The whole Broadway show can be done in a 2 hour-ish performance live, there is no justification to stretch this to two movies other than corporate greed milking every IP to the limit

Unless its a planned trilogy with 3 strong stories that could semi-standalone (short of context being lost without the other installments) then any movie that needs more than 2 hours should just be a mini series. You wanna tell a 4 hour long story about the Wizard of Oz? Fine, stick it on Netflix and anyone who wants to binge watch it can to make it “feel like a movie” and those who don’t will have 4 - hour long episodes.

I'm starting to suspect that this is why I don't watch as many films as I'd like to. They've all become such a time commitment. Show me what you can do with an hour and a half!

There are still plenty of those. My word the histrionics from some corners around this film are absurd.

Someone's been to the Attack on Titan School of Numbering.

Zeno’s triology: Part 1 Part 2 (Part 1) Part 2 (Part 2 (Part 1)) Part 2 (Part 2 (Part 2 (Part 1))) …

As long as you lose less than half the audience in every fraction, you’ve got to make infinite money.

Is Wicked directed by Gabe Newell?

Starting to look like a prog album:

2028: Wicked, are you there? I’m destroying Dorothy volume iii Through the eyes of Oz

Ah fuck you reminded me of the ending of Spiderverse. Probably at least 2 years away still...

I was so psyched for that movie, but when I found out it was a part one, I lost interest and still haven't seen it

Which Spiderman was a part 1 of 2?

Same, caught it on a plane and was pissed I had to keep sitting there not knowing the actual ending

Yep. Being a patient consumer is the way.

They don't want to pay for the special effects for the sequel if the first movie bombs

I pretty sure it was public knowledge (even talked about in publicity) Dead Reckoning was two parts.

People aren't going to see a movie that lies about it being a part 1 either, at least not after the first weekend when the word gets out

Hope this thing flops.

Why?

I like Wicked. I would’ve preferred a single-movie version, but there is a lot of plot kind of rushed or skipped over in the musical. If they go back to the source material of the book they can flesh some of that out nicely and give more context to the story.

It might be good! It might be terrible. I don’t know yet.

But why hope for it to flop?

Edit, days later having seen the film: It was great, and I have essentially no complaints. Glad they split it into two, it would’ve been far too rushed as a single movie.

I dunno i went to wicked.com and it looked pretty nice :]

I like a good epic as much as the next person, but this is pushing 3 hours itself. Assuming Part 2 is similar, I definitely don't have the attention span to hold me through a 5 1/2 hour, 2-part musical. Yikes.

I'm trying to think of any musical that would be tolerable at 2x the original runtime.

Dune I can give a pass to because Frank Herbert originally wrote it as a trilogy and combined it into one book. It has pretty clear chunks breaking it up. They absolutely should have been better about advertising what it was, but it's hard to cover all that content succinctly

Wicked however is based off a 2 hour and 45 minute Broadway show with a 15 minute intermission. There is no good reason that a movie that can have tighter transistons, faster costume changes, and no reused cast should be longer than the Broadway show. Let alone twice as long and spread over multiple films