# 8th Harry Potter Film



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 22, 2008)

A few days ago in the news, Director David Yates has announced that the seventh and book of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, will be split into two parts with the first part to be released in November of 2010 and the second part to be released in May of 2011. The explanation for this is that the story is too large and epic to make into one film, and that this "isn't about trying to make more money."

I, however, would say "BULLSHIT!!!", but seeing that I have yet to read the final book, I cannot comment too much on this.


----------



## Aden (Mar 22, 2008)

Of course they do. They need to cover all of the time they spend hiding in the woods and doing nothing.


----------



## Azure (Mar 22, 2008)

If they can do LOTR in 3 films, they damn sure can put the deathly hallows into one fucking film.  They're just sad that they won't have any more successful childrens books to exploit.  Also, story is not that epic.


----------



## AlexInsane (Mar 22, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:
			
		

> If they can do LOTR in 3 films, they damn sure can put the deathly hallows into one fucking film.  They're just sad that they won't have any more successful childrens books to exploit.  Also, story is not that epic.



Damn right.  Each LOTR movie runs what, about two and a half hours? If they spent that much time on each of the HP movies, the movies would be better and would have a better turnout.  The amount of details they've been leaving out of each progressive movie is horrifying and astonishing.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Mar 22, 2008)

Adelio Altomar said:
			
		

> A few days ago in the news, Director David Yates has announced that the seventh and book of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, will be split into two parts with the first part to be released in November of 2010 and the second part to be released in May of 2011. The explanation for this is that the story is too large and epic to make into one film, and that this "isn't about trying to make more money."
> 
> I, however, would say "BULLSHIT!!!", but seeing that I have yet to read the final book, I cannot comment too much on this.



The Deathly Hallows has too many major plot points that would be hard to leave out and the fact the story is too dense leads WB to split the film into two parts

http://www.movieweb.com/news/74/27274.php

-maybe this article will help, since the whole ordeal confuzzled me as well


			
				AlexInsane said:
			
		

> AzurePhoenix said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually each LOTR was about 3 and a half hours long


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Mar 22, 2008)

I personally think the good portion of the series ended when Chris Columbus stopped directing after the second movie.

Also, I think it defeats the purpose of Harry Potter when all of the actors are 22. Seriously, Rupert Grint (The actor that plays Ron) will be 23 when the last movie is released.


----------



## AlexInsane (Mar 22, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:
			
		

> I personally think the good portion of the series ended when Chris Columbus stopped directing after the second movie.
> 
> Also, I think it defeats the purpose of Harry Potter when all of the actors are 22. Seriously, Rupert Grint (The actor that plays Ron) will be 23 when the last movie is released.



Yeah, the first movie was amazing, the second was okay, but from then on the quality of each movie deteriorated quickly. Wasn't the third movie directed by some guy who did a Hispanic porno movie?

I know. I feel sorry for all the actors that have to go through the motions of playing the same roles eight times. It won't take long before one of them decides to quit and they'll have to scramble to find a replacement.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Mar 23, 2008)

Brownsquirrel:
And more did LOTR and they managed to squeeze all of those details into three three and a-half hour movies, given a lot of cutting here and there.

And then look at Goblet of Fire and Order of the PhÅ“nix. They're just as long or longer than Deathly Hallows, and they fit enough for a movie.

AlexInsane:
His name was Alfonso CuarÃ³n and it _wasn't_ a porno; it was a Spanish language sex comedy called SÃ³lo con tu pareja.

And outta personal opinion, I thought Prisoner of Azkaban was one of the best.


----------



## Beastcub (Mar 23, 2008)

i thought movies 3 and 4 were better (i still need to fircken see 5 >.<)
in movie 4 they cut the back plot out all together they left out dobby and all the stuff w/the house elves and simplified the stuff that was connected to them and whatnot.
but splitting the last film into 2 is crap, sounds like a money maker, frankly i'd rather sit through one extra long film than pay to see 2 (hell i never paid to see the last HP movie.....)
though my HP fandom is dieing, book 5 was interesting but i bit depressing and i tried to read book 6 but it BORED me and i have been told only the last 20% actually gets good....i liked the books better when the anxious stuff was more complimented by the fun stuff...order of the pheonix was to dark fer ma tatse.


----------



## AlexInsane (Mar 23, 2008)

Adelio Altomar said:
			
		

> Brownsquirrel:
> And more did LOTR and they managed to squeeze all of those details into three three and a-half hour movies, given a lot of cutting here and there.
> 
> And then look at Goblet of Fire and Order of the PhÅ“nix. They're just as long or longer than Deathly Hallows, and they fit enough for a movie.
> ...



To me, the movies don't do the books justice. The books are infinitely more entertaining because of the details, which movies tend to leave out. There were two whole chapters in Goblet of Fire devoted to the World Cup and what happened after and the movie took about 10% out of those two chapters and devoted five minutes of the film to it.  Now, I know you want to make money and not bore people, but I'd rather be bored and see the movie accurately represent the book than to be bored and have them leave out tons of important shit.


----------



## OnyxVulpine (Mar 23, 2008)

Err.. I will end up watching off of Netflix or something. I watch the fourth movie and read the book... It felt like a lot of it was left out, it ended so quickly.. I didn't like it. I don't have the urge to watch the movies anymore :/

-Onyx


----------



## NerdyMunk (Mar 23, 2008)

Adelio Altomar said:
			
		

> Brownsquirrel:
> And more did LOTR and they managed to squeeze all of those details into three three and a-half hour movies, given a lot of cutting here and there.
> 
> And then look at Goblet of Fire and Order of the PhÅ“nix. They're just as long or longer than Deathly Hallows, and they fit enough for a movie.
> ...



Order of the Phoenix was actually the shortest of the HP films, running at around 139 mins., the others running longer.

And maybe they decided to split it into two by looking back at LOTR and Kill Bill 1 and 2 which both appreciated fans of the genres.

Or maybe because the story of Deathly Hallows is much much denser than any of the other HP books combined together, i would think


----------

