Wicked, Dune, It, and deceiving the audience about two-parters
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?
Spider-Man, Across the spider verse. I was so into the movie watching it with my kids, when it started rolling credits I literally said "what the fuck!" out loud in front of mine and a bunch of other people's kids. I was so disappointed and now the second part is nowhere in sight. So frustrated, I refuse to watch it on streaming since it is such a tease.
This was the one for me too. I was stupefied. I really dislike stories without an ending. And I know people like this movie, and I did like the previous one, but this turned me against the franchise.
Well that's some infuriating news. Goddamn it..
This is an issue I also was going to address in the original post but didn't get around to adding it. When a movie is split in half like this, there's always a risk that part two will get delayed thanks to things like strikes, a disaster like covid, or any number of things. Or worst case, maybe the first one bombs so they never make part two. That raises the anxiety for the fans of that movie to unnecessary levels, and that fear has become very warranted after both Dune and Spider-Verse ran into delays between movies, Spider-Verse's delay being far worse. The point for Spider-Verse's cliffhanger was a quick turn around to the next movie. When that plan fell through... you're left with pissed off fans and half a movie.
So I haven't watched Across the Spiderverse precisely because of this. From everything I've heard, it's an abrupt cliffhanger and while I don't necessarily object to movies picking up from the previous installment, the ones that come before should provide a satisfying conclusion and not blue ball the audience.
Is it a writing problem or marketing fuckery? Don't know but movie franchises seem to have done just fine even without this type of audience manipulation. Just do an after credits scene that isn't a major part of the actual narrative.
There are exceptions of course but yeah it's a major turnoff personally.
When I saw it in the theater with my kids, it was my 7yo who yelled out in frustration (though somewhat less colorfully, of course -- I think it was more like "THAT'S IT!??"), since he was a huge fan of the first movie. He got a fair number of sympathetic chuckles at that.
Now with all the delay, he's kind of given up and moved on to other interests.
IMO that’s a different situation. Spider-Man is an original story. If people want to tell a story that takes more than one to finish, that should be OK. The second movie didn’t feel particularly padded or anything.
The problem is that we aren't warned that their original story won't have a conclusion - not right now, and maybe not ever. I didn't realize Spiderverse was going to be a Part 1 until I saw it come up on screen at the "end" of the movie. I like that franchise but I'm actually glad I didn't like it more. I would have been much more upset about the lack of closure if I was a bigger fan.
I actually wouldn't mind padding in an adaptation, either, if it's done well. Maybe they explore a character that we didn't know much about before, or go deeper into the worldbuilding. It would be a bit of a tightrope but it's not impossible.
Tell a good story, original or otherwise, in as many parts as you need. I watch TV shows, which is kind of like an 8 to 22 part movie. I want those to have satisfying conclusions, too, and I get very annoyed when they don't. But I know going in that the end of each part is not the end of the whole. I know that I'm gambling on getting that closure at the end. Going to the movies is more expensive and inconvenient than watching a TV show. They should absolutely warn me that I'm going to have to do it at least twice to get a full story.
I am really confused by what people in this Spider-Verse thread are talking about.
We had the first film, "Into the Spider-Verse (2018)" it ended with a small cliffhanger. We had a second film, "Across the Spider-Verse (2023)", it also ended with a small cliffhanger. Both films felt like they told a story, and weren't half-baked in the slightest.
If we don't get a third film it's fine by me. I don't see how it compares to Wicked, Dune, or It in any way shape or form.
Minor spoilers below
In the 2018 film, Kingpin is defeated, all the main characters go home to their universe, no characters are in imminent danger, and things settle into something resembling a status quo. There's teasers that future movies can happen, but nothing too crazy.
In the 2023 film, both Spot and Miguel aren't defeated, Miles' dad is still in danger, and Miles is trapped in a different universe. Practically nothing is resolved, except Gwen and her dad.
Into the Spiderverse was fine. It had an ending. Across the Spiderverse in my opinion, did not. We don't know what's going to happen to our protagonist, his friends, or the world he lives in. He's still struggling with some big emotional questions. It's not just open-ended or inviting you to imagine your own outcomes or anything, it's incomplete. If you feel satisfied by it, I don't want to talk you out of it, but I have no idea where your confusion is coming from. Across the Spiderverse doesn't have a small cliffhanger, it barely resolves any of the issues plaguing any characters or the world, except Gwen.
Did you know going in that it was going to be a part 1? That might have made a difference. I was just sitting in the theater thinking "wow, this movie has gone on for a while, I'm really curious how they're going to wrap all this up in what's gotta be a really short time", and then "To be Continued" flashes up on the screen and they just didn't wrap any of those things up. Had I known it was only a part 1, I probably wouldn't have seen it until 2 came out, but if I did I probably wouldn't have been as disappointed.
The movie literally ends in the middle of the climax. My comparison is that it's like fellowship of the ring ended when
spoiler
Boromir gets shot with the first arrow. To be continued, credits.
If Across the Spider-verse's cliffhanger counts as "small", so does Dune's. Maybe IT's too (but I haven't seen that one).
I wouldn't say it's really a different situation. The other examples of the issue are adaptations, but that doesn't mean the issue has anything to do with adaptations. The issue is a film not setting your expectations for a standalone movie vs part one of a series appropriately. People can feel similar about that for Spider-Verse as they did for Dune.
There is something to be said, of course, about if the movies that are adaptations stretch the material into more movies to make money, or if it warranted the extra screen time. This is more of a separate debate. As I mentioned in the post, for Wicked that's probably a "no" (but I have heard some people argue in favor if the extra screen time), and for It or Dune that's definitely a "yes".
For original stories, of course by all means take 10 movies if that's what it takes, just be clear that's what the plan is.
I saw it like a year after it came out and still didn't know it was only a part 1. It's not a short movie either. It somehow feels way too long and like nothing happened.
same
I agree with you that with Dune and the like, it's justified by taking the time to show a story whereas otherwise it would've had to skip over so much detail. In those cases multiple movies make sense (LotR anyone?).
But obviously there are financial incentives to split up movies and create fake cliffhangers to an otherwise simple enough story which can fit into one movie. This is probably a trend we're seeing to milk more money, similar to Remastered games (who has the time/money/energy to make something new) and planned obsolescence we see in tech.
The only thing that can remedy this is by A. not paying for it and B. make it heard that this is unacceptable.
I was so hyped when Sony announced FF7 Remake on E3. I'm not buying it though. I'm not spending up to almost 200€ for one game split into three (3x 60€).
Just a minor note: I'm pretty sure that "It: Chapter one" was marketed as part one of two movies, almost from the beginning of marketing. The first interview I recall about it talked about how first one was going to focus only on the kids, and there would be a follow-up as adults. Then shortly afterwards Bill Hader started making jokes about how the kids summoned him to play him; "bring me the man who plays Stefon" even before the movie filmed.I think stretching things out into two movies sucks for sure, but considering how much they cut out of the story to whittle IT into just two movies, I don't think it's a very good example.Withdrawn, I checked out the movie posters and realized, per comment below:
Yes, I remember it being clear in articles and such that this was the plan, and I went into the theater with that knowledge. But Joe Schmo who doesn't follow movie news on Reddit or Twitter and saw a poster for a Stephen King book adaptation at his local AMC and took his girlfriend to go see it was not aware the movie was a two parter. If scamming people like Joe Schmo wasn't the goal, and they wanted to be very transparent to everyone, there would be a "Chapter One" on the poster.
It's very likely the creative talent behind the film always intended to make this clear, but the marketing team or other execs went with the deceptive route.
I would have sworn that the movie posters said "Chapter One" and "Chapter Two" so I found the movie posters I have for that movie, and you're correct - Chapter One is just titled "IT" and Chapter Two doesn't even say "IT", it just says "Chapter Two" with two balloons.
So I stand corrected. Edit: oh, and to be clear: I apologize for adding incorrect information to your point.
I saw the live musical twice and was excited for a movie adaptation, but will not watch this movie, for the reasons you described:
Post intermission is not the stronger half of the story either. It's a weird choice
Wicked is one of my favorite musicals, primarily for the music itself, and while I enjoy all* the songs, I think a majority of my favorites are in the first act. Narratively, the second act is mostly falling action and getting the characters into their places for the Wizard of Oz. Maybe that'll be satisfying as a movie because it's going to rely on recognizable set pieces and characters... But...
