Allegiant Part 1 production confirmed

[Pj]

http://divergent.screenreels.com/2015... Keep in mind that Part 1 is only filming as one movie which means that it needs to do well in order for Part 2 to happen. We need not take it for granted, for Batman vs. superman opens one week later and is going to PAWN the movie, especially since insurgent's film did not gross as much as Divergent's movie did

[Ilana]

i feel like this is a safe bet. while nothing's guaranteed - i think that there will be enough hype behind it that people will want to go and see it, prompting the immediate pre-pro on part 2. the other thing too though is that when they film things separately, it makes it hard to schedule. so i hope that's not the case here.

[Pj]

Ilana wrote: "i feel like this is a safe bet. while nothing's guaranteed - i think that there will be enough hype behind it that people will want to go and see it, prompting the immediate pre-pro on part 2. th..."

still my friend we cannot assume anything. we must try to support part 1 in anyway that we can for cancelling part 2 is something that COULD actually happen (look at pretty much all other book adaption movies that were cancelled after one/two movies including the Amazing Spider-Man movies; now they are rebooting spider-man AGAIN).

We must spread the word to people, share posts all over social networks and try to see Allegiant as many times as we can in theatres - all i n3D if possible as it means more money will go towards it and try to find any other way to support the movies

[Lauren]

There is no way on earth they won't do both parts. None. At all. Never in a million years would the second one get canceled. This is not Spider-Man (are you the same person whining about this on IMDB?) or any other superhero franchise, where there is no finite story arc or pre-set number of installments to tell the story. They can cancel those "franchises" in the "middle" because there is no actual end to the story anyway. This is a trilogy with a self-contained story (albeit a stupid one in the end) and a specific number of installments to tell it. If they are bothering to do the third book at all, they're going to do the whole book. It would make no sense to stop in the middle of the final chapter of the story. (Although I wouldn't care.) Even if Part 1 bombed, which it likely will because (a) this franchise has not taken off nearly as much as the studio hoped or would like to think and the underperforming numbers for Insurgent show that people are losing interest already, and (b) people are sick of the split-finale thing and have by now caught on that "part one" is going to be a dull waste of time that they might as well wait to watch on DVD shortly before part two, even so, they will still do part two because they have absolutely nothing to lose. It won't matter if this doesn't make them money because it doesn't cost them anything to do it anyway.

[.]

Tbh I don't think I would mind if they never made either part. This is because they butchered Insurgent SO much, especially the ending. I don't even know how they're going to carry it on now since we ended the film with EVERYONE from the city leaving, and we didn't even get the same hologram message we did in the book. Also, I bet they'll give even more of Tris's spotlight to Tobias in Allegiant part 1 and 2. Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised if they made him the protagonist!!

[Pj]

Kраљица wrote: "Tbh I don't think I would mind if they never made either part. This is because they butchered Insurgent SO much, especially the ending. I don't even know how they're going to carry it on now since ..."

I think you're over reacting there a bit. If you ask me, Tris had quite a bit of spotlight in insurgent with her personal struggles. On that note they handled the book quite well giving us all the necessary content of doing it justice while making it work and flow well as a film.

Besides even if YOU do not care, please consider us that do and want a completed story on film if only to see the film's version of events which is what an adaptation should be: showing a different take on a story that does justice to the book overall but is very much its own thing. This is all in consideration when you realize that some things just do not work the same way in a film as in a book. Each has their own pacing, own ways of getting information and own ways that audiences enjoy them etc.

[Lauren]

Kраљица wrote: "...they butchered Insurgent SO much, especially the ending. I don't even know how they're going to carry it on now since we ended the film with EVERYONE from the city leaving..."

