Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows split into 2 movies.
 

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/2...541260000.html
Harry Potter was the center of seven novels, but he'll star in eight films. The final book in the wildly successful series will be made into two films, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

Producers are expected to announce Thursday that J.K. Rowling's last "Potter" installment, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," will be split into two parts on the big screen. The first film is slated for release in November 2010, with part two following in May 2011.

"It was born out of purely creative reasons," producer David Heyman told the Times. "Unlike every other book, you cannot remove elements of this book."

The two final "Potter" films will be shot concurrently, much like the blockbuster trilogy based on J.R.R. Tolkien's epic fantasy novel "The Lord of the Rings"

Another famous Tolkien tome, "The Hobbit" is also being split into two live-action movies set for back-to-back shooting to begin next year.

Filming on the sixth "Potter" flick, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," began in September.

"It's been brilliant," said star Daniel Radcliffe. "It's also, I think, the funniest of the films so far."

The "Potter" film franchise has pulled in $4.5 billion at the worldwide box office.

Good news for Potter fans. I was wondering how they were going to cut this book down considering theres as much action in chapter 1 as there is in the whole first book. I just hope they don't butcher this book like they have with some of the others.

Please avoid posting spoilers...I haven't read the last book.

I don't think they have neccessarily "butchered" the books, I just think that there have been too many details that couldn't be addressed in the time alloted for a movie.

Out of curiosity what are some of the bigger things that they've left out?
The biggest one for me is not explaining who "Msrs Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" were on the Marauders map?

The last movie wasn't NEARLY as good as the book. Way too short.

This is a great move, IMO.

Half-Blood Prince is great. Cant wait to see the film. I started reading the books starting with Order of the Phoenix last year and flew through them. I'm currently re-reading Deathly Hallows with my wife who I convinced to catch up and read them. She loves them also.

Phoenix was the first Movie I saw AFTER reading the book in the series and I was a little disappointed. Most Movies I've read before watching have done the same. ---see Mask, the Color Purple, etc.

Why make 200 mil off of one movie, when you can make 400 mil off of two movies? Kinda smart actually. Unfortunate though.

That is the rule of thumb, just the fact that you can convey peoples exact thoughts in a book easily goes a long way.

err....waiting on an invitation from the Pope? How could you read the first 6 and not have read the 7th? :eek:

I'm a casual Harry Potter fan.

I actually disagree. While the 5th book may have been great for fans, since it went into all kinds of background stuff, it was frankly quite flabby from a writing perspective. I don't mind at all, since I find it interesting and read fast, but I certainly understood how most of it ended up out of the movie.

Frankly, there was a metric ton of stuff in the book that wasn't integral to the central plot of the books, and they got rid of it. Made perfect sense. And the movie was by no means short as it was.

Kind of like the LOTR movies dumping Tom Bombadil.

Acutally necessary, IMHO. Without revealing spoilers -- unlike Order of the Phoenix, the last book has NO flab. It's hard to imagine what they could cut out without really butchering the thing pretty severely.

I think it's justified that they split it into 2 movies. I'm also sure, however, that the additional $$$$ played NO consideration in this decision. *cough* :rolleyes:

Well...that's fine, but seriously, it's been out for like 7 months. If you've bothered to take the time to read the first six, I can't see not bothering to lift up the 7th and figure out how it ends.

If you've only seen the movies, then I understand perfectly. But if I'm a casual fan of a movie and watch 80% of it, I'm probably going to watch the last 20% instead of just walking away and ignoring it...

When I watched the first movie and noticed they left out the Bombadil bit and the dagger they found, I wondered how the hobbits would kill the wraith king.

I've read all the books. I'll get around to it. I'm balls deep in a Freddie Mercury biography right now. :D

I wasn't fond of Aragorn going "hey guys, here are some swords", but in all seriousness, the thing tha thappened with Tom that had much later significance was the finding of the swords in the barrow downs, and you couldn't add 20 minutes to the movie just for that, so the decision had to be made.

I was far more annoyed at other stuff in the movie. Each one had something to irk me. In the first it was when Aragorn and Frodo are perched on a swaying tower of stone in Moria, weighing god knows how many tons, and Aragorn says "lean forward" and the swaying rock falls forward and they are miraculously saved. Ugh.

