I'm pissed off with the multi part movie craze

A movie is a movie, meaning it should adhere to certain format limitations. One of which is that it should have a satisfying ending, that doesn’t mean everything should be resolved with nothing left for a sequel. It means I don’t pay money to see something in a theater with TO BE CONTINUED at an abrupt spot as if it was a TV serial.

Trilogies with random break points were bad enough(Matrix 2 and LOTR) but now I get half the movie for the price of a full ticket?!

The Hobbit has swelled to three parts, maybe more. I’m sure one or more of The Hunger Games adaptations will be multipart too.

If you need more space than a movie to properly adapt you make a miniseries or TV show.

Uh huh. So a movie from 2003 and “The Lord of the Rings” *trilogy *(from you know, the *trilogy *of books) is now a “craze”? Or do you actually have any recent examples of what you are talking about?



Adjusted for inflation, how do modern ticket prices to see a trilogy compare to 1940s prices to see a 13-part serial?
Admitted, with the serial you also got a feature, a cartoon and a newsreel.

Warwick Davis stating what!?!? He’ll be in a seventh/eighth Leprechaun film?

I agree to some extent - some movies seem like they’re stretching it out for the money, and I don’t like that. Or when they blatantly and ham-handedly set up for a sequel in the end. But I can’t complain if they want to give me more Middle Earth, or more Harry Potter, or umm… more Twilight…? If they’re making movies based on the Silmarillion or whatever, it’s hardly just milking the Hobbit, which is barely involved. And have you seen a full set of Harry Potter on a bookshelf? The last book is much thicker than the first one. I’m surprised they didn’t turn any of the other ones into two-parter.

I agree. A story should have a beginning, middle and an end even if it is a part of a trilogy or movie series. To just chop a movie in half is lame.

I’d much rather have a multi-part set of movies than one that dumped 3/4 of the story to make a 2 hour run time.

Totally, totally, agreed. If the story within a movie is cogent, then I don’t mind waiting for the next movie for the next chapter. I mean, I think LOTR did it well, as did the Bourne movies - each movie ended on a place I could walk away from, and wait for the next one.

I am happy with the trend of these movies. Now if they’re not done as well, like (IMO of course) the Nolan Batman movies, it doesn’t work so well. But that bothered me more because each individual movie was too long and had too much filler, rather than the series.

It’s all sequels, remakes, franchises, reboots and established pop culture icons in American films these days.

Definitely agree. If you don’t think so, try watching the 2 hour version of the originally seven hour epic Russian version of War and Peace
Or try watching David Lynch’s Dune. Pepper Mill saw it before reading the book, an criticized it for leaving most of the book out.

Making The Hobbit into a three-parter is simply a money grab, there is no reason that story needs to be 6+ hours long.

Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 Lord Of The Rings-Not only was it the first half of a two parter, but it stopped in the middle of a battle!

The word “cliffhanger” comes from turn of the centuries film serials tendency to end an installment with the hero hanging off the end of a cliff, to make sure the audience would buy tickets for the next installment.

So its a little silly to call it a craze or not part of the “format limitations” of movies. Its an intrinsic enough part of film making that its introduced a common word to the English language.

Remakes today don’t have anything on remakes from the 10s/20s/30s. The 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz is the fifth movie version of the story.

Yeah, why can’t we have original movies any more like The Maltese Falcon!


Damn that Flash Gordon! Although, according to wiki, there were many older serials.

I might dislike this process if the movie was an original story. But most of the examples mentioned here are based on books, sometimes *very old *books. Many movie-goers will have already read them, so they aren’t there for the story. They are there for the spectacle. I’d rather have three times the spectacle than a single movie, if it was a book I loved. And if I hadn’t read it before, I could always go out and read it after the first movie.

Also, a movie is not analogous to a novel; a movie is analogous to a short story (remember the definition: you can finish it in one sitting). So to try to shoehorn a novel into a two-hour (or even three-hour) movie definitely requires jettisoning much of the source material.

Well, in all fairness to the OP, there does seem to be a lot of “lets break this big book into 2+ films” movies:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I and II
Twilight Breaking Dawn I and II
The Hobbit 1,2 and 3

And that’s not even counting book series (Hunger Games), sequels that form a continuous story arc (Nolan’s Batman films).

Let’s just hope creating multi-film crossover franchises like The Avengers doesn’t become a norm. I haven’t seen like half the related Avenger films!

Batman and The Avengers are comic book adaptations. Why would the films not be structured as serials, and exploit the crossover nature of every comic book universe? Sure it’s mostly marketing, but if the plan is to adapt the biggest stories from Marvel and DC, crossovers make sense.

I remember hearing grumblings walking out of the theatre after the first Kill Bill. And that was quite awhile ago. So I think this “craze” is going to be around for awhile.