Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Hunger Games version differences

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> DVD Discussion >> Hunger Games version differences Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 8:48:08 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 30/11/2005
Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere, a forum search didn't reveal anything obvious.

As we know, Hunger Games BD is the 'uncut' 15 version, while the DVD is 12A. I googled for the differences and the general conclusion was that the film was cut (voluntarily by Lionsgate) for cinema release at the lower classification - 7 seconds were removed, and there was some visual manipulation of existing elements, to tone down the violence ever so slightly. However, when I bought the DVD the other day, the running time on the packaging is stated as 137 minutes, while the BD was said to be 142 mins. To me this would be a consistent difference between PAL and NTSC frame rates, but is this correct or is the uncut version actually a few minutes longer?
Post #: 1
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 9:34:19 AM   
Spectre


Posts: 1724
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: The Tannhauser Gate
According to the sleeve of the 3 disc tin, the DVD is the cinema version (137 mins) and the bluray version is the 'unseen version of the film' (142 mins.)

What that 5 minutes comprises, I don't know!

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 2
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 10:07:25 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 30/11/2005
I did a bit more googling, and found an interesting email exchange between a Hunger Games fan and Lionsgate's UK head of home entertainment. The whole thing is worth reading because the blogger wanted to know why the UK DVD was the cut theatrical version, while the BD would be the uncut version:

http://scifisubber.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-hunger-games-uk-release-my-letter.html

The relevant bit for this thread is as follows:

"Hopefully the BBFC information above [LINK GIVEN EARLIER IN CORRESPONDENCE] highlights the few differences between the both versions and explains a little about the decisions we faced in order to bring this film to as wider audience as possible.

We welcome your feedback and would obviously encourage you to purchase the DVD, safe in the knowledge that the 12 rated version is just as enjoyable as the 15 version. The 12 certificated version of the film just has a little less blood and menace."

The key phrases here are "few differences...just a little less" - unless someone can categorically confirm that the BD and DVD versions really do differ by 5 mins in length, I'm going to assume that there's been some sort of typo / printing error and the two versions actually only differ by a few seconds, and visually with some CGI tweaking.

Because I've clearly got nothing better to do on a Saturday morning, I visited the BBFC site for Hunger Games:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/CFF284121/

There is some scope for confusion here over running times, based on the fact that there is a version of the film listed with a running time of 142mins 18secs. I'm going to assume that this is the "unfinished" version Lionsgate submitted to the BBFC for advice. Is it possible that, by the time BBFC saw the finished film, Lionsgate had themselves trimmed 5 mins from the film - scenes that were never in any released version? This could maybe explain why BBFC lists both home versions (12 and 15 certificates) with 136min running times, and only minor differences in the number of seconds?

Sorry if this seems way too anal! I'm just trying to ensure that I'm not missing out on any deleted scenes. BBFC states that:

"When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, cuts had been made in four scenes of violence and in one scene showing details of injuries. These reductions were implemented by a mixture of visual cuts, visual darkenings and the digital removal of sight of blood."

To me, this would be consistent with a few seconds of cuts, not 5 mins!

(in reply to Spectre)
Post #: 3
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 10:51:29 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54430
Joined: 1/10/2005
It looks a bit odd

On theatrical release the stated time was 142mins - if the DVD says it was the cinema version I can only wonder if there is some speed difference in basic DVD transfer from whatever format it was in the cinema that I've never noticed before but someone who knows more may be able to comment.
http://www.filmdates.co.uk/films/2319-the-hunger-games/

The submitted UK cut for DVD looks to have been cut by the company themselves (or possibly the makers trying to make it better) - the classification for the DVD actually refers to a scene being inserted that was removed for the 12A cinema certificate. The time after this scene was reinserted is 137 minutes not 142 minutes. That then suggests that the 'uncut' version with more violence (in this case a knife scene') is the 15 cert. 137 minute version.

At the moment my thoughts are that the text for the covers actually comes from the US releases not the UK and that's part of the confusion - this happens a lot with 'UNCUT' releases - which were in the US but actually pretty much weren't over here, but I think they need to add in some tiny something for advertising standards. But the text is US focus not UK.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 4
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 11:08:44 AM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4258
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
Pretty sure the difference is in the frame rate.  The DVD will be pal encoded and as such will run at 25 fps which is 4% faster than film. Blu Ray is encoded at 24fps same as film. 137min is 96% of 142min

There are differences but these are largely achived through digital removal of blood splatter and the like (as described in the bbfc link) There's actually little or no substantial difference between the verisons

< Message edited by Scruffybobby -- 8/9/2012 11:10:14 AM >


_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 5
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 11:15:52 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54430
Joined: 1/10/2005
I remember this 'UNCUT/UNRATED' thing being discussed with some sex comedy thing - the UK pretty much got the version it got in the cinema but the text came from the US where the MPAA clamp down more in certifying come areas.

So BD people here falling for the uncut thing will see a knife closer to a face for a couple of seconds. Yay!


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 6
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 11:53:57 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 30/11/2005
Thanks for all the responses, you're all thinking along the same lines as me. If there is a difference between 137mins and 142mins, it seemed to me to be more likely to be the difference between PAL and NTSC frame rates, not 5mins of extra 15 certificate-esque violence. I'm reminded of an episode of Big Bang Theory where they try to go to a special screening of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, a version something like 27secs longer than the original. Hardly worth the extra effort, so all this talk of a "version previously unseen in UK cinemas", while technically true, is clearly a little hyperbolic!

elab49 - I also think you're spot on about the recycling of US covers.

A final thought: disingenuous hyping over 12 and 15 versions of Hunger Games aside, isn't it refreshing that the DVD version does come with the same special features as the BD? (I know that Sainsburys buyers get another disc but that's another debate entirely - Target in the US do the same). The recent shambles over multiple versions of Avengers, no commentary for the UK etc stands in stark contrast!


(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 7
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 12:09:09 PM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4258
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

Thanks for all the responses, you're all thinking along the same lines as me. If there is a difference between 137mins and 142mins, it seemed to me to be more likely to be the difference between PAL and NTSC frame rates, not 5mins of extra 15 certificate-esque violence. I'm reminded of an episode of Big Bang Theory where they try to go to a special screening of Raiders Of The Lost Ark, a version something like 27secs longer than the original. Hardly worth the extra effort, so all this talk of a "version previously unseen in UK cinemas", while technically true, is clearly a little hyperbolic!

elab49 - I also think you're spot on about the recycling of US covers.

A final thought: disingenuous hyping over 12 and 15 versions of Hunger Games aside, isn't it refreshing that the DVD version does come with the same special features as the BD? (I know that Sainsburys buyers get another disc but that's another debate entirely - Target in the US do the same). The recent shambles over multiple versions of Avengers, no commentary for the UK etc stands in stark contrast!




There are other "exclusive" verisons as well. HMV's steelbook also has the DVD verison and Asda are selling the Blu (and possibly the DVD) packaged with a "Mockingjay" pendant (which I initially misread as "pedant"which was kinda confusing for a moment).


_____________________________

I want to taste you like yogurt.

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 8
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 1:18:09 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54430
Joined: 1/10/2005
Gimli mentioned that in another thread too I think - the rarity of DVDs coming with extras these days. I don't really bother about extras and I don't really buy Blu so hadn't noticed - but I do wonder if it's a recognition of something in the market? Perhaps a demographic who still buy predominantly buy DVD and it fitted their sales demographic?


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 9
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 1:40:47 PM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77057
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
I think it''s just forcing people who want extras to buy Blu


_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 10
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 8/9/2012 1:49:15 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54430
Joined: 1/10/2005
I mean this way around though - is there a reason why they've put extras on this particular DVD? 

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 11
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 9/9/2012 8:47:27 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I mean this way around though - is there a reason why they've put extras on this particular DVD? 


Because Lionsgate are nicer than Paramount / Disney / Warner Bros etc? Who knows? But, maybe it's because - as evidenced from that exchange of emails I linked to in an earlier post - Lionsgate reckon that the DVD will be bought by younger fans who could still be interested in the special features? Bit of a tenuous one, I'll admit.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 12
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 9/9/2012 9:34:09 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54430
Joined: 1/10/2005
That's why I'm wondering about the demographics of the market - it still interests me as someone who doesn't buy Blu as a first choice. 

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 13
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 9/9/2012 9:56:00 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 30/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

That's why I'm wondering about the demographics of the market - it still interests me as someone who doesn't buy Blu as a first choice. 


For financial reasons I won't be ugrading to BD anytime soon. Players are cheap enough, and discs are reasonable even for new launch titles these days. But my argument against this now is - what's the point in having BD capability if I can't afford an HD TV? (For anyone who might say - but they only cost £xxx these days, I would say - yes, that's true, but I'd rather pay my bills and feed my family first!)

Personally - though I'm happy to be corrected here - my observation is that BD hasn't caught on quite as widely in the real world as DVD did. I don't know anyone who buys BD discs or even has a player, despite them being available well under £100 in supermarkets. I fully accept that BD offers magnificent picture and audio quality, but pretty much everyone I know prioritises cost over this, or special features. Funnily enough, and to return to your point about demographics - my 12 yr old daughter was thrilled when I came home with the Sainsburys 3 DVD Hunger Games DVD set, because she immediately watched all the documentaries. However, this was really because she's a fan of the books; generally, her interest in special features stops at outtakes and gag reels!

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 14
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 11/9/2012 1:29:44 PM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77057
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

Pretty sure the difference is in the frame rate.  The DVD will be pal encoded and as such will run at 25 fps which is 4% faster than film. Blu Ray is encoded at 24fps same as film. 137min is 96% of 142min




OT a bit, but I've just noticed that Pirates...Scientists has the DVD as four minutes shorter than Blu. I presume it's the same scenario as here?

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to Scruffybobby)
Post #: 15
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 20/9/2012 8:32:23 AM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 30/11/2005
Sort of on-topic, but just wanted to say that I watched the feature length 'making of' documentary 'The World Is Watching' last night, and would highly recommend it. It's nearly 2hrs long, and gives a fantastic insight into all aspects of the film's production processes. I said in another thread that Avengers should've had something this good. Obviously it's a bit of a love-in, particularly towards director Gary Ross (who keeps on reminding everyone about his previous work like Big, Seabiscuit, Dave, Tales Of Desperaux etc). But it's refreshing to see a documentary as comprehensive like this, especially when Lionsgate were generous to include it on the DVD edition!

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 16
RE: Hunger Games version differences - 20/9/2012 10:23:26 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54430
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

Pretty sure the difference is in the frame rate.  The DVD will be pal encoded and as such will run at 25 fps which is 4% faster than film. Blu Ray is encoded at 24fps same as film. 137min is 96% of 142min




OT a bit, but I've just noticed that Pirates...Scientists has the DVD as four minutes shorter than Blu. I presume it's the same scenario as here?


It'll be the same with everything. If you get a BFI dual release eg the back gives two film lengths, one for DVD one for Blu Ray, but they are both the same film.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> DVD Discussion >> Hunger Games version differences Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.063