‘THE HUNGER GAMES’ SCORES $214.25M: $155M U.S.-Canada + $59.25M Foreign; #3 Biggest Weekend Beats ‘Twilight Saga’

March 23-25 Weekend Actuals

1. The Hunger Games (Lionsgate) NEW [4,137 Theaters] PG13
Friday $67.3M, Saturday $50.4M, Sunday $34.9M, Weekend $152.5M

2. 21 Jump Street (Sony) Week 2 [3,121 Theaters] R
Friday $6.2M, Saturday $8.7M, Sunday $5.6M, Weekend $20.5M (-44%), Cume $70.2M

3. Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax 3D (Universal) Week 4 [3,677 Theaters] PG
Friday $3.2M, Saturday $5.9M, Sunday $4.0M, Weekend $13.2M (-42%), Cume $177.4M

4. John Carter 3D (Disney) Week 3 [3,212 Theaters) PG13
Friday $1.4M, Saturday $2.2M, Sunday $1.5M, Weekend $5.1M (-63%), Cume $62.4M

5. Act Of Valor (Relativity) Week 5 [2,216 Theaters] R
Friday $569K, Saturday $918K, Sunday $555K, Weekend $2.0M (-45%), Cume $65.9M

6. A Thousand Words (DWorks/Par) Week 3 [1,787 Theaters] PG13
Friday $528K, Saturday $899K, Sunday $523K, Weekend $1.95M (-46%), Cume $15M

7. Project X (Warner Bros) Week 4 [2,065 Theaters] R
Friday $632K, Saturday $809K, Sunday $490K, Weekend $1.9M (-52%), Cume $51.7M

8. October Baby (Provident/Goldwyn) NEW [390 Theaters] PG13
Friday $606K, Saturday $618K, Sunday $473K, Weekend $1.7M

9. Safe House (Universal) Week 7 [1,330 Theaters] R
Friday $386K, Saturday $665K, Sunday $352K, Weekend $1.4M (-48%), Cume $122.6M

10. Journey 2 (Warner Bros) Week 7 [1,340 Theaters] PG
Friday $325K, Saturday $613K, Sunday $523K, Weekend $1.4M (-43%), Cume $97.1M

Hunger Games Box Office SalesSUNDAY AM, 10TH UPDATE: Lionsgate just revised upwards its worldwide total to a massive $214.25 million for The Hunger Games which was projected to be the No. 1 title in virtually every single market globally. The studio reports this morning that this opening weekend’s North American grosses for Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games total a humongous $155 million after making $68M Friday and $51M Saturday anticipating a decent $36M Sunday hold. That’s a record-setter: the 3rd all-time biggest opening three-day weekend, behind 2008′s The Dark Knight ($158.4M); and the highest non-sequel opening weekend ever; and the highest March opening ever. Other Hunger Games records include the highest debut single day for a non-sequel ever, and the highest opening of all time outside of the Summer blockbuster season, and the 5th highest opening day ever. It also beat the Twilight Saga: The Twilight Saga: New Moon debuted to $142.8M in November 2009, and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 opened to $138.1M in November 2011. Exit polling showed the audiences were 61% female and 39% male, with 56% ages 25 and older and 44% under age 25.

The Hunger Games began shattering records with its $19.75M midnights from 2,565 theaters Friday. Then it expanded into 4,137 locations in the U.S. and Canada, ending up with a per location average of $37,467. Screen count was just under 10,000 prints, about 75% of which are in digital theaters including 268 IMAX theaters across North America where it scored a record-breaking all time high weekend. IMAX’s domestic weekend box office is $10.6M, which is approximately $40K per screen — a massive figure since IMAX only has one screen per location. This weekend broke two key records as IMAX’s best opening weekend for a non-sequel 2D title, and best digital only release.

Lionsgate also finally reported its weekend international numbers which were a very strong $59.25M and tracking ahead of the first Twilight Saga film. The pic opened worldwide day-and-date in 67 markets this weekend on an estimated 7,700 prints everywhere except for Spain, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. The first international numbers coming in from Australia scored a huge $1.8 million (USD) on 471 screens, which was bigger than the debuts down under for Iron Man ($1.0M) and Quantum Of Solace ($1.0M). Then that Australia number went up a big +20% the next day — which is unusual. It ended up just under $10M. The UK grossed a big $7.5M, Russia was a breakout $6.5M, and New Zealand a strong $1.27M. Scandinavia markets combined for $3.7M, Germany $3.9M, France $3.75M, and early estimates include Mexico $3.59M and Brazil $2.6M. Asian markets also posted very solid numbers: Philippines $1.71M, Singapore $1.38M, Taiwan $1.36M, Hong Kong $709K, Malaysia $655K, Thailand $649K. In the UAE $656K and the Gulf region with almost $1M combined.

Why is it doing so well? Because this brutal actioner about love and courage was based on Suzanne Collins’ best-selling trilogy of post-apocalyptic young adult novels and made better than it had to be given all the omnipresent marketing and media hype. Kudos to director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) who wrote the screenplay with Collins and Billy Ray, and to the casting of Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, and Josh Hutcherson whom movie critics say are ‘pitch perfect’ for their roles as Katniss Everdeen, Gale Hawthorne and Peeta Mellark, respectively. Kudos as well to producer Nina Jacobson and Lionsgate execs Joe Drake and Alli Shearmur and Tim Palen and Julie Fontaine. Problem is, Hunger Games breaks a long string of box office failures for the studio. So now that Lionsgate has bought Twilight Saga mini-studio Summit and installed the top execs from there to run the movie operations, Drake is no longer co-CEO and Shearmur is being moved to a producer. Welcome to Hollywood, folks.

Adding to the great reviews around the globe (87% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes), domestic audiences gave The Hunger Games an ‘A’ Cinemascore with under-age 18 teens/tweens rating it ‘A+’, an indication of their extreme satisfaction with the movie. Rival studios say The Hunger Games, unlike the Twilight Saga, has expanded from attracting both younger and older females initially now to younger makes as a 3-quadrant movie. And the heat from the anticipation by teens and tweens is making those adults who tap into the cultural zeitgeist start getting interested. So now it’s a 4-quadrant film. Amazingly, NRG tracking showed that over 90% of moviegoers said they were aware of the film right before its release, and roughly 2 out of 3 moviegoers in America who said they were “definitely” going to the movies this weekend were buying a ticket to see The Hunger Games. Huge lines snaked around those U.S. and Canada movie theaters able to schedule Friday midnight screenings. Some locations even arranged to play The Hunger Games at 3 AM and even continuously during this opening 3-day weekend. This is the  biggest movie start ever for Lionsgate, which now can count on a blockbuster bonanza for its franchise. “I’ve never lived up at this level. Very few people have,” one ecstatic Lionsgate exec gushed to me Friday night. “I did see some champagne glasses flowing down the hall.”

