I saw 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I' on Tuesday night.

[sinkingfeeling]

I won 2 tickets to a sneak preview from our local TV station. I couldn't post that I had won the tickets are gone to the movie because of a computer breakdown.

It was awesome! Ask me anything.

[onehandle]

1. Thank God they broke it up into two films. No way could they fit all of that into one.

Glad it was awesome. We'll hopefully see it this weekend.

Without revealing anything, was the point that they ended part one a good one?

[RZM]

2. Just an observation

But it seems to me that breaking the last installment in a series into two films (I think they are doing that with Twilight as well) is a simple money-making ploy, on par with spreading a season of a television series onto 6 or more DVDs to up the cost. Am I correct here? I'm not trying to be a super-cynic, since there's nothing wrong with fans getting an extra movie out of the deal. But that's how I see the practice.

[tibbiit]

7. then you arent a fan of the books

I think you see this practice not from an educated point of view, just out your ass.
lol
tib

[RZM]

8. This isn't supposed to cause division here

And I'm not hating on the franchise at all. Lots of people I know like Harry Potter and I say more power to them. Also, as I said in my earlier post, I can see why fans would LIKE this practice because it gives them a few more hours of entertainment. But let's compare some page counts according to Amazon.

The Arthur A. Levine paperback edition of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' clocks in at 784 pages. Pretty hefty for sure.
The Scholastic paperback edition of 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' clocks in at 752 pages. Also hefty, but that one was fit into one movie. Perhaps the fonts are different . . . but I'm guessing both books contain a roughly equal amount of 'Potter-ness.'

I'm not looking at this from an educated point of view or an 'ass' point of view. I'm trying to see it from a moneymaking point of view and I'm guessing that's the perspective Warner Bros. sees it from. Harry Potter movies make a profit, so two is going to be better for the studio than one.

Like I said, same thing with releasing a television series on DVD. Do you really need 6 discs to contain a 12-episode season? I think the point is to use as much physical product as possible in order to up the cost.

[pepperbear]

12. my reaction when they announced the 2 films......

"Those greedy bastards! Where do I line up for the tickets?"

This is one of those things where their greed was actually a gift for fans. Of course you're right; this was about making more $! They see the end of a huge franchise coming, and we all know hollywood is about the quick turnaround.

You may remember they moved the release date of HP6 (Christmas '08 to Summer '09) because "Batman: The Dark Knight" was such a big tent pole for the '08 that they needed another one as big the next summer to counter any losses. They didn't see any prospects other than HP6.

[emmadoggy]

26. Well, there's the rub.

The previous movies that were based on those long books (Goblet of Fire at 752, Order of the Phoenix the longest at 870) were in my opinion so chopped up that they lost a lot in the translation. In my opinion, the movie for Goblet of Fire is the worst movie of the bunch by far because they spent too much time on things that needn't have been so long (the dragon sequence), but then given all that had to be cut, they then had the GALL to make up a couple of new scenes that weren't even part of the book! Goblet of Fire was a poor adaptation and I was very disappointed with the direction (Dumbledore was VERY un-Dumbledore-like!). There were FAR too many changes made and the story felt very jumbled to me.

Order of the Phoenix is the longest book and became (I think?) the shortest movie. I felt it was better made than Goblet of Fire, but there was still a lot of plot and story missing. I understand that books have to be cut to fit into a reasonable-length movie, but that is what brings me back to your point - Book 7 being a two-parter seems much more appropriate to the book and its length and depth of story. Money-making aside, as a fan of the books, it only makes for much better movies to devote two of them to one long book.

I really enjoyed Deathly Hallows Pt. 1, and feel it is probably the best movie so far (although I still have great affection for Sorcerer's Stone and Prisoner of Azkaban).

[sinkingfeeling]

4. It was 2 1/2 hours long and is 'broken' at just about the half way into the book point.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. what's the plot?

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I'd be glad to answer your question on the next 4 day weekend I get.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. actually, I am avidly awaiting it.

Some thought the last 2-3 books were getting too dark. I thought that they were even better.

By the by, I heard a rumor that JKLMNOP Rowling was considering a sequel to the series. Interesting. the return of Voldemort, in the body of Dick Cheney?

[Goblinmonger]

21. I like that fact that the books get darker as the readers go older

My daughter started in on them when she was very young. Then got to read the last one as a high school student. Perfect pacing of mood, in my opinion.

