Talk:The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Sources required for cast members

Until the film is released, we need to ensure that a reliable secondary source is provided for each cast member. This particularly applies to those who did not appear in the first film. Please think twice before adding actors who are not notable: a good rule of thumb here is to check whether they have a Wikipedia article already. Cast members without a source, or actors and characters who are not particularly notable, are subject to removal. Elizium23 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All the tributes from the 75th Game have been cast: https://www.facebook.com/TheHungerGamesMovie/app_432927770063734 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.178.105 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I added some actors/actresses who were announced on the Facebook page but can't get them to all point to the same reference link, instead it has posted the link several times rather than abcdefg. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelrichardscott (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, the cast should be sufficiently notable for inclusion here, and your additions had no associated Wikipedia articles for the actors, and were all bit parts in the film; furthermore, Facebook is not a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I had no idea that there were rules discerning which cast members may be listed and which cannot. As someone new to adding to Wikipedia, can you please point me to these guidelines? As with regards to facebook not being a reliable secondary source, I would generally agree. However, in this case, it is the official facebook page of the movie. Are there guidelines as to what sources may be used? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelrichardscott (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:FILMCAST is a bit outdated; there is actually a discussion for an overhaul on the talk page. If we were to apply it now, the working draft says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc." That wording (and the rest of the draft) has gotten positive feedback so far, so I think it reflects the modern consensus that we need to bring to the guidelines. I would say that "District X Boy/Girl" roles are too minor to mention. Named roles are tricky because they're characters articulated in the book, but that may not be the case in the film itself. What we have now seems like it covers a good number of actors and roles already. I notice from current coverage that it has been noticed that the minor roles are performed by stunt people, so perhaps we could have a sentence or two mentioning that rather than listing the unknowns. I would also recommend formatting the cast list to have two columns. Hope that helps! Erik (talk | contribs) 22:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Erik. I am just testing some waters at the moment and as I become more comfortable I will take a real stab at an article. Thanks (Samuelrichardscott (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

Sure, let me know if you have any other questions! :) It's another set of ropes to learn, I know, in addition to the standard editing sort. :) MOS:FILM has all of our guidelines. You can also go to WT:FILM for help with different film-related topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Extra Info

Possible extra info that could be added onto the page:

- Filming is now in Hawaii for the arena scenes and they're gonna finish off their by December - X-Men filming is now being moved to April instead (why did they take so long to move the date? cf filming seems so rushed now) - The Catching Fire logo reveal debuted infront of BD Part 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.93.192 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Awards

Catching Fire was nominated for most anticipated film of 2013 on Yahoo!'s 2012 Ultimate Movies and I'm not sure if it should be added onto this page or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not an award nomination per se or an award of any sorts, it's just a internet poll for social media and should not be considered as anything else. So no, it should not be added.-2nyte (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Development Section

Should I create a section for the development of the series? Or someone else can go ahead and do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how bold you are feeling. I say go for it! :) MisterShiney ✉ 07:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Budget

According to Forbes budget is rumored to be twice that of the first film at around $150 million (Also Yahoo UK mentions double the budget. Rumor is not enough to add it to the article though. The point of the Forbes article is to expect the sequel to make less money than the $400 million* the first made, that if it costs $150 and manages make $350* it could hardly be called a flop. [* US Domestic]
LA Times and Variety are usually the best sources for production budget. (The Hollywood Reporter sometimes gets it right too. Box Office Mojo has a habit of rounding to near figures.) -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Variety put the budget at [about $140 million. It is not clear why the figure of $130 million from Box Office Mojo has been accepted without discussion. I have seen them get it wrong enough other times that I do not consider them a reliable source only good enough to give a rough estimate. The Variety.com source should be restored and it should be made clear that the budget is estimated at between $130 and $140. Wikipedia must be more rigorous and stop accepting Box Office Mojo as a single source, especially when other sources disagree. -- 93.107.198.92 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Budget figures removed again without even a polite effort to explain the delete with an edit summary.

