Last Harry Potter movie to be split in 2

[Evil Gringo 279]

Yeah but how long where the last two parts of the PoTC Trilogy? A series also aimed at children but also championed by adults.

 

Stick an intermission in there so they can gobble up some more popcorn and Fruit Shoot and they'll be fine just as they where by and large with the Pirates finale.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

I would have paid to see it and watched it and enjoyed.

 

But thats just my view, everyone is a critic after all.

 

But my feelings are regarding films, music, books or whatever creative medium, well they are that if you have a vision or a dream and want to capture then do not allow yourself to be restricted.

 

That view no doubt has hampered my feelings on the splitting of Potter and previously Kill Bill but that is honestly how I feel.

 

It wasn't Tarantino's idea to split Kill Bill. It's all one movie, hence why there is significantly less action in Vol. 2. 'Twas the studio's idea when they realised they were sitting on a four hour film.

[Evil Gringo 279]

Yes but if he had the balls he had when he was making his earlier pieces then he would have stood up to the studio because either way it would have still made tonnes of money ergo they'd be happy, he'd be happy and I would have been happy.

 

Plus I am still waiting for the DVD they have been mentioning since 2006 which has the original edit of the film as a whole as nature intended.

 

Damn studios.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Yes but if he had the balls he had when he was making his earlier pieces then he would have stood up to the studio because either way it would have still made tonnes of money ergo they'd be happy, he'd be happy and I would have been happy.

 

Plus I am still waiting for the DVD they have been mentioning since 2006 which has the original edit of the film as a whole as nature intended.

 

Damn studios.

None of his movies are 4+ hour sitdowns. We're talking Titantic length here. He was probably faced with a choice; edit it down or cut it in two. Atleast we got to see his whole vision.

 

And even then, I prefer it split up, just like how I prefer to have HP7 split up. Forget the money crap, I don't bother myself with that. I'll get to watch two movies that are properly panned out and developed. Together, I'll get to experience a complete vision. Just the way HP7 is, even though it's not a lengthy read, a LOT of time is passed in an almost painstaking manner. I'd like for their angst and frustration to be properly portrayed.

 

Also, the Hallows don't even become a driving point in the series until after my suggested half-way (Ron's return), so it does make sense.

[Guest Jung]

Yes but if he had the balls he had when he was making his earlier pieces then he would have stood up to the studio because either way it would have still made tonnes of money ergo they'd be happy, he'd be happy and I would have been happy.

 

Plus I am still waiting for the DVD they have been mentioning since 2006 which has the original edit of the film as a whole as nature intended.

 

Damn studios.

 

I don't think it would had anywhere near the same success it did, I mean look at what happened with Grindhouse. He and Robert Rodriguez got their way and it was a monumental commercial flop.

 

He has to play the game ultimately. The more success you have, means the more artistic license and political power you can throw. I think Tarantino probably realised after this being his first film(s) in 5 years or so, he had to give in a little to the man.

[Evil Gringo 279]

Like I said its just my view on it, if more in depth and die hard fans of the series then I am like the idea then it is hitting its target audience and mission done.

 

However I am just of the opinion that if you have a singular vision and product of it then when you let it transition into another genre then you should do all you can to make sure it does so in the same manner with no compromise.

 

In some ways yes you can argue that a split will allow for that but there is still a six month gap between the films which could be shorter (much like the gap between LotR films could have been) but in my own opinion what was made as a whole should remain a whole, warts and all.

 

I don't think it would had anywhere near the same success it did, I mean look at what happened with Grindhouse. He and Robert Rodriguez got their way and it was a monumental commercial flop.

 

He has to play the game ultimately. The more success you have, means the more artistic license and political power you can throw. I think Tarantino probably realised after this being his first film(s) in 5 years or so, he had to give in a little to the man.

 

Grindhouse was a flop though because it was a film that the studio had no faith in, the cast was poor and the timing of a film of its nature was long passed. It was too much of a niche market, even for him.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Evil Gringo

[Guest Fiona]

 

Seriously, the fact that THIS gets so much attention and money thrown at it when the Discworld Series (which could give us SO many diverse and entertaining films is ignored bar the odd little project) is not subject to the same treatment is beyond me.

