How would you guys feel about this? bad that they split it up, or good that they are taking the time to try and make the best of of the last book? or do you feel they are simply just trying to milk the HP movies for all they can get?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's a mistake. I understand why they'd do it, but the last book is actually easier to film as one movie than some of the ones that've come before it.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I don't think it's a great idea. It's one of the shorter books, and although a lot of the scenes are essential to the plot, I would rather have a 3 hour movie than two movies. It also depends on how far apart the two movies are.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
Evie, i agree with you. I would rather have a longer final HP movie.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
How long would you need to get everything in the book done right on film? Is three hours enough time?
I can't help but compare it to the Return of the King, clocking in at 4 hours and 11 minutes for the extended, and 3 hours and 21 minutes for the theatrical release.
Yeah, I agree with Evie et al. A three hour movie should be fine, and much more preferable than two 90 or 120 minute films released several months apart.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
They should go the LOTR route. Put out the movie in theatres as a regular, but decidedly long movie. Then put out an extended DVD version that adds like, 50 minutes or so per movie.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think goblet of fire should have been split in half.
However, I don't really think the last one needed to be split.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
i think if they wanted them to be just like the book then they might consider splitting. For the kids who go see these and love them but dont read the books, would it matter? then again, i think HP might have equal if not more fans that are adults.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
Why not just release a four and a half hour movie with an intermission? Or even a six hour movie with two or three intermissions?! I know it is unorthodox, but people are obviously going to pay to see it. Many people will pay to see it multiple times if done well.
I know that six hours would cause logistical problems, like people won't come on weekdays because of work and school, but I bet they could pull off the four hour version nicely. Just give everyone a ten minute break to get food and go to the bathroom.
Just let it be a huge event! Wasn't Gone with the Wind rather long?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You also can't show it as many times over the course of the opening weekend, so for box office numbers, they will have to go with 3.5 or under.
Or are you willing to pay double the money for 5 hours?
Splitting the movie is clearly going to screw with the Feng Shui of the whole series. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But for serious, where is the climax of film 7.5 in this scenario?
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
i just hope the people that matter in this decision arent people who are only concerned for the profits it could bring in.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The only climax I see having much punch at all is Ron coming back, and a flipping Horcrux finally getting destroyed. That doesn't make for a very exciting film, unless they really punch up the goings on at Hogwarts. I mean, they'd have to do something akin to Frodo and Sam's back tracking in the Two Towers.
Man, I can't even remember when Dobbie died in the flow of things.
Okay, I guess I can possibly see that working, though I'm still a little confused on the details. The book starts at chez Malfoy, and there is a semi-large battle there later. (during which IIRC Dobbie is killed). I guess it would give them some space to develop the Tonks/dude relationship, and prepare people to give a damn who is holding who's wand. So film seven would be more focused on getting Horcruxes and 7.5 is more about the hallows themselves. So what do they call them?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sounds good to me. 2 3 hour movies instead of one 2.5 hour movie where they cut everything. They just might get me to see this one because I refused to watch any of them after 4 because of how bad 4 was.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
SPOILERS, I guess, Duh.
I reviewed the chapter synopses on hp-lexicon.org and really, I don't see why they can't transpose the near miss at Lovegood's with the escape from the Malfoy's (and Dobbie's death), and that would pretty nearly separate the two stories. Though...
Well, crud, I just don't know. It seems like Aberforth and Dumbledore's past should get revealed in one movie and then Snape's intentions in the other movie. So I guess the aspersions on Dumbledore would have to, er, come out in the seventh movie. I'm trying to think of ways they could destroy some more of the horcruxes, like all of the ones not located inside Hogwarts, in the 7th movie. I guess I'll have to read on.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think the reason they want to cut this one but not the others is they could leave things that weren't huge out of the others, but they didn't leave it all out. Now they have to tie up everything that happened in the first six movies up in this one. You have to think of the movies as seperate, because there is a large group of people who watch all of the movies but have not read the books.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I'm excited. I know they're just milking their cash cow but it extends the Pottermania for me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was just wondering the other day when was the last time I'd seen you about, romany.
The more that I think about it, the more this actually makes sense. On the one hand, they're looking for horcruxes, on the other, they're looking for Hallows. Just one of the Hallows is also a Horcrux.
Now I can't even remember what all the Horcruxes were. That's kind of annoying.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
not in order, and without looking
Slytherin's Ring Ravenclaw's Diadem Hufflepuff's Cup Locket Snake Diary Harry
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, the diary was the one that escaped me completely, and not knowing that, I couldn't remember if there was an item belonging to Gryffindor or two lockets or something.
I don't think it would mess too much up if Nagini were killed in the first half, and that winnows down the number of Horcruxes to be destroyed. I mean, it makes it a decreasingly probable that Voldemort doesn't pick up on what they're doing, but he did send Nagini to attack them at Godric's Hollow.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
They can't change the story so much to have Nagini killed in the first half. Neville has to do it, and Neville can't see Voldemort until the final battle.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The more I re-read the previous books after reading the last two, the more I love Neville. [/derail]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and I don't know that they'd agree that Neville has to kill Nagini. They gave Voldemort Dumbledore's speech once, for heaven's sake!)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm okay with this depending. If they do two 90 minute movies instead of one 3 hour movie, then I'll be pissed. If I get TWO 3 hour movies, then I'm more than okay with it. Frankly I think OotP and HBP should be two movies as well. There are too many plot points and fun little scenes that have to be covered and I'd like to have covered. I hate it when they half ass it and it feels like a rush to cover plot points while leaving out all the stuff that makes the novel FUN.
If they make it into two short films, it's a money grab, if it's two long films, then go for it.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I think they should cut a lot of crap out of the middle of the movie that has little bearing on the end of the movie and make it one regular sized movie.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Maybe they want to take more time to explore Dumbledore's sexuality.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't think it would mess too much up if Nagini were killed in the first half, and that winnows down the number of Horcruxes to be destroyed. I mean, it makes it a decreasingly probable that Voldemort doesn't pick up on what they're doing, but he did send Nagini to attack them at Godric's Hollow.
I have to disagree here. I think it would totally mess up the concluding scenes if Nagini were killed in the first half. Both the final scene with Snape and Neville depend on Nagini and those a absolutely critical for the story.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it'd kill all the character development for Neville, but given what they did to him in OotP, would that really be shocking?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know why Nagini has to be the one to kill Snape, and I'm not sure why Neville has to kill Nagini in particular. Seems like it would make a lot more sense for Neville to kill Bellatrix, or was there some reason vengeance is bad for him?
I think maybe the writers were looking at the book and the way that destruction of the horcruxes got completely dropped in the final third, and might have realized it should be two different stories. I mean, didn't Ron and Hermione destroy one offscreen altogether and they show up with armloads of these supernaturally poisonous Basilisk fangs, which don't actually get used in any subsequent destructions? You gotta admit that kind of sucked.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's fine the way it happened in the book. Plus I liked having Molly take care of Bellatrix. Especially for the reasons JKR highlighted.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
I think it could be done as two movies very well, but I doubt it will be. The Potter films so far have been entertaining, but I've ended up sitting there annoyed at how much they changed in most of them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We could cut out the middleman and have Neville kill Snape.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So far, every episode--both movie and book--has begun with the kids getting ready for the new year at Hogwarts, and ended with them leaving Hogwarts for summer vacation. It may be hard for the producers to break with these traditions in either of the last two movies.
Their only choice is to make the movies longer--in the neighborhood of 3 1/2 hours, like the Lord of the Rings movies (in theatrical release--the extended release DVDs went over four hours). And by the way, why not have extended release versions for the Harry Potter movies? Don't they realize they could make even more money this way?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Ron-
With the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions, Peter Jackson and crew were so fanatical that they filmed hours upon hours of footage (and I don't blame them; there's so much information in the books worth learning). They didn't know how long the final cuts were going to be until it was time to go to the editing room and they discovered they had way too much footage. So the whole Extended thing was kind of prepared for them, and the extra money was a very nice bonus once they realized fans would devour that stuff.
I have a very strong feeling that the various directors for the Potter films have maybe ten deleted scenes each, and decided what they were going to cut out far prior to filming. Thus, the entire production was done meant with the intention of making a theatrical version, and not having to face the dilemma of cutting important things later and destroying continuity (like they've done a great job with that anyway >_>). Not that I know any of this is true; it just makes sense to me. Add to that that it would be fairly difficult to go back and extend the older movies, and the fact that the footage would be created with the intention of making profit and not enhancing story; I don't see it happening. At least if it did, I'd be surprised and probably wouldn't buy them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Actually, most of the movies begin with Harry at the Dursley's.
Whatever they do, I don't need a whole movie of camping in the woods.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't know why Nagini has to be the one to kill Snape, and I'm not sure why Neville has to kill Nagini in particular.
Nagini doesn't have to be the one to kill Snape. The critical issue is the scene where Dumbledore's portrait tells Snape that if/when Voldemort starts keeping Nagini protected and very close to him, then Snape must tell Harry that his scar is a Horcrux. It would be difficult to find a way around that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think there would be a way. I mean, it's not like Snape was able to tell Harry immediately, was he? Because Harry couldn't trust anything Snape said until he was dead anyway.
Why can't Harry find out about the scar from Dumbledore's portrait?
One has to take into account that the tension over whether Snape is good or not, whether Harry lives or not, is not there to carry people through this ridiculously long and convoluted story the way it pulled us through the 735 page book.
Even if we can pretend like we do, there isn't the ability to go inside someone's head in a movie. But then, I can't remember what was shown in the Order of the Phoenix movie from Snapes memory.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
If you kill Snape less than half way through, Hogwarts colapses.
And I don't think Ron's statement about the kids preparing for hogwarts, and yours about no he's at the dursley's is that different. He's usually sorting through his trunk.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't say Snape would have to die halfway through. Mostly I'm saying that the quest for horcruxes needs to be nearly concluded in one film, and then the second film focuses more on the deathly hallows. This could be accomplished by moving the conversation with Lovegood after the confrontation at Malfoy manor.
I'm undecided on the raid of Gringott's, though.
I think it would be acceptable for two horcruxes to still be out there at the end of the first movie. The more I think about it, the more it seemed like the destruction of the diadem and the cup were slapped together to get them out of the way.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I think the books are fine and shouldn't be tinkered with. Make a three hour movie, cut most of the camping in the woods and unimportant stuff, leaving EVERYTHING else involving horcruxes and Snape blah blah blah intact.
And on that note, I demand someone to convert Deathly Hallows to the font size of Fellowship of the Ring and figure out which book has more content. 'Cause it seems to me like a whole bunch happened in FotR, and it's my favorite of the movies.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)