The Folly of the Fifth "Twilight" Film

A franchise that can endure past three installments is a rare and prized bird in Hollywood these days. Witness the staggering success of the "Harry Potter" series which will see its seventh film released in theaters this November, with an eighth on the way next summer to finish off the set. And "Twilight" has recently announced that its fourth and fifth films will both be directed by Bill Condon. However, readers of the book series these films were based on may be puzzled as to how the math has worked out. J.K. Rowling only wrote seven "Harry Potter" books and Stephanie Meyers only wrote four installments of "Twilight." The studios behind both franchises have decided that the final volumes should be split into two parts, resulting in an extra film apiece. And it's an absolutely terrible idea.

Despite claims of wanting to do the finales justice by giving them more time to unfold on screen, the motives of the studios are fairly clear. These franchise films make money, and more films mean more money. "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" are lengthy, but finite series, which is one of the reasons they've been able to sustain momentum where so many open-ended superhero sagas have fallen flat after only two or three successful outings. But having definite, predetermined endings also means that continuation of a successful franchise is all but impossible once the endpoint is reached. "Harry Potter" will not be able to become a perpetual earner like "James Bond" unless the whole film series is rebooted. So it's no surprise that the urge to stretch out the last bit of remaining material proved irresistable to Warner Brothers and Summit Entertainment, resulting in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II" and whatever they decide to call the the latter half of "Breaking Dawn."

The fans of these franchises have been nonchalant about these decisions. After all, isn't more films a good thing? Why begrudge the studios the chance to squeeze a few million more dollars out of the box office as long as they're remaining faithful to the source material and keeping the quality of productions the same? Two-part films have worked before in the case of Quentin Tarantino's pulpy revenge picture, "Kill Bill," and everyone loved the extended editions of films like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven," didn't they? What could possibly be the downside of extending these beloved film franchises for another picture or two when it seems like everybody wins?

It's easy to forget that the enduring popularity of "Harry Potter" is almost unique in the history of Hollywood films. I can't think of another series that has ever managed to tell a single story in so many installments over so many years, while retaining such a massive audience the whole way. Nearly every attempt to duplicate the success of "Potter" has failed to catch fire, from "Series of Unfortunate Events" to "Percy Jackson." Only the "Narnia" series, also based on classic children's lit, has made it to a third movie, and only after the intervention of 20th Century Fox when Disney balked after "Prince Caspian." Time and time again, we've seen major franchises go off the rails because of one unpopular film, and every additional film in a series presents another chance of this happening. "Potter" can probably get away with its extended finale because it has miraculously managed to reach the end of its run without shedding too many viewers. It's far too soon to say the same about "Twilight," which has yet to see a third film released.

"Twilight" is in many ways a far worse candidate for longevity. The films play to a niche audience of young adults whose tastes could turn on a whim. The most recently released, "New Moon," has been almost universally panned. Moreover, "Twilight" has been breathlessly overhyped and oversold for several years now, sweeping the MTV Movie Awards twice in succession and saturating the covers of Entertainment Weekly so often, some readers have protested. The initial buzz has long since gone, the girls who turned the franchise into a monster are growing up, and those who might have been drawn in by the novelty or the hype have had plenty of opportunity to see exactly what the series is, so I don't see much chance of audience expansion. Expectations are running high for "Eclipse," which will be released over Fourth of July weekend, but I'll be very surprised if it can meet them.

If the bubble pops and "Eclipse" does underperform, as so many other big tentpole pictures this summer have, Summit Entertainment is looking at diminishing returns over two films instead of one. "Breaking Dawn," the last "Twilight" book, also presents some unique challenges for filmmakers because of its notoriously campy content, including a rib-cracking wedding night, a cesarean birth performed by vampire fangs, and an exceptionally skeevy relationship involving a newborn and a werewolf. It hardly seems possible to make one film out of this source material, let alone two. There's a good chance that interest and goodwill for the series are going to run out before Summit is done releasing all the films. Of course the upside is that the "Twilight" films are relatively cheap to make and can be turned out quickly. The last one is due in the summer of 2012, just five years after the original film was released. Summit will almost certainly make its money back on all of these sequels, even if the profits tank. But the reputations of the franchise itself and all the creative folks involved may not escape unscathed.

Also, the whole concept of a two-part film is practically unknown in mainstream cinema. Sure, there's "Kill Bill," but "Kill Bill" was made as a single film and only bifurcated for its release upon the insistence of Miramax chief Harvey Weinstein. Similarly art house offerings like "Che" and "Red Cliff" have had to be released in parts due to extensive length. What "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" are doing is different - the final installments for both franchises could be wrapped up with single films, but they're being purposely padded out to double-feature length. "Harry Potter" has considered doing this before, back when Chris Columbus was still putting out the too-faithful adaptations of the early volumes. It was suggested that the fourth film, "Goblet of Fire" be made in two parts to better cover the material of the significantly lengthier book. Alfonso Cuaron put a stop to that kind of thinking when he turned out a lean, pared-down, "Prisoner of Azkaban" that some still consider the best film of the franchise.

Fans should remember that having more time to tell a story doesn't necessarily mean anything about the quality of the finished product. In fact it often proves detrimental, especially in a theater setting. Remember all the complaints about the drawn-out endings to "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King"? The danger of overindulgence runs very high for the "Potter" films because they've been so successful for so long. No franchise is bulletproof. All it ever takes is one bad film to wreck the party - or a noticeable dip in quality, which is what sank "Spider-Man." I'd hate to see "Potter" stumble this close to the end of the race.

As for "Breaking Dawn" - I'd tell Summit not to push its luck.