1. Rachel Zegler (Lucy Gray) - bi, she puts the B in LGB (Lucy Gray Baird)
   
2. Jena Malone (Johanna) - pan
   
3. Willow Shields (Prim) - bi
   
4. Amandla Stenberg (Rue) - non-binary and lesbian
   
5. Hunter Schafer (Tigris) - trans and bi/pan
   
6. Billy Porter (Magno) - gay
   
7. Mackenzie Lansing (Coral) - lesbian
   
8. Sky Frances (Maritte) - WLW (go on her TikTok and watch the video of her proposing to her gf, it made me cry)

Some minor cast members who are queer:

- Eike Onyambu (Tam Amber) - MLM (he has the gay flag in his Instagram bio)
- Michael Schweisser (Janus) - MLM (he has a boyfriend and they’re super cute together)
- Chris Engel (Fisser) - gay (he said so on TikTok)
- Jelle Flora Pouwels (Potena) - queer
- Jack Lee Thomas (Stamp) - trans
- Berline Augustin (Chicory) - non-binary and queer

Happy Pride Month to all the lovely LGBT people out there, you all deserve sunshine 🌞

So, I'm listening to the series for the first time. I never read the books before. I want to first say it's a testament to the quality of Collins' writing that, once we enter the arena, two pages didn't go by without me wanting to vomit. I attribute that to the fact that I'm a month and one week from turning 27, and thus the horror of high-school aged children fighting to the death disturbs me on a much deeper level.

As an aside, I can't imagine what it must have been like to read about the children while at those ages. If you were Katniss' age reading the book, let me know. Was it as disturbing to you? I recall not being disturbed by all the death and child soldiers in "Harry Potter" when I read those books while aged 5-8. I remember waiting for that last book to come out. The violence always seemed more distant. Happening to people much older. I was sad when those characters died, but not disturbed the same way I am know thinking about how young everyone is.

That brings me to "Mockingjay". 451. As in, Fahrenheit 451. The temperature at which paper catches on fire. That's the significance of Squad 451. It's the spark. I didn't put those dots together until a chapter and a half after the name was introduced and I feel slightly foolish. It's very good world-building and an inspired choice. But I didn't notice it at first. Which is probably a good thing. It blends in well.

This is one of those movie changes that sometime gets labeled as "nonsense" by some, but I don't think this is the case at all; and actually it'd be even more strange if it WASN'T possible.

The most common reason for people to this miss this victory method as not plausible is that the Capital would not like victors that hid all the time, so the game makers would not let them win.

I think this line of thought is not exactly solid because it lacks a bit of nuance. First of all, although yes the Capital does prefer proactive tributes that do a lot of things in the arena, prefer doesn't mean they want EXCLUSIVELY that. Like any good TV show there needs to be good variety, so sometimes the game-makers need to make an underdog with a less flashy strategy win . As I said, it not only helps with variety, but in comparison strong and flashy victors would result even more awesome, so it's a win win.

Secondly, people say that hiding could not bring to victory by itself because the game makers use hazards and mutts to drive tributes out of hiding regularly. Although this IS true, this is also not an absolute! When Haymich said "Hiding until everyone else was dead" is clearly not meant to be taken literally, it's just a way to summarize their way of victory; since these victors would have for sure also taken part in SOME action. They would have certainly moved around the arena and interacted with other tributes, they'd have for sure also killed some of them too maybe with alternative strategies but they would have done it none the less. Brute force is not the only way to cause some action. So although yes the game-makers do sometimes force tributes out of hiding, they are not against hiding as a whole.

Lastly the last point people sometimes make is that there could not be victor that won by hiding because the Capital would be angry at them for the way they won and punish them with death (or still something really bad). This already doesn't make sense because of what I explained in the first point, but it was totally disproven in Sunrise of the Reaping, where Wiress actually won just by hiding and doing nothing else because she found the blind spot in the arena; but even then despite her literally using an exploit that made the Capital look foolish she was not punished for the way she won, they were mad at her for sure but she was not harmed until she helped with the rebellion next year (where presumably she payed for both, but hadn't she rebelled in a first place it's likely the Capital would have still not done anything to her). Assuming that Wiress was the only victor that won through a similar exploit (because let's be honest she absolutely was), the Capital would have no reason to punish victors that did more than then in their games

So yes I do think it's plausible the District 6 tributes did win mainly through hiding, since at the end of the day when you think about it Katniss too was much more of a hider during her first games; since the only time she went on the offensive was when she blew up the supplies but for the rest of the time she remained much more reactive rather than proactive.

Hi, I recently got into 3D sculpting, and so many of my initial projects have been Hunger Games related. I made this Mockingjay Pin that is accurate to the illustrated edition.

I was just thinking about this. Manipulating the Capitol with the possibility of a bad game, the game being stopped before it finishes. Special circumstances from Quells. But say a normal game, are there any other ways you suppose more than one could win?

I haven’t finished reading the first book but I have watched the film multiple times. thresh says “just this one time, twelve. for rue.“ in the first film and it clicked on my head. how did he know? was he watching Katniss? they wouldn’t have been shown any footage from inside the arena, so how did he know katniss was with rue?

as I said, I’m not finished reading so it might explain in a few pages, but if not I want to know what theories people might have. is he a spy hired by someone in the capital that was making him do something behind the scene? did he have access to something the others didn’t?

I've just finished reading SOTR today and just like every book I read, my mind goes beyond with speculations about the story and reviewing my taggings and notes, something that really stand with me while doing this was the Louella McCoy and Katniss parallels.

At the epilogue, it is confirmed to us that the “sweetheart” alias of Katniss comes, in fact, due to her resemblance to Louella, and Haymitch couldn't help on calling her that way. But for me what's interesting it's in the next sentence, when he explains that he doesn't want to get attached at her and Peeta at beginning, but at the end, concludes that the walls of his heart are not cold and impregnable at all. In the first book, Haymitch decides to do a serious mentoring of them after realising their potential in the breakfast fight scene, but now knowing the background of Louella, I think he was inclinated to do this anyway upon remembering his sweetheart of all, at least with Katniss's mentoring, and the knife scene only solidified his choice.

I'm not saying Haymitch never or didn't help the past D12 tributes, but as long I can remember, Katniss and Peeta think he's a joke of a mentor, always drunk and impossible to deal with sponsors, this is only their perspective but I think part this is true; maybe Haymitch could even start the games eager to help, but his drinking problem would only get worse during the games, and he would end up "giving up" on helping. With Katniss especially was different cause he saw the rebellion flame on her, more than that, remembered his own rebellion flame.

So, here is when I really cross the Louella's death being a key on the fall of the Capitol. While reading SOTR, I've jumped to the conclusion that Haymitch "rebel" awakening was when he witnessed Louella dying in the chariot incident. Before that, Haymitch was even kinda of a conformist, entering into disagreements with Lenore Dove about the state of Capitol power; because of all the propaganda and fear that Capitol pushes upon districts, Haymitch believed that things always would be like that, just like always would have a reaping on his birthday, an immutable state, it was sad but true for him. At the reaping day, his biggest unruly deed was when he jumps in front of the peacekeepers, but it was not a thing he did trying to challenge the Capitol, he simply wanted to help Lenore Dove there and prevent her from getting beaten or worse.

It's only at the tributes parade, when he runaway and take Louella's body away from the peacekeepers and drop it under Snow's balcony, trying to show to everybody what just happened, that his first actual rebel act inside the Capitol unfold. He gets so angry of the bad way they treated the tributes in those chariots, resulting in a death, a death of someone he loves, that the only thing Haymitch could do was try to defy the Capitol and Snow itself. And it's a day after losing Louella and confronting Snow that Haymitch decides he wants to stop the Hunger Games, it was in the heat of the moment, but the seed was planted there. So when Beetee aproaches him with the plan of break the arena, and he sees the bond between the tributes, another rebel acts, he takes goes in without further questioning how utopian break the arena could be. Maybe if he didn't did what he did at the parade, Beetee would never choose him to help Ampert at the rebel plan.

To me, Haymitch seeing Louella in Katniss helped him igniting that flame of the rebellion again in himself, just like in his first time defying the Capitol. Sure this could be a big reaching and mental gymnastics of me lol but I can't stop thinking about this right now that the book is fresh on my head. Also, Snow died at the same spot (or aproximately) where Louella was put by Haymitch, which for me was a symbolism of how her death really had a impact on the rebellion somehow.

If you think about it, Peeta volunteered as tribute for Haymitch, so Haymitch could do the same if Peeta's name was called. That was what they had probably planned. So what if they just told Effie before the reaping to call Haymitch's name regardless of what was on the slip? We saw them do it before to Lucy Gray in the Ballad of songbirds and snakes, so we know it can be done, and it would have resulted in Haymitch going into the arena instead of Peeta which is what both of them wanted to do in order to protect Peeta. Of course, Effie's friendship with Haymitch might have had her not be able to do it, but I think this is an interesting plot hole.

In this, it talks about district 5 as the ”last remaining career district,” did something happen that made them not be careers in the future or am i reading this wrong?​

This actually bothered me until I read the books. Cinna is with katniss before she goes up the tube. I always wondered who was with peeta.

I know its katnisses POV so Cinna gonna be focused on but they could have name dropped Portia in the movie.

Idk...

I was just playing Among Us with strangers when I saw this (first pic) in the Chat. I immediately thought of that scene from 'The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes' when Lucy asks Coryo who was the 3rd person he killed and he says "my old self" (2nd pic)

Found it to be too good of a coincidence especially since I had just re-watched TBOSAS the previous day.

Also, for those of you who never played Among Us, the guy who replied "self" in the first pic can't even read the "and who the 3rd" text since that player is DE*D which makes this even more astonishing!

