July 11th, 2012, 12:04 am
Well it's official. Lionsgate announced they will be splitting Mocking Jay into two movies so that we will be getting an annual dose of hunger games every thanksgiving until 2015. It's amazing how many franchises have followed DH (twilight, the hobbit, etc.)! For HP I was actually fine with the split since so much was going on in the last book - but for these other franchises, it's clearly for financial reasons, especially with breaking dawn.
In terms of mocking jay, maybe the split will allow them to spend more time on the infiltration of the Capitol. I always thought that part in the book was rushed.
July 11th, 2012, 3:29 pm
I agree about Breaking Dawn. They really stretched that first movie and could have easily kept it as one part.
Mockingjay is not a particularly long novel, so they could have done one movie, but I am excited to see what they do with two parts. Perhaps they can stray outside the first person narrative and show us what was going on outside of Katniss' perspective.
July 11th, 2012, 3:51 pm
I'm disappointed by the decision to break it into two movies - does everything have to be about money? Oh, wait, we're talking about Hollywood. Nevermind. :p
Honestly, though, Mockingjay as two movies would be unbearable IMO unless they do what I am praying they do with Breaking Dawn and fix the nothing ending. Only in the case of Mockingjay I'd rather they throw out most of the book and rewrote the whole script.
As for the decision to break it into two movies, why? For what reason other than money? I wasn't a big fan of the split in DH but in order to do the story justice I accept that they did. With the Hobbit I don't care if they split it into four movies so long as it's awesome! (Okay, maybe not four...) For Breaking Dawn I actually almost support the split because the book itself is split in two and there is a very clear and very obvious marker in the middle of the book where the split would go (as opposed to HP where we didn't know for a long time where the split would go because there isn't as obvious a marker as a change of viewpoint). What they could have done for BDp1 was reduce it from a run time of 117 minutes (according imdb.com) to more like 90 minutes so it didn't feel as dragged out. In Mockingjay the book so repetitive (go out, fight a battle, faint, wake up in the hospital, repeat as necessary) that I can't imagine a book-faithful (and therefore fandom-pleasing) movie based on the first half of the book being any good right now. IMO they would have to do some pretty good rewrites on stuff to make me care about the characters because by Mockingjay I was sick of them all and was only reading to finish the series.
I'll say one thing, though: Harry Potter is certainly setting up some major precedents both in fiction and in film. The trend in film now is to break things into two parts (wasn't started by HP but it's certainly a major player in that game) and the major trend in fiction is in serial novels, and not just an author writing for the same character as many popular authors do for popular character but writing discreet series of books, most often trilogies, that build upon one another.
In books I think it's largely a good thing since authors are under so much pressure to meet publishers page count limits for novels. In movies it feels gimmicky and a lot more overt in the desire to make more money off the films.
July 11th, 2012, 5:30 pm
I'm not disappointed that they split Mockingjay into two movies--I think the book is a little convoluted and confusing at times, so having two movies to let the story play out is a good thing, IMO. What I don't like is the decision to release them a year apart. I think that kills the momentum and excitement to wait an entire year for the second half of a movie. That's one thing HP did right--DH part 2 came out 8 months later, right? That's how Lionsgate should be doing it. I think it's dumb that Breaking Dawn 1&2 are a year apart too, and I don't even care for that series. It's different when you are talking about sequels (like Iron Man 2 etc) but it's the second part of the same story, so why have it come out a YEAR later? :grumble:
July 12th, 2012, 3:27 am
What!? I do not like this one bit. The book is small, it's about the same size as the other two..So why split it? I think of the series to be a trilogy so I wanted the the movies to be a trilogy as well.
The only way I can see this working well is if they follow the same format of the Hunger Games movie. Where they gave us a glimpse of the other characters. I just have a feeling they'll focus a lot of attention on other characters in these films. If they do this right, then I won't be disappointed with this decision. I just want them to make good quality movies.
I do like the idea of splitting one book into 2 movies (even if they're really just wanting more money), it just has to be done right.
July 12th, 2012, 8:07 am
I'm mixed about the spliting decision. I can see Mockingjay being one movie OR two movies, but if it's in two parts I think they need to work harder in order to make them good quality films that correspond with each other, and not be afraid to shift away with the book storyline a bit to give us more variety (different character perspectives, locations etc.) and make the ending more dramatic, have a grand finale and finally have closure.
I too think being a year apart isn't good. It'll just ruin the pace of the whole thing, being mainly action films. In a way, I would prefer it to be one film. It was different for Potter because it was a "road" movie then a "war" movie, and they took less than a year. Seeing that Mockingjay's story is more singular and dealing with the similar themes throughout, it's going to be harder for me to see the one film then wait a whole year for the next part.
July 12th, 2012, 5:24 pm
I'm not disappointed that they split Mockingjay into two movies--I think the book is a little convoluted and confusing at times, so having two movies to let the story play out is a good thing, IMO. What I don't like is the decision to release them a year apart. I think that kills the momentum and excitement to wait an entire year for the second half of a movie. That's one thing HP did right--DH part 2 came out 8 months later, right? That's how Lionsgate should be doing it. I think it's dumb that Breaking Dawn 1&2 are a year apart too, and I don't even care for that series.
Yes, it's definitely momentum-killing.
It's different when you are talking about sequels (like Iron Man 2 etc) but it's the second part of the same story, so why have it come out a YEAR later? :grumble:
There's the issue of trying to complete two feature films nearly simultaneously, though. It's tough enough to do one movie now a days with the amount of CGI that goes into them, try doing twice the amount of CGI for two movies coming out only a few months apart! A nightmare!
There's also the desire to get the first movie out on DVD before the second one comes to theaters so people can rush out and buy it, watch it at home and then go see part 2 in theaters the next week or the next month. Additionally, movie companies like to align the release of their DVDs with major gift-giving holidays as much as possible so they make even more money - people buying the new DVD at full price in December rather than buy it at a reduced price because it's been out for four months already. And releasing the DVD in the holiday season and then following it up with a late-december release of part 2 means CHA-CHING! Money!
There's also things like the Oscars to be considered. Not that Mockingjay or Breaking Dawn are really huge oscar contenders but The Hobbit will be. They'll want releases as late in the year as possible so that the films are still in theaters comes Oscar time - the film is still fresh in everyone's mind and they're not competing against themselves in all the categories. ("This year's best costuming nominees: Ngila Dicksonand Richard Taylor for Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Ngila Dicksonand Richard Taylor for Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, Ngila Dicksonand Richard Taylor for Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, -- oh, and Judianna Makovsky for Seabiscuit.") I think there would be a bit of an uproar if a movie series shut out the oscars like that and gave themselves a 3 to 1 or 3 to 2 chance of winning instead of a 1 in 5 like everyone else would have. The series as a whole would be eligible for a reduced number of overall oscar wins if they are competing with themselves, too. Only one movie can win best picture and not too many people really care if the DVD cover says "Nominate for best picture of the year", it's more impressive if all the DVD covers can boast that they're winners.