digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cinematical.com

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Split in 2 Films

cinematical.com — It might just be a way for Warner Bros. to make more money or it may be necessary for the die-hard fans to fully see the book come to life on the screen.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Maxmojo015, on 03/13/2008, -44/+13Wow, as if they were not long and boring enough before....
    • bejayel, on 03/13/2008, -2/+38avada kedavra
      • eclipse007, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3WTF? You should have first used the Cruciatus curse and then finished him off with the green light.
    • leonhyral, on 03/13/2008, -8/+4Here I thought I was the only one of that mind.
    • TheKingInYellow, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3unfortunately the films go steadily downhill from the get go (kind of like the ernest movies). order of the phoenix was a horrid movie that cut out a majority of the book and just focused on action sequences. if you thought 'order' was boring wait until half blood prince comes out on the screen. it's about 75% people sitting around talking about stuff and strategy...and of course one HUUUUGE turn of events which i'm certain that the movie will focus on almost entirely. i don't think that hallows needs to be split into two films. it could be done in a lengthy 2 to 2.5 hour film.
      • Gir53457, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Despite the fact that it's printed in double space with 14 point font, TOotP was still a big book. Too big for one movie and they had to cut most of the stuff.
  • jaybuster, on 03/13/2008, -20/+30way to milk it
    • fadetoone, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2The Al ighty ollar?

      Haha, oh I get it...
    • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -9/+2Don't worry, the next film is in 33 parts, takes place between Deadly Hollows and Half Blood Prince.

      It will be an episodic series, with guest appearances of new characters that they plan to spin off.
      • Philbert, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1You may joke, but remember before television movie theaters were all about the episodic series like Flash Gordon. You never know, it could make a come back.
    • drmangrum, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11I doubt it's entirely a money grab. The Potter movies have all been excellent. Such dedication usually stems from an appreciation of the parent work; they actually care. I trust they'll make the last two movies as good or better than the successors.

      Sure, they'll make a few hundred million extra, but does it really matter? Would you rather they attempt to compress the plot line and ruin the movie or take their time and do it right?
    • eclipse007, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Wrong! Fans would love it and others won't care. It should have been done since book 4, a HUGE part of the fun reading the books is imagining everything as is described in the book and later finding out how close you were on the big screen. But they had to cut out so much interesting creatures, places, characters, sub-plots, etc.
  • seejunaid, on 03/13/2008, -39/+1Loserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! Boringggggggggggggggg!!! Yawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!
  • koob, on 03/13/2008, -4/+15finally!
  • Jade456, on 03/13/2008, -5/+18They should have went straight for the mini-series.
    • davidlow, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Yeah, the plot of this particular book just cries out for 5 films at least, don't you think?
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3Harry kills Voldemort
  • valleyvideo, on 03/13/2008, -9/+37Too damn bad they didn't do this with Goblet of Fire, which screamed to be split into two. Frankly, I don't think Deathly Hallows has enough content to be split.
    • Nick519, on 03/13/2008, -2/+30seriously? deathly hallows was packed with important, main-story-related stuff almost the entire way through! there were really no sub-plots in the entire thing. at times i actually felt that rowling was *rushing* to fit it all in before the end. i think if they split it, it actually will be much better.
      • Lou3000, on 03/13/2008, -4/+20Yeah, because wandering around in the woods and talking for 300 pages is jam packed with excitement. You could cut the entire middle of the book, even cut out Ron leaving.
        • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -5/+10o.o cut out Ron leaving?
          The dynamic of their relationship is part of the whole F**** series, and it is how they discover that... umm.. hang on.

          ****SPOILER****

          It is how they discover that dumpledore's gifts are not normal (Ron using the lighter to find them).
        • Myonosken, on 03/13/2008, -3/+5You could just have Ron use the ***** lighter at another point. The whiny bits where they argue for 4 months are always annoying because half the 'actors' can't pull it off.
          • Lou3000, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Exactly, Ron could walk off and get lost in the woods and use the lighter.

    • TheSabre, on 03/13/2008, -2/+17If any of them needed to be split, it would have been Order of the Phoenix.
    • zachlac, on 03/13/2008, -4/+5The books are amazing. Movies...kind of suck.
      • BinaryDelt, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1The books are freaking garbage. I don't get how anybody reads that crap.
    • richporter, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7Sure it does. Did you read it? The backstory between Dumbledore, his family and Grindenwald is enough to split the movie adaption in two.
      • Lukesed, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Backstory of Dumbldore and Grindalwald? Hot.
    • swollentiki, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2The last book has enough content to be split into two films. To do the book justice it really needs to be split.
      • aethelberga, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Agreed, but the same could be said for a couple of the others. Instead they just cut massive chunks of story out until the movies bacame little more than Cliffs Notes versions of the books. Now they realise the gravy train is coming to an end and they're looking for a way to prolong it.
    • liv4innout, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I agree that Goblet had more story, but it didn't have the content Deathly Hallows had.
    • leandrotami, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The movies of Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix seemed to me like a fast-forward view of the books. I didn't like that too much mainly because I think they could have been taken more advantage of Rita Skeeter and Dolores Umbridge, who are really great characters. That said, my favourite movie was Prisoner of Azkaban.
  • jlebrech, on 03/13/2008, -13/+3Harry Potter and
  • krakkinem, on 03/13/2008, -3/+12"It might just be a way for Warner Bros. to make more money or it may be necessary for the die-hard fans to fully see the book come to life on the screen."

    The first one!
    • roosterjm2k2, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4You know, it can be both...right?

      Neither of those are exclusive...and it becomes a win/win situation when it's both...
  • kingofinternet, on 03/13/2008, -12/+64CAN'T WAIT FOR THE HARRY RON HERMIONE DP SCENE
  • nova912, on 03/13/2008, -13/+6money money money... [hi pitched voice] mooonay!
    • stellarceltic, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3money
    • Skooma714, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2There is nothing quite as beautiful as money
      There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash
      I've got lots and lots and lira now the deustchmark's getting dearer and my dollar bill can buy the Brooklyn Bridge
  • BinaryDelt, on 03/13/2008, -26/+8Who cares? Harry Potter blows. Hobbit in two films? Front page worthy.

    Rowling is a hack. Buried.
    • Lubinski, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3Dugg for hobbit comment. That would be bitchin.
      • BinaryDelt, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1They're doing it, so it IS bitchin.
    • WarpFox, on 03/13/2008, -4/+1in after troll
    • kacymartin, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Tolkien's LOTR books aren't 100% original either. It's pretty heavily based on Richard Wagner's The Ring of the Nibelung (Der Ring des Nibelungen).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelung ...
      • BinaryDelt, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2I never said anything about originality. I said "Harry Potter blows". I didn't imply LOTR was original, I implied it didn't suck balls.
      • wsuBobby, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Citing wikipedia means your a *****... and you sir, are a *****. You can Der Ring des Nibelungen your gay ass out of here.
  • tyler71, on 03/13/2008, -26/+4DUMBLEDORE DIES!
  • IncogMosqui, on 03/13/2008, -10/+3I'm going to go with option A. Hallows doesn't have enough content for 2 movies.
    • KyleRayner, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3It does if everybody that dies is trying to win an Academy Award.
  • dheaddy, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5I suppose this is a good idea if it's done well, but at what point do you split the story into two?
    • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -0/+83 minutes after the beginning.
      Resounding 'AWWWWWW' heard across world.
    • TheOneGreatX, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7when they find out that harry is a horcrux.
      oh, and spoilers
      • nbcaffeine, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I think where they ride the dragon out of gringotts would probably be a bit closer, since it kind of wraps the first half of the book, the camping and horcrux hunting.

        also, spoilerz
    • jcastillo81, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I think when Dobby dies is a good one because its the part where harry really realizes what he has to do.

