Way Ahead for Deathly Hallows Movie(s)

The recent posts have just reminded of this 3D mini golf course we went to. They had a sign that cautioned to remove the glasses if you started feeling dizzy and nausious. Hell, nobody in my family could even make it through that half hour game of putt putt wearing the glasses the whole time...we'd take 'em off whenever we weren't putting to give our eyes a break. As such, I can only imagine the awful experience that watching a movie for 2 to 3 hrs with those glasses on would be :relax: Yeah no thanks on the 3D for me either... :shrug:

Exactly..and think about the price for IMAX 3D! The theater I go to charges 20 bucks a ticket..What if you pay to go see it and get sick and dizzy an hour into it and have to take them off? You've just wasted 20 dollars..

It also weakens a film artistically, IMO. It becomes more of a "OOOO AWWW!' visual treat thing and the characters and story take a backseat.

Exactly..and think about the price for IMAX 3D! The theater I go to charges 20 bucks a ticket..What if you pay to go see it and get sick and dizzy an hour into it and have to take them off? You've just wasted 20 dollars..

It also weakens a film artistically, IMO. It becomes more of a "OOOO AWWW!' visual treat thing and the characters and story take a backseat.

So seeing as you've actually seen a couple modern 3D movies Vince, I take it's not much different from what I described? :whistle: I thought perhaps 3D technology for movies was better and less likely to make you dizzy, but if you have to wear those same cheapy glasses...

I've seen Superman Returns and the last two Harry Potters in IMAX 3-D (no, I haven't seen Avatar yet), and I don't recall them being much more expensive than other shows. :hmm: I haven't found the 3-D distracting in any of these or whole films I've seen in 3-D either, but that's a subjective matter.

Hmm, well I'm on the complete opposite side of the country from Vince and it's the same in my area...IMAX-3D is nearly twice the price

It also weakens a film artistically, IMO. It becomes more of a "OOOO AWWW!' visual treat thing and the characters and story take a backseat.I disagree. It creates a thorough experience of feeling like you're actually experiencing what's happening in the film. As if you can reach out and touch something, instead of merely watching it. It's an immersive experience, not just a way to show off technology. Every advance in technology can be critized for showing off, but that doesn't mean they don't push the experience of the cinema viewing further, which is what cinema has always been about: experience and resonance on the viewer.

I also think things are being blown out of proportion here. It's pretty obvious to me that the main format of the film is going to be in 2D, it's just having the entire film converted to 3D viewing technology, which beats only select scenes (definitely the atrocity of only the first 12 minutes of HBP being in 3D -- it's not that I don't mind those personal scenes feeling more personal, but there's no sense in scenes of Harry flirting with a waitress and Harry and Dumbledore talking to be in 3D but not the quidditch, burrow attack or cave scenes, or heck, even one of the pensieve scenes). You don't have to pay to see it in 3D, I'm not sure why anyone is complaining. The 2D film won't be affected any at all. It's your own choice, if someone else chooses to see the entire film in 3D, why should that bother anyone who doesn't want to?

Hopefully DH will be like Avatar... available at some theaters in 3D and some in normal so you have the choice...and my choice is normal.

-JR

I'm talking about IMAX 3D, I guess. I've never seen a 3D movie in a normal theater. No the 3D effect is fine, but for a short period of time. I did enjoy the ending of OOTP much more than the beginning of HBP because it was all climatic action scenes. When the scene is just a normal conversation scene, you tend to notice it's 3D and it can get irritating. I remember during quiet scenes at the beginning of HBP, wanting to so badly rip the glasses off. The effect has improved since the 90's but I still think it's better in small doses and only during big climatic scenes.

The thing is, I like IMAX because of the HUGE screen and picture quality and sound quality. The 3D thing was always just a cool side treat for me.

If I'm not mistaken 3D is better when you're in the center instead of off to the side. It's like things don't line up properly or something. It also takes some time for your eyes to adjust. I was very comfortable with Avatar especially after having time for my eyes to adjust during the 3D trailer that ran before it. However, I don't think 3D is necessary if the story is good enough. It makes for a nice wow factor though. At least a full length 3D movie would make the ticket prices more worth it.

