Posted February 2, 200817 yr I was reading yesterday that apparently producers want to make 8 harry potter films, splitting the last book ('Deathly Hallows') into two. Apparently, this was the plan for the Goblet of Fire until they where talked out of it. Is this a good idea or not? :unsure:
February 2, 200817 yr Ffs, Why can't the producers realise that no one minds sitting through a film that's 3 hours long. :|
February 2, 200817 yr Ffs, Why can't the producers realise that no one minds sitting through a film that's 3 hours long. :| I hate sitting through lonngggg films and often they get panned for becoming a chore to sit through. I think a two-parter is a great idea. ^_^
February 2, 200817 yr I would rather they did two films than chop loads out. There is a hell of a lot to fit in.
February 2, 200817 yr They'll never do it. They can't either I don't think. All the actors have only signed on for 7 films and I really see NO point whatsoever in splitting the7th book into two pieces. If they've not done it for the 4th or 5th films then there's no way they should do it for the 7th.
February 3, 200817 yr Well, I can see both and good points to this, but I would much prefer 1 film as it then runs with the books (and I would have to wait less to see the final film!). But, as they butchered OOTP, maybe 2 films would keep keep the essence of the book. Of course, it would also mean twice as much money for Warner <_>
February 3, 200817 yr Well, I can see both and good points to this, but I would much prefer 1 film as it then runs with the books (and I would have to wait less to see the final film!). But, as they butchered OOTP, maybe 2 films would keep keep the essence of the book. Of course, it would also mean twice as much money for Warner <_< I don't think they butchered OOTP at all. :o My second favorite. The movie doesn't have to follow the book exactly to be good imo. =/ OOTP portrayed the mood of the book extraordinarily well, and that's what mattered to me personally.
February 3, 200817 yr I don't think they butchered OOTP at all. :o My second favorite. The movie doesn't have to follow the book exactly to be good imo. =/ OOTP portrayed the mood of the book extraordinarily well, and that's what mattered to me personally. There was so much of the essence of the book missing. OOTP is my fave book though (and my fave film is POA) so I guess I would have been disappointed with whatever they came up with :lol:
February 3, 200817 yr i think its a good idea cos then this way, the story can go into a lot of depth and meaning instead of it being rushed and squashed into a 3hr film.
February 6, 200817 yr Ffs, Why can't the producers realise that no one minds sitting through a film that's 3 hours long. :| Exactly... It's only dimwits with the attention spans of braindead goldfish who cant handle a film of 2 hours plus... I mean, the average Harry Potter reader (who is a KID by the way...), sits reading the book for 5-hour stretches easily, so to assume that the fans couldn't sit through a three hour film is utterly ludicrous.... The past TWO film adaptions have been somewhat ruined by cutting pretty important chunks of plot out of them (Sirius Black is almost consigned to a minor support status within the OOTP adaption, which was my main bone of contention with the film).. Okay, fair dos if you're gonna do an LOTR and come up with a "Special Edition" DVD to put all these bits back into the story, but they dont, and I frankly find that irritating tbh.....
February 7, 200817 yr Yea i'd be fine with a long film, LOTR is my fave film I still need to do a marathon with my extended editons, lol!
February 7, 200817 yr Author It'd be cool if they came out like a week/month in between ;) :lol: As if that'll happen LOL, we'll be made to wait ages in between :drama: PS - Happy 2000th post to me :cheer:
February 10, 200817 yr It'd be cool if they came out like a week/month in between ;) I reckon the best you'd be looking at is a six month gap...
February 11, 200817 yr Nah, that would be a terrible idea to split the film. If people have trouble sitting through three hours in a cinema then why not add an intermission into the last one? Hey, it'd be an extra 15 mins for the cinema to sell some more ice cream. On that point, why don't cinema's have intermissions at all any more?
February 13, 200817 yr Eww no! This could go either two-ways. It could be really successful and do it 'Kill Bill' stlye, or it could bore fans and annoy them at the wait for an 8th film, considering there are 2 books. Like Matt said the actors are signed for 7 films so I dont know what they are going to do abou that one.. I personally wouldn't mind watching a 3 hour film. It could be 6 hours for all I care as long as I dont get bored, that is crucial, there has to be something happening evey minute, then the film will fly by ^_^
February 13, 200817 yr I actually think it's a good idea, obviously there are issues with cast etc. (Daniel Radcliffe et al. could ask for obsene amounts of money for the second part, considering they're not yet signed up), and I think two parts would be truer to the book. You really can't squeeze all that down to a couple of hours imo, without some people being left very disappointed. But then, 7 books = 7 films.
Create an account or sign in to comment