Two Part Films: A Concerning Craze?
With the release of Lionsgates’ The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 and the release of The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies in a few weeks’ time a question has arisen: is the one book becoming multiple films craze a concerning development?
From a financial standpoint, you can’t blame studios for wanting to make as much money as possible. At the end of the day, they are businesses and they still have employees to pay. But at the same time, is the splitting of films producing the quality of cinema that would be shown in a one part feature? Essentially, this is what it boils down to: producing excellent cinema or making more money.
Warner Bros’ idea to divide the final installment of the Harry Potter franchise (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Parts 1 &2) was a particularly innovative marketing move. Films have been produced in two parts previously but not with such a demanding series as Harry Potter. For Warner and for fans, it was a stroke of genius. Not only were they making more money, but the fans seemed even more pleased that their beloved franchise was not quite coming to an end as soon as they had thought. Warner also argued that since Deathly Hallows was not set in the traditional Hogwarts setting, by splitting the film into two parts, they had more breathing room for important and essential plot points. Nevertheless, Part 1 in particular, still presented problems: since the book was translated onto the screen, the climax of the Deathly Hallows was positioned at the Battle of Hogwarts, which was in Part 2 of the two-part film. However, because of this, Part 1 seemed to lack a sense of climax. Although the film had points that added pace and were certainly tense, it did not have the same effect as the Battle of Hogwarts.
Perhaps inspired by Warner’s success, Summit Entertainments’ Twilight franchise submitted to a similar fate. However, Breaking Dawn Parts 1 & 2 had a very different effect. For one, unlike Deathly Hallows, the book of Breaking Dawn was actually split into parts already, therefore it made sense to mirror that in the film. In addition, Breaking Dawn Part 1 had a clear structure and a climax to it, with Bella giving birth to her half-human, half-vampire baby at the end of the film. However, Part 2 was another story altogether. The fact that the producers had to add in the what-could-have-been scene with many of the main characters dying when Alice glances into her potential future vision, it just shows how poor the content ofPart 2 was because there was not enough happening in the actual plot. Although Summit Entertainment made a lot of money (the first film alone grossed $712 million worldwide), it was at the cost of good filmmaking. Breaking Dawn Part 2 was not a good film.
Having watched The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 1 at the opening midnight screening last Wednesday, the division of Mockingjay was certainly noticeable. By all means, Mockingjay Part 1 was not a bad film. But, in a similar way to Deathly Hallows Part 1, the film lacked something. Things happened and characters developed but there was no climax. The film also ended on a cliff-hanger, which can only be described in one word: annoying. Since Lionsgate, in my opinion, are already taking advantage of fans by splitting the book into two parts, the fact that they are then making them wait another year for the second installment is just plain cruel. Couple that with the fact that the film didn’t need to be split into two as, unlike Deathly Hallows, the book is only 390 pages long, the film then had to add in and drag out plot points, making the separation of the films even more frustrating. In my eyes, Lionsgate’s bold marketing move is purely for financial gain and not for the quality of the feature, a shame since The Hunger Games and Catching Fire were fantastic films and, if Mockingjay had been made as one film, we could have had another top trilogy of all time on our hands.
In a few weeks’ time, Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies hits cinemas, the third installment of the three-part series because it seems Peter Jackson can’t let go or produce films in anything less or more than a multiple of three. The title says it all: the film is essentially going to be a three-hour-long battle sequence, since Warner renamed the film from its previous: There and Back Again (the alternative title to The Hobbit as a book). The problem that has occurred with The Hobbit trilogy is that, usually in a two-part split, the second part of the film carries the weight of the climax (and is usually the better half like in the case of Deathly Hallows Part 2). However, with the first two parts of The Hobbit, both films lacked a sense of climax because neither were supposed to end at those points. Since the third part of the film happens so late in the book, my guess is it is not going to have enough of a set-up and beginning to carry it through. The Hobbit could have been made into one film if Peter Jackson had stuck to the original text. But since he has added parts from The Silmarillion and made other additions, such as the ridiculous love plot-line between Tauriel the Elf and Kili the Dwarf, the films are much longer and therefore have the need to be broken down.
Don’t get me wrong, I love all of these films (with the exception of the Twilightfranchise). They are fantastically made and visually stunning, and one reason why this is the case is because of the amount of money spent on them. But what I don’t agree with, in the case of Mockingjay, is the exploitation of fans for financial gain. Unfortunately, things are often all about money and it’s a shame when the cost of producing good cinema is at stake. Although most of the films above are fantastic films, the question of whether they should be split into multiple parts still arises. And in this case, my odds are not in their favour.
Comments