The new 3D technology doesnt use those cheap cardboard red and blue glasses, but comfortable ones that take 15 minutes to get use to and then it is bliss. Seeing Avatar in 3D was easily one fo the best theater experiences of my life. Never has a world felt so deep and realistic, and for someone who wants to get that experience with Harry Potter I am all for this.

If I'm not mistaken 3D is better when you're in the center instead of off to the side. It's like things don't line up properly or something. It also takes some time for your eyes to adjust. I was very comfortable with Avatar especially after having time for my eyes to adjust during the 3D trailer that ran before it. However, I don't think 3D is necessary if the story is good enough. It makes for a nice wow factor though. At least a full length 3D movie would make the ticket prices more worth it.

But that's the thing, Boush. With a big movie like HP that's going to have a full-house for at least the entire first three weeks, it's very hard to get perfect seats. You have to go there super early and camp out.

When I saw Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the first fifteen minutes or so were in 3-D, and then the rest of the film was regular. I enjoyed that. I got to see the bridge scene in 3-D, and it was awesome. I'm not sure if I could take the whole film in 3-D, though. 3-D is good for action films and children's/cartoon movies. It's weird watching in 3-D when people are just. . .talking. I'd prefer seeing it not in 3-D first (as I did HBP). Then I could judge the movie on its worth for acting and such and not so much its digital presentation. XoX

Also, I believe that the movie will be filmed like normal and will be made into 3D in post-production (which can be done as we will see in Clash of the Titans). This is good in my opinion becuase people like me can see DH in normal mode and not in 3D if they don't want to.



Filming a movie for 3D versus doing it post-production has no bearing on whether or not you can still watch it in 2D. Filming in 3D requires 2 cameras; normal viewing means only one film cartridge is processed.

But that's the thing, Boush. With a big movie like HP that's going to have a full-house for at least the entire first three weeks, it's very hard to get perfect seats. You have to go there super early and camp out.

It is very unlikely that it will be a full house for the first three weeks, maybe the first three days. Usually a film makes half of what it is going to make overall in the first few days. I am sure they will have a showing every half an hour at least in the theatres near me. If i go early enough on opening day i can probably go to a theatre with only a hundred people in it.

IMAX 3D theaters only have about four showings a day. At least where I live.

Mugglenet has a link to Snitch which has a link to an article on Harry Potter's page (http://www.harrypotterspage.com/2010/01/23/yates-dh-part-i-is-dynamic-adrenalised-and-visceral/) detailing an interview people involved with DH gave to the magazine Total Film.

In the interview, Screenwriter Steven Kloves gave a bit of a hint about the split, saying it was the most sound creative decision on where the split occurs. He also stated that the split will give a proper send-off to certain characters, “It should allow us to stretch a bit with the characters and give them the proper send-off.”

I am seriously hoping that this "send off" is Dobby's funeral and therefore, the split will occur at Shell Cottage.

-JR

Kloves said basically the same thing back in 2008 in regards to the book as a whole and the decision to split the film into two parts.

"As for Deathly Hallows, I intuited — almost from the first moments I began reading it and certainly once I’d finished — that to realize the story in a single film was going to be a tall order. Others in 'the group' felt similarly. So the idea of two films began to get kicked around as early as late summer of 2007. We didn’t take it lightly. But ultimately everyone felt that despite the challenges it would present, it was the most sound creative decision. I’m sure some will think we’re crazy. My wife looked at me cross-eyed when I first mentioned it. But I’m really excited about it because it should allow us to stretch a bit with the characters and give them the proper send-off. The story is highly emotional and those moments deserve time to breathe. And, personally, I feel we owe it to Jo — in order to preserve the integrity of the work — and the fans — for their loyalty all these years — to give them the best and most complete experience possible. I’d love to do it in three parts!"

