Even though we all loved the movie, we still have some ways that we would've liked for it to be changed, like including Madge or the Avoxes. Entertainment Weekly offered four different ways for Catching Fire to be better than Hunger Games. 1. No More Shaky-Cam. This summer will mark ten years since the one-two punch of The Bourne Identity and 24 instigated the shaky-camera revolution in modern action movie. All the familiar elements of this style were present in The Hunger Games: Needlessly awkward chin close-ups; quick cuts of people running; a complete butchering of the 180 degree rule. As my colleague Adam B. Vary pointed out, Catching Fire is a larger and more exotic story than its predecessor, with intriguing peeks at the other Districts and an Arena which is decidedly more fantastical than the forest in Hunger Games. I think this plays to Lawrence’s strengths — remember the vivid post-apocalyptic Manhattan of I Am Legend?I totally agree with the no more shaky cam! Plus, they won't have a lot of opportunities to use it because of the arena landscape in Catching Fire. The site also includes that they should chop down the Victory Tour (do we really need to see all districts? Maybe just 11.) It also allows for more time with Finnick and Johanna, which I am all for! What do you think they should improve? Let us know in the comments.
2. Don’t feel try to fit in everything. The first movie managed to make some smart plot and character trims, but the whole thing still felt quite a bit rushed, with some scenes playing out as little more than supporting-character role calls. (That’s particularly true in regards to the Careers, who were barely a presence except for their occasional background snarls. People, they were supposed to be antagonists.) That problem could only be exacerbated in Catching Fire, which introduces a host of new characters. Even moreso than Hunger Games, the second movie is going to require some serious editing and refocusing. Which is why I’d recommend…
Source: EW
No comments:
Post a Comment