Um there's no way that the running time is released. IF the 135-minute running time is real, then we're talking about the film excluding the end credits. They create and finish the end credits in the final month (in June/July) and that's why the authentic running time is usually known a couple of weeks before the film's release in theaters. So, I think this is either an estimation or the film WITHOUT end credits. Now, that would be awesome. :P
I have to add that on the website for the French premiere they said the movie begun to 20h00 until 22h30 and in every french theater (sadly) we have 15 min of advertissing before an movie
If it begins at 20.00 and ends at 22.30, then we've got 150 minutes. Exclude 10-15 minutes of advertising and 12-13 minutes of end credits, then we've got a 122-128-minute film, WITHOUT end credits. I say it's 125 minutes long without end credits.
But anyway, I really doubt that they have a finished running time that early. I am sure that they haven't even began working on the end credits, which will definitely last 11-15 minutes. If the test-screening version of the film was exactly 120 minutes long and, according to Heyman, they were about to add few bits for the Elder Wand succession and CGI shots that weren't included in the test-screening at all, then I guess that the film will end up being around 4-5 minutes longer. So I guess that, yeah, a 135-140-minute film is possible.
Weird thing is that everything that happens in the film until the beginning of the battle is around 60 minutes long. The section with Snape's Death, Fred and co.'s Deaths,The Prince's Tale, The Forest Again, King Cross etc. will be around 25 minutes, right? The aftermath and epilogue will be around 7-8 minutes, as well. So we've got 30 minutes for both halves of the Battle of Hogwarts. Is that enough?
the running time doesnt really matter to me this time around from the test screening reports the movie sounds great. its very well paced so yea im not worried about this
It will run for about exactly 2 hours before credits. Their decision to end Part 1 after Dobby's death had an impact on the running time since it was originally going to end with them arriving at Malfoy Manor. So really, it's not a matter of anything else aside from that; technically Part 1 ended with what was going to originally be Part 2 material. Therefore Part 2 would have been a bit longer than Part 1 but where they decided to split it, it took away from some of the running time of Part 2.
Basically we've already seen about 10 minutes of what was originally planned to be Part 2 material, which is why it's a tad bit shorter. So really, in the end it has nothing to do with them really taking stuff away, just that a bit of Part 2 was moved over to Part 1.
Ohh please do! You HAVE to be here before DH2 comes out. We miss you too!!!
I hope I can be. This Forum was my life! It still is. I honestly hate the new layout. It sucks on my phone. Scrolling is forever, I cannot comment, and it takes 10x longer to load than the old one...
True. The final 13 minutes of Part 1 "belonged" to Part 2, according to the original plan. Which would have made Part 1 121 minutes long (without end credits) and Part 2 137 minutes long (without end credits as well). No big deal.
It's just that I'm not exactly sure that everything will flow nicely in the film if it's 120-125 minutes long without end credits. It's a tight and satisfying running time, don't get me wrong, but I'm afraid that things will be rushed and the battles won't be nearly as long as we want them to be. I mean, if the first 40-45 minutes of the film have to do with everything until Snape's duel with McGonagall and the final 8-10 minutes have to do with the aftermath of the battle and the epilogue, this leaves us around 75 minutes for the entire Battle of Hogwarts (including the middle section with Snape's memories, the forest walk, etc.). That middle section (from Snape's death to the beginning of the second half of the battle) will be around 30-35 minutes. Which leaves us 40-45 minutes for the Battle of Hogwarts. But isn't there a lot of build-up? Preparing for the battle, the creation of the force field, talking with the Gray Lady, finding the Chamber of Secrets, battling with the Fiendfyre etc.? Excluding all that, I think that the pure Battle of Hogwarts scenes will last around 25-30 minutes, but this amount of time has to do with both halves of the Battle. Which leaves 10-15 minutes for each half of it. Well, if you think about it, that's not really much...
True. The final 13 minutes of Part 1 "belonged" to Part 2, according to the original plan. Which would have made Part 1 121 minutes long (without end credits) and Part 2 137 minutes long (without end credits as well). No big deal.
It's just that I'm not exactly sure that everything will flow nicely in the film if it's 120-125 minutes long without end credits. It's a tight and satisfying running time, don't get me wrong, but I'm afraid that things will be rushed and the battles won't be nearly as long as we want them to be. I mean, if the first 40-45 minutes of the film have to do with everything until Snape's duel with McGonagall and the final 8-10 minutes have to do with the aftermath of the battle and the epilogue, this leaves us around 75 minutes for the entire Battle of Hogwarts (including the middle section with Snape's memories, the forest walk, etc.). That middle section (from Snape's death to the beginning of the second half of the battle) will be around 30-35 minutes. Which leaves us 40-45 minutes for the Battle of Hogwarts. But isn't there a lot of build-up? Preparing for the battle, the creation of the force field, talking with the Gray Lady, finding the Chamber of Secrets, battling with the Fiendfyre etc.? Excluding all that, I think that the pure Battle of Hogwarts scenes will last around 25-30 minutes, but this amount of time has to do with both halves of the Battle. Which leaves 10-15 minutes for each half of it. Well, if you think about it, that's not really much...
