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)

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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…

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 :)

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.

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.

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.