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

Goodness gracious, I had no idea my opinion on this was so controversial.

That is a TV series, not a film.

No, it isn't. I've got it on two discs and watch them one after the other. It isn't split into episodes, and if there was room for both bits on one disc the transition would be seamless.

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

In some places there are. And that doesn't stop me from watching it without the intermission.

It won't.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, and I'd appreciate it if you could respect mine.
I gave my opinion here, and that is that if a movie is done well enough, I don't mind sitting through several hours of it. It's not for everyone, it's for me.

Which is the question I was answering by posting in this thread:
How long am I willing to sit down and watch DH? As many as five or six hours as long as, in my opinion, it is done well.

I suppose that's a matter of opinion, and I'd appreciate it if you could respect mine.
I gave my opinion here, and that is that if a movie is done well enough, I don't mind sitting through several hours of it. It's not for everyone, it's for me.



Just to clarify, you said "I don't care if it totals five or six hours" which was your response to the original question. But my response was simply to say that: these films, like all other films ever made, will not be five or six hours long, no matter who wants what.

The 1995 P&P was a BBC TV series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/
It was not made for cinemas viewing, but for television. It won numerous TV awards. The various film versions of P&P run at about 2 hours and although based upon an incomparably superior novel to any Rowling has written (she would be the first to agree), they still need to cut and adapt drastically.

Just to clarify, you said "I don't care if it totals five or six hours" which was your response to the original question. But my response was simply to say that: these films, like all other films ever made, will not be five or six hours long, no matter who wants what.

I think it's perfectly possible for DH to be split into two movies that, when combined as one story, total five or six hours. A very recent movie, The Dark Knight, ran for 152 minutes. That's two and a half hours. People were fine with it. I don't see why the same can't happen to two DH films.

The 1995 P&P was a BBC TV series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112130/
It was not made for cinemas viewing, but for television. It won numerous TV awards. The various film versions of P&P run at about 2 hours and although based upon an incomparably superior novel to any Rowling has written (she would be the first to agree), they still need to cut and adapt drastically.

Yes, it was a mini-series. One large film broken up to be debuted and viewed on television in tolerable increments. The run time is not several episodes of only 30-60 minutes each, but rather one movie at 300 minutes.

However long it takes. That could be about five hours. I just want them to put every little detail. I hope they will, but I'm not going to think they will. Those Harry Potter movies are just . . . you know? I'm glad they make them but they could be a little more like the books, imo.

if i was jk i would be mad about what they did to the books by making those movies they could of done better but im sure shes happy with the billions she made oh and moriath thats a great show watch every sunday

Ill sit down and watch DH for as long as it takes for the film to live up to the book

If the DH films give us a decent amount of backstory then I'll be very pleased, because we really need to be shown more about some of the characters - filmgoers need to understand why they're important! For this reason I'll be happy to sit through something marathon-length. The only problem though, is that we already know of a few things that have been cut out. I'm assuming that since Bill and Fleur don't seem to be in the HBP film, their part in DH will disappear. Perhaps other characters will fill in for them, but such a cut seems unnecessary considering how much screen time is going to be allowed. What's going to happen with Dobby as well? We haven't seen him since COS. Where is the two-part movie's material going to come from?

I will watch it until it's done! If it takes a week then so be it! :D

In some places there are. And that doesn't stop me from watching it without the intermission.
In the US, at least, there are not, or at least not legal ones. This was an issue 5 years ago when when Return of the King came out. Theaters looked at the 3 1/2 hour length of and asked New Line if they could insert an intermission despite the fact that the distribution contracts forbade this. Theaters make almost all of their money from concessions sales, as distribution contracts are structured so that almost all the $$$ from ticket sales in the first couple of weeks go to the distributor, and most of the tickets for blockbusters (especially sequels) are sold in the first couple of weeks. With 3.5 hours, the theaters feared that concession sales would be very low because, with no intermission, people's bladder's would explode.

New Line said "No" and reminded the theaters that violation of this agreement could result in their not being allowed to show New Line films in the future. As New Line is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, that was a hefty threat! Why? Because adding 30 minutes to the film time would result in at least one fewer showing per day, and that many fewer ticket sales during the early weeks, when New Line got all the gold. New Line is (or was) hardly unique: the major distributors forbid intermissions for the same reason.

Now, WB does not distribute films in most countries outside of the US, so things might be different there. If WB gets a set fee for distribution in a country (based on anticipated ticket sales), the WB obviously does not care whether a theater has an intermission; however, the distributor might! If WB gets a portion of the ticket sales, then they do care, and they no doubt have the contracts worded to forbid intermissions.

Either way, the people who distribute films do not want intermissions and they probably would be very upset (as in "call our lawyers" upset) to learn about intermissions.

The book was SO short and moved SO fast it is the perfect one to adapt cinematically...ironically it is the film they are splitting in two, I would easily site through DH in one sitting.

I think the length of watching a film depends on how well it is made. If it is a well directed and acted film, with almost all the elements in place, I'd watch it even if it stretches till 3 hours.

I just sat through a 6 hour movie "Tin Man" which was a Si Fi miniseries, so I guess I would be able to get through how ever long Deathly Hallows ends up being.

Honestly, I'm willing to sit as long as it takes for me to see a decent movie. :)

As much as I love the Harry Potter series, I don't like movies that go for longer than 3 hours unless there is an interlude.

LOTR Return of the King was nearly 4 hours and I had cramps at the end of it. Movies with longer than 3 hours duration need an interlude.

Yes, I agree. To be honest, I think my limit would be somewhere in the 2hrs45 minutes area.. Anything more and as stated above, I get uncomfortable and start needing a walk, which can be detrimental when the film is coming to an end. So I think that would be my limit, but two films of that length released separately would be fine as a result. I just think that then it might be a bit too long and too overdrawn overall. :shrug:

In the US, at least, there are not, or at least not legal ones. This was an issue 5 years ago when when Return of the King came out. Theaters looked at the 3 1/2 hour length of and asked New Line if they could insert an intermission despite the fact that the distribution contracts forbade this.

I was thinking that other countries likely offered intermissions, but now that you mention the Return of the King...
You know, I went to a midnight showing of that movie. Waited in line for hours and not once during the film did I think, "I need a break!" or, "I wish there had been an intermission..."

I think it shows that if a movie is done well the time frame melts away and you really don't care while you are watching. I feel that if they are able to make Deathly Hallows into a good enough movie, I won't mind sitting through three hours of it. And how good the first installment is will likely dictate how long I'm willing to sit through the second.

I was thinking that other countries likely offered intermissions, but now that you mention the Return of the King...
You know, I went to a midnight showing of that movie. Waited in line for hours and not once during the film did I think, "I need a break!" or, "I wish there had been an intermission..."

I think it shows that if a movie is done well the time frame melts away and you really don't care while you are watching. I feel that if they are able to make Deathly Hallows into a good enough movie, I won't mind sitting through three hours of it. And how good the first installment is will likely dictate how long I'm willing to sit through the second.

Now that I think of it, we had no intermission or anything for LotR, even though it was so long. It just slotted so perfectly together because of the dedication by Jackson. All his films are like that, King Kong is another. So I see your point, I didn't get restless during either of those, that's for sure. :agree: If the film of DH is to be that good, I'm perfectly happy to have it be longer!

In the US, at least, there are not, or at least not legal ones. This was an issue 5 years ago when when Return of the King came out. Theaters looked at the 3 1/2 hour length of and asked New Line if they could insert an intermission despite the fact that the distribution contracts forbade this. Theaters make almost all of their money from concessions sales, as distribution contracts are structured so that almost all the $$$ from ticket sales in the first couple of weeks go to the distributor, and most of the tickets for blockbusters (especially sequels) are sold in the first couple of weeks. With 3.5 hours, the theaters feared that concession sales would be very low because, with no intermission, people's bladder's would explode.

New Line said "No" and reminded the theaters that violation of this agreement could result in their not being allowed to show New Line films in the future. As New Line is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, that was a hefty threat! Why? Because adding 30 minutes to the film time would result in at least one fewer showing per day, and that many fewer ticket sales during the early weeks, when New Line got all the gold. New Line is (or was) hardly unique: the major distributors forbid intermissions for the same reason.

Now, WB does not distribute films in most countries outside of the US, so things might be different there. If WB gets a set fee for distribution in a country (based on anticipated ticket sales), the WB obviously does not care whether a theater has an intermission; however, the distributor might! If WB gets a portion of the ticket sales, then they do care, and they no doubt have the contracts worded to forbid intermissions.

Either way, the people who distribute films do not want intermissions and they probably would be very upset (as in "call our lawyers" upset) to learn about intermissions.

From what I've read the studios pull 90% of the ticket sales the first weekend and then split it 50%/50% with the theaters the rest of the way which is why they make such a big deal about opening weekends. The advantage here is that with one long shoot resulting in two movies you have two opening weekends to really suck the theaters dry.

As for how long, I don't really care how long a movie is. I like long movies but thats probably because only big ones get pulled into the three hour mark and they're almost always entertaining. I like seeing long run times, get my seat go to the bathroom, get my snacks, (popcorn is apparently trying to challenge gold in price these days, 10.50 for a bloody large popcorn and a small soda!!!) and then sit for the ride.

I find it amazing how the two hour mark is the point of no return for so many people nowadays. We've been condition to expect movies to be fast and to the point and thus most fidget. Though part of the issue is that, at least in NYC, movies don't start at the start time, the previews do which means if you're fifteen minutes early for a 2 hour film, depending on the number of trailers you're breaking the 2 1/2 hour range easily.

As long as necessary! :-) The longer the better I think!

I could sit through 4 hours because it is Harry Potter, but I really find it hard sitting through anything else that is more then 2 and a half hours. Couldn't do it for Pirates 3, King Kong and struggled a bit with Australia. Big fans are willing to sit through a lot more then just everyday moviegoers are.

The book was SO short and moved SO fast it is the perfect one to adapt cinematically...ironically it is the film they are splitting in two, I would easily site through DH in one sitting.

A woman after my own heart. :tu:

Now that I think of it, we had no intermission or anything for LotR, even though it was so long. It just slotted so perfectly together because of the dedication by Jackson. All his films are like that, King Kong is another. So I see your point, I didn't get restless during either of those, that's for sure. :agree: If the film of DH is to be that good, I'm perfectly happy to have it be longer!

Well, I would likely watch 20 hours of Middle-earth :D but if there was a place in RotK for a bathroom break, it would be the Paths of the Dead ... I got a wee bit bored of the Oathbreakers. :D Not my favourite sequence, at any rate. :)

I gotta say, I thought King Kong dragged terribly in the middle. :shrug: Peter Jackson was a little too self-indulgent in that film, IMO.

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

Until it's over....

Now that I think of it, we had no intermission or anything for LotR, even though it was so long. It just slotted so perfectly together because of the dedication by Jackson. All his films are like that, King Kong is another. So I see your point, I didn't get restless during either of those, that's for sure. :agree: If the film of DH is to be that good, I'm perfectly happy to have it be longer!
The issue was not so much the structure of the film that is important here: as Pearl notes, the Paths of the Dead part provided a good intermission. Basically, the breaks between discs in the extended editions all were perfect places for intermissions. The distributors could not have cared less about that or any other aspect of the film structure, however: they were interested only with the ticket sales, and an intermission means one fewer batch of tickets per screen per day! New Line was getting all of that money, and they are as greedy as anybody.

From what I've read the studios pull 90% of the ticket sales the first weekend and then split it 50%/50% with the theaters the rest of the way which is why they make such a big deal about opening weekends.
Big deals were made of opening weekends long before the current profit sharing (or lack of sharing) structure evolved. It was a sign of successful advertising and/or anticipation of the product from the director/actors involved. Studios played it up because the difference between human and lemmings is that humans really do follow each other over cliffs!

The modern profit sharing scheme is a rather recent innovation, which owes much to George Lucas and his control over Star Wars. This is the other half of why movies are distributed so much differently than they used to be: the huge opening weekends reflect distributors flooding theaters with their new releases. (The rapid video release are the first half: Star Wars was the #1 summer movie AND the #1 Christmas movie in 1977; Dark Knight was the #1 summer movie and the #1 video sales in 2008.) The distributors then greatly reduce the distribution after a month or so, as the distributor start sharing the profits with the theaters at that point. So, at the time where a theater gets a cut of a film, everyone interested has already seen it;
the distributors has replaced it with another of their films for which they will be getting nearly all of the base ticket price.
Moreover, it is not just the first weekend where the distributor gets nearly all of the $$$, but usually the first few weeks. (The schemes vary: some are sliding, some are based on a certain date.) Theaters make almost no money off of ticket sales: they make money from concessions. That is why they wanted the intermission for King. There are extra fees on top of your average $7.08 ticket, but that usually concerns state & local taxes, ticket agency fees, and parking subsidies.

