Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Trailer is Out!

[Lord Loss]

Well, Here it is! (http://www.cineplex.com/News/FIRST-LOOK-Harry-Potter-and-the-Deathly-Hallows-trailer.aspx?cmpid=WhatsHot_MovieDetails_First)

thoughts? I find it seems more promising than the sixth

[Alindo]

eeech. I don't know how people could have watched these installments up to here :(

[Dr.Epic]

I thought the series was over with the last film. How long have they been making these films? The second one came out when I was in middle school and I'm currently a college sophomore about to become a junior in the fall.

[Thufir]

I'm not overly impressed by that trailer, but the films may well be pretty good. I precisely am unimpressed by the trailer itself - a lot of interesting looking things go by too quickly to really tell what they are. And the main bit they did show more of is kind of spoiling a climactic scene for the 3 or 4 people who haven't read the book by the time they see the film.

Oh, and looks like they're reusing the dueling by joining wands with a line of coloured light from each, like they did for Voldemort vs. Dumbledore in film 5. :sigh:
Other than that, it seems they've kept the bad bits out of the trailer, so I'll have to wait until I see the film to find out what they've done wrong this time.

[Tirian]

I don't think the movies have been painfully bad to watch. I can't imagine anyone who watched the movies without having read the book first, because they tend to edit out anything that is vaguely interesting, but they tell what's left as well as a movie could be expected to.

[Dr.Epic]

I don't think the movies have been painfully bad to watch. I can't imagine anyone who watched the movies without having read the book first, because they tend to edit out anything that is vaguely interesting, but they tell what's left as well as a movie could be expected to.

Then why did they keep the Quidditch matches?

[Tirian]

Wait, do you think the Quidditch matches are interesting? You have more patience than I do.

Mostly, the letdowns of the films is that they have hired most of the greatest British actors and actresses of their generation and then not given them any scenes.

[Dr.Epic]

Wait, do you think the Quidditch matches are interesting? You have more patience than I do.

No. I was saying they're dumb and I remember they were in the first two films. It's like pod racing with broomsticks.

[Dumbledore lives]

Well, I know I'll see it on the first day, be very dissapointed, and then buy the DVD, and then pretend it doesn't exist. Just like the last 4 movies. Maybe this one will be different, but I really, really doubt it.

[Demons_eye]

Well, I know I'll see it on the first day, be very dissapointed, and then buy the DVD, and then pretend it doesn't exist. Just like the last 4 movies. Maybe this one will be different, but I really, really doubt it.


QFT, I don't think anything, even using the book as a strait script, will redeem it. I mean I don't think they even mentioned Dobby after the second movie so they might change that. Really nothing can redeem it.

[Platinum_Mongoose]

Half-Blood Prince was the first of the movies that actually struck me as a good film. I enjoyed Goblet and Phoenix but flat-out forgot what was in them them shortly after seeing them (I usually have a very good memory for movies) but I actually remember being very impressed with Prince coming out of the theater, and again on a second viewing a few weeks ago. And, unlike my second viewings for Goblet and Phoenix, I wasn't scratching my head at every scene, wondering why it felt like I'd seen it somewhere before, but not quite. Anyway, I think the reason Prince was a good movie was because they changed the book, but in such a way that made it a better story for film. This is the core issue for me in the argument of film adaptations of books: stories are not intrinsically designed for all mediums. They have to be changed from text to screen because certain elements don't always translate. And I think Half-Blood Prince took this lesson to heart, after learning the hard way in Stone and Chamber, and learning how not to do it in Prisoner, Goblet, and Phoenix. If they do Deathly Hallows at the same caliber as Half-Blood Prince, I'll be satisfied.

Well, until that dry-heave-inducing epilogue. (It was like bad fanfic written by a girl in middle school!)

[Abies]

The thing I find interesting about Deathly Hallows is that tehy are splitting it up into two movies. Of all the books I seem to recall more "dead areas" in the plot during DH than any of the other books. I can only imagine the impetus to make the last installment into two movies came from JKR herself, insisting that the slipshod storytelling, unexplained plot points and basically impossible to understand movies without having read the books first had to stop. Of course that means two movies for the studio and more money all around so of course they agreed.

The last two movies were impossible to understand without having read the books first. Confirmation of this theory comes from my mother, brother, and two other friends. Heck this goes back as far as Prisoner. Go ahead watch that movie and tell me where it is explained who made the Marauder's map (or more precicely who the marauders were besides Wormtail). Go back and watch HBP and tell me why Snape even had the least clue as to why Harry knew the HBP was. Its not like he went about calling himself that all the time.

Ever since Goblet of Fire it has become increasingly apparent that the movies are made soely as money-grabs. Which is unfortunate.

As an aside, regarding abandoning Dobby. I suspect they will re-use Kretcher and give him all of Dobby's secene and lines. It'll have a more emotional pop when we see the evil house elf redeemed, then give his life saving his new master as aopposed to revisiting a character Harry has not seen in 5(?) years.

[Tirian]

The thing I find interesting about Deathly Hallows is that tehy are splitting it up into two movies. Of all the books I seem to recall more "dead areas" in the plot during DH than any of the other books.

I thought so too, although from my perspective many of those "dead areas" were fights (which JKR has never written well) that could be fleshed out in film. The next movie should be real-sized, since it goes at least up to the beginning of the fight between Harry and Voldemort.

The final movie, I don't know. There isn't a lot of text left in the book at that point. Of course, JKR has the opportunity to redeem herself from all of the off-screen death that she didn't write about to give some beloved characters actual scenes. And then, maybe like the end of Return of the King, they won't be able to resist spending a half-hour after the climax to "say goodbye to the characters".

As far as the quality of the movies go, I think they've mostly been of standard blockbuster quality. It's aggravating because they could have been better (like when you hire transcendent actors like Maggie Smith and then not give them scenes). Personally, I thought that the last hundred pages of Prisoner was the best written part of the books and that was conveyed particularly well on screen as well.

[Zen Monkey]

I may be in the minority (in fact, I probably am) but I am one of the ones who has seen the movies without reading the books. While I read things like the Narnia books as a child, I'm getting near that midlife point now and don't relate as well to child protagonists anymore. This may be why the magical prom story in the Goblet of Fire felt intolerably long. The movies are generally a good concise telling of the story, showing off the look and feel of the stories' world.

I've just never found Harry to be all that interesting of a character. He's a poor abused orphan who one day is swept away from his mundane existence to suddenly become wealthy and famous, makes new friends and finds that much of the world revolves around him. It's good escapism for unhappy children, but is also the reason why I preferred the later films. I find a cast of heroes against a cast of villains to be more interesting than another round of Harry vs. Voldemort which gets tiring after a few films.

Again, just my single opinion. I liked most of the Lord of the Rings films but couldn't finish the books because I didn't care for the style of prose or for the Hobbits. I am aware that this makes me a heretic or infidel in many circles, but Hollywood is also trying to cater to people that are willing to give 2 hours to hear a story but aren't necessarily interested enough to give 20.

[Bacon Barbarian]

I thought the series was over with the last film. How long have they been making these films? The second one came out when I was in middle school and I'm currently a college sophomore about to become a junior in the fall.

Have you not read the books? :smallfurious:

Anywho, it's bound to be better than the rest. Splitting it in two is the only way to get the whole story out with out bastardizing the book. It's a smart move, and the fans should enjoy it.


the movies are generally a good concise telling of the story, showing off the look and feel of the stories' world.

It's your loss to not read the books, but this statement is a lie. The books are fantastic, and while relating to a child protagonist could be annoying Im sure, the movies dont have the same feel. All the little passages that get left out ... They're just are so emotional ... Its unexplainable. The movies can never match up with the books

[Thufir]

The next movie should be real-sized, since it goes at least up to the beginning of the fight between Harry and Voldemort.

Actually, I was under the impression that the trailer was for both parts. So we don't know where the split happens.

[Bacon Barbarian]

Actually, I was under the impression that the trailer was for both parts. So we don't know where the split happens.

I do believe that the trailer is for both halves too. They filmed them back to back. And I think I read somewhere that their done with filming ... I could be wrong

[Syka]

They started filming the movies back in 2001, I believe that is when Sorcerer's Stone was released.

I've been reading them since...1998? I think. All I know for sure is that my sister got the first book as a birthday present and it was before the movie and before it became all the rage.

We own all 7 books in hardback. Not fanatics, but fans for sure. They've been read so many times that the older ones are falling apart/stained/what have you. Prisoner of Azkaban is actually missing 20 pages plus 2 more 20+ page sections are falling out, lol.

I mean, I'm 23 now and rereading the books (on Half-Blood Prince now).


I liked movies 1-3. After the fourth, I refused to see Phoenix. I understand they can't do direct adaptation, but I had so many friends who hadn't read the books complain about being confused, AND they left out many pretty big plot points (SPEW, anyone?). Rewatching the movies recently, Oz had me tell him what was changed/left out. I didn't even TRY for the fourth. I did see Half-Blood, though. And I'll be seeing this one. I'm hoping the fact they were allowed to split it up will allow them to do a better telling of the story. I think that would have helped 4 and 5 tremendously. I mean, 3 had it's problems but not horribly.



But, from the teaser footage I've been seeing, it looks pretty good.



On the big name actors: the problem is, their roles aren't really central. The story is, really, about how Harry and his friends (all lesser known/brand new actors) deal with the situations.




