PDA

View Full Version : 'Deathly Hallows' film adaptation to be released in two parts



Cylinder
2008-Mar-13, 07:17 AM
Last 'Potter' to be split in half (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982303.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)


Warner Bros. will split the last "Harry Potter" tome into a two-part film, with the installments unspooling six months apart.

David Yates will direct and Steve Kloves will write both parts, which will be filmed concurrently.

Part one of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" will bow in November 2010, with the second to debut the following May.

Gillianren
2008-Mar-13, 05:25 PM
Good. They should've started doing that sooner.

schlaugh
2008-Mar-13, 05:28 PM
Only if they film both parts in the same shooting timeframe. Else the actors will soon need to bring their children on set!

Fazor
2008-Mar-13, 05:39 PM
Good. They should've started doing that sooner.

Semi-agreed. Though I shudder at the prospect of sitting though 8 movies...so 16+ movies would be a no-go in my book.

HP is a great example of why movies should and can be based off of books, but it's better to re-write them to movies than it is to try to make a movie that is a filmed copy of a book.

It's like trying to make a video game copy of a hit song. They're two different mediums for communication that aren't inherantly compatable. The same is true for books versus movies, though the later pair is more closely related.

laurele
2008-Mar-14, 12:59 AM
Only if they film both parts in the same shooting timeframe. Else the actors will soon need to bring their children on set!

At this point, the timeframe won't make much difference. The characters are 17 in the final book, and it's very common for actors well into their 20s (and sometimes, past 30) to play that age.

captain swoop
2008-Mar-14, 09:37 AM
It sounds more like squeezing the last few pennies from the last film to me !

peter eldergill
2008-Mar-14, 03:20 PM
That was my thought entirely. Like Harry Potter has earned people enough money yet.

Pete

Gillianren
2008-Mar-14, 06:05 PM
The thing is, they're very plot-dense books. There's already been serious trimming in the earlier movies, even in the first one, to an extent that has bothered a lot of the fans. Further, there's very little trimming that can be done to the last book that would have it make any sense at all. And Americans aren't willing to deal with very long films with an intermission anymore, even if the theatres were willing to play a four-hour movie with an intermission.

schlaugh
2008-Mar-14, 06:11 PM
...Further, there's very little trimming that can be done to the last book that would have it make any sense at all.

I can think of a few thousand words which dealt with wandering around England for pages on end.

Fazor
2008-Mar-14, 06:28 PM
The thing is, they're very plot-dense books. There's already been serious trimming in the earlier movies, even in the first one, to an extent that has bothered a lot of the fans.

That was exactly my point in my last post. Regardless of whether a film is based of an "epic" novel(s) like Harry Potter or LotR, or based off a "normal" novel like....say, Congo by Michael Chrichton, there is just no way to fit a books worth of plot and detail into a standard-length movie.

Sometimes they just pare away at parts to trim it down, as they did with Harry Potter. I hate that, and it leads to constant nerdy complaints of "they left this ooooout!! CHARLITAN!"

But another approach, and the appropriate one if you ask me, is to redesign the story. It doesn't have to be the book, word for word chapter for chapter. But you don't just leave things out either.

You might think I'm crazy, but I think a great example of how to do it right is the original Jurrasic Park. Was it a good movie? Sure. Was it the same as the book? Well, they both had dinosaurs. But instead of leaving out the spy's plot, or the brink-of-insanity obsession of the park owner, they reimagined them into more film-friendly versions.

Maybe I'm wrong about all this...but I think films like Harry Potter could be better served if they did NOT attempt to be filmed clones of the books. There's no reason you can't make a movie-friendly series based off the stories that doesn't leave the viewer with the feeling that the story was rushed through and that very important points were either left out, or minimized to the point that they might as well been.

peter eldergill
2008-Mar-14, 07:39 PM
Just to give people an idea of length, I was in the play "George III" (aka The Madness of Kin George).

The scripted play was only 78 pages (short pages as well).

The play took over three hours to complete. So imagine trying to scrip a 600 page novel into a movie! Yikes!