Source (http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/steve-kloves-discusses-splitting-deathly-hallows-film-two-54973/)

He's talking about ending the series - going out with a bang as it were - giving all of the characters a proper send off with the story being complete. Splitting the film allows for better pacing and editing - they won't have to rush through all the significant scenes, butcher the story to the point that it's unrecognizable, or ignore significant character development because of time constraints.

But then it becomes: Ron Weasley and the Evil Locket. The film is called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Ending on HARRY making that life-changing character decision to turn down his desire to seek out the Hallows to continue his duty of finding the horcruxes will fit the story better.

And yes, a split at the Silver Doe leaves too much for part two. I think one of the best parts of the split is that it will allow for the climax of the entire series to have enough time to breath. We don't want a rushed climax ala OOTP.

Well, you know that I agree with you that the best place to split would be Dobby's burial because that is the more natural divide to the story. The events that occur at Malfoy Manor are the turning point for Harry. But I've always felt they could achieve that by splitting the film in either spot - just before Malfoy Manor when the trio is captured or just after with Dobby's burial. Dobby's burial is still my preference, but I think the capture point works as well because that is the catalyst for Harry realizing that he has strayed far from his quest with his obsession with the Hallows because it was his obsession that led to them being captured.

The difference, of course, is that i don't have to pay to see a TV show. :no:

There are many "part ones" that have a self-contained story, or at least work on their own: The Empire Strikes Back being one example (or Pirates 2, or Star Wars episodes I or II..., The Lord of the Rings movies 1 or 2...). You see, when you split a story in two movies, you get TWO movies, and therefore, they HAVE to work on their own. You can't just say "well, this is part 1, so you just have to pay, watch it and then come back 8 months later to really be able to enjoy it".

Splitting in Shell Cottage at least gives the oportunity to close some of the plots, kill off a few characters (so you don't have to re-introduce them) and allow the main characters a moment to learn something, to realize what they've got to do (the endings of Empire or The Two Towers, for example).

(The negative point is that HBP basically ended the same way).

Finally, remember that (specially for the general audience) there has been 6 HP movies before this one, so this seemingly endless story might become somewhat... boring.

The HP films have always assumed that the audience has seen the previous films - nothing is explained or reintroduced after the first film because it is a series telling one story in 8 parts - just as the books were a series telling one story in 7 parts. I think the first book/film could almost stand alone because it does have an introduction and somewhat of a conclusion, but it also ends with the knowledge that the story is not over because Voldemort escaped so you're left with the feeling that the story is incomplete. Each film is only one chapter of the story and the story does not end until Voldemort is defeated for good so the remaining films cannot stand alone at all, IMO.

I think that is true for all series - including Star Wars and LoTR. Like HP, Star Wars presented the first installment as potentially standing alone because they couldn't know how it would be received or if it would be popular enough to continue. But they also leave that opening in the ending to let the audience know that the story is not complete so they don't really work well as stand alone films because they leave you wanting more. LoTR was actually written as a single story - the publishers decided to split it into three parts because of the length - and its popularity was well established by the time the films were made so none of those films can stand alone, IMO.

FoTR and TT both end on a cliffhanger with no resolution at all - FoTR ends with Frodo and Sam at the edge of Mordor discussing how they will get to Mount Doom and TT ends with Gollum plotting to set Frodo and Sam up to die. The first film sets up the second and the second sets up the conclusion. That actually was an annoyance for me at first because I saw FotR without reading the books first and I was not aware that it was part of a series - I was caught by surprise when the film ended on a cliffhanger without completing the story. My dad was nice enough to buy me a copy of the book so I could find out what happened next in the story instead of having to wait for TT to be released. :lol:

The same is true for Star Wars. ESB didn't even have a discernible subplot - it was primarily just a series of events setting things up for the conclusion in RotJ. ESB opens with the assumption that the audience has seen ANH and already knows about the Empire, the Emperor, Darth Vader, the Jedi, the rebels, etc... and picks the story up in the middle and jumps straight into the action with little to no explanation of anything. There are subplots continued/introduced, but the film ends on a major cliffhanger with no resolution to anything and big questions hanging - like whether or not they will find Han to rescue him and whether or not Luke will go back to Yoda to complete his Jedi training. You can't watch ESB by itself and comprehend the story because it has no introduction and no conclusion - it's just the middle chapter. The original trilogy can stand alone as a trilogy, but the prequels cannot stand alone as a trilogy because there is no conclusion and they lead into the events of the original trilogy. RotS also ends on a cliffhanger with Yoda and Obi Wan making arrangements to hide Luke and Leia and planning to go into hiding themselves - with Obi Wan learning that there is a completely new technique with the Force for him to learn and practice at the very end of the film.

