HARRY POTTER deathly hallows ,two films

[yorrick brown]

from moviehole

Its official, Warner Bros like milk, or rather, er, milking.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", the final film in the book and film series, will be 'two films', according to The Los Angeles Times.

The films will be titled, simply, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II," according to producer David Heyman. Director David Yates, who returned for his second tour of Potter duty with "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and is quite popular with the cast, will direct both "Deathly Hallows" films, which will be filmed concurrently. Screenwriter Steve Kloves also returns and, by completion of the franchise, will have written seven of the eight films.

One devoted "Potter" reader that is especially happy to hear the news is Daniel Radcliffe, the 18-year-old actor who plays the title character in the wizardry epic.

Some cynics will see the move as simply doubling the box-office payday, but Radcliffe told The Times that the split is purely in service of the story.

"I think it's the only way you can do it without cutting out a huge portion of the book," Radcliffe said recently during a break on the set of "Half-Blood Prince," the sixth "Potter" film, which is due in theaters on Nov. 21. "There have been compartmentalized subplots in the other books that have made them easier to cut -- although those cuts were still to the horror of some fans -- but the seventh book doesn't really have any subplots. It's one driving, pounding story from the word go."

Producer David Heyman said the decision was made with some anxiety and only after considerable deliberations. The producer joked that "while my wife and Warner Brothers were pleased" to hear that the Potter movie magic will continue into the next decade, he himself fretted that the cynical observers would see the decision as a purely mercenary move.

"I swear to you it was born out of purely creative reasons," Heyman said during an interview in a converted airplane factory outside London that has been home base to all of the "Potter" productions. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book. You can remove scenes of Ron playing quidditch from the fifth book, and you can remove Hermione and S.P.E.W. [Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare] and those subplots . . . but with the seventh, that can't be done."

[adamjohnson]

Well I for one, am glad. Just lilke they said, it's one driving story and there is actually very little that can be removed.

I just hope John Hurt returns as the Wandmaker.

[Grand_Marquis]

Well thank God. All those moments where they're wandering around aimlessly are incredibly important to the narrative :rolleyes:

[ScaryFreak1827]

Well thank God. All those moments where they're wandering around aimlessly are incredibly important to the narrative :rolleyes:

While I agree the camping bits were boring (and I'm hoping they'll trim them down for the films) I'm very excited by this news. At first I was conflicted by the idea of this but I believe Yates/Kloves will do the book justice (plus there's two more films to look forward to!:D)

[Bourne101]

Fuck:mad:.

They better not fuck this up.

[Raimo69]

This will probaly be good but i hope they dont do a year wait cause that will suck. They should do what they did with matrix 2 and 3 release them a few months apart. Also Hermonie will be 18 they make a sex secene or something make it dark since of all the killings.

[God of War]

I've never seen any of these movies. So I doub't I'll be see this. So all up, that will be 9 movies, right? :rolleyes:

[ScaryFreak1827]

This will probaly be good but i hope they dont do a year wait cause that will suck. They should do what they did with matrix 2 and 3 release them a few months apart. Also Hermonie will be 18 they make a sex secene or something make it dark since of all the killings.

It's a 6th month wait... November 2010/May 2011. As for the Hermione sex scene....:D

[Pirate Mike]

I'm happy with this news. I've never read the books but I like the movies and I would have preferred if they kept changing directors and not just going with Yates again

[shoe1985]

A lot of people are angry over this news on other boards. I think it is great news. The book is huge, and it does have a lot of things in it. The final battle is probably going be a half hour to an hour long. Also, there are a lot of small subplots needed to finish the series.

[Shockwave]

I jsut want the movies to turn out good.

The last two books are so fucking HUGE and the last movie had alot of stuff that was IMPORTANT cut out of it.:mad: This isnt liek the first few books. None of this stuff is fluff anymore.

[Monotreme]

Excellent news.

The post-Chistopher Columbus Harry Potter movies have been really, really excellent, each and every one, and while the latest was slightly weaker, it's only because the book its based on was the weakest to begin with. My hopes are very high for 6 and 7: it's probably good that they're sticking with the same director, after he got comfortable with movie 5 he can truly deliver on 6 and 7.

