While "Wicked" is the first of a two-part adaptation, Universal decided to downplay the Part One nature of the film in its marketing.
  • thejml@lemm.eeEnglish
    6·
    1 hour ago

    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?!”

  • TheImpressiveXOPMEnglish
    1·
    48 minutes ago

    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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    2·
    2 hours ago

    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.