Curio: Anticipating The Hunger Games
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 8:01AM Alexa here. I've skillfully avoided much of the hysteria surrounding The Hunger Games for quite a while. Like Nathaniel, I've been reluctant to jump on the over-marketed, YA-franchise bandwagon. But loving Jennifer Lawrence's performance in Winter's Bone, I took notice when she was cast as Katniss. And when the first full trailer emerged I felt a tingle down my spine. Yet I held steady in my resolve to avoid the marketing cacaphony. But something in me broke down this week: I started the book. Well done, Lionsgate, you conquered me with your buzz-making machine. In light of my change of heart, here are some pretty swell creations made in advance of the film.
Limited edition prints by Purple Cow Posters.
Poster prints by Entropy Trading Company.Click for more, including jewelry...
Necklaces by J T'aime Boutique.
Wall decal by Keep Calm Shoppe.
Curio, Hunger Games
Reader Comments (6)
The Purple Cow posters are gorgeous; I find the others very clean, graphically (which I usually like) but a tad dull.
The NY times article was interesting, I liked this quote from Mr Palen the head of the marketing team for Lionsgate: “we made a rule that we would never say ‘23 kids get killed,’ ” Mr. Palen said. “We say ‘only one wins.’ ” The team also barred the phrase “Let the games begin. This is not about glorifying competition; these kids are victims."
What seems ironic to me is that the NYT, in writing extensively about the marketing of the movie, is acting as an arm of the publicity/marketing team, as there may be people who read the article who have yet to see the trailer or the marketing. (I had no idea of the extensive use of social media, but then I've not been following it beyond what's written on this site.) So they are helping to create "must see" buzz by telling readers that this film has generated "must see" buzz. And predicting opening day numbers. Fair enough, but it will be word of mouth and the following week's numbers that tell the tale.
I remember Time magazine acting as a movie promotion machine in the '90's, telling us that some movie or another was "must see" on the cover (I remember Primary Colors being one, specifically - and one that tanked because the release coincided with the real-life drama in the White House.)
Something I wonder about curios related to current movies btw - do the creators need to get permission from copyright holders (the original authors, the studios etc?) I doubt they do, but I'm sure the studios tolerate a lot - until they don't, and one never knows when they'll decide to shut someone down.
I try and avoid being swayed one way or the other by popularity. I read the series when they came out and I thought they were very entertaining and well done - the movie trailers have me a little skeptical, but we will know soon enough
Janice, as for the copyright, I think a lot of it, so long as it is sold in small quantities, can qualify as fair use. (Yeah, I used to be a lawyer.) But interestingly Lionsgate has bullied some artists over Mad Men illustrations in the past:
http://blog.drawn.ca/post/3693044991/stanleychowillustration-on-thursday-5th-march
I'm a little worried about the movie. Something in the way J-Law says "I volunteer as tribute" in the trailer makes me a little afraid that she's going to be too.... aware... in the film. Hope I'm wrong.
Me too. I've been avoiding reading about it, but I started the books this week and am on the third now. I like them better as I read more. But i had to jerk my mind out of the casting I could hardly avoid knowing about. Once I recast it in my mind, I could enjoy it.
It's like Harry Potter when I read those books back when, I thought of Harry like a young Christian Bale, uniquely talented and unpredictable, a little like the Sixth Sense kid, smart but isolated by scary gifts, or like Jamie Bell, original and full of life. And in the movie we got safe predictable, won't implode as a teenager, Daniel Radcliffe.
Jennifer Lawrence seems a solid enough actress, but it's too limiting to the imagination when you're reading, to be constrained to one interpretation of a character.
The books are right in the stream of what has gone before in the field. I appreciated some of the character work the author did to make her work special. But sometimes I felt fatigued at how sci- fi cliches can't seem to be renewed or broken. In some ways, John Carter of Mars is fresher, because it's being created then. It isn't weighted down by a million cliches, that "everyone knows that's how dystopia will happen". But hey, I'm all for a revolution of the young for a fairer world.