1. like 300 pounds of man/hobbit meat would affect anything under those circumstances.

2. didn't Gandalf display TELEKENETIC powers in the movie? Why couldn't he help.

3. most important -- read Tolkien, and one thing that does NOT really play much of a role in helping the good guys is BLIND, DUMB, STUPID LUCK! It's hard work, dedication, steadfastness in the face of danger and against all odds.

I know I"m obsessed about it, but that scene truly pisses me off. There's absolutely no justification for it from an artistic or drama or "gotta do something different, this is a movie after all" point of view.

I'm a bit unfond of the teleketic battle between Saruman and Gandalf, but I undertsand the need for direct conflict, which doesn't exist in the books.

That swaying rock thing though. Stupid, and without reason.

Harry Dies during a threesome with Ron and Hermi-err, sorry, wasn't supposed to give that away.

already read the series so its good to know that for once they will include more instead of cutting out stuff.

man i must have skipped over that chapter on accident. i had better reread the entire series to find that must read scene LMAO

p.s. what prog did you use to make that? coudlnt of been PS unless you just pasted the face pictures and did a cell shade like technique.

I didn't use any programs. Someone extremely talented created that magnificent piece of art at Rule 34. NSFW.

I did, however, crop out the naughty bits.

like there wands and chocolate toads? LMAO

Yeah, and Hermione's whomping willow.

yeah that might have been a bit much for anyone younger than myself (28) good use of judgment Goatse :thmub:

WARNING -- DRAMATICALLY NSFW

Christ, I could've done without the pedo hentai. :Lin:

Hey, I'm sure there's Tom Brady porn on there. Knock yourself out.

shudders :huh:

Wouldn't the first half be pretty boring? All of the action was at the end.

Can't go into too much detail since SOMEONE didn't read the freaking book yet, but yeah, the boring bits will be in the beginning. They can end the first movie at a cliffhanger of sorts, but I think they can stretch some of the early fighting out.

I don't believe in reading, but I frickin love the movies!

Anything to improve over the terrible travasty that the films have been with the exception of 3, Cuaron's Azkaban.

Every other film, cinematically, story-wise and all around, have been steaming piles of poo.

Whatever. They're all entertaining. Average AT WORST.

#1 was nice because it captured the kiddy-wizardry nature of the first book. Great atmosphere and the best at capturing the school itself.

#2 was the weakest film and it made the second weakest movie. It was more of a #1 Redux.

#3 came and blew them both out of the water. Everything about it was superior as well as superior to the two that came after.

#4 - The maze eats people? WTF happened to the maze? It was neutered. The CGI was awful and the direction was even worse. OH and let's not make Daniel Radcliffe cry on camera any more.

#5 - Don't get me started on the amount they cut - crucial or not. As well as don't get me started on the battle they had in the ministry. Glass flying around to ooooo the audience instead of actually fighting with the statue like in the book. They were blurs in the huge brawl and Sirius's fate was horribly done. It was supposed to be a powerful moment and it was like "oops, character died, move along, nothing to see here"

The fact you think Azkaban was the best says a lot about how wrong you are.

I didn't understand it at all until I read the book a few months later.

I think that says more about you than it does me. ;)

No, not really. They butchered the clarity of the plot in the third one. A simple flashback sequence would have cleared it up.

How so? They were in real time, took the time turner and flew back in time and came back.

....

snape kills dumbledore. Harry potter comes back to life., Kills Voldemort... then, He marries Ron's sister.

I'm not even talking about that part of the movie. I'm talking about all the Peter Pettigrew nonsense.

Anyway, I'm not even going to debate someone who thinks Asskaban was superior to Goblet. Especially when they bring up CGI as a point.

Are you saying the Dementors are worse CGI than his flipper feet in the water, the water scenes entirely and the maze? Are you crazy?

No. I'm saying people who bitch about CGI can't see the forest for the trees.

:spock:

as someone who read every book before the movies i think the 3rd and 5th movie were the most enjoyable. i really did not like the 4th near as much although it is still entertaining. the first and second movie i barely remember.