the other problem that splitting the Deathly Hallows shares with the Hobbit is that neither has a suitable cliffhanger roughly 50% of the way through the book. it means that you have to not only hype up something within the book to make it into a phony cliffhanger, but you also have to build up a phony climax, etc.

also, Yates is a good director and OOTP was a good potter film. but he's not Cuaron and its a shame if the Potter series doesn't get to see Cuaron's magic again.

MotherFucker

Love that it's two films . . . they've had to cut SOOO much from other books, and you just want to stay in that world as long as possible . . . I agree, I don't want to watch them sitting the woods for an hour, but there's plenty left to fill two films.

Really would have loved to see new directors though . . . why stop changing now? Give Nolan or Guillermo a shot!!

Emma Watson needs to stop shouting and acting with her eyebrows too, stupid tart. Spoiled the last 2 films for me in a big way

I'd pay $1.99 for that on iTunes, for sure. And advertisers would love to get in on it for television broadcast.

Seriously, this series is good on film, but suffering in MANY ways. It needs a re-do, now that the book series is finished and we can see that omitting certain characters or scenes was a BIG MISTAKE made by the filmmakers.

I want to see this on film, done right, and that requires a LOT of hours. They could make each season of the show be ONE book, and they'd have more than enough material for it to work.

Here's hoping the remake or animation(IF there is one) does better!

If the Potter books don't hook you right off the bat, you're probably not going to get into them at any point . . . cheezy as it may be, it really is indulging in kid-sense of magic and wonder. They aren't the most important books ever written, but they're a lot of fun.

There's a lot more, but you'd have to have half a brain and read the books to get it. The movies gloss over the themes of fighting against bigotry, racial purity, and a despotic ruler who forces his ideology upon his followers, and boils it down to "Voldemort is evil", which I admit is sort of weak.

In the books, Voldemort is a lot more than just a bad wizard; He's Hitler with the power of Merlin. Think about that. And I mean it quite literally-- Voldemort's every move parallels some Hitleresque action or trait. He's a sad, rejected child who is ashamed of his heritage, so he covers it up by screaming about racial purity and pointing fingers at some other group, blaming them for all his woes, and telling his followers they'll be free and satisfied once they destroy anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

It's not just "some nerdy looky kid who goes to school for a few years" at all. That's the most basic level of the book. That's what you see when you're a kid and don't understand anything about world history, racism, or the more adult undertones present from book two onward.

Don't let the haters sway you. These are the kind of guys who wouldn't open a book if their life depended on it, unless it had a picture of Venom fighting a Predator on the cover.

Oh and don't worry about Williams, he confirmed a while back that he was returning for the final Potter film.

The climax of OOtP was just wrong compared to the book. There was NO sense of danger for the children like there was in the book (kids had broken ankles, bloody noses, Hermione was thought dead for awhile), and Harry had NO reaction to Sirius dying, NO anger toward Dumbledore at the end-- basically, the emotional catharsis at the end was non-existent. Harry felt worse for Cedric Diggory the way this movie played out.

Also, Nicholas Hooper's score was AWFUL. I very much prefer Patrick Doyle's Goblet score (which grows on me the more I see the movie).

And can we please stop contradicting previous movies or acting like the audience won't remember other characters if they don't feature in the film? Glaring example: In GoF, its shown that Barty Crouch JR tortured the Longbottoms, yet in OOtP, ONLY Bellatrix is said to be the one who tortured Neville's parents.

What, Yates, are you afraid the audience will be left wondering who the heck Barty Crouch JR is if you were to allow someone to mention his name?

As much as I believe WB owns Yates because he doesn't have any other real movies under his belt, and THATS why OOtP was short- I have to disagree. From an EW article last year, Yates himself who, after confessing to never have read any Harry Potter novels, said he DID NOT LIKE the previous movies bc he felt they were "too long", and that he was DETERMINED to make this the shortest film in the series.

See? Arbitrary decision. Make the longest book in the series the shortest movie, just bc he thought the others were too long.

Man I hate this guy.

Maybe he only read the 5th book, and that's why he ignored lots of small, minor details that connected the 5th film to previous chapters, something that would have made this series feel more cohesive and less like "related" stories but not true sequels.

And these are easy things to do! For example, Hagrid mentioning he went on the giant mission with Olympe, the teacher from Beauxbatons. That's a half second for him to mention her name, it connects his character to the one from the 4th film, makes it all feel more cohesive, like a bigger story and this isn't just happening to Hogwarts.

Barty Crouch JR not mentioned as torturing the Longbottoms...

Crap, what else did I type... Damn you internets.

Oh yeah, Percy shows up and noone calls him by name or explains what's happened to him.

and the most glaring omission was Snape! Not a single time did anyone suspect or outright say that Snape was possibly weakening Harry's mind for infiltration by Voldemort! That's a huge set-up, especially for the next movie, and Yates blew it! Harry should be railing on Dumbledore at the end, saying Snape hates Harry and still works for Voldy and Dumby is dumb and blind for not seeing it.

We, the audience, should be questioning Snape's loyalties all the way to the end, just as Harry and Ron do. But nooooo, there was not ONE second where anyone suspected Snape of foul play. Its just stupid. Detail-less. A movie made by a non-fan of the series.

Really, how hard is it to find a good director that loves the series and would do it justice?

Warner Brothers wants to make money. So they want to keep producing HP films. Big deal. Everyone wants to make money. When you have one of the all time biggest franchise movies at your studio, and they continue to make a profit, why wouldn't you keep releasing them? It's not even greed. It's just common sense. The only thing that could possibly be seen as cash grubbing is releasing the seventh book in two films. I think they could have made the book into one film very easily, but at least this way they won't have to cut as much out. Ultimately, we the audience benefit. The studios too. So I don't see the problem.

Curaon or Del Toro would give me more hope though.

Don't be foolish Razorback. I understand the screenwriting process, I've taken classes, I've written them myself. I understand when to take things out, when to leave things in, but believe me when I say these things left out are EASY fixes and I've not seen one good explanation for why they were left out.

I continue to blame Yates bc if he had read the books and cared about these movies feeling more cohesive, if he was a fan, he might be more concerned with FORESHADOWING (for instance, putting doubt in our mind's about Snape's allegiances), something the Star Wars films and LOTR were able to do easily (Jabba the Hutt mentioned in ESB, Gondor being shown and talked about, but not featured till ROTK).

If you think the director can't influence things like that, you're gravely mistaken.

And when a movie fails, who do you blame? The screenwriter who gave the blueprints? Or the director who took them and screwed up the building or made his own additions for better or for worse?

I COMPLETELY agree with this assessment. I'm not sure that she will write them herself, but I'm sure there will be a bunch of side-stories, and a history of hogwarts books, or prequels about Harry's parents, Snape, etc.

The interesting thing about that, though, is that... ok, Rowling has made untold millions of dollars, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $80-$250 million off of these books(big range, but it's difficult to tell exactly and either number is entirely possible). It's like the same thing as Lucas and Peter Jackson. How much money, exactly, does one CREATIVE person need and when do they cross the line and just become a business person? With Lucas, I think it's that he needs the capital to run those companies and at least a thousand employees depend on his franchises for their well-being, so it's kind of a no-brainer that he keep milking his cow (however much the product sucks, we keep buying it.) Although, to his credit, he kept away from Star Wars and Indiana Jones for nearly 10 years despite considerable pressure from within his own company to go back to the well for more during that period between Last Crusade and the Special Editions. (Young Indy Chronicles doesn't count cause it was clearly Lucas jerking his own chain, doing what he wanted by NOT making it an adventure series.)

But with Harry Potter, the pressure has to be on to keep milking the cash cow, for no other reason than to make more money, and this is a prime example. When you consider that everyone who goes to see it will now pay TWICE in the theater and at least twice on DVD, the money they're going to make off this is absolutely insane. Then, when the tap runs dry with no more theatrical releases, no more books, and no more DVD's, you can sure as shit bet that this entire franchise will be expanded and 'opened up' to ensure that Harry Potter continues to make money even longer, perhaps, that the Star Wars franchise has.

Because, with LOTR, you have the preciousness (excuse the pun) of the books themselves. There's only so much they can do, besides this Hobbit movie, before people cry foul and it actually works against them as far as profits. With Harry Potter, it's new enough that they can take it in the direction of a multi-generational money-making franchise. It's not Harry Potter so much (although prequels will inevitably be made, and maybe even a sequel of his adventures as a wizened old wizard with his own protege), but the Hogwarts and wizards aspects that will keep the franchise continuously evolving over the next thirty years or so. The money-making potential here is limitless compared to Star Wars and LOTR, because it's all new and it STARTED in literary form, so there can realistically be a more constant play between books, movies, television shows, and whatever else they can come up with. It really is aimed at younger kids, so any crossover appeal can be claimed to be purely accident, and when it's too childish for adults, they could REALLY say (unlike Lucas, where, no matter what he intended, the Ewoks, Jar Jar, and the prequels themselves always seem suspect), "hey, it was always meant to be for kids anyway.",

I don't know, I just find this stuff interesting from a financial perspective, where a person simply creates a scenario with some characters that people like and a good storyline, and then it goes on to become a brand like fucking microsoft or mcdonalds, continuously earning money over a period of, with Star Wars at least, decades. Exactly how far can you take this sort of thing and at what point is a franchise like Star Wars or Harry Potter expected to pack it in, if ever?

you get the idea.

Don't hire your friend to do the music. Harry Potter deserves better.

Ok, so you have to pay twice. After you see Part 1, put away a nickel every day until you have enough to go see part 2. You're all set. Problem solved. It'd be one thing if they were planning on stretching it out unnecessarily. But there's plenty of material for two movies.

My only problem is that I was looking for something fresh for the 7th movie so this Yates thing I'm not THAT keen on, but Warners will have my forgiveness if they bring back Williams. Someone needs to start a petition.

Obligatory Mikey Clayton ref. here, sorry. Alrighty-Will this Have GIANT ROBOTS?? PUT IN THE FUCKING GIANT ROBOTS ALREADY!!

and drag out the Kid and the Monkey from Speed Racer, Too! Add both-you will have a Bang-up Potter flick even I'd go see---

But in this case it should be seen as a win-win situation. They get their mountain of cash and we get a more detailed adaptation. So much has been left out of the last two films. What we've seen wasn't that bad, but when half the book is discarded it really gives any screen version a rushed, disjointed feeling. I only wish they had done this starting with part 4.

And I agree with Mr. Gorilla. One day (ONE DAY) someone will produce a faithful, detailed adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Then all the suckers of Peter Jackson's crank might actually see we've been right all along. But wah wah wah he made gazillions and won Oscars.....crank suckers.