In the process of ruining the series. .

[huntington12]

Let's face it, the remaining HP movies are going to differ a great deal from the books. It is to bad the a-holes at WarnerBros. don't understand that HP fans would sit through 3 or 4 hours of the movie version of these books. Sadly, the producers seem bent on cookie cutting at 2 to 2 1/2 movie that fits their idea of a successful production. Unless Rowling steps forward and say, "NO", we are all going to be greatly disappointed.

And worse yet, GOF and OoPhoenix are much longer and will have to endure even greater story molesting that the first 3 books have undergone..... . So, get ready to be disappointed.

In 30 years maybe they will remake the series and do it justice.. .maybe. . . . maybe the current cast can be cloned and used again. . . lol:rolleyes:

[starphoenix]

i dunno, i mean, they are movies, the makers are trying to make money... i know die-hard harry potter lovers (lol, like myself) would LOVE to watch a four-hour movie, but alot of people who are simply interested, don't wanna sit that long.... they don't have the time. there aren't enough harry potter fans who'll sit that long..... and even I get a bit edgy sittin there 4 too long. i love seeing the whole movie, but even the second one I found long.... and it wasn't even 3 hours! so, naturally, they do have to cut stuff out and i'd say that they do a pretty good job of what they do put in.... i guess instead of everyone insulting and critizing what they DON'T put in, think of what they DO !!!

[anma22]

Who says everyone will be disappointed I was disappointed by the first movie because I expected a perfect adaptation of the book. By the second movie I got it that it was almost impossible to fit everything in the movie and still have it clock at a resonable time so I went in with lower expectations and enjoyed it much more. Just like the third one as long as they don't make it boring I will probably enjoy it.

Movies have to stand separate from the books because they a two different things. It is the author's book and the director's movie if the director thinks changing, adding, or taking away something from the movie will make it a better movie he should be able to do it.

By the way if the movie were remade in thirty years the original actors probably wouldn't be clones it would just be cgi which will be much better.

[redman]

Originally posted by anma22
Movies have to stand separate from the books because they a two different things. It is the author's book and the director's movie if the director thinks changing, adding, or taking away something from the movie will make it a better movie he should be able to do it.

When it comes to adapting movies like HP i think the director should only have some freedom to change or add things cause some directors ruin movies doing that.

[huntington12]

Maybe the directors could, should, be made to release a movie version and a DVD version of the books. How the OotP can be made into a 2 hour movie is beyond my comprehension of reality. I suggest a two parter. .. . .one up to the Umbridge takeover, and one after... . 2 hours each. .

[MidgetNazgul2]

That would be great, but probably impossible...this has been discussed before, I think...

[starphoenix]

yeah, it would be impossible... and i don't even get what the big deal is anyway. like anma22 says, movies and books are two different things.... the movie makers are not bound to a contract saying they should put everything in, and they shouldn't be. hey, i'm want everything in it just as much as anyone, but it's not realistic!! think of the costs, the time and effort..... it'd take at least 2 years just to make one, and then fans would moan about that too.
no matter what they do not everyone'll be happy.... it's just the way things are.
like i said before..... not many would sit through those movies... and the only reason they're making them is because they want the world to see what great ideas rowling has, and to have children who haven't read the books, still get a taste.
i'd say we're lucky they're even makin movies.... so be glad for what they did make.
we have the books for the rest.

[jared2402]

I was a bit worried reading things about POA at first, but came to like it. But this is going too far! I really think that attempting to make GOF one film is rediculas! I really hope they alter the diecision, if made, and opt for 2 movies. I orignally though about it and disliked the idea, but after review, trying to make it one film would be disasterous.................:(

[huntington12]

Anyone who really believes, "the movies and books are two different things" are people who are not really HP fans. By changing the books contents to fit a movie concept is say that th book wasn't good enough for the movie......... . does anyone believe what JKR has written on the pages of her books is not good enough to be made into a movie. .. ...????

If the screen writer or director wants a different story, they should write one and not change someone elses work. More and more I question how many people are really reading the books and how many are merely saying they are to sound relevant. .gits

[Mobycat]

Originally posted by huntington12
Anyone who really believes, "the movies and books are two different things" are people who are not really HP fans. By changing the books contents to fit a movie concept is say that th book wasn't good enough for the movie......... . does anyone believe what JKR has written on the pages of her books is not good enough to be made into a movie. .. ...????

Nonsense. Show me one book/movie combo that they are identical. It doesn't happen. You have no understanding of moviemaking whatsoever.

Example: High Fidelity. Great book, great movie. Not alike.

More and more I question how many people are really reading the books and how many are merely saying they are to sound relevant. .gits

Enough of the "git" thing. Is this a word you just heard and now like to use just to be cool?

[huntington12]

It's not "identical" I am searching for. .. .. ...it is intellectually consistant........ .a 2 hour GoF can not be "intellectually consistant with the book. ......

As for the git reference..... .. ............. it not "cool" I am going for...... it's more like using the least to get the most. .. .. .don't know that I have come across such a vicious, indicting word in quite some time.. . .. ... .besides, if you call someone intellectually dishonest... . . ..it probably would fly over the heads of 95% of these boarders. . . . but, git, that is a reference they can all understand and relate to. . . .... . . . ...git. . ...so fitting. .

[Mobycat]

Originally posted by huntington12
As for the git reference..... .. ............. it not "cool" I am going for...... it's more like using the least to get the most. .. .. .don't know that I have come across such a vicious, indicting word in quite some time.. . .. ... .besides, if you call someone intellectually dishonest... . . ..it probably would fly over the heads of 95% of these boarders. . . . but, git, that is a reference they can all understand and relate to. . . .... . . . ...git. . ...so fitting. .

OK, I'll give you that. :)

[Sirius Black]

Oh screw this crap already!!! I want to see as much of the books in the films as possible but there is only so far you can take it. Books and film are different. There are things in books which will not work in film. They detroy the continuity of the thing. I dont mind changes as long as the movie is done good. Look at Lord of the Rings. Look at how much has been changed, and yet look how amazing those films have turned out to be. It doesnt matter what is changed as long as the soul of the book is kept intact, and as long as the person making it has a true PASSION for the source material, then they can change all they want because in the end the spirit of the source material will remain intact and the film will be a good film. So stop your useless *****ing and actually WAIT to see the movie before you start belly-aching about how much it is gonna suck. My personal opinion is this, the movies, like the books, will get better and better as they go along.

[huntington12]

If this is so then please explain how any filmaker is going to take a 740 page book, GoF, and cram it into a 2 hours movie and not lose the intellectual intregrity of the book? Unless Dumbledore is the director,. . .. nope its Newell, than I don't see that happening. It may in the final analysis be futile to moan and complain about something that has yet to occur, but if I look up and see an avalanche coming I don't wait for it to get there before I consider the damage. . ..... .if not us than who? I would rather bit$h now, than wish I would've after it comes out and is a Waterworld type wreck........ how about Postman.. .....

The books are indeed getting better and better, but that is because they are deeper, richer in character development and longer. . .. . . how does that square with a 2 hour movie.. . . ?????

I hope I am wrong.

[Sirius Black]

Dude it wont be a two hour movie. You can pretty much gaurantee it wont. Most of that is studio wish list but as soon as they TRY it, they will see it is impossible to keep it down to 2 hours. It will most likely end up being 3 hours. So calm down and just wait. Your talking about something that hasnt even begun production yet. Cool off go have a soda or something. Besides the first 2 are well over 2 hours. The new one is also said to be well over 2 hours. Why on earth would they make one of the longest books the shortest film. Its common sense. If people would cool down and think of the fatcs a little they would see the movie is pretty much garaunteed to be over 2 and a half hours. Just calm down and wait and see.

[starphoenix]

Originally posted by Sirius Black
Dude it wont be a two hour movie. You can pretty much gaurantee it wont. Most of that is studio wish list but as soon as they TRY it, they will see it is impossible to keep it down to 2 hours. It will most likely end up being 3 hours. So calm down and just wait. Your talking about something that hasnt even begun production yet. Cool off go have a soda or something. Besides the first 2 are well over 2 hours. The new one is also said to be well over 2 hours. Why on earth would they make one of the longest books the shortest film. Its common sense. If people would cool down and think of the fatcs a little they would see the movie is pretty much garaunteed to be over 2 and a half hours. Just calm down and wait and see.

exactly

[AkDrifter]

while triming down 740 to 120 for a movie can be done it will be a challange... movie being visural you can cut down a lot from the scene setups and fasion decusions buy showing the parts and not telling them like you have to in a book. that will cut down a lot.

having the same writer doing all the movies will also help... also have the books do so well and the first two movies do well will also help convince the studios to allow longer scripts and allow JKR to have more say into what goes into the movies.

I think she probable feels pertty confidence in the writer after dealing with him for the last two movies.

while there are things you just can't transition from book to movie I think a lot of people will be surpirsed to find out just how much turning it into a visural will cut down on the amount of transition is needed.

