What do you do when your best-grossing movie franchise is near its end? You try to prolong it, of course. This may be what Warner Bros. has decided to do with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the adaptation of the seventh and final book in J.K. Rowling's series. According to The Mail on Sunday, "crew working on the sixth Potter film, Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince, have been told J.K. Rowling's seventh book, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, will be released in two halves." But the decision -- if true -- is claimed not to be about squeezing more money out of the boy wizard. Instead the studio would split the final book over two films because the book of Deathly Hallows is way too long to appropriately condense it into one feature-length release. Of course, the book of Order of the Phoenix was even longer and they made that one into a single movie.

The move to extend Harry Potter 7 so that it's Harry Potter 7 and Harry Potter 8 seems to make sense for both financial and artistic reasons, and it also seems appropriate after the confirmation that The Hobbit would too be spread out over two films. Considering none of the other attempted fantasy franchises have been received very well, the idea that both the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings franchises would be extended appears to be a good one for both Hollywood and the fans. Who cares if Warner Bros. does want to do this for the money? You hardcore Potter lovers know you'd rather have another movie to watch, especially one that allows more of your favorite scenes from Deathly Hallows to make it in. Apparently Rowling agrees that the adaptation of her book needs to be at least longer than 4 hours -- and anybody thinking they can keep the kids seated for a single, 5-hour movie would have to be crazy. And speaking of crazy, that's exactly what The Mail on Sunday is for thinking Steven Spielberg could be the "big-name director" expected to helm the two-part Deathly Hallows and for thinking that Warner Bros. could seriously be hoping for an Oscar-worthy finale.

Deadline Hollywood is reporting an exclusive scoop -- Universal Studios has set a plan to build a Harry Potter theme park inside the grounds of Universal Studios Florida. According to Nikki Finke, this story dates all the way back to 2005, when it was reported that Disney was debating whether or not to create a Harry Potter theme park in Singapore. The company was apparently engaged in "protracted negotiations' with J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. to secure rights to the project. That plan morphed into the current one, with Universal stepping into the picture and going into negotiations with Warner Bros to build the Universal Studios facilities. According to Finke, the deal is now "set in principle, but terms are still being finalized." Which could mean anything, of course.

Finke also notes that until now, the closest thing to a Harry Potter theme park that's been built is the Alnwick Castle, location of Hogwarts School, so it's somewhat of an untested idea. To date, the Harry Potter books have sold more than 325 million copies and have been translated into over 60 languages. The fifth of seven Harry Potter films, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, is due for release this July, with the remaining two films coming soon. We recently brought you the news that negotiations with the three leads for the final films have been sewn up, after some dispute as to whether Emma Watson, who plays Hermione Granger, would be returning to finish out the series. With plans for the film series finalized and the theme park plans supposedly afoot, it looks like J.K. Rowling won't have to get a day job anytime soon. Stay tuned to Cinematical for all the latest.

After all the rumors of the sixth Harry Potter film being directed by someone with track record, or even a returning Chris Columbus, SlashFilm is reporting that Michael Hoffman is in final talks to become the director of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. For who that don't know him by name (which is probably the majority of you out there), he is the guy who directed Kevin Kline in The Emperor's Club and A Midsummer Night's Dream. He also made some other films that weren't that interesting, at least the imaginative sort of way that is needed for the Potter series.

This is some pretty disappointing news. I don't care if Hoffman is a former Rhodes Scholar or that he's directed Shakespeare (with Calista Flockhart, mind you) -- he just doesn't seem appropriate. Let's recap the rumored contenders to see what might have been better, shall we? In March, Alfonso Cuaron said he could be interested in doing another Potter. In May, there was an idea that Terry Gilliam might get the gig. In July, there was mention of M. Night Shyamalan, which would be interesting to see, but horrible to accept. I even heard somewhere that Columbus might be back. As for the current IMDb listing, David Yates is credited to stick around after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

The thing is, it might not matter too much who the director of #6 is since some of the original players may be gone by the time someone is hired. And who could blame them when Warners is pulling out names like Michael Hoffman? I imagine being one of the Potter kids is like having a new stepfather every other year. And the latest one is into faeries.

Dobby, the house elf who got no respect (and now that I think about it, he does look like Rodney Dangerfield) in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets continues to be dissed by the powers that be behind the Potter films. The good-hearted but troublemaking imp has appeared in all of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels since his first appearance in Chamber of Secrets, but has not appeared in the film adaptations of the subsequent books. Now, according to actor Toby Jones who gave voice to the character, it's been revealed that Dobby will not be appearing in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the David Yates directed sequel that's due in 2007.

"I know that the filmmakers have a problem with each new film because the books are getting longer - there's so much to include in them," Jones has said. True enough. The longest book in the series is Order of the Phoenix with a page count of 870. I suspect when the as yet untitled seventh and final book in the series is released it will be thick enough to choke a hippogriff, and with stories this rich in detail some elements just won't survive the translation to the screen. Harry's abusive Uncle Vernon Dursley and his family were missing from the film version of Goblet of Fire, as was Molly Weasley, matriarch of the ginger-haired Weasley clan. Like Dobby, all of these characters lent nuance to the story, but while the hardcore Potter fans may be willing to sit through a twelve-hour movie, the average filmgoer will not.