I love that ending, and frankly I'd be perfectly fine if the franchise just ended right there because it's a perfect open-ended conclusion, but it doesn't lead logically into where Allegiant begins. If they're going to change where Allegiant goes, that's fine - and welcome - but from what I hear from the "sides" that have been released, the movie will begin more or less with Evelyn having declared herself leader, keeping the city on lockdown and everyone being trapped inside and demanding to get out. Which ... doesn't really fit with the story leaving off with everyone running for the wall, and it makes little sense that that could even happen, that she could actually keep them from getting out at that point. In the book, it was fine that everyone was kept under lock and key because Evelyn had taken over before the video was revealed and anyone had had a chance to react or do anything. But the movie ends before Evelyn had done anything, with everyone running immediately to the wall. (Funny how it never seemed to occur to anyone to do that before in 200 years even though they had no reason not to, but all it took was a random woman in a random video that started playing out of nowhere telling them that they could leave before the idea ever crossed anyone's mind. Anyway.) With scores of people already making for the door, how the hell can Evelyn stop them? I get the suspicion that the filmmakers make each of these movies without bothering to check to find out how the next installment begins so they can end the prior installment accordingly to lead into it. As it is, the way Insurgent the movie ended does not logically or organically lead into where Allegiant begins. Which, as I said, would be fine if they were going to change Allegiant to make it fit, but it sounds like they're doing basically the same starting conflict which just doesn't work.

[Pj]

Lauren wrote: "Kраљица wrote: "...they butchered Insurgent SO much, especially the ending. I don't even know how they're going to carry it on now since we ended the film with EVERYONE from the city leaving..."

I..."

What exactly is the "RIGHT" way of adapting? Having it be exactly word for word like the book? If you ask me that is completely boring and pointless. I mean, what I actually LIKE about having these adaptations exist is to see a different take on the source material like what ALL of these superhero movies are doing to the comics. I understand that some of these changes may not be for the better but you have to look at the new version of the material as its own thing. No matter what happens, the books will STILL be the books regardless of how much they change. Its actually a terrible thing to have it be almost exactly like the books because then it ruins your imagination of it as you are watching something that was just transcribed to you in your head. Is the point of reading to not USE your head and make something come to life through that? As well, what works in a book does not necessarily always work well in a movie tv series etc. It has a different set of rules like different levels of pacing, energy flow, different points of value etc.

[Lauren]

I have no idea why some fans fret about book-to-film changes in an adaptation. They really do seem to act like they want the movies to be literally word for word exactly like the book. I say, if you want something that's exactly like the book, go read the book again. This is a movie. Completely different entity with its own canon and logic. Deal with it. Oy, fandom.

But like I said, I like the way Insurgent the movie ended, but it doesn't lead logically into the way Allegiant begins. And as I also said, that's fine too if they were going to change Allegiant the movie to make it all line up, but from what I've read it sounds like it begins essentially as the book did - with Evelyn keeping everyone trapped and no one being allowed to leave - which just doesn't jive well with the way the last movie left off. The segue doesn't make sense now.

Basically, if they were going to start Allegiant the way the book does, fine, but then they shouldn't have ended Insurgent that way. And if they ended Insurgent the way they did, that's great too, but then they really can't start Allegiant the same way the book does because it won't make sense. The Insurgent movie ending and the Allegiant opening don't make sense together; the one doesn't work in context with the other.

For example, here's another Insurgent movie change that rankles me not because it's *gasp!* not like the book, but because it doesn't even make sense in the context of the other movie: Why does Tris now have proficiency for all five factions, as evidenced by the fact that she's now "100 percent" divergent and is the only one to this point capable of passing all five faction tests to open that ridiculous box? In the books, it's clear that her aptitude is for three factions, not five. Now, if the movies want to change that, that's perfectly fine with me. The movie isn't a reiteration of the book. They're telling their own version of the story. However, it was clearly established in the first movie, the first installment of their story, that they were following the book canon on the aptitudes with her having three. So why in the next movie do they ignore the logic that was set up previously in their version of the story and make her have an aptitude for five?

I don't care if the movies don't line up with the books, but can we at least have the movies line up with each other? Can we at least maintain some logic and continuity within a single canon? Can we at least have the movies make sense in context with each other? Can we not change the ending to one movie and keep to the book for the start of the next movie when that only makes sense if the previous movie hadn't changed the ending?

