this general trend of part 1 & 2 of films

[XtremelyBaneful]

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.

that's true. i haven't seen any of the hobbit films but i heard the second one suffers from a lot of pacing issues. well maybe they shouldn't have split it into THREE movies.

harry potter is a completely different beast though. i don't think splitting deathly hallows in 2 hurt it.

 

[redhawk23]

that's true. i haven't seen any of the hobbit films but i heard the second one suffers from a lot of pacing issues. well maybe they shouldn't have split it into THREE movies.

harry potter is a completely different beast though. i don't think splitting deathly hallows in 2 hurt it.

Weirdly, the first half of Deathly Hallows ended up being my favorite in the series. A lot of the press at the time criticized the split as an attempt to be overly slavish to the source but really even with the split they cut a lot of elements out and instead focused on a lot of other character moments. (The vast majority of the Grindewald/Dumbledore elements never made it to the screen)
None of the other films could have ever supported a dancing scene set to a song from Nick Cave. The movie was able linger a bit and have montages set to radio reports of how dire the wizarding war was getting. That film gave itself the time to be a bit loose like that and it was all for the better.

 

[Brother Jack]

I was also into Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows. It was a slower, sadder, character-focused, almost experimental movie that also happened to be a giant blockbuster.

 

[redhawk23]

The "These are dark time's we are living in" monologue/montage at the beginning was pretty incredible.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I was also into Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows. It was a slower, sadder, character-focused, almost experimental movie that also happened to be a giant blockbuster.

yes I thought part 1 was great. although it was incredible stupid of them cut out the dursley scenes. i read all the books but i cannot remember wat else they cut out. i know dean was supposed to imprisoned in wayne manor and i thought it was dumb that they changed that too.

 

[GR8GODZILLAGOD]

Basically what's already been said. Harry Potter needed it. Twilight, Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. are just pure cash grabs. Avengers IW should be a two parter just due to how massive it will be with so much to do.

 

[jf300]

I don't really mind it. The more Hobbit, the better!

With The Hunger Games, the second book ended with a huge cliffhanger anyway, as did the second film. Therefore, that felt like "Part 1" if you like.

 

[spider-neil]

I wish HP 4, 5 and 6 were split into two parts. Too much stripped out, especially in 4.

 

[Laderlappen]

I have to admit that it worked fine in the last Harry Potter movies. Thats the only time I can think of I didnt mind it. Maybe because Harry Potter really is 7 books about the same long story, I dont know. What I remember it didnt feel dragged out like it otherwise usually feel when you do this. It did feel like they ended in the middle of a movie though. Would it have been better if it wasnt split? I dont know. I think I need to see those movies again.

 

[Thundarr]

that's true. i haven't seen any of the hobbit films but i heard the second one suffers from a lot of pacing issues. well maybe they shouldn't have split it into THREE movies.

harry potter is a completely different beast though. i don't think splitting deathly hallows in 2 hurt it.

They didn't even need to split it into two movies. They could have easily gotten the entire story from the book into a single 3 hour movie. Heck, even a 2 hour movie!

 

[SuperFerret]

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...

Key words here. In its entirety. Let's use the Middle-Earth stuff as an example because they're perfect examples to illustrate this.

The first Hobbit movie came out two years ago. I won't get to see the Hobbit in its entirety until later this year, or early next year if I decide to wait for DVD. That's the problem there. You can look at the Lord of the Rings as one big movie (I do), but that's now, and if I wanted to, I can pop the six DVDs into my player and watch it in its entirety straight through for half a day. That works now, and it'll work for the Hobbit eventually.

The difference is that in the interim, the Lord of the Rings movies were (mostly) complete standalone movies, with a beginning, middle, and end. The Hobbit movies are not. Most of these movies that do this split thing don't even end on a proper cliffhanger. The Desolation of Smaug seemed to just stop mid-scene. That's not telling the story properly at all. And it's a damn shame.

 

[Lord]

I have to admit that it worked fine in the last Harry Potter movies. Thats the only time I can think of I didnt mind it. Maybe because Harry Potter really is 7 books about the same long story, I dont know. What I remember it didnt feel dragged out like it otherwise usually feel when you do this. It did feel like they ended in the middle of a movie though. Would it have been better if it wasnt split? I dont know. I think I need to see those movies again.

I frankly didn't feel like the first half of deathly Hallows ended at the wrong time, i remember feeling like it was a complete enough movie, to me it was Part II that felt the most incomplete, it was just a long battle that i frankly think could have been more impressive.

 

[CB Fan]

Kill bill needed it, I can't even imagine the film had Tarrintino made it a 2hr film.

Harry Potter needed it as well and from what I understand should have done it before with Goblet of Fire, or so fans of the book keep saying.

MockingJay should've just been a 3hr film and it would've been fine.

 

[meanmc]

No problems here...

I like it, if they split movies in two parts - mostly because you get "more"!

I know, that for example The Hobbit failed with that, but it is more because "they made bad movies", and not, because they split the movie in 3 parts!

I think, it does not matter if you split a movie in many parts - what matters is solely "to make the movies right"! Tell a good story, and all is fine...

The Hobbit would not be better if they would have made it in one or just two movies. They did other things wrong
http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/solely.html

 

[Laderlappen]

No problems here...

I like it, if they split movies in two parts - mostly because you get "more"!

I know, that for example The Hobbit failed with that, but it is more because "they made bad movies", and not, because they split the movie in 3 parts!

I think, it does not matter if you split a movie in many parts - what matters is solely "to make the movies right"! Tell a good story, and all is fine...

The Hobbit would not be better if they would have made it in one or just two movies. They did other things wrong

I beg to differ.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I wish HP 4, 5 and 6 were split into two parts. Too much stripped out, especially in 4.

what if they were just 4 hour long movies?

 

[jmc]

The biggest issues comes down to how much material you have to work with. If there's no obvious gap in the narrative (and more often than not there isn't) all you're doing is watering down the film. It's hard to create two 3-act structures in a story that was only meant to have one.

 

[Lord]

I wish HP 4, 5 and 6 were split into two parts. Too much stripped out, especially in 4.

From what most say, it seems like the 4th book was the only one that realy needed to be split out of those 3, the last 2 films should have given more information than they did, they didn't realy tell much about Dumbledore's past with the first dark lord.

 

[SuperJediHero]

I wish people aren't that picky and impatient with movies.

If a movie is split, there better be great acting. Which MockingJay, Harry Potter and Hobbit had that made them good enough. Great acting IMO helps character developments, and inner story.

And, that's the BIGGEST factor of all! Why though some people fail to see that?

Twilight did not have great acting, so it sucked of course!

 

[SuperFerret]

If you don't think the Hobbit isn't being stretched out way too much then you've never read the book.

 

[jmc]

I wish people aren't that picky and impatient with movies.

If a movie is split, there better be great acting. Which MockingJay, Harry Potter and Hobbit had that made them good enough. Great acting IMO helps character developments, and inner story.

And, that's the BIGGEST factor of all! Why though some people fail to see that?

Twilight did not have great acting, so it sucked of course!

People get impatient because people don't want serialized movies. They want a complete story. It's not like TV where you only have to wait a week for the next episode.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

What about the trend of old actors returning to roles decades later?

Indiana Jones 4
Rocky Balboa

Star Wars VII
Terminator Gensys
Dumb and Dumber To

I think there's a Wayne's World 3 and Rambo Final Blood in the works and some other long belated sequels with the original actors returning

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I like it, if they split movies in two parts - mostly because you get "more"!

More doesn't mean better. Economy in storytelling is one of the most valued skills for a reason. Editors exist for a reason.

 

[MadVillainy]

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

I do think HP suffered from the split. I thought Pt 1 was great and part II was just one long battle and wasnt that interesting to me really. If they were gonna split it I feel like they shouldve done it at a different part.
I didnt read the Hobbit books, but I didnt like the first Hobbit movie at all. I felt like nothing happened and I was just bored. Im assuming thats because of the split and not because nothing happens in The Hobbit story. Ive been meaning to watch the 2nd part.

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.

 

[kedrell]

They didn't even need to split it into two movies. They could have easily gotten the entire story from the book into a single 3 hour movie. Heck, even a 2 hour movie!

All in just one 2 hour film? I'd have hated that. I think 3 films was over indulgent though in my estimation if any film franchise had earned the right to be that way it was PJ's middle earth films.

I'd say you could do The Hobbit in one movie but it'd need to be 4 hrs long or two films at normal length.