Deathly Hallows - 2 Films
 

The final Harry Potter book will be split into 2 movies.

Source

I think this is a good idea. This way, less of the book will be cut from the film.

Oh my- make sure to wring the cash cow out until the last drop:p

on the other hand- more Potter goodness for us.

More Potter goodness, indeedy.

Awaiting Half Blood Prince, more Snape now!

Yeah, I was thinking 'ching-ching for the studio' when I read it, too.
:D

I'm torn on this. It's good because they won't cut as much of the book but the downside is Daniel and the rest will look far to old to be believable in their characters anymore.

Downside - Camping, lots and lots of tedious, argument-filled camping. (This section of the book seemed a prime candidate for trimming to me. Things really picked up in the novel as soon as the endless camping was over. The book never let up after that.)

So odd you'd post this today. I give all my Harry Potter books to my ex, who keeps them on her shelf. So I'm dog-sitting for her this week while she's at the South-by Fest in Austin, and of course this morning I notice all the books and think of the news I heard several months ago that the last book was to be split into 2 films.


So I thought to myself I think it's a nimrod move, and wonder if I should comment on that on the LoT.

I guess I should.



It's a nimrod move.



If any book should be split it's Half Blood Prince. But of course, in re-reading it recently (my absolute least favorite of them), I realized a good writer could cull about half the material for a quite good movie.


The same could be done for the final tome. 2 movies will leave things bloated and overblown. It will likely be closer to a boring Chris Columbus straight from the page, literal filming of the novel ... and as far as possible from the film series' highlight of Alfonso Cuaron's brilliant movie adaptation of Prisoner of Azkaban.



UGH. :(

They're making movies, not unabridged books-on-film.

Don't know if you saw them, Alex ... but the first two films in the series were unabridged books on film.

Precisely.



Never were there two more glaring examples of the lazy trait.

I think it's a stupid move too, why do a straight adaptation of the book? Hell, if they want to wring the Harry Potter cash cow, why not just remake it ALL over again in Miniseries form on HBO? That way nothing will be left out. ;)

What works on the page usually does not work in film format. Not sure why people don't understand this simple concept.

I don't think we'll have to worry about the "they're too old" thing, as long as they film both parts of book 7 back to back (a la Back to the Future 2&3, or Pirates of the Caribbean 2&3), which they will given its release schedule of 6 months apart.

In any case, this is a wise move to please only the more slavish fans of the novels and to put more money into Warner Bros.' coffers. After the crapfest which was Order of the Phoenix, both parts should be coming Blu-ray direct to my mailbox via Netflix (or on demand to my Ps3-TV) in late 2011, after I head home from a fun day visiting Cars Land at DCA ;)

They're filming both movies at the same time like Lord of the Rings. Personally, I would have preferred a single three hour epic.

Yeah, while I'll totally pay for seeing both halves and I'll probably enjoy it very much, it IS not that great an idea to make a film a straight-forward all-details-included adaptation.

I'm thinking, here, of the really well-adapted Order of the Phoenix - my least favorite of the books for its whiny yell-iness. With so much of that teenangsty fat so adeptly sliced off the bones, it made for great movie-watching, in my opinion.

And in a related note... the news in that article that most disturbed me was that Steve Kloves will be penning all of the remaining films. It was his ham-handiness to blame at the bloat of the first two films (though it IS a director's role to fix broken screenplays with editing.) It was Kloves' picking of the wrong details to cover that messed up my favorite scene in the series (Prisoner's Shrieking Shack scene.) Bleah, after such an excellent adaptation of OotP, why go back to the oinkfisted one?

Well, if they do split it into to films, hopefully they will film the two at the same time. This will prevent the extra year or so age difference of the actors.

I don't follow this as close as others, I'm not a huge fan and don't read the books. Isn't there another book or two to make into a movie before the last? have they been following the the same number of books with movies?

They're filming the adaptation of the penultimate book right now; other than the recent announcement all other books have had one film.

I haven't read PoA since it was released, so my memories are vague. What was different about the Shrieking Shack scene that displeased you?


I loved that scene in the movie. It was, imo, the best written of the films and by far the best directed.

I like this idea. I have longed for some of the other books (Goblet, Order) to have been split into two full movies. Now I got my wish with at least one. I wonder if it will be two 2 1/2 hour films or two 90 min films?

Why wait until now to be more faithful to the books?

Good question.
I have a feeling that it has more to do with $$$ than being faithful...
;)

They're hardly waiting. The first two films were slavish transfers of the page to film.

I, for one, am glad they got away from that, and started making movies.

OotP STILL sucked rat jizz though.

It's funny how we all have differing opinions.


Much as I liked the comedy in Goblet of Fire, I found it a lame movie overall, and much prefer Order of the Phoenix to it.



Can we all at least agree that Prisoner of Azkaban is cinema genius, far and away the best film of the Potter series???

Nope. I think OotP is the best. (PoA is quite good other than the aforementioned Shrieking Shack scene - the part of this that I'm missing is the revelation of the identity of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, and their relationship to Snape; it all but loses its meaning without that underlying information - and totally confused some viewers who hadn't read the books.)

Even more funny is that I liked Goblet of Fire best!!! lmao Oh well. At least it can be said there's something for everyone :)

I liked the films in the following order:
Azkaban, Phoenix, Sorcerer's Stone, Goblet and Chamber.

No

That's very close to my own list of best to worst:

Sorcerer's Stone
Prisoner of Azkaban
Order of the Pheionix
Goblet of Fire
Chamber of Secrets

I would say Azkaban, Goblet, Phoenix, Chamber. I would put [i]Phoenix[i] ahead of Chamber only because the more mature characters are more interesting and because of Luna. I still think every aspect of the climactic fight at the end of Phoenix--Dumbledore's army, aurors v. deatheaters, Dumbledore v. Voldemort--was a bore that amounted to nothing. Worst moment of Phoenix: the Minister walking in and saying in shock, "He's back." And all was forgiven.

With repeated viewings, I have a fondness for the first one that defies ranking.

I believe it's going to be 2 X 60 minute films. :p With ad breaks.

I like all of the movies, In irder (they make more sense that way), and I stopped buying them after the first one, because I realised that they would be released in a full boxed set eventually.

Just like Prisoner: Cell Block H, which has just had all episodes released in a $1000.00 spend-fest. My resistance is crumbling...

Phoenix
Azkaban
Goblet
Sorcerer's
Chamber

Nobody's lists match!

Blazing
Young
Demolition
Lion
Gone

Oh, and what are they going to name the movies?? Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1 sounds lame.

They should call them:

"Harry Potter: Deathly"
and
"Harry Potter: Hallows"

How about

"Harry Potter and the Forest Hideaway"

then

"Harry Potter and the Story Finally Gets Interesting"

Amen, brother!

Harry Potter: Almost There
Harry Potter: Finally, We're Done

And we have a winner!

The only thing I insist on is a look passing between Harry and Hermione in the forest that makes it clear that, yeah, they want each other.

Why is this considered news, when it was already reported at least 2 months ago ?

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/...n_page_id=1773

It arrived by message bottle from across the pond just yesterday.

Because 2 months ago it was a rumor. Now it is being officially confirmed (albeit, the story in the OP of this thread was just that the studios were GOING to officially announce it). If every rumor turned out to be true, then one could rely on them more, but as we all know, rumors often aren't accurate.

That must be some crazy magic wish fulfillment picture. The guy behind Hermione looks a little like me.

Poor guy

Isnt the guy behind hermione Ralph Fiennes?

That would mean that Strangler Lewis is actually Ralph Fiennes. OMG- there is a star amongst us!

And here I though SL was a lawyer.

Or maybe Stangler Lewis IS Ralph Fiennes and Ralph Fiennes is secretly also a lawyer.

Oh, it boggles the mind!!!

Kevy, your Emma-meter is almost at explosion time!

In that photo, so's Daniel's !!!

Strangler Lewis is Ralph Fiennes.
The things you learn on Lot.
:D