‘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.
BY |
‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’ Trailer!

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.

Sources: Lionsgate

Best of the Web

82 comments

Want to join the discussion?

Facebook Twitter
  • undeadslayer4 • 2 years ago

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx yes that debate

    reply

    • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 2 years ago

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

      reply

      • undeadslayer4 • 2 years ago

        @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx wtf are u talking about

        reply

        • undeadslayer4 • 2 years ago

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

          reply

          • undeadslayer4 • 2 years ago

            they improved

            reply

            • Shelbysaurus • 2 years ago

              Looks great.

              reply

              • the-crow2k • 2 years ago

                @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."

                Seriously?

                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.

                reply

                • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 2 years ago

                  @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?

                  reply

                  • john-m • 2 years ago

                    @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.

                    reply

                    • bawnian-dexeus • 2 years ago

                      Well, I'm out of this thread

                      reply

                      • narrator • 2 years ago

                        @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx

                        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.

                        reply

                        • mr-k • 2 years ago

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

                          reply

                          • bawnian-dexeus • 2 years ago

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

                            reply

                            • XxNickTheFilmCriticXx • 2 years ago

                              @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.

                              reply

                              • john-m • 2 years ago

                                @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.

                                reply

                                • thedude-abides • 2 years ago

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

                                  reply

                                  • the-crow2k • 2 years ago

                                    @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.

                                    reply

                                    • ejk1 • 2 years ago

                                      @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.

                                      reply

                                      • thedude-abides • 2 years ago

                                        @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.

                                        reply

                                        • thedude-abides • 2 years ago

                                          @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.

                                          reply

                                          Popular Stories

                                          Stallone Returns as Rocky in ‘Creed’ Trailer

                                          Stallone Returns as Rocky in ‘Creed’ Trailer

                                          Michael B. Jordan plays the son of Apollo Creed, who gets training from Sylvester Stallone's Rocky Balboa in the first ‘Creed’ trailer.

                                          By Brian Gallagher | 4 days ago

                                          4.2k Shares6 Comments

                                          Transformers 5: What We Know

                                          Transformers 5: What We Know

                                          Paramount is planning a huge shared universe for ‘Transformers’, with ‘Transformers 5’ set to kick things in motion.

                                          By B. Alan Orange | 1 week ago

                                          7.8k Shares7 Comments

                                          Latest Headlines

                                          11 Biggest Movies Coming to Comic Con 2015

                                          11 Biggest Movies Coming to Comic Con 2015

                                          From ‘Star Wars’ to ‘Hunger Games’ to ‘Batman v Superman’, we break down the biggest movie panels you must see at Comic-Con 2015.

                                          By Brian Gallagher | 5 hours ago

                                          509 Shares0 Comments

                                          13 New Movies Streaming on Netflix in July

                                          13 New Movies Streaming on Netflix in July

                                          A number of must-see new movies are streaming on Netflix in July, including ‘The Guest’, ‘Creep’ and ‘Serena’.

                                          By B. Alan Orange | 7 hours ago

                                          320 Shares1 Comment

                                          Around the Web

                                          Popular Movies