The Deathly Hallows Movie Split

[phoenix88]

Originally Posted by gertiekeddle

I think that's my problem with what some Potter films did - doing some scenes too short, maybe even rushed. They have wonderful settings all, but as some others here I had rather like to seen some scenes cut out completely than to shorten things. Like Marauder story in PoA movie, although that's probably my favourite part of the book - just the film works so much better that way. It got its own bow of suspense. I'd love when DH movie got that too, and fully support the split, if that just made it possible. But actually I believe it's as possible in one movie and in two. It depends on the structure, not so much on the length (granted things are easier when you have more time).

Yeah, I will always be disappointed that the marauder's plot was omitted in PoA. That was also my favorite part of that book.

That was why I supported the split. I don't want them to be forced to cut things out due to time constraints.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I also agree with Meesha's point about DH Part 1 being a psychological drama for Harry. My concern is (and we will clearly never reach consensus on this ) that I just don't think there's enough material in DH1, even with Harry's psychological drama. Despite some great set-pieces (Seven Potters, Godric's Hollow, Silver Doe, the battle at Malfoy Manor etc) just not enough happens for a two hour mainstream commercial movie. IMHO.

To put it another way: splitting DH in half makes about as much sense to me as splitting The Fellowship of the Ring in half (the first volume of LotR). (Same goes for GoF and OotP.) Does that help to make sense of where I'm coming from?

But the thing is - they could have very easily split FoTR into two movies. The extended editions of all three LoTR films are nearly four hours each - RotK is actually over four hours. It wouldn't have been difficult at all for them to split all three into 2 parts each for the theatrical releases.

DH part 1 really isn't all that different because there actually is a great deal that happens. As Kloves told Heyman - they probably could have made three movies from DH because there is so much. I posted in more detail about that on the DH thread.

Harry's psychological drama in part 1 is something they can explore in more detail without having to make anything up because everything they need is in the book. Jo sped through it a bit, but she was able to because she could use Harry's thoughts to summarize what happened between January and March. The movie can go into more detail with that and show more of what happened. We can see Ron taking the lead and dragging them off to various wizarding villages to search as Harry's obsession grows - we can see Ron and Hermione attempting to draw Harry out of his obsession and get him to focus on the Horcruxes - we can see Harry's reaction to that.

And that holds true for the psychological drama involved with the three of them being isolated while they're camping before Ron leaves. The movie can show the various events that emphasize the isolation and how irritable they are getting as well as the effect that the locket is having on Ron rather than a quick summary of it through Harry's thoughts like we got in the book. All of that information is in the book, it's just summarized through Harry's thoughts. But it's really not that difficult to take Harry's thoughts and put together specific events that took place.

They can also show more of what's going on at Hogwarts and explore other characters' journeys - Neville, Ginny, Luna, and even Snape. It's a simple matter for them to intersperse some scenes from Hogwarts in with the camping sequence. And they don't have to make anything up for that because it is described in the book by Neville. I think it would be a lot more effective for the movie to show those things while they are actually happening rather than having Neville give Harry a brief rundown of it when they arrive at Hogwarts in part 2. And they can still have Neville do that because it would serve as a good reminder to the audience about things that happened in part 1.

And on top of all that, they also have issues they have to correct from previous movies where they cut things they shouldn't have. They have to find a way to work the house-elves - specifically Dobby and Kreacher - back into it so all of that makes sense. They've got to build up/establish Harry's relationship with each elf. Likewise, they need to build up Harry's relationship with Lupin if they're going to have Lupin appear in The Forest Again - the movies have pretty much ignored that so they need to establish that there is a connection to James and emphasize it. They need to find a way for Harry to get the mirror - or some alternate means of communication that would allow for Dobby to show up at Malfoy Manor. They have to do something with the whole situation with Harry and Ginny because they essentially had Harry reject her in HBP. They have some work to do with Harry's character in general - bringing him around from the arrogant "I can use my fame to get any girl I want" guy we're apparently getting in HBP to the caring "I'm willing to give up my life to save everyone" guy we should be getting in DH.

I really can't see the split as anything but an excellent decision because it gives them time to properly address those issues as well as do justice to the conclusion of this story as a whole. Between the book and the extra information Jo has revealed, they have everything they need to do that without having to make anything up.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

But the thing is - they could have very easily split FoTR into two movies.

Well, they could have done, sure. There's certainly enough material there.

