Random Post: Is The Hunger Games: Catching Fire the best sequel to exist? In my opinion, yes, yes it is.

When I hear the word sequel I don't usually get to excited about it. The word sequel to me equates to a money grab by Hollywood to squeeze some extra profit out of an idea that should have been successful as is without any successors. I think I find sequels to rarely be superior to the film proceeding it because I believe the writers don't have enough time to come up with a storyline that beats the original storyline. Maybe thats why The Hunger Games: Catching Fire wasn't a disaster like other sequels, since the story had already been written prior to the movie trilogy coming out. 

I think everyone can agree that The Hunger Games were a pivotal trilogy apart of the dystopian movie era that took over theaters from 2012 to around 2015, when the Divergent and Maze Runner series were coming out simultaneously. However, The Hunger Games trilogy shines amongst all the dystopian films that were dominating the cinema because the trilogy introduced an idea to our society that was so sadistic and unexplored that it made us ask: what will the movie be like? While the idea itself was strong enough to bring in a large viewership, the entire production of the movie itself is what really allowed the trilogy to flourish, especially The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. In particular, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, was so captivating for these reasons:

• A well crafted storyline that effectively raises the stake of the protagonist
• A shift from a traditional young adult aesthetic to a polished, more mature aesthetic 
• Casting 
• Costume & Makeup 
• An unpredictable ending

All of these factors altogether really allowed The Hunger Games: Catching Fire to be a staple of the dystopian genre.

A WELL CRAFTED STORYLINE THAT EFFECTIVELY RAISES THE STAKES OF THE PROTAGONIST: 

This is the issue with most sequels. The storyline is simply not captivating like the original film. It fails to effectively raise the stakes of the protagonist and have the audience just as or even more engaged compared to the original film. 

However, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire does a superb job at raising the stakes for protagonist Katniss Everdeen. After winning the 74th annual Hunger Games Mrs. Everdeen should be subjected to a life of riches and safety for her triumph. Does that happen? Nope. Instead, she finds herself and her family in more danger than they were before, as a love story forged in the Games by her and her district partner, Peeta Mellark, has led to too many consequences to ensure the life she was promised is she emerged victorious. 

Her actions have caused people to rebel in the other districts, the officials in the Capitol want her if anything dead, she is constantly reminded of her past in the arena, and she is stuck playing out a love story that she never intended to play out. All of this is bad enough as a quarter quell, a monumental Hunger Games, approaches in which Katniss will have to mentor the tributes chosen from her district who will most likely die. But wait, another curveball is thrown in the storyline! The life of riches and safety that Katniss was provided is completely revoked and now she has to go back in the arena. Damn. 

I could go on and on but what I am trying to highlight, and what Suzan Collins, the author of the trilogy, is a pro at is that she effectively raises the stakes to captivate that audience. You thought you were going to live a life of comfort and safety after fighting 22 other people to the death? Hah, you wish. Are you going to get face a bunch of obstacles that will likely result in your death? Most certainly. Collins way of raising the stakes effectively keeps the audience captivated. 

A SHIFT FROM A TRADITIONAL YOUNG ADULT AESTHETIC TO A POLISHED, MORE MATURE AESTHETIC:

When you compare the initial Hunger Games with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the films are visually different because there were different directors for both films. Gary Ross, the director of the first film, made a film that was catered to the young adult audience and only that audience. You can see it with the costumes, particularly those worn by the capitol residents, and the dialogue of the film. Everything was overdone. 

Did that particular choice constitute a bad film? No. Would the film had probably been better if everything didn't feel so... childish in a way. Yes. I know you are thinking that a film in which children are put into an arena to fight to the death might embody some childish aspects, but some of the dialogue seemed too stereotypical for a teenager. A lot of the capitol costumes were too over the top and didn't embody the elegance that the Capitol showcased in Catching Fire. Also, there were a lot of quick, cut shots that I felt made the film a little overdramatic is some shots. 

