PDA

View Full Version : Problems ahead for Harry Potter?



Oriadin
Nov 19th, 2002, 05:32:24 AM
Got this from http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-potter18nov18,0,1642863.story?coll=cl%2Dmovies

--------------------------------------

Now that "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" has scared up monstrous box-office numbers, just like the first movie, here's how the plot thickens in coming episodes:

Warner Bros. has been forced to hire a new director for the third installment. The original one burned out after the breakneck pace of back-to-back productions. The planned release date has been delayed because the parents of the actor who plays Harry wanted him to attend a prestigious school rather than being tutored on the set.

Meanwhile, the fourth J.K. Rowling adventure book is so fat -- 734 pages -- no one is sure it can be shaped into a single movie without slicing scenes, which could alienate the protective author and her fanatical young readers.

As for book No. 5, it's still in the works -- and even longer than the last one.

On top of all this, the clock is ticking for the three young stars of the "Potter" series, who already are beginning to outgrow their roles, raising the dicey issue of whether adolescent audiences would embrace a new Harry, Ron and Hermione.

As successful as the "Potter" film series has been so far, it also has become arguably the most complicated and uniquely unpredictable movie franchise ever undertaken. Warner Bros. President Alan Horn calls the effort "a Herculean task."

No other long-running movie series -- not "Star Wars," James Bond or "Batman" -- has been forced to juggle the competing interests of literary loyalty, artistic license and commercial considerations on such a grand scale.

"It's a unique balancing act," studio Chairman Barry Meyer says -- one that gets trickier, not easier, as the franchise stretches toward the end of the decade and possibly beyond.

"Things you think may be a slam dunk may not be," says media analyst Tom Wolzien of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.

In all, Warner Bros. plans on making seven movies based on Rowling's completed and pending books about a bespectacled boy and his pals at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, where young witches and wizards learn the finer points of potions and wands while tumbling into frightening adventures.

The studio got into the game early and cheaply. Just before the first book -- "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" -- became an international sensation, Warner Bros. paid Rowling a meager $50,000 for the right to keep rivals at bay. The following year, the studio paid an additional $500,000, this time to exercise its option to make a movie.

Since then, "Sorcerer's Stone" has generated an estimated $1.5 billion in revenue for the studio and its corporate parent, AOL Time Warner Inc., from worldwide box-office receipts and DVD, television and merchandising sales. "Chamber of Secrets" appears headed down the same road to riches, grossing an estimated $87.7 million in North American theaters last weekend.

*

Movie a Year Planned

The initial plan was to maintain a schedule that would allow the studio to release a movie every year, keeping audience anticipation high. For the first two films, the strategy worked. Not so for No. 3, which won't be out until 2004 -- proving that nothing can be taken for granted when working with young stars on an ambitious scale.

Production on "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" was delayed until February when the parents of leading boy Daniel Radcliffe, 13, asked for a recess. They told the studio and London-based producer David Heyman their son had been accepted into a top-drawer school and they would like him to attend the first semester. The parents of co-star Emma Watson, 12, who plays precocious witch Hermione, wanted their daughter to study in a real classroom too. For two years, the young actors had been tutored on the set.

"The kids wanted a break," studio chief Horn says. "We're talking about real people here."

Their director, however, wanted to drop out completely.

Chris Columbus, whose works include the mainstream hits "Home Alone" and "Mrs. Doubtfire," had planned on directing all seven "Potter" pictures. But last summer, halfway through shooting "Chamber of Secrets," he told the studio he was simply too spent to even contemplate a third movie, let alone four more after that.

The normally indefatigable Columbus has spent three years filming in London, uprooting his wife and their four children (ranging in age from 5 to 13) from their San Francisco home.

After beginning production on "Chamber of Secrets" just three days after the debut of "Sorcerer's Stone," Columbus says he couldn't imagine starting another grueling regimen of 16-hour days.

"I didn't think I could give the actors the same amount of energy ... and I wanted to spend more time with my family," Columbus says. "I had the insanely naive vision that I would direct all seven movies. But ... I realized that if I even attempted to do the third movie, I might not make it."

Breaking the news to the studio was tough, but not nearly as hard as telling the young actors with whom he had grown so close, especially Radcliffe.

Still, Columbus won't be heading back to the Bay Area soon. To ensure a smooth transition for the youngsters and their new director, Alfonso Cuaron, he agreed to stay on as a producer until "Prisoner of Azkaban" is completed late next summer.

"My only rule is that the set has to be a completely comfortable place -- no screaming, no angry outbursts, no selfish behavior," Columbus says.

The change in directors also could have a dramatic effect on the look and tone of the franchise. Although Cuaron has been lauded for his artistry, he has never shepherded a huge commercial success or directed a big-budget, complicated production with lots of visual effects. The first two "Potter" movies each cost about $140 million to make.

What the studio did see in Cuaron was his distinctive style and range. He directed this year's sexually explicit Spanish-language sleeper "Y Tu Mama Tambien," a coming-of-age story about two teenage boys who become intimate with the same older woman. On the other end of the spectrum, he directed Warner's visually enchanting but financially disappointing 1995 children's movie "A Little Princess," which is set in a New York girls' school.

"He has a great sense of magic, boundless imagination, a real compassion for children and a keen understanding of teenage life and its nuances," "Potter" producer Heyman says.

Cuaron's biggest challenge may be one out of his control, one that sets the "Potter" franchise apart from any other movie series.

Although the young stars were supposed to age one year with each movie -- as the characters do in the books -- the plan has gone awry. With production delayed, their ages will be out of sync by the third movie, a gap that is expected only to widen with each new installment.

"We're experimenting with cryogenic techniques to simply freeze the actors until we're ready to go again, but so far there's no scientific evidence to suggest that it's a workable plan," Horn jokes.

The child actors in the "Potter" franchise are unusual because they have given face to literary characters cherished by millions of young readers.

*

Casting Challenges

It will be tricky enough to replace Professor Albus Dumbledore, portrayed in the first two "Potter" movies by Richard Harris, 72, who died last month. But the thought of replacing Harry or his closest cohorts is enough to unnerve Warner executives fearful of breaking the spell with fans.

Horn says he hopes he will not confront that decision. But if he does, there'll be only one option. "We'd have to find new kids," he says.

At this point, Radcliffe, Watson and 14-year-old Rupert Grint, who plays Harry's sidekick Ron, are under contract for only one more movie. They have not been asked to sign up for No. 4, according to Horn, because production isn't slated to begin until spring 2004.

With so much money riding on the advancing ages of the children, there is little room for the kinds of creative and strategic delays that typically plague Hollywood productions. As a result, pressure is mounting to keep the productions on track.

The studio only recently closed a deal with screenwriter Steve Kloves to begin adapting Rowling's lengthy fourth book, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." If Kloves can't figure out how to squeeze the material into one movie, the studio might have to make two, Horn said. And that would further distance the actors' real ages from those of their screen characters.

Then again, condensing the voluminous book into one movie carries its own problems. Harry Potter audiences expect to see every twist and turn from Rowling's books leap from the page to the screen.

The status of "Harry Potter" No. 5 is even murkier, raising concerns about just how long the momentum can be maintained.

Warner had hoped Rowling would be done writing "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" by last summer because the studio wanted to release the video and DVD of "Sorcerer's Stone" at the same time the book was published.

So when will Warner get a peek?

"Zero idea," Horn confesses. When he saw the author at the London premiere of "Chamber of Secrets," "she didn't mention it and I didn't ask."

According to a spokeswoman at Scholastic Inc., Rowling's U.S. publisher, the author is "putting the finishing touches" on her fifth book. And though that may be good news for the studio, Rowling has told her publisher that book No. 5 will be "one chapter longer than [No.] 4."

JonathanLB
Nov 19th, 2002, 06:34:14 AM
"Problems ahead for Harry Potter?"

"He directed this year's sexually explicit Spanish-language sleeper "Y Tu Mama Tambien," a coming-of-age story about two teenage boys who become intimate with the same older woman."



:D

Oriadin
Nov 19th, 2002, 07:24:04 AM
:lol

Sene Unty
Nov 19th, 2002, 12:50:39 PM
Yeah but he also directed "A Little Princess"! So what's sexual about that! I'm fine with the directing change, but there must not be any changes to the book! NONE! And the actors have to stay!

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:03:50 PM
The difference between The Lord of the Rings, and the Harry Potter book adaptatoins is....that Tolkien finished writing his a long time ago. If Warner Bros hadn't been so eager to get going on the HP moneymaking bandwagon, then they should have waited for all 7 books to have been completed.

Granted, they would have to use different actors, because by the time all 7 books were done, the current set would have been too old to consider auditioning for the roles.

I'm guessing we'll start to see a dramatic drop off of revenues further into the series as the movies start becoming crap. Unfortunately.

Sene Unty
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:15:41 PM
There is no reason that they should become crap.....I think the same level of consistency can be kept throughout the telling of the 7 books. J.K. Rowling needs to finish the damn books though! Man that woman takes forever..........

