In The News
"Deathly Hallows" Movie to Begin Filming Next February, Two Films Still Under Consideration
DH FilmHarry 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.
rate this article
Interested in DH Film?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
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.
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…
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.
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.
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???
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???
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.
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?
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?
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!
won´t it be weird to have 2 movies called “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”? But, I don´t care, TWO MOVIES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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 ?
yeah, i don’t like the two-film idea… too contrived. it’s one story. one hella long story, but still, just one.
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 :)
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!!
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.
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…
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?
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Since DH was published, your interest in Potter fandom has:
- Increased! I'm more involved now than I ever was!794 (22%)
- It's stayed at the same level of fun it always has!1333 (38%)
- Decreased slightly: I only check sites a few times a week now.887 (25%)
- Severely lowered. Without new canon, I'm bored.358 (10%)
- It's gone. In fact, I can't even answer this poll because I'm not really visting a Potter site.112 (3%)
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)