How long are you willing to sit down and watch the Deathly Hallows Movie?

I think the cinema version will be about 2-3 hrs but I'd be happy when they release it on DVD to have it extended to about 4-5hrs like they did for LoTR, unfortunalty can't see that happening!!!

It'll be interesting to see if they do split it into two parts - although I very much doubt it.
I would like to see them do justice to the film, and have it a little longer. They could do that as it is going to be the last HP film ... well, till someone decides to do them again.As long as they include my favorite part I would sit there for days! ... and that would be?

As discussed on Episode 128? of Mugglecast, I think that a movie with a 10-15 minute interval sounds good.
It works for movie theaters to sell more food, and we get a better movie!

I'd like a 4 hour movie. Sounds good to me.

As long as they include my favorite part I would sit there for days!

Whats your favourite part?

I would sit down and watch DH for about three and a half to four hours which would be good!

First of all, if I've already answered this, I apologize.
I think I could sit through a 4-hour movie with an intermission half way through so people could use the washroom and stuff.
I think it would be like LOTR: ROTK. Nobody left to use the washrooms. Even I sat through the entire movie and I had just been discharged from the Hospital after having surgery. Not that it has anything to do with this, but I was so mesmorized by the movie, I HAD to stay to see what happened.
Plus it would help to keep younger kids calmer. Give them a chance to run off some energy.
Basically, however long it takes to tell the story and do it properly, I'd be willing to sit that long to see the show. I'd even be willing to fork out a little more money to see it.

I would be willing to sit as long as it takes. If it takes 10 hours to include all the necessary elements, go for it. I'd much prefer a good, long movie than a crappy, short one. As long as the movie is well done, I don't think anyone will really care how long it is. If they manage to do a bad job with it, despite it being long, I think that's the only way people would have a problem with the length.

I think I could sit through a 4-hour movie with an intermission half way through so people could use the washroom and stuff.
I think it would be like LOTR: ROTK.

LOTR didn't have an intermission

I would be willing to sit as long as it takes. If it takes 10 hours to include all the necessary elements, go for it. I'd much prefer a good, long movie than a crappy, short one. As long as the movie is well done, I don't think anyone will really care how long it is. If they manage to do a bad job with it, despite it being long, I think that's the only way people would have a problem with the length.

If it's good, I'll sit through as long as it takes as well. If it's bad, I won't.

I totally agree with the poster above me... and since i don't want it to end i would be more than happy if they made a very long movie... but more importantly: it has to be good...

Anything over 3 and a half hours will probably make me want to poke my eyes out. I really don't want it to be too long, because I'll just get bored. They can easily cut it into just under a 3 hour movie with the material that they've got. Anything longer than that would ruin it for me, unless it's was amazingly epic and awesome and then I'd be happy. Hours and hours would be pointless and boring, IMO.

Honestly, I won't sit very long for a HP movie. I love the books, cannot get enough of them, but the movies I could do without. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy them, but IMO they are not the best. I buy them because I am a HP fan and feel I should, but I very rarely watch them over. I guess it is just because in my mind there is no way they could compare to how amazing the books are.

I sat through Titanic with a 10-15 minute break in the middle of the sinking cause they apparently misplaced on of the reels so I could sit through a four to five hour movie if I like it.

Like another poster said, if it was well done I wouldn't mind a 4 hour movie with an intermission.

Same here. When it takes more than 3 hours they usually make a little break here anyway, so I don't mind sitting more. As long as the movie is well done, I don't mind the time at all. I'd have the coke and popcorn with me, so I would survive it.

I say a minute per page. 759 pages in the American version, 12 hours and 39 minutes of Potter madness just for the story. Can you imagine how long the credits were? Especially if they decide to do the epilogue after the credits?
They're going to have to tape off the bathrooms for that movie alone. Oh the limping that'll happen afterwards. "Oh, oh God! Got...to....make....it!"

After we got out of that thirteen minute pee we get a shirt as long as you sat there for the whole thing. "I sat through a thirteen hour movie and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. And a urinary tract infection."

Redheart I love the photo and sig.

I'd sit for as long as it takes, even if it is fifteen hours or something like that (yeah, a little too obsessed:lol:). Still, I do hope they split it, because there are not a lot of things you can cut and they are definitely not making a fifteen hour long movie. I mean, I suppose they could just make Harry get the real locket in HBP, but I really want to watch things like the expedition into the Ministry, or the Malfoy manor, Xeno Lovegood's house, Godric's Hollow...I don't know, I don't want everything to be too easy or less exciting for Harry in the movie. Still, Yates surprised me with OoTP, I thought it was going to suck because that book is so complicated and eventful, but I thought it was really good. HBP might be easier to pull off, because the only things that must be there are the Voldemort memories, Ron and Katie's accidents, all the love stuff, the cave and Dumbledore's death. DH is a lot harder. Plus, if they split it, we'd have one more HP thing to wait for.....:tu:

So long as it's better than OotP, as long as it runs. I thought at first I was just tired, and that's why I fell asleep on OotP, then the second visit to the movies I just left. I tried a 3d time and still was very disappointed in the movie. So, provided DH isn't a cut-and-paste job and it's better than (imho) than OotP, then I'll watch it to the end.

TTFN

So long as it's better than OotP, as long as it runs.

So funny you would say that because my first thought was "as long as it's as good as OotP" :lol: I'm hoping they won't split the movie in two as rumored and make it 2-2.5 hours of taut storytelling, because that's how long I want to spend in Rowling's world. Any more than that and my butt falls asleep and I start worrying about Christmas shopping. :cool:

As long as the film keeps rolling, I'll be sitting.

I just hope they do the book justice and make an amazing movie.

I'm hoping they won't split the movie in two as rumored and make it 2-2.5 hours of taut storytelling, because that's how long I want to spend in Rowling's world.

I hadn't heard that rumor. If they make it too long the drive in will have to bring back the old intermission format they used when I was a kid. Intermission midway thru the movie for a reel change. I can't imagine sitting in the drivein for a full 2.5 w/no break.

TTFN

I hadn't heard that rumor.

Check this out. (http://www.google.com/search?q=Deathly+Hallows+filmed+in+two+parts&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) It's been floating about for awhile now.

After the OOTP movie, I think I would like to see it done right, even if it takes three movies. The thing about the early HP movies is that they were pretty true to the books. I think from POA on, they skimped on story because they felt length was a no no. I've seen the LOTR tons of times, and those three hour plus showings don't bother me at all. Actually, I like the director's cuts even better.

After the OOTP movie, I think I would like to see it done right, even if it takes three movies.

You meant to say "three hours" not "three movies" right? :err:

You meant to say "three hours" not "three movies" right? :err:

Actually, I was just exaggerating for emphasis, but not really serious. Earlier, there were posts about the DH movie going to be two movies.

I don't really believe anyone would want three movies, but I would like to see enough time given to the final picture in this series to do it justice. I think there should also be summary plots to help us remember things of relevance from earlier books. This would mean a much longer movie or two movies.

Actually, I was just exaggerating for emphasis, but not really serious. Earlier, there were posts about the DH movie going to be two movies.

Heard that rumor. It's all over the forums and the 'net. :shiver: Not wild about it.

I don't really believe anyone would want three movies, but I would like to see enough time given to the final picture in this series to do it justice. I think there should also be summary plots to help us remember things of relevance from earlier books. This would mean a much longer movie or two movies.

I dunno, I think in the end we're going to get one movie, lots of frustrated fans (because there always are), and the promise down the road of an HP miniseries that gets everything in.

I thought at first that 2 movies might be a good idea, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a giant headache. It will be a challenge, sure, but I think DH can be done justice to in 2-3 hours.

I would watch the movie if it lasted as long as it took me to read the book. :)

Heres a question: if the movie was split into two, where would the climax of the 1st one be? Where would it end? and where would the 2nd one pick up? maybe thats for another thread....

Book 7 needs to stay as one whole movie. There's no point in making two epic films. If Return of the King can be condensed into one movie, so can this.

I'd sit through the movie even if they did it page by page.