So anyway, because the movies were so good I found myself with each and every one wanting to see more, even though the movies are all around 2 1/2 hours long each, still I was begging for more. So I'm really, really glad 7 will be in two parts, it gives me all the more to look forward to :) It's the best book by far, most loaded with relevant plot, and it will be thrilling to see it unfold. Also, I worship the ground Ralph Fiennes walks on, so seeing him in not just one but TWO more Potter movies is something truly worth looking forward to.

[therealjohng]

So all up, that will be 9 movies, right? :rolleyes:


8.

[king_verhoeven]

I don't really care if it is one film or two, if they are good enough. Something like the Matrix 2&3 or Pirates 2&3 are not the best examples. But it is common sense for the studios: they know that each film will make around $300 million domestic, and around $900 million worldwide. So if you can double that, why not?

To me it does not have to be two films, you can also make a Return of the King style flick, that was like 210 minutes or so.

[bourahioro]

I like that they're going to make 2 movies out of the last book - This way we KNOW it won't be chopped up like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The last book was a HUGE piece of the story, and in doing the two movies for one book deal, they're assuring us fans that it'll be faithful and accurate to the book.

I'm sure they COULD do a Return of the King length movie, but you have to think...There WILL be kids seeing this movie (though it's really dark, and parents should know better, I know I do), and not a lot of kids can sit through a 3 and a half to 4 hour movie.

PLUS it's gonna give us one more movie to look forward to.

[Boner X-Ray]

I guess I will know how to feel about this.........in 2011.

[LordSimen]

I don't like this idea one bit. Just seems like a cash in move by Warner. "Oh, we have no more Potter movies? Well. Let's make the last one TWO movies so we can get TWICE AS MUCH MONEY!" Bleh. Keep it at one movie. Adapt it, don't translate it word for word.

[adamjohnson]

I don't like this idea one bit. Just seems like a cash in move by Warner. "Oh, we have no more Potter movies? Well. Let's make the last one TWO movies so we can get TWICE AS MUCH MONEY!" Bleh. Keep it at one movie. Adapt it, don't translate it word for word.

Read the article.

I firmly believe them when they say' this is a creative move.'

[Cronos]

Wasn't surprised when I heard this, it is the last one, they want to make as much as they can with it :p. No doubt it'll suck like the other movies though.

[bigred760]

While I do believe that the main idea is to keep everything in the book, I doubt Warner Bros. put up much of an argument against it. The franchise is a cash cow and I'm sure WB loves the idea; I wouldn't be surprised if they were pissed they didn't do it with some of the other movies.

[yorrick brown]

wasn`t like book 6 bigger?.but they still made that a 2 and a half HR movie.


plus from what i`ve read,sounds like they`ve missed out on heaps of sub plots and plot points in the last few movies.so why now make it two!.

sounds like they`re milking it.but i`ll still watch them lol.

[adamjohnson]

wasn`t like book 6 bigger?.but they still made that a 2 and a half HR movie.


plus from what i`ve read,sounds like they`ve missed out on heaps of sub plots and plot points in the last few movies.so why now make it two!.

sounds like they`re milking it.but i`ll still watch them lol.

Book 5 was the longest book and the shortest movie. But msot of that book was Harry whining, and some of the longer stuff they edited into a kind of 'montage' that overviewed mostly everything. A LOT could be cut from book 5.

Harry Potter 7 would only REALLY be done well if it was 3-4 hours long. Well, not only would most people be turned off by a movie that length, but it would require the theaters to show the film less. Meaning they would actually lose quite a bit of money going th eone film road.

No way could this movie be one 2 - 2.5 hour movie. No way.

The difference with those other films is they cut some unnecessary stuff. The stuff that isnt essential to the 'harry v voldemort' oveall story arc were cut. Things like Hermione making hats for the House Elves, or Ron being Quidditch Captain. No one needs to see that when they just want to know what happens with the Evil Voldemort.

The difference here is that this book is ALL that stuff. There are some points wehre the story slows (like in the woods, sure) but alot of ver important things happen here too. coughdoecough

[bigred760]

wasn`t like book 6 bigger?.but they still made that a 2 and a half HR movie.


Movie #6 is out in November, so who knows how long it'll be.

[AndrewDB]

I'm a little upset.. I wanted Alfonso Cuarón.

Prisoner of Azkaban was such an amazing film sheerly for its directorial stand point.

[Porter]

Interesting move, but i can remember first reading it going, what the hell are they going to cut out????

But now the question is, where would the halfway point be?