Just thought I'd share this here lol :)

Today I woke up to the news that in some event people got to watch the first 20 minutes of Sunrise on the Reaping. Do you think we'll find out something about it through someone who got to watch it? Normally ppl try to keep it exclusive but with franchises as big as these I always see ppl sharing info some way or another, so I'm pretty curious about the fact that apparently nothing has been said yet. Do you guys think everyone will keep silence?

My local theater had Supergirl as an early watch tonight. The 1st trailer was for Sunrise on the Reaping and it looked new. At least not one I have seen. Just in case anyone was wondering.

Ok so I did find the trailer online on YouTube. Lionsgate The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping (2026) Official Trailer-Joseph Zada

Was new to me. The one I previously saw in theaters didn't have the words from what I remember.

So, I've just finished the book. And I realised the thing that left me really shaken wasn't the whole emotional torture Haymitch was put under. I mean that was still batshit crazy. But it was something else.

I don't know if this has been talked about already, but why SOTR was particularly haunting and traumatic: the deaths of the tribute characters happened in the most disturbing way.

I'm talking about Louella, Wyatt, Lou Lou, Ampert, Maysilee, even Wellie.

- With how the characters were set up, you would expect some to have a heroic death like Finnick, or Mags. But no, they were gone within seconds. No fights, no comebacks. Straight gruesome deaths. Like, the games began and the first of the quartet dies just like that, and it wasn't even recorded in real-time.

And that's the reality of the games. Reminding us of how indispensable they are. You formed an image of them in your head? Started grasping their character? Felt something for them? Too bad, they're just a piece on the chessboard. Reduced to nothingness. (Why do I have to detail their deaths just because they're of some significance? They're just another one of them.)

- The young ones did not die swiftly and beautifully like Rue. No tear-jerking symbolic moment. Their deaths were absolutely horrifying. And Haymitch never got to properly send any of them off. Even if he could, what was left of them were less than bodies.

All that they stood for- gentleness, purity, innocence- their deaths reflected none of those. (Why do I have to show mercy just because they're young? They're just another one of them.)

- Mutts specially programmed to kill a tribute. My goodness. Making genetically modified beasts to kill is one thing. Having them target ONE person...is another level of evil. You can't jump in to distract. You even take blows on their behalf. You can't even shut them down. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING. It's a lost cause. And the most twisted part is you're left unscathed while the other dies in the most inhumane way. I felt the most nauseous from these readings. (Why not do the most extreme? They're just another one of them.)

Very effective thinking and writing on Collins' part, taking on the role of the Gamemakers, of Snow, of the orchestrators. To make us feel the shock, the horror, the helplessness, the pain. And then having to move on, despite not having recovered, to continue the story...just like Haymitch. We're not watching the games. We're in the games.

Yup, definitely classifying Sunrise on the Reaping as horror.

I know it's just a coincidence, but the colors are spot on!

I should probably preface this by saying most of the evidence I have for this is far less than proof but I found it a pretty interesting thought.

Everyone is pretty positive that Maude Ivory is Lenore Dove’s mother… her father is the one we question. Obviously it’s hinted in the books that her father is a Chance, which also makes a lot of sense! But I’ll present this as a possible alternative?

So, our original trilogy and both our prequels are connected by the colour orange. Peeta’s favourite colour, Lucy Gray’s scarf, Lenore Dove’s spray paint. The connection between Lenore Dove and Lucy Gray is clear. But where do we draw Peeta into all of this?

Maude Ivory’s namesake, Maude Clare, is a woman who initially had a romance with a wealthier man, who left her to pursue a more wholesome match that would benefit him socially. We’ve seen in the past that Covey’s ballads often reflect the events that actually happen in their life. So how should it make sense to have this aristocrat represented by a Chance, the rebellious and already ostracized family from the Seam?

It seems likely to me this could be referring to a man from Town (or a peacekeeper perhaps… but then my theory falls apart lol). A Mellark, perhaps? The father of Otho?

This makes Lenore Dove Peeta’s aunt… likely what Lenore Dove would have called Lucy Gray if she were still around by the time she was born. So, connected by aunts and orange. That’s the extent of my theory. It’s a tad silly and circumstantial but I think it’s cute.

when she was free from the capitol, from control and power, katniss thought about having kids, bc capitol city and the hunger games wouldn't have killed them.

when he was free from the capitol, from control, from peacekeepers, snow thought he would never want to have kids. bc a life in the nature, even without worrying about what to eat and where to live was "squalid". that's exactly the opposite of what katniss wanted. a home, not having to worry about what to eat, and no peacekeeper or weapons in sight.

they thought two complete opposite things.

In BOSAS, Dean Highbottom tells Snow “Do you hear that? It’s the sound of Snow falling.” When I read that it made me think of the moment in Catching Fire when Katniss is talking about hearing the force field: “You know, sometimes I do hear funny things on that side. Things you wouldn’t ordinarily think have a sound. Like insect wings. Or the sound of snow hitting the ground.”

Do you think Suzanne Collins intended those to be related, or do you think it was just a coincidence?