Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be split into two films

[johnglass]

Link (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=507920&in_page_id=1773)

Harry Potter fans are set to get a double treat in the film of the final story – and movie makers are set to double their money.


Crew working on the sixth Potter film, Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, have been told J.K. Rowling's seventh novel, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, will be released in two halves.

For film-makers Warner Bros, whose first five Potter films have made £2.5billion in box office receipts – more than any other movie series – it could mean a £500million bonus in ticket sales.

But sources insist the reason behind the two-movie plan is artistic rather than financial.

The books got progressively longer – the first, the Philosopher's Stone, had 223 pages while Deathly Hallows has 776 – and fans have complained chunks of later novels have been left out of films.

A film source said: "There's so much to fit that the view is the last movie should be in two halves. There is a huge battle when Harry, played by Daniel Radcliffe, takes on Voldemort that needs to be done really well."

And Ms Rowling points out on her website: "It is simply impossible to incorporate every storyline into a film under four hours long."

At Warner Bros, who are rumoured to be thinking of Oscars and a big-name director such as Steven Spielberg for the final film, a spokesman said:

"People are discussing all possibilities."

[mhg83]

:banana: :banana: :banana:

[mike2]

So is this going to be a Grindhouse type deal or more of a Kill Bill Vol 1/2 deal? Question is how long until they release the second half? It's got to be pretty close to the first half release. Smart move by WB. They'll be raking in the bucks on this flick.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Very cool news. I hope they release 1 part in the summer and then 2nd part in the fall.

They'll definitely be swimming in the money because everyone will see the 1st part and then they'll have to see the 2nd.

Oh and please no Spielberg.

[Jackskeleton]

Yeah.. forget spielberg and get me some Del Toro..


http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/08/guillermo-del-toro-wants-to-direct-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows/

Exercising his key to the Hollywood kingdom, Guillermo del Toro says the time is right for him to shake a deathstick at the Harry Potter franchise. The mastermind behind Pan’s Labyrinth and Hell Boy tells MTV that he’s the perfect badass to envision Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and finale (for now) literary tale of the wizard.

“I’m definitely interested,” he insisted, “now that the movies have grown darker. They have a contrast between the gloomy existence of the kid and the world he’s exposed to. They have evolved into a really nice universe.”

[Drexl]

Oscars for a Harry Potter movie? I don't know about that.

Actually, splitting it into two could hurt their chances, as they could split the vote between each part if they are released in one year. There was a discussion about this with the Matrix sequels, where Warner wanted them to count as one for the visual effects award, but the academy said no.

[treszoks]

I suggest George Lucas. That way he can ruin the childhood of everyone left who he hasn't managed to screw over yet.

[tommyp007]

I suggest George Lucas. That way he can ruin the childhood of everyone left who he hasn't managed to screw over yet.
:horse:

[FinkPish]

Why would the crew working on the current film be notified before a single frame has been shot on the next? It wouldn't impact them in any way. This rumor has gone around before, I think it is just being stirred up again.

[mwbmis]

I would be surprised if they end up splitting it. It's a little too early to speculate anyway. Kloves hasn't even started on the script (and he can't at the moment). Besides, they considered doing this in the past for Goblet of Fire but didn't. There is quite a bit of stuff that can be cut from the Deathly Hallows book.

First, they could they could just have Harry and Dumbledore...

...get the real locket at the end of HBP. That whole RAB subplot doesn't really accomplish enough to warrant inclusion (Kreacher's tale would require a lot of time consuming exposition for little payoff). Besides, the ministry excursion just isn't necessary. There will be plenty of more important action later on, and the necessary bits of the ministry takeover can be readily explained by newspapers and Potterwatch.

[johnglass]

Why would the crew working on the current film be notified before a single frame has been shot on the next? It wouldn't impact them in any way.

If they're filmed separately then it would certainly impact the crew, although I doubt they would go that route.

