Harry Potter- round 6-who's ready? - Page 5

SzczerbiakManiac · 07-08-2009, 01:03 PM

VJWM

flippyshark · 07-08-2009, 01:07 PM

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.

Alex · 07-08-2009, 01:19 PM

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.

Chernabog · 07-08-2009, 01:38 PM

The thought of 3 (!!!) more Harry Potter movies is rather exhausting!

Jazzman · 07-08-2009, 02:09 PM

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.

innerSpaceman · 07-08-2009, 02:17 PM

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.

Alex · 07-08-2009, 02:23 PM

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.

Jazzman · 07-08-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

I don't get why you even care. If you only want the shorter theatrical version, then watch that. Nobody's making you watch the Extended Edition.

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.

innerSpaceman · 07-08-2009, 03:00 PM

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."

Alex · 07-08-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Hence, I'm happy with my longer films, and you're happy with your abridged versions. Why take issue?

That's the problem, I'm not happy with the short versions. The short versions (in the last two LOTR movies anyway) were a mess and I believe it is directly attributable to the fact that Jackson knew that the theatrical versions didn't have to be all that good and just hint to the long version.

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.

07-08-2009, 01:03 PM	#41
SzczerbiakManiac "ZER-bee-ak" Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,409	VJWM __________________
	Submit to Quotes

07-08-2009, 01:07 PM	#42
flippyshark 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

07-08-2009, 01:19 PM	#43
Alex . 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

07-08-2009, 01:38 PM	#44
Chernabog 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

07-08-2009, 02:09 PM	#45
Jazzman 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

07-08-2009, 02:17 PM	#46
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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

07-08-2009, 02:23 PM	#47
Alex . 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

07-08-2009, 03:00 PM	#49
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	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