[Pj]

Lauren wrote: "I have no idea why some fans fret about book-to-film changes in an adaptation. They really do seem to act like they want the movies to be literally word for word exactly like the book. I say, if yo..."

You raise a good overall point, however please consider the following
1) About the aptitude test, it still flows with the context of the first movie. Like you said she is 100% divergent so therefore she would be divergent from ALL factions and not just 3. It just wasn't proven that she was an aptitude for 2/5 of the factions, Plus, consider in the context of the movie that Jeanine had been frantically testing Divergents and knew Tris from the first movie so she needed her to open the box, her theory further supported by the fact that she was 100% Divergent as opposed to the others who were slightly less. Essentially this proved that she was Divergent from ALL factions and not just the ones she was tested on


2) SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS AGE OF ULTRON:







Just because there are rumours, however strong, about the opening of Allegiant does not mean that they are necessarily true. After all, most thought that the AoU Hulkbuster fight would open the movie only to be proven wrong. Plus they also REALLY made it seem like one of the main Avengers would die when that was NOT the case at all.

In any case while SOME people got out of the wall, it seems like a lot of them win characters did not, and for all we know Evelyn could have tracked down and killed some that did get out. A choppy excuse to be sure but it still fits. In life we often see things happen all the time where things appear to be working, only to be taken away form us just like that. All the more motivation for the segue to happen. Besides, think about it: A society that has been locked up for so long that wants to go outside the walls. There needs to be restrictions and laws etc. otherwise people would all just go crazy and chaotic. Yes, a number may have gotten out, but there still could be some people trapped in who do not deserve to be so. Evelyn has shown herself to be quite addicted to power. It is possible that Part 1 begins moments after Insurgent with Evelyn making the announcement to close the wall. Or maybe they could have her be proclaiming some degree of control over the city which could still lead to the segue.

[Lauren]

Plus, consider in the context of the movie that Jeanine had been frantically testing Divergents and knew Tris from the first movie so she needed her to open the box, her theory further supported by the fact that she was 100% Divergent as opposed to the others who were slightly less. Essentially this proved that she was Divergent from ALL factions and not just the ones she was tested on

But that's the retcon right there. The previous movie's logic established her divergence as three particular factions and now this movie changes how divergence works altogether, turns into something that can be measured in percentages with Tris's being 100 percent which apparently makes her "fully" divergent with an aptitude for all five - never mind that the last movie declared her aptitude as three, with no explanation for why that should be if she's supposedly 100% for five.

In any case while SOME people got out of the wall, it seems like a lot of them win characters did not, and for all we know Evelyn could have tracked down and killed some that did get out. A choppy excuse to be sure but it still fits. In life we often see things happen all the time where things appear to be working, only to be taken away form us just like that. All the more motivation for the segue to happen. Besides, think about it: A society that has been locked up for so long that wants to go outside the walls. There needs to be restrictions and laws etc. otherwise people would all just go crazy and chaotic. Yes, a number may have gotten out, but there still could be some people trapped in who do not deserve to be so. Evelyn has shown herself to be quite addicted to power. It is possible that Part 1 begins moments after Insurgent with Evelyn making the announcement to close the wall. Or maybe they could have her be proclaiming some degree of control over the city which could still lead to the segue.

I don't know if it showed anyone actually crossing the wall yet. The last wide shot, I think, showed the first group of people getting closer and closer to the wall. My point is that, with practically the entire city (THOUSANDS of people) all storming to the wall, wanting to leave, determined to leave, HOW can Evelyn actually stop them? Like, literally, how can she and her team of factionless cronies actually physically stop those thousands of people from leaving when they're already in the process of doing so? How can ANYONE stop such a barrage from forcing their way out, regardless of what type of barrier or restriction she might put on them at the - literally - last second? How can they be physically stopped? It just seems that anything they do to segue into Allegiant's beginning, in light of where the last movie left off and what that would mean logically, will be very forced and contrived. From where everyone is at the end of the movie, mentally and physically, and particularly from where SHE is physically at the same time, it's not just logical that she could actually stop anything.

