Stickid wrote:GTSYankee wrote:Spock wrote:they split it into two movies again there really wasn't enough plot in the book for it to be split into two movies
I have a problem with that as well. Just a scheme to make more money.
isn't the entire hollywood industry just a scheme to make more money?
The Hollywood industry is indeed a scheme to make money. But, intentionally going about some proceeding that will most likely displease the consumers just in an effort to make more money is what I have a problem with. I suppose you could argue it's the consumer's fault for "falling" for it, but if we're exclusively discussing movies, you can't exactly know what the deal is before seeing it.
Stickid wrote:people complain the films aren't completely true to the books. obviously films are much shorter how can they possibly be true to the books? now everybody's complaining there's TOO much film for the books
I mean, yeah. If it falls within in one of those two extremes, it'll be criticized for it. Balance is good. The first two Hunger Games did a wonderful job of that. I haven't heard anyone complain about how those two either A. Lacked vital material from the books or B. Complained it was too long/short in relation to the books. Also, I can say for myself (having read the books) they represented the two books virtually as accurately as they could, due to a film being much shorter in length.
With all that being said, I just don't think Mockingjay needs two parts from what I recall from the book. Same with The Hobbit. If you ask anyone who's read the book, they will most likely tell you 3 parts with each part being roughly 2 and a half hours is too much.