But most Tolkien fans don't get upset about stuff like Bombadil being cut, because that character (delightful as he is) seriously slows down the plot. And you don't want anything slowing down the plot in a mainstream blockbuster movie! So I wouldn't have regarded splitting FotR in half as a particularly good decision.

A mini-series is a lot different. You could spin LotR out, like LOST ... and geeks like me would happily sit and watch 30 hours of Middle-earth on our small screens.

I think Jackson totally made the right decision to split LotR into three films, since the book is already split into three volumes.

DH part 1 really isn't all that different because there actually is a great deal that happens. As Kloves told Heyman - they probably could have made three movies from DH because there is so much.

I'm pretty astonished that Kloves said that.

I really can't see the split as anything but an excellent decision because it gives them time to properly address those issues as well as do justice to the conclusion of this story as a whole. Between the book and the extra information Jo has revealed, they have everything they need to do that without having to make anything up.

We'll see how they do.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Well, they could have done, sure. There's certainly enough material there.

But most Tolkien fans don't get upset about stuff like Bombadil being cut, because that character (delightful as he is) seriously slows down the plot. And you don't want anything slowing down the plot in a mainstream blockbuster movie! So I wouldn't have regarded splitting FotR in half as a particularly good decision.

A mini-series is a lot different. You could spin LotR out, like LOST ... and geeks like me would happily sit and watch 30 hours of Middle-earth on our small screens.

I think Jackson totally made the right decision to split LotR into three films, since the book is already split into three volumes.

You can say the same for the HP series though - particularly with the last four books. And there are quite a few HP fans who would gladly sit and watch 30 hours of HP as well.

I've always felt they would have done better to do it as a mini-series to be honest because a mini-series is generally more accurate to the story. But any story can be divided into parts and spread out over time - which is pretty much what they do with a mini-series.

I'm pretty astonished that Kloves said that.

I'm not. There's just so much there - I knew when I read DH for the first time that there was no way they would be able to do justice to that book with only one movie because they were gonna need at least 4 to 5 hours to include everything that was significant to the story - and that was the minimum really. My worst fear was that they were going to butcher the story and try to cram it all into 2 to 2 1/2 hours. And there's just no way they could have done justice to the story if they had attempted it. Thankfully, they figured that out very quickly on their own.

We'll see how they do.

Very true. You just never know with the WB. They've made some pretty odd decisions regarding the movies over the years - mostly because they got too wrapped up in demographics as opposed to making quality movies. But that's true for production companies in general - George Lucas felt it necessary to start his own production company because he got tired of all the interference - which was mostly based on demographic studies. And they did that with the HP series as well - handing down orders to push Ron back because they were concerned that Rupert would outshine Dan - as well as the order to bring Hermione forward in hopes of drawing in more teenage girls - and all of that was at the expense of the story and it put people off. Maybe someday all production companies will realize that making a quality movie will fill the seats a lot better than trying to appease a specific demographic group.

However - so far - I'm happy with what they're saying in regards to DH. They seem to be on the right track and, since they've acknowledged their previous mistakes, I think they have a good idea on what they need to do. I have no doubt they can do it - the only question is whether or not they will.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

You can say the same for the HP series though - particularly with the last four books. And there are quite a few HP fans who would gladly sit and watch 30 hours of HP as well.

Oh, of course!

I've always felt they would have done better to do it as a mini-series to be honest because a mini-series is generally more accurate to the story. But any story can be divided into parts and spread out over time - which is pretty much what they do with a mini-series.

I could see both LotR and HP working extremely well as mini-series. But then most books would adapt well in that format ... it's a more 'leisurely' form of adaptation. But even with a mini-series, you still have to make sacrifices. Usually. Budget constraints and all that!

I do appreciate the big screen treatment though ... it's just more magical and overwhelming.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

Oh, of course!



I could see both LotR and HP working extremely well as mini-series. But then most books would adapt well in that format ... it's a more 'leisurely' form of adaptation. But even with a mini-series, you still have to make sacrifices. Usually. Budget constraints and all that!

I do appreciate the big screen treatment though ... it's just more magical and overwhelming.

Well, they can do a lot more with television these days - CGI appears to equalizing things to some extent. For example, they pulled off some pretty amazing special effects for the final episode of BtVS - including using CGI to generate hundreds of Uber Vamps from a handful of extras in costume. Joss Whedon talked about discovering the technique in the special features on the DVD and how excited he was because it was an awesome effect that didn't cost a great deal to achieve. And that's been a few years ago - they could probably do a lot more with it now.

