Look at the background behind Voldemort in that new shot of him walking across the bridge. I truly applaud Eduardo Serra for bringing back those stunning, rolling hills surrounding Hogwarts.
Yes. I want to see this shot in HD. The landscape is stunning. That's why I seriously can't wait for the second half of the battle. It's got a great mixture of grayness (Saving Private Ryan) with all the rubble and ruins of the castle and a lot of stunning landscapes. Serra is god.
Wow and the Room of Requirement sequence looks stunning, as well. And take a look at the clearer shot of the DEs shooting spells to the forcefield. The spells are improved and look great.
The ROR sequence is going to be one of the best action scenes in the film. Just looks high-octane as fuck and with Desplat putting some rousing music with it, it'll be a sure-fire cumshot bonanza.
Based on those very short RoR snippets; Sadly it's so obvious that they just sat on a broom infront of a greenscreen. Hey, I should probably wait for the full thing, but it just looks so stiff.
This is an improvement over the initial upload, but it's hardly high quality. Hopefully, this footage will be available in more desirable resolutions soon.
Carne: Looks absolutely fine to me (I especially like the shot of the trio zooming through ring-shaped fire), although the recording is not the best.
Really? Seems that they've made it really exciting in the film.
And it is fair....after all is the destruction of another horrxrux, maybe they consider as they actually dont do much to destroy but the fire sequence, that should take its time, and again with the cup, wich was barely mentioned in the book and instead they are transforming it in to a COS sequence ....wich I loove
This is something that I like about the book. Harry destroys the diary, Dumbledore destroys the ring, Ron destroys the locket, Hermione destroys the cup, Neville kills Nagini, Voldemort 'kills' Harry (Horcrux) and Harry kills Voldemort. I like the fact that Harry doesn't destroy every single Horcrux. It proves that he wouldn't have made it alone. Anyway, just a small observation.
Dobby, yeah I agree. After all, this is Draco's shining moment in the film (along with the Voldemort scene in the end. I don't think we'll see more of him, maybe a few shots of him during the Battle, being confused etc) and this is the Trio's moment during the Battle. I mean, we see Ron and Hermione in the Chamber, Harry on his own as he tries to find the RoR (running away from the battle, windows exploding in corridors etc.) but the RoR scene is their moment. The Battle will focus on everything, not only on the Trio. We will see them running and battling their way to the Boathouse and witnessing a lot of battles, but the RoR scene is a sequence that has to do only with the three of them.
I also like how they've made the Horcrux destruction scenes important in the film. For the Cup we have the entire Gringotts sequence and the CoS scene, for the diadem we have the whole searching in the castle (Grey Lady etc.) and the RoR, for Harry we have the forest again sequence, for Nagini an expanded chase with Ron and Hermione and for Voldemort we have this very climactic duel in the end. In the book, the destruction of the cup was 'offscreen'. The Diadem scene was quick, Nagini's death was blink and you'll miss it and Voldemort's death happened in a small paragraph. They've made all these events longer in the film and I like it.
This is something that I like about the book. Harry destroys the diary, Dumbledore destroys the ring, Ron destroys the locket, Hermione destroys the cup, Neville kills Nagini, Voldemort 'kills' Harry (Horcrux) and Harry kills Voldemort. I like the fact that Harry doesn't destroy every single Horcrux. It proves that he wouldn't have made it alone. Anyway, just a small observation.
Dobby, yeah I agree. After all, this is Draco's shining moment in the film (along with the Voldemort scene in the end. I don't think we'll see more of him, maybe a few shots of him during the Battle, being confused etc) and this is the Trio's moment during the Battle. I mean, we see Ron and Hermione in the Chamber, Harry on his own as he tries to find the RoR (running away from the battle, windows exploding in corridors etc.) but the RoR scene is their moment. The Battle will focus on everything, not only on the Trio. We will see them running and battling their way to the Boathouse and witnessing a lot of battles, but the RoR scene is a sequence that has to do only with the three of them.
I also like how they've made the Horcrux destruction scenes important in the film. For the Cup we have the entire Gringotts sequence and the CoS scene, for the diadem we have the whole searching in the castle (Grey Lady etc.) and the RoR, for Harry we have the forest again sequence, for Nagini an expanded chase with Ron and Hermione and for Voldemort we have this very climactic duel in the end. In the book, the destruction of the cup was 'offscreen'. The Diadem scene was quick, Nagini's death was blink and you'll miss it and Voldemort's death happened in a small paragraph. They've made all these events longer in the film and I like it.
