The Hobbit, like Deathly Hallows, does have two halves:
1) Running around in the woods, and 2) Lots and lots of clashing armies, and everything burning up in flames.

Hunger Games splitting in two is peer pressure. Nothing but teen peer pressure.
(If Twilight jumped off a roof, I suppose you would too?)