Advertisement

TWO FREAKING HALVES? Whoot! I knew it! I knew it! I always imagined this, and now a rumor! :) Yay! I’m still happy even thought it’s a rumor! Omg. If it’s 4 hours, I’ll be so happy! Like, I’ve always thought “What if we watch the first half, and then wait a little bit in the theater, and then the second half can come on?” I’d BE SO HAPPY to sit in the theater for four hours! I could care less if it was a whole day just to watch Harry Potter! If it take that long to make it the BEST that it can be, then so be it! Oops, I think I’m talking too much, so I’ll stop here. PS- they better find a GREAT director. Seriously.

Glad to hear it Jamez.:) This is the first time I’ve discussed things here. I really think WB doesn’t want too much time inbetween the rumored 2 movies. It would seperate itself too much. But what is important for me is that they give the option to buy the movie in one long format. I nuderstand why a 4-5 hour movie is improbable…but in my own home I would want to see it that way.

SS- yeah sure whatever. two parts- YES PLEASE!!!

Christine – I agree two halves with an intermission would be great (wouldn’t make as much money for WB, but thats not the point) but what the rumour is saying is that the movie would be cut in half and each half would be shown on a separate date.

History has shown that intermissions just don’t work anymore. Anyone see Gods and Generals? It’s an awesome movie but it didn’t do well. It was 4 hours with an intermission. That’s why. people have a hard time sitting for that long. Plus, in the time that 1 movie with an intermission shows 2 could play if they were shorter. Less people could see it and that isn’t fair as well.

Please Moses, Mary, Joseph, and Paul—LET this rumor come true. Stephen Spielberg and Peter Jackson are the two directors I would trust most with this! :) This is THRILLING news for the fanhood!

I don’t think a two-parter would attract any Oscars, really. As exciting as this is, I doubt it. The Daily Mail…

I understand that an intermission wouldn’t work I’m just saying that it would be a great movie. And EMUBari83 I’m sure you’d agree that a 4 hour 1 part DH would be better than two 2 hour parts, but we both know a 4 hour movie isn’t gonna happen. I see where you’re coming from, but I just think that the integrity of the series as a whole is more important.

Yes exactly! Seeing the movie in two parts is understandable especially for this last one, but then being able to buy it in on one disk is also very cool. Your exactly right!

EMUBari83, I largely agree with you. Very few do well. Recently only LOTR: ROTK did well enough, that I recall anyways (3 hours 12 mins theatrically).

Actually I wouldn’t want a 4 hour DH. It’s too much. You also have to think about the audience. Not everyone who sees these movies are teenagers and adults. There are quite a bit of younger kids. Have you ever sat next to a 10 year old in a movie for more than 2and a half hours? If not I hope you never do.

I meant from a standpoint of the movie itself not the atmosphere in the theatre.

While I always thought the movies were too short, I think whether or not its in two parts will depend on how many more subplots get killed in HPB. How much of the LV flashbacks are shown and will they introduce a relationship between Bill and Fleur.

Even in general I wouldn’t want a 4 hour movie. It’s easier to watch a movie of that length at home. I want the films to be successful and I do not tihnk DH would be as a 4 hour movie.

Two movies would seriously suck. It’s just greediness and money-grubbing from WB.

Just release a single long movie, if Peter Jackson can do it with LOTR franchise (one movie for each book) surely Harry Potter is easy compared to that.

Hmmm, But making a two part movie that includes more of the book into a movie is a little different. If they add certain scenes where you need to know and understand why that is happening from previous movies and books. some areas may not be understandable especially if your not much of a reader and rely on the movies. But i’m sorta confusing myself out here.

EMUBari83 – I think I see were not gonna agree on this well, your entitled to your opinion. jam – I agree 2 movies would not be a good thing, but I don’t know if HP really would be that much easier than LOTR. I’m a LOTR fan so I’m not dissing it in any way but JRR Tolkein adds a lot of subplots that are not directly related to the plot, but explain the world he is creating which is not always necessary, while in HP, especially in DH, everysingle subplot is important to the overall story. That is why the filmmakers have had so much more difficulty pleasing hte HP fans than they did the LOTR’s fans.

Please don’t let this be true! The Potter films have gotten better and better, I think, and they’ve all come from relative obscurity. Dan, Emma, & Rupert were all pretty much unknowns before HP, David Yates was an unknown in the US, etc. For such large-scale movies, they’re actually quite humble in this matter. Bringing in a big-name director like Spielberg would ruin the franchise. Splitting up the movie, while it would ensure that every little tiny bit of plot would be in there, just wouldn’t feel right. Yes, I want it to be epic, the book was incredibly epic, but I think the direction the films are going in now is the right direction for them. SPOILERS! Besides, the final battle between Harry & Voldemort was actually quite simple and extremely ironic (expelliarmus?) and I think the movie should capture that aspect. That final scene with just the two of them circling each other should absolutely not resemble anything like Dumbledore vs. Voldemort at the Ministry in OotP or anything like it. Spielberg would probably make it that way. David Yates has done a stellar job with OotP (best movie of the series by far) and he needs to close it out. Even if some plot is left out, he’ll capture the spirit of the movie, and that’s what really matters. Say no to Hollywood interference, WB, and stay on the path you’re on. You’ve got a good thing going here… why screw it up now?

No Way… DH in two parts, we have waited long enough for the movie release, why make it in 2 parts and how are they going to divide the story Deathly Hallows Part I and Deathly Hallows Part II that’s a lot of nonsense. I agree with most of the fans here for a 3 hour movie like LOTRRotK or even make it 4hours with intermission for moviegoers to go to the washroom and stretch out or buy more popcorn is more sensible. Stven spielberg (he’s a very good director) not on Deathly Hallows. We want the last Harry P:otter movie the most memorable one, one witha loud BANG, that people will be talking in centuries (it deserves it). The team of David Yates (justice to David Yates) and Michael Goldenberg will suit it best IMHO. Besides the poroblem that Michael had in wrting the screenplay of OotP is to compress the movie in 2 hours and OotP is the longest HP book(then). I think, given a longer screen time, Michael can do a better screenplay that will give justice to the book, OotP is close enough. So it’s 4 hour movie with intermission (if 3 hours is not enough) and David Yates and Michael Goldenberg to work on it.

I think that maybe a 3 1/2 or 4 movie would be great and enough to get the most important parts of DH in and to really do the book justice make the wand fight scenes both of Harry Vs Voldemort and the fight for Hogwarts atleast 25-30 mins long and we Harry Potter fans would be so darn happy.as for director’s lets wait and see what happens with Yates and HBP and if not better than OOTP then Cuaron or Del Toro for sure.POA is my favorite HP movie and i love Pan’s Labarinth by Del Toro.So please Warner Bros,give us fans a 3 1/2 to 4 hour movie it wont hurt it a bit i mean look at the LOTR movies they are 3 hours or more and did really well so come on please dont dissapoint. Love You Harry Potter Fans! Oscars 2011 here we come!