I seriously LOVE your posts. Especially the last paragraph. I've been trying to explain that to people for a very long time. I think that OVERALL they have expanded DH2 in order to make the MOST EPIC CONCLUSION OF ALL TIME. But yet again, we will see
Yeah, some people say that the film is too action-oriented, but there is reason for that. I like that they've made the Horcrux scenes so important in the film. I don't think they'll disappoint us.
Well, I mean people shouldn't really look at Part 2 as an entire filmic entity on its own. It's the second half. Part 1 and 2 go together. Part 1 is where most of the exposition is dealt with, leaving the last third of the book, which is mostly action, to Part 2. I'm just stumped as to why people can't seem to figure this shit out.
I agree with darth. Both parts combined will create a really unique cinematic experience. But Part 2 is a more stand-alone film than Part 1. It doesn't leave any loose ends, doesn't include any cliffhanger. It's the finale of the entire saga. It'll work well on its own. And it's got all the ingredients to become the most cinematic film of the series, which, until now, was Goblet of Fire.
That's what drives me crazy about everyone so worried about the running time of Part 2, it's not a matter of how long Part 2 is, it's a matter of how long both parts are combined. They're released as two films, they work as two films, but they're both part of the same installment. Part 1 was to get the characters out on their own and to show us what the wizarding world is like under Voldemort's regime, and it ends with Voldemort (supposedly) getting the upper hand. It's a cliffhanger because it's not complete. Part 2 completes it. Even if Part 2 were 1 hour long, Deathly Hallows would still be the longest Harry Potter installment by about an hour.
I think it's very interesting, the risks they took. They did it, and the obvious, predictable complaints are being made. The studio and filmmakers have been met with so much criticism that it's apparent to me now why Warner Bros. didn't want to split any of the other films-- they knew this exact thing would happen, and it did. They wanted to make the last film as true to the book as they could get it, which meant that it had to either be a very, very long single film, or split into two "smaller" halves. Either way, fans got an extremely long, surprisingly long final installment yet they don't seem to know how to react about it.
I know this sounds like a post I'd make in the running time thread, but what I'm just trying to get at is that people should not view Part 2 as simply an action-heavy film without any plot, because it's still part of Deathly Hallows, and we got much of the plot out of the way last November. In a unique way, Part 2 is like the third act of any other normal film, only that it's a feature-length film, a 2 hour third act. How can people possibly be upset about THAT?
I didn't read your post, but it is not a matter of both films combined. The films should stand alone and have good pacing within themselves. You guys always talk about pages left instead of storyline to cover and how well that is paced and how well it makes sense. Those are the things that are important and i think they need more time to do those things for the story they have left to tell then 1 hour and 48 minutes. We don't even know if that is the run time though at this moment. If it is though then that is too short in my opinion.
I didn't read your post, but it is not a matter of both films combined. The films should stand alone and have good pacing within themselves. You guys always talk about pages left instead of storyline to cover and how well that is paced and how well it makes sense. Those are the things that are important and i think they need more time to do those things for the story they have left to tell then 1 hour and 48 minutes. We don't even know if that is the run time though at this moment. If it is though then that is too short in my opinion.
I didn't read your post, but it is not a matter of both films combined. The films should stand alone and have good pacing within themselves. You guys always talk about pages left instead of storyline to cover and how well that is paced and how well it makes sense. Those are the things that are important and i think they need more time to do those things for the story they have left to tell then 1 hour and 48 minutes. We don't even know if that is the run time though at this moment. If it is though then that is too short in my opinion.
I didn't read your post, but it is not a matter of both films combined. The films should stand alone and have good pacing within themselves. You guys always talk about pages left instead of storyline to cover and how well that is paced and how well it makes sense. Those are the things that are important and i think they need more time to do those things for the story they have left to tell then 1 hour and 48 minutes. We don't even know if that is the run time though at this moment. If it is though then that is too short in my opinion.
1 hr 48 mins? who confirmed this dec?
Decarus did say " We don't even know if that is the run time though at this moment."
No one confirmed it. It has just been discussed that the film may be closer to 1 hour 50 minutes then 2 hours. We really don't know at this moment but all i am saying is generally if the film is that short i will be disappointed.
No one confirmed it. It has just been discussed that the film may be closer to 1 hour 50 minutes then 2 hours. We really don't know at this moment but all i am saying is generally if the film is that short i will be disappointed.
