Two Harry Potter Films For The Price Of One

News that the final Harry Potter book (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) will be split into two films should come as no surprise. The 'official' reason given is that the book (over 600 pages in length) is simply too long to pack into a single film. Daniel Radcliffe rather bafflingly suggests that the number of sub-plots in previous books made them easier to adapt into single narratives. "The seventh book doesn't really have any subplots" he recently told the Los Angeles Times, "it's one driving, pounding story from the word go."

Now, are we really supposed to swallow this line that it's merely their passionate affiliation to the story that has 'forced' Warner Bros. to make two films where there could've been one? Is it not clear that this is simply a way of milking a few final millions out of this most generous of cash-cows? The BBC, diplomatic as ever, provides this as a gentle afterthought, suggesting the boost in profits will be an "added benefit" of the two-film strategy. This feels a bit like the film world equivalent of the Iraq war - sold to the public as a noble crusade but in fact this is nothing more that a quest for box-office oil.

Ok, so that might be putting it a little strongly, but I hope you see my point.