Ok, this is really starting to get out of hand... Is no movie safe from being split into two parts, deceiving the audience that it's only one part, and only telling them once they've purchased...
back-to-back with its sequel 28 Years Later Part II: The Bone Temple
Ok, this is really starting to get out of hand...
Is no movie safe from being split into two parts, deceiving the audience that it's only one part, and only telling them once they've purchased their ticket or if they read entertainment news?
To clarify I don't just mean splitting a movie into two parts (like Harry Potter 7, which was abundantly clear about two parts in all the ads), I mean specifically lying about part 1 being a full movie.
To be fair, so far for each of these films that's pulled this stunt, I have found that stretching the movie into a 5 hour runtime made sense. I did end up seeing Wicked Part 1 after making this Tildes thread and I found that movie handled it about as well as I could hope. Part 1 did expand on the first act of the musical to make it feel like a good pace and not padded, and ending where it did felt satisfying like I had seen a complete film, not half a film. They also were clear in the movie itself that it was part 1 (similar to Dune part 1, it only deceived audiences on the poster, not after they were watching the movie in the theater, so no surprise cliffhangers).
But does every movie need to do this trick? It's just getting exhausting honestly.
I'm like you, but I think we're outliers. I don't think most people do any "research" on movies before they go besides hearing word of mouth, ads, or recognizing a franchise. If it doesn't say...
I'm like you, but I think we're outliers.
I don't think most people do any "research" on movies before they go besides hearing word of mouth, ads, or recognizing a franchise. If it doesn't say "Part 1" in the title or in the trailer, they'd have no way of knowing.
For me: the more interested I am in seeing a film, the less I want to consume about it before the movie. After all, the whole entire point is to consume what's about it during the movie - doing so...
For me: the more interested I am in seeing a film, the less I want to consume about it before the movie. After all, the whole entire point is to consume what's about it during the movie - doing so before ruins the experience.
I find movies by following directors and genres, and friends/acquaintances with similar tastes in both.
My expectation is that movies are not cut into parts; and so if it is, it should be advertised as such to your customer base. That way I know to just wait for the second one - cuz I don't want to watch half a movie (which is my assumption of why they don't tell you: because they are scared you'll wait. AKA marketing manipulation)
To be fair, I rarely watch movies that this has happened to me. Most recently was the Spiderverse movie, and the only other time I can think of was when Pirate of the Caribbean 2 came out.
I've seen bad movies, but those two times were the only times I've left a theater feeling any semblance of upsetness/wasted time.
I cannot give an example at the moment, but yes summaries have ruined movies for me in the past. Have you seen trailers from the 80s in America? They were basically the whole movie. That is not to...
I cannot give an example at the moment, but yes summaries have ruined movies for me in the past. Have you seen trailers from the 80s in America? They were basically the whole movie.
That is not to say that every summary does, but its a preventative measure
As for other things - the easiest way to explain it is there is a difference when a product is an experience. The point of an experience is to “feel things”, and so if the “feeling things” are numbed than the experience is numbed. To me what you’re talking about is the equivalent of looking a band up on YouTube to get an idea of what their live show is like before going to a concert - why ruin the experience you’re about to have?
(Don’t get me wrong, I have looked up videos of what a bands live show is like; but for concerts I wasn’t interested in, to see if I then would be. But this is strictly talking about “things there is already an interest in”, and I mentioned the auxiliary methods for that [following directors and genres, and following those with similar past taste - and going blind from there])
Which actually I think is why I hate it when it has happened to me: it has made the experience feel like only a product. And I specifically try to avoid experiences that do so (because they pull stuff like only giving half a product)
And yes, that 100% goes for the gaming depending - there’s a huge difference between a game that is meant to be an expression and a game that’s meant to test your logic skills
Eg Hellblade Sensua is one I’ve been avoiding any type of anything for years as I’m looking forward to experiencing that on VR with a blank mind
But I will look at reviews for deck builders, because there is nothing to experience I really haven’t yet
Actually typing that just reminded me of Insydious, and so can even happen to deck builders. Like I said, I follow genres. A friend recommended at as a deck builder but it’s an experience. So I’ve shut down any further input on that and will wait until I experience it
Edit:
I don't think studios have a responsibility to put "Part One" at the end of every title of every first movie in a series though
To be clear, and I think most people agree since Spiderverse is where people keep pointing, that it is a lot less about “part one in a series” and more “part one in a single story”
If this ends up being 3 different movies, which I think it is, I don’t really care they don’t put that it’s part one. That’s more a “universe” kind of thing.