Right, I enjoy the musical too, and I enjoy No Good Deed and For Good but it's not a strong half of the show to be splitting off on its own.
I'm sure they could add all sorts of things but Defying Gravity is still the cut point so idk.
That's what baffles me about this. A musical or theater performance should be like 90% adaptable to a movie. It's not like a book where things may need to change for it to make sense in a different medium.
It is a book, though. And the stage production covered only about 60% of the book.
I have no skin in the game here because I have no interest in or intention to see the movie, but it’s totally inaccurate to say this isn’t the same as a book adaptation. It absolutely is, and the book released nearly a decade before the stage show.
I can't find clarity that it is adapting Macguire's book anywhere. I'm not even sure if they have the rights to the book. Some of the early news articles suggest that Universal did have book rights but everything since seems to be about the movie. The last info about a strictly book adaptation i could find was like 2009-2012-ish.
The two are tonally very very different. I think it's not accurate to call the movie primarily a book adaptation - I'd even say the musical is more of a movie adaption inspired by the book. Or maybe a book adaptation heavily inspired by the movie? Hard to say. But the movie seems to be a step further removed unless they're pulling in stuff directly from the book.
Either way Macguire seems onboard, (Note, I did not particularly enjoy the book and it's been a long time.)
The book is VERY different from the show beyond merely having had things cut from the show, though. The Musical's an incredibly loose adaptation to the extent that they're very different entities. It's been a joke for ages about how shocked naive theater kids who pick up the original book are. The film is absolutely not being marketed as an adaptation of the book either -- for one, it's being marketed as family-friendly, which the book decidedly is not.
Adapting a stage musical to film and actually having it turn out good is surprisingly difficult. Most of the creative choices that make sense for one medium do not translate well at all to the other.
I can definitely see expanding some portions of the original musical as part of adapting it to film -- Wicked is very economical with its time when it comes to communicating certain plot points, and I can thus see a bit of expansion during those bits (for instance, Dancing Through Life would probably make its plot points feel rushed in a film in the way it doesn't in a musical, due to different expectations of the medium). But I cannot fathom how a straightforward adaptation of the musical could find enough material for two whole long films.
The Wicked case is a little odd. It's apparently drawing much more heavily on the book(s) than the stage production. Which is good since the stage production cuts a ton of stuff. To the point that I'm surprised that people can follow any details of the plot with how much is cut. For example, the mechanical dragon is a huge deal in the books and the only time it gets mentioned is by moving above the stage during the opening number.
It's definitely annoying and feels very misleading. In regards to Dune I kind of understand it from a financial perspective because very few (none?) of Denis Villeneuve's movies have been all that successful at the box office. Neither was Dune: Part One and while Dune: Part Two made hundreds of millions more, it's still not that much of a smashing success when taking the usual box office calculations into account. This is all off memory, so someone correct me if I'm wrong:
If a movie has a listed budget of $200M, you usually add another $200M for marketing on top, and then there's how big of a cut domestic cinemas will take (~40% if I recall but someone correct me if I'm wrong), and international cinemas take a bigger cut.. so usually the rule of thumb is that a movie has to make three or four times its budget back to turn a profit.
However, I truly believe they made a mistake by not pulling a PJ LOTR and filming all of it back-to-back. This would have decreased the budget with at least $100M total since they are also making a Dune: Messiah
If I remember correctly, Dune may actually be the antithesis of this trend: explicitly released as Dune: Part One without a sequel being greenlit ahead of release. I recall discussions of Villenueve's "hubris" to release it this way and play chicken with the studios.
I also think Dune: Part One tells a satisfying narrative even if it doesn't actually finish the plot of the book. Paul and his mother make it to relative safety by the end of the film, and Paul's character arc in the first film has a satisfying conclusion. I was super excited for Part Two when I finished watching the first movie, but the narrative ended at a place where I felt sufficiently satisfied but eager for more, which is exactly what you'd presumably want for an audience member who hadn't read or watched Dune before (I came solely as a Villeneuve fan and bought a boxed set of the books shortly afterwards). If anything, I think the ending of part one would have been more satisfying if it hadn't gotten a follow-up than Part Two's ending would be (presumably because Villeneuve already knew he'd get to make Dune Messiah), as there were character-relationship-based loose ends at the end of Part Two unlike in Part One. If I didn't now own that boxed set, it wouldn't have surprised me to find out Dune: Part One and Dune: Part Two were based off two successive books in the series (although presumably there'd be a better name than "Part Two" in that case).