Also...anyone else surprised at how good looking the guy who plays Neville has turned out to be?


Edit: And if they DO do it correctly, I'm going to be crying within the first 20 minutes for the first half. I hate crying in movies, but I want them to do it right more. :smallwink:

[Tirian]

Actually, I was under the impression that the trailer was for both parts. So we don't know where the split happens.

Ah. Even so, I can't imagine where else they could put the split. Even though everyone either knows what happens or how to find out, there has to be some sort of action climax to the first part.

[Thufir]

AND they left out many pretty big plot points (SPEW, anyone?).

:smallconfused: SPEW was, like, a subplot at best. That's one of the easiest things to cut because it has no effect on the main plot if I remember correctly, as of course I unfailingly do.

Yeah, I come out of each new HP film with an extensive list of what they did wrong, but that wasn't a cut I had a problem with.

[Syka]

:smallconfused: SPEW was, like, a subplot at best. That's one of the easiest things to cut because it has no effect on the main plot if I remember correctly, as of course I unfailingly do.

Yeah, I come out of each new HP film with an extensive list of what they did wrong, but that wasn't a cut I had a problem with.

It's mostly that it's an ongoing thing and it (indirectly) effects the plot, if I'm remembering correctly. It can be taken out, but they took it out by entirely removing Winky. Winky was a major player in Book 4, and how they handled her absence was...painful (for those who read the books, anyway) at best.

Not too mention, as has already been referenced, the distinct lack of ANY house elves since Movie 2.

[Obrysii]

The atmosphere and cinematography of the 6th movie was quite good.

Too bad they ruined it with the incoherent burning of the house, though.

[Dr.Epic]

Have you not read the books? :smallfurious:

I stopped after the fifth. 800 pages for a children's book?!?!?

[Thufir]

It can be taken out, but they took it out by entirely removing Winky. Winky was a major player in Book 4, and how they handled her absence was...painful (for those who read the books, anyway) at best.

Now that's more of an issue. I can't actually remember how they handled her absence, and I have no particular desire to rewatch the film, also I haven't read the books for a while, but I can see how that would be an issue.


Not to mention, as has already been referenced, the distinct lack of ANY house elves since Movie 2.

Well, they did include Kreacher, very briefly, in film 5. Though only because Rowling told them to.

@Obrysii: Oh Goddess, I had managed to forget about that. Actually, at one point I forgot the 6th film had even happened. I was trying to remember when it was coming out, then realised it already had and I'd seen it.
Yeah, the 6th film had some good points, some very bad ones, and of the three big plotlines in the book, chose entirely the wrong one to focus on.

@Dr. Epic: 768. And why shouldn't children's books be a decent length?

[hamishspence]

The first book might have been a children's book- but by the fourth and fifth, they tended to be marketed at teenagers.

[Dr.Epic]

The first book might have been a children's book- but by the fourth and fifth, they tended to be marketed at teenagers.

I think it was more towards the third when they introduced the Nazgul rip-offs that could kill someone by kissing them. Also, was it the third or fourth book that was like 700+ pages? Any book of that length is way too long to be a children's book.

[Thufir]

I think it was more towards the third when they introduced the Nazgul rip-offs that could kill someone by kissing them. Also, was it the third or fourth book that was like 700+ pages? Any book of that length is way too long to be a children's book.

I don't see how Dementors are Nazgul rip offs.
Book 4 was 636 pages, 5 was 768. Also, I reiterate:


why shouldn't children's books be a decent length?

[Syka]

OK, I'm assuming anyone in this thread has either read the 4th book or seen the 4th movie, and am not going to bother spoilering this, lol.


Thufir, they actually SHOWED Barty Crouch Jr. doing the dark mark. They didn't have the Weasley's sitting in the top box, but rather opted to have Crouch Jr. just randomly striding around the camps, with no disguise. I don't think they even had Harry lose his wand, just them be near where the Dark Mark was summoned. They also don't have Crouch get ill and disappear only to reappear as a mad man. Percy was no where near it (nor was a rift among the Weasley's mentioned), and Crouch attended all of the TriWizard things. They also conveniently left out Bagman.

Yeah, my main issue was the lack of Winky and obviousness of Crouch Jr. Oz got an earful about that, lol.



On length: When you read the books, one thing you'll notice is as the character (and original audience) matures, so does the writing. And thus the length. I'd be hard pressed to call books 3-7 children's books. 1 and 2, yes. 3-7 are more young adult books. I never had an issue with length, because they were always pretty well executed.

Maybe I noticed this because I was in the original target audience while the books were still being released? (I was 12 when the first one came out and about 20 for the last one.)

[Thufir]

Ah yes, it's all coming back to me. There are reasons why I don't rewatch the films.