Saturday, December 17, 2011

Two Part Movies?

I'm am FINISHED with finals!! And I have a whole month ahead of me! I have a job interview today. :/ It's at the University Bookstore. I'd be more motivated if it wasn't a temp job, but it is a job! And that's something to be excited about!  

While in between studying, I came across THE HOBBIT!!! 
And guess what? 
It's a two-part movie. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 

Now, while I think The Hobbit deserves two films (after all, it is a whole other world, and the film really couldn't be done any justice in just one) makes me wonder how far this whole two-part trend will go. 

At first I think the argument was, with books like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Breaking Dawn, that the books were so big, you couldn't possibly fit them into a one-part movie...unless it was really long, but you run into all sorts of problems in theaters with long movies. Over the years, movies have gotten shorter so the theaters can capitalize on the amount of viewings they can have in one day with a film. So, the option of having a longer one-part movie is gone. Here, however, The Hobbit is far smaller in page numbers than either Deathly Hallows of Breaking Dawn. 

Then people want to talk about working out complexity of the book-to-film adaptation.

Which I have a problem with because most of the time, as we all know, films always have a difficult time with complexities no matter how long or how many movies there are to the adaptation. I felt The Lord of the Rings Trilogy did a great job...but even then, there were some annoyances on my part when Faramir took Frodo to Gondor. *fumes*.

But...ALSO, just because a book is big...does not mean it is complex. I hardly call Breaking Dawn complex, even after it's three other books. 
This is just an opinion, of course, and doesn't mean that I hate Twilight...but I just don't think there's a high level of complexity to those books. depends on what your definition of complex is....
and if it translates into "a big book...." 
Well, that's depressing. 

Anyways, I'm just interested in how all of a sudden, big name books are going to be two-part movies. Man, does it impact the box office! Tons of people are banking off Breaking Dawn. I really hope the Hunger Games isn't two movies by the end of this....

But that's an opinion. And I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this two-part movie thing? When do you think it's warranted? What is your definition of complexity? haha. 



  1. I like that some movies are two-parters. The huge size and complexity of certain books warrants. There are a few that are obviously just milking it for profit. As for The Hunger Games, I hope it isn't a two-parter. It doesn't need to be. It's a trilogy, so it should be three films with a film for each book.

  2. I just hope it isn't a fall-back, you know? Like...Hunger Games, for instance, most obviously only needs to be one movie, but for profit reasons, they might split. I was thinking about it the other day and hoped it wasn't going to become a norm. :/

  3. I don't like two part movies. A sequel is fine - you wrap up the film but leave the door open for a whole other adventure. However, a two part film only tells half a story. Annoying :-)

  4. can't wait to see the hobbit on the silver screen! loved the lord of the rings!

  5. I agree with Sarah. A sequel is fine, but I don't like two part movies either.

  6. Congrats on surviving finals! I had my end of term a couple weeks ago, and have only just now begun to feel normal again (ie, I can look at printed words and sort of read them without getting dizzy).

    Great post. I had just started to realize this was developing into a trend, and I actually quite welcome it. So I suppose I am in the minority here, and think that a two part movie is great. :)

    First, because I get to see two movies instead of one (two aesthetically rich experiences instead of just one). Second, because books (like Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings) are generally so much more complex, that they merit another film. I actually wish Star Wars III was made into two movies so they could have spent more time on Anakin's katabasis.

    But, I do agree that not EVERY book that becomes a movie needs to be a two part sequence.



  7. LOL. Not touching the comoplexity discussion. Too early in the a.m. for that. HEH.

    I like some two parters. I am a HUGE LOTR fan. In my opinion, the characterization in those movies would've suffered had they been shorter, and it was that in depth walk with each character that made the very last movie so emotionally satisfying. So I group Hobbit into that category. It's a very character driven book.

    That said, I've never felt that the Twilight "saga" had enough depth of characterization to warrant any of those books being broken into two movies. Just my opinon, though!

    Oh, and CONGRATS on the job! Hope you got it. What better place for a writer to work than in a bookstore, right? Have a Merry Christmas little cutie! I'll see you in the new year. :)

  8. Congratulations on your finals! :) How'd that job interview go? I've always, always wanted to work at a bookstore, but there's never been one where we live.

    I HATED how they ruined Faramir in the movies. I've (mostly) gotten over it now, but Faramir is one of my favorite characters in the books and I was up in arms when he took Frodo to Gondor. I even waded through the extras to find Jackson's explanation, lol.

    As far as the two-part movies go, I'm undecided. Sometimes I like them because more of the story gets onto the film. At the same time, though, most two-part movies would be really great single movies if the screenwriters did a better job of condensing the story.