Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.
Q: What’s the real reason they split Deathly Hallows into two movies? Was it greed? – Erik, Athens, GA
The Oracle Speaks:
Not to hear the filmmakers tell it.
“When Steve Kloves began working on the screenplay, it became clear we would have to omit too much to do justice to Jo’s book in one film,” says producer David Heyman. “There were simply too many details that were integral to the resolution of the series.”
“The seventh book is all about resolution—the dotting of all the i’s and the crossing of all the t’s,” adds producer David Barron.
As for Daniel Radcliffe, he told the Los Angeles Times, “There have been compartmentalized subplots in the other books that have made them easier to cut — although those cuts were still to the horror of some fans — but the seventh book doesn’t really have any subplots. It’s one driving, pounding story from the word go…. [Two movies] was the only way we could tell the story in a complete and fulfilling way.”
Then again, that’s what they would say, isn’t it? It’s not like they’d come out and say, “Yeah, we just wanted to make a lot more money.”
Look, let’s be real here, okay? The Harry Potter movies have grossed a total of $5.4 billion dollars — with billions of dollars more in ancillary revenue (up to $20 billion total by some estimates). Does anyone really think they wouldn’t look for another reason to extend the franchise — a way that doesn’t seem too craven or cynical, so as to not provoke a backlash on the part of the audience?
It’s absolutely not a question of necessity: Deathly Hallows isn’t even the longest of the Harry Potter books — that’s Order of the Phoenix (although it’s arguable that, unlike Deathly Hallows, that book is simply over-written, and as Radcliffe suggests, that there’s more actual “story” in Hallows).
But do the fans really care that much? On the contrary, you could argue that fans would rather have the entire story told in two movies than have it be abbreviated for one.
Truthfully, I think the filmmakers were easily convinced to do something that would please most fans and just happened to be enormously profitable for them.
“Obviously the studio are very happy with that decision, let’s not kid ourselves,” Heyman has also said. “[Screenwriter] Steve [Kloves] called me the other day and said, ‘I think we can do three.’ I think he was joking of course.”
Q: Voldemort’s nose-less face: is that make-up or CGI? — Amy, Henderson, NV
A: It’s actually a combination of the two. The nose of Ralph Fiennes, who plays Voldemort, is removed digitally, but most of the rest of the face is prosthetics (on the forehead and eyebrows), make-up (covering the skin), and a network of temporary tattoos (for the veins).
Incidentally, this is how Rowling describes Voldemort: “a man, tall and skeletally thin” with a face that was “whiter than a skull, with wide, livid scarlet eyes and a nose that was as flat as a snake’s with slits for nostrils … His hands were like large, pale spiders; his long white fingers caressed his own chest, his arms, his face; the red eyes, whose pupils were slits, like a cat’s, gleamed still more brightly through the darkness.”
I think they’ve done a reasonably effective, if pretty straightforward realization of the character.
Incidentally, what about Mad-Eye Moody’s eye? That’s entirely a prosthetic.
Q: Is it true that they didn’t decide where to split the story into two movies until they’d already written one long script and filmed it? — Myrna, Edmonton, Alberta
A: No. There was some confusion in the press, because the screenplays for the two movies were written at the same time, the movies were filmed at the same time, and some of the producers talked publicly about their tinkering with the ending once filming was completed. And, of course, they did test-screenings to find out if the ending they chose was “working.”
But even before the movie’s two scripts were written, the producers had a pretty clear idea of where they were going to end the first movie — and screenwriter Steve Kloves wrote that ending in his script (although it was subsequently altered).
Here’s producer David Heyman earlier this year:
The script [for Part 1] was written with an end in mind. The first draft was written with one ending and as we developed it, it went to another ending. And then we reverted in part to the original ending because we felt it allowed us a more emotional conclusion and felt like it was more complete, as it were. But we’ve added this other scene which I think is really amazing — and I can’t tell you where the break is, I’m sorry — but I do feel it will be incredibly dramatic, very moving and make people want to watch the next film.
Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.
Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.
Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
More curious still was the news that the project was written and filmed as one long screenplay, and that the decision on where to split the film(s) would be made after-the-fact.