      Spoiler alert!
  • Lhuth, on 03/13/2008, -10/+3Shame... The last book was blatently written with a film in mind,but spinning out in to two has just made me lose interest altogether.
  • MightyLime, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2Funny that they choose to do it now and have two final bites at the apple whereas with the previous movies and no end in sight it didn't seem so necessary.
    • parax, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3No end in sight? I think almost every harry potter fan knew exactly when the end would be. We'd always been told there would be 7 books, it wasn't a surprise.
  • jkahrs595, on 03/13/2008, -1/+15Maybe they won't leave out/change so much this time around.
  • Silverain, on 03/13/2008, -13/+1Harry Potter is for children. I want a movie series for adults. Maybe Stephen King's Dark Tower?
    • chris86, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1The Dresden Files as films. And not done like the ***** TV series.
    • evodude, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2WTF? Both are good series. Hell, Wolves of the Calla even references Harry Potter. I find it pretty amazing that anyone would like one and not the other.
  • fancycwabs, on 03/13/2008, -2/+64One of the two films will be a documentary on camping.
    • Lou3000, on 03/13/2008, -1/+14I thought the entire middle section of the book was an excellent and informative guide on magical camping.
    • brufleth, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8MAGICAL camping!

      This is not the book that could _maybe_ have been split.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Camping with the aid of magic space-shifting tent and a wand that lets you set it up with a swish-and-flick?
    • Firehed, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1I got a laugh out of your comment, but DH didn't spend that long on it. It just wasn't exactly action packed so it seemed to drag on for a lot longer. And of course, it took place over months versus hours. The last six chapters or something took place in a day, where the camping section was probably two chapters taking place over six months (except for that sword/horcrux scene).
      • parax, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Two chapters? The camping was at least 4 chapters. Anytime I spend 4 chapters repeatedly reading "And then nothing happened and they didn't know what to do yet." is a long ass time.
    • MixMastaKooz, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Really? Hmmm...maybe I should read it to improve my CS and CoD4 K/D ratio....
    • Skooma714, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1And "How Not to be Seen"

      I wonder they just didn't borrow some guns from the British army? An L82A2 or something like would have been useful.
  • britblogger, on 03/13/2008, -7/+3who gives a *****, the fans will pay to see both parts. stop ya whining.
  • LaughingDjinn, on 03/13/2008, -1/+14This is a great choice, considering the last 150pgs of the book were nearly straight action for the fight scenes to be properly done you need the time that two films allows. I remember when I finished reading the book I thought the last movie needed to be either 4 hours long or would not do the book any justice, I didn't think they would actually step up and do two full movies.
    • parax, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I think the earlier films needed extending so we could have avoided the omission of important content like Peeves or including S.P.E.W, or any other of the many subplots. Extending the final movie is too little too late. I don't see the point in trying to keep the story true to the book for the final movie only.
  • chris9902, on 03/13/2008, -3/+13Harry Potter: Reloaded
  • purzzzell, on 03/13/2008, -1/+20I applaud this decision - they should have been doing this since book 4 and the amount that has been left out can be frustrating.

    Again, I'm in business, so sometimes I see things as "by doing the better thing for the consumer, we ALSO make more money."

    Otherwise, it would have been a well over three-hour movie, and can you imagine having a little kid sit through that? I don't have kids, but I remember being bored (and probably talking) through "The Last Emperor" when I was a kid....
    • Myonosken, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3What's it like in the bizz
      • purzzzell, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I'm not in "the bizz" - but I was educated IN business, focussed on Marketing.

        You make a profit b/c you provide a superior service for the consumer - in this case, they're making 2 movies instead of one to enhance the experience for the consumer - in exchange, they make a greater profit.

        Everyone wins - this is the "ideal" of capitalism.
    • eclipse007, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Agreed, should have been done since book 4, a HUGE part of the fun reading the books is imagining everything as is described in the book and seeing how close you were on the big screen. But they had to cut out so much interesting creatures, places, characters, etc.
  • danielrh9, on 03/13/2008, -8/+6It makes perfect sense. Warner Brothers discovered how to create a Horcrux. They split the soul of the movie in order to make more off of it.
  • smity9384, on 03/13/2008, -0/+20I'm really glad they are splitting it. The last one lost so much on screen.
    • evodude, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6No *****. Let's take the longest book in the series and make it into the shortest movie. Makes perfect sense.
  • SidiousX, on 03/13/2008, -8/+2gay
  • Zlorp, on 03/13/2008, -6/+3why make ***** tons of money off of 1 harry potter movie, when you can turn it into 2 harry potter movies and make twice as much!
  • dafragsta, on 03/13/2008, -1/+9The last 4 books would've benefited from a 3 hour Peter Jackson epic or being split up. My faves in the series are books 6 and 7. It sounds like Half Blood Prince is getting the one film abridged treatment.
    • Myonosken, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Half Blood Prince isn't really requiring of more than one movie. The important events could be done in an hour.
  • RoadDoggFL, on 03/13/2008, -5/+1I just looked this up last night.

