Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows split in 2 movies

If thats true it will work, be extremly frustrating but would work. Die hard fans will do it like LOTR's and The Matrix...but they would want to seriously pay a lot of attention to detail. I still think they will stick to one movie though. I think its just a rumour that will pass.

I'm still trying to see how the Harry Potter films are uncreative. I just don't get that. I've read enough of the first book to feel like the film adaptation is just as magical and adventurous as the novel. In fact, I always felt like the first two films closely resembled Steven Spielberg's Hook, which is a wonderfully imaginative film.

I'm still fuzzy on what you mean by "creative identity." It's like you're trying to say that Harry Potter has this ingrained something-or-other that you feel the films exhibited none of because the directors have had no personal style to infuse into them. So, if Martin Scorcese directed a Harry Potter film, he would by design breathe creative life into it because he would have a definite, recognizable style. But it seems like, by saying that, you're also saying that Harry Potter has no creative style on its own, and needs creative directoral input to even seem creatively driven, and I wholeheartedly disagree. The whole reason Harry Potter ever made it to film was because it was creatively charged, and I don't believe a director's "vision" should ever supercede the boundaries of the original source material, but should instead complement them. In other words, I don't want someone as egotistical as Martin Scorcese to ever direct a Potter flick, because I imagine it would end up being more a "Scorcese flick" than a Potter flick, and that's wrong.

Furthermore, I disagree on your LOTR example. There are many instances in Two Towers and Return of the King in which less Tolkien-esque, more contemporary dialogue is used (usually for comedic effect) to seemingly appeal to contemporary audiences, and to me it has always seemed to undercut Tolkien's Old-English writing "flavor" that makes the books so special and fun to read. So it's not devoid of creative forfeit. Examples include: Gimli wanting to be tossed at Helm's Deep (or pretty much anything Gimli says, part of Smeagol/Gollum's arguing, and some of Gandalf's dialogue, among others.

I never said they were sophisticated fine art, but when you've got seven books in a series, the story is inevitably going to undergo changes and evolutions, just as the sensibility of the author does over time. And I still disagree: the intended audience has not been a mainstay. I've read some of the first book, and it's most definitely a children's book. From what I've read about later books in the series, I would hesitate to call "kids" the intended audience.

But you are erroneously equating lack of distinguishable style for lack of talent, and you're compounding that equation with your own personal feelings about Columbus' work. Let's look at directors like Steven Soderbergh and Steven Spielberg: their relative styles change from film to film, and the "anonymity" issue you mentioned earlier is a straw man argument, I believe, since that's a feeling personal to each viewer and not really qualifiable here.

LOTR's story isn't rehashfull ( ) at all - it's a continuing story - you know with character development and different events happening throughout the course of the films.

__________________

Yeah, I completely agree with that. Are you planning on reading the books sometime? They are a pretty fun read.

Have you been watching Uwe Boll movies again mark?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

meatwad is right about a significant difference in the ways the Harry Potter sequels are structured vs. LoTR, namely that each HP book covers a year at school, so it does lend itself to "rehashfulness" in a way that the LoTR books and movies don't. Each one starts with a recap of the past summer and a trip to school, ends with him coming back. There are some recurring scenes from book to book, movie to movie too, like those parts of the first few where there's some year-long competition between the houses and one house wins, "but wait, Harry Potter gets extra points for bravery and heroism... Harry Potter's house wins!!" Oh well, not complaining, that's what I get for reading the whole thing I guess.

edit: also, this obviously doesn't make 1+4 "practically the exact same movies".

This is a good point. By the nature of the story, there is some inherent repetition. But you know, my years in high school blur together and could be called "rehashful" for the same reason. But I don't see anything wrong with making a continuing series about sequential years in a school. That's the great irony of Harry Potter: most kids dread having to start another year of school, but in the Potter 'verse, Hogwarts is the highlight of the year, and everything else is the drag. I like the fact that we get to re-visit such a cool place and such enjoyable characters year after year. But I guess some people just don't care for it.

I've always wanted to read them, and actually attempted to read the first book a year ago. I got moderately far, but because it's predominantly a children's lit book, it was difficult for me to get into. I don't mean to say it was beneath me, but as a writer and avid reader, it's not what I'm generally used to. I figured I would give it another go sometime in the future, or just start in the middle somewhere.