[Anubis2005X]

Yeah, I'd rather they didn't split it into two. You don't have to have everything from the book in there. That's why it's the movie version. And wasn't Book 5 like the longest book but the shortest movie? Plenty of filler that won't be missed too badly...

[FinkPish]

If they're filmed separately then it would certainly impact the crew, although I doubt they would go that route.
Exactly my point: they wouldn't film them separately, they would film them all at once and then edit them as separate films. And why would the production crew need to know this information before the script has even been finished (or possibly started)? It just seems like a rumor being recirculated again.

[Drexl]

Yeah, they could easily skip his experimenting with drugs, his first sexual encounter, his emo period, etc.

BTW, who is going to write the script? Is it finished, or do they have to wait for the strike to end?

[dsa_shea]

I like the Harry Potter movie but do feel that they are too long. If I want to know all of the storylines then I will read the books.

[joeee]

DH is a pretty slow book, and one of the worst in the series. Who wants to watch Harry and crew teleporting around England for four hours? 3 hrs tops, if they cut some deaths and side-stories.

[mllefoo]

They can do all the hiding bits as a montage.
There is a lot of action in the book, but it brackets 15 chapters of Harry and Hermione doing nothing.

[KillerCannibal]

I don't care how they do it, probably because I never read the books, as long as Del Toro is in I'm there watching. Sometimes I wish there were two of him so he could finish every project he announces he's starting.

[Jericho]

It makes sense. An extra movie means WB can milk out more money from the franchise before it stops. And the books definitely got longer as they progressed, which meant more and more got cut out. Having two parts allows for less stuff to to be dropped, and considering it's the last film, you probably want to bring about a proper resolution to the whole saga. The more run time yo have, the more you can incorporate.

Maybe they could have done this before, but given the release schedule of the movies (about every year and a half), it would be difficult to release two parters. With no installment after Deathly Hallows, it's much easier to break it in two.

[Morf]

I'll believe it when I see it. This rumor has come up for every Potter flick since part 4. To top it off, this source isn't exactly the most reliable.

[RockStrongo]

I would buy that she wants a big name director over the movie split. I think she might want awards for this one.

[Shannon Nutt]

Chris Columbus should be offered the final film. I'm not saying he would or even should direct it, but he's earned the right to say yes or no.

[orderandlaw]

Wow. I'm glad they are looking at that option. I was wondering how they were going to do it and what they were going to cut to fit it into just one film.

[RayChuang]

I'm glad they'll do it that way, because the storyline in Deathly Hallows is very long and very complex. I think the best cutoff point for the end of the first part is--

Where Ron reunites with Harry and Hermione, from the chapter "The Silver Doe" that is right at halfway through the book.

[Draven]

Chris Columbus should be offered the final film. I'm not saying he would or even should direct it, but he's earned the right to say yes or no.

No thanks - it wasn't until part 3 that the films got watchable, IMHO.

[Cellar Door]

No thanks - it wasn't until part 3 that the films got watchable, IMHO.

Agree. I'd like to see Cuaron have another go at it.

[rexinnih]

Del Toro directing two movies. Sounds perfect to me.

[shumway]

Where Ron reunites with Harry and Hermione, from the chapter "The Silver Doe" that is right at halfway through the book.
You could fade to black when Harry is drowning in the water before Ron rescues him.

[Suprmallet]

Chris Columbus should be offered the final film. I'm not saying he would or even should direct it, but he's earned the right to say yes or no.

Sure, offer it to him, but only under the condition that he knows it's not a real offer and just a formality so they can go and get a good director.

[mhg83]

Update: Its official

Final 'Harry Potter' book will spawn two movies- L.A. Times

WATFORD, England -- It's official: Eight will be the magic number for the "Harry Potter" film franchise.

After months of rumors, Warner Bros. and the producers of the massively successful movies will announce Thursday that they plan to split "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," J.K. Rowling's seventh and final "Potter" novel, into two blockbuster films -- one to be released in November 2010 and the second in May 2011.

The films will be titled, simply, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II," according to producer David Heyman. Director David Yates, who returned for his second tour of Potter duty with "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and is quite popular with the cast, will direct both "Deathly Hallows" films, which will be filmed concurrently. Screenwriter Steve Kloves also returns and, by completion of the franchise, will have written seven of the eight films.

One devoted "Potter" reader that is especially happy to hear the news is Daniel Radcliffe, the 18-year-old actor who plays the title character in the wizardry epic.

Some cynics will see the move as simply doubling the box-office payday, but Radcliffe told The Times that the split is purely in service of the story.

"I think it's the only way you can do it without cutting out a huge portion of the book," Radcliffe said recently during a break on the set of "Half-Blood Prince," the sixth "Potter" film, which is due in theaters on Nov. 21. "There have been compartmentalized subplots in the other books that have made them easier to cut -- although those cuts were still to the horror of some fans -- but the seventh book doesn't really have any subplots. It's one driving, pounding story from the word go."

Producer David Heyman said the decision was made with some anxiety and only after considerable deliberations. The producer joked that "while my wife and Warner Brothers were pleased" to hear that the Potter movie magic will continue into the next decade, he himself fretted that the cynical observers would see the decision as a purely mercenary move.

"I swear to you it was born out of purely creative reasons," Heyman said during an interview in a converted airplane factory outside London that has been home base to all of the "Potter" productions. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book. You can remove scenes of Ron playing quidditch from the fifth book, and you can remove Hermione and S.P.E.W. [Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare] and those subplots . . . but with the seventh, that can't be done."

Heyman said he approached Rowling with some trepidation about the strategy but found that she signed off on its logic rather quickly. "I went to Jo and she was cool with it," Heyman said, "and that was quite a relief."

Rowling has also been a more frequent visitor to the sixth movie's set than with previous installments. One big reason is that she is no longer busy trying to finish the "next" Potter book; she walked away from her signature character in July 2007, when the climactic "Deathly Hallows" hit stores, and continued the history-making ways of the series by selling 11 million copies during its first 24 hours on shelves.

The filming of "Half-Blood Prince" began in September, and Radcliffe said "it's been brilliant." He added: "It's also, I think, the funniest of the films so far."

The "Potter" films have pulled in a staggering $4.5 billion at the box office worldwide. Heyman said now that the "Potter" team knows they can split "Deathly Hollows" in half, the next challenge is figuring out the division.

As Heyman put it: "The question will be, where do you break it? And how do you make them one but two separate and distinct stories? Do you break it with a moment of suspense or one of resolution? These are the interesting challenges. But each book has presented its challenges."

Warner Bros. Chairman Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov, president of Warner Bros. Pictures Group, are expected to discuss the new plans for "Potter" on Thursday during a presentation at ShoWest, the convention of movie exhibitors in Las Vegas.

-Damn! there goes my wish to have Guilermo Del Torro to direct. What the hells up with David Yates directing again? That'll be four potter films he gets to direct.

[Dr. Mantle]

This is great news.

I just watched Order of the Phoenix and was really disappointed. It felt like a whole movie that's just a highlight reel.

[RayChuang]

Now that WB has confirmed the split into two movies, I hope they do each movie at about 150-165 minutes long (2.5-2.75 hours). That way, they can keep in as many of the very complicated plot points in the novel. :)

[Mercury&Solace]

Yeah.. forget spielberg and get me some Del Toro..


http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/08/guillermo-del-toro-wants-to-direct-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows/

This HP news kicks ass.

Del Toro would absolutely :rock: :rock: :rock:

[outcastja]

Disappointing, I was hoping they would get somebody like Spielberg since Del Toro went off to do the Hobbit. Or have Alfonso Cuarón come back to direct the last two.

[tanman]

Agree. I'd like to see Cuaron have another go at it.


Um...NO. I hope they DO NOT let that man anywhere near the final movie. He already ruined Azkaban. He doesn't need to ruin the last book.

