257 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Moderator's note: "HP & The Deathly Hallows" and "The Leaky Cauldron" (General HP discussion) threads merged by request of original thread starter. This may lead to some confusions, as the posts from both threads are automatically sorted by timeline. For reading convenience, here's the post that originally started the HP&TDH thread:

Here's a thread for you Harry Potter lovers out there to discuss the final 2 movies in the Harry Potter series, The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 due for release November 2010 and Part 2 due for release July 2011.

Here's a few recent news articles on the project:

-Bill Nighy discusses Scrimgeour and Dumbledore's will in an interview with ScifiWire.

-David Heyman reveals the Battle of Hogwarts will last about 30 minutes to Collider.com.

-Dan Radcliffe talks to MTV about Gary Oldman's return in Deathly Hallows.


According to JWFan.net, Nicholas Hooper will not return to score Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Hooper has composed the soundtracks for both Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince. The post states that the films have put "too great a strain on his family life" and that he believes a "certain composer" [John Williams] should complete the series he started.


In recent days, it has been confirmed that Jim Broadbent and Imelda Staunton will reprise their roles as Slughorn and Umbridge, respectively, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The BBC confirmed Broadbent's return in this interview, where Broadbent talks about working with the cast of the Potter films. David Heyman confirmed Imelda Staunton's return during his Q&A session in Los Angeles. Here's the audio.

Harry Potter
and the Deathly Hallows

Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter
Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley
Emma Watson as Hermione Granger
Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort
Alan Rickman as Severus Snape
Sir Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore
Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall
Bill Nighy as Rufus Scrimgeour
Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid
Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange
Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn
Brendan Gleeson as Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody
Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy
Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy
Domhnall Gleeson as Bill Weasley
John Hurt as Mr. Ollivander
Gary Oldman as Sirius Black
Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley
James Phelps as Fred Weasley
Oliver Phelps as George Weasley
Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew
Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge
Natalia Tena as Nymphadora Tonks
David Thewlis as Remus Lupin
Julie Walters as Molly Weasley
Mark Williams as as Arthur Weasley
Jamie Campbell Bower as Gellert Grindelwald
Warwick Davis as Filius Flitwick and Griphook
Rhys Ifans as Xenophilius Lovegood
Toby Jones as the voice of Dobby
Dave Legeno as Fenrir Greyback
Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom
Andy Linden as Mundungus Fletcher
Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood
Simon McBurney as the voice of Kreacher
Helen McCrory as Narcissa Malfoy
Clémence Poésy as Fleur Delacour
Chris Rankin as Percy Weasley
David Bradley as Argus Filch
Miriam Margoyles as Pomona Sprout
Gemma Jones as Poppy Pomfrey
Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown
Devon Murray as Seamus Finnigan
Steffan Rhodri as Reg Cattermole
Richard Griffiths as Vernon Dusley.
Fiona Shaw as Petunia Dursley
Harry Melling as Dudley Dusley
Sophie Thompson as Mafalda Hopkirk
Toby Regbo as a young Dumbledore
Matyelok Gibbs as Auntie Muriel
Rade Šerbedžija as Gregorovitch
Ciarán Hinds as Aberforth Dumbledore

Has CBn got any other Harry Potter fans?
I've discovered the books again for the first time in years. (Just completed the Philosophers Stone, now in fact)

I've moving swiftly on to the Chamber of Secrets.

Compared the the books, the films are dire, BUT they're good entertainment (Even though the lead star is talentless) I can't wait for the Half Blood Prince.

Anyway....
I was wondering if CBn had any other Potter followers, preferably toward the books, but the films are up for discussion aswell.



PS. Severus Snape FTW!!!!

Edited by stromberg, 25 July 2009 - 03:56 PM.
Threads merged per request

[DamnCoffee]

EDIT: WRONG THREAD

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I've been a HUGE Harry Potter fan for years! I think that they're very well written, and that, years from now, people will STILL be talking about them.
I remember when HBP came out, someone told me that they had read the book in a matter of hours. I'm a slow reader, so I promptly plugged my ears, so as to not know what happened.
The films are okay (I remember when SS came out, I was terrified of seeing Voldemort's "face" that I walked out of the theater and into the bathroom, only to come back and see Voldemort ), but I was still pretty upset that HBP was postponed to this July.



BTW, Harry Potter WAS the original Twilight. Twilight's got NOTHING on Potter.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm really looking forward to the Deathly Hallows, my favorite book in the series.

I'm delighted that they're splitting the book into 2 films. IMO, they should've done this with all of them.

Goblet of Fire, is criminally short, as is Order of the Pheonix. Odd isn't it, OotP is the longest book in the series, yet it's the shortest movie.

What also annoyed me was in the book, Snapes memory of him being bullied at school was a chapter long, yet it was condensed into 30 Seconds. I really wouldn't have minded seeing a good 5 minute look at Snapes childhood. He is my faovrite character in both the books and the films. Alan Rickman is brilliant.

[Kilroy6644]

I've never seen any of the movies, but I really enjoyed the books. I never had any interest in them, and refused to read them, but one of my friends made a deal with me that if I read just one, she would read one of my books. She still hasn't finished it after something like two years, even though it's less than 500 pages. I, on the other hand, breezed right through Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone and was pleasantly surprised. I gave it back to her after a few days and asked her to lend me the next one, and so on. And I had two friends to discuss them with, since another friend was such a fanatic that she read the series and started over again, a few times.

[DamnCoffee]

New footage from HBP!


I've honestly never been so excited over a Harry Potter film!

[Harmsway]

I'm delighted that they're splitting the book into 2 films.

I'm not. There's no reason to. Of all of the last four books, DEATHLY HALLOWS is the easiest one to fit into a single film. Heck, most of the first part of DEATHLY HALLOWS was just them boringly wandering around the woods! It's nothing but a shameless (and stupid) money grab.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm delighted that they're splitting the book into 2 films.

I'm not. There's no reason to. Of all of the last four books, DEATHLY HALLOWS is the easiest one to fit into a single film. Heck, most of the first part of DEATHLY HALLOWS was just them boringly wandering around the woods! It's nothing but a shameless (and stupid) money grab.

Hardly.

Everything in the book is important, you can't just condense it! Everything needs to come together.

[Harmsway]

Everything in the book is important, you can't just condense it!

Sure you can. And not everything was important. Again, there's a great deal of tedious wandering about in the woods that is just begging to be slashed out of the flick. Really, there's no reason the whole of HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS can't fit into a decent 2 hour, 30-40 minute flick. Heck, they could go for a single three hour flick, if they wanted to push it that far.

Breaking it into two flicks is a money-grab, nothing more, nothing less. The story doesn't lend itself to being split up into separate parts, and it's not particularly necessary to do it.

Anyway, DEATHLY HALLOWS is one of my least favorite entries in the series. It's decidedly sloppy, like the two preceding books. Rowling's sense of narrative pacing and development became weaker and weaker as the series went along.

[Zorin Industries]

I'm delighted that they're splitting the book into 2 films.

I'm not. There's no reason to. Of all of the last four books, DEATHLY HALLOWS is the easiest one to fit into a single film. Heck, most of the first part of DEATHLY HALLOWS was just them boringly wandering around the woods! It's nothing but a shameless (and stupid) money grab.

Hardly.

Everything in the book is important, you can't just condense it! Everything needs to come together.

No. It is a shameless money grab. Why split the book into two films when the story of the films (NOT the books folks - they should be different) flatlined at the end of the third filmic entry and has been treading water ever since. I mean - how many times do we have to have the same old backstory (which should never be more interesting than the current narrative but it is) where Voldemort is "gaining (yawn) strength". The films have been under-cast with the kids (i.e. they are atrocious - Radcliffe is an AWFUL actor and only got the part because his Dad was the leading literary agent of the day), over-cast with the adults (The Muppet Show had less in your face cameos than that), under directed and overwritten (hence why one book has to be split into two films).