However, moving on to Catching Fire, things were different. Francis Lawrence really gave the film a polished look that seemed to broaden the target audience beyond young adult. The dialogue was genuine and the lines seemed authentic. "It must be a fragile system if it can be brought down by just a few berries." Beautifully executed.  Everything from costumes to dialogue was on point and exuded the same ambiance suggested by the books.

One more thing to take into consideration is that The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, was released in 2013. The special effects for the movie were beyond superb, especially from the initial Hunger Games movie. I was shocked to be reminded that the film came out in 2013 because the effects were ahead of its time. 

CASTING:

One thing that I can appreciate about the Hunger Games is the casting of the film. While most films nowadays seem to only employ big name actors because thats the only way to draw an audience into a theater, The Hunger Games didn't quite follow this formula. Yes, the films did employ big name actors like Woody Harrelson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Lenny Kravitz, Julianne Moore, and Jeffery Wright, their lead actors did not have as big of a title as they do now. 

Jennifer Lawrence. You gotta love her. I don't think there is anyone who could have been a better Katniss Everdeen. Josh Hutcherson. Embodied the perfect innocence that defined Peeta Mellark. Then you have a whole bunch of other actors also casted, like Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, Liam Hemsworth, etc. These individuals did were not big name actors when the trilogy was filmed. Better yet, they can actually act unlike a lot of the actors you see in shows and movies today. These people were casted because they actually play the part and bring authenticity to the trilogy, not because they were some big name actor.

That, I can appreciate. 

COSTUME & MAKEUP:

Like I said earlier, the costume and makeup in the original Hunger Games film was overdone. It didn't exude elegance. It was tacky. Cut to The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, it was evident someone caught that note because everything was a lot more toned down, and it suited the new, polished appearance of the trilogy.

The best contrast is that between the original and new costumes of the capitol citizens. The newer outfits that weren't so incredibly bold and striking exuded an unusual elegance that suited the image of the Capitol. No, the capitol citizens are not supposed to embody the same appearance as a normal person, but the elegance aspects was not captured in the first film. This improvement in costumes and makeup allowed for the film to appear more authentic.

Furthermore, the improvement in the tributes outfits further strengthened the films. I found that the tributes outfits in Catching Fire were more representative of each tributes district, giving a better sense of who is representing what. Furthermore, the outfits seemed more elegant that the prior film, further solidifying the elegance of the Capitol. 

Some notable costume shoutouts:

• President snow shifted from a shaggy to manicured appearance, more appropriately embodying the elegance of the Capitol.
• The tree branches on tribute Johanna Mason's eyebrows made it clear she was from District 7 (Lumber). I thought it was a cool way to incorporate a tree into ones appearance. 
• Did you notice how the tributes outfits have the same design as the forcefield covering the arena? I thought that was a cool design aspect to incorporate into the tributes arena outfits.

AN UNPREDICTABLE ENDING: 

When I was watched the Hunger Games films as a teen I had never read the books prior. I was in elementary school when the books came out and had no earthly idea why anyone would care to entertain such a horrific concept. Therefore, when I watched the movies, I had no idea what to expect.

If you haven't watched the movie, then this is going to be a big spoiler, but the forcefield blowing up. Mind. Blown. The shot was produced so perfectly too. For someone who had no prior knowledge as to what would happen, it was freaking incredible. Prior to it there was so much chaos too. Katniss had no idea what was going on and we (those who didn't read the books) were in just as much confusion as herself. And just when you thought, "oh my she's kind of screwed," she pulls that move out of her pocket. Perfect. 

What I really appreciate about this turnout, being someone who didn't read the books, is that I genuinely had no idea it was going to happen. That scene is one of the scenes from very few films that I remember perfectly from the moment I watched it in the film. And so many movies nowadays lack a ending thats so suspenseful and exciting as that.

A WRAP UP:

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire will always be one of my favorite films, regardless that it is a sequel. The film was so effortlessly brilliant. I strongly recommend you watch it if you have not already and please feel free to inform me of any sequel that you think deserves the same praise. I will watch it and see if thats the case.