Now, it might be different in other countries: but, then, WB/NL (NL is a subsidiary company of WB) would not care too much as they do not distribute in other countries, selling the distribution to local distributors.


As for our being "conditioned" to get squirmy at 2 hours, well, this has to do with the evolution of movie-going. Once upon a time, it was the centerpoint of an evening out. It was treated as were other forms of theater (plays, operas, concerts, etc.), where it was the centerpiece of the evening.

However, because of competition with television and computer games, movies evolved into "supersized" TV shows. In particular, the ability to control the length of time over which one views anything has led people to want shorter viewing times. (And, of course, movie critics have always said that shorter usually is better: and they have a point!) The expectation now is very different: a movie is part of an evening's entertainment. This is simply cultural evolution: it is not better or worse, but just the way that things currently are. I doubt that things will change back any time soon.


But, getting back to the main point: any movie is worth as much time as it takes to tell the story. So, how long does it take to tell a story about Harry Potter wrestling with his place in the greater good? Certainly not as long as the book: Rowling inserts a hiatus in the story between the Burrow and the never-ending camping trip. That is wasted time not because of the minutes that it takes per se, but because of the minutes that it takes in which the film is not telling story, but instead just showing events.

Going back to the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter comparisons, this is why Stone was criticized so much more heavily for being too long than was Fellowship, even though Fellowship was nearly 20 minutes longer. It was not the absolute length, but the extraneous length: Stone could have been 60 minutes shorter easily (partly due to unnecessary scenes, partly due to turgid pacing), whereas Fellowship could have shaved far less time (it had breakneck pacing and every scene spoke to the story).

If Hallows is like Fellowship, then 3 hours is fine. If Hallows is like Stone, then 3 hours is an hour too long.

I'd watch it FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!:cool:

I'd sit 5 or 6 (2h30 or 3 hours each) hours as long as the movies are good and conform to the book. I personaly think that an intermission wouldn't be necessary for each movie, it kills the movie's atmosphere IMO. I was very disappointed when I watched OotP because there was an intermission just before the kiss between Harry and Cho.
On the other hand, I do understand that some people need a small break, especially kids (I saw Madagascar, escape 2 Africa with my son and the intermission was indispensable :lol:) or if the movie is much too long.

Any length of time that it takes... and then some!

I wouldn't want the screenwriters to have to rush through the story and omit all the details that make the Wizarding World so immersive. DH is the most complex story in the series and the point where all loose ends come together. At the same time, the Wizarding World has changed enormously since HBP, due to a corrupted pureblood-supremacist Ministry working on Voldemort's behalf. That's why I'm glad they split it in two, allowing the plot to unfold unforced, leaving plenty of room for extra depth and atmosphere. I'm very much looking forward to see how they are going to recreate wizarding Britain under the Death Eater-regime.

Twice three hours would be reasonable but I'd have been extra happy with four or six times three hours.

Well the regular length of movies in India is about 3 hours. A movie that gets over in two-and-a-half is dubbed exceptionally short :P
Hence I would be willing to watch for as long as it takes without once feeling squirmy :D
Four hours per movie easy!

I could see 2 3 hrs movie from the book I sat through ROTK and the DVD extended version over 4 hrs so sitting for 3 hrs in nothing if the movie is good.

The longest movies I have seen on theaters:

-The Return of the King
-Titanic

I can sit three hours and a bit, if I enjoy the movie... and if I don´t drink anything!!!

I could do the full 5 hours, but there would have to be 2 intermissions for that long of a movie.

There is no limit to how long I will sit down and watch this movie, I know now that its split up in to 2 movies but even if each of them was 6 hours long I would watch them, because I would be getting that much more information. If it's a movie that I really really want to see than length doesn't matter as long as it keeps me interested.

as long as it does the book justice, i'd be willing to sit in a theatre for a couple of weeks.

I'd be willing to sit there for as long as it's neccesary for the film to do the book justice. I've heard more than one fellow HP fan tell me they'd be willing to sit in the theater for longer to see more of the book put on screen, and I agree. There's not really a limit to how long I'd sit in the theater for a Harry Potter movie!! :cool:

If it was well done I'd sit through for as long as they could make it

As Long As It Takes.

