‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’ Trailer!

Check out Jennifer Lawrence in the upcoming sequel which also stars Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth in theaters November 22.

Lionsgate has released the first trailer for Francis Lawrence's action sequel The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. This latest look debuted at this year's MTV Movie Awards. Take a look.

The sequel begins as Katniss Everdeen has returned home safe after winning the 74th Annual Hunger Games along with fellow tribute Peeta Mellark. Winning means that they must turn around and leave their family and close friends, embarking on a Victor's Tour of the districts. Along the way Katniss senses that a rebellion is simmering, but the Capitol is still very much in control as President Snow prepares the 75th Annual Hunger Games (The Quarter Quell) - a competition that could change Panem forever.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was released November 22nd, 2013 and stars Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Jack Quaid, Taylor St. Clair, Sandra Ellis Lafferty, Woody Harrelson, Josh Hutcherson, Paula Malcomson. The film is directed by Francis Lawrence.

Sources: Lionsgate

Share this story yet?

511 44 1 0 4


Comments (82)

  1. Nicholaus XX

    @undeadslayer4 -- Care to be a little more specific, as your referring to a debate that was long enough to be an essay.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  2. undeadslayer4

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx wtf are u talking about

    2 years agoby @undeadslayer4Flag

  3. undeadslayer4

    @the-crow2k i have no idea what u are talking about

    2 years agoby @undeadslayer4Flag

  4. undeadslayer4

    they improved

    2 years agoby @undeadslayer4Flag

  5. Shelbysaurus

    Looks great.

    2 years agoby @ShelbysaurusFlag

  6. The_Crow2k

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Original? Arguably. Superior? Don't make me laugh. "Battle Royale" was one of the most baffling movies I've ever watched"

    That's the whole point. It doesn't stay in a straight line as 'The Hunger Games' did. It phased in completely different and a creative way.
    On what exactly do you based most of your criticism, other than a subjective point of view?
    You won't be right either way. I won't be either. It's a matter of taste. But critically I can back up why Battle Royale IS more of a well received film. As far as personal taste go, mine goes with Battle Royale.

    Um, yeah, it kind of does. That's kind of the entire point of quality; offering few cliches(or executing them greatly), and thinking outside of the box.

    You missed my entire point completely. My point was, just because they seem to offer this deal of development doesn't really mean they executed it properly. It seems like they approached to it and had all right "tools", but in reality it still fell short both in the book and the film. Still not a bad effort though.

    Battle Royale never took itself too series to begin with, even if it was addressing big issues that surrounded the coming of the new millennium. It did it with over extreme violent, comic and over the top aspects, while changing it's tone a long the way. This sort of train of mix is what made this experience for me fun to watch it, and made it even more relevant today than it was when it first released.

    About 'The Hunger Games', I read the first 2 books, and saw the first film a few times. I enjoyed the most of it..but it felt like it was done before and felt over 'sticky' in big parts of the film and the book.
    it had a nice introduction to the main characters, but it also had the privilege of leaning much more to the idea of other books/sequels that explores the origin of each character.
    About the comparison, If you are looking mainly on 'drama' as your point of argument...you still wouldn't be right.
    Drama is not a main factor to consider quality, and you can find plenty of 'Drama' in "Battle Royale", that is if you take down all the blood, guts, and other body parts.

    "I won't bash you for it; just put you in your place, a little."


    In closing, one had a more clear message even it was playing goffy at times.
    You can't deny the similarities between the two, with a little over dramatic teen touch in the American version.
    Just the fact that Battle Royale idea came first is an achievement to itself.
    It's easy to do things when the ground has been set already...the problem is that Hollywood still have trouble to overcome beyond their own lacking creativity and falling into the usual cliches and forced drama, it's hard to buy and tasteless as an old chewing gum.

    2 years agoby @the-crow2kFlag

  7. Nicholaus XX

    @bawnian-dexeus -- Exactly! Those teenagers had flesh equivalent to bulletproof vest. I lost count at how many times they were shot before they finally bit the dust, for example, at least.

