As a seasoned gamer with over two decades of experiencing countless games and movies, I can confidently say that the trend of splitting movies into multiple parts has left me feeling like a player trapped in an endless dungeon, forced to traverse the same corridors time and again for no good reason other than to keep the developers’ gold coins rolling.
Alright, folks! I’ve got some juicy info to share about the game “Wicked Part One,” but be warned: this might spoil your fun if you haven’t played it yet or seen the stage musical it’s based on. So, if you’re ready to dive into Elphaba and Glinda’s magical world without any spoilers, better skip this one! But if you’re game for some inside scoop, let’s get started!
When a movie production company finds a successful formula, it’s likely that other studios will adopt the same approach. For instance, in 2010, the final installment of the Harry Potter series was transformed into not one film but two, and this trend seems to have continued with many major blockbusters splitting their stories into multiple parts. This decision, more often than not, appears to be driven by financial considerations rather than creativity, as dividing a story into two parts can yield higher profits. The upcoming film Wicked, based on a musical, is the latest production to employ this strategy. Despite having only brief intermissions in its stage version, it will have an extended break between parts when it hits the big screen, spanning over a year.
Many supporters of the musical “Wicked” have raised doubts about this choice. The production functions well on stage, and all audience members watch it simultaneously for a duration comparable to a long movie. So, why transform it into two films? Frankly, I’m not fond of this trend, but after watching “Wicked Part One,” I must concede that dividing “Wicked” in half seems more logical than the majority of movies that have been split over the past few decades.
Splitting Movies Up Is Dumb And I Hate It
The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows films played a significant role in the trend of films being split into multiple parts, but this practice actually began earlier. Movies that were filmed simultaneously effectively divided one story into two films. For example, the second and third movies in the Pirates of the Caribbean series, as well as the second and third movies in the Matrix series, can be seen as two halves of a single narrative, even though the terms “part one” and “part two” are not part of their titles.
Movies are designed to convey a full narrative from start to finish. While a TV show may split its story into multiple episodes, it’s a characteristic that distinguishes movies. The story in a film is usually self-contained and concluded within its runtime.
As a gamer, I can say that it’s frustrating when movies based on books like Harry Potter or Hunger Games get split into two parts. They usually end with a cliffhanger, leaving many story threads unresolved until the next film. This is because these stories were originally written as complete novels, not intended to be divided. Even though the source material wasn’t split in two, the movies are, which can make following the storyline feel disjointed.
This type of handling negatively impacts the narratives. The tales aren’t constructed to endure such manipulation, making it challenging for the films to stand independently when subjected to this treatment.
Although these movies may not be perfect, they can still be exceptional. For instance, Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse is an outstanding movie that I greatly enjoyed in recent years. However, it’s essential to note that it only presents half of the story. It’s challenging to accurately assess the quality of a film that hasn’t been fully told yet.
Sometimes, a tale is so expansive that it exceeds the boundaries of even an extended film duration. However, it’s frequently apparent that this is done to generate more revenue. I can’t be persuaded otherwise that The Hobbit expanded into a trilogy for any reason other than three films yield more profit than two. The Hobbit easily could have been one movie. It seems the same might apply to Wicked, but in this instance, it succeeds.
Wicked: Part One Is Actually A Complete Story
The stage production of “Wicked”, from which the film derives, possesses an inherent division point that sets it apart from many other stories commonly abridged. What distinguishes “Wicked” uniquely is that its first act can be considered as a fully resolved narrative on its own.
Previously, I experienced the stage musical “Wicked,” but upon rewatching it as two separate parts, I realized something new during my theater viewing of “Wicked: Part One.” In contrast to the brief 15-minute intermission, the first act is significantly impactful. The character of Elphaba undergoes a complete transformation within this act alone. We witness her growth, change, and ultimately become the person we recognize by the end of “Defying Gravity.
In essence, Act One of the play, titled “Wicked Part One”, serves as a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz”. If you were to watch “Wicked Part One” and then proceed to watch or read “The Wizard of Oz” without ever seeing Act Two of “Wicked”, you wouldn’t miss anything crucial to the story. While there might be additional aspects of the narrative that are intriguing and worthy of your time, they aren’t essential for appreciating the story as it stands. There are no loose ends or incomplete character developments left unresolved in this production. It contains all the elements a movie needs to tell a complete story on its own.
During a time when films adapted from books were frequently divided into two parts, there was unfortunately the case of the Divergent film series. The last book in the series was also split into two movies, but the first part failed at the box office, leading to the cancellation of the final movie. Consequently, we are left with an unfinished franchise; a storyline that will not be concluded.
It’s certain that Wicked: Part Two will be released, as it is already completed and slated for 2025. However, even if an unexpected event prevented the release of the next film, Part One would still remain enjoyable and watchable since each movie can function independently.
Wicked: Part Two Will Be A Sequel More Than A Second Half
To put it simply, there’s a considerable time gap between Act One and Act Two in the musical Wicked. This means that Act Two isn’t just the second part of the same story, but rather a new tale that unfolds. In essence, Act Two can be seen as a sequel to the events depicted in Act One, not a direct continuation.
I really enjoyed “Wicked: Part One”, and since I enjoy movies I like, I’d definitely watch a sequel. However, my anticipation for “Wicked: Part Two” is similar to the excitement I have for the next “Avatar” film. Yes, there are more stories yet to unfold, but unlike waiting for the current storyline to conclude first, I’m eagerly looking forward to both.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-11-24 18:37