[Suprmallet]

I think Yates' turn on Order of the Phoenix was excellent, so I have nothing against him doing the final three books (and four movies). Obviously he's built a rapport with the cast and crew, which I think will enrich the next three movies. Aside from Cuaron, he's my favorite director on the series.

[hardercore]

Um...NO. I hope they DO NOT let that man anywhere near the final movie. He already ruined Azkaban. He doesn't need to ruin the last book.I have to disagree. Azkaban was my very favourite of the films this far.

[JPRaup]

credit goes to BK on neogaf:

Here is an idea for what to name them:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2: The Quest for More Money

[The Bus]

Sure, offer it to him, but only under the condition that he knows it's not a real offer and just a formality so they can go and get a good director.

:lol: :up:

[mwbmis]

Very disappointing on two fronts. Splitting it is a bad idea. The Harry Potter stories are single protagonist. There isn't enough story to carry it for around five hours. If they must do this then hopefully they'll do multiple points of view. I think it would be interesting to show things like what Ginny, Neville, and Luna are doing at the Snape run school. Plus, it would be a way to keep those characters in the public mind. The problem is of course that it would make the movie different than the others. They'll have plenty of time for the Dumbledore back story now, which I figured would get largely cut.

Second, while I liked OOTP, I really wished that would have gone back to at least offer to Cuaron. He expressed interest in doing it in the past, and his movie is easily the best in the series (it's not my favorite, but it's the best). Plus, Cuaron would have made them put it in one movie.

[the big train]

I used to be hesitant about this, but I think it's actually a good idea. The last book was like a more complex version of Goblet of Fire and that was a bitch of a movie to make. Order of the Phoenix was easier because there was a lot of stuff that was easy to cut out and Half-Blood Prince is the simplest plot since Azkaban, so it shouldn't have been too difficult.

I think a good point to split them is right after Dobby's funeral when Harry gets really serious about his duty and being a leader. The first half is all about the beginning of the war, the people forced to flee, and Harry getting side-tracked by his obsession with the Deathly Hollows. It'd be kind of like the end of HBP. There's that huge battle, then Dumbledore dies and Harry gets all determined to kill Voldemort. This time, there'd be the rescue from Malfoy Manor, then Dobby dies and everybody is sad, and then Harry stops fooling around with his Deathly Hollows obsession and gets to work on robbing Gringotts.:lol:

Splitting it at that point allows them to get all the camping stuff out of the way and dedicate themselves to two epic action sequences in the second half. It would also allow for more Snape involvement.

[mwbmis]

I used to be hesitant about this, but I think it's actually a good idea. The last book was like a more complex version of Goblet of Fire and that was a bitch of a movie to make. Order of the Phoenix was easier because there was a lot of stuff that was easy to cut out and Half-Blood Prince is the simplest plot since Azkaban, so it shouldn't have been too difficult.

I think a good point to split them is right after Dobby's funeral when Harry gets really serious about his duty and being a leader. The first half is all about the beginning of the war, the people forced to flee, and Harry getting side-tracked by his obsession with the Deathly Hollows. It'd be kind of like the end of HBP. There's that huge battle, then Dumbledore dies and Harry gets all determined to kill Voldemort. This time, there'd be the rescue from Malfoy Manor, then Dobby dies and everybody is sad, and then Harry stops fooling around with his Deathly Hollows obsession and gets to work on robbing Gringotts.:lol:

Splitting it at that point allows them to get all the camping stuff out of the way and dedicate themselves to two epic action sequences in the second half. It would also allow for more Snape involvement.

I'm actually worried about the HBP movie b/c I thought it was a plot heavy book, and it appears they are keeping too much. Spending time on Ron's Quidditch foibles and the Won-won storyline seems to be a very distracting waste of time that could be better used on the Harry love story subplot (remember they'll basically have to build Ginny from scratch...she hasn't had much time in the previous movies) or the comings/goings of Snape and Malfoy subplot.

As for the break point...

