connielane (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
connielane) wrote2008-03-12 12:04 pm
connielane) wrote2008-03-12 12:04 pm
Are you reading, WB?
Probably not. :P But there's been a lot of hubbub about Deathly Hallows being split into two movies, and a lot of freaking out about them possibly splitting the movie where Ron runs off, causing the non-reader audience to think Ron is a complete jerk for several months, or however long it is between movies. Personally, I feel like that particular moment is too early in the story to make the split, and what's more, I think the filmmakers are well aware of it.
I brought this up a few months ago, adding that the other big OMG moment would be where the Trio is kidnapped and taken to Malfoy Manor, which I feel is too late for the split. Then the lovely and brilliant![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
divinemum had the wonderful idea that they might split the movie when the Trio has to flee from the Lovegood house. The more I think about it, the more I'm in love with the idea, and here are a few reasons why.
1. If Deathly Hallows is going to be two movies, it needs to, you know, BE two movies. There has to be a beginning, a middle, and an end to both of them, even if the end of part 1 is not the end of the story. Cutting the film, not right when Ron runs away but shortly after he returns gives a satisfactory "ending." Not only do we have the Trio friendship (well, at least the Harry-Ron friendship :P) restored, we also get a big climax-y moment when the Locketcrux is destroyed, we see the last really meaningful obstacle removed from the R/Hr romance, and there are some important clues dropped about events in the second half. This should give the movie sufficient juice to sustain the wait and make people want to see the second half.
But of course, you can't cut it at Ron's return either, because it's anti-climactic. So...
2. Cutting it when the Trio flees from the Lovegood house gives a proper cliffhanger The Trio is about to be caught, Hermione does her thing, and they disappear. To Be Continued. Where did they go? Were they tailed? What happens next? That's an appropriate cliffhanger for this kind of story - not an emotional cliffhanger (will Ron return?) but an ACTION cliffhanger. It could be really awesome.
And it still leaves us on the right emotional note. You've just had this incredibly moving reaffirmation of the Trio friendship, which is amplified so beautifully by them seeing the mural in Luna's room (reminding us, too, just before the end, of Luna, Ginny, and Neville). And Xeno's betrayal of the Trio to try and get Luna back is a great piece of the "families torn apart" theme. Perfect.
But the most important reason of all...
3. The scene with Xenophilius is the first time we hear about the titular Deathly Hallows. It ends part 1 like most of the other movies have ended, with an important bit of exposition. And it's the perfect way to set up the Hallows and their importance in part 2. And, you know, if you're going to call it part 1 of a movie called "Deathly Hallows," introducing the Hallows at a key moment in the film is probably a good idea. :P
I'm fairly confident that Steve Kloves and whoever is directing DH can figure all this out without my help. But I thought I'd put this out there for the benefit of fans who might be skittish about where the split might happen - since it's seeming more and more like yes, there's going to BE a split.
I brought this up a few months ago, adding that the other big OMG moment would be where the Trio is kidnapped and taken to Malfoy Manor, which I feel is too late for the split. Then the lovely and brilliant
divinemum had the wonderful idea that they might split the movie when the Trio has to flee from the Lovegood house. The more I think about it, the more I'm in love with the idea, and here are a few reasons why.1. If Deathly Hallows is going to be two movies, it needs to, you know, BE two movies. There has to be a beginning, a middle, and an end to both of them, even if the end of part 1 is not the end of the story. Cutting the film, not right when Ron runs away but shortly after he returns gives a satisfactory "ending." Not only do we have the Trio friendship (well, at least the Harry-Ron friendship :P) restored, we also get a big climax-y moment when the Locketcrux is destroyed, we see the last really meaningful obstacle removed from the R/Hr romance, and there are some important clues dropped about events in the second half. This should give the movie sufficient juice to sustain the wait and make people want to see the second half.
But of course, you can't cut it at Ron's return either, because it's anti-climactic. So...
2. Cutting it when the Trio flees from the Lovegood house gives a proper cliffhanger The Trio is about to be caught, Hermione does her thing, and they disappear. To Be Continued. Where did they go? Were they tailed? What happens next? That's an appropriate cliffhanger for this kind of story - not an emotional cliffhanger (will Ron return?) but an ACTION cliffhanger. It could be really awesome.
And it still leaves us on the right emotional note. You've just had this incredibly moving reaffirmation of the Trio friendship, which is amplified so beautifully by them seeing the mural in Luna's room (reminding us, too, just before the end, of Luna, Ginny, and Neville). And Xeno's betrayal of the Trio to try and get Luna back is a great piece of the "families torn apart" theme. Perfect.
But the most important reason of all...
3. The scene with Xenophilius is the first time we hear about the titular Deathly Hallows. It ends part 1 like most of the other movies have ended, with an important bit of exposition. And it's the perfect way to set up the Hallows and their importance in part 2. And, you know, if you're going to call it part 1 of a movie called "Deathly Hallows," introducing the Hallows at a key moment in the film is probably a good idea. :P
I'm fairly confident that Steve Kloves and whoever is directing DH can figure all this out without my help. But I thought I'd put this out there for the benefit of fans who might be skittish about where the split might happen - since it's seeming more and more like yes, there's going to BE a split.
no subject
several months, or however long it is between movies
Six months, apparently!
They're also confirming Yates for both films.
It makes sense to me that they split the book into two movies at a point after the half-way point in the book. Isn't the climax of the movies generally proportionately longer than the same sequence in the books? It seems like the moviemakers usually like to keep all or most of the dramatic ending, while cutting lots of other things, so the ending takes up more of the movie.
The whole battle of Hogwarts sequence is going to be long. Add to that the Malfoy Manor and Gringotts episodes and you have plenty for a movie, I think. The first half then is the escape from the Dursleys, the wedding, the Ministry, camping and Godric's Hollow, and the Lovegoods. I kind of hope they manage to keep the wedding in. With maybe 5 total hours for the book, they can afford to reinsert plot points that have been left out like Bill and Fleur!
Anyway I like all of your points and I'm excited this is really happening....
no subject
The second movie would then start with the Malfoy Manor action sequence, like a Bond film always starts with some action, and then the Shell Cottage sequence would let us breathe a little. I'm a little concerned about Dobby's death being so near the beginning of the film, but I think it's better in the second one so that can tie in with the mention of Dobby that prompts the R/Hr kiss. So I think I still like the break right before Malfoy Manor best.
I may keep changing my mind every few minutes. :) Of course, everything we say assumes that won't mix up the order of events, which they might find a clever way of doing!
no subject
no subject
I just posted over at your other post, too....