Maybe the film should be separate into two parts, since most of the plots are vital and cannot be cut out.

Anyway i think they should cut it in twos, and the first one should end after they depart Malfoy Manor, as it isone of the climax.

But if they can fit it in one film then i won't mine, but don't cut too much out.

It would be a good idea to make the book into two movies but waiting in between would just be agonizing! Unless they make the two movies then release one after the other but we would have to wait twice as long for it to come out.

So that's a tough one, if they did make it into two separate parts, I agree with you that they should end the first one at Malfoy Manor - it's deffinitely a point of climax.

I'd prefer that they just fit in all into one film, and make it as long as the first one rather than making it shorter than the rest like they are currently doing with the movies .

Mod Note: I am going to change the title of this thread if you don't mind....A Solution doesn't really jump out as a discussion on the length of the movie.

Who's to say whether they will or won't make a two parter. There was some speculation about this being done with GoF but they managed.

I am not sure that they would do a two parter. they chose to leave out a lot of stuff in GoF rather than split it into two parts, so it's unlikely that they will have much to do with HBP. See the whole book can be easily summarised in a few memories and the final scene at Hogwarts with a few scenes of Minister-Harry confrontation, Ron-Hermione and Harry-Ginny (yuck) interactions thrown in. Ditto for deathly hallows. What would be interesting is if they decide to shoot both the movies back to back or simultaneously and then release them within a year of each other. However, it has been shown in the past that it may not always work at the box office (Matrix, Back to the Future), but then Harry Potter is a different story (pun intended) all together.

I think the movie would be better in 1 part just because then it's too long and that then it cost 2x as much to see. How would it be veiwed in a theater.

I couldn't imagine the trio of young actors signing up for an 8th movie, while I'd imagine the decision to split the movie would lead to considerable bad press for Warner Brothers and accusations that they were stringing the movie out to increase profit.

The final movie can and should be shot in one part. The events of the book can easily be covered in 3 hours, and while long, I think the excitement of the final scenes will be enough to make people forget about it's length and simply enjoy what should be a spectacular and action-packed movie.

i agree with big_al
i think that it would be a bad decision to cut the story into two films because there would be a lot of stetching out of the story and not very much climax , keeping the film as a whole will help with anticipation aswell as keeping the stories like the books in both the films and the books being a story with seven sections. Also they would have to rename one of the films as two cant be released with one name

actually what i mean is that the movie should be 3-4 hours long and split into parts, with an interval like Titanic for instant

It's not two movies, just one long movie with interval

oh sorry i see what you mean now that would be good as some people either need the toilet or more food during the film and have to get up and miss some of the film which is a real shame a break would mean that they wouldnt miss any but some people could be so engrossed in the film that they dont want a stop as they may loose whats going on in the story. Whatever happens i definitely hope they keep msot of the story in no matter how long that makes the film !

Splitting it into two separate movies would be a very bad idea, however I'm not opposed to it being split in half with an interval. It would be good as it allows people to go to the toilet and stretch their legs for a bit without missing any of the movie. If it means that they don't have to cut as much, then I'm all for it!

that would be very time-consuming for the producers...but i'm all up for it. i thought of d same thing while confronted with OotP. the book's the longest out of the series. but then again, a split movie will be a real grand ending to a series which phenomenon, by that time, has lasted more than a decade.

i think HP's era will properly end after DH movie. wow, Dan would be like 21 y old then.

yeah, i agree. there should be around 30 minutes of break in the middle of the story. (hah, it's almost like recess in school, innit?)

I like this idea. From the title of the topic, I thought it meant two films, and that would never work. But by doing one film, just with an interval, they would definetly be able to keep a lot more of the plot in the movie, and I'm sure the fans would be very happy.

I always though that they could film it all at once, but released both parts in the same year. I also thought that they could release a mutilated version in the theatres, and give us four hours worth on DVD.

