“Deathly Hallows” Movie to Begin Filming Next February, Two Films Still Under Consideration

121

Feb 11, 2008

Posted by SueTLC
Uncategorized

Harry Potter producers David Heyman and David Barron have given a new interview with the Daily Telegraph, where they discuss the film version of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In regards to the earlier rumors of splitting the final book into two films, David Barron again confirms this is a possibility, saying this is still under discussion and states:

“The only negative of splitting the book into two films, says Barron, “is that people could possibly perceive it as being one last chance at cashing in. But the real positive, if we were to do that, would be that we wouldn’t have quite the battle we always have of ‘How do you compress all that book into just over two hours of screen time?’ It would be brilliant not to have to cut anything. But at the same time, we have to think it through properly. We’d have to be very certain that there were two proper, stand-alone films that could be generated from the source material.”

David Heyman continues on to note that filming for “Deathly Hallows” will not start until a year from now, saying “We won’t start filming ’til February next year. So it hasn’t really gone bananas yet. We’ve got thoughts, and I’m sure something will be announced in the not-too-distant future.”

As to who will take on the pivotal role as director for the final movie, both producers say a few directors are still under consideration, and announcements about this and the status of the film will be made shortly. David Heyman emphasises “A couple of people have expressed interest, people have gotten a few calls and a few emails, but it’s still a year away.”

Meanwhile production continues through May on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which is due in theaters November 21, 2008.





147 Responses to “Deathly Hallows” Movie to Begin Filming Next February, Two Films Still Under Consideration

Avatar Image says:

So they are still considering doing it in two movies. That’s intresting. I wonder what they’re going to do. I thought they would have wanted t for two films, because of the money, etc. I wonder where they would split it…

Avatar Image says:

PLEASE let them do two movies. It’s so nice that they’re considering it and I think it would be an insult to the series to not make the last and most important movie all that it can be.

Avatar Image says:

Oh goodness, I really do hope they decide to make it two films!

Avatar Image says:

I’ve been listening to the DH audiobook at work (congrats Jim Dale), and the more I think of it, the more likely it seems that DH will have to be made into 2 films. If they try to squeeze this into one 2 and half hour film, it will be horrible. Not to mention, this will probably be one of the most expensive films ever made. Just think of all of the new sets they will have to build, the vast number of actors, the special effects. Financially, it only makes sense to release two films to make up for that HUGE budget.

Avatar Image says:

I think Justin you are right. It’s such an important film, needs to properly tie up loose ends and do the series proper justice. But I’m hoping for a 4 hour with interval compromise myself, as I’m not sure how it could split effectively.

Avatar Image says:

They’re right about the “chance of cashing in” perception people might have because that’s exactly what I thought when I read that news title.

Still, you can’t compress it without mangling it over and the best time to do it would be with the biggest book in terms of content and the last of the series, but I don’t see two themes on the movie. It’ll have to end on a ‘to be continued’ state and that may tick people off. They could sort of compare it to the last two parts of the Matrix. Some movies have been successful when done that way, so who knows, maybe it’ll work, specially with such a rabid fan base as the HP one.

Where would you cut the movie if you were the director? What part would be fitting of a ‘to be continued’ line?

Avatar Image says:

For me, it’s the only way to do justice to the last book! They have to do it in two parts. I think the best moment to end the first one is after the Malfoy mansion. It will be the climax of the first movie. So, for the second, they will have all the time for the last battle in Hogwarts and also to explain the very complex and interesting character of Snape ! Please, WB, please : TWO MOVIES !!!

Avatar Image says:

OH NO! Please let it not be two movies! it will spoil the whole meaning of 7 being the most powerful magic number .I mean that was one of the resons that JKR wrote 7 books because seven is the most powerful magic number and if they make 8 movies it will spoil the whole meaning but don’t get me wrong I WOULD LOVE IT if they won’t cut much from the book I just wish they would make a longer movie I’m sure a true harry potter fan won’t mind a good long HP movie but making it 2 movies? it’s just a bad thing to do… very bad thing to do…

Avatar Image says:

I would not mind so much two movies but I hope they release them at the same time, It would seem like a waste to have to wait a whole year to finish a Movie. I don’t mind spending money for an extra ticket but to have to wait would drive me mad. Also I would hope that they add both films to a DVD so that way you won’t have to pick up two DVD’s ($30 a pop) in order to finish the last chapter/ book turned movie in the series. In my opinion its a last ditched effort to gain more money out of the series. First you as a Harry Potter fan would have to buy two movie tickets at $10 each and then two DVD’s at $30 each = $80 where as I would normally spend half that ($40). On top of all the books and DVD’s I purchased already.

Avatar Image says:

I would split it in Chapter 19 (I don’ have the book in front of me, I think it’s 19), when Harry’s following the doe patronus into the woods and finds the sword. I would have him in the water, drowning, and end it their with a “to be continued”. Then the second movie starts with Ron saving Harry and retrieving the sword, the destruction of the locket, and Hermione beating on Ron.

The hermione beating on Ron scene should be really great…assuming they don’t cut it.

Avatar Image says:

the entire time that i was reading DH i was going mad, thinking ’ how the heck are they going to make this into a two hour movie??!!!??’ so i am all for the split into two films! the only negative is the wait…hopefully they could be released within mere months of one another? the cliffhanger will be horrendous for the fans! the thing is that it wouldn’t be ‘8 movies’ because it would be like, a half of the seventh. i really don’t care about the complexities, as long as us fans get the fluff, drama, and comedy that book seven holds. i want ALL of it, lol. and two movies would accomplishes that really well, don’t you think? there would be less film on the cutting board, and some of the small moments that only die-hard fans can appreciate would most likely be included. i’m all for it!

Avatar Image says:

El Caz, one reason I have been relistening to DH is to answer that question: Where could they split it? The two most likely places would be after they break into the ministry, or when they get to shell cottage. But if you split the films up too early (Ministry), you’re going to have a short first half an a very long second half. If you cut it at Shell Cottage, part two will be very short. I would think they’d have to find a happy medium between the two, but I can’t figure out where that would be? Godric’s Hollow maybe?

The next question would be, what do they call the two films? It would be tough to call Part 1 Deathly Hallows, since we don’t learn about what they are until we get 3/4 of the way through the book. I guess they could always move the part where they visit Xeno to an earlier part of the story.

Avatar Image says:

I agree with the majority – they can compress the others but this is the last shebang, they need to do it a huge amount of justice or it will be weird. I think 2 movies is exactly the way to go. Just think of how it would be if it were just the length of GOF or OOTP – there is alot of sentimental details that they need to include to build up the ending. IF you have read the book- I know stupid question -then you know what I mean.

Avatar Image says:

“It would be brilliant not to have to cut anything.” OMG! finally we can have a film that does the books justice! i really would like DH to be 2 movies on in the summer and one in the fall, it’ll jus be part one and 2, then WB will release a 4 hour film on dvd! and we can savour the whole book in it’s film glory! yeah! i think a good place to split is right when dobby dies, i’ll be a sad and intriguing ending to part one for non-readers.

Avatar Image says:

Well, the idea keeps coming back, and I’m still no closer to believing it to be a good one. Deathly Hallows was planned, written and structured as a single story, with one beginning, one middle and one end; as a fan of the book, I honestly believe it’s far important to maintain that structural arc than it is to dogmatically reproduce every single scene, and that compromising the shape of the story to artificially create a secondary opening and climax would be a far greater mangling of the source text than dropping a few extraneous scenes would be.

I loved Deathly Hallows, and I love films; as such, I’d very much like to see a proper Deathly Hallows film, not a pointless and indulgent big-budget read-through/impression of the book that crams in absolutely everything, cinematic conventions of structure and pacing be damned. By all means, make a long, leisurely film – the fact that Titanic, Gone With The Wind and Return of the King are three of the most successful movies of all time shows that people don’t care about length as they’re interested – but for heaven’s sake, the book is NOT that dense. If Kloves, Yates, Heyman, Spielberg, Del Toro or whoever cannot find a way to adapt DH into a single film to less than 200 (or even 180) minutes, then they simply haven’t tried, and have sold out artistically in pursuit of one last additional payday, whatever excuse Mr Barron might try to give…

Avatar Image says:

I think you’d have to split it after the Tale of the Three Brothers—once they’ve visited Luna’s father and learned what the Hallows are. That way you’d have some sort of resolution and a clear path forward for the second half. Not to mention that it would be wrong to have a film titled “Deathly Hallows” in which you never find out what the Hallows ARE

Avatar Image says:

I wrote WB after GOF and suggested they make two movies out of each book. I asked them to release a movie each year instead of waiting two years between each release. It would make more money for them but also make the movies closer to what we have read in the books. As JK’s books became more lengthy, the movies were not doing the books justice. The first two were about the best I have ever seen when making a movie from a book. Then JK became more verbose in the successive books. Mind you, the extra pages were not just filler. The longer books were great – you just could not do them justice in a 120-140 minute movie. There are too many little things and nuances that make the books so great that are lost in the time constraints of a movie. I hope WB does it for DH.

Avatar Image says:

I agree with the majorety on here that the movie cant be done with justice unless they make it into two films. Think about what it would be like if it were only as long as the GOF or OOTP. they need to do two films to work up the sentimental parts for the ending. and do characters like Snape, Lupin and Tonks and Ron and Hermione and others justice.