Pete

schlaugh
2008-Mar-14, 07:50 PM
I think Fazor has it right. With some books it's far better to capture the sense of place and character rather than a literal retelling of the book. Yet there are also techniques to help keep the book firmly melded to the film. For example it sometimes works well to lift dialog from a book when a) the dialog is good and b) moves the plot along and/or c) when a line or sentence has a life of its own and has to be included in a film.

The flip side is when an author writes screenplays and then adapts them as novels. I think Michael Crichton has been doing that for a while now. Just can't read his stuff anymore.

Gillianren
2008-Mar-15, 01:43 AM
I disagree intensely; I feel that if you're going to redesign the book to any great extent, you might as well have not based it on a book in the first place. There are a handful of exceptions, but they're rare enough that it's always the first thing I mention when discussing the film. And the only example I can give of a movie that is better than the book it's based on is The Lost World, by the aforementioned Crichton; the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre.

TheHalcyonYear
2008-Mar-15, 03:16 AM
The thing is, they're very plot-dense books. There's already been serious trimming in the earlier movies, even in the first one, to an extent that has bothered a lot of the fans. Further, there's very little trimming that can be done to the last book that would have it make any sense at all. And Americans aren't willing to deal with very long films with an intermission anymore, even if the theatres were willing to play a four-hour movie with an intermission.

I agree with this statement and also find it quite saddening. I am of the camp that believes that a film should not be cut down because of what the audience will "deal with". I disagree (but understand why it occurs) with the sentiment that the film appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses (save independent films, etc).

I will support a film that is long for all the right reasons. I am not asking for a film to be long "just because"...in case anyone is wondering about my motivation. I want a film to be a length that satisfies the content of the book. So, if it is a plot-heavy book, I will settle myself into a chair for as long as it takes to see if the director (and all others involved) are able to accomplish what the book has.

THY

TheHalcyonYear
2008-Mar-15, 03:17 AM
I disagree intensely; I feel that if you're going to redesign the book to any great extent, you might as well have not based it on a book in the first place. There are a handful of exceptions, but they're rare enough that it's always the first thing I mention when discussing the film. And the only example I can give of a movie that is better than the book it's based on is The Lost World, by the aforementioned Crichton; the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre.

Again, I agree with you completely on this matter.

THY

Fazor
2008-Mar-15, 03:44 AM
I disagree intensely; I feel that if you're going to redesign the book to any great extent, you might as well have not based it on a book in the first place. There are a handful of exceptions, but they're rare enough that it's always the first thing I mention when discussing the film. And the only example I can give of a movie that is better than the book it's based on is The Lost World, by the aforementioned Crichton; the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre.

*shrug* i liked the Lost World (book). The movie I thought was markedly less than mediocre.

I just feel that if you're going to make your movie an exact clone of the book, then it's pointless to make the movie. You're going to lose content simply because you cannot fit it in, and you end up with just bits and pieces of the overall picture.

It's the difference between seeing a painting of a beautiful coral reef, and going diving.

TheHalcyonYear
2008-Mar-15, 04:02 AM
*shrug* i liked the Lost World (book). The movie I thought was markedly less than mediocre.

I just feel that if you're going to make your movie an exact clone of the book, then it's pointless to make the movie. You're going to lose content simply because you cannot fit it in, and you end up with just bits and pieces of the overall picture.

It's the difference between seeing a painting of a beautiful coral reef, and going diving.

I disagree. I do not think it is pointless to make a film, even if it is an exact "clone" of the book. I consider it another form of art. I consider it reinforcing (or challenging, whatever the case may be) my imagination. I think that literature does wonders for the imagination (no doubt), but I think it is interesting to see an interpretation of literature through someone else's vision.

As for the "difference between seeing a painting of a beautiful coral reef, and going diving"...I do not entirely agree with this sentiment. What if I can't go diving? Then seeing a beautiful representation of it will allow me some visual experience. As for how this fits with film? What if I am not an entirely imaginative person? Again...having a representation of this may be interesting (even, if in the end, I think that my own representation was better/more interesting than I thought, etc).