But an interval honestly sounds good. Imagine how exciting it would be, showing Harry and them being captured, and of Harry having visions of Voldemort in Nurmengard. Then the first part can end with Voldemort entering the gate of Malfoy Manor. Oooh, Cliffhanger! And then you sit back down, and it plays the rest of the movie. The End.

That movie, IMO, would make billions if they did that.

i got the itnerval idea from the fact that i did a list of what would be in the film and it would talke around 3:40, so i realise that anyone can't hold it for that long, plus everyone would be willing to watch the film anyway since this is the last of the series, so they would be willing to spend 4 hours on it(3:40 movie, 10minutes interval, 10-20minutes ads).

I also think that it would be dramatic to end with the scene of Dobby's burial for the first interval, and people went out for a break. It would be really cool to give the people that dramatic atmosphere during the break, so they would be willing to go back for more.

having an interval would be a really good idea!
i can't remember how long pirates of the carribean 3 is, but some cinema's in the U.K found it too long so had an interval half way through it! i went to a cinema that did that! and i found that it was really good because it gave everyone time to go to the toilet! and made it quite enjoyable!
that way they would also be able to make the film longer!
however, i do believe some cinemas would object to having an interval because it just adds to the length of the film so that way they have less showings and some managers would be more worried about getting less money than making it a more comfortable experience!! which is just annoying!
but i still think having an interval would be an excellant idea!!
kc

yea, but aqnyone would wanna watch harry Potter, no matter how long it is. They can charge abit more than normal tickets, that's all.

And Harry potter would be the film that they are making the money anyway

That interval idea doesn't sound so bad...
I wouldn't like it at all if they made two movies instead of one. Whenever the whole set comes out in DVD, it would be really nice to have the seven movies together, just like the books, not 8 movies and 7 books... It just doesn't sound right!
I wouldn't mind going to watch a 4 hour movie, even if I have to go tho the bathroon in the middle of it! Plus, they´ve made extra long movies before!
The whole problem is all the action involved! They'll probably cut a lot of scenes, but if the heart of it remains (just like in the other movies), I guess it will be alright.

I don't think that they should cut it into two parts. I hope that they don't cut anything important out either. Most of the scenes are vital to the film, but there are parts that they could shorten a lot, like the Wedding or the scene at Malfoy Manor. They did a good job with OOTP, so I have a feeling that this one will do just as good.

If splitting the movie in two parts would make sure that they could be true to the book and leave (almost) nothing out it would be a good idea, but otherwise I would rather see the movie in one whole... but I don't think they will do that, it's too expensive!!

I wasn't sure about this at all. I don't see why they just can't make an extra long movie. Because surely all the HP fans wouldn't be complainign about how long it was. They'd just be more happier. If they did it in 2 parts i'd expect them meaning the mvoie directors and producers wtc. To pay all the atention to i. I know it's a difficult job but they do have a little pressaure on there shoulders to pull it off. So i at the moment i don't want it in 2 parts. I'd much prefer an extra large movie.
I think it might risk ruin the buil up to the final fight at Hogwarts.

Ok, I think if the film was into 2 parts that would cause too much trouble. I mean, That would be differnt and i dont think anybody would like that. I know the book as alot of parts in it, but i mean they just have to pick the key parts and stick with them. No need to keep every part in the book into the movie.

Well, like a thirty minute break between both parts would be a good idea. I could picture myself talking to some random Harry Potter fanatic in the theater about who just got killed or a Horcrux or something...and I really don't talk to anyone.
I could go restock on popcorn, drive round the corner(because I'll be old enough to drive by the time it's out, I'm certain) and buy some gum, etc.
But two movies? Hecks no. I don't have money two shell out for two tickets! Plus, I'm not waiting. They can just leave out the parts I don't want to see.

Hey! This just in from leaky.com, A unnamed spokesmen in the crew filming Hbp has been told that Dh would, in fact be in two parts (totaling an 4hr run-time!). And the article also states that Steven Spielberg is in-top-consideration for Dh!Here's the link-

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/1/1...ly-hallows-film

What do you guys think?