There is no good reason to favor Box Office Mojo over sources like Variety. -- 109.79.124.109 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you. I'll revert the edit now and invite User:Kyle121101 to add to this discussion if perhaps we're missing something and shouldn't include Variety's figure for a solid reason. iMatthew / talk 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Running Time

According to this article, the theater that listed this running time confirmed it with Lionsgate. http://thgaustralia.com/2013/09/23/official-catching-fire-running-time-is-2-hours-26-minutes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoIsAnonymous (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since people are moving it back and forth, it may be best to delete the runtime line from the Infobox. Let's wait until the movie is actually released to see what the is final/actual runtime.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia disallows the wikia IMDb to be used as a reference citation

Really? IMDb is being used as a reference on several other articles. --Space simian (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide examples? This is a community consensus not to use IMDb as a citation, although absolutely for an external link. See WP:RS/IMDB. BOVINEBOY2008 22:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Critical acclaim"

As established in countless WP:FILM talk-page discussions, WP:TONE and [{WP:PEACOCK]] preclude the use of the term "critical acclaim" for any but acknowledged classics that have stood the test of time, and rarely even then. This was hashed out in particular in the talk page discussion for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2#Critical reception. There, as elsewhere, WikiProject film is moving away from subjective interpretations ("mixed to positive" has been especially contentious) and toward simply giving the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic numbers and consensuses. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The last part is not true. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." So if the Los Angeles Times states that the film has been critically acclaimed, we can state that and attribute that to the paper. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added commentary to the start of this section per the guidelines. If there are any comments or suggestions about the commentary so far, let's have them here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, the contextual commentary should go at the beginning of the section. We are able to state the general consensus in clear terms. Why would we muddle through the figures before stating in a nutshell what critics think? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's normal in any outline to go in linear fashion, in this case from general to specific. RT and Metacritic are broader and more general than The Hollywood Reporter or Entertainment Weekly, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, we're actually in agreement about subjective interpretations. I was referring to Wikipedia editors' subjective interpretations, not comments attributable to reliable sources like the LA Times, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but is saying that the reviews being positive overall not more general than the RT/MC figures? I really do think we serve readers better by saying in clear language how the film is being received. The breakdown seems like a specific element that can come after, especially with so much easily-digestible commentary available. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about two different things then. Whether one finds prose encapsulation clearer than statistics is each editor's personal preference; different people will find one or the other clearer. Personally, I find objective numbers much, much clearer than prose statements.

But that's a whole 'nother discussion from that of outline formatting, in which it's generally a linear progression: most simple to progressively more complex, general to specific, local to national to international, etc. In that respect, RT and Metacritic are more general than what any one specific magazine would say. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I came to comment on this matter because of this notification, though I'd already seen this discussion. My opinion? I feel that there should be a lead-in summary in the Critical reception section stating that the film received generally positive reviews (or similar wording), and that we should not use WP:INTEXT attribution for it; I feel that it should be supported by at least three WP:Reliable sources, so that there is nothing to question with regard to the "generally positive" report; there is nothing to question regardless on that front, given the overwhelmingly positive Rotten Tomatoes score and the Metacritic score; in fact, the Metacritic score can be one of the multiple sources used to support the lead-in summary. I feel that the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic commentary/scores should come after that, which is an approach that is still standard practice for Wikipedia Critical reception sections, despite some WP:FILM members now fighting against it. Like this and this recent discussion about this matter at WP:FILM shows, there is no consensus on Wikipedia with regard to this topic, not even among WP:FILM members. (Actually, well, WP:FILM members, including me, all seem to agree not to use wording such as "mixed to negative" and that including the Rotten Tomatoes consensus upfront or otherwise is fine.) So, yes, that's how I feel about this topic and will continue to feel about it. It doesn't make sense to me to state in the second paragraph, after the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, that the film did well with critics; that bit then comes across as an afterthought.

This article and therefore this talk page currently are not on my WP:Watchlist. So I'll check back in on them every now and then. Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the The Hollywood Reporter text is currently redundant with regard to the Metatcritic text. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! Regarding Metacritic, we could exclude the "generally favorable reviews" mention since it's already covered and just focus on the figures. For example, we can state that there were 42 positive reviews and 4 mixed reviews to reflect the general distribution (in addition to the "metascore" of 75). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22, and in general thanks for your good contributions at the Film Project overall. RE: "I feel that the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic commentary/scores should come after that." May I ask why after? There's no actual reason given --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Tenebrae. I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I very much didn't feel like getting into a debate at that time. I did give an answer for that bit you've queried: I stated that "is an approach that is still standard practice for Wikipedia Critical reception sections" and "It doesn't make sense to me to state in the second paragraph, after the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, that the film did well with critics; that bit then comes across as an afterthought." The lead-in summary of "received generally positive reviews" (or something like that) is, well, the lead-in; and like all lead-ins, we then go into details after that. To state "The film received generally positive reviews" after giving the details is a "duh" matter (meaning that it is quite obvious to anyone who has read the details that the film received generally positive reviews). Sure, one can argue something similar for not including the lead-in summary at all -- it is obvious to anyone who reads the details -- but the details need to at least make clear that the film is generally well received, not just well received at [this or that site]; it didn't do that before. And now that it does, The Hollywood Reporter text is wholly redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Time aspect incorrect

Francis Lawrence confirmed at CinemaCon that shooting for Catching Fire has ended and editing is currently in session.

