While "Wicked" is the first of a two-part adaptation, Universal decided to downplay the Part One nature of the film in its marketing.
  • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.orgEnglish
    1·
    6 minutes ago

    We’re going to wait until part 2 is available for streaming then watch both parts together.

    But still, they should have just made a 3 hour movie. Or build in an intermission like the staged show.

  • thejmlEnglish
    15·
    6 hours ago

    I still remember going to see the first LoTR film and right after it fades out, hearing a lady yell “you mean there’s another one?!”

  • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.mlOPMEnglish
    4·
    5 hours ago

    Wow, this actually worked!

    Sorry if it seems like I haven’t posted in a while - there were some federation issues with lemmy.ml and lemm.ee, but if you can read this post, then it seems like it’s fixed now!

    In case this happens again, I’ve registered an account with lemm.ee so I can post here natively.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    61·
    6 hours ago

    I mean, to be fair, the beginnings of most movies with sequels don’t actually start by being titled, say “Back to the Future Part 1.”

    The Fellowship of the Ring, for example, wasn’t titled “Lord of the Rings 1: The Fellowship of the Ring” if it mentioned Lord of the Rings at all, it didn’t imply a number, it just stood on its own. People knew sequels were coming, they didn’t need numbers to know that.

    So to be fair to Wicked, naming it something like Wicked Part One is dumb anyway. Especially if it flops and they shelve the sequel for a tax break.

    • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
      8·
      3 hours ago

      The title card in the actual movie does state Part 1. But none of the marketing did. So people buy tickets not knowing it’s only half the story.

      That’s kind of annoying. Even misleading.