posted
While I do think that 4 and 5 worked as singular films, splitting them in two makes more sense than splitting 7. Some parts of 7 could be trimmed heavily on film.
posted
I think 4 worked as a singular film, but 5 didn't. It just felt like the story was too cramped for one film. I agree that 7 seems like an unlikely choice to be split into 2 films, given its shorter length and less action. Then again, they left so many parts out of 5 that were vital to the stories of 6 and 7 that maybe they'll just use the extra screen time to fill the viewer in on the stuff that was skipped.
As for why they didn't split 4 or 5, I think it's because they wanted to make sure the stars didn't age too much during the time required to make the films.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that most of the films were simply too short. People sat through all three LotR movies and they were all significantly longer than the HP movies. As the series has progressed, I've been more and more disappointed with the amount of material that was cut during the translation from script to movie. I realize that there will always be some things that are lost or changed in the translation from book to screenplay, but much of what was cut could have stayed in if the filmmakers had been willing to lengthen the movies by an hour or so.
I'd rather see this all in one longer film, but if they have to cut it in to two parts to be faithful to the story line so be it. As long as they can sign/have signed all of the actors to play in both films. I believe the last contract only included the one movie.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think 4 was fine enough as one film, though it's my least favorite still.
5 needed to be split into two. I think 6 could probably benefit from it too, and seven by far needs it.
I expect they'll film it all at once and release them a few months apart. Releasing them a year apart would be crazy, as well as unnecessary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank god. Seriously the last films just play like
CRAP HURRY OK GET TO THE SCHOOL HURRY HURRY DO THE SUMMARY OF OH WE'RE ALL BACK NOW PUT THE TRAIN IN THERE REAL QUICK JESUS DON'T FALL BEHIND PUT IN THE PLOT POINTS SOMEBODY MENTION VOLDEMORT OKAY GREAT PUT IN THE AUTUMN COLORS TOSS IN SOME VISUALS HURRY OH MY GOD WE HAVE TO FIT IN TEN SECONDS OF THE QUIDDICH SEASON HURRRRYYYYYYYY OKAY QUICK PUT IN SOME EXTERIOR SCENES SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS WE'RE AT CHRISTMAS NOW LOOK SNOW OKAY FASTER GLOSS OVER SOME MYSTERY QUICK DON'T FORGET THE LOVE SIDE-STORY OKAY DON'T LINGER OKAY THREE SECONDS IS GOOD WE STILL HAVE 200 PAGES TO FIT IN TEN MINUTES OKAY CGI CGI CGI HARRY'S FACE CGI CGI CGI EPIC CONFLICT RESOLUTION OVERARCHING MESSAGE OKAY CUT
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I expect they'll film it all at once and release them a few months apart. Releasing them a year apart would be crazy, as well as unnecessary.
Hi. Have you met Hollywood? Unnecessary and crazy a specialty.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Kinda makes me wonder why they didn't do that with Film 4 or 5.
Because the actors are getting older. This is the only one they could afford to do it with without having them totally grow out of the roles.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I expect they'll film it all at once and release them a few months apart. Releasing them a year apart would be crazy, as well as unnecessary.
Hi. Have you met Hollywood? Unnecessary and crazy a specialty.
So I've noticed
But nah, I expect they'll release them somewhat close together. It'll likely be cheaper. They won't have to spend as much on advertising, and besides, I imagine the number of people who are going to see these movies is already locked. It's nowhere near being a stand alone movie.
I do wonder what they'll do as far as naming it goes. Deathly Hallows I and II? Or ask Rowling for two names?
Shmuel -
Why not film them both concurrently? It's not LOTR, it wouldn't take two years to film. These movies don't break three hours, I think they clock in at an average of 110 minutes, if that. Add back in the scenes that were already filmed but cut, and add another month or two of shooting, and bam, twice as much content.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some cynics will see the move as simply doubling the box-office payday, but Radcliffe told the newspaper that the split is purely in service of the story.
I guess I'm "some cynic" then. Especially because I don't get why Radcliffe should be an authority on this.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who was demanding that they split the movie in two, and who is also cynical, I think they could have easily done that with the last couple but chose not to, and are doing it with this one because they know they have enough material to do it and do it right, AND rake in tons of cash. I think it's a sort of perfect storm where everyone wins, though I imagine only one side is cackling and steepling their fingers.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, the biggest thing that was omitted from 5 was... Quiditch.
I can't exactly weep bitter tears over that one. They took my least favorite book of the series and made a decent movie out of it.
I'll second the curiosity as to where they think would make for an appropriate break in the story, though.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some cynics will see the move as simply doubling the box-office payday, but Radcliffe told the newspaper that the split is purely in service of the story.