I think the bigest cuts will be the special effects in the quidich games that ill be cut down. spend more time in just the important parts of the game that is needed to move the story along.

I first time writer or spec script is keep to 120 and they don't have the history to change that ... but a move made from a successful book will a history will be allowed to devate from the norm.

Ricky

[anma22]

Perfect.

[roboxeno]

i read the books and see the movie so IDC

[hpk37067]

I heard they're going to have quidditch. That kinda bumps up the expectancy in the movie.

[Mike_Carrie]

Originally posted by huntington12
Let's face it, the remaining HP movies are going to differ a great deal from the books. It is to bad the a-holes at WarnerBros. don't understand that HP fans would sit through 3 or 4 hours of the movie version of these books. Sadly, the producers seem bent on cookie cutting at 2 to 2 1/2 movie that fits their idea of a successful production. Unless Rowling steps forward and say, "NO", we are all going to be greatly disappointed.

And worse yet, GOF and OoPhoenix are much longer and will have to endure even greater story molesting that the first 3 books have undergone..... . So, get ready to be disappointed.

In 30 years maybe they will remake the series and do it justice.. .maybe. . . . maybe the current cast can be cloned and used again. . . lol:rolleyes:


erm JK has a say in what gets put in the movies or not. i think they did the films justice compared to some other book to movie adaptations. (E.G. Jurassic park.) the writer actully has a say in what gets put into it or not. GOF and Phoenix will be 2 movies long (oh yes i have no doubt in that) the main reason why they cut it is becuase most adults and children will not sit down to watch a 3 or 4 hour movie. in 30 year hollywood wont be making films like the harry potters anymore. in lets say 50 or 60 years we might see them again.

lets see would YOU sit throught a three or four hour i could just it throught a 3 hours film but it was hell for me. imagine 7 and up years olds sitting throught one three to four hour film they would hate it.

[hpk37067]

They're not making GOF into 2 movies. It's confirmed. Somewhere. Don't know whether's it's reliable or not.

[Queen Me]

If I wrote a book and it was made into a movie, I would direct it :p

[Mike_Carrie]

Originally posted by Queen Me
If I wrote a book and it was made into a movie, I would direct it :p

yeah but directors dont have a good say in what getts put in the films or not. the studios do. and the writer lso does.

[Mike_Carrie]

Originally posted by hpk37067
They're not making GOF into 2 movies. It's confirmed. Somewhere. Don't know whether's it's reliable or not.

what do you have a link, if WB's said it was going to be one film, then it is true, otherwise it was just a dumb rumour. i have made them up myself and people have fallen for them.

[Mobycat]

Originally posted by Mike_Carrie
yeah but directors dont have a good say in what getts put in the films or not. the studios do. and the writer lso does.

Not true. Look at The Shining.

Kubrick did it how he wanted, and Stephen King HATES it.

The studios don't have much of a say compared to the Director. The director has the final say most of the time.

The writer of the book - only if they have enough power (i.e. Rowling, Grisham, Clancy) can they have any influence. Heck, the screenwriter doesn't really have a whole lot of say - their work gets revised all the time, including during filming.

The reason Rowling has so much influence is because she basically said, "If it's not how I want it, I'm not signing."

Potter is a cash cow for the studios - they'll let her do what she wants. Heyman wants to keep her happy, and so does Columbus. So they'll let her have her say. Kloves realizes that it's a series, not just one movie, so he let's her tell him what needs to stay (as there are still 2 books to go, and he won't know if something is important or not).

[Mike_Carrie]

Originally posted by Mobycat
Not true. Look at The Shining.

Kubrick did it how he wanted, and Stephen King HATES it.

The studios don't have much of a say compared to the Director. The director has the final say most of the time.

The writer of the book - only if they have enough power (i.e. Rowling, Grisham, Clancy) can they have any influence. Heck, the screenwriter doesn't really have a whole lot of say - their work gets revised all the time, including during filming.

The reason Rowling has so much influence is because she basically said, "If it's not how I want it, I'm not signing."

Potter is a cash cow for the studios - they'll let her do what she wants. Heyman wants to keep her happy, and so does Columbus. So they'll let her have her say. Kloves realizes that it's a series, not just one movie, so he let's her tell him what needs to stay (as there are still 2 books to go, and he won't know if something is important or not).

actully you are wrong, producers have the final say 99.99% of the time. the other precent goes to the studios and screenwriters. very ocastional does it happen like that. the shining and gangs of new york are like that, but the others arent. the main reason it getts revised during filming is the found out a way to make it closer to the book. Wb has writes to 4 films and jk will move is she can find a better deal somewhere or is she is unhappy about it. thats why WB is delaying there films. Columbus is only exuc producing now and leaving directing to other folk.

movies rarley turn out exactly like the books. they are based on. it is known or movies to out do the novels, and the end up somewhere else otherthan the books.

