![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
![]() |
#41 |
"ZER-bee-ak"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,409
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
VJWM
![]() |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,852
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I still think it will be a mistake to break that last book into two movies. A single 2.5 hour epic would be more (quite a bit more) than enough.
"Deathly Hallows 1", if it follows its source, will consist of camping, bickering and relocating, camping and bickering some more. This was easily the most tiresome stretch in any of the Rowling books for me. |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I know it seems like a big mistake. The combined running time of the first six movies is 902 minutes. Assuming 44 minutes of actual play per hour of TV (for commercials) that means the first six movies will fill 20 hours and 25 minutes of the inevitable 24 hour marathons.
This leaves only 3 hours, 35 minutes for the last two movies, meaning the combined time for the last two movies can only be 157 minutes. That's what they're currently running for each of them. One last normal (for Harry Potter) movie would have perfectly filled out the 24-hour holiday marathons for some cable network. |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Biophage
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Moon
Posts: 2,679
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
The thought of 3 (!!!) more Harry Potter movies is rather exhausting!
__________________
And they say back then our universe Was a coal black egg Until the god inside Burst out and from its shattered shell He made what became the world we know ~ Bjork (Cosmogony) |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Sax God
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland's Tijuana
Posts: 510
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I'm surprised that the LotR Extended Edition style of a theatrical release for those with short attention spans and a much extended release for those of us who really want to enjoy the story as much as possible hasn't caught on. That alone might have rescued Phoenix from being such a smoking, rancid pile of cinematic dung, possibly upgrading it all the way to just movie turd.
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Kink of Swank
|
Yeah, that would have been a good idea. I really hated the way they trunkated the stuff at the Ministry of Magic. I guess they figured room after room of stuff was repetitive, but no set up for the veil-thingy where Sirius later dies left his death too dry for my tastes.
On the other hand, I like the way they collapsed all the Delores Umbridge stuff and comedified it a bit. Mixed bag, but I think they did a decent job trying to fit that tome into an acceptable movie running time. |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
While I abhor the idea of turning movies into a long trailer for the Super-Extended Director's Cut DVD.
If you want 16 hours of screen time for your story that's why god created miniseries. As some critic (Ebert?) says, there's no such thing as a good movie that is too long or a bad movie that is too short. If telling a story well takes 4 hours, then take four hours or don't tell the story. That said, nothing in the Harry Potter movies indicates to me that their flaws are a result of not having enough time. |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
Sax God
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland's Tijuana
Posts: 510
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() And, maybe I want sixteen hours of cinematic quality screen time, instead of sixteen hours of television miniseries quality screen time. Huge difference there. I love the extended LotR films, and haven't watched a standard version since I got my set of extended films. Hence, I'm happy with my longer films, and you're happy with your abridged versions. Why take issue? iSm, I do agree about Umbridge. I thought they captured her arc just fine and led us to despise her just as much as the book did. But so little was dealt with in regards to other important stuff, like Kreacher, Sirius, etc. that the film felt like it was only a trailer, but without a real film to go see afterward. I pray that they don't do that to HbP. |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Kink of Swank
|
In an interview*, when asked if there was anything she would go back and change about the seven novels, Rowling replied that she would have edited Phoenix more, as she feels it is too long.
Just sayin' ![]() *Vieira, Meredith (July 30, 2007) Dateline NBC. "Harry Potter: The Final Chapter." |
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Like I said, I have no problem with long movies. Most of the best movies of all time are pretty long. Take as much time as it takes to make a good movie. But don't make a bad movie saying "oh, we'll make it all better on DVD." Or if you do, be honest about it so that I won't waste any time or money on the theatrical version. |
|
![]() |
Submit to Quotes
![]() |