While MTV News is pointing out the fact that Dobby's absence from the new film will require another character to perform certain crucial actions to propel the story, this is hardly a new issue. In the book version of Goblet of Fire, Dobby was the one to give Harry the gilly weed that allowed him to breath underwater during the Tri-Wizard Tournament. The filmmakers found a way around Dobby's absence from the film, and I'm sure they can do it again.

Jones appears to be taking it all in stride. "The thing I feel very, very proud of is the fact that I get mail just about every week of the year from all parts of the world -- very nice mail thanking me for that way I voiced the character and saying how accurately I did it," Jones commented. "So it's a great addition to my life and a very unexpected one. I had no idea that the character would have that much impact."

If you just can't bear the idea of another Potter film without a house elf, fear not -- Kreacher, servant of Sirius Black's family will be appearing in Order of the Phoenix.

[via VH1.com]

I suppose you can call him the American version of J.K. Rowling, as R.L. Stine has already pushed out the very popular children's book series Goosebumps, as well as Fear Street and The Nightmare Hour. Now, 20th Century Fox has decided to pick up the film rights to Stine's latest series, The Rotten School.

With eight titles (damn, does this dude write fast or what?) currently available at your local book store, The Rotten School is gaining popularity and could be a huge franchise for Fox, if they decide to go that route. Story focuses on a character named Bernie Bridges and follows him on a ton of zany adventures as he constantly looks to disrupt everyday activity at his boarding school by scheming against teachers and rival students. Right now, there's no cast or director attached. The ninth book in the series is due out this November and, by the time I'm done writing this, I'm sure a tenth book will be finished as well.

The big news a short while back was J.K. Rowling's announcement that she plans to kill every popular character in her Harry Potter series because she hates them and her audience. Well ... okay ... she is only killing one or two major characters, and probably not because she hates anyone; she's probably doing it because it is her story to tell and she knows what she wants to do with it. Nonetheless, fans are now hyper-nervous, worrying over their favorite characters -- most notably Harry himself.* And we commoners are not the only ones worried. Rowling has been appealed to by two very big names in the literature world, John Irving and Stephen King, who both encouraged her to not kill off her star wizard. King's comments in particular made a studious comparison to another great writer who felt he had to kill of his main character because he was tired of readers thinking he was only good for one franchise. King said "I don't want him to go over the Reichenbach Falls." (Ed: For those of you unfamiliar with said Falls, King is referring to Arthur Conan Doyle's killing of Sherlock Holmes, who plunged over the Falls in The Adventure of the Final Problem. And was eventually brought back to life. That worked out well.)

So what're your thoughts? Is Rowling, like Doyle, frustrated with her one trick pony and ready to move on even if it means killing her big money character? If she does, will she find -- as Doyle did -- that readers aren't always willing to embrace such a decision? At least she's got an easy out if she decides to kill him and later bring him back. Unlike Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter lives in a world just full of magic, and he has already defied death on one major occasion. I fear the analogy made by Stephen King may be far too accurate for anyone's liking ...

*And it would be sad to see him go, right after he finally got on the Ginny action.

J.K. Rowling is killing two characters off at the end of the seventh, and final, Harry Potter book. I know this news more directly relates to literature than movies, but it will certainly affect the film franchise, and since I stopped reading the series after #5 (I nearly even gave up on the films, but I finally just saw Goblet of Fire and was surprised to find it is the first great Harry Potter movie), and the fact that the books have been discussed here before, I find it appropriate.

Because I didn't read the sixth book, I couldn't tell you with logic who the two might be, although just about everyone thinks one of them will be Harry. Even Rowling hints at this: "I've never wanted to kill him off before the end of book seven, because I always planned seven books and that's where I want to go." Does that mean she did want to kill him at the end? She also told Britain's Channel 4 on Monday that she understands the desire to kill off the main characters in the end so that nobody else can resurrect them after she's done.

Then again, she says of her most recent draft of the final chapter, "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say that two die that I didn't intend to die." So that could mean that Harry is not one of these two. Perhaps he's the one who got a reprieve? The thing is, if you think about her comments, there is no certainty that only two will die. Heck, she could have killed off every character but the saved one.

The best way that I can relate to this is, what if George Lucas had killed off everyone at the end of Return of the Jedi, except Chewbacca? Okay, I'm sure many would have enjoyed seeing the Ewok village go up in flames.

Seeing as Cinematical celebrated its very first birthday recently, I couldn't help but jump at the chance to incorporate the whole what-to-do into this week's Trailer Park. Normally, birthdays are a time for celebration. In Cinematical's case, we're celebrating the fact that, not only have we survived one whole year on the internet, but we've also managed to become the best source of movie anything one can find for, um, free. And I'm not just saying that because I write for them. Seriously, I'm not. What are you staring at? Don't you believe me?

However, birthdays also mean we're getting older. And getting older means we're that much closer to throwing in the towel. So, in order to hide the fact that we're so afraid of the future, we throw parties, sing songs, buy cards, bake cakes, light candles and make wishes. We create rules: In order for your birthday wish to come true, you must blow out all of the candles in one breath and not tell anyone else what you wished for. We want to feel like, no matter how old we are, we're still very capable of following our dreams. And that's a good thing.

In some way, shape or form, the following movies all have to do with birthdays. Whether we're on a quest for love, a journey to find ourselves or a mission to help someone else, these films proved life is about experience and not some crummy Hallmark card. Oh joy, Cinematical is getting older on this week's Trailer Park...