Harry Potter: Ultimate Editions (2001-2011)

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

That's too early.

They've got to finished the stripped down "Ultimate Editions" to complete the series/set they've started. Then they'll do a box set of all 8 of those.

Then a year after that they'll start releasing the Super-Ultimate editions, with the extended versions.

You really think so? I was thinking Ultimate Editions of Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 next spring, and Ultimate set for Christmas 2012. Actually sounds about right really...I mean, if they wait too long, people won't buy it. Just my two cents though. You could definitely be right.

[thelittleprince]

I want to see the 8-part documentary that come with these ultimate editions. I hope WB will put them together in 2 BDs eventually and I'd be able to purchase them without having to buy these oversized editions.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

You really think so? I was thinking Ultimate Editions of Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 next spring, and Ultimate set for Christmas 2012. Actually sounds about right really...I mean, if they wait too long, people won't buy it. Just my two cents though. You could definitely be right.

I think Christmas 2012 we'll get a boxset of all 8 of the Ultimate Editions packaged together. Maybe 1 and 2 would get an updated packaging to match the rest, now that they've moved away from the format initially used.

Then a 6-12 months later they'd move into that Super Ultimate edition.

They'd have a pretty upset base if all the sudden at Christmas 2012 they released an Ultimate Edition boxset and it contained extended editions not obtainable outside the boxset.

Much more money to be had using the timeline I laid out... though I would be more than happy to admit I was wrong if it goes more to your theory.

[wildhoney66]

well i think that makes sense, though i'm not sure about the date though, in (2012) it makes sense that they will do that for the next sets. but i don't think they will put all of them together next year. my guess it will be the next year early (2013) maybe? or late at some point. that way they can make money on the sets 1st. than put all the shit together.


& milk it some more! one question how many times has "the Lord of the rings" films been released? i only ask cause it pretty much sounds like the same deal.

they put out the standard editions 1st. widescreen or pan & sucky scan.

than they put out the extended cuts. & i believe they also later on a few years later put out them again just not in those nice boxes we got for the dvd release. now they are putting those on BD now. which makes sense actually, but you know for damn sure that they are going to also release a standard version of the flixs if they haven't already.

same thing with star wars no doubt.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Exactly. It's not Yates, it's WB. They're the ones holding the footage and had him cut it out. They're waiting for the Ultimate Box Set i'm sure. We'll see extended versions eventually...Just not right away I'm guessing. Probably Christmas 2012.

funny that these are called "ultimate" editions. Ultimate my ass
What will they call the next release "REAL" Ultimate edition(for real now) lol. warner you make some good blu rays and you are region free But on the potter series you really suck ass

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by wildhoney66

one question how many times has "the Lord of the rings" films been released? i only ask cause it pretty much sounds like the same deal.

- Initial Release was the Theatrical Cut on DVD (or VHS).
- Next came the Extended Cuts on DVD (Individual Volumes or in Collector's 'Gift' Sets)
- A few years later a "Box Set" of the EE's was released (took all 3 individual EE volumes and packaged them together inside a box, that was then made available to anyone who purchased each of the individual volumes and filled out a form).

Shifting to BD we had:
- The Theatricals Edition of the Blu-Rays released as a whole trilogy, boxset.
- Next came individual volumes of each Theatrical version.
- Coming out later this month we have the Extended Editions on BD released as a whole trilogy boxset.
- We fully expect to have individual volumes of the EE versions come out eventually.
- Just like we fully expect a boxset of LotR + Both Hobbit films around 2014-2015.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Exactly. It's not Yates, it's WB. They're the ones holding the footage and had him cut it out. They're waiting for the Ultimate Box Set i'm sure. We'll see extended versions eventually...Just not right away I'm guessing. Probably Christmas 2012.

Until Yates says it's WB and not him I'm building a big boulder of salt.

Warner asked him to cut the movie down the bare essentials so he complied.

Your words, NOT his.

Just because they didn't want a three hour version doesn't mean Yates originally wanted it that long. Caddyshack's first cut was 3 hours too for crying out loud.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by wildhoney66

one question how many times has "the Lord of the rings" films been released? i only ask cause it pretty much sounds like the same deal.

Theatrical DVDs and VHS, extended edition DVDs and VHS, the DVD release with the flipper disc that has both versions, and the trilogy box sets.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Until Yates says it's WB and not him I'm building a big boulder of salt.

I'm not saying that at all, it's the truth. Studios are known for holding back material on releases to double, or even triple dip later. So don't act like this is new.

Your words, NOT his.

Just because they didn't want a three hour version doesn't mean Yates originally wanted it that long. Caddyshack's first cut was 3 hours too for crying out loud.