The title of this thread caught my attention and I hope the rumor isn't true. I see no reason to split up the last book. Let's face it, if LOTR can be made into three films, then Deathly Hallows can be made into a three hour climactic film. And I've often wondered about Half Blood Prince -- that seems like half a film. So much backstory is here -- I think they really need a great screenwriter (like Peter Jackson!!) to pull it off.

I'm gonna disagree a bit here about all the films being "rehashful" -- well, maybe I don't really disagree, they are that way, but I thought Order of the Pheonix and Prisoner of Axkaban are really good films. Both have a some great cinematic moments. The others, not so much. The first two films take interesting and fun books and made them boring (how is that possible?)

I love the books so I'm not one that really thinks the films are necessary even if I go see them. But I was sitting next to a woman in Phoenix and after that film, she said, "I really need to know what happens!" She said she'd been keeping up with the story through the films but didn't think she could wait years to see the end. I advised her to read the next books...lol. Something she should have done anyway! But it made me think that some people don't want to invest the time into the books so the movies serve a purpose.

But, hey, I'm with those of you that think LOTR is infinitely better; at times, even improved. Jackson's dialogue, especially in his interpretation of Boromir's death, was faithful enough to Tolkein but much more dramatic in the way a film dialogue needs to be. "I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my king," is simply brilliant and heart wrenching. That scene in the book is nothing like that. The ending of ROTK and the bowing to the hobbits is a great "movie moment" that I'll treasure. The film and book each stand alone as works of art, imo. Harry Potter isn't. The films are fun, but just can't compare to the joy I felt reading each book.

I think what is frustrating to me is the time it takes between films, too. Too long. So much of this is milking the popularity and making money. Can't fault them, though...but to split the last book is a little much.

I like that someone brought this up. I've been keeping up with the story by way of the films alone, and I imagine a lot of people are doing the same thing. I've reserved myself to waiting to read any of the Potter books before its film adaptation has been released, because I enjoy watching the series from an uninitiated perspective. I think I'll end up liking them better this way.

I wouldn't say that I'm not interested in investing the time to read the books, but at the time the Harry Potter buzz really reached a mainstream high with the first two films, I was still somewhat oblivious, and what little I knew of the concept didn't inspire me enough to pick up the first book. It was only after I saw the third film that I developed an interest, and by then (when I was knee deep in college and personal projects), I figured I would just follow the films and read the books as time allowed. I know I'm missing the big show, but I'll read the books eventually.

I'm not sure milking the popularity is the motivation behind the delays between films. Making a movie isn't like snapping puzzle pieces together, and the only reason why the LOTR films came out so promptly is because they were planned that way in the beginning so that shooting would never have to stop. There's at least some measure of respect being shown to the Potter films, particularly in the calibur of actors being tapped to lend their hands (Richard Harris, Kenneth Branagh, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, Jason Isaacs, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton... I mean, wow.)

With regard to the issue of splitting the final book into two films, I would be opposed only unless it could not be adapted well into one film. If it must take two for the book to translate into great cinema, then I'd rather it be two.

That is exactly what I did with LOTR. I had read The Hobbit as a kid but never got around to LOTR. After Fellowship, I bought the trilogy, started it, then decided to let the story unfold that way (I wanted to be surprised and the film was so great, I didn't want to spoil it.) I wonder, though, if you will get the same type of enjoyment out of Potter -- I only say that because the Potter films seem like little summaries instead of a film experience; the books are rather magical, and the films don't seem to be. Maybe it is the nature of the story -- to imagine what Potter's world is like, instead of seeing it, is the real joy here.

I find it interesting, too, that if you look at the two series, Tolkien's language is so amazing in parts -- especially in The Return of the King -- that you'd think the films would have been poor substitutes. Potter's language isn't that great; it's the imagination behind it all which made it so popular. Yet, LOTR is so much better as a film and the Potter films aren't.

Yea, on second thought, you're probably right. The books weren't even finished when they started. And I think the calibur of actors is the most enjoyable aspect of the films, especially Rickman.

In all, I think Potter is a case where the books are soooo much more enjoyable than the films, and that isn't always the case, even though the common argument is that books are always better. What Jackson accomplished is rather rare, imo.

See, with the LOTR films, I actually saw Fellowship before I read one word of the books. It struck me pretty hard, so I went and read all three books before the film adaptation of The Two Towers was released. So essentially, I experienced both effects. I saw the film before reading the book, and was astounded. And then I read the last two books before seeing the last two films; and though I had the source material in my head on which to base criticisms, I was still astounded.

With Harry Potter, I know if I had read the books prior to seeing the films, I'd probably be enjoying the films much less. But without having read them, I'm still getting a pretty nice cinematic experience from them, and I don't want to sully that by reading the books. Because I don't think I'll lose any respect for the films once I've read the books, and that -- I think -- will be the ideal outcome for me.

Sleezy, I think if you're seeing the films without reading the books, you're probably having a better experience than me!

I hope when you do read the books one day, you'll get the same enjoyment out of them I did. I was so depressed when my "Harry Potter" experience was over.

Now see to me this just goes to the crux of what may be the biggest trouble here. I think you're missing a rather large chunk of the story by not reading the books and therein lies some of my and others complaints about the films in general. But on the flip side you're probably right, you most likely will enjoy them more this way and perhaps you may be better off not reading them at all.


It's interesting, I didn't find the first two films boring at all, I thought they were the closest adaptations and managed to keep a pretty decent chunk of the source material in there. However I'm completely the other way on the next two so much so that I still have yet to watch the 5th one, they have taken pretty large pieces of the story out just so they can "make a movie" in my opinion and that's to me where a lot of this debate comes from.

Yeah I feel the same way at times, I love these *types* of movies you know? But , I still wish they were as good as the books and they for the most part just aren't.

So can I be clear that your trying to say that Harry Potter doesnt have unique events differing the films? and that theres no reoccuring events in LOTR's?

Incase im mistaken I'll only give a brief summary arguement against your statement just in case im wasting my time. As the films have gone on, Harry's spells become more vaired and powerful, more is revealed about his past and his real family. Herminy (apologies for spelling) has become more rebellious against her initially completely by the book ways. Ron although remaining bumbling has grown in confidence and the bond between all three has become visually much tighter.

There bond has become tighter only because of the events that take place. In there first year, they face challenges that nearly killed Ron. Second year, wth a Basilisk petrifing students, they learned that friendship heals all bonds, because hermione becomes unpetrified at the end. Third year, they face harry's godfather and his parents traitior. They soon learn going back in time saves more then one life. Fourth year, they help Harry defeat the battles against the notreallytraitor Mad Eye Moody, etc. I think you get it. they will always be together. thats what i think atleast. anyone agreee.

May be the last book has all secrets that will be revealed, and every scene must be delivered in a right manner....

i dont think thats the case, first of all, if that was so, they would already have announced it, they're already filmming.
but i would love to have 8 hp movies.

If you've read the books you'll already know this, but I thought I'd better inform the Hogwarts-virgins:

The first 3 films set up a pattern: Harry goes to school,bad stuff happens,Christmas,bad guy gets a beatdown,Griffindor win the Quidditch and House Cup.Yay! They're all still very different books but because of cropping we lose some of the variety when they get translated into movies.

Then there's the Goblet of Fire. (spoiler time)
Just like last year right?

Wrong

Cedric Diggory dies.

And Voldemort returns.

No Quidditch.

House points my ass.

The final 3 books show Harry beset on all sides by the tyranny of evil men.And he's trying to be the shepherd.But by The Half-Blood Prince, we know he's so not in Hogwarts anymore.

__________________

And lo the whispering wanderer weeps
what whit to whom did my life keep?

Obviously Rowling saw what you were seeing, and realised that the books were getting a bit the same, and that she'd have to ramp it up a little.
Not that it mattered, she could've written a 600 page lecture on the state of the Equatorial Guinea economy by the fourth one and still sold a bazillion copies.

__________________

I don't mean to sidetrack this thread, but to clarify, Jackson's depiction of Boromir as well as his death presented a very different kind of Boromir than Tolkien's. Boromir was not the heroic figure in the book that Jackson chose to portray. In the book, he dies with his sword broken and in doubt about whether is has redeemed himself or not. In the film, Aragorn instills in Boromir the confidence in his redemption and the success of the world of men in the long run--and his sword is intact. One could read a similarity between the dialogue of the book and film, but if one compares them, they are very different. The films were good but not accurate reflections of Tolkien's characters.

It seems David Yates will be directing this as well, which means he's done the most Harry Potter Films (Order, Prince, Hallows)

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews