I think they are at least a little bit, because in my opinion they would have never done it unless Deathly Hallows did. I don't think it NEEDS two parts, I have read the books and there isn't a whole lot of content. I think to make it into two parts it will drag on and on, but it is only an opinion to be honest.

No, Harry potter is copying Kill Bill by making two parts.
It's so obvious.
Harry potter is so jealous of Kill Bill's success.

Deahtly Hallows is not the first movie to be split into two. It will not be the last. It does not own the rights to being split into two parts.

ik it doesnt own the right or anything, i am just wondering if you guys think the idea was from harry potter. i mean ik movies have been split b4, im just wondering do you think it would have been split if harry potter wasnt.

Yes. There was too much information to be put into one two hour movie. Harry Potter didn't make Breaking Dawn so long.

Imo there isnt enough to be put into two movies. But whatever, they probably have theyre reasons. Oh and isnt part 1 supposed to come out in november? Like part 1 of that other movie..... what was it again?

And they didnt have to squeeze it into one 2 hour movie. It couldve been one FOUR hour movie.

^Lots of movies come out in November -- including most of the Twilight movies. November is usually when the "big" movies come to theaters.

^^Honestly, who's going to sit through a four hour movie? They could have made DH, LotR, and Narnia four hours movies as well. But they were realistic and realized no one is going to watch a four-hour long movie.

They come out with a year's difference between them for marketing reasons. Movies may be for entertainment, but it's still a business. They have to time their releases wisely so they can make enough money to cover the cost of filming, pay every single person who helped make the film possible, as well as make a worthy profit.

Dedicated fans would see them both if they were released closer together, but dedicated fans are not the only people they want seeing the movie. One year isn't that long, but it's long enough for them to properly market and work up the next movie.

I would argue but this thing is hard to type on......

Forget all that, i think i misunderstood what you said.

well the movie can not possibly fit everything in that is in the last twilight book. so if it was not in 2 parts it would prolly suck.

I dunno, it appears so because of the recent release, but most likely not.

Breaking Dawn is just as long as the Deathly Hallows.

i just want to remind you, that they fit beuwolf(sorry for spelling) into one movie and its over 1,000 pages, so length doesnt equal content.

Beowulf was mostly composed of internal dialogue.
Various events happened in Breaking Dawn, as well as thought processes.

But that wasn't even the question.

I think they got the idea from Harry Potter, but ultimately they needed to be split into two movies, too.

I don't know actually.

I don't think that they copied Harry Potter. It was probably a decision made by the producers for creative and commercial reasons, just like Harry Potter. Both movies would be pretty bad if they were one four hour long chunk.

i still though, think that they could have packed it in one movie.. there wasn't much going on in it that's cinematically worth viewing if you ask me...

That was the first thing came into my head when I heard about making the 4th book in 2 films.

I know HP isn't the first to do this, but the timing was a bit too coincidental, coupled with the fact that people compare them so often and they, to a certain extent, do compete with each other financially.

Breaking Dawn is a big book, I can understand why they would have to break it into two movies.

I can't believe you guys seriously consider Twilight copying HP lol.
One word: money.
Once they split it in two parts they get a double amount of money.

Harry Potter needed to be split into two parts, what with its complex storyline. I think Twilight are copying Deathly Hallows in only one aspect; to make as much money as DH1 and DH2 made. I mean, Twilight's been one giant cash cow, so they want to get their moneys worth. I think they would be heavily watching DH1 and DH2 to see if a two part adaption of a similar fantasy series is feasible and well-received. But Deathly Hallows 1 had its problems, which Twilight, having a weaker plot, will come off worse from.

I don't think they are copying, I think they just want more money.. good luck with that seeing as Breaking Dawn barely has enough of a plot to make one average length movie.

yes cause part 1 part 2, handprints and footprints and took away rob rubbish twilight movie better cedric than edward.

Them being offered the opportunity to be immortalized in the ground is copying Harry Potter too?
I hadn't thought of that one. That's so brilliant.

4 movies<5 movies
If they make more movies, there will be more money.

Not being serious?

It's got nothing to do with Twilight.
It's all Summit's authority, Summit has the say, and they chose that.
It's to make more money in sales, and lets admit it, to make the movies better, imagine trying to cramp that much events in a 2 hour movie,it would be exhausting and rushed.

Harry Potter did the same. A lot of franchises do it, simply for better product and money.

The screenwriter said in an interview that they did it because the story had two climaxes that could each stand on their own. It would have been a bit much to have them both in one movie.

i don't think so, my movies have been split that way

no

Deathly Hallows needed to be split into two parts. Unlike most of the Potter books, bits and pieces from the book couldn't be taken out. Every single scene was needed. If not, it would result in a 4-5 hour movie. I don't think Twilight was copying Harry Potter when the split their film into 2 parts, but I think that it was unnecesarry for them to do it. There wasn't much to Breaking Dawn. Everything important happened before Renesme's birth. Afterwards, it was all just endless dialouge and vampire sex. Then the 'battle' with the Volturi then end. It all could have been summed up in 2 hrs 30-45 minutes. Breaking Dawn was like Order of the Phoenix. It was long but a lot of stuff could have been taken out from the book to make a movie all while being faithful to the plot. BDP1 was 1 hr and 40 minutes. DHP1 was 2 hr and 20 minutes. BDP2 will probably be the same DHP2 was 2 hr 20 minutes. If put into one movie, DH would be almost 6 hours and BD would be 2 hr 30-40 minutes which is the length of a typical James Cameron/LOTR/HP film.

I didn't know people were still talking about this... I made this forever ago.

By the way, I don't think they were copying that much. Like most people said, money. I made this when I was a bit bitter because my friends were talking about how Breaking Dawn was going to be SO good and if it wasn't split it would have left out SO much.

I argee with alexisn10!

I think Harry Potter was made into two parts to put more detail into the battle of Hogwarts.
Breaking Dawn was subdivided further into three books. They must have given made Breaking dawn into two parts to give emphasis on Bella's transformation and Bella's new avatar.