MovieChat Forums > J.K. Rowling Discussion > Why are there 7 HP books but 8 HP movies...

Why are there 7 HP books but 8 HP movies?


Was the last book too long to make just one movie from it or something? I haven't read them all yet.

reply

Harry Potter 7 had the least filler, and apparently people aren't willing to sit down and watch a 4-hour movie, so they split it in two.

Can't say the same for Twilight, Hunger Games, and Hobbit though. Many people who claimed to have read the books said those movies didn't need to be split. In those cases it was all about money.

reply

A lot of it has to do with the attention spans of modern audiences. If anything runs longer than two hours, people start getting antsy. The Goblet of Fire installment could easily have run for over six hours if they had wanted to do the book justice (it's the longest novel of the seven). That would have been expensive and impractical.

reply

Money.

Just like hobbit. Just like twilight. Just like hunger games. And whatever else decided to milk the hell of the property on which it was based.

reply

To split the final book into two movies was a trend then, a la Twilight, Hunger Games. Divergent tried to. Hobbit went one further.

reply

"Was the last book too long to make just one movie from it or something?"

1. Yes.
2. All the other HP movies left out a heck of a lot of material from their respective books, and I suppose this time they wanted to minimise that.

reply

No, they wanted to stretch it out so that people would pay to see the movie twice.

And I know you haven’t read them, it took you like a year to finish Chamber of Secrets.

How have you been Haley?

reply