this general trend of part 1 & 2 of films

[Quasimod0]

Maze Runner was a good movie.

 

[MadVillainy]

MR actually is bigger than Divergent WW by like $50m. It also cost less than 1/2 of Divergent.

Color me surprised. Last I heard it was doing well but I didnt know it surpassed Divergent.

Nice

 

[kedrell]

Well domestically Divergent beat MR by $50m but lost to it in OS grosses by $100m. Both were successful but I'd argue that MR with a WW gross that's 9-10x it's $35m budget is the bigger winner. Divergent cost $85m so it made better than 3x it's budget WW.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

They need to stop this trend. I think it will end with Divergent though...but now by me saying that I bet they'll split the last 50 Shades of Grey book into 2 parts


On another note: I dont think Avengers and Justice League being divided really counts since they arent basing it on one single piece source material, at least from what Ive heard.

Aren't the other films we mentioned going to be released after divergent's sequels? that means it won't end with that film.

and the point with the avengers and justice league films is that it is a theatrical release divided in two (as indicated in the title) based off of a related source material, so it is still a part of the trend in this trend. meaning it may not have happened or would've happened differently if DH didn't start it.

 

[MadVillainy]

Aren't the other films we mentioned going to be released after divergent's sequels? that means it won't end with that film.

and the point with the avengers and justice league films is that it is a theatrical release divided in two (as indicated in the title) based off of a related source material, so it is still a part of the trend in this trend. meaning it may not have happened or would've happened differently if DH didn't start it.

what other movies were mentioned

I think we've established that the JL movies and Avengers movies being split arent the same thing. At least we can't say for sure. For example: if JL was meant to be a direct adaptation of (not just influenced by) Tower of Babel and it was split that would be the same as THG, HP, etc. being divided

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

what other movies were mentioned

I think we've established that the JL movies and Avengers movies being split arent the same thing. At least we can't say for sure. For example: if JL was meant to be a direct adaptation of (not just influenced by) Tower of Babel and it was split that would be the same as THG, HP, etc. being divided

would we have seen a justice league & avengers parts 1 & 2 announced the way they were had it not been for this trend started by the deathly hallows?

and all the others mentioned were the usual, twilight, hunger games, the hobbit, and now divergent

 

[jmc]

I actually think the answer to that is yes, at the very least yes for Marvel with Infinity War. The thing those films have over HG, Potter etc is they're not splitting specific stories, as such you can have fully fleshed out narratives, they can be proper two-part movies. With all these other films you're artificially splitting stories that were never meant to be split. I honestly doubt anyone is genuinely pleased with the results of split movies over the last few years.

 

[Loki882]

I'd assume that both parts would be their own thing more or less anyway. They'd just tie together. For instance, Infinity War Part 1 is Thanos gathering the Infinity Stones/Gauntlet and then beginning his attack. Part 2 is the "final battle" so to speak. Same thing with JL.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

what is the audience's general opinion of the hobbit being 3 films?

 

[mclay18]

I've read The Hobbit and believe it should've been a single 3 hour film. (Or two films at the most.) Too much filler and character moments that go nowhere.

 

[MadVillainy]

what is the audience's general opinion of the hobbit being 3 films?

I think pretty much everyone or at least a vast majority agrees that it shouldve been 1-2 movies

 

[Supernova]

Agreed and its noticable in five armies and DOS. Heck talenaway smaugs sequence in five armies and the movie is literally just 2 hours and thats down right crazy for a peter jackson film.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/10/is-batman-v-superman-being-split-into-2-movies

 

[MadVillainy]

80% sure that's fake
But if Im wrong that's a stupid movie quality wise. But it would bring them money which is their bottom line

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

80% sure that's fake
But if Im wrong that's a stupid movie quality wise. But it would bring them money which is their bottom line

yeah. it's been updated to say it is not true.

 

[Victarion]

It really depends on the story's demands. The Hobbit as a 3 hour movie would be fine. An adaption of, say, the Malazan Book of the Fallen (see the quote in my signature) would require 3 movies per book, each of those movies being 3 hours long...and there are 10 books in the series. The narrative is dense enough that it would be necessary to tell the story.

In defense of The Deathly Hallows, I loved that the last movie was an extended action sequence since the first movie laid the foundation.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

It really depends on the story's demands. The Hobbit as a 3 hour movie would be fine. An adaption of, say, the Malazan Book of the Fallen (see the quote in my signature) would require 3 movies per book, each of those movies being 3 hours long...and there are 10 books in the series. The narrative is dense enough that it would be necessary to tell the story.

In defense of The Deathly Hallows, I loved that the last movie was an extended action sequence since the first movie laid the foundation.

they should've made part 2 longer though. it's the shortest harry potter movie in the series. even with splitting the film up there's so many important things that they changed/left out.

not as much as the rest of the installments, but this was the last one so they should've done as many things like written in the book as possible.

 

[DarkKnight88]

No, they should make the best film possible in spirit of the book. The first two Harry Potter films probably followed the books the closest but the best films were the third and last Harry Potter movies because they worked as movies first.

Making a movie word for word of the book is not the way to go. Keeping it in spirit of the book is the best possible outcome.

 

[Lord]

How were the last Harry Potter movies some of the best? I liked them, but many of the changes made little sence, and instead of explaining certaing things about Dumbledore's past that didn't need too many minutes, they didn't, the reason why Harry knew the last horcruxes were in Hogwarts was also completely left out. I don't think most filmgoers understood the subplots, from the ones i talk with, it doesn't seem like they did.

Then there are other changes like Voldemort and Bellatrix turning into confeti,

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

How were the last Harry Potter movies some of the best? I liked them, but many of the changes made little sence, and instead of explaining certaing things about Dumbledore's past that didn't need too many minutes, they didn't, the reason why Harry knew the last horcruxes were in Hogwarts was also completely left out. I don't think most filmgoers understood the subplots, from the ones i talk with, it doesn't seem like they did.

Then there are other changes like Voldemort and Bellatrix turning into confeti,

it's really hard to say. part of the reason they split of DH was to be more faithful to the book, but as it is, PS and COS were quite faithful as well.

did they change how harry knew the horcruxes were at hogwarts in the movie?

and what pissed me off the most was there no scene with harry saving mcgonagall from the death eaters. that and the confetti thing you mentioned was stupid as well.

 

[Sundancer]

This kind of stuff is a huge pet peeve of mine. Yeah, sometimes it works, but I miss sequels that just progressed the characters and events instead of making them rely on one another like Lethal Weapon and American Pie. Some movies still do this (Taken).

Sometimes I wish they would bring intermission back so I don't' miss the movie when I refill my popcorn and go to the bathroom about 2 hours into a 3 hour + movie.

 

[Lord]

I think they made some things unclear, if done well, i wouldn't mind DH to be divided into 2 films, but i just wish they had handled that better, they only needed some 5 minutes more of exposition, i don't think anyone in the theaters besides Book fans understood some of the most interesting sub plots like Dumbledore's past and the previous dark lord.

I agree about sequels that don't rely on one another, but fortunately, franchises like Mission Impossible and James Bond still do that, some animation sequels do so too, but some of them are also starting to build long epic sagas (How to train your dragon and Kung fu panda). I think less films need to be like Star Wars, they should also try to follow the one-shot mold of James Bond and Indiana Jones.

I hope they stop trying to make every big film end in a two parter now, hopefuly, Episode IX won't follow this mold.

 

[BlackFox]

The main problem is trying not make the first part seem like filler or padding until part 2 comes along with the actual conclusion. If Part 1 cant stand alone as it own thing then it will probably end up being forgotten.

 

[Greens]

The main problem is trying not make the first part seem like filler or padding until part 2 comes along with the actual conclusion. If Part 1 cant stand alone as it own thing then it will probably end up being forgotten.

Yeah, that's a problem. Part 1 needs its own story with a conclusion, or it feels like half a movie.

 

[Lord]

I actualy found DH part 1 to feel more like a complete movie than Part 2, i think they concluded at the right moment.