During the last couple of years the studio has slowly introduced something to the cinema which we previously only saw happening on television: splitting up movies into smaller parts. Every year there seem to be a couple of movies which do not tell their complete story, but leave their audiences with questions and a cliffhanger. Upcoming movies that are an example of this are of course the third instalment in The Hobbit series, the next chapter in the Hunger Games story (itself broken up into two movies). In the past we have seen this as well, for example Kill Bill (vol.1 and 2), the final movie in the Harry Potter series or Lord of the Rings. It is a trend I have mixed feelings about. Yes, it allows more time to develop story and characters, but is that a good idea if this means waiting (sometimes) a year before you can finish something? I’d prefer these two parts to come out simultaneously, allowing the viewer to choose if they “binge watch” them, but it is something we have not seen happen yet.
What are your thoughts about movie being split in separate films?
All for it if it means fleshing out the story and characters. Against it if it’s just a cash grab.
Unfortunately it usually is. But what if they had brought out those split movies as a TV series? 😉
Yeah, that could work. But I still prefer the medium of cinema.
I’m not a fan of it. I really feel like young filmgoers are missing an experience that they will never have with very long films.
Even though I did see both parts of the last Harry Potter film, I wished it had been one entire film. Having been probably one of the few that had seen Che in both parts on the same night in a roadshow presentation. It was something that wasn’t like any other film-viewing experience that I had ever had. Yes, I had to pay double the ticket price but it was worth it.
You get a special book with all of the credits and then see the film w/o any trailers or any production credits. After the first part is finished, a 20/30-minute intermission occurs and then you see the second part. It was something that I will never forget. It’s just a shame that kids today are too busy thinking about all sorts of things as I think they’re too impatient or too dim to really take part in the roadshow experience.
I stopped watching the Potter films before they concluded, so don’t know how the split in that movie felt.
Sounds like an awesome experience. It reminds me I still have to watch Che!
If the story warrants it, sure. I’ve yet to see a “Part 1 & 2” split where it actually does, though. HP7 was probably the only exception to-date.
Generally, though it’s usually done for cash. Which is typical Hollywood I guess.
Personally, if I never see a split film again I’ll be happy.
Yeah it does feel like cash grabs mostly. I’m still waiting for Tarantino to release his “the whole bloody affair” version of Kill Bill he has been promising for years.
If the book/story warrants a split then I’d be all for it. As it stands, they’re just cash grabs which I understand, but I’m against. Just look at current big deal franchise, “The Hunger Games.” The first movie dealt with the entirety of the first book and felt stretched out, overly long. The second was paced better, but still only contained enough story for one movie. Why should I believe that the final book warrants splitting up into two movies that are both over 2 hours long? The same thing happened with “Twilight.” It’s rather ridiculous, actually, and has proven to be just another way to wring a few more dollars out of the audience.
Yeah, there is no reason for it and it makes audiences have to wait unnecessarily as well.
Not a fan.
“The Lord of the Rings” is three books and they made three great films.
“The Hobbit” is one book that was thinner than the thinnest LOTR book, and they have made it into three movies. Three BLOATED movies.
All the recent split films–with the possible exception of “Harry Potter and then Deathly Hallows” have not been good films, and they all have been money grabs.
Yeah, it is crazy how they made that into three movies. Especially the first movie was so long and uneventful that I wouldn’t want to revisit it.
Like you have some reservations about this form of storytelling in film. Some movies that are adapted from books like The Lord of the Rings perhaps need 3 films in order to give them any kind of justice. However, a film is told traditionally in 3 acts and having to wait a year for the second act and another for the conclusion is a little jarring. I also feel studios are becoming more and more greedy with the process. Pushing Peter Jackson into making 3 hobbit films is a prime example of this.
Exactly, in the end it is a business of course that has to make money, but with that approach it does cause friction with the idea of what is best (in case of The Hobbit just making one movie)
I’m not a fan of this split. I always think that it’s merely a marketing strategy to hold fans back, to keep them coming back and to want something more.
A 3-act split maybe a decent one, but a 2-act split to end a movie (Harry Potter, Twilight, now The Hunger Games) is begin to feel worn-off. Frankly saying.
Yeah, I feel the same way.
It just feels/seems like a cash grab to me. Once Harry Potter did this, it seems like a lot of movie series followed suite. Although the HP movies weren’t the first ones to do this. I hate that we have to wait such a long time to see these finales on screen.
Yeah, audiences are willing to sit through long movies as the Lord of the Rings movies already showed, so why chop them up?