I hope she doesn't do a sequel series. Just let it go.

[redirish28]

We are taking my niece who is about 12 years old. Anything we need

to worry about? Anything too dark. We have read her the series. My wife tries to preview it (all movies) before we take her.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. A couple of scarey scenes involving the snake. Each only lasts for a couple of seconds, but

can cause your heart to skip a beat. If she has read the book and/or seen the other films with the snake, she should be OK. Nothing really gorey or sexual.

[redirish28]

13. Thanks

[YOY]

6. I assume fairly true to the book?

With the "breaking point" of halfway through they finally have time to show the details...

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Yes, a few things left out and one good scene added that helps give a break to the dark, sad

mood of this one.

[mackerel]

14. Taking the kids on Saturday...I've been counting the days.

[glinda]

15. Have they killed the owl in the first part? So sad when I read that.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Yes.

[glinda]

17. I will make sure I go get some popcorn then. Thanks.

[brettdale]

18. How was it? ten out of ten? better than the half blood prince?

How was it? ten out of ten? better than the half blood prince?

[mackerel]

19. Definitely better than Half Blood Prince.

[sakabatou]

20. That's for sure

The HBP was disappointing.

[mackerel]

22. Wasn't it though!

[sakabatou]

23. The HBP fell flat

The book is so much better.

[mackerel]

24. I absolutely loved the books and the films too.

When we got back on Saturday Night it was early enough and the kids pulled out Sorcerer's Stone just to recap. Then on Sunday we watched Chamber of Secrets.

[emmadoggy]

25. Ok, here's my Harry Potter story.

My 8-year-old son got the entire series as a gift last April. Started reading them and had read the first three by mid-late May. Started book 4 at the end of May. Didn't read a lot over the summer so book 4 was a long process. This fall, school started. We ended up renting the Harry Potter dvd's from Netflix. First one, second one, third one.... At this point, I suggested that he not see any more of the movies until he had read each book, so as not to get "spoiled". (I was also a little concerned about the PG-13 content in the later movies.) He agreed. At this point, I had enjoyed the movies enough that I became curious about the books too and decided to read them along with my son as something fun we could share together. I started book one around the beginning of October. I was HOOKED! Meanwhile, I had seen the previews for Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 and thought it looked great and really wanted to see it. I could NOT put the books down and ended up reading the entire series in a matter of weeks - I finished 5 days before Deathly Hallows opened in theaters on Nov. 19!

I rented each of the movies after I finished each book. My son is now reading book 5 and has not watched any of the movies past number 4. He really wants to read them first, which I think is great. My daughter (same age as son, twin) has not read the books but has watched all the movies. She seemed to handle the PG-13 content ok as the movies went, although she tends to be less easily frightened than my son. She REALLY wanted to see Deathly Hallows.

We went on opening weekend. We both LOVED it! I thought is was one of the best, if not THE best, Harry Potter movie. I am SO happy that they split the book into two movies. There is just too much content, too much going on to chop it up and still make it comprehensible. I feel that the biggest letdown with all the other movies (well, not really with 1-3), was simply that there was just too much meat in the books to squeeze into the movies and make it understandable. I think it would be hard to watch the movies without having the books as background. My daughter and husband have done that and I've had to explain numerous things to them. (My husband, btw, also watched all the movies as we went and has gotten into them as well. He NEVER reads and decided to start reading the series! He is reading book 1 right now. He also went to DH and thought it was really good, too!)

I thought DH1 was very well done and did a good job of getting in most of the important plot points. The mood and feel of the movie really matched the tone of the book. It is a much more dark, grim, serious, and grown-up story. I had my concerns taking my daughter (a couple months shy of 9) and she did cringe and close her eyes in a few spots, but handled it ok. They stayed fairly true to the book which I really appreciated. I felt they chose a very good spot to end pt. 1. I can't wait for part 2!!

Sorry to ramble on so much, but I've become a bit of a HP nut lately and wanted to share.... :P

[Goblinmonger]

27. I was worried when they split them up

that they were going to just put a bunch of fluff in them, but the first one dives right into it. They waste no time catching anyone up (which I think is fine).

It was a great movie.

[emmadoggy]

28. Yes, I agree.

I thought they did a very good job with it. It really captured the mood and tone of the book. I also thought that Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint gave their best performances of all the movies.