The Hunger Games (The Hunger Games, #1) The Hunger Games discussion


143 views
The Hunger Games should have been a R-rated movie.

Comments Showing 1-42 of 42 (42 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Fatin I feel like the movie could have been brilliant if they showed us more. If they showed the fight sequences, the actual horror of the hunger games. A bunch of kids killing each other for the sake of bloody entertainment. When the movie cut all that out, I think they lost sight of what made the idea of the book so terrifying.


VG/Allie I think they made it the way they did so that more ppl could watch it.
Not only that but also think about the premis of the book. Its about how ppl love to watch ppl killing each other for the sake of seeing blood, would its have been kinda hypacritical if they made a R movie out of a book that is about how the human condidtion of loving violence is sick?


Fatin Veggy wrote: "I think they made it the way they did so that more ppl could watch it.
Not only that but also think about the premis of the book. Its about how ppl love to watch ppl killing each other for the sak..."


I think my comment somehow got deleted? New to goodreads, so um, sorry.
Anyway, if that is the case, then it shouldn't have been written either. They aren't making a movie to show you violence and "seeing blood", they're making the movie to show you why such a future is repulsive and barbaric.
Requiem for a Dream does a similar thing by showing extreme drug abuse throughout the movie. The conclusion? I decided to never touch drugs after watching that movie.


VG/Allie That fine.
At the same time many of the human race are not as smart as you to grasp the subtle hits that drugs are bad. Many of the kids in my school would watch that movie and think to themself "Oh there showing drugs on the TV screen, cool now i have a right to do drugs."

Also, while i was at the theather watching this movie many ppl where chearing while "the Crears" (kato, glimmer, fox face, ect.) where killing the others. I shutter to think on what they might have done if it had been more explicit on how each "tribute" died.

A friend just pointed somthing out, as well. The book was not that to explicit on how each "Tribute" died so why should the movie have brought it out?


message 5: by Joe (new) - rated it 5 stars

Joe R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

Completely makes its own case as to why it should not have been rated R. By making at an R rated film they would have cut out over half of the audience. This is a book that has been pushed by some teachers for their students to read. It would have been a bad move by Lionsgate to let this film be released as anything other then a PG-13 film.


message 6: by Daniel (new) - added it

Daniel Whittaker Joe wrote: "R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture ..."

does that mean it was a 12 in the UK? or a 15?


Raquel Medina it had is be PG-13 because most of the people who read the book were 13 or older.


Michelle I agree that the rating was correct, PG-13 was appropriate since many teachers did push students to read the book. This book was geared to a younger audience in terms of the way it was written as well, or at least that's my opinion. :-)


Fatin Ratings are not taken seriously by kids. If a movie was R-rated, I was more likely to see it.
My point is that they ruined the movie by trying to change it to fit it for the younger crowd, or rather the PG-13 rating.
I'm not that old myself, I just turned 19.
Also, the books aren't exactly "PG-13" either. They depict violence. If anything, the third book (which I'll avoid here, for the sake of spoilers) only proves how this book isn't "PG-13".


message 10: by Eyob (new) - rated it 4 stars

Eyob Fitwi What I found a little disappointing was that the movie was too dependent the book. Don't get me wrong, a movie should reflect the spirit and essence of the book it's based on, but I believe that movies and books will need at least slightly different plot lines if they are to effectively express their art. This one was too literal.

I don't know, maybe reading the book spoiled the fun for me and I can't judge objectively, but the only thing good I could see about the movie was Jennifer's good performance and the environment was just as I pictured.

If you ask me they should've reshuffled the plot a little bit; from the sequels. Not too much, just a little bit. Perhaps adding a little background may have helped too.

Anyway I think that when they were making the movie they were so focused on the movie that they may have had forgot that they were making a movie.

One thing for sure, the killings do feel somewhat deemphasized.


Fatin Eyob wrote: "What I found a little disappointing was that the movie was too dependent the book. Don't get me wrong, a movie should reflect the spirit and essence of the book it's based on, but I believe that mo..."

Yes, I completely agree! Some of my friends, who hadn't read the books, were very confused at moments and asked me for a backdrop.


Avani If they had made the movie R rated, that would have dramatically reduced the number of people who came to see it, because the demographic THG appeals to is largely young adult. And since everything nowadays is about money, they wouldn't risk losing such a large percentage of ticket sales.


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

ditto. I think that's true, and more skilled actors would have been good. It would have been a lower budget though, as less people would be able to go, therefor making it about the same quality. If the audience was a bit older, it would have worked beautifully, though.


Storm but if they had made it a R (putting aside the fact a lot of the fans wouldn't have been able to the see the fiml in cinemas, and some wouldn't be abel to watch on dvd) would we of just become liek the captiol? watching kids killing each other, blood and gore, and entertained by it?

but people saying they wish it had more action, more blood, we are becoming just like the capitol, the story is much bigger then blood, its about claiming back your life, stopping the contollers, wageing rebellion.


Katrina have you read all the books?


Storm Katrina wrote: "have you read all the books?"

yep


Katrina i hate the last book cuz of what happens to prim well i love the book but i hate what happens


Fatin Book wrote: "but if they had made it a R (putting aside the fact a lot of the fans wouldn't have been able to the see the fiml in cinemas, and some wouldn't be abel to watch on dvd) would we of just become liek..."

If you read a few comments up, I already addressed that. It's not about the entertainment, it's about sending the message.


Katrina i think theres only 3


Katrina i dont want to spoil it for you


Fatin Peace wrote: "i only have book 1 and book 2. don't have the othere books yet?"

Yes, there are three books.
1. The Hunger Games
2. Catching Fire
3. Mockingbird


Katrina no mockingjay


Katrina its a jabberjay and mockingbird mix


Storm Fatin wrote: "Book wrote: "but if they had made it a R (putting aside the fact a lot of the fans wouldn't have been able to the see the fiml in cinemas, and some wouldn't be abel to watch on dvd) would we of jus..."

i have read that one now, and i get it, but, the film was pretty violent anyways, and thats without me seeing the american average one (witch is 15 in the uk, and only on bluray), i fliched a few times, i don't they would need to add anymore, one person told me once (the same age as me) that one of the reasons they liekd HG was because of the violence, and i ahev seen others say the same.


Storm Katrina wrote: "i hate the last book cuz of what happens to prim well i love the book but i hate what happens"


SPOILER ALERT

i actaully wasen't too upset about that, i loved the last book, except for Finnick's death, i think it was a un-needed death, other then that, i liked mockingjay


Fatin Katrina wrote: "no mockingjay"

Haha yes, my bad!


Katrina i loved mockingjay but it made me cry it was so sad spoiler alert prim and finnick dies


Katrina poor annie


Fatin Book wrote: "Fatin wrote: "Book wrote: "but if they had made it a R (putting aside the fact a lot of the fans wouldn't have been able to the see the fiml in cinemas, and some wouldn't be abel to watch on dvd) w..."

Really? Because, I felt there was no violence at all in the movie. All important scenes were cut out, or shown through the "shaky-cam" which I HATED. I guess it's a matter of how much you can stomach, me being an avid horror fan, I can put up with a lot of violence, but really, I didn't think there was anything in the movie that actually made you think about how horrible such a thing would be in reality. It was just something you enjoy, and then forget a few days later. The books stayed with me. The movie did not.


Katrina diddo the movie was good but the books are always better


Shweta Fatin wrote: "I feel like the movie could have been brilliant if they showed us more. If they showed the fight sequences, the actual horror of the hunger games. A bunch of kids killing each other for the sake of..."
so true!


Storm Fatin wrote: "Book wrote: "Fatin wrote: "Book wrote: "but if they had made it a R (putting aside the fact a lot of the fans wouldn't have been able to the see the fiml in cinemas, and some wouldn't be abel to wa..."

im a bit nervy when it comes to violence, im defiantley better at watching it now then i was a year or two ago, but still, violene makes me figdet, i thought the shakey-cam was a good idea, it showed the events of the deaths without over-going it (though at other points, as i said, sometimes it made me figdet)

my mother was worried the film would be a let down for me, after i have finished reading the books, however i came out of the cinema happily, and still excited over how good it was and how faithful to the book, it was really a big step up for lionsgate aswell, my mother suprisingly loved the film, giving it a 10 out of 10

what i do wish is that america had a 15 rating, like here in the uk, my main worry is catching fire, and especaily, mockingjay, by the time catching fire is out in cinemas, it will only be something liek two weeks bfore my 15th birthday, most fans will be 15 or older by then

i think america should have a 15 rating, that way, most fans could still see CF and MJ if they can't make it for a PG-13, or a 12


