The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Teaser Is a PSA from Snow

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Teaser Is a PSA from Snow

President Snow talks to the people of Panem in a special PSA-style message from the Capitol as a teaser for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 releases in theaters this November, and a teaser released today is set completely in universe with President Snow addressing the citizens of Panem.

Titled "Together as One," Snow's message feels a lot like a cheesy PSA promoting unity among the districts and the capitol. With catchphrases like, "Panem Today, Panem Tomorrow, Panem Forever" and the all-white background, President Snow puts on a show.

Of course, anyone familiar with The Hunger Games knows it's propaganda, and it's an interesting way for a teaser to portray a sense of the film. In Mockingjay, Katniss becomes the symbol of a revolution against the Capitol in a way that slowly built up from her first Hunger Games and especially over the events of Catching Fire. With the way the second book and movie adaptation ends, the Capitol wants to demonize Katniss and glorify a sense of unity against evil, as well as threaten citizens to fall in line - albeit over inspirational acoustic music. It's a common propaganda tactic, one that happens in real life as well, and this teaser shows exactly how the Capitol will manipulate people's emotions to sympathize with a body of power.

Even more interesting is a certain someone standing beside President Snow. Those who have read the books won't be surprised to see him there.

Mockingjay is the final story of The Hunger Games trilogy and will be split into two movies, the first of which will release in theaters on November 21.

Source: The Hunger Games

Permalink

Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I was thinking that; Harry Potter, Twilight and now this, apparently epic conclusion means drawing that shit out.

I am one of those people who loves the Hobbit films though so maybe i'm being hypocritical...

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I just got completely and utterly ninja'd.

But I concur, there is no reason why this needs to be split into two parts, and it's going to be a very annoying trend from now on. Especially since every time they split the last film into two parts, Part 2 is always "The Third Act: The Full-Length Movie"

roseofbattle:
With catchphrases like, "Panem Today, Panem Tomorrow, Panem Forever" and the all-white background, President Snow puts on a show.

Because that's not a loaded phrase at all...

EDIT: And regarding the "why two parts" crap, the biggest criticism of any cinematic adaptation of a novel is when they have to cut large portions out to meet a reasonable run time. Trying to reshuffle the plot into a single movie just runs into the same problems, with many key scenes getting rushed or the movie running way too long to put into theaters. Making two parts deals with these problems while creating some other ones you guys pointed out (although some studios may not consider double admission a "problem").

PunkRex:

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I was thinking that; Harry Potter, Twilight and now this, apparently epic conclusion means drawing that shit out.

I am one of those people who loves the Hobbit films though so maybe i'm being hypocritical...

I like the Hobbit movies(there are some parts that I wasn't a fan, mostly in part two), and I even believe that there is enough content lying around for there to be three of the movies. It's not that I don't think they can do it well and that it doesn't work, I just think that it's an annoying practice meant to squeeze the cash cow even more.

PunkRex:

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I was thinking that; Harry Potter, Twilight and now this, apparently epic conclusion means drawing that shit out.

I am one of those people who loves the Hobbit films though so maybe I'm being hypocritical...

In the case of the last Harry Potter, that was the book that had the least amount of stuff left out. Yes, there were things that were cut and some things tweaked, but it wasn't the hatchet job that happened to the previous 6 books. If they didn't have to worry about most of the actors growing up, they could have easily split every book into two movies.

J.McMillen:

PunkRex:

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I was thinking that; Harry Potter, Twilight and now this, apparently epic conclusion means drawing that shit out.

I am one of those people who loves the Hobbit films though so maybe I'm being hypocritical...

In the case of the last Harry Potter, that was the book that had the least amount of stuff left out. Yes, there were things that were cut and some things tweaked, but it wasn't the hatchet job that happened to the previous 6 books. If they didn't have to worry about most of the actors growing up, they could have easily split every book into two movies.

HPatDH Pt.1 was just them faffing about in a tent sorting out their teen angst, I could have done without that. I enjoy the Harry Potter films and having struggled through the first 4 (and a half) books when I was younger, they didn't seem to remove that much, I remember a bit of world building from number 5 being left out but I wasn't too surprised given how long that book was.

I'm a bit sad that the films lost so much of the first-world capitalism themes of the books. It's a lot more focused on looking at the films audience as district people than the capitol

Well despite me having no interest in the franchise, that was a decent trailer. No fast paced action shots, vague inspirational messages, and the entire plot of the movie laid out in under 3 minutes, just a nice in universe PSA that sets up the film.

Of course there will inevitably be another trailer that does exactly what I just praised this one for not doing, so meh.

Interesting that Panem's bird of prey has only arrows in its talons, with no olive branch or wheat sheaths...