    @narrator -- Americanized? Yeah, and so what? Watered down? Where 'bout? Commercial version? Sure, I guess. I love Tarantino, and I thought a lot of the movie....before I saw it. It was controversial, I get it. But, that barely makes for a good film, man. Again, if you were to do a side-by-side comparison of the two, "The Hunger Games" would tie, if not win. "Battle Royale" gave close to no character development, and expected us to care just based on the mere premise of being human. As tragic as the situation was in, I wasn't rooting for anyone, in the end.

    The movie was just too downright stupid for me. The pacing was off, as it was dull, and - dare I say - mildly shallow. Overrated flick, all around.

    @john-m -- Exactly! Hey, let's throw some teens in a sadistic competition, without showing you who they are and why you should feel sympathy for them. They're human, and you're human, so that's enough substance....right?

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  8. John M

    @narrator@XxNickTheFilmCriticXx@the-crow2k : I am going to get in on this on last time then I am done with this topic for now.

    I have never seen the BR film or read the novel. I did read the 15 volume manga that came out in the early 2000's. Was it a decent manga series with some great action and of course truly bloody violence, but the story was mediocre at best and the characters weren't likeable and hardly had any depth and no real redeeming value outside the gratuitous violence. The manga seemed to value that more than telling a actual good story with meaning behind it. Again as for the Battle Royale being remotely original that's ridiculous. It's heavily inspired by the great book and film Lord of the Flies which is also better than BR. Suzanne Collins said she based her books on the Roman gladiators during the Roman Republic and Empire, and basing the character Katniss on the Theseus from the Greek myth. There is proof to back that up and I believe her, but that won't stop the BR trolls from spreading their venom. Evan if you BR lovers out there are right and Suzanne was some how inspired by BR who cares. You should be honored that she supposedly used the BR story and made it better with a story with depth and meaning behind it along with better characters.

    That's all I'm going to say about this topic until the next trailer comes out when I'm sure the same people will come out saying its a rip off of BR.

    2 years agoby @john-mFlag

  9. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Well, I'm out of this thread

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  10. the Narrator

    The Hunger Games came off to me as an Americanized, watered down, commercial version of Battle Royale, which was a film that was anything but watered down or commercial in its inception (despite becoming one of the highest grossing Japanese films ever). Tarantino himself said that it was the best film he's seen in the past twenty years, and that if he could have made any film since his career started, it would have been Battle Royale. I don't know how much value you put in Tarantino, as I often find his views strange myself, but that's pretty high praise from one of Hollywoods best directors.

    Royale was bold and raw, to the point that it was almost not released in Japan and pretty much banned in most other countries, not because of its blood factor but its subject matter. It offered true emotion alongside twisted humor in such a sublime way, complimented by beautifully shot vistas and great continuity in make-up. I don't find that its unabashed violence was something that belonged in anime, like @bawnian-dexeus believes, because it was intentionally meant to jar the audience with its extremity. It may come off as silly if you expected something substantial going in, but if you were like me and saw the film via pirated dvd when it first crossed into America, expecting simple entertainment, you'd have been blown away by the content it held. I went into Hunger Games with low expectations and was still disappointed in the grand scheme of things.

    As always I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but when I saw this little conversation, I had to give my two cents on a very influential film in my life that you probably expected more from than was justifiable. To say it's on the same level as The Hunger Games is a joke, though it goes without saying that I'm stating my opinion with as much confidence as you have given yours.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  11. Mr.K

    What the hell did I missed here? Some argument about "BR" being a superior film than The Hunger Games?

    2 years agoby @mr-kFlag

  12. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Battle Royale should have been animated. Seemed too unbelievable for a live action

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  13. Nicholaus XX

    @the-crow2k -- Original? Arguably. Superior? Don't make me laugh. "Battle Royale" was one of the most baffling movies I've ever watched. It was okay; don't get me wrong. But, it's far from the charade leads it to be.

    "Tons of films offer deeper aspects when it comes to characters development but that still doesn't make them better in terms of quality."