Avatar Image says:

sorry for the double post- and repeating myself.

Avatar Image says:

who ever said look at Titanic- that was a two part film it paused in the middle and then went on to the second part- in fact if you had the VHS before the DVD you know that it says on the boxes part one and part two.

Avatar Image says:

Mr.Barron and Mr.Heyman PLEASE make TWO FILMS.

I’m all for it, too. I’d love to see two films (around 120-140 minutes each of them) the first being released in late Spring/early Summer 2010 and the second one in late Autumn/Early Winter 2010. I think it’s impossible to put all these things into 120-150 minutes! You can’t. I mean all scenes at the Burrow, Grimmauld Place etc. should be like 30 minutes and the other stuff at the Ministry and the camping another bunch of 20 minutes. Godric’s Holow, Silver Doe scenes should take another 20 minutes and then they should put all Malfoy Manor,Xenophilius Lovegood, Shell Cottage, Gringotts in 30-40 minutes…and 40 minutes in Hogwarts…oh, no…you can’t do this…it will be too fast-paced and tiring…

I want two films so much…I’d love it! Fans will love it. All the details, the complete action scenes, the whole emotion…There are three ways to end the first film, though…IMO:

a)The Silver Doe chapter (when Harry is about to be drowned in the frozen lake or when he hugs Ron and Hermione finds them and they’re all together again) b)The Tale of Three Brothers/The Dathly Hallows chapters: it could end when Harry, Ron and Hermione explode the House of the Lovegoods when the Death Eaters attack or when Harry says Voldemort’s name and all Death Eaters apparate and get them. c)Malfoy Manor chapter: when Dobbys is killed…it could end with Harry apparating or Harry burying Dobby at Shell Cottage.

If they follow the first way, it would be a pretty massive way to end (the whole scene with the doe in the forest, Harry in the pool Ron destroying the locket with Gryffindor’s sword…) but it won’t be the super-wow climax… If they do the second thing, it will be all surprising and intense…but not a great climax too… If they do the third way it will be an emotional ending but there won’t be lots of things for the second film except for the Shell Cottage scenes, the Gringotts break-in, the Hogsmeade scenes and then the incredible Battle of Hogwarts chapters…

To finish the first film at the Ministry of Magci with the chasing of Dementors or at Godric’s Hollow with Hermione and Harry escaping from Voldemort and Nagini will be too early…and there will be LOTS to film in the second one…so, I don’t know…But I cross my fingers…I want two films!They’ll find the best way to end the first one, I’m sure…(I guess it will be the Silver Doe chapter)

Avatar Image says:

I wish they would just make one four-hour long movie. There are many successful movies that have a duration similar to this and the Deathly Hallows would be a great movie if it were to be that long. A two-part movie would be a bad idea because it is one story and everything would be messed up if it had to be split in half.

Avatar Image says:

BellaSnape: No, Titanic is one film. It’s often split into two parts on home video releases, as its length would mean that fitting it all onto a single tape/disc would be impossible without unacceptably heavy compression, but it was written, produced and screened as one film.

Also, just to clarify, I’m all for the idea of a longer film; the book is definitely denser than all of its predecessors, and a 130-140 minute film would certainly not be long enough to convey the essential narrative and emotional developments in any kind of coherent form. A 150-200 minute film, on the other hand, would be more than enough time to cover everything that needs to be covered, and I don’t get why the producers don’t even seem to be considering that as an option. Where’s this idea come from that general audiences won’t sit in a cinema for more than two hours at a time? Did Rings and Titanic just make their collective $3 billion out of nowhere, or what? Films should be made as long as they need to be; no shorter, but certainly no longer. I just hope that the scriptwriters can work out that there IS a happy medium between a 130-minute rush job and a sprawling 240-minute mess…

Avatar Image says:

I would not have a problem with two movies if it means that they cut less of the story out. I could deal with one long movie too but I think they would leave a lot of stuff out if the did that. I guess it would be like Lord of the Rings if they did two movies. Those movies just stop and leave you hanging. It drove me nuts to wait for the next one but it was worth it. I haven’t seen Lord of the Rings in a while but if memory serves me correctly it did just stop without any real closure and left you hanging and made you want to know what happens. So I don’t really see any problem with doing it in two parts. It has been done in other movies before so I don’t see why they can’t do it again.

Avatar Image says:

Muddtallica, I think you make good points. I think most fans would Love a 200 minute film, but since WB has never expressed an interest in making a Harry Potter film 3 hours long, I’m not sure if they would consider it now (I hope they would). I still think it makes more sense financially to produce two films than one very long film. If the film version of Deathly Hallows incooperates most of the books scenes, that means there will be far more sets to build than any of the previous movies. The number of special effects will probably double compared to OotP(or at least be very similar to GoF). So this movie will be extremely expensive, and may be the most expensive film ever made. It makes sense to then split that film into two parts to improve profits. I hate to break it to everyone, but Warner Brothers is a business, and their goal is to make money. And even with that said, that doesn’t make them nasty, horrible people.

Avatar Image says:

I totally agree with LMB3! I want 2 films becuse everything it’s so important in book 7. And end of the first film- Harry drowning! That would really put the pressure on film-fans-only. I still want Alfonso Cauron! Is it possible to have 2 directors???

Avatar Image says:

CrazyCat (LOVE the name!)—I agree that Lord of the Rings worked great as three different movies with a cliff-hanger ending, but we do have three separate books. However, the flip-side of the argument is that Tolkien did consider it one story, and the movies didn’t end exactly where the books did. But still, since all the other HP books have been portrayed as one movie, it would just seem so weird to have DH be two movies. I don’t know where they could cut it and it seem like a good, stand-alone movie. I particularly feel like the first movie would be a little lame, but I’m not a pro, and it may be that they could do a really good job with two movies. Still, my strong preference is one very long movie (perhaps 3 hours and 15 min?). I hope they are considering that as an alternative. It just seems like an installment that can’t be broken in two; I just think the sum of the parts would be less than the whole. I totally sympathize with not wanting to cut important parts, and I prefer two movies to major cuts, but I just think it can be done justice in one long movie.

Avatar Image says:

omg please NO NO NO NO NO NO please dont make it into 2 movies thats a terrible idea omg honestly think about it lots of movies are about 3 hours long so whats stopping thim from doing that? i mean its not like the fans are going to complain id sit thru a 6 hour movie if it was harry potter and i mean 3 hours even if ur not a fan is handble look at the pirates of the carribean series! or u could just do like what they did in sound of music have like an intermission for like 10-30 minutes so that ever1 can strech and stuff like that but i have this like terrible feeling that if they do it into 2 seprate movies there not going to b realsed that the same time u no what i mean? i belive it happened with lord of the rings i think im not sure so correct me if im wrong on that idea! so that way they could make more money and junk even if its “not” about the money pfff ya rite this is hollywood when is hollywood never about money?

Avatar Image says:

I still want to know WHY there is a time restriction for the films in the first place. It’s not like they’re concerned that 6 year olds can’t keep attention that long seeing as a lot of us are 16-66 years old.

Nothing like a good 4 hour epic with a nice break for ice-cream in the middle. They did it for Hamlet and book 7 is much more interesting!

Avatar Image says:

won´t it be weird to have 2 movies called “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”? But, I don´t care, TWO MOVIES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avatar Image says:

Even if they did it in one 3 hour movie I think there would still be a lot of cuts. I would rather have two 2-2/12 hour movies with all the details than one 3 hour movie with lots of cuts. But hey if they can get it into one movie and it make sense without cutting out all the good important parts then im all for it. I just want the details to be there. I was a little disppointed with OOTP because they took a lot out. I just hope they do justice to the last one.

Oh and GinaC… I never read the Lord of the Rings books I just seen the movies, so I don’t know how the books end. But that is just the way the movies seemed to me. I must agree that I would hate to have to wait for the second part but I am sure we would have to. But if it would make the movie better then I would be willing to wait for it. I would rather it be done the right way or not at all. I don’t really care if they do one movie or two, I just want it to be good with all the details.

Avatar Image says:

Well they could alternatively make a LONGER film. I would not mind to sit 5 or 6 hours in the DH movie. Anyway I like to see more time, as the other ones are far to short for me.

Why can`t they make the same like LOR, special editions with an other hour or more each movie ?

Avatar Image says:

yeah, i don’t like the two-film idea… too contrived. it’s one story. one hella long story, but still, just one.

Avatar Image says:

I personally think splitting the movie would be brillant. It’s still SEVEN movies, but you can’t expect them to release a 6 hour movie. The movie flat out cannot be done justice without splitting it up.

I really hope they do make it two! That would be amazing :)

Avatar Image says:

Two movies – definately! They should pay respect to the last book of an incredible series that has moved people for more than a decade!

Great literature and great stories deserve length to do justice to their depth!

Think of “The Godfather” squashed into one movie!

I’m glad they’re considering it – but I will be even happier if they actually realize it!!

Avatar Image says:

A compromise might be a 3 hour movie with a brief intermission for folks to go the bathroom. :) My favorite part of the book is Harry/Hermione in Godrick’s Hollow on Christmas eve, and I am so afraid that will be chopped up or cut out altogether in a single movie.