I would actually step back a little and put right when the get caught rather than after they get away. That way it's more of a cliffhanger, and movie 8 opens with a bang (Hermoine's torture, Dobby's reappearance, Wormtail's death, the escape, Dobby's death...and I think Shell Cottage has to be Remus and Tonks' place for their death to have any meaning at the end). The REAL tricky thing is going to be Dobby. He can't just reappear, b/c we won't have seen him on screen since 2002. No one but the absolute diehard fans will know who he is. And let's face it, in COS he was annoying. People compared him to Jar Jar Binks, and that is one of the reasons we haven't seen a whole lot from the house elves since then. For his death to have any meaning (and to my mind it was easily the single most emotional death in the novel) then he has to reintroduced and made more likeable.

Some people have thought to consolidate Dobby and Kreacher which might make sense. Presumably if they're splitting it then Kreacher will be in part I. It will be interesting to see what they do. I think the split is making the movie too long.

[joeee]

bah... i prefer when they bring in new directors, and i didn't care for yates' ootp. splitting dh into two movies is bullshit. dh can be distilled down to 2 hrs easily. just get rid of all that popping around crap, and maybe limit the number of horathingies needed to be destroyed. simple.

[Jay G.]

Very disappointing on two fronts. Splitting it is a bad idea. The Harry Potter stories are single protagonist.
I don't get this point. The story had already been split into 7 different books, so where's the harm in splitting one of the books?

There isn't enough story to carry it for around five hours.
Who says each film has to be 2 1/2 hours? Since they're making two films, they won't have to cram a whole book's storyline into one film, meaning each film could be shorter.

[RayChuang]

I still prefer--

--they end the first movie at when Ron reunites with Harry and Hermione ("The White Doe" chapter from the book, which is actually quite dramatic in a personal way). There's good reason for this: the novel takes a major turn in plotline when the concept of the Deathly Hallows is introduced by Xenophilius Lovegood, Luna's father.

[rexinnih]

Need to re-read the book again. Happy that they will be splitting the last one up and giving the final book it's just due.

[aintnosin]

By the time they finish these movies, Emma Watson will be in menopause and Daniel Radcliffe will be applying for his AARP card.

[pinata242]

By the time they finish these movies, Emma Watson will be in menopause and Daniel Radcliffe will be applying for his AARP card.
Expecting a rough two and half years for them, huh?

[KillerCannibal]

I guess this is good news. I've always been a casual HP fan. I've never read any of the books and I've thought all of the films were good, but not great. I'm sure with Yates at the helm I'll feel the same about the rest forthcoming in the series. I guess that's better than not being sure about someone new they might have chosen.

[mwbmis]

By the time they finish these movies, Emma Watson will be in menopause and Daniel Radcliffe will be applying for his AARP card.

When they finish shooting in presumably 2010 Daniel Radcliffe will be 21 playing 17 (and they'll probably be done with shooting before he turns 21) and Emma Watson will be 20 playing 18. Those age differences shouldn't bother anyone who's ever seen any TV show or movie set in a HS.

The biggest age difference for the "kids" will be Tom Felton who'll be 23.

[mwbmis]

I don't get this point. The story had already been split into 7 different books, so where's the harm in splitting one of the books?


Who says each film has to be 2 1/2 hours? Since they're making two films, they won't have to cram a whole book's storyline into one film, meaning each film could be shorter.

Each of the stories were about different "right versus easy" choices for Harry. For instance HBP is about right vs easy choices for who Harry decides to fill roles in his life (mentor-Dumbledore vs. Scrimgour...love interest-Ginny vs. the gaggles, etc...). DH is full of right vs. easy choices about the greater good.