 

 

Are you referring to the books by Terry Pratchett like the Colour of Magic or the Light Fantastic etc. If you are then I totally agree these books are extremely entertaining and I have read as many I a could get my hands on. A movie about Discworld would be great and they could spawn so many sequels off of it. Or maybe even a TV series. Mort was my favourtie so far.:xyx

[DC 536]

Discworld (and Pratchett in general) isn't, IMO, as easily accessible to the masses as the Harry Potter series, which is why Pratchett has had to make do with TV.

[Guest Fiona]

Discworld (and Pratchett in general) isn't, IMO, as easily accessible to the masses as the Harry Potter series, which is why Pratchett has had to make do with TV.

 

I've not seen the TV series. We don't get it here. But I just love this guys work. The Discworld books are so much better than Potter IMO.

[DC 536]

The Hogfather was shown on TV last year and The Colour of Magic is just about (if it hasn't started yet) to be aired.

[Evil Gringo 279]

What I suggested was that take a series of the Discworld books (as many can act as independent stories within a set world unlike the Potter series which is far more linear) such as the Witches trilogy or the Night Watch series and make them into a series of films.

 

Yes, Sky may have taken The Hogfather and now the Colour of Magic and changed it into a extended TV show but thats not the point. So much more could be done with the series compared to what has been with the Potter cannon of work.

[DC 536]

What I suggested was that take a series of the Discworld books (as many can act as independent stories within a set world unlike the Potter series which is far more linear) such as the Witches trilogy or the Night Watch series and make them into a series of films.

 

Yes, Sky may have taken The Hogfather and now the Colour of Magic and changed it into a extended TV show but thats not the point. So much more could be done with the series compared to what has been with the Potter cannon of work.

But again, it comes down to accessiblity. The movie moguls will want the movies to appeal to as many people as possible, and unfortunately, Pratchett's work doesn't fall into that category.

 

Movies based on Discworld wouldn't do as well as Harry Potter, especially in the United States, because of this.

 

I can understand a fan of Terry Pratchett wanting his stories made into movies, but compared to the Harry Potter series, it's just not financially viable.

[Guest Taki]

Thank God for that, I really dont think I could sit my kids along with 500 other screaming brats in a cinema for the length of time it would take to tell this story, kids get fidgety they need toilet breaks oh and most films dont start until 7pm meaning kids not getting home till midnight poor little sods would be wasted and falling asleep in cinemas taking away the magic of the movie, then when the dvd comes out you would have to dedicate a whole day to watching it not exactly something you could put on when they get home from school and have school the next day.

 

I really enjoyed the book and wondered how the film would be done to include such an amount of action and depth, and I think this is the best way to go, far too much would be cut out if they made one film, wanna blame anyone blame JK for writing such in depth books, I've complained before about the stuff they have left out in previous books and now they finally come up with a way to give it all to us.

 

Gringo LoTR were set almost a year apart each I went to the cinema to see them all and all in winter and not the same winter.

 

Milking it for what its worth or not the kids will love being stuck in suspense what you need to remember is some people only watch the films and not read the books so this is a great option for them too.

 

xXx

[Guest Saz]

But again, it comes down to accessiblity. The movie moguls will want the movies to appeal to as many people as possible, and unfortunately, Pratchett's work doesn't fall into that category.

 

Movies based on Discworld wouldn't do as well as Harry Potter, especially in the United States, because of this.

 

I can understand a fan of Terry Pratchett wanting his stories made into movies, but compared to the Harry Potter series, it's just not financially viable.

 

Besides, the colour of magic will be on Sky 1 on 23rd March.

[DC 536]

Besides, the colour of magic will be on Sky 1 on 23rd March.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that The Colour of Magic will be on soon and that Hogfather has already been aired.

 

Another point that Gringo mentioned was that the Harry Potter movies were more linear than Discworld. The fact that they're more linear is a plus for the producers of these movies as it means that they can be accessed by more people.

 

As Taki said, some people (myself included) have never read a Harry Potter book, and we are the audience that the movie producers want to attract. It's similar to wrestling in that the dedicated wrestling fans will already watch the product, so they need to do something to make sure the casual audience will tune in too. The Harry Potter movies do the same thing, as a non-fan can follow things pretty easily, whereas Discworld (and Pratchett in general) isn't as easy to just step into blind.

[Paul 584]

But again, it comes down to accessiblity. The movie moguls will want the movies to appeal to as many people as possible, and unfortunately, Pratchett's work doesn't fall into that category.

 

Movies based on Discworld wouldn't do as well as Harry Potter, especially in the United States, because of this.