What made Lionsgate’s promotional campaign for The Hunger Games so unusual and probably effective was that the studio stuck to the rare strategy of not showing any footage of the games themselves in any marketing materials. So all that staggering amount of interest in this film was incited with no one having actually seen even a hint of over half the movie. Marketing kicked off last summer with 2 Entertainment Weekly covers during production to announce the cast, as well as the launch of the motion poster of the iconic flaming mocking jay. (Since EW has long been the semi-official mag of the Twilight Saga, Lionsgate took a page from Summit — which it now owns.) ABC’s Good Morning America debuted the entire trailer on air in November. Between the release of the first Hunger Games trailer in November 2011 and January 2012, the number of Collins’ books sold nearly doubled. By the time of the film’s opening, Hunger Games was on over 50 magazine covers.

The studio estimates its TV on-air promotions and sponsorships reached over 102 million people in America. They included a 3-night “studio lot sponsorship” on FX movies, Fangasm spots on MTV featuring the Real World Challenges cast, a Comedy Central ‘Action Countdown’ weekend, and an ABC Family ‘Premiere Party’ during the Season 2 finale of Pretty Little Liars where teen female viewers helped break social media records while twittering about a clip featuring fan favorite Peeta. According to SocialGuide, this generated the most social media buzz for any one-hour TV episode on record. The digital campaign was massive and started with the launch of the cast on The Hunger Games‘ Facebook page, then exploded over the past year with its own blogs. Lionsgate also worked exclusively with Microsoft to create games and apps. Publicity-wise, the film had an 8-city mall tour with thousands of fans at each stop around the country, as well as promotional screenings in 26 markets. The film had 5 premieres globally, starting in LA at the Nokia, and then London, Paris, Berlin and NYC.

Overall, the $214M weekend is looking up +76% from last year. The #2 Sony Pictures’ holdover 21 Jump Street and #3 Universal’s Dr. Suess The Lorax did well but other movies couldn’t get traction except Provident Films’ and distributor Samuel Goldwyn Films’ newcomer October Baby. The anti-abortion drama opened in only 390 theaters nationwide but managed the second-highest per-screen average. The independent faith-based film marks the feature debut of video directors and brothers Jon and Andrew Erwin who made it for just a $1M budget. Like its successful predecessors in the genre, the coming-of-age film is relying on word-of-mouth from conservative religious groups and block buys of tickets at churches and colleges. It was first released last fall for three weeks into 13 theaters in Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi, timed to an ultimately unsuccessful “personhood” ballot initiative and backed with funding from the American Family Association. Provident has had previous successes with faith-based films like 2008′s Fireproof and 2011′s Courageous.

Here’s the Top Ten (based on weekend grosses):

1. The Hunger Games (Lionsgate) NEW [4,137 Theaters] PG13-rated
Friday $68M, Saturday $51.0M, Weekend $155.0M
International $59.25M, Worldwide $214.25

2. 21 Jump Street (Sony) Week 2 [3,121 Theaters] R-rated
Friday $6.2M (-53%), Saturday $8.6M, Weekend $21.3M (-41%), Cume $71M

3. Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax 3D (Universal) Week 4 [3,677 Theaters] PG-rated
Friday $3.2M, Saturday $5.9M, Weekend $13.1M, Cume $177.3M

4. John Carter 3D (Disney) Week 3 [3,212 Theaters) PG13-rated
Friday $1.3M, Saturday $2.2M, Weekend $5.0M, Cume $62.3M
International $172.1M, Worldwide $234.4M

5. Act Of Valor (Relativity) Week 5 [2,219 Theaters] R-rated
Friday $560K, Saturday $925K, Weekend $2.0M, Cume $65.9M

6. Project X (Warner Bros) Week 4 [2,065 Theaters] R-rated
Friday $625K, Saturday $810K, Weekend $1.9M, Cume $51.7M

7. A Thousand Words (DWorks/Par) Week 3 [1,787 Theaters] PG13-rated
Friday $525K, Saturday $905K, Weekend $1.9M, Cume $14.9M

8. October Baby (Provident/Goldwyn) NEW [398 Theaters] PG13-rated
Friday $595K, Saturday $620K, Weekend $1.7M

9. Safe House (Universal) Week 7 [1,330 Theaters] R-rated
Friday $392K, Saturday $670K, Weekend $1.3M, Cume $122.5M

10. Journey 2 (Warner Bros) Week 7 [1,340 Theaters] PG-rated
Friday $310K, Saturday $638K, Weekend $1.3M, Cume $97.1M

SATURDAY 7:30 AM, 7TH UPDATE… EXCLUSIVE: Lionsgate’s record-shattering The Hunger Games opened with $68.25M grosses for Friday’s North American box office, including $19.75M in record-setting midnights. That should make for a first weekend of $140M with upside from 4,137 locations, with a screen count just under 10,000 prints. About 75% of those prints are in digital theaters, including 268 IMAX theaters across North America. Hunger Games records include: the highest non-sequel opening weekend ever, and the highest debut single day for a non-sequel ever, and the highest March opening ever, and the 5th highest opening day ever.

FRIDAY 11 PM, 6TH UPDATE… EXCLUSIVE: My sources tonight say The Hunger Games is looking to open humongous with $66 million for Friday box office from 4,137 theaters in the U.S. and Canada, including the record $19.75M in midnight shows. An insider tells me that ”$70M is still a possibility for Friday with a little swing here or there”. And one rival studio exec explains to me, “The West Coast and late shows still need to come in, so this number could bounce around a bit. But, nevertheless it’s everything we thought it to be.” That puts its 3-day North American weekend gross at a gigantic $138M with a lot of upside. Adding to the great reviews around the globe, domestic audiences gave The Hunger Games an ‘A’ Cinemascore with under-age 18 teens/tweens rating it ‘A+’. This is the biggest movie start ever for Lionsgate, which now can count on a blockbuster bonanza for its franchise trilogy. “I’ve never lived up at this level. Very few people have,” one ecstatic Lionsgate exec gushed to me Friday night. “I did see some champagne glasses flowing down the hall.” This is not the biggest opening day gross ever, but it is for a non-sequel and/or non-reboot film (unadjusted for inflation) – and certainly an amazing start. It’s within the Top 5 all-time Friday openings which include 1) Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part Two ($91.1M), 2) Twilight Saga: New Moon ($72.7M); 3) Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One ($71.6M), 4) The Dark Knight ($67.2M); 4) Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part One ($61.7M).

Except for #2 Sony Pictures’ holdover 21 Jump Street and #3 Universal’s Dr. Suess The Lorax, other movies couldn’t get traction Friday. Overall, the weekend is looking up +60% from last year.