I think DH part 1 is going to be very similar to ESB in that respect because it will primarily be setting things up for the conclusion in part 2. DH part 1 is about the search for the Horcruxes so the "road movie" feel that Yates has described will be perfect for that. The search ends when they get captured so I still think either point would work for splitting the film. The Silver Doe is way too early in the story to split the film - they'd be lucky to have a 90 minute film if they split there. I think Dobby's burial would be the best choice for the split because that is the more natural divide in that part of the story, but the point where the trio is captured works as well because that is the catalyst for snapping Harry out of his obsession with the Hallows as well as ending the search because they are able to figure out where the remaining Horcruxes are due to those events. The diadem is somewhat of an exception, but Harry did actually figure out there was a Horcrux hidden at Hogwarts earlier in the search - it was Hermione who refused to consider that option - so that works as well, IMO.

I'm talking about IMAX 3D, I guess. I've never seen a 3D movie in a normal theater. No the 3D effect is fine, but for a short period of time. I did enjoy the ending of OOTP much more than the beginning of HBP because it was all climatic action scenes. When the scene is just a normal conversation scene, you tend to notice it's 3D and it can get irritating. I remember during quiet scenes at the beginning of HBP, wanting to so badly rip the glasses off. The effect has improved since the 90's but I still think it's better in small doses and only during big climatic scenes.

The thing is, I like IMAX because of the HUGE screen and picture quality and sound quality. The 3D thing was always just a cool side treat for me.

You guys are making me feel so old. I can remember watching 3D movies when I was a kid - wearing those cheap, cardboard glasses with the red and blue lenses. :lol:

For me, it depends on how they approach it for doing an entire movie in 3D. Some films are just going for the visual effect and include a lot of pointless scenes to "show off" the 3D - like the annoying exaggerated reaching shot so the hand looks like it's coming out at you. Others use it more effectively to enhance the film - which is how I think it will end up for DH because they have a story to work with that includes scenes that will be very effective in 3D.

My only concern about the possibility of 3D is my middle son because he has amblyopia in one eye and is basically blind in that eye. He can't see anything in 3D and trying to typically gives him a headache. But as long as they also have the option to watch it in the regular format as well, that will be fine for us. We'll just go see it in the regular format - though I'll probably try to see it in 3D at least once just to see how it looks. I rather like 3D films if they're done well. :)

But as long as they also have the option to watch it in the regular format as well, that will be fine for us. We'll just go see it in the regular format - though I'll probably try to see it in 3D at least once just to see how it looks. I rather like 3D films if they're done well. :)

I hope, when 3D is confirmed by WB, that they mention it will be available in both formats so people have a choice and it's not 3D or nothing.

-JR

They won't invite another controversy. Like Avatar, there will still be 2D as an alternative if you can't tolerate the 3D.

They won't invite another controversy. Like Avatar, there will still be 2D as an alternative if you can't tolerate the 3D.

I agree. I think it's highly unlikely that they would only offer the 3D format because some people - like my son - cannot watch a film in 3D. Having it available in both formats would be most beneficial to them financially because they wouldn't be limiting who could watch the film, IMO.

I agree. I think it's highly unlikely that they would only offer the 3D format because some people - like my son - cannot watch a film in 3D. Having it available in both formats would be most beneficial to them financially because they wouldn't be limiting who could watch the film, IMO.

Not to mention that IMAX, the most desirable theater environment to watch a 3D-enhanced movie in, is quite a bit more expensive per ticket. In this economy, Warner Brothers would be foolish to risk alienating the fandom and average moviegoers by only offering Deathly Hallows in 3D, which is something that not even the more technological Avatar did. Besides, it's not like they're specifically shooting the film with IMAX cameras and 3D in mind as a preference over regular 2D.

Not to mention that IMAX, the most desirable theater environment to watch a 3D-enhanced movie in, is quite a bit more expensive per ticket. In this economy, Warner Brothers would be foolish to risk alienating the fandom and average moviegoers by only offering Deathly Hallows in 3D, which is something that not even the more technological Avatar did. Besides, it's not like they're specifically shooting the film with IMAX cameras and 3D in mind as a preference over regular 2D. I agree. That would really be foolish.

I personally find it annoyingly inconvenient to wear extra 3-D spectacles over my regular glasses. I did it for a 20 minutes short film last year and I never dared to even move my head in the slightest because the 3-D spectacles would go askew and everything would go blurry. :no: That would impair not only my vision but my viewing pleasure a lot.

But I can't imagine them not having a regular 2-D version in the theatres. So everything will be fine. What bothers me about the whole thing is that it smells like they just want to copy Avatar's success. I just hope they don't delude themselves into thinking that making DH in 3-D is sufficient for DH to rival Avatar's success. They should rather try to achieve that by concentrating on story and characterization. I am confident cinematography will be amazing as well. I loved what Delbonnel did for HBP and I am sure Sera will do great too.

But that's the thing, Boush. With a big movie like HP that's going to have a full-house for at least the entire first three weeks, it's very hard to get perfect seats. You have to go there super early and camp out.

Oh I know. :) However, I would say that it will be the same amount of crowds on the first few days as it was last time around. It's the same fans that will go the first few days. I'm sure there will be 2D showings as well so it isn't like there will be terrible difficulty. I think the 3D would have more impact on the films longevity and ticket sales just because of price, but that's just my guess.

I seemed to do OK being on line at 9pm with a group of about 10 people and we got good seats for HBP midnight. I was on line for three hours but it wasn't like I had to sleep there overnight. Still, I know it's not a normal movie going experience for most people out there.

It is very unlikely that it will be a full house for the first three weeks, maybe the first three days. Usually a film makes half of what it is going to make overall in the first few days. I am sure they will have a showing every half an hour at least in the theatres near me. If i go early enough on opening day i can probably go to a theatre with only a hundred people in it.

We live in a heavy metropolitan area with only one true IMAX screen that I know of. So if one wants to see it in IMAX 3D it is going to be waiting on a long line and getting tickets as early as you can no matter what, at least for the first couple of weeks.


But I can't imagine them not having a regular 2-D version in the theatres. So everything will be fine. What bothers me about the whole thing is that it smells like they just want to copy Avatar's success. I just hope they don't delude themselves into thinking that making DH in 3-D is sufficient for DH to rival Avatar's success. They should rather try to achieve that by concentrating on story and characterization. I am confident cinematography will be amazing as well. I loved what Delbonnel did for HBP and I am sure Sera will do great too.

I doubt that there would be more concentration placed on the 3D over the story and whatnot, especially considering it sounds like it's more of a conversion process for these films than anything else. I have a feeling everything is just going to go the way it usually goes for these films (especially since a big chunk of filming is done already), except that more work will be done to convert it into 3D.

Not to mention that IMAX, the most desirable theater environment to watch a 3D-enhanced movie in, is quite a bit more expensive per ticket. In this economy, Warner Brothers would be foolish to risk alienating the fandom and average moviegoers by only offering Deathly Hallows in 3D, which is something that not even the more technological Avatar did. Besides, it's not like they're specifically shooting the film with IMAX cameras and 3D in mind as a preference over regular 2D.

A movie shot in IMAX 3D can still be viewed in 2D. Instead of both aspects being processed into a single film, only one aspect is processed. The two cameras are only like 3-4 inches apart, so it's not as though a single aspect would look unnatural.

Well this is good news (http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/julie-walters-talks-molly-weasley-bellatrix-lestrange-duel-deathly-hallows-70795/). I can't wait for all the duels. Should be great.

Well this is good news (http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/julie-walters-talks-molly-weasley-bellatrix-lestrange-duel-deathly-hallows-70795/). I can't wait for all the duels. Should be great.

Thanks for posting! I hope she says the not my daughter line!

Well this is good news (http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/julie-walters-talks-molly-weasley-bellatrix-lestrange-duel-deathly-hallows-70795/). I can't wait for all the duels. Should be great.

Great little snippit there thanks!

Thanks for posting! I hope she says the not my daughter line!

I know! This was one of my favorite parts of the book. I pray to the Harry Potter Gods that this line is left alone! This will be a cool/funny/moving/awesome scene if filmed how it is in the book!

-JR

I am so happy that they are keeping it (why wouldn't they?)! And yes, I too hope they keep the "NOT MY DAUGHTER YOU *knowwhat*".

If they don't have that line in the movie, I'll be... okay, I won't be really really out of my mind mad, but I'll be a bit upset. Because I remember a quote from months (and I mean whole lot of months) ago. Like she asked the director if "that line" was in, and the director goes "Oh yeah, it's in, don't worry" and she was excited because she loves the line.

I love 3D, but please not Harry Potter, all six movies have been filmed the same way, it will ruin it, wont it? It wont add to the story line!

It wont seem like a Harry Potter Movie.

The Harry Potter movies have never been about special effects, but about the story, to turn these final two movies into 3D movies is wrong.

Still Im going to be first inline when it comes out.

Definitely good news! I also really hope we see Slughorn, McGonagall, and Kingsley duel Voldemort.

It's been confirmed that Broadbent is returning to portray Slughorn in DH, so that's possible. He doesn't have too many book scenes.

If they don't have that line in the movie, I'll be... okay, I won't be really really out of my mind mad, but I'll be a bit upset. Because I remember a quote from months (and I mean whole lot of months) ago. Like she asked the director if "that line" was in, and the director goes "Oh yeah, it's in, don't worry" and she was excited because she loves the line.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but that was a fake quote which we heard about from SCOOP or one of the other frauds on HPForum. Still, I wouldn't worry. I'm sure they'll keep it...I mean they must know how angry the fans would be if it were omitted, right? Anyways, there's no reason not to. It doesn't violate PG-13 guidelines.


As for 3D vs. 2D, I'm pretty sure it'll be a few years yet until we see movies released exclusively in 3D that don't have 2D as an alternative option. Besides, they aren't actually filming it in 3D...they are just converting it so that option is also available. Most likely it will supplement the 2D version. I'll be surprised if more people actually choose the 3D over the 2D. I think at most it'll be about 50-50. Anyways, again I'm not worried. The 2D viewing option should still be availabe even for DH2 :) Afterall, 3D still seems kinda gimmicky right now...

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but that was a fake quote which we heard about from SCOOP or one of the other frauds on HPForum. Still, I wouldn't worry. I'm sure they'll keep it...I mean they must know how angry the fans would be if it were omitted, right? Anyways, there's no reason not to. It doesn't violate PG-13 guidelines.




What?! Nooo... I thought that was real. :( *curses*

Oh, well... yeah, I really hope the line is in. I'll be one of those angry fans :lol:

I really liked that line in the book, but in the film i just think everyone will laugh when she says it. It is one of those things.

Well this is good news (http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/julie-walters-talks-molly-weasley-bellatrix-lestrange-duel-deathly-hallows-70795/). I can't wait for all the duels. Should be great.

Awesome! That's one of my favorite scenes in DH - I hope they do justice to it.

I really liked that line in the book, but in the film i just think everyone will laugh when she says it. It is one of those things.

I can see some laughing and cheering for that moment. It's kind of like that moment in The Karate Kid when he goes into position to do the Crane Technique - the entire audience was cheering, whistling, clapping, etc... Who doesn't like seeing the villain get what's coming to them? :lol:

I can see some laughing and cheering for that moment. It's kind of like that moment in The Karate Kid when he goes into position to do the Crane Technique - the entire audience was cheering, whistling, clapping, etc... Who doesn't like seeing the villain get what's coming to them? :lol:

I agree...if they stay true to the book, people will be cheering and laughing at the same time as Bellatrix gets it...can't wait!

-JR

Dunno if this has been posted already, but this was the first I had heard it:

3D!

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' coming in 3D!



http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/harry-potter-hallows-3d-clash-of-the-titans-3d.html

Dunno if this has been posted already, but this was the first I had heard it:

3D!

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' coming in 3D!



http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/harry-potter-hallows-3d-clash-of-the-titans-3d.html



I think it's been mention, but anyway I'm a bit worried. I think that putting in in 3D would look really cool, but it may take the seriousness out of the movie.

I think it's been mention, but anyway I'm a bit worried. I think that putting in in 3D would look really cool, but it may take the seriousness out of the movie.

It wouldn't be mandatory to watch Deathly Hallows in 3D. If done correctly, 3D is able to enhance scenes in a movie by adding another dimension entirely, such as the opening bridge attack in Half-Blood Prince.

I think it's been mention, but anyway I'm a bit worried. I think that putting in in 3D would look really cool, but it may take the seriousness out of the movie.

Why would that be? It would not have to overdo it, the way so many of the animated 3D movies do. The 3D segment in HBP added interesting depth, but it did not change the scenes.

I honestly think it's no big deal and am suprised the discussion's gotten this far.

It looks like it WILL be in 3-D, however, there is obviously going to be a 2-D version.

I'll probably see the 3-D once for the sake of it, and see it in 2-D the other times.

I plan to see the 2D one first. Then see the 3D.
If I think the 3D one is better then I'll see part 2 in 3D first :D

Yay for Molly vs. Bellatrix. :tu: I was so concerned they would replace Molly with someone else (*coughPinkPowerGrangerHermionecough*) for that scene and I'm thrilled to hear it's left like it was in the book. Now... if THE LINE would be in there as well ... :D

Back to the 3-D discussion: is it confirmed that the movies will be available in 3-D? It still seemed to be a rumour as of now.

I think that if the 3D version of the movie is going to work, it has to be 3D for the entire movie. It will be annoying and distracting if only some scenes are in 3D throughout the movie. I never saw HBP or OotP in 3D, but when the 3D scenes were coming up, did they flash something indicating that you should put your glasses on and once it was over to take them off? Seems like it would take me out of the movie.

-JR

I never saw HBP or OotP in 3D, but when the 3D scenes were coming up, did they flash something indicating that you should put your glasses on and once it was over to take them off? Seems like it would take me out of the movie.

-JR

Yes, there was a little glasses icon in the corner of the screen to indicate it's time to put on/take off your 3D glasses.

However, if the whole movie is going to be in 3D, that indicating icon should only come on right before the movie starts, I think.

Why would that be? It would not have to overdo it, the way so many of the animated 3D movies do. The 3D segment in HBP added interesting depth, but it did not change the scenes.

I understand what you mean, but sometimes when movies are put into 3D, they just end up looking cheesy, thus taking out the seriousness of the movie(well, for me anyway). I know they won't try to do that for DH, but I'm still skeptical. But I'm still going to see it in 3D before I judge.

i don't think 3D takes away any emotion. I saw Up in 3D and i still wanted to cry my eyes out. I don't think they'll have all this crazy 3D stuff going on in emotional scenes... like when Harry goes to visit his parents graves... they might have snowflakes in 3D or something and that would just add to the beauty of the scene in my opinion, and wouldn't take away from the emotion. but if you're worried about it, just see it in 2D. there's nothing to worry about.

I can't say I am looking forward to hear Molly's infamous line on the screen. It worked in the book, but if it feels misplaced in the film I am afraid it will take away the seriousness of the scene.

I can't say I am looking forward to hear Molly's infamous line on the screen. It worked in the book, but if it feels misplaced in the film I am afraid it will take away the seriousness of the scene.