Decarus is right. They are two parts of a whole, but still should be able to be stand-alone films in a way. Well, the thing is that this is a film series. Only the first two films feel 'complete'. Azkaban is the most transitional film in the series, Goblet feels complete but it leaves a lot of loose ends for the films to come, Order is pretty much the same, Prince ends on a cliffhanger, DH1 ends on a cliffhanger and DH2 is the finale. I consider HBP, DH1 and DH2 as a trilogy, just like J.K. who considered HBP and DH to be one very long book split in two. And it works. I think that DH1 works fine as a stand-alone film in the HP series. But it definitely works better when it's combined with DH2. It's the nature of the splitting of the book. DH1 was 'doomed' to be the film that had to deal with exposition and end on a cliffhanger, couldn't have been handled differently.
I think that all of the films are parts of a whole, but that doesn't mean that the last one is allowed to be really short just because it is Part 2, and we don't know how short it will be. As i said, it still needs to be internally a good film with good pacing and a good ending.
I didn't read your post, but it is not a matter of both films combined. The films should stand alone and have good pacing within themselves. You guys always talk about pages left instead of storyline to cover and how well that is paced and how well it makes sense. Those are the things that are important and i think they need more time to do those things for the story they have left to tell then 1 hour and 48 minutes. We don't even know if that is the run time though at this moment. If it is though then that is too short in my opinion.
Yes, well done, GG. Make me look stupid for no reason, but i didn't confirm anything... i was merely going by how long the credits were for Part 1, and applying that to the 125 minutes that we have for Part 2, coming to the conclusion that they had indeed cut 12 or so minutes from the test screening, making it a 1 hour and 48 minute long film.
Comments
Pottermore user name: SilverQuest212
Click Link
Carne: Looks absolutely fine to me (I especially like the shot of the trio zooming through ring-shaped fire), although the recording is not the best.
AMAZING
Hope you like it!
Dobby, yeah I agree. After all, this is Draco's shining moment in the film (along with the Voldemort scene in the end. I don't think we'll see more of him, maybe a few shots of him during the Battle, being confused etc) and this is the Trio's moment during the Battle. I mean, we see Ron and Hermione in the Chamber, Harry on his own as he tries to find the RoR (running away from the battle, windows exploding in corridors etc.) but the RoR scene is their moment. The Battle will focus on everything, not only on the Trio. We will see them running and battling their way to the Boathouse and witnessing a lot of battles, but the RoR scene is a sequence that has to do only with the three of them.
I also like how they've made the Horcrux destruction scenes important in the film. For the Cup we have the entire Gringotts sequence and the CoS scene, for the diadem we have the whole searching in the castle (Grey Lady etc.) and the RoR, for Harry we have the forest again sequence, for Nagini an expanded chase with Ron and Hermione and for Voldemort we have this very climactic duel in the end. In the book, the destruction of the cup was 'offscreen'. The Diadem scene was quick, Nagini's death was blink and you'll miss it and Voldemort's death happened in a small paragraph. They've made all these events longer in the film and I like it.
Hope you like it!
Especially the last paragraph. I've been trying to explain that to people
for a very long time. I think that OVERALL they have expanded DH2 in
order to make the MOST EPIC CONCLUSION OF ALL TIME.
But yet again, we will see
G.G.
Yeah, some people say that the film is too action-oriented, but there is reason for that. I like that they've made the Horcrux scenes so important in the film. I don't think they'll disappoint us.
I think it's very interesting, the risks they took. They did it, and the obvious, predictable complaints are being made. The studio and filmmakers have been met with so much criticism that it's apparent to me now why Warner Bros. didn't want to split any of the other films-- they knew this exact thing would happen, and it did. They wanted to make the last film as true to the book as they could get it, which meant that it had to either be a very, very long single film, or split into two "smaller" halves. Either way, fans got an extremely long, surprisingly long final installment yet they don't seem to know how to react about it.
I know this sounds like a post I'd make in the running time thread, but what I'm just trying to get at is that people should not view Part 2 as simply an action-heavy film without any plot, because it's still part of Deathly Hallows, and we got much of the plot out of the way last November. In a unique way, Part 2 is like the third act of any other normal film, only that it's a feature-length film, a 2 hour third act. How can people possibly be upset about THAT?
G.G.
my bad decarus
because Stafford SAID that the film was EXACTLY 2h
and that they cut 12m in post-production.
Staffs made it look like it was SUPER OFFICIAL, but
actually, he just made it up.
G.G.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH
Hope you like it!
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.