Avatar Image says:

I think it’s a brilliant idea,and the perfect way to end the series. It’s the last book and it would really be nice to see the whole thing on screen with no cuts or edits, specially when some scenes are your favourite,but they get cut because they don’t seem that important to the plot…

Avatar Image says:

I don’t like the idea of two movies at all. In my opinion, WB’s motivation is entirely commercial. They didn’t have a problem with killing major chunks of JKR’s storyline in the past. Why now? Yes, there is a lot going on in DH, but there was also a lot of material in GOF and OOTP that never made it to the screen. Again, I think this is all about $$.

Why not just make DH into a single film, maybe 4 hours long, with an intermission?

Avatar Image says:

i think they should skip the movies and go to dvd and make it at least 6 hours long.they can go over 21/2 hours long they did it with dances with wolves.and other movies make it with 3 discs 2 with movie and 1 what ever

Avatar Image says:

I am one of those that has been vehemently against the idea of 2 movies (for any of the books). 7 books should equal 7 movies. The book is one book, so it should be one movie. I don’t think that you could feasibly split it and have two decent movies. If Lord of the Rings can have 3+ hour movies and still remain true to the essence of the book, than I don’t think HP will have any problem. Also, and I know I’m not the only one that feels this way, but money is tight for me and my family as it is right now and as of now, I don’t expect that situation to change, and they’re going to expect us to shell out TWICE the money for what should be ONE film? What about larger families? I have neighbors who love Harry Potter that have 8 children living at home, with ticket prices on the rise…. I don’t know. To me it has just always been my opinion that splitting any of the books into two films is not a good idea. There’s stuff that can be cut without affecting the core of the story (a lot of the camping can be condesed, for example).

Just my personal opinion though.

Avatar Image says:

I am vehemently in favour of two films. The Lord of The Rings was really ( in Tolkien’s eyes) one long tale but he had to publish the book in three parts. Peter Jackson then did a brilliant job with three long films and then three even longer extended DVDs.

This is the path for Deathly Hallows -TWO films -yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Avatar Image says:

I’m conflicted by the whole splitting it into two films. As a fan, I certainly want to see much of DH on the big screen, but, having two films would be a bit frustrating as a cinema-goer. I be like “Is that it?!? I want more!!” after the first part finished. I be wanting to see the rest of the film. Also how long would we have to wait to see the second part? I hope it wouldn’t be too long.

Avatar Image says:

Now I haven’t read alot of what some have said, so please bare with me.

If I had something to do with this last movie, I would make it a 4 hour and 30 minutes movie with a 25 minute intermission at about 2 hours and 15 minutes. That way it can give viewers during the intermission to absorb what they saw in the first half of the movie, and to prepare for the last half of the HP movie ride so to speak. As a LOTR fan, I remember the day that Return of the King came out. The movie was 3 hours plus and I sat through it all, crying in spots along with the rest of the packed theater. When the movie was over, we all clapped, cheered and collectively cried, cause we knew it was…it was like a friend that was leaving never to return. When we all got up to leave the theater, it truly felt very somber and bittersweet. I know when Deathly Hallows comes around, it will be the same way. I very much like the fact that Peter Jackson and New Line decided to put in the whole kitchen sink as it were with Return of the King, including the multiple endings, just as it was in the book. I think as a fan of Professor Tolkien and of JK Rowling, the Harry Potter series deserve no less.

As far as the movie studio and theaters go, they can make the release of the Deathly Hallows two-parter an event, much the way it was done with ROTK…maybe show the last 4 movies (from Goblet of Fire – the return of Voldie to Deathly Hallows) back to back. That would be good moneywise for the theaters, cause of concessions (their bread and butter). I’m sure it would be a sellout. They could even have a flat fee for tickets…say $30 for the whole day ticket wise. That’s a great price to see 4 movies back to back. They could even presell the tickets in advance, and have the event on two screens depending on the size of the theater. I think my idea would be a win-win for everyone—the movie studio, the theaters and most of all the fans of the movies and the books.

Avatar Image says:

I absolutely agree with R.D and Muddtallica.Why comlicate things with two movies?It’s much easier to make one good,3-hour long movie?Not to mention that Titanic,the highest grossing film EVER,with 11 oscars,is much more than 3 hours long(194 min. to be precise).

Avatar Image says:

I think we need a 4 hour movie. But I’d be very happy with that and a 20 min interval.

Avatar Image says:

WOW it so hard to decide, but if we go for a Vote according to the comments posted I am for the two parts. And if you want my personal opinion I said the two parts would be the best idea, I know all the negative and positive, the pro and cons. But come on if you are a true fan u want everything you want it all, it the last movie and you want it to be the best. And about where to split it. I said when Harry says the dark lord name and the vampire and the others come and catch them and tie them to a tree, to take them to the mansion. It would be a good part; non reader would be like OMG what it going to happen. And I am sure they would grab the book and try to find out because curious. Mean while readers like you and I. can sit back and just wait for the next film excited like never before. I also read how someone said “oh that would change the magical number 7” give me a break inst JK making an 8th book anyways so what the big deal. The 7 mean seven yeah of school that all. So guys get with the program. I am sure that 99.9% here tune into it.

Avatar Image says:

THIS IS BRILLIANT!!! But why on earth didn’t they consider this before? As far as I’m concerned, Goblet of Fire (and Order of the Phoenix) would have been great in two films!!! (I mean, Gof felt so rushed and they skipped so much… And in OotP, they actually cut Quidditch!)

Avatar Image says:

Picazo said: “But come on if you are a true fan u want everything you want it all”

So just because I don’t mind if they cut things down and/or condense them then I must not be a true fan? All it takes to be a “true fan” (I hate that term as it is) is to have some type of enjoyment of the world that JK has created. Someone who thinks the Epilogue is the greatest chapter ever written in the series is not any more or less of a fan than someone who think it was drivel. Someone who thinks Chris Columbus is the greatest filmaker alive is no more or less of fan than someone who thinks he’s not. Just because you would like everything in the film does not make you more or less of a fan than me, who (as I said), is okay with cutting and condensing.

I apologize if I come across as agressive, I just really hate when this “true fan” thing comes up. It just rubs me the wrong way.

Avatar Image says:

YAY! I’m glad that they’re talking about it, confirming that its definitely a possibility, that’s good. I hope they do make it into two, we would get so much more! :)

Avatar Image says:

However, it would be even better if they made a 4 (or even 5) hour movie with an interval halfway through… but I guess it can be quite complicated to screen in the smaller cinemas and honestly, for someone who hasn’t read the books, four hours is a bit too long, don’t you think?

Avatar Image says:

I think if they they would put in the effort they could have a 3.5 hour movie or more for the last movies if Pirates of the Carribean can do y can’t HP? It would be a lot better for the fans who don’t want to see one part of one movie and have it cut off in the middle and have to wait a year to see the end of it.Thats just cruel in my opinion.

Avatar Image says:

WB will not make a 4 or 5 hour DH movie even if “fans” are willing to sit through it. One, from the point of view of profitability, it simply means that they won’t able to show as many showings of the movie per screen each at a movie theater because of the length of the film (i.e., 4 showings per day instead of say, 5 or 6). That translates into less profits for WB (with a movie that we know will be very expensive to produce). Two, the movies you guys have mentioned that include an intermission were from ages ago. Nobody does this anymore primarily for the reason mentioned above. Three, the Harry Potter movies haven’t made the money they’ve made because only hard core fans have watched them. It’s also because casual fans, including fans who’ve never picked up an HP book, have watched as well. If you make a 4-5 hour movie, these people will not sit through them and again, WB makes less money after haivng made a more expensive film. Four, the all-important family audience will stay away from this because parents (even those whose kids may be hard core fans) just won’t sit through a 4-5 hour movie with the entire family in tow. Remember that little kids, mean little bladders too. I think lots of people are talking about WB just making a longer movie as though the only people who WB are making it for are the people that visit TLC regularly, and that’s just not true. WB has to appeal to the wider audience and make sure they get maximum bang for their back. Frankly, I think the only reason they haven’t given the green light to 2 films yet is that they want to make sure the first part (which everyone knows will not have the emotional payoff and action scenes of the second part) will still be as (hugely) profitable as all the others in the series and that a significant number people won’t stay away because (a) they’re turned off by WB’s obvious grab for profits by making a 2-parter and (b) they figure they can see the just second part so they can find out how the series ends (and basically just glean what happened in the first part).

Avatar Image says:

I’m crossing my fingers for two parts DH movie.i’m reading now the book again and can’t see a way they could do it justice in one movie.i mean it’ll be a heart-break if thye cut anything out from DH(and thye will#sigh#)

Avatar Image says:

Well look at this way, if they are considering making it into 2 films, maybe they were impacted by the endless amounts of emails from fans all over the world who were ticked off at the sheer weight of cuts made in the earlier films… Maybe they just want more money. I would love for the story to be made into one 3 and a half or perhaps 4 hour long film with a 20 minute intermission ( Look at 2001: A Space Odyssey!... anyone who has seen Kubrick’s / Clarke’s masterpiece will notice the intense music during the intermission that leaves you with desperation to get back into the story….) So a long epic with a very well done intermission will be very smart and artistic move on the one hand. But if it were to be split into 2 films it will still be Deathly Hallows, but just as parts 1 and 2, which is also an artistic move only if the films were to be released at the same time and giving fans the satisfaction of the final book being still one long story…. and if it were to be a two parter, it will no doubt give them a chance to focus on the very little things that make deathly hallows such a beautiful and dark story…Thats what we as fans really want,and as long as The integrity of JKR’s epic is not compromised i think we will all be happy to have it either way..

Avatar Image says:

@CrazyCat re: my earlier comment on LOTR working well as 3 movies despite Tolkien seeing it as one story, I just wanted to clarify that I did not think it was any problem that the movies ended in slightly different places than the book. I guess since it had to be published in three parts, we were used to seeing it in three parts, and three movies was just expected and didn’t seem weird inthe slightest, despite Tolkien’s objections to a 3-part story. I guess it’s just what we’re used to. And since we’re used to seeing DH as one book, my instinct is just that it should be one movie (again, so long as horrible cuts don’t have to be made).

@Neil: conflicted is a great way to put how I feel too! I want it done right and do not want to see some of my favorite scenes/lines cut as they have been in movies 3-5 (and most likely 6), but it just doesn’t feel right to split it up. My hope is that they’re just waiting on Kloves to write the script and see if he can condense it acceptably (i.e. just skim over some of the slower parts such as cleaning the Burrow for the wedding or some of the camping) and see if it’s possible to do it properly in under 3.5 hours. If it is, I say just leave it as one movie. But otherwise, do it right with two. But I do fear that two full-length movies would be stretching it TOO thin and that they might drag a bit, particularly the first one.

@Ladycake: I too had a great time watching the LOTR trilogy when ROTK was released! I love the idea of re-releasing the previous Potters before this, maybe even a marathon like they did for LOTR. I don’t know how possible it would be to do the 7 movies in one day, but maybe they could figure out some type of special event. Can’t wait!

Avatar Image says:

I’m starting to kinda of like the idea of two movies. And to people wondering why they’re thinking of doing this with DH and not the other longer books (like OOTP, the longest book): DH has the most real necessary ‘stuff’- the other books have more plot fluff, I think, that allowed one movie to be possible. DH could definitely be one movie if they wanted it to be, but I think something pivotal would probably have to change. We’ll see! :)

Avatar Image says:

I think the right place to break it might be just before “Shell Cottage”.

The big battle with the Black / Malfoy’s and Dobby appearing to rescue everybody, including Olivander and Luna, then

SPOILER

Dobby dies… huge climax at the end… then the denoument of Harry at Shell Cottage, with Bill, Fleur, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Olivander and even Griphook all mourning Dobby… a few words from Harry on his resolve to finish the job, but at this point, not knowing whether it’s going to be “Horcruxes or Hallows”... its a point in the book where the action slows down a bit (which is a good spot to start the next film: setting up the story and interviewing Olivander and Griphook, and developing their plan.

There are quite a few big set pieces after that: Gringotts incl Dragon, the whole battle of hogwarts, Hogsmeade / Aberforth / the RoR, meeting all the characters again, Luna and Harry sneaking to Ravenclaw tower… so much going on after that point, it would be fantastic.

I think splitting exactly in the middle as mentioned on Pottercast, after Ron leaves, is not really “suspenseful” enough, personally…

Avatar Image says:

I dont understand what the big deal is for them to make the movie longer then 2, 2and a half hours..look at titanic…gone with the wind..all epic movies and certainly more than 2 hours long..something to think about, becaus a s a potter fan..i have no problem sittin there..could even put a little intermission in there..who knows..this is just one fans oppinion..whatever they do, Im sure it will be great!

Avatar Image says:

oh, just read lilbeths comment..kinda makes sense..forget what i said..lol

Avatar Image says:

If they are worrying about being accused of cashing in if they split Hallows into two movies, I say LET THEM CASH IN!!!! Oh my goodness. You cannot do justice to Hallows in roughly 2 1/2 hours!!

They should split it right after Ron comes back with the Silver Doe—and Hermoine beating on him MUST be in the film!! At that point, with Ron back, Godric’s Hallow behind them, a Horcrus destroyed, and the sword in their hands, they have a lot of hope. The movie can end with this hopefulness, and the second film can pick up with them hearing Potter Watch, and then on to Malfoy Manor, etc. We would then be talking roughly 5 hours of film versus 2 1/2, and I would happily pay to see two movies done correctly!

Deb

Avatar Image says:

I’m all for the 2 movie idea, but I don’t like the idea of waiting for the second one to come out lol. I wonder if they could make one long movie, say 4 hours in length, with intermission and allow the larger cinemas to play the first and second half separately as well as in it’s whole. Screen 1 plays only the first half of the movie, Screen 2 plays only the second half of the movie, Screen 3 plays the entire movie with intermission. I’m sure this has never been done but there is always a first. This would solve the problem for those who want to see the entire movie and for those who don’t want to sit through such a long movie!

Avatar Image says:

Well, I don’t like the idea of two films, as big a fan of Potter as I am. There are 7 books, and I think they need to keep with the theme and do 7 movies. There’s a lot of information to cover, sure, but that’s never stopped them from cutting a lot before. If the screenplay is done right, I don’t see how it would be a necessity to do more than one film.

And I guess I also feel this way because I personally don’t mind long movies. I could definitely handle a 3 hour Potter movie. The Lord of the Rings movies managed it, and the time just flew by. As long as you keep the material entertaining, most people shouldn’t complain.

I know I’m in the minority here, but I say ONE FILM!! ;)

Avatar Image says:

I just want to know why they have the idea that the movie MUST only be “just over two hours” long!!! It’s ridiculous! I personally see no reason why they couldn’t and shouldn’t make it one movie, but more than three hours long. If you can’t sit still for that long during the Deathly Hallows movie, you have issues.

And in the case of younger children…not meaning to alienate one part of the fanbase here, but the great majority of HP fans are at least of 13 years of age, or will be at the time that this movie is released. Plus, it’s not like this particular book is very much a “children’s book” at all. Its material screams “adolescent/young adult/adult readers”......

I am not thrilled about this whole two films business. I’d much rather have one three and a half hour-long film. But if I HAD to choose between one measly two hour film and two two hour films, I would have to go with the latter. It’s just not my preference.

Avatar Image says:

Give this wonderfully epic story the treatment it deserves!

Whether that means 2 movies, or one SUPER LONG movie, I don’t care… I just want it to be absolutely FANTASTIC!

Avatar Image says:

A 3 1/2 hour movie would be the right choice for DH.

Avatar Image says:

‘How do you compress all that book into just over two hours of screen time?’

YOU MAKE IT MORE THAN TWO HOURS LONG FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!

Don’t ruin it by making two films – you’ll kill the tension, jeopardy and your profits, WB.

Return of the King was a masterpiece, they managed the greatest battle of all time. Make Deathly Hallows three hours long, please, please, do not ruin this.

(Although you can cut the Remus death scene, I’m perfectly ok with that!!)

Avatar Image says:

It’d be utterly impossible to make Deathly Hallows into ONE film and satisfy the book fans. Two films I could see, though a lot of stuff would still get cut anyway. BUT, Please let them do two films!!

Avatar Image says:

Actually, NO wait, scratch my last comment, I agree with MaraudingDon!!!

Give it an intermission; I hate that “To be Continued” crap. 4 Hours, I can definitely last.

Think of Gone With the Wind, WB!!!

Avatar Image says:

If it takes to films to get it right, I will gladly pay for two films!

Avatar Image says:

brandi,

The thing is, one can’t keep saying “Whatever they do, I’m sure it will be great”. Yes, goblet and order have been okay movies but TONS, I mean TONS has been left out. Are you sincerely content and happy with them leaving out just about all of the books’ sidequests and side events when they would have a chance to finally once and for all make an extremely accurate adaptation on film? I like reading the books, but I’d rather not see another sparknotes version of the book on film.

Avatar Image says:

I would love two films and David Yates as director for them. I think he did a great job with OotP and as long as he doesn’t completely screw up HBP, I’d love to see him back to finish up the Potter series.

Avatar Image says:

Have u all gone crazy! They can´t split it… what about the actors? Emma Watson was already thinking about not filming the 7th movie and Dan is engaging in a lot of projects! Having two films would involve more money being spent and a lot of “negotiation” with everyone!

Nina

Avatar Image says:

People don’t think of it as two separate movies think of it as two parts like Kill Bill. Sorry but the saying “7 books so there should be 7 movies” is just lame.

I say split it and give us fans what we deserve. I’d put money on it that they won’t release them a year apart. Six months tops probably May/June then Dec of 2010.

I’m crossing all my fingers and toes that this happens.

Avatar Image says:

Have the first part really focus on finding the sword. End it with them finding the sword in the woods, and looking ahead to what’s coming. That would end it on both a hopeful note and a mysterious note (with the doe).

Avatar Image says:

I`m neutral, I suppose. Two movies / splits wouldn`t matter much for me. I mean, wouldn’t we all want the LAST movie to have ALL of the details? And if that means that they have to split the movie, then they should. =) As for filming, it’s only a year away? Wow. That’s not exactly that far. (Well, to me.) XD

Avatar Image says:

Nina they would film all of DH at the same time then when it comes to editing they would split it. Emma was always coming back and she said in an interview that it was just rumours and that she just wanted to make sure she could still attend school so they worked around her.