THY

novaderrik
2008-Mar-15, 07:45 AM
now everyone that just has to see this movie has to make two trips, buy two tubs of popcorn, and buy 2 movie tickets.
i think the studios, the theater owners, and the oil companies are in on this one, folks..
of course, right when the second half is showing up in theaters, the first half wil lbe released on DVD, then a few months later, the second one will be released.. then they will be released as a set.. then they will package all the movies in one big box set. or, perhaps, they could re-release the whole series in the theaters with extra scenes and cooler special effects..
nah, money wasn't behind this decision... Harry Potter isn't going away until the mid 2010's.

TheHalcyonYear
2008-Mar-15, 12:29 PM
now everyone that just has to see this movie has to make two trips, buy two tubs of popcorn, and buy 2 movie tickets.
i think the studios, the theater owners, and the oil companies are in on this one, folks..
of course, right when the second half is showing up in theaters, the first half wil lbe released on DVD, then a few months later, the second one will be released.. then they will be released as a set.. then they will package all the movies in one big box set. or, perhaps, they could re-release the whole series in the theaters with extra scenes and cooler special effects..
nah, money wasn't behind this decision... Harry Potter isn't going away until the mid 2010's.

Of course money was behind this decision...no one is disputing that fact. Money is, for better or for worse, what makes the film industry go round.

However, I do not think that everyone who goes to see this movie has to buy drinks and popcorn...that is purely an individual decision. One can view a film without such accoutrement.

THY

Donnie B.
2008-Mar-15, 05:21 PM
I've been wondering where they're going to make the split.

(****** Spoilers follow ******)





My money says it'll be just after the Christmastime visit to Godrick's Hollow. That was Harry's "rock bottom" point, having lost his best friend, his wand, and (seemingly) all hope of achieving his quest. The scene in Bertha's house would make a pretty good climax for the first movie.

Gillianren
2008-Mar-15, 05:56 PM
There are some things that will always be different between a book and a movie; I don't dispute that. Something that takes three paragraphs of description in a book can be shown in a single shot. And, yes, I'm perfectly okay with some things being thrown overboard; I'm certainly not asking for a word-for-word adaptation, especially not of a 600-page-long book. (Someone worked out once that GWTW, as written, would be a 37-hour movie, and not even 1939 audiences would've dealt with that. Further, I think that's a conservative estimate!) But if you start trimming things "because they're not important," you start gutting the story itself. I think, for example, that only a miniseries can do the vast majority of Stephen King's works justice, because he hangs all kinds of details off one another, and when you start pulling threads, you unravel the work. And at that, The Stand was still missing a lot of story!

HenrikOlsen
2008-Mar-15, 07:19 PM
<snip>, buy two tubs of popcorn, <snip>
I prefer not to buy stuff with a profitmargin larger than heroin.

HenrikOlsen
2008-Mar-15, 07:25 PM
I disagree intensely; I feel that if you're going to redesign the book to any great extent, you might as well have not based it on a book in the first place. There are a handful of exceptions, but they're rare enough that it's always the first thing I mention when discussing the film. And the only example I can give of a movie that is better than the book it's based on is The Lost World, by the aforementioned Crichton; the book is dreadful, whereas the movie is merely mediocre.
Hitchcocks Birds would be another movie better that the story it's based on, as would Dr. Strangelove.

There's lots more, you just don't notice them because the book they where based on was so bloody awful that noones heard about it and the movie was only very vaguely related to it in the first place.

If on the other hand you're talking about movies based on good books, then I'm in complete agreement on the scarcity of movies that are better than the book.

CodeSlinger
2008-Mar-15, 07:37 PM
But another approach, and the appropriate one if you ask me, is to redesign the story. It doesn't have to be the book, word for word chapter for chapter. But you don't just leave things out either.

I agree, and know of at least one example where this was done, and done well. It wasn't actually a book-to-film adaptation, but a TV series-to-film adaptation. And unfortunately, I don't know how many people will be able to relate to the example, as it was an anime series adapted to film, but it's the best one I can think of.

The Vision of Escaflowne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_Escaflowne) was originally a 26-episode series. Later, a movie version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escaflowne_(film)) was released as well. The movie did not try to condense ~13 hours' worth of story into a 1.5 hour film. Instead, it took the main characters and certain key plot ideas and designed a new story around those elements. While I still prefer the full series, I thought the movie did a great job capturing the essential Escaflowne "feel"/experience and delivering it in the new format.