David Heyman Talks Harry Potter Split
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Family Films, Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels
I can't help but think that just as we Harry Potter fans run out of things to talk about, the frenzy begins again. What will happen when that seventh movie comes out? Life is going to become so dreary with no "I hope they include that part where ..." to discuss!Harry Potter producer David Heyman has given an interview to Empire discussing that controversial Book 7 split. He gives a very good reason for why they are aiming to keep the film short -- Harry's young fans. "Is this going to be a four and a half hour film? That's probably what it would have been. Would our audience really embrace that? In some way, I think they might. But I think the younger ones would have drifted. There's always been difficulty making sure that the ones that are two hours, two and a half hours long – making sure that those are the right length. I think by having two films that are two and a half hours – although we're not sure of the length – then it will be a richer experience." Young kids did sit through Lord of the Rings quite spellbound though, so I am skeptical that it couldn't be done, but it is a valid point. You don't want to numb their poor eyes or butts.
They haven't yet begun tackling the script, however, so Heyman cannot say where the break between the two films will be. "It depends what feeling you want [to end on]. I don't want to answer that just yet because we don't have the first script. We do have a point roughly where we want to end, but we haven't got a draft to know if that works yet." I need to re-read the book (it's all blurred in a haze of sleep deprivation and tears) so I can't think of a single place to break it. Maybe when Harry hides with Bill and Fleur? Hmmm.
They are also seeking to give each film its own identity, something I hope they don't really obsess over too much. I think all fans want this to feel like a single, uninterrupted piece, like it hasn't been a year since we were last in the theatre. One of the only problems I had with Lord of the Rings was that the films started to reflect popular opinion in the editing process.
I think the most encouraging part of Heyman's interview is the focus he and director David Yates (who, in the midst of this news, was confirmed as the Deathly Hallows director) are putting on the characters. They aren't looking to simply add in every moment of action and CGI trickery. When asked what he was looking forward to putting onscreen the most, it is the quieter moments of Deathly Hallows that Hayman is enthusiastic about. "I love the character stuff. I love the resolution of Dumbledore and Snape. I love the multiple Harries at the beginning. I love the scene of Hermione trapped at the Malfoys'. I love Harry and Hermione in the forest. I think there's so much, it's such a rich fabric. What we've done now, which I think is really exciting, is that we've found thematic centres for each of the films. That gives the film heart."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-15-2008 @ 2:28PM
AJ said...
"One of the only problems I had with Lord of the Rings was that the films started to reflect popular opinion in the editing process."
do explain please.
And have you ever tried to watch the extended edition edition of Fellowship with a kid (it's the most wordy of the bunch, DH is wordy too)? They're asleep before they reach Rivendell, then add another hour? Yeah 2 parts = good.
Reply
3-15-2008 @ 4:06PM
Elisabeth said...
Of course I've seen the extended edition! Fellowship is my absolute favorite of the three, and the extended makes it even better. (Except for Aragorn shoving the Evenstar back at Arwen.)
The Two Towers was doing pick-up shoots after 9/11, and the Sam speech was added in as a reflection. Which I think is absolutely lovely and fits perfectly within the tone. So that was good.
Bad was adding more Legolas and Gollum in ROTK because it was popular with the fans. I wish I could remember exactly where I read it -- it may have been in Sean Astin's book (which is otherwise a bitterly depressing look at filming, don't read it) but it was stated that Legolas doing things like surfing down the Oliphaunt were added in because Orlando had become such a screen idol. And I know they expanded the Gollum scenes in ROTK because people had loved him in the TT.
3-15-2008 @ 5:31PM
AJ said...
I didn't know that! Thanks.
Reply
3-16-2008 @ 4:35PM
LiqwidZero said...
Not many people like the two and not many people would agree with me, but I've only liked Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets.
Why is this?
These two movies are the most faithful to their book counterparts, and they are the longest movies in the series so far, and I love them so much more for the faithfulness to the books, now I can't sit in a theater and watch the newer movies without pointing out the flaws and getting annoyed. The experience now is awful.
I wish this was implemented for all of the films after SS and CoS. There was just too much left out of the movies 3-5.
Reply
3-18-2008 @ 2:02AM
Nathan said...
They were the most faithful, but they were shorter books.
Also the first movie was the most faithful but also the least faithful to the books.
It was faithful in that it was a close representation of all the events in the book....but.
During the first qudditch match where Harry is attacked by Voldemort (through Quirrell) there is a filler shot of the crowd and right in the centre of the screen is Dumbledore, clear as day. It couldn't be more than 3 seconds. Totally unnecessary but then totally devastating to the original story. The fact that Voldemort never attacked while Dumbledore was around was a major plot point in the books and was completely ignored for a three second filler shot. Why oh why?
3-16-2008 @ 9:07PM
Cesaria said...
Do the people who bitch about it 'not being faithful' to the books realize that if you don't like it you can just go read the book? You can't please everyone all the time, and there must be certain artistic liberties taken in film to make them work. The important stuff is there, or it wouldn't be Harry Potter. It doesn't make you cool to say "the books are better." They're their own entities. Treat them like that. You're not going to get a fully adapted book on the silver screen short of them photo copying the pages and shining them up there for your smarmy little asses. /rant
Reply
3-17-2008 @ 6:52PM
Moo said...
I feel you, the books are waaaay better, though.
These have got to be a bitch to adapt, though. Even with the content fromi the books cut to shreds (it really is), the films still have serious pacing issues. Probably kinda unavoidable, though.
5-06-2008 @ 10:20PM
Judy said...
If they are truly wanting to make the movie and leave nothing out then they will have to have characters in the movie that they have left out befores. i.e. Bill and Fleur, what about Charlie, Luna's dad, and others. If they want us to wait for two years until the first part then they need to put in all the characters and do the movie right.
Reply