Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Harry Potter movie split in two

Comments

  • #2
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    Money grabbing gits

    Were some of the other books in the series not longer than that one?


  • #3
    takola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭takola


    Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the longest book as far as I remember. That's already been made. In a way I'm happy, It'll drag out the movies for longer!

    I don't see the need for it though! The book wasn't that long, they could make it in one movie. Why are they splitting it? :confused:


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 15,814 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    takola wrote: »
    Why are they splitting it? :confused:

    One word, Money. Why make one film when people will gladly pay to see two. I understood the reasoning behind making three films to tell The Lord of the Rings but having read some of Rowlings books I'm pretty sure they coul be told in 30 minutes, never mind 2, three hour films.


  • #5
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    takola wrote: »

    I don't see the need for it though! The book wasn't that long, they could make it in one movie. Why are they splitting it? :confused:

    Besides money,

    They left out quite a lot from the books in the previous two movies, small at the time but that play a significant role in the end of the story.

    I could see there being quite a bit in these movies that are not in HBP the book.
    Remember that there are people that only know of the potter-verse from the movies, so you can not assume that they will know about everything in the books that have to come up in the movies towards the end


  • #6
    My name is Todd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭My name is Todd


    orestes wrote: »
    Money grabbing gits

    Greedy f*ckers exploiting the end of the series, could easily fit the damn thing into one film.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Pigman II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    Deleted User wrote: »
    One word, Money. Why make one film when people will gladly pay to see two. I understood the reasoning behind making three films to tell The Lord of the Rings but having read some of Rowlings books I'm pretty sure they coul be told in 30 minutes, never mind 2, three hour films.

    Agreed. Take all the subplots and gossip out of a Harry Pothead book and you're really not left with much.

    LOTR could have been six movies. Each book is sorta split in two anyway.


  • #8
    Petey2006
    Closed Accounts Posts: 423 ✭✭Petey2006


    You should change the title of the thread to 'Cash Cow split in two.'


  • #9
    Pigman II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    Petey2006 wrote: »
    'Cash Cow '

    Is that what they're calling JK Rowling these days?


  • #10
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    Pigman II wrote: »
    Agreed. Take all the subplots and gossip out of a Harry Pothead book and you're really not left with much.

    LOTR could have been six movies. Each book is sorta split in two anyway.

    I think that you will find that it was these subplots that made them popular and what were taken out of the movies.
    A lot of these subplots were instrumental in the final 2 books and will have to be reintroduced though


  • #11
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Oh great that means I have to put up with this Potter nonsense everywhere for an extra six months..


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Jim_Are_Great
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Jim_Are_Great


    I actually thought while reading The Deathly Hallows that it'd be difficult to fit into a single film. Seriously. There's less room for fat-trimming than in the others. Maybe she wrote it with a view to cinematically interpreting it thus.


  • #13
    Borneo Fnctn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,378 ✭✭✭Borneo Fnctn


    takola wrote: »
    In a way I'm happy, It'll drag out the movies for longer!

    It's your money. I'm not gonna see it.


  • #14
    senordingdong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    I think it's a good idea.

    The books got bigger but the movie times didn't...I thought the first three movies were very good adaptations, but felt the later two were awful.

    I like it purely because it will do the story justice.


  • #15
    EamonnKeane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    Jim_Are_Great wrote: »
    Maybe she wrote it with a view to cinematically interpreting it thus.
    Yes, maybe she wrote scenes with blind dragons flying out of enormous caverns amid a hail of spellfire and an enormous battle with giants and huge spiders tearing a castle to shreds with an eye to film. Maybe.


  • #16
    iFight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭iFight


    Not a Harry Potter fan myself, but i know after the last movie i heard a lot of people giving out about it leaving stuff out. So maybe they are just trying to cover the whole story this time?

    Apart from the obvious financial benefits... And the fact that they're running out of HP books to make into movies =P


Advertisement