Hitting the Hunger Games News Wall

Not gonna lie: We still squeal a little on the inside when we see a new behind-the-scenes report from movies we love. So the new Catching Fire fall preview in Entertainment Weekly got us pretty psyched!

They live on in fan art! (By Nikola Nickart)

They live on in fan art! (By Nikola Nickart)

… And then we read it. It was very well-written, the quotes were reaffirming, and it was not disappointing in any way. But we didn’t learn anything either.

Okay, hold up. There was one surprise in there. It’s casually mentioned that Sam Claflin GOT MARRIED last month! Holy crap, totally missed that memo and now we’re getting all gooey over that stuff because… AWWWWWW! Congrats Sammy Boy!

Besides that, the short article covered the pressure of making the film in a short period of time, plus the scenes that were going to be cut. All of which was discussed pretty thoroughly in the past. Yes, Bonnie, Twill, and Darius are out. Katniss won’t be breaking her ankle and recovering for weeks. And hilariously enough, there are people just freaking out about these things now because they apparently missed it the first several hundred times.

We don’t expect new news around every corner, of course. We’re all (relatively) normal gals and didn’t grow up in a world of instant gratification. Good things come to those who wait. But we’ve realized that there’s a downside to being an uber-obsessive Hunger Games follower: WE’VE SEEN TOO MUCH.

We know, we know! There’s an easy solution to that, which you’ll all suggest “Well, stop reading and watching everything, then you won’t feel like you’ve seen it all a million times!” BUT 1) This site would hit a whole new level of sucktastic if we weren’t aware of current on-goings and 2) We have this disease where we can’t NOT watch… and we use double negatives.

By the time November comes around, we’ll have seen a large portion of the movie via trailers and clips, and we’ll know about even more of it from interviews. We’ll probably be screaming “JUST GIVE US THE WHOLE DAMN MOVIE, ALREADY!” But we’re pretty sure that’s how Lionsgate wants it, so we’ll just have to get used to memorizing bits of news in the meantime.

Clearly, It’s A Conspiracy,
The Girl With The Pearl



  1. Okay, Imma say it: the article was fine and didn’t have a whole lot of new information, but… It bothers me that Peeta keeps getting the ‘man him up’ treatment. One of the most wonderful things to me about these books is how SC pretty much disregarded all the gender stereotypes and gave her characters both feminine and masculine traits regardless their gender. Katniss is a hunter, a provider, she’s romantically clueless and her empathy skills are pretty rusty… and yet no one really questions her femininity. (Well, I guess the Capitol does try to sexualize her, but I’m pretty sure that they do that to all of their victors, see: Finnick.) And in that same vein, Peeta might be an unconventional male hero; he’s not confrontational, he’s sensitive, he’s hopelessly romantic and puts Katniss before anything else in his life… And yet, as far as we see no one in Panem questions that he’s ‘man enough’. So yeah, it bothers me a bit that the movie makers specifically have to alter his character to make the audience see that, and I’m not sure that it’s even a good strategy because they’re basically stripping away characteristics away from him. I have to admit that I don’t actually care as much as a lot of people seem to about this though; as far as Katniss’ character is intact I will be happy with these adaptations. I just don’t like the whole mindset, even though I know that these kind of things were brought up in the first movie as well, hence why Peeta never got the whole sleep syrup scene.

    Okay, now that I got that out of my system, let me just say one last time: RIP Katniss’ goat story. “Fine. Somebody else can arrange to get the stupid goat knocked up.” 😀 😀 😀

    1. FLaw’s choice of words is really poor. I don’t think he really meant that they made him “a different kind of character” – but if one took that statement literally, it’s hilariously awful. “Oh, it’s the same story. It’s just the characters that are completely different. Minor change!” LOL The idea that a male character is not “man enough” if he can’t swim, despite the fact that he never had the chance to learn, is silly. But I get why they did it – they thought that the movie audiences just wouldn’t understand that most people in Panem never get to learn to swim (like the authors of that article obviously don’t – they make it seem like Peeta was the only one who didn’t swim, for unexplained reasons, while in fact, the majority of them were only able to float, thanks to the belts). Which I guess means that the significance of the water in the Arena and how bad it is for most of the Tributes will be completely lost on the movie audience.

      The sheer ability to swim is no big deal, but I’m hoping that they aren’t trying to make Peeta into a conventional action hero. I hope he’s still artistic, well-spoken, compassionate, a great manipulator of public opinion. (It does my head in that some people are hoping that Peeta’s “Katniss is pregnant” announcement is cut – his greatest contribution to the rebellion, the crux of his plan to protect Katniss, and the best example of his ability to act and lie and manipulate for a good cause. No. Just no.)

