Advertisement

@ 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.

Split in two. Longer the better.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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”

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.)

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?

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.

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

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.

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