Jump to content

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Neo

Avengers Endgame | William Hurt returns as Secretary of State Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross NOT confirmed | April 26, 2019

Recommended Posts

Infinity War does offer a conclusion to its arcs if someone chooses not to see the next one. You can pretend Endgame doesn't exist and IW works as its own movie. Compare this to say DH1, which literally ends right in the middle of the story with no resolution at all. So I don't agree that IW is a part 1. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Two Towers has a beginning, middle, and end.  

2 towers book and movie is an obvious second part of a bigger story.

 

The trilogy is in reality only one big book that was split in 3 by an editor/distributor not by the author at the time for commercial reasons (because cost of paper spiked or something like that ?), exact same for the one big movie that was split in 3 purely for practical and commercial reason.

 

There is nothing wrong for a filmmaker or book writer to write a saga big enough that they can maximized their revenues by splitting the story (or for realistic reason for a movie runtime that you want to play in theater). Star wars is a multi part movies, Lord of the Rings being an even clearer example (the story fully written before the release of the books/movies).

 

Non multipart franchise do exist also, when the movie does not follow each other much or a remake of the previous (like Hangover, Jump Street, James Bond), spin-of type or anthologies like the Cloverfield.

Edited by Barnack
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Fellowship of the Rings and Two Towers have an end.

Not sure what your point is, LOTR was planned as a trilogy from the start adapted from one novel (originally). ROTK is clearly a part 3, Jackson didn't suddenly pretend it was a whole new movie.

And you know the result.

 

oscar_jackson.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what people have been arguing either here for the last few days then.

Storytelling with multiple movies.

It s a thing.

Get over it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Infinity War does offer a conclusion to its arcs if someone chooses not to see the next one. You can pretend Endgame doesn't exist and IW works as its own movie. Compare this to say DH1, which literally ends right in the middle of the story with no resolution at all. So I don't agree that IW is a part 1. 

Deathly hallows 1 is a complete story. You can pretend part2 doesn't exist and that Voldemort won.

Edited by Avatree
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disbelief 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Barnack said:

2 towers book and movie is an obvious second part of a bigger story.

 

The trilogy is in reality only one big book that was split in 3 by an editor/distributor not by the author at the time for commercial reasons (because cost of paper spiked or something like that ?), exact same for the one big movie that was split in 3 purely for practical and commercial reason.

 

There is nothing wrong for a filmmaker or book writer to write a saga big enough that they can maximized their revenues by splitting the story (or for realistic reason for a movie runtime that you want to play in theater). Star wars is a multi part movies, Lord of the Rings being an even clear example.

 

Non multipart franchise do exist also, when the movie does not follow each other much or a remake of the previous (like Hangover, Jump Street, James Bond)

Obviously it’s part of a bigger story, what I’m saying is that the movie has a “complete” ending with a 3 act story.  It doesn’t abruptly end like reloaded or every movie that has “part 1” in its name.  Saruman(the main villain of that movie) is defeated at Isengard, his army destroyed at helms deep, and so on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Obviously it’s part of a bigger story, what I’m saying is that the movie has a “complete” ending with a 3 act story.  It doesn’t abruptly end like reloaded or every movie that has “part 1” in its name.  Saruman(the main villain of that movie) is defeated at Isengard, his army destroyed at helms deep, and so on.

Well yes, I was really not aware that part 1-2-3 naming convention of a story split in many parts to be consumed in a more practical (and more profitable way) necessitate some abrupt start or end (even thought without the recapitulation in the beginning, not sure how smooth the beginning is on 2 tower).

 

Star wars has part 4 in is name and has a really smooth start and end because the studio forcing one on Lucas for a very famous example of that. Many TV episode of series with a long form narrative have somewhat complete ending of the new element added in that episode and no one goes around arguing if they are part 3 of the season or not.

 

With Netflix and what not that make it really easy to watch all those movies in a short window, assuming the people have watched the previous entry and will watch the next one will become more and more common.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is dumb, and clearly stems from this notion that Thanos is the protagonist, which he is not. Which protgaonist appears in only 20% of his own film? Actually, the movie is about a collective of superheroes, whose individual characters already had tons and tons the screentime in their own movies, trying to stop the mega baddie; IW very much ends where the second act of a complete movie would.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disbelief 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Avatree said:

Deathly hallows 1 is a complete story. You can pretend part2 doesn't exist and that Voldemort won.

No. Voldemort has not accomplished his main goal yet and there are a bazillion things 8 movies had been setting up left unresolved. IW could literally be the end of the MCU if you want it to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

IW could literally be the end of the MCU if you want it to be. 

Would it not be an absolutely terrible ending (that is not making much if any sense, we would never had known with all is power why Thanos is dividing resource demand by 2 instead of simply doubling the amount of resource, pure evil or some deeper reason) ?

Edited by Barnack
  • ...wtf 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that a true part 2 should pick up immediately after part 1. Endgame is going to pick up with some time having lapsed from what I gather. Same as most sequels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

No. Voldemort has not accomplished his main goal yet

Voldemort did it, tho. His main goal throughout DH1 is to get the Elder Wand, which he does.

Edited by Goffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Would it not be an absolutely terrible ending (that is not making much if any sense, we would never had known with all is power why Thanos is dividing resource demand by 2 instead of simply doubling the amount of resource, pure evil or some deeper reason) ?

he's insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is worried Captain Marvel will be a deus ex machina in Endgame 

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2466529/the-captain-marvel-problem-facing-avengers-endgame-and-how-the-russos-addressed-it

 

Quote

It's always a concern of ours about overpowering characters, because the reason that people relate to these characters is their humanity, and that they’re flawed. And the reason we love working so much with Captain America was that he was limited, and his heart was his superpower, you know? So we're all acutely aware of the dangers of having an overly powerful character. [But] we like sensitive storytelling, so… we found a thoughtful way through it.

Quote

That's what kind of fires us up, I think, on a storytelling level, to be honest with you. Because when you do have powerful characters, you have to work that much harder to find their vulnerabilities and complexities. And Joe was mentioning on a storytelling level… and keep the stakes high! Because that’s where those characters are vulnerable. And actually, that makes for great drama, and you run in that direction. As storytellers, that's been one of the most fun things we've had working with these characters is figuring out ways into them where they are vulnerable and they aren't all powerful.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Barnack said:

Pretty much any movie with an already planned sequels are part 1 type of movie no ? That one was even literally named one and in Disney accounting they are both under the same company, named a big Avengers 3 for both.

 

Talking of said incorporated company made for Avengers III:

 

According to this:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10068015/filing-history

 

Seem like the giant 2 part production have spent has of 30 june 2018 a whopping $870 million (£677m), getting close of matching those rumors of around a billion showing up in tax credit forms in Atlanta for it (will see in the next account for all the expense between june 30 to the release of the second one if it could reach that mark).

 

Never seen anything has big, but that not surprising except if Avatar would have went and really shot 4 sequels in a row it must be by a very giant amount the most expensive production ever.

 

No not really. Lott trilogy were filmed in a like a year or so and those films aren’t considered a part 1 or whatever. Aiw part 1 argument falls on death ears around here. Only a couple people on here who don’t know what they’re talking about are trying to prove it.

Edited by KJsooner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this gets boring

wait and see the movie, than discuss if it is this or that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

 

No not really. Lott trilogy were filmed in a like a year or so and those films aren’t considered a part 1 or whatever. Aiw part 1 argument falls on death ears around here. Only a couple people on here who don’t know what they’re talking about are trying to prove it.

can we plz stop this discussion about part 1 or part 2 PLZ 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.