A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
Yeah, hidding stuff like that is fine, but I'm seeing entire backgrounds being replaced. Like they use a small section of real footage and the rest is all CGI, you know, Marvel style.
If it was ten years ago I could maybe understand why they'd go that route since it was more common during that very specific period in time and audiences generally accepted it. But you're telling me that in the year 2022/2023, not one studio exec or someone involved in the production spoke up and said, "Hey, maybe we should just give them two separate titles" well before Part 1 came out?
I don't really think that it even played a serious part in the film's low box office returns, but the studio seems convinced. Anything but admitting that they seriously screwed the film with its release date one week before Barbenheimer, I guess.
With Dune the Part One was right there in the title screen at the beginning. The first IT movie had "Chapter One" at the end, IIRC.
Mockinjay Part 1 also did really well, better than the first Hunger Games which grossed 700 million. Part 2 losing some audience, was pretty much because it moved away from the games and there was a drop in quality in the last two films. Kill Bill also made similar numbers in both films, with the first one doing slightly better.
It's really more following the pattern of what studios have been doing than anything. There's definitely a reason why slapping "Part 1" on movies has stopped almost entirely. The full title for It (2017) is technically It: Chapter One, same thing with Dune being Dune: Part One, but neither of those were marketed as such. Why else would they hide that in the marketing if they weren't afraid of it affecting the box office?
Oh, I get that in some cases studios are afraid of this, which is abundantly clear in Dead Reckoning too, what I don't understand is where exactly they are basing that fear, because I can't think of any example where that holds any actual basis.
I think they actually listened to feedback for a change. I don't think audiences have ever really liked the concept of splitting one story into two (or three in the case of The Hobbit), but they tolerated it because of their love for the franchises. Even as well received as both parts of Deathly Hallows were, I still remember there was a fair bit of groaning when it was originally announced that the book would be split into two movies.Oh, I get that in some cases studios are afraid of this, which is abundantly clear in Dead Reckoning too, what I don't understand is where exactly they are basing that fear, because I can't think of any example where that holds any actual basis.
I would also argue that in the cases of It and Dune it was probably largely because they were untested property, rather than a final part in an established movie franchise like Harry Potter, Hunger Games or Twilight.
But more importantly, have they really abandon this? Because lately I feel like I'm seeing this more than ever. In the span of one year we're having Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire (granted a streaming movie) The Strangers: Chapter 1 (reboot), Wicked: Part 1 and Horizon: An American Saga - Chapters 1&2 (new properties). Let's see if Fast 11 will have that, if Vin doesn't change his mind for a millionth time about how many more films they're having.
Do I scratch the part 1 off of my 4k cover?
