Harry 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.
PLEASE let it be TWO FILMS!!! DH can not be done justice in one 2 and half-hour film, but it CAN with two of them! I agree with David Barron. There’s almost no downside to this. I don’t really care if WB makes more money off of the split, it’s a win-win situation. The fans get all of the material from the book that they want, and WB gets their money. I don’t really see a negative. At least, if there is a negative, the positives FAR outweigh it. I don’t care if I have to wait a little bit for the second film. We HP fans are USED to waiting, it’s no big deal. If we’re getting all of our favorite scenes left in, who cares if we have to wait a bit in between films? Two films will be so awesome!!!
I think WB and the producers should go for it! Two films! Everyone’s happy! :)
Dave Heyman, I beg you, please spare us Hogwarts Reloaded and Hogwarts Revolutions. There isn’t nearly enough in Deathly Hallows to make two films. But there is enough to make one cracking, outstanding finale. Surely you don’t aspire to the flabby filmmaking of Harry Potter: At World’s End?
So much is already cut out of HBP that nobody will be any the wiser if you leave out the links to Deathly Hallows. Like: no Scrimgeour, no Carrows, no Bill & Fleur (where on earth is Harry going to escape to and plan the Gringotts raid?)... that’s 20% of the book already, assuming that your publicity so far is accurate. (I mean, you traded these characters for LAVENDER BROWN? You may as well chop out Bagshot, Xeno Lovegood and Grindelwald while you’re at it.)
By the way, if the producers have to negotiate through phone calls and emails, it certainly sounds like they’re not asking David Yates, who the producers would normally see every day. So thank heavens for that small mercy. Very sad that Newell’s out of the running though. That guy knows what he’s doing.
Sorry but I still dont believe you I specifically remember that. and Return of The King may have been as long as the Titanic but It wasnt longer. That is all I have to say. This is all Im talking about it.
I cant see how Deathly Hallows can be made into 2 ENTERTAINING movies. Rather than split into 2 incomplete movies, why dont they consider one 3 hour movie. Its the final movie, people will go see it regardless so they will not make any loss of less showings in a day etc. I very much hope they do not make into two films.
Posted by Professor Potter on February 12, 2008, 12:40 AM
report to moderator
Bella – OK, it doesn’t seem like I’m going to convince you here, but do understand: it’s not like this is just my opinion or anything, what I’m saying about Titanic not being a two-part film is correct, and is verifiable by more or less any official source that you might care to consult. Same with the point about the running time of Return of the King: I didn’t just make up or guesstimate that 200min vs. 194min figure, those are the actual running times that you would see listed on the DVD cases, the official documentation, IMDb, Wikipedia or wherever else you might want to check.
I too am done with that point, because I’m really at a loss for what else I could say about it…just be clear that I’m not just making stuff up to prove a point here, or anything. I’m just telling you the facts…
The biggest down point of a two parter? You lose hard core fans (like many here) who waited years for the book and years for the movie and don’t want to wait years for the SECOND HALF of a movie.
Movies back in 30s, 40s and 50s that had intermissions were done so for many reasons (length being one) but one of the main reasons was that most of the population still smoked heavily. In Europe, a lot of normal running time films (2 hours) have intermissions simply so that those who are attending the films can have a cig break. “Gone with The Wind”, “The Sound of Music” etc. are in fact, ONE movie, but were shown with intermissions due to length (though the Sound of Music isn’t terribly long) and so that people could have a short break. “Titanic” was given an intermission in SOME theatres (in my part of the country (New England) it was very common but both of my roommates (Pennsylvania and Cali) both sat straight through it in theatres) and it was sold on VHS in two parts simply because VHS’s couldn’t hold as much data as a DVD can. It would have just lost the last few minutes of the film if it was put on one tape. In fact (I own bot the VHS and the DVD) where the first VHS stops is not where I was given Intermission (when I saw the films) and when it was put back in my home theatre for a one week only special, there was no intermission.
There is no “limit” when it comes to films. Many films these days are pushing boundaries when it comes to time. WB puts limits on themselves based on what they feel people will sit through. The average film is two hours long and therefore the studios strive to shoot films that are roughly two hours long to satisfy a movie gooer.
Lets face it. When you go to a non HP film (say….Catch and Release staring Jennifer Garner) you go in expecting a nice movie that keeps your attention for 2 hours, tells a complete story and wraps everything up nicely in the end. After 120ish minutes you’re satisfied, the popcorn is gone, M&Ms have satisfied your chocolate craving and you’re ready to go home. Its the perfect movie experience.
The reason people were willing to sit through 3 hours of Return of the King was because they were invested in a series. ROTK is my favorite LOTR movie because it ties everything up (and Viggo is so damn rugged :P). I think its completely conceivable for WB to have a 3hour movie (hell a 3+ hour movie) for DH because we’re invested (in fact we’re twice as invested as we were in LOTR) and we want to see it wrapped up nicely. I think they could do it in 3 + hours (despite the plot lines they’ve discarded.) They can stay on the track they are on, and satisfy us all.
We forget, I know we all think each and everyone of us are the foremost authority on HP (Hell I do too) but the HP Films team knows what they are doing (Its why they are them) and we have to trust them. We’ve trusted them this far. If we didn’t like what they were doing, we wouldn’t keep going back to see the films and we wouldn’t be so worked up about the last one.
@ 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.
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.
Posted by AllHailSnivellus on February 12, 2008, 03:33 AM
report to moderator
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!
"Madame Maxime!" said Fleur at once, striding over to her headmistress. "Zey are saying zat zis little boy is to compete also!"[br]Somewhere under Harry's numb disbelief he felt a ripple of anger. [i]Little boy?[/i]
PLEASE let it be TWO FILMS!!! DH can not be done justice in one 2 and half-hour film, but it CAN with two of them! I agree with David Barron. There’s almost no downside to this. I don’t really care if WB makes more money off of the split, it’s a win-win situation. The fans get all of the material from the book that they want, and WB gets their money. I don’t really see a negative. At least, if there is a negative, the positives FAR outweigh it. I don’t care if I have to wait a little bit for the second film. We HP fans are USED to waiting, it’s no big deal. If we’re getting all of our favorite scenes left in, who cares if we have to wait a bit in between films? Two films will be so awesome!!!
I think WB and the producers should go for it! Two films! Everyone’s happy! :)