Yes, part one was released before part two was greenlit, with part two greenlit shortly after part one came out. There was some attitude among fans and in articles "we better watch this so they actually make part two." What's interesting is that onscreen in the movie's opening it calls it "Dune: Part One", but if you check the poster you'll see it's just called "Dune". Wikipedia and Rotten Tomatoes use the title "Dune", but IMDb uses "Dune: Part One". The deception is definitely there, and you're not warned until after your butt is in the seat and you've paid for the ticket.
It would've been better, but Dune was considered unadaptable. Filming it back to back would've been a risk. Peter Jackson also had waaay more clout.
Peter Jackson had more clout before LOTR than Villeneuve before Dune?
Yeah that’s an odd statement when Jackson was known as a genre director. Meanwhile Villenueve already had a couple of box office hits and an Oscar nomination for Best Director for Arrival.
I was pretty certain when I wrote the part about "few (none?)" of his movies were not successful at the box office. I realize it seems very pedantic but it's as much for my own sake/knowledge kinda, so here's the financials of his movies, chronologically. My memory was faulty about that movies had to triple or quadruple its stated budget - the rule of thumb is apparently that it has to double or triple it, x2.5 being the go-tobaseline.
Polytechnique: 6M budget,
Incendies: 6.8M budget, 6.8 BO = total flop
Prisoners: 46M budget, 122M BO = barely broke even
Enemy: no data on budget, 3.5M BO = probably a total flop
Sicario: 30M budget, 85M BO = barely broke even
Arrival: 47M budget, 209M BO = quite successful
Blade Runner 2049: 150M budget, 276M BO = total flop
Dune: Part One: 165M budget, 408M BO = barely broke even
Dune: Part Two: 190M budget, 714M BO = very successful
Conclusion: Villeneuve has had only two out of nine box office successes.
Clearly studios still get him to work because there's no way a single one of his movies don't earn everything back when released on digital or physical. But he does have an absolutely horrid track record at the box office for a big time director.
Disclaimer: he's by far my favourite working director if not all-time fave and I've watched all his films (except Polytechnique but I will soon) multiple or half a dozen times. His earlier movies are in my opinion good to great, and all of them since Sicario is incredible. Here's my ratings for his films if anyone cares.
Classifying both Prisoners and Sicario as “barely broke even” is incorrect as they both made profits from their theatrical releases alone.
But even then, Sicario was an awards contender and Arrival was one of the most nominated films of its year.
Regardless, Villenueve’s filmography pre-Dune was still more successful than Jackson’s filmography pre-LOTRS. As Jackson’s biggest credits at the time were Frightners and Heavenly Creatures. Like I said, Villenueve already had a Best Director nomination prior to Dune, and even Blade Runner scored noms/wins.
Including Dune: Part One as "barely broke even" is also... technically true but very much ignorant of the context in which the film came out. It was released in 2021 and had a simultaneous release on streaming (something Villeneuve and others worried would hurt its box office takings). Contemporary sources thus regard the film as a financial success, and it surpassed its box office estimates.
Again, I only looked at financials from the box office. Maybe it is ignorant, yes, but I am not about to look up contemporary sources for all his movie releases. I was just sharing it because I was curious myself.
I didn't calculate any of it precisely, just guesstimates. But okay, 462.5=115 and 302.5=75 and. They made 7M and 10M respectively. That counts as barely broke even in my book but I do see your argument there.
I was talking only financially. If he is not profitable for a studio at he box office, that just simply means they are careful what they greenlight. Oscars wins and nominations are taken into consideration for sure though - those have massive value to studios.
And yeah I cannot argue with you about his filmography obviously. Even after LOTR, Peter Jackson hasn't had that many hits (critically) as Villeneuve. Far from it. And once again just for my own curiosity's sake, here's his post-LOTR films financially:
King Kong 207M budget, 556M BO - profitable
The Lovely Bones 65M budget, 94M BO - flop
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 180M budget, 1017M BO - profitable
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 217M-250M budget, 959M BO - profitable
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - 270M budget, 962M BO - profitable
We both agree that Villeneuve has better movies than Jackson, but Jackson is by far the most profitable - although The Hobbit movies is of course as much down to the IP as the director. They would have likely all made those ~1B box office runs regardless of the director.
This is still all pedantics but yeah ^^
I think, rather than guesstimates, it's more effective to look at what entertainment industry publications were saying when the film released, as well as what the studios ended up doing with the property. The fact that I'm having trouble finding contemporary articles on Sicario's box office returns (though the ones I can find are positive, they focus on the film's initial six theater limited release) because my search results are full of articles about how Sicario 2 made a killing indicates to me that Sicario was probably viewed as a success by the studio.
Enemy was so good. It didn't get a lot of love in theatres. I think it was around $5m to make and only made around $1m in theatres --- but I would never expect a movie like that to be a blockbuster.
Surprising that Dune P1 and Blade Runner 2049 were flops.
Enemy was special! Saw a fun fact about it the other day, spoilers:
The spider at the end was not CGI, but an actual tarantula in a miniature room.
holy smokes! nice. it’s so nice when they do practical effects
Your example of Dead Reckoning Part 1 is pertinent, since part of the blame for that film underperforming at the box office is placed on it being a part one. Paramount even dropped the Part One portion of the title and retitled Part two into “Final Reckoning” (I think this is dumb and they should have just stuck with Part Two or they should have never had part one in the first place).
It’s a reason why Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame were titled what they were titled (the original title for both was Infinity War Part I and Part II).
Yeah, that makes sense, but it's more of a reason than an excuse for the practice. Unethical business practices, such as casinos not having windows or clocks so you lose track of time, or social media algorithms promoting anger since it gets more engagement, are done because they make money, and they'd be losing out on a lot of money to not min-max things in deceptive ways.
For Dead Reckoning Part 1, that came out during the "Barbenheimer" thing which I think stole its thunder more than concerns over it being a two parter.
The renaming fiasco is dumb for sure. The damage for part one is already done so renaming it is pointless, people are expecting the next one to be named "Dead Reckoning Part Two" and will be confused when it's not called that, maybe even think they missed a movie, and part two wouldn't have this "part one-itis" anyways, so the change is counter productive if anything. The new name is also bad.
Infinity War/Endgame is an interesting thing to bring up. Even though those are technically a two-part series, they feel like two separate movies moreso than the other examples in this thread. Infinity War has a beginning, middle, and end. Sure the villain wins, but the movie is essentially framed from his perspective, and from his perspective things are resolved. He seems to really rest on his laurels at the end of the film as he said he would, as the heroes are sad as they realize they were defeated, instead of feeling motivated to go fight Thanos. Compared to Dune part one or Across the Spider-Verse, it's a very different cliffhanger. I distinctly remember going into Infinity War, expecting just the arc of Thanos getting the stones the first time to get split into two parts, and was surprised he got the job done in one movie. I think MatPat or other people like him made that assumption which primed me to expect that.
Marvel can get away with that as all of their movies are connected and have been for over a decade, so the average moviegoer is going in expecting their movies to set up another movie to some degree. Sometimes they do it via bigger cliff hangers, sometimes it's just a small reference in an otherwise self-contained movie.
I have not been following wicked at all, and it’s pretty surprising to me that it is two parts. I wasn’t very impressed by the musical. I hate to be that person, but I thought the book was significantly better. I even knew it was changed a lot from the book before I saw the musical, which usually makes it easier for me to judge the work separately.
I think it made a lot of sense for Dune. The book really feels more like two books smashed together. I can’t remember if Herbert labels it part one and two, but the part with the fremen could have easily been published as a second book.
The first Dune book is divided into three "books" (parts):
Sidenote: this means that the first (physical) book and the first (story arc) book have the same name as the IP itself, which is a bit confusing.
The Fremen part is actually two thirds of the book.