I don't see any reason to split it unless each film is going to be more than 2 hours. So I think it is reasonable for the entire "film" to come in anywhere between 4-5 hours. So much that happens in DH just doesn't move the story enough to be interesting to watch on screen. i.e., the whole ministry excursion which I presume is in the movie now is twenty minutes of action to get to the same point they would be if the object was just in Harry's pocket at the end of HBP. They don't get any other information about different horcruxes from that and all that muggle born stuff is just theme. Does it help the movie to be in there is some form...sure, but does it require a major action scene that really goes nowhere...I guess it does now

[Iron_Giant]

1. It would be really cool if they waited and released the final "2 Movies" on one DVD/Blue-Ray.

2. Do the actors get more movie for filming 2 movies at the same time?

[mhg83]

I still prefer--

--they end the first movie at when Ron reunites with Harry and Hermione ("The White Doe" chapter from the book, which is actually quite dramatic in a personal way). There's good reason for this: the novel takes a major turn in plotline when the concept of the Deathly Hallows is introduced by Xenophilius Lovegood, Luna's father.

I always pictured it that way too. Also, Is this going to ruin the chance to get best picture oscar? Since the film will split into two years. Has there ever been an oscar given to a film that has been split into two?

[Suprmallet]

Not many films have been intentionally split in two, but I don't think Harry Potter has a chance at the Best Picture Oscar, even if it were one film.

[DRG]

So I wonder if they will call the movies "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 and 2", or if they will give one of the movies a separate title, like "Harry Potter and the Horcrux Quest".

[Jay G.]

Each of the stories were about different "right versus easy" choices for Harry. For instance HBP is about right vs easy choices for who Harry decides to fill roles in his life (mentor-Dumbledore vs. Scrimgour...love interest-Ginny vs. the gaggles, etc...). DH is full of right vs. easy choices about the greater good.
I still don't see what this has to do with splitting up the film. The split point a lot of people mentioned here works as well plotwise as the ending of HBP does.

I don't see any reason to split it unless each film is going to be more than 2 hours.
You may not have a problem with sitting through a 4-hour film, but others may prefer it in two separate 2 hour sittings.

[DRG]

You may not have a problem with sitting through a 4-hour film, but others may prefer it in two separate 2 hour sittings.

Not to mention that a huge percentage of the audience will be children, and the two and a half hour films are already probably pushing their max.

[Artman]

Disappointed we're waiting an extra yr (once part two comes out), but this'll ensure a better movie and send-off I think.

[Jay G.]

Has there ever been an oscar given to a film that has been split into two?
Not two films, but LOTR was split into three films and the final film won Best Picture.

[Suprmallet]

Lord of the Rings was written as three books, and each book got a movie. That's different from what WB is doing here or what Miramax did with Kill Bill.

[mhg83]

Lord of the Rings was written as three books, and each book got a movie. That's different from what WB is doing here or what Miramax did with Kill Bill.

I think what Jay G. meant was that tolkien wrote lord of the rings as one whole book and was later split into three novels. So it's considered by some to be one big story.

[mwbmis]

I still don't see what this has to do with splitting up the film. The split point a lot of people mentioned here works as well plotwise as the ending of HBP does.


You may not have a problem with sitting through a 4-hour film, but others may prefer it in two separate 2 hour sittings.

You referenced that the story was already made into multiple movies. I tried to point out that the plot of each movie was different.

The problem, as I see it (and my opinion is just my opinion), is that not all the much story wise happens in the first half of DH. It's a lot of running around and getting into adventures with little forward movement (i.e, you could put the locket in Harry's pocket at the end of HBP and be at the same spot as you are halfway through the DH book). There is a lot of movement forward in the second half of the book but if Part 1 sucks or is deemed pointless will most of those audience members come back to see part 2. (it's a different series but look at what happened when they split Matrix 2 and 3)

No, I wouldn't want to see a four hour movie, but I think the book could be made effectively in one 3 hour movie. I don't think they need the extra stuff that will come by stretching it into two movies.

[RayChuang]

Lord of the Rings was written as three books, and each book got a movie. That's different from what WB is doing here or what Miramax did with Kill Bill.

Actually, Lord of the Rings was technically "one book" in terms of storytelling, but the publishers (Allen & Unwin, which is now merged into the Harper Collins publishing conglomerate) balked at the huge length of the book, so it was split into three volumes to reduce printing costs. (People forget that even by 2008 standards, Lord of the Rings is a very long book.)

The reason why I applaud the decision to split Deathly Hallows into two movies is mentioned in the spoiler text I mentioned above. It's a good choice due to the change in the plotline in the book.

[Drexl]

I always pictured it that way too. Also, Is this going to ruin the chance to get best picture oscar? Since the film will split into two years. Has there ever been an oscar given to a film that has been split into two?

I don't think they were going to get Oscars anyway, but this probably lessens whatever chance they had, especially since it will be released in May of that year.

[Jay G.]

1. It would be really cool if they waited and released the final "2 Movies" on one DVD/Blue-Ray.
It's possible, but it's doubtful it'll be the first release of these films that combine them. Fans are still waiting for a combined Kill Bill.

2. Do the actors get more movie for filming 2 movies at the same time?
They'll get paid for two movies, since they're shooting two movies. This is known as the "Salkind clause," due to the splitting of the 1973 The Three Musketeers into two films while only paying the actors for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Musketeers_%28film%29

[lizard]

I missed this thread when it was active two weeks ago but came across this news in a magazine today. I'm pleased by this development. I just finished my second time through book 7 yesterday and was concerned about trying to cram it into one movie.

My favorite of the books was Goblet of Fire but it is my least favorite of the movies because they abridged the book out of existence. By contrast, Order of the Phoenix was my least favorite of the books but it has become my favorite of the five movies thus far. So, I am also encouraged to hear that the same screenwriter and director will complete the series.

As for the cynics who think the decision is all about money, believe what you will. I'm just really glad they are doing it and hope that Deathly Hallows Parts I and II are as good as the Order of the Phoenix movie.

I like it when screenwriters have time to give a story room to "breathe". IMHO the best screen adaptation of a novel ever done is the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice, which is five hours long. Not everyone nowadays has an attention span of milliseconds, which has been shown by the millions of children who read the longer Harry Potter books.

[Jay G.]

I like it when screenwriters have time to give a story room to "breathe". IMHO the best screen adaptation of a novel ever done is the 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice, which is five hours long.
The 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice wasn't "big screen," it was a TV miniseries. Greed probably has the record for longest single film adaptation at 10 hours, although that version was only screened once and no longer exits. The longest cut of that film available is 4 hours, which incorporates stills to replace some of the lost footage.

Not everyone nowadays has an attention span of milliseconds, which has been shown by the millions of children who read the longer Harry Potter books.
There's a difference though between a book that you can pick up and put down at your leisure and a film in a theater where you're sitting in one seat without stop for hours on end. Even DVD viewing is a different experience, since you can start and stop the viewing on command.

[lizard]

The 1995 version of Pride and Prejudice wasn't "big screen," it was a TV miniseries. Greed probably has the record for longest single film adaptation at 10 hours, although that version was only screened once and no longer exits. The longest cut of that film available is 4 hours, which incorporates stills to replace some of the lost footage.As I recall, there was a movie version of War and Peace done years go that was pretty long. The curious thing about P&P was that it was filmed in widescreen and then shown as P&S on TV, and that was years before widescreen TVs became available. It is clear when viewing both that the framing was for 16x9.There's a difference though between a book that you can pick up and put down at your leisure and a film in a theater where you're sitting in one seat without stop for hours on end. Even DVD viewing is a different experience, since you can start and stop the viewing on command.All the more reason to split the DH movie in two rather than try to cram the whole story in one movie. I wish that they had done the same for Goblet of Fire.

I like Peter Jackson's Extended Editions of The Lord of the Rings films and would like see more of that done for longer novel adaptations. Then we could get a longer version on DVD during which viewing can be paused, as you say. I realize that it is no longer considered economically viable by theater owners, but it might also be nice to bring back the movie intermission. I remember when those were quite common during longer movies.

[RichC2]

I thought I read about Berlin Alexanderplatz being shown in film format before (at about 15.5 hours).

[Nesbit]

2. Do the actors get more movie for filming 2 movies at the same time?

Yes. Twice as much movie.