      On the other hand, the whole thing about Peeta not being any good in fight seems to be popular fanon (among books fans, not just movie fans) without real basis in the books. He is physically strong and can fight and use a knife, that much is made clear in the books, but he doesn’t have to have crazy physical skills, which he never really had a chance to develop due to his background. Peeta is in several situations where he needs to be saved in CF, but that’s not due to his lack of skills or physical fitness or even his prosthetic leg, it’s simply because the plot demanded so. He got electrocuted because he was the one leading the way and cutting through the jungle, while Finnick was carrying Mags and Katniss was the guard with her bow and arrow; he had to be saved from the poison fog because he was still feeling the effects of the electrocution; he was doing well killing the monkeys with his knife, until he had to take the time to throw Katniss another sheet of arrows, because she had run out of arrows to kill monkeys with. Anyone could have been in those situations, SC just put him in them in order to push forward the plot and show that everyone in the alliance was saving Peeta.

      Sometimes it seems like people can’t help but side with one of the extremes and go with the stereotypes – if Peeta is not a conventional action hero with great skills that match Katniss’, then he’s physically weak and awful in fight. I’ve seen many books fans claim that while they’re praising the character and SC’s portrayal of gender. It’s kind of like the fanon that Katniss can’t cook to save her life, despite the fact that she’s been doing just that since she was 11. Instead of doing away with these stereotypes, people seem only able to switch them around and see that as a great example of subverting the stereotypes, when in a way it’s only confirming them.

      1. I can understand why they would make Peeta (and probably the other victors) to be able to swim, but as you said, Francis’ choice of words were really poor. It also makes me wonder where else they would need to use this same methodology to make him ‘more of a man’.

        And that is also an excellent point you brought up about how SC didn’t subvert gender stereotypes. I’ve seen people be annoyed by the fact that Katniss does actually have some stereotypically feminine traits, as if that would make her a less of a strong character and/or less of a feminist hero. Which is a pretty contradictory statement if you ask me, since anyone who would complain about Katniss’ ‘girlish tendencies’ or about how she gradually loses emotional balance after the Games and develops a human understanding and empathy (and even a mild interest in her own romantic life) has clearly lost sight of what feminism – or just generally being human – actually means. But I should probably shut up with my Katniss rants at this point, since this discussion is about Peeta who is – as you explained -, really isn’t a subversion of the damsel in distress trope himself. Nevertheless, the fact that he does need to be saved on some occasions clearly adds to his dynamic with Katniss and, again, goes against gender stereotypes. Trying to make him more ‘conventionally male’ kinda defeats that whole purpose.

        1. Well, I think she did subvert gender stereotypes, but she didn’t simply invert them: Katniss is not stereotypically feminine but she’s not a stereotypically masculine girl, either, and Peeta doesn’t have to be a stereotypically feminine boy just because he’s not stereotypically masculine. It’s not an either/or, but people often make it seem like it is. If that were the case, the stereotypes would be preserved in a way, they’d just be reversed. It’s more that Katniss and Peeta (and Finnick, and Johanna…*) combine “feminine” and “masculine” traits and don’t fit either of the stereotypes; simply put, people are people, and the people of Panem don’t seem to think that men must be this or women must be that.

          *Gale is often seen as a stereotypically masculine character; but let’s not forget he’s the one who actually says “I love you” straight up to his love interest, and he’s the one who (even though he very rarely cries, “almost never” as Katniss puts it, which would be a stereotypically masculine trait) cries in front of his love interest over his unrequited love (and gets a pity kiss).

    2. It depends what we’re “man-ing him up” from. I think Francis Lawrence means from the narrative that was presented in the first film, to which I say THANK GOD, because one of my grudges with the first film was that it made Peeta look like a spineless, pathetic weakling in a lot of scenarios. You can be sensitive and tough at the same time, which Peeta is, and the first movie didn’t reflect that balance very well.

      Seriously doubt they’ll be making him a different character from the books, just giving him a bit more steel compared to the first film, which is part of Peeta’s natural progression through the first two books anyway.

      1. The irony though is that they also made some narrative changes in the first movie using the very same explanation. Taking away characteristics from Peeta isn’t gonna ‘man him up’ or make him less of a ‘weakling’. Giving back to him some of his natural strength and charisma will. And even if that is actually all they’re doing, I still hate the terminology that Francis used.

  2. The article did confirm for me Katniss not getting injured from falling. Even after learning that Bonnie and Twill were gone, I was still hoping the injury would be included in some way. And no, not because I’m sadistic (that part actually makes me wince whenever I read CF) but because without it, it’s not looking so good for “Stay with me.” “Always.” to make it into movieland. which SUX. 😦 And even if it does make it into Mockingjay, it won’t have the same meaning behind it. ah well…

    1. They could have easily worked that line into another one of the many Katniss/Peeta scenes in CF, either earlier on the train or later in the Capitol. It’s not like “Stay with me” is so specifically tied to Katniss’ injured ankle. While I was reading MJ for the first time, I remembered “Stay with me” but I couldn’t even remember when exactly it happened, I thought it might have been during one of the times they were sleeping in the same bed on the train, when Katniss was having her nightmares.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s