Like I said before, it made sense (sort of) in the book because she seized control and imposed her will before anyone had had a chance to do anything. But now they were already leaving. It won't make sense for her to even be able to stop them, and it would honestly look stupid to have ended Insurgent the way they did just to open Allegiant with the equivalent of "Psych!" If anything, they should have ended Insurgent that way - have Evelyn taking over at the last second be the cliffhanger ending. Rewrite the ending scenes so they don't show the video to the rest of the city just yet, have Evelyn announce herself emperor, er, leader with her factionless army having taken up position at the wall. Then to prove she's serious she shoots Jeanine. Something like that. This would lead logically to where Allegiant begins, with everyone unable to leave and under her whim. Because they were trapped before they even thought to do anything.

Although here is one book-to-film change that I will criticize: It would have helped the story if the movie had kept Evelyn's intentions an actual mystery like the book, made it look like she was actually trying to help and reconnect with her son while they were all suspicious that she was maybe possibly hiding something, possibly having something up her sleeve. That way her murdering Jeanine and, next, taking over the city for herself - whether in the actual movie or in my hypothetical scenario above - would be an actual twist and surprise. But instead they spelled out exactly what she wanted to do in the factionless scene, made it clear that she was not to be trusted and that she just wanted to kill Jeanine and take over the city for herself, just to have her ... kill Jeanine and take over the city for herself. The big plot twist is Evelyn doing exactly what they already revealed she was going to do? They're not working too hard to shake the "lame" and "predictable" criticisms here, are they?

I don't know for certain that the movie will start with the same basic story as in the book - Evelyn keeping the city on lockdown, preventing anyone from leaving - but I've read several audition sides that describe various scenes that are to appear in the script and some of the scenes indicate that basic idea. One of the sides describes a large group crowded at the wall demanding to get out, yelling "Tris is right! Let us out!" (My criticism remains: How, exactly, can this city's worth of people be stopped from overpowering whatever or whoever's in their way and forcing their way out? Human beings kind of have a reputation for that sort of thing.) The sides aren't necessarily what's literally going to be written in the script, but they're typically the basic gist of the scene. Considering the previous movie ended with everyone heading to the wall intending to leave, this scene of people now at the wall demanding to be let out likely appears early in this movie.

Seriously, it does feel like they write these movies without bothering to see where the story goes next in the next one. It's not just the Insurgent ending. I got that feeling with the first movie. While the basic scene is still the same, the way it plays out in the script made it seem like they were riding the train out of the city and escaping altogether. I've read many comments by people unfamiliar with the books who were surprised that Insurgent picked up with the characters still in the city, because Divergent's ending made it seem like they left. It's like they wrote that script without reading the next book, where they would have realized that it was important to actually keep in the mention of them just taking the train to meet everyone in Amity because that's actually where the next installment begins. But they implied a totally different thing and then Insurgent picks up anticlimactically in Amity as scheduled. It's not too bad a segue, though, because they were on the train on the run as they should be. But segueing into Allegiant from where Insurgent ended is going to be a mess. It just won't make sense.

[Pj]

Lauren wrote: "Plus, consider in the context of the movie that Jeanine had been frantically testing Divergents and knew Tris from the first movie so she needed her to open the box, her theory further supported by..."

1) It is not a retcon she just wasn't proven that she was specifically that Divergent. another layer added onto her divergency so to speak

2) Your reasoning makes sense, however you should wait and see what they do to the movie. After all, Lionsgate made a VERY clever marketing trick with Breaking Dawn 2 when they showed set photos of Bella and Edward on the beach at night (A DIFFERENT scene from what was in the PArt 1 movie as Bella had a different bikini on (white in the film, Green and sexier in the set photos) and basically said there and on other reports that THAT would be the ending of the movie to hide what they actually did end the movie with. Things may not be what they seem, and for all we know they could be listening/reading to fan's criticisms like our own as my uncle who happens to work in the film industry hypothesized to me once. Just gotta keep an open mind and see how the film makers do it; after all they left out most of the discovery of the horcruxes in HBP and in DH2 they found a VERY clever way for Harry & co to find the remaining horcruxes.

