• Yeah. The 7th books was so action-filled that the one movie would probably be lame. And it's a good move on the producers' part, because they'll make more money.
  • Well I think it is a good idea because this way they can make it more detailed and do not have to cut out anything that may be important to the book. The only problem is that I have to wait even longer because there would be 2 movies!
  • yeah because i think even the last movie was too short. they just glossed over so much stuff!
  • Yes that would be a good idea. Since its long deal.
  • What, so the original cast will all be thrity by the end?
  • No, I don't want to wait for the second part. If they have to pay extra to have a long film then they should.
  • They would almost have made to be back to back. I think it's a good idea though. They would have to be released close together as well to make it work IMHO. I can hear the critics complaining though. Calling it greedy. Typical, not that the same critics realize that 2 movies cost more to make. People whined about how long Schindler's List, Brazil, and LOTR all were. Consequently, Brazil was hacked to bits and lost a lot in the process. I would hate to see that happen to Deathly Hallows. Yeah, I'm for 2 movies. --UPDATE-- LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warner Bros. has conjured up some Hollywood magic for the final installment of the wildly popular "Harry Potter" movies, splitting the seventh and final book into two films, the movie studio said Thursday. Part one of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" will debut in late 2010 and be followed months later by part two. "We feel that the best way to do the book, and its many fans, justice is to expand the screen adaptation of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' and release the film in two parts," Jeff Robinov, president of Warner Bros. Pictures Group, said in a statement. The first five films in the series have been huge hits with a total global box office nearing $4.5 billion. The sixth movie is now being filmed. The movies are based on British author J.K. Rowling's best-selling fantasy novels about the adventures of boy wizard Harry Potter and his friends as they grow from kids into teenagers at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. "Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in Rowling's series, was published last July to huge fanfare, selling some 11.5 million copies in its first 10 days in the United States. But the final volume is a long saga at more than 750 pages, and it is filled with many twists and turns as Harry and his friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley wrap up their story lines. Harry faces -- once and for all times -- the dark Lord Voldemort who murdered his parents. Because of the many adventures in "Deathly Hallows," Rowling, the movies' producers and Warner Bros. all agreed that two movies were necessary to truly tell the end story. "'The Deathly Hallows' is so rich, the story so dense and there is so much that is resolved that after discussing it with Jo, we came to the conclusion that the two parts were needed to do it justice," said producer David Heyman, who first took the project to Warner Bros. in 1997. The books and movies also have been a huge money maker beyond theater box offices and DVDs. They have spawned products from toys to T-shirts to a planned theme park. By some estimates, "Harry Potter" represents a $20 billion business, so an eighth film will likely only expand the enterprise. Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry, and his co-stars Emma Watson (Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron) are now filming the sixth movie -- "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." All three have said they would appear in "Deathly Hallows." Reuters/Nielsen--03/13/08 13:05 ET
  • Since it's so long, they would have to do the two. The alternative--they cut the Sh*t out of it and ruin it.
  • yea cause theres so much information and important points in that book that it would be impossible to fit it all in one movie!!
  • Yes. I think its an attempt by the director and producers to give fair credit to the book by doing it FULL justice and not just skipping things or downplaying things to make it fit in the however-many-hours that no movie could EVER go over.
  • Sure, why not? They are already milking out the series so much, a little bit more would not hurt.
  • No. I don't want to have to wait however long to watch the second part of a movie. Is that really what they are going to do?
  • Absolutely. It shows that the director is willing to do the movie justice by including all the major chapters. It would really suck if they tried to shorten it to fit it in the one movie time limit.
  • Of course, I need a HP fix, and I'll take as much as they can give me! ;)
  • I like the idea of them spillting it into two, hopefully thy can cover a lot more from the book in these two films

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy