Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.
DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 TO BE THE SHORTEST FILM CONFIRMED BY DAVID HEYMAN in Collider.com
DAVID HEYMAN SAID IN AN INTERVIEW WITH COLLIDER.COM THAT DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 WILL INDEED BE THE SHORTEST FILM WITH IT BARELY BEING OVER 2 HOURS NOT 2/12 HOURS.
Comments
I wish this was an april fools prank!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 hours and 18 minutes...
HOW MUCH SHORT CAN THAT BE? :S 2 HOURS?
GOSH I THOUGH THEY MADE 2 FILMS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO OVER EXPAND PART 2!!!!
EDIT: We should make a twitter trend #WE-DONT-WANT-DH2-SHORT or something like that to get their attention
sorry for so many posts, im very pissed off
I wrote this
PLZ RT // WE DONT WANT SHORTEST HP FILM IN #DeathlyHallows - PART 2 / NO JOKE/ http://bit.ly/fkLytf / RT TO GET FILMMKRS ATTENTION!
FANS CAN BE VERY POWERFUL IF WE ALL UNITE!!
How did you guys decide what footage you wanted to show the theater owners today?
Heyman: Well part of it was what was ready, quite frankly. Because we’re still very much editing and also still very much doing the visual effects. So a lot of the visual effects being shown here will be very rough, and the footage is still rough. But we just showed some exciting bits and some really good dramatic scenes.
Barron: What the movie’s about.
Heyman: To let people in, a little bit.
When you guys first presented Harry Potter, I believe it was last year but maybe 2 years ago, but you guys actually showed a scene from Harry facing Voldemort for the final time. And it was in the very beginning of the footage you showed, and for me, I gasped, because I couldn’t believe you were showing this.
Barron: (laughs) Just teasing.
Heyman: You had to wait a little while before you actually saw it in the film.
Are you showing anymore of that scene today?
Heyman: No.
Barron: There’s one shot of each, I think.
Heyman: Yeah there’s a couple of shots, but we’re not showing cut footage.
You guys decided not to do the 3D conversion for Part 1, but you said 3D for Part 2. Is Part 2 still being released in 3D?
Heyman: Yes it is. The reason we didn’t do it on the first part was because we didn’t feel that we could do it justice. And actually the 3D would actually compromise the film, so we didn’t have the time.
Barron: We were diving into 3D for the first time, it was a new world for us, and so we didn’t get off to a fine start. There wasn’t time to do it properly, and so Warners very very kindly supported us. I’m sure they were wishing it was not the case, but they were hugely supportive to not put out something that we weren’t happy with.
You mentioned that you guys were eventually gonna release Part 1 in 3D whether it be on Blu-ray or a re-release theatrically.
Heyman: We’re doing Blu-ray.
Barron: It’s going really well.
Heyman: We’re in the process of doing it right now and we’re really excited about the quality, we feel it adds something to the film and is really immersive as opposed to taking out, which I think a lot of 3D can do. And it’s been great for us going through that process to lead into the theatrical because I think we’ve learned an awful lot.
Barron: We have learned a lot.
Heyman: David Yates is approaching 3D from a character point of view.
Barron: It’s a storytelling aid. Rather than being a special effect gimmick where it’s like “Oh that’s cool.” We’re using it to help tell the story better.
Heyman: It’s probably gonna be more subtle than on some films, we’re not gonna have tons of stuff flying out the screen, we’ll have some but not much. The depth will not necessarily be as great as some films. But it will make the film feel larger, be more immersive, and I think it will add to the stories as opposed to take away.
Do you guys ever envision a 3D conversion of the earlier films and also the theatrical re-release of them in 3D?
Heyman: We haven’t’ talked about it but I won’t be surprised if that happens. I don’t know about theatrical but I suspect in 3D that will go on.
What’s the running time of the final film?
Barron: It will be one of the shortest films.
Heyman: It will be the shortest film.
So what does that mean?
Heyman: We don’t know yet, because we’re still editing.
Barron: It’s not a short film, but it will be shorter than the others.
When I spoke to you guys last time, you mentioned that the last film was much more of an action film. Is that still the case?
Heyman: It’s not non-stop action, but it’s a lot of action. But, one the the things that makes Harry Potter so special is it’s not just action, not just magic, it’s characters, humanity and truth.
Barron: And a strong emotional core.
Heyman: And that’s what this film has: a real strong emotional center. So yeah there’s a lot of action, and it’s a really thrilling ride, and it ends with the final confrontation with Voldemort with Harry, but most importantly it’s a film that moves you and it makes you really involved and invested in the characters.