But if a movie ends without tying up the story, and it was advertised as being a complete movie, that is false advertisement for me. And that’s what started the whole comment chain: a user complaint about a single movie, not a series, being broken into parts and not being advertised as such
I don't disagree, and I tend to do what you do too to a certain extent (though I also detest spoilers so I have to be careful about it). I do seem to be the odd one out in a lot of friend groups...
I don't disagree, and I tend to do what you do too to a certain extent (though I also detest spoilers so I have to be careful about it).
I do seem to be the odd one out in a lot of friend groups when I bring anything up about a movie we're about to see, which makes me think that most people don't.
I also get what you mean about being upset after doing literally no research into what you're "buying". On the flip side, it also seems like this is a relatively new phenomenon to break movies up into parts so the default expectation to assume you're getting a full movie also seems reasonable. If you're selling half a movie, it would be good to be upfront about that. If anything I think it would be a win-win so people know and they don't come out of your movie frustrated.
This makes me think about this compared to other products. When you buy food, for example, they tell you the size, the ingredients, and usually they give you a little picture of what it looks like...
If you're selling half a movie, it would be good to be upfront about that.
This makes me think about this compared to other products. When you buy food, for example, they tell you the size, the ingredients, and usually they give you a little picture of what it looks like or have some kinda transparent part so you can see it. If the picture is misleading or there's extra food also on the box, there's an astrisk with something like "enlarged to show texture" or "serving suggestion" or whatever. When you buy a toy, there's usually something on the box or in the ad about "batteries not included" if it needs batteries. Most people probably aren't gonna expect to do homework to buy most small purchases, especially not something like a movie. What these movies are doing would be deceptive, but similarly deceptive to everything else we buy in our lives, if the "part one" was small text with a semi-transparent font underneath the rest of the title. As it is, it's even worse than that.
I tended not to do much research if it is a franchise, and I didn’t want to have the content of the film spoiled. I got surprised once, then the pandemic happened, and it’s been my excuse not to...
If it's a movie I'm actually interested in seeing though, I couldn't imagine not doing a little reading about the movie first (that's why I was reading the 28 Years Later Wikipedia page in the first place)
I tended not to do much research if it is a franchise, and I didn’t want to have the content of the film spoiled. I got surprised once, then the pandemic happened, and it’s been my excuse not to go to another movie since.
I was also bamboozled by Across the Spiderverse, but the price of admission was a lot lower.
Like Khalos said, knowing that much info before going into a movie is not the norm. Also a big issue is people not expecting a movie to be two parts based on the source material, previous...
Like Khalos said, knowing that much info before going into a movie is not the norm. Also a big issue is people not expecting a movie to be two parts based on the source material, previous adaptations, previous entries in the series not being two partners, or a movie that's a new IP not saying it's a two parter in the ads. Dune has sequel books, but the first book was previously made into only 1 movie. Wicked the play is 3 hours so in theory could be done in 3 hours in a movie.
Spider-Verse 2 was the second movie in a series, but still it ending on a cliffhanger shocked people that I watched it with since the first movie had a satisfying ending. They expected each part in that series to be more self contained.
I tend to actively avoid looking into movies prior to seeing them out of fear of getting spoiled. The most I do look at review scores. Even then, the only time I felt like I was tricked in some...