So far, Dan has one movie lined up. He is doing Broadway for six months starting in Sept this year (he said so at the Baftas) then he would start filming DH in Feb. That Journey movie doesn’t even have a script and will probably be scheduled for sometime in 2011.

Regarding money Harry Potter has made HEAPS for Warner Bros so they can afford it considering that they will probably triple their profits if DH is split.

It’s a win win situation for both sides.

Avatar Image says:

heh. whatever. it’s not the book that’s going to be edited, so i really say let them do what they want with the film… it’s just a different perspective. i wouldn’t ever sit through 6 hours of a potter film, no matter how much i love the books; that’s a lot to ask of an audience, so maybe splitting it is a good idea.

but i really think you’d lose some of the emotional momentum insodoing…

Avatar Image says:

Christine said: “wouldn’t we all want the LAST movie to have ALL of the details”

Having all the details does not necessarily a good movie (or movies) make. What works in a book may not work in a film. I’d rather have a good film that has condensed things than to have a film where I’m bored to tears and am constantly looking at my watch.

Also, I agree with Nina, splitting into two films may result in a renegotiation of contracts (if the trio/cast feel like they’d be paid for only one film instead of two)

Avatar Image says:

i dont get it. why dont they just do it in a LOTR style of 3+ hours. i sat through that comfortably, what makes them think i’m not gonna make it through a 3 hr HP movie? as much as i like the idea of a long movie, i think splitting it up into 2 is a BAD idea. this is not matrix, i hated that stupid ‘to be cont’d’ thing at the end of the second one, that was just bad, you get used to the characters, you get into the story and then its like ‘ok everybody out you go, we’re gonna charge you for this second part again and make you wait’....all the excitement kind of dies with it, so i didnt go to see the 3rd matrix. thank goodness, it was stupid anyway.

just make one movie, a LONG movie…is it that hard?

Avatar Image says:

I want a very LONG LONG film, I don’t see what’s up with time restriction… please make it longeeeer! O.o

Avatar Image says:

So when will we see Hagrid’s new hut.

Oh! Never mind. How will we know that they’ve started filming?

If there were two movies they should end the first when the locket is destroyed. That would make it a proper ending, considering the end to book 6. It’s also right in the middle of two acts there. It could end with Ron getting pummeled by Hermione.

Personally I Hope (though I was hoping they would do this with 4 & 5 too) that they make it a good long 3 hr movie for the theaters and then have a Lord of the Rings Special edition style dvd release that adds on another hour.

Avatar Image says:

There are other books in the series that were far more worthy of being split due to time, DH isn’t one of them. Making it into two films would totally just be to make more money.

It’s all such a load of waffle about ‘having’ to condense the films to hours long, why did they ever have to do this? They shot themselves in the foot with that idiotic rule, they should have aimed for longer movies. WB and the execs and producers and whoever were total morons for limiting themselves in such a way. That’s why I voted ‘Too little, too late’ in the poll.

This is pointless. Why are they suddenly acting like they care about getting everything in, they never bothered before? And even if they were to get ‘everything’ in (which In sinceerly doubt they’d be able to as they’ve screwed around with characters and plot details way too much) it’d be pointless as at least half of it hasn’t been mentioned before so will not make sense anyway.

Just finish the damn series WB so we can hope and pray for a lengthy tv series adaptation that might be faithful (although it pains me thinking of it as there are actors and actresses who deserve so much more with their characters in the films like Rickman, Walters, Spall, Grint etc.) sooner rather than decades down the line.

Avatar Image says:

sorry But the Titanic was 2 films – even though you may try and shoot me down again go ahead, I know they had an intermission and a break between one and two. No audience was going to sit through titanic for that long- for you guys complaining that there are 7 books so there should be 7 movies – come on people- just cant make up your mind can ya, first you do want it then you dont its the same with the new cast members. Besides Voldemorts soul we find out was split into 8 ways= if you cant think of a two part movie as one big one.

Avatar Image says:

Silvermoon: I’m certainly with you on this one. There’s a reason that the process of converting a book from page to screen is called “adaptation”: books and films are very different entities in the way they are constructed, and as such alterations need to be made to one to successfully change it into another. Deathly Hallows was a fantastic book, but there’s so much of it that would need to be streamlined, condensed or omitted to make anything other than a lumbering, longwinded and awkward film (or two) – and that’s not even taking into account the material that would simply HAVE to be excised to avoid clashing with the film series’s simplified continuity. I’m not really interested in getting all the details in; only the ones needed to make a good film. After all, I know all the details from the book, which will continue to exist whether they make two films or not…

Rachel *: In all honesty, one of the main reasons I’m so against the idea of a two-part DH is BECAUSE of my memories of Kill Bill, a film whose single, self-contained story which I felt was ruined by having been indulged with a two-part treatment that it didn’t need. The needs of that story, had the director and producers had any discipline, could easily have been served with a single two-hour film, but instead we got a flabby three-and-a-half hour mess, riddled with scenes that ran too long or were plain unnecessary, and hamstrung structurally by a split that destroyed the film’s sense of progression; instead of a single film with a beginning, middle and end, we got two films, one which had a beginning and half a middle, the other with half a middle and an end. Watching Kill Bill Vol. 2 was one of the most disorientating and alienating cinema experiences I can recall; I couldn’t work out how I was supposed to engage with a film’s plot when it begins with the second half of a middle, the first half of which I had seen six months prior. I do intend to watch the whole thing back-to-back at some point; I’m sure it’ll make a lot more sense structurally, but I still rather fear that the bloated and unnecessarily drawn-out storytelling would kill it for me. I would absolutely hate to see the same thing happen to DH…

Avatar Image says:

I would rather see them do a 3.5+ hour version of DH than split it into 2 movies. I honestly don’t understand the determination to keep them at 2.5 hours. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy proved that filmgoers are fine with sitting through a film of that length provided that it is good. I hope they’re not thinking that a film of that length is too much for kids to handle particularly since the subject matter of DH is far more advanced than those of the earlier books, and the younger kids that would ‘get it’ can handle a movie of that length. I’ve taught pretty advanced 4th graders who can appreciate LotR as well as any adult, and they would love a massive popcorn gorging HP marathon of a movie as much as any of us.

Avatar Image says:

Oh, and BellaSnape – sorry, but you’re simply not correct about Titanic being a two-part film, and I’m sure anybody here will tell you the same; perhaps it was screened with an intermission where you live, but that was not the case worldwide, and it certainly wasn’t designed as a two-part film. You’re welcome to check its IMDb listing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/), which contains no references to two-parters or intermissions; from a personal perspective, I saw the film twice in theatres, both times without any mention of a break.

Besides, what’s unbelievable about audiences sitting through all of Titanic? It’s long at 194 minutes, but it’s by no means the longest film of all time; Schindler’s List (195 mins) and Return of the King (200 mins), for example, were both longer, and they certainly weren’t split, whilst all-time box office champ Gone With The Wind, though its length varies from cut to cut, clocks in at well over 220 minutes (that admittedly did feature an intermission, but is still considered as a single film). People will have infinite patience with a film as long as it justifies its own length…

Avatar Image says:

hey, why don’t we just ask Jo what she’d like?? now there’s a possibility… I, however, am all for putting everything from the books into the movie. From reading DH again, there are so many things i want in the movie, but are likely to be cut out if they want to make it one movie. I’m definitely for 2 movies, or just making one 6 hour long movie :)

Avatar Image says:

if they split it up into two films, would they both have the same title, or would they take one of jo’s other titles. like make the first film harry potter and the deathly hallows, and the secound film be harry potter and the elder wand? I could see that working as the elder wand is important to the second half of the book mainly.

also, if it is split into two, would the movies be released together on dvd.

Avatar Image says:

I think if they do two individual movies, they will release them a few months apart, at most. But they would film it all at once.

Avatar Image says:

They weren’t planning to do it in 2 movies until the book came out… that’s when they saw how tough it’d be to make it into one. It’s not a money play… that part would just be a bonus for them. They were genuinely unsure of how to go about it.

Avatar Image says:

PLEASE let it be TWO FILMS!!! DH can not be done justice in one 2 and half-hour film, but it CAN with two of them! I agree with David Barron. There’s almost no downside to this. I don’t really care if WB makes more money off of the split, it’s a win-win situation. The fans get all of the material from the book that they want, and WB gets their money. I don’t really see a negative. At least, if there is a negative, the positives FAR outweigh it. I don’t care if I have to wait a little bit for the second film. We HP fans are USED to waiting, it’s no big deal. If we’re getting all of our favorite scenes left in, who cares if we have to wait a bit in between films? Two films will be so awesome!!!

I think WB and the producers should go for it! Two films! Everyone’s happy! :)

Avatar Image says:

Fawkes said: “Two films! Everyone’s happy! :)”

Clearly, as these comments have shown, if two films are made not everyone would be happy.

Avatar Image says:

Dave Heyman, I beg you, please spare us Hogwarts Reloaded and Hogwarts Revolutions. There isn’t nearly enough in Deathly Hallows to make two films. But there is enough to make one cracking, outstanding finale. Surely you don’t aspire to the flabby filmmaking of Harry Potter: At World’s End?

