The Age of the Two Parts

This week, the movie adaptations of young adult dystopian 'The Hunger Games' come to a end, with the release of 'Mockingjay: Part Two'. Despite the book series that these movies are based on being a trilogy, it was announced shortly before the release of the first movie that the final novel was to be split into two parts. This follows the footsteps of 'Twilight: Breaking Dawn' and 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows', with both conclusions being split into two.
Although fans of the franchises may believe that to have an extra movie is a good thing, has the Two Part phase become an expectation?

The obvious cause for two-part movies is the economic value of having two films released instead of just the one. Whilst Part One of the Deathly Hallows took in colossal $960 million at the box office, the last film of the series became the eighth highest-grossing film ever, with an intake of $1.34 billion. An extra billion dollars for a split in the final novel? A no-brainer, many would agree.

However, a substantial number of movie-buffs criticise the decisions to create two parts out of one storyline. Surely, if an author can write the narrative within one front and one back page then it is possible to make just the one movie out of it? Personally, I found parts one of all three of these profitable franchises to be unnecessary, with the dragging out of one plot being the main issue.
But, it is not only book-to-movie adaptations that have been subjected to the Age of the Two Parts.

Last month, thousands of people sat nervously at their computers to be in with the chance of getting tickets to 'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child', the new play that opens next summer, set nineteen years after 'Deathly Hallows'. Although there's only one new play coming out, two sets of tickets are required to watch the play from beginning to end- due, yet again, to a two-part storyline. Yes, an addition to the Harry Potter franchise makes me so joyful that I could cast a Patronus Harry would be proud of, the cost of seeing the whole production has made a viewing simply infeasible- and I am certainly not the only one: many of J.K Rowling's biggest fans are of the student demographic. The price of an entire viewing of the play ranges up to a slightly stupefying (pun wholly and unashamedly intended) £135, making one expensive day trip out.

Although an exceedingly popular choice in recent years, the idea of splitting one storyline into more than one part is certainly not a new one. During the nineteenth century, three-volume novels were all the rage. Similarly to recent multiple-part plots, one novel divided into three parts meant that it was more financially viable for publishers to complete the novel; the first novel left on a cliffhanger created further demand for more publications and subsequently more sales meant more income. A more recent example is J.R.R.Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings', with its three volumes being published over the duration of one year, across 1954-55, for financial reasons.

Despite the agitation that comes with the decision, I cannot say that dividing a plot into multiple films has ever deterred me from watching the movies. Conversely, the decision to split the Harry Potter play in two was just one step too far in my eyes, with the price of two cinema tickets making up only 10% of the cost of two of the best seats at the Palace Theatre, where the production will be shown next year. Nevertheless, the Age of the Two Parts reigns on, so one can only guess as to what extent the idea will be used in the future.