Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince discussion... - Page 6

JonZ · 01-14-2008, 08:39 AM

There isnt a Deathly Hollows thread so Im putting this here, but AICN is saying the crew was told to prepare for 2 films for Hollows.

Adam_S · 01-14-2008, 09:26 AM

if it's aicn then at this point it is just WB's method of floating the idea to the fan community to gauge the reaction to the idea.

DavidPla · 01-14-2008, 09:54 AM

It's definitely a possibility (and an enticing for for WB) but I kind of doubt it. They've been saying splitting up the film ever seen Goblet of Fire so it's always been an unfounded rumour for every time the new Harry Potter film is released.

Kevin Grey · 01-14-2008, 10:42 AM

With the WGA strike, they almost certainly don't have a script yet, so I'm sure it's a "just in case" style thing.

Ray H · 01-14-2008, 01:46 PM

To be honest, if the book wasn't called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", they could easily just cut that subplot, save about an hour's worth of runtime, and still be able to wrap everything up - even if some of the book's depth may be lost.

Still, I'm not opposed to two movies. What would they call the lead-in movie (or the last part)? Harry Potter and the Mysterious Case of the Horcruxes? Harry Potter and the Wand of Destiny? Harry Potter and the Battle of Hogwarts? Harry Potter and the Final Showdown?

They could get a tag team of Guillermo Del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron to take on the directing duties.

Adam Lenhardt · 01-14-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Grey

With the WGA strike, they almost certainly don't have a script yet, so I'm sure it's a "just in case" style thing.

You're right:
Empire: Movie News - About Those Harry Potter Rumours
Kloves will be back as screenwriter, but he hasn't been able to put anything down on paper because the American is WGA talent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray H

Still, I'm not opposed to two movies. What would they call the lead-in movie (or the last part)? Harry Potter and the Mysterious Case of the Horcruxes? Harry Potter and the Wand of Destiny? Harry Potter and the Battle of Hogwarts? Harry Potter and the Final Showdown?

I'm assuming they'd shoot it in one go and split it in half in the editing booth. That being the case, they'd probably release it like Kill Bill: two parts with the same title.

Kevin Grey · 01-14-2008, 07:26 PM

Thanks, Adam. Good to hear that Kloves is back onboard.

Adam Lenhardt · 01-18-2008, 02:21 PM

Timothy Spall to return as Wormtail in Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows

andrew markworthy · 01-23-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

There isnt a Deathly Hollows thread so Im putting this here, but AICN is saying the crew was told to prepare for 2 films for Hollows.

The same was said about Goblet of Fire - indeed, the director was given the choice of one versus two films, and thank goodness he chose one.

I think we need to distinguish between the fanboy hopes of everything they've read in the books being put on the screen and the wishes of the normal viewer, who wants entertaining, but probably doesn't want to drag their ass out twice to see two bits of the same story.

I think I'm right in saying that the film lengths are in exact inverse proportion to the length of the books. Clunky Columbus dragged out the first two films, but once some real directors took over the series, the fat was trimmed and we began to get some genuinely exciting films without every plot point being signposted to the point where even the hard of thinking must have begun to find it tedious. Given a decent director the final couple of movies can be brought in at circa 2 hours each. There's less waffle in the last two books than in e.g. Goblet of Fire, but there's still a lot of side issues that don't need to be in the movie as they deal with subplots that the movies have never raised. Harry et al wandering round the countryside can be clipped to a couple of establishing shots and the key episode with Ron. Subplots of Tonks, Fleur et al don't need to be there. Etc, etc. Yes, these are great storylines, but they don't *have* to be there for the main story to work. And indeed, given how much better Goblet the movie was than Goblet the book, there is a case for brevity over comprehensiveness.

Chuck Mayer · 01-23-2008, 01:01 PM

I think two films is a crock as well. There is one major story in DH. They haven't gone to two films for 4 or 5, which were as dense (or moreso) as 7. Doing it now would be a bad business decision. Go with a film and finish the movie on a strong note. Don't water it down to get two paydays.

Josh Steinberg · 01-23-2008, 02:56 PM

I'm on the fence with the two movie idea... I can see merits in both, and reasons against both. In the end, I think it's just really important that they don't go the route they did with the David Yates-directed OOTP. I don't remember exactly where I read this (I wish I did), but before OOTP came out, Yates was interviewed and said that he found the other films in the series to be too long, boring even, and it was his goal from the start to make the shortest Harry Potter movie to date. That, in my opinion, is a lousy approach to making a movie. As opposed to every film that came before it, I just never found myself immersed in the world of Harry Potter during the film...things raced by at lightning speed, plot points weren't developed, and characters were never given their due. However, I think Steve Kloves as a writer has a better grasp on how to adapt these books than Michael Goldenberg did, so if it's true that Kloves is returning for the final installment, that does make me less worried.

I don't think it needs to be two films, but if they're determined to make it one film that's about two hours and five minutes (which is what OOTP clocks in as if you don't count the endless end credits), it would be a resounding disappointment. From the point of view of the film's fans, they've spent nearly a decade watching these characters onscreen, and I don't think anyone would object to a big epic finale to give the film series a proper conclusion. From a storytelling point of view, I don't think every single detail in the book needs to be in the film, but I think it's got a lot of material worth keeping. Unlike perhaps some of the other books, Deathly Hallows ends up containing a lot of backstory that might not be directly relevant to the plot, but that sheds light on the history of many characters, which in turn reveals why they are the people they are. That information enriches the characters, and having watched them for all these years, it's not necessarily a bad thing to learn a little bit more, since it literally is the last chance the filmmakers will have to do that. I also think that would end up enriching the earlier films upon rewatching.

I think it can be one great film if they just allow it to run three hours, give or take a few. The smartest thing for them to do would be to allow work on the screenplay to begin without any sort of expectation that the film should be the shortest one ever, or two films, or anything else... let Steve Kloves adapt it as he sees fit, and then (and only then), look at that script, figure out about how long of a film it would make, and then make an honest, informed decision about whether the film would be best served being told in one long part (with perhaps some further paring done done to the draft of the script) or split into two.