Three Harry Potter Movies Left
No, Jo isn't writing another book (though she totally will do another installment in like 10 years), Warner Bros. is splitting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two parts. I have pretty negative feelings about this. First off, I had major, major problems with the book, so I'm not looking forward to reliving every single moment of that over the course of two movies. Honestly, if there was one book that suffered from length, it was OotP. If there were two, add in Deathly Hallows, because there were long stretches of nothing, which really needed to be truncated... which is what movies are for!
Why do you think the LotR movies were so amazing? I have a confession, I couldn't get through the LotR books, mostly because of the chapters and chapters of walking, singing, and whining about food. The Hobbit kept those things to a minimum, but Tolkien felt the need to expand that in the trilogy. The great thing about movies is that they cut out the fat (well good movie adaptations, anyway) and leave the necessary good bits. If every one of those movies were split into two (which I know they could have been, since there are 4 hour extended editions), I probably would be annoyed by lack of action or furthering of the plot. I can't speak from experience, since I haven't seen the extended editions, for all I know they could be 4 kick ass amazing hours of footage that needed to be cut because 3 hours is enough.
To be fair, Warner Bros. isn't about to release a 3 hour and 20 minute Harry Potter, movie, and I guess a lot of fans still have problems with cuts to the Canon. I'm not one of them. Don't get the wrong, I was annoyed by the drastic changes from the books made in PoA (Marauders FTW?), but I learned to accept the movies and books as different forms of the same tale, adaptations, if you will. I guess the world isn't as enlightened as I am.
OotP benefited massively from cuts, I mean, Jo needed editorial cuts before sending that manuscript to the printing press. I understand that people had problems with that movie, non-readers were lost because of the truncation. So the writers need a little editorial practice, surely they'll figure it out by HBP, right? Why not put that to good use in Deathly Hallows? I mean, with the ability to make two 2+ hour long movies, they might have time to include... *takes inhaler*... the epilogue *GAGS*. And that may be the biggest tragedy.
Now, who will be directing these two potential turds? Rumor has it, it's David Yates, director of OotP. You'd think, since he directed my favorite film, OotP, I'd be elated. You could think that, but you'd be wrong. I had high hopes for directors: Spielberg, ... OK, mostly Spielberg. I kinda hoped for Guillermo del Toro to helm this, it seemed up his Pan's Labyrinth alley, but it wasn't meant to be, he caught a bigger fish: The Hobbit movie and prequel. I'm eagerly anticipating that endeavor.
OK, well, why not get Alfonso Cuarón? Sure he raped PoA and stole out Harry Potter childhood innocence, but he excelled in artsying up the HP franchise, and set the standard that future directors of the series worked from. Think about it. Also, any of you see Children of Men? I did. His long, tracking shots would be brilliant during the many DH chase and action scenes. I would have loved to see his interpretation of the battle at Hogwarts. I guess I'll just have to imagine how awesome it would be.
So overall, I understand why WB did it. I don't believe it was a greedy move to make money, I really think they were thinking of Joe Moviegoer and how he would react to a truncated final installment. They need to approach the franchise as its own Canon and treat the ending as such, so people like my sister who hasn't read the books, will feel satisfied with the resolution. Though, if the movie watchers were anything like the book readers, they probably will leave the last movie feeling empty, which will evolve into anger and bitterness. I guess where the end of the series goes, nobody wins.
Why do you think the LotR movies were so amazing? I have a confession, I couldn't get through the LotR books, mostly because of the chapters and chapters of walking, singing, and whining about food. The Hobbit kept those things to a minimum, but Tolkien felt the need to expand that in the trilogy. The great thing about movies is that they cut out the fat (well good movie adaptations, anyway) and leave the necessary good bits. If every one of those movies were split into two (which I know they could have been, since there are 4 hour extended editions), I probably would be annoyed by lack of action or furthering of the plot. I can't speak from experience, since I haven't seen the extended editions, for all I know they could be 4 kick ass amazing hours of footage that needed to be cut because 3 hours is enough.
To be fair, Warner Bros. isn't about to release a 3 hour and 20 minute Harry Potter, movie, and I guess a lot of fans still have problems with cuts to the Canon. I'm not one of them. Don't get the wrong, I was annoyed by the drastic changes from the books made in PoA (Marauders FTW?), but I learned to accept the movies and books as different forms of the same tale, adaptations, if you will. I guess the world isn't as enlightened as I am.
OotP benefited massively from cuts, I mean, Jo needed editorial cuts before sending that manuscript to the printing press. I understand that people had problems with that movie, non-readers were lost because of the truncation. So the writers need a little editorial practice, surely they'll figure it out by HBP, right? Why not put that to good use in Deathly Hallows? I mean, with the ability to make two 2+ hour long movies, they might have time to include... *takes inhaler*... the epilogue *GAGS*. And that may be the biggest tragedy.
Now, who will be directing these two potential turds? Rumor has it, it's David Yates, director of OotP. You'd think, since he directed my favorite film, OotP, I'd be elated. You could think that, but you'd be wrong. I had high hopes for directors: Spielberg, ... OK, mostly Spielberg. I kinda hoped for Guillermo del Toro to helm this, it seemed up his Pan's Labyrinth alley, but it wasn't meant to be, he caught a bigger fish: The Hobbit movie and prequel. I'm eagerly anticipating that endeavor.
OK, well, why not get Alfonso Cuarón? Sure he raped PoA and stole out Harry Potter childhood innocence, but he excelled in artsying up the HP franchise, and set the standard that future directors of the series worked from. Think about it. Also, any of you see Children of Men? I did. His long, tracking shots would be brilliant during the many DH chase and action scenes. I would have loved to see his interpretation of the battle at Hogwarts. I guess I'll just have to imagine how awesome it would be.
So overall, I understand why WB did it. I don't believe it was a greedy move to make money, I really think they were thinking of Joe Moviegoer and how he would react to a truncated final installment. They need to approach the franchise as its own Canon and treat the ending as such, so people like my sister who hasn't read the books, will feel satisfied with the resolution. Though, if the movie watchers were anything like the book readers, they probably will leave the last movie feeling empty, which will evolve into anger and bitterness. I guess where the end of the series goes, nobody wins.