It has been around even longer then that. MGM's Thin Man six movie series ran from 1934 to 1947 and Universal made the four Mummy pictures from The Mummy's Hand (1940) to The Mummy's Curse (1944) with each a sequels to the previous. One of the most blatant sequels is Dracula's Daughter (1936) which literally picks up where 1931 Dracula left off.FPLOON said:
What do sequels have to do with breaking up movies? The Thin Man was based on a book. One book, one case, one movie. It got insanely popular with sequels and knock offs for years, but still always one mystery per movie. You don't have to tune in to the next movie to see how the last case was solved, they all stand perfectly well as individual films, and are only enhanced by their relation to each other as you watch characters progress throughout.maximara said:
The difference between Universal horror films is that they didn't plan to create a shared universe it just happened due to various elements, money, the demand for escapism from WWII, and the talent.JCAll said:
That doesn't explain the Mummy movies which were stand alone movies each with references to the previous movie to establish they were all part of the same timeline/universe.Cyberstrike said:
I'm really hoping these are two discrete movies with a similar theme, rather than them pulling a Harry Potter with the Avengers. If they do that, I'll be pissed. I basically agree wth your points, though.Jennacide said:
I don't think Bob was talking about those sorts of movies. There's a difference between sequels and movies segmented into parts (Harry Potter, Hunger Games) and "Shared universes" (MCU, the upcoming DCCU, and the upcoming Robin Hood CU). I mean, you could sort of argue with Godzilla, some of the movies could fit into the "shared universe" category, but even then, it was a loose fit because the movies didn't even have strong continuity with one another. At best, Godzilla movies are crossovers (When they feature other monsters).FPLOON said:
Yeah, I'm seriously worried because it was revealed as Avengers 3: The Infinity War parts 1 and 2. That makes me think they're not gonna finish the story arc in the first movie and pull a Mockingjay or The Hobbit. Admittedly, nothing can get worse than The Hobbit. Fucking Jackson took a shorter book than any of the LOTR books and made it four damn movies.Zachary Amaranth said:
I don't know. At least they were novels. These are comics. Imagine them splitting up comic books.Jennacide said:
Not a great comparison. Splitting up Deathly Hallows made some sense, cause it was a pretty hefty novel, but splitting up The Hobbit makes no sense as it was barely 200 pages long (in paperback). With comics the length of a story can fluctuate massively, and at least in the case of The Infinity War, it was 38 different comics leading up to and tying in with the Infinity Gauntlet arc, which it's suspected the first Avengers 3 part one will cover, and another 12 dealing with the Infinity War. So at least there could be enough going on here to validate two movies and still give both closure while having a bridge between them. There is a lot to work with here, as it was a huge crossover event, but I'm always worried about the worst case scenario.Zachary Amaranth said:
Not a great comparison. Splitting up Deathly Hallows made some sense, cause it was a pretty hefty novel, but splitting up The Hobbit makes no sense as it was barely 200 pages long (in paperback). With comics the length of a story can fluctuate massively, and at least in the case of The Infinity War, it was 38 different comics leading up to and tying in with the Infinity Gauntlet arc, which it's suspected the first Avengers 3 part one will cover, and another 12 dealing with the Infinity War. So at least there could be enough going on here to validate two movies and still give both closure while having a bridge between them. There is a lot to work with here, as it was a huge crossover event, but I'm always worried about the worst case scenario.[/quote]Jennacide said: