Milking the Hippogriff Dry as the Hogwarts Express Gravy Train Runs Out of Steam, by MaraudingDon |
 Jun 6 2009, 06:19 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer  Posts: 131 Joined: 7:18am May 15, 2005  |
[code][/code]Well written essay, but I really think at this point the Trio can carry the first part of the film fine. They'll proably incoperate "what others are up too" in part one enough to create intrigue in the plot.
I am, however, against the film split. I think, based on how they've butchered the series so far that one film, even one LONG film would be much better. They simply can't justify keeping in certain book scenes without severly changing them because of what they've left out of all the other films. And all because they were so keen to make the other movies "one" film. At Goblet of Fire they should have known Harry Potter stopped being a one-movie-per-book series. My biggest problem with the "we're suddenly respecting the book and making it two movies thing" is what MaraudingDon mentioned earlier in this thread. Things like dobby's death, bill's wedding (and I hear a "new" Bill is cast), and percy's return (as I hear Chris is in the film) make no sense as all in the scope of the film series when these subplots were dropped or thinned out so much they don't matter. I mean how many casual movie go-ers actually noticed Percy standing with the Minister in the fifth film and remembered he was Ron's brother? And even if they did, did it mean anything to them? Dobby doesn't have the significant exsistance he had in the books so his death can't pull off the impact of the books simply because his continued history with Harry doesn't exsist in "film land". And what are they going to do with Bill now that they have one to make it work this late in the game? This is why 'we're getting it all in this time' is a thing that bothers me. -------------------- RhondaWeasley
|
 |
  
 
|
|
Aug 23 2009, 11:54 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie Posts: 78 Joined: 3:42am July 17, 2007 |
Having read your essay, I have to say I don't totally buy the cash cow argument; at least not as the god-awful thing it's perceived as. Certainly, it's part of the motivation, but if that's all there was they could have easily done OotP as two movies, since I'm sure as everyone knows it's the longest book, and there was certainly a sizable fan clamor for it.
Not to mention that while yes, they are pretty obviously aiming for strong holiday and summer releases, Harry Potter is not now, has not been, and will never be the sole plank of WB's bottom line. They could divvy DH up into 5 parts, and that wouldn't change the fact that the end is coming eventually anyway. It should also be considered that, well, shouldn't this argument come up with any bit of media that comes in multi-part form? Really, given 4 hours, we could have gotten the suckfest that was Star Wars I-III out of the way in one go... weren't they just trying to milk our pockets spreading that mess out over three films? As anyone who's read many of my Argent Scrim posts can attest, I'm a huge defender of the movies, at least any of them past the first two. But I can't say that I'm terribly disappointed at the notion of 4 hours and change or so worth of movie as opposed to 3 1/2. Yay completeness for the close. There is the argument that not many theaters are willing to show a film that long, not anymore; a 3 1/2 hour film does not leave much room for multiple show times in a day. Not all financially based reasons are bad by default. As for the bit about multiple viewings, studios are not looking for profit off of repeat viewers. The fact is, repeat viewings fall to a relatively small subset, compared to the one-time audience, of hard-core fans. Mothers and fathers are not, or very rarely, taking their kids to see a film multiple times. I would like to address one of the arguments in your essay, specifically that comparing the end battle of DH to that found in the final two Lord of the Rings films. The Gondor and Helm's Deep battles are inarguably spectacular, but the fact is that with a couple minor exceptions, they are also pretty much non-stop slugfests involving the vast majority of the main cast, whereas much of the battle of Hogwarts, at least at the beginning, doesn't even show the battle, and then once the break occurs, there's no more real fighting until the denoument. As to the cost of the eventual dvd's, I have to disagree pretty heavily. If the notion of two dvd releases for one story is that onerous, than you know what to do: vote with your dollars. I will add that splitting the film into two certainly didn't seem to hurt Kill Bill, its bottom line, or its eventual dvd sales. I would like to close by expressing my ultimate dislike for the money argument. The argument itself presumes that movie studios are putting the vast majority of movies out from some sense of altruism, or dedication to the art, or what-have-you in the first place. They are not. ALL major films, no matter the quality, are released with the express purpose of making a return. Indie filmmakers don't go to Sundance or SXSW because they really truly believe they've got a message the masses need to hear. If we're going to protest any movie that is released with nothing but profit in mind, than I'm afraid someone should inform Hollywood that they are in a great deal more trouble than they seem to be. Personally, I don't care what the motivation is. As long as a good movie comes out of it, I'm perfectly fine with that. (side note: I enjoyed the DH novel quite a bit. So take that as you will.) edit: The argument that people are losing interest falls apart when you consider the box office receipts for Half-Blood Prince: Biggest midnight opening gross of all time, biggest single-day worldwide gross of all time, made $391 million in 5 days which is the biggest 5 day gross of all time by no small percentage, and is the highest grossing film in 2009. This all from a movie based on a 4-year-old book from a series that itself concluded 2 1/2 years ago. Might interest wane slightly in-between now and the end of next year? Possibly. Enough to really consider all that heavily? Not really. This post has been edited by TmcMistress: Aug 24 2009, 12:37 AM |
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2009, 02:11 AM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Missus Lupin and Mistress Crouch Posts: 5,290 Joined: 4:57am January 28, 2005   |
Thanks for the comments RhondaWeasley, and I concur with everything you said.
TmcMistress, your comments are varied and so I will try and respond step by step  .QUOTE As for the bit about multiple viewings, studios are not looking for profit off of repeat viewers. The fact is, repeat viewings fall to a relatively small subset, compared to the one-time audience, of hard-core fans. Mothers and fathers are not, or very rarely, taking their kids to see a film multiple times. I disgree 100% with this because I am a parent who takes my children to repeat viewings. My eldest has seen HBP three times now - paid for by moi! I can catagorically state this will not happen for DH1 & 2. As for "studios are not looking for profit off of repeat viewers" - studios are looking for profits in their grandmother's knitting bags if they can find it! QUOTE edit: The argument that people are losing interest falls apart when you consider the box office receipts for Half-Blood Prince: Biggest midnight opening gross of all time, biggest single-day worldwide gross of all time, made $391 million in 5 days which is the biggest 5 day gross of all time by no small percentage, and is the highest grossing film in 2009. This all from a movie based on a 4-year-old book from a series that itself concluded 2 1/2 years ago. Might interest wane slightly in-between now and the end of next year? Possibly. Enough to really consider all that heavily? Not really. All incredible figures in a year that has been very poor on the big box office draws. To date HP6 has taken $886,444,750, but it is already slipping out of the top ten in the US, and took only just over half a million in receipts this week in the UK. OotP was still in theatre's some three months after release - will HBP do the same? I doubt it. QUOTE I would like to close by expressing my ultimate dislike for the money argument. The argument itself presumes that movie studios are putting the vast majority of movies out from some sense of altruism, or dedication to the art, or what-have-you in the first place. They are not. ALL major films, no matter the quality, are released with the express purpose of making a return. Indie filmmakers don't go to Sundance or SXSW because they really truly believe they've got a message the masses need to hear. If we're going to protest any movie that is released with nothing but profit in mind, than I'm afraid someone should inform Hollywood that they are in a great deal more trouble than they seem to be. I have never said, nor will you ever find me arguing, that studios should not look for profits. They are a business - they would not last two seconds if they didn't look to make money. The entire crux of my essay is that their money grabbing is so blatant and unnecessary, and may ultimately backfire on them as people see these movies once and once only. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2009, 04:59 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 37 Joined: 10:27am August 5, 2009 Location: Montana |
