- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Just you wait…
- 2024: Wicked (Part 1)
- 2025: Wicked Part 2 (Part 1)
- 2026: Wicked Part 2 (Part 2)
I really don’t care anymore … when a new movie is announced, I really don’t care to do anything special to go out and see it. I just forget about it and wait a year or two and watch it as a stream on one of the services I already pay for.
It usually works out. If the movie was crap, everyone will tell me, I’ll read about it or see low review scores for and just never bother watching it ever … or it’s released on Netflix, Disney or Amazon and I watch it there a year or two later.
If it has great reviews and not available anywhere, then I just wait a year and rent it for $5 and watch it at home.
There’s more than enough content to last a lifetime, I’m not spending any more money to watch the latest greatest movie as soon as it comes out.
Yep. Being a patient consumer is the way.
Wow I didn’t know they cut it in half. After the whole poster thing I wasn’t super enthused to see the film, after all I thought the play did amazing job, now I’m even less enthused.
Oh lord. This did not need to be a two parter. Man, I miss movies being well contained 90 minute stories.
The whole Broadway show can be done in a 2 hour-ish performance live, there is no justification to stretch this to two movies other than corporate greed milking every IP to the limit
I don’t know, I thought the Broadway show was missing an interspecies love triangle.
And maybe a long scene with barrels.
Why does it hurt so much?!
Because it was Reeeeeel!
Lolol, best comment ^^
From everything I’ve seen so far about Wicked the movie(s), yes that’s exactly what it is.
The show is still touring folks, go see the show if you can
Unless its a planned trilogy with 3 strong stories that could semi-standalone (short of context being lost without the other installments) then any movie that needs more than 2 hours should just be a mini series. You wanna tell a 4 hour long story about the Wizard of Oz? Fine, stick it on Netflix and anyone who wants to binge watch it can to make it “feel like a movie” and those who don’t will have 4 - hour long episodes.
I’m starting to suspect that this is why I don’t watch as many films as I’d like to. They’ve all become such a time commitment. Show me what you can do with an hour and a half!
I was surprised when Dune did it, not sure why they hid it.
Dune I can give a pass to because Frank Herbert originally wrote it as a trilogy and combined it into one book. It has pretty clear chunks breaking it up. They absolutely should have been better about advertising what it was, but it’s hard to cover all that content succinctly
Wicked however is based off a 2 hour and 45 minute Broadway show with a 15 minute intermission. There is no good reason that a movie that can have tighter transistons, faster costume changes, and no reused cast should be longer than the Broadway show. Let alone twice as long and spread over multiple films
Strictly speaking, the show is somewhat based on a series of novels. There’s an awful lot of story in those that is simply not present t in the musical, but could possibly have been included in the movie. I don’t know if that’s actually what happened, but there’s certainly a canon source for substantially more content.
From what I remember reading, yes there is some added content from the books that is not in the musical stage adaptation. I think it’s more of Elphaba’s childhood (which is quite a bit in the book).
Also remember reading that one of the reasons they decided to split it was because they couldn’t find a reasonable way to move on after “Defying Gravity” (This is the big number before intermission in the musical and really does feel like the end of that chapter) to the next scene in the film, so they decided to split the films too. Not saying it was the best way to go but maybe it means they can add more book related stuff to the second half too. The musical is sorely lacking there too.
Deathly Hallows
I’m still bitter about Spider-Man. Had no idea it was a part one until it ended. Maybe we just create whole movies with the 2+ hours we are using.
Ah fuck you reminded me of the ending of Spiderverse. Probably at least 2 years away still…
I don’t think they were even making part 2 when they ended it that way. Made it so much worse.
Which Spiderman was a part 1 of 2?
The second spider-verse movie, I think. No mention of it being a trilogy but the story clearly ended setting up a third movie.
Those movies were already too long, IMO. The shortest of the two is 114 minutes. My son really liked them, but we had to break up each movie into more than one session.
2 hours is reasonable for a movie. It’s when it goes to three that it needs to be a really good movie.
Oh I don’t mind it as much; but, for an animated movie that’s somewhat geared towards a wider age demographic range, it felt a bit too long for younger viewers.
Same, caught it on a plane and was pissed I had to keep sitting there not knowing the actual ending
This did have PART 1 early in reveal but then realized people wouldn’t see it so they lied about this being a complete movie. Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning did the same thing
I pretty sure it was public knowledge (even talked about in publicity) Dead Reckoning was two parts.
Yeah, they scrubbed it from the title once it was on digital/streaming for awhile.
Here’s what AppleTV looks like:
I think this has more to do with the next one being the Final Reckoning instead of “dead reckoning part 2”
Well, that means they pivoted either way. Still strange, and still likely all about marketing and not wanting anything dissuading people from diving in.
People aren’t going to see a movie that lies about it being a part 1 either, at least not after the first weekend when the word gets out
Damn, I planned on watching this too. No point now.
deleted by creator