FRIDAY 8:00 PM, 5TH UPDATE… EXCLUSIVE: Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games now has a hefty opening location average right around $12,000. Keep in mind that in many ways there are no ideal comps because the big-grossing films are all holiday and/or sequels and/or summer releases. Whereas Hunger Games, based on the bestselling trilogy of novels by Suzanne Collins, is a March debut of a first in a franchise. Comps include Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part Two - $13,028, which made for a $91.1M opening day and $169.2M weekend; The Dark Knight - $12,219/$67.2M/$158.4M; Twilight Saga: New Moon – $14,504/$72.7M/$142.8M; Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One - $11,185/$71.6M/$138.1M.

FRIDAY 4:10 PM, 4TH UPDATE… EXCLUSIVE: My movie studio sources are telling me that the Friday gargantuan opening box office for Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games is ranging from a low of $60M to a high of $75M today from 4,137 North American theaters. That number includes the record-setting $19.75M midnight grosses. For the 3-day weekend overall domestic blockbuster number, my insiders are predicting a low of $135M to a high near $150M. This is a huge bonanza for the studio and not much less than its motion picture revenue for recent quarters. Meanwhile Lionsgate sources are telling me that the hotly anticipated pic did a matinee per-screen average of $7,800. Now that number is rising past $9,900 at this hour. That’s better than The Dark Knight ($9,806) and Twilight Saga’s Breaking Down Part One ($9,310) but not Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part Two ($11,300) and Twilight Saga’s New Moon ($12,600).

FRIDAY 10:30 AM, 2ND UPDATE… EXCLUSIVE: Rival movie studios looking at early matinee grosses (which are dominated by pre-sales) tell me that Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games may beat the most recent Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One opening weekend gross of $138 million. That would be an extraordinary result since this is only the first in The Hunger Games franchise trilogy. “Early matinees are in the world where The Hunger Games will give Twilight a run for their money,” one mogul tells me. “It’s doing spectacularly. Unlike Twilight, it’s attracting both boys and girls as a 3-quadrant movie. And the heat of it from the teens and tweens is making adults start to get interested as well. Older audiences are turning up to make it a 4-quadrant film.”

FRIDAY 8:30 AM UPDATE… EXCLUSIVE: Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games is already shattering records. Its opening $19.75 million box office result from 2,565 midnight locations set the record for all-time highest-grossing non-sequel midnights ever. It’s also the 7th highest midnight gross of all time. To understand how gigantic this result is, Batman reboot The Dark Knight did $18.5M in midnights on a summer opening in 2008. It’s also the highest IMAX non-summer non-holiday 2D opening of all time, earning $1.3M from 269 IMAX locations. That’s the highest midnights behind Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part One ($1.4M) and Part Two ($2.0M) and more than Transformers 3 ($1.3M). Huge lines snaked around those North American movie theaters able to schedule midnight screenings. Some locations even arranged to play The Hunger Games continuously during this opening 3-day weekend. Right now theater owners are adding screens every minute for the largest release in the history of Lionsgate with an opening weekend count in excess of 4,127 locations in the U.S. and Canada for 10,000+ prints. (Right now, that only puts The Hunger Games at #12 on the all-time list of widest openings at the box office. No. 1 is June 2010′s The Twilight Saga: Eclipse which released into 4,468 theaters.) Also look for a humongous overseas opening worldwide day-and-date on an estimated 7,700 prints everywhere except for handful of markets (which include Spain, Italy, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela.

On Wall Street, Lionsgate shares bounced around in trading but ended at par. Some of that likely is due to profit-taking and high expectations games. The film/TV studio’s stock price is up 134.3% over the last 12 months. “There is an old market saw ‘Buy on the rumor, sell on the news’ that is likely unfolding,” Piper Jaffray analyst James Marsh tells Deadline’s David Lieberman. Bulls may not want to count on The Hunger Games topping The Twilight Saga: New Moon which generated $142.8M in its opening weekend. Some traders were concerned about The Hunger Games’ $20M midnight opening which didn’t match the Twilight Saga’s. But the pros likely will sit on the sidelines until they see how the frontloaded film does its second weekend, a far better barometer for a film’s ultimate performance.

Fandango is currently selling 12 tickets per second for The Hunger Games which represents an overwhelming 97% of online ticket sales today. More than 3,500 showtimes sold out on fandango in advance of the release. The Hunger Games now leads the list of Fandango’s top franchise-openers, and has eclipsed The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and surpassed The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 to become Fandango’s #3 advance ticket seller of all-time. According to a recent Fandango survey of several thousand Hunger Games ticket-buyers, 89% said they plan to see the movie on opening weekend, 62% of ticket-buyers planned on seeing the film more than once on the big screen, 54% were going with a group of 3 or more friends.To date, nearly 2,500 screenings offered nationwide by the online ticketing provider for the film’s release have sold out, of which over 1,400 were for last night’s midnight screenings. On MovieTickets.com, The Hunger Games is the #1 non-sequel preseller of all-time, beating out Twilight. Over 10% of all tickets sold for the first weekend release are for IMAX theaters.

THURSDAY PM: I’ve just learned that the first international numbers coming in for the opening of Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games tonight are gigantic.The hotly anticipated movie scored a huge $1.8 million (USD) in Australia. (For the record, the gross was AUS 1,741,000 on 471 screens which is about $1.8M USD.) My sources say that’s bigger than the debuts down under for Iron Man ($1.0M) and Quantum Of Solace ($1.0M), although not Transformers 2 ($2.1M).

The pic opens worldwide day-and-date on an estimated 7,700 prints everywhere except for a handful of markets (which include Spain, Italy, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela).

Here at home, moviegoers lined up at 9 PM EST for the midnight screeningHunger Games Sales for NYC’s Union Square, and at 7 PM PST for LA’s Burbank 16. (see photos) Hollywood and Wall Street are certain that The Hunger Games can generate as much as $125M domestically this 3-day weekend, which would make it the all-time biggest opening for the month of March and possibly break other records. Right now Lionsgate and theater owners are adding screens every minute for the largest release in the history of Lionsgate with an opening weekend North American count in excess of 4,127 locations. Hunger Games Box Office PredictionsThe studio will have at least 10,000 prints playing throughout the U.S. and Canada starting Friday. (Right now, that only puts The Hunger Games at #12 on the all-time list of widest openings at the box office. No. 1 is June 2010′s The Twilight Saga: Eclipse which released into 4,468 theaters.) More than 75% of the prints are in digital, with 268 IMAX theatres across North America playing the hotly anticipated pic. Online pre-sales of tickets continue to amaze, and business for Friday 12:01 AM midnight shows is expected to be phenomenal. Exactly how much the studio can gross for the first weekend depends on how many screenings each theater can pack into 72 hours by finding enough staff willing to work the extra hours and keep the pic running continuously.