I tend to actively avoid looking into movies prior to seeing them out of fear of getting spoiled. The most I do look at review scores. Even then, the only time I felt like I was tricked in some way was when I watched Across the Spiderverse.
The movie wasn't the first in the series, and it's not like I would've been surprised if there was a third entry. It was just that the cliffhanger was so extreme that it felt incomplete.
In the case of Dune, the filmmaker intended it as a 2-parter but the 2nd film's production was dependent on the success of the 1st. So to market it as Part 1 when a 2nd film might not actually be...
In the case of Dune, the filmmaker intended it as a 2-parter but the 2nd film's production was dependent on the success of the 1st. So to market it as Part 1 when a 2nd film might not actually be made/released would also come off as deceptive.
Funny you say that, since the filmmaker did call it part 1 inside of the movie when they show the title. If you check on IMDb, you'll see it listed as Dune: Part One presumably for that reason....
Funny you say that, since the filmmaker did call it part 1 inside of the movie when they show the title. If you check on IMDb, you'll see it listed as Dune: Part One presumably for that reason. Wikipedia similarly notes that it's titled Dune: Part One on-screen.
Yeah, I remember that in the movie. Not trying to argue, but IMDb is not really authoritative. Wikipedia (also not authoritative) labels it as Dune (2021 film). First line reads "Dune (titled...
Yeah, I remember that in the movie.
Not trying to argue, but IMDb is not really authoritative. Wikipedia (also not authoritative) labels it as Dune (2021 film). First line reads "Dune (titled on-screen as Dune: Part One)..." Rotten Tomatoes has it as Dune. The Academy Awards has it as DUNE.
What the studios plan isn't the issue, multi partners can be really good and I enjoyed a lot of recent ones. The issue is how the first part is marketed.
What the studios plan isn't the issue, multi partners can be really good and I enjoyed a lot of recent ones. The issue is how the first part is marketed.
I do not like zombie movies (too scary) but that is likely because I watched 28 days later as a youngish kid and it was so good. This looks so cool though. I tried out a few other adjectives and...
I do not like zombie movies (too scary) but that is likely because I watched 28 days later as a youngish kid and it was so good.
This looks so cool though. I tried out a few other adjectives and none worked for as well as “cool”. The audio really gets the heart pumping, and the perfect red color in the title cards.
I probably won’t see it but not because it looks bad, but because it looks so good.
I think it was one of the first, if not the first, yeah. I was dating a guy at the time who was profoundly bothered by it, because all of his zombie invasion contingency plans hinged on them being...
I think it was one of the first, if not the first, yeah. I was dating a guy at the time who was profoundly bothered by it, because all of his zombie invasion contingency plans hinged on them being slow.... Actually, it was after this (or maybe 28 Weeks?) that I asked him if he'd try to save me if I got cornered like in the movie, and his immediate and impassioned "fuck no" made me seriously question the relationship lol. We were young ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It started the modern trend of the outright sprinting zombies yeah. In the sixties zombie lore wasn't codified yet so movies were a bit inconsistent about how fast they could go. The 'Return of...
It started the modern trend of the outright sprinting zombies yeah. In the sixties zombie lore wasn't codified yet so movies were a bit inconsistent about how fast they could go. The 'Return of the Living Dead' series in the 80s had zombies that could run and talk (mostly about brains, famously) but seemed a bit less coordinated than a standard human I think, so they weren't running an olympic pace the way the 28 Days zombies seem to.
That chant. Ooooh goose bumps. Alex Garland x Danny Boyle team up once more. The scariest things in Days had always been the humans. Chilling that all but one of the children are girls..... I...
That chant. Ooooh goose bumps.
Alex Garland x Danny Boyle team up once more.
The scariest things in Days had always been the humans. Chilling that all but one of the children are girls.....
I really really really dislike horror films but I'll probably see this one streamed at home where I can keep lights on and cower behind pillows and take snack breaks throughout.
You could also partner with braver people who will have seen it first, and can help fast forward past especially bad parts? Ping me next year and I can give to time stamps to jump in and out if...
You could also partner with braver people who will have seen it first, and can help fast forward past especially bad parts? Ping me next year and I can give to time stamps to jump in and out if you want.
There are a ton of plugins for this too, like https://github.com/alyssaxuu/jumpskip https://www.enjoymoviesyourway.com/ https://www.vidangel.com/ And so on
The chanting is apparently a poem called 'Boots', by Rudyard Kipling, about soldiers gradually going mad over the course of a forced march. It is used in US Army SERE (Survival, Evasion,...
The chanting is apparently a poem called 'Boots', by Rudyard Kipling, about soldiers gradually going mad over the course of a forced march. It is used in US Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape) training.
Is that a good thing? To use a poem about going mad as part of the exercise? Kinda like reading Yellow Wallpaper as a bedtime story to post partum depression support group ain't it?
Is that a good thing? To use a poem about going mad as part of the exercise? Kinda like reading Yellow Wallpaper as a bedtime story to post partum depression support group ain't it?
From what I understand apparently it’s used to try to “break them” during training, so that they’re accustomed to torture techniques Yoko Ono’s Kiss Kiss Kiss is also apparently used
From what I understand apparently it’s used to try to “break them” during training, so that they’re accustomed to torture techniques
Ok, this is really starting to get out of hand...
Is no movie safe from being split into two parts, deceiving the audience that it's only one part, and only telling them once they've purchased their ticket or if they read entertainment news?
To clarify I don't just mean splitting a movie into two parts (like Harry Potter 7, which was abundantly clear about two parts in all the ads), I mean specifically lying about part 1 being a full movie.
To be fair, so far for each of these films that's pulled this stunt, I have found that stretching the movie into a 5 hour runtime made sense. I did end up seeing Wicked Part 1 after making this Tildes thread and I found that movie handled it about as well as I could hope. Part 1 did expand on the first act of the musical to make it feel like a good pace and not padded, and ending where it did felt satisfying like I had seen a complete film, not half a film. They also were clear in the movie itself that it was part 1 (similar to Dune part 1, it only deceived audiences on the poster, not after they were watching the movie in the theater, so no surprise cliffhangers).
But does every movie need to do this trick? It's just getting exhausting honestly.
I'm like you, but I think we're outliers.
I don't think most people do any "research" on movies before they go besides hearing word of mouth, ads, or recognizing a franchise. If it doesn't say "Part 1" in the title or in the trailer, they'd have no way of knowing.
For me: the more interested I am in seeing a film, the less I want to consume about it before the movie. After all, the whole entire point is to consume what's about it during the movie - doing so before ruins the experience.
I find movies by following directors and genres, and friends/acquaintances with similar tastes in both.
My expectation is that movies are not cut into parts; and so if it is, it should be advertised as such to your customer base. That way I know to just wait for the second one - cuz I don't want to watch half a movie (which is my assumption of why they don't tell you: because they are scared you'll wait. AKA marketing manipulation)
To be fair, I rarely watch movies that this has happened to me. Most recently was the Spiderverse movie, and the only other time I can think of was when Pirate of the Caribbean 2 came out.
I've seen bad movies, but those two times were the only times I've left a theater feeling any semblance of upsetness/wasted time.
I cannot give an example at the moment, but yes summaries have ruined movies for me in the past. Have you seen trailers from the 80s in America? They were basically the whole movie.
That is not to say that every summary does, but its a preventative measure
As for other things - the easiest way to explain it is there is a difference when a product is an experience. The point of an experience is to “feel things”, and so if the “feeling things” are numbed than the experience is numbed. To me what you’re talking about is the equivalent of looking a band up on YouTube to get an idea of what their live show is like before going to a concert - why ruin the experience you’re about to have?
(Don’t get me wrong, I have looked up videos of what a bands live show is like; but for concerts I wasn’t interested in, to see if I then would be. But this is strictly talking about “things there is already an interest in”, and I mentioned the auxiliary methods for that [following directors and genres, and following those with similar past taste - and going blind from there])
Which actually I think is why I hate it when it has happened to me: it has made the experience feel like only a product. And I specifically try to avoid experiences that do so (because they pull stuff like only giving half a product)
And yes, that 100% goes for the gaming depending - there’s a huge difference between a game that is meant to be an expression and a game that’s meant to test your logic skills
Eg Hellblade Sensua is one I’ve been avoiding any type of anything for years as I’m looking forward to experiencing that on VR with a blank mind
But I will look at reviews for deck builders, because there is nothing to experience I really haven’t yet
Actually typing that just reminded me of Insydious, and so can even happen to deck builders. Like I said, I follow genres. A friend recommended at as a deck builder but it’s an experience. So I’ve shut down any further input on that and will wait until I experience it
Edit:
To be clear, and I think most people agree since Spiderverse is where people keep pointing, that it is a lot less about “part one in a series” and more “part one in a single story”
If this ends up being 3 different movies, which I think it is, I don’t really care they don’t put that it’s part one. That’s more a “universe” kind of thing.
But if a movie ends without tying up the story, and it was advertised as being a complete movie, that is false advertisement for me. And that’s what started the whole comment chain: a user complaint about a single movie, not a series, being broken into parts and not being advertised as such
I don't disagree, and I tend to do what you do too to a certain extent (though I also detest spoilers so I have to be careful about it).
I do seem to be the odd one out in a lot of friend groups when I bring anything up about a movie we're about to see, which makes me think that most people don't.
I also get what you mean about being upset after doing literally no research into what you're "buying". On the flip side, it also seems like this is a relatively new phenomenon to break movies up into parts so the default expectation to assume you're getting a full movie also seems reasonable. If you're selling half a movie, it would be good to be upfront about that. If anything I think it would be a win-win so people know and they don't come out of your movie frustrated.
This makes me think about this compared to other products. When you buy food, for example, they tell you the size, the ingredients, and usually they give you a little picture of what it looks like or have some kinda transparent part so you can see it. If the picture is misleading or there's extra food also on the box, there's an astrisk with something like "enlarged to show texture" or "serving suggestion" or whatever. When you buy a toy, there's usually something on the box or in the ad about "batteries not included" if it needs batteries. Most people probably aren't gonna expect to do homework to buy most small purchases, especially not something like a movie. What these movies are doing would be deceptive, but similarly deceptive to everything else we buy in our lives, if the "part one" was small text with a semi-transparent font underneath the rest of the title. As it is, it's even worse than that.
I tended not to do much research if it is a franchise, and I didn’t want to have the content of the film spoiled. I got surprised once, then the pandemic happened, and it’s been my excuse not to go to another movie since.
I was also bamboozled by Across the Spiderverse, but the price of admission was a lot lower.
Like Khalos said, knowing that much info before going into a movie is not the norm. Also a big issue is people not expecting a movie to be two parts based on the source material, previous adaptations, previous entries in the series not being two partners, or a movie that's a new IP not saying it's a two parter in the ads. Dune has sequel books, but the first book was previously made into only 1 movie. Wicked the play is 3 hours so in theory could be done in 3 hours in a movie.
Spider-Verse 2 was the second movie in a series, but still it ending on a cliffhanger shocked people that I watched it with since the first movie had a satisfying ending. They expected each part in that series to be more self contained.
I tend to actively avoid looking into movies prior to seeing them out of fear of getting spoiled. The most I do look at review scores. Even then, the only time I felt like I was tricked in some way was when I watched Across the Spiderverse.
The movie wasn't the first in the series, and it's not like I would've been surprised if there was a third entry. It was just that the cliffhanger was so extreme that it felt incomplete.
