Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Harry Potter
-
12-11-2001 5:04pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Allow me to elaborate. I read it. I understood it. What I don't 'get' is what all the fuss is about. Apologies if this wasn't obvious.
i was being facitious.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
What?
What exactly are you trying to say here?
If you've got issues with people berating you because you're "jumping on the Harry Potter bandwagon" - please take them up with someone else. I have absolutely no problem with people reading the books for any reason, whether it's a result of the movie hype or not. Re-read my original post for evidence of such.
[/]
no, it was the point about harry potter only being released as a vehicle for merchandising. ie, the book of the film. i thought it was humourous. obviously im alone on that one. wel, we arent all as talented as me
I think the main problem with people not liking the Phantom Menace was that most people were children when the originals came out. Then they (predictably) grew up, and probably expected the Star Wars films to grow up with them. Perhaps people were expecting some sub-Tarantino bumpf? "Use the force, Mother****er!". I dunno - I personally dug TPM.It would come second if I was to list the Star Wars films in order of preference, so I can't even begin to make excuses for it.
hahahahahahaha! i like it!
use the force motherf*cker!
brilliant.
however, we all had different reasons for not liking this or that about TPM. personally i thought it was ruined by the likes of jar jar binks. the film wasnt menacing enough. i thihnk star wars was menacing. thats why i didnt like it anyway. well, not disliked, but let down. also, it was more a spot hte cameo film. would have prefered it like the oiginal, use all unknowns.As for LOTR - 3 books, 3 films. Where's the problem?
I don't know about you, but I personally can't sit through a film for more than 3 hours. And there was no way for any director to try and cram all three books into one film, and still remain "true" to the books. I doubt the fact these films are being released as a trilogy was some cynical marketing ploy, I propose this is simply simply the result of a director looking for the best way to realise his vision. I could be wrong, though.
again you are taking me at face value. try to read into what im saying a little bit. dig around. im trying to make you think a little bit. i dont want to have to write an essay on mhy i wrote something in the first place
and dont get all techy with me!Like I said - I only think it won it. Or maybe it came in after Ulysses. Can anyone clarify this?
i wasnt taking you at face value, im quiet sure it has never won any such award. apart from being critically acclaimed its not actually the wonderfully written. entertaining and fantastic yes, good writing no.
Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
the thread is about a film called harry potter ... i try to put to rest the talk of lotr because its a different film.
Let me refer you to the question in your post that prompted me to comment.
quote:
Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
why do you think its lotr?
Do you always try to 'put to rest' the talk of a subject by asking question about it? Odd tactic.
erm, someone else brought it up, i was merely refering to it.Please read over what I said. I kept my argument on-topic - The only references I made to LOTR were answering a question you had asked. The rest of my post was me listing the problems that I have with the Harry Potter movie. I suggest you take your own, bizarre advice - "if you cant stand to here someone make critisisms, then dont look or turn away". Just don't blame me for being off-topic.
the only problem with that is that i cant see where you said youd actually seen the film or not, and if you havent seen hte film, you cant really comment on it as such
which in itself is quiet amusing, as i havent either
i do have aproblem with someone turning around in a thread and saying something like,
well i thihk harry potter the film is a load of rubbish because..
a) i havent seen it.
b)i havent read the books
c) lotr is coming out and i think it should be much better because its older and its been worked on for a lot longer and its my favourite book of all time.
now, do you think i have a little bit of a valid point here. i mean i can argue all you want, but to be honest my only point among all of my padding was this.
i think the saying is, dont judge a book by its cover.
sure, entitled to an opinion, its just the wrong one...also, read back.. I dont belive I said anything bad about Harry Potter, not the books anyway. It simply pisses me off that such an obvious cash-in could subtract in anyway from a film like LOTR. My opinion could be changed when I see either film, but this is a webboard... its were poeple post there opinions on a given topic ffs.
oh and goodshape, if lotr is so good, it wont matter what is realeased a month in advance. it p1sses me off when people open their mouth and spew before they think. and i think its a just and noble cuase that all the money earned from lotr will be donated to charity. oh? its not? must be another marketing ploy eh?
but this is a webboard... its were poeple post there opinions on a given topic ffs.
amen brother. amen.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by Goodshape
.........but HP was planned produced and rush-released primarily for two reasons:
1. X-Mas toys
2. coz LOTR was looking like a sure thing.
:rolleyes:
it was produced because they thought a film of the book would be a good idea and *shock* make some money.
it was rush released because films aimed at young children (and those of us adults who will go to see it) generally do better at this time of year, and there is no major box-office release out at the same time (and not because LOTR is out a month later. they probably chose that release time because there are no other big films out then).
toys and merchandising are inevitable these days with any childrens film or major blockbuster. duh! they want to make as much money as possible.0 -
I've been reading some stuff about the making of the HP movie, some good some bad...I havent checked the veracity of all these facts, but thