While "Wicked" is the first of a two-part adaptation, Universal decided to downplay the Part One nature of the film in its marketing.
  • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1092·
    1 month ago

    Oh lord. This did not need to be a two parter. Man, I miss movies being well contained 90 minute stories.

    • ditty@lemm.eeEnglish
      82·
      1 month ago

      The whole Broadway show can be done in a 2 hour-ish performance live, there is no justification to stretch this to two movies other than corporate greed milking every IP to the limit

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
        7·
        1 month ago

        From everything I’ve seen so far about Wicked the movie(s), yes that’s exactly what it is.

        The show is still touring folks, go see the show if you can

    • ME5SENGER_24@lemmy.worldEnglish
      161·
      1 month ago

      Unless its a planned trilogy with 3 strong stories that could semi-standalone (short of context being lost without the other installments) then any movie that needs more than 2 hours should just be a mini series. You wanna tell a 4 hour long story about the Wizard of Oz? Fine, stick it on Netflix and anyone who wants to binge watch it can to make it “feel like a movie” and those who don’t will have 4 - hour long episodes.

        • root_beer@midwest.socialEnglish
          1·
          29 days ago

          The finale would leave loose ends as long as the cables they’re frayed from, and season 2 will either be canceled or cut short so huge compromises will have to be made and nothing is properly resolved

    • Flamekebab@piefed.socialEnglish
      7·
      1 month ago

      I’m starting to suspect that this is why I don’t watch as many films as I’d like to. They’ve all become such a time commitment. Show me what you can do with an hour and a half!

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      25 days ago

      Just saw part one. As I had suspected, they would’ve been hard pressed to get both acts into one film.

      A Broadway show can get away with a lot more compression. There are no establishing shots on a stage. And Wicked, as a musical, moves. The movie didn’t overstay its welcome, it didn’t waste much time. But it still easily filled its runtime.

      Making the two acts into two films was a good call. Though I suspect the second film won’t be as good as the first, since I’ve always preferred act 1 of the Broadway show.

      It’s really clear to me that the cast and crew weren’t lying when they said they love the musical and wanted to do right by it.

  • bcgm3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    65·
    1 month ago

    Just you wait…

    • 2024: Wicked (Part 1)
    • 2025: Wicked Part 2 (Part 1)
    • 2026: Wicked Part 2 (Part 2)
    • BenutzterName@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      9·
      30 days ago

      Zeno’s triology: Part 1 Part 2 (Part 1) Part 2 (Part 2 (Part 1)) Part 2 (Part 2 (Part 2 (Part 1))) …

      As long as you lose less than half the audience in every fraction, you’ve got to make infinite money.

    • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5·
      30 days ago

      Starting to look like a prog album:

      2028: Wicked, are you there? I’m destroying Dorothy volume iii Through the eyes of Oz

  • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    1 month ago

    I’m still bitter about Spider-Man. Had no idea it was a part one until it ended. Maybe we just create whole movies with the 2+ hours we are using.

      • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think they were even making part 2 when they ended it that way. Made it so much worse.

        • emax_gomax@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          30 days ago

          And the fact they said we’d have this to you by EOY. Absolute BS. Still no updated release date.

      • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        17·
        1 month ago

        The second spider-verse movie, I think. No mention of it being a trilogy but the story clearly ended setting up a third movie.

        • bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
          65·
          1 month ago

          Those movies were already too long, IMO. The shortest of the two is 114 minutes. My son really liked them, but we had to break up each movie into more than one session.

            • bassomitron@lemmy.worldEnglish
              92·
              1 month ago

              Oh I don’t mind it as much; but, for an animated movie that’s somewhat geared towards a wider age demographic range, it felt a bit too long for younger viewers.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 month ago

      Same, caught it on a plane and was pissed I had to keep sitting there not knowing the actual ending

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
    45·
    1 month ago

    I really don’t care anymore … when a new movie is announced, I really don’t care to do anything special to go out and see it. I just forget about it and wait a year or two and watch it as a stream on one of the services I already pay for.

    It usually works out. If the movie was crap, everyone will tell me, I’ll read about it or see low review scores for and just never bother watching it ever … or it’s released on Netflix, Disney or Amazon and I watch it there a year or two later.

    If it has great reviews and not available anywhere, then I just wait a year and rent it for $5 and watch it at home.

    There’s more than enough content to last a lifetime, I’m not spending any more money to watch the latest greatest movie as soon as it comes out.

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    30 days ago

    Just make it long with an intermission.

    Lots of old musical films did that. Like Oklahoma!, Fiddler on the Roof, and Hello Dolly.

  • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    22·
    1 month ago

    This did have PART 1 early in reveal but then realized people wouldn’t see it so they lied about this being a complete movie. Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning did the same thing

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      1 month ago

      People aren’t going to see a movie that lies about it being a part 1 either, at least not after the first weekend when the word gets out

    • hopesdead@startrek.websiteEnglish
      71·
      1 month ago

      I pretty sure it was public knowledge (even talked about in publicity) Dead Reckoning was two parts.

      • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, they scrubbed it from the title once it was on digital/streaming for awhile.

        Here’s what AppleTV looks like:

        • burgersc12@mander.xyzEnglish
          2·
          1 month ago

          I think this has more to do with the next one being the Final Reckoning instead of “dead reckoning part 2”

          • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 month ago

            Well, that means they pivoted either way. Still strange, and still likely all about marketing and not wanting anything dissuading people from diving in.

    • Artyom@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      30 days ago

      Infinity War did that too. Ragnarok was also announced as a 2-parter at the same time, but I guess they backed off on that.

    • koberulzEnglish
      1·
      29 days ago

      Pretty sure Dead Reckoning was well and truly out of theatres by the time they made the change.

  • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    1 month ago

    Wow I didn’t know they cut it in half. After the whole poster thing I wasn’t super enthused to see the film, after all I thought the play did amazing job, now I’m even less enthused.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      25 days ago

      I just saw it. If you liked the Broadway show, definitely see the movie. Wait to see it streaming if you don’t want to see it in theaters, but they definitely did right by the musical, and having seen it I’m glad they made it into two films.

      Edit: I’m not sure why recommending it based on having seen it earned a downvote…am I not adding to the conversation?

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      25 days ago

      Hope this thing flops.

      Why?

      I like Wicked. I would’ve preferred a single-movie version, but there is a lot of plot kind of rushed or skipped over in the musical. If they go back to the source material of the book they can flesh some of that out nicely and give more context to the story.

      It might be good! It might be terrible. I don’t know yet.

      But why hope for it to flop?

      Edit, days later having seen the film: It was great, and I have essentially no complaints. Glad they split it into two, it would’ve been far too rushed as a single movie.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      25 days ago

      Just saw it. I recommend you go see it. Especially if you liked the Broadway show. They did a good job, and having seen it I’m glad they’re doing the acts as separate movies, it lets them take time with establishing shots and emotional beats. It’s a good time, saw it with a group and we all loved it.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          25 days ago

          Oh. Then I have no idea if you’d like it. I loved it, but I love the musical. I haven’t yet heard opinions from people who didn’t already know the show.

    • makeshiftreaper@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 month ago

      Dune I can give a pass to because Frank Herbert originally wrote it as a trilogy and combined it into one book. It has pretty clear chunks breaking it up. They absolutely should have been better about advertising what it was, but it’s hard to cover all that content succinctly

      Wicked however is based off a 2 hour and 45 minute Broadway show with a 15 minute intermission. There is no good reason that a movie that can have tighter transistons, faster costume changes, and no reused cast should be longer than the Broadway show. Let alone twice as long and spread over multiple films