'The Hunger Games' Book Trilogy Will Probably Become Four Movies
Though on the surface it's definitely an attempt to suck more money out of a successful franchise, there's no doubt fans are pleased with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows being split into two parts for the epic finale of the fantasy epic. Of course, The Twilight Saga followed suit by splitting Breaking Dawn into two films, and now another high profile adaptation may end up planning ahead to do the same. In a recent Deadline article about the promising future for Lionsgate's adaptation of The Hunger Games, the studio apparently told Wall Street analysts to expect four films from Suzanne Collins' bestselling book trilogy.
Lionsgate is quite confident in the adaptation turning a big profit for a couple reasons. First, apparently COO Joe Drake said it was "the highest selling film we've ever had" at the Cannes Film Festival and that overseas exhibitors consider it "the movie that can change their company." In addition, the studio purchased the rights to the book series before it became extremely popular, and "retained the majority of the upside" in their deals with the actors and actresses in the film as well as distribution. So even if by some turn of events, the films don't make huge bank at the box office, there's a good chance they'll still turn a profit and the sequels won't be far behind. Of course, production has only just begun on the first film, and anything can happen with the sequels. Any Hunger Games fans care to weigh in on this?
The Hunger Games is one of my favorite book series and I'm so excited to see the movies! And I wouldn't mind at all if they did turn it into four movies. The more of The Hunger Games we can get, the better!
Anonymous on Jun 1, 2011
It all depends on how much money the first one makes..
Davide Coppola on Jun 1, 2011
It's an idiotic idea. The books are short and each centers around a central event - the games, the quarter quell and the rebellion. Frankly, if it's the third book they're wanting to split in 2, that's effed since it's the least entertaining.
No on Jun 1, 2011
Fuck you, dude. You're fucking stupid.
Magnus Bane on Oct 31, 2011
i totally agree dude it should be 3 movies only
Cclfinley on Mar 15, 2012
I don't see why they would split any of the books into two movies. They are all pretty short, nothing that won't fit into a 2 hour movie.
:/ on Jun 2, 2011
The first book is the only one they can split, the rest are very short and do not cover much time. Except the last one, but that's mostly underground and can get boring.
Chad on Jun 3, 2011
its called a trilogy for a reason, they shouldn't split it into four movies, that defeats the purpose.
anonymous on Jun 11, 2011
My problem with cinema recently (especially with all of these comic book series turned blockbusters) has been the fact that the stories are too rushed. They don't allow the character to develop correctly because they only have 1.5-2 hours to get the audience from point A to point B. If telling the story in a way that gets the audience to feel what we felt when reading the books means spreading the books into 4 movies, then I say they should go for it!!
A777rogers on Jun 14, 2011
seems a stretch to put it into four movies, the only one I can actually see being split is book two when so much occurs before the Quell... but Idk, it could be done, if it's done properly! That's the real question here, yes it was done with Harry Potter *although part 1 was a tad lacking, part 2 made up for it. But which book to split? Mockingjay does seem to be able to be put into a 2 and a half hour movie, but then again it delves so deeply into character... maybe that's what would make 2 movies better? Guess we'll have to see.
Jason_lewis_88 on Aug 13, 2011
Have you read The Hunger Games? If not, now’s your chance! Check out Ch. 1… And if you have, make sure to answer the Fan Club question!
Anonymous on Aug 29, 2011
I WANT A HUNGER GAMES FOR THAN A WARRIOR CATS 😀
Red the wolf on Dec 2, 2011
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.