The 'Part 2' Paradox
What works and what doesn't when Hollywood splits a movie into two parts (or more)?
The Gist
The “Wicked: For Good” trailer debuted around the same time “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” hit theaters; both are technically Part 2s.
It got me thinking about past movies that are structured similarly, what worked and what didn’t, and if Hollywood should be allergic to this kind of strategy.
From book adaptations to back-to-back sequels, the trend has been especially prevalent over the 21st century and has gained new prominence this decade.
Universal recently dropped the first trailer for “Wicked: For Good,” the second part of its adaptation of the stage musical. It comes soon after another “part two” debuted in theaters, “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning.”
They both reflect a trend in the movie business of splitting up narratives, even if they take dramatically different approaches to doing so. “Wicked,” of course, is split up by the musical’s two acts. Easy. “Final Reckoning” was originally conceived as “Dead Reckoning Part Two” before being overhauled after the Hollywood writers’ and actors’ strikes.
But “For Good” and “Final Reckoning” are both trying to minimize their “part two” natures. Last year’s “Wicked” is marketed as just that, but the movie’s title card features a “Part One”; Awkward, considering the “Part Two” has dropped that monicker. Same with “Dead Reckoning,” which still carries a “Part One.”
So I got thinking about past movies that have been structured similarly, and what worked and what didn’t.
One book, two (or more) movies
The trend is particularly prevalent with book adaptations. An early and notable example is “The Godfather,” which shifted Corleone’s backstory to the sequel; I don’t need to remind you how those turned out. But the one-book/two-films (or more) trend has gained momentum over the last decade-plus to varying results.
“The Hobbit” was split into three movies. While that seemed excessive (to put it mildly) at the time, I forgot that all three were consistent hits thanks to robust international box office.
“An Unexpected Journey” — $1.02 billion
“The Desolation of Smaug” — $960 million
“The Battle of the Five Armies” — $962 million
“It” was a smash hit in 2017, grossing over $700 million worldwide. But its sequel, “It: Chapter Two,” made $473 million in 2019. Still, they both had tight budgets of $35 million and $80 million, respectively.
Most recently, the “Dune” movies earned over $1.12 billion combined; the first part was hampered by the pandemic and streaming.
The Potter Effect
Throughout the 2010s, film franchises based on popular young adult fantasy books flourished, and so did splitting the final books into two movies. They seemed like easy cash grabs at the time, and to be fair, they were. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” Parts 1 and 2 kickstarted the trend in 2010 and 2011, followed by “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn” in 2011 and 2012, and “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay” in 2014 and 2015.
“Deathly Hallows Part 1” earned $1.03 billion worldwide, and Part 2 made $1.3 billion.
“Breaking Dawn Part 1” grossed $712 million, while Part 2 reeled in nearly $850 million.
“Mockingjay Part 1” grossed $760 million, but Part 2 dipped to $660 million.
These were all hits that justified the strategy, even if “Mockingjay Part 2” fell short of its predecessor at the box office. The biggest misfire in this trend was the “Divergent” series, which never quite took off in the first place; a plan to split the third movie, “Allegiant,” into two parts was scrapped and that film ended up flopping big time with just $180 million worldwide.
The back-to-backs
Beyond adaptations, there are the back-to-back sequels, movies filmed in succession and released close together. These have typically been “event” movies that are capping off a larger narrative.
“Avengers: Infinity War” and “Endgame,” which were originally announced as Infinity War Part 1 and Part 2, are the most successful examples, with the latter dethroning “Avatar” as the biggest movie of all time (until “Avatar” snagged it back with a re-release. There is no keeping James Cameron down). Marvel will try to replicate that magic with “Doomsday” and “Secret Wars” (good luck).
Similarly, “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” was originally announced as Part 1, before dropping that and naming its upcoming sequel “Beyond the Spider-Verse.” The bones of the structure are still intact, as “Across” ends on a cliffhanger (and earned $300 million MORE than its predecessor, “Into the Spider-Verse”).
Then there’s “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” and “At World’s End,” released in 2006 and ‘07. The former grossed over $1 billion globally, and while the latter fell short of that mark, it still earned over $960 million (did you know that even the much derided fifth movie in this series still grossed nearly $800 million? The whole Depp thing has really derailed a lucrative franchise for Disney. Where’s that Margot Robbie-led reboot?).
And we can’t forget “The Matrix” sequels, both released in 2003, which didn’t do “Revolutions” any favors, even if “Reloaded was a hit earlier in the year (negative reactions didn’t help either).
“Dead Reckoning” and “Final Reckoning” could also fall into this bucket. The former topped out around $570 million in theaters, and the latter has pretty much been keeping a similar pace. In other words, it’s performing like a “Mission: Impossible” movie.
The misguided passion projects
There’s also recent passion projects from directors trying to tell a grand epic across multiple chapters — that haven’t really panned out how they expected. Kevin Costner’s “Horizon” Parts 1 and 2 were both set to be released last year, but Warner Bros. scrapped release plans for Part 2 after the first bombed in theaters. Still “Horizon” apparently became a streaming hit after dropping on Max and Netflix, so there’s still hope for Part 2 to see the light of day (anecdotally, I’ve also seen people watch it on airplanes, if that means anything).
Lastly, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Zack Snyder’s “Rebel Moon” Star Wars ripoff on Netflix. Neither “Part One — A Child of Fire” and “Part Two — The Scargiver” generated much excitement and future plans for the prospective franchise seem to be dead. That has a lot to do with Snyder being kind of a niche director now, as I wrote when the first movie debuted, and Netflix not being very good at developing film franchises (making TV movies will do that).
Conclusion
While I get Hollywood’s allergy to owning up to its split narratives these days, there’s little past evidence that the move ruins audiences’ appetite for the movies. In fact, it feels like more of a marketing strategy than anything, telling audiences to expect more and that this is important.
Beyond the Traverse
🤩 James Gunn says a new Wonder Woman movie is being written.
🦸♂️ That’s part of a larger EW feature on Gunn’s “Superman.”
⛓️ Netflix, Jordan Peele, Oz Perkins, and Taylor Sheridan (??) are all eyeing the rights to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
🪚 In other saw-related horror news, Blumhouse is acquiring the rights to the Saw franchise.
🧟♂️ Cillian Murphy isn’t in “28 Years Later,” which hits theaters next week, but he’ll appear in its planned sequel.