comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Breaking

Lionsgate Decides To Split The Third Hunger Games Film In Two, Gives Us Both Release Dates


Never let it be said that Hollywood turns down an opportunity to make money (why should they?) – Lionsgate has decided to split Suzanne Collins’ third book of The Hunger Games series, Mockingjay, into two films. Hit the jump for all the details! 

Well, we don’t have much at this point but Deadline reports the official split. “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 will bow worldwide November 21, 2014, followed by The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 on November 20th, 2015.”

GODDAMMIT WHY ARE THEY MAKING US WAIT A WHOLE YEAR!

*breathes*

It’s no surprise the filmmakers would follow in the recent footsteps of both the Harry Potter and Twilight series by splitting the final installments in two.  The Hunger Games made over $400 million domestically at the box office and it’s likely the sequel, Catching Fire, will do just as well.

Seriously though, why make fans wait an entire year between the two parts? They’ll most likely be filming them at the same time and factoring in DVD releases, six months seems more considerate to fans. But hey, I’m one of those fans so I’ve got a big opinion on the matter. At least it gives us another film to look forward to after the second Hobbit film is out…

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will hit theaters November 22, 2013.  Do you think this was the right move by Lionsgate? Where do you think they’ll wind up splitting the films?

(via Deadline)

Previously in The Hunger Games

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | | | |


  • Anonymous

    No like. I found the first half of Mockingjay terribly boring.

  • Anonymous

    Harry Potter was nearly 1000 pages though. I have no idea what Twilight’s excuse was.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1208921 Nikki Lincoln

    Agree but there is really clear halfway split and there are few slow parts so it makes a lot of sense. 

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t it make more sense to split Catching Fire in two? There’s so much going on in that book — they could do the Victory tour and Games prep in the 1st movie, then save the Games themselves for the 2nd. And given how excruciatingly bad MJ was, I’d just as soon not have to suffer through 2 movies’ worth of hiding in closets and pointless character death.

  • http://www.thenerdybird.com/ Jill Pantozzi

    I believe Breaking Dawn is around 700-800 pages.

  • Anonymous

    This trend is becoming obnoxious. I mean, it was bad enough that Breaking Dawn was split in 2 when the majority of the first book/movie was Bella mooning around paradise and craving eggs. Harry Potter made sense! That book was ages long and packed with all sortsa action. Nothing happened in Breaking Dawn and Mockingjay has to be at least half the length, and like someone else mentioned, it’s a bit slow in the beginning.

    Seriously, Hollywood. Get over it.
    *rant complete*

  • Anonymous

    Yea, but at least 200 pages (and that’s with the benefit of doubt) was pointless ramblings/descriptions about how much they all loved each other. It definitely didn’t warrant the split. We can all admit that BD was a tad boring up until Bella vamp’d.

  • Anonymous

    NOOO. Come on now, this is not Twilight. 

    I’m firmly against splitting a film in two parts, especially a year apart. This is crazy. Not to mention, the third book was probably the weakest in the trilogy. Catching Fire better be super amazingly spectacular, and not some lame condensed version-because that book had a lot going on in there.

  • http://twitter.com/RitaKHealey Rita K. Healey

    Harry Potter was nearly 1000 pages though. I have no idea what Twilight’s excuse was. http://MayorMoney.blogspot.com

  • nyctreeman

    Rita’s link is a phishing site that will try to take over your browser.

    FLAGGED

  • http://profiles.google.com/deceleration.waltz Deceleration Waltz

     Besides, you seen her font size and margins?

  • http://profiles.google.com/deceleration.waltz Deceleration Waltz

    Funny, I must be the only person who liked Mockingjay more than Catching Fire. But at any rate, if I had to make a guess about the split, I’d say it’ll be right about when -SPOILER- the rescue mission gets back and Peeta tries to strangle Katniss. It would make a great cliffhanger, and kinda makes a clean break in the plot.

  • http://blog.michellemista.com/ Michelle Mista

    I’m hoping that they split Mockingjay in between Katniss’ and Peeta’s viewpoints. Maybe split it at Peeta’s rescue? I’ve always been curious to see what Peeta went through in the Capitol. I’m also really hoping that they expand on the ending. The latter part of Mockingjay seemed so rushed. Experiencing the events from just Katniss’ limited point of view as a relatively shell-shocked propaganda piece was probably the most disappointing part of the book for me.

  • http://blog.michellemista.com/ Michelle Mista

     Pointless rambling may very well sum up much of Twilight in some people’s view :) (I’m sorry, was that out loud??)

  • http://blog.michellemista.com/ Michelle Mista

    *cough* MONIES.