I agree with a lot of the posts here. I never understand when they say a movie like this has to be under X hours. Obviously we all need to eat, but really, if you can keep the plot moving and the upshot is a more thorough adaptation, who cares how long it is.

The other alternative is to do the same amount of cutting that they always do for the theatrical version, but then make mega-long extended editions. :D

As long as they're as faithful to the book as possible, I'd be willing to sit for 5 hours. But they would have to have intermissions to allow people to get refreshments, use the facilities, etc. It is the last of the series, so I think many people would be willing to spend an afternoon in the theatres if the movie is done properly or as close to the story line as possible.

It depends on a few things but the main part is obviously that I can watch it as long as I don't get bored. If that's 45 minutes or 7 hours really don't matter. But if you're bored pretty quickly and start hoping that it'll soon be over I want it short. ;) Not like I think that'll happen this time. And of course I want i/them to cover as much as possible. So cover a lot and make it interesting and I'd be willing to sit down and watch for a long time. If it's too long it's not the length of the movie itself that bothers me, it's the possible breaks you might have to take. So when it comes on dvd I wouldn't mind if it's extremly long.

I'll sit until the last credit appears and still want more.

I'm hoping for a Harry Potter marathon when all the films are finished.

I'm hoping for a Harry Potter marathon when all the films are finished.

Me too! :drool:


But in all honesty, I don't think I want to watch all those camping scenes. Truth be told, they even bored me a little when I was reading them.
I would say 3 hours and a few minutes is a good length for the movie.

As long as it takes to get right. But not too long, not all that much really happens for the first few chapters.

As long as it takes.

I agree with a lot of the posts here. I never understand when they say a movie like this has to be under X hours. Obviously we all need to eat, but really, if you can keep the plot moving and the upshot is a more thorough adaptation, who cares how long it is.

The other alternative is to do the same amount of cutting that they always do for the theatrical version, but then make mega-long extended editions. :D

Well said :tu: I agree.

I agree with a lot of the posts here. I never understand when they say a movie like this has to be under X hours. Obviously we all need to eat, but really


All you gotta do is sneak in a "buffet" of food and you will be set for hours and hours.

I am willing to sit forever and a day.
And I will never want the movie to end, because when it does, there's nothing left.
An encyclopedia, maybe, but after DH2 comes out the fandom will officially have nothing to look foreward too. Unless Jo says yes to Book 8. I still harbor a small hope.

as long as..... forever.

I can't wait until both parts are on DVD and i can make people watch a movie with me, but i what i wont tell them is that it's 5 hours!!! MUAHAHAHA

I'll sit for super long hours just as long as they give the book justice. which they always say they do but not quite..

I can wait for a lifetime if i have to for watching the movies.........

As long as there were 25-minute intermissions after every hour and a half, I'd be willing to sit through it for quite a while.

I'd sit through these movies for hours and hours. My friends and I were discussing Half-Blood Prince a few weeks ago, and he said, "I'd literally still sit through these movies, even if they went through every single class they took and everything they learned and the end result was a movie that lasted 10 hours." And I agreed. XD

At the midnight showing of HBP, I thought it was incredibly short, despite the fact that I'd been sitting in the theater from about 10pm- 3am. :p
Sign me up for sitting in a theater watching HP for an entire day!:agree:

I'd love DH to last forever because it's all we've got (somebody said that earlier but I don't remember who) and then Harry Potter is over. And for me that very much means LIFE is over.

However long it takes :)

As long as it takes. I give it my full support.

However long it takes. What the heck, my friends and I did a LotR marathon one day. Watched all three movies back to back. It was great. Wouldn't want to do it again for a long, long, time, but it was fun.

As long as the plot was moving along and it was staying true to the feeling of the books, I don't know if there is a limit. I probably couldn't sit there for 10 hours, but I would not mind sitting there for 3...

You know, it's so funny because I told my husband that I would be willing to go see a 5-6 hour HP movie instead of seeing 2 separate ones. He said that I'd be the only one in there, but judging by what others have said, I can tell that I wouldn't be!!

As long as they'd give a short time for a bathroom break, I'd say I'd sit forever! LOL Then I'd probably want to sit through it all over again.