I actually wasn't the biggest fan of that line in the book, however just about everyone I know loves it. Since it seems to be a fan favorite it would be a shame to lose it. I'm sure it would cause quite a roar in the theater. Hopefully they pad it well enough so that it allows for audience reaction without affecting more series stuff that might come after it.

Referring to Molly's line. In the book she screamed it. In the movie im hoping for her to be losing, and motivate herself by muttering the line to herself and start fighting again.

I actually wasn't the biggest fan of that line in the book, however just about everyone I know loves it. Since it seems to be a fan favorite it would be a shame to lose it.Well, they already deprived us from the twins' "Give her hell from us, Peeves" in OotP, so I certainly hope Molly's line is in. I think it adds to the severety of the situation. Molly, while having a certain temper, isn't the kind of woman you'd expect to curse. Therefore, when she does, it has even more impact.

I'm sure it would cause quite a roar in the theater. Hopefully they pad it well enough so that it allows for audience reaction without affecting more series stuff that might come after it. Are you concerned the audience will laugh about the line? If they do, the movie makers certainly have done something wrong. In the book, I didn't find the line funny at all. It came across to me as the exclamation of a woman who's at the same time desperate and determined. And I think the movie can pull that off.

Referring to Molly's line. In the book she screamed it. In the movie im hoping for her to be losing, and motivate herself by muttering the line to herself and start fighting again.

I think this is a cool interpretation and if done this way, I would not be disappointed, however, her running in and yelling the line was so cool in my opinion, I would love to see it that way...call me a purist.

-JR

I think this is a cool interpretation and if done this way, I would not be disappointed, however, her running in and yelling the line was so cool in my opinion, I would love to see it that way...call me a purist.

-JR

True. Either way would be really cool, but I am a big fan of the storyline J.K. Rowling planned out (I only write my fan-fictions to follow the storyline she planned out), so I am quite the purist. If Mrs. Weasley just ran in and said it... like, there was just other battles being shown, perhaps Mrs. Weasley is helping Mr. Weasley fight someone, then suddenly, Bellatrix attacks Ginny, and she comes in and says it, that would be just perfect, in my opinion. I would be a happy fan.

Okay, I'm just going to experiment a bit here because the news is kinda slow at the moment. I'm bringing back my old questions routine that some of you who frequented the All-Inclusive HBP thread back in the day might remember. It's just a series of questions pertaining to the upcoming film that will get everyone's opinions more clearly out there and could help spur some more debate. Since DH1 is our Potter movie of this year and the next movie coming out, these questions will focus only on DH1. Since it has been confirmed that the split will take place SOMEWHERE around Malfoy Manor (either before of after) DH1 will cover from the beginning to Malfoy Manor (or right after). I hope you all enjoy these questions, if not, just ignore them. :p I'll only start with seven. If everyone likes them, I'll ask more.

MoD's Silly Questions but Amazing Answers, Series Two: DH1, Question List 1

A New Decade, A New Era, A New Potter

1. At this point, how excited are you about DH1? Does it match your excitment for the last movie (HBP) or does it completely surpass it? Or were you more excited for HBP? If so, why do you think this is the case?

2. What scene in DH1 are you most looking forward to? What scene do you think has the potential to be the most cinematic?

3. Where did you want the movie to be split? How do you feel about the reports that the split will happen somewhere around Malfoy Manor?

4. How successful, financially and commercially (in terms of media hype and public opinion) do you think DH1 will be in November?

5. Do you think you will cry during DH1? If so, at which scene?

6. What is your opinion on Alexander Desplat scoring DH1? Do you think he will do a good job, and do you feel the material fits his style? If not, who would you have rather scored DH1?

And now for the infamous question some of you might remember from HBP (;))..........

7. If you bring a date (or boy/girlfriend) to see DH1, at which point in the movie do you think you will grasp your partner in fright or s/he will grasp onto you?

You know we are long past 1500 posts and I think MasterOfDeath is a good starting point for version two. So stay tuned.