Movie News

THE HUNGER GAMES Trailer!

Published at: Nov. 14, 2011, 8:32 a.m. CST

Nordling here.

Haven't read the books (but I want to) and I'm not in a place where I can watch this right now, but I can say that I am very much looking forward to this film.  I like Gary Ross a lot as a director, I love the cast (even if Jennifer Lawrence skews a little old) and I think the post-apocalyptic premise shows promise.  I'll be picking up the books very soon, I think.  Until then, here's the new trailer, just released this morning:

THE HUNGER GAMES comes out next year.  Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:32 a.m. CST

    guh

    by terrence horan

    guh?

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:35 a.m. CST

    Hard not to keep making Battle Royale comparisons.

    by knowthyself

    And that movie has the blood and guts this movie doesn't have the balls to put on screen.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:35 a.m. CST

    looks

    by terrence horan

    garbagy

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Try this link, cause it doesn't seem to be on AICN's site yet...

    by Paul Hanlin Jr

    youtu.be/rXJ9Hm2SFlg . Looks kickass; think of THG as Twilight Saga, only written about a billion x better.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    looks better than i thought.

    by Jackson

    when i saw the sneak peek at the vmas and the screenshots on cineplex.com i thought it would be a pretty bad movie compared to the books but this new trailer really makes it look good!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    looks better than i thought.

    by Jackson

    when i saw the sneak peek at the vmas and the screenshots on cineplex.com i thought it would be a pretty bad movie compared to the books but this new trailer really makes it look good!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:43 a.m. CST

    looks better than i thought.

    by Jackson

    when i saw the sneak peek at the vmas and the screenshots on cineplex.com i thought it would be a pretty bad movie compared to the books but this new trailer really makes it look good!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Looks good!

    by Judge Briggs

    I just hope the romantic stuff isn't stuffed down our throats on the big screen because it's not in the first book. Can't say much about the 2nd and 3rd ones though.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Uhh, the romance was front and center judge briggs

    by Uncle Pooky

    SPOLIER: Katniss would have never survived without it.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:56 a.m. CST

    "guh"?

    by slone13

    Is that this month's "meh"? I weep for the future. Movie looks entertaining though. Who gives a fuck about Battle Royale comparisons? 95% of the people on the planet have no idea that Battle Royale even exists.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:02 a.m. CST

    What will the reaction be?

    by AtheistScum

    My kids have been reading these books, which are very popular but kind of flying under the radar of parental attention (certainly nothing like the attention given to Harry Potter or even Percy Jackson). But I wonder - what will the public reaction will be to a story about kids fighting to the death? I suspect a lot of parents will not let their kids see this movie. What will it be rated - PG-13 or R? Should be very interesting to see how this is received.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Blood and gore

    by topher1078

    The books had just has much, if not more, blood and gore and sheer crazy violence than Battle Royal. There's certain violent scenes integral to the plot that you just can't cut out, and even just hiding the violence offscreen doesn't really work, so as a fan of the books I'm incredibly curious of how they manage it in a PG-13 film.

  • For all those hankering after a LOGAN'S RUN remake - this is the equivalent of it. Dystopian sf for a new generation. Looks like it follows the books. Could well be very good.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Umm she's 21

    by Demosthenes2

    I don't know how old the character is supposed to be, but how is that old? If the character's a teenager, twentysomethings play teenagers all the time.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Offtopic: Star Trek 2 confirmed for 2013.

    by Paul Hanlin Jr

    Sorry guys: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-2-Finally-Rescheduled-2013-Release-Date-27876.html

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Nordling, set some time out to read the books...

    by Paul Hanlin Jr

    It will be worth your while. They are everything the Twilight books aren't, and that's a good thing.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:19 a.m. CST

    sneak peak looked like cheap indy, trailer looks epic

    by jackbauerpowerhour

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:22 a.m. CST

    While it's true the book, and its sequels are market to teens the fact is

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    it's a good read. I read the first book a few months ago, and it was a good concept. The fact that it has a younger audience doesn't make it any less read worthy than sci-fi/post-apocalyptic novels targeted for older audiences.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Battle Royale was social control. This is errr ?

    by higgledyhiggles

    I thought the idea was that in Battle Royale it`s the semi future and kids are running riot in gangs etc so the government creates battle Royale to Oust undesirables. In this, Why are the kids fighting ? Other than the fact it`s supposed to `feel`dramatic, why are the kids the one`s who are fighting ? not adults or convicts or robots. What factors allow everyone else to make this decision, because they are hungry ? Eat the adults, there`s more meat on them. Also how many more `rich-elite-running-the-world-with-blood-sport` lazy cliches can we take. ? at least one more I guess.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:24 a.m. CST

    I agree with pennsy2011. I gave Twilight a chance.

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    I finished the first book, but barely got into the second. Too much angst crap, and not enough vampires and werewolves.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:34 a.m. CST

    @higgledyhiggles answer to why kids fighting

    by topher1078

    The Hunger Games take place in a society a hundred years, give or take, from our own. There was a gigantic war global war that decimated the world. From that war, on North America, a new nation called Panem was formed with a controlling Capitol, surrounded by 12 Districts. The Capitol was crazy totalitarian and the 12 districts tried to rebel. That rebellion failed, and as punishment, the Capitol holds annual Hunger Games fought among the 12 districts (two kids each) where each kid in each district has an equal chance of being selected. The whole point of the games is for the Capitol to enact "punishment" for the rebellion and demonstrate the absolute power they hold over the district - we can make your kids fight to the death and there isn't a thing you can do about it. So, similar idea to Battle Royal, but in a much more fleshed out grander universe.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:36 a.m. CST

    The kids are fighting because

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    In the future, of what was North America there are 13 districts. Panem (I think that's the name) is the district which rules the other 12. Years ago there was an uprising. The other 12 districts tried to revolt. They lost, and as a result The Hunger Games were created as a way for Panem to say don't ever fuck with us again, and now every year you're going to give up two of your citizens as tribute as a reminder. While there are prizes for staying alive it's not something done voluntarily like The Long Walk.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:38 a.m. CST

    higgledyhiggles

    by FoolishFool

    Backstory: In the country of Panem (what North America used to be) there is the Capitol, and there were 13 Districts. About 70 years ago from the beginning of the book, the districts rebelled against the Capitol. The rebellion was quashed, and District 13 was completely obliterated. Ever since then, each year the Capitol takes one boy and one girl from each of the remaining 12 districts as "tributes," ostensibly to remind everyone of the war, and the sacrifices made, and blah blah. But really it's just a way to remind the people in the districts how the Capitol completely owns them in every way, and how they're incapable of stopping the Capitol from murdering their kids for sport. So, basically, social control, but in a different way.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:38 a.m. CST

    the point of Battle Royale was that it was pointlessly cruel

    by Spandau Belly

    The whole tournament was basically corrupt cronies in a dictatorship amusing themselves. It served no societal purpose other than to remind the general public that the dictator could pit your kids against each other in a deathmatch just because he felt like it.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Looks pretty good

    by Michelle

    As a fan of these books, I've seen many book converted to film pretty much fail. But the emotions drawn from this trailer totally came through, so I think it's going to be pretty good. And the actress who portrays Katniss is exactly how I imagined her.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Jennifer is super sexy

    by RogueWarrior65

    Sorry, haters, but you guys all have this warped sense of what is sexy & tough. Truly sexy women don't have to advertise it. Jennifer brings it. Jen, call me.

  • what the movie was about, while Nordling just posted a link to a trailer, and gave no other information. I'm not saying he's had to have read the book, but a little more information was obviously needed.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:56 a.m. CST

    All about the money

    by cloud_86

    I think Battle Royale was more about the economy tanking and the goverment realized supporting children was too expensive. The Battle Royale system did a random lottery where they chose a school every year. The 1st flick had a collar system. Anyone thinkin of escape or in a battle zone that was shut down. Hunger Games will most likely be watered down and PG-13.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:57 a.m. CST

    strangely moving

    by 2soon2eat

    Gotta admit, I got choked up at the choosing. The books are solidly good, but maybe not great (well, the first one was the best). As far as the preview, pretty straight forward, but well done.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:57 a.m. CST

    oh ya

    by cloud_86

    forgot to mention ur collar blew up and killed you.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Not very hungry-looking district denizens.

    by dockealy

    They look well-fed and decently dressed. Not at all like the degree of poverty and privation the book described. Typical hollywood beautification treatment of the source material. It's gotta appeal to Twi-hards - Dirty and emaciated gets in the way of Shecksy!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10 a.m. CST

    What is stupid about the premise is this. . .

    by Ingeld

    The tributes are given celebrity status. One does not demean and degrade a people by raising their children to celebrity status even if it forces them to fight to the death. It would be brutal and ugly from start to finish. In addition, as a parent I could not buy that parents would simply stand by year after year and let their children go to be slaughtered. (Don't raise the idea of a military draft as an analogy. Parents allowed it when they believed that the sacrifice of life was for some greater good. One of the reasons that Vietnam was terrible is that people realized their kids were being slaughtered for nothing).

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST

    I imagined coal dust everywhere in the village.

    by whatevillurks

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST

    They look well fed and decently dressed because

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    Some of them have been groomed (illegally but no one cares) to be contestants. It was Panem that dressed them up. Also, on selection day everyone is forced to come out in their "Sunday best." You wouldn't know not having read the book. If you've read it, then you're just either forgetting or ignoring it just as I forgot about the 13th district which was wiped off the face of the earth.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:05 a.m. CST

    No, the premise works because with the status thing

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    you forget about your own troubles. You forget you're being punished. You're cheering for your own district, and being herded like sheep to forget who the real problem is. It is so much like our media today. Ooh, let's watch American Idol, and forget how we're being fucked over by the government. It's a good premised, but has been done before most notably in The Running Man.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:09 a.m. CST

    hey creepythinmanlives will you shut the fuck up

    by bohdi71

    You are coming across as a fucking cock head, axe murdering rapist!!!!

  • I was hoping even a dystopian future will be free from Bible-thumpers!

  • Get a life asshole.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:13 a.m. CST

    re: has_snyder_been_fired_from_superman_yet

    by Ingeld

    Don't worry. The book is absolutely free of any references to religion or any deity--something I also found odd in the book. Poor oppressed people often turn to some belief in a higher power to help deliver them.

  • ...Too bad they can't do anything about here freakish female adam's apple neck, though.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:16 a.m. CST

    I don't even know where to begin......

    by catlettuce4

    I'm a huge fan of the books. -If you're avoiding reading the books because you don't want to be pushed by the hype or think it's another Twilight you're making a huge mistake. All a true geek cares about is good content, whether it's from Japan, Serbia or the Young Adult section at Barnes & Noble. -I can't deny it's similar in premise to Battle Royale but it's such a lazy comparison. I mean imagine your reaction if some non Sci-Fi fan compared Star Wars to Star Trek? -I'm a little discouraged by the trailer. I don't think the movie will due justice to the book as in so many cases. But if it gets more people to check out the books... Great. @ingeld Many people have pointed this out and I agree with it. However I find that the books are so entertaining that these flaws can be forgiven. @demosthenes2 The character she's playing is 16 and looks younger than her age in the book. So that's why JL is too old.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:18 a.m. CST

    ingeld

    by FoolishFool

    It makes sense because Panem wants all of the districts to be in competition with each other. If the winner of the games got nothing more than a life of pure shit that wasn't any better than their previous lives, there would be no motivation to win, thus no competition. The games are a way to keep the people down by also fostering an idea of being divided. If you know that the people in the other districts would just as soon kill you as look at you, you're probably not going to think about joining up with them to incite any rebellion. In fact, if they're one of the "richer" districts who generally have the strongest competition, you might outwardly resent them. Also, it shows how fucked up Panem has made its citizens by the fact that they DO go along with the Hunger Games. It's either that, or be completely obliterated like District 13.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Great casting

    by MarkSingle

    I love the first book but I was pretty disappointed with parts 2 and 3. This movie looks promising. I think Gary Ross is a very talented writer but I don't know if this directing job really is his cup of tea. The casting is brilliant though. Jennifer Lawrence should be great as Katniss and Josh Hutchinson was also my favourite to play Peeta. Great move by the director! So I do have faith...

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    I'm intrigued.

    by blackwood

    And I'm a fan of JLaw. Sorry, I won't use that again.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Battle Royale is still......

    by masteryoda007

    fucking amazing! - Explosive neck collars (Check) - Tikeshi Kitano (Check) - Chiaki Kuriyama (Check) - Menstrual teenage girls with Uzi's (Check)

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Well that told me.. 9)

    by higgledyhiggles

    Fair enough I guess. It`s just at the end of it all what do the rich have to offer when money is worthless. I`ve never really understood this, I guess it`s human nature that after the apocalypse everyone either joins a roving gang of bandits, joins the army of the rich people, is a generic downtrodden peasant or you are the one who is detined to save the wasteland through prophecy or happy accient. Career choices seem simpler in the future.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Foolishfool

    by Ingeld

    I don't believe people --particularly parents--will willingly sacrifice their children to gain some meager material goods. I think they would rather fight and die first. For them to put up with it for 70 years suggest a view of human nature that I just can't agree with. Thus Panem would be stupid to incite the districts this way by giving them the greatest motivation to rebel.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Her name sounds like catpiss.

    by F-18

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST

    My thoughts at Eat Sleep Live Film

    by Bradley porter

    Hey guys... check out my incoherent ramblings on The Hunger Games over at Eat Sleep Live Film.com http://www.eatsleeplivefilm.com/could-the-hunger-games-be-less-twilight-and-more-good/12117/ We're small and British and would LOVE to have you read us...

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    This looks utterly ridiculous...

    by notcher

    Not just the story, but the costumes as well, I wanted to laugh like five times when I saw some of those haircuts and wardrobes. I do not hunger for this game. I call CRAP!!!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    notcher

    by Nice Marmot

    C'mon, it's the future. I'm laughing five times at the haircuts and wardrobes NOW . . .

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Nice Marmot

    by notcher

    Very true, but still, why does futuristic mean transvestite looking frock haircuts? ALWAYS like this. Oh well, I guess I can't complain, I won't be seeing it anyway.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:56 a.m. CST

    looked ok...thanks to those who explained the basic plot

    by Raskolnikov_was_framed

    because that was my one question after watching the trailer is why do they even have these games...and shiftyeyeddog if you're right about the Brave trailer tomorrow that's awesome...oh and WHERE IS THE PROMETHEUS TEASER!?!?!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Gary Ross is really talented

    by Randy

    Like really really talented, he could make this film work on his ability to turn anything into gold.

  • ...disqualifies himself from being taken seriously when discussing the aesthetic virtues of what does and doesn't make a good film. Fact.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    oh, Christ the FACT! guy is back....

    by rben

    PAD, we need you man!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Not fair, kells.

    by blackwood

    Verhoeven is a great -- GREAT -- satirist. STARSHIP TROOPERS alone qualifies him.

  • Within months you'll see TEAM PEETA and TEAM GALE shirts. Just watch. Also, the movie just looks too, well, CLEAN. We're talking about a world where EVERYONE lives in servitude...especially in D12 where all they do is mine. In the books they make it sound like the sun barely ever shines. And yes, JL is WAY too old to play this role...Katniss should be 16 and JL still looks like 20 year old Winter's Bone Trailer Trash.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:26 a.m. CST

    sorry, this looks like teen crap

    by Browncoat_Jedi

    still better than Twilight I'm sure

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Apparently I've been living in a cave

    by Bass Ackwards

    I'd heard of this series but I really didn't know what it was about. That trailer looks pretty slick, I'm actually very interested in seeing this flick that hadn't even been on my radar before.

  • Does that seem accurate? Is there anyone out there that knows more about these books that can say otherwise?

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:49 a.m. CST

    bass ackwards

    by Ingeld

    Your comment sounds exactly like something a promoter of the movie would slip into a comments section for a movie trailer--a subtle, but vague, comment to generate positive interest. Just saying.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:50 a.m. CST

    I've read both books

    by catlettuce4

    @reluctant austinite I've read both books, The Hunger Games trilogy + the english translation of Battle Royale published by Viz. I can confidently say THG pulls no punches. I have no idea if they're going to show it in the movie (proabably not) but the book is as violent and merciless as Battle Royale.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Looks really bland

    by Mattman

    Bland cinematography, bland acting, and a story we've seen a million times before.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Aaahhhh, Jennifer Lawrence!

    by AsimovLives

    I think i'm in love!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Looks truly awful

    by Brian Hopper

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Kells, here's your homework for the week:

    by Mattman

    See Robocop, Starship Troopers, and Black Book. Until you've done that, you eat at the kiddie table.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    RE: Anyone who says "Oh, it's not twilight...really it's not"

    by catlettuce4

    @remcycle Well it's really how you define "it's another Twilight". The book isn't, the movie proabably won't. It might be marketed as another Twilight although you'll notice the trailer had zero romance stuff. And the Hunger Games fans aren't like the Twilight fans. I mean there's the "Team Peeta/Gale" contingent but most are not like that.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:20 p.m. CST

    kells re: Verhoeven

    by Keith

    You sound either a bit young or a bit silly. Verhoeven is sometimes barking mad, but he has had moments of true genius in his film-making. Robocop and Starship Troopers would both be among my favourite fifty movies.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:21 p.m. CST

    hatedperson

    by Keith

    Why, did you feel you'd already read the apotheosis of the genre?

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST

    roguewarrior65

    by AsimovLives

    I saw her first.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    @hatedperson

    by FoolishFool

    Because nothing says "chick flick" like teenagers brutally murdering each other.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST

    KELLS...

    by johnnyrandom

    ...you're clueless.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Re: the age thing

    by Keith

    Is it possible that they will up the official age of the characters in the movie, the same way they did in Logan's Run? (In the book, 21 is the age cap; in the movie, this is changed to being 30.) Young characters are a potential achilles heel in movies. All the kids in the Harry Potter series gave great performances when I read the books. Not quite so good in the movies.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    people who should be banned because of their own stupidity

    by Inglorious Bastard

    creepythinmanlives, hatedperson

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:32 p.m. CST

    Just read the first chapter

    by catlettuce4

    If you've never read the books. Just read one chapter. Drop your preconeptions about it being another Twilight or a Battle Royale knockoff. Don't speed through it, take a solid 4-7 minutes and really read it. I only write this because it really pains me when male geeks dismiss this without even reading one chapter. You're seriously going to miss out on one of the best pop culture offerings in the last 10 years because you think it's another girly Twilight book? I don't even care about the movie, they could bomb for all I care. But the books.... ONE CHAPTER. DO IT.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    creepythinman reminds me of being at a kids birthday party.....

    by rogueleader66

    He is the kid, and you sit back and watch this simple mind have their childish fun, and just laugh at the simplicity of it all....his insults are reminiscent of a 10 year old who has just discovered profanity...way too stupid to be even remotely insulting....just funny.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Oh...my above post.....FACT!

    by rogueleader66

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:39 p.m. CST

    kells

    by rogueleader66

    You're a moron...it's you who knows nothing about what does or doesn't make a good film. Your dismissal of Verhoeven is all the proof needed. Now go finish grammar school then get back to us.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Thanks hatedperson

    by Inglorious Bastard

    "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt."

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 12:46 p.m. CST

    On a more Hunger Games-related note

    by Inglorious Bastard

    The books are pretty entertaining, and not at all what I was expecting going in. They make some interesting comments on the nature of media/celebrity relationships. Hopefully that stays intact. The trailer at least strikes the right tone, though, so I'm optimistic.

  • It is that it is poorly written. Cardboard characters inhabit a pastiche of a plot. All carefully packaged to push adolescent buttons: video game violence and action, reality show drama and glitz, a potential love triangle involving a sensitive guy and the right amount of youthful rebellion and angst. Ka-ching at cash register!

  • bwahahahaha!!!! HE LOVES THE COCK!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Creepy/Ron Burgundy Mash-Up

    by Bartleby T. Scrivener

    "I love cock. Cock-a-cock-a-cock. Here it goes in, up into my anus. Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm." BWAHAHAHA!

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Oh thank God the Hunger Games trailer is back

    by Mattman

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Oh, good. I take back what I said--that

    by Ingeld

    the talkback was pulled because of some negative comments.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Woah

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    Anyone else feel like they've just jumped forward in time? Strange feeling...

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 2:45 p.m. CST

    This is for teens

    by I am_NOTREAL

    I read the first book. It is darker than I assume a good deal of teen-oriented fare to be, but sorry, this is still not really for anyone remotely possessing an adult sensibility. Older than 18, wasting your time here.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    I am bothered by the derivative look of it

    by Badger23

    The stormtrooper uniforms are my first concern for the production design of this thing. The whole look seems just so cliche. Looking forward to this but I'm very worried.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    ingeld

    by Inglorious Bastard

    I have to disagree on the poorly written characters comment. At least emotionally, the characters are more layered than what you find in most genre YA books. I think the real thing that shines in the books is Suzanne Collins ability to give her characters choices in which neither outcome is necessarily wrong or even desired. The books aren't groundbreaking by any means, but they are solid. Honestly, though, thats just my individual reaction to it.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Battle Royale remarks are from people who haven't read it

    by lonecow12

    I was the same way until I read it. It is quite different. Might as well compare it to The Lottery or The Game which predate Battle Royale and have the same plot. The only similarities here is that both involve children and Hunger Games is way way more brutal with the death of kids than BR was.

  • All flash, no substance.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    inglorious bastard

    by Ingeld

    Perhaps. The only characters that have any depth or layers are Katniss and Peeta. The rest are merely/barely little more than one dimensional stock characters. Beyond that the technique used to apply the layers to the principle characters is obvious and a bit heavy handed. Collins intentionally flips traditional gender roles to create them. Thus Katniss is emotionally cool, assertive and calculating--acts well rather than speaks well. While Peeta is sensitive, verbal and, save for his initial alliance with the tributes, passive. She hunts; he bakes. It all seems a little too pat and clever. Yodels have layers too, but there is still not much there but sugar, starch and fat.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Why are they called "Hunger Games"?

    by Teddy Artery

    Give 'em a burger.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Worst Casting EVER

    by themanwithaname

    Yup, I'll join the chorus of people ridiculing the casting of Jennifer Lawrence (at this point I'm more likely to buy Paris Hilton as Katniss). The other Twihards, um, sorry, Tributes are just as unconvincing and seem like rejects from a Breaking Dawn audition. What is Lionsgate trying to do with this film? Alienate the human race? 1000 bucks says this is nowhere near as successful as they're hoping and LG ends up producing no more than three of the four planned films (if that).

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    When I read the book I pictured a young Laura Prepon

    by Ingeld

    as Katniss. Perhaps not a good choice, but stuck.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 4:01 p.m. CST

    I also bothered that Lionsgate is making this

    by Badger23

    They make shit movies.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    I am...

    by Badger23

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST

    themanwithaname

    by Inglorious Bastard

    I'm fairly sure that of all the casting on this movie, Jennifer Lawrence's was probably the least controversial. Also, Lionsgate would probably be counting their blessings if they are able to make it to three in this series. Please troll better.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 4:05 p.m. CST

    consider my tickets bought

    by belledame

    i was riveted withing 10 minutes of opening the first book. this trailer looks pretty good. they seem to have struck the balance between the realism of how harsh life is in the districts and the glossy, shiny, color-saturated superficiality of the capitol. *BOOK SPOILER* it's called "the hunger games" because part of registering for the reaping is the chance to get a years supply of additional food/fuel rations for those who don't get chosen. the lottery system is not one ticket per kid, the number of tickets increases exponentially with age AND each kid is allowed to put a ticket with their name in for each member of their family for the food lottery. no one between 12 and 18 can abstain from putting in at least one ticket, but most are too desperate to pass up the chance at the extra supplies. to quote the well-manicured man in "x-files: fight the future:" <i>"we are but beggars to our own demise."</i> katniss is a classic hero

  • Basically, if they are faithful to most of what happens inside of the arena, I will be entertained. Read the 1st and 2nd books. The 2nd book worried me right off the bat, as it gave off the vibe of taking a "Twilight" route and focusing on a love triangle. But if you stay with it, you find that the love triangle aspect always takes a backseat to the action and is really not the primary storyline at all. So in this way, I get why people are defending it from such critiques, as it is really lacking in any annoying angst whatsoever. I think the books are certainly aimed at young adults, but like the Harry Potter books, I feel they can certainly be enjoyed by those older as well. While nobody would mistake them for a Tolkien level of writing, they do have some interesting ideas and some very exciting moments.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Loved it.

    by JediWuddayaknow

    Great trailer. I loved the shit out of the first two books, too. The third, however is such a let down, I can't imagine enjoying the movie. Everything I'd felt they were building up to was just kind of tossed aside to show us that war can hurt anyone. It was bullshit. I wanted Katniss to march on Snow's compound and end his ass. There were amazing moments when she was being the Mockingjay, but then she spent half the fucking book in a hospital room. Fuck that shit. I hope they deviate WAY the hell off of the book for the final movie. I don't give a shit if it's unrealistic that Katniss become a supreme bad-ass. What we got was lame as hell.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    What do you call the Hunger Games with Cheese in France?

    by Ingeld

    A Battle Royale

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Stupid names

    by Eric Shea

    Sos I was just skimming the overview of this movie on wikipedia, and what's with the retarded character names...Katniss Everdeen, Peeta Mellark, and get this, Haymitch! I know Tolkien gave some of his hobbits silly names, but character names in fantasy novels just keep on getting stupider and stupider. If this is supposed to be in the post apocalyptic future, did an atom bomb cause them to forget traditional family names and just start to make shit up? Did they get the idea from ghetto dwellers and hillbillies?

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST

    A critique about stupid names seems ironic coming from:

    by Ingeld

    ebertdatedoprah. No offense.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Harry Potter was also for younger audiences...

    by Crobran

    ...and yet they were great reads. I may be inviting a deluge of derision with that comment, but I enjoyed them a lot. Same for the Chronicles of Narnia (move versions notwithstanding) and the Hobbit. I haven't read Hunger Games, but not all stories intended for younger audiences are inherently shallow. Stephen King put it best: "Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend."

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 6:55 p.m. CST

    File under: Battleship

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 7:28 p.m. CST

    have a little discretion

    by krazy8kat

    there are some younger kids that read this site

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 7:43 p.m. CST

    inglorious bastard

    by themanwithaname

    i'm happy that you're "fairly sure" about things. that really means a lot. and while i don't spend all day online figuring out different ways to 'troll' like you apparently do, all the casting complaints i've seen are related to lawrence. the only people who seem to take offense to 'anti-lawrence' sentiment are usually smalltown overweight losers like yourself. please get a life and while you're at it, take that appendage out of your sister, she doesn't like it.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    To everyone that is drawing a comparison between this and Twilight

    by jedimast3r

    Twilight has no balls, and is obviously Stephanie Meyer's personified fantasy tale. THG, on the other hand, has death, mayhem and destruction. While written for a young audience, it does manage to deliver some drastically adult themes, and isn't afraid to kill off characters. <p>Twilight, on the other hand, never crossed those lines, and remains a ghastly tween soap that Meyer's writing couldn't give a soul if she sold her own.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Hunger Games based on actual history...

    by zinc_chameleon

    of the Aztecs, who conquered but had trouble controlling the remaining tribes of Mexico, especially the Tlaxcalans. So they created the 'Flowery Wars' which resember the Hunger Games very closely indeed. That's why Cortes had such an easy time defeating the Aztecs; the other nations hated their guts.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:06 p.m. CST

    jedimast3r

    by Crobran

    Well spoken, sir. If I may pontificate a little, I think that the Twilight series is both a symptom of and a contributor to the dumbing down of our culture.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:13 p.m. CST

    The books are fun fast reads. Trailer looks okay

    by DoctorZoidberg

    The clothing looks too modern day. I had always envisioned a more antiquated look for some reason. It looks like it is happening next month rather than 100+ years in the future.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Haters Gonna Hate

    by LuminousBeing

    But the fact is that The Hunger Games is a pretty solid series. I finished them recently, and possessing an English Degree (with a focus in Creative Writing), I'd say I have a pretty good idea of what makes a series good. It's not Hemingway, or Tolkien, or whatever, but it's a pretty fun read. And it's pretty goddamn violent at times; things to NOT turn out well for a lot of these characters. I dig this trailer a lot. Ross seems to have captured the tone of the books; it's very somber, and death hangs in the air throughout. And as for you fucking trolls and haters...fuck your face. WHO GIVES FLYING VAGINA ABOUT BATTLE ROYALE?? GO SUCK FUKASAKU'S DICK. THIS IS AMERICA!!! WOO! Lawrence was incredible in "Winter's Bone," and Hutcherson was pretty great in "The Kids Are Alright." And, these are nothing like Twilight. Katniss Everdeen is a fairly complicated female heroine with independent motivations (most of which center on protecting her little sister, Prim), so her various indecisions and waverings are justified. Furthermore, she can kill with the best of 'em, and by the end of the series, is somewhat of a sociopath. Can't wait to see an actress with Lawrence's talent delve into this role. As far as the series is concerned, it's much more "Red Dawn + The Running Man" than it is "Twilight," and by the end, it's basically a war movie, complete with the invasion of a city and children being used as human shields. I don't seem to remember that shit in Twilight. So, to reiterate, Fuck Your Face.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Not like "Twilight" at all

    by My Pretty Pony

    I don't even understand the comparison, just like there's no real comparison between "Twilight" and "Harry Potter". Just because they're all popular YA series does not mean they have anything substantial in common. The plot of "Hunger Games" is wildly different from "Twilight", it's much more violent (the final book is especially brutal) and the 'love triangle' is not in the forefront for most of the series. These people are fighting just to stay alive, so romance is not foremost in their minds. The main characters are extremely different and HG is intricately plotted and far more compelling.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Read The Running Man, it's shorter and better.

    by skycrapper

    It could also stand for a proper movie remake.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:31 p.m. CST

    Rub for your life!!

    by WeakThirdAct

    Oops, I meant run. Darn that sexy Jennifer Lawrence.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Luminousbeing

    by DoctorZoidberg

    I agree but you're wading in spoilerish waters discussing points from later in the trilogy

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Manwithname/creepythin/hatedperson

    by DoctorZoidberg

    Buncha faggy trolls. Not debating points or offering insightful criticism, just popping 2" chubs while spewing nonsense.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9 p.m. CST

    I should have known better to insult Verhoeven on AICN.

    by kells

    The response was quite predictable, really. And I don't need the homework...have seen them all, and once was enough, thank you.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:03 p.m. CST

    A story about death games, with a PG/PG-13 rating...

    by Rindain

    sounds stupid

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Battle Royale FTW

    by Dark Knight Lite

    Hunger Games? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Bloodsport and fashion...

    by Bunger!

    This is indeed a BattleRoyale/Runningman/Roman Circus premise, but it is one that is informed by the 21st century "reality-news-infotainment" media environment we live in today. . . . . Well worth a read.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10 p.m. CST

    More handheld.

    by TopHat

    "Look! Everything is shot handheld! Its so much more REAL." ugh.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Such a clean future.

    by Bob McKyntire

    The look of the future in this trailer is akin to Southland Tales. It also looks like it wishes it could be Brazil too. Both have that over the top type of dress and hair style. As said earlier, the future here is entirely too clean. Seems like the director would do well to see Children of Men for a broken down future that actually looks lived in or 1984 even. These people look like they just moved in. You could say that the harsh sunlight in the first part with the woman in the pink dress highlights the outlandishness of the future, but that's digging deep.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Loved the book, was STOKED by the trailer

    by Anino

    It's not a 'chick book'. It's more like a co-ed Lord of the Flies. Oh--and so and so pans the book and then mentioned he reads Stephen King? Guess what. Stephen King LOVED Hunger Games. Not interested in the movie or the books? What the hell are you losers doing on this talkback?

  • IGN and others reported that over a week ago. RATED R. So chill out - and if you could try to be a tiny bit less annoying, that would be great.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Wow, I actually agree with creepy...

    by Joaquin_Ondamoon

    ..without, y'know, all the capslock screaming, whining, stupidity, and profanity. I read the first book: didn't entice me to read the other two. Running Man meets Battle Royale with a side of Twilight. Meh. And the time is exactly right for a re-tooling of The Running Man - but I wanna see a straight up adaptation of King's novel. The info overloaded/reality tv society we live in now is where the original story lived. Perfect timing to redo it now, and properly. In fact, I'd love to see all the 'Bachmann' books/stories be made into films. Minus 'Thinner', because we've seen that already (and poorly done). And you'll never see 'Rage' on the big or small screen, due to the subject matter (a school shooting, for those not familiar with it), and the fact that King took it out of print after Columbine. 'The Long Walk' anyone?

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:49 p.m. CST

    dasheight, do you have a URL for that R rating news?

    by Paul Hanlin Jr

    Because in January, Gary Ross said the Hunger Games would be PG-13. Things may have changed, obviously between then and now, tho.

  • Nov. 14, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST

    doctorzoidberg

    by belledame

    look again. the clothes are not modern. if you look at the kids during the reaping scene, they are styled out of the depression. the girls' dresses and hairstyles makes this especially clear. obviously they went with a mix to show the difference btw the desperately poor like katniss, the comfortable like peeta, the better off like effie (in pink) and the wealthy people who work for the capitol government.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Flop.

    by kabong

    You need a makeover before you fight to the death. Hardy har har.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Since it's aimed at a young audience, it won't get an R-rating.

    by kabong

    R-ratings are reserved for movies that only people over 18 would want to see. <p> Yes, the ratings system is rigged. <p> Yes, everything is rigged. <p> Especially the new job at NBC for Chelsea Clinton.

  • Seriously, is it just me, or does this seem like it would work much much better if it were allowed to just unleash itself and go full bore? Meaning R-rated, not aimed squarely at kids, tweens, and teens? I know, The Hunger Games books are supposed to be young adult. Whatever the fuck that means anyways. Ugh. Young adult, that whole wacky nebulous bracket of books seriously creeps me the fuck out. Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be books for younger readers. The thing with young adult stuff is that it seems to not really know what it is supposed to be. Is it safe for young minds one minute, but also kinda faux-trashy and pseudo-edgy the next? Seriously. Twilight and all those kinds of books just seem like they don't really have a point. As in why were they written? Just to cash in on the fact that they can sell a lot of books to kids and teens by showing the sizzle, but no steak? And don't even get me started on The Hunger Games after watching the above posted trailer. I mean WTF? This kind of material (kids being trained to hunt and kill each other), being presented in such a sanitized and young adulty way is seriously more offensive than something controversial like say... oh I don't know, Battle Royal. Seriously. This would be like if Spielberg made Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan as light comedic adventures. I mean, I am not against violence being shown onscreen. In fact, some of my favorite movies are very violent. It is just that, I don't know, this notion of violent and brutal premises for stories sort of hovering in this nebulous and vague no man's land between sanitized young adult woes and a greater truth and honesty by not sugar coating darkness, despair, and violence... it just kinda pisses me off a bit. It just seems like a waste of time for both the filmmakers and the audience. I mean, as a young lad, I really became fascinated by movies through seeing a lot of the kinda films I wasn't supposed to be seeing because I was too young to see R-rated stuff. Thing is I saw stuff like that on TV. While edited for content (some violence/nudity) I saw things like The Terminator. It didn't fuck me up or mess my mind up or anything. In fact, I respected the film even as a kid because it went whole hog. Arnold truly was a unstoppable killing machine. The flashforward scenes of the nuclear wasteland future actually gave my young mind some perpective on what a post nuclear world might look like. I had heard about all that Cold War scaremongering stuff in school, but the fuckers never really gave us students any real visceral visual examples of what a nuke or atomic bomb could really do one it exploded. Now if The Terminator had been a young adult snooze fest, where showing the terminator as an uncaring killing machine, nor what the future looked like, then the whole point of why John Connor was important would have either been lost or severly diminished. Also, young adult means little or no sex scenes. Guess what? If The Terminator were made as a PG young adulty film, there wouldn't be a sex scene with Reese and Sarah. So instead if the cool almost Twilight Zone/Outer Limits style idea of Reese being John Connor's father would have probably been lost too. One night stand sex... OMG, way too much adult for our young adult bore fest! I know this is kind of a rambling rant here, but something just feels extremely "off" with a lot of this trendy young adult fare. It feels to me like they are taking something that should be graphic, violent, sexy, dirty, honest, and smarter... and then forcing the triangle that is a harder edged and genuine story through the young adult strainer, and thus sanitizing away all of the vital and primal elements. I'll stop ramblingly ranting now, but is it just me or does anyone else feel this way too about young adult books/movies and our PG/PG-13 obsessed pop culture?

  • And dasheight seems to be saying that The Hunger Games will be R-rated. If so, then at least maybe it will have a chance to explore its concepts and themes in a non-neutered by PG-13 manner. Although, I am surprised that a young adult novel would get a pretty decent budget and greenlight with the idea if it being tagged with an R by the MPAA. Also, the above trailer certainly doesn't feel at all like it is advertising a mature, R-rated film. I definitely detect a big whiff of sparked-vamp Twilight aroma from the above trailer (although this doesn't look nearly as bad as the hilariously bad Twilight films).

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Seems like a lot of the hate here...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Is coming from just bitter virgin assholes. Why is this being lumped in with Twilight? Because they are both books? Because teens/tweens/adults read them? Shut the fuck up. Look we get it. You dislike the fact you don't get laid and young people do all the time. But blindly hating things is pretty pathetic. This trailer was pretty solid. Not saying it will be the next Avatar but the hate here just stinks of pathetic blind hating.

  • It just feels like a lot of it is half-assed and sanitized. Now, to be fair, I'm sure not all of the young adult stories out there are like that. It does seem to me that the trendy ones are. A classic like Ender's Game is often lumped in with the whole young adult category. I just get the impression that a great majority of the young adult fare out there is more of the Twilight type than an Ender's Game level of story. Again, as I said, a premise like the one at the center of The Hunger Games just feels like it is crying out for a full bore, pull no punches approach, not a PG-13 type of approach. It is actually not a bad concept. It just feels a bit contrived that it is only kids having to be chosen for these violent games of this dystopic future. Then add the fact that the books are cataloged in the young adult section of the bookstore, plus the PG-13 rating, etc... and for me personally, it is kind of a turn off. I just don't have the time to read all the stuff I want to, or to see all the films out there in the world that interest me. So when something with an interesting premise seems like it has a chance of being watered down, then it just kills a lot of my interest. Now, this looks a lot better than somethingclike Twilight (unless you're looking for unintentional comedy). Some of the talkbackers up above, their enthusiasm has piqued my interest a bit. Maybe I'll give the first Hunger Games book a looksee. And Jennifer Lawrence was great in X-Men: Last Stand. So that is a positive thing this film has going for it. I just find the whole young adult category of publishing to be kinda bullshit. It seems like they are selling it as its own separate genre of fiction. That just makes no sense. That's like Hollywood promoting a G or R rating as a genre of film, rather than just a rating, which is what it is. So take The Hunger Games. Seems to be a dystopic sci-fi adventure. So put it in the sci-fi or thriller section of the bookstore. That is the genre, not what age group is most appropriate in terms of readership. You know what I mean?

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 5:12 a.m. CST

    My theory about hatedperson...

    by Goldfingah

    ...is that it is a new persona of "genderblender."

  • ...a Verhoeven directed R rated satire are smoking crack. If you were running a studio, would you want to actually make money? Would you want people to actually come see your movie? Would you want to adapt a novel so that fans of the novel would be interested in the movie? That is why you are reduced to making snarky comments on the internet while those who make the movies are actually...well...making movies. Because you are morons.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 8:21 a.m. CST

    DEATH RACE WITHOUT CARS...FOR KIDS!

    by gruemanlives

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 8:28 a.m. CST

    themanwithaname

    by Inglorious Bastard

    Believe whatever you want. Just to be clear, I called you a troll and you answered with, "Nuh Uh, YOU are the troll, blahblahblah incest." Very clever.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 8:31 a.m. CST

    I loved the books and look forward to seeing this!

    by Eyegore

    The books are very focused and well written, with hardly any boring parts. Children kill each other in spectacular, televised mortal combat. It's a cross between The Running Man and the original 1970's Death Race 2000, with a little twilight-ish romance woven through the story. Don't listen to the haters, they're ignorant bitches.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Some REAL News -- Untitled Douglas Trumbull Project

    by Michael Lunney

    From bleedingcool and IO9---- So, as Silent Running arrives on Blu-ray today, what better time to bring news of a new Douglas Trumbull film, and it sounds like a very exciting one. Douglas Trumbull, who did the special effects for (deep breath) 2001, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Blade Runner, and Terrence Malick's recent universe-bending Tree of Life, is reportedly working on plans for his third directorial effort. Trumbull explained the sort of technological innovation he'd like to bring to the movie, and what sort of film it will be: I'm shooting films right now at 120fps in 3D and I know that the result is absolutely stunning but very few people on this planet have actually seen that, yet. I have a very challenging process ahead of me to start demonstrating this and doing at least one film that I want to make. I have several films lined up but I've got one in particular that would lend itself to this. It's a big space adventure movie. And I've got to make the movie and show it in this process and convince people that there's a very big audience that wants to see this kind of tremendous technological, creative, visual leap forward to much higher quality. He also explained some of the questions that the movie would likely consider: Well, not so much an ecological bent as much as a survival bent. Having to do with reaching for the stars and why we would have to go to the stars. Are we using up this planet at such an exponential rate with population growth and the depletion of the resources that we're going to have to leave the earth?

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST

    inglorious bastard

    by themanwithaname

    Ib, it seems everyone here hates you, just like in real life I assume. Don't start shit as you cower behind a keyboard, you pathetic, pathetic person.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Where was this confirmed as an R? I see nothing on that

    by Mattman

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Gimme a break, Verhoeven is nothing if not

    by Brian Hopper

    criticizable. I'll leave Showgirls aside. Take Total Recall... a classic example of a really good script nearly ruined by inept, over-the-top execution. All the ridiculous megaviolence and 80s-style jokiness are Verhoeven's (and Schwartzenegger's) fault. Dick's central concept is so subtle and even profound — the nature of self and personal identity — and it is only fleetingly realized throughout the film. I still like Total Recall, but it could have been a great film a la Blade Runner. And Starship Troopers is a 'satire'? Of what, good filmmaking? You can't be that celebratory in your embrace of fascistic imagery and hyper-realized violence and be satiric at the same time. A satire — take Dr. Strangelove — requires much more finesse. Say what you want about Verhoeven, but he lacks finesse. I would go to the mat in saying Starship Troopers sucks. And I'm still haunted by Denise Richards' blank stare throughout the movie. Soldier of Orange proves he has talent. And he certainly has panache as a director as demonstrated in RoboCop and Basic Instinct and the better moments in Total Recall, etc. But he's totally fair game as a filmmaker. So hang in there, kells.

  • The celebratory embrace of fascism contrasted by extreme violence IS a big part of the satire.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    So what? It has a little in common with Battle Royale

    by Playkins

    If you've read the book, you'd know that it really only shares the basic concept. You all gripe that there are too many remakes, yet something (for the most part) original comes out and you all manage to find a way to complain about it. Chill the F out.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Battle Royale is an amazing book...never wanted to see the movie

    by Therawbeats

    I'm definitely gonna read these books when I'm done with King's new one. I've heard good things.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    themanwithaname

    by Inglorious Bastard

    You make an awful lot of assumptions based on my limited comments...you must be some sort of amazing mutant with powers of insight and comprehension beyond that of normal human peons. I rue the day (yesterday) I thought you were a troll. I now (today) realize you must be some superman, nay a GOD even. All hail the magnificent prescience of themanwithaname. One note, though. The only other person who said they didn't like me was hatedperson. Do you really want to be held in that company?

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    @mattman Don't agree at all about

    by Brian Hopper

    the supposed 'satirical' nature of Starship Troopers. Satire as a form is an attack of sorts... something is held up to ridicule and mockery with the aim of making a point. Starship Troopers, in contrast, is executed with huge mounds of cheesy zeal. It revels in its violence. There's no true satire there. It's just a thrill machine, which totally has its place in movies, although I would argue that it's not even a particularly good thrill machine. I get the point when people say Starship Trooper is 'satire,' and I would agree it has satiric elements. So does Modern Warfare 3. But that's a video game, not a satire. Starship Troopers is basically a video game, too. The notion that Verhoeven is a 'great satirist' is ridiculous on its face.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    The Most Dangerous Game

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    I watched the 30s version of The Most Dangerous Game again the other week. Still the best screen version of this overdone story. Any original ideas out there?

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    The Most Dangerous Game

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    I watched the 30s version of The Most Dangerous Game again the other week. Still the best screen version of this overdone story. Any original ideas out there?

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    m6y

    by Inglorious Bastard

    While I'm not sure Verhoven should be considered a "great satirist," and I'm not going to argue for Starship Troopers being a great movie, but denying that Starship Troopers is intended as satire is pretty wrong-headed. The "Would you like to know more..." interludes are proof enough of that. Now, as to how deep and effective the satire is, that is the real question. Also, when people praise Verhoven for his satirical wit, its not just for Starship Troopers. Robocop is the other obvious example, but I've even heard some people argue that Showgirls, Total Recall, and Hollow Man are all satires of their respective genres. Not sure if I agree with all that, but the arguments are out there.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:50 p.m. CST

    dr eric vornoff

    by Inglorious Bastard

    Just because it has the same humans hunting humans motif as The Most Dangerous Game, doesn't mean that its the same.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    inglorious bastard

    by Michael Lunney

    I'd buy that for a dollar.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    inglourious basterd

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    I know, I was just being snarky. It amuses me though how people always say it's a rip-off of the Running Man / Battle Royale etc. but never give Richard Connell his due. He practically created an entire genre with that one short story and it still kicks ass.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    m6y, here's a great editorial on Starship Troopers

    by Mattman

    Sorry, I know this is a lazy way to reply, but it sums things up better than I can at the moment: http://tinyurl.com/6ojbhjx

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    And on Verhoeven being a "great satirist"

    by Mattman

    While Robocop satirizes the media, I don't think Verhoeven is a satirist as a rule. I think Starship Troopers is the exception, and the satire is setup by the screenwriter. Verhoeven recognized the satire inherent to the screenplay and addressed it accordingly.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 1:04 p.m. CST

    dr eric vornoff

    by Inglorious Bastard

    you got me, lol

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST

    by Clarice Starling

    You need a makeover before competing to your death.. as a matter of fact you do. The Capitol thinks of the the district people as gross, dirty barbarians. The contestants are made over and presented, paraded and interviewed so that the Capitol audience can develop favorites and so that the contestants might get sponsors who might send them expensive weapons, food, water or medicine.

  • Did those people actually watched the bloody movie? How cna they have missed the obvious? It's not like Verhoeven was even subtle about his satirical intentions. More and more i understand why people voted for George Dumbass Bush twice.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    dr eric vornoff

    by AsimovLives

    The 30s version IS the original version, of which all leter movies are remakes. And yes, the 1930s THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME is a damn good movie. It's KING KING's twin movie, in that both movies where shot at the same time. Funny enough, inicially, THE MOST DAGEROUS GAME was the more commercially sucessful (it helped that it had a smaller budger, so it was easier to recoup), but with time it became a forgotten movie, despite it's influence in the action genre. I have the Critetion DVD of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, and it's a damn good DVD and goes Criterion pride. Damn good movie, damn good DVD, damn good audio comentary that goes with it.

  • ... they would realsie quite quikly that Verhoeven always had a strong satirical streak to him sinc ehis earlier movies. It's nearly impossible for him to make a movie and not inject some mockery or satire, no matter how serious the movie might be.

  • ... do not really know Verhoeven.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 2:57 p.m. CST

    As I said, Starship Troopers

    by Brian Hopper

    certainly has satiric elements. It hits you in the face with those. Also, I don't deny that Verhoeven had satiric intent with that stuff. It's just that the overall film doesn't come across as satire as it is traditionally understood. Which gets to your point, @inglorious bastard, that (even if one takes it as satire) it's not clear how deep or effective the satire is. I remember coming out of RoboCop with friends and we were laughing about that scene when the guy gets chemical waste dumped on him, then disintegrates when he's hit by a car. It's like, well, that's as close as you get to an environmental statement in a Verhoeven film. Truly effective satire requires some subtlety and finesse in both concept and execution. I mean, one only has to watch Dr. Strangelove to know just how effective a punch can be landed when a brilliant filmmaker is in satiric mode. Verhoeven somehow lacks the tonal control as a director to pull off true satire... he muddles it up with conventional thrills and jokiness (sometimes awesome: "Bitches leave!") @mattman Thanks for that editorial. I remember reading stuff like that when ST came out. I guess I fall in the category of people who find ST mostly a 'mindless science fiction action movie.' There's no way I would call ST a 'damning satire of American militarisation and globalisation.' Even if you classify it as satire (and I don't), its effectiveness as satire is highly debatable. But I get the point. Also, one has to consider the source material. They based this on Heinlein, and if you've ever read his awful stuff (I have) you know how heavily jingoistic and militaristic it is. It's SO over the top in that respect that it's almost self-satiric. Again, not totally knocking Verhoeven. There's a place for his stuff. But trumpeting his exceedingly unnuanced work as satire (much less effective satire) is a bit much.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    m6y

    by AsimovLives

    I forgot if you are an american or not, so appologises. But one thing i have noticed since the time when the movie was released is that so often americans failed to notice the real and obvious satirical elements of STARSHIP TROOPERS, while those were quickly grasped by foreigners, like the europeans and the british. It's quite an interesting phenomenum. It's not that the satire in Starship Troopers happened, satire is the main objective and goal of the movie from start to finish. The movie is a comedy. And yes, the carnage is played for laughs. The carnage in the movie is hysterical.

  • And if you guys have not seen it, you should. And it has Fay Wray in it. How can anybody resist the chance to see some more of the lovely Fay Wray?

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    @asi I saw Starship Troopers in the theater

    by Brian Hopper

    in L.A. (I'm American) and it didn't play for laughs. My audience took it straight. And it certainly wasn't sold as a comedy (or satire). Note the satire-free and irony-free trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y07I_KER5fE Regular people who saw ST (in the U.S., anyway) didn't walk out of the theater and think, gee that was a great satire. Many who paid to see ST in a theater don't even know what satire is.

  • dont bet on that.When the movie came here in greece,the critics bashed it and accussed Verhoephen of being a fascist.Someone even compared him to Hitler.Talk about 'getting it'. The movie was also a flop here.I remember in the cinema,a father taking his kid and leaving the theater when the guts and blood started flying towards the silver screen.heh.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 6:29 p.m. CST

    inglorious bastard

    by themanwithaname

    yup, i'm superman. argument over. thanks, douche!

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 6:49 p.m. CST

    ya this looks awesome, you people are gay

    by Daniel

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    CreepyThin- just waitin for that closet door

    by artdude102

    Creepythinman- we're all just waitin for that closet door to come flying open any second now. Just come out already. It'll cure you of typing in all caps, your anger related repression problems, and your obvious obsession with all things de gay. Two snaps and a Fact.

  • Nov. 15, 2011, 8:33 p.m. CST

    @Choppah

    by LuminousBeing

    Actually, I'm gainfully employed in a job that allows me to travel the country and visit college campuses and flirt with attractive female undergrads and see cool shit all the time. It has nothing to do with my English degree...or my History degree...but my educational background (and excellent knowledge of movies, books, music, and the webz) does inform my work quite a bit. I want to touch Jen Lawrence where she pees.

  • desperate.

  • Nov. 16, 2011, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Creepy thin man knows what he's doing. And you dudes play into it.

    by ToughGuyRizzo

  • Nov. 16, 2011, 1:42 p.m. CST

    m6y

    by AsimovLives

    meanwhile, in my country, the whole audience laughed at the obvious comedy displayed in the movie. Everybody took the movie as satire, from critics to audiences. Truly, it just proves that Verhoeven is an european and it's his fellow europeans who to get most of his movies, even those made in USA.

  • Nov. 16, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    Well, that's the greeks. The greeks are strange.

  • Nov. 16, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Liked the books + liked the trailer = I'll be there

    by TheNothing

    Looks good to me. For anyone that claims a PG-13 movie can't possibly have violence or action, go back and watch Lord of the Rings again. How many people were beheaded/stabbed/arrowed/crushed/burned in that trilogy? I'm not worried. Although, there's no way they'll make a YA book into an R-rated movie - I don't care what IGN says. Also, the dumb Twilight comparisons only expose the rampant ignorance about the source material. Comparing one YA book to another, sight unseen, just because they sort of share a genre? Come on, don't be ridiculous. Jennifer Lawrence was solid casting for this, IMO. Very capable actress, and to me she has the kind of beauty that the books described in Katniss.

  • Nov. 19, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Finished the 3rd book last week

    by Jason

    This series is a gutpunch that can't be equalled by anything in fucking Battle Royale. Read it or STFU.