#110 Fireside Chat: Unscripted 8.0 Saturday 08 June, 2013

“Unscripted 8.0”

If you missed Episode 110 live, you can click here to listen to the recording OR use the embedded player below!

Episode 110 of Hunger Games Fireside Chat will air live this Monday, June 10, at 10pm ET/7pm PT! This week, our panel of experts will include Jessica from Down with the Capitol, Rebekah from Victor’s Village, Tiffany from Welcome to District 12, Natalie of Bookish, and Ariel of Nerdy, Wordy, and Over Thirty!

It’s time to go unscripted again! As with all our “Unscripted” episodes, we have no plan or agenda in place for Episode 110. We’ll spend the whole evening pulling all sorts of listener-submitted topics out of our grab bag. Who knows what we’ll end up talking about!

Feel free to leave a comment below if you have a topic you’d like to submit for us to add to our “topic cornucopia.” Discussion ideas, Crackpot Theories, What Ifs?, Would You Rathers?, Cave/Marry/Kills…we’re ready for anything and everything!

At the start of the show, we will chat with the incredibly talented Jessica from Down with the Capitol about the staged reading of the Hunger Games musical she’s been developing for the last year or so: From Nightmares to Nightlock.

Update: You’ll find a list the topics we pulled out of the grab bag below!
– From Marco: Are you pleased so far with Francis Lawrence’s directing (taking into consideration what we’ve seen so far)?
– From Matilda: Were there more Hunger Games with Paylor as president?
– Do you think, from the knowledge of survival you garnered from reading the trilogy, that you could survive for three nights in the forest?
– From Rachel: How long do you think the Catching Fire movie will be? How much time do you think will be devoted to each “segment” of the film?
– From Banan: Do you think Prim’s death was necessary? Or was it just to make the choice easier for Katniss?
– From Tess: Would you rather be able to reread and experience the trilogy again for the “first time,” or give that opportunity to others by telling your friends about the trilogy?
– From Jessica: Did Snow/the Gamemakers orchestrate Annie’s win after Finnick finally agreed to do something for them?

You can chat with other listeners throughout the live show by using our hashtag #HGFiresideChat on Twitter! We recommend TweetChat to easily follow along with the conversation.

(If you missed our last episode, click here to listen!)

And click here for an index of all of our archived episodes.

Follow this week’s participants on Twitter:
Adam (Host): @AdamSpunberg
Savanna (Co-Host/Producer): @MlleNouveau
Jessica: @Jalissie / @HungerGamesDWTC
Rebekah: @Rebekahdg / @VictorsVillage
Tiffany: @twiffidy / @WtoD12
Ariel: @Madam_Pince
Natalie: @nataliezutter / @BookishYA

Related Posts

#119 Fireside Chat: Highlights
#119 Fireside Chat: Highlights
#119 Fireside Chat: Cresta and Cressida
#119 Fireside Chat: Cresta and Cressida
#112 Fireside Chat: Highlights
#112 Fireside Chat: Highlights


  • Gregory says:

    -Which Catching Fire death do you think is the saddest?
    -What if Effie was a tribute in the Games?
    -If you were to live out the storylines of either The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, or Mockingjay in Katniss’s shoes, which would you choose?

  • satsumarena says:

    The question of whether Katniss regrets letting Gale go has been discussed many times, BUT I’m also interested in whether you guys think Gale regrets letting Katniss go.

    Also, this may have been discussed before, but do you think Gale regrets any of his actions? We know Katniss can’t help but blame him for Prim’s death, but does Gale accept responsibility himself? Does what happened to Prim make him question anything, or does he still think that the only way the rebels could have won is to be as ruthless as the Capitol?

    Finally, would Gale at the end of MJ have approved of Coin’s proposal to throw Capitol kids into the Hunger Games? Many fans assume he would have, but I’m not sure.

  • Addy says:

    -What part of Catching Fire do you hope DOESN’T get put into the movie?

  • I have to correct you: you got the number of the population of District 12 wrong, i.e. you overestimated it 10 times. The population was not 80,000, it was just 8000, and about 800 of them survived the firebombing.

    From “Mockingjay”, chapter 1:
    “More than ninety percent of the district’s population is dead. The remaining eight hundred or so are refugees in District 13 – which, as far as I’m concerned, is the same thing as being homeless forever.”