It would be nice if they could just put more of the deleted scenes in the movie to compensate.
That would have been good had the earlier ones been too short (1-4) but they were perfect in length, whereas not only are the newer ones too short, but since then... the deleted scenes have also been pointless.
It would be nice if they could just put more of the deleted scenes in the movie to compensate.
That would have been good had the earlier ones been too short (1-4) but they were perfect in length, whereas not only are the newer ones too short, but since then... the deleted scenes have also been pointless.
Lord Stafford.
Not all of them though. Some of them really make sense to be in the movie. My friend was a little lost on the horcrux thing until she saw Deathly Hallows's Deleted Scene where they talked more about it. I don't know. Some of them I think would be nice to have.
What i meant was most of Yates deleted scenes either include a bad, watered down version of something that would be in the film, from the book or not, showing lack of effort, meaning that they always meant for it to be a deleted scene, unlike with the earlier ones, or something with no dialogue at all.
There's no reason to add fighting for the sake of adding fighting. The battles in the film that are shown will be shown because they actually add to the story. One thing you never do as a filmmaker is add action for the sake of adding action. The Harry and Voldemort duel is different because it's short and somewhat anti-climactic in the book so they just wanted it to deliver; books are one thing but you don't lead a film audience through eight movies just to have the hero and villain throw one spell and it be over with.
At any rate, we already knew that Yates and Kloves are bigger fans of the storytelling and emotional aspects; and there will still be plenty of action. But it's not about the action. At all. It never was, not even in the book. Why do you think that Rowling didn't actually go into a lot of action in the book? Because it's the storyline that's most important. Having a shit-ton of wizards just fighting doesn't propel the storyline whatsoever and there's no reason to have a ton of it; not to mention as cool as it sounds, if we're just getting a bunch of shots of random people fighting random Death Eaters, it's going to get real boring real fast. Following Harry's journey through the battle as it cuts away to important action beats will be significantly greater and far more respectable on the filmmakers' ends than if they extended the running time unnecessarily just to add more zomg big epic battles!
The action that is in the film will be great. Quality > quantity. I'd much rather take some finely-directed action setpieces intertwined with emotional content than just an hour and a half of meaningless fighting. Rowling knows this and so does Steve Kloves, and the material created by both are better off for it. I have no interest in seeing a ton of fighting. I want the important action bits to be there, and I want Harry vs. Voldemort to be unforgettable. Everything else is just icing on the cake. It doesn't NEED more screentime devoted to action. Compared to the other films, the amount of action will be exhausting, even if there were only 20 minutes worth. But we're looking at somewhere around an hour of action.
There's no reason to add fighting for the sake of adding fighting. The battles in the film that are shown will be shown because they actually add to the story. One thing you never do as a filmmaker is add action for the sake of adding action. The Harry and Voldemort duel is different because it's short and somewhat anti-climactic in the book so they just wanted it to deliver; books are one thing but you don't lead a film audience through eight movies just to have the hero and villain throw one spell and it be over with.
At any rate, we already knew that Yates and Kloves are bigger fans of the storytelling and emotional aspects; and there will still be plenty of action. But it's not about the action. At all. It never was, not even in the book. Why do you think that Rowling didn't actually go into a lot of action in the book? Because it's the storyline that's most important. Having a shit-ton of wizards just fighting doesn't propel the storyline whatsoever and there's no reason to have a ton of it; not to mention as cool as it sounds, if we're just getting a bunch of shots of random people fighting random Death Eaters, it's going to get real boring real fast. Following Harry's journey through the battle as it cuts away to important action beats will be significantly greater and far more respectable on the filmmakers' ends than if they extended the running time unnecessarily just to add more zomg big epic battles!
The action that is in the film will be great. Quality > quantity. I'd much rather take some finely-directed action setpieces intertwined with emotional content than just an hour and a half of meaningless fighting. Rowling knows this and so does Steve Kloves, and the material created by both are better off for it. I have no interest in seeing a ton of fighting. I want the important action bits to be there, and I want Harry vs. Voldemort to be unforgettable. Everything else is just icing on the cake. It doesn't NEED more screentime devoted to action. Compared to the other films, the amount of action will be exhausting, even if there were only 20 minutes worth. But we're looking at somewhere around an hour of action.
Said it much better than I could have. I like the sound of 2 hours. The action doesn't dominate the second half of the book and it shouldnt dominate the movie either.
Seriously. I mean open the book and find all this action. Yes, it's going on but only certain parts are actually detailed. In fact I'm pretty sure the film is going to have more detailed action than even the book.
Seriously. I mean open the book and find all this action. Yes, it's going on but only certain parts are actually detailed. In fact I'm pretty sure the film is going to have more detailed action than even the book.
It will have more. The action was more background in the book. You knew it was taking place but it wasn't in the forefront.