[bigred760]

Interesting move, but i can remember first reading it going, what the hell are they going to cut out????

But now the question is, where would the halfway point be?

I wonder if it'll be a cliffhanger, or will they end it on a low/easy point.

[Monotreme]

I wonder if it'll be a cliffhanger, or will they end it on a low/easy point.

I really hope cliffhanger. I don't remember at all what happened in the very middle of the book (I mean, I can't remember what part is the middle), but the book is filled to the brim with intense sequences out of which a cliffhanger could be made. Then again, an easy point ending would still serve as a cliffhanger simply because of the impending doom of the continuation of the story, sort of like Fellowship of the Ring.

[adamjohnson]

I really hope cliffhanger. I don't remember at all what happened in the very middle of the book (I mean, I can't remember what part is the middle), but the book is filled to the brim with intense sequences out of which a cliffhanger could be made. Then again, an easy point ending would still serve as a cliffhanger simply because of the impending doom of the continuation of the story, sort of like Fellowship of the Ring.



Could be before gringotts, or after dobby, or...

[LordSimen]

Read the article.

I firmly believe them when they say' this is a creative move.'

I don't.

[adamjohnson]

I don't.

Well, your opinion means nothing.

[LordSimen]

Well, your opinion means nothing.

I believe that meaning applies to your opinion as well. Really man, is this how you want to play this? I feel this is a cash-in move, therefore my opinion means nothing, and yours suddenly means something? Try again buddy.

[Monotreme]

LordSimen, did you read the book?

[LordSimen]

No. And I don't need to read a book to know that in order to adapt a book onto film, you adapt it. You don't make two movies because you're too lazy to condense and compact. There's been tons of longer books that have been made into one movie and been fine.

[Monotreme]

You have to read it to understand. Sure, long books have been condensed before, but much of the bulk of those books had to be cut in order to condense them. Now I assure you, as someone who has read the book, that neither I nor adamjohnson are exaggerating when we say that the book is loaded to the brim with plot. Sure, they CAN condense but unlike the previous books there aren't hundreds of pages and entire chapters of interesting but totally unnecessary subplots that can be cut without hampering the overall story. Such is not the case with the seventh novel. The book is loaded with more plot-driven content than 3 books combined, it's no exaggeration. In order to properly portray the story without leaving big gaping holes the film would either have to be 5 hours long or split into two.

When the movies come out, I would like to return to this conversation and ask you personally what you think could have been cut in order to condense the two features into one.

[LordSimen]

You have to read it to understand. Sure, long books have been condensed before, but much of the bulk of those books had to be cut in order to condense them. Now I assure you, as someone who has read the book, that neither I nor adamjohnson are exaggerating when we say that the book is loaded to the brim with plot. Sure, they CAN condense but unlike the previous books there aren't hundreds of pages and entire chapters of interesting but totally unnecessary subplots that can be cut without hampering the overall story. Such is not the case with the seventh novel. The book is loaded with more plot-driven content than 3 books combined, it's no exaggeration. In order to properly portray the story without leaving big gaping holes the film would either have to be 5 hours long or split into two.

This is why you compact. Combine two scenes into one, three scenes into one, and the like. Take an idea and merge it into another one. Or, you take out one idea and put a totally new one in it's place that's shorter to explain.

At the end of the day, all you have to do is adapt and you can get a 2 and 1/2 hour movie out of. I'd bet money on that.


When the movies come out, I would like to return to this conversation and ask you personally what you think could have been cut in order to condense the two features into one.

I would too. But I'm seriously doubting I will want to pay to see Deathly Hollows twice. I've already given enough money to Potter cash machine as it is. I'll probably end up seeing it anyway, but this two movie split thing pisses me off.

[bigred760]

I feel this is a cash-in move . . .

I agree with you to an extent, but Monotreme's point does make sense. The book is jam packed with plot and character devices. I think it would be possible to make a 3 hour movie on the book, but I don't think it would be as good trimming everything. I say the more detail the better, and if two movies can get it done better, then I'm for it.

Not like WB is going to say no to two Potter movies.

[adamjohnson]

This is why you compact. Combine two scenes into one, three scenes into one, and the like. Take an idea and merge it into another one. Or, you take out one idea and put a totally new one in it's place that's shorter to explain.

At the end of the day, all you have to do is adapt and you can get a 2 and 1/2 hour movie out of. I'd bet money on that.




