The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, based on Stephenie Meyer's fourth book in the series, will be released as two different movies, the first of which will be released in November, 2011. If this sounds familiar, it's because Harry Potter took a similar cinematic road, releasing the one-book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in two movies, appearing in theaters this November and next May.
My question in both cases: Why? If Stephen King's intricate and lengthy horror novels can be contained in a single flick over and over, what’s stopping these wizards and werewolves from getting in under 120 minutes? Sequels are nothing new, but rarely is a single book told in two separate movies. (I'll give the amazing Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 a pass here).
The cynic in me says the situation is less about plot and more about profit. Everyone from the producers and actors to the theaters and Netflix makes more money this way. Meanwhile, your daily life becomes the world's biggest bookmark.
No child, tween, teen, grown-up, pet or plant life who sees Part One will miss out on Part Two for the same reason kids wouldn't dare leave any of these books half-read. But I hate to imagine a world of entertainment in which we say the book was not only better than the movie, but a lot quicker to get through as well.
Do you think two-part movies are a good idea or a greedy one? Chime in now!
Like This? Read These:
- Breaking Dawn to be Split Into Two Films
- Harry Potter Gets Naked in Deathly Hallows!
- Twilight & Harry Potter Stars Get Engaged!