[Aislinn]

Milking the Hippogriff Dry as the Hogwarts Express Gravy Train Runs Out of Steam:
Why Warner Bros. are Wrong to Turn Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into Two Films
By MaraudingDon


Abstract

When Warner Bros announced the final film in the Harry Potter franchise was to be split into two parts, the fandom was divided. Is this decision really about what is best for Harry and the story, or is money dictating events here?



Biography

MaraudingDon, is a domestic goddess and writer now living in Australia. She has written two previous essays for Scribby and wrote the chapter on Horcruxes for Leaky's HarryPotterSeven project in 2007. However, her greatest claim to fame is shamelessly taking credit for the line in Deathly Hallows which read "...but the fact remains he can move faster than Severus Snape confronted with shampoo..." (Page 360, DH). Possible proof that Jo Rowling reads Scribbulus?!!!

Love, thanks and tequilla to the Goddesses for keeping her (in)sane and Aislinn for her fabulous editing.


This essay may be read here.

[Frits]

"Films like Titanic and the amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy took enormous box office takings, not because of the amount of people who went to see the films, but because of the amount of repeat viewings. ....... Will I go and watch Deathly Hallows part one five times? Not in a million years, and I highly doubt others will either."

I don't think that's true, why would people not want to see this film more than once? And even so, the money made by people going to the movie multiple times is not that much. It's only the really big fans who do that.

[Go-wind]

I actually think that the movie being split is good news, but I agree with many of your points.
The problem with making the movies long is that many kids may not be comfortable with it [and that's a key audience]...
I am from India and traditionally we've had long movies here [every movie has an interval], but people don't seem to want to watch long movies anymore. Long movies are being treated very harshly...

But ultimately what reassures me is that it has Jo's stamp of approval on it. Jo would never let them spoil it. Remember how she did not want to give anybody the rights to make Harry Potter movies because they might spoil it?

[SeaJay]

I too think that splitting the book into two films is the right decision.

Maybe MaraudingDon is right and the films will not be as successful in the cinema; however in years to come I think most people will appreciate the extra length on DVD.

I have faith in Kloves abilities and I think Part 1 will be well constructed. The focus need not be intensively on the trio, there is no need to slavishly follow the book in this regard. For example the 'wilderness' episode can easily be compressed using a number of cinematographic techniques.

Who knows, maybe the first film will take us all the way into Hogwarts and the start of the battle????? Part 2 can then be all battle, plus take some time on Snape's back story and the meeting with DD at Kings Cross etc...

Better to be optimistic!

[Mad_Eye_Seeker]

I agree with many of the points made in the essay, such as the fact that the trio will not be able to handle an entire movie to themselves. I belive that the producers realize this and will make scenes, like the wedding, very very long. I have a feeling that the first part will be a total failure because to be honest there is not that much action within it. I think that in exchange for this we will have a spectacular second part because they will have three hours to protray the best parts of the book. I think that spliting the film is a bad idea for the story but the fact that we will have six more monthes to discuss the movie, and the very likely possiblity that the second part could be the best yet is enough for me to support it.
May and always coexist peacfully

[Madsdagirl]

Well, to begin with I KNOW you're probably one of the most awesome people in the world anyway, I also know that I will most definitely be seeing the DH movie with you and you can complain as much as you like, Kloves sort of inspires it.
Awesome essay! I completely agree with pretty much everything you said. Can you imagine what Emma's eyebrows will be doing by the end of a two hour camping odyssey? Ick. You've succinctly and humorously stated pretty much all of the problems with this idea.
However, a little part of me is pleased DH will be two movies, although I agree it's a money making scheme- I secretly just want to keep the magic alive as long as possible. I also think that the idea of the two part film will make the battle scene absolutely amazing. They've got no excuses to screw it up this time (although I'm still cynical.)

Excellent essay Kebab. You are a rather fabulous penniless writer.
P.S. I'll always be around to keep you insane!

[WaggaWaggaWerewolf]

"Films like Titanic and the amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy took enormous box office takings, not because of the amount of people who went to see the films, but because of the amount of repeat viewings. ....... Will I go and watch Deathly Hallows part one five times? Not in a million years, and I highly doubt others will either."

I don't think that's true, why would people not want to see this film more than once? And even so, the money made by people going to the movie multiple times is not that much. It's only the really big fans who do that.

I'd have to agree with Frits. I'm sure that people will need to see and revisit Deathly Hallows Part 1 before they can begin to understand Deathly Hallows Part 2 and to make sense of the film.

I actually think that the movie being split is good news, but I agree with many of your points.
The problem with making the movies long is that many kids may not be comfortable with it [and that's a key audience]...
I am from India and traditionally we've had long movies here [every movie has an interval], but people don't seem to want to watch long movies anymore. Long movies are being treated very harshly...

Well that is another scenario. Perhaps DH1 & DH2 should be made into the one movie with an interval. Once long movies were great. There'd be an interval half-way just like in Theatre productions and then we'd get to see the rest of the movie. Nowadays when people go to the movies there aren't any intervals. In one way intervals were good for the chance to refresh oneself, if the queues weren't too long. In another way they do break the tension of a good movie, especially when the second part starts before everyone has got back to their seats. The trouble is with Titanic is all that icy cold water gushing around made the missed interval an agonising wait to get out of the cinema - quickly. I really felt the horror of that movie. Unfortunately I had the same problem with the movie Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. And I haven't even mentioned the problems with parking tickets long movies cause movie goers.

Frankly I love DH, though I understand Marauding Don's point about the camping and missing the interaction of characters like Neville, Luna and Snape. But I think she takes an unnecessarily gloomy point of view of making two movies out of the one story. In some ways there is a natural divide into two portions. The first part is dominated by the finding and destruction of the Locketcrux and I see flashbacks galore to explain bits of this story, especially as we didn't see more than a glimpse of Kreacher, let alone Mrs Weasley's house cleaning team finding the Locketcrux at 12 Grimmauld Place in OotP.

Before I make up my mind completely I'd have to see Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince and note what is being left out of that movie - the whole Bill and Fleur story line or so I gather. If there is to be that all important wedding that story will have to be put back in for DH1. And how are House Elves to be treated? Kreacher and Dobby are very important characters for subsequent storylines.

Otherwise I disagree that DH1 would be necessarily dominated by the trio and expect that Snape's part would be expanded to show flashbacks of the destruction of the Ringcrux, important to the Goblin's revenge, and maybe even his conversation with Dumbledore's portrait as to the disposal o the Sword of Gryffindor. Listening to the Goblin's Revenge chapter, it occurred to me that it was Snape, himself, who caused the fake sword to be made. Also, Harry's Voldie moments provide plenty of action, so we'll see plenty of Ralph Fiennes, probably with Tom Felton and Jason Isaacs in tow.

I do agree that the fan base is likely to ebb as people move on in life, and that by the time Deathly Hallows is released there probably won't be the hoopla that surrounded Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the first HB movie I never saw more than twice in the theatres, preferring to wait until the DVD came out. Of course OotP was released only a week before DH was published.

This essay is a well-written point of view, which will be food for argument until the end of this year at least. But I'm sorry, at this stage I can't agree that dividing the movie into two parts is necessarily a bad decision for Warner Brothers to make.

This post has been edited by WaggaWaggaWerewolf: 02 May 2008 - 09:23 PM

[cobhome]

The HP books and films have always been about money - JKR wrote the first book cause she was broke and was looking for a way to make some money - this doesn't negate the fact that the books have been thoroughly enjoyable - but the HP phenomena is and always has been about making money.

I wouldn't all together blame Warner here - JKR has unprecedented control as an author over the films - including being able to pick the directors.

I do think thouogh that what may be a problem is sustaining interest. The author is correct in noting that with the release of the last book - and the end of the suspense - fans of the series are losing interest and understandably moving on to other things. Fans are also growing up. Plus there is a significant number of people who disliked DH. To have to wait til 2011 to see the film series conclude - when the book series finished in 2007 - that could be questionable marketing.

I suspect what is most distressing about the two films for one book scenario though is that it is so obviously about the money - and while most of us certainly understood that great marketing has contributed to the HP phenomena and that there have always been serious financial interests involved - this recent decision is so crassly about the "lucre" that it crosses the line. The decision does not seem to be about making a quality film - but rather about making quality money!

[Ted's Souleater]

I do think thouogh that what may be a problem is sustaining interest. The author is correct in noting that with the release of the last book - and the end of the suspense - fans of the series are losing interest and understandably moving on to other things. Fans are also growing up. Plus there is a significant number of people who disliked DH. To have to wait til 2011 to see the film series conclude - when the book series finished in 2007 - that could be questionable marketing.

That's why I have a problem with DH being split into two movies and having the climatic part not happen until 2011. I know that loads of people are losing interest now that the series is over. I was in a HP roleplay that has shut down because the people in it have lost interest because the books are finished and have gotten to busy with real life. I also work in a library and have noticed that the attention has shifted away from HP to other books. I have to agree with you there because I think WB will find it a lot harder to hold everyone's focus on DH1 and DH2 because there are no more books in waiting. The mad scramble is not there anymore.

I suspect what is most distressing about the two films for one book scenario though is that it is so obviously about the money - and while most of us certainly understood that great marketing has contributed to the HP phenomena and that there have always been serious financial interests involved - this recent decision is so crassly about the "lucre" that it crosses the line. The decision does not seem to be about making a quality film - but rather about making quality money!

That is distressing to me too. It concerns me that WB might possibly be more interesting in making more money than in making DH the film fans really want. As far as I can tell WB has never entirely satified every HP fan with the films and I know they certainly haven't satified me all the time. I'm not entirely sure that they will do so with this one even though they are making it into two films. IMO that just gives them more room in which to make mistakes and to leave things out.

I have to agree with the essay's author on all points but I really hope it doesn't turn out that way.

[MaraudingDon]

Thank you for the comments, for and against. Although I would like to take Umbridge with the person who thought I was a guy, (I'm not sure where this comment is but I am reliably informed by my fellow Goddess, elizabeth18, that it's somewhere on Leaky!!) For the record, I am female!


This is the statement David Heyman made when the news was officially announced.

“Over ten years ago, we made a commitment to Jo Rowling that, above all else, we would be faithful and true to the spirit of her books, and ever since we have endeavored never to compromise on the creative ambitions of the films. The Deathly Hallows is so rich, the story so dense and there is so much that is resolved that after discussing it with Jo, we came to the conclusion that two parts were needed to do it justice” said David Heyman. “I am thrilled that David Yates is returning to direct ‘The Deathly Hallows.’ He is both inspired and inspiring and is a passionate fan of the remarkable world and characters Jo has created. I know he will lead our incomparable cast and crew—most of whom have been with us since the very beginning—in bringing the series to the unforgettable conclusion it deserves.”

(bold mine)

From this statement, one could be forgiven for believing that they are making a two part film because they just can't leave anything out of the DH film. However, reflect on what has been left out of the previously released films and what we know is being left out of HBP.

First off all, we have no Bill and Fleur in HBP. - So what will happen in DH? Are these two characters suddenly going to get together or will the screenplay be completely re-written. This news article today with Natalia Tena confirms that in HBP, the story of Remus and Tonks is being completely re-written - I'm guessing if we see a wedding in the DH film, it won't be Bill and Fleur, it will be Remus and Tonks, and then what happens with the 7 Potters scene?

My argument therefore is why are the Producers saying the DH story is so rich and dense and so much is resolved, when they are clearly going to re-write chunks of it?

Another case in point is Dobby. I think of all the deaths in DH, that was the only one written with true depth and emotion. But Dobby has been left out of all subsequent films since CoS in 2002 - are we suddenly going to get a daring rescue and tragic death scene with a character that will not been seen in the films for 10 years?

I suspect what is most distressing about the two films for one book scenario though is that it is so obviously about the money - and while most of us certainly understood that great marketing has contributed to the HP phenomena and that there have always been serious financial interests involved - this recent decision is so crassly about the "lucre" that it crosses the line. The decision does not seem to be about making a quality film - but rather about making quality money!

I agree entirely, cobhome. Look, I am a huge fan of the movies, I think they are great fun, but it was Steve Vander Ark who first said "they are expensive fan fiction", and that is exactly how they should be viewed, but when the first images of HBP are released attached to balls of wool, instead of just being released as images, then you know this franchise is being pimped to death by the trademark holders.

Two movies for one story = rip off!