oh snap. Part 1 will be the best Harry yet! Followed closely by chamber o' secrets THEN part 2.

Six months is PLENTY of time between the two films, but I would even argue that it's too much time, depending on the film.

Case in point? The Matrix sequels. Though maligned by many, not half as many people saw the third film due to the backlash of the second film not being very good on its' own. And then only about half of the third film's audience knew what was going on in the film, as most didn't re-watch the second film prior to going into the third.

The Wachowski Brothers wanted to release Reloaded in May 2003, and Revolutions in June 2003. It would have created some confusion as both would probably be in some theatres at the same time, but it would also have driven up the ticket sales of both, as people would do marathon viewings of the films.

Sure, it doesn't make the movies better, but the sequels together makes up a greater story than the individual parts.

But with Harry Potter's 7th film? They've got nothing to worry about in that regard. The story is well known to fans, making this argument a moot point.

actually daniel' test shots then important emma'.i'm worried when is he begin shot?

Good point Paul when a studio gets a hit movie they end up rushing out a usually inferior sequel, which messes up the original movie. With HP the sequels are legitimate as they are part of the whole Potter story.

I agree with maybe changing David Yares, not now but I wish they would've done it earlier. I became a fan later, I saw OOTP in theaters ,the fisrt HP i saw in theaters, and was hooked . I then bought the books & David Yates has left so much out. Things could be explained better & maybe some of the strange things that happend in the movies would be explained. I also didn't see where Fleur was cast in HBP. Isn't the wedding in DH like the beginning of the movie, the whole reason they get Harry out of the Dursleys house??