McGee's Movie Moments: Does that really need to be two films?
I remember when the first Harry
Potter film came out — I was the
perfect age to enjoy it. The movie
was over two hours, which is a relatively
long run time for a movie
geared towards a younger crowd,
but everyone I knew loved it! Each
year a new film in the series came
to the theatre, and each year I was
more and more excited by the
length, the attention to detail and,
as I got older, the way in which the
director was able to adapt the book
and translate it so seamlessly into
the medium of film.
Then I learned that The Deathly Hallows would be split into two films. What?!
Sure, both parts of the final books were pulled off magnificently and yes, there was admittedly a lot of material and events to cover, but I can't seem to reconcile in my mind why the studio made this choice.
In the years since The Deathly Hallows was filmed, and realistically based in large part on the success of both Part 1 and Part 2 at the box office, it seems like every franchise has jumped onto the "let's split the last movie into two" wagon. I am getting fed up with this tactic.
Do we really need to see two parts of Breaking Dawn or Mockingjay? I will admit that I love young adult novels as much as the next twenty-something woman, but come on, people, it's a selfcontained story that fits onto no more than 500 pages of a book written for teenagers. If Peter Jackson can adapt three 500-plus page Tolkien novels into just over nine hours of screen time, surely someone can take the 300 or so pages of Mockingjay and make it into one flick.
Speaking of Peter Jackson...
I was perturbed when I first heard through the industry grapevine that The Hobbit, a book written for youths around 10 years of age, would be split into two 3- hour films. I just didn't understand how you could make the story "a hobbit goes to find some gold with some dwarves, fights a dragon and steals a ring" into six full hours. Wouldn't it feel awfully dry and drawn out by the end?
Then, I heard that even more shockingly Mr. Jackson will now be making three feature-length (read three-plus hours) Hobbit films. Blasphemy.
I understand that it all comes down to profits in the end, that if the studios know that they can make double the amount in ticket sales because there are now two movies that people are willing to see, that financially it is the best decision for them. I understand that the film industry is one that is largely driven by money, but at what cost to the entertainment value? I would much rather settle in for a three-and-a-half-hour version of Breaking Dawn than two 2- hour parts of the final story.
Maybe it's just me, but I miss the times when one book equaled one movie. There was something so satisfying about that.
Then I learned that The Deathly Hallows would be split into two films. What?!
Sure, both parts of the final books were pulled off magnificently and yes, there was admittedly a lot of material and events to cover, but I can't seem to reconcile in my mind why the studio made this choice.
In the years since The Deathly Hallows was filmed, and realistically based in large part on the success of both Part 1 and Part 2 at the box office, it seems like every franchise has jumped onto the "let's split the last movie into two" wagon. I am getting fed up with this tactic.
Do we really need to see two parts of Breaking Dawn or Mockingjay? I will admit that I love young adult novels as much as the next twenty-something woman, but come on, people, it's a selfcontained story that fits onto no more than 500 pages of a book written for teenagers. If Peter Jackson can adapt three 500-plus page Tolkien novels into just over nine hours of screen time, surely someone can take the 300 or so pages of Mockingjay and make it into one flick.
Speaking of Peter Jackson...
I was perturbed when I first heard through the industry grapevine that The Hobbit, a book written for youths around 10 years of age, would be split into two 3- hour films. I just didn't understand how you could make the story "a hobbit goes to find some gold with some dwarves, fights a dragon and steals a ring" into six full hours. Wouldn't it feel awfully dry and drawn out by the end?
Then, I heard that even more shockingly Mr. Jackson will now be making three feature-length (read three-plus hours) Hobbit films. Blasphemy.
I understand that it all comes down to profits in the end, that if the studios know that they can make double the amount in ticket sales because there are now two movies that people are willing to see, that financially it is the best decision for them. I understand that the film industry is one that is largely driven by money, but at what cost to the entertainment value? I would much rather settle in for a three-and-a-half-hour version of Breaking Dawn than two 2- hour parts of the final story.
Maybe it's just me, but I miss the times when one book equaled one movie. There was something so satisfying about that.