 

I can understand a fan of Terry Pratchett wanting his stories made into movies, but compared to the Harry Potter series, it's just not financially viable.

 

I have to disagree with this.

 

The Discworld books are some of the highest sellers in the western world (dont know about anywhere else, but I think they do well in Japan). They easily outsell many books turned into films (Eragon, The Golden Compass for example). Its just they are often percieved as being niche books, despite evidence to the contrary. Hell, even Pratchett himself has said the media perception of the people who read his books is very different to everything shown by litererererery suveys.

[DC 536]

I have to disagree with this.

 

The Discworld books are some of the highest sellers in the western world (dont know about anywhere else, but I think they do well in Japan). They easily outsell many books turned into films (Eragon, The Golden Compass for example). Its just they are often percieved as being niche books, despite evidence to the contrary. Hell, even Pratchett himself has said the media perception of the people who read his books is very different to everything shown by litererererery suveys.

So if they are perceived to be inaccessible, doesn't that kinda go along with what I was saying with regards to the general public not being as open to them as the Potter movies? If the general public think that the movie is too dense (as in heavy, not stupid), then they will sidestep it.

 

Also, IMO, the Discworld books aren't aimed at kids in the same way that the Potter movies are, so that in itself would put the movie decision makers off.

 

One point you may be overlooking is that people who read books are different animals from those who watch movies. The Discworld books may outsell other books, but that doesn't mean that it would outsell other book-to-movie translations.

Edited March 17, 2008 by DC

[Paul 584]

So if they are perceived to be inaccessible, doesn't that kinda go along with what I was saying with regards to the general public not being as open to them as the Potter movies?

 

Not at all, I was reffering to the media rather than the general public. one place that the media normally falls down is how the public will view the arts (be it books, films or music. Hell look at the slating The Darkness got before Kerrang realised everyone loved them! Best U Turn in media history :lol).

 

One point you may be overlooking is that people who read books are different animals from those who watch movies. The Discworld books may outsell other books, but that doesn't mean that it would outsell other book-to-movie translations.

 

Which makes your points moot then as its not the books thast the issue, just the marketting of the films, bono (I started typing 'no' but typed bono. It made me laugh so I left it :lol)? Plus something like The Discworld should be so stupidly easy to market to the young audience that its a sure fire money maker.

 

edit for Dcs edit:

 

Also, IMO, the Discworld books aren't aimed at kids in the same way that the Potter movies are, so that in itself would put the movie decision makers off

 

A lot of them are! The Nac Mac Feegal books are, as is 'Eric' and 'The Amazing Maurice'.

Plus they are all easy for younger readers anyway (12+ beyond a doubt, possibly younger) and an adaptation of most would be easy to appeal to kids without losing integrety.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Paul

[DC 536]

Which makes your points moot then as its not the books thast the issue, just the marketting of the films, bono (I started typing 'no' but typed bono. It made me laugh so I left it :lol)? Plus something like The Discworld should be so stupidly easy to market to the young audience that its a sure fire money maker.

Big rule of the movie business; nothing is a surefire money maker.

 

As for the books v movies thing, it doesn't make my point moot (or if it does, it also makes your point moot), because the book sales that you mentioned as your reason why the movie would do well mean nothing seeing as how it's not the books thats the issue.

 

I'm not saying that a series of movies on Discworld woudn't make money, my argument is that they wouldn't do as well as the Harry Potter movies.

[Paul 584]

As for the books v movies thing, it doesn't make my point moot (or if it does, it also makes your point moot), because the book sales that you mentioned as your reason why the movie would do well mean nothing seeing as how it's not the books thats the issue.

 

I know, that was my point. Your claim that they arent as accessable would have to be reliant on the books as the TV shows (well Hogfather up to now) have proven hits with a wide age group. I countered with the fact that they blatently are.

 

 

I'm not saying that a series of movies on Discworld woudn't make money, my argument is that they wouldn't do as well as the Harry Potter movies.

 

 

Sorry, I must have misunderstood this quote:

 

I can understand a fan of Terry Pratchett wanting his stories made into movies, but compared to the Harry Potter series, it's just not financially viable.

 

the last 5 words made it seem to me that you thought they werent financially viable. Though looking back your right that you didnt otherwise say you didnt think they would make money. I do agree its unlikely they would match teh Potter franchise, but in fairness how many films would at all?