    This fits more with the way Katniss describes District 12 – as this really small community, basically just a mining village, where almost all the families are distantly related, and a small town, where presumably almost all of the families are related, too, which explains why the Seam people look similar to each other and the town people look similar to each other. It’s also certainly much more believable than Gale was able to save around 800 people and take them to the woods; doing the same with 8000 people seems to be way beyond the capabilities of one guy.

    As for the “next Hunger Games”, I’ve always presumed that the idea died with Coin, but I’ve seen people ask if they did or didn’t continue because they assume that the vote by the former Victor might have been considered valid. I don’t think that there is any possibility that this was the case, for the following reasons:

    1) It was Coin’s idea and obviously Coin’s project; without her, I don’t think anyone in the new government would want to try to make it happen.

    2) The meeting was in private, and if we are to believe Coin, nobody else even knew it happened, except for the 8 people present. In any case, the public had no idea about it, and Coin had no time to announce the results since she got killed shortly afterwards. She only told Snow in his cell. Who was going to go into public or come up to the new government asking for them to be held? Johanna? Enobaria? And why would anyone believe them or take them seriously, unless perhaps they all went together to file a petition or something, which was obviously not going to happen?

    3) Even if the other people in the government knew about it, I don’t think they would consider the decision valid. The very idea of arbitrarily calling up a meeting of seven people, none of which held any government positions, and giving them the right to decide on something so important, is preposterous, and unlikely to be legal even according to whatever law they had in pre-revolution Panem. It seems like it was just a case of Coin abusing her prerogatives, and using the Victors as a cover, as she’s always done: she could have just as well installed the Games herself, but she needed them to hide between them or to use them as propaganda tools to make herself more likeable to the people.

    4) Finally, even if this arbitrary method of decision-making was considered valid, the very fact that one of the seven people who voted was declared by the court to have been temporarily insane at the time should definitely render it invalid. (Not to mention that at least two if not three other Victors present at the meeting were still being treated for mental health issues at the time.)

  • What makes you think that the movies won’t talk about Finnick’s forced prostitution/sex slavery as much as the books did? It’s not like they can’t do it with the PG-13 rating, they can. Prostitution doesn’t get you an R-rating (see: Les Miserables, also PG-13); if Finnick were to talk in detail about the sex acts he had to perform, that would probably warrant an R-rating, but he doesn’t do that in the book, either.

    You can get away with a lot in PG-13 rating, as long as you don’t have a lot of “bad language” or graphic sex or graphic violence; with the “graphic violence” bar being set much higher than many THG fans seem to assume in these discussions. The first movie didn’t have the “blood and gore”, but it showed, for instance, a teenager snapping another teenager’s neck, and a teenager bashing another teenager’s head with a brick (or was it a rock?) Maybe (I’m guessing here) they avoided the R-rating by not showing the contact between the head and the brick, only the kid hitting someone with a brick and a kid with his head smashed and bloody; in which case, it’s a great recipe for showing pretty much everything without an R-rating.

    I’m also not sure why you think that the movies are trying to get the “PG side of PG-13”? And why would they do that, anyway? If they wanted the PG rating (which I don’t know why they would want; it’s not like THG is targeting 7-year old viewers, and it could only put off the teenage and adult viewers who want the movies to be “edgy”), they’d be going after the PG rating. Why would they mutilate the book and its crucial storylines (like Finnick’s backstory) without even getting the lower rating? Isn’t the rule that, if you’re trying to avoid the R-rating for commercial reasons, you’re going to push the violence and sex and everything to the brink and keep it just as non-explicit as is necessary to keep it within the PG-13 limits? When they get threatened by the harsher rating, don’t the studios just edit enough to avoid it by the skin of the teeth, rather than censoring everything?

    I just don’t see anything that would make me think that Lionsgate wants to completely bowdlerize the series, or that they even think it would be a sound commercial decision to do so (and it definitely wouldn’t; THG is never going to be marketed as a “family friendly” film series, Disney type of thing; it has a much better chance of getting more viewers by attracting the adult audiences in addition to teenagers, which it’s partially already done).

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

Leave a Comment

Now you can comment using your Facebook or Twitter account!

Now you can comment using your Facebook or Twitter account!