And I think you have to make some changes regardless simply because it's a different medium - though budget constraints and time are certainly factors as well. But, unless you're gonna do a constant voiceover - like Dune - you'd have to find some other way to show Harry's thoughts. And I really didn't like the constant voiceover in Dune - it was distracting. A lot of the time Harry's thoughts are just summaries of things that happened so it makes more sense for them to just film those as scenes for the movie. But I think - whatever changes have to be made due to the medium - they need to make sure they don't change the story in the process. The story is the bottom line for me and that's the difference I've seen between mini-series and theatrical productions - a mini-series is more likely to stay consistent to the story.

But we're starting to stray from the topic with that - though it is interesting - my point was primarily that whether it's a mini-series or a theatrical production that's split up, it's still only one movie being split into parts. And, really, that's not all that different from what Jackson did with LoTR - filming all three at once. He basically made a 12 hour movie (counting the footage they filmed that was added back in for the extended versions) and split it up into three parts. They're doing the same thing for DH - filming a 4 1/2 hour movie and splitting it up.

[merrymarge]

Ok, I understand the split. It does make sense. But, I still think a six month wait for the second half is too long. If they are filming it as one long movie, then splitting it, just show the second part one month later. Not six months later.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

I've always felt they would have done better to do it as a mini-series to be honest because a mini-series is generally more accurate to the story. But any story can be divided into parts and spread out over time - which is pretty much what they do with a mini-series.

Who are "they"? What you have described is not a film, but a television or radio adaptation, one example of which is the (excellent) BBC radio version of LOTR which ran for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks and follows the book narrative very closely (in your way of speaking = "accurately").

Therefore, your complain would seem to be aimed at Rowling, who, instead of taking this option, instead sold the rights to a film studio, who make.... films.

[yoshi2542]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

Ok, I understand the split. It does make sense. But, I still think a six month wait for the second half is too long. If they are filming it as one long movie, then splitting it, just show the second part one month later. Not six months later.

I'm afraid that is completely impossible. They will not be able to complete post-production on 2 movies (that means VFX, music and sound mixing, ADR, editing) in the time it takes to complete 1.

Originally Posted by meesha1971

But the thing is - they could have very easily split FoTR into two movies. The extended editions of all three LoTR films are nearly four hours each - RotK is actually over four hours. It wouldn't have been difficult at all for them to split all three into 2 parts each for the theatrical releases.

Yikes! I thought Jackson just about got away with the length of the theatrical FOTR, but frankly got way too indulgent with the sequels. I don't think I will ever watch TTT or ROTK from start to finish again. Splitting each in two would have turned me off the whole thing. It will be interesting to see the audience reactions to part 1. Will they be sick of yet another movie ending with Potter narrowly escaping Voldemort?

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

Ok, I understand the split. It does make sense. But, I still think a six month wait for the second half is too long. If they are filming it as one long movie, then splitting it, just show the second part one month later. Not six months later.

Well, there are pros and cons to that. They could finish the whole thing off and release part 1 and part 2 closer together. However, that would mean, we probably wouldn't get part 1 until 2011 because they would have to finish post production on both parts to do that. Releasing part 1 in 2010 gives them time to finish post production on part 2 and we don't have to wait as long between HBP and DH.

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

Who are "they"? What you have described is not a film, but a television or radio adaptation, one example of which is the (excellent) BBC radio version of LOTR which ran for 1 hour per week for 12 weeks and follows the book narrative very closely (in your way of speaking = "accurately").

Therefore, your complain would seem to be aimed at Rowling, who, instead of taking this option, instead sold the rights to a film studio, who make.... films.

A film is a film regardless of whether it is shown on television or in a theater so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Originally Posted by yoshi2542

Yikes! I thought Jackson just about got away with the length of the theatrical FOTR, but frankly got way too indulgent with the sequels. I don't think I will ever watch TTT or ROTK from start to finish again. Splitting each in two would have turned me off the whole thing. It will be interesting to see the audience reactions to part 1. Will they be sick of yet another movie ending with Potter narrowly escaping Voldemort?

Ah, well, different strokes for different folks. Me, I much prefer the extended versions. I bought the DVD for TTT when it came out - the regular version - and then they did the extended ones. So I never watch the one I bought - I'm always borrowing my brothers extended versions and spending the weekend curled up with popcorn to watch 12 hours of LoTR. I've seen them about 4 times now. Would have been more if I didn't have to borrow them from my brother. I'm gonna have to save up the money to get them for myself.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

A film is a film regardless of whether it is shown on television or in a theater so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Then let me explain further. Rowling sold the film rights to Warner Bros, a major Hollywood studio, to make films for theatrical release. WB are not some little indie operation. The plan was always to make big budget films to be released every 18 months or so. We all know what the format is for such films: there are a dozen showing now at your local multiplex.