I am slightly annoyed, though probably for slightly different reasons. I think streaming tv series have influenced a trend where film directors also want to tell their stories in long epic lengths, instead of embracing the limitation of telling a story through the film medium as a singular piece of work. Decades ago we had long epic films at close to 4 hour running times, but they were still released as a single movie but with an intermission. Though I don't see that approach having a revival soon. I just wish they could either do a well made miniseries or a single finished movie instead of splitting it up. I can't recall any example where it was justified, other than adaptions of books like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter (where splitting the last book in two parts wasn't a good idea either). In my opinion, a good filmmaker and script writer knows how to prioritize and trim down a story to proper movie length, rather than trying to cram everything from the source material in a medium where it doesn't belong.
I'm kinda surprised intermissions haven't caught back on in the US, if only as an opportunity for the theater to sell more snacks. They're a thing to this day in some countries! I can understand disliking them as a filmmaker because obviously you don't necessarily want to structure your film around one, but at least they give you more control over when people inevitably leave to go pee.
I agree with everything you said except for it not being a good idea to split Harry Potter's last book. It allowed for a very cinematic 7 part 1, which to me is the best of the whole series.
There's two aspects to splitting the last book into two movies:
They were also abundantly clear that two parts was the plan: they actually gave part one the "part one" label, and they showed the release dates for each part in the theatrical trailer. Everyone who went to the theaters around when it was coming out would've understood what was going on.
Overall, I think it worked out fine. It got memed on for the decision but I think the pacing would've been more rushed in 1 movie.
Absolutely. It sucks that it created the trend, but it's hard to blame them when I feel it was justified.
I'm 31 and the only movie I've ever caught in a cinema with an intermission was The Hateful Eight - and that was well under 3 hours!!
Maybe there still were some in the 90's and 00's that I was too young to recall, but I definitely don't remember any others with intermissions since the 10's. It was super nice with an intermission for that movie. Could go for a pee and get another lil snack
Watched it in Imperial in 70mm. I didn't like the actual movie all that much but the experience was unforgettable!
Hey - I also saw that in Imperial in 70mm :) I think the 70mm version was slightly longer than the regular version, but yes - still only around 3 hours. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was also shown with an intermission, but you are right - it is not something that have been used in decades.
My parents didn't allow me to watch LotR in the cinema :( I know, I'm young, but they were pretty damn strict!
I watched Dune having never read the book and having no idea it was part 1, and my brain was going nuts trying to figure out how the story could resolve in the remaining time. So yes, there are many of us who go in with no idea.
I really don't see the issue, people expect sequels if the first one was great enough, and most would hope that the writers are cognizant of that fact and try to write to that expectation. You go into a movie hoping it does well enough to have more, if it doesn't, then it doesn't, but the expectation is that you might get a glimpse into another world.
Not only that, but Dune, Wicked, are both part of a series, muliple books, and while I abhor the musical of Wicked, the books are some of my favorites (I so wished the movies were based on the books and not the musical).
Sequels aren't the same as splitting the initial story into two pieces. Plus since Wicked is an adaptation of the musical, it's not part of a series.
A standalone movie that's really good getting a sequel (which is what you describe) isn't my issue. My issue is when they make it look like a complete movie, but it's actually a two parter. That makes part two not "a sequel", that makes it "the rest of the same movie". Big difference.
I don't know if it was just the sites I was on or something, but I was aware from the get go that Spider-Verse 2 & 3 was a two parter and that Dune was being split into two. This post was literally the first time I'd heard that about Wicked, and my head has not been in the sand (though, I admittedly care much more about the other two franchises).
This is one of my biggest pet peeves! The MCU did this too- Avengers: Infinity War was announced as Infinity War: Part 1. Later I saw they had dropped the part one, so I assumed that it was a full story, which turned out to be wrong. There's some explanation on the film's Wikipedia:
Which feels patently false- Infinity War is definitely a part 1 of that arc.
The argument I've heard for this trend is "if studios put 'part 1' in the title, fewer people will see the movie because they'll assume it's only half a story".
Instead, the drop "part 1" to trick people into the theater, at which point the ticket is bought and it doesn't matter if there's not a whole story.
For some reason, that one doesn't bother me as much, perhaps it's the feeling that the story 'completed' in more of an Empire Strikes back sense. They're clearly connected, but maybe it's because other movies were released in that world in the meantime? Not sure why that one didn't land.
I thought the hobbit movies were a two-parter and was super disappointed when the whole desolation of smaug movie never resolved