[bond 16.05.72]

I'm delighted that they're splitting the book into 2 films.

I'm not. There's no reason to. Of all of the last four books, DEATHLY HALLOWS is the easiest one to fit into a single film. Heck, most of the first part of DEATHLY HALLOWS was just them boringly wandering around the woods! It's nothing but a shameless (and stupid) money grab.

As much as I enjoy the books and the films ( the first 2 are bearable but better than any of the SW prequels, The 3rd & 4th are the best) yes it is a shameless way to make more money, Warner saw the end of their franchise and then conveniently after editing loads of content (some quite controversially for some fans) they hit on the idea of using the fact they have to include all the facts to make it into 2 movies.

Curanon took a longer book and made a fast paced film compared to Columbus's over long ticking all the best bits off approach. Its a shame really I enjoyed the last one but the word is that Half Blood is a mess and the big finale has well and truly fudged and when you consider the significance of the character who fate is played out in the sequence it doesn't look good.

I hope they have improved on the version people saw a few months back but the word when it was previewed before Xmas last year was it was a mess then, so it seems nothing was done to improve after that.

I will go and see it no doubt,hell I booked tickets for Wolverine last week for tomorrow but are seriously regretting that and I can't believe it's going to be anywhere near X2's brilliance.

Mike Newell's take on Box of Delights has me more excited than any Potter film but that would be the fact that book has been with me since my childhood, I hope Hallows is good but this splitting into 2 films doesn't bode well.

Having said that I caught The Spiderwicke Chronicles this week and it makes me realise the Potter films are far from the rubbish some make out. Freddie Highmore is totally wasted in a pedestrian kids film.

[DamnCoffee]

Here's a thread for you Harry Potter lovers out there to discuss the final 2 movies in the Harry Potter series, The Deathly Hallows, Part 1 due for release November 2010 and Part 2 due for release July 2011.

Here's a few recent news articles on the project:

-Bill Nighy discusses Scrimgeour and Dumbledore's will in an interview with ScifiWire.

-David Heyman reveals the Battle of Hogwarts will last about 30 minutes to Collider.com.

-Dan Radcliffe talks to MTV about Gary Oldman's return in Deathly Hallows.


According to JWFan.net, Nicholas Hooper will not return to score Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Hooper has composed the soundtracks for both Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince. The post states that the films have put "too great a strain on his family life" and that he believes a "certain composer" [John Williams] should complete the series he started.


In recent days, it has been confirmed that Jim Broadbent and Imelda Staunton will reprise their roles as Slughorn and Umbridge, respectively, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The BBC confirmed Broadbent's return in this interview, where Broadbent talks about working with the cast of the Potter films. David Heyman confirmed Imelda Staunton's return during his Q&A session in Los Angeles. Here's the audio.

Harry Potter
and the Deathly Hallows

Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter
Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley
Emma Watson as Hermione Granger
Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort
Alan Rickman as Severus Snape
Sir Michael Gambon as Albus Dumbledore
Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall
Bill Nighy as Rufus Scrimgeour
Robbie Coltrane as Rubeus Hagrid
Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange
Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn
Brendan Gleeson as Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody
Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy
Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy
Domhnall Gleeson as Bill Weasley
John Hurt as Mr. Ollivander
Gary Oldman as Sirius Black
Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley
James Phelps as Fred Weasley
Oliver Phelps as George Weasley
Timothy Spall as Peter Pettigrew
Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge
Natalia Tena as Nymphadora Tonks
David Thewlis as Remus Lupin
Julie Walters as Molly Weasley
Mark Williams as as Arthur Weasley
Jamie Campbell Bower as Gellert Grindelwald
Warwick Davis as Filius Flitwick and Griphook
Rhys Ifans as Xenophilius Lovegood
Toby Jones as the voice of Dobby
Dave Legeno as Fenrir Greyback
Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom
Andy Linden as Mundungus Fletcher
Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood
Simon McBurney as the voice of Kreacher
Helen McCrory as Narcissa Malfoy
Clémence Poésy as Fleur Delacour
Chris Rankin as Percy Weasley
David Bradley as Argus Filch
Miriam Margoyles as Pomona Sprout
Gemma Jones as Poppy Pomfrey
Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown
Devon Murray as Seamus Finnigan
Steffan Rhodri as Reg Cattermole
Richard Griffiths as Vernon Dusley.
Fiona Shaw as Petunia Dursley
Harry Melling as Dudley Dusley
Sophie Thompson as Mafalda Hopkirk
Toby Regbo as a young Dumbledore
Matyelok Gibbs as Auntie Muriel
Rade Šerbedžija as Gregorovitch
Ciarán Hinds as Aberforth Dumbledore