I'd sit through a 4 hour movie as long as they did it right. I loved this book.

Heres a question: if the movie was split into two, where would the climax of the 1st one be? Where would it end? and where would the 2nd one pick up? maybe thats for another thread....

I don't know if it was here that I mentioned it but they could use Ron as a focal point. Either on Ron's departure with Hermione screaming for him and then the final scene could be her, sopping wet and crying in a chair and Harry looking at her and then the locket in his hand.

Or you could end it with Harry stuck underneath the freezing water struggling to free himself and then the shot goes black. Even though everyone will know he survives it'll still be a kind of white knuckle experience.

I don't know if it was here that I mentioned it but they could use Ron as a focal point. Either on Ron's departure with Hermione screaming for him and then the final scene could be her, sopping wet and crying in a chair and Harry looking at her and then the locket in his hand.

Or you could end it with Harry stuck underneath the freezing water struggling to free himself and then the shot goes black. Even though everyone will know he survives it'll still be a kind of white knuckle experience.

I was thinking that too. Ron's leaving and his coming back would seem longer and more dramatic if it took place in both films. But then what would be the climax? There are so many good action sequences in this book what would be the rising action? Godrics hollow? I don't know why but I like the idea of that being in movie 2.... I DON'T KNOW! I like the idea of a cliff hanger like you said. but it's hard to see two halfs of a movie. The first half has to be treated like it's own movie so the beginning action would be the seven potters, the middle action would be the ministry of magic and the end? I don't know. I kinda want godrics hollow to be in movie two if at all possible. It's a very emotional point in the story that would be best for the final chapter of the movies. I'm not sure about this two part movie thing. I like the idea of harry potter lasting just a bit longer but I also get headaches thinking about it.:p

I was thinking that too. Ron's leaving and his coming back would seem longer and more dramatic if it took place in both films. But then what would be the climax? There are so many good action sequences in this book what would be the rising action? Godrics hollow? I don't know why but I like the idea of that being in movie 2.... I DON'T KNOW! I like the idea of a cliff hanger like you said. but it's hard to see two halfs of a movie. The first half has to be treated like it's own movie so the beginning action would be the seven potters, the middle action would be the ministry of magic and the end? I don't know. I kinda want godrics hollow to be in movie two if at all possible. It's a very emotional point in the story that would be best for the final chapter of the movies. I'm not sure about this two part movie thing. I like the idea of harry potter lasting just a bit longer but I also get headaches thinking about it.:p


They should end the first movie either after Godrics Hollow if they do not shorten the camping scenes or after Ron comes back. More time to do the final fight justice. I fear they will cut a lot of Kings Cross too.

And if they do make it into two parts, they should release them at the same time so you have the option to see them both at the theatre together.

And if they do make it into two parts, they should release them at the same time so you have the option to see them both at the theatre together.

That's a really interesting idea. It makes sense. Fans who want everything in the movie, and don't care if it has to be two movies to do that, will be satisfied... fans who want it as one whole movie can watch them back to back and it seems like one long movie... and they get to make the money from two movies, which is the whole reason they would split it. Interesting.

I will sit down and watch it for as long as the movie is. Just if it's long I wont drink water. Haha!

I'll sit down and watch the Deathly Hallows movie as long as it takes. The longer, the better. :)

5 hours will actually do for me. Seriously.

I'd watch it from 9 in the morning till 9 at night if I had too. I would be like a Harry Potter marathon... only it would only be one film! As long as I had a sufficient amount of junk food i'd watch it for hours and hours, maybe a 10 minute walk round the shop in the middle of it, keep the blood flow going.

I would watch longer than 5 hours if the movie was done right and had everything I love in it! I'm really afraid that if the producers keep to the 2.5 hour formula, they're going to leave out some plot points that might matter more, now that it's the last movie. I think having 2 2.5 hour movies would be a great idea because it gives you a 5 hour movie without making you sit for forever!

i could watch for it for even a whole day.. and i'll watch many times again... i know its worth my time if they would just do that.. i really wish..

Im sure that all the Harry Potter fans out there would watch it even if it was 18 hours, but I think it should be around 3 hours. Thats enough to get all the good stuff in, hopefully!

Honestly I would sit for up to five hours, maybe more.

If I can sit through 3+ hours of Titanic, I can handle at least 10 of HP :lol:

Jk for all you Titanic lovers!

I think that each movie can be up to 4 hours and I wouldn't get figety. However, I cannot imagine children sitting through 4 hours of each segment.

really i'm thinking that their gonna make two 2 hour segments. i can handle that and would handle it.

But i am willing to take a whole day or more to watch it altogether. I mean i sit for 10 to 12 hours stright now watching 1-5 in order nor breaks but for restroom and food. so i could handle that no problem.

IF they were to make them all into a single movie after they came out i could still sit still thrught thick and thin and watch it.

As long as it takes but pref. 3 or more hours!

ok we need to make a poll of those who are in favor of a mega long movie. And those who are in favor of a le wimpy short movie.

Look guys this is the last movie were talking about. Who cares about those who wouldn't want to sit that long. This is about the final closure of Harry. This should be a memory not only for us. But a memory to all of those who made it come to life. those who made what is looks like now.

it should be long both of them should be long. and from what i've heard this is the full book movie. Nothing being cut, nothing being left out. all the book is the movie.

SO IF YOUR NOT WILLING TO SIT THEIR FOR AT LEAST MORE THAN 3 I SAY 3 BLOODY HOURS AND OR MORE THAN YOU SHOULD GET OFF OF THE SITE RIGHT NOW!!!!!

sorry i'm just really adamantabout the last movie. since it is almost the last thing that has to do with Harry.

Forgive me anyone whom i annoy of agravate, i'm sorry.

I would sit down for as long as it took. I'd need breaks of course don't want any accidents.

True Very True. If it was a very long movie most ppl would have drinks and popcorn, so we would need to have to have some breaks.
But most ppl would most likely do their best to hold it even if their was breaks in between certain areas.

I could easily sit through an 8 hour movie, as long as there are intermissions.

I occasionally go to movie marathons run by Greater Union cinemas. They're held on public holiday weekends, and run through Sunday night to Monday morning. I went to a Lord of the Rings marathon, which ran for around 9 hours, not including intermissions, and started at 11pm at night. The last one I went to was the Pirates of the Caribbean marathon, which ran for almost as long.

I would be happy with a 3 hour movie, but I think the DH movies will be 2 1/2 hours, just like the others. WB probably realises that most kids would find it hard to sit through anything longer than that.

well if they make each 2 1/2 then that is 5 hours all together for both, so if would be fine with that.

I think 12 hours would be my extreme limit! :lol:

Though I could really watch it all day! :cool:

Realistically it sounds as if it will be two 2.5 Hr. movies, so 5 hrs, but that's a piece of cake! :p

Yes i know most of us would love to have a longer set of movies but many movie fans won't be willing to sit that long i'm sure of that.

I've done a LOTR marathon so I don't care how long it is :D. I think that both parts will be about 2 hours each though.

Probably so because you have so many who just like the movie. And their not going to be willing enough to see a super long set of movie's. So for me their incompetence and inability to stand a long movie make those who want a long movie to suffer a le whimpy short movie.

BTW sry if i offend any one here.

I don't mean to be rude (though sadly accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often, I know, Albus ;)) but isn't this thread sort of pointless now that we know DH will be two films confirmed at 2.5 hours each?

Probably so because you have so many who just like the movie. And their not going to be willing enough to see a super long set of movie's. So for me their incompetence and inability to stand a long movie make those who want a long movie to suffer a le whimpy short movie.

BTW sry if i offend any one here.

Just because people do not want to sit through a three hour school story does NOT mean that they are incompetent. Far from it. The public are fairly shrewd when it comes to judging how much time commitment a film should demand of them.

Thus, mighty epics (LOTR; Gone with the Wind) are very occasionally judged worthy by the public of three hours and even a shade more. A vast world with many lands and peoples; epic battles. An iconic love story set against a backdrop of war.