3) to be honest haven't not read the last 2 books (or at least finishing insurgent) before seeing insurgent's movie, I personally did not even know that Evelyn became evil just from the movie alone and did not see any sort of set up for this in the movie until AFTER i got the knowledge for it.

[Lauren]

1) It is not a retcon she just wasn't proven that she was specifically that Divergent. another layer added onto her divergency so to speak

That's retcon logic lol. Trust me, I have to deal with this kind of nonsense all the time and there are all sorts of ways to retroactively apply logic to make two conflicting ideas seem like they flow together. Doesn't necessarily mean that it was actually meant to flow that way. Sometimes it is what it is - a plot change without regard to the established story. Now, if this story with the new 100% divergence was used in context of the aptitudes showing her actually having an aptitude for only three (which obviously doesn't sound very 100 percent-y) and explained why the two ideas can coexist, why your aptitude tendencies don't necessarily correlate to your "level" of divergence or something like that, then that would be okay. Still obviously a retcon to those who read the books, but it at least makes an attempt to make the story flow in the movies. But it's presented as just a completely different idea with no reference or regard to what the old idea discussed when they seem to contradict each other. That's too blatantly retconny and, more importantly, annoying.

Then again, considering where the series ends up going in the last installment and how it ends up "explaining" everything, including divergence, the idea of blatant retcons that contradict the original logic of the story is more or less right on track, so perhaps they're just trying to keep in line with the author's style of "making shit up as she goes along until she writes herself into a corner and has to retcon her way out" writing. Most likely, though, they just needed a "logical" reason for Tris to be the "best" candidate for the box (as opposed to, she's the Main Character therefore it's automatically all about her) and decided to make her not just one of many divergents in the city but the literal "most" divergent. And for her to actually be determined and proven to be "most" divergent, a quantifiable "100 percent" divergent they deviate from the source material again with that ridiculous detector thing that can actually measure one's specific level of divergence and which conveniently would have eliminated much of the conflict in the first movie had they only thought to invent it two weeks earlier. And so we have a plot device where Tris is determined to be The One with the "best" divergence capabilities to open the box, a 100% perfect divergent, a full five-aptitude divergent - never mind that all of this is a completely different logic than what was presented in the first movie and does not bother to address how the two ideas fit together. (Because they don't.) Oh, the joys of changing directors and screenwriters between movies.

Regarding 2) The point is, we know that the characters are still stuck in the city for at least the first part of the movie, and Evelyn has declared herself leader. This much information has actually been released in official blurbs from the studio and appeared in articles discussing Allegiant being in production. The basic idea is still the same - Evelyn is in charge and keeping everyone in the city - and that in itself is the problem because there's no way to segue the very specific state of the city population at the end of Insurgent into this plot development without it looking like contrivance or backtracking. Insurgent didn't leave off in a way where this imprisonment and coup would, logically, even be physically possible.

3) I don't blame you for not realizing that the movie was setting up Evelyn to be the next villain. Even though they literally spelled out what her underlying intention was, spoiling whatever tension there might have been when she actually did exactly that, she barely even appeared for the whole movie and then, what, she kills Jeanine randomly at the end? She did exactly what, frankly, all of the characters had been planning to do all along and that's supposed to make her the bad guy? Blah. The movie didn't really do a good job of setting up any new impending conflict. Unfortunately here is where actually following the books hurts the franchise - because it does follow the book in basically resolving the city conflict and eliminating all of the main antagonists. Allegiant sets up a completely new story with a completely new conflict and completely different characters and antagonists, but none of it ever feels relevant. It feels like the story ended in Insurgent, and in a lot of ways it did. A lot of people feel Insurgent ended the whole story perfectly and there's really not any need to even do Allegiant; you could just as well stop here and call it a day. It doesn't feel like it's setting up a new problem for the climax. It feels like this was the climax already.