The Rule of Trilogies: If the first story in a trilogy was written as though there wouldn't be a sequel, the first one is the best, the second one is the worst, but has the most plot, and the 3rd one is the second best and has a dissimilar plot to the previous installments.
Catching Fire
The thing that's interesting to me about Catching Fire is that it has all of the parts that the other two books posses. It's got the arena, the training, and the social commentary of the first one, and it's got the slice of life story, emotional intensity, and love story of Mockingjay. As a consequence, the story really only works within the context of the first one because there are a lot of elements in The Hunger Games that Catching Fire elaborates on. For example: the arena. In the first book it was a boring forest. Really not that much to report, but it also established how controlled the environment was with the fireballs, the mutts, and the climate control. So in this book, we have more room to play, and an in-universe reason why. This one has a jungle, a gigantic clock, and more traps than the Saw franchise because they're pulling out all the stops for the Quarter Quell.
Speaking of the Quarter Quell...
Catching Fire is probably the weakest story of the 3. The Hunger Games backed itself into a corner because there wasn't really anywhere for the story to logically go except for a dark horrible hell of oppression and rebellion. While it definitely does that, it also needs to pull some pretty serious contrivances out of a box to keep the story interesting and hopeful. Namely the victory tour in the beginning, and the Quarter Quell at the end. Otherwise, you'd basically need to transition directly into Mockingjay, which would break Katniss' indecisive streak and confuse the hell out of the audience.
Catching Fire is also more chunky than it's predecessor. While The Hunger Games is split into 3 parts, those 3 parts don't really feel like they're there. The separation of the story into a 3 act structure is incredibly inconspicuous on a casual reading, but with Collins previous work in television, I'm not at all surprised that it exists and makes a big enough fuss of existing that the acts are numbered. Mockingjay did a better job of hiding this, but this structure is painfully obvious. These books are incredibly easy to adapt to film.
Speaking of the Quarter Quell...
Catching Fire is probably the weakest story of the 3. The Hunger Games backed itself into a corner because there wasn't really anywhere for the story to logically go except for a dark horrible hell of oppression and rebellion. While it definitely does that, it also needs to pull some pretty serious contrivances out of a box to keep the story interesting and hopeful. Namely the victory tour in the beginning, and the Quarter Quell at the end. Otherwise, you'd basically need to transition directly into Mockingjay, which would break Katniss' indecisive streak and confuse the hell out of the audience.
Catching Fire is also more chunky than it's predecessor. While The Hunger Games is split into 3 parts, those 3 parts don't really feel like they're there. The separation of the story into a 3 act structure is incredibly inconspicuous on a casual reading, but with Collins previous work in television, I'm not at all surprised that it exists and makes a big enough fuss of existing that the acts are numbered. Mockingjay did a better job of hiding this, but this structure is painfully obvious. These books are incredibly easy to adapt to film.
Catching Fire is a bit more obvious in it's structure. The 1st part is the victory tour, the 2nd part is the training montage, and the 3rd part is the 75th games. These are very clearly separated and the transition from one to the next is rather abrupt. This isn't really a bad thing, it's just an indication to me that Collins really didn't know what to do next.
Here's an analogy for why this is a weak story. Back to the Future had an ending and really was a stand alone story, but then it made enough money that they made a couple of sequels. What was the plot? Well, we want the 3rd one to be in the old west, so we need a way to get from point A to point B. That's what Back to the Future Part 2 was for. It was a way to get Doc Brown into the old west. Granted the plot with Biff getting the sports almanac was fun and interesting, but the film feels clunky and rushed because they're trying to make it go somewhere.
Again, civil war is the only logical consequence for the end of The Hunger Games, which means we need a smooth transition. Collins had Mockingjay in mind when she was writing Catching Fire, because Catching Fire is Back to the Future 2 here. It feels clunky, rushed, and plagiarizes the first book for ideas because we need to get Katniss in charge of the rebels at some point, and having her getting pulled out of the arena on a hovercraft seems like a sensible way to do it.
Catching Fire is a fun little story that's packed with everything that makes the series great, but it's also contrived, has a clunky structure, and is obviously the bridge between the 1st and 3rd books. I'm not saying it's horrible, but it's observably the weakest of the 3.
Here's an analogy for why this is a weak story. Back to the Future had an ending and really was a stand alone story, but then it made enough money that they made a couple of sequels. What was the plot? Well, we want the 3rd one to be in the old west, so we need a way to get from point A to point B. That's what Back to the Future Part 2 was for. It was a way to get Doc Brown into the old west. Granted the plot with Biff getting the sports almanac was fun and interesting, but the film feels clunky and rushed because they're trying to make it go somewhere.
