The Hunger Games loses seven seconds in the U.K., still guaranteed to make a lot of money quickly 

Adaptations of young adult literature illustrate the divide between what we feel comfortable letting young audiences read about and what we feel comfortable letting them watch. Gus Van Sant’s excellent adaptation of Blake Nelson’s young adult novel, for instance, received an R rating due to a violent image, shutting out a lot of potential viewers before they even got a chance to see it. Suzanne Collins’ grisly, dystopian Hunger Games trilogy was always going to be a tough squeeze into the restrictions of the PG-13 rating, but it looks like Gary Ross found a way. U.K. viewers, however, will see seven fewer seconds of violent imagery, according to a BoingBoing article. Seems the film initially earned a “15” rating instead of a “12A,” which would allow viewers 12 and up to learn about archery and standing up to oppressive regimes headed by Donald Sutherland. What got cut? The British Board Of Film Classification’s site has the details, which include trims to “one scene showing details of injuries” and “the digital removal of sight of blood.”

But, hey, don’t worry: The fillm’s guaranteed to make a lot of money even if it never opened in Great Britain, at least according to a recent Hitfix article. Looks like it’s tracking even better than expected. Lionsgate stands by its projection of a $75 million opening weekend, but other date suggests it could make between $130 and $150 million in its debut. That’s more than New Moon and the last Harry Potter movie, more young-adult adaptations that squeeze grisliness into a tween- and teen-friendly rating. Could that grim and gritty Baby-sitters Club revamp be far behind?