"Deathly Hallows" - two films....

[pyan]

Warner Brothers have announced that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is to be made into two films, not compressed into one....

Final "Potter" movie split into two parts - Yahoo! News UK

[Adasunshine]

I think they chose the wrong book to split...

Personally, if I was going to split one of the Potter books into two films it would have been either Goblet or Phoenix as those are the two books where the most happens and even though the films were adapted ok(ish), there was an awful lot missed out, I think maybe even Philosophers Stone would qualify being split more than Hallows as it was the introduction to the world of Harry and they could have done so much more with it...

I don't think enough really happens in Hallows to warrant it being split and to be honest, it just seems like a money-making ploy by Warner Bros...

One thing I'm pretty sure of though is that I can see one almighty lengthy battle coming our way...

xx

[Culhwch]

See, I think they got this right - not that I dion't think other books couldn't have been split, or extended (watched Order the other night, credits rolled before the two-hour mark, when has that happened on a fantasy since Fellowship?). But in terms of major narrative thread, from what I remember pretty much the entire length of Hallows is concerned with the one plotline - finding the Horcruxes and building to the battle. Sure, a lot of it wasn't particularly interesting, but that's a different argument. In the earlier films things like Quidditch, SPEW, etc, etc, could be cut because, while they added an interesting subplot or two, they really contributed nothing to the driving storyline, which has been the focus of the films.

The proof, of course, will be in the watching.

[The Ace]

Maybe they just want to make more money out of it. Oh, wasn't I supposed to tell anyone that ? Silly me.

[andrew.v.spencer]

Milllllk that franchise.

I agree with Culwich, there was an awful lot of camping out (literally) in the final book, in fact the middle 36,000 pages plodded some.

[Ursa major]

Lingering with intent. Sounds like thrilling viewing.


Not having read the book, and not wanting to induce spoilers, is there a natural point in the story where the first film can end satisfactorily?

[Grimward]

Depends on what you mean by "satisfactorily". Personally (and in keeping with the "no spoilers" constraint"), I think they'll need a "TO BE CONTINUED" regardless of where they stop film #1 of Hallows.

[Culhwch]

From memory there are a few climactic events around the midway point they could use as an ending for part one. Though with this franchise I somehow don't think the 'to be continued...' is strictly necessary - you'll have had to have been living in a cave for the better part of twenty years to not realise there's a second one coming.

[Hedrigall]

(SPOILERS BELOW - I put spoiler tags around them but just be careful)

I'm going from memory, as I don't have my book with me at college, but I think the best place to draw the cliffhanger at the end of the first movie would be one of two places:

1. After they discover what the Deathly Hallows are (at the Lovegood's house) and they are captured by the Malfoys (just like the cliffhanger at the end of the Two Towers where Frodo is captured by orcs)

or

2. Right after the Malfoy manor sequence, when Dobby dies and Harry is about to set off to break into Gringotts

(end of spoilers)

Non spoiler answer to Ursa Major's question - Yes, I think there's two very good places to use as a cliffhanger point.

[Nesacat]

Agree with Culhwch. There's a whole chunk in the middle of the book that can be eliminated without losing the plot line. They don't need two movies especially if their intent is to include all the camping out as it were.

[orionsixwings]

Originally Posted by Nesacat

Agree with Culhwch. There's a whole chunk in the middle of the book that can be eliminated without losing the plot line. They don't need two movies especially if their intent is to include all the camping out as it were.

Agree. WB is milking the films for everything they're worth, which isn't supposed to be much if one based it on acting or production. I don't know what the appeal is, why the films have been steadily enjoying great boxoffice returns when they're not really that good.

[Rhi]

Originally Posted by Adasunshine

I think they chose the wrong book to split...

I have to agree with that to some extent. After Prisoner of Azkaban, the films certainly seemed to become more about making the best parts into films and less about staying true to the books (for example, the dragon challenge of Goblet of Fire). Personally, I would say that Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix should both be two part films. Either that, or at least half an hour longer. Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows didn't feel as long for me, but the same applies.

[alexx]

I have to say I agree. I was actually pretty upset about Azkaban being the shortest film because there was possibility there, opportunity to use some time to be more accurate. I'm going to hate waiting for the last part of Deathly Hallows, but I'll wait if it means they'll be more accurate. For me it's really about telling J.K Rowling's story on screen, not making adjustment to suit someone's idea of the specifications in converting a book to a movie. The most annoying thing to me is that Return of the King ran for three and a half hours and owned at the Oscars, but for Harry Potter they won't even consider letting it run longer that two and a half (approximately). Lord of the Rings left out bits, ran over three hours, and still managed an awesome trilogy, why give the Harry Potter series less opportunity as far as running time goes?