I guess I'm "some cynic" then. Especially because I don't get why Radcliffe should be an authority on this.
posted
Maybe in the first half, we can see a lot of Harry's angst that we were so deprived of seeing in the last movie.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had been making other arguments for how the story is split, but I think another way to split it is when Voldemort becomes aware of what they are up to, and that Harry isn't simply hiding from him. Of course, I don't really remember when in the story that happens.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part one may end with Ron's return, as that's kinda a turning point in the story, about halfway through, and somewhat of a resolution of part of the plot.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Order of the Phoenix was probably the best of the movies so far, if you don't appreciate Chris Columbus's two (those of which were my absolute favorites for quite a while). I don't see why people get so crabby about Harry being crabby, because he seems like an angel compared to my brother. Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ending at Ron returning would make for a profoundly dull 7th movie and an 8th movie that would still have to be 3+ hours long.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After looking at the page numbers for different plotlines, I realize that pooka is completely right about that. Except for the 7th movie being profoundly dull. It will be less exciting than the 8th, sure, but it still has several encounters and stuff everyone at Warner Bros is eager to mess around with using CGI.
Now I'm not sure where to put the split. I guess I'll have to worry about that when the movie comes along, or at least wait for the sixth movie first.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I would end the first movie just after the escape from the Malfoy's house. That gives you a decent action sequence for the final act of part 1, the heart-wrenching Dobby scene, and leaves them with Bill & Fleur with "we've got to plan the biggest bank heist ever" as a teaser for part 2. Then for part 2 you get Gringots, the Dumbledore flashbacks in Hogsmead, and all of the resistance battle at Hogwarts. It seems like the most natural division to me, in terms of storytelling.
posted
Doesn't Harry become a Godfather as well, while he's at Bill & Fleur's?
I guess another thing to consider is that once they leave Bill and Fleur's, everything else happens pretty much within one day. :sigh:
There actually is quite a bit that happens in the beginning of the book - the escape with 7 harrys, the wedding, the theft from the ministry, before all the being damp and hungry takes over. I guess after they go to Lovegood's could be an acceptable break point after all.
posted
5 was the best movie to date in my opinion and the most boring book. The book took way too long and by cutting most of that out it was a much better movie. one of the very few times I'll say a movie was better than the book. Close, but just for overall impact I'd have to go with the movie.
You also have to remember, hollywood will take 10 pages of a battle scene in the book and turn it into 30 mins of screen time at the same time they will also take 300 pages of character development and turn in into 5 mins of screen time.
The final battle scene at hogwarts will take quite a while, then Harry has to go into the forest and then there's another battle scene. I think it will make for a good movie, but undoubtably the book fans will be disappointed. the scene at the train station will be hard to pull off without making it corny. I agree the 7th movie will not be as action packed. you'll have good first scene with all the Harrys leaving privit drive. But a lot of the action takes place in the second movie. To me it should be about one 4 hour movie to do it right, that is if they do movie 6 right so you don't have to spend an hour backtracking in 7.
From WB's stand point, why not make it two films? Anyone who has put up with 7 movies to find out what happens will pay for the 8th movie. Anyone who is just kind of interest, or was just taking their kids to the movie, will have already given up on the series.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't they make it into a six-hour miniseries for TV, like Tin Man was? They can still release it on DVD. I think the movie industry should stop allowing theaters' desires for short movies to continue strangling them and compromising production values. If theaters want to show really well done movies, they should allow whatever time it takes. Have real intermissions, like they used to. They did allow three and a half hours for the Lord of the Rings movies. And even then, an extra half hour was added in the extended versions released on DVD.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wondering how they would fit Book 7 into one movie -- I guess they won't!
Books 4 and 5 worked fine as one film. I might have made some different choices in what to cut, but in book format I felt that both contained a lot of filler and dead space. Book 5, especially. In fact, the first of the long books that I thought needed every second of material was book 7. I realize this point is in contention as a lot of people were annoyed with the camping scenes, but I didn't think they were overly long and I found them essential to the tone and pace of the book. Besides which, there were just sooo many high-action parts that will play beautifully on the screen. The climax portions of the earlier books are the parts the films played particularly well. In most books there is one such scene. In book 7 there are at least half a dozen...not even counting the last few chapters which could be a whole movie by themselves (and may be...I didn't read far enough to find out where they planned to split the book).
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think 4 was fine enough as one film, though it's my least favorite still.
5 needed to be split into two. I think 6 could probably benefit from it too, and seven by far needs it.
I expect they'll film it all at once and release them a few months apart. Releasing them a year apart would be crazy, as well as unnecessary.
They're releasing them about 6 months apart, one in November and the next in May. And yeah, they are planning on filming them at the same time.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least that won't be too bad a wait. I don't want to have to wait another year-and-a-half-plus cycle to see Molly vs. Bellatrix.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