This is wrong because it's no longer true and it doesn't encyclopedic. It sounds like a vanity news puff piece. 173.231.137.86 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RELTIME is important. Also WP:NOTNEWS. The word "currently" should almost never appear in an encyclopedia, the edit should never have been phrased that way in the first place as it would inevitably go out of date. Be specific and say _when_ if it is important, otherwise leave out the time words. Editors have fixed this but it is a mistake that happens far too often. -- 93.107.198.92 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

I think there is a significant portion of the plot being left out in the plot summary. The current summary goes from the reaping straight to the beginning of the games. A large part of the film takes place between these two events. My edit, in which I inserted the part of the plot I thought was missing, got deleted completely. I am aware that, ideally, plot summaries should not exceed 700 words. However, I believe that a substantial amount of the story is being sacrificed because of this rule. Is there a way the plot section can be extended to give a more thorough summary of the events? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Every movie based on a pop-culture property goes through this, with every fan thinking that a movie they like should be the exception. Believe me, WikiProject Film goes through this all the time. If Titanic (1997 film) and MIssion: Impossible — Ghost Protocol — to name just two long films with very involved plots — can be summarized in 700 words, so can this. If something truly important to the plot is missing, find a way to word something else in more general terms. This film's plot, like any other, can fit within WP:FILMPLOT. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this. I'll leave the summary as it is. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is probably room to tighten up the phrasing and include a few more plot points while keeping under 700 words. (I felt there was room to fit the savage beating of Cinna, a plot point again showing the cruelty of the regime.) The plot is a bit tedious at the moment, if we are serious about cutting down to the core plot points, it seems unnecessary to use full names and get into the specific of explaining districts. The level verbosity and some of specifics seem a little strange if we are careful to exclude information from the books, and only go by what is actually shown in the film. (Which is why I say Cinna was beaten but make no assumptions about his death.) No doubt the section will be rewritten many times in the next few weeks, I hope it gets better rather than worse. -- 109.78.63.100 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Another edit added some good plot points but they were reverted for the sake of brevity. I hope some more of the verbiage can be cut out and some of those plot points can be incorporated in a succinct way. -- 93.107.68.125 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's 632 words as of this moment, so there's a fair amount of room to add details. Two tricks to trim without changing content are: 1) Remove that word "that" when you can — a sentence will often read the same without it. 2) Change passive voice to active voice: "The cat was pick up by John" > "John picked up the cat" saves two words and makes for a more dynamic sentence. Old writers' trick. Ahem, old writers' "technique." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if any of my edits/reverts have come off as harsh or possessive, that wasn't my intention whatsoever. I tried to incorporate some of the plot points from that diff back into the summary. Namely, I've re-included the points about the wedding dress in the interview/Cinna being beaten, and the actions taken in completing Beetee's plan. It's up to 703 words, which is good. I don't think the conversation on the train between P/K or the fact that they slept together to comfort each other are really crucial plot points but if others think so, we can work on getting them in there. iMatthew / talk 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Brought it from 703 to 678 virtually entirely by rephrasing to trim verbiage without changing content. The one content item I did change was a sentence with parallel structure comparing "intelligent tributes" vs. "a female tribute" -- I presume no one meant to suggest female tributes are unintelligent. (Also, like the Olympic Games, a proper noun referred to as "the Games," wouldn't the proper-noun Hunger Games also be referred to as "the Games" with cap G?) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! I've never been really sure if "games" or "Games" would be correct but given your example, I'm more convinced that a capital G is the way to go. iMatthew / talk 22:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning out the verbiage, it definitely reads better now. iMatthew your reverts were reasonable, (wasn't my edits you reverted) but out so sight is out of mind and often reverting or deleting does not push people to improve articles. Copyediting takes a lot more work than deleting. Clearly though you are making the effort, and thanks for working to include more details, Cinna being beaten now has proper context.

