The Deathly Hallows films v.4

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by witchsmart

That would be very interesting! Would it be similar to Hagrid telling Harry how his parents died, in that the characters themselves are silent while the narrator provides the only sound/information?

Something I just thought of, if all of these events are represented through a flashback and/or narrator, won't that be very repetitve and boring for the viewer?

Yeah, I was thinking something like that...there's no reason for Ignotus, Peverell or whatever their names were to talk...Hermione can narrate as she reads the story.

And it depends on the viewer, personally I LOVE flashbacks

[witchsmart]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Depends on the viewer, personally I LOVE flashbacks

I like them too, but I'm concerned about having an excess of them. If Kreacher's tale, the Prince's tale, Dumbledore's history, the Hallows' Story, and technically Godric's Hollow (the part when Voldemort remembers his own demise years ago), are all told through flashbacks, we'll be living in the past nearly as much as the present, and the constant switch of times may be confusing to those who don't know the book very well.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by witchsmart

I like them too, but I'm concerned about having an excess of them. If Kreacher's tale, the Prince's tale, Dumbledore's history, the Hallows' Story, and technically Godric's Hollow (the part when Voldemort remembers his own demise years ago), are all told through flashbacks, we'll be living in the past nearly as much as the present, and the constant switch of times may be confusing to those who don't know the book very well.

Depending on where they cut the two movies, the flashbacks will be pretty evenly placed in both movies, so I don't think it should be too much of a problem.

[SoulOfRebirth]

I like them too, but I'm concerned about having an excess of them. If Kreacher's tale, the Prince's tale, Dumbledore's history, the Hallows' Story, and technically Godric's Hollow (the part when Voldemort remembers his own demise years ago), are all told through flashbacks, we'll be living in the past nearly as much as the present, and the constant switch of times may be confusing to those who don't know the book very well.

Some of them can be shortened. Simplified. Dumbledore's backstory, for example, can be trimmed (there are a few different threads in there but the most important one is his connection to the Hallows, since they're the title). The Prince's Tale can be done very quickly (a brief snapshot of Snape and Lily's friendship/love/whatever, but most of the focus on Snape killing Dumbledore and all that good stuff).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the flashbacks should focus on explaining things in the present, moreso than giving us more information and a larger scope of the Potterverse. For example, Dumbledore's dead little sister is important for his personality and explains the choices he makes, but the most relevant aspect of his past is the pursuit of the Hallows, since Harry is dealing with the Hallows in the present.

[Charline81]

I don't think the flashbacks would be a problem,there have been plenty of movies that have involved an equal balance of past and present, many not even based off books, and the audience followed fine.
Personally I think people who don't know the books are going to be lost by the time DH comes around anyway, think about the fact that WB state they were making two films because they couldn't cut anything from DH, that it was all too important.
Well you have things such as Harry, Ron and Hermione realizing they had had the Horcrux locket in OoTP and going over what they did with the heavy locket no one could open and so on.
Bill and Fleur's wedding...Seeing as we haven't seen or heard from Fleur since GOF, they are leaving the both of them out of HBP,Bill has never been shown in the movies, that will seem to have came out of nowhere.
It might no confuse people but you never know,My friend was saying how she got one of her friends to start the books shortly after the second film had came out, her friend had no problem following the books or finishing them, she has another friend who only just started reading after Order came out and finished the first two fine but keeps getting confused through out the rest.
Anyways, back to the point **** the flashbacks in my opinion can stay the same, I don't think people will get confused due to them, but other things will be confusing because they will seem to have came out of nowhere,since clues and key points where dropped from previous films.

[SoulOfRebirth]

Personally I think people who don't know the books are going to be lost by the time DH comes around anyway, think about the fact that WB state they were making two films because they couldn't cut anything from DH, that it was all too important.

They're not going to very well say, "We cut DH into two movies so we could get more of your money."

[Charline81]

Originally Posted by SoulOfRebirth

They're not going to very well say, "We cut DH into two movies so we could get more of your money."

lol My friend and I were just talking about that today. I wouldn't doubt the real reason for the split was money, it would be nice if they actually do leave everything in with all the time they will have, but based on the last few films, which were disappointing I'm sure they will cut half the book and add useless things like they have been doing.

[Fury]

Originally Posted by Charline81

lol My friend and I were just talking about that today. I wouldn't doubt the real reason for the split was money, it would be nice if they actually do leave everything in with all the time they will have, but based on the last few films, which were disappointing I'm sure they will cut half the book and add useless things like they have been doing.

I doubt that is true. I mean, come on. Every time someone asks Heyman, or whoever, about why they decided to do the split, they said "There are just too many important things in the book that can't be cut. In the prior movies, there were things we could cut. But we feel we can't cut much, if anything, from this movie. It will not fit into one, so we decided... hey, why not have two?"

I am pretty much summing up what has been said over the past few months, but I think I got it right.

[Charline81]

Originally Posted by Fury

I doubt that is true. I mean, come on. Every time someone asks Heyman, or whoever, about why they decided to do the split, they said "There are just too many important things in the book that can't be cut. In the prior movies, there were things we could cut. But we feel we can't cut much, if anything, from this movie. It will not fit into one, so we decided... hey, why not have two?"

I am pretty much summing up what has been said over the past few months, but I think I got it right.

I hope that is true and it would ge killer if it is true :d some people may get confused or lost by some of the things in DH if every things true to the book, because of the past few films not including background and clues to the things in DH, that wouldn't bother me too much, I'm still strong in the belief one should read the books to truly appreciate, understand and actually fully know whats going on in the series, but based on the last few films its hard to believe they will not jump at the chance to cut half the book out and add things out of thin air, it seems to be a trend for them.
Excuses of time and such when they cut things out, would be ok if they didn't turn around and add things that have never had anything to do with the series.
My friend and I were talkin about how much back tracking they are going to have to do to explain some of the things in DH, because they couldn't be bothered in the past films to put the things were they belong.
2010 We shall see whether they are really going to do what they said and not cut anything from the story.

[SoulOfRebirth]

I doubt that is true. I mean, come on. Every time someone asks Heyman, or whoever, about why they decided to do the split, they said "There are just too many important things in the book that can't be cut. In the prior movies, there were things we could cut. But we feel we can't cut much, if anything, from this movie. It will not fit into one, so we decided... hey, why not have two?"

Heyman doesn't write the screenplay, so he doesn't decide whether or not things can be cut. Heyman is the producer. He deals with money. He's going to say whatever he has to say in order to get people to part with their money. That's the producer's job.

[Fury]

Originally Posted by SoulOfRebirth

Heyman doesn't write the screenplay, so he doesn't decide whether or not things can be cut. Heyman is the producer. He deals with money. He's going to say whatever he has to say in order to get people to part with their money. That's the producer's job.

No, but he also said he has talked to the screenwriter, whatever his name is. I can't remember where I heard that, but I know it's somewhere.

[iamwood]

Steve Kloves will return as the screenplay writer for DH as he returned for HBP.

IIRC, Heyman himself stated in an interview that the decision to split the movie was based on creative aspects more than money.

That might not be entirely true, but only HBP will tell if the person who matters the most cares about money or picture, and that is Mr. David Yates.

[boushh]

SoulOfRebirth, I doubt that Kloves can make any moves that cannot be changed by Heyman or by Yates if they have good reason. None of these people work independently of each other. Making a movie is a team effort on most levels and if anyone has power to switch stuff around it would be Heyman or Yates or the studio execs if they get involved. I would think he would be involved in the script writing process and the decision of where to split the movies since he's sort of the head guy of this franchise. Who do you think probably gets the first look at the script when Kloves is done? And he and Kloves and Yates probably sat down and talked things over before Kloves started writing.

Anyway, I'm a fan of these films and even though I nitpick with the best of them I still feel they've done a good job so far. Having said that I do feel I'll be most critical of the Deathly Hallows films as it is my favorite book and it's the end of the whole shebang and there is no fixing things once it is all over...

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by iamwood

Steve Kloves will return as the screenplay writer for DH as he returned for HBP.

IIRC, Heyman himself stated in an interview that the decision to split the movie was based on creative aspects more than money.

That might not be entirely true, but only HBP will tell if the person who matters the most cares about money or picture, and that is Mr. David Yates.

And I will say that I get the impression from his work on OOTP that David Yates really does care about these films: the stories behind them, the characters and the world. He is the first directer after Columbus who really seems to have a sense that these movies are part of a series and not stand alone pieces of work.

Whatever flaws OOTP has, comes from perhaps lack of experience working on major motion pictures and other shortsights, I wouldn't doubt Mr. Yates intentions though and I think that is important.

From what I've seen of HBP, it looks like Yates has improved and has made this cinema and not a TV film which what OOTP felt to me at times.

My hopes for DH have never been higher.

[iamwood]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

And I will say that I get the impression from his work on OOTP that David Yates really does care about these films: the stories behind them, the characters and the world. He is the first directer after Columbus who really seems to have a sense that these movies are part of a series and not stand alone pieces of work.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure if that comes from his experience in television, but I think his care, excitement, and tediousness is exactly what the masterpiece of The Harry Potter series deserves and desperately needs.

Whatever flaws OOTP has, comes from perhaps lack of experience working on major motion pictures and other shortsights, I wouldn't doubt Mr. Yates intentions though and I think that is important.

..which is exactly why I am very excited that he has returned for the HBP and both DH films. He has an abundance of chances to learn, and better his work of the series. That, partnered with his zeal, makes me excited as well!

[SoulOfRebirth]

SoulOfRebirth, I doubt that Kloves can make any moves that cannot be changed by Heyman or by Yates if they have good reason. None of these people work independently of each other. Making a movie is a team effort on most levels and if anyone has power to switch stuff around it would be Heyman or Yates or the studio execs if they get involved. I would think he would be involved in the script writing process and the decision of where to split the movies since he's sort of the head guy of this franchise. Who do you think probably gets the first look at the script when Kloves is done? And he and Kloves and Yates probably sat down and talked things over before Kloves started writing.

I'm extremely doubtful that Heyman cares in the slightest about what "can be cut" from DH and whether one movie could "do it justice."

[LaDonna]

Originally Posted by SoulOfRebirth

I'm extremely doubtful that Heyman cares in the slightest about what "can be cut" from DH and whether one movie could "do it justice."

And is this the same "they only care about money" argument, or do you have anything else you're basing it on? Since Heyman worked on the other films, I think we've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. OOTP comes to mind....

Like others have said, the decision is not based on one person anyways. The decision to split the films was made by more than one person, and so if money was a factor (which of course it always is to some degree), it doesn't rule out creative choices when it comes to filming. It's not "we make tons of money OR we make a good film". It can and should be both, and I don't think it's fair to limit the motivations of a person connected with the film. We're all worried that having a large studio do the adaptation will leave us with a stock film, but their search for new directors, and the changes they've made in the films, I think points towards their desire to produce a good film that makes money, as opposed to strictly a money maker movie that has no substance.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by LaDonna

And is this the same "they only care about money" argument, or do you have anything else you're basing it on? Since Heyman worked on the other films, I think we've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. OOTP comes to mind....

Like others have said, the decision is not based on one person anyways. The decision to split the films was made by more than one person, and so if money was a factor (which of course it always is to some degree), it doesn't rule out creative choices when it comes to filming. It's not "we make tons of money OR we make a good film". It can and should be both, and I don't think it's fair to limit the motivations of a person connected with the film. We're all worried that having a large studio do the adaptation will leave us with a stock film, but their search for new directors, and the changes they've made in the films, I think points towards their desire to produce a good film that makes money, as opposed to strictly a money maker movie that has no substance.

I agree. Another great post, Ladonna!

I think the money argument with no truth to base it on just brings up the larger issue of the woes of capitalism. Can there be true quality if everything is only a 'product'? Can entities have a value beyond a financial nature? Is the economy a means to an end or a on-to itself? Is it an exchange of goods and services or a mindless beast that consumes us all?

Opens up all the big philosophical questions.

I, being an (perhaps foolish) optimist, feel that one can have the intention to earn pay and also to make a quality film (well, filmS, in this case. Quite 'thankfully' in my humble opinion. )

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I, being an (perhaps foolish) optimist, feel that one can have the intention to earn pay and also to make a quality film (well, filmS, in this case. Quite 'thankfully' in my humble opinion. )

The LotR trilogy proves that can be done. And other films as well, of course! I love indie films but I'm a big champion of mainstream cinema too.

Sorry to hark on about LotR yet again but a lot of Tolkien fans were very snooty and pessimistic when they first heard about Peter Jackson's films ... Jackson was going to make LotR all mainstream and commercial, heaven forbid! The Professor would be rolling in his grave, yadda yadda ...

Well, it all turned out just dandy. An artistic and a commercial success, the best of all possible worlds.

And of course it could have been absolutely awful. (I thought Jackson's plans to have Arwen at Helm's Deep were dreadful, actually. Thank heavens that Liv Tyler couldn't fire a bow and arrow properly! )

It reminds me of those frightful rumours about Hogwarts being turned into an American high school with cheerleaders ...

An artistic and a commercial success, the best of all possible worlds, is what we all naturally wish for DH.

[LaDonna]

Always nice to have back-up! I'm not always an optimist, but most of the time I am. With every interview that has come out about the film, it seems that they are taking more care with this adaptation than any of the previous HP films. They've already stated how hard it will be to adapt because of the content, and they've repeatedly told us how much time they are spending on the script. They're ensuring continuity will go hand in hand with an exciting rendition. Since there are so many flashbacks and explanations, they want to get the information across, but not weight down the film. Those are two excellent signs. They want to include the important information and the character moments, which is great, but they also want to make the films enjoyable and captivating throughout. I think that all of the information we've already been given about the films are positive signs and have increased my hope for the films.

HBP sounds fantastic, in my opinion. And if Yates has kept the great use of "theme" that he displayed so well in OOTP, and yet improved upon his editing and flow of the film, I think HBP may be the best adaptation so far. If this turns out to be the case, then my hope for DH will be the highest it's been for any of the films.