deathly_hallows_1

Not long ago, Brendon teased you with where in the storyline of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows the narrative would be split to create a cliffhanger between the seventh and eighth films. In case that wasn’t enough for you, an LA Times interview with director David Yates reveals where exactly he plans to leave audiences hanging. Read more for spoilerish details.

Yates called the LA Times to update the paper on the filming of Deathly Hallows, and gave this report:

We’re here in the forest, we’ve just finished the scene where Harry, Hermione and Ron are captured by the Snatchers after being chased through the woods. The Snatchers are brutal and scary but they aren’t the most intelligent of creatures.They’re trying to figure out exactly who it is they’ve caught.

That point, it turns out, is where he currently plans to end the seventh film, which will leave audiences with his desired cliffhanger.

Things can change when you edit, of course, but the idea now is that it will be not long after the sequence that we are filming here today. That’s what we’re experimenting with. We’ve had three or four different ideas about where to cut off the seventh film. Traditionally, the movies have ended with a death or a bereavement, some sort of passage or arrival. This time we think we will end with more a cliffhanger. Again, though, that’s the thought as of this moment.

Yates also defends the notion of splitting the final book into two films; it’s something he’ll be repeating for the next couple years.

I will get the benefit of two budgets, the running time of two films and all the resources that brings with it to tell this huge adventure; more time, more money, more special effects. There are always things that are lost when you adapt a book to a film. With two films, much less will be lost.

Fair enough; now we just need to know what they’re going to call these two films. Deathly Hallows pt. 1 and 2? Or will we get something more appropriate and/or operatic, befitting the end of the franchise?

  • Konrad
    They would absolutely kill the story if they didn't split it, I'm all for it, and it sounds like a good spot for a cliffhanger.
  • confused
    Can someone explain to me why they're bothering to make a cliffhanger when everyone already knows how it ends? I understand the idea behind making an entertaining movie based on a story that everyone knows, but manufacturing artificial suspense?! Huh?
  • Mariel
    I agree, I feel like there is no suspense since we know who are the good guys and who are bad, who dies and who lives. It was awesome when it the first couple because you had no idea where any of it was going, but now just seems boring. However that does give them a chance to try and build a suspense that would change our minds about knowing the ending.
    I really hope they don't have that stupid ending of nicely wrapping everything up in a nice and happy epilogue
  • [[ *GReeN* ]]
    ok right, you act like you're not gonna go watch it anyways.
  • Craigasorusrex
    Because not everyone has read all the Harry Potter books. Your acting as if everyone including those who haven't read the series should somehow be aware.

