Welcome to Fashionably Late, where we round up the style scraps that didn't make it to our news page this week. Click through and catch up on what else happened this week!

Jennifer Lawrence graces the cover of Germany's Interview magazine. The starlet ditches her pants and barely there makeup for a sequined bodysuit and smoky eyes. (Courtesy photo)

This hasn’t, on the whole, been a great era for action heroes. Sure, we’ve got cops and spies and superheroes and gods and titans crawling out of every corner of the cineplex. But can you even remember the name of the guy who plays John Carter? Which is in theaters right now?

The movie industry has been trying to revive the Golden Age of Action since its ’80s heyday, with little success. Alex Pettyfer, Taylor Lautner, Jason Momoa, Justin Timberlake, and “John Carter’s” Taylor Kitsch are among those who’ve failed in the last year alone.

Jason Statham comes closest to replicating Bruce Willis’ deadpan swagger, while The Rock had potential, until he donned a tutu for “Tooth Fairy.” But even once-unassailable stars like Willis, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger have to band together — as they will in this summer's “The Expendables 2” — to make any sort of impression.

And when they do, will it compare with the impact we’re about to see from a 21-year-old woman? Because this year’s biggest action hero is very likely to be “The Hunger Games’” Jennifer Lawrence.

As Katniss Everdeen, Lawrence brings us a warrior tougher than any in recent memory. At just 16, she single-handedly supports her family. Stares down death on a tragically regular basis. Insists, despite intense opposition, on remaining the master of her own fate. And is far more likely to save boys than swoon over them. (Though “Twilight” and “The Hunger Games” are often compared, the self-reliant Katniss has little in common with the oft-rescued Bella, a character perpetually defined by her relationships.)

Granted, plenty of ladies have used brute force to break down barriers onscreen. Pam Grier had the ’70s covered, in films like “Coffy” and “Foxy Brown.” Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton will remain eternally iconic for their “Alien” and “Terminator” roles, and Carrie-Anne Moss set the standard for “Matrix” fans before co-star Keanu Reeves even showed up.

For the most part, though, women wielded weapons because men told them to (“La Femme Nikita”) or they looked great in leather (pick a “Batman” sequel) or both (“Charlie’s Angels”)

Welcome to Fashionably Late, where we round up the style scraps that didn't make it to our news page this week. Click through and catch up on what else happened this week!
Read More

Making a hit movie on a budget is as hard as Hollywood makes it look. "We're in a business where the solution is almost always to write a check," said Joe Drake, the departing co-chief operating officer of Lionsgate, the studio behind "The Hunger Games."

"The Hunger Games" opens Friday, tracking toward an opening weekend ticket take of perhaps more than $100 million. The movie, about a future dystopia that pits teens in televised fights to the death, cost around $80 million to make. That amount probably wouldn't cover the loin-cloth budget alone of the recent $250 million flop "John Carter."

So how did "The Hunger Games" fool the movie gods of profligacy? The Huffington Post chatted with Drake last week to recount the beans and shed light on a little-known fact -- that movies the masses want to see can be made for less than the GNP of a small nation.

"The absolute last resort is solving something with money," Drake said. "Very often, that turns out to be the best creative solution. It requires you to deal with it in the storytelling."

It should be pointed out that Lionsgate, home to the "Saw" horror franchise, has seen rough times lately. It weathered a takeover bid by Carl Icahn and its stock price dropped 45 percent in a four-year period, according to Bloomberg. But it recently gained muscle when it bought Summit, the studio mother of the "Twilight" movies. Those films, based, like "The Hunger Games, on a popular trilogy of books, earned $2.3 billion, a figure "Games" hopes to match or even surpass.

Financial burdens never stopped a studio from ripping open its wallet, but Lionsgate resisted.

Here are the steps that paved the film's road to profit.

The Source Material: Lionsgate secured the rights to Suzanne Collins' "The Hunger Games" in 2009 before it became a household name. At that point, Drake said the studio determined it would work in part to increase book sales, thereby raising the visibility of the movie.

"The Hunger Games," the first of a trilogy, had sold about 250,000 copies when Lionsgate acquired it, Drake said. By the time the film went into production last May, the three novels had sold a combined 8 million. When production wrapped in September, the total had climbed to 12 million. The New York Times reported Sunday that there are now 24 million copies in print. "The velocity of sales is exponential," Drake said.

The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Collins received hundreds of thousands of dollars for the option on her three books, but will make millions if the movie and at least one planned sequel strike gold. For comparison's sake, Warner Bros. paid "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling $1 million in 1999 for the first four of her novels, and the first film, released in 2001, cost $125 million to make.