So much is already cut out of HBP that nobody will be any the wiser if you leave out the links to Deathly Hallows. Like: no Scrimgeour, no Carrows, no Bill & Fleur (where on earth is Harry going to escape to and plan the Gringotts raid?)... that’s 20% of the book already, assuming that your publicity so far is accurate. (I mean, you traded these characters for LAVENDER BROWN? You may as well chop out Bagshot, Xeno Lovegood and Grindelwald while you’re at it.)

By the way, if the producers have to negotiate through phone calls and emails, it certainly sounds like they’re not asking David Yates, who the producers would normally see every day. So thank heavens for that small mercy. Very sad that Newell’s out of the running though. That guy knows what he’s doing.

Avatar Image says:

Sorry but I still dont believe you I specifically remember that. and Return of The King may have been as long as the Titanic but It wasnt longer. That is all I have to say. This is all Im talking about it.

Avatar Image says:

I cant see how Deathly Hallows can be made into 2 ENTERTAINING movies. Rather than split into 2 incomplete movies, why dont they consider one 3 hour movie. Its the final movie, people will go see it regardless so they will not make any loss of less showings in a day etc. I very much hope they do not make into two films.

Avatar Image says:

Bella – OK, it doesn’t seem like I’m going to convince you here, but do understand: it’s not like this is just my opinion or anything, what I’m saying about Titanic not being a two-part film is correct, and is verifiable by more or less any official source that you might care to consult. Same with the point about the running time of Return of the King: I didn’t just make up or guesstimate that 200min vs. 194min figure, those are the actual running times that you would see listed on the DVD cases, the official documentation, IMDb, Wikipedia or wherever else you might want to check.

I too am done with that point, because I’m really at a loss for what else I could say about it…just be clear that I’m not just making stuff up to prove a point here, or anything. I’m just telling you the facts…

Avatar Image says:

Muddtallica has it right.

Avatar Image says:

The biggest down point of a two parter? You lose hard core fans (like many here) who waited years for the book and years for the movie and don’t want to wait years for the SECOND HALF of a movie.

Movies back in 30s, 40s and 50s that had intermissions were done so for many reasons (length being one) but one of the main reasons was that most of the population still smoked heavily. In Europe, a lot of normal running time films (2 hours) have intermissions simply so that those who are attending the films can have a cig break. “Gone with The Wind”, “The Sound of Music” etc. are in fact, ONE movie, but were shown with intermissions due to length (though the Sound of Music isn’t terribly long) and so that people could have a short break. “Titanic” was given an intermission in SOME theatres (in my part of the country (New England) it was very common but both of my roommates (Pennsylvania and Cali) both sat straight through it in theatres) and it was sold on VHS in two parts simply because VHS’s couldn’t hold as much data as a DVD can. It would have just lost the last few minutes of the film if it was put on one tape. In fact (I own bot the VHS and the DVD) where the first VHS stops is not where I was given Intermission (when I saw the films) and when it was put back in my home theatre for a one week only special, there was no intermission.

There is no “limit” when it comes to films. Many films these days are pushing boundaries when it comes to time. WB puts limits on themselves based on what they feel people will sit through. The average film is two hours long and therefore the studios strive to shoot films that are roughly two hours long to satisfy a movie gooer.

Lets face it. When you go to a non HP film (say….Catch and Release staring Jennifer Garner) you go in expecting a nice movie that keeps your attention for 2 hours, tells a complete story and wraps everything up nicely in the end. After 120ish minutes you’re satisfied, the popcorn is gone, M&Ms have satisfied your chocolate craving and you’re ready to go home. Its the perfect movie experience.

The reason people were willing to sit through 3 hours of Return of the King was because they were invested in a series. ROTK is my favorite LOTR movie because it ties everything up (and Viggo is so damn rugged :P). I think its completely conceivable for WB to have a 3hour movie (hell a 3+ hour movie) for DH because we’re invested (in fact we’re twice as invested as we were in LOTR) and we want to see it wrapped up nicely. I think they could do it in 3 + hours (despite the plot lines they’ve discarded.) They can stay on the track they are on, and satisfy us all.

We forget, I know we all think each and everyone of us are the foremost authority on HP (Hell I do too) but the HP Films team knows what they are doing (Its why they are them) and we have to trust them. We’ve trusted them this far. If we didn’t like what they were doing, we wouldn’t keep going back to see the films and we wouldn’t be so worked up about the last one.

Avatar Image says:

@ thank you beckett for pointing out that it was intermissioned in some parts of the country. I live in the Northern part of the US and I remember a intermission. OK maybe Return of The King and Titanic were the same length- face it 194 to 200 that is no difference really. end credits maybe. Point is I think that DH should be done with justice and to do all the little details for the last film the would do two films with an intermission or run it all together.

Avatar Image says:

Split in two. Longer the better.

Avatar Image says:

I would assume that HP fans who never read the books would complain of a two-part finale, whereas many of the readers would love the final film to be in two parts. I would LOVE for the film to be split into two parts, sans the waiting part for the second to come out. I use to want a HP film that was 3+ hours because I wanted all the details and I just love being absorbed into the Harry Potter world, but I think it’s better if DH was made into two films rather than a 6 hour movie—because sitting there for so long can make people restless. I feel that if I saw the first half of DH, wait, then watch the second half, I’d really appreciate the movie as a whole and will better take in all the scenes. I’m sure, yeah, some will feel that it’s all for profit, but COME ON! I’m sure the makers are trying to do the last film justice. Most of the past HP films were much too short, not bad, but short. I’m begging for DH to be split into two…and I think the best scene to split it at is right after Harry buries Dobby. I could only see part 1 ending at Shell Cottage.

Avatar Image says:

i’m kind of undecided on deathly hallows in two parts. It would b a good way 2 include everything, but where would they split it???? i mean, they can’t just have the first part end in the middle of the book, that would suck. I’m not sure what 2 think about this.

Avatar Image says:

I agree, split the book! I listened to DH last week and am back on Half Blood now listening again. Now I am an “old” person who loves Harry as much as the younger generation, so I can remember when I was a child and went to the movies and there was an intermission! It was the Ten Commandments – yupper I am old! The split makes more sense due to the subject matter that NEEDS to be covered to bring the books and the story to its conclusion in a way that is complete and thorough. Doing anything less, would do a disservice to the writings of JK and the wonderful story of Harry Potter!

Avatar Image says:

PLEASE make two movies, and while they are at it, make ALL of them two movies long. Seven is a work of art, it NEEDS two movies.

Avatar Image says:

Am I allowed to say I hope he was e-mailing Cuaron?

Avatar Image says:

oh i would love it if they split the movie into 2 parts and show them within a year—like summer of 2010 and christmas 2010… if they do so, i hope they end with dobby’s death in shell cottage and harry mourning and sitting by the sea… then part 2 will be gringotts and the final hogwarts battle… in any case, i hope whatever they do they do justice to the emotion evoked by the book (especially with the death of the characters and the final battle between harry and voldemort)—i can’t picture them doing that in “a little over 2 hours”

Avatar Image says:

Muddtallica, i agree with you 100%. Of course is “one last chance at cashing in”, if it wasn’t why don’t they just do a 3 hr movie (with a optional intermission and a optional extended dvd edition) instead of a 2 “over two hours” movies?

nina makes another good point, the producers secure the actors contracts long ago so they did’t have any leverage for being the last one. new negotiations sound dangerous.

the other down side is that if the movies are film back to back we will have to wait 2 years and not 1 for the 1st 1 and a minimum of 6 months for the 2nd 1.

look at the facts: titanic. budget: us$200,000,000. running time: 194 min. gross revenue: us$1,845,034,188. lord of the rings. budget: $94 million. running timel: 200 min. gross revenue: $1.1 billion. and those are only some of the mentioned above, do you really think that the wb wouldn’t be able (if they wanna to) to please even the most radical fan with just one movie?

Avatar Image says:

I think cutting it into two films might be a good idea, because, even if make one really long move, it would be a lot to digest. So much happens. At the end of the film you would be nackered. And although you might not care, that doesn’t make for a very nice movie-experience.

Avatar Image says:

Don’t forget, Titanic was long, but everything happened on one ship. DH switches from one place to another and one situation to another. It’s hard to proces all this information coming to you. especially if you didn’t read the book. I really think you know your stuff mudtallica, but the book is actually really dense. A lot happens and all the characters need closure.

Avatar Image says:

obviously you’ve never seen titanic. and what about lotr? it has so many places, situations and caracthers as dh if not more

Avatar Image says:

Just in case anyone is keeping count, I vote for 2 films as well. I want them to do the story justice and not leave anything out.

Avatar Image says:

This is an impassioned plea for ONE final film.

Yes, everything in DH is important. But no matter how long the film is, or how many films they render the final book into, something will always be left out, some fan will always be left disappointed. That is the nature of adapting books to film. There really are no good places to split the story into two without having an awkward cliffhanging moment. I remember watching the end of the first LOTR and thinking that the editor must have cut it based on time and nothing else! As Barron himself said, it would only work if there were two themes and if each movie could stand on its own. That is not the case. It’s one (long, involved, complex) story. Dear rabid fans (and I am one of them), do not clamor for two movies because you think it will do justice to the story. It will not.