Katrina im 15 turning 16


Storm Katrina wrote: "poor annie"

what kept nagging at my mind was poor annie's and finnick's child , Annie dosen't seem like an emotionaly stable person, and losing finnick might make her go into a depression (like katniss's mom) or worse, and the child has no sibling to take care of it

(i can't remember, did the book state if she had a boy or girl?) that was always nagging at me, thats one of the reasons i thoguht finnick's death was silly, another one is because, in MJ, finnick and annie, presented the lightness, from the depression of the book

haymitch provided light humour for the first two books, and so the lightness of finnick and annie's relationship made MJ less depressing

im not saying MJ was bad, i loved it, but its nice to have a little relief now and then.


Fatin Book wrote: SPOILER ALERT

i actaully wasen't too upset about that, i loved the last book, excep..."


Actually, I thought that was a brilliant move on the author's part because it shows the realities of wars. People die. Unnecessary deaths all around. So by killing off a rather loved character, she showed that -Hey guess what? People die. They die without reason, without them needing to, because war is horrible. -
I loved Finnick, so yeah, the effect played out wonderfully.


Storm Fatin wrote: "Book wrote: SPOILER ALERT

i actaully wasen't too upset about that, i loved the last book, excep..."

Actually, I thought that was a brilliant move on the author's part because it shows the realiti..."


but thats the thing, its no the actaul death of finnick i ddin't like (though that was a fast death), it was, how could annie as a emotonaly un-stable person, care for her child?

i made a topic about it now


Dennis Like most great things, Hunger Games was modified to appeal to the largest audience. Yes. It should have been a R-Rated movie. Kids are forced to kill each other. It's a pretty straight forward concept that is not very family-friendly. But, the money needs to be made. So they target adults, kids, and then cash in. That's the business. I'm not one to encourage remakes (still haven't seen the new Spiderman). However, maybe one day, someone will have the courage to film this story without limitations of appealing to a mass market (see: Rob Zombie's Halloween). There is always that hope. One day.

Spoiler: My least favorite moment in the movie was Rue's death. I like to use that one scene as a gauge because it is so important to the story. It is the horrific moment when we accept the cruel reality of the games. This leads into Katniss' display of compassion when she lays Rue to rest in a bed of flowers. All in all, this scene didn't strike the emotional chord that it is needed to and the rest of the movie falls short of greatness.


Sandra I've read the book (english), I've watched the film.
Now my daughter (12) wants to read it in dutch. I already told her that the book is more terrifying and emotional then the movie. But she doesn't want to see the movie - which I respect. Her reason is : things on tv look worse then they ever could in a book. Save to say, on this one I dissagree.

I was dissappointed by the movie, it's doesn't really give a good reflection on the book. Cinna's team has totally been cut for one, how Katniss got her Mockingjay pin, the killings at the cornucopia...
The tension Katniss felt being betrayed by Peeta, the sorrow over Rue.

Hope they do a better job with the 2nd movie. The book was not as good as Hunger Games was, but that is my opinion.


Fatin Dennis wrote: "Like most great things, Hunger Games was modified to appeal to the largest audience. Yes. It should have been a R-Rated movie. Kids are forced to kill each other. It's a pretty straight forward con..."

Ah, if only money wasn't the focus of everything nowadays.
On the other hand, The Amazing Spiderman wasn't so bad. I'm not a Spiderman fanatic, I never read HIS comics, but I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't extraordinary or anything, but it was...enjoyable. The chemistry between Gwen and Peter is great. However, there are some TERRIBLE plot holes. If you do get around to watching it, don't go in with high expectations or a want to hate it before even watching it, and you'll definitely enjoy it.


Sofia I think the only reason it should be an R rated movie is because of all the blood and killing. But there was no nudity. But the other problem is that if it was an R rated movie parents wouldnt let their kids see the movie and they would lose money.


Fatin Sofia wrote: "I think the only reason it should be an R rated movie is because of all the blood and killing. But there was no nudity. But the other problem is that if it was an R rated movie parents wouldnt let ..."

well, yes. R-rated doesn't automatically mean nudity. Although, it might have been interesting to see her being prepped up for the games.


Claudia the Night Owl Agreed, Agreed.


back to top