Deathly Hallows being two movies is good or bad?

I personally am not a big HP fan. I've never read the books and have only seen a few movies. I was considering just seeing the last movie anyway, but then found out that it was gonna be cut into two movies even though it's only one book that they're adapting. To all the HP fans out there, is this a good decision or just a way of doubling movie ticket sales?

The wait between movies is really the only thing bad I can think of it.

I personally am not a big HP fan. I've never read the books and have only seen a few movies. I was considering just seeing the last movie anyway, but then found out that it was gonna be cut into two movies even though it's only one book that they're adapting. To all the HP fans out there, is this a good decision or just a way of doubling movie ticket sales?

Laserwolf65

Good decision. No way to cover everything in the book in only one regular length movie.

it's just a way of making more money just like putting the movie in 3D or atleast i heard it was gonna be in 3D

Well its shot as one film. The only bad I see from it is that as two seperated peices they may each be very underwhelming, but as a whole be very good. But I guess they had to do it because not many people want to sit in the theatre for over 4 hours on a single film.

Should be good. If they felt that they couldn't cover everything in one movie, it's better to have two. It's what they should've done with Lord of the Rings. I wanted to see Tom Bombadill (among other things)!

The wait between movies is really the only thing bad I can think of it.

TGM_basic

Thats how I feel about it too.

I don't like harry potter so whatever. I'll still see them though most likely somehow.

I wanted to see Tom Bombadill (among other things)!

Litchie

I personally am not a big HP fan. I've never read the books and have only seen a few movies. I was considering just seeing the last movie anyway, but then found out that it was gonna be cut into two movies even though it's only one book that they're adapting. To all the HP fans out there, is this a good decision or just a way of doubling movie ticket sales?

Laserwolf65

they want money for sure

I never read the book but I seen the deathly hallows book and its big as hell so I guess they dont want to leave anything out but if your a HP fan your going to see both any ways. Hell I might see both just it see how it ends but its kinda good I guess

Well its shot as one film. The only bad I see from it is that as two seperated peices they may each be very underwhelming, but as a whole be very good. But I guess they had to do it because not many people want to sit in the theatre for over 4 hours on a single film.

blazinpuertoroc

What he said. Fans will see (or should) alot of detail from the books into the movies while the producers should plenty of profit. Although most will look at the negative side of it, it's a win win situation, save for the wait between the two movies.

[QUOTE="Litchie"]

I wanted to see Tom Bombadill (among other things)!

ZookGuy

Thank god he wasn't in the movie, he was a hopelessly ridiculous character that only brought the entire story down.. It would be like in Star Wars Luke stumbles upon Chuckles the Clown who is amazingly powerful.. So they must wiegh their options.. Take on the empire, teh threat to the galaxy, or leave it to Chuckles the Clown.. That is pretty much my views of Tom Bombadill in a nut shell.. Ridiculous.

The Harry Potter movies haven't been good since the second one. They're all downright horrible the third one and onwards.

But oh well, I'm not really a fan of the books anymore, not since 2007 and the less-than-enjoyable 7th book.

I don't see why this is a problem. It doesn't impact people who don't like the franchise, and people who do like it get more Harry Potter.

Also what's up with people complaining that "they're just doing it to increase sales with two tickets". Are you implying there's something bad about that?

The Harry Potter movies haven't been good since the second one. They're all downright horrible the third one and onwards.

But oh well, I'm not really a fan of the books anymore, not since 2007 and the less-than-enjoyable 7th book.

thattotally

What? The first two Harry Potter movies are so generic and lacking of any visual creativity when you compare them to movies 3-6.

The only reason for calling the first two movies better is that they are adapted faithfully and even that's a bad reason as movies/=/books. Super-faithful adaptations are boring.

Also, Chamber of Secrets was too damn long. They should have cut stuff to make it shorter.

The Harry Potter movies haven't been good since the second one. They're all downright horrible the third one and onwards.

But oh well, I'm not really a fan of the books anymore, not since 2007 and the less-than-enjoyable 7th book.

thattotally

The second one was the worse film in the series for me behind the 6th one. Honestly, I thought the 4th and 5th movies were the best, even though they had a ridiculous amount of plot slashed. I thought the directors had done a great job of maintaining good pacing and keeping the story consistent throughout, while still axeing a lot of side story. The only reason the third movie wasn't up there, was cause Alfonso did a piss poor job of keeping important elements to the story in, so anyone who HADN'T read the books would be confused as hell. Lets be honest though, the films have always been more directed to people who read the books first.

Anyways, on topic. I think it's a good thing for the movie studio, and a good thing for HP fans that they are making this into two films. As someone else said, A LOT of stuff happens in this book, and I think they really need to give it enough space so they can do this finale justice. Also, two movies made as one equals twice the profit so why not make two films. Smart marketing.

The main criticism I've heard from most people is that the films always left out a lot of stuff from the books. Half Blood Prince, for example, ignores half of the book's content, and just throws in "I'm the Half Blood Prince" at the end. I guess two films is a good way to avoid that sort of thing again.Bourbons3

Most of the content is cut for a very good reason. I can only think of a few instances in which the omissions weren't justified.

I challenge everybody to name any omission that they think is terrible. I bet I can provide a reason for a majority of the cuts, especially the ones in HBP. Not everything in JK Rowling's books will translate well to the big screen.

I like it. I loved Half Blood Prince so I'm glad there will be two more movies.

Anyway, I don't like the 2 films idea, but I'm willing to give it a chance. I can think of two spots in the novel that could make pretty good split points.