QUOTE(MaraudingDon @ Aug 26 2009, 01:11 AM)  OotP was still in theatre's some three months after release - will HBP do the same? I doubt it. There is a huge flaw in you're logic here - namely, the economy is in a much worse place now than it was when OotP came out. You can't logically compare box office stays from 2007 to today. Families have a lot less disposable income to spend on movie tickets, especially in the big market areas where ticket prices are upwards of $10. Speaking from personal experience, my sister and I saw OotP 4 times in the theater - we only saw HBP once, because neither of us could justify spending the money to see it again. QUOTE(MaraudingDon @ Aug 26 2009, 01:11 AM) The entire crux of my essay is that their money grabbing is so blatant and unnecessary, and may ultimately backfire on them as people see these movies once and once only. Again, the number of times people see the movie will depend in part on the state of the economy in the fall of next year. That is where the 'may' part of your sentence comes in. As for the "blatant money grabbing" - the idea to split the book into two movies came from writer Steve Kloves, not Warner Brothers. Kloves was already working on the script for DH while they were filming HBP, and he said flat out that he didn't think he could fit it into one film. Producer David Heyman then took the idea to JKR, who approved the split. Only then was the decision left up to WB. Personally I think they would have been stupid to say no. A large part of the reasoning behind the split is the dichotomy in the book. The first half of the book is a quest, the second half a fight for survival. Had they done it all in one movie, we would have been left with a watered down version of what is - in my opinion - the most soulful book of the series. As a die-hard fan, I was disappointed enough to see that done to GoF. I don't want to see that happen to what has become one of my favorite books of all time. --------------------  The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity. -- George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2009, 11:46 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Perusing the Magical Menagerie Posts: 78 Joined: 3:42am July 17, 2007 |
QUOTE(MaraudingDon @ Aug 26 2009, 03:11 AM) I disgree 100% with this because I am a parent who takes my children to repeat viewings. My eldest has seen HBP three times now - paid for by moi! The exception to the rule, perhaps? I don't think, and don't take this as an insult, that your experience is all that common. Certainly the fact that both you and your children are fans of the HP series could play into this. QUOTE I can catagorically state this will not happen for DH1 & 2. You have no evidence for this beyond anecdotal. I personally see no reason why DH1 and 2 shouldn't average out at about the same number of repeat viewings as any of the other Potter films. QUOTE As for "studios are not looking for profit off of repeat viewers" - studios are looking for profits in their grandmother's knitting bags if they can find it! Of course they are; that's not at all what I was saying though. While they certainly aren't going to discourage repeat viewings as a source of profit, they aren't counting on them as the primary source of box office return. QUOTE QUOTE edit: The argument that people are losing interest falls apart when you consider the box office receipts for Half-Blood Prince: Biggest midnight opening gross of all time, biggest single-day worldwide gross of all time, made $391 million in 5 days which is the biggest 5 day gross of all time by no small percentage, and is the highest grossing film in 2009. This all from a movie based on a 4-year-old book from a series that itself concluded 2 1/2 years ago. Might interest wane slightly in-between now and the end of next year? Possibly. Enough to really consider all that heavily? Not really. All incredible figures in a year that has been very poor on the big box office draws. To date HP6 has taken $886,444,750, but it is already slipping out of the top ten in the US, and took only just over half a million in receipts this week in the UK. OotP was still in theatre's some three months after release - will HBP do the same? I doubt it. Incredible figures for any year, period. I neglected to mention that the 5-day take broke Spider-Man 3's record for the same. Also that HBP is, according to boxofficemojo.com's listing of top worldwide box office receipts, already a relatively scant 51 million behind OotP. It's only 2 million behind OotP's North American take. Slipping out of the top 10 after a month of release is hardly abnormal. At any rate, the film is already a massive success, and as MTBlond appropriately pointed out, comparing box office take in the current economy to box office take from two years ago needs some qualifications. QUOTE I have never said, nor will you ever find me arguing, that studios should not look for profits. They are a business - they would not last two seconds if they didn't look to make money. The entire crux of my essay is that their money grabbing is so blatant and unnecessary, and may ultimately backfire on them as people see these movies once and once only. Ah, but I think your argument that eventual box office rests that largely on repeat theater viewings is flawed. Major studios rarely expect as much profit as they'd like from the initial release anymore (though I'm sure it's nice when that does happen), and instead look to dvd sales to shore up the bottom line. |
|
|
|
