It's interesting to see people have heart for this franchise. I've never read the books and do not plan to, because the series always felt like it was just "checking the boxes" when it came to mythological or "hero's journey" stories. It's a series with nothing particular or profound to say.

That said, I have enjoyed the films. Three and Five I think are the strongest, though I find four very watchable. Six I haven't seen since the theatrical release, but I wan't that impressed with it. I know I'm in the minority view, but considering the events that part 6 covers, they go by with a surprising lack of weight.

Looking forward to this, but I'm under no illusions this is high art… no goosebumps to be had….

The films are better than the books, which is a rarity – especially since I think this apply to just about all the films. They are more cohesive, and are stronger narratively and thematically. Still, big props to Rowling for following her heart and bringing this series to the world. Bigger props considering she has a strong hand in the films.

Anthony, you are not in the minority. I completely agree. I always found the stories behind the books much more interesting. The books, themselves, seemed like 'product' witha dash of sentiment and nothing more. Anyone I have met that is a avid reader of the series always struck me as a person with a void-to-fill, all too willing to play by the rules as if reading the books mafde them a character in the series and not too smart to boot. Rob

The films don't come NEAR the books. There have been valiant efforts (3 and 6 being the most notable, with 1 a great scene-setter) but they are nothing compared to Rowling's words. And Jermey, if you think splitting DH into two parts is 'taking the weight of it seriously' and not 'taking about a billion dollars not once, but twice'….you're living in a dream world champ.

Anthony+roberthekilled. You both make vague and assumptive claims which do nothing but highlight your own lack of tact. I've read the books. They're not bad. I say this not as a Harry-Potter-Reader only, but an avid reader of DFW, Gogol, Pynchon, Eggers, Steinbeck, Gladwell, whoever-the-hell-else-is-pretty-good. I read incessantly. I say this because I feel like I have to justify myself as an actual reader to you both. And as an actual reader I'd like to support JK and say that she has a surprisingly strong voice and uncanny ability to craft a world that feels much more authentic than a "product." I think you both might be confusing the circumstance around the books (ie, the large amount of marketing tie ins, toys, etc) with the actual content. Naturally, at first JK very much seems like a "new writer" and then gets progressively better as the series goes on, but I find myself revisiting them on occasion and enjoy them each time I do. On another note, I've never seen so many far ranging opinions that make no sense whatsoever as I have with people's opinions on the movie series and which ones are their favorites. Which is not to say their opinions don't make sense, but the pattern at large doesn't make sense. My person druthers 1+2 = stage readings with special effects. 3 = cauron's vivid and excellent take (which sort of messes up a few classic moments though), 4 = cagey but the most traditional movie, 5 = the most polished and focused and achieved this solely by dumping half the content, and 6 = the most lived in, articulate, and nuanced movie by far. And thus my favorite…. Anywho… druthers.

"The fact that they split the movie into two parts was the first sign that the powers that be were taking the weight of this entry seriously". noooooooo… the powers that be saw that they could make more $ by splitting it into 2 films. they couldn't care less about the "weight" of the story.

Hmm, I wonder how successful this series would have been if they had changed (or even originally written) the main character to be a girl? Everything is the same, except it's Harriet instead of Harry Potter. I miss the Faraci 'Unhealthy Obsession" avatar on these stories now.

Comment #6—Exactly. Warner Bros. isn't too happy about one of it's big franchises coming to an end, so they're trying to milk the Harry Potter money train for as long as they can. I haven't read the books, but aren't they ALL pretty big? Earlier installments weren't epic enough to get the 2-film treatment? Isn't the Twilight franchise doing the same thing? Do they REALLY need twice as long to adapt the final part, just BECAUSE it's the final part? No. It's a cash grab, plain and simple. Wasn't there talk that The Hobbit, if it ever gets made, would be 2 films? Why? Because there's nowhere else to go with the franchise, and the studios want to make as much as they can. Like they really give a shit about giving the story more time…

I think some of you guys might be thinking a little too cynically about the whole splitting the movie in two. Clearly WB is happy to milk this last one, but do you all really think the producers are thinking only terms of cold hard cash? You don't put the time and effort David Heyman has devoted to a series like this, with the insane amount of quality control he's maintained for ten years, without having some sort of personal investment beyond dollar signs. You don't strive to keep the lead actors for ten years, you don't keep some England's greatest actors on board, sometimes even for a just few dialogue-less shots in one tiny scene of a movie, if you're the type of Les Grossman executive you all seem to think is running this ship. Believe it or not, the professionals are passionate about this shit too, not just us aspiring types on the fringe of the industry. If it were just about $$, this series would be of the same quality as Twilight.

So take the two movies and for God's sake try to enjoy it.

Some of you are applying a bit too much cynicism, especially as, by your own admission, you've not read the books. There's a lot of plot in HP 7, and it all matters at the conclusion. It couldn't be done as one film without removing a lot of the necessary story mechanics and skimping on the emotional pay-offs.

Of course Warners'll be chuffed that they get twice the money but I genuinely believe the decision was made with the quality of the final product in mind. Very few people who've actually read the thing seem to think otherwise.

I think I was 21 or so when the first Potter came out. 22 possibly??? Either way it's been a big part of my adult life. My son came into my life at 25 and we've enjoyed them together the last few years, since he was around 3 and saw his first Potter movie. He and I watched this trailer and he mouthed the word 'wow'. I sat there feeling that sort of 'My god this is epic' feeling in the pit of my stomach I haven't felt since I saw the Lord of the Rings movies in the cinema. I can't wait to see this movie with him in the cinema, I really can't. He'll be 7 then, it's something we can both enjoy together, as a family. That's how these movies are meant to be enjoyed and that's how we'll do that. No cynicism, no internet negativity infection ruining our fun, just a father and son, enjoying a property that's been part of both our lives, for my adult life and his whole life, watching it come to an end together, what a great way to do that, what a great thing to share. 🙂