DH Movie Speculation

[stephab67]

Alicia:
I will have a heart attack if DH isn't perfectly in sync w/
the book. I do agree with you that they will change things,
but why? I wouldn't care if the movie was 6 hours long,
would any real Potter fan?  I loved HBP, that and DH were
my favorite books so I really can't wait for the movies.

Steph:
They'll change/cut things because they have to, for many reasons:
1) The movies are for a GENERAL audience, not just for the hardcore
fans of the books.  There are many people who have never read any of
the books but who have seen the movies.  WB isn't going to limit the
audience by making a six-hour film, which it certainly would.  

2) The films have to tell a brisk story, they can't get too bogged
down in detail or else they'll lose the audience.  Even the hardcore
fans would likely be bored if they had to sit through six hours with
only a 15-minute intermission. They say they would, but I went to see
the extended version of "LOTR: The Two Towers," which clocked in at
four hours, and that was more than enough for me, and I have a very
long attention span.  If you think you'd happily sit through a
six-hour movie, I suggest trying it: watch two or three films
back-to-back where the total running time is six hours, with only a
15-minute intermission (which is what it would be) and minimal potty
breaks (where you'd have to leave the film running - no cheating!) and
see whether you could take it.  And that would be in your own living
room, on a nice cushy couch or chair where you could stretch out, not
in a theater where you have only one position to sit in.

3) In order to make money, the studios and the theaters need to be
able to get as many people as possible to see the films on the number
of screens on which it is being shown.  Therefore, they have to have
several showings per day.  One six-hour film could only be shown twice
per day per screen, whereas you'd get four showings of a three-hour
film, which would therefore make twice the money. It's all about
getting back the costs of production and making a profit.  With the
exception of OotP, Warner Brothers had a pretty lousy year, so they're
certainly not going to upset their shareholders by putting out a
six-hour HP movie which would make them half of what a three-hour film
would get.  In addition, profit margins for movie theaters are pretty
thin, they make most of their money on snacks, not the films they
show, so they'd have no interest in showing a six-hour film either as
it would cut down by 50 percent the amount of snacks they'd sell. 

4) You might argue that the theater could charge more, but they're not
going to be able to charge twice as much as no one's going to pay $20
for a movie, plus snacks.  How many teens/families could afford that?
 For four people the cost would be around $80, and that would be
without the snacks and parking, if you have to pay for that.  If you
do, you'd likely end up spending somewhere north of $100.  Not a very
inexpensive evening, is it?  Add on an additional 50 percent premium
for the IMAX version and it ends up being completely unaffordable,
unless you happen to be wealthy. 

5) With the advent of HDTVs and increasingly-inexpensive home theater
systems, there's even less of an incentive to put a six-hour HP movie
in the theaters.  People would just wait for the DVD and watch it in
the privacy of their homes where they could stop the film whenever
they wanted.  For the movie studios to make as much money as they can
off the multiple forms of media there are out there these days, going
for a shorter theater release with a longer DVD/internet release is
the more likely route.  However, so far the producers of the films
haven't chosen to do that, and it's likely they won't at this stage. 
In any case, I can't see them making an extended version that's longer
than four hours.  The work that it already takes to produce a 2.5 hour
film is gargantuan enough.  

In addition, the deleted scenes we've seen so far from the HP films
currently on DVD show that they likely haven't filmed many scenes that
don't end up in the completed version; so even if these did end up in
the theatrical release they'd only add on another 10-15 minutes of
running time.  I saw the OotP additional scenes, and only three might
have been worth adding in: the extension to the
Harry/Hermione/Umbridge forest scene, the extension to the dorm scene
where Ron comes in to try to get Harry to go to the banquet, and the
bit where Neville defends Harry after Harry and Ron have gone up to
the dormitory.  The others weren't useful.

Frankly, I'm more annoyed that there hasn't been a commentary track
for any of the films. I'd love it if Dan, Rupert and Emma did one, I
think it would be great as long as Dan allowed Emma and Rupert
(especially) to get a word in edgewise. I really like Dan, but boy can
he talk!  Or maybe there should be two: one with Dan and the director,
and another with Emma and Rupert. 
  
Alicia: 
I am having a hard time w/ the series ending and almost wish JKR would
start a spin-off one involving the trios' kids and Draco's kid,
Neville's kids, etc.  Harry could be the new DD, and maybe Lucius
finds the resurrection stone and brings back Bellatrix or something. 
Who knows, I am sad to see it over and think it could have been
wrapped up better if she wrote DH but didn't end it, and then wrote
an 8th book to tie up all loose ends.

Steph:
At least there are two more films coming.  Also, I heard Part I of the
JKR interview on Pottercast (from The Leaky Cauldron) today and she's
definitely planning to put out an encyclopedia sometime in the future,
so we're likely to hear more about them.

For what it's worth, she's said that she won't completely close the
door on writing another book which takes place in the wizarding world.
 We can only wait to see what she does.  I can't blame her for wanting
to take a break, though.