[Mobycat]

Originally posted by Mike_Carrie
actully you are wrong, producers have the final say 99.99% of the time. the other precent goes to the studios and screenwriters. very ocastional does it happen like that. the shining and gangs of new york are like that, but the others arent. the main reason it getts revised during filming is the found out a way to make it closer to the book. Wb has writes to 4 films and jk will move is she can find a better deal somewhere or is she is unhappy about it. thats why WB is delaying there films. Columbus is only exuc producing now and leaving directing to other folk.

movies rarley turn out exactly like the books. they are based on. it is known or movies to out do the novels, and the end up somewhere else otherthan the books.

Actually, I am right. I work in the field. I know exactly how it works.

Once the screenwriter is done, that's the end of their influence. It's rare for them to even be on the set.

(And Warner has rights to all 7 books, btw)

[redman]

i thought the producers had all the control?

[Mobycat]

They can, and do exert control. But the director has the final say as to how something is done.

Producer's have control, simply because they have the money. But generally speaking, the producer says what kind of direction they want, who they want to hire, and interaction between the crew and the studio.

(And of course, if the director takes it too much away from the general direction, the producer can always fire them - but then you're talking a huge cost just replacing them (and reshooting, if they decide to).)

Almost all artistic direction is taken by the director. Some cases not, obviously - HP for example.

If the producer had complete control, I'm not sure Heyman and Columbus would want Cuaron making it as different as he is appearing to do.

(Yes, I know those two paragraphs seem to contradict each other)

Good example - not that he's ever been considered, but Tim Burton would make a good movie, I'm sure. But it might be too far from what they want, so they simply wouldn't hire him.

[Seraph333]

I think the smartest thing to do would be to just make the G.O.F and O.O.T.P movies atleast 3 and a half hours each, i think that would be sufficient and i think everybody would be willing to sit through that much time of HP as long as it's good and it probably will be with Columbus still producing so he would'nt let anything get out of hand. Personally i think the only problem that can turn up is the amount of time the movies are.

[Mobycat]

If they do that, they'd have to have an intermission, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

Last movie I remember seeing with an intermission was Reds. That movie was 3 hours 14 minutes.

Schindler's List had no intermission, it was 3 hours 17 minutes. But it also didn't have too many kids in the audience. Depending on the movie, it sometimes doesn't feel as long as it is. Shindler's List to me felt much shorter, because it was so riveting. HP is sorta the same way - not riveting per se, but it had a constant pace. Problem is that some kids are gonna have to take a bathroom break. So just give 'em an intermission.

[Rizor]

Gods and Generals was 3 and a half hours with an intermission.

3 hours or a little over would seem like a good time. It's not that much of a stretch. I think COS was 2 hours and 50 minutes. And kids sat through LOTR just fine.

[_manuel_]

Originally posted by Mobycat
Not true. Look at The Shining.

Kubrick did it how he wanted, and Stephen King HATES it.

I didnt know that.:alien:



Originally posted by Mobycat
Actually, I am right. I work in the field. I know exactly how it works.


Really? What kind of work do you do?

[Mobycat]

Originally posted by _manuel_
Really? What kind of work do you do?

Editing and DP (Director of Photography).

Mostly non-commercial stuff (things you'll never see), occassionally entertainment related stuff.

[_manuel_]

Originally posted by Mobycat
Editing and DP (Director of Photography).

Mostly non-commercial stuff (things you'll never see), occassionally entertainment related stuff.

:cool:

[eclipsedman]

Damn thats a good sig. Manuel where did you get it? I like the idea of Burton doing a film but hes set to do Charlie and the Choclate Factory with WB, so its out of the question for now. Damn his visual style would be perfect for the darker books. Just imagine his visual style for 12 Grimmauld place.

[AkDrifter]

As for long movies... they could make it longer but another thing to think about is the theaters... making it longer would mean less showing of the film per day bringing the numbers lower taking longer to make the profit back. its a minor thing granted but studios think about that stuff its in there reasoning for keeping movies to a 120 minute length.

things that may allow for longer movies.. the subject of the movie, who is producing, who is directing, who is staring.

HP I think would be albe to go longer but I think the cut off would be 3 hours max. Anything longer I would bet the would break it up into 2 movies like matrix 2/3

Ricky