Harry Potter and the Search for Even More Money
I don't watch the Harry Potter films (From what I've seen of them, they don't get either the feel or the characterisation of the books right for me), but I still rolled my eyes on hearing this bit of news.
I can't help but think this is just a means to spin the franchise out further. There's absolutely no need to split this book into two. If they can cram the Phoenix tome into 138 minutes, there should be no problem with Hallows.
"The seventh book doesn't really have any subplots. It's one driving, pounding story from the word go," says Daniel Radcliffe.
Precisely. One driving, pounding story is not going to benefit from being drawn out to five hours and being chopped in half just as the tension starts to build up. There's no natural mid-point break.
The best place to break it I can think of is just after the fight in Malfoy Manor - the turning point in the book when Harry finally chooses between Hallows (personal gain) or Horcruxes (duty). A lot of threads have been tied up or explained, there's just been a dramatic (and fatal) fight, and it's a real cliffhanger. But does that leave enough to fill a whole second film? The Hogwarts chapters are big on page count, but it's mostly action and should be rattled through on screen in 30-40 minutes tops.
To say you can't cut anything out is nonsense. For a start you could get rid of that long tedious section where Ron goes off in a strop. You could also quite easily lose Godric's Hollow and a few other bits and not miss them.
Ho hum, at least it might please the purists who can't bear to have a single page chopped out. I just reckon they'd be better films if they were a bit freer with the adaptation, and focussed more on getting the feel right than on the nitty-gritty of events.
I can't help but think this is just a means to spin the franchise out further. There's absolutely no need to split this book into two. If they can cram the Phoenix tome into 138 minutes, there should be no problem with Hallows.
"The seventh book doesn't really have any subplots. It's one driving, pounding story from the word go," says Daniel Radcliffe.
Precisely. One driving, pounding story is not going to benefit from being drawn out to five hours and being chopped in half just as the tension starts to build up. There's no natural mid-point break.
The best place to break it I can think of is just after the fight in Malfoy Manor - the turning point in the book when Harry finally chooses between Hallows (personal gain) or Horcruxes (duty). A lot of threads have been tied up or explained, there's just been a dramatic (and fatal) fight, and it's a real cliffhanger. But does that leave enough to fill a whole second film? The Hogwarts chapters are big on page count, but it's mostly action and should be rattled through on screen in 30-40 minutes tops.
To say you can't cut anything out is nonsense. For a start you could get rid of that long tedious section where Ron goes off in a strop. You could also quite easily lose Godric's Hollow and a few other bits and not miss them.
Ho hum, at least it might please the purists who can't bear to have a single page chopped out. I just reckon they'd be better films if they were a bit freer with the adaptation, and focussed more on getting the feel right than on the nitty-gritty of events.