Originally posted by tobee43
View Post
top Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Hunger Games
Collapse
X
-
The thing about Harry Potter is the seven books were released over a ten-year period, which means that children who were ten when the first one came out were twenty when the final installment was released. So, her writing had to mature along with her audience. It's funny to go back to the first book, after reading the last one. The language is so...babyish...in the beginning. I have to admit, it was a bit of a shock, in the fifth book, when Uncle Vernon dropped the word, "effing."
-
jb, interesting enough i didn't know it was actually a children's book. i suppose one looks like the triogy of harry potter which actually was never intended to be for children and look what happened!Originally posted by justbroke View Posttobee, there may be a Director's cut, when it's released to video, that may include some deleted scenes and more gore. In any event, keeping a PG-13 rating certainly opens it up to a wider audience and hence, more movie screens. That all translates into... more revenue and profit.
There are many movies where they cut just enough to get it back to PG-13 to remain in their mainstream audience. Even though we adults are enjoying this from a neo-political viewpoint, the teens are the target audience.
We have to remember that the teen (young adult) demographic actually has a lot of buying power these days! I think it is appropriately targeted even though the "older" adults are enjoying it as well. Not too different than me thoroughly enjoying every Pixar film to date.
that is a HUGE target audience one with a ton of money to spend, so i do understand why they did it that way.
helpme, yes, i understand, they were seeking an certain type of audience but that didn't stop us from going to see it!
Leave a comment:
-
If they had made it R-rated, they probably would have lost half the audience. As there is no way I would have let my 12 year old watch it, even with it being PG-13, I watched it before I let my son watch it due to the subject matter.Originally posted by tobee43 View Postok, kidding aside, i was a bit disappointed. i mean i understand the social meaning of the movie, but heck, why make it pg 13 ....not enough blood and guts for me, although i know because of the "kids" they couldn't do that...no problem with the Lord of the Flies ....
And to be honest, it would have detracted from the story to make it mpre bloody and gorey.
Leave a comment:
-
tobee, there may be a Director's cut, when it's released to video, that may include some deleted scenes and more gore. In any event, keeping a PG-13 rating certainly opens it up to a wider audience and hence, more movie screens. That all translates into... more revenue and profit.
There are many movies where they cut just enough to get it back to PG-13 to remain in their mainstream audience. Even though we adults are enjoying this from a neo-political viewpoint, the teens are the target audience.
We have to remember that the teen (young adult) demographic actually has a lot of buying power these days! I think it is appropriately targeted even though the "older" adults are enjoying it as well. Not too different than me thoroughly enjoying every Pixar film to date.
Leave a comment:
-
well, i didn't read the book but just saw the movie and i have to say while it was interesting it wasn't anything new that we don't already experience here in the deep south...we have those sort of contests all the time ceptin we use pigs. (real ones).Originally posted by lotsahats View PostIf you've read the first book, then it's okay.
ok, kidding aside, i was a bit disappointed. i mean i understand the social meaning of the movie, but heck, why make it pg 13 ....not enough blood and guts for me, although i know because of the "kids" they couldn't do that...no problem with the Lord of the Flies ....
or Alice in Wonderland...OFF with those heads! ok, also, i did get alittle teary here and there, but ONLY for a split second.
i have to add the cast was really good!Last edited by tobee43; 04-24-2012, 01:39 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I won't watch until after I do...
Leave a comment:
-
Back to the name, Isabella, for a minute...
I had a friend some years ago, who was named Isabella Johanna--and a whole bunch of other names that I won't list here as that would be too identifying..,
Her nickname was a contraction of the first two names: 'Isja' pronounced "ish" or "ish-a".
Leave a comment:
-
I crack up whenever Katniss talks about her prep team. Really, what a bunch of idiots.
Leave a comment:
-
LOL Collins said she was channel surfing when the HG idea came to her... maybe there was an episode of the Family Guy on at the time...Originally posted by lotsahats View PostI was thinking the same thing about Haymitch. "Hey, Mitch!" Can't help it. And, Peeta...every time I hear it, I think of the way Lois says her husband, Peter's name on Family Guy, in that nasally voice. "Petah!"
Gale could come from Galel (Hebrew) or Galen (Greek).
Arghhhh now my brain is wondering about all the HG names!!
Leave a comment:
-
Yes, a lot of them are Shakespearian. But, some are just weird. I don't recall anyone named Haymitch. But, then again, it's not like I've read every one of Shakespeare's plays, either.Originally posted by ValleYum View PostLots of the names are from 'Julius Caesar', aren't they? Or maybe just from Shakespeare in general.
I was thinking the same thing about Haymitch. "Hey, Mitch!" Can't help it. And, Peeta...every time I hear it, I think of the way Lois says her husband, Peter's name on Family Guy, in that nasally voice. "Petah!"Originally posted by AngelinaCat View PostSupposed language shift maybe? Peeta, could be corruption of Peter. Haymitch could be a corruption of Hayward Mitchell, or his mother heard "Hey Mitch...!" and liked the combination?
Just thinking out loud.
Leave a comment:
bottom Ad Widget
Collapse
Leave a comment: