this general trend of part 1 & 2 of films

[Supernova]

We all know it's about money, that much is certain. But in terms of storytelling, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It worked in Deathly Hallows' favor. The Hobbit movies are mostly good, but Desolation of Smaug was awkwardly paced at times. I'll have to wait and see about Mockingjay, as I don't see how splitting that book into two movies would be beneficial besides boosting box office profits (as if there can be any other reason), but I trust the team behind that franchise.

I'm all for splitting the third Avengers into two films due to the sheer scope of the thing, but overall, even though I may question the decision to split things sometimes (Mockingjay, The Hobbit), I can't really complain because I still end up seeing them.

Well given that is the main reason, I think it does hurt the films because sure the filmmaker a May say there doing it to get the whole book in but sometimes in my experience it can come off boring. Studios today just
Don't realize that less is more with finales, just imagine if return of the Jedi had been split or the godfather 3 etc.

 

[jmc]

With Mockingjay I can't help but feel it's going to ruin the build up films one and two created, essentially ruining the trilogy format by dragging the story out unnecessarily. The thing is it's set up for a grand finale and instead of getting that we're getting the prelude to the finale. There's something the trilogy structure that just works, here the trilogy is split into four films and it just feels awkward.

 

[#root]

With Mockingjay I can't help but feel it's going to ruin the build up films one and two created, essentially ruining the trilogy format by dragging the story out unnecessarily. The thing is it's set up for a grand finale and instead of getting that we're getting the prelude to the finale. There's something the trilogy structure that just works, here the trilogy is split into four films and it just feels awkward.

I agree. Catching Fire had a great setup for an amazing finale, and the trailers for Mockingjay look great too, but it's going to be pretty disappointing if unnecessarily dividing it into two parts ruins that momentum. I really hope that doesn't happen though .

Even with Harry Potter, I felt that Part I was all set up while Part II was just a two-hour finale. But it made money, so of course everyone has to do it.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

who said that every detail from a book needs to be in a movie? movies are different from books.

you can have characters walking from A to B and back to A and back to B in a book and it works. you can not have this in a movie. and thats what we get when movies get split. everything is repeating and there is no forward movement.

well no one ever said but if you need someone to say it, then i do.

these film adaptations of novels aren't being made to tell a different story. they're made to tell the story of the novels. and correct me if i am mistaken, but there are not but 2 reasons why adaptations are different from the source material, and they are

1. to compensate for a running time
2. certain scenes work better (in their altered versions) cinematically

if they make any further changes then screw them for doing that. i don't know about the rest of you guys, but if a and then b happens in a book, i don't know how a director can 'interpret' it as a to c or c to d instead. if you know what i mean.

if you rewatch Matrix Revolutions its one movie cut into two. literally into two. there is no ending in 2 and no beginning in 3. I think to this day no franchise did this.
with matrix 2-3, HP,POTC,Twilight,HG,JL,Avengers its obvious about the money.

if you noticed its when a franchise has fanatical fanbase. people who will watch the second movie no matter what happens. and thats why its the best business plan ever. you make a decent first movie and bad second movie. everyone will have to watch the second movie to finish the story. and they will because they are fans of the franchise.

its why i KNOW that James Camerons Avatar sequels will be one big story. obvious. who in the f.. mind would go to make 2 or 3 movies together with different stories? WHO?

i never watched all the matrix films but i don't think that is in the same vein as the topic of this thread. like, really after harry potter and the deathly hallows, we've had several films have the words PART 1 & 2 in their titles, just like harry potter did. and it has worked, for every single film that's done it so far.

but most of those films have the break longer than harry potter did; they did it for half a year, making the deathly hallows feel even more like 1 complete film instead of 2 films adapted from 1 piece of source material (which is what it is in reality). correct me if i'm wrong but the next film to do so was twilight, and it had a year in between its 2 parts yeah?

 

[MultipleJesuses]

By that reasoning you would have been ok if Lord of the Rings was one movie with 80% of the characters and plot removed.

 

[mclay18]

but most of those films have the break longer than harry potter did; they did it for half a year, making the deathly hallows feel even more like 1 complete film instead of 2 films adapted from 1 piece of source material (which is what it is in reality). correct me if i'm wrong but the next film to do so was twilight, and it had a year in between its 2 parts yeah?

Correct. Breaking Dawn: Part 1 came out November 2011 and Part 2 came out November 2012. Lionsgate did that to keep the money train going for another year -- which is what they did with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay and Divergent Series: Allegiant.

It's a pure money grab. It's maddening that some studios don't employ the eight month gap between Part 1 and Part 2 more often. Have them technically a year apart, but short enough to sustain interest.

It's irritating that Marvel Studios and WB are jumping on the bandwagon with their 2-parter Infinity War and Justice League movies. Those aren't being adapted from a thick novel, but decades of source material.

 

[kedrell]

It's easier if you just look at those as a branding/marketing ploy. I still don't like it much but it's not like they're stretching an existing story thin over 2 films.

 

[def28]

Calling the first Justice League film "Justice League Part 1" is pointless. It doesn't need a number in it. I highly doubt that will be the full title. Everyone should be very aware it's the first Justice League film.

