Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows split in 2 movies

Rumors go that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the 7th book in the Harry Potter series) will be featured in 2 seperate movies.
This is because the amount of actions, information and events are too much to be captured into 1 movie.

Only rumors obviously ...

__________________
Movies: Saw I, II, III and IV - The Fast and the Furious 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Alien vs. Predator 1 & 2
Games: Archlord - Brain Teaser Games - Magic: The Gathering

Is that the last movie from the harry potter franchise?

Does that mean that the film will actually be watchable? These haven't been any good since the first one.

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

that would be awesome!!! if thats true!!

I doubt it.

They were predicting the same thing for the Goblet of Fire when the first one was released in theaters back in 2001; needless to say, that didn't happen, so nor do I believe this will happen as well.

__________________
Everything I do, I do to make my second stepdad proud.

Let's hope not. One movie will be more than enough.

I liked the first one, but like almost every sequel, they just got worse as they went on.

__________________
MY Work!

Well it's the last book, so yeah, the last movie if they make 1 of it.

The movies are too rehashfull for me.

__________________

This is not even close to being a real word. But it is the best completely made up word I've heard in a while.

Way to make a contribution to the English language!

Well put. But I'm more concerned with what it means; isn't any adaptation "rehashful"?

Yes, but I find the Harry Potter films to be especially rehashfull.

And I'm not just joking, by the way. I totally get what The Meat is trying to say. The Harry Potter adaptations are faithful to a fault. There's no creative reason for them to exist.

I've gotta sorta-kinda disagree. I think the first two were definitely faithful to a fault, and said something to that effect in my review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. But after that, director Chris Columbus was replaced, and they started deviating from the source material a little, mainly through exclusion. They're still reasonably faithful, but I don't think the last three have let that faithfulness hamper the story, like the first and (especially) the second did.

I'd also take issue, respectfully, with the suggestion that there's "no creative reason" for films to exist if they simply transcribe the book. I think there's inherent value in seeing things brought to life; especially things so vibrant and creative. I certainly think its best if they can distill the books into core messages and bring a little something new to the table, as well, and I think they've done that as of late...but even if they hadn't, I don't have a problem with simply retelling such wonderful stories in another medium. I think that sort of thing is its own justification.

One thing we can all probably agree on, however: I need to add "rehashfull" to the Glossary. That poses an interesting question, though: do we use just one "l", or is it impossible to misspell a made-up word?

I smell a poll coming. Where do I vote?

To be fair, I haven't seen Order of the Phoenix. But for my money, the third and fourth films are just as lifeless and rehashfull as the first two. They move spiritlessly from one of their novel's set pieces to the next. The only reasons for the exclusions you brought up are time constraints, not to meet any creative ends.

Certainly some works of literature warrant a feature film, if only to see them "brought to life" on screen. I guess bringing the vividness of Rowling's world to a visual medium is reason enough for the film adaptations to exist. But I much prefer adaptations that try to do something a little differently. I hate directors like Chris Columbus. Complete lack of distinguishable style or creative inspiration. And Cuaron (a director I actually respect) didn't fare much better, in my opinion.

Two "l"'s, sir.

The rehashfullness of the latest movies pales in comparison to the complete copyandpastity of the 1st two. I thought Cuaron especially did a great job and made a truly atmospheric Potterverse.


I wouldn't mind the basic premise of splitting Deathly Hallows, but I see no proper way to do it.

__________________

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

As a lover of the Harry Potter books, especially the last book, I don't watch the movies. Not because I dislike the movies - although they don't look too great - but movie's of books in general are worse than the original material imo and skew my imagination. I find if I ever reread a book after seeing the movie I just end up imagining the movie unless I try really hard to take my mind off them. It happened with the LOTR and now all the magic is gone out of the books.

__________________

Harry Potter 1 and 4 are nearly the same movie.

How so?

__________________
"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theater admission and the babysitter were worth it."
- Alfred Hitchcock