Home Movies
Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

Let's admit it guys... everything was longer than it turned out to be.

«13

Comments

  • MacMac Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭
    Well The original epilogue?
    Rupert: The original epilogue. In the one that we reshot, we changed a lot. I mean, not just the makeup, it was very realistic but too much. I particularly aged terribly. They had a lot of fun with me, like a fat suit, receding hair, a lot makeup and weird teeth. And yes, the scene was very different. It's a lot longer, actually. There was a lot more dialogue, and a lot more to it.

    That product would be awful.....We dont want too see them aged terribly weird theeth alot make up and receding hair. Dont we?
    image
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not saying that, it is just yet another reference to how much they have either cut or at the very least, cut down.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • MacMac Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭
    edited July 2011
    I'm not saying that, it is just yet another reference to how much they have either cut or at the very least, cut down.

    Lord Stafford.
    Lol This isnt something we dont know already ...They just dont bother to keep those line in the reshoots..

    image
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm not talking about 'lines' either.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • BlackCatScottBlackCatScott Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭
    But at the same time, everything would have been shorter than that anyway if it wasnt for the movie split. And a lot more things would have been cut.

    So I'm happy.
  • BraveheartBraveheart Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭
    But at the same time, everything would have been shorter than that anyway if it wasnt for the movie split. And a lot more things would have been cut.

    So I'm happy.
    But the movies WERE split, and for that very reason. So why split them and decide your going to cut about 20 minutes from the last movie?
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Because they seem to think that because they have two to make it with, they can make two of the shortest... they're deluded and the length is not perfect or right, no matter what Yates does say.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • GinaCGinaC Posts: 828 ✭✭
    It is frustrating that it is so much on their mind that once they go over two hours, they are seriously cutting into the number of showtimes. I know it is just the way it is, and it is good business, but still....

    I know they wouldn't look right in the original epilogue, but I would still love to see it and what extra dialogue was there!
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,709 mod
    the film was well paced I was surprised. I thought it would be much shorter.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    I agree Rich! For me, it was the best paced movie :D
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree Rich! For me, it was the best paced movie :D
    Surely not? I mean, come on! /:)

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,709 mod
    I agree Rich! For me, it was the best paced movie :D
    actually i think youre right.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    I agree Rich! For me, it was the best paced movie :D
    Surely not? I mean, come on! /:)

    Lord Stafford.
    For me it was, Staff. Really, bud! Just for the fact of being the shortest movie in the series and doesn't feeling that it was means that the pace was great, at least for me. Everything flows really well in the movie.
  • RichardRichard Posts: 48,709 mod
    Yeah it didnt fell slow not once.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree Rich! For me, it was the best paced movie :D
    Surely not? I mean, come on! /:)

    Lord Stafford.
    Stafford, I am beginning to think your review for the movie was an illusion... because besides that review I am hearing all kinds of complaints about the film from you.
    You can think that all you want, but you're luckily wrong. I don't know how unfortunate that is for you, and to be frank... i do not really care.

    Lord Stafford.

    image
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Jesus Christ. My english was like awful up there. :-))
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jesus Christ. My english was like awful up there. :-))
    I could read it perfectly, but now that you mention it, putting 'like' in there, anywhere... is very 'awful' indeed.

    Lord Stafford.

    image
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Don't worry about it, though. :-j

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • @Henrick, I really like your sig. :)
    image
    Fast-Debrid
    download in 50 file hosting services like
    Megaupload, Fileserve, MegaVideo, Hotfile, Rapidshare... :)
  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ^Where'd that come from? Lol.
    imageimage
  • @Henrick, I really like your sig. :)
    Aww. Thanks, buddy!
  • KranenKranen Posts: 4,770 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I still really wanna see the original epilogue.

    I wish they had put it on the DVD as an 'Alternate Ending' =/
    image
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So why split them and decide your going to cut about 20 minutes from the last movie?
    That doesn't even make any sense. Nobody shoots a film and just randomly decides to cut a lot out. Everything that isn't included isn't included because it doesn't work with the pacing and flow that the director sees fit. Virtually every film in existence has oodles upon oodles of cut footage, and they shoot wildly on set, they shoot pretty much everything they can just in case they don't regret not doing it later. It's like sculpting. You start with a huge slab that doesn't resemble anything, and then you work at it until you reach a desired effect. All the film they shoot then is essentially the proverbial giant slab, and the director and editor works at it until the pacing and flow is just right. They don't do it to anger anyone, least of all not the fans, they're just trying to make the best film they can and great pacing goes a long way toward that.

    They didn't split the film and just decide to randomly cut 20 minutes from it, and even despite that Part 1 was still over 2 hours long and Part 2 was just shy of it. In total it runs for about 4 hours and 15 minutes. That's 255 minutes. Without the split it would have been about 2:30 at the most, which is 150 minutes-- sure, that's nothing more than prediction on my part, but I think it's pretty solid prediction and fairly logical. Doing the math, and assuming that the film without the split would have been 150 minutes, the split allowed for roughly an additional 105 minutes to be given to the film, to the fans.

    But by all means continue to bitch.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Anyway, more to the topic's point, the epilogue didn't need to be any longer than it was. The epilogue is merely the final coda on the film, just as it was a final coda in the book. It serves no other purpose than to say "here's where they are in 19 years." Not sure why it needed to be more than that.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2012
    Basically without the split it would have been another Goblet of Fire when it comes to great things getting shafted or weirdly edited. Also another way too look at it is this: if you're unsatisfied with the length (for whatever god awful reason), look at Part 1 and Part 2 together. Now, take 100 or so minutes out of it. Yeah, I'm not sure how good that would have been.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Also it's fucking ridiculous to claim to know how much footage was "cut" because none of us were ever in the editing room and we don't even know what stuff was even considered for a rough edit. Again directors shoot a shitload of footage on set and a lot of it isn't even considered when they start editing. So it's impossible to know that sort of thing.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sorry, don't mean to be rude at all, it just strikes me by how ungrateful people seem to be. They made two entire full-length films out of one book and it still wasn't enough. And I think that says it all.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sorry, don't mean to be rude at all, it just strikes me by how ungrateful people seem to be. They made two entire full-length films out of one book and it still wasn't enough. And I think that says it all. Hell I'm going to go out on a limb and say that even if that wondrous 20 minutes of cut footage were put back in the film, it either still wouldn't be enough or the same people complaining would turn around and then complain that it ruins the swift pacing of the theatrical cut.
  • KranenKranen Posts: 4,770 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Also it's fucking ridiculous to claim to know how much footage was "cut" because none of us were ever in the editing room
    1 word.

    Hagrid.
    image
  • yonythemoonyyonythemoony Posts: 5,638 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't care. Sometimes less is more. I liked how the epilogue was in the film, it had the necessary parts.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭


    1 word.

    Hagrid.
    2 words: please elaborate.
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't care. Sometimes less is more. I liked how the epilogue was in the film, it had the necessary parts.
    This time, less wasn't more.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭


    1 word.

    Hagrid.
    2 words: please elaborate.
    6 words. You know exactly what he means.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • PhineasPhineas Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2012
    No I don't?
    Apparently there is empirical proof of cut Hagrid footage. It's also implied there is a surprisingly large quantity of it.
    imageimage
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,837 mod
    No I don't?
    Apparently there is empirical proof of cut Hagrid footage. It's also implied there is a surprisingly large quantity of it.
    Technically speaking what proof do we have? Have we seen a lot of the behind the scenes footage and whatnot of Robbie filming his scenes for the film? What evidence do we have of Hagrid throwing Death Eaters off the bridge? If memory serves me correct I think that was from someone's set report or came from someone spewing a rumor. It has been too long for me to have a clear answer on this issue so does anyone know of a source on this? Im looking around right now as I'm typing this. The way I see it is that yeah Hagrid wasn't given as much screen time as he should have been given but if they did shoot Hagrid throwing off death eaters it may have either been blocky, or it didn't fit with the flow of everything. There was also a rumor floating around about the scene with Trelawney throwing crystal balls with some students but that as well was never confirmed :3

    I be lookin.
    image
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,837 mod
    From ronandhermionesource.tumblr.com:

    Some person in IMBD(that apparently worked on the movie) PMed me this info:
    “The Battle

    Added scene where Nagini is thrashing around in the Entrance Hall, attacking students. Hermione and Ron try to stop her and she lunges for them, and chases them down a corridor.

    Nagini attacks Neville, blurring his vision (POV shot), she wraps himself around him and Neville reaches for the sword and kills her.

    The Voldemort/Harry chase – big chase between V and H, V binds H, H sets fire to V’s robes

    Voldemort throws Wormtail out of a window.

    Giants use Quidditch goalposts as weapons

    Nigel Wespurt is killed, Neville cradles his body

    Voldemort kicks dead bodies aside, Great Hall tables turned in to stetchers for injured and dead

    The diadem is destroyed, Harry collpases and has a vision of Voldemort in the boathouse

    Lucius, Voldemort and Snape present in Boathouse

    Hermione battles Greyback(after attacking Lavender), Neville battles Snatchers(after attacking students)

    Hagrid carries Harry’s body across the bridge

    Final scene: Harry, with Ron and Hermione holding hands, on bridge look upon the ruins of Hogwarts, H: “It’s been a long journey”, R: “Can’t say it’s been boring though, mate”

    The Prince’s Tale

    Snape visits Potter’s house, approaches baby Harry, and cries.

    Snape and Lily scenes, including laying down together near a river watching the sky, playing by the Great Lake at the Boathouse, rejecting him in a Hogwarts corridor, young Petunia, young Sirius, young James, young Lupin all present in script

    Gringotts plays out largely like the book, with multiplying burning gold/ cups / etc”

    Taken from: http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/deathly-hallows-part-2-movie-spoilers/

    The site has a rather large collection of DH2 spoilers and such from the set but I see no other Hagrid bits than what he had. :3
    image
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All those sound legit except the Neville one. Neville would kill Nagini plenty past the POV shot.
  • AshAsh Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,837 mod
    lmao
    ;) MWOOHAHAHA!
    image
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    I've no idea why length is considered to equal quality, I thought that lesson was learned with Chamber and Jackson's King Kong. Truthfully. There would've been a reason why stuff would have been cut (pacing, the flow of scenes, not good). They don't just cut stuff to annoy fans.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Apparently there is empirical proof of cut Hagrid footage. It's also implied there is a surprisingly large quantity of it.
    So how does that hurt the film? Let's say all that's true. We haven't seen the footage, we don't know if it's good or bad, the cut of the film as-is didn't need any more Hagrid. Hagrid's big moment is carrying Harry's body back to the castle. That was the only thing that was important, and it was there. Still doesn't have any impact on the conversation. Like I said, yes, every movie sees cuts but the problem is that everyone thinks that's a bad thing. If you ask me the extended editions of Lord of the Rings are highly inferior to their theatrical cuts. Sure there were some nice scenes here and there, but a lot of them were actually fucking terrible like the full haunted mountain scene in Return of the King.

    I'm just saying that "lots of cut footage" isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially considering that nobody here has actually seen any of it and even if we did I guarantee nobody would know how to incorporate them back into the film. Look at the Petunia scene at the beginning of Part 1. When that deleted scene came out, all of our film editing experts on HPF tried to put it back into the film and it just didn't work. Why? Because it didn't work with the director's intended flow and ebb of the opening sequence. And that, people, is why shit gets cut-- they cannot get it to work within their vision of the flow of the film, so it goes. It happens with every film and it will continue to happen as long as films are being made.
  • Darth LedgerDarth Ledger Posts: 6,594 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm more concerned for the movie fans when I consider these films... We had the books, we know what happens and who is supposed to be where during certain scenes. Why should they add these scenes just because we want to see more?
    "If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."

    image

  • BraveheartBraveheart Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭
    Yates wanted to include more battling and more death scenes. He couldn't because of 3D. I think quite a lot of footage was probably cut for similar reasons. By all means continue to take the Heyman approach and insist every cut was "completely organic".
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I've no idea why length is considered to equal quality, I thought that lesson was learned with Chamber and Jackson's King Kong. Truthfully. There would've been a reason why stuff would have been cut (pacing, the flow of scenes, not good). They don't just cut stuff to annoy fans.
    Except, Chamber was fine.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • Lord StaffordLord Stafford Posts: 27,353 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yates wanted to include more battling and more death scenes. He couldn't because of 3D. I think quite a lot of footage was probably cut for similar reasons. By all means continue to take the Heyman approach and insist every cut was "completely organic".
    Exactly, I posted this in the activity section, yesterday: I'm starting to think that the 3D was a bad idea. And in more ways than one. 'One' being the word: Hindrance.

    Lord Stafford.
    image
  • BraveheartBraveheart Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭
    WB obviously felt pissed and humiliated that they had to give up on the 3D for Part 1, so it's pretty clear they were going to force 3D on Part 2 no matter what.
  • MattCatMattCat Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    I've no idea why length is considered to equal quality, I thought that lesson was learned with Chamber and Jackson's King Kong. Truthfully. There would've been a reason why stuff would have been cut (pacing, the flow of scenes, not good). They don't just cut stuff to annoy fans.
    Except, Chamber was fine.

    Lord Stafford.
    And yet the number one complaint about COS is that the film is too long.

Sign In or Register to comment.