 

[Brother Jack]

I mostly hate it. More often than not the story doesn't call for it and can be done with one film, even if it needs to be long. Avengers 3 is one of the rare cases where it feels appropriate given the extreme breadth of the story and precedent set for Marvel's episodic structure.

 

[PunyGod]

...

 

[def28]

No matter what those Justice League films were always gonna be part 1 and 2 of the series. There will only have been two flicks. Not the case with the way other films like Potter, Avengers, Twilight, Hunger Games etc that have big stories broken up and get released very close together.

Avengers was allegedly using Infinity in both titles. It's clear what that's an adaption of. Makes sense to just give both films one title to simplify since they are also so close together. It's a two part story in an already established series of films. I'm not sure that's the case with Justice League. Don't see what puts it in the same category as the other split films at this point.

 

[Laderlappen]

I hate it. Its nothing more than an extra cashgrab by the film companies. The worst thing is that fans actually suggests it. Lets fill this film with scenes and plotpoints that it doesnt need, and release it as two half movies.

 

[dark_b]

it wouldnt be a problem if we got 2 different stories and 2 villains in 1 year. but to me the problem is that its one big streched out story.

 

[DarkKnight88]

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of deal.

In terms of books, how many times have you heard people complain about the Harry Potter films cutting too much out of the book to make a movie. Then they split the last book, and people complain that it's just a cash grab. Sure, it's a cash grab but if you want that extra material from the book who are you to complain?

You don't mind watching 40 hours of Game of Thrones but heaven forbid you get a 6 hour movie split in two.

The Three Musketeers from the 70s was the first to split one movie into two. Kill Bill did it. Now it's the new thing. It's neither good nor bad. It should be taken as a case by case scenario.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I hate it. Its nothing more than an extra cashgrab by the film companies. The worst thing is that fans actually suggests it. Lets fill this film with scenes and plotpoints that it doesnt need, and release it as two half movies.

but isn't it better for us as well? yes we're paying more for another ticket and blu-ray for the part 2 but we get to see more of the story being told properly, in its entirety...

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of deal.

In terms of books, how many times have you heard people complain about the Harry Potter films cutting too much out of the book to make a movie. Then they split the last book, and people complain that it's just a cash grab. Sure, it's a cash grab but if you want that extra material from the book who are you to complain?

You don't mind watching 40 hours of Game of Thrones but heaven forbid you get a 6 hour movie split in two.

The Three Musketeers from the 70s was the first to split one movie into two. Kill Bill did it. Now it's the new thing. It's neither good nor bad. It should be taken as a case by case scenario.

I'd have rather they make all the movies way longer. poa should've been 3+ hours, gof-hbp should've been 4+ hours, and if they still did 2 parts of dh, both parts should've been 4+ hours.

and that's why i said it is a win win situation - it is a cash grab for the studios, and we, the audience, get the story told more fully and properly and in its entirety.

No matter what those Justice League films were always gonna be part 1 and 2 of the series. There will only have been two flicks. Not the case with the way other films like Potter, Avengers, Twilight, Hunger Games etc that have big stories broken up and get released very close together.

Avengers was allegedly using Infinity in both titles. It's clear what that's an adaption of. Makes sense to just give both films one title to simplify since they are also so close together. It's a two part story in an already established series of films. I'm not sure that's the case with Justice League. Don't see what puts it in the same category as the other split films at this point.

how do you know justice league was gonna be 2 parts?

The Hobbit, Hunger Games, Twilight, Harry Potter were all adaptations of existing novels that were split purely as a cynical way to stretch it out and make more money.


Avengers and Justice League were conceived as two films from the beginning. And they are mostly "original" films in that they are not a direct adaptation of a single novel. So I have less issue with that. The "Part 1 and 2" moniker was just to hop on the bandwagon. The Avengers films originally had different names.

"cynical"? i don't know about that an, sure their main objective was to make more money but i'm sure they felt it right that if they made 2 parts then they'd be able to tell the story better.

I mostly hate it. More often than not the story doesn't call for it and can be done with one film, even if it needs to be long. Avengers 3 is one of the rare cases where it feels appropriate given the extreme breadth of the story and precedent set for Marvel's episodic structure.

avengers 3 is a long far off, why would you make that an exception way ahead of time?

 

[def28]

how do you know justice league was gonna be 2 parts?

I'm just saying the pt 1 and 2 for Justice league is a bit different here. Cause there will only will have been two installments by that time the 2nd is released. Doesn't matter if it's a split film, or just a normal sequel it will always have been the first and second part of the series. Just as anything following will be number 3. There's zero reason for the first to actually labeled Part 1 even if it is split. It's obviously the first film. Not the case with the other films.

Mocking Jay Pt 1 and Infinity War Pt 1 are the third films in the series for example. While HArry Potter and the Deathly Hollows pt 1 is the seventh installment. The Pt 1 and 2 of those films signify a larger story that's split in a series, not the installment #. Unlike Justice League films which can't shake being 1 and 2 regardless. If the 3rd or 4th Justice League installment was called something like Justice League Crises Pt 1, then I'd say it's comparable.