I'll put fifty bucks on it.

You can't just 'merge ideas' when they're not ideas, but rather plot CENTRAL to the overall story.

It's not as simple as you think, and of course you cant understand that since you havent read it.

Why do you think you're entitled to telling us how the movie should be done, when you have no basis for an opinion? That's not meant to be an insult. I'm serious.

The movies will undoubtedly do as you suggested, combining camping scenes into one etc. Nevertheless, the book takes so many plot turns you cant just 'omit' one and call it a day.

[adamjohnson]

No. And I don't need to read a book to know that in order to adapt a book onto film, you adapt it. You don't make two movies because you're too lazy to condense and compact. There's been tons of longer books that have been made into one movie and been fine.



Lord of the Rings is one book, too.

Orignally they told Peter Jackson to make TWO films. He tried and tried, and actually was gonna do it. Then they told him he had to make it into ONE film, and he knew it just wasnt possible. It would compromise the story too much.

I Would put the 7th Harry Potter book on this level.

[LordSimen]

Lord of the Rings is one book, too.

Orignally they told Peter Jackson to make TWO films. He tried and tried, and actually was gonna do it. Then they told him he had to make it into ONE film, and he knew it just wasnt possible. It would compromise the story too much.

I Would put the 7th Harry Potter book on this level.

Lord of the Rings was such a long book that it had to be cut into three separate books. Those three separate books were made into three separate movies, which one taking out and combining, and adapting the material to fit 3 hours and then leaving the extra shit for the dvd's. If Lord of the Rings can manage to make it's books into 3 hour movies, so too can Harry Potter.

[adamjohnson]

Lord of the Rings was such a long book that it had to be cut into three separate books. Those three separate books were made into three separate movies, which one taking out and combining, and adapting the material to fit 3 hours and then leaving the extra shit for the dvd's. If Lord of the Rings can manage to make it's books into 3 hour movies, so too can Harry Potter.

LOTR is ONE book that was forced to be split into three seperate books during its time simply because it was not economically possible to bind and distribute such a large book. The seperation was much to the chagrin of JRR Tolkien himself. It was merely a financial decision.

And LOTR is only about 200 pages LONGER than the 7th Harry Potter, and PLENTY was cut out of LOTR.

So, after a 1000 page book was made into an 11 hour movie, you expect an 700 page book to be made into a 3 hour movie?

Each 'part' of LOTR is only about 300 pges long.

Im sorry. But you just dont know what youre talking about

[LordSimen]

LOTR is ONE book that was forced to be split into three seperate books during its time simply because it was not economically possible to bind and distribute such a large book. The seperation was much to the chagrin of JRR Tolkien himself. It was merely a financial decision.


Doesn't change the fact that the way the book was distributed was as three books, with three different titles. I don't care how or why that distribution as done, doesn't change the fact that it ended up being turned into three books.

And out of those three books, it was turned into three movies. Harry Potter has 7 books, therefore there should be 7 movies.


And LOTR is only about 200 pages LONGER than the 7th Harry Potter, and PLENTY was cut out of LOTR.

That's a lot. Don't make 200 pages sound like a small amount.


So, after a 1000 page book was made into an 11 hour movie, you expect an 700 page book to be made into a 3 hour movie?

Yes. Because it can be done. You're just too determined to get every little detail of the book into the movie to see it. The best of the movies, in my opinion was the third one. And it was the least faithful of the books, because it actually adapted the material instead of copying it word for word.


Each 'part' of LOTR is only about 300 pges long.


I know exactly what I'm talking about. There's one book. Make it into one movie. Make it work. Don't try and cash in by making two movies because you're lazy.



Im sorry. But you just dont know what youre talking about

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you?

[adamjohnson]

Doesn't change the fact that the way the book was distributed was as three books, with three different titles. I don't care how or why that distribution as done, doesn't change the fact that it ended up being turned into three books.

And out of those three books, it was turned into three movies. Harry Potter has 7 books, therefore there should be 7 movies.



That's a lot. Don't make 200 pages sound like a small amount.



Yes. Because it can be done. You're just too determined to get every little detail of the book into the movie to see it. The best of the movies, in my opinion was the third one. And it was the least faithful of the books, because it actually adapted the material instead of copying it word for word.



I know exactly what I'm talking about. There's one book. Make it into one movie. Make it work. Don't try and cash in by making two movies because you're lazy.



I know exactly what I'm talking about. Do you?


So, by this logic, length means nothing correct? Of Mice and Men was one film, so why shouldnt the bible be one film?

gimme a damn break.

[LordSimen]

So, by this logic, length means nothing correct? Of Mice and Men was one film, so why shouldnt the bible be one film?

gimme a damn break.


You give me a fucking break. There's one book. And from that book, there should only be one movie. Otherwise you're just lazy and trying to cash in.

[bigred760]

I think we should stop comparing adaptations because I think they're two very different adaptations. The LOTR adaptations were all made at once, and released annually. The HP movies are being made separately and being released about once every two years. One's a trilogy, the other's got seven parts (eight now, actually).

And "if the LOTR can do it, so can Harry Potter" is not much of an argument, especially if you haven't read the books. A lot of stuff was changed in the LOTR movies, and when that was done for the 5th HP movie, a lot of fans (and schmoes - there's even a thread about it in the HP franchise thread) were not happy.

[LordSimen]

A lot of stuff was changed in the LOTR movies, and when that was done for the 5th HP movie, a lot of fans (and schmoes - there's even a thread about it in the HP franchise thread) were not happy.

I really don't care whether or not those people were happy. I never have. In fact, I hate those people. A lot. It's why I don't read the books until after I see the movies, because I hate whenever I come out of a book adaptation and all I hear is whining "It's not like the book! The book is so much better!" There's no pleasing these people unless it's a word for word adaptation, which would be pointless. Even LOTR didn't do that.

[adamjohnson]

You give me a fucking break. There's one book. And from that book, there should only be one movie. Otherwise you're just lazy and trying to cash in.

It's certainly not NOT a cash in (double negative) but i understand that its also a creative decision. Making it into one flilm would SERIOUSLY compromise the story, and even if you think its a cash in I doubt you would want a story to be compromised.

You just cant understand that if you havent read it.

I know you're probably not the biggest fan, and truthfully i'm not as big of a HP nerd as i sound right now, but i have read them, and you havent. But walking around with your hands over your ears and your eyes shut doesnt make the fact go away that this particular book needs to be two films.

On a side note, I think the hobbit should be one film. THAT IS a cash in. Go figure.

[bigred760]

And from that book, there should only be one movie. Otherwise you're just lazy and trying to cash in.

Is that a rule?

I don't see how making one extra movie is being lazy.

[adamjohnson]

Is that a rule?

I don't see how making one extra movie is being lazy.

In fact, isnt that the opposite of lazy?

[LordSimen]

It's certainly not NOT a cash in (double negative) but i understand that its also a creative decision. Making it into one flilm would SERIOUSLY compromise the story, and even if you think its a cash in I doubt you would want a story to be compromised.


It wouldn't be compromised at all if you simply make it work. Change things, flip them around, take shit out. Adapt.


You just cant understand that if you havent read it.


I don't need it to understand that in order to make a movie out of book, you have to adapt the damn book.

I
I know you're probably not the biggest fan, and truthfully i'm not as big of a HP nerd as i sound right now, but i have read them, and you havent. But walking around with your hands over your ears and your eyes shut doesnt make the fact go away that this particular book needs to be two films.


Your description there looks exactly how you sound to me at this moment. A little boy holding his hands over his ears and shutting his eyes shouting "BUT NO! THE BOOK! IT NEEDS TO BE LIKE THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK IS LONG!!" Blah. Lots of books are long. This is why you adapt the damn book and shorten it.


On a side note, I think the hobbit should be one film. THAT IS a cash in. Go figure.

And I feel the same exact way, except I see no difference in that situation to this one.

[LordSimen]

Is that a rule?

I don't see how making one extra movie is being lazy.

Being too lazy to adapt, and instead simply translating word for word, scene for scene, is lazy.

[adamjohnson]

And I feel the same exact way, except I see no difference in that situation to this one.

Length and plot. The hobbit is a very short book by comparison.

[adamjohnson]

It wouldn't be compromised at all if you simply make it work. Change things, flip them around, take shit out. Adapt.



I don't need it to understand that in order to make a movie out of book, you have to adapt the damn book.