A two part movie will be awesome! If that really happens I would die of happiness! the longer the movie, the better, in my opinion. The previous two felt so rushed, I hope HBP and Hallows will differ. As for Spielberg directing the movie, hmmm....

I don't know about this two part thing. I don't think that two and a half hours would be enough time to cover DH. I also don't want to have to wait six months or more to see a second part. That would drive me crazy for sure. DH is such an important book with many amazing parts. I wouldn't mind sitting through a three hour or even a three and a half hour DH movie, but I know that not everyone feels the same way. Whatever happens, I hope that DH is done well.

in that article that NAR posted when they said released in '2 halves' they mean with an interval between not 2 seperate films. They would never do two seperate films for DH as the first half is too inconclusive, you need the whole story together.

To be honest Lord of the Rings is 3 hours long per book adaptation. At the cinema's I went to they had no interval. If fans of LOTR are willing to sit for 3hrs, then HP fans will be also. Goes without saying. It's no big deal. To do DH justice it needs to be roughly 3hours long.

As for whether Spielberg would direct... it could possibly mean a longer and more detailed film. I fear that Yates would cut out too much, with his liking of keeping the films short as OotP and rumours have been telling. Bringing back an old HP director might be interesting.

NM
xxx

This really isn't a bad idea, considering the amount of plot in the book. So many people doing so many important things that connect dots. If Deathly Hallows becomes one single movie the chances of something really cool might be taken out; like Aberforth and the painting of his and Dumbledore's sister being a portal to Hogwarts. So dense. Thought it might be quite daunting, writing 7 books, I'm sure, was even more so. Either way, I hope Alfonso Cuaron directs it. The imagery in POA was astonishing as is in Deathly Hallows; the ministry and Gringnotts break in, the Dragon escape, Hogwarts battle, camping in the woods, finding and destroying horcruxes, Bill and Fleur's home, fight at Malfoy manner, the death of Dobby, etc. etc. not to forget the fabulous opening battle wher Voldi flies. Oh, remember, like the matrx 2 & 3, the second half of movie 7 could release only months after the first... just a thought.

That would be a really good idea. When it comes out in theaters it should have an intermission, so we can all have a break (get more food, go to the bathroom,etc.). Then we would come back and finish the movie. When it would come out on DVD then it could be on two discs.

You are so right of having it break when they leave the Malfoy Mansion, there is just so much anxiety to see what happens, that would keep the people to stay for the second half.

Nice idea! You should seriously contact David Yates and tell him.

~Katlyn

These rumors have been confirmed as fake, but I wouldn't mind a two-parter. That is, if they both came out on the same day! Like, I'd go watch part one, have a two minute bathroom brake, then get more tickets for part two!

But what would they call it? Deathly Hallows: Part I and Deathly Hallows Part II? I think they should make two different names - Part One being the Deathly Hallows and Part Two being the Battle of Hogwarts.

But if there's a year or so interval, I'll pass on the two-parter idea! I'd die! I want to be in the epilogue (there's only a 1/7,000,000,000 chance!), and by the time they'd film part two, I'd be to old to be the oldest role, and we do not want that (or should I say, I don't want that!)

Most of the fans would sit for the four hours it would take them to read the book, so why not sit for four hours to see the movie? Oh, yeah. You could take the book with you during bathroom breaks! But, if they make it in two parts, they should release it on the same day, both in theaters and DVD. But where to separate the two parts.

I'd say divide it right after we learn about the Deathly Hallows. I'm not the best on dividing movies! Oh, well, I'm sure the director will make the right decision.

~Luna♥Lover

yea it would be good to have the movie split into 2 parts but they would have to come out really really close to each other. it would be so much better as 2 parts though. that way they will be able really do it justice and keep all of the important parts (and some of the funny parts, kreacher hitting mundungus with the frying pan).

thats a good point about the titles. what about the first half being the deathly hallows and the second one being the hunt for the horcruxes or hallows vs. horcruxes. it would be too disappointing if they came out like a year or even a few months from each other and not have them being good.

is there a law or something about how long movies can be? it might also be a good idea to have just one long movie. i know i wouldn't mind and most other fans wouldn't so what is wrong with doing that?

