Oh, I am expecting to see every scene, every line, every moment of the books in these films. I would be perfectly happy with each film being well over 2 and a half hours if that were the case. Anything mroe than 3 hours I'm iffy on only because I might have to pee. I would say my ideal maximum time limit would be 3 and a half hours for each film. However, since it is Yates directing the films and he purposefully made the longest book the shortest movie... I am almost expecting each film to be an hour and a half or some lame short time like that. I would think that would make the split completely pointless. _________________
^courtesy of ravvy
BERY!
Yates has the ultimate opportunity to redeem himself and go out on the highest of notes.
As for the length of Part I and Part II, I think it would be awesome if each part was over 3 hours but they would need to implement an intermission which would be freakin awesome even more so! _________________ It's Not Over!
No one complained about how long they were... I don't see why people (the critics) complain about HP, which so far have been shorter than those. _________________
^courtesy of ravvy
BERY!
No one complained about how long they were... I don't see why people (the critics) complain about HP, which so far have been shorter than those.
lol, I love long movies . . . except for LotR. I did see Titanic five times in the theatres . . . * becomes misty-eyed for the time when Hanson was popular and Titanic was the greatest thing that ever happened . . . _________________ What luck for ruler that men do not think. ~ AH
lol, I love long movies . . . except for LotR. I did see Titanic five times in the theatres . . . * becomes misty-eyed for the time when Hanson was popular and Titanic was the greatest thing that ever happened . . .
I like long movies, too. I always get sad when good movies end.
I saw Titanic three times in the theaters.. all three of them the same weekend, lol. I didn't love that movie, the ending was spoiled for me. Someone told me the ship is hit by an iceberg and sinks.
Spoiler:
jk, I knew about that. I mean the part about Leo dying.
I saw LotR, the first one, in the theater as I was recovering from being sick. It's a long story, but I had to pee so badly and they
just
kept
floating
down
that
stupid
river
After a movie I usually like to watch the credits... Well, this time, as soon as I could, I ran out of there. _________________
^courtesy of ravvy
BERY!
Oh, I am expecting to see every scene, every line, every moment of the books in these films. I would be perfectly happy with each film being well over 2 and a half hours if that were the case. Anything mroe than 3 hours I'm iffy on only because I might have to pee. I would say my ideal maximum time limit would be 3 and a half hours for each film. However, since it is Yates directing the films and he purposefully made the longest book the shortest movie... I am almost expecting each film to be an hour and a half or some lame short time like that. I would think that would make the split completely pointless.
I think they should both be around 4 hours or more with an intermission.
I'm tired of hearing complaints from the non-fans.. what do they care? And the critics whining about how long it is.. they need to get over it. We're the fans, they should be trying to please us. _________________
^courtesy of ravvy
BERY!
^Exactly right! I saw OotP 3 times in theaters and will probably do the same for each of the last 3, no matter how long they are. _________________ It's Not Over!
^Exactly right! I saw OotP 3 times in theaters and will probably do the same for each of the last 3, no matter how long they are.
4 times! *high five* And I would have seen it more, had I the chance. But so help me, I am SO excited for the upcoming fils. Even if they suck.. I'm really curious to see what they do with them. And if they make them shorter to please the nonfans... that is just LAME. _________________
^courtesy of ravvy
BERY!
I think they should both be around 4 hours or more with an intermission.
I would definitely be ok with that!
Haha, I would too.....but I think sane people wouldn't. The ones who aren't totally obsessed. But who needs them?
The people that aren't obsessed and wouldn't want to watch a movie that long in theaters would just have to wait for it to come out on DVD and risk someone talking about it too much.
I'm tired of hearing complaints from the non-fans.. what do they care? And the critics whining about how long it is.. they need to get over it. We're the fans, they should be trying to please us.
You've read my mind GinnyX. You hit the nail. Absolutely spot on.
They should be trying to please us, the last 3 have been done so poorly and have 'commercialised' and focused more on 'looks' and 'appearance' to attract more viewers, rather than focusing on staying within the plot line. Frustrates the heck outta me. I don't care if they're 7 hours long, I want it to be perfect!
And to answer the question, each part much be at least 2.5 hours long. If not, I'll personally Crucio Yates' and Kloves' a$# (well not really...) _________________
I'm tired of hearing complaints from the non-fans.. what do they care? And the critics whining about how long it is.. they need to get over it. We're the fans, they should be trying to please us.
lol that would never happen, they are trying to make a movie for everyone to watch and i think its ok
besides, if they would make a 5 hour movie with each of the movies, not even a quarter of the people who go would go watch it and the hp movies are very expensive and demanding to afford that _________________
bella=cute jorge=luv ashy=cool tashy=weirdo ginnyx=pottergeek
if they would make a 5 hour movie with each of the movies, not even a quarter of the people who go would go watch it and the hp movies are very expensive and demanding to afford that
I garauntee you that plenty of people would go see it. I stood in the longest line of my life when I went to the midnight showing of OotP and I expect that line to be twice as big when I see HBP. I don't even want to think how long the line will be for either part of Deathly Hallows. But trust me, as they say in Field of Dreams, "People will come," no matter how long te film is. They may only go once but that would be enough. _________________ It's Not Over!
dont be so sure, if the first ones would've been longer ppl might've got bored, the movies have to appeal to all public
you have no idea the ammount of ppl that complained about the lenght of the third one of lord of the rings, but as it was the last one everyone went to see it anyway,
most people really cant stand that much time for a movie _________________
bella=cute jorge=luv ashy=cool tashy=weirdo ginnyx=pottergeek
The only people who I ever heard complain about the 3rd LotR were not die hard fans and they only complained about the ending. I went to see that movie with 4 of my best friends and not one of us were complaining when it was over or we were discussing it. _________________ It's Not Over!
well but i really heard a lot of ppl didnt like the length of it, it got very tedious for them
i, my person, would like it to be loooooooong and pefect and just like the books, but i know it wouldnt work that way _________________
bella=cute jorge=luv ashy=cool tashy=weirdo ginnyx=pottergeek
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
I would say my ideal maximum time limit would be 3 and a half hours for each film. However, since it is Yates directing the films and he purposefully made the longest book the shortest movie... I am almost expecting each film to be an hour and a half or some lame short time like that. I would think that would make the split completely pointless.