[Harmsway]

I abhor the idea of splitting this, the last of the books, into two films. Even if they want to be very faithful, there's no reason they just couldn't release a 3-hour adaptation of DEATHLY HALLOWS, as opposed to doing some nonsensical two-parter.

Heck, the book had enough fluff that it could afford to be trimmed down some.

[Vauxhall]

30 minutes for the climactic battle seems ridiculous.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm glad John Williams is coming back; it'd be hard to watch the last movie without knowing how he would have scored it.

[Harmsway]

I'm neither here nor there on Williams coming back. He may have produced the main theme for the franchise, but his best days are far behind him.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm neither here nor there on Williams coming back. He may have produced the main theme for the franchise, but his best days are far behind him.

Why so certain? I've always enjoyed the Williams sound.

[Cruiserweight]

Lets keep this thread Potter positive!

I'm glad they're splitting this into two films.
A three hour film simply would not do!
The first few films were near three hours themselves so three hours is clearly not long enough to cover the entire book. A thirty minute battle scene is no problem for me. It gives a chance to include characters who otherwise would be left out. Besides,i can name alot of films that have action scenes that are far too long...

[Mike00spy]

I'm neither here nor there on Williams coming back. He may have produced the main theme for the franchise, but his best days are far behind him.

I couldn't disagree more. None of the scores to films after he left have managed to be as good as the Prisoner of Azkaban. He music to Indy IV was one of the highlights of the film. Imagine how much worse the Star Wars Prequels would have been without him.

And almost all of those scores came in his 70s. We could all be so lucky to be productive at that age.

[Tybre]

I'm neither here nor there on Williams coming back. He may have produced the main theme for the franchise, but his best days are far behind him.

His best days died shortly after they began. Man repeats himself far too much and these days everything is utterly lackluster.

[Mike00spy]

I abhor the idea of splitting this, the last of the books, into two films. Even if they want to be very faithful, there's no reason they just couldn't release a 3-hour adaptation of DEATHLY HALLOWS, as opposed to doing some nonsensical two-parter.

Heck, the book had enough fluff that it could afford to be trimmed down some.

I would agree that it was done to get every last bit of money from the series. However, it will in the end help doing the novel justice. I don't see how you can get it down to 3 hrs when chamber of Secrets was 20 min short of that, despite being about 400 pages fewer.

[Harmsway]

I don't see how you can get it down to 3 hrs when chamber of Secrets was 20 min short of that, despite being about 400 pages fewer.

Well, they got HALF-BLOOD PRINCE down to 2 and a half hours and succeeded, so I don't see why DEATHLY HALLOWS couldn't do 3 hours. Or heck, even 3 and a half hours if they really wanted to draw it out (it's the last Potter film, after all, and no matter what the running time is, it'll still make gobs of money).

[Mike00spy]

I don't see how you can get it down to 3 hrs when chamber of Secrets was 20 min short of that, despite being about 400 pages fewer.

Well, they got HALF-BLOOD PRINCE down to 2 and a half hours and succeeded, so I don't see why DEATHLY HALLOWS couldn't do 3 hours. Or heck, even 3 and a half hours if they really wanted to draw it out (it's the last Potter film, after all, and no matter what the running time is, it'll still make gobs of money).