    Um, yeah, it kind of does. That's kind of the entire point of quality; offering few cliches(or executing them greatly), and thinking outside of the box. Based on that statement, I'll take your into those shallow flicks [that shall not be named]. Rest assured, I won't bash you for it; just put you in your place, a little.

    Yeah, I tend to do that when I wholeheartedly think my opposer doesn't know what they're talking about. It's no fact, of course, but if both were to be displayed, side-by-side, based on terms of quality; "The Hunger Games" would win, if not tied the round.

    @john-m -- I honestly don't get the hate surrounding the movie. Sure, it seems eerily similar to "Battle Royale", but why does that matter if it's in the same league, if not better? It was a decent flick that coincidentally catered to fangirls around the world, and it delivered. No problem, man.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  14. John M

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx: I can understand if you and others didn't enjoy it as much as I did, but when people start bashing the novels or bring up Battle Royal I have to take issue, but even if you didn't like the film as much as I did thanks for the support.

    2 years agoby @john-mFlag

  15. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 To be fair, grouping in this instance is merely a byproduct of comparing, but I understand where you're coming from.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  16. The_Crow2k

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx They are not on the same league...'Battle Royale' is superior and much more original. Especially when it comes to it's time.
    You don't need the same basic formula in every film to make it better. Tons of films offer deeper aspects when it comes to characters development but that still doesn't make them better in terms of quality.

    "don't act as if "Battle Royale" was the superior film, because in reality, it wasn't.."
    You project your own subjective opinion and make it as was a true...come on, we both know it's not a fact.

    2 years agoby @the-crow2kFlag

  17. ejk1

    @thedude-abides Grouping films is not the same as comparing them. This is essentially an apples and oranges situation. They both fall into the genre/category of fruit, yet their similarities are near nonexistent after that grouping.

    In regards to film, it's pretty much the same thing. You can group Gone With The Wind with The Ten Commandments as epics (or fruit, in keeping up with the analogy), but in comparing and/or contrasting, they are very different from there.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  18. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 In fairness, I get what you're saying. The debate amongst film historians as it pertains to what constitues genre is never-ending. Many of them feel the same way as you do in regard to the subject. I guess it just depends on how you choose to classify the material.

    I'm basing it more on a narrative framework, whereas you're judging it based on subject matter. I suppose neither one of us is right or wrong, I'm just of the thinking that it's easier to group films based on their narrative framework than by each one's individual subject matter, but hey, to each his own.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  19. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Lol. Okay, here goes:

    "An epic film is an epic genre that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale. Epic films are expensive and lavish productions because they generally use on-location filming, authentic period costumes, action scenes on a massive scale and large casts of characters. Sometimes referred to as costume dramas, they depict the world of a period setting, often incorporating historical pageantry, specially designed costuming and wardrobes, exotic locales, spectacle, lavish decor and a sweeping visual style. They often transport viewers to other worlds or eras, such as classical antiquity, biblical settings, the Middle Ages, the Victorian era, the American Frontier, or the Gilded Age."

    A perfect summation of both films, if you ask me. Hey man, don't take my word for it; the AFI has them both in their list of the top 10 epic films of all-time.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  20. ejk1

    @thedude-abides Let's test this. Please compare Gone With the Wind to The Ten Commandments.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  21. Nicholaus XX

    @the-crow2k -- It is, but "The Hunger Games" and "Battle Royale" are just about in the same league, as far as quality goes. "Battle Royale" is darker, and more brutal, but that's as far as the superiority goes. "The Hunger Games" at least attempts to build character development, and doesn't throw in character motivation based on "feelings" and/or "love". I'm putting an emphasis on those two terms, because "Battle Royale" blatantly, and sometimes laughably, displayed characters indulging in their likings of other beings. And let's not forget, "Battle Royale" was - at time - every bit as stupid as "The Hunger Games". They had to shoot those kids/people 50-100 times before they even showed a wince of pain/weakness, a lot of the time.

    "The Hunger Games" mainly had silly scenes of CGI, and Josh Hutcherson, who stuck out like a sore thumb among a casts that knew what they were doing.

