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.
Lord Stafford.
That would be your opinion.
In my opinion, COS for example suffers from too much.
I felt Part 2 did what it set out to do, honestly nothing about it felt short-changed to me but that's probably also because I don't really give a shit about much else outside of the main plot. That's where I differ from a lot of fans; if Harry Potter didn't have its main story or main character I wouldn't be a fan. I don't really care all that much for any of the side characters, although they're good and fine and all. So when they're just given a line or two and "forgotten" it doesn't really bother me.
So I can acknowledge and understand that that's where our opinions differ. I love Harry Potter because of Harry Potter. All the magic and Hogwarts and and sub-characters apart from people like Snape and Voldemort don't do a whole lot for me.
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 thing is, PS didn't need a 3 hour cut. It does what it has to in the right amount of time. I'm not really interested in scenes being included just for inclusion's sake. If it serves a purpose, it should be there. I'm not really bothered about who is to blame for the cuts either. I'm more concerned with the effect that whatever cut or inclusion has on a movie. The same is true of every movie, not just Potter.
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.
Lord Stafford.
That would be your opinion.
In my opinion, COS for example suffers from too much.
Like I said; the first four, along with HBP and Part 1, are debatable. When I hear about the flaws of the first four, it's very rare that "length" comes into the debate. On the other hand; when you hear about OOTP and Part 2, you often hear about the length.
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.
Lord Stafford.
That would be your opinion.
In my opinion, COS for example suffers from too much.
I like Chamber of Secrets. /: A lot..
I didn't say I dislike it. I love every Potter film, I'm just saying i think it would have been better if it was cut a bit.
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 thing is, PS didn't need a 3 hour cut. It does what it has to in the right amount of time. I'm not really interested in scenes being included just for inclusion's sake. If it serves a purpose, it should be there. I'm not really bothered about who is to blame for the cuts either. I'm more concerned with the effect that whatever cut or inclusion has on a movie. The same is true of every movie, not just Potter.
IMO I feel like OOTP and DH are fine as they are. So when I see people complain "oh Day sucks because he cut all this" it's extremely annoying. I don't mind at all if people logically explain why they want it longer and what they want, I mind people going directly to "oh Mark Day, you're argument is invalid" shit.
I think if you edited 1 and 2 together, which was the original point of the thread, people would be less inclined to complain about the length of Part 2 since there would be no Part 2. Problems people have with Part 2 may still exist, but it would be a little more difficult to complain about the pacing and such as Part 2 is literally the climax and the whole thing would run for 4 hours or more.
This is why I like to think of them as one movie. For me it definitely makes it work better as Part 2 is by no means a complete movie.
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 thing is, PS didn't need a 3 hour cut. It does what it has to in the right amount of time. I'm not really interested in scenes being included just for inclusion's sake. If it serves a purpose, it should be there. I'm not really bothered about who is to blame for the cuts either. I'm more concerned with the effect that whatever cut or inclusion has on a movie. The same is true of every movie, not just Potter.
IMO I feel like OOTP and DH are fine as they are. So when I see people complain "oh Day sucks because he cut all this" it's extremely annoying. I don't mind at all if people logically explain why they want it longer and what they want, I mind people going directly to "oh Mark Day, you're argument is invalid" shit.
Well, most of us back up our opinions. You probably got that from COS. The forum, I mean.
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 thing is, PS didn't need a 3 hour cut. It does what it has to in the right amount of time. I'm not really interested in scenes being included just for inclusion's sake. If it serves a purpose, it should be there. I'm not really bothered about who is to blame for the cuts either. I'm more concerned with the effect that whatever cut or inclusion has on a movie. The same is true of every movie, not just Potter.
IMO I feel like OOTP and DH are fine as they are. So when I see people complain "oh Day sucks because he cut all this" it's extremely annoying. I don't mind at all if people logically explain why they want it longer and what they want, I mind people going directly to "oh Mark Day, you're argument is invalid" shit.
Well, most of us back up our opinions. You probably got that from COS. The forum, I mean.
Lord Stafford.
