The Hunger Games franchise has been around less than a decade, but it feels like more, doesn’t it? We’ve gotten three books, four movies, one of the biggest stars on the planet, a race controversy, and the brief return of french braids, all since 2008. And it all came to a pretty weak ending, with the least good book of the series being spread between two films. You can’t fault Lionsgate for wanting to flood the world with the movie adaptations, because they’re in this for that sweet Panem cash, but most of us were beyond glad the series had finally wrapped up. Except it hasn’t. Probably.
Earlier today Lionsgate Vice Chairman Michael Burns announced that the franchise “will live on and on.” And, presumably, on and on and on and on. Burns noted that fans missed the arena setting missing from the last two movies. So prequels are the likely next step, since “If we went backwards there obviously would be arenas.” This also makes sense because do we think Lionsgate could get Jennifer Lawrence back for more movies?
That’s what I thought. So yup, explosions! Political corruption! Kid death! Romance stuff! But don’t worry, it’s not all sensationalized kid violence. Burns wanted to make it clear,
Whatever extensions of ‘The Hunger Games’ brand we pursue, the intent is not to glorify violence by arbitrarily telling arena stories, but to continue Suzanne Collins’s exploration of the concepts of just war theory.I think we can all realistically assume that the intent is also to make a sh*t ton more money, right? Right.