In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Just Like Magic: Next Potter Film Multiplies
Daniel Radcliffe in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures
Harry Potter fans at the edge of their seats in anticipation of the final film installment are getting two movies instead of one.
Warner Brothers said Wednesday that the series' final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, is so long — tallying 784 pages — that the filmmakers decided to split it into two pieces. According to the Reporter, instead of compromising the storyline with excisions or making an exceptionally long movie, the flick, to become parts one and two, will be shot back-to-back for releases in November 2010 and May 2011, respectively.
J.K. Rowling's Hallows sold more than 11 million copies in its first 24 hours on bookshelves last fall, so the film version x 2 seems to = excellent profits for Warners, plus extra thrills for filmgoers (especially since teen superstar Daniel Radcliffe's signed on). Are you excited for Harry times two? Or ready for Hogwarts to wrap it up? — Anna Dimond
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 8:01 PM
|
|
I find it somewhat odd that Daniel Radcliffe will qualify for the half-price senior citizen's ticket when the final part hits theaters. Does that bother anyone else?
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 8:15 PM
|
|
^^ don't jinx it matt, for a die hard fan like me, theres no problems!! i can't wait to see the remaining films! and daniel is perfect for the part, no complaints!
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 8:32 PM
|
|
Radcliffe a senior citizen? A few years older than Harry, but come on. You must be very young Matt.
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 8:57 PM
|
|
So will the films be titled Harry Potter and the First-half-blood Prince and then the Second-half-blood Prince?
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 8:57 PM
|
|
Matt, as a serious Harry Potter fan I take offence that you mistaken the Half-Blood Prince as the last book. The book to be flimed in two movies is Deathly Hallows. If your gonna joke about HP get it right!
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 9:04 PM
|
I don't know how I feel about this. My favorite movies aren't the first couple, in which they were slavish in their recreations of the books, but rather the later ones. I know that they cut a lot out of the books to make the movies, but I want an enjoyable movie, not a book recreation. I am perfectly capable of rereading the book if I want to get all of the details. I think it makes for a much better streamlined, stand-alone movie when a lot of the extraneous side-plot stuff is removed. (Although the details are great to read about in the books.)
There were a lot of parts of the seventh book that I wasn't fond of, and I have would love to have seen a tightened up version for the big screen. I feel (sacrilegiously?) that the book only got good about halfway in, so does that mean I can just skip the first movie?
On the other hand, I really enjoyed most of the Harry Potter books and movies, so maybe another isn't a bad thing. I suppose it is better than another Harry Potter knock-off. Maybe.
Oh well. I'll reserve judgment. (Until I read what critics think of the first movie, that is... *grin*)
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 9:12 PM
|
When the last movie comes out in May 2011, Radcliffe will be 22 years old, and likely will have finished filming the last movie a year before it comes out.
A 21 year old playing a 17 year old is not exactly a wild stretch. Look at shows like Friday Night Lights, where I think the youngest "high school student" is 25.
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 9:14 PM
|
|
Oh Matt, what a tired old joke. When they finish filming (probably 2010), Daniel will be all of 21 years old. It's so stupid that people think that's too old to play a 17-year-old. Kristen Bell was 24 when she started playing 16-year-old Veronica Mars and I never heard anyone complaining about her elderly status. Enough already!
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 9:20 PM
|
Well, I'm happy that it was decided not to cut anything out of the final book. However, so much was cut from the other movies, I hope the final one makes sense. I absolutely loved this series and I'm happy to have watched the actors that played these characters grow up.
It's really scary to go back to the first movie. They were so small!!!
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 9:22 PM
|
If Harrison Ford can play Indiana Jones in his sixties, I don't see why Daniel Radcliff can't play 17-year-old Harry Potter in his late teens/early twenties.
I'm more curious about where they'll end the first film and begin the second.
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 9:59 PM
|
|
I still wish that OotP had been two movies, because I think that it would have served the narrative better. I have to say, though, that there was a lot in the last book that could have been tightened up a bit, so I'm hoping that even with two movies, they do some judicious excising of extraneous material. I'd also like to see a longer epilogue...speaking of, that could be the part that strains credulity, not early-20s actors playing teens.
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 10:08 PM
|
|
I think it's great! There is no other way to do the book justice!
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 10:11 PM
|
I am fine with there being 2 movies so long as the same actors play the parts. I can't stand the thought of someone else playing Ron or Hermione, especially given their storylines in the 7th book, so I hope they all sign up again.
Looking at the books, probably the final four books should have been two installments. They are twice as thick as the first three and a lot was cut out of them, at least so far in the movies.
As for you, Matt Webb Mitovich, Daniel Radcliffe may end up being 21 when the final movie is filmed, but he will still be younger and better looking than you!!!! 
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 10:16 PM
|
|
I am so excited that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be shot into two films. It was such an awesome book, I would hate if they left anything out when they make the movie. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they made one 5 hour long movie. Harry Potter ROCKS!!!!
|
|
Mar 12, 2008 10:38 PM
|
|
|