I don't care what you believe, but I remember all the news when it came out about WB wanting a shorter because Grindhouse was long and failed. Yates original cut was in fact three hours, he may have wanted to cut SOME of it out, but I highly doubt he wanted to cut out forty minutes. This is my personal opinion, your right, but WB asking him to cut was true.

Edit: Here's the article

Originally Posted by Slashfilm

Movie studio logic has always baffled me. Because Grindhouse failed at the box office, everyone is blaming the film’s three plus hour running time. Now supposedly Warner Broshas ordered director David Yates to cut the running time of Harry Potter and The Order of Phoenix, so that audiences won’t be frightened away. Has the world gone insane?

First of all, JK Rowling’s fifth book is the longest in the series (870 pages). The studio is nuts for even trying to contain the story in one movie. It has already come out that much of the book will not appear on screen. I don’t know how the film could be under two and a half hours and be anywhere faithful to the book. And besides, the last four Harry Potter films have averaged over 2 and a half hours in length. Chamber of Secrets was over two hours anf fourty minutes.

Long Movies result in box office failure?

When did Hollywood forget? The biggest films of all time were the longest films of all time. Ten out of the top 15 movies of all time are over two and a half hours long. And three of those films are Harry Potter films. But may-be the studio believes that something has changed. Let’s take a look at last year: Pirates of the Caribbean, The Da Vinci Code, Superman Returns, The Departed, Dreamgirls, Casino Royale – all big box office draws, and all nearing or over the 2.5 hour mark.

Source

So, there you have it. WB asked him to cut the movie.

[Cook]

I have noticed that PeterTHX likes to enter a thread and cause controversy, and would argue with a brick wall if allowed to do so. Don't play into it. Here is some video of Sirius and Bellatrix's duel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDJyvzu02Qw&feature=player_embedded

This is a video with just pictures from scenes not shown in the films. Includes POA thru HBP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9mUJTmFuZg&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_791145

New interview with Chris Columbus. They considered a 3 1/2 hour film with an intermission and they also considered splitting the first film in two and having the first half end after the quiditch match.

http://www.hypable.com/harry-potter/...nto-two-films/

[Eismagier]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Yates original cut was in fact three hours

Actually, as far as I remember he never said that a 3-hour cut actually existed. He merely stated that he "shot a movie that's probably over three hours". The implication is that there is enough material to turn into a 3-hour movie, but not that this ever actually happened (so far).

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Cook

I have noticed that PeterTHX likes to enter a thread and cause controversy, and would argue with a brick wall if allowed to do so. Don't play into it. Here is some video of Sirius and Bellatrix's duel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDJyv...layer_embedded

This is a video with just pictures from scenes not shown in the films. Includes POA thru HBP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9mUJ...otation_791145

New interview with Chris Columbus. They considered a 3 1/2 hour film with an intermission and they also considered splitting the first film in two and having the first half end after the quiditch match.

http://www.hypable.com/harry-potter/...nto-two-films/

The second video was very informative, thank you very much for posting it. I hope they release proper extended editions of the films, like what Peter Jackson did with the lord of the rings trilogy. Splitting the first film into 2 would be silly, the first two were properly transferred on screen. But the 5th + 6th films have been butchered beyond measure and although the HBP was very good as a film, it gave up precious material for teenage flirt and snogging scenes. Fingers crossed for the extended versions of the movie. And when I say extended, I expect something more that 3-4 minutes added.

[gettodamoofies]

I'm all for extended editions when valuable things are missed. If they are left on the cutting room floor for a reason (pacing, performance, writing, superfluous etc) though then I'm not interested. I enjoyed the first two extended editions and prefer the extended editions of LOTR but throwing everything that was filmed back into the film isn't the way to go about it. Just because a promo still or behind the scenes photo shows a scene being filmed and it didn't make the theatrical cut doesn't mean it should be re-instated. Unfortunately some times it seems that a lot of people don't share that opinion.

There are some things in the books which simply wouldn't translate to the screen all that well. Some would have been excised in the planning and scripting stages, others not until editing. Re-instating scenes just because they were in the book and because they were filmed isn't exactly a benchmark to retain any sort of quality. In that case I'd prefer they were left out.

Speculating over whether it was the director's or Warner Bros decision to leave the cuts as is may raise some interesting info and questions but unless the directors speak out who knows??? As for people wanting "proper" extended editions and pointing to LOTR as an example there are two things to keep in mind:

1) They were done under the supervision of the director with their blessing. If rumours and statements regarding the directors for PoA, GoF, OotP and HBP are true then they don't want to do this
2) Peter Jackson views the theatrical cuts as the director's cuts. He only did the extended editions for the fans, not to make films that were closer to his vision. If some of the Harry Potter directors are of a similar mindset then they may not be motivated to do this simply to satisfy some select fans' curiosity.

All the same, if something was to happen I'd imagine it would be at least 12 months after the UE comes out for Deathly Hallows Part 2. With that in mind we've got at least a couple of years wait so if you're a serious Harry Potter fan these are as comprehensive a release as we'll have for quite some time.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I'm not saying that at all, it's the truth. Studios are known for holding back material on releases to double, or even triple dip later. So don't act like this is new.

You're assuming Warner will do this in the first place. I'm still waiting for that extended cut of Terminator 3 that the director supposedly said was going to be out a year after the DVD.

I don't care what you believe, but I remember all the news when it came out about WB wanting a shorter because Grindhouse was long and failed. Yates original cut was in fact three hours, he may have wanted to cut SOME of it out, but I highly doubt he wanted to cut out forty minutes. This is my personal opinion, your right, but WB asking him to cut was true.

So, there you have it. WB asked him to cut the movie.

SUPPOSEDLY! The article writers admit this may be complete bulls--t.
Yates never said it, Warner never said it. They just supposed it! You're basing your entire supposition on something Slashfilm said.

Originally Posted by Cook

I have noticed that PeterTHX likes to enter a thread and cause controversy, and would argue with a brick wall if allowed to do so. Don't play into it. Here is some video of Sirius and Bellatrix's duel.

Give me a break: the HD DVD defenders said the exact same thing in 2006-2007. Just because extended footage exists doesn't mean it would have been in the movie when it was finally put together. Nearly every film these days has deleted scenes. Don't pretend they weren't going to be in the movie to begin with because of studio interference.

Warner gave each director the opportunity to present a longer cut. ONLY Chris Columbus took it. The rest said no. Be pissed at Yates for not fufilling this.

[Eismagier]

For what it's worth, I think the extended editions of PS/SS and CoS weren't all that great. Part of it is that neither movie had particularly important scenes reintegrated (and not much was left out to begin with), but most importantly, the new scenes were added in a rather clumsy manner. Maybe if they had John Williams score some additional bridges the transitions would have been less jarring.

A "proper" extended cut requires much more effort than just adding in some extra footage. As much as double dipping annoys me, I'd rather they do it right than produce a hack job.

[biglou114]

I guess this is where I should put in my two cents:
As far as extended cuts go, I'm not a particular fan of them. Rarely do the added scenes add anything to the movies, and they usually the muck up the pacing which makes the movie harder to watch.

As far as (true) director's cuts go, I think they work if the finished theatrical is drastically different from their cut.

One thing I'd like to clear up is that when people hear (and get excited by) the fact that a first cut of a movie is 3-4 hours long, which they automatically assume is that is the "true director's cut." The truth is that this is an assembly cut, meaning that it is a cut simply to show the director and editor every scene that shot. These cuts are usually very boring (lack of any post-production work). I have yet to hear of a case where the director feels that an assembly cut is what closest to what their vision was. Every movie has one of these cuts, and rarely do these cuts ever survive a post-production process.

The moral of my post: just because something was shot (and edited out), doesn't mean that it belongs in the film.

Originally Posted by Eismagier

For what it's worth, I think the extended editions of PS/SS and CoS weren't all that great. Part of it is that neither movie had particularly important scenes reintegrated (and not much was left out to begin with), but most importantly, the new scenes were added in a rather clumsy manner. Maybe if they had John Williams score some additional bridges the transitions would have been less jarring.

A "proper" extended cut requires much more effort than just adding in some extra footage. As much as double dipping annoys me, I'd rather they do it right than produce a hack job.

Because that's a economical and simple thing to do

[CodyCourtBlack2]

just fyi, when put on the shelf next to the others these 2 ues are in fact thinner. by a good inch or two. height is the same as poa and gof though.

[Jumpman]

Thinner's fine, as long as the height was the same.

This also means that Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 will have thinner boxes as well because those will probably be two disc sets as well....

[Eismagier]

Originally Posted by biglou114

Because that's a economical and simple thing to do

If you expect people to buy the same movie repeatedly then you'd better be prepared to offer decent value. Getting the original cast together to do a commentary, now that they're all old enough, is something else I'd "expect" from Warner if they want me to keep re-buying movies I already own several copies of.

That said, whether getting John Williams to create and record additional music is another matter. But the recording sessions for the first two movies already include a number of cues that weren't used in the final cuts, so Warner could have, at the very least, used some of those, under either Williams' or Columbus' supervision.

[Eismagier]

Originally Posted by PixarPerfect

just fyi, when put on the shelf next to the others these 2 ues are in fact thinner. by a good inch or two. height is the same as poa and gof though.

Urgh. Good for my shelf space. Bad for my OCD.