What has Harry Potter to offer to adults against these examples?

Obviously something since there's so many adults on a Harry Potter board including yourself...

Obviously something since there's so many adults on a Harry Potter board including yourself...

I thought I made it clear that I meant as a three hour/numb bum time investment.

Two hours fifteen is plenty for any of the films in this franchise.

Probably so because you have so many who just like the movie. And their not going to be willing enough to see a super long set of movie's. So for me their incompetence and inability to stand a long movie make those who want a long movie to suffer a le whimpy short movie.

It has nothing to do with anybody's competence and ability. It has everything to do with how appropriate the material is for a mega-long movie. :)

Two hours fifteen is plenty for any of the films in this franchise.

I think so too. :tu: The running time of OotP was just right, I thought. :) I wouldn't quibble too much about an extra 15 minutes. :D

The final two HP films should woo people, not try their patience. Last summer I refused to go and see both Spidey 3 and the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie because of the ridiculous running times: I was simply not that interested enough in the source material to sit fuming in a cinema for three hours on a nice summer's day. The lukewarm reviews of both films confirmed that I'd done the right thing!

Now, I like HP a lot more than I like Spiderman or PotC. :) But a film has to be truly exceptional for me to want to sit there for three hours. LotR was a very special case (and better than Titanic: that film only got good when the ship actually began to sink. :D )

Four-and-a-half hours in total for DH should be fine. I am more interested in quality than quantity.

As long as I've waited - and will be waiting - to see this thing finally completed? Are you kidding me? I'd put a whole week aside if I had to.

for me that isn't long enough, i believe it should be longer. THey need to do the books justice. And as long as i'm going to have to wait I want these to be the best movies out of the series.

yes i was a bit harsh, but still how can you say that DH is not hooking material that would make anyone want to watch it for a long time? I believe 6 hours at the most would suffice for me. if hey are longer wonderful. But if it;s shorter, then they better be the best and most action packed movies yet cause short movies don't do what long movie do as well. By that i mean show the story that the director wanted you to see. The longer it is the more stuff they can put it that will make it more hookin material which is why ppl are saying it should stay short.

I am willing to sit down and watch them for as long as it takes really, as long as its not too short i dont mind how long it is, but just as long as it is a very well made film and relates to the book as much as possible.

Four-and-a-half hours in total for DH should be fine. I am more interested in quality than quantity.

Truer words were never spoken! I don't care how long it is, if the acting is good, the effects aren't fake, they leave in everything from the book, and the characters are in character, then I'm okay with 4 1/2 hour movie(s).

I also really really hope they don't change the way things happened in the book. It really ticks me off! Like in the GoF movie when Neville gave Harry the gillyweed. That was annoying. And in the CoS when Hermione's the one saying all of Ron's lines! Just because Hermione's the smart one doesn't mean that she gets to steal other people's lines! Ron knows a lot more about the wizarding world than Hermione, and when she was saying all the stuff about Parselmouth's and Mudbloods, like she knew from personal experience... it was just annoying.

yes that was annoying. I didn't like it in OOTP either when they changed it to Sirius giving Harry the picture instead of Mad-eye. And them not going to the hospital and meeting Neville there. And most of all how they changed it to Cho snitching them out to end the realtionship. That was messed up.

3-4 hours.

7 hours tops :D

well we have already guest that it will most likely be 4 1/2 hours to 5 hours. that is the controversy some want it 4 1/2. Other want it 5 hours, and still others want it longer than that! Me i mainly would like it to be 5 hours at the least, but that is probably the tops that the director will make it. We can't be sure we still have a 2 year wait ahead of us. So we have plenty of time to argue and disagree for now!

Like all the HP movies (and many others), I will likely only be able to watch about 15-30 minutes at a go. Usually it takes many sessions for me to finish a movie unless it is absolutlely stellar to me, like the Star Wars movies or something. With most movies adapted from books (i.e., HP and LOTR), I become easily frustrated when the movies add or take away things that I feel cuts the importance of a book event or changes how the book caused me to interpret something. So, I stop watching and come back after the frustration dies down, lol. Interestingly, Spiderwick was the latest movie adaptation I saw and they did a wonderful job with this aspect. I watched it clear through.

Hey guys.... You maybe noticed that this thread was started way back before they decided to split DH, could it be that this thread may have helped them decide to do more detail in DH? Not by extending the runtime but to split the story into two. If this has even a small grain of truth... BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE FORUMS!

IF they made the movie 10 hours i sit there and watch...

nuff said

I love movies that are similar to Harry Potter that go for 2.5 to 3 hours.

So 2.5 to 3 hours for each half of the movie would be great. Just imagine watching both in one sitting at home when they come out on DVD! That will be awesome, in my opinion!

You have no idea how awesome that will be. I can imgaine it. 16 hours or more sitting in front of a super big Tv eating food, and watching the books unfurl in Tv!

IF they do it really well, I'm willing to sit down for as long as I sat to watch The Titanic. :)

Yes if they are done well(which they should be in good hands) then that will be awesome. I would love to see the extended version for each of them. And get the extended version for every movie. That would be a really long time to sit down and watch them all one after another.

As long as it would be to get all the information in.
I would'nt really care if it was 24 hours.
But i would really like it to be longer then 5 hours.
With like little breaks or Part 1, Part 2 ect.

6 hours for me, I guess.

As long as it is... and the longer the better! But I wouldn't want it to drag too much.

I would love to sit through 5 hours worth of pure Deathly Hallows bliss!.......That would be soooo awesome!!......I can just imagine it now!...:love:

Yes if the director and other major people were to get on here and see how many people wanted it over 5 hours i believe they would make it over 5 hours. And i mean each movie.

Yes if the director and other major people were to get on here and see how many people wanted it over 5 hours i believe they would make it over 5 hours. And i mean each movie.

They would take no notice whatsoever. A tiny handful of hardcore fans adds up to bubkiss. They aim - they have to aim - at tens of millions, most of whom haven't read and don't want to read the books.

That is true, that is why they are living in the ranges of 4 1/2 to 5 hours for the two movies combined together. Because that is what most movie fans will sit for. They won't make it where they will lose customers or anything.

They do have to have to make it for tens of millions of people. That is why most of us on here aren't getting our hopes up for good long movies!

now that DH will be split into two movies, I will sit down for 2 1/2hs maybe even 2 3/4hs each.

So going off of what we have heard in here people are ok with having a 4.5 hours to maybe a 5 1/4 hours movies i'm thinking.
What are you guys thinking of this so far?

So going off of what we have heard in here people are ok with having a 4.5 hours to maybe a 5 1/4 hours movies i'm thinking.
What are you guys thinking of this so far?

This is what I think.

2 films, 2 hours each = 4 hours

That should quite be sufficient to tell the story of Deathly Hallows. It's not that long a story!

After all, the last HP film, OotP, told the story perfectly sufficiently in about two hours. There is no reason why the final HP films can't follow the same pattern, although I would not object if they were each 2 hours 10 minutes either. ;) Or even 2.5 hours, I suppose ... but I say that with a great deal of caution. Personally, I think it will put audiences off if the final HP films are any longer than 2.5hours, so 2.5 hours per film is my absolute maximum. :)

So going off of what we have heard in here people are ok with having a 4.5 hours to maybe a 5 1/4 hours movies i'm thinking.
What are you guys thinking of this so far?
I think that a total of five hours would be acceptable, and i think that they will be able to do justice to the last book with that kind of time.

This is what I think.

2 films, 2 hours each = 4 hours

That should quite be sufficient to tell the story of Deathly Hallows. It's not that long a story!

After all, the last HP film, OotP, told the story perfectly sufficiently in about two hours. There is no reason why the final HP films can't follow the same pattern, although I would not object if they were each 2 hours 10 minutes either. ;) Or even 2.5 hours, I suppose ... but I say that with a great deal of caution. Personally, I think it will put audiences off if the final HP films are any longer than 2.5hours, so 2.5 hours per film is my absolute maximum. :)

I hope each is 2.5 hours per film at least. I hope they don't cut it down any below that just because it will be in two movies. I like them being at least 2.5 hours.

I hope each is 2.5 hours per film at least. I hope they don't cut it down any below that just because it will be in two movies.

Actually, I would say that is a strong reason for them not to be self-indulgent and pad the material out too much. :) Unless they make a really brilliant job of it, of course!

The first two HP films were far too long for their source material, and dragged in places. The OotP film was the shortest so far but it told the story perfectly well in two hours. I see no reason why the final DH movies can't do the same, and in fact I think they should. :)

I like them being at least 2.5 hours.

As long as the narrative doesn't drag. The last three HP films have been fine in terms of pacing and length (IMO). :)

As long as my bladder holds out in the theatre....

As long as my bladder holds out in the theatre....

:rotfl:

(My favourite loo breaks during LotR included Saruman and his Orcs in FotR -- yawn, where's Frodo? :D -- and the Paths of the Dead in RotK -- boooorring. :p )

If you look at the book sizes, the largest book is actualy OotP and I dont just mean the size. If you don't beleive me count how many story pages are in each book, even HBP is longer then DH.

Answering the the main question though: I don't mind how long it is, I dont want them to miss a detail.

I think that i would be willing to sit for any length of time to watch the deathly hallows :lol:

Hi, Branstone Boy. :wave:

If you look at the book sizes, the largest book is actualy OotP and I dont just mean the size.

That's not an argument for why it should have been the longest film though. :)

I thought the running time of OotP was fine. :cool:

Answering the the main question though: I don't mind how long it is, I don't want them to miss a detail.

I think they should adapt the material well. :cool: You can't include everything that is in the book -- the camping trip will need to be cut in places, and re-edited to make it an exciting narrative (the camping trip is one of many readers' biggest complaints ... too much Trio and not enough other events that are equally important, e.g. the resistance movement at Hogwarts.)

JMO. :)

Personally, I would watch it for as long as it lasts! If it's very, extremely long, I will keep watching. I LOVE Harry Potter a lot and it will be hard to see it end, though.

Really if they go by what they have said, that everything in the book is the script for the movies; well then really we'll be seeing a lot of the camping and stuff.

As for the run time; since it is the last movie i think they should be a bit longer than the rest; due to the fact that it is the most important of the series. And really Pearl_Took; you really can't get a movie at exactly 2 hours on the dot. That is kinda of hard. And well none of the other movies have been exactly 2 hours. they have always been over it.
Really these two movies have a lot to uphold. It has been said that we do want a reel of the Fallen for a memorial. And for me I sure as heck don't want it in the credits. Just for the fact that once they start no one will sit there just because of the reel of the fallen. That is what it is like with every movie. The credits come on and everyone leaves. so making them less than 2.5 hours means that they have to do a lot of stuff that will upset fans. All kinds as well i believe. because there is a lot of stuff in DH that has to be shown. And stuff that isn't in the book, but has to be in the movie. so making them each 2 hours on the dot is to little a time.
Most of us are getting use to the new movies. Back in the day and in earlier years most any movie you went to see was well over the two hour mark! But now they have most movies coming our that are barely over the 1.5 hours mark.
So cramming DH into four hours is just out of the question i think. There is to many important details that have to be in the movies. may 2 1/4 hours for each would be acceptable; but that is still rushing them.

In a interview with David Heyman I read yesterday. He said that WB is giving them and has been giving them free reign with the movies. He also said that WB trust them with the movies. So going by that I'm sure whatever they say is the right amount, WB will think so as well. He also said that they wouldn't do anything JKR wouldn't do. By this I think they mean they wouldn't take out anything JKR wouldn't take out. We don't know what she would take out, but still none the less making the movies less than 2 1/4 hours is to little a running time. And they would have to cut way to much to make that dead line.

If the movie is done right, then I would watch it all day long :love:

A lot of us could watch the movies a super long time. I mean wow that shows how much we all like and love the Movies. Or we're just addicted like never before? Or it could be both!

Really if they go by what they have said, that everything in the book is the script for the movies; well then really we'll be seeing a lot of the camping and stuff.

Then they had better make that camping trip interesting, exciting and full of tension. Because a lot of stuff is happening elsewhere in the story that would be even more interesting to watch than the Trio bickering ... Ginny, Luna and Neville plotting to steal the sword of Gryffindor, for instance. :whistle:

And really Pearl_Took; you really can't get a movie at exactly 2 hours on the dot. That is kinda of hard. And well none of the other movies have been exactly 2 hours. they have always been over it.

PoA was 141 minutes long (that is two hours and 10 minutes). Goblet of Fire was 157 minutes. OotP was 138 minutes. That all felt about right to me. :cool: Since both GoF and OotP are slightly longer stories than DH, why do you feel that the DH movies need a longer running time? :) DH is a shorter story but will be getting at least two hours more of screentime than the previous books, according to the two-part deal! :D

i think DH needs a longer running time than the others. And the producers etc have recognized that by splitting it into two films. The thing with OOTP etc the books had many sub-plots and little things that had to be left out of the film. But DH has so much imporatant infomation in it that its going to have to be pretty long.
as long as they do it justice, does it matter?

I want it as long as possible. You'll just have to remember that you can't drink anything under or before the movie. :lol:

PLUS think how far the toilets are away and what parts you think you can miss without 'missing' anything important. The coldness factor of the theatre is also important as if it is too cold more people will want to usr the toilet sooner rather than later. This happened to most adult during the PSS in Hoyts Sydney - it was so cold inside and a hot summer day outside all the adult who managed to hang on until the end of the film had a mad rush to to toilets after. I might add that at least three quarters of the audience were adults without children......

Therefore the strength of the bladder is important IMO.

It would be great if someone invented a "stop-the-peeing"-thingey. :yuhup:

It's nature and affect many filmgoers whether you ike it our not and really will affect how long people are willing to sit in a theatre and watch a film - I would say no longer than 3 hours at most.

I don't mind how long the movie is at all. I would watch a four hour long movie, it doesn't matter to me. :)

Since both GoF and OotP are slightly longer stories than DH, why do you feel that the DH movies need a longer running time? :) DH is a shorter story but will be getting at least two hours more of screentime than the previous books, according to the two-part deal!
GoF and OotP may be longer in the number of pages, but Deathly Hallows does have the longer story. Unlike GoF and OotP, where the filmmakers could brush by certain unnecessary scenes, almost everything in DH needs to be included, and it cannot be rushed. The story of DH is much more complex and much more cinematic, so it should certainly have a longer running time.

Since this thread is asking how long I am willing to watch the DH films, the answer is simple: as long as it takes (and I stress the "long"). Because this film will mark the end of the Potter series films, I would not mind watching it for days, simply to fill my Harry Potter sweet tooth.

GoF and OotP may be longer in the number of pages, but Deathly Hallows does have the longer story. Unlike GoF and OotP, where the filmmakers could brush by certain unnecessary scenes, almost everything in DH needs to be included, and it cannot be rushed. The story of DH is much more complex and much more cinematic, so it should certainly have a longer running time.

Since this thread is asking how long I am willing to watch the DH films, the answer is simple: as long as it takes (and I stress the "long"). Because this film will mark the end of the Potter series films, I would not mind watching it for days, simply to fill my Harry Potter sweet tooth.

I agree fully; everything that JKR put in DH is essential to the story, and essential to the outcome. And since it is the last two films in the series; they deserve better than the rest.

I is also true that GoF and OoTp were longer; but they had more cut able stuff that wasn't extremely important. Both of the movies had a lot of stuff that helped move the book; but wouldn't have fit that well in the movies. Seeing as i'm the HP fanatic that likes the movies to keep close to the books; that leads to me saying a lot here!

Everything in DH is very important and would be very hard,and I mean very hard, to choose what to cut and what is needs to be cut. I mean everything in this book can't be cut; none of it. It flows in the book and cutting it in the movies is would make it hard for the viewers to understand it fully!

I will admit that a lot of the camping and stuff can be cut; but even there that is showing something. You may not know it, but it is showing how far Hermione has come since she was born from muggle parents. She is doing spells and fighting like a normal pure blood wizard. She came to Hogwarts with a huge deficit on her abilities; not being born into a wizard family. Yet as the camping scenes show; she had grasped Magic better than any pure blood and or Half-blood has done.

I think that I, personally, would not mind watching a 3-4 hour movie. While I think that, others, who only see the movies and don't read the books, might not be as willing to see such a long movie. I agree with the comment of how, while GoF and OotP are longer in page numbers, DH is packed with the most information out of any of the books, and is much harder to leave out anything than it is to do with the other books.

i think that i wouldnt mind watching a longer film, because it needs to be longer. The thing that sometimes annoys me about the films is that i sit there thinking 'well they left that out, and that etc' If the film is longer, at least the book will be done justice.

True I mean really The longer it is; the more stuff that will be in. And still I am sticking to what i've heard; and that is there leaving in everything. That is what I've heard. So going by that I figure that will make them long anyways!

really? well that good. I know that they have had JK all along, making sure they keep in all the important, integrel stuff, but i feel that its the little extra bits and sub-plots that make the books such a re-readable and enjoyable experience.

Yea that is for sure. Still also for those of you talking about a 3-4 hour movie, that is the reason why they are cutting it into two films. One because a 3-4 hour long movie the theater could only show it 3 to 4 times a day. and because we know that the movie watcher won't sit that long.
So they're cutting it to take care of both needs, a 2.5 hour long movie will be able to be shown more often, and the movie watchers will sit that long, because they have sat that before. So they take care of both of the needs.

Well...that depends. I have both the regular and extended versions of the LOTR and I didn't mind staying 3 hours to watch them in the theaters. But when I watch the extended versions at home, I love how long they are.

I would say that I would sit and watch it for as long as it takes. But some of the parts can be taken out (shocker I'm sure). For example, I don't think you need ALL those camping scenes and the Lupin scene in Grimmauld Place may be taken out as well....it's not exactly necessary to the story. But I think 3 hours in the theater is enough....maybe 3 and 1/2. (I mean if people can sit thru Titanic - and we already know the boat sinks - then I think we can manage a 3 1/2 action story).

yea still I think they should leave that in just because it has to do with what happen to Harry. I mean you think of it Teddy became an orphan when he was not that old. Still I would leave it in to show that what happen to Harry happen to Teddy. Except for this time teddy has his godfather.

Just thought I'd remind people of this report (from March), it gives some insight into the possible length and content of these films :cool:

But remember, things can change, we're still 3 YEARS away! :lol: Personally, I would LOVE 5+ HOURS of DH, the MORE the BETTER!!! :drool:

David Heyman Talks Splitting Deathly Hallows, Both Films Possibly Two and a Half Hours Long (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/3/14/david-heyman-talks-splitting-deathly-hallows-both-films-possibly-two-and-a-half-hours-long)
On the matter of splitting and length of the films he says quote: ” We just thought how are we going to approach this? Is this going to be a four and a half hour film? That’s probably what it would have been. Would our audience really embrace that? In some way, I think they might. But I think the younger ones would have drifted. There’s always been difficulty making sure that the ones that are two hours, two and a half hours long – making sure that those are the right length. I think by having two films that are two and a half hours – although we’re not sure of the length – then it will be a richer experience. One of the challenges that faces us, which we’ve been discussing, is how to give each film its own identity. We want them to feel like one film, but they’ve got to be self-contained too. We feel now that we’ve got a really good angle on that. But we haven’t got a script yet on either part, so I don’t want to say too much.”

Empire: So these films will be the same length as the ones that came before? We won’t see two films that clock in under two hours?

David Heyman: No. The idea is to get everything people want in there. I’m sure there’ll be parts that don’t make it, which we won’t know until the script is written. But that is the idea.

Empire: What do you think is the natural separation point in the books? Where can you end the first film in a satisfying way?

David Heyman: It depends what feeling you want [to end on]. I don’t want to answer that just yet because we don’t have the first script. We do have a point roughly where we want to end, but we haven’t got a draft to know if that works yet.”

In addition there are comments on the discussion with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling on the decision to split the book, how the cast members (especially Dan Radcliffe) would handle the filming, and says again they will begin filming both movies at the same time, starting next February. Finally of note are some of the scenes David Heyman is looking forward to in the movies, as he says:

“Well, the final battle, but there’s so much. I love the character stuff. I love the resolution of Dumbledore and Snape. I love the multiple Harries at the beginning. I love the scene of Hermione trapped at the Malfoys’. I love Harry and Hermione in the forest. I think there’s so much, it’s such a rich fabric. What we’ve done now, which I think is really exciting, is that we’ve found thematic centres for each of the films. That gives the film heart. I think it’s pretty great that David Yates has crystalised it and…it’s early days still, so I’m not going to say too much. But I’m just thrilled that David Yates decided to come back, because he’s really found a new spirit for the sixth film and as we talk about seven, it’s very different as well. I think it’s going to be good.”


In addition, there was this report, which contained Heyman's, Radcliffe's, and Horn's thoughts on DH

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/3/12/la-times-says-official-two-parts-for-harry-potter-and-deathly-hallows-movie
...The article has additional information now, with quotes from producer David Heyman on his conversation with Harry Potter author J.K

"Heyman said he approached Rowling with some trepidation about the strategy but found that she signed off on its logic rather quickly. "I went to Jo and she was cool with it," Heyman said, "and that was quite a relief."

The newspaper continues saying "Producer David Heyman said the decision was made with some anxiety and only after considerable deliberations. The producer joked that "while my wife and Warner Brothers were pleased" to hear that the Potter movie magic will continue into the next decade, he himself fretted that the cynical observers would see the decision as a purely mercenary move."I swear to you it was born out of purely creative reasons," Heyman said during an interview in a converted airplane factory outside London that has been home base to all of the "Potter" productions. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book. You can remove scenes of Ron playing quidditch from the fifth book, and you can remove Hermione and S.P.E.W. [Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare] and those subplots . . . but with the seventh, that can't be done."

Actor Dan Radcliffe who portrays Harry Potter in the film is quoted as saying "I think it's the only way you can do it without cutting out a huge portion of the book," Radcliffe said recently during a break on the set of "Half-Blood Prince," the sixth "Potter" film, which is due in theaters on Nov. 21. "There have been compartmentalized subplots in the other books that have made them easier to cut - although those cuts were still to the horror of some fans- but the seventh book doesn't really have any subplots. It's one driving, pounding story from the word go."

The LA Times has a second story now online, containing new comments from WB Chair Alan Horn on the decision to split and the additional film time for the story.

"This way, we have an extra hour and a half, at least, to celebrate what this franchise has been and do justice to all the words and ideas that Jo has put in the amazing story," Horn said. "This is the end of the story too. We want to celebrate it. We want to give a full meal." Mr Horn continued on, remarking about the epilogue to "Deathly Hallows" regarding the beloved trio and how that would be translated to the big screen. "Horn said that particular denouement has the filmmakers fretting about how to keep the young familiar stars on the screen just before it goes dark. "That," Horn said, "is something we will need to deal with. People have watched these kids grow up, and it's been very special to do so. That's important to us."

PLUS think how far the toilets are away and what parts you think you can miss without 'missing' anything important. The coldness factor of the theatre is also important as if it is too cold more people will want to usr the toilet sooner rather than later. This happened to most adult during the PSS in Hoyts Sydney - it was so cold inside and a hot summer day outside all the adult who managed to hang on until the end of the film had a mad rush to to toilets after. I might add that at least three quarters of the audience were adults without children......

Therefore the strength of the bladder is important IMO.

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll have an intermission? :lol:

Wow yea so we can pretty much say that we're going to enjoy DH:1 and DH:2! From what I got out of it, They seem to be set on making it what they need it to be, and what JKR made it! WOw I am still amazed. I am surely going to enjoy it and HBP!

Still alot can change in 3 years, we just need to hope and pray that this doesn't happen. And if it does... that not all that much is changed!

