the hunger games - Was Caesar Flickerman based on any real TV presenter?

In the Hunger Games books and films, Caesar Flickerman, the host of the pre-Games tribute interviews and in some ways the 'face of the Games', seems like a realistic depiction of a modern talk show host. But that's about as much as I can tell; I don't watch enough TV to be able to tell one such host from another in real life. So I was wondering:

was Caesar inspired by any television presenter in real life?

Either in Suzanne Collins's imagination of him, or in Stanley Tucci's excellent on-screen depiction.

Answer

According to this source (emphasis and links mine), Tucci's portrayal was inspired by at least three other presenters:

Tucci plays flamboyant presenter Caesar Flickerman in the hit film franchise and his portrayal was inspired by American entertainer Wayne Newton, fictional presenter Jiminy Glick, and camp Irish chat show host [Graham] Norton.

In an appearance on Norton's programme this week (ends12Apr15), Tucci admitted the host had been a big influence on the development of Flickerman, telling him, "When you create a character, you steal and cull from all sources. He's a cross between Wayne Newton and Jiminy Glick and there's a little piece of you Graham - the intelligence!"

And according to another interview, Tucci's inspiration for the look of Caesar (as opposed to the performance, presumably?) was based on George Hamilton and Karl Lagerfeld.

The only reference I can find to any inspiration by Suzanne Collins in writing her character was in the notoriously unreliable Hunger Games Wikia, which claims "one might think his last name to be a reference to David Letterman. However, his portrayal is perhaps closer to Leno, which if intentional would mean that Ms. Collins is subtly mocking Jay." However, this may well be completely made up as an excuse to get a nice bit of wordplay in ("mocking Jay"). I definitely wouldn't put any faith in this totally unsourced claim.

Comments

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...

Blog

Search This Blog