Shame the article is locked again, so much for openness. -- 109.79.124.109 (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's been on the receiving end of a lot of vandalism lately. Of course you are able to make an account, though! iMatthew / talk 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles should got to reviewed edits before going to a full lock. If Wikipedia is going to continue to claim to be open and interested in a wider base of contributors. If everyone has to get an account so be it, but frankly the current approach is half-assed, inconsistent, and just adds to the cliquey mess that puts people off editing wikipedia. -- 109.79.124.109 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request "Overseas"

WP:MOSFILM#Box_office specifically warns editors to be careful about phrases like domestic, and to refer to other territories as "international" but unfortunately this article is yet another example of editors who think it is appropriate to describe everyone outside of North America as "overseas". This shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. Articles should be set to flagged edits requiring review before they are locked -- if Wikipedia is going to continue to claim to be open -- so I shouldn't have to ask someone else to edit it either. -- 109.76.110.108 (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Production Notes

Official production notes from Lionsgate are here: http://www.lionsgatepublicity.com/uploads/assets/CATCHING%20FIRE%20FINAL%20PRODUCTION%20NOTES%20PDF.pdf

Who wants to take the honor of filling the article up with all the info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Another remarcable review

Website "Reviews and the city" gave a three-and-half stars (out of five). The critic said: "” The Hunger Games : Catching Fire ” shares some of the errors of the first part, but attenuated". Also said: "where ” The Hunger Games ” is beginning to stumble past the initial 40 minutes, which is where it comes in line with the first part" and "in the next hour cloned portions of its predecessor : play a game again , again should get allies , one more time survival , training, etc. . There are some details here and there, and several accelerated things for no rating as an exact repetition , but fails to modify the heated substance". He concludes "Perhaps the error of ” The Hunger Games : Catching Fire ” is the audience : the franchise quickly became a huge phenomenon , whereby one believed that now then was the time of the rebellion and epic battles , The style of Helm’s Deep “Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers .” Instead, it is a sequel in the strict term : a repetition of the formula of ” The Hunger Games ” without being better or worse" and "“Catching Fires ” should be enjoyed from entertainment and therefore qualifies three-and-half stars out of five, but does not hold either individually or together" http://reviewsandthecity.tumblr.com/post/68127617255/the-hunger-games-catching-fire-film-review

Thedefinitivewiki (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: this appears to be a blog, and the writing is so poor as to be almost unintelligible. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Quarter Quell

"Snow announces Panem's third Quarter Quell, a version of the Hunger Games every 25 years that contains a special provision: all tributes are selected from the existing pool of victors."

Could someone edit this to make it more specific? Not every Quarter Quell returns previous victors to the arena, just the 75th Hunger Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoIsAnonymous (talk • contribs) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, and all taken care of. Thanks! iMatthew / talk 05:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Quote box

The quote by Erik Feig, Lionsgate’s President of Production, is just a press-release promotional blurb, written by the publicity department and not intended to illuminate but simply as a marketing tool. It's not something he said to the press where he could be questioned, challenged and asked to specify and clarify. I'm not sure what the encyclopedic value is of publishing something that the movie's publicity department would love to see given the imprimatur and gravitas of being in an encyclopedia — in a special box, no less! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Italics

An anon IP appears to believe it's common practice to italicize a proper noun in footnotes but then not italicize it in text. Nowhere in any standard footnote formatting or any standard grammar or style is the same proper noun italicized in one place and not italicized in another. Not only does that go against Wikipedia consensus for years — in which Rotten Tomatoes is not italicized — but it goes against standard grammar to both italicize and not italicize the very same words in the same document. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not care even slightly about using bold or italics, as I said in the edit summary I care that publisher information be included in references. I am simply using Template:Cite web and allowing it to automatically apply formatting in a standard and consistent way.

To show good faith I have included extra italic marks to override the formatting the Template applies. I hope this will satisfy your requirements and be enough that you will not delete the publisher information.

Rotten Tomatoes might not be biased but I think it is better to make it clear they are published by Warner Bros. and also to make it clear that Metacritic is published by CBS. In the past Sony went so far as to make up a fake critic so I think caution is warranted, and the extra detail is worth including. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly a fair middle ground. In fact, if we put both entities — Rotten Tomatoes and Warner Bros. — within the the "publisher" field, we don't even have to insert countervailing italics to Romanize them. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot section

I have restored the plot to a good version which was achieved in November. Unfortunately that version did not have wikilinks, so I went through and wikified it. The links to the districts (District 12, District 7, etc) (see this revision) were removed and I wish to have them restored. Elizium23 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The current Plot Summary still has problems, relying on readers to already know the story. For example, Snow is described as being furious at Katniss over "what she did" during the Hunger Games, but the summary does not describe what she did. Later it says Johanna cut out Katniss's "tracker"; no explanation of what a tracker is or why Johanna did that. Plot Summaries should be written on the assumption that the reader does not know background and has come to Wikipedia to find out. 71.59.43.26 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)