Why are The Hobbit and Harry Potter 7 (movies) being split into two movies?!
Question: The prequel to Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit will be split into 2 parts, and so will the 7th Harry Potter books (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.)
Do you think they are only doing it to make more money?
Answers: The prequel to Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit will be split into 2 parts, and so will the 7th Harry Potter books (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.)
Do you think they are only doing it to make more money?
This is what warner bros. said
"Over ten year$ ago, we made a commitment to Jo Rowling that, above all el$e, we would be faithful and true to the $pirit of her book$, and ever $ince we have endeavored never to compromi$e on the creative ambition$ of the film$. The Deathly Hallow$ i$ $o rich, the $tory $o den$e and there i$ $o much that i$ re$olved that after di$cu$$ing it with Jo, we came to the conclu$ion that two part$ were needed to do it ju$tice" $aid David Heyman. "I am thrilled that David Yate$ i$ returning to direct 'The Deathly Hallow$.' He i$ both in$pired and in$piring and i$ a pa$$ionate fan of the remarkable world and character$ Jo ha$ created. I know he will lead our incomparable ca$t and crew--mo$t of whom have been with u$ $ince the very beginning--in bringing the $erie$ to the unforgettable conclu$ion it de$erve$."
1st - people have problems sitting through a 3 hour movie, and to tell the full story the movies were likely going to run over that
2nd - movie studios know how to milk franchises for every penny possible (ie. American Pie)
Exactly. Movie gross will be doubled by having HP7 in two parts. It is a shameless ploy to make more money off the franchise.
I never really thought the Hobbit needed to be in 2 parts, but if the story is done properly, I would rather see two 2.25 hour films than one 3.5er.
The Hobbit will be split into two parts for the reason that the film is not only based on the Hobbit itself but on some other stories and papers Tolkien wrote which which were less famous but still are critical to the 80 or however many years transitional period there are in between the ending of the Hobbit and the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring.
Harry Potter, I'm not fan of. But I believe they are doing this because the final novel was so in depth that the movie would run long and since it will be the last film in the series they would not want to cut it to peices to make it fit the time frame of the original six films. So they said "what the heck let's cram everythign into two movies and make double what we could've made with one."
Yes and no.. for the Hobbit, I think it is more money driven since it took so long to get this project off the ground in the first place and for HPB, I think it is driven more by the storyline than the profit. True they know it will bring in a lot more money to split the movie in 2 parts but there was so much going on in the last book, I don't think they could have cut out as much from the book with the movie still making sense as they have done in the past.
Yes they want to make more money and...both have the long story. So it takes more times to tell the story.
Because you can't do such magnificent-and long-novels justice in the time span of one movie.
First of all, HP7 has so many plot lines and characters and event that can't be properly explained in a 2-3 hour movie.
I'm guessing they want to do The Hobbit really well, and get all the details in, and to do so they need the time of two movies.
And of course it brings in more money, another reason to do it.
I just read the reason for HP2 being done in 2 parts is because the last novel can't be given really good justice to if only done in one. There are just tins of details you'd have to leave out. Not sure about the Hobbit. Naturally they'll rake in money but that's the reason everyone works isn't it..really not sticking up for them on this. I always wait for the DVD to come out.
im not sure on the why. they say creative reasons with the harry potter....which i can totally understand!!!
....but on another note, if they're going to this for this one....they should have done it for the 2 longest books too!!!!!!!!! there was so much changed and left out of movies 4 and 5 that it ticked me off!!!
...dont get me wrong, i loved the films.....but they left out stuff i thought was very important!! they were good for what they were but they strayed from the book too much!
While I would love to sit through a 6 hour movie, if given an intermission, most people wouldn't be able to.
I love this idea, because instead of ripping out pieces of each story to make it fit, the director will not have to make a lot of the important cuts :)
The stories are so long and detailed it's probably better to split em into 2 movies so as not to leave anything out, plus it does make more money but it also takes more money to make them.
they are splitting it up so they dont have to cut out any parts, because it is all so amazing
yes, it is for the money to some extent but, if you read the book, it holds massive amounts of information that couldnt be summed up in a 2 and a half hour movie. if they made the final harry potter movie into one movie, it would probably leave some veiwers confused about things because normally when they make a movie out of a book it usually leaves out things.
the last harry potter movie is the most important so, if they dont cover everything, it would be pretty dissappointing.
so yes, it is for the money, but the moviemakers want to make sure they get everything into the last movie.
as for the hobbit, i think that one is just for the money. that book doesnt need a two part movie