Comments (274)

  • Go see John Carter…great cast and action…I heard Hunger Games is the weak sauce

    Comment by shrek — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 8:14pm PDT  
    • Too late, shrek. JC is a boom in running. Also, I had the opportunity to see “The Hunger Games” for a test screener and I recomend it. Not a perfect story, but thilling and intriging with an excellent group of young actors (Especially Jennifer Lawrence).

      Enjoy JC if you can…

      Comment by Alex — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 9:09pm PDT  
      • Alex, I guess you didn’t pick up on shrek’s sarcasm…

        Comment by Katniss — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:17am PDT  
        • Good to see that TWILIGHT wasn’t just a fluke. There are clearly more mega properties out there that can play to mass audiences, and more big ones to come.

          Let’s see how quickly Lionsgate/Summit can get Stephanie Meyer to agree to do another TWILIGHT movie. The rumor I heard is that she’s already started working on it — she is going to finish the Edward spin-off book that she once started (and aborted after the pages leaked online)…

          Comment by BT — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 8:48pm PDT  
          • This proves that a female audience will turn out for tent-pole movies targeted at them. The sad thing is, once the Twilight/Hunger Games audience is about 25, Hollywood will stop making films for their demographic, because “women don’t go to movies.”

            Comment by Lisa — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 8:45am PDT  
          • GREAT – that is all YOU PEOPLE’S money…why do people get so excited about a blockbuster when it is YOUR block they are busting?

            Redbox or Dollar Flick…

            Comment by scott — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 4:09am PDT  
          • Summit/Lionsgate have put out TWILIGHT and now THE HUNGER GAMES. Amazing! And they own my favorite latest young adult book, TEMPEST by Julie Cross. I hope that gets made next!!!

            Comment by young adult book lover — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 9:26am PDT  
    • “Carter” is already dead in the water, sparky. The worst movie since “Battlefield Earth”. Utter crap from beginning to end.

      Comment by Mark — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:34am PDT  
      • I found John Carter to be a very good movie, better than the silly Hunger Games, which is a Deathrace 2000 copycat.

        Comment by Anonymous — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:47am PDT  
        • if you think that JC is better than the Hunger Games you must be starved and delusional HG is the greatest adaption of a book and it is no copycat ive seen it my self today have you even seen the hunger games? either way Hg is efinetely bette

          Comment by David — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 6:50pm PDT  
          • “HG is the greatest adaption of a book”

            Oh, my… Funny seeing all the people who trashed JC without seeing it throwing their own hissy fits as soon as someone has something negative to say about “their” movie.

            The inane comments and flip-flopping opinions on here tend to be more entertaining than the films…

            Comment by HelloDumbDumb — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 10:52pm PDT  
          • I haven’t seen HG yet but I may do so in the near future. But the premise isn’t exactly original. There was a similar premise in The Running Man, and there was also a similar premise in a little seen movie starring Jason Statham and Stone Cold Steve Austin a few year back, as well as an indie movie about a fight-to-the-death internet video series featuring a pregnant assassin as well as Death Race 2000. The only thing separating this is the fact that the protagonists fighting for their lives are children.

            Comment by 728huey — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 7:23pm PDT  
          • I haven’t seen John Carter but would like to. I have hard time believing that a movie made by the guy who made Finding Nemo and Wall-Eye can be all that bad.

            But I just saw Hunger Games today, and it’s great. Very entertaining, thought provoking. Creepy and scary, but filmed in such a way that 9-year-olds who go don’t think it’s all that scary.

            Comment by A spouse — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 8:26pm PDT  
        • haha funny, but its not a copycat since that was a comedy about them killing civilians for points, and not each other, well they could kill each other but thats not the point lol

          Comment by Brendan — Wednesday March 28, 2012 @ 4:24pm PDT  
      • “John Carter” dead in the water? With $234 million worldwide after 3 weeks in release? Yeah, it didn’t pay off spectacularly at the N.A.’plexes, but it’s still in the top 10 and continuing to mop up overseas. Looks like decent “legs” to me.

        Comment by ROclockCK — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 4:22pm PDT  
    • Uh-Oh, someone works for Disney! I’m actually going to check out John Carter this weekend, I’ve heard good things

      Comment by Drew — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:44am PDT  
      • Whoever told you about John Carter was lying. It not that it’s bad, just instantly forgettable.

        And Hunger Games doing 150 this weekend is INSANE!

        More proof Americans are bored out of their gord.

        Comment by Jack — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 10:06pm PDT  
        • I’m not American, I’m ukrainian and I think the Hunger games is awesome book and film is also great, I saw it yesterday.

          Comment by Diane — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 9:17am PDT  
    • “heard Hunger Games is the weak sauce”

      Who did you HEAR that from? You “writer” buddy who works at Starbucks?

      Comment by lukeandlaura — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:55am PDT  
    • Sarcasm aside, It is kinda funny how everyone is bashing JCs horrible marketing and hype (Or lack of) and yet having no problem falling for the completely fabricated Hollywood hype of The Hunger Games. Everyone kept saying JC looked too much like such and such movie, but I guess people have no problem with Hunger Games being a complete ripoff of Battle Royale. It’s just a popularity contest, and JC was the highschool nerd. What a way to judge art!

      ““Carter” is already dead in the water, sparky. The worst movie since “Battlefield Earth”. Utter crap from beginning to end.”

      Even the truly angry haters on here don’t think it’s that bad. And that’s because it’s not. Although, if you saw it you’d know that… (Cue the “I’ve seen it and it’s…” crowd) Here’s the thing about fabricated hate. It’s predictable.

      Comment by jonathon B — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 10:45am PDT  
      • No one was asking for John Carter, the marketing sucked, they removed anything about it that would appeal to women, and it cost way too much for what it delivered to ever be profitable. Hunger Games was a hugely popular book, the marketing has been stellar, and it has a strong, female protagonist plus content that appeals to males. To say one is doing better than the other because of a popularity contest is beyond over-simplifying. As for it being a Battle Royale rip-off, yes, we’ve all heard that before as the claim has been leveled at this movie since day one; the same could be said about the premise of most movies– somewhere out there someone made something similar. The stories are different enough that there have been no lawsuits filed, the audience appeal is broader for THG and the public really doesn’t care as long as the product they’re being offered is entertaining.

        Comment by cookmeyer1970 — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:29am PDT  
        • one can make the argument that the PREMISE is similar to Battle Royale in the only fact that the Hunger Games is an actual battle royale. All similarities end there. Get over it.

          BR was a good movie. Gory, entertaining, but HG has soul, it’s epic but intimate, and so much more character and plot development than BR ever could dream of.

          Comment by Primrose — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:16pm PDT  
          • HG has no soul. Wild mix of unreal emotions and murder of teenagers.

            Comment by TTK — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 12:14am PDT  
          • BRHS is a movie dealing with Japanese social issues at a certain time. HG is dealing with future issues that Western countries might face. Both are science fiction. In the first BRHS there is a bond between a girl and boy. Same with HG’s.

            In a World where almost every story has been told so many ways… there could be some similar points to both movies.

            BRHS was about youth revolt, lack of respect, and youth violence. I am sure that HG is not about that. Both appear to be like Truman Show like reality games.

            If it is entertaining… who cares. Can one not like both?

            Comment by CC Coleman — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 3:10pm PDT  
      • I am a fifty-one year old man who read the books several months ago. The books are written at a middle school level, but the story is well told and all in all is very enjoyable.

        The movie has some minor defects, but the casting is superb. Jennifer Lawrence is a perfect Katnis, and Peeta carries his part as well. The minor characters are also well cast as the characters match the real public personalities of the actors. Lenny Kravitz as Cinna and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch are right on.

        Our group for the midnight show included teenagers, young adults, and two fifty year olds. Everyone loved Jennifer Lawrence as a semi-tough brunette. All but one of the teenagers thought the movie was really good, and highly recommended it.

        Comment by Critical — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:03pm PDT  
        • As the creator of a virtual world whose global membership is 99% girls, here’s what we’ve been seeing for 3 months now: 2 separate spontaneously created peer clubs devoted to discussions of THG, all age ranges have been talking it up in our forums and just about everyone is thrilled to the max that there’s a film out that features a capable, smart, shrewd, strong protagonist who happens to be female. We didn’t solicit any of this activity, we just watched it grow.

          Comment by worldrunner — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 3:31pm PDT  
          • The Hunger Games has a lot in common with Spartacus, any other gladiator movie, the Star Trek pilot, the Star Trek episodes Arena and Gamesters of Triskelion, Soylent Green, A Clockwork Orange, and any negative coverage about reality TV shows.

            I think what makes it different from those shows, and, I’m sure, many Twilight Zone and Outer Limits episodes that I’ve never seen, is that it’s shot and edited in a much different way, the music is beautiful and probably much different, the costume design and makeup are different, the actors may be similar are different, lovely young people, and it feels as if we might be in a pre-post-apocalyptic world.

            I find myself being a little too honest and telling my child, “I have no idea what the world will be like when you’re an adult; I can’t guarantee there will be enough to eat.” The Hunger Games dramatized the dread that was already in the pit of my stomach.

            Comment by A spouse — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 8:47pm PDT  
      • Oh good, I was worried someone wasn’t going to mention Battle Royale.

        Comment by crm — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:54pm PDT  
      • In this case the hype isn’t fabricated at all, it’s based on a book series that has sold 26 million copies in the USA. People love the books and are excited for the movie, and it sounds like the adaptation was done well.

        If anything I think they’ve done a great job having some restraint promoting the movie, the ads show little if any of the actual Games in the film (if only more movies would have the sense to not show everything in the ads). And it has been reported that the advertising and prints budget was only 45 million, which is shockingly low for a movie releasing this big.

        Sure the movie does use a premise that has been done before, same as Royale did, a number of films from the 70′s going back through greek mythology (the Minotaur). But tons of films share similar general ideas, it’s the execution that makes the difference. I haven’t seen the movies yet but the books use the Games just as a jumping off point and go far beyond that.

        Comment by milo — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 1:07pm PDT  
      • You’re out of touch or very, very stupid if you think the hype for Hunger Games is artificial. Whatever you think of their quality, those books have a huge, passionate fanbase and have become a genuine, Harry Potter/Twilight-sized cultural phenomenon.

        Comment by Hank — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 8:06pm PDT  
      • notice they call others stupid for not following the zombies from one book/movie to the next.

        Comment by teaj — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 6:39am PDT  
    • I get it lot of kids want to see kids killing kids. Hollywood wants to promote that in full force. We all know that we will take from the movie the important things like fighting for governement supplied food source and health care.

      What I dont get is the marketing for JC was horrible. My kids loved the movie and I thoguht it was awesome. Especially when you consider the story was written pre 1912, yes that means it was well before all these other movies/stories that people say it is “too uch like” it is the grandfather of science fiction and for many sci-fi writers their first inspiration.

      I really didnt know what to expect in this Hunger Games but when I keep hearing the hollyweird telling me its going ot be the “next Harry Potter” somewhat ruined the whole thing in my opinion.

      Comment by Bill — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:25am PDT  
      • “I really didnt know what to expect in this Hunger Games…” And yet you’ve convinced yourself how horrible it must be…

        Comment by milo — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 2:50pm PDT  
      • Can’t even keep politics out of a movie discussion?

        Are you that same fool “whiskey” who used to post on here and get laughed at week after week?

        Comment by College Student — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 7:30am PDT  
    • Speaking of which, interesting month of schadenfreude, if she has a taste for it, for Nina Jacobson. Imagine having this kind of spectacular success while John Carter is gushing blood at the studio which literally fired her while she lied in the delivery room after having a baby.

      Worked with her years ago and she was terrific. Thrilled for her.

      Comment by bobbobkk — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 3:13am PDT  
    • One of the worst movies I’ve seen in a while, real waste of money. This movie had a great & convincing marketing ploy bur failed to live up to the hype.

      Comment by Scott — Monday March 26, 2012 @ 11:25am PDT  
  • here it COOMMESSSSS

    Comment by Racheal — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 8:36pm PDT  
  • Saw hunger games over here in the uk, the cinema was full and the film was very good, not your usual glossy blockbuster this was a very intelligent film, though i dont see kids liking it all that much most of it would go way over their heads and their isnt enough action to sustain youngens interest, might be wrong though…but im very excited for this franchise in terms of thought provoking material its far stronger than twilight or even potter.

    Comment by Seb — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 8:48pm PDT  
    • Seb, thanks for the feedback. It’s kind of what I expected and I won’t pretend I’m not disappointed. I think it became clear as weeks went by and more clips were unveiled that Ross was not going to deliver an Avatar kind of wow. And yes, I loved Avatar. It was innovative, meaningful, fun and gorgeous to the eye. Nevertheless I guess I’m glad HG doesn’t fail entirely. It would be fun to bring in a new director for the sequel; someone who could dazzle. But it won’t happen.

      Comment by Mar — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 11:49pm PDT  
      • it’s not the a similar story to avatar at all, that’s a pretty random comparison. I really enjoyed Hunger Games, I found it tense and action-packed. Haven’t read the books but knew about the premise.

        Comment by Morgo — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 5:06am PDT  
        • OMG. Duh, Morgo. I know it’s not the same story. Who said it was? If you paid attention you’d see I was referring to visual excitement – you know – something cimematic. Epic.

          Gawd I seriously hate when people have a reaction to what they “think” someone’s saying instead of paying attention. Isn’t that how we all get in trouble? Sheesh!

          And I have read all the Hunger Games books. Thanks.