2 1/2 hours in each part. Although, if it is longer, it wont bug me at all. It's going to be an incredible film from what I have seen from the trailers. :)

I honestly don't care in the slightest how long or short it is- I'm going to watch it over and over again, no matter what the case! :D

I'd be able to sit for hours upon hours. From what I've seen, it's going to be great!:clap:

I'd say as long as the movie takes! I really am not one of those people who likes to put time tables on somthing thats really a great story! When you sit down to read or hear a story you arn't worried about time, you want the story to be told in a way that will hold your attention! so be it 2 hours or 5+ hours as long as the movie is done as well (as close as possible) to the book.

4 hours plus! I think splitting the movie up is ingenious on so many levels. It allows for a more detailed movie where it's not cut to shreds. And if they're in shorter chunks, it makes each part more palatable to watch. Marketing. Makes the anticipation last for several months.

It depends, is it just as boring as the last three movies have been then 2 hours and that is pushing my limit.

2 1/2 hours in each part. Although, if it is longer, it wont bug me at all. It's going to be an incredible film from what I have seen from the trailers. :)
That's me as well. Any longer, and they would have to include at least one bathroom break :lol:. Wouldn't mind it if was longer than that though, as long as it is a good film.

I'm quite content to watch all five glorious hours of Pride & Prejudice in one go, so I am pretty sure I'd have no problem doing the same for one or both DH movies. As long as it's good, I won't care about the length because I won't be thinking about it. My favorite movie is just over three hours long.

I would say about 4 hours long

4 hours per movie.

forever. 2 forevers actually. one for each part.

Howdy Pards,

http://i27.tinypic.com/2hqeced.jpg

What I want most of all is for this final movie in two parts to be a loving tribute to the wonder, the magic, the thrills, the action that is found in J.K. Rowling's great book! This is the opportunity the filmmaker's have to finally capture that magic as never before up there on that big silver screen.

I want these movies to last as long as it takes to tell the story. Do you think that I would be so foolish as to walk out a half hour or an hour before the film is over because they have passed my artificial time limit? Nonsense!

Tis the age old argument of Art vs Commerce I suppose. Movie owners will want to schedule as many showtimes as they possibly can because the crowds are gonna be thick. From an artistic perspective the film makers already know they are going to make a mint off these pictures, so why not concentrate on getting the story perfect? On creating something for which they will be eternally proud?

I hope they cut nothing whatsoever out! To me, the story is the most important thing! Road show movies have had intermissions before if needed, that's not a new idea. And true Harry Potter fans will be celebrating this Grand Finale in two parts until the end of time.

Let the magic happen...because...this time...when it's over...it's over.

I will be in the theater until the end of each half of the story...however long that may take. And, this time, when it's over I have a feeling I will be on my feet applauding as never before. Something special is about to happen.

Adios for now. Talk to ya on down the trail.

Wild Ol' Dan

I would sit through it however long if it meant them doing it right/doing the book justice. What's always been important to me is truly honoring the original story. So if that means a longer movie, then so be it.

I'm quite content to watch all five glorious hours of Pride & Prejudice in one go, so I am pretty sure I'd have no problem doing the same for one or both DH movies. As long as it's good, I won't care about the length because I won't be thinking about it. My favorite movie is just over three hours long.

Yeah me too. The only problem is that when im in the theater, i have to go to the loo and ill have to either bolt as fast as possible or hold it in for DH.

I am thoroughly willing to sit there and watch Deathly Hallows for however long it is. As long as it's thisclose to the book plotlines.

I would sit through however long I would need to. I'm not impatient when it comes to the Harry Potter movies. I've yet to sit through one and think 'ugh when is this over?!' As long as DH needs to be, to be a great movie, is as long as I'll sit through it.

I am willing to sit forever if it means they are going to put everything in the movie that was in the book. It is extreamly important. every single detail is important!

I could sit there for hours after hours :) as long, of course, as they do a good job with it, and really try to follow the books as best as they can. :D

I'm willing to sit there as long as I can hold my need to "relieve my bladder", which, if I go right before the movie starts, should be around 4 to 5 hours.

I'd sit the entire day if they made the movie good enough! I hate that the series is coming to an end. At this point in time, I'm abnormally desperate. :evil:

I'm willing to sit there as long as I can hold my need to "relieve my bladder", which, if I go right before the movie starts, should be around 4 to 5 hours.

:agree: perhaps if we dont drink soda we can hold it up to 8 hours.:rotfl: