Lawlight said:
Ouroboros24 said:
Lawlight said:
You don't know the story of Justice League, so what the hell are you on about them splitting into 2? Would it better if they are called Justice League and Justice League 2? |
Certainly, I don't know what the story is going to be about, but if it takes into the practice of movies like Mocking Jay, or Deathly Hallows, or basically it's the same movie but cut into 2 for the sake of milking, then yes, I would rather have it as movie 1, then movie sequel. But by the way DC is advertising the justice leage movie, it's Justice league Part 1 and Part 2, not movie and it's sequel. As if it were going to end in a cliffhanger, then automatically pick up where it left off without prior build into an event. That's my beef about 2 parters. It's just one long run to the finish and it doesn't care where it stops and picks up.
There's a big diffference when there's a 2 part movie rather than a movie and a sequel. With a movie and a sequel, the tone, the theme, the pacing can change and should change, or else it's a recycled movie of the first. In 2 part movies, it's just a long movie cut in two. Have you ever seen a movie where it starts off and people are already drudgy-looking, like they were in a giant fight or escaped some kind of disaster and then the movie goes on like you know what's already been happening? That is an effect of 2 part movies. It automatically pegs you as having already watched the first. For a real sequel, it at least gives you a bone and sets some of the background story. Sequels are more self-contained, they even have a different feel.
|
I agree with you about HP and THG - those were 1 book split into 2 movies.
But by your logic, The Lord of the Rings should be 1 movie too - 2 of the movies finish in a cliffhanger.
|
Yeah, basically. It's just one of those stories that doesn't translate into film. Think Dragon ball Z, it just doesn't translate into live action movies. They did the best they could do realistically with a book as vast as LOTR, but they didn't succeed in crafting a solid film that consisted of 1 movie. Perhaps if they were to have gone into a different medium like TV, that would be fine, but instead they're calling it a trilogy when it should have been a mini-series. My biggest beef with splitting movies is that it takes away from the art. I'm not saying that artistically LOTR was a bad piece of art, it's just a clunky piece of art. Imagine someone sculps a Venus di Milo, but they're all in pieces and are in different musuems around the world. That's what LOTR is to me. Each part is crafted amazingly, but as a whole, there is a disconnect with what film should be.