Again, civil war is the only logical consequence for the end of The Hunger Games, which means we need a smooth transition. Collins had Mockingjay in mind when she was writing Catching Fire, because Catching Fire is Back to the Future 2 here. It feels clunky, rushed, and plagiarizes the first book for ideas because we need to get Katniss in charge of the rebels at some point, and having her getting pulled out of the arena on a hovercraft seems like a sensible way to do it.
Catching Fire is a fun little story that's packed with everything that makes the series great, but it's also contrived, has a clunky structure, and is obviously the bridge between the 1st and 3rd books. I'm not saying it's horrible, but it's observably the weakest of the 3.
So... about that movie thing
The first Hunger Games film was really lazy. Sure the director had a vision, but the studio hacks didn't give it the budget it deserved because they knew people would come to it even if it wasn't an intellectually or cinematic-ally satisfying product. The second film, conversely, features actual effort! What a novel concept!
The first film looked really sloppy. It didn't look like a studio film, it looked like something somebody did with a handheld for a film school project. The second film has a much more cinematic approach. Out goes the shaky cam, and while I normally say it pays to be consistent, there are some still frames in this movie that I wouldn't mind having on my wall. This film knew how to frame a shot, and it looks gorgeous.
So, the actual story... again, it's a faithful adaptation, but it perplexes me that it isn't structured the same way. The 3rd act of the book starts at the films halfway point. The first movie did something similar, having the first act dedicated to the first half instead of the first 3rd. The 3 act structure isn't unique to film. The idea of a beginning, a middle, and an end is as old as the written word. However the 3 act structure as academics defines it is definitely unique to that medium. The novel The Hunger Games does not exactly have a 3 act structure as defined in this
The first film looked really sloppy. It didn't look like a studio film, it looked like something somebody did with a handheld for a film school project. The second film has a much more cinematic approach. Out goes the shaky cam, and while I normally say it pays to be consistent, there are some still frames in this movie that I wouldn't mind having on my wall. This film knew how to frame a shot, and it looks gorgeous.
So, the actual story... again, it's a faithful adaptation, but it perplexes me that it isn't structured the same way. The 3rd act of the book starts at the films halfway point. The first movie did something similar, having the first act dedicated to the first half instead of the first 3rd. The 3 act structure isn't unique to film. The idea of a beginning, a middle, and an end is as old as the written word. However the 3 act structure as academics defines it is definitely unique to that medium. The novel The Hunger Games does not exactly have a 3 act structure as defined in this
but really the only difference (that I noticed) is the pacing of events. It is divided into 3 equally long parts as opposed to the long section in the middle that you usually see. In the 1st film, where the beginning is really freaking long, the structure doesn't feel as defined, and the script seems much more plodding and slow than the original. This makes the movie feel much more alive, and also gives it a desperate tone, but also makes it plodding and slow.
Catching Fire does something similar. The book is structured the exact same way, but the film does something interesting. The story is presented the same way as the first film: the daily life and interview stuff is the first half or so, and the second half is the actual games. Since the book's first act is the victory tour, and the games only get one act devoted to them, as opposed to the 2 acts The Hunger Games presented, it means a different part of the book gets stretched in the adaptation. Catching fire seems more like an action film than it's predecessor, but the book is the opposite.
This is the reason that the structure was changed. The first film didn't feel like it should be an action film (even though this is definitely the tone of the first book), so it stretches out the human conflict and turns into a much more dramatic piece. The second film realized that the first movie and the second book were both kind of boring in really similar ways, so it stretches out its exciting parts and turns into an action story.
So, the moral of our story is that by altering the structure of your story, you can alter the story's balance of drama and action.
That said, I'm even more excited to see the new Mockingjay movie, since it messes with the structure even more by being separated into two films. I have no idea what they're going to do, but I have faith that they'll do it right.
Catching Fire does something similar. The book is structured the exact same way, but the film does something interesting. The story is presented the same way as the first film: the daily life and interview stuff is the first half or so, and the second half is the actual games. Since the book's first act is the victory tour, and the games only get one act devoted to them, as opposed to the 2 acts The Hunger Games presented, it means a different part of the book gets stretched in the adaptation. Catching fire seems more like an action film than it's predecessor, but the book is the opposite.
This is the reason that the structure was changed. The first film didn't feel like it should be an action film (even though this is definitely the tone of the first book), so it stretches out the human conflict and turns into a much more dramatic piece. The second film realized that the first movie and the second book were both kind of boring in really similar ways, so it stretches out its exciting parts and turns into an action story.
So, the moral of our story is that by altering the structure of your story, you can alter the story's balance of drama and action.
That said, I'm even more excited to see the new Mockingjay movie, since it messes with the structure even more by being separated into two films. I have no idea what they're going to do, but I have faith that they'll do it right.