 

[dark_b]

because JL pt1 and pt2 will be one story. it will not be a sequel to the first movie. it will be the second half of a big movie cut into two.

 

[def28]

because JL pt1 and pt2 will be one story. it will not be a sequel to the first movie. it will be the second half of a big movie cut into two.

Still don't think it matters in this case, but how do we know if it's one big story? The rumors right now have two different villains in each film and it's coming out further apart then all these other part 1 and 2's trends.

Unless it ends in mid story and these are the only two Justice League films they want, it's pointless for the Studio to insinuate this is only going to be a two part story for the title alone. Not many franchises actually call their first film in a series "Part 1" to begin with cause it's pointless. We all know it's the first cause nothing came before it in name or story. At least with the others labeled part 1, their installment numbers don't match, so the number represents something to a particular story line.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Studio greed, nothing more....

 

[Brother Jack]

avengers 3 is a long far off, why would you make that an exception way ahead of time?

Because Marvel has always had an episodic structure with their cinematic universe. There is no self-containment with Marvel, no three-act trilogy that begins and finishes and is done. Avengers 3 parts 1 and 2 are just two more episodes, as big and cumulative as they are. It's not anything different than a two-part season finale of a TV show.

 

[Laderlappen]

but isn't it better for us as well? yes we're paying more for another ticket and blu-ray for the part 2 but we get to see more of the story being told properly, in its entirety...

Longer screentime doesnt equal better movie. If you split a movie in to two, you'll get movies serious pacing and editing problems that are stretched out like hell. Basically half the movie would be things a director normally would cut. Just take a 2 hour movie you like. Now imagine they took that one streched it out to be 4-5 hour, and then end half way.

 

[Thundarr]

It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of deal.

In terms of books, how many times have you heard people complain about the Harry Potter films cutting too much out of the book to make a movie. Then they split the last book, and people complain that it's just a cash grab. Sure, it's a cash grab but if you want that extra material from the book who are you to complain?

You don't mind watching 40 hours of Game of Thrones but heaven forbid you get a 6 hour movie split in two.

The Three Musketeers from the 70s was the first to split one movie into two. Kill Bill did it. Now it's the new thing. It's neither good nor bad. It should be taken as a case by case scenario.

I tend to agree with this statement. With some things, it's needed, like Harry Potter & The Deathly Hollows. Other times, it's just a cash grab, like with Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy. It's all strictly a case by case thing.

With massive book adaptations, it's certainly understandable. Books like The Lord Of The Rings (I know it's sold as a book trilogy, but it was written as one long book), or several biblical stories would require this type of film making/story telling.

Take Stephen King's IT, for example. It has been languishing in Development Hell for years now. The made for TV miniseries is a total of 3 hours without commercials (4 hours with). By splitting the story into two, they were able to get more from the book into the movie. Now their plan for a theatrical remake is to do the same thing, but with a larger budget, and not having to worry about an allotted amount of TV time, they can make each half 2.5, or even 3.5 hours and fit far more of the original story into the film(s). I never appreciated until after I had read the novel last summer JUST how much had been cut in order to fill the allotted amount of time.

With The Hobbit, they're taking a 250 page children's book and stretching it out into a three part trilogy, with each part being 3 hours long, just because they did it with The Lord Of The Rings. With The Lord Of The Rings, this was justified. With The Hobbit, it's just a cash grab.

With works that aren't direct adaptations of a specific book or graphic novel, then you're getting into a gray area. Even if they're adapting characters from a comic series (Avengers, Justice League, Guardians Of The Galaxy, etc), if they're not adapting a specific story (Death Of Superman for example) then they're just planning on a series of sequels, and not necessarily splitting one story into two. I wrote a teaser trailer for my Thundarr movie's post credits. That doesn't mean the story of Thundarr's origins is split in two. Only that I hope the movie will be a success and people will want to see Thundarr, Ariel, and Ookla kick some more ass.

Then you have original works like Kill Bill, that aren't derived from any source material. In this case, it could simply be a cash grab. Or the story just wound up being too epic to be told in one movie. That's what happened with Star Wars. George Lucas just found his Space Opera was far too epic to be made as one film, so he took the first act (which was about 100 pages), tagged on the last few pages of the final act (the destruction of The Death Star) and said "Here's your movie". Then he reworked Act 2 and Act 3 to be the other two thirds of a film trilogy, assuming the first one was a success.

In any case, you can't paint them all with the same brush. You have to take it on a case by case basis. If you start refusing to see films because they're split into two or three, you could wind up missing out on some really great movies.

 

[samsnee]

I blame SHH. How many threads are up to Part 10 by now?

 

[Thundarr]

I blame SHH. How many threads are up to Part 10 by now?

One movie that could definitely benefit from being split into two (as well as having a better writer, director, producer, cast, etc) is The Last Airbender. If this movie were ever to be remade (by anyone other than M Night Shyamalamadingdong) then they definitely need to split each season into two, if not three, parts. Ninety minutes just isn't enough time to fit twenty episodes of information into one movie.