  • Anonymous

     Could not agree more. All the fans liked Catching Fire or the first book infinitely more than MJ anyway. I’d be rolling on the floor with anticipation if they split Catching Fire.

  • http://twitter.com/loerwyn Kathryn

    You forgot to mention the absolutely pointless and unconvincing love triangles and all of the TEEN ANGST they invoked.

    Katniss was a total b*tch in that regard. Not interested in either? Nevermind, string ‘em along anyway. Yeah, girl power there and all that…

  • Anonymous

    I’m really interested to see how the movies work out. I feel like Katniss suffered from heavy Bellafication after the first book. In the second two she was pretty much insufferable for me. I get that she’s supposed to be suffering from the trauma of the games and such, but did it really, honestly have to manifest itself in, “Ugh, boys. I don’t know what to do. I don’t understand these feelings in my boooody, ehhhhhhn!”?

    I’m hoping that she’s be a much stronger character than that in the movies. It possible, since the movies take a much broader scope on the world Katniss lives in than the books do.

  • Anonymous

     http://xvr.in/Wsb

  • Anonymous

    If there’s truly enough story in the original to split into two movies, all’s well and good. It worked with Potter, as the books got progressively longer, and people complained about their favorite bit getting cut out.  Having not read these books, I can’t speak to that.

    But I have a sneaking suspicion this is not as much to make sure every moment of the novel is maintained, as much as to get two movies out of a franchise. 

    Even The Hobbit, which I shall enjoy like a finely chilled glass of Cheerwine, is not as long as any one of the LotR books, and each of those only took one film each.  Yes, it means we don’t lose characters (Beorn will not quite make up for Tom Bombadil, but it helps) but they’ve had to ADD stuff to fill two films.  Yes. I’d love to SEE Gandalf’s fight with The Necromancer, but if Tolkien didn’t write it, it’s new material, and fans tend to frown on new material for classic stories.

    So, I’m a bit at odds here.

  • http://twitter.com/giapet gia manry

    Very conflicted. I liked the first movie but I still feel like it loses a lot of Katniss’s humanity. Jennifer Lawrence does a fine job, but she’s just so generically pretty…I really wish they’d tried Saoirse Ronan, even if she’d have had to dye her hair.

  • http://twitter.com/giapet gia manry

    Re: Harry Potter- seriously. They started talking about splitting the movies as early as Prisoner of Azkaban or Goblet of Fire, I think, even if they didn’t do it.

    But why make ONE movie when you can make two at the same time (thereby not doubling your production costs) and get more ticket sales? Meh.

  • http://blog.michellemista.com/ Michelle Mista

    I’m not getting my hopes up, personally. The first book had a ton going on as well but the movie really condensed it. Hopefully the director change and screenwriter change will put the odds in the second movie’s favor.

  • http://wrongsirwrong.blogspot.com/ Magic Xylophone

    There is simply not enough incident in Mockingjay to justify this.

    That said, I retract any and all naysaying if they manage to nab Cuaron for the director’s chair.

  • http://wrongsirwrong.blogspot.com/ Magic Xylophone

    I only wish this trend had arisen before the LOTR trilogy was made. Can you imagine if they’d been able to do six movies, instead of three?

  • http://wrongsirwrong.blogspot.com/ Magic Xylophone

    Well, considering the inner monologue will be dropped, I imagine there will be a lot less of that, and a lot more of Jennifer Lawrence looking tough. Man is she cool!

  • http://wrongsirwrong.blogspot.com/ Magic Xylophone

    Well, Hanna was a better movie anyway, so I’d say we won out.

  • EAG46

    I think the 2 films could work if Suzanne Collins is willing to write a little more story.  It seemed the 3rd book was rushed and could have been expanded into two books.  Book 3 being “the start of the revolution and the fight to the Capitol” and Book 4 “the rebuilding of Pamen and Katniss’s recovery.”  Also, why don’t we know what’s happening in the rest of that world?  Surely the Games are known about in the rest of the world.  How do Europe and Asia and Africa react to them?   

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4BEQC6IQAJHNFQM4S33AN3Y7PE Briana

    Ummm, well HP was around 800 something pages, NOT 1000. Twilight, believe it or not, had the same excuse HP did. The book was nearly 800 pages and had definite plot jumps. So one movie would have been rushed or made very long. Lots goes on in the book that could NOT fit into one movie. Even years before the decision was made (before HP decided also), SM, the author, said there was no way one movie would work and that if they even ever made BD, it would have to be 2 films. But anyway, MJ is like, what, under 400 pages? And there are no HUGE plot twists. I personally think it would flow way better if it were one movie. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4BEQC6IQAJHNFQM4S33AN3Y7PE Briana

    How ’bout the margins in MJ? And plus, it is under 400 pages….