I am mostly referring to outside people. If anyone here is a redditor and follows r/harrypotter (which I recently unsubscribed from) its just a giant circle jerk of hating on the films, almost as bad as COS. You could slap these people with sense and the only shit thatll come out of their ass is "BUT BUT BUT THE BOOK THE BOOK!" -_-
I felt Part 2 did what it set out to do, honestly nothing about it felt short-changed to me but that's probably also because I don't really give a shit about much else outside of the main plot. That's where I differ from a lot of fans; if Harry Potter didn't have its main story or main character I wouldn't be a fan. I don't really care all that much for any of the side characters, although they're good and fine and all. So when they're just given a line or two and "forgotten" it doesn't really bother me.
So I can acknowledge and understand that that's where our opinions differ. I love Harry Potter because of Harry Potter. All the magic and Hogwarts and and sub-characters apart from people like Snape and Voldemort don't do a whole lot for me.
Naturally Harry as a character is one of the main draws of the books, but watching the movies I tend to gravitate more towards the characters around him, purely because the scripts, excluding POA and OOTP, paint him as a kind of bland guy. Kloves has rarely captured the edge that book Harry has. So when it came to Part 2, without the other characters propping him up and sort of reflecting away from the writing for Harry, I find it suffers, personally. Not that Harry is written badly or anything, he just usually comes across as a very much a box-ticking, playing it safe guy. Or at least Kloves' version does.
Voldemort feels a bit underdeveloped too for my taste, but that's a conversation for HBP more than Part 2.
to cut from this heated topic, lol, I'm also going to add a few deleted scenes. I was gonna do an entire extended edition, but I still wanted it to be completely done, i.e. special effects
This is why I like to think of them as one movie. For me it definitely makes it work better as Part 2 is by no means a complete movie.
It would certainly make the whole thing feel more complete. But then I think you might run into some pacing problems in "Part 1" of the complete movie, since both movies as it is have a radically different pace. If the two were cut together I'd like to see some parts of "Part 1" trimmed to give it a more consistent pace. It would definitely be interesting to see.
Since Yates is supposed to be the "character driven" guy, I'd have thought that's what matters most. Sure, he focuses on Harry, and rightly so; but being character driven doesn't mean that you give one person a specifically big role, and the rest of the cast, cameos.
to cut from this heated topic, lol, I'm also going to add a few deleted scenes. I was gonna do an entire extended edition, but I still wanted it to be completely done, i.e. special effects
Naturally Harry as a character is one of the main draws of the books, but watching the movies I tend to gravitate more towards the characters around him, purely because the scripts, excluding POA and OOTP, paint him as a kind of bland guy. Kloves has rarely captured the edge that book Harry has. So when it came to Part 2, without the other characters propping him up and sort of reflecting away from the writing for Harry, I find it suffers, personally. Not that Harry is written badly or anything, he just usually comes across as a very much a box-ticking, playing it safe guy. Or at least Kloves' version does.
Voldemort feels a bit underdeveloped too for my taste, but that's a conversation for HBP more than Part 2.
I agree with you here. Witty-Harry is one of my favorite things about Book Harry. He has this interesting humor about him. I think the movies play off Harry as kind of dumb sometimes. I also hate that so many (particularly movie-goers) get the impression that he was this kid who took out all of his anger and resentment onto his friends. That wasn't it at all. He is only human, and a teenager at that, but on top of that he has an evil wizard who he is mentally connecting with.
I have always been satisfied with the movies, and I will never complain because we are so incredibly lucky that we had the chance to see it on film. However, I am not blind and I do notice what wasn't up to par. Nothing is done perfectly the way you want it, and I accept that. Many people need to understand that.
to cut from this heated topic, lol, I'm also going to add a few deleted scenes. I was gonna do an entire extended edition, but I still wanted it to be completely done, i.e. special effects
A better idea would be to use the part of the Resurrection Stone track that was cut out in the movie version, the part where the theme plays the strongest but Mark Day is an asshole and use it for the GH grave scene.
