Personally, I think the last book can easily be done as one movie, and with lots of cuts. Much of it dragged as Harry and company just ran off camping and hiding. The book definately had a lot of padding to it, and I'm afraid the movies will be even worse.

I don't know what book you were reading but it wasn't the 7th potter book! Yes there was a lot of camping, but a lot of important conversations and incidents happened during those times. I am glad they split it into 2 films to keep the integrity of the story and hopefully they can fill in some of the gaps they left in the other movies.

They should have split book 5 into two movies too. Or done a three and a half hour LOTR type film. Too many short cuts.

I have to agree with Luna. The fact that they didn't want to cut almost anything out is like every fan's dream. Not cutting anything would make a very long movie so splitting it in two is a smart choice in my opinion.

To be perfectly honest with you, reading the seventh book over again made it a lot more interesting then reading it the first time! So, let's hope that the seventh movies will be interesting and well done!!!
Best of Luck!

If I had to guess, I would put the split at just after Harry & pals were captured and taken to Malfoy Manor. No better place for a "To be continued..." title card.

I enjoyed reading the last two books twice. I comprehended more this time around than the last. If they do split the book, maybe right after Ron splits from the other two would be good, or like sithboy said, when they go to Malfoy Manor. Either way, it will be a great movie since they aren't cutting as much as they did in Book five.

The more the merrier! Split has to be at Shell Cottage IMHO after Dobby and before the plan is hatched.

I'm glad that they chose to do two films, and I think that book 5 should have been two films as well. Unlike the simply written (and short) book 1, Rowlings skill as a writer improved so dramatically that by book seven, there really is very little that is dispensible. I'm trhilled on of the most widely sold and popular books of the last century is getting the royal treatment, as it so richly deserves.

The problem is that what works in a book doesn't work in a movie and vice versa. That's why you have a drawn out basilisk battle at the end of the second movie. You could never have shortened it to the length it was in the book (where it really isn't a battle at all); it would have been way too anti-climatic.

Not everyone who goes to see the movies have read the books and the movies have already left off tons of "indispensable" information. It's not the director's fault; they didn't know what the end of the story was going to be but far too many characters and info has already been marginalized, if not left out entirely, to be drawn back in and wrapped up in the last two movies and it would be a huge mistake to attempt it.

What's the real relationship (and importance of) between Harry and the Dursley's? And Snape? How does Lupin know the command word for the Marauder's Map? Why does Harry see the patronus as a stag and why is that important? The movies don't explain any of this.

Snape's motivations will seem contrived because the movies haven't given us all the little revelations that the books have. Especially after the first movie, 90% of the what they introduce has been left dangling and unexplained.

For those of us who have read the books the movies have been a mostly entertaining visualization of the books (as we can subconsciously fill in any unexplained gaps) but for those who haven't, the movies have become confusing crap.

I don't know, I found the seventh book the least interesting and thought that it could have easily been reduced by well over 100 pages without missing anything other than unneeded filler. Unless they add in some plot, I think two movies will frankly mean large periods of boredom for the non-Potter uber-fans. Huge periods of people sitting around talking without doing anything just doesn't work in a movie like this.

To me, Book VII was the least satisfying of them all, both in terms of the direction that the plot took and the pacing -- quite frankly, the middle section in which they were camping dragged forever. The entire book could easily be contained in a two and a half hour movie -- unlike the volume about the three headed dog. That one I saw before I read the book -- and was absolutely and totally confused, not to mention horrified about all that had been left out once I did sit down and read the book. If one volume needed to be broken into two, it was this one.

Personnaly i'd love to sit and watch a single 5 or 6 hour movie with a 15 minute break.

Thirty, 40, 50 years from now a new generation and new cinematic technology (holodecks or something like that will have some producer looking at the Harry Potter seriers and thinking they can do it much better. Look at Hollywood today. Many of the films are second, third or even fourth remakes of the same film. It can and will happen to Harry Potter. It will be a different interpretation and with any luck, it will (having the retrospect of ALL seven books to reference, be much more well done than the present set. Time will tell. The books are still my favorite and always shall be.

I think the break will come at Shell cottage when harry says we're going to break into gringotts...

I think the split should occur right after Harry & Harmione escape from Riddle so the second part can start with Voldermort having the flash backs as to what happened after he attacked the Potters.

I think the split should be defintely be right when the get captured by the snatchers. Cause you can start the movie at the Malfoys house and End at back there...