By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Hunger games should have had an R rating

 

Should There have been an R version of Hunger Games?

Yes they should have pg-13 and R 12 25.00%
 
yes there should only be an R version 26 54.17%
 
No there was enough violence in the film 10 20.83%
 
Total:48

Never heard of suicide club, but i can second the recommendation for Battle Royale



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
SnakeDrake said:
Yeah the guy using the sword in the trailer, wasn't even showed in the games. I feel as though the producers are taking the Harry Potter route by developing unnecessary love sequence. In the book Kat told Peeta that the love scene was just an act, however in the movie she didn't say that.


True, but it was wooden enough and awkward enough, even after the game, that I figured it was just an act, and I've never read the books.



Well... they did want the movie to make money. Someday when the world does not need money to live and everyone lives in harmony then you will get your "R" rated games.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

You realise that it's supposed to be a film for teens?



Click this button, you know you want to!  [Subscribe]

Watch me on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRadishBros

~~~~ Mario Kart 8 drove far past my expectations! Never again will I doubt the wheels of a Monster Franchise! :0 ~~~~

'The Hunger Games': The sequels won't be rated R, but 'Mockingjay' still might be split in two

 

Where the Harry Potter series started off in a brightly lit world of wonder and whimsy before descending into a world of warfare and washed-out color, The Hunger Games starts off gritty and violent and goes from there. As written, Suzanne Collins’ two sequels — Mockingjay in particular, with its many scenes of all-out combat — don’t shy away from building upon the brutality established in the first book.

Understandably, many fans are wondering whether this could mean that the inevitable movie adaptations might garner an R rating from the MPAA. But according to producer Nina Jacobson, it’s pretty much out of the question that any subsequent films would receive anything harsher than the PG-13 given to The Hunger Games.  “Suzanne wrote these books for young people to be able to read them and discuss them and engage with them,” says Jacobson, “and we would never make a version of the movies where they couldn’t participate in. They were the ones that started all of it and I think they deserve to have the movie be made for them to be able to see.”

However, rumors that Lionsgate may decide to take a page out of the book of the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises and split the finale, Mockingjay, into two separate films have a greater likelihood of being accurate. The studio and filmmakers are still considering the possibility. “There’s a whole movie to be made before we really know what we would do next,” says Jacobson. “But as far as the third book, I think that’s still a ‘to-be-determined.’”

In other words, there’s a chance that we will be seeing Mockingjay — Part I and Mockingjay — Part 2, but very little that either would be rated anything but PG-13.

The Hunger Games: Get the latest news, photos, and more



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Around the Network

It wouldn't have made the movie any better. That shit was terrible. Not Twilight terrible but pretty bad.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Your thread title threw me off. I thought you were saying the movie as is should be R rated and I was thinking you were nuts, it's like a PG...PG13 at most as is.

But yeah if I could have made three changes it would be:
- Less of the boring stuff leading up to the actual Hunger Games (all the build up prior to the games, training, talking etc.), but more of the story and how the world ended up like it is in the movie. My sister has read the books and said that there is a lot more explanation in the books than in the movie.
- More violence.



Read the books, loved them. Hated the movie. It doesn't do it justice. The only reason why it's getting good reviews is cuz the teenagers are loving it for no apparent reason. The whole story in the movie lacks depth. They ruined the bread scene completely. And Katniss is a total bitch towards Peeta at the end of the first book. Yeah, that didn't happen in the movie. I'm disappointed and will not watch it again.



movie was okay,but making it an R movie just doesn't make sense. I mean it's geared more toward the teen audience,so I understand why they made it pg-13.



pokeclaudel said:


I did watch Battle Roayle. I don't watch a lot of Japanese movies but the acting in that movie was terrible and over the top. I couldn't get that feeling of sadness when they died because all the characters were suppose to be kids around 14 years old but most of the actors in that movie looked like they were 20. One thing I liked about Hunger Games is at least they cast actual kids to play kids instead of adults(at least in the minor roles). How hard is it to get a 14 year old person in Japan? I never felt a loss for anyone because of that reason except maybe the suicide victims.

that's kind of the point though, it's a B movie like escape from new york, assault on precinct 13. Doesn't mean you have to like it but it's in the vein of those movies.

The hunger games seemed like a B movie, with a weird mish-mash, of high production values, but a somewhat campy story.

What are you talking about the main actors are older in hunger games... jennifer lawrence is 21 Josh Hutcherson was 19. Tatsuya Fujiwara (the main character) was 18 when battle royale was made, and Noriko Nakagawa was 15 (the female lead).

OT: The hunger games was made PG-13 for monetary reasons, and it was the correct decision(financially) because as an R movie it would not have been as near as successful. . It wasn't an amazing movie, but it was really entertaining, and if a movie is that, it's successful in my book. A directors cut with gore would probably mean that they filmed scenes without shaky cam, and with more gore, and I don't think they did this. I hope I'm wrong.

 I've read the book, and there's nothing exactly groundbreaking here, nothing that, the running man, lord of the flies or battle royale and probably a lot of others didn't do before it. However it's books sequals are more interesting imo.