Did you watch the second Spider verse movie? That was a big one that pissed off a lot of people that did this
In the case of Dune, the filmmaker intended it as a 2-parter but the 2nd film's production was dependent on the success of the 1st. So to market it as Part 1 when a 2nd film might not actually be made/released would also come off as deceptive.
Funny you say that, since the filmmaker did call it part 1 inside of the movie when they show the title. If you check on IMDb, you'll see it listed as Dune: Part One presumably for that reason. Wikipedia similarly notes that it's titled Dune: Part One on-screen.
Yeah, I remember that in the movie.
Not trying to argue, but IMDb is not really authoritative. Wikipedia (also not authoritative) labels it as Dune (2021 film). First line reads "Dune (titled on-screen as Dune: Part One)..." Rotten Tomatoes has it as Dune. The Academy Awards has it as DUNE.
Yeah I know, I was just mentioning some places that recognized the on-screen title. Most places didn't.
Personally I'm most offended by the choice of title... "The Bone Temple" sounds like the basement of a frat house.
This is actually a planned trilogy afaik. I didn't even think about this potentially being a cliffhanger bait and switch but let's hope not.
What the studios plan isn't the issue, multi partners can be really good and I enjoyed a lot of recent ones. The issue is how the first part is marketed.
I do not like zombie movies (too scary) but that is likely because I watched 28 days later as a youngish kid and it was so good.
This looks so cool though. I tried out a few other adjectives and none worked for as well as “cool”. The audio really gets the heart pumping, and the perfect red color in the title cards.
I probably won’t see it but not because it looks bad, but because it looks so good.
Was 28 days later the first "fast zombie" movie? I remember being blown away by it when I saw it, and I'm definitely going to watch this one.
I think it was one of the first, if not the first, yeah. I was dating a guy at the time who was profoundly bothered by it, because all of his zombie invasion contingency plans hinged on them being slow.... Actually, it was after this (or maybe 28 Weeks?) that I asked him if he'd try to save me if I got cornered like in the movie, and his immediate and impassioned "fuck no" made me seriously question the relationship lol. We were young ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ok so basically the opening sequence of 28 Weeks Later https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3d7y1YrPvg
Ah, yup, that's the one!
Did you Olympic run, or did you slow shamble away from that relationship?
It was, unfortunately, the slowest of shambles. Ah well, my current partner said he'd "certainly do his best," so we've moved up in the world!
We can all but do our best :D
that's a trade up for sure!
It started the modern trend of the outright sprinting zombies yeah. In the sixties zombie lore wasn't codified yet so movies were a bit inconsistent about how fast they could go. The 'Return of the Living Dead' series in the 80s had zombies that could run and talk (mostly about brains, famously) but seemed a bit less coordinated than a standard human I think, so they weren't running an olympic pace the way the 28 Days zombies seem to.
That chant. Ooooh goose bumps.
Alex Garland x Danny Boyle team up once more.
The scariest things in Days had always been the humans. Chilling that all but one of the children are girls.....
I really really really dislike horror films but I'll probably see this one streamed at home where I can keep lights on and cower behind pillows and take snack breaks throughout.
That's brave. I will likely read the synopsis on Wikipedia.
You could also partner with braver people who will have seen it first, and can help fast forward past especially bad parts? Ping me next year and I can give to time stamps to jump in and out if you want.
There are a ton of plugins for this too, like
https://github.com/alyssaxuu/jumpskip
https://www.enjoymoviesyourway.com/
https://www.vidangel.com/
And so on
The chanting is apparently a poem called 'Boots', by Rudyard Kipling, about soldiers gradually going mad over the course of a forced march. It is used in US Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance & Escape) training.
Is that a good thing? To use a poem about going mad as part of the exercise? Kinda like reading Yellow Wallpaper as a bedtime story to post partum depression support group ain't it?
I did wonder about that. That particular reading is rather chilling.
From what I understand apparently it’s used to try to “break them” during training, so that they’re accustomed to torture techniques
Yoko Ono’s Kiss Kiss Kiss is also apparently used