By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Barozi on 13 June 2015
Edit Thread
Ouroboros24 said:
Barozi said:
longer movie and more stuff from the books can find their way into them.
How's that a bad thing?

Deathly Hollows is combined 276 minutes or 4 hours and 36 minutes. Subtract ~10 minutes for one of the credits and you still got a movie that is unattractive for any movie theatre to show. It would draw far less viewers.

Don't cut anything off.  Long movies are fine being long movies if they have a story to tell.  Don't split because of the money.  Which was the case.  The final movie, the final payout.  BTW, the following are UK book counts per page.  First book: 223 pages. Second book: 251 pages. Third book: 317 pages. Fourth book: 636 pages. Fifth book: 766. Sixth book: 607 pages. Seventh book: 607 pages.

Really, how many movie goers go into a movie knowning how long it's going to be.  And even then, movies like Lord of the Ring Fellowship which was just shy a few minutes from being 3 hours, still saw a big crowd of people gather to watch it.  Made about $875 million.  By the second movie, Towers, fans watched that as well, despite already being informed on how long it would be.  Grossed 926 Million.  Same with the third.  Why?  Because they're movies people were willing to stay and sit through.  So, why would a franchise as huge and well known as Harry Potter, with it's final swan song, fail to do the same as all the other Harry Potter movies. 

Since the runtime is displayed everywhere before you enter the cinema hall, I would say every movie goer. It's a difference if a movie runs between 90 and 120 minutes or 180 minutes and up.
Harry Potter started as a children's book and then went up slowly. Deathly Hollows is PG-13. How many of those teens are allowed to stay in a cinema when it's already past 10pm?

Face it, it's either having a 2-parted movie that's at least 3 hours or a single movie that doesn't exceed 3 hours. Everything else isn't attractive for the creators of the movie and the cinema. I'd rather take the longer one (as long as it makes sense to be that long). It's not like you don't get enough for your money.


The other Harry Potter books were indeed longer and it would've made sense to make more than one movie for each. Lots of great stuff missing. I mean you see like one Quidditch match a movie, when there were in fact several ones Harry took part in each year. Also most of the stuff that happens during the holiday season is cut out or extremely shortened and so on. Obviously the most integral parts of the story were still in the movies.