8mo ago

Hiding the Other Half: ‘Wicked’ Is the Latest Film to Trim ‘Part One’ From the Title

www.thewrap.com

Non-paywalled link.

Movies @lemmy.world

TheImpressiveX @lemmy.ml

8mo ago

Hiding the Other Half: ‘Wicked’ Is the Latest Film to Trim ‘Part One’ From the Title

www.thewrap.com /wicked-two-parts-hidden-marketing/

13 comments

Judging by their wicked.com website, they've already shot a lot of scenes too.
I still remember going to see the first LoTR film and right after it fades out, hearing a lady yell “you mean there’s another one?!”
If you want to read the article, click here.
- I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was paywalled. Will update.
  
  No worries.
Wow, this actually worked!
Sorry if it seems like I haven't posted in a while - there were some federation issues with lemmy.ml and lemm.ee, but if you can read this post, then it seems like it's fixed now!
In case this happens again, I've registered an account with lemm.ee so I can post here natively.
We're going to wait until part 2 is available for streaming then watch both parts together.
But still, they should have just made a 3 hour movie. Or build in an intermission like the staged show.
I mean, to be fair, the beginnings of most movies with sequels don't actually start by being titled, say "Back to the Future Part 1."
The Fellowship of the Ring, for example, wasn't titled "Lord of the Rings 1: The Fellowship of the Ring" if it mentioned Lord of the Rings at all, it didn't imply a number, it just stood on its own. People knew sequels were coming, they didn't need numbers to know that.
So to be fair to Wicked, naming it something like Wicked Part One is dumb anyway. Especially if it flops and they shelve the sequel for a tax break.
- The title card in the actual movie does state Part 1. But none of the marketing did. So people buy tickets not knowing it's only half the story.
  That's kind of annoying. Even misleading.
  
  I think that was probably added post-theater-release because BttF was actually planned as a standalone and got a sequel due to audience interest. Probably when it hit home video.
- One would reasonably expect the movie adaptation of a play that was less than 3 hours to be a single movie. In this case, I'd say hiding the fact it's a part 1 of 2 is misleading.
- It wasn't a secret that they were filming all 3 LOTR movies at once. The expectations were set for multiple films.
  If they divided the story in order to make two movies - like Dune, then they need to say so. If people buy a ticket expecting to see the whole thing, only to have an end card pop up saying something like "look forward to seeing everyone again in 2026," the studio is going to have more trouble than they already have.
I've seen the musical and that was less than 4 hours. But thanks for the heads up. I'll probably wait until both are on streaming and then never watch them because it's too much of a time commitment.

13 comments