I don't care how long it is, although after 10 hours the toilet will be looking very good (but there's no way it would be that long.) I think it's really good they're making it into 2 movies (although they should have made the 4th, 5th and 6th into 2 movies as well).

I would have liked that too. But I guess they don't really care about us die hard fans. They want it to be for those who will pay to see it. And then for those who will pay to buy the dvd.

Also I mean if they did that, well then that went that a lot of stuff in the book was important(which a lot of it was) but they found more stuff they could cut that they thought didn't have to do with the main plot! So I guess that is why they did that!

(although they should have made the 4th, 5th and 6th into 2 movies as well).

May I ask why you think that? :)

I am really against the idea of splitting a story artificially in half (the LotR films don't apply because each film told the story of each book separately).

I am only cutting the makers of DH slack because this is the final film in the franchise: personally I'd have preferred DH to be one long satisfying film to conclude the series. :cool:

Ah! But would your bladder hold out? Then also think of those whose various joints start aching when they are sitting in one position too long.... Oh for the days of intermissions when you can at least have a pee and a stretch. that is if the films aare going to be 4-5 hour marathons. Even Operas etc have intermissions and these are with live performers who can cost a lot too.

Well I guess intermissions for films are out due to the monetary greed of the film industry et al.

Yes they would make it for the crowd not to satisfy certain people. Their making 2 movies because it means they can make more money, and that they are thinking of the over-all crowd. That is all they think about. When they make a movie they think of the big crowd, not the certain fans of it. They have to make it for the big crowd because they make more money that way.
Yes I like DH being 2 movies as well. But I would love to have a 4 to 5 hour long movie by itself. But then they had to think of the viewers. You would have some grandparents that may have arthritis bringing their young grandchildren who have little to no bladder strength. Then you have the hardcore fans(like us) who could hold it to Surrey and back. Then you have those who have a bladder problem and have to constantly go. showing it this way making them 2 shorter films is smarter because you have more people who have certain needs that have to be attended to.

Theater could place an intermission in the film if it were one, better yet they should still stick an intermission in there if it's more then one. The theater is going to need money, even if some of us do fork out 12+ dollars on a ticket. More money spent on snacks is more money in their pockets.

The third movie in LOTR was almost three and a half hours long and that is like 400 pages long. When I went and saw COS, the theater place an intermission in the film half way through the film, and my bladder thanks them.

That would be a smart idea really! When I saw CoS I didn't have an intermission, but then I can hold it when i need to! But yea some of us are crazy enough to slap down big money for tickets. I spent 8 dollar to see OoTP in theaters! and I would spend more if i had to! But still I think this time I should only have to spend maybe 4.50 cause I'm going to the midnight showing. Never done that before, never been able to. I'ma enjoy it that is for sure. Get to hang with my friends and enjoy the best movie out of them yet!

Rebecca did you really pay 12 dollars to see the movies. as in for each ticket, if so then i applaud you. You wouldn't find many who are willing to slap down that much money for a ticket, even if it is for one of the best movies to be made.

Yes. The closest movie theater charges $12 plus for the films. Most people would say I was crazy, but it's either $12 for a ticket or a two hour bus ride downtown to see the movie at the City Center here.

Never been to a midnight showing. Would have to overdo my self of coffee to stay awake. Always to the earliest evening showing of the film. Still think an intermission would be good. The theater would get more money. Hehe.

Well, I absolutely love the Harry Potter movies and since I am definatly looking forward to this one, I would sit through it until the very end. Even if it was six hours long. :)

Yea they would get more money. That would also be goo; since we know that there will be those leg crossers who are trying to hold it back because they have to go so bad. Having an intermission would be good because then they could relieve themselves of the waste and feel a whole lot better!

It better be close to three hours long and they better keep all the Luna Lovegood scenes other than Dumbledore's funeral. At the very least they should have and extended version DVD with the stuff they edit out.

Yes they should do that. I wish they would have done that with the other ones. I wanted the extended version of the other 5 movies. But yea they should leave in a lot of Luna! I mean still she does become more important since the 5th movie!

Yes they should do that. I wish they would have done that with the other ones. I wanted the extended version of the other 5 movies. But yea they should leave in a lot of Luna! I mean still she does become more important since the 5th movie!

I don't think it's a coincidence that Luna's role is bigger in DH than in HBP. JKR met Evanna before she finished writing DH and has since said that she is the only one she ever "heard" while writing and that Evanna is Luna. I thought it was strange how Luna has a bigger role than Ginny in DH... she even saves the trio's life while Ginny is always on the background. I think JKR likes Evanna so much, she wrote her in as much as she possibly could. I wish the give a bigger role to Ginny in the movies though.

For OotP, I SHOULD HAVE sat in the theater for 3 Hrs and 35 Min.

For HBP, I want to sit in that theater for 2 Hours and 48 Min. It needs to be like CoS, but longer.

For DH - Part 1 I want to sit in the theater for 2 Hrs and 30 Min.

For Part 2 - I want to sit in the theater for 3 Hrs and 10 Min.

For OotP, I SHOULD HAVE sat in the theater for 3 Hrs and 35 Min.

For HBP, I want to sit in that theater for 2 Hours and 48 Min. It needs to be like CoS, but longer.

For DH - Part 1 I want to sit in the theater for 2 Hrs and 30 Min.

For Part 2 - I want to sit in the theater for 3 Hrs and 10 Min.

yea now that is what I call movies. I like you BloddyChaos! I mean that is what I want these movies need to be drawn out and fulfill what they were destined to be. I mean that is what they will be. These movies one day will be re-made and hopefully with someone at the helm that thinks the books should be the movies. Or that the movies should be as close to the books as possible! I mean the last two movies are the last or everything HP related! They need to be the best they can be. and longer than any movie before them! Thank you BloddyChaos for seeing as I do!:tu:

yea now that is what I call movies. I like you BloddyChaos! I mean that is what I want these movies need to be drawn out and fulfill what they were destined to be. I mean that is what they will be. These movies one day will be re-made and hopefully with someone at the helm that thinks the books should be the movies. Or that the movies should be as close to the books as possible! I mean the last two movies are the last or everything HP related! They need to be the best they can be. and longer than any movie before them! Thank you BloddyChaos for seeing as I do!:tu:

No problemo. :tu:

(By the way, look for my name on all SEVEN REMADE HP MOVIES AFTER I make my trilogy of books) :lol: :p

No problemo. :tu:

(By the way, look for my name on all SEVEN REMADE HP MOVIES AFTER I make my trilogy of books) :lol: :p

Oh trust me I will surely do that! Course I don't know you real name... but still I just randomly say when i See them "Hey that is my friend from mugglenet BloodyChaos16 alright free movies for me!":tu::lol:Course i'm joking but still yea u know what I mean!

Oh trust me I will surely do that! Course I don't know you real name... but still I just randomly say when i See them "Hey that is my friend from mugglenet BloodyChaos16 alright free movies for me!":tu::lol:Course i'm joking but still yea u know what I mean!

Lol defently. Oh, And i'll make sure you get free pop corn and soda. :lol:

Yepp i kno u jkin and dreamen... but wait till it becomes a reality :lol: :tu:

Lol defently. Oh, And i'll make sure you get free pop corn and soda. :lol:

Yepp i kno u jkin and dreamen... but wait till it becomes a reality :lol: :tu:

Alright free soda and popcorn I'm on the fast track right now. Oh boy I'm and so glad we are friends. I'll do the same for you when I become a famous writer. Give you a signed HP shirt by JKR. get a lot of them and have her sign them for me when I meet her in the future!

Yea the reality will be awesome. I just can't wait to see how good the re-makes are and who you get to play the main characters.

I'd be willing to sit for seven hours of DH if it were that long in the theaters. I can hold it that long. :D

Anyway, I can't wait to see it when it comes out!

I'd be willing to sit for seven hours of DH if it were that long in the theaters. I can hold it that long. :D

Anyway, I can't wait to see it when it comes out!

