Beyond Hogwarts

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Parts 1 and 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is dense with information that is crucial to the overall story. It's definitely too much to stuff into a two hour movie.

There are many challenges in adapting a novel or series of novels into scripts and movies. Plot lines are always reduced and/or eliminated. The work that has been done so far on the Harry Potter series has had reasonable success. The millions of dollars of revenue prove that the Harry Potter Fans will pay for anything HP, but will they pay for two movies made from one book? If the Studio thinks fans will not pay for and sit through one longer than average movie (3 hours plus, a rule broken successfully by the Lord of the Rings movies), will it be possible they'd think fans will happily pay for two films?

So, do you think it's possible that the final Harry Potter adventure, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, will be made into two movies? And if it is, where would you end movie number one and start movie two?

UPDATE! 3/12/08: Producer David Heyman said last night that It will be officially announced soon that book 7 WILL BE TWO FILMS! Click here for more info!

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...  >  >>

Reader Comments:

I hope they either make it a 3-hour+ movie or split it into two; I am annoyed that they didn't make 3, 4, and 5 longer - why does it need to be under 3 hours?

Hardcore Harry Potter fans always love more Harry Potter than less - won't they? I know that, except for movies 1 and 2, which I thought were done well and were the truest to the books, I always wished 3, 4, and 5 were longer.

It would be painful to wait for the second half of the movie, but at the same time, it would keep the Harry Potter world Alive longer, something I try to do within my own world...

Then again, I wonder: if people end up unhappy with the first half, would it prevent them from seeing the second half? I suppose it is not much different from a person disliking an earlier one and not seeing a new one, but...?

Posted by Katie T from California on February 16, 2008 5:13 PM

Make it into an epic film. Real fans won't care if it's 4 hrs long. Just put in a 10 min intermission for people to go to the bathroom and get sodas. But never ever make it into one two hour movie. As an avid fan who wants representation of every detail two hours would be just enough to annoy me. The break point should definitely be when Neville comes back into play because that's the turning point in the story without a doubt.

Posted by Five Time Reader on February 16, 2008 5:27 PM

I really think it should be split in two, the last film was awful in the sense that the plot was completely rushed. I would pay a thousand dollars to see both the movies, i dont care how much they cost. And i would also sit through 3-4 hours of a longer movie until my bladder explodes, and even then i would stay until it finished. And I think that the 1st movie should end around when Bathilda is revealed as the snake, or, when harry sees the doe, or when they figure out about the hallows. Around that area of the book would be the best finish and start.
So they should definetaly make it into two films and have Chris Columbus as the director, definetaly not David Yates, he was terrible.

Posted by josh from hogwarts on February 16, 2008 6:03 PM

Definite YES on two movies! I, too, wonder why they feel the movies have to be kept under two hours ~ the fact that they keep adding deleted scenes when they're shown on t.v. just proves that folks can't get enough.

Also, book seven was so complex, the most intense since three.

If it were me, I'd break it after Dobby's . Harry buries him, then looks out to sea as he makes his decision to continue to find and destroy the horcruxes. Then the second movie can continue with Gringotts, the battle for Hogwarts, and Harry's sacrifice. That would seem to make a nice, clean break in the action and in psychological terms.

Posted by Perdie from Arlington, MA on February 16, 2008 6:58 PM

I think yes on two movies if they don't squash them to tightly. I also want both to come out at the same time, not like, part 1, one year and part 2 the next.

Posted by potterfan23 on February 16, 2008 8:20 PM

Two movies makes sense for the length of the thing. I would say the best break would be after seeing Harry's parents house in Goddrics hollow. Perfect for breaking the action just tragic enough to make for a good ending and the mystery of Batilda inviting Harry to follow make new people to the books want to see the second one.

Posted by House from Riverside, CA on February 16, 2008 8:35 PM

I agree with Josh on both points. The last movie was rushed, so much was cut out of the plot that it was disappointing, although I did enjoy the movie. I would pay to see ten movies if it takes that much to play out the series fully. I also like Pers idea about cutting the first movie after Dobby's and beginning the next with the quest for the horcruxes. If they insist on one movie per book they should throw out the time limit. I would sit through a 4 hour movie til I busted a gut!

I also agree that Chris Columbus should direct. I feel like he had a better sense of the tone of the books, and he made sure the actors stayed true to the characters. I so wish that Richard Harris was still around to play Dumbledore - he was so much better than Michael Gambon. I think that Harris actually read the books and was a fan, whereas Gambon seems to just be playing a part. Harris was like a living emboment of the written Dumbledore - the way he took his time and was so delibrate in his speech.

I thought I would love the casting of Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix, however, I thought it was flat. Again, she seems to be playing a role, a "scary witch", when Bellatrix is so much more than that. She is haughty, proud, cruel, and evil in her very core. I hope Helena reads the books and not just the scripts before the next movies.

So much of the casting is great - Alan Rickman is fantastic, I can't wait to see how he colors Snape in the next films, now that we know he is actually a hero. And Lucius Malfoy (can't remember the actors name) really "gets" his charater too. I wonder who play Narcissa? I hope they don't completely cut her out. I have been hoping there would be a role for Judi Dench - she is such a great actress, I thought she would be good.

Too bad the "powers that be" don't ask for our advice. This site is a great resource of ideas from hardcore fans, I always enjoy reading the comments!

Posted by tina on February 16, 2008 9:03 PM

interesting point, tina. it is true that the casting of the characters is important to the hardcore fans who have a knowledge of the characters that the average movie goer who doesn't read the books (hard to believe, i know, but there are some people out there who only watch the movies and don't read the books)doesn't have. i guess casting wouldn't affect their views, because they only know the characters as they are on the screen. i agree that helena bonham carter's portrayal of bellatrix left a bit to be desired. she was kind of a caricature of bellatrix, although she didn't have as big a part in the movie as she does in the book. hopefully she do better next time. i too wish the original dumbledore actor was still around, i always think of this guy as "the imposter dumbledore". the original guy could have been the real dumbledore himself in looks and mannerisms, or at least the way i always saw him as i read the books. i think the main trio is cast really well, they look like i imangined they would, except that emma is prettier than hermione.

Posted by mike on February 16, 2008 10:37 PM

well obviously it should split into two. although i'm also very upset with the making of phoenix there are so many things left behind in this film and most important the last conversation between harry and dumbledore they didn't show it properly. if you are directing a film on a novel which has 700 pages then you should split it into two or you should make it longer atlest 4 hours. so i wish they split ly hallows into two.

Posted by ron from india on February 17, 2008 12:59 AM

I'd prefer one, much longer movie, but I suppose two would work - providing they come out within a reasonable time of each other.

I think a good splitting point would be when Ron leaves, yet there isn't really as much action before that point as there is afterwards, so I don't see that working too well.

I think a good point would be, as mentioned, Dobby's , although I can see Ron's return working as well.

Posted by Tom from Melbourne, Australia on February 17, 2008 02:08 AM

I believe that the movie should be two parts. There is just too much information to fit into a two and a half hour movie. And i believe the first movie should end either before or after godric's hollow. And yes there should be a new director. So much has been left out of the past three movies that if you don't remember the books fully you mite not be all that into the movies. I just hope that warner bros. actually listen to the fans and make two movies or ly Hallows really won't be worth watching if they cut out things from the book. It be an injustice to make one movie and leave every fan wondering what if there would have been two movies...

Posted by brandon on February 17, 2008 02:44 AM

Well, Tina, I was hoping for Judy Dench to make an appearance too! I think the perfect role for her would be Neville's grandmother Augusta Longbottom.... just imagine Judy Dench beating a baffled Eater who thought he could easily take it up with Granny...

I like Per's idea of cutting the film after Dobby's - the scene is very emotional and has a beautiful setting, the cottage, the sea... but this would mean they have to include Bill and Fleur and since they're not even including them in "Half-Blood Prince" I don't think there is much of a chance.

There should definately be two films. "The Order of the Phoenix" already suffered from really bad cuttings - the worst of which was the missing out of "Snape's worst memory" which is such an important part of the story. I already fear for "Half-Blood Prince" that they mess it up - I've read somewhere they are not even planning to film the Gaunt scenes! I mean this is a crucial scene to understand Voldemort's background and motivations, who is after all, Harry's most important counterpart! I really hope they're not cutting out "A sluggish memory" as well - I mean Voldemort's horcruxes determine Harry's actions from then on. I really fear they're missing out on the main storyline and that they're puitting too much emphasis on trying to make it a "light and funny" film, concentrating on Ron and Lavender and other unimportant sidetracks ( I don't even these deserve to be called "subplots")...

As you said, Tina, they've got the cream of British actors at hand for their movies.... Helena Bonham-Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman... please, please please "USE" these people for heaven's sake! and don't just give them three lines each!

Definately two films - I wished they'd do that for "Half-Blood Prince" as well. Godd storytelling needs time and deserves depths!

Posted by Siena from Leeds, UK on February 17, 2008 05:31 AM

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...  >  >>

Featured Discussions | The Septology | Harry's World | Harry Potter Movies | Dumbeldore Is Not Dead | FAQ is not affiliated with or approved by
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury, Warner Bros., or J.K. Rowling
Original Content Copyright © 2006-2010 David Haber, All Rights Reserved