[Jay G.]

As I recall, there was a movie version of War and Peace done years go that was pretty long.
The 60's version of War and Peace was initially released split into four separate films, so it was a precursor to LOTR in a way. Even after all the parts were combined, the film is 8 hours long, which is still short of Greed's record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(1968_film)

The curious thing about P&P was that it was filmed in widescreen and then shown as P&S on TV, and that was years before widescreen TVs became available. It is clear when viewing both that the framing was for 16x9.
The UK has historically been far more widescreen friendly than the US. I believe they showed films letterboxed on broadcast TV. Also, SD widescreen TVs actually were a sizable market in the UK before HDTV was introduced there, and they had a transmission method, PALplus, for transmitting WS images.

With P&P, it was likely shown either letterboxed or widescreen in the UK, with the US channels opting for the P&S version.

I like Peter Jackson's Extended Editions of The Lord of the Rings films and would like see more of that done for longer novel adaptations. Then we could get a longer version on DVD during which viewing can be paused, as you say.
Some of the Harry Potter films have had extended edits created for TV, although these consist mostly of the deleted scenes on the DVDs. It's interesting that WB hasn't capitalized on the films be releasing these extended versions on disc.

[lizard]

...Some of the Harry Potter films have had extended edits created for TV, although these consist mostly of the deleted scenes on the DVDs. It's interesting that WB hasn't capitalized on the films be releasing these extended versions on disc.My take on the lack of extended editions for the HP movies has been that the child actors are limited in the amount of time they are allowed to work. Now that they are getting to be old enough, it might be possible to film additional scenes and make extended editions of the coming movies. That's just a guess. It may be that the production staff have enough on their plates without writing, filming, and editing extra material for EEs, or that they just have no interest in spending the extra money to do it. But I sure was "spoiled" by Peter Jackson's Extended Editions of The Lord of the Rings.

[Jay G.]

My take on the lack of extended editions for the HP movies has been that the child actors are limited in the amount of time they are allowed to work.
I'm not sure you understood what I wrote: There already are extended editions of the previous films, and these extended editions have been shown on TV. They just don't exist on DVD, much like the extended edition of Spy Kids.

[Drexl]

Some of the Harry Potter films have had extended edits created for TV, although these consist mostly of the deleted scenes on the DVDs. It's interesting that WB hasn't capitalized on the films be releasing these extended versions on disc.

Warner isn't big on doing extended editions, unless the director is involved and wants his preferred cut available. If it was Sony or Fox, there would probably be EEs by now.

BTW, here is some possible info about a director's cut of the first film, but it's from 2004: http://www.wizardnews.com/story.200406111.html

They may just be waiting for the series to end.

[lizard]

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote: There already are extended editions of the previous films, and these extended editions have been shown on TV. They just don't exist on DVD, much like the extended edition of Spy Kids.No, I got that. I just view an extended edition as something a bit more comprehensive than inserting a couple of deleted scenes. (Although it might be more than that; I haven't seen the TV versions.)

But your point is well-taken that they do have extended editions of a sort and it would be nice to have them released on DVD if the deleted scenes are worthwhile (I can't remember off hand). I've certainly seen my share of deleted movie scenes that I was glad were left out!

[Dan Average]

I thought I read about Berlin Alexanderplatz being shown in film format before (at about 15.5 hours).

Yeah, but it was made as a TV miniseries and wasn't primarily meant for theatrical exhibition (although there are parts that work better on the big screen). The longest made-for-theaters adaptation is almost certainly The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple (27 hours, split into 18 parts), which seems to be lost except for a still or two.

[Jay G.]

Wikipedia has a listing of films with the longest running times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_films_by_running_time

It includes both single films and film series, although it also differentiates between experimental fare and more standard films.

And the winner for longest single film is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimat_(film)#The_Second_Heimat
"At 25 hours and 32 minutes divided into 13 episodes, Die Zweite Heimat (The Second Heimat) is considered the longest film to be commercially shown in its entirety."