Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Open Discussion

[Kat_Suki]

Originally Posted by princesseliza46

yes. my mom told me and my siblings. my mom read an article about and that is how the movie is being split. because she wants every well almost every nitty gritty detail.

Well, as DigificWriter has noted, it was the producer's idea to split the film and that they then sought Rowling's approval.

Dan Radcliffe did an interview a week or so back explaining the split and basically, it came down to the movie can only be so long and show X amount of scenes...if they'd tried to fit it all into a single film just about everything that occurs in Part 1 would have been on the cutting room floor. Yikes, that's a lot of the plot of the film and final book to lose just to fit everything into one film.

I wished they'd split Goblet of Fire, actually. A lot of that hit the cutting room floor too. Grrr...

I'm hoping that come this summer, they'll tag team the box office with a re-launch of Part 1, a small intermission, quickly followed by screening Part 2. I'd definitely pay to see them both in one sitting.

[magic_is_might]

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

I'm hoping that come this summer, they'll tag team the box office with a re-launch of Part 1, a small intermission, quickly followed by screening Part 2. I'd definitely pay to see them both in one sitting.

That'd be a cool idea

Or a little after Part 2 is released, do showings of both of them combined. I doubt it'd happen, but I'd love to go

[bellatrix93]

Originally Posted by Erin6

I don't doubt that they did it for creative reasons as well. There was way too much in this book to put into one movie. However, there are usually monetary reasons as well. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that either. Like magic_is_might said, it is a win win situation. We get two great movies and the franchise makes more money

I was against the split at first, but I'm really grateful for it now. DH just couldn't be made into one movie. If even after the split there are a lot of details and scenes that have been kept out of the movie (e.g Kreacher's tale, Lily's letter, Remus and Harry's fight, etc.) I don't know what we would've got if it was made into one movie .

Originally Posted by finick08

That snatcher chase scene is the worst bit in the movie imo

I didn't like the way the Snatchers found them, it felt too lame a reason. But I don't mind the rest of it, and I'm glad they kept in the part where Hermione hits Harry's face with the stinging charm, as well as the bit about 'Dudley Vernon'

[ParanoidAndroid]

Being a film student I don't know if I can ever truly love these movies, but for the most part, I'm way too biased in terms of Harry Potter and I never end up disappointed. Even the Columbus ones, which make me cringe a lot of the time in cinematic terms, I find enjoyable enough in a nostalgic sort of way.

Yates' movies have always been basically a projection of what I see in my head transmitted onto the screen. I wasn't expecting greatness with this movie, but I did expect to love it for what it was and I completely did.

From the opening scenes with Hermione obliviating her parents (amazing by the way) I just turned off my film critic mind and went along for the ride as a die-hard Harry Potter fan.

If I do have one complaint about the movie it's the darkness of the visuals. I know that the books get darker as they go along, but it doesn't have to be translated literally with the visuals. A little bit of colour would've made the film a lot more interesting to look at in my opinion. These movies have never really established a visual authorship and inferior series' like Twilight and other fantasy type films have copied the dark, muted grey look that the Harry Potter series has seemed to stick to.

[LupinTheGreat]

Originally Posted by weasley9

It is just not in Harry's nature to use a spell like that on people. He only did it to Draco because he didn't know what the spell did. Once he had cast it, he was horrified by what he had done and regretted it immedietely.

True, but if i recall in the same movie, Harry used the same spell on Snape...even though it failed. He knew what it did by that point and still planned to attack Snape with it. In the movies, Harry always used these harsh spells to people he disliked, (Trying to use Crucio on Bella after she killed Sirius).

Which is why, after the DE killed Hedwig, or even before that it's just odd that he wouldn't use the spell on them or even on Bellatrix who was about to kill Hermione after that torture scene.

[DigificWriter]

Originally Posted by Erin6

Can't it be for both reasons?

You're not getting the point I was trying to make; the filmmakers have said that their primary motivation behind deciding to split DH into two films was a creative one; however, people seem to be constantly ignoring that stated fact and automatically citing/ascribing financial greed/gain as the motivation behind the decision to split the book into two films, and, by doing so, undermine the integrity of the filmmakers, who have demonstrated - and stated - that they have the highest amount of respect for JKR and her materials (to the point that they involved her as a creative consultant throughout all of the films and gave her an actual producer's credit for both parts of DH). I'm not denying that it does make financial sense to create two films out of one novel, but that's not the primary reason the decision was made, as the filmmakers have stated on record.

Anyway, rant over. Somebody asked whether or not Percy came with Scrimgour to the Burrow in DH (the novel), and the answer is no. In the novel, Mr. Weasley brings Scrimgour to the Burrow with him, and Scrimgour asks to speak in private with Harry, Ron, and Hermione, at which time he reads them Dumbledore's will and gives them their bequests. Percy doesn't appear in DH (the novel) until just prior to the Second Battle of Hogwarts, when he turns up - after being tipped off to the battle by Aberforth Dumbledore - and reconciles with his family.

[Hes]

Past 1500 posts. Time for version two. Stay tuned!

Version two