Search Beyond Hogwarts:
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: (Page 3)
I've been thinking about casting, I really like the Judi Dench/Augusta Longbottom idea, how about Cate Blanchett as Narcissa Malfoy? Providing they include that character of course, although I don't see how they can leave her out, she does have a pretty big part in the last book at least. And there is a guy with long red hair, don't know his name, but I saw him in a bit part on a sitcom once, and I always envisioned Bill would look like him. I didn't love the casting of Tonks, I wonder if it's just cause they cut her part to shreds.
I really think to do the books justice, the last 2 should be made in two parts each. And yes, there should be a different director. Maybe the guy who directed the first 2 movies, as those seemed to stay most true to the books. I don't like the creative liscence that has been taken in the condensing of the books into movies. And then that whole thing with Jo "outing" Dumbledore because the writer(director?) wanted to give him a love interest? What's up with that? If you can't include all the all the great stuff Jo wrote, then you really have no business adding stuff that was never even hinted at.
I don't like how Cho got blamed for telling about the DA when it was her friend Marietta who did it. I also didn't like at the end of GoF when Hermione asked Ron and Harry if they would write to her during the summer and they both acted like they wouldn't because it wasn't cool. What, did Harry have better things to do at Privet Drive or something? In the beginning of every book it shows how Harry is waiting out the interminable summer and longing for news from the wizarding community, I don't think it would be much of a stretch for him to write to his two best (only) friends!
Posted by Angela from New York on February 17, 2008 6:24 PM
They shouldnt make it into a movie at all. The movies are terrible.
Posted by Oatmeal from Chapel hill on February 17, 2008 7:14 PM
I think book 7 should be done into two movies. the other books wasn't done justice because they left to much out. alot of kids don't read the books they just watch the movies. In several of the movies Dobby wasn't even in them.I think the break should be where Harry spots the doe patronus and goes after it. Ron hasn't come back yet there and I think kids would be wondering if Ron come back.
Posted by Pamela Sue from ark on February 17, 2008 8:36 PM
For those who have said they want too see the films in 3-D, then your obviously not as lucky as those of us who live near Sydney, Australia. We have the IMAX theatre, which is a 3-d cinema, and the last movie was brought out in 3-D there. I didnt go see it there, which was sad, but after seeing in the normal cinema, I have to say i didnt miss much.
But I definetaly see the next and DH there.
And I have to say i agree with everything that has been said here. Except i think Bonham-Carter is a brilliant actor, and so is Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman and the Lucius guy. And i really do wish Richard Harris was still among us, he was and still is Dumbledore, for me.
I want more detail in the movies, I really dont care if some silly person who deosnt read the books doesnt understand. The films should be for fans and not just for usual movie goers.
Posted by josh from hogwarts on February 17, 2008 9:38 PM
To me, it's a yes on one, long movie. I don't think it's whise to split one major book in two halves. That just can't work out well.
I don't care how long I'll have to sit and watch, as long as I can.
When reading, I couldn't stop either, and I guess most people felt that way. I couldn't bear to wait for ly hallows part 2 for another year or so. That would just be awful.
Posted by Karen from Netherlands on February 17, 2008 11:30 PM
definately two movies...if not two, make it a really long one...i would be ing to sit through a 5hr movie. but have a 20min intermission so people can go to the bathroom and get more popcorn and drinks...
i think the break should be after they are caught by the snatchers and they should make it that they are knocked out....so when it starts again, theyre at the malfoy manor.
either then or at dobbys ...but the first half shouldnt be too boring because not much happens apart from godrics hollow, the doe and ron leaving.
Posted by claire from australia on February 18, 2008 12:34 AM
Angela.. Narcissa Malfoy has already been cast, she is to be played by Helen McCrory. I was just looking at the cast list for HBP and I cannnot find Fred & George Weasley listed! - Does this mean no joke shop and no chance to see those fab posters 'U-No-Poo'? I hope I am mistaken in thinking Fred and George not appear in HBP - because aunces need to feel attached to them for the full weight of Fred's in DH to hit them.
Posted by Orlando from England on February 18, 2008 07:33 AM
You're right, Dana, when pointing out that going to see two films would be quite expensive, especially for those with families - money is always a concern. But there are, I think times for treats... and hopefully your mother can be persuaded to see " Harry Potter " as such! I mean, how often do they come up with a film like that, it's not that they release a film every months.. it's just once a year... and "ly Halows" would be the last (hopefully two) films..
To Tina: Well, there is a certain webside that is very up to date on the news front Harry Potter- wise.. a webside "That Must Not Be Named" otherwise Mr Haber shriek in agony...
This webside is very good to get the latest news, it is not however, half as good as "Beyond Hogwarts " if you are looking for serious discussions.. thanks, Mr Haber!
Posted by Siena from Leeds, UK on February 18, 2008 08:32 AM
Unfortunately, Hollywood never agree to making DH one really long film because the movie theaters balk that they're not making any money that way. Why would they charge 10 bucks for someone to sit thru a 4 hour movie, when they could get 20 bucks out of the same seat with a normal-length movie? And Oatmeal, dude, the movies don't totally suck but they cannot possibly live up to one's imagination. The wizarding world can really only thrive in technicolor in our minds - celluloid can only bring so much fantasy to life. Plus the movie makers had to cast many of the major characters when they were what, ten years old? How could they possibly know at that point who'd be a good actor or not? They got lucky with Dan, and maybe a few others, but certainly not with all of them.
So yeah, DH should be 2 parts and it should break right after Dobby s.
Posted by hollyanna from new jersey on February 18, 2008 2:17 PM
two movies = more money for producers and funders. It would make financial sense to put in a two part final book, as its already evident that they dont have much care for the cannon of the movies to the books. but no matter... all I want is for me to HAVE to have read the book to understand the movie. That iddnt happen to me when I watched lord of the rings (i know b/c I have yet to read the books) and any way to make the movies more self sufficient would help.
Posted by Lexander on February 18, 2008 7:42 PM
making two movie out of DH split the action in two halves which otherwise'll be a dense action packed one (7 potters,wedding, ministry, godric's hollow, DH, Melfoy manor, gringotts and finally the battle at hogwarts, snape and the last battle). even "Titanic" was 3hours+ and a success. I just want they make it magical enough (which annoyingly OOP was not, especially the fight put up by 6 teenagers was not given due weightage). however i don't mind paying for 2 movies also if they are made as good as first 2s. in that case i think DH1 should end at the tale of 3 brothers and action with 2 eaters and harry left wondering about ly hallows. that way the title'll also get due meaning.
Posted by swati from india on February 18, 2008 9:16 PM
What a fantastic site this is! My hat goes off to you, you are a very intellegent person and a gifted researcher. My opinion is like many others. As long as there is 4 plus hours of ly Hallows footage, i'll be happy. I'm very comforted to read that so many others miss Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and Columbus as director. I often read articles where other directors/producers trash Columbus's work and talk of how Cuaron, Newle, and Yates made the films interesting. While they did a fine job with a few exceptions, the first 2 were done brilliantly. I'd love to see Columbus back for the final film. Or perhaps Peter Jackson? He is second to none when it comes to storytelling.
Posted by Jake from Mesa, Az on February 18, 2008 11:55 PM
Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... > >>