I'd rather it be a single movie though. I don't care if they make big cuts. Most cuts improve the flow of the movie.

I think it's a great thing... except for the tantalizing wait between the two. I am concerned that the first part might be forgotten when the second is released, but I'm sure they will be able to make them just about equal in terms of awesomeness.GodofBigMacs

They've said that part 1 will be sort of a "road movie" and part 2 will be an epic. As much as I would rather them release a single film, those descriptions sounds promising.

i hear a mooooo the cash cow is getting milked dry

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]The main criticism I've heard from most people is that the films always left out a lot of stuff from the books. Half Blood Prince, for example, ignores half of the book's content, and just throws in "I'm the Half Blood Prince" at the end. I guess two films is a good way to avoid that sort of thing again.GreySeal9

Most of the content is cut for a very good reason. I can only think of a few instances in which the omissions weren't justified.

I challenge everybody to name any omission that they think is terrible. I bet I can provide a reason for a majority of the cuts, especially the ones in HBP. Not everything in JK Rowling's books will translate well to the big screen.

Not gonna watch it, but I'd rather just a really long movie.

I thinks it's a good idea. The last movie had to cut so much out to the book to fit into the alotted time that it was a disappointment. Besides, the story of the last book has a natural point where it could be cut.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]The main criticism I've heard from most people is that the films always left out a lot of stuff from the books. Half Blood Prince, for example, ignores half of the book's content, and just throws in "I'm the Half Blood Prince" at the end. I guess two films is a good way to avoid that sort of thing again.bobaban

Most of the content is cut for a very good reason. I can only think of a few instances in which the omissions weren't justified.

I challenge everybody to name any omission that they think is terrible. I bet I can provide a reason for a majority of the cuts, especially the ones in HBP. Not everything in JK Rowling's books will translate well to the big screen.

The ending did feel more complete in the book, but I'd argue that everything felt more epic in the movie as their visuals are superior to Rowling's clunky prose IMO. And the battle was probably taken out to avoid redundancy considering the battle in the previous movie and the epic battle that will take place in the last.

The 6th book, while serving as a good and interesting transition between books 5 and 7 was actually pretty slow and uneventful. The movie creators actually used visual flair and smart cuts to make it actually come together as a pretty well-paced story rather than a info-filled transition movie. The book did alot of telling while the movie did a lot of showing. The Malfoy Vanishing Cabinet parts could have been so boring on screen if they were by the book, but the movie makers actually decided to show his activities in the Room of Requirement and show his frustration.

In short, people give the 6th movie too much crap. It actually made something watchable out a book that seemed like it wouldn't translate well as a movie. The fact that they cut out most of the Voldemort flashbacks, only keeping the most important ones, was genius. All that backstory would bog down a film.

[QUOTE="Laserwolf65"]

I personally am not a big HP fan. I've never read the books and have only seen a few movies. I was considering just seeing the last movie anyway, but then found out that it was gonna be cut into two movies even though it's only one book that they're adapting. To all the HP fans out there, is this a good decision or just a way of doubling movie ticket sales?

binpink

Good decision. No way to cover everything in the book in only one regular length movie.

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="Laserwolf65"]

I personally am not a big HP fan. I've never read the books and have only seen a few movies. I was considering just seeing the last movie anyway, but then found out that it was gonna be cut into two movies even though it's only one book that they're adapting. To all the HP fans out there, is this a good decision or just a way of doubling movie ticket sales?

LJS9502_basic

Good decision. No way to cover everything in the book in only one regular length movie.

I agree. I have no idea why people want to see a super faithful adaption, especially when a lot of the stuff from the book wouldn't work on screen. Not everybody in the viewing audience are interested in all the little details.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="binpink"]

Good decision. No way to cover everything in the book in only one regular length movie.

GreySeal9

I agree. I have no idea why people want to see a super faithful adaption, especially when a lot of the stuff from the book wouldn't work on screen. Not everybody in the viewing audience are interested in all the little details.

I think it's a good idea, gives them more time to go more into detail. Though I can kind of see the first movie being alittle slow compared to the second one.

I want to know how they are going to start the 7th movie, because if I remember right (it's been awhile since I've seen both the movie and read the book), but didn't

[spoiler] Harry keep Dumbledore's wand instead of putting it inside his casket? [/spoiler]

@ sxdx89:

[spoiler] The wand was in Dumbledore's casket until Voldemort took it from the casket shortly after the Malfoy Manor incident. After Harry took possession of it at the end of the book, he put it back in the casket so that the wands power would die if Harry, it's master, died a natural death. I'm sure they will start the movie with The Dark Lord Ascending which was a chapter in which Voldemort discussed with Snape and his cronies how to best kill Harry before taking over the Ministry. Charity Burbage, the Muggle Studies teacher, is killed in that chapter. [/spoiler]

Ahh ok thanks GreySeal9 thats what I thought, but

[spoiler] Did the wand get put in the casket in the movie? I thought I remembered Harry keeping it himself, or am I loosing my mind haha. [/spoiler]

@ sxdx89

I don't think there was even a casket at all in the 6th movie, though I definitely might be mistaken.

I don't think Harry kept his wand. I don't think the filmmakers would make an error that huge.

It is obvious that they want more money. However, this is going to be a great opportunity to truly represent all of the great moments of the last book on the silver screen. I remember I was awfully disappointed in the last movie because the most action-packed sequence of the entire novel was left out. :(