When i first heard of this, i was so over-the-top that i actually forgot to check my grammar when posting that link in here the first time.

Now that things have calmed down (a teeny-bit!), Empire Online has already asked Wb if this is true, and they have stated "that no decision has been made about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and that Steven Kloves is going to write Dh (what a surprise), but no writing is taking place due to the WGA Strike (even though he's British, i suppose he's just showing support to his American colleagues, especially since he's writing this for Wb, one of the biggest American studios!), but I'm a little-bit concerned about this strike. If it goes on for like, another year (ha ha ha) , then the release date would have to pushed forward!

Anyway here's the link-

here
(i see that Veritaserum got the update already)
However, another article (sorry, can't remember where), says that the info. came from"a-very-well-placed-source-that
-we-can't-tell-you-who-it-is".

But like you said, LunaLover,i think that this is a very-well published rumor. This first appeared in "The Daily Mail" and it's known to publish rubbish. Like everyone says, things like this appeared before Gof and Hbp was filmed and they were all proven to be untrue. But what bothers me is Jo's comment about this, after hearing the rumor i heard she had stated on her website (i didn't check it though), "It is simply impossible to incorporate every storyline into a film under four hours long".
If this rumor would prove to be true in the coming weeks (i highly doubt it though), then i won't like it at all . Anyway, it just wouldn't work, if you know what i mean? There's only 7 books, and there should be 7 movie adaptations, not 7 books and 7 movies+1 "movie-that-we-did-to-milk-more-of-your-money-but
-we-say-we-did-for-artistic-reasons"

They did it more than great with the Lotr Trilogy (especially with The King), so why not Potter? Or are they scared that no one will watch it if they made it 3hrs. and 20mins.?

MOD EDIT: I've edited breaks into your post as all the hyphens were causing the page to split. -passerby

It will definitely be tough. There's so much happening in DH you can't really leave anything out.

In past films it was sad, but understandable. In the last Harry Potter movie I think the makers should just go full out. Make one longer movie. I feel like two movies will seem like two books. Why break in the middle of the action? If I went to see DH in the movies and left off at Malfoy Manor, I would freak out. I would want to see the rest.

If they left anything out, I feel like it would be a bigger deal than in previous films. Simply, because this is the Harry/Voldemort climax. Rowling did a great job writing it so... if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I think the last film has to be pretty huge, so much happens in the book.

Last time they spoke about splitting the books it was OOTP. It turned out to be a good film, but it is the worst adaptatrion of all the books so far.

I hope the film has all of the scenes from the book, so it will have to be four hours long at least, I personally think thats fine, as long as they maintain the pace, which should be easy to do as so much happens.

Lets face it, anyone who goes to see DH will be desperarate to see it and will sit through however long it is. But if WB think about the long term, most fans will see it at the cinema and then buy it on Blu-ray and watch it again and again at home.

And when your watching it at home, you can pause it whenever you want

I don't think DH should be split into 2 films. How annoying would that be to just leave off at some random place, like Malfoy Manor? However, DH should not be as condensed as OOTP was, I agree with the people before me who said a two-part film would be good. So many loose ends are tied up and so much happens, I would be surprised if they manage to squeeze everything that is necessary in under 3 hours. Well, my idea of what is necessary and the director's are very different...But, yeah they should just go all out on the last film.

I feel kind of stupid at the moment; I was wondering, nearly tearing my hair out, how in the name of all that is holy that they were going to make this a decent movie, if it was all going to be together in one film like OotP.

There was so much that they chopped out of that, I was horrified. Of course, my sisters thought it was great, but they had never read the books, and so they didn't know what they had missed. I, being the avid reader that I am, noticed how much they had omitted, and I thought, 'OH MY GOD what will happen when they get to the last two movies!?'

I hope they do end up slicing DH in half, like Titanic. How did it release, for those of you who saw it? Was it even released in theaters? But I think it should be like a play with two acts; Watch the first half, the first half ends, you go to the bathroom, refill on popcorn and drinks, then you go back up to the front, and say "Hello, I would like to see the second half of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." You cough up an extra three bucks and they give you a pass to allow you back in for part two. It's like putting the book down right after Malfoy Manor and then picking it up again.

Even though I am completely obsessed with Harry Potter and would like nothing more than MORE of anything HP related, I personally think its a bad idea to split DH into 2 movies ...the momentum would be lost and well...I dont want to wait to see the final scenes! I mean OOTP was a bigger book than DH and they managed! I do however wish DH is close to 3 hours! Some stuff really should NOT be cut out...Anyways my vote is for only one installment of DH

I agree with Miss_Mimz

I love Harry Potter, but thinking of it financially it wouldn't do too well. The movie would be ruined without splitting it, as they did with OotP, but, the momentum would be lost. Many that aren't obsessed with Harry Potter would not pay twice as much to see a movie they don't even understand. Also, it would be slightly annoying to set apart 6ish straight hours to watch Deathly Hallows. I mean, I would Love it, but I know not all people love Harry Potter, which is a pitty really.

I agree with you too krazy4krecher. The book simply couldn't be done any justice being split into two movies. I think that it would ruin the whole effect. You would get the whole adventure in one half, then the whole other Voldemort and Harry showdown in the other. I too would sit thourgh a six hour DH movie, but then again not all people are as obsessed as me. I suppose I would be happy if they did it either way, as long as it was really good.

~Ronluver7

I agree with many of you.I think they should make the movie a little bit longer than most HP movies and maybe have an intermission just to make sure it has all the important parts.I mean 4 hours might be okay.Maybe that's just me.As long as the movie is unforgetable I don't mid how long it is.

>Laughingirl_92

[size=1]
I was disappointed with OOTP movie, as the book was the longest in the series and a lot was left out or cut short from the movie. OOTP should've been a 2:45 movie at least and I hope that when all the films are done, WB offers a boxset of the films with added scenes that were filmed but left on the cutting room floor for time constraints.
My fear with HBP and DH is that the same will happen as in OOTP, but there are little things in both books that become geometrically more substantial and necessary as the story progresses and cannot be left out. I hope they don't shred the films for time constraints and either leave stuff out or change the story to such an extent that I'll end up hating the movies. Remember, the studio is a business and they're in the business of making money, not just making movies. The shorter a movie is, the plays it can get in theaters. If they cut a movie by 20-25 minutes, they can get an extra showing a day, and when you take into account one extra showing multiplied by the number of theaters nation/world wide, that adds up to a lot of dollars/pounds.
DH is going to have to be at least 3:30 in length. That sounds like a movie with a 15-20 minute intermission time. I agree that dividing it into 2 seperate movies is not a good idea, especially if the 2nd one wouldn't be released until later. I don't want to have to wait to see the conclusion, not after wathcing the build up. It has to be done in one sitting, even if it is a long one, but if they do it right we'll all be so intently watching we won't be aware of the time. Let's hope the studio learned their lesson from OOTP and will do right by us for the final 2 films.

If I knew that the movie was 6 hours, then I'd be sure it was great. That's how I've felt since the Gof (Which was horrible!) They should just make the movies 5 or 6 hours long and have an awesome movie, instead of cramming what they can't cram into a 2 1/2 almost 3 hour movie. When I see a huge book that's really good, and I hear they're going to make it into a movie, I cringe, cause I know they're going to take a lot out. Eragon for example. An absolute disappointment. I think it's a really good book, but the movie doesn't even add up. The only large books that I've had no complaints about would be the LOTR. They're the best. But, back to DH. I seriously don't think they will put it into two parts and I don't know if it would make the movie any better either.