Yea I know what you mean!:tu: I usually go before the movie just incase. But if I don't go then I can usually hold it until the end of the movie! I don't have to worry about that!

yea now that is what I call movies. I like you BloddyChaos! I mean that is what I want these movies need to be drawn out and fulfill what they were destined to be.

I don't get it. What are they "destined to be"?


I mean that is what they will be. These movies one day will be re-made and hopefully with someone at the helm that thinks the books should be the movies.

Books are not movies and movies are not books. That is like saying that an opera based on a short story should not actually be an opera; it should be a short story.

Or that the movies should be as close to the books as possible!

I see no reason why they should. Nor have you advanced any reasons why they should, other than that is what you want. I want somebody to give me a million, but there is no reason why they should.

I don't get it. What are they "destined to be"?
What I mean is that These movies have done better than two of the most known, and best series of movies. So they movies are probably sooner or later going to be come classics. Just like what I believe will happen with the books!



Books are not movies and movies are not books. That is like saying that an opera based on a short story should not actually be an opera; it should be a short story.

Let me expalin. Thus far the movies have been based on the books. But some of them have cut stuff that may have, or was essential to the book. I know that books are not movies. But what I meant that Kloves could have tried a bit more to keep them closer to the books like SS and CoS.



I see no reason why they should. Nor have you advanced any reasons why they should, other than that is what you want. I want somebody to give me a million, but there is no reason why they should.

Well why they should be closer to the book? What if a person sees the movies and then decides he likes them. Well he goes to read the book and thinks he knows every book. He opens the third book, and is almost immediately lost in all the because of the big amount of details that were left out. Then he gets to OoTP and is so lost because of some much left out that he doesn't understand what has happened at all.

Alright free soda and popcorn I'm on the fast track right now. Oh boy I'm and so glad we are friends. I'll do the same for you when I become a famous writer. Give you a signed HP shirt by JKR. get a lot of them and have her sign them for me when I meet her in the future!

Yea the reality will be awesome. I just can't wait to see how good the re-makes are and who you get to play the main characters.

*Caugh* Ill become a famous writer before you! :D

Maybe a partnership :lol: :lol: :tu: :p

Just as long as it is fantasy i'm all for it. I can't write stuff that is that good other than Fantasy. Because i mainly read fantasy. SO yea i would willing to do a partnership. We would be a cool partnership Harry fanatics that are writing fantasy!

realistically, probably like 3.5 hours

I don't think they could do that. I mean we have gone over this a lot. But still they have been trying to keep under the 3 hours mark. So well year you get my drift I think!

As long as it takes to tell the whole story. Luckily it will be two parts now so they shouldn't have to cut anything. Two 2 1/2 movies should be able to cover everything in the book unless they add a lot of made up stupid stuff (ie POA).

I am so looking forward to these two movies.

So am I, really the random bird dying stuff in PoA was rather stupid imo, That just wasted time that could have been used for a better purpose, or to add in more stuff that should have been kept in the first place!

So am I, really the random bird dying stuff in PoA was rather stupid imo, That just wasted time that could have been used for a better purpose, or to add in more stuff that should have been kept in the first place!

I KNOW!!!

And the ending in the shack was OMG BAD!!! I was confused! At least the book EXPLAINED everything.

Im serius and I am bad but becomming good because of a rat Durr!

Well at least I know i'm not the most insulting about PoA

I would sit and watch DH until I passed out from exhaustion, which just proves how insane I am.... :err:

Okay, after five hours, I'd have to at least walk around a bit, so to keep things sane, I'll say five hours.

Well at least I know i'm not the most insulting about PoA

:lol:

wanna join the club? :lol: :p

i would watch it as for 5+ hours easily. although i love the books far more than the films, mainly due to the fact that they are far more in depth than the films. i just hope they dont miss out important parts like, voldemorts death or the horcruxes etc haha, like they have done before.

I would sit and watc hthe whole thing with no cuts...I prefer they keep it one film. I would be so excited to see how they do it as I am with all of the others I would be fine with no breaks for 3 hours or however long.

Really yes bloody I would love to join the club how can I and do we get jackets. Oh and when do we meet?

On the other hand the Movies have done the best they possible could, since they really don't have the ability to make every movie like the books. I think OoTP was done ok but mainly I enjoyed the battle between DD and LV and LV possessing Harry just because that is what it looked like in my mind?

Well it's going to be split into two movies so I doubt it'll be longer than the average 3hrs.
If and when the movie turns out to be 5hrs trust me I will sit those 5 hrs and never even think about moving until it's over.lol

Well it's going to be split into two movies so I doubt it'll be longer than the average 3hrs.
If and when the movie turns out to be 5hrs trust me I will sit those 5 hrs and never even think about moving until it's over.lol

Unless u drink too much soda.... :lol:

I would sit there all day.

I think I'd draw my line at two weeks.:relax:

Seriously though, as long as I had food, water and a way to relieve myself--I'd say bring it on and let's burn the midnight oil!

Really we could talk about how long we could sit, and try to out do each other by saying "Oh I could sit for a week" and "Oh as long as it is 5 hours long Bring it on". But really we all know that what ever length it is; we'll sit there the whole time and watch it. And pay to see it again.

We don't need to sit here and say the length we want. We know(however much it hurts to say it) that the movie will not even touch or think of touching the 3 hour mark. Neither one of them will think of it.

Unless u drink too much soda.... :lol:

hmm...that would be a problem.lol. Still I'd try to hold it until I got to a part where I wouldn't be devasted if I missed it.

The Whole Part 1 And The Whole Part 2

It probably IS good they've split it into two movies, cos we'll get more out of them now.

But I'm with most people on here... I'd sit for as long as it took for the story to be told WELL. True Harry fans would donate a day (or more) of their time to sit through a 12 hour movie version (if given intervals every few hours for toilet and drink breaks... hehe)- the more, the better (so long as its good).
BUT- its not just the diehard fans who see the movies- parents taking their kids, or anyone who hasn't read the books but enjoys the movies as light entertainment. The average person intends on spending 2 hours, 3 at the most, in a movie theatre, before getting on with the rest of their day. Which is fair enough.

Sadly. :(

The 'Theory of Relativity' instantly comes to my mind...If the movie is good, I wouldn't mind watching a 4 hour movie even but I am not going to stay past two hours if the movie is shabbily made..:lol:

Yeah that's true. I think I'd watch it all even if was really bad, but I'd be annoyed if it had lasted for hours and hours.

Really I could watch it for hours and hours. But it all depends on how good the movies are! I watched OoTP, but then at first I hadn't read the book in awhile so I thought it was ok!
I mean I still watch it but it isn't my favorite!

Personally: as long as the movie has all the relevant info to make it a decent movie I will be willing to sit for more than five hours just to finish the whole series properly.

Part One: I'm willing to see 2 hours and 15 minutes which must include Snape's thing at Malfoy Manor, Privet Drive, the air battle, the Burrow and some sort of celebration stuff, the stuff in the cafe because I like how it makes just being in the open look scary, 12 GP and the Dumbledore animation (oh boy that'll be depressing/scary) and also Kreacher, the Ministry, the woods, the woods without Ron, Godric's Hollow, the woods and the doe and the locket, Ron again, end with Hermione realizing they need to visit Luna's dad.

Part Two: 2 hours and 40 minutes including Luna's house, in the woods again, captued, Malfoy Manor, escape, some sort of safe place (not Bill's since he's not going to be a character) and burial of Dobby (Dobby is necessary in my mind as much as Snape is) and also Ollivander and the goblin, Gringotts, back to Hogwarts, somehow will Aberforth be fit in?, sneaking into Ravenclaw tower, McGonagall and Harry sticking up for her, the brief showdown with Snape, securing the castle, the battle begins, destroying the Horcruxes, Snape, the Prince's Tale, Harry's fate, in the afterlife, the return, Voldemort's fate, the end.

I think those lengths are adequate for getting that much in. If they have to be longer, okay with me. I don't want them any shorter than those lengths if that means they cut anything. I'm okay with the wedding being shortened or not actually a wedding at all, though I wonder how they'll manage the backstory without it. You know? How are they fixing things without it being the wedding proper?