That was b/c HBP was far easier to cut down. Hallows has much more to it.

[Harmsway]

Hallows has much more to it.

Does it, though? There's undoubtedly a lot of material in DEATHLY HALLOWS that can't just be dropped (though I daresay a lot of the aimless wanderings towards the beginning of the book could afford to be trimmed), but I do think enough could be chopped to make it into a near-3 hour affair.

If the densely-plotted and characterized WATCHMEN can make it there with all its essential story bits intact, or the LORD OF THE RINGS flicks can manage it, there's no reason that a Harry Potter novel can't make the time constraints. It may have to be streamlined or altered a bit, but that's just how it goes.

[Tybre]

I have to agree with Harms. Hallows could be sliced down to three hours, three and a half if you wanted to drag it out. They're splitting it up for monies. If any book bears being torn in two it's Fire. One film barely scrapes the surface of that book.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Hallows has much more to it.

Does it, though? There's undoubtedly a lot of material in DEATHLY HALLOWS that can't just be dropped (though I daresay a lot of the aimless wanderings towards the beginning of the book could afford to be trimmed), but I do think enough could be chopped to make it into a near-3 hour affair.

If the densely-plotted and characterized WATCHMEN can make it there with all its essential story bits intact, or the LORD OF THE RINGS flicks can manage it, there's no reason that a Harry Potter novel can't make the time constraints. It may have to be streamlined or altered a bit, but that's just how it goes.

Agree completely. I didn't care much for the first half of Deathly Hallows, so I'll probably only bother to rent the first part of the film. I greatly enjoyed the final chapters of the book, but I was overally a bit let down by the novel. The plot felt like it relied way too much on coincidence, and the lead trio's aimless wandering gets very tiresome when stretched out to, what, some 400 pages.

I did see Half-Blood Prince yesterday, and thought it was pretty good. The ending felt a bit rushed, though, and the best film in the series is still The Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Mike00spy]

Hallows has much more to it.

Does it, though? There's undoubtedly a lot of material in DEATHLY HALLOWS that can't just be dropped (though I daresay a lot of the aimless wanderings towards the beginning of the book could afford to be trimmed), but I do think enough could be chopped to make it into a near-3 hour affair.

We've already agreed that it was done to make money. So arguing about it seems rather pointless, but I am glad you agree that there's much to DH that can't just be dropped.

If the densely-plotted and characterized WATCHMEN can make it there with all its essential story bits intact, or the LORD OF THE RINGS flicks can manage it, there's no reason that a Harry Potter novel can't make the time constraints. It may have to be streamlined or altered a bit, but that's just how it goes.

Okay- but was Watchman or any LOTR novel 750 pages? (I know for sure none of the LOTR novels were)

The point I made was that despite the reason (money) the decison ultimately helps the novel.

Edited by Mike00spy, 19 July 2009 - 09:07 AM.

[Harmsway]

Okay- but was Watchman or any LOTR novel 750 pages? (I know for sure none of the LOTR novels were)

Evaluating by page count is misleading. Sometimes events are recounted in less or more detail. There's gobs of material in LORD OF THE RINGS, it's just not necessarily narrated in the same level of detail that Rowling would often devote to it.

The point I made was that despite the reason (money) the decison ultimately helps the novel.

But will the decision help the movie? That's my question. I can only see this split creating two awkward films that don't really work on their own, despite how much of the book they're able to squeeze in there.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I have to agree with Harms. Hallows could be sliced down to three hours, three and a half if you wanted to drag it out. They're splitting it up for monies. If any book bears being torn in two it's Fire. One film barely scrapes the surface of that book.

Exactly my point; Mike Newell was a poncey git for not going that route with Goblet of Fire in order to get all of the important story points in, and Alan Horn should have pieces of chalk thrown at his head by an irate teacher for only going the two-movie route with Deathly Hallows.

[DamnCoffee]

God, why does everyone have to SO negative about the Potter franchise on here?

Can we not just see the positive side of us JUST for once?