58
Hiding the Other Half: ‘Wicked’ Is the Latest Film to Trim ‘Part One’ From the Title
(www.thewrap.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
58 points (92.6% liked)
movies
1775 readers
176 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
One would reasonably expect the movie adaptation of a play that was less than 3 hours to be a single movie. In this case, I'd say hiding the fact it's a part 1 of 2 is misleading.