    A good amount of the GA I'm willing to bet hasn't read the books but instead rely on the movie to get their dosage of Harry Potter.
  • Dave
    Me for example.
  • tHE
    They should have the split literally mid-sentence. That would be just hilarious! It's like.... "Hey Harry, watch - CUT". And then the next film literally picks up with "out!".
  • Swarley
    I think the idea of that sort of cliffhanger will have a similar effect that the cuts for the Lord of the Rings movies. You know there's much more shit to go down, and whether or not you know how it's going to end, you're excited for more.
  • dysturbed2
    Because not all people read the books and they need to leave it at a point that will create more desire to watch the next one.
  • Alvarado
    I say call the last move, "Harry Potter"
  • Alvarado
    movie*
  • Flax
    Split the film itself and burn it so no one gets to see it. That would be nifty.
  • Dave
    I feel bad for the people whose careers are gonna flatline after this series is over.
  • Swarley
    I feel more bad for the casting directors who tried so hard to find actors that looked like the characters, only to watch them either change completely over time or to not develop the same way the characters did.
  • Joshua Ruth
    I feel that especially applies with Ginny. Bonnie Wright looks so much younger than Daniel Radcliffe. It's going to be kinda creepy when they make out.
  • Swarley
    Yeah that was the main person I was thinking of too. But it also applies to Neville and a few others.
  • tHE
    Let's not forget that the actor for Ginny is pretty ugly. That and Daniel Radcliffe turned out that he couldn't actually act.
  • Joshua Ruth
    I completely disagree with that, while I agree that there are some weak actors in the cast (Emma Watson, Tom Felton) Daniel Radcliffe is actually quite good. He also handled 'Equus' on Broadway which is one of the most challenging roles for a man in all of theater.
    Also, let's not be too hard on Bonnie Wright. She's not ugly, she's just young and looks it.
  • dysturbed2
    They have made enough money -- they will be fine. It is a GREAT story and watching the movies doesn't do the story itself justice.
  • HP6
    Can't wait for release date to watch the movie!
  • That's a little late into the book - almost 3/4 of the way through it if I remember correctly. Which I guess is fine if that leaves more time for the Battle of Hogwarts. If that's where they split it the battle will take up an hour of screen time.
  • That's David YATES, Russ. Not Yeats.
  • Josh
    Who is David Yeats? Did the replace the guy who directed the 5th and 6th movie? I thought David Yates was staying on board.
  • Joshua Ruth
    *SPOILERS AHEAD
    I've always felt that the best split would be a little bit after that. Just after they escape from the Lestrange house and are at Shell Cottage getting ready to raid Gringotts.
    The problem with ending it where he says is that there won't be a action set-piece to finish part one. Up to the point where they get captured is mostly just them wandering around the forest. There's the infiltration of The Ministry of Magic, but that's early on.
    If they were to end it where I mentioned, you'd be leaving on a high note of adventure and the low note of a death of a character. You could cut to Hogwarts, see Voldemort break open Dumbeldore's grave, take the *ahem* "elder wand" and hold it above his head. Sparks shoot out of it and rain down on him. We go back to Shell Cottage and see the three friends getting ready.
    That would mean part two could start with the raid on Gringotts then the escape on the dragon and right to the battle of Hogwarts. That would give plenty of time for not only the battle but for the "story of Lily and Snape" section (which I hope is pretty long.)
    "Deathly Hallows" has four major action pieces, "The Ministry" "The Lestrange House" "Gringotts" and "Hogwarts." As a balance issue, it seems silly to put one in the first film and three in the other.
    Just a thought.
  • That's even longer into the book - they can't cram all that into the first movie. I always figured they'd split it around where Yates said anyway. As far as major set pieces go, you're missing the opening ambush, the raid on the wedding and the attack at the bar, Godric's Hallow, and the Lovegood House.
  • Joshua Ruth
    I'm not forgetting about those, I just consider them minor action scenes rather than huge action set pieces. Every one of those that you mentioned would probably only take a few minutes each.
    In deciding where to cut, you can't simply look at the length in pages, you need to look at the action that will happen and what could be translated to film. Most of the first half of the book (other than those scenes you mentioned) is them jumping from place to place, getting caught, fighting with each other and etc... Also it begs the question of what the final action scene in part one will be with Yates' breaking point. The Lovegood house? I guess it could be good with the exploding horn and everything, I just think that would be cramming a lot in part two.
    Frankly I would happy if part two was a two hour long Battle of Hogwarts.
  • jason B
    to come up with the ABSOLUTE/UNQUESTIONABLE best title...they should ask Rowling. it'd be a great opportunity for her to have a final touch/say on the whole matter. and though i kinda just blurted that out, it actually sounds like a good idea.
  • Joshua Ruth
    Amen to that. I don't think that it should be retitled, but if it is: Rowling needs to have a hand in it.
  • *Spoilers Abound*

