Advertisement

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

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

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!

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!! ;)

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.

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!

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

‘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!!)

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!!

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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…

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)