Well after seeing OOTP I am definatly for them splitting DH into two movies. I was fairly disappointed at how rushed OOTP was and I am surprised anyone who had not read the books was able to follow the plot properly and I was also dissappointed at several of the things that they left out of the film.

I think it would be awful if they were to treat the last film in the series the same way. They might be able to get away with it for HBP but I think for DH, considering it the last chance for them to wrap it up and give it a good and clear conclusion and since it will be our last movie of the HP series, I think it deserves to be done properly. I would hate it, after all this time of watching HP movies if the last film was as much of a confused jumble as OOTP. I think HP needs a proper send off and I think that the only way they can do that is to split it into two films.

Plus, that means we can keep the Harry Potter series on for longer. I am totally dreading it being the end of both the films and the books so if they split it into two after we see the first half we'll still have another film to look forward to!!

I really don't mind a split-
but how long exactly would it be between the two releases?
AND
what other movies do you know of that have been split? just out of curiosity, and how long apart were they released?
but i really think it'd be great to include everything
and when the second part is released, movie theaters should take the first part AND second part, and play them back to back, maybe with an intermission due to the length...how amazing that would be! \

so if there was a split movie:
Where do you think they'd end the first part??
i'd say maybe after visiting Lovegood...or to make more of a cliffhanger, when greyback catches them!
what do you think?

I'd prefer that they didn't split DH. They need to make it a long enough movie to accomodate everything that needs to be included. If the movie has to be 3 hours long to fit everything in, then that is what they need to do. They shouldn't cut the movie short and cut out a bunch of nec. info in order to do it. OOTP should have been the longest movie so far since it was the longest book, but they didn't do that. I hope they don't make that mistake again.

I don't like the idea of a split because the book is just that, one book-not split. If JKR can fit it all in, then the producers and writers should, too. Not to mention, my greedy side just won't allow me to be patient enough to wait for two installments.

I would definately prefer a long movie to it being split into two, but as I seriously doubt that the studio will support that, I think a split is the best way to go. I will not tolerate a two hour and 15 minute cut of DH.

As for those that are concerned about the split because it is supposed to be one installment, I see where you are coming from, but it will only be a problem during it's theatrical run. I'm sure that when it's released on video there will be an uncut edition.

Other than generally being completely against the idea, my main problem with it is that it would create an 8-movie movie series when it's only supposed to be seven. The number seven has been stressed so heavily throughout the books, and I just think it would be terrible to have 8 movies and 7 books. I realize that seven didn't play a huge role in the movies, but it would bug me that there were more movies than books.

And I will also agree on the fact that I would sit through a 6 hour long film just to have that last book done to a T. Even though...I wouldn't really care if all that Dumbledore stuff kinda got left out. I got bored with it.

I don't think I'd want them to split it into two parts. I just feel as if JKR was so insistent on there being SEVEN because it's a "magical number" 7 horcruxes, 7 years/books/movies...Then also the whole cast would have to sign on for an eighth movie. I think there are some scenes that can be cut for instance while they're in the forests figuring stuff out (not all of it, obviously not the important parts but some) and I think the part where Ron's not with Harry and Hermione may be shortened because the story is really almost as much about Ron and Hermione as it is about Harry. Who knows what they'll do with the epilogue (shorten it maybe, put it in words (who got married/ who had kids) at the end rather than film it). I think Shell Cottage may be cut since Bill and Fluer have been cut from HBP and in that case the wedding would be cut as well. Anyway OotP was longer and it was one film.

I agree with you, babydoll.
An eighth movie would be really strange.
But the book has too many things that can't be cut.
I mean, who cares about being more than three hours watching
a Harry Potter movie?
Only who is not a big fan...

i reckkon that would actually be a good idea! then we could get more detail in the movie

On mugglenet it said that matt lewis confirmed that the deathly hallows is going to be split in to two parts

I myself wouldn't mind it being split into two parts as long as they are able to make a good film out of the book, but i don't think that they should make it complicated, by doing things like charging us for the two films, or leaving it months before bringing out the second half of the film