    I don't see how this could be split. What will it start with. As far as I know, Fleur and Bill aren't in 6! How can they get married! That already takes off about 30 minutes of the film. What's the point of them returning to the Burrow? If anything, I'm intrigued.
  • Joshua Ruth
    *spoilers continue*
    I'll be upset if they drop Bill and Fleur's plotline. I know things will have to be cut for time, but to miss the payoff after Bill is scarred, Fleur professes that she is beautiful enough for the both of them and that brings her and Molly together would be a sad loss for the films. Also, without Bill and Fleur there's no Shell Cottage and that means we lose the unbelieveably sad "Dobby burial by the sea" scene.
  • LuMendz
    There were some pictures here before about a scene where Harry and the gang were in a wedding.
  • Josh
    The deal is these films are not just being made for the current audience, who you know just read the book a few years ago. These films will continue to be around and watched for years to come.
  • And somehow the books won't?
  • Ryz
    Not everyone has the time to read the book, and if they do they'll only have like 30 minutes could end up taking forever just to get through one book
  • nolacuse
    Why would they only have 30 minutes? Since when are books going to become impossible to read?
  • Joshua Ruth
    Seriously. I don't believe there's a single person in the world that has no time to read. Even the President of the United States reads full novels. Lots of them.
    That just sounds like an excuse.
    I mean, you typed on this forum right? That means you were burning time on slashfilm and commenting on something which appearantly you don't really care about. You had time for that?
    It's all about priorities.
  • Evan
    I think that it makes sense for the first movie to have more of a "skirmish" type feel to the action. It will really divide the book well, allowing part two to take on a more epic feel is only natural since it is the final film, final battle, etc.

    It sounds like a good place to me. I only read the book once, right when it came out, so I am having trouble remembering where the "Snatchers" fit in the story.
  • Casey
    The Snatchers were kind of like amateur bounty hunters, rounding up people who opposed Voldemort. The ones who find Harry and co. weren't neccissarily looking for them, but anyone who was on the run.
  • Raabia
    I think the first movie will end when Ron leaves after he has a big fight with Harry.
  • Noooo
    They should not do this because it will ruin the film also they are doing the split cause that asshole yates is a greedy son of a bitch.
  • yosafbridge
    Wow, that's a HORRID place to split it! Sure, it's a cliffhanger and blah, blah whatever...that's just a bad place from a storytelling/cinematic view.

    C'mon, you can end the film on a cliffhanger and still wrap up the story, forcing the audience to stop mid-story is just wrong. The Lord of the Rings films were all distinct stories, you could watch one without feeling obligated to watch the others. Splitting the film like this is just a disservice to the audience. Plus, where's the climax? "camping, camping, Godrics Hallow, camping, Ron and the Locket, camping, camping, Snatchers--end" that's just a badly put together film.

    A better place to split it *spoiler warning* would be after Dobby's death...that way you'd at least get some sort of climax and the film would end with a death scene like the last 3. Plus, Dobby's death is the turning point in the book (and thus the films) when Harry has to make his decision between Horcruxes and Hallows.

    I guess I just have this great image of Harry sitting, dejected but determined outside of Shell Cottage, the camera pans up and it cuts to credits. It would be a sad, but hopeful ending...in keeping with the endings of every other HP film. Plus, still a cliffhanger as you're wondering what he's going to do, go after the Horcruxes or seek out the Hallows?
  • Cr1mson3lbow
    Thank you, thank you thank you! yosafbridge, you said it EXACTLY as it should be.... the is the "cliffhanger" that they want. Horcruxes or Hallows? Hallows or Horcruxes? This split point leaves us with a climax and a bereavement. The shell cottage was one of my favorite parts of this book, and splitting it here, (had i NOT read the book) would leave wanting to know which one does he choose? I would be super excited to see part two. Furthermore, splitting it this way would leave loads of time for The Battle of Hogwarts, and the super important "Snape-Lilly" story. What do you guys think? should they include the "19 years later" epilogue? I think it would be a nice little touch, but extremely hard to direct and make the actors look so much older.
  • plagueoftruth
    I've heard that the epilogue will be in it. In an interview, Daniel Radcliffe was talking about the technology that will be used to make the cast look much older. He said that everyone feels it's risky because if done badly it good look awful and spoil the emotion but yes, it looks like it's going to happen. (And honestly, there's no way they could leave it out.)
blog comments powered by Disqus