Many things will be left out; it’s inevitable. Think of all the story lines that have been purged from the movies so far. Are they going to cram all those into the last movie just so we can have closure on points never brought up in previous films? The books will always reign supreme, the movies will never touch them. That is almost always the case in cinematic history. So be it.

Finally, “7 books, 7 films” is NOT lame. The magical properties of 7 are a big part of the HP story and that should be respected.

Think hard about why you want two films. If you think it will guarantee that your favorite scene(s) will be included, you are wrong.

And why did no one until Clifford think to ask what Jo wants?

Avatar Image says:

Emma, I’ve have got the dvd of titanic so obviously I’ve seen it, but you are right about LOTR being in a lot of place and situations as well. It’s just that Deathly Hallows is much more complex than for example return of the king. So much needs to be explained. If they find a way to do this in one movie and still keep the storyline intact, than good! But I believe that the David’s wouldn’t cut the film in two if it wasn’t necassery.

And Ginevra, just because films are allmost never as good as it’s books, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t try to be. They did it with LOTR. (that was officially one book and they made three movies out of it.)

Avatar Image says:

Redbeard said: “(that was officially one book and they made three movies out of it.)”

But as has been pointed out, the while Tolkein did write it intending it to be one book, it’s been published as three seperate books for the past, what, 50 years? So it’s not suprising that the filmakers took that route, because that format of three seperate books is the most common format of that trilogy.

DH, on the other hand, was not only meant to be written as one book, it WAS written as one book. There was no need to split the book, so there shouldn’t be a need to split the film.

I also agree with others that are mentioning continuity. There are details of the other books that were taken out of their respective movies, some of those details are referenced again in DH, would it not be jarring to suddenly have this reference that never appeared in any other movie?

Avatar Image says:

Should WB split DH into two parts? Well, IF they do I have some suggestions. People keep wondering were they will cut the movie off. The first thing that came to mind was after the fight at Xenophilius’s house we have Harry burning with curiosity about the Deathly Hallows. That is a great part to cut off part one and introduce part two called, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”. What would part one be called you ask? Well, couldn’t they just call it “Harry Potter and the Horcruxes”? Part one is all about them so it makes perfect sense. But at the same time the only horcrux found by the end of part one is the locket, so why don’t we put the Gringotts scene in part one. Don’t have Hermione disguised as Bellatrix, just someone else. Just have Harry imperio the goblin to go to the correct vault. Come on guys, lets play around with the order of events, lets see what would work best as a film. Maybe end part one right before we go to Xenophilius. I’m still undecided about whether to split up the book or not though. I think they should, but then I think they shouldn’t, but we’ll find out eventually. Now, on to who should direct. I was praying that Del Toro would get it, but that dream was crushed, so who else. I do NOT want David Yates back for one main reason, he did a terrible job with the fight at the end or OotP. Sure, he did a good job with everything else, except for Cho who was there for a kiss and that was it (what happened to the “Incredible complex realationship” that Dan talked about), but I can’t even tell you how disappointed I was with the fights (well I’ll try). The action didn’t excite me, get me on the edge of my seat or anything. He had so much to work with in the Department of Mysteries, oh so much, and blew it. Maybe I was expecting way to much, but OotP was the first book I had to wait on to get. I read the first four books when I was nine, and waited for the fifth when I was ten. When I read the fight at the end I had the craziest fight sequence in mind that the movie can never touch. The fact that Yates messed up the ending makes me weary about him tackling all the action in DH. Maybe DH could be directed by… actually I can’t even think of a GREAT director at the moment who would want to do it (Speilburg is a great guy, but I don’t want him for this). But, I have to say I wouldn’t mind Newell coming back. At the moment GoF is my favorite. Well, thanks for reading my comment and I hope to hear more from you commentors out there, and remember fiddle around with the order of events in DH to make a great movie. Heck, come up with new scenes. LOTR did it multiple times in their movies. Aragorn falling over a cliff before the battle at Helms Deep and the Elves coming to the rescue, did’t happen. Frodo and Sam taken to Osgiliath, didn’t happen. Frodo fighting Gollum for the ring and falling over the edge, didn’t happen. Let’s experiment. We’ve got intil 2010, bye.

Avatar Image says:

I want to see Hermione disguised as Bellatrix that will be so funny.

Avatar Image says:

Silvermoon: touché

Will: I totally agree with you. Accept for the Newell part. GOF felt very staged. POA had a more natural flow. The action was just adventurous and exciting, where as GOF’s action-scenes get boring after a few times. OOTP’s action-scenes gave me actually more of a rush, even if it lacked imagination.

Avatar Image says:

I believe the only way is to have two films. I have thought about this since I finished reading the book and after attending a showing of The Order of the Phoenix. There was soooo much left out of the movie that was in that book! I don’t believe that the decision on what to leave out should even be considered with Deathly Hallows. Two movies, “The Deathly Hallows, the Beginning of the End” and then “The Deathly Hallows, the End of the End”. Something like that. Just DO NOT LEAVE ANYTHING OUT!!!!! I cannot imagine of one moment in that book that is not vitally important to the final encounter of Harry and Tom Riddle.

Or even one movie with an intermission…..whatever it takes…...just please do not cut out the heart of this book the way it was done with The Order. It was a great movie, I just think there was so much that should have been included.

Sincerely, Denise

Avatar Image says:

Might tick people off? Mess up the continunity? This entire series has been a continuation from one book to the next!!! Yes, by all means, put this into two movies. I wish they’d made OotP into two movies. Gone with the Wind was 4 hrs. long with intermission, why not this as well? Do these books justice, and make the films as in-depth as possible…..

Avatar Image says:

I think a longer movie would be ok. I can sit for a 3 or a 31/2 hour movie if its good. Lord of the Rings was 3 hours and I had no problem with that. The real die hard fans could do it easy. But two movies would be ok too as long as they werent too far apart.

Avatar Image says:

I’ve always felt that with each new film, they should have increased the length of it. But, they didn’t. In fact they did the exact opposite. OotP is the longest book, yet one of the shortest films of the series to date. I’m def a fan of making DH a 3+ hour movie. I’m more annoyed at the fact of some of the film makers attitudes to certain plots and characters in HBP, when they know what happens in the last one.

Avatar Image says:

Nearly everyone who champions the idea of two movies doesn’t want anything left out. An 800-page book cannot be condensed into even a four-hour movie without leaving things out. Sometimes things translate well cinematically and sometimes they don’t. I for one don’t want to see the Trio wandering around in the forest and bickering for the majority of the movie, but if we’re going to be absolutely faithful to the book …

Sometimes cinema improves upon the original. I’ve said before that I felt the fifth movie surpassed the book in making Sirius’s death seem especially tragic. I credit Gary Oldman’s talent and the chemistry between him and Dan Radcliffe, as well as the director’s sensitivity (as opposed to his ego or his arrogance). In this instance, it wasn’t a matter of leaving things out but adding things in. In other words, a greater effect was achieved by NOT adhering to the book.

Please don’t equate “better” with “nothing left out”. The adaptation of the written word to the screen has absolutely nothing to do with this concept, and may in fact have more of an inverse relationship!

Avatar Image says:

I like the idea of more screen time, but not of two separate films. I’m with you guys who are voting for an intermission. Just my opinion, but I think that would work best for everyone.

Avatar Image says:

Right you are Ginevra, I wouldn’t mind a little less bickering in the woods too, but there is a big difference between DH and the other books. Accept for the bickering in the woods allmost everything is important, while in the other books there was a lot of attending classes and quidditch trainings that were much easier left out.

Avatar Image says:

BellaSnape: Titanic is not a two part movie. It is one movie. I saw it at the movie. It was just split on VHS because it was so long.

i agree with Muddtallica. I perosnally don’t see the need for a two part movie. It is not nocessary. I personally think they can condense it into a nice 3 hour movie. If you just cut out/condense slightly the whole camping sequnece and cut out things like the bar scene and alot of the Burrow stuff and also condense alot of the ministry and Gringotts scenes. It really isn’t impossible because laot of the book hings don’t apply in te movies from the things that have already been cut. Like alot of Dumbledore’s backstory isn’t completely needed, excpt for the Grindewauld.

I just think two movies will be really bad for the overall story cause Deathly Hallows is one final story. Not two, but one. It wouldn’t work well and would be a mistake.

Avatar Image says:

I think if you are right Leo, that the filmproducers will come to the same conclusion.

Avatar Image says:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! They can’t split it – I’d go ‘Dementor’ed (pardon the pun) waiting to see what happened next. Can’t they just give the fans what we’ve wanted all along – one 4 hour long film that isn’t hacked to pieces! Please God it’s their last chance to get it right!

Avatar Image says:

The book has too much information and it cannot be made in a two hours movie, they have got to split it to two movies with everything included. After all every body wants an incredible finish to the series and as for me it will be totally PERFECT and so should for the other great fans.

BRING BACK JOHN WILLIAMS

HOGWART FOREVER

Avatar Image says:

Let them make two parts, perhaps they will do the last book justice. Already we are seeing that Half Blood Prince will another short movie as from the article saying just over 2 hrs. Sad that Yates butchered OOTP so badly, so much was left out, very crucial parts that were just cut away. Let Columbus direct the last films as he did the best directing them.