Right, and even when there was action going on, it wasn't really written in a specified manner. I even remember that at the end, it's literally written like this (paraphrased of course):
"And then the giants and the centaurs and Luna and house-elves with knives and then Grawp and then and then and then all came into the Great Hall as spells were flying everywhere! And then Lavender was fighting Greyback and McGonagall and Slughorn was dueling Voldemort..."
It's not particularly amazing action sequence writing; you read it thinking about it and how awesome it is, but the writing is clearly not focused on the action, ever. The action in the film WILL be better, and in higher quantity, than what was detailed in the book.
Comments
Yeah, 135 minutes sounds pretty good to me.
I miss you guys a lot!
I have to add that on the website for the French premiere they said the movie begun to 20h00 until 22h30 and in every french theater (sadly) we have 15 min of advertissing before an movie
If it begins at 20.00 and ends at 22.30, then we've got 150 minutes. Exclude 10-15 minutes of advertising and 12-13 minutes of end credits, then we've got a 122-128-minute film, WITHOUT end credits. I say it's 125 minutes long without end credits.
But anyway, I really doubt that they have a finished running time that early. I am sure that they haven't even began working on the end credits, which will definitely last 11-15 minutes. If the test-screening version of the film was exactly 120 minutes long and, according to Heyman, they were about to add few bits for the Elder Wand succession and CGI shots that weren't included in the test-screening at all, then I guess that the film will end up being around 4-5 minutes longer. So I guess that, yeah, a 135-140-minute film is possible.
Weird thing is that everything that happens in the film until the beginning of the battle is around 60 minutes long. The section with Snape's Death, Fred and co.'s Deaths,The Prince's Tale, The Forest Again, King Cross etc. will be around 25 minutes, right? The aftermath and epilogue will be around 7-8 minutes, as well. So we've got 30 minutes for both halves of the Battle of Hogwarts. Is that enough?
Hope you like it!
http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/1/film/407636/
They give 146min to Part I
http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/1/film/276762/
No big deal.
Which would have made Part 1 121 minutes long (without end credits) and Part 2 137 minutes long (without end credits as well). No big deal.
It's just that I'm not exactly sure that everything will flow nicely in the film if it's 120-125 minutes long without end credits. It's a tight and satisfying running time, don't get me wrong, but I'm afraid that things will be rushed and the battles won't be nearly as long as we want them to be. I mean, if the first 40-45 minutes of the film have to do with everything until Snape's duel with McGonagall and the final 8-10 minutes have to do with the aftermath of the battle and the epilogue, this leaves us around 75 minutes for the entire Battle of Hogwarts (including the middle section with Snape's memories, the forest walk, etc.). That middle section (from Snape's death to the beginning of the second half of the battle) will be around 30-35 minutes. Which leaves us 40-45 minutes for the Battle of Hogwarts. But isn't there a lot of build-up? Preparing for the battle, the creation of the force field, talking with the Gray Lady, finding the Chamber of Secrets, battling with the Fiendfyre etc.? Excluding all that, I think that the pure Battle of Hogwarts scenes will last around 25-30 minutes, but this amount of time has to do with both halves of the Battle. Which leaves 10-15 minutes for each half of it. Well, if you think about it, that's not really much...
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
thanks!!! seriously...thanks!!! THIS!!!!!!!!
Hope you like it!
He will recognize him self ! "Pris la main dans la news "
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
At any rate, we already knew that Yates and Kloves are bigger fans of the storytelling and emotional aspects; and there will still be plenty of action. But it's not about the action. At all. It never was, not even in the book. Why do you think that Rowling didn't actually go into a lot of action in the book? Because it's the storyline that's most important. Having a shit-ton of wizards just fighting doesn't propel the storyline whatsoever and there's no reason to have a ton of it; not to mention as cool as it sounds, if we're just getting a bunch of shots of random people fighting random Death Eaters, it's going to get real boring real fast. Following Harry's journey through the battle as it cuts away to important action beats will be significantly greater and far more respectable on the filmmakers' ends than if they extended the running time unnecessarily just to add more zomg big epic battles!
The action that is in the film will be great. Quality > quantity. I'd much rather take some finely-directed action setpieces intertwined with emotional content than just an hour and a half of meaningless fighting. Rowling knows this and so does Steve Kloves, and the material created by both are better off for it. I have no interest in seeing a ton of fighting. I want the important action bits to be there, and I want Harry vs. Voldemort to be unforgettable. Everything else is just icing on the cake. It doesn't NEED more screentime devoted to action. Compared to the other films, the amount of action will be exhausting, even if there were only 20 minutes worth. But we're looking at somewhere around an hour of action.
"And then the giants and the centaurs and Luna and house-elves with knives and then Grawp and then and then and then all came into the Great Hall as spells were flying everywhere! And then Lavender was fighting Greyback and McGonagall and Slughorn was dueling Voldemort..."
It's not particularly amazing action sequence writing; you read it thinking about it and how awesome it is, but the writing is clearly not focused on the action, ever. The action in the film WILL be better, and in higher quantity, than what was detailed in the book.