    That being said, don't act as if "Battle Royale" was the superior film, because in reality, it wasn't.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  22. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Lol... We're arguing two different points again. You're arguing that genre by itself isn't basis enough for comparison; I'm arguing that it is. As far as series adaptations are concerned, it's not the overarching characteristics of the genre as I believe them to be, rather the overarching characterisitics of the genre as they are commonly known to be. Taken from Wikipedia:

    "YA literature shares the following fundamental elements of the fiction genre: character, plot, setting, theme, and style. However, theme and style are often subordinated to the more tangible elements of plot, setting, and character, which appeal more readily to younger readers. The vast majority of YA stories portray an adolescent, rather than an adult or child, as the protagonist.

    The subject matter and story lines of YA literature are typically consistent with the age and experience of the main character. Themes in YA stories often focus on the challenges of youth, sometimes referred to as problem novels or coming-of-age novels."

    Those are what I would consider to be the overarching characteristics of the genre as a whole. Again, I'm not sure where the line is so muddled. It's a genre. It's literally no different from comparing/contrasting films in any other genre/sub to one another. I will agree that Sin City is very different in terms of its subject matter from Iron Man, or any other superhero movie for that matter; but again, that just stands to support what I've been saying all along in that they can be different from each other in terms of their subject matter, yet still fall under the same category. To your point, however, I would argue that Iron Man falls under the more genre-specific subcategory of superhero movies, while still falling under the same umbrella of comic book movies as a whole.

    Your argument is kind of like saying Ben Hur and Gone With the Wind (both listed in the AFI's top 10 Epics of all-time) can't be compared as epics because they're both very different films set at different points throughout the course of history. And in terms of subject matter, you'd be 100% correct. But the grouping/comparing/contrasting isn't in each film's subject matter so much as it is, like I said in my last post, in the overarching characteristics of the genre as whole.

    Lengthy runtimes, stories that span the course of decades, and main protagonists finally overcoming seemingly insurmountable hurdles after years of agonous trying (and failing) are characteristics commonly assocaited with, but not limited to, the epics genre. Ai Lawrence and The Ten Commands may be totally different films from one another in terms of each one's subject matter, but both can be classified as epics because both fall under the same genre-specific mold commonly associated with the epics genre. They don't have to share any characterisitcs other than that; if they did, every movie would just be a different version of the same story.

    Now, if you were to argue that Gone With the Wind and Ben Hur are incomparable because GWTW is more romance and Ben Hur is more action, that you could make a case for. But that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that I can't compare films in a particular genre because no two films in the same genre deal in the same subject matter, which to me, no offense, is absolutely ludicrous.

    Furthermore, you stand to discredit my opinion on series adaptations as being a basis for comparison. Like I've said countless times before, anyone can compare anything to anything, that's the whole point of comparing. I could compare all of P.T. Anderson's films right now and have a basis for doing so, that basis being that they're all P.T. Anderson films. Of course each film is wide-ranging in regard to its subject matter; I would certainly hope so, otherwise I wouldn't have much interest in seeing more than one.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  23. The_Crow2k

    @narrator Yeah, I should've included this film as well.

    @ollie-styrene, 'The Hunger Games' is a soft version of 'Battle Royale', I can understand the comparison to 'Twilight' cause this is another perfect example to a soft core of the vampire genre...they dumb down these genres for the current generations.
    Of course this product is better written, directed, and had much more development with it's characters than 'Twilight', but it's still a lacking product that wish it had all the aspects that 'Battle Royale' had.

    2 years agoby @the-crow2kFlag

  24. Dan

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx I think you'll like Catching Fire better. It's darker, more intense. The arena is a LOT more inventive, too.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  25. Nicholaus XX

    @ejk1@dan1 -- Agreed. "The Hunger Games" was, in no way, piss poor. It wasn't great, but it sure as hell wasn't awful, either

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  26. Nicholaus XX

    @john-m -- Besides the "The Hunger Games" being great part, I'm obliged to agree. Great points, all around -- I won't even bother countering.

