By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Can movie studios please stop splitting movies?

Roma on 13 June 2015

if the story is that big then they should otherwise a lot of what was written won't be in the movie unless you want a 4h long movie in one go which isn't really good for theater. I think 3h is maximum I could sit without a brake



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

Around the Network
Ouroboros24 on 13 June 2015
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.



markodeniro on 13 June 2015
jlmurph2 said:
markodeniro said:


The 1st i can remember was Kill Bill.


Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions says hi.


Hi to you also, but it was kill bill part  1/2 not Matrix part 1/2/3.



BreedinBull on 13 June 2015

It was necessary with Harry Potter and they still had to shorten some stuff. On the other hand, Twilight could have been done in a 15 second vine -_-



Thanks jlmurph!

sc94597 on 13 June 2015

Notice how only the book/comic movies are doing this. They are doing it for a reason. I would rather they do the book justice with deathly hallows than the horrific adaptation that was Goblet of Fire.



Around the Network
Cobretti2 on 14 June 2015

This was done in 1970s with the muskateer movies so nothing new.



 

 

Aeolus451 on 14 June 2015

I'm completely fine with it because not all stories can be told in 1.5 to 2 hours. If you want 6 hours of story/film crammed into a 2 hour movie, watch other movies. I like my matrix and lord of the rings the way they are. It's one of the main reasons why I like shows



tokilamockingbrd on 14 June 2015
TheGoldenBoy said:
But Harry Potter was the first to do it and then everyone copied them.

I do agree it needs to stop.


Actually I think it was twighlight that 1st announced they were doing it.

 

The Hobbit is obviously the most egregious example of this. 3 movies from one book that was not exactly A Count of Monte Cristo in content to begin with.

I dont have a huge issue with it as long as the releases are no more than 12 months appart, which as far as I can remember none of them have been.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.