Avatar Image says:

Am I alone in actually loving the camping around and bickering bit? It reminded me of bad camping holidays LOL! I did once wake up in a big puddle because we’d pitched our tent in a dip and it rained in the night (plus our tent blew away in a gale!). I thought the bit with Ron and Hermione arguing about the fish dinner was great and showed up Ron’s character perfectly (lazy, selfish, mollycoddled, .... sorry, I really hated him in DH, and haven’t quite got over it), and Hermione’s rant at Ron when he came back has just GOT to stay in. They could cut out a lot of the wandering about though, as they only need to give the impression of it and change of weather. They could do that with the wide shots introducing some of the important scenes.

It’s all the rest, how they find out about various things, that I’m intrigued about them fitting in. What I liked about the book was the gradual, detective manner in which they found out certain things, the meaning of the DH symbol for instance. I expect the films will have to remove much of that sense of discovery for time reasons.

Avatar Image says:

“Besides, what’s unbelievable about audiences sitting through all of Titanic?” (Mudtallica)

Because it’s a godawful film? Sorry, I had to say that, I’m in a funny mood. I hated it.

Kill Bill’s a good example though. I didn’t realise that it was actually meant to be one film but I really didn’t like the first one as a stand alone film. Together, they do make more sense. There’s plenty they could have cut out to condense it, that stupidly unconvincing fight in Hong Kong for one.

I think there’s a lot they could cut out of DH to reduce it to a reasonably long single film. Did I just read that JK has given the producers a suggested alternative Hogwarts battle to reduce the time that takes?

Avatar Image says:

If you take a close look at the book….a ton can be convincingly cut …and stress put at the end….where the most time and emphasis should be….to wrap up the series. I’m sure that everyone involved will think this through carefully. We must remember that the actors aren’t getting any younger…and there may be a time constraint on doing a 2 film deal.

Avatar Image says:

Instead of two movies. Why not make it a 6 or 8 hour film. I love long movies like that, but unfortunately I might be in the minority.

Avatar Image says:

they only want to do it, because the hobbit is doing it. milk the cow

Avatar Image says:

Emma, they allready had this idea before, during the fourth movie. It’s hardly a new idea. And it’s not just milking the cow, read the book and see. There is much more story to be told than in the other books. Maybe two films won’t be needed, but I think if that’s true, then the producers will come to that conclusion themselfs too.

Avatar Image says:

I still don’t understand why the producers think they have to shrink the HP movies to “just over 2 hours.” That is ludicrous!!!! I have seen plenty of non-blockbuster movies and movies without the HUGE fan base that HP has that are over 2 hours—so why can’t such a big franchise as HP have 3-4 hour movies? Why doesn’t some interviewer ever ask that question to the producers?

Avatar Image says:

I hope they won’t stop themselves from making 2 movies because of fear to be criticized.. because, oh I’d feel really bad, right, paying another $10 just to have another full movie of the best book in the Harry Potter series! What a bad deal !!! I want less of HP7, sure…

So far I feel like the HP movies are like action movies, so full and fast pace you don’t have time to think… they don’t have at all the same flavor as the books. Why not try a change for movie 7? Try 2 !

And for LMB3 who thinks we should cut when Harry finds the sword.. that is not a bad idea, except I would cut AFTER Ron saves Harry. It would be positive, and it would end with excitement. LOTR2 ended after the battle was won, not before.

Avatar Image says:

i think that maybe they shouldn’t make it into two separate films, but make it two parts, somewhat like the Sound of Music and how there’s an “intermission” in between both parts. i also have to agree with Stephen on the whole thing about putting both parts on the same DVD. that would certainly make people’s lives much easier.

Avatar Image says:

The only people who would look badly upon a two film finale are those who are not real fans of the series. Those of us who LOVE the books and get upset when important things are left out (SWM) will completely appreciate the effort of creating two films. Personally, I see it as the ultimate way to pay homage to the fans who want to see it done spectacularly!

Avatar Image says:

Christine said: “The only people who would look badly upon a two film finale are those who are not real fans of the series.”

Wow, I had no idea I wasn’t a “real” fan of the series… thank you so much for telling me… amazing how a person I have never met could know so much about me. [/endsarcasm]

I’m pretty sure I’ve said it before in this comment thread, but obviously it needs repeating. But just because someone has a different opinion about something regarding the Harry Potter series (including the opinion of what would make a good last film—1 film or 2) does NOT make them any more or less of a fan than anyone else.

I strongly urge you to remember that.

Avatar Image says:

i think we are forgetting that it is a good idea that the producers ARE thinking about the material and giving the whole thing some thought. There must be some reason they are considering this. I think the sensitivity to the fans and the sheer amount of material to becovered must be commended. Imagine if they just blasted right to movie 7 without considering the weight that this film (s) will have? They know it. They know what we want…. BRING IT ON!

You know…a long movie..with intermission may not be a bad idea…it would make it much more “epic”. this is something that has not been done for many years.

Avatar Image says:

Wow, everyone is soooo keen on this topic, this is HP fandom at its best!!! wanting more and wanting the best!!! lol…I am for two films and I think the best place to split the movies is just as they speak Voldemort’s name and break the charm and are captured by the snatchers…it is a cliff hanger ending and allows for an action packed launch to the second film.

I may be jumping waaaay ahead here, but you know what? I can’t wait for the “remake” of the entire series, which is sure to happen…a new group of actors/actressess, and a remake of all the movies, so as to include all the things the previous 5 movies missed because the didn’t know the ending..

I too feel that the first three movies were the most true to the series and that 4 & 5 kinda lost their way but cutting too much that was important; crucial to the overall story…so with that in mind, my vote says “two films!!! and do it justice!!!!” Long live Harry Potter!

Avatar Image says:

I can’t wait to watch the movie and i’m not sorry if there will two films because in that way at least they won’t be scipping some of the important details,which they mostly did in the other films.In fact,aren’t you happy for the doubble?iI mean it’ll be LONGER.

Avatar Image says:

WoW silvermoon.Now THAT is pretty good saying.I deffinetley agree with you about this Christine gril.

Avatar Image says:

I’m a tad late in posting, but I feel better able to respond having read everyone’s postings.

There are several issues as to the two – parter vs. one film. The most clearly stated one being where to break it off. Just as pressing is the expense of going to see two halves of a film six months apart.

While I understand the exspense issue – particularly in a situation of limited funds and extended family, we should all realize that we have already paid to see five of the movies – which, in essence, are the first five parts of one long tale. Now, while the tales were broken down into books, (paid for seven of those – unless you’ve got multiple copies like I do) is it any worse than having to wait two years for the next book? If you want to see the final one done right, shell out the extra ten buck for your seat – or not, and wait for the second half to come out on video and rent it! We’ve already spent something near the two or three hundred bucks! What’s twenty more over the course of six month?

That said, I’ll move on…..

The cutting of the film, should they split it into two parts, is a highly speculated issue. One person said that a place to stop would be at Shell Cottage. (Nice idea, by the way). But that would seriously depend on who the director is. The wrong director can create a really bad cliffhanger…and the last thing we want is to have to wait for a crappy second half.

Now, my opinion on the topic at hand…...

As a lover of the books, I wish to see as much of the story hit the screen. And while it is not completely realistic to believe that anyone would be able to keep their kids (or themselves) seated for four hours to watch the final entry, did Hollywood forget the art of the INTERMISSION?? Hamlet was over 4 hours long – and it had an intermission. I ran a movie theater for 13 years. An intermission always does the trick for a long film. People get off their butts, take a walk through the theatre, buy more crap from the concession stand (which is where theatres make their money, if you didn’t already know), go potty, and stretch out their imagination over the first part of the film. The issue is, can 4 hours do justice to the film where 2.5 hours on the previous films did not even come close? ( I speak of the most recent 3 films, by the way). We may very well need five hours to fill our hearts to content, and since the last three have averaged 2.5 hours, that would make a two – parter most admirable.

To the filmmakers…...

If something has to be sacrificed, I say sacrifice the cash! Split it in two and prove to the fans who have stuck with Harry and WB for so long that it isn’t about money. Make a deal with the theatres that play both halves that will include discounted tickets for those who return with their original stubs from the first half to the same theatre. OR – make a deal for families of 3 or more. (Silvermoon has a great point)

That way, all wishes are fulfilled. I’ve heard of wilder deals before. This would ensure that all moviegoers didn’t get the shaft, got to see the full final attachment – in GRAND FORM, and that all executive would still see their share of $$$. Let’s not forget the wonderful writers. They more than deserve their fair share. Without them, there would be no final movie. Two – parter or not!

Avatar Image says: i was trying to think of a place where the movie would be split up and i thought maybe right after ron leaves. Avatar Image says: I hope they do make it into 2 movies. So what if you're paying double to watch the whole thing? I mean you're paying for 2 standard movies which have costed a lot to film. The only problem with splitting Deathly Hallows into 2 movies is the release dates. They would probaby want to release them both during the major holiday times. Spring break and thanksgiving. And then you've got to consider Twilight or any other highly anticipated films they wouldn't want to release as the same time as Harry Potter.

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.