It's annoying to get a half movie but some stories are to great to be told in 2 hours. The only problem is that we have to wait 1 or more years for the sequel.
They wouldn't have been able to get all the important stories from the final Harry Potter book if they hadn't spilt the movies.

Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions says hi.

Went to watch The hunger games:Mockingjay part 1 last December and honestly it wasn't worth the €5.30. I read the book and they could easily have made the movie three hours long and everything could have been in there. It was void of action and certain scenes such as Peeta's rescue were really stretched out.
I guess they may be useful sometimes though, in Harry Potter the change in pace from part 1 to part 2 was huge, so splittung them up into two movies might have made them more pleasent to watch.

The last Harry Potter were necessary to split in two. It popularized the practice. Nothing from the book could be left out. They thought about splitting them into two parts from part 4 but thought better of it. The year long wait is necessary to advertise properly. Sequels that come out in the same year usually perform terribly.

That's a good one

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?

it doesnt really bother me really. it doesnt really happen that often really. unless you want to count movies that get multiple sequels, 2-part movies have only really happened a handfull of times. and in those specific cases, i would rather have an extended take on the story instead of a shorter adaptation that misses a lot of important details.

the only way i would see it as an issue is if we started seeing stuff like "Jurassic World parts 1 & 2" where clearly it did not need to be 2 movies.

Yes, it was a horrible idea when they ended The Empire Strikes Back on that cliffhanger.

Seriously though, I hate when hey divide one book into two or even three parts. I'm lookin at you, The Hobbit.

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.