my thing just downloaded. havent edited it yet, i'll take suggestions, but there's only so much I can edit. I wish i could add lily's theme in earlier in the film.
Well, then, is that what makes him so bad? Sorry, I mean average. I'd never hear the end of it, if I were to say "Yates and his guidance made Day so poor at what he does."
It would be your opinion. I'm just saying it's not a simple matter of him being a bad or good editor. Editing is hard and takes a lot of knowledge and skill and mastery of the equipment to even be able to put a film together, so in that regard he's a pretty good editor, but scenes can be generally criticized when it comes to pacing and how they're put together. In that respect, it could have been Day or it could have been something Yates requested or it could have been both.
I'm just saying-- we don't know. We weren't there, we don't know what footage they had to work with, etc. I felt Half Blood Prince was largely edited very well and most of DH was too with a few exceptions. But for me a couple of iffy moments doesn't kill the whole shebang or make him an awful editor.
I agree. Don't worry; I do know of what skill it takes to edit a film such as this. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, was the biggest and best film of 2011. He must have done something right, even if the editing is not what we praise when we praise the film and it's outstanding qualities.
I just feel that there's so more footage we don't even know about, the only ones that know are the actors and the director
The actors couldn't care less. All we know, is that there's around 45 minutes of missing footage, from OOTP; and, god knows how much from Part 2. I imagine there's even more from Part 2, probably.
It's always more apparent with films like these. Why is it, that films "like these" have cut crazy editors? The only ones that don't are Titanic, LOTR, and King Kong.
The thing about those films however is that they have more story to tell, as they're singular entities without sequels except for Lord of the Rings, which was three massive books. With Potter you had eight movies in total, so it's more reasonable to make those leaner.
King Kong however needed a better editor. It was wayyyyyy too long.
I just feel that there's so more footage we don't even know about, the only ones that know are the actors and the director
This goes for literally every single film ever made.
Like for example, Alfie Enoch who plays Dean said at the celebration last year he was sad he didnt see the scene he did with the Phelps Twins when they had to protect the battlements from the DE's getting in.
LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
The thing about those films however is that they have more story to tell, as they're singular entities without sequels except for Lord of the Rings, which was three massive books. With Potter you had eight movies in total, so it's more reasonable to make those leaner.
King Kong however needed a better editor. It was wayyyyyy too long.
I didn't mind. By now, I'm used to Jackson's movies being around 3 hours long. Don't be surprised if The Hobbit is the same.
I know in a perfect world every Harry Potter movie would be 3+ hours long, but when you're dealing with a massive quantity of sequels-- as in 8 movies-- it's perfectly okay to make them a little shorter. And 2 hours is still a respectable running time, especially for a movie that's only 1/3 of one of the books.
I just feel that there's so more footage we don't even know about, the only ones that know are the actors and the director
This goes for literally every single film ever made.
Like for example, Alfie Enoch who plays Dean said at the celebration last year he was sad he didnt see the scene he did with the Phelps Twins when they had to protect the battlements from the DE's getting in.
I just feel that there's so more footage we don't even know about, the only ones that know are the actors and the director
This goes for literally every single film ever made.
Like for example, Alfie Enoch who plays Dean said at the celebration last year he was sad he didnt see the scene he did with the Phelps Twins when they had to protect the battlements from the DE's getting in.
Or the brain room sequence which I can now confirm WAS shot as shots of the set were sent to merchandise companies. One was designed for a playset that was never actually manufactured and I have photos as proof now I am trying to get photos of the set now however
Titanic, Avatar, King Kong, these are all just one movie with one story to tell. There will be Avatar sequels but the first movie resolved every single plot point and Cameron is notorious for long movies.
I just feel that there's so more footage we don't even know about, the only ones that know are the actors and the director
This goes for literally every single film ever made.
Like for example, Alfie Enoch who plays Dean said at the celebration last year he was sad he didnt see the scene he did with the Phelps Twins when they had to protect the battlements from the DE's getting in.
Or the brain room sequence which I can now confirm WAS shot as shots of the set were sent to merchandise companies. One was designed for a playset that was never actually manufactured and I have photos as proof now I am trying to get photos of the set now however
I know in a perfect world every Harry Potter movie would be 3+ hours long, but when you're dealing with a massive quantity of sequels-- as in 8 movies-- it's perfectly okay to make them a little shorter. And 2 hours is still a respectable running time, especially for a movie that's only 1/3 of one of the books.
I wasn't talking about Potter, in that instance. In fact, I wouldn't have liked each of the Potter films to be 3 hours long.
Titanic, Avatar, King Kong, these are all just one movie with one story to tell. There will be Avatar sequels but the first movie resolved every single plot point and Cameron is notorious for long movies.
Well, at least he fills his movies with sub plots and other such things.
I would love 1 seemless DH movie. Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
DON'T FORGOT THE GREEN MILE. Another great film that was long and I did not mind one bit.
I would love 1 seemless DH movie. Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
DON'T FORGOT THE GREEN MILE. Another great film that was long and I did not mind one bit.
I would love 1 seemless DH movie. Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
DON'T FORGOT THE GREEN MILE. Another great film that was long and I did not mind one bit.
I don't mind long movies and I don't mind short movies.
I mind pacing and storytelling. It all depends on the content. The Lord of the Rings films have a lot of ground to cover. A lot. More than any individual Harry Potter movie or book because that was one third of the entire story and it's a more "epic" story than Potter. If a story can sustain 3 hours, that's fine. The LOTR films did.
The Dark Knight Rises, however, is 2 hours and 40 minutes and I will be shocked if it doesn't drag or feel bloated. A fucking Batman movie does not need to eclipse 3 hours. I can already feel the pretentious seeping out of that thing.
I would love 1 seemless DH movie. Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
DON'T FORGOT THE GREEN MILE. Another great film that was long and I did not mind one bit.
I don't mind long movies and I don't mind short movies.
I mind pacing and storytelling. It all depends on the content. The Lord of the Rings films have a lot of ground to cover. A lot. More than any individual Harry Potter movie or book because that was one third of the entire story and it's a more "epic" story than Potter. If a story can sustain 3 hours, that's fine. The LOTR films did.
The Dark Knight Rises, however, is 2 hours and 40 minutes and I will be shocked if it doesn't drag or feel bloated. A fucking Batman movie does not need to eclipse 3 hours. I can already feel the pretentious seeping out of that thing.
I feel the same, my mother was watching a movie on Syfy and it was like three hours without commercials and i kept going in my room.
LoyalWeasley18 - POTTERMORE EARLY MEMBER -CRIMSONICE199-
Well, about Batman; at the moment, I cannot see how it will feel "too long" Most of the reviews I've seen are telling of how film uses that length to it's advantage, to fill in any gaps, and give us a proper sendoff, since this is the finale.
Well, about Batman; at the moment, I cannot see how it will feel "too long" Most of the reviews I've seen are telling of how film uses that length to it's advantage, to fill in any gaps, and give us a proper sendoff, since this is the finale.
I can only hope. The only reason why I'm skeptical right now is that TDK was also too long and bloated and had an awful third act so it wouldn't surprise me if that happened again, especially seeing as how this one is even longer.
This film has been highly praised for it's fantastic third act. I don't think you're going to have to worry about that. While I do agree on how "long" and "bloated" the final act of TDK was, I won't agree on how "awful" it was. This is going to blow most summer blockbusters out of the window.
The only movie that was really hurt or greatly impacted by editing was Phoenix but as we all know that's not entirely on the filmmakers or editor.
I never really felt Phoenix suffered horribly from editing, but that's probably because it was in the middle of the series and didn't really require everything to be tied up in a satisfying conclusion. There are things that should definitely never have been cut for the sake of the story, like Hagrid and McGonagall being attacked, or introducing the Order members properly, but I still feel - especially because it is the final one - that Part 2 suffered most from editing.
Of course, we'll never know why so much was cut; whether WB insisted on a shorter movie or they didn't have time to finish scenes and accommodate for 3D. But perhaps two or three characters at most had a satisfying emotional conclusion in that movie. The rest had absolutely no room to breathe. It's strange to think that some random ghost was better handled than major characters like Lupin and Hagrid. I do The pay-off is not equal to the build up I've always felt build up was Yates's (and Day's) strong suit anyway.
Part 2 had a lot of ground to cover too, and it did so at such speed that so many major plot points were incoherent, or sloppily introduced or left hanging. The disadvantage of Part 2 was that there were so many objects and story arcs and relationships and twists to juggle, and apparently nobody looked ahead and planned out how to handle a lot of the things that should have been in earlier movies, like the mirror, or the Horcruxes. It's as if someone (Kloves) got lazy and said "Let's not deal with such and such just now, we'll just explain that later" then it came to Part 2 and all the things they'd never bothered to address just compounded on the movie. If any movie in the Potter series needs an extra 20 minutes, it's Part 2.
I can only hope. The only reason why I'm skeptical right now is that TDK was also too long and bloated and had an awful third act so it wouldn't surprise me if that happened again, especially seeing as how this one is even longer.
But nothing tastes better than crow. Nothing.
If anything, you're probably looking at a more bloated second act. Or at least that's a criticism some of the reviews have picked up on.
Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
Well, Mark Day wrote me in his letter that he is not allowed to talk about extended cuts or deleted stuff (to not get into trouble with WB) so I think WB still wants to do something with it...someday.. However, I am going to send a letter to David Heyman so I do hope I will find out something more...
You know what bothers the fuck out of me? It's that every fucking film has big cuts and all I hear around here is "oh Yates and Day suck cuz they cut so much shit." it's like, shut the fuck up, you weren't there and EVERY FILM GETS THIS TREATMENT! Even Columbus said he had 3 hours for SS. Seriously, it's every movie. So just stfu, it's become so old and annoying now. Gosh.
I heard the severe cutting of Part 2 was due to WB wanting more screenings. So, a shorter movie of course means that you can show more. That adds up, in ticket sales, along with the 3D aspect.
Yepp. I completely understand why things get cut. I have never blames Yates or anyone else. It kind of has to happen because of everyone and everything. I just hope to see more Potter. (:
I disagree about your Part 2 assessment but that's nothing new. Phoenix was largely okay editing wise aside from the third act stuff IMO.
For me, there were too many quick cuts. All of a sudden, we were in a new scene. In POA, the trio would travel through the castle to get to wherever they were going; such as the grounds.
Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
Well, Mark Day wrote me in his letter that he is not allowed to talk about extended cuts or deleted stuff (to not get into trouble with WB) so I think WB still wants to do something with it...someday.. However, I am going to send a letter to David Heyman so I do hope I will find out something more...
That's probably because WB don't want to let on how much was cut.
You know what bothers the fuck out of me? It's that every fucking film has big cuts and all I hear around here is "oh Yates and Day suck cuz they cut so much shit." it's like, shut the fuck up, you weren't there and EVERY FILM GETS THIS TREATMENT! Even Columbus said he had 3 hours for SS. Seriously, it's every movie. So just stfu, it's become so old and annoying now. Gosh.
-Rant over-
The other films didn't suffer from length. Enough said.
Also, I would LOVE access to ALL of the missing footage. Didn't Yates say a while back that he wants to re-release OotP?
Well, Mark Day wrote me in his letter that he is not allowed to talk about extended cuts or deleted stuff (to not get into trouble with WB) so I think WB still wants to do something with it...someday.. However, I am going to send a letter to David Heyman so I do hope I will find out something more...
That's probably because WB don't want to let on how much was cut.
Half-Blood Prince is tricky for me to talk about because I don't even agree on what they focused on, but hey, what they focused on was edited well enough. Would have liked more cave scene, but I just love the cave scene period and it was still good.
I disagree about your Part 2 assessment but that's nothing new. Phoenix was largely okay editing wise aside from the third act stuff IMO.
Phoenix tells its story pretty coherently. Part 2 stumbles a lot on the shoddy oversights and at times damaging fan-service (Bill and Fleur) of its predecessors. At least that's how I see it. It doesn't help that nearly every character seems to get one obligatory line before being shunted aside for the next cameo appearance, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Comments
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
King Kong however needed a better editor. It was wayyyyyy too long.
Lord Stafford.
Like for example, Alfie Enoch who plays Dean said at the celebration last year he was sad he didnt see the scene he did with the Phelps Twins when they had to protect the battlements from the DE's getting in.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
LMAO @ the pizza pic
Lord Stafford.
P.S 15,600TH COMMENT!!
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
DON'T FORGOT THE GREEN MILE. Another great film that was long and I did not mind one bit.
I mind pacing and storytelling. It all depends on the content. The Lord of the Rings films have a lot of ground to cover. A lot. More than any individual Harry Potter movie or book because that was one third of the entire story and it's a more "epic" story than Potter. If a story can sustain 3 hours, that's fine. The LOTR films did.
The Dark Knight Rises, however, is 2 hours and 40 minutes and I will be shocked if it doesn't drag or feel bloated. A fucking Batman movie does not need to eclipse 3 hours. I can already feel the pretentious seeping out of that thing.
Lord Stafford.
Well, about Batman; at the moment, I cannot see how it will feel "too long" Most of the reviews I've seen are telling of how film uses that length to it's advantage, to fill in any gaps, and give us a proper sendoff, since this is the finale.
Lord Stafford.
But nothing tastes better than crow. Nothing.
Lord Stafford.
Of course, we'll never know why so much was cut; whether WB insisted on a shorter movie or they didn't have time to finish scenes and accommodate for 3D. But perhaps two or three characters at most had a satisfying emotional conclusion in that movie. The rest had absolutely no room to breathe. It's strange to think that some random ghost was better handled than major characters like Lupin and Hagrid. I do The pay-off is not equal to the build up I've always felt build up was Yates's (and Day's) strong suit anyway.
Part 2 had a lot of ground to cover too, and it did so at such speed that so many major plot points were incoherent, or sloppily introduced or left hanging. The disadvantage of Part 2 was that there were so many objects and story arcs and relationships and twists to juggle, and apparently nobody looked ahead and planned out how to handle a lot of the things that should have been in earlier movies, like the mirror, or the Horcruxes. It's as if someone (Kloves) got lazy and said "Let's not deal with such and such just now, we'll just explain that later" then it came to Part 2 and all the things they'd never bothered to address just compounded on the movie. If any movie in the Potter series needs an extra 20 minutes, it's Part 2.
-Rant over-
I heard the severe cutting of Part 2 was due to WB wanting more screenings. So, a shorter movie of course means that you can show more. That adds up, in ticket sales, along with the 3D aspect.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Aside from Azkaban the Yates films have by far the best editing and pacing with obvious exceptions at times.