    Wikipedia had it posted... :-/
  • mogebier, on 03/13/2008, -8/+5This isn't new news. This is old news. Months ago they announced this.
    • Myonosken, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2No they said they were considering it. It was only announced yesterday.
      • mogebier, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Well, when does a movie company put out a press release when they are just "thinking about" something??
  • hughesj919, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1They should have no problem writing the screenplay. The last book read like a movie, which was kinda disappointing.
  • kiiwii, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5While good in one way, having to wait even longer to see the Battle of Hogwarts is disappointing :-(
  • Kenzan, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1More Man-Child stories.
    In other related news, Star Wars action figure sales are on the decline!
    Film at 11.

  • Lionhart, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5IT PRINTS MONEY
    • TheSabre, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1IT PUTS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN OR ELSE IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN
  • Doremitoo, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Once I read the book I figured this would happen. The book should have been split too. There is just too much information in there and JKR's method of relaying it makes the last book read like a text book.
    • theduck71, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1You know to be honest, the last book could have had one, possibly two extra chapters in it, to wrap up everything nicely..... Instead of

      Spoiler---------


      Jumping right into the future with Harry as an adult.
  • kotatsu, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3It was shameful how much was cut out of Order of the Phoenix and The Goblet of Fire, so this is good news. On the other hand, The Half Blood Prince is a book about not a lot until the last few chapters, so that will be easy to truncate.
  • laughandsing, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I really dont care if they are doing this just to make more money. If they are going to include more of the story that is awesome. The movies will be awesome regardless
  • xhazerdusx, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5...or you could've done it LOTR style from the get-go. Extended versions for people who want them, shortened theatrical for people who don't. I'd love to watch the extended versions of all the HP movies.
  • wooFmeoWoinK, on 03/13/2008, -8/+2SNAPE KILLS HERMIONE
  • steevacy, on 03/13/2008, -5/+2Dumbledore is gay?
  • getisboy, on 03/13/2008, -5/+1OLD NEWS FROM LIKE SEPTEMBER
  • tsqrd, on 03/13/2008, -5/+0"Ron ejaculated loudly"
  • liv4innout, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4They aren't milking it, they're trying to keep true to the stories. Most (real) HP fans would rather sit in a theater for a 6 hour movie than have the story cut, this just makes sense.
  • kweli, on 03/13/2008, -7/+1I JUST CAME!
  • cinefreak7, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Just because Deathly Hallows isn't as thick as some of the other books doesn't mean anything. Deathly Hallows has more MEAT to it than some of the other books. Granted, I think some of the others (especially Goblet of Fire) could've used some of the stuff that was cut out but this is the one where it's most important.
    • theduck71, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Order of the Phoenix IMO, just for the fact, that the movie really does not portray Umbridge as much as a f'ing git that she does in the book. Plus, I would have love to seen the Twins diversion. Peeve's has not made it into any of the movies, has he?
  • theutopian, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1Wow, so fans have to suffer a six month wait to see the ending to a story they already know. What a waste of time and resources.
    • TheKingInYellow, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2hollywood is sticking to the "finish what you started" method.
  • Andy.D, on 03/13/2008, -4/+1***** money grab.
  • MOates, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Awesome, glad I get to see two movies where they do nothing but sit around in the woods.
  • Lasereth, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2One movie will be Harry and friends wandering around a forest in a tent and the other one will be a lackluster action movie that turned one of the greatest literary villains in history into a generic B-movie bad guy.
    • ant9821, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1One of the Greatest literary villains in history? Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Harry Potter fan, but calling Voldemort on of the greatest literary villains in history is a bit of a stretch.
      • Lasereth, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Ok maybe I exaggerated a bit. But the entire series (especially the 6th book) created a downright interesting villain that you had mixed emotions for. Then in the seventh book he was just another generic bad guy without the intellect, reasoning, or even dialect that was in the previous books.
  • jonesyb, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Brilliant. The more time they can devote to telling this story the better.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.