Sequels Back-To-Back Sequels

It would explain the vast majority of characters they're introducing in the movie. I felt Spider-Man 3 could have been played out in two movies. If that's what they're doing here, I have no issue with it.

 

hopefully there will be a cliffhanger in the next film(s). Handle it like Empire Strikes Back.

 

Do you mean back-to-back meaning no time elapsed between the end of one and the beginning of another (in the movie's storyline), or do you mean that they should finish releasing one movie and continually make the next one after its release?

 

i'd like to see a "no time elapsed" storyline continued-- the films can be made concurrently, like Superman 1 & 2..

 

I dont think we'll see a Amazing Spider-Man 3 part 1 and part 2. But back to back filming for ASM 4 5 & 6 (LotR style) to preserve the age of the young stars, that I could see.

 

$$$$$$$

EDIT: actually reconsidering what you said. My point was purely that they probably wont do a literal "ASM3 part 1" and "ASM3 part 2" twilight style. They very well could do 3 and 4 back to back. I hope they do. WEWT.

But assuming they keep Andrew on and all that, I hope they start considering that at some point.

With the $$$'s i just meant they should go on past 3 and 4 to make 5 and 6 and I'll keep throwing money at them.

 

No back-to-back films please.

 

You're essentially taking two ideas and confusing them. The term 'back-to-back' doesn't mean taking one story and splitting it in half. It means shooting multiple films as part of a single production period.

As to the question, I really don't see the point of back-to-back filming.

As to the idea of taking a single story and splitting it in half, I again see no point. We're not dealing with something that is too complex that it can't be covered in the course of a single film. Anyone who doesn't see how they can do Gwen's death, the Goblin stuff, Peter's growing close to MJ, etc. in a single movie (likely TASM 3) and do everything justice isn't thinking hard enough.

Also, while we're on the subject, there was absolutely no reason to artificially create two separate films out of Breaking Dawn, and, although I haven't read The Hunger Games trilogy, I don't see any reason to split Mockingjay into two parts either.

 

^ I'm sorry, but you really need to do some research with regards to this whole issue of filming things back-to-back, and here's why:
* The 3 Lord of the Rings films aren't a single story split into 3 parts; they're 3 distinct stories that comprise a 3-part narrative Trilogy and were therefore filmed as part of a single production

* Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are two distinct stories that comprise a 2-part narrative, and were also filmed at completely different times

* Kill Bill and The Hobbit were split into multiple parts in post-production

* The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions are not a single story split into two parts; they are two separate stories that follow on from each other and were therefore filmed as part of the same production

The only films on your initial list that actually fit into the mold you're talking about are Deathly Hallows and Breaking Dawn.

I'm also not sure where you're getting this idea that Spider-Man 3 was going to have been a single story split over the course of two films, because I've never even heard anything of the sort before.

 

Split into 2 films? What? This isn't gonna be a final movie like for Twilight, Harry Potter and the Hunger Games.

I voted for no.

 

The way I see it, if they film multiple Spider-Man films simultaneously, that just means more Spidey. I'm fine with that.