So Barron said that the film will be one of the 'shortest' ones (so around 130-140 minutes, around the same running time of PoA, OotP and DH1 which are the 'shortest' HP films) and Heyman said it will be the 'shortest' (probably around 125-130 minutes without end credits).
They're still editing the film. Don't forget. Quality over quantity. They only have to adapt 200 pages of the book, not 400 that Part I had to adapt. I want the film to flow well, though. What I loved about Part I was the vast improvement on the editing, especially in the second half of the film. I know that Part II has a lot of action and fast pacing is needed, but I want them to take their time, this is the final installment after all.
Don't forget. They're still editing the film. I guess that the film will be as long as Part I. I expect a 135-minute film without end credits.
The test-screening really helped them create Part I's final cut. They improved the Godric's Hollow sequence which was rather bashed as being very weirdly and abruptly edited and they cut camping scenes that a lot of people found too slow-paced. So I guess that if people see that there are rushed moments or too slow-paced ones, they'll mention it and the filmmakers will take of that. After all, Yates promised that he wants Part II to be the 'perfect' installment.
I fear that the action sequences will be fast-paced and short. I'm sure they'll be really impressive and all, but they'll be short.
I feel they said that just to fool us.
They failed within Part 1 at this aspect, and now they've undoubtably done so with Part 2.
If any of you say it will be fine at 130-135 minutes, then you're ridiculously dumb as that would make it less than 2 hours footage, which is completely unacceptable for a big film like this... Part 1 had 17 minutes of credits and made 2 hours and 9 minutes footage, OOTP had 2 hours and 3 minutes of footage. To put it quite simply, Mark Day is the worst thing to have happened to the series, and i don't care what people says otherwise anymore about him, thats the truth!
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Part I flowed very well during most of it. I was quite impressed with Mark Day. I think that the film should have been 10-15 minutes longer.
Lord Stafford, don't forget that they've got to adapt 200 pages in 2 hours, not 700 as it happened with OotP.
I've downloaded the BR of Part I and the running time is 134 minutes without end credits and 146 minutes including them.
I think that Part II will be 130-135 minutes long, without end credits. Since they say that it's a bit longer than 2 hours, I guess 130 and definitely without end credits, they haven't finished them.
So the film will be roughly around 140-145 minutes, including them. It sounds fine to me.
Anyway, we can't judge Part I until we see Part II as well. That's Part I's weakness. If Part II manages to handle these storylines, then Part I will be appreciated much more.
Oh, you're right... but Day is still incompotent for me and most other HP fans, the film wasn't flowing well because of him, it should have been longer, yes. Even though it was a good film and it flowed well, they DID fail at the exposition which was the whole point and benefit of making two films, was it not? Now it seems that it WAS indeed for the money!
Maybe you're version is different to others because it has been confirmed that the end credits of Part 1 were 17 minutes long, meaning... that with 146 minutes, it was 2 hours and 9 minutes of footage, 129 minutes.
A bit longer than 2 hours isn't 10, 15 minutes worth... its now expected and destined to be about the same length of OOTP which was a complete and utter shambles in terms of editing.
Lord Stafford.
When filmmakers talk about a film being shorter than the other, they would never say that if it was 1 minute or 2 shorter, so... that means, what with OOTP having 2 hours and 3 minutes of actual footage that Part 2 is bound to be dead on the dot of 2 hours or a few minutes less.
Lord Stafford.
And Part I was supposed to have around 10 minutes that they cut out because of that addition. So Part I was supposed to be 130 minutes long and Part II was supposed to be 145 minutes long. Add the end credits and you have 142 and 157 minutes. But they expanded Part I even though they cut few stuff and made it 146 minutes and I guess that Part II will be around 142 minutes as well. I'm not freaking out, not yet.
Fury, they definitely don't include the end credits. They don't work on them until the final weeks of post-production. The speculated 125-135 minutes don't include end credits. Adding them, the film will be around 140-145 minutes.
Let's wait for the test screenings tomorrow. We'll find out a lot more about that.
I insist that they're messing with us a bit. It's one of the shortest, it's the shortest, well we don't know yet, we're still editing. It's all very vague at this point.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Well, i read around on numerous websites (including here) and saw 2 hours and 33 minutes, and in other words... 2.5 hours, like you just said.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Let's wait for the test-screening reviews. The next few days will be big. We'll learn a lot about how they handled a lot of storylines and arcs, how grand and long the battle is and a lot more.
Remember that the lengths of films like this in test screening are very rarely in league with the actual release that we get, so whatever they get above the normality of the latter films, we won't, simple as... they tend to cut alot out for some unknown reason!
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.