I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan. However long you make the movies, I'll sit there and enjoy them. In my mind, as long as they're following the books, the longer the better. =)

In my mind, as long as they're following the books, the longer the better. =)
As an avid HP fan, I agree with this.

I know that the average cinema goer wouldn't manage to sit that long, but the point is we aren't (average) and we can (sit for a long time). :)

I love watching movies but even if it is really intresting then mt attenchion wonders and I get bored... So I would have to be careful about the length otherwise I would get boared...

When I went and saw COS, the theater place an intermission in the film half way through the film, and my bladder thanks them.

Same here...they had an intermission when I saw CoS too.
If the DH film was good, and I was awake, then I would sit and watch it until it was over, my limit would probably be about 5 hours though.
If I didn't like it, then I don't think I would last much longer than three hours though.

Same here...they had an intermission when I saw CoS too.
If the DH film was good, and I was awake, then I would sit and watch it until it was over, my limit would probably be about 5 hours though.
If I didn't like it, then I don't think I would last much longer than three hours though.

Wow, interesting! I never knew they still did intermissions. COS was the only HP movie I did not see in a theater so I wouldn't know if my theater had an intermission too. But yes, of all the currently released HP films, COS is the most deserving and needed of a intermission!

Do you remember which part of the movie they stopped for the intermission? I'm really interested in that kind of thing. :p

Do you remember which part of the movie they stopped for the intermission? I'm really interested in that kind of thing. :p

Erm, I'm not sure...it might have been around when Harry went into the diary but I haven't seen the film in ages and I can't remember half of it, so I could be wrong. :whistle:
But I saw the film in this really small 4-screen cinema that closed down last year so I don't know if other places still do intermissions.

If it movies as fast as the book did I would watch it in one sitting ....If it was still one movie of course. I guess I could watch them back to back if I was really into it. The book moved in a great pace!! So if it's like that I can take it all at once.

The book moved in a great pace!! So if it's like that I can take it all at once.
Well, that does depend on how long it is - I may have need of an intermission if it is long.

Fooooooorever :) Ok, maybe like 5 hours. Wait, does that include both sets or combined? I never want the series to end so I hope they are very long.

It would be so nice if WB would include EVERYTHING in the DH.

Although, it's WB. They're going to split it in 2 movies, although each part would probably go on for about... 2 hours max.

To fully include everything in that book, you would have to chuck it up to about 3, maybe 4 hours each part.

However, I would be willing to sit up to 4-5 hours each part.

As long as it takes. However, I'd like to be forwarned if it is excessively long, so I can plan my bathroom breaks accordingly. Also, like others have said, anything approaching four hours ought to include an intermission.

I'm boycotting it. She killed some very beloved characters in one swoop and it all seemed very senseless. It was a lazy ending and I will not sit and watch it.

I'll sit as long as it takes! If the movie were to be made directly from the book with everything in it (haha yeah right) I would sit and watch the whole thing. With intermissions for potty breaks.

The question is, how much would they charge for a 12 hour movie?! :lol:

Realistically though, I hope the 2DH movies will be about 2 1/2 - 3 hours long. At least make the second half 3 hours long. The shortest I'd like the first half to be is 2 hours, at the shortest.

I'm thinking 2 1/2-3 hours for Part 1 and 2. That would be perfect.

Well I really don't care how long it is; I just want to get to sit down and watch it is all! So as to hours and stuff; however long they make it is fine by me; well unless each is under 2.5 hours; cause then I will start a riot and take it all the way to WB! But other than that; I watch it no matter how long it is, and no matter how bad I have to go! I won't miss a single minute of each!

I'll watch it as long as it takes to make a good movie. I certainly hope they do a better job than they have on the past four. I'd much rather see a great movie that is long, than a bunched together mediocre movie that's shorter.

How long am I willing to sit down? As long as it takes to do the book justice. I'll sit down for 5 hours if I need to, I'm that desperate to see the movie be that great.

I will sit there in that freezing theater for months, if the movie is awesome,, and it doesnt leave anything out. Honestly, months!

For me, it would probably depend on how well they did the movies too. If it's another GoF, I'll probably scoot out of there faster than "Snape confronted by shampoo". ;) Seriously, I'd probably still sit through it anyway, no matter how long it was: I paid for my ticket, I might as well sit through it.

totally agreed. if it needs to be an 18 hour movie to fit everything in, let it be 18 hours!

18 hours sounds good to me!
I dont want it to ever end!



EVER.

How long am I willing to sit down? As long as it takes to do the book justice. I'll sit down for 5 hours if I need to, I'm that desperate to see the movie be that great.

5 hours isnt enough!!


PS, I love your sig. Stevie G and Torres forev!

... As long as there is an intermission or two, I'd watch it even if it took 8 hours ^^;;

I suppose I could handle a three hour movie, like the Lord of the Rings ones. Longer would be too much.

I just saw a three hour movie and it didn't seem long at all because it was so good. I can also sit through the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies because they are very good. If the movie is done well, then I could stand a four hour movie. I could probably stand a longer one, but there would have to be a break.

Well, for me it really comes down to how well done it is. I would say with the recent quality of OotP, I would about two hours -- two and a half if I thought it could be better.

If the quality was still good, I'd watch for maybe 6 hours. But that said, that would take a while to make, so it would have to be a 13/10 on RottenTomatoes or something for me to wait and still be excited that long, but no doubt I would sit through it.

Honestly, I'm just not that patient of a person. I want things, and I want them NOW, if you know what I mean. Maybe it's just part of being 14.:rolleyes:

Acting is also a good factor. Sometimes, you see a really long movie that was so good, it didn't seem long at all, y'know? Well, I would also be willing to wait a little longer, if say, they promised to extend it and keep the quality.

... As long as there is an intermission or two, I'd watch it even if it took 8 hours ^^;;

I feel the same way.:agree::tu:

As other poster have said, as long as it is well made I could sit a long, long time. This is the last hooray people! We have all the books and the movies are the last true tie to anything new in the fandom. I want to remember it as being the best movie of the series :D

2.5 to 3 and if it was amazing I would stay for 4.5, but anymore would probably kill me, I don't have attention span and King Kong made me fall asleep...It needs to be simple and understandable for the non-Harry Obsessed, and if I had read the book recently it would be 3 + hours, but if I hadn;t then the less amount of time

would be willing to sit as long as it takes say braveheart that was like four hours

would be willing to sit as long as it takes say braveheart that was like four hours

It wasn't.

ok like 3 but there are alot of epic movies that are 4 plus that i loved

3.5 hours seems reasonable. I think they could probably do a good movie with that. But I'm guessing with 2 parts it will be 2.5 + 2.5.

For me it isn't so much the length of the movie, it is the quality of it.

As many other posters have rightly said, it HAS to do justice to the book. I'd sit and watch for 4 hours, rather than have important chunks of the book deleted. And even if it is split, it should be a two-halves-in-the-same-day movie and not two movies months apart - the suspense would kill me and millions of others!

if it was somewhat loyal (or, at least, not horribly wrong), i could sit in there forever. :D yes, i know i have an addiction. don't we all? :D lol

Hey, I'm more than willing to sit through five hours of Pride and Prejudice because it is done well, and I never take a break in the watching. Same with the movie Gone with the Wind.

If they can do it well the entire time, I don't care if it totals five or six hours. I'd rather take a bathroom break than sit through a badly done movie that tries to put too much into too short of a time frame.

Hey, I'm more than willing to sit through five hours of Pride and Prejudice because it is done well, and I never take a break in the watching.

That is a TV series, not a film.

Same with the movie Gone with the Wind.

Made in the days when intermissions were standard. There are no intermissions now.


If they can do it well the entire time, I don't care if it totals five or six hours.

It won't.

ok like 3 but there are alot of epic movies that are 4 plus that i loved

Can you name any recent ones?

Made in the days when intermissions were standard. There are no intermissions now.

There are here. When a film is about two hours we get an intermission. That said, I am not willing to sit through more than the usual amount of time. The HP films are generally not that good.