    @thedude-abides -- Didn't know you hated Josh Hutcherson so much, lol. Seems like "The Hunger Games" and him go hand-in-hand, as they seem to be the only things that can provoke a rant out of you.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  27. ejk1

    @thedude-abides But what are the overarching characteristics of YA Lit? You have yet to establish what they are as you believe them to be. As far as the comparison between D9 and Looper, that may also be an argument better suited for contrasts than comparison. They may fall into the sci-fi genre, but that is where similarities may end.

    It is very easy to compare Wolverine and Iron Man, but not because they are both comic book films; rather, they follow the same template. Movies featuring those two characters are interchangeable with Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Thor, etc., and thus easily comparable all the way through. However, when one tries to compare Captain America to Sin City, Road To Perdition, or Wanted, things may become less clear. All of them are comic book movies (whether one wants to admit that or not), yet share no likeness to Cap. Comparison in that instance does not seem suitable, for the only thing they may share in common is that they are films born out of comics.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  28. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Granted, but you're comparing specific traits from each individual film/series and citing those as reasons why each one is different, and thus incomparable. That'd be like me saying you can't compare cbms like Wolverine and Iron Man because Wolverine is a mutant and Iron Man is just a billionaire in an exoskeleton, when all I'm looking at is the fact that they're both cbms.

    My grouping/comparing series adaptations like Potter and Games with one another isn't based on each film's individual subject matter, but on the overarching characteristics of the genre as a whole. Of course, the subject matter pertaining to each film in a particular genre is going to be somewhat similar (as it is in every genre, which is why genres exist), but also distinct enough in their own right so as to separate themselves from other like-films falling under the same umbrella, such as Wolverine being different from Iron Man, or Twilight being different than Games, like you pointed out.

    I don't really see how it could be seen as shortsighted when every genre/sub-genre is grouped the same way. @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx and @narrator, for example, go at it all the time over whether Prometheus is better than Looper, or whether Looper is better than District 9. Just transplant those two films as examples into our conversation. I'm arguing that Looper and District 9 are both sci-fi films, and thus comparable by nature. You're arguing that, because they're different in terms of their individual subject matter, they have to be viewed as separate entities. Shortsighted or not, all films falling under a particular umbrella, as you put it, are going to be compared to one another.

    For the record, when I say series adaptations, I'm not referring to every piece of young adult literature that has ever been adapted into film. I'm specifically referring to series novels that have been adapted into film series, with multiple installments serving as different chapters of the same story (Potter, Twilight, Games, 50 Shades).

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  29. ejk1

    @thedude-abides I don't think I would go as far as you on this one. I'll use THG and Twilight as my primary points of reference, while keeping in mind I have not read either series, and have only watched the first film of each franchise. THG and Twilight do have things in common, mainly the heroine and the love triangle. However, this seems to be where the similarities end. Furthermore, these two instances cannot be said to be exclusive to the genre of YA Lit, because they both have popped up numerous times in literature throughout history, the most famous example of course being the background to The Iliad, story that may be about 3000 years old (when you include its oral history, perhaps longer).

    To say that they are comparable because they both fall under the same umbrella of YA seems short-sighted to me. If anything, I think the YA genre is so expansive that contrasting them would be more appropriate. When taken individually, the stories that these two franchises tell are too different to be compared. Twilight deals in the supernatural world; THG deals with an oppressive government in a post-apocalyptic world; Twilight focuses on the love triangle, making it a primary focal point for the series; THG does not appear to focus on it, leaving it as a subplot. Twilight has sparkly vampires; THG has weird make up (okay, I night give you that one, hahaha). Point is, I think there is far more variation within the genre to be able to say they are all comparable. Some can definitely be compared (HP and Percy Jackson definitely spring to mind), but some cannot (the material of THG makes it nearly impossible to compare with any of the supernatural YA series, although I think I could spin HP as being oppressed by the shadow of Voldemort).

    As for the splitting of the final book into two films, granted, but that is Hollywood's way of gaining every bit of profit from a film series as it can, so I wouldn't say it's a YA genre thing as much as it is a Hollywood thing.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

From The Web