Darth Smaug Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Did you know that the last Harry Potter movie will be split in two movies? I read it recently, thought I'd share the news with people who like the movies and books and didn't know it. I think it's a good idea, first of all we get one extra Potter movie and secondly Deathly Hallows has so much information en plot parts througout the book that if the movie where to be made good, it wouldn't all fit in one movie. David Yates (director of Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince) is going to direct Deathly Hallows as well. Further information here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Heard about it earlier this week, I dont think it's a bad thing either, keeps the saga alive another year, and as you say they might not skip on as much content as they sometimes did with previous ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't see why people think it's bad; splitting it in two actually gives them the opportunity to put the majority of the content into it. Of course in some way I think it's too late, because judging from what my sister's told me they've left out a lot of small but very important details that will just confuse non-book-readers in the end. Speaking of which I need to finish reading them... Good thing I have my sister to ruin the surprises for me! eeps the saga alive another yearAccording to what I heard they'll only be 6 months apart. It makes sense that they would film it all at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Don* Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 They've already ruined the continuity by skipping over sections of the previous books (refer to the Goblet of Fire). By splitting it into two movies I guess that they're trying to ammend that mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 About time they did this. I was under the belief they should have started doing this at Goblet of Fire. They skipped over way too much in the other books, and I can understand why, but I'm sure they have enough money and support to have split other movies. Still, I think they did a fair job with the time they had. Least they will send the movies out with a bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltiades Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Heh. They should've done that with every other movie also then. They left out quite a few things in the other movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I had been thinking they should have done this with Order of the Phoenix back before it came out but I think that one turned out ok. But I think this is a good decision, it will be better to wrap up the series without leaving anything out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Smaug Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 David Heyman : "The extended shooting time means there’ll be nearly two years between the release of Half-Blood Prince and the first part of Deathly Hallows in 2010. Are there any concerns about that?" "Actually, we would have been in a very similar place if we’d done one film, because it would have been four and a half hours long. The shoot would not have been considerably shorter, so it would have been on similar lines." "And when do you expect to start shooting Deathly Hallows?" "Early next year. Most of 2009 will be filming. We’ll be anticipating shooting in February. We’re all really excited about the possibilities and the challenges of seven. It’s going to be a cracker." Steve Kloves : "Years ago," he writes, "we briefly — and seriously — considered doing Goblet of Fire as two films. So this concept is not altogether new. As for Deathly Hallows, I intuited — almost from the first moments I began reading it and certainly once I’d finished — that to realize the story in a single film was going to be a tall order. Others in 'the group' felt similarly. So the idea of two films began to get kicked around as early as late summer of 2007. We didn’t take it lightly. But ultimately everyone felt that despite the challenges it would present, it was the most sound creative decision. I’m sure some will think we’re crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I don't care **** about Harry Potteroo but whatever the case, splitting a movie into two to accomodate all the details possible in a book is always a good idea in my books (heh, pun). That is the reason Lord of the Rings should have been 6 movies, not 3. I've also heard some Potter fans bitching about how they think it's all a marketing ploy to make the fans pay twice for the movie. I think that's bull****. It's two movies, they are going to have twice the content of a movie, and they deserve twice the money. It's terribly lame to bitch about having to pay twice to watch two movies of your favouritest franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Don* Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 ^^^ Harsh, but well said, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Actually the Lord of the Rings Special Edition DVD sets have nearly double the content of the theater version of the films. I learned this when my mother-in-law brought them over for an all day Ring-a-thon.... And before you ask, Yes I get along great with the Mother-In-Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Actually the Lord of the Rings Special Edition DVD sets have nearly double the content of the theater version of the films. I learned this when my mother-in-law brought them over for an all day Ring-a-thon.... But even then I shall not forgive them for how they bastardized the story and twisted details - I couldn't watch the first movie after I saw that they replaced Glorfindel with Eowyn at the Ford near Rivendell - that's just bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpentine Cougar Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I'm happy with this news - mainly because I like the director; he did a better job with OotP than any of the other directors did, I thought. So whatever he wants to do, I think it'll turn out good. And Sabre's right, sure they'll make twice the money, but they'll also make twice the content. It'll be worth it - I can't wait. The only thing wrong is gonna be how much older the actors are than their characters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 @sabre LOTR wouldve gotten old by movie 4. You know this to be true. mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 @sabre LOTR wouldve gotten old by movie 4. You know this to be true. Agreed, but only to do some minimal amount of justice to the spectacular books. Lord of the Rings is one of those books that can never be reasonably converted to any other medium without flaws. In fact, as you know all too well, it is written with the idea of creating a literary epic for the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee Hoon Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 But even then I shall not forgive them for how they bastardized the story and twisted details - I couldn't watch the first movie after I saw that they replaced Glorfindel with Eowyn at the Ford near Rivendell - that's just bad.I believe it was Arwen, not Eowyn:P Well, the books are pretty male-centric, so they needed some eye candy for the boys:p All that Arwen does in the book is look pretty in Rivendell when they pass through, and she never gets another mention till the appendix:/ I would rather have had an elven prince though! As I am not a fan of Potty boy, all that I will say is that editors should never have hesitated to cut down her mammoths in the first place:/ Then they wouldn't be having this problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindtwistah Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 This is good. On the previous films they skipped 70% of the book -_- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 LotR is the only book-to-movie series that I enjoy the movies as much as the books. And I love the books. Harry Potter on the other hand, I find the books vastly superior but still enjoy the movies a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I believe it was Arwen, not Eowyn:P Drat - you have outgeeked me for now Ms. Hoon, but you be wary. Very wary. Well, the books are pretty male-centric, so they needed some eye candy for the boys:p All that Arwen does in the book is look pretty in Rivendell when they pass through, and she never gets another mention till the appendix:/ I would rather have had an elven prince though! Agreed. In a way, Lord of the Rings used Medieval and pre-Medieval themes on it, which is why women had such little (if at all any) role in it. That is also the reason why I find female fantasy/medieval/historical/etc. warriors ridiculous (except the sorts of Joan of Arc, of course), and yet so darned hot (although a mention of andromimetophilia should be made here, even though I am not afflicted by it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bee Hoon Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Drat - you have outgeeked me for now Ms. Hoon, but you be wary. Very wary.I tremble in anticipation of the wrath that shall consume me in flames! Agreed. In a way, Lord of the Rings used Medieval and pre-Medieval themes on it, which is why women had such little (if at all any) role in it. That is also the reason why I find female fantasy/medieval/historical/etc. warriors ridiculous (except the sorts of Joan of Arc, of course), and yet so darned hot (although a mention of andromimetophilia should be made here, even though I am not afflicted by it).You're obsessed with andromimetophilia though! Well, they were horribly oppressed at the time. But now we are liberated! And we demand to roleplay and kick their medieval bums! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 You're obsessed with andromimetophilia though! I so am not! And my avatar is not related to it either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 A little late, I gave up HP movies on, what, the third? Considering the books excels the movies on every feasible way, that's a good way of implementing more of it on what you'll see on the theater and make more money altogether. Makes no difference, I read the book and I'm not interested on seeing any more HP movies. LotR is the only book-to-movie series that I enjoy the movies http://64.20.36.214/lucasforums.com/images/swstarwarsknights/loginarea_bottom.gif http://64.20.36.214/lucasforums.com/images/swstarwarsknights/loginarea_bottom.gifas much as the books. And I love the books. Harry Potter on the other hand, I find the books vastly superior but still enjoy the movies a lot. Except for the last part, I couldn't have said that better myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I can hear the cash register ring and JK Rowling sing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.