I generally prefer if film adaptions of novels take as much time as needed to tell their version of the story faithfully with minimal abridgement. Much like LOTR, the Hobbit, Harry Potter etc... I'd rather have them delve into the depths necessary than compress the entire thing to fit in limited allotment times. (I'm less than enthused that even the Game of Thrones TV series has been paired down to such an extent an with so many changes compared to the novels. I can only hope that the next novels in the series are not truncated) However, I do have to say that especially when it comes to big "epic" films and whatnot, I do wish that they would consider running the showtimes back to back, as was done with the major Hollywood epics of the past - "Cleopatra" and such. 3+ hours, including an intermission, was not exactly commonplace but much more frequent than we have today. Though, I do support theaters who show "Marathon" runs of a series of movies now and then, such as the first two LOTR or The Hobbit movies back to back, before the "newly" released final chapter.

That said, having seen the previous Hunger Games movies, I am a bit curious as to what they'll do in these two films, as the actor portraying what seemed to be an important character in "Catching Fire" is now deceased. Will they cast a new actor? Handwave his absence away in what is likely to be an awkward maneuver? I'd much rather see the character portrayed by a new actor if there is still an important role for him to play. I haven't read the novels so I am unsure as to the character's role in "Mockingjay", but just from the films alone it seems that lacking his presence will lead to plot holes; lets hope they're not hastily filled with some garbage handwave of an offscreen death or whatnot.

Scrythe:

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I just got completely and utterly ninja'd.

But I concur, there is no reason why this needs to be split into two parts, and it's going to be a very annoying trend from now on. Especially since every time they split the last film into two parts, Part 2 is always "The Third Act: The Full-Length Movie"

I agree and disagree. It's true that splitting up a book can lead to issues with plot and pacing since you're stopping and starting a story part way through. But on the other hand books have always tended to be longer stories than the plot of a single movie anyway, often leading to many things getting cut out. And books are never meant to be read in one single sitting anyway. I think Game of Thrones demonstrates how TV is really a more logical medium for adaptations of longer books.

WHY DOES EVER- *Ahem* Why does every god damn movie based on a book need 2 fucking parts to it now?!

Racecarlock:
WHY DOES EVER- *Ahem* Why does every god damn movie based on a book need 2 fucking parts to it now?!

Because teenaged girls parents will pay for their daughters to watch this.

RanceJustice:

That said, having seen the previous Hunger Games movies, I am a bit curious as to what they'll do in these two films, as the actor portraying what seemed to be an important character in "Catching Fire" is now deceased. Will they cast a new actor? Handwave his absence away in what is likely to be an awkward maneuver? I'd much rather see the character portrayed by a new actor if there is still an important role for him to play. I haven't read the novels so I am unsure as to the character's role in "Mockingjay", but just from the films alone it seems that lacking his presence will lead to plot holes; lets hope they're not hastily filled with some garbage handwave of an offscreen death or whatnot.

It's my understanding that most of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's shooting for the final films had already been completed; apparently there's only one major scene his character was planned for that they're going to have to work around.

Callate:

RanceJustice:

That said, having seen the previous Hunger Games movies, I am a bit curious as to what they'll do in these two films, as the actor portraying what seemed to be an important character in "Catching Fire" is now deceased. Will they cast a new actor? Handwave his absence away in what is likely to be an awkward maneuver? I'd much rather see the character portrayed by a new actor if there is still an important role for him to play. I haven't read the novels so I am unsure as to the character's role in "Mockingjay", but just from the films alone it seems that lacking his presence will lead to plot holes; lets hope they're not hastily filled with some garbage handwave of an offscreen death or whatnot.

It's my understanding that most of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's shooting for the final films had already been completed; apparently there's only one major scene his character was planned for that they're going to have to work around.

"Heavensbee? Heavensbee where are you?"
"Oh, don't worry, I'm right here, right behind this plant. I also have a cold so my throat is sore. Achew."

Olas:

Scrythe:

klaynexas3:
Seriously? Why does this need a two part wrap up? Ever since Harry Potter every teen novel feels the need do this crap. Hell the Hobbit got fucking three parts. This shit is getting out of hand, and the Hunger Games was only ever okay at best. It doesn't even really deserve the movie treatment.

I just got completely and utterly ninja'd.

But I concur, there is no reason why this needs to be split into two parts, and it's going to be a very annoying trend from now on. Especially since every time they split the last film into two parts, Part 2 is always "The Third Act: The Full-Length Movie"

I agree and disagree. It's true that splitting up a book can lead to issues with plot and pacing since you're stopping and starting a story part way through. But on the other hand books have always tended to be longer stories than the plot of a single movie anyway, often leading to many things getting cut out. And books are never meant to be read in one single sitting anyway. I think Game of Thrones demonstrates how TV is really a more logical medium for adaptations of longer books.

That's a valid argument, but sadly that almost never actually works by making two-part movies. The issue here is that it's always the conclusion that ends up having two parts. But they allready cut out a large portion of the source material when adapting the earlier books. This means they have a lot of content in the books that they can't show in the movie, because it's based on stuff that got cut out of the previous installments.
This leads to a basic: Part 1 - Exposition. Part 2 - Big Battle kind of movie. You can see it perfectly with Harry Potter. The whole second part movie is just one big battle and you can clearly see how they struggled to stretch the material into a full movie. I aggree though that a tv series is clearly the superior way to adapt a big and complex book.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here