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:18:18 PM
She might be turning into a prima donna...that would cause MUCHO problemo for the movie-o.

Sene Unty
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:20:30 PM
Nah she has had a nasty little legal problem that she needed to take care of before she could finish 5. I think she is rather down to earth really. And I love how she won't budge on certain things pertaining to the movie. She refuses to let things change from the books which I admire very much.

Figrin D'an
Nov 19th, 2002, 01:57:56 PM
Originally posted by Sene Unty She refuses to let things change from the books which I admire very much.

And that could spell doom for any further film adaptions. If the books get progressively longer, and Rowling is unwilling to compromise on scene cutting, the projects won't happen. Direct book-to-film translations almost never work. They end up being too long and too inconsistent for the audience to really enjoy.

imported_QuiGonJ
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:21:25 PM
Most of them don't work because the producers ignore the original intent of the author. Since Chris Columbus is staying on as Exec Producer, I don't think changing directors will be a problem.

The first book was considered unfilmable because it lacked a three-act structure, but the others have that well enough, according to some article I read.

The movies have worked so far, and Book 5 is in final editing for a spring release next year. Seeing as it takes a year to make each film, she has three years to do book 6. And then another year after that to do Book 7.

And in Book 7 Harry will be 18. If Buffy pulled off having much older actors playing high school, then I don't see what difference one or two years would make.even at that.

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:28:24 PM
Its the main change I think, from 13 - 15 that's going to really make a big difference in the actors. After puberty they can pull off being in early teens well enough, but trying to look like pre-pubecents? Not going to happen. :(

ReaperFett
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:30:01 PM
I dislike the way she stated there should be NO American actors. I understand what she's saying it for, but some would be great for a film of this ilk (Robin Williams wanted a part)

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:34:03 PM
OOh he would too. Darn, she really said that? Racist! Against Americans... :cry I'd be a great student at Hogwarts, I really would be...

imported_Jackson Mcgraves
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:38:17 PM
but in the books Harry gets progressivly older anyway so the aging factor shouldn't really hurt to much, although i'm unsure of the age progression between the books.

ReaperFett
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:39:35 PM
LD, I believe it was to stop the film being "Americanised"

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 19th, 2002, 03:41:15 PM
Yes I can understand that, but your point was excellent. There are American actors who woulld do very well by the movies, such as Robin Williams.

Rmiao
Nov 19th, 2002, 05:14:06 PM
The only age problems might be in Goblet of Fire. They are 14 years old in that book but Rupert might be 17 by then. That might be hard to pull off.

Marcus Telcontar
Nov 19th, 2002, 05:58:40 PM
And I love how she won't budge on certain things pertaining to the movie. She refuses to let things change from the books which I admire very much

That could be a curse. Being inflexible may lead to problems as bits become unfilmable or just plain too long. It is mainly aimed at kids... you think they have the attention spans to allow a 3+ hour moive?

JonathanLB
Nov 19th, 2002, 07:15:46 PM
To movies, what does "Americanized" mean? Made good?! :)

I don't see any critics, in any country, saying that the best movies have come from anywhere but the U.S. (Citizen Kane has been voted the greatest movie by critics and filmmakers around the world for about four decades now).

ReaperFett
Nov 19th, 2002, 07:26:44 PM
Get Carter is a UK film. Reguarded by many as a classic.

Get Carter got "Americanised". Remember that little stinker? :)


Or how about when Fawlty Towers was "Americanised"? They created Payne. More like Paynefull :)



"Americanised" isnt saying anything from the US is turd. Its saying that it becomes made to suit a US audience, which could mean big changes. And often, these changes then lose the reason the thing was good in the first place.


JKR wanted her movies to be made as she saw them.

JonathanLB
Nov 19th, 2002, 08:08:13 PM
There are great films from all countries, they are not just for the audiences of those countries. Star Wars is a British film in many ways, with many British actors, British people helping out, and then it's an American film too. I wouldn't describe it as a movie that is directed at any particular culture, other than human culture.

The greatest films generally translate across all cultures, but of course with comedy, that's pretty hard I realize. What is funny to one person may not be funny to another, and what is funny to one culture may be offensive and not funny at all to another culture.

My only point is that you may be able to say that Hollywood makes a lot of bad movies, and they do, but you also have to realize that most of the greatest films in cinema history are from the United States. Now that's not to say that American film = good, foreign film = bad, no no, that's horribly narrow-minded and simply not true. Nonetheless, yeah you are right, you can't look at it like "Americanized" = bad, hehe.

I hope that doesn't offend anyone's culture or anything, because I think many great movies have come from other countries, especially from the U.K., Japan, and the Hong Kong film industries, for instance, though the French have their winners too...

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 19th, 2002, 09:10:13 PM
That isn't what the point was, Jonathan. The point is that Rowling, who has complete control of how the movies are translated into film, did not want the films to have American actors in it. She wants it done true to the book. I do not see anyone saying that "Americanized = bad."

It just means that it'd be different than she wants them, which would be BAD for the HP series, as then she wouldn't allow them to be made. Capisce?

Gurney Devries
Nov 19th, 2002, 09:48:05 PM
I don't see any critics, in any country, saying that the best movies have come from anywhere but the U.S.While some countries have some really lackluster directing, France has put out some really well-directed films (even if you disagree): Delicatessan, City of Lost Children, Amelie, Brotherhood of the Wolf... all of them were directed better than the majority of our American films. Amelie was up for 4 Academy Awards, so I'd say critics agree.

Marcus Telcontar
Nov 19th, 2002, 10:05:52 PM
There could well be a looming problem for Potter now

First week of playing (Excluding weekends) was in dollars $39,196,137. I have noted HP:COS did 5.3 million first monday. First wek returns are going to be waaaaay down. The second weekend drop was a resonable 36%

I bet 50+ % drop at least is coming this time around. Sure COS is still going to make shred loads.... but.... well, lets see shall we?

JediBoricua
Nov 19th, 2002, 10:53:59 PM
Well I understand Rowling's concern. Remember that although this is a school of magic, it follow the basic patter of education in the UK (if I am wrong correct me Reaper). Seven years of high school, and the focus is often different. I believe Rowling was afraid that is she allowed the studio to have complete control they might turn the movie closer to a teen movie.

Jedi Master Carr
Nov 19th, 2002, 10:54:27 PM
I think they should stick with the actors even if they are a year or to old. Also none of them would be 17 for 4, I think the oldest is 13 right now so it shouldn't be a problem as long as they film 3 and 4 back to back. If they push it off for 5 that could be a problem. Hopefully they can film 3-7 back to coming out every year from 2004-2008 they could easily do it. As far as Rowling being forceful on what is not cut out, I don't know I read the first novel and there were some things that weren't in that movie.

JMK
Nov 19th, 2002, 11:08:29 PM
I don't have much interest in the series at all, but I hope for continuities sake they find a way to keep all of the same actors. I can't stand it when they find a new person when the original is still suited to the role.

JonathanLB
Nov 20th, 2002, 12:26:22 AM
LD, you missed the point, you're off in some other conversation here while we were discussing a totally separate issue, and "capiche?" stated that way comes off as very condescending, but I'll ignore it because you clearly fail to see what we're discussing. So find another nit to pick and think up your own conversation, lol.

The French have some very good directors, I would agree. I would not, however, agree that Amelie is a good film. If you like movies like that, more power to you, I thought it was trash. American filmmakers have a greater sense of urgency in their movies than is shown in Amelie, which seemed to feel that it is ok to waste two hours of my time with a plotless story of simplicity. That's fine for slower moving people who like that sorta thing, as I said, but if I want a slower paced movie than it needs to be intellectually stimulating and not just filler.

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 20th, 2002, 12:50:27 AM
Thank you so much for graciously overlooking my many, and varied, faults, Jonathan.

Jeseth Cloak
Nov 20th, 2002, 01:10:34 AM
I personally feel that the HP movies would have something detracted from them if any American actors were used, or different actors at all. In some cases it works to switch actors; the James Bond movies are a good example. Every so often a change of actors is a good thing, because they start becoming too old to fit the roles - but in this case, since there is a set number of movies to be produced, new actors would kind of take away that sense of attachment to the characters.

Rmiao
Nov 20th, 2002, 01:22:14 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I think they should stick with the actors even if they are a year or to old. Also none of them would be 17 for 4, I think the oldest is 13 right now

Rupert (Ron) is 14 right now. They're shooting 3 next year, and 4 in 2004 but that may be delayed. It could be a problem

Jedi Master Carr
Nov 20th, 2002, 01:30:05 AM
Wow he didn't look 14 the other night I saw him on Leno, maybe its because he is short :p That is why they can't delay 4, it has to come out in 2005 for this to work.

ReaperFett
Nov 20th, 2002, 03:01:14 AM
I wouldnt mind if they rep[laced the ginger haired one. Hes annoyed me on EVERY posters hes been on :)



American filmmakers have a greater sense of urgency in their movies
Let's say there are six GREAT French directors. By all common sense, the US should have300 GREAT directions, due to proportion. Start counting when ready ;)

Sanis Prent
Nov 20th, 2002, 03:13:33 AM
I've no idea why this insane insistence on british-only is happening. Apparently somebody doesn't think that accents can be faked, and faked flawlessly. Case in point...I was browsing through the Band of Brothers extras, and found that the actors playing Captain Winters and Private Liebgott are in fact, very much English...and have thick accents (especially Liebgott). However, in the show, you'd never guess. Winters' voice is clean and neutral, and Liebgott is thick New Jersey. Suprised me, and I'm pretty good with voices. Therefore...I think the whole geographic preference is a bit silly, and reduces the available talent pool.

ReaperFett
Nov 20th, 2002, 03:52:48 AM
Oh, I recognised most the actors from film, TV and adverts over here :)

JonathanLB
Nov 20th, 2002, 04:05:39 AM
"Thank you so much for graciously overlooking my many, and varied, faults, Jonathan."

No problem. I'm here all week :D

lol, j/k. I will shut up now. I didn't mean to offend, LD, sorry.

Oriadin
Nov 20th, 2002, 04:20:56 AM
Perhaps Rowling simply wants to help the UK to stand out more as a film nation. The film industry in this country is pretty poor at the moment. A lot of films here are failing and many dont even get made. This could be an attempt by her to try and change that.

Personally, I dont see why we need to have American actors try to put on brittish accents (some good some very bad) when we have more than enough talent of our own. It seems pretty pointless to me. The whole cast in the movies have done a terific job and I havent seen a single performance I havent liked so far. So I really see no point in looking to have Americans in the film.

Marcus Telcontar
Nov 20th, 2002, 04:40:29 AM
Well, if she wants British actors only, it's her choice, she writes the books and has some sort of artistic control. Also, UK actors have their own style, she may have wanted that.

imported_QuiGonJ
Nov 20th, 2002, 05:14:23 PM
Rowling probably got defensive since the early meetings where Spielberg wanted Haley Joel Osment as Harry ::shudder::

Lilaena De'Ville
Nov 20th, 2002, 07:50:11 PM
OMG really? He's a great actor, but I love Daniel Radcliffe, he just IS Harry Potter in every way imaginable. Which will probably ruin the rest of his career, but tis great for these movies!

Jedi Master Carr
Nov 20th, 2002, 10:46:19 PM
I actually like the actor who plays Ron, he was funny in COS, I thought.

James Prent
Nov 21st, 2002, 12:14:30 AM
Agreed, I like him too. (is LD, sorry, too angst ridden to log out)

ReaperFett
Nov 21st, 2002, 02:55:39 AM
Its his face that bothers me. Or rather, thhe faces he is made to do on posters. For some reason they REALLY irritate me :)

Oriadin
Nov 21st, 2002, 06:08:37 AM
I also think hes good in the films and I think he's funny. Cant say ive paid that much attention to the posters though...

Loki Ahmrah
Nov 21st, 2002, 06:12:55 AM
Ron's great and Grint is perfect for the role. Emma Watson is fantastic as Hermione despite being petrified for the best part of it and Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter. Let's hope that stigma does not haunt his career.

Sene Unty
Nov 21st, 2002, 10:41:54 AM
I agree with Loki. I think all the actors have really come out of their shells for this movie, and all have put on very believable perfomances. That is the main reason I don't want any changes in characters, I think they are all becoming these characters (at least in my mind.) I mean come on Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter. What makes them think they could find anyone that could look better?!?!?! :D

Oriadin
Nov 21st, 2002, 10:51:33 AM
I think all the kids are great and its gonna be really sad if they have to get a new cast but we cant forget that they are just kids and they need to do 'just kid' things.

I can completly understand why the parents would want them to go to proper schools and be around other children.

Jedi Master Carr
Nov 21st, 2002, 11:57:27 AM
I am sure there is some way to work it all out, hopefully they can film it every year from 2004, maybe have a one year break in between two of them. If not they have the change then I agree with Columbus they should stop the movies, he has already said they should stop after 4, not sure if WB will listen to him either way.

Tyreal Dalarsco
Nov 23rd, 2002, 11:41:21 AM
So what if they hit puberty?
It wouldn't throw off the movie because she doesn't specify in the book.

Jedi Master Carr
Nov 23rd, 2002, 04:25:19 PM
Well I don't think it will be a problem as long as there aren't huge delays. Also the thing about her wanting everything from her books in the movies is not treu. I picked up COS and there differences probably as many as there is between FOTR and the movie, I think she doesn't want changes in plot and characters which is really the important thing.