subject: Why I Hate Unnecessary Two Part Movies [print this page] I am not afraid to say it and potentially give up any claims of being a man. I read every single Twilight book all four of them from beginning to end. Did I enjoy them? Only slightly. Were they well written? Not in the slightest. So why read them , you ask in a confused and accusing tone? Well the answer is quite simple really I read them so when the umpteenth Twilight fan says to me, in the only defense they seem to have, Well you havent read them, so how can you judge Stephenie Meyers books?! and I can calmly reply, Actually, I have read them all of them and they are swill.
After the undeserving explosion of the teen vampire series, the movies were only a matter of time. There are only so many ways you can spin a terribly written story, so spoiler alert! the movies were equally as bad. Ive only seen the first film, and the first half of the last film and this is where I have a major issue with directors and studios unnecessarily breaking apart the film for the sake of milking the fan base for more money.
The fourth movie of the Twilight series, titled after the same book, is Breaking Dawn Part 1. Okay, other book based movies get broken up in order to fit more of the content in and to save something from the book so fans will be pleased. I wish Everyone has seen a movie that has butchered a film due to the fact that it is impossible to take a full novel and boil it down to a hundred and twenty minutes. The Golden Compass is a fantastic book, but the film is almost impossible to follow without prior knowledge because the director had to jump around and take liberties
So okay, I guess Breaking Dawn was the longest of the books maybe that is why the producers thought they could get away with breaking up the book into two parts to make fans swoon over Robert Pattinson for an extra year. However, like too many films these days, the content simply was not worthy of the 117 minutes allowed to it. The wedding, honeymoon, and incredibly awkward pregnancy could have been boiled down to a cheesy 80s style montage that would have done nothing to the plot (or lack thereof) or story.
Everything of importance happens in the second half of the book and part one only serves to set the scene and only just accomplishes that. I left the theatre wondering why did they bother making that? The answer, is of course, money.
Even the final book/film of Harry Potter did not need to be broken up into two films, in my opinion. With only one definite finale, the first film seems forced. However, sometimes breaking up a book into two or more parts helps more than hinders. The upcoming Hobbit films are such an example. The film is broken into two parts, and a third movie is being produced which takes into account Tolkiens footnotes and appendixes. The Hobbit has 2-3 definite rising action and finales and each section of the expansive story can easily make a movie. Cutting down the story into one would make the film choppy and would ultimately degrade the experience.