It is possible that it played with Harry walking with the dead spirits, which we saw pictures of and they disappointingly cut. I always pictured him walking while having the conversation, not stopping to do so, but I suppose that might not be as emotional in a cinematic sense and be a little distracting. It's hard to say without actually shooting it yourself. On the other hand, I expected Dumbledore and Harry to sit down while conversing in the King's Cross scene, so my expectations were turned upside down at these parts of the movie. Not that I mind the latter.
Damn it, I really want this cut now. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to do, and having it in 1080p it would be easy enough to burn it onto a Blu-ray disc, get a naked Blu-ray case, print custom cover art, and you would have Deathly Hallows in all its wonderfully lustful superiority with slightly better continuity and no two-part nonsense.
If WB makes this cut without involving Yates and the crew that worked on the movies, I won't consider it official.
Guys, overlaying another music track on top of the Godric's Hollow Graveyard scene is not as hard as you make it out to be. I was splicing the same scene with another score the other day and it was fine (albeit not perfect, but still worked out.) It's because there is very little dialogue at all and the score is played way too softly.
Guys, overlaying another music track on top of the Godric's Hollow Graveyard scene is not as hard as you make it out to be. I was splicing the same scene with another score the other day and it was fine (albeit not perfect, but still worked out.) It's because there is very little dialogue at all and the score is played way too softly.
It would need to be perfect though, which is the thing, and you'd have to have the right programs and extreme know-how to get it perfectly. I'd imagine it would still be a chore regardless.
Guys, overlaying another music track on top of the Godric's Hollow Graveyard scene is not as hard as you make it out to be. I was splicing the same scene with another score the other day and it was fine (albeit not perfect, but still worked out.) It's because there is very little dialogue at all and the score is played way too softly.
Well, if you are releasing this to the world, it has to be perfect. :P
Principally, I also find evaluating part 1 and part 2 as one movie unfair because they were released as two movies. Same for the LOTR trilogy.
And I find it unfair to evaluate Part 2 as one complete movie because it isn't. It's the last third of the book with a couple of establishing shots and a title card.
Guys, overlaying another music track on top of the Godric's Hollow Graveyard scene is not as hard as you make it out to be. I was splicing the same scene with another score the other day and it was fine (albeit not perfect, but still worked out.) It's because there is very little dialogue at all and the score is played way too softly.
Well, if you are releasing this to the world, it has to be perfect. :P
Guys, overlaying another music track on top of the Godric's Hollow Graveyard scene is not as hard as you make it out to be. I was splicing the same scene with another score the other day and it was fine (albeit not perfect, but still worked out.) It's because there is very little dialogue at all and the score is played way too softly.
Well, if you are releasing this to the world, it has to be perfect. :P
Lord Stafford.
Only an official WB release would be perfect.
Not really. In other instances, I've seen fanmade works that are better than whatever WB have conjured up.
Principally, I also find evaluating part 1 and part 2 as one movie unfair because they were released as two movies. Same for the LOTR trilogy.
And I find it unfair to evaluate Part 2 as one complete movie because it isn't. It's the last third of the book with a couple of establishing shots and a title card.
Well, the book is irrelevant to me in this discussion, but I would say that if it was to be judged as a whole it ought to be released as ONE movie. However, I'm not so idiotically narrow-minded that I insist that both parts need a traditional beginning, middle and end. I've encountered such people too and personally I think they were looking for arguments to hate the films. They should be reviewed in their rightful context as individual films that are parts of a long-running series.
That said, I do think Part 1 could have been more complete on its own thematically and had a stronger climax, but there is no way that it would have had a traditional story structure no matter what they had done, so the argument that it didn't have it is invalid to me.
I have a feeling it sounds like I'm contradicting myself , but there's a fine line between the absolutes (reviewing it as one OR two movies) that I'm trying to point out.
So, currently working on part 1. I added the petuinia scene, Yaxley breaking into Hermione's house, the taboo scene, and the rock skipping scene. I'm adding the Resurrection stone to godric's hollow. It works quite well, actually.
Well, it is what it is; one movie split in two. But, if you're going to talk about how good or bad it is, or whatever... you have to look at it as two movies. There's no point in trying to review it as one, because Part 2 is completely different to Part 1.