Your description there looks exactly how you sound to me at this moment. A little boy holding his hands over his ears and shutting his eyes shouting "BUT NO! THE BOOK! IT NEEDS TO BE LIKE THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK IS LONG!!" Blah. Lots of books are long. This is why you adapt the damn book and shorten it.



And I feel the same exact way, except I see no difference in that situation to this one.


Listen, there are certain films or books where the next scene is directly influenced by the preceeding one. Taking one out would essentially stop the plot.

Thats essentially what would happen.

This isnt about doing it word for word as you described above, it's about not compromising the story in the fina chapter of a five thousand page story.
I wish you'd realize that instead of being stubborn. Until you do so, theres no talking to you.

[adamjohnson]

Many MANY things were cut from LOTR, and i alot of people were angry. I wasnt. Most of it was useless fluffer or side characters (tom bombadil for instance) but the core story remained (mostly)

there would be comparable cuts in HP7, obviously, but theres not ENOUGH to cut out to fit into one film.

[LordSimen]

Listen, there are certain films or books where the next scene is directly influenced by the preceeding one. Taking one out would essentially stop the plot.

Thats essentially what would happen.

This isnt about doing it word for word as you described above, it's about not compromising the story in the fina chapter of a five thousand page story.
I wish you'd realize that instead of being stubborn. Until you do so, theres no talking to you.


And as I've already said, just change the events in a way that makes them occur shorter and not take as much time. Take out a couple and shift them. Change, adapt. It's not easy and no one ever said it would be. Making it two films is pointless.

[adamjohnson]

And as I've already said, just change the events in a way that makes them occur shorter and not take as much time. Take out a couple and shift them. Change, adapt. It's not easy and no one ever said it would be. Making it two films is pointless.


I would LIKE to agree with you. I would.

I just don think it would be possible this time.

[bigred760]

Being too lazy to adapt, and instead simply translating word for word, scene for scene, is lazy.

Cutting important stuff out, trimming and combining scenes that are nothing alike would be stupid. Apparently the producers and creative minds behind the movies feel it would do the story (both the book's and entire series') injustice. This story of which you know nothing about.

[LordSimen]

Cutting important stuff out, trimming and combining scenes that are nothing alike would be stupid. Apparently the producers and creative minds behind the movies feel it would do the story (both the book's and entire series') injustice. This story of which you know nothing about.

What they mean to say is it would make do their wallets injustice NOT to drag out the Harry Potter franchise longer now that they realize they're coming to the end of their potter cash-rope.

[bigred760]

And as I've already said, just change the events in a way that makes them occur shorter and not take as much time. Take out a couple and shift them. Change, adapt. It's not easy and no one ever said it would be. Making it two films is pointless.


Making it two films is not pointless; it's keeping the integrity and flow of the story and the series, which is adored and loved by millions of fans - young and old. You may not care about them and how they feel it should be like the book, but Warner Bros. does, and their opinion counts.

I'm not saying the possibility (okay . . . the guarantee) of more money isn't a factor in the decision; I'm sure it is. But it's not the ONLY reason. They could've done two movies with Book #5 and #6, but they didn't.

[LordSimen]

They could've done two movies with Book #5 and #6, but they didn't.

Exactly. There's no reason to start doing it now.

[adamjohnson]

Exactly. There's no reason to start doing it now.

Except for the ones we've been telling you

[bigred760]

Exactly. There's no reason to start doing it now.

You only say that because you think of it as the final movie, not the final chapter of a seven book series.

And . . . there might be. It is the FINAL Harry Potter book; it is much different in story than the others (very little of it takes place at Hogwarts), there is A LOT going on with the characters, and I just don't think the movie will be as good if condensed (they rarely are).

Just because the others in the franchise were one movie, doesn't mean the final one can't be two. They want to make two movies instead of a four+ hour one; Tarantino thought the same thing with Kill Bill - would be too long for one movie.

[Raztt]

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h148/Raztt/argue.jpg


nothing you say will change the fact that it is going to be two movies, so why argue?

[king_verhoeven]

Yeah, I don't really understand this argument. Both have valid points, but also both have different point of views. One has read the books and the other one doesn't.
That doesn't help arguing about this subject. Sure, adaptation is important and critical. Because its film and not a book.

But, there are always exceptions to the rules. I haven't read the books, want to but hey there is so much other stuff I also want to do...priorities...
But to me it seems like it's not a move done only to earn more money. They were probably trying to figure out how to adapt this into one movie, and since they had a bit of trouble some genius said: 'why not make two movies'!!

