(Photo Courtesy of Scholastic)In the last decade, several writers have exploded onto the scene with riveting novels that capture the attention of millions. When those same writers try to continue that success into full series, they have struggled.
No matter how strong they are at their beginning, great book and movie franchises in recent years have culminated in disappointing endings.
"Mockingjay," the final installment of Suzanne Collins' "Hunger Games" trilogy, will debut as a two-part movie on Nov. 21.
"Maze Runner," the first in a popular trilogy by James Dashner, hit theaters on Sept. 19.
Following the release of these films, fans will have experienced the rise and fall of two popular franchises and will have witnessed firsthand how modern dystopian series start with a sprint and end with a crawl.
Take "The Hunger Games," for example. The first book in the trilogy arrived on shelves in 2008, followed by "Catching Fire" in 2009 and "Mockingjay" in 2010.
When "The Hunger Games" first emerged onto the scene, fans quickly fell in love with heroine Katniss Everdeen and lovable tribute Peeta Mellark. The unique political concept behind the book enchanted many.
The idea of children pitted against each other in a fight to the death — all for a political statement — was not something readers had experienced before.
As the series went on, that novelty wore away and the popularity of the books waned.
Goodreads members rated the first book at 4.40 stars, the second at 4.32 stars and the third and final book at 4.03 stars. It might not look like a huge drop and it isn't, necessarily, but it speaks to a trend; Collins could not carry the same novelty and thrill through the end of her trilogy.
The Guardian reviewed all three novels and its staff expressed a similar pattern.
In the U.K.-based publication's review of "The Hunger Games," The Guardian's reviewer said "I would rate it 10 million stars ... If I could but I can't, so I will rate a very well-earned five stars!"
Opening the analysis of "Catching Fire," a different reviewer wrote in The Guardian, "I will start the review by saying that Suzanne was not able to continue the momentum from the first novel."
With opinions already sliding, The Guardian's review of "Mockingjay" ended on a sour note: "(Collins) wanted to bring all the loose threads together, even if the story wouldn't anymore be as gripping as the first, the real Hunger Games."
This isn't to say that the series was bad, simply that it started strong and couldn't finish.
Part of that can be attributed to the fact that what began as a unique concept slowly unraveled to the same old stuff readers are used to.
"The Hunger Games" was a novelty at first and towards the end, became nothing more than a blown-out battle.
While the same undertones of political strife and social injustice remained, the focus shifted to a group of underdog rebels picking a fight with the Capitol — a better-trained, better-armed and better-positioned army.
Collins abandoned all the original ideas that made her book successful and simply took the good guys and bad guys and hurled them headlong at each other in a battle.
Thanks to abandoned uniqueness, while the writing met expectations, the execution was bad, the plot was boring and, quite frankly, lazy. Readers had never seen anything like "The Hunger Games" before, but they've all seen a climactic battle between proletariat and bourgeois classes.
If there's anything to be said about "Mockingjay," it's that it isn't interesting, it isn't original and it isn't a worthwhile read.
It wasn't just the Hunger Games that fell prey to the trend of crumbling popularity. Series like "Maze Runner" and the "Twilight" saga both suffered similar demises.
"Maze Runner" opens with a group of boys — suffering from partial amnesia — forced to pick up and live in the center of a deadly maze that never stops changing shape.
Chock full of mystery and progressing at a constant breakneck pace, the first book is an intriguing read and, like "The Hunger Games" before it, features a unique and engaging plot for readers to dive into. It's a book that readers don't want to put down.
As the series goes on, the plot becomes more and more linear. Dashner's entire third book, and most of his second, felt like a cop out.
"Death Cure," the final installment of Dashner's trilogy, features a group of rebels fighting back against a better-trained, better-armed and better-positioned organization. Sound familiar?
Whatever original ideas he had in "Maze Runner," he abandoned in the sequels and chalked the plot up to a society-destroying disease brought on by a corporation that's aptly dubbed WICKED.
Even the "Twilight" saga was, at its inception, a pseudo-unique idea. Whatever criticisms people might have of the vampire/werewolf love story, Stephenie Meyer's series was one of the first, and certainly the most popular, in that trend.
And yet, as the series went on, that novelty wore off and the fourth book concluded with a battle of ragtag outsiders fighting back against an oppressive regime. Feel free to stop me if you've heard this before.
I'm not going to claim that a love story is a unique idea, but the packaging, at least, was interesting. Instead of building on the originally attractive-but-simplistic plot, Meyer simply added problem upon problem onto the first idea, thinking it would progress the series — it didn't.
By the time Meyer reached the end of her saga, there was nothing left apart from — wait for it — putting the heroes and the villains in a field and making them fight.
It strikes me as odd that writers who have such interesting and new ideas to kick off their series fail to carry that momentum through to the end.
Rather, Collins, Dashner and Meyer simply coasted on the success of their first books to the end of a drawn out and monotonous series.
I hesitate to use the phrase "selling out," but it's undeniable that whatever fresh edge these series had when they began was gone by the time they ended.
All three of these writers put in the time and effort to come up with unique and captivating ideas to base their first books on. By the time their series concluded, they had fallen back to the cookie-cutter plots that ended up ruining their finales.
Send greetings from your District to the Sports Editor at icbeck@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @ICBeck21
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
