HARRY POTTER Running Time

[Nate6]

Upcomingmovies.com ( http://www.upcomingmovies.com/harrypotter.html ) says that the running time for the upcoming HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE is a butt-numbing 142 minutes. Now, you may say that compared to films nowadays, that's pretty short, but consider that this movie IS FOR KIDS. It better be good, because at that length there won't be anyone left in the theater at the end of the movie (142 minutes is a long time for a little kid to be sitting down!)

[FlickJunkie]

Nate, have you ever read the books? They are so much more than kids books, I'm 18 and I can't wait for the movie to come out. I can see why the movie is long...the books are long too, the book for this movie is a little over 300 pages. The screenwriter, Steven Kloves (Wonder Boys), has said that he kept about 95% of all the major events from the book in the film.

Another notable thing for the film, is its budget... According to Entertainment Weekly it has a budget of $125,000,000.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FlickJunkie:
Nate, have you ever read the books? They are so much more than kids books, I'm 18 and I can't wait for the movie to come out. I can see why the movie is long...the books are long too, the book for this movie is a little over 300 pages. The screenwriter, Steven Kloves (Wonder Boys), has said that he kept about 95% of all the major events from the book in the film.

Another notable thing for the film, is its budget... According to Entertainment Weekly it has a budget of $125,000,000.</font>

Yes, I've read all the books, and the author wrote the novels for her young daughter, making them, yes, kids books. I'm 14, I enjoyed them all (a little overrated but still good), but for kids 142 minutes is long. And after marketing costs, the movie's cost is actually about $200 million.

[SteveSzyk]

I didn't like the book at all. I couldn't finish it. I guess I'm not a "wizard" kind of guy.

But anyway, I agree that although the books aren't only children's books, they are still finding young children as the target audience. And at that length... Uh Oh!

[This message has been edited by SteveSzyk (edited 09-04-2001).]

[FlickJunkie]

Well, I still think it'll do good. I mean as long as the movie is entertaining I'm sure kids will be able to sit through it. I mean the only kinds of kids who wouldn't be able to sit thtough it are kids that shouldn't go to movie theaters to begin with.

Anyway, I'm personally glad it's that long. I love the books and the movie will be one to enjoy at that length.

[Horror whore]

http://www.joblo.com/ubb/eek.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/eek.gifHOLY SHITE!!!! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/eek.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/eek.gif I am SOOOOO glad they didn't trim the movie for the wee little babys who cant sit in a theater for more than 89 minutes.....

[FlickJunkie]

True dat Horror whore! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I mean in order to keep up with the events of the book it has to be that long...it's a year in the life of Harry there with all of his many interesting and...entertaining adventures.

[Scrunch]

It's not always an attention span issue.

Sometimes it's a bladder issue.

I remember years ago when "Aladdin" came out. I was invited to see a sneak preview in NYC with a bunch of critics and disney store employees. Was a great idea for Disney actually (though the only one I was ever at so maybe it's common.) But this way the critics got to see the movie as it should be seen - with a full audeience that included children.

The critic sitting next to me seemed to enjoy the movie but I watched him make his "first bathroom" notation. As the first mother/child got up to use the restroom he checked his watch and marked the time down. I guess how long a kid can hold it says something about a film?

[ak]

I'm convinced Harry Potter will be a very good, quality piece of film making...it just looks it. The lenght is excellent, and proves, to a degree, that they haven't taken a short cut.
The problem with such a film in the wrong hands is that, because it has a potentially huge film audience (which would most certainly make money), that they would go for the cheap option, with lack of intelligence, lack of intelligent visuals and poor dialogue, but, thankfully, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Harry Potter will be the best fantasy film of recent years, until another little film comes along.......



[This message has been edited by ak (edited 09-04-2001).]

[Horror whore]

WHOOAAA!!! The Lord Of The Ring's running time is 165 minutes!!

[EL_PHANTAZMO]

I too am happy to hear about the length of the movie. It will actually make it worth seeing in the theatre. I'm 27 and read all 4 books against my will, and actually really enjoyed them. I would have been disapointed if if was shorter than that.

[someguy]

I think a kid that read a 700 page book could sit for 2 and a half hours.

[Nate6]

NO kid read ANY of those books in one sitting. They did it day-to-day. You can't read 630 pages at once! Trust me, none of the young kids I know can sit through 2 and a half hours. It's a little excessive.

[Tuukka]

Harry Potter: 142 minutes
Phantom Menace: 133-137 minutes, depending on the country

...Enough said. PM made 1 billion.

[Nate6]

OK, OK, point taken. But the movie better be DAMN good for kids to sit down that long. PM WAS NOT PREDOMINANTLY A KIDS MOVIE! WHILE HARRY POTTER IS MADE FOR KIDS, PM WAS MADE FOR EVERYONE!

[Tuukka]

Actually PM was made mainly for kids (Lucas himself has admitted this) and kids liked it more than adults. HP is meant for all ages with kids being the primary target audience. They are both so-called "family films" and are in fact trying to reach exactly the same audience. Also, both are rated PG.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 09-06-2001).]

[Scorchlord]

One of the problems with the Phantom menace was that it had so much kiddie crap in it that it deteriorated from the film.

Harry Potter has plenty of stuff that kids like, but has a very dark undertone that people like me absolutely love. It may be a kid's book on the outside, but subtley, it's a Stephen King nightmare.

Okay, so I'm being a tad melodramatic. I'm pleased with the runtime and think a lot of kids will enraptured with it enough that their bladders will rupture because they don't want to miss any of it.

[FlickJunkie]

I totally agree Scorchlord.

The Harry Potter books aren't just sentimental kiddie books. They have an edge. They are wickedly funny and fiercely imaginative.

I'm personally glad with the running time because a lot of my favorite adaptations have been so short in running time, leaving me wanting more. This will be a fulfilling motion picture experience.

[Horror whore]

Yeah FlickJunkie...And Chris (Bicentennial Man) Columbus made the movie...

[FlickJunkie]

I also read that the sequel is already in preproduction, as most already know, but the success of the first two will determine if they make all 7 into movies. Steven Kloves (screenwriter) has already finalized the deal to adapt "Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban" (book 3), but Columbus hasn't committed to anything further than the second novel "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets".

But, if everything goes as expected then, there's a good chance that the entire team will stick with the franchise through the fourth film, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (which is sooo long at 732 pages that theres's talk it might be made into two movies).

According to the screenwriter he can't wait to write #4, since it's his fave one.