Rethinking Some of DH-The Movie

[stephab67]

> Lynne:
> 
> Guess I'm different by the time it hits 3-4 hours I'm like "end
> already!"  Where if they could pick a good ending point I would much
> rather see this in 2 films. I hope they do I thought the last couple of
> films they tried to shove too much information in just a couple of hours
> and they left out to much.

Steph:

Three hours is my limit.  I certainly wasn't implying that it should
be longer than that, and I don't think WB would release a film longer
than three hours anyway due to the fact that theaters wouldn't get
very many showings and hence wouldn't make as much money on it.  

I still don't think that two films would happen, as many people would
have the "enough already!" response to two 2.5 hour films.  I know
many people brought up LOTR as a comparison, but that was one book
which was always meant to be three films, made concurrently, not seven
books with the final broken into two films.  There are probably a lot
of issues with renegotiating the actors' and crews' pay, marketing,
distribution, etc. that would come into play if it were two films
instead of one.  I can imagine the actors' agents and the crews'
unions saying that they should get paid for two films as they're going
to be released as two, and it's likely double the amount of work or
close to it.  They'd have a good point.  

I do think, though, that if they did go that way the whole thing would
be filmed at once, no point in breaking the work in half.  But that
would still take a lot longer than one film, and I can't really see
Dan, Rupert, Emma, and the others wanting to drag it out longer than
it already has.  They'd really like to move on in their careers.