          Comment by Mar — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:52pm PDT  
          • Comparing to Avatar makes even less sense knowing you’ve read the books. There’s absolutely no comparison between the two, one is CGI aliens riding flying creatures and the other is battling for survival, more suspense and psychological drama than actual action. HG is a great book and has the potential for a great movie, but it’s obvious from reading it the strength of it isn’t visual spectacle (which is also why they were able to make it for a third the budget of Avatar). Now the rest of the HG trilogy, no question the books have much more spectacular imagery that give those movies much more material to turn into eye popping visuals.

            Comment by milo — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 2:55pm PDT  
      • “And yes, I loved Avatar. It was innovative, meaningful, fun and gorgeous to the eye.”

        I must have seen a different Avatar.

        Comment by lukeandlaura — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:57am PDT  
        • Maybe. Hah.

          Comment by Mar — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:53pm PDT  
      • While Avatar had a definite liberal/progressive message, Hunger Games is clearly written from the point of view of one who has lived under a communist/fascist system. I didn’t see ANY similarity between the two, although I kept imagining North Korea.

        Comment by Chris — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:11am PDT  
        • Maybe the writer lived in Pelosi America… LOL! Seriously, the author had some issues about loosing a brother to the Vietnam War and other personal tragedies that inspired her to write the book. She said it was painful to write certain parts because they drew from her painful memories.

          No, I have not seen the movie or read the book. I might go tonight.

          Comment by CC Coleman — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 3:17pm PDT  
      • When people mention Avatar and why this movie wasn’t as “wow” as Avatar is because the effects could have been made better in the HG. Yes, they are two different stories.

        But, in The Hunger Games books the “mutts” are so disturbing and dangerous looking to Katniss because they have the human eyes of the tributes that have died. Why wasn’t that put in the movie? Because of budget constraints?? This movie is going to do crazy business. Would James Cameron do a shaky cam, close up shots of District 11 rioting or would he have shot it differently? Do i even need to give a response.

        This movie was made on the cheap because they know they have a captive audience with all of the fans of the books. They got my money and so be it. Don’t hate the movie, but it wasn’t that great either.

        This book series deserves to be adapted to the big screen in an EPIC way. Gary Ross failed to deliver that type of EPIC Avatar like movie even though the story was there. Just work on the movie don’t have to change the story. It’s already there.

        Comment by Greg — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 7:29pm PDT  
        • Totally agree with your comment. The concept was really good. But there was no intensity in the movie. It just felt like I was watching some competition but nothing more. It did not invoke any emotions. The actors also looked healthy to know what is hunger. JL definitely looks talented but didnt see that hungry look on her face or the intense emotions. But she was better than all others. The visual effects were also totally lacking. The movie looked like totaaly made on cheap budget. Lionsgate is just as bad as Summit.

          Comment by Sami — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 8:40am PDT  
    • @Seb: I agree with you except for the last word of your comment. Harry Potter is the story of a boy who has to fight a dark wizard killing muggles and mudbloods because he thinks wizards are superior beings. Throughout the story, you get violence, murders, strong allusions to rape and child abuse, mind-control and body-control, torture on adults and children, censorship of the press, slavery, manipulation of public opinion, genderswap, interspecies relationships, abuse of power by the government,…

      I would say Harry Potter is pretty thought-provoking (especially the latter books).

      Comment by peter — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:50pm PDT  
  • People are underestimating this movie, i think it’s closer to 150 million.

    Comment by jake — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 9:59pm PDT  
    • You’re so right. I bought the book, not expecting much, and ended up reading it in one sitting. I can understand why the book inspires such fervor. It’s great storytelling.

      Comment by Jennifer R. — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:33am PDT  
    • People are overestimating this movie, i think it’s closer to 130 million.

      Comment by steve — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 9:10am PDT  
  • warms the heart to see people waiting in line to see movies, whatever the film.

    Comment by warms the heart — Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 10:33pm PDT  
    • Could not agree more.

      Given the debacle that was John Carter and the fact the next big film release after Hunger Games is based on a f*cking board game (Battleship) I feel like we could all benefit from a solid ‘win’.

      Comment by Warner Borg — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 2:40am PDT  
      • Totally agree. I’m usually all about snarking on Deadline, and I’ve never read the Hunger Games books, but I am absolutely thrilled to see this many people excited and flocking to the movies. Gives me hope!!

        Comment by Yay for Moviegoers — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:41am PDT  
      • The curse of the Mouse. Put the Disney name on it and people will run for the hills. Disney Studios is looking for someone to fire for JC’s results. They haven’t made a good live movie since The Black Hole… and that was a dark movie for Disney!

        Comment by CC Coleman — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 3:21pm PDT  
    • Finally a comment from someone in the industry that gets it. I’m guessing you’ve been at it a while in some positions of authority.

      Comment by Hussman — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 12:58pm PDT  
  • Ah yes, just look at that strong contingent of men LINING UP to see this female-centric film! Why, there are so many of them, I can literally count all the men I see on the fingers of one hand!

    [sarcasm off]

    Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:19am PDT  
    • Give me a break. Lots of men, myself included, want to see this. Yes, it features a young female lead struggling with becoming a young woman. But you’re forgetting it’s a sci-fi action movie taking place in a dystopian future. That’s the thing that will lure us guys into the theater.

      Comment by sd — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:52am PDT  
      • I agree. I think this bias also comes from the media comparing it to twilight. This is more like running man! Bloody and awesome!

        Comment by Nathan Rose — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 10:30am PDT  
      • Sir, you are not the exception that disproves the rule. And dress it all up however you like. With violence, with gore. It doesn’t change the fact that the core of this film is female young adult twaddle. The only guys that will show up to see this film are either deluded about what it is, or being dragged to the theater unwillingly by the girls/women in their lives.

        That said, more than enough women will show up to make the movie a fantastic success.

        Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:13pm PDT  
        • “The only guys that will show up to see this film are either deluded about what it is…”

          …or actually know what the book is about and how solid it is, instead of judging a book by its cover. Opening weekends, the gender split is usually reported. I’d be shocked if it’s more extreme than 55/45%. Monday morning we’ll see you proven wrong but I expect you won’t be here to admit it.

          Might as well insist that Alien only appeals to girls since it has a female lead.

          Comment by milo — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 3:01pm PDT  
          • Alien isn’t swaddled in the deep dark depths of female YA fiction. It’s horror/sci-fi, and it’s fantastic. THG? I’ve been hearing for months untold from young girls asking each other if they’re team Peeta or team Gale, whoever the hell those 2 are. To even compare Alien to this tween fangirl dreck is beyond ridiculous: it’s offensive.

            “…or actually know what the book is about and how solid it is, instead of judging a book by its cover.”

            How the hell would they know what it’s about? Guys haven’t, don’t, and will not read these books! Girls do!

            And you’d be shocked if it was more than 55/45? Well, get ready to stick your fingers into a socket, buddy.

            Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:15pm PDT  
        • you’re an idiot, I’m a man in my twenties, I enjoyed the book and will see the movie, some of my male friends decided to see it after watching the trailer (which was the first time they heard about the HG).

          you don’t know what you’re talking about. please go away.

          Comment by charlie — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 6:34pm PDT  
      • You had me at “dystopian future”

        Comment by Speaking for "guys" — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 5:14pm PDT  
    • What on earth makes you think this film is female-centric? Because it has a female lead? This film is about as 4 quadrant as it gets, and the tracking confirms it, in record-setting numbers.

      Comment by The Replacements — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 10:04am PDT  
      • Gee, I dunno. How about the fact that the film centers around a girl named Katniss Everdeen (seriously: Katniss? Couldn’t be more Twilight-esque if you wanted it to be) having to choose between two gorgeous young boys to fall in love with? It SCREAMS tween fangirl. All the violence and gore and whatever is window dressing on that primary story. And I remember reading plenty about how some of the Twilight films were tracking 4 quadrant. How’d that turn out, eh?

        Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:16pm PDT  
        • “Couldn’t be more Twilight-esque if you wanted it to be) having to choose between two gorgeous young boys to fall in love with?”

          That’s actually not the story of the first book at all. And a relatively minor part of the second and third books. It’s like saying that Lord of the Rings is about the triangle between Aragorn, Eowyn and Arwen — really missing the point entirely.

          Comment by Lynn — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 2:55pm PDT  
          • And yet, all I hear from young girls talking about this movie (and yes, I only hear women/girls talking about this movie, not men) is whether or not they’re team Peeta (Peeta? Seriously? That’s supposed to be a word?) or team Gale. Deny it all you want – this book is female YA fiction. Maybe it’s more serious than Twilight is, but like I said, that’s all window dressing. Twilight-esque is perfectly appropriate to describe it.

            Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:21pm PDT  
          • LOTR love triangle? Only in Jackson’s lame adaption. He should have left that out and put in “The Scouring of the Shire” instead.

            Comment by wildbillcuster — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:23pm PDT  
          • The filmmakers made a conscious effort to ramp up the love triangle and put it front and center in the film and the marketing. Yes, it’s a minor part of the books, but it’s not of the first film. This process started with the casting, when they cast Jennifer Lawrence over Hailee Steinfeld. Steinfeld is by every conceivable measure closer to the Katniss in the book (age & appearance), but she’s too young to be comortably sexualized in the eye of the audience — no one wants to see a love triangle featuring a 14 year old girl. Lawrence has spent the past year slinking around in Baywatch-type dresses and in her underwear in men’s magazines.

            In the book Katniss is conflicted/ambivalent about her feelings towards the boys, to the point a lot of readers actually inferred she was lesbian. At the very least she was sexually naive — never been kissed or even thought about boys, etc… No one thinks that when they see Jennifer Lawrence.

            Honestly, not saying this was a bad choice on the part of the filmmakers, but come on — the love triangle element of this was amped on and put front and center in every conceivable. way. It is in the mold of TWILIGHT and the filmmakers are no doubt thrilled to see the TEAM DALE and TEAM PETA stuff happening because it’s obviously what they were going for.

            Comment by HW — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 6:46am PDT  
        • “How about the fact that the film centers around a girl named Katniss Everdeen (seriously: Katniss? Couldn’t be more Twilight-esque if you wanted it to be) having to choose between two gorgeous young boys to fall in love with?”

          Clearly you’ve bought into the media’s whole “The Hunger Games is the new Twilight” thing. However, in the the books/film the romance is merely a side plot. In the book, most of it is Katniss’ thoughts of how guilty she is. Of course they’re going to beef it up in the film to attract more of an audience, but if people come to the movie expecting Twilight “romance”, they will be sorely disappointed. To say that The Hunger Games doesn’t appeal to guys is an overgeneralization. Ever think that you’re possibly the exception to the rule? I personally was recommended to read the books by a guy friend, and when the trailer showed my boyfriend was really interested in it. Now he’s reading the books. Just because I book/film has a female lead and some romance doesn’t mean that guys won’t read the books or see the film.

          Comment by Wose — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:45pm PDT  
        • I can’t believe how upset guys are that one movie out of zillions of action movies might not be intended for them. Sheesh.

          Comment by Lisa — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 8:58am PDT  
        • firebrand you don’t know what you’re talking about. Twilight was female centric. This movie is based off of books that at their heart are really about a potential dystopian future, class struggles, government oppression, and the modern media. Throw in a little love triangle and this is 4 quads bud.

          Twilight has been bad for the movie industry. Good for Summit, but bad for the movie industry. I feel like in the HG Gale is just kind of thrown in there as a 3rd wheel as it were. In the later books he definitely comes to symbolize a sort of ethical stance of fight fire with fire even if that means you have to commit atrocities against the enemy, but so many book series want to create this artificial love triangle team Edward, team Jacob crap.

          Your comments about the HG are out to lunch firebrand.

          Comment by Greg — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 7:38pm PDT  
    • Yes, this article isn’t citing some photo of people lining up to see The Hunger Games as evidence for why it’s turning out to be a 3, possibly 4, quadrant movie because they actually used research with quantitative data to come to their conclusion.

      Comment by cookmeyer1970 — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:37am PDT  
      • Oh yes, because market research is so damn definitive. Just like the market research for Twilight told Summit to try marketing that movie to men. And that worked out wonderfully, didn’t it?

        It’s a 2 quadrant film at best. Men may show up to see this movie, but not because they want to? And why should they? There are better uses of their time.

        Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:23pm PDT  
        • All the TWILIGHT movies were huge hits. What the hell exactly is your point, firebrand?

          And HUNGER GAMES has the advantage of being a better movie, based on a better book. Though you wouldn’t know it because obviously you haven’t read the book or seen the movie.

          Comment by michael — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:17pm PDT  
        • Rival studios are the ones who said it, not me, and why would they hype a film that’s not even their’s if it’s untrue? Their claim is based on research done regarding presale tickets, so you’re inaccurate when you say it’s a “2 quadrant film at best.” The money and the numbers just don’t point to that. Your issue with women movie goers or whatever the hell your problem may be is your opinion and it does not trump fact.

          Comment by cookmeyer1970 — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 8:53am PDT  
        • I frankly don’t care whether men show up to this movie. It’s already selling out theaters and raking in money. Clearly it doesn’t need any male genitalia in the seats to be a hit.

          Comment by Lisa — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 9:00am PDT  
    • Jennifer Lawrence is smokin’ hot.

      Her performance is great in a fight to the death action movie (she kills several contestants in various ways).

      Do men and boys need anyother reason to see this movie?

      Comment by Critical — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:13pm PDT  
      • No.

        Comment by Speaking for "guys" — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 5:19pm PDT  
    • Not all men like sports. Not all men drink beer. And, yes, some men can tolerate a female hero at the center of their beloved cinematic violence. Shockingly, some of us don’t mind a little romance now and then. We’re not all dumb bro-dudes.

      Comment by Raster — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:58pm PDT  
      • True, I like them…as long as they don’t insult my intelligence and fall into that sexist male/female sterotype like Bride Wars and most romcoms these days. When Harry Met Sally, Annie Hall (I prefer Manhattan, though. ),Defending Your Life and 500 Days of Summer are proof that romcoms can connect on a universal level instead of setting both genders back to the caveman era like the average Heigl crap-a-thon.

        Comment by Alex — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 10:36am PDT  
        • You had me up until “Defending Your Life” and then I barfed. Woody Allen up to 1981 worked for me then he went totally artistic.

          Comment by CC Coleman — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 3:25pm PDT  
          • “Defending Your Life” is a film a I like but don’t love. Albert Brooks is one of the great film comedy voices of the last fifty years, but his output is rather uneven. Not unlike the far more prolific Woody Allen.

            Comment by Raster — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 3:39am PDT  
    • If it’s doing big business, who cares that the audience is female? It’s not TV, where you’re trying to reach a specific demographic. Besides, nearly everything that comes out of Hollywood is geared toward men. Why begrudge the other 51 percent of the population a chance to see something that’s made for them for a change?

      Comment by Lisa — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 8:53am PDT  
    • Anyone, guy or gal, who read these books should enjoy the film.. as to there not being any guys.. balderdash.. In fact, my son and I went together and left my wife at home (she didn’t want to spoil the book that she hasn’t read yet) and the theater we were in was about 60/40 female/male. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie..Young Ms Lawrence was simply amazing capturing the spirit of Katniss..

      Comment by Courtney — Saturday March 24, 2012 @ 4:53pm PDT  
  • The lines at Mall of America’s theaters were insane as well.

    Comment by Employee — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:15am PDT  
  • I’m impressed with what Gary Ross & Co. have done…. they took on one of the most anticipated adaptations in recent history and they’ve pretty much reached the absolute peak of its commercial and critical potential.

    I think the franchise will tap into a good chunk of the male viewer-base that refused to watch the Twilight films (and it probably won’t have that same cringe reflex/stigma that Twilight has developed).

    I’m one of the few who hasn’t read the books yet, but I’m def interested to see what the #’s will be. 86% on Rotten Tomatoes, and not much competition (at least, not like the typical summer or holiday competition). They’re really going to reach a fever pitch when the sequel hits.

    Comment by blink — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:39am PDT  
    • Hunger Games will do amazing at the box office, just like Twilight did. And just like Twilight, men won’t show up. Female YA fiction is still Female YA fiction: a complete turn-off to men. They’ll save their bucks for The Avengers, Amazing Spider-Man, Dark Knight Rises, and Prometheus.

      Comment by firebrand — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 8:45am PDT  
      • The market research does not support what the naysayers are saying, and yet you all keep saying it over and over again, as though your preconceived ideas trump objective data and analysis.

        Comment by cookmeyer1970 — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 11:42am PDT  
      • “Men won’t show up”….?

        As a man, I have enjoyed the books, lots of my co-workers (all men) have tickets for this weekend. This movie is very attractive to us men. THG has nothing to do with Twilight – content-wise. If you’d read any of the books, you’d know how stupid your comment is.

        Comment by Mr.W — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:47pm PDT  
      • It’s a hot girl fighting to the death in an arena, and you think there’s no appeal to male moviegoers?

        Comment by Hank — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 5:00pm PDT  
        • JENNIFER FREAKING LAWRENCE :D enough said !!! she’s hot as fire and acts like the new godess of Hollywood … which Guy in his right mind would want to miss that ???

          Not even talking about the story/the directing/the music,… which is absolutely BRILLIANT !

          Comment by nic — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 6:18pm PDT  
          • The directing was not “BRILLIANT”. It was good enough.

            Comment by badkitty — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 9:28am PDT  
      • Funny – I was working as a teacher’s aide in some private high school in Downtown LA a couple of months back – and this book was assigned as a book report to an entire ninth grade English class.

        So I assume that teen age boys know much about the material as well as the girls do.



        Comment by Cary Coatney — Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 3:00pm PDT  
  • Started to read the book and managed about forty pages before I threw the book so from a constant reader no way will this movie be bigger then twilight Harry potter lord of the rings never ever

    Comment by Mills cupac — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 4:51am PDT  
    • I havent read the book so cant say, but as a big reader, you read a tiny amount of a 400+ page book, you got nowhere near where the games or even the proper story would of gotten, so i dont see how you can judge,alot of books take far longer to get going. ive only seen the film but i already can see the books are far stronger then the soso twilight books, and technically smarter than potter but not quite as strong….then again you sound like a potter or twilight super fan and this will be stronger than the first twilight easy.

      Comment by Seb — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 8:19am PDT  
      • And so it should. Twilight was an indie film with a small budget. The Hunger Games has been marketed as the next big thing with the money to back it.

        Comment by Marcie — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:06am PDT  
      • Sorry but you can’t judge Harry Potter based on the movies and without reading all the books. There are plenty of storylines and characters that don’t even show up in the HP movies. You can’t adapt properly in 2 hours books that have over 900 pages (and even 1,100 pages for HP5: Order of the Phoenix).

        A lot of the plot and mythology of HP was cut or dumbed down so they could fit in 2 hours and don’t confuse the kids.

        Comment by peter — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:57pm PDT  
    • And that’s why you’re not calling the shots on what gets produced. Forty pages into the book? Are you in like third grade?

      Comment by b — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 9:49am PDT  
    • I too found the first 40 or so pages of the books difficult to read. I knew the books were written for middle school, but the opening pages of The Hunger Games seemed written for new readers (third grade?). Very short declaritive sentences.

      However, I stuck it out and got drawn into the characters and the story. Either the writing shifted (I think it does), or I didn’t care or notice as the story develops. For adults, the books can be read very quickly. Once I started, I read all three books more or less continuously.

      Overall, the story is very exciting and well told. It most definitely does not glorify violence or war, and it does not have a happily ever after ending for Katnis, Prim Gale or Peeta.

      Comment by Charles Elkins — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 12:25pm PDT  
  • I can’t believe someone just typed that.
    To put John Carter in any basket, alongside ANY movie, is injustice. That movie was easily the biggest waste of cinema ever, followed by The Green Lantern.
    The Hunger Games was very real, the way the camera work was done, the way Katniss behaves… All to draw you into the world as if you were one of the citizens of Panem WATCHING the hunger games.
    Also, watching Jennifer Lawrence getting her butt kicked by bugs was hilarious.

    Comment by Bonanzawhat? — Friday March 23, 2012 @ 5:06am PDT  
  |  More Comments

Sorry, comments are closed for this article.