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.
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.
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.
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.
Might tick people off? Mess up the continunity? This entire series has been a continuation from one book to the next!!! Yes, by all means, put this into two movies. I wish they’d made OotP into two movies. Gone with the Wind was 4 hrs. long with intermission, why not this as well? Do these books justice, and make the films as in-depth as possible…..
I think a longer movie would be ok. I can sit for a 3 or a 31/2 hour movie if its good. Lord of the Rings was 3 hours and I had no problem with that. The real die hard fans could do it easy. But two movies would be ok too as long as they werent too far apart.
"I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work."
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”