| re: A gamble | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 04:32 pm EDT 09/06/24 | |
| In reply to: re: A gamble - Singapore/Fling 05:50 pm EDT 09/05/24 | |
|
|
|
| Which makes me wonder...do we have a good precedent for this? The OP said it might work against them they are not publicizing it as two films. Has there been another movie that was filmed in full and then released in two parts, and explicitly publicized that way (or not)? It's not really a sequel, it's just the second half of the story. I think we can agree that most sequels are conjured after part one (or two) is a huge success and they want to continue with a new adventure for the characters. Was The Godfather an exception? The first movie feels complete but doesn't tie up all the loose ends, and I assume the creators knew there was more source material to draw from. But I am fairly certain they were not filmed at the same time. Back to The Future also comes to mind. Of course part one was already a smash, but I thought I read back in the day that parts 2 and 3 were filmed virtually at the same time. But again I don't know if they advertised that part three was coming when they released part two. Oh also thought about It. I think they always knew that would be two movies since the book is so long. Back to Wicked. All they would have to do is add a subtitle...part one. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: A gamble - Singapore/Fling 05:50 pm EDT 09/05/24 |
| Next: | re: A gamble : This happened in 1973 - NewtonUK 12:11 pm EDT 09/07/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.380012 seconds.