So I just heard, less than a week before release, that Wicked (2024) is the latest film in the current maddening trend to lie (by omission) to audiences by not including the "part one" in the title.

Sure, that information is available online, but not everyone will see that, and that's clearly what their intention is. Get butts in seats, then hit them with a cliffhanger so they have to buy a second ticket. Or possibly to save budget on the second movie (which is likely to have more climactic action scenes) if the first is a flop.

When I was discussing Wicked with some friends recently, someone said they heard it was pulling this two-parter stunt so we looked it up, and sure enough it was! We were all genuinely shocked. For Dune and It, yeah those are big novels, but surely a 3 hour play adapted to a nearly 3 hour movie wouldn't need to be 2 parts? The musical buff in the group was especially surprised. For that musical buff, the deception and the padding out to two movies made them a lot less motivated to see it. The Google AI summary also goofed and said it wasn't 2 parts, citing a source that said it was two parts, which caused a lot of laughs, but that's another issue.

I'm not against movies being multiple parts, it's a much better solution than cutting a lot of content or making a bloated movie. My issue is the deception, it always rubs me the wrong way. The newest Mission Impossible went ahead and included "part one" in the name so it was clear. It helps to temper your expectations when you don't expect all the plot lines to be resolved by the time the credits roll. Compare this to the newest Spider-Verse movie, where several of my friends went in with no indication that this one would have a cliffhanger and very little would be resolved. It's a very bad feeling and can sour a theater going experience for some people.

Movie fans of Tildes, what do you think? Are you also annoyed with this trend? Or does it not bother you?

I've recently started taking some IT and programming classes at a local college because I've always been interested in IT as a career but I've never had any sort of professional experience in the field. Are there any skills that I need to definitely know, or any sort of certifications that I can get in order to get my foot in the door and start applying for IT focused jobs?

Does anyone have any experience working as a contractor in the IT field? I have 4 years of experience in the IT industry, all of it as a full time direct hire. I may have an opportunity to work for a very large company on a 2 year contract at fairly reasonable salary increase. The most important part to me is that I will be getting some experience off of the service desk as well, which I can use to continue my career going forward.

My main concern is that I am unfamiliar with contract work. I do know that I get health benefits / 401k / sick days, but I assume there must be a drawback to being a contractor, right? I feel like being a contractor is inherently more unstable than being an actual hire. The position I am being considered for is a 2 year contract, but I worry that the position could simply disappear a few months in and I'd be out of a job. Is this a fair feeling, and is there any way I can gauge how true this might be for my position? Is there something I could discreetly ask in my interview that might help me understand if this is a stable position?

If anyone has any experience as a contractor, I'd love to hear it.