I think the Petunia scene is necessary, her character hasn't had a complete turn-around, but she's a different person from the Petunia of PS, who was spouting crap like "my sister being what she was - a f-freak!"
Here, she understands the danger and scope of Harry's journey, and wants to reassure him, but she can't.
Guys, overlaying another music track on top of the Godric's Hollow Graveyard scene is not as hard as you make it out to be. I was splicing the same scene with another score the other day and it was fine (albeit not perfect, but still worked out.) It's because there is very little dialogue at all and the score is played way too softly.
Well, if you are releasing this to the world, it has to be perfect. :P
Lord Stafford.
Only an official WB release would be perfect.
Not really. In other instances, I've seen fanmade works that are better than whatever WB have conjured up.
Lord Stafford.
Well the fact of the matter is that only WB has access to the audio recordings without a final mix, without music, so if they wanted to add in Lily's Theme there perfectly, they could.
Who didn't get a needed character conclusion in Part 2? Hagrid? The conclusion to his is the whole symbolic carrying Harry thing. And then he even hugs Harry at the end. I mean, what more do you want? (okay, something from him earlier in the film). I don't think Hagrid being in he Forest is nearly as jarring/bad as you guys make it out to be. He got captured. I don't think a scene establishing him as being there would' e gone a long way in being a conclusion to his character.
McGonagall? I mean I guess you could've included a shot of her in the Great Hall but it didn't need much.
The trio, Snape, Voldemort, The Malfoys, Neville, and Luna all got pretty decent endings IMO. Not many other characters really matter IMO.
Yes, there was a lot cut, but that's how it is with lots of movies. The Amazing Spider Man got a lot cut, but it was pretty amazing (pun intended lol). However, that didn't stop fanboys from writing things on how the stuff cut screws up the film. Somehow, though, the film isn't screwed up to mainstream movie goers who found the film to be pretty good and plenty comprehensible.
Comments
Lord Stafford.
In my opinion, COS for example suffers from too much.
A lot..
So I can acknowledge and understand that that's where our opinions differ. I love Harry Potter because of Harry Potter. All the magic and Hogwarts and and sub-characters apart from people like Snape and Voldemort don't do a whole lot for me.
Lord Stafford.
In my opinion, COS for example suffers from too much. I didn't say I dislike it. I love every Potter film, I'm just saying i think it would have been better if it was cut a bit.
This is why I like to think of them as one movie. For me it definitely makes it work better as Part 2 is by no means a complete movie.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Voldemort feels a bit underdeveloped too for my taste, but that's a conversation for HBP more than Part 2.
Since Yates is supposed to be the "character driven" guy, I'd have thought that's what matters most. Sure, he focuses on Harry, and rightly so; but being character driven doesn't mean that you give one person a specifically big role, and the rest of the cast, cameos.
Lord Stafford.
I also hate that so many (particularly movie-goers) get the impression that he was this kid who took out all of his anger and resentment onto his friends. That wasn't it at all. He is only human, and a teenager at that, but on top of that he has an evil wizard who he is mentally connecting with.
I have always been satisfied with the movies, and I will never complain because we are so incredibly lucky that we had the chance to see it on film. However, I am not blind and I do notice what wasn't up to par. Nothing is done perfectly the way you want it, and I accept that. Many people need to understand that.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
Here, she understands the danger and scope of Harry's journey, and wants to reassure him, but she can't.
Lord Stafford.
Lord Stafford.
McGonagall? I mean I guess you could've included a shot of her in the Great Hall but it didn't need much.
The trio, Snape, Voldemort, The Malfoys, Neville, and Luna all got pretty decent endings IMO. Not many other characters really matter IMO.
Yes, there was a lot cut, but that's how it is with lots of movies. The Amazing Spider Man got a lot cut, but it was pretty amazing (pun intended lol). However, that didn't stop fanboys from writing things on how the stuff cut screws up the film. Somehow, though, the film isn't screwed up to mainstream movie goers who found the film to be pretty good and plenty comprehensible.