gerrythedon

from [comingsoon.net]

Harry Potter 4 May Be Two Films
Wednesday, April 9, 2003 8:39 CDT

The BBC reports from the rollout of the Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets DVD:

The fourth Harry Potter book may be made into two films, its producer revealed at the launch of the latest Potter DVD on Tuesday.

David Heyman said pre-production on The Goblet Of Fire was proving so lengthy it might be too much for a single movie.

Heyman was speaking as the young cast of the second Potter film, The Chamber of Secrets, turned out for a spectacular party to mark its release on DVD.

He said: "We started work on the script last Monday. We're going to shoot it as one and see how it ends up. If it's too long then we'll make it into two."

Jackskeleton

Well I'd rather have it stretch out two films and contain as much as possible then just have it squeezed down to one 3 hour film since the book does cover a LOT of ground and I don't think anyone would be satisfied with having it screwed up

Get Me Coffee

I agree....no need it cutting out alot of book material that would piss off the fans.

Film the movie ...if it turns into 6 hour deal....cut it down and release one part in the Fall and the second part in the Summer. Have two Harry Potter movies in one year. I would think that would work.

Giles

I agree, before I had read your post I was thinking a release similiar to what Warner's is doing with the next two Matrix movies would ideal.

PixyJunket

Yup, and that would bring in mad extra bling for WB.

GoVegan

Shouldn't that be something that's planned out in advance?

They make it sound like making a movie is a whimsical, spur of the moment type thing. "Well, it turns out we filmed 11 hours worth of material, so I guess it'll have to be three or four movies. I guess we should have written a script beforehand..."

resinrats

Release the movies 2-3 months apart. They did it with Back to the Future 2 & 3.

I say release it 2.5 months aparrt, part 1 would be winding down so part 2 wouldn't take its business away. Also, it gives people a chance to watch part 1 again in the theater right before they see part 2.

If they release it far apart, they should bring back part 1 for a week or two before part 2 so people can watch it again if they want to remember what happened before.

rfduncan

It really isn't as "whimsical" as that piece made it sound. Chris Columbus and Steven Kloves have been saying it would have to been done in two parts since the 1st film.

Basically the current motion is to end part 1 after the ball and then the remainer would be part 2. I thought that would break it up pretty evenly myself.

Kal-El

They've been saying this forever and I'm all for it. Goblet is my favorite book and it's the middle of the whole story anyway so they should incorporate as much into it as they can.

WiccanPagan

why not make it one super long movie? i mean c'mon. i think i could take a 5 or 6 hour movie (especially since ill wait for the dvd).

tanman

i have not read this one yet (only the first two) but if this is the case, which I hope it is. The HP franchise might be one of the largest undertakings in movie history, in terms of one long consecutive series. The fifth book is already larger than the fourth and would have to be split into two. Then there are books six and seven (there isn't a planned eighth is there?) That means at least ten movies.

One thing is certain, JK Rowling will look a lot older when it is all said and done than when it all started. That is a lot of work for her.

LBPound

In that case, I'll probably see "Harry Potter" but pass on "...and the Goblet of Fire."

GuessWho

Because they'd only get $9 from you instead of $18

GuessWho

No sympathy. She could write shorter books if she wanted to.

Kal-El

Don't. Cuz then you'd be missing the good part.

sherm42

Anyone who stopped reading after the second book should really try books 3 and 4. They are actually much darker and more interesting stories. They really raise the stakes.

tanman

Well yeah, that and the fact that she will be several hundred million dollars richer.

I didn't stop reading, I just haven't gotten around to the last two yet.

Groucho

If they film the second half of the novel as written, it would get a PG-13 easily. Actually, they could get an R for the third film (depending on what they show).

rexinnih

I'v been hearing about this for awhile now and I have to say I wholeheartedly hope that they do break it up into two movies. There is just too much for one and being such a pivotal book in the series, it has to be done right.
Of course the serious buckage that WB would rake in from breaking it into two and timing it correctly (a summer and then fall/winter release??) could make it a truly Potter year.

Hokeyboy

No they didn't.

BTTF2 came out in Nov 89, BTTF3 in May 90. 6 months. Not a huge difference, but a significant one...

caligulathegod

Considering the primary audience for HP is children, a 6-8 hour movie would be hard to get away with. Might as well split it.

sherm42

They could break it into 2 1 hour and 45 minute segments and then have an intermission in between. Still might be much for the kids though.

DRG

There are probably hundreds of reasons they won't and/or shouldn't release a 5 hour plus movie...

For one, it would be a nightmare for theater owners. Most places would have to strain just to squeeze in two showings a day, so box office would suffer. The plus side would be concessions would probably increase... no way people could make it through 5 hours without eating or drinking something. And a film that long would be a chore for the guy in the projection booth. I have friends who complained about running the 3 hr 45 min Gods and Generals. Something about the size of the reel not being a problem or something. Then the audience's perspective. Even a 2 1/2 hour movie can be a restless experience if you get an uncomfortable seat or drink too much soda before the show.

That being said, breaking this into two parts will be an interesting challenge for the WB marketing team. Will they call it "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Part One"? All the marketing campaigns will have to pretty much hype BOTH parts, with the dates, just to avoid confusion. Maybe they can use a tagline like: "An epic so big, one film couldn't contain it!"

Hokeyboy

If they do break it up into two films, they should use the book's actual title for part one and its original title for part two.

Part One: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Part Two: Harry Potter and the Doomspell Tournament

Makes a logical sort of a sense. Besides, there's no way you do it all in one film. Hell, even the Quidditch World Cup at the begininng of the book could make up one entire film, and that's basically a prologue.

Iron_Giant

It would be very hard to cut down Goblet to to a 2hr 30 min movie, so two movies sounds great. By then the kids will be much older and the crowd will be older.