mwbmis

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

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 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?

Supermallet

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.

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.

DRG

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.

Not two films, but LOTR was split into three films and the final film won Best Picture.

Supermallet

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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_Fou...ers_%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.

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.

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

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.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

Yes. Twice as much movie.

Jay G.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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

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!