What you meesha, described and "want" is not commensurate with that. Therefore any disappointment you feel at the format (not the content) of these films must lie with the person who made the original decision that they should be made in that format, i.e. the one and only owner and seller of the film rights, J.K. Rowling.

---------------------
Moving on, it should be pointed out that Jackson and his financial backers took a huge risk in making 3 LOTR films, the first to be released before post-production work had been completed on the others. Now we can see that the demand for 3 films was there, but this is with the benefit of hindsight. Nobody knew before the films were released that they would be so big. It FOTR had failed it would have wiped out NL, years before NL was actually wiped out.

One more point - the length of FOTR was considered off-putting by some ticket-buyers, even though the studio insisted that the film should not go over 3 hours. The first HP film was more financially successful than the first LOTR film. But this was because of hype and kiddie appeal, not quality. (No-one can judge quality before they see a film.) FOTR picked up more admirers at the DVD rental stage and this is reflected in the larger audiences for films 2 & 3. HP dropped audiences from 1 - 2.

The book fans were a minor factor in determining the reaction to, and success of, these franchises.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by mrfutterman

Then let me explain further. Rowling sold the film rights to Warner Bros, a major Hollywood studio, to make films for theatrical release. WB are not some little indie operation. The plan was always to make big budget films to be released every 18 months or so. We all know what the format is for such films: there are a dozen showing now at your local multiplex.

What you meesha, described and "want" is not commensurate with that. Therefore any disappointment you feel at the format (not the content) of these films must lie with the person who made the original decision that they should be made in that format, i.e. the one and only owner and seller of the film rights, J.K. Rowling.

The WB does made for television films as well so they could have gone either way. Jo did set certain conditions when she gave them permission to make films based on the books - such as only allowing them to make films based on the books she wrote and requiring that they follow each book without combining any of them - but I don't recall her specifically setting a condition that it had to be for theatrical release. That decision was made by the WB as far as I know.

However, my complaints about the HP films in general have little to do with that. Sure, I think the films would have been a lot better if they had decided to go with made for television films from the beginning - those are typically the best book adaptions - but they could have made quality films for theatrical release as well. They actually got off to an excellent start with SS - which is by far the best book adaption I've ever seen for a theatrical release. COS was fairly decent overall - but they started straying with the characterization there. It just went downhill after that - though OOTP was a big improvement. Yates at least appears to understand the story and the characters involved - though he does seem to have strayed a bit with Harry in HBP. Hopefully the footage we've seen thus far is misleading about that though.

[FleurDeLaPointe]

On the discussion of enough material, it does bring up the question what the concept of "enough material" means. People say "There's enough material for 2 films" which is accurate in some sense of the word if you adapt it verbatim, but perhaps people shouldn't focus on the material part so much, but the film part. Films for the past 2 decades have been seeing a slow increase in running time with 2 hours being the average jumping from 90 minutes for a majority of the time before that.

Some people might hold the opinion that DH deserves the 4-5 hours its going to get from this split but consider this: in a film consumer market where any one product beyond 2 hours is pushing it, in what capacity does DH deserve two potential 2.5 hour films to explain it's story? Especially when there have been many instances of film adaptions within a 90 minute - 2 hour time limit.

Take for instance the Aubrey Maturin series where Master and Commader: Far side of the World was adapted from. They made a decent 2 hour film from 3 installments of the a 21 book series. From what I could gather the page count was about 400 pages each which doubles Deathly Hallows page count and yet a story was told in half the planned time.

By the very nature of most film adaptations, they are created by differentiating themselves from the source material. Even in 1922, it accidentally happened when the classic Nosferatu was released as a defiant production of Bram Stoker's Dracula despite not getting the film rights. Even where cinema was in it's infancy, we saw an excellent adaption of the source material, despite having to change a lot of things; because they understood it was cinema, not literature. How can two pop culture classics exist when one is derived from another but is so different? Because the mediums are different. One does not owe the other to be faithful if the alternative results in something great in it's own respective art.

Continuing on the vampire genre, even Let the Right One In (one of the best films of 2008) was an amazing film that focused themes and relationships differently from the novel which resulted in something very unique but still in line with the original. Being praised and getting on Top Ten of the Year lists is pretty great IMHO. If the idea of adapting a film is to show the audience how great this book, idea, stageplay, etc. is, it's through film that we should see it. Even the Oscars see the category for adapted works as a technicality; not in it's ability to faithfully reproduce from word to celluoid, but as a film that just happened to be sourced from something else. At the very least perhaps the idea of being to masterfully adapt a book or something else into a working screenplay is considered but I doubt it.

There is the "doing the books justice" angle. However that isn't helping anything with regards to the films. I'm not only saying that in most cases, doing the books justice means to adapt to cater to film structure will result in giving books said justice; but with all these concern about doing the books justice...what about doing the films justice? As far as I'm concerned, the books have already been done justice by always being the books. We can always revisit them with material intact, but only the films can be done justice not through great story content as produced by the author; but through great filmmaking as produced through the filmmaker.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by FleurDeLaPointe

Some people might hold the opinion that DH deserves the 4-5 hours its going to get from this split but consider this: in a film consumer market where any one product beyond 2 hours is pushing it, in what capacity does DH deserve two potential 2.5 hour films to explain it's story? Especially when there have been many instances of film adaptions within a 90 minute - 2 hour time limit.

Take for instance the Aubrey Maturin series where Master and Commader: Far side of the World was adapted from. They made a decent 2 hour film from 3 installments of the a 21 book series. From what I could gather the page count was about 400 pages each which doubles Deathly Hallows page count and yet a story was told in half the planned time.

Absolutely excellent points, Fleur. And the O'Brian fans really, really liked Weir's film, from all accounts. It's certainly a wonderful film, which I loved, and which IMO does justice to its source material.

My point is, Weir's film packs all its source material into over two hours of superbly gripping and emotionally involving cinema.

A one-shot DH could have been no less impressive.

By the very nature of most film adaptations, they are created by differentiating themselves from the source material.

Yes.

Continuing on the vampire genre, even Let the Right One In (one of the best films of 2008) was an amazing film that focused themes and relationships differently from the novel which resulted in something very unique but still in line with the original. Being praised and getting on Top Ten of the Year lists is pretty great IMHO. If the idea of adapting a film is to show the audience how great this book, idea, stageplay, etc. is, it's through film that we should see it. Even the Oscars see the category for adapted works as a technicality; not in it's ability to faithfully reproduce from word to celluoid, but as a film that just happened to be sourced from something else. At the very least perhaps the idea of being to masterfully adapt a book or something else into a working screenplay is considered but I doubt it.

Again, I totally agree.


(And I'm very keen to see Let the right one in, it opens in the UK in April. From the trailer, it looks AMAZING. I must try to read the book first! )

[SoulOfRebirth]

On the discussion of enough material, it does bring up the question what the concept of "enough material" means. People say "There's enough material for 2 films" which is accurate in some sense of the word if you adapt it verbatim, but perhaps people shouldn't focus on the material part so much, but the film part.

There's surely enough to fill 2 hours if they take their sweet time with every scene. There's quite a bit of material.

The problem was never quantity, or length. The problem is a structural problem. A pacing problem. The first half of the DH book does not have a proper narrative structure. There is no rising action. There is no climax. There is no arc that is resolved in the end. It'll essentially be a bunch of unnecessary action scenes strung together, interspersed with tedious camping scenes. The focus of the entire movie will have to be the single least necessay thread in the entire book.

It's like if they split OotP into two movies so that they could make a whole movie just to show Hagrid's Tale. It's unbelievably excessive and it defies basic storytelling. The first half of DH is simply not structured to stand by itself and still be a satisfying enough experience.

The way I see it: now that we have two movies, it simply means that all the scenes that would've been compressed into montages now will be long and boring.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by SoulOfRebirth

There's surely enough to fill 2 hours if they take their sweet time with every scene. There's quite a bit of material.

The problem was never quantity, or length. The problem is a structural problem. A pacing problem. The first half of the DH book does not have a proper narrative structure. There is no rising action. There is no climax. There is no arc that is resolved in the end. It'll essentially be a bunch of unnecessary action scenes strung together, interspersed with tedious camping scenes. The focus of the entire movie will have to be the single least necessay thread in the entire book.

It's like if they split OotP into two movies so that they could make a whole movie just to show Hagrid's Tale. It's unbelievably excessive and it defies basic storytelling. The first half of DH is simply not structured to stand by itself and still be a satisfying enough experience.

The way I see it: now that we have two movies, it simply means that all the scenes that would've been compressed into montages now will be long and boring.

It's as if the debates we've been making have been completely ignored.

We've repeated time and again what the running theme and resolution of DH1 would be, but it seems some people here are determined not to see it.

[Hes]

It's perfectly alright for people to stick to their opinions. Different opinions should be respected and people should be treated with respect.

If anyone gets tired of debating the same issues over and over again, ignore it and move on.

New posters in this thread should feel welcome to voice their opinion.

[yoshi2542]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

We've repeated time and again what the running theme and resolution of DH1 would be, but it seems some people here are determined not to see it.

It's not that we don't see it MoD, just that we don't think it works. If I were to see a script that managed to make the split work, I'd change my tune. All the synopses I've seen that try to fashion a sequence of events for part 1, are quite simply unworkable. They are half a story. I don't think our objections are unreasonable. We are being pitched a film where the movie ends before the story does! I'm not saying a two part movie is impossible, but they'll have to come up with one hell of a finale to part 1, Empire Strikes Back style, for the movie to work, and the middle chapters of the book cannot do that.

[Klio]

Well, since we got multiple options, I went for these two:

I'm very wary of how this will work out.
I do not like the idea at all.



I am very much against splitting this. I think it was a cynical decision, and I am afraid that it will lead to the kind of adaptation that gave us PS/SS and (worse, IMHO) COS.

I want a creative adaptation, which actually gives thought to how one translates the essence of the story into a visual medium. PS/SS and COS just didn't do that at all.

If we get 2x2.5 hours of that all over again, it'll be difficult for me to sit through it, I can say that much.



But somehow, it's decided now - so my current stance is 'I am very wary of how it will work out'.

because I am.




Essentially, I wanted a cinematic masterpiece - and I am afraid that we'll probably get something that's more fitting for TV than cinema.

[SoulOfRebirth]

It's not that we don't see it MoD, just that we don't think it works. If I were to see a script that managed to make the split work, I'd change my tune. All the synopses I've seen that try to fashion a sequence of events for part 1, are quite simply unworkable. They are half a story. I don't think our objections are unreasonable. We are being pitched a film where the movie ends before the story does! I'm not saying a two part movie is impossible, but they'll have to come up with one hell of a finale to part 1, Empire Strikes Back style, for the movie to work, and the middle chapters of the book cannot do that.

Exactly. In order for them to make this work they'll have to start either making things up or padding out the scenes that already exist. In my mind that demonstrates very clearly that the split was unnecessary to begin with, if they have to resort to either option.

I stand by what I have always said. The problems with adapting DH were never length. There are simply things that need to be simplified and reorganized to preserve the structure and pacing. They will have to make these same changes even now, with two movies.

I'm going to make another analogy. Yes, it's a video game analogy. Surprise surprise!

Let's say hypothetically I'm making a movie version of Metal Gear Solid 3. Weird choice, I know, but it is very similar to DH in terms of structure and pacing. The beginning is very fast paced (your mentor defects to the Soviet Union; it's basically the same punch to the stomach that a DH reader gets out of "Scrimgeour is dead. The Ministry has fallen."). The middle sags a bit (in MGS3 you're wandering through the jungle; DH has the camping sequences). Then towards the end there's a massive climax that goes on practically forever...until it's suddenly broken up by a massive infodump that occurs right at the height of the action (MGS3 has The Boss giving a long-winded explanation about politics right as you're about to fight her, and DH has Dumbledore giving a long-winded explanation on Horcruxes and Hallows or whatever).

These types of things can work in video games or books. But not in movies. You don't just stop in the middle of the action to give a speech on how politics determine who we face on the battlefield, nor do you stop to give a bucketload of exposition on Horcruxes and Hallows and wandlore, etc. These types of expository scenes will have to condensed, simplified, maybe even rearranged depending on their placement in the narrative structure.

The vast majority of changes that must be made to DH are changes like these. Simplification. Condension. Rearrangement. There is very little that must be outright cut; DH has a much narrower scope than GoF or OotP. So all of the changes that will be made are for structure, or pacing, or character development (looking at you, Dobby). These same changes will have to be made whether it is one movie or two. So I don't see how trying to make an extra movie out of the first leg of the story is doing it "justice." The first half of the book simply does not justify it's own movie, nor does it work as one. I would say the same for Metal Gear Solid 3. Sure, it has a "natural divide" at the conclusion of the Virtuous Mission, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to cut there.

Just because there is a point where Harry makes a decision and changes his focus doesn't mean we need another movie to do it "justice."