In the current and future time, movies are first and foremost business. I don't like it, but face it. Movies should make a profit, because otherwise there won't be any movies to make anymore if nobody invests in it. That's the reason why some many shitty movies are made, and a lot of people even like these shitty movies or at least go to the cinemas to see them. That also the reason why I the last couple of years, there are more sequels, trilogies etc... They are a safe bet.

If done right, I have no problem with two movies for HP7, because to me until now they are nice movies. But they do not justify having 7 or even 8 movies about this subject, if it wasn't based on those books. Because to me, HP3 was the best movie but still only an 8/10. They still have to make a really epic, kickass HP movie. It has never reached the level of the top of the fantasy-flicks: LOTR

[Raztt]

i've read all the books and i think some of the best parts are the subplots, so i have no problem with two movies. just more to watch.

and btw that pic wasn't intended to offend anyone.

[LordSimen]

nothing you say will change the fact that it is going to be two movies, so why argue?

I posted my thoughts. Adam decided to argue it. Complain to him.

[Tizzle]

more potter is always a good thing, so im definitely on board for this.

[Raztt]

im just complaining in general, stating the obvious, not directed at anyone.

so on topic,
where do you all think they will stop part 1 and pick up on part 2?

[Porter]

so on topic,
where do you all think they will stop part 1 and pick up on part 2?

Don't remember exactly the structure of the book. But ever since i heard that I've thought Malfoy Manor would be a good point, just as they get captured by the Death Eaters. Though this may be a little too far past middle, but hey, would allow them to edit down alot of the slower parts that occurs early on and save room for the very plot-driven "2nd half"

[Lost in Space]

Fuck:mad:.

They better not fuck this up.

What is there to fuck up

[Grand_Marquis]

A flame war thwarted by a macro. My god. Now I've seen everything..

[NuclearMisfit]

There is alot you can cut but theres also alot you really cannot cut. I think they could cut possibly the Dobby scene due to the fact that he was only in one movie and they cut his other scenes. LordSimien I see what your saying, i mean it does look like they are milking it but believe me theres seriously alot to see.

[Raztt]

well if they do cut anything it would be a bulk of the camping scenes, it is important to show how they were hiding out, but extra information from those camping scenes could be added to other parts in conversations.

I cant really remember the layout of the book either but i think after gringotts would be a cool place to stop, nice action scene for the end of the movie, after all they start camping again after that right.

[Grand_Marquis]

I cant really remember the layout of the book either ...

Ah! A common problem. But now, thanks to a redubbed, swearing Johnny 5 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FAyjdeEu7FA ), we can all get a nice, quick overview of the final Harry Potter. To quote him:

"speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... The fucking owl dies. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... Mad-eye Moody dies. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... they kill the elf. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... George loses an ear. Gay. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... Harry's wand breaks - homo. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... lotta fuckin' words in this book. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... noo Hermione date rape. speedreadspeedreadspeedread ... they have fuckin' kids. speedreadspeedreadspeedreadspeedread ...sucked.
:p

[adamjohnson]

well if they do cut anything it would be a bulk of the camping scenes, it is important to show how they were hiding out, but extra information from those camping scenes could be added to other parts in conversations.

I cant really remember the layout of the book either but i think after gringotts would be a cool place to stop, nice action scene for the end of the movie, after all they start camping again after that right.


I also thought they would 'combine' one of th ehouses they visit. Harry jumps from place to place early on, I suspect one of those places will be altogether cut. Probably Fleur's.

[ScaryFreak1827]

I also thought they would 'combine' one of th ehouses they visit. Harry jumps from place to place early on, I suspect one of those places will be altogether cut. Probably Fleur's.

Neither Bill nor Fleur will be in Half-Blood Prince so I wonder if they'll be cut from Deathly Hallows as well:confused: I'm assuming (due to its importance) that they'll still have the stop at Luna's house.

[adamjohnson]

Neither Bill nor Fleur will be in Half-Blood Prince so I wonder if they'll be cut from Deathly Hallows as well:confused: I'm assuming (due to its importance) that they'll still have the stop at Luna's house.


Goota believe so.

Though I'll miss Fleurs hot naked body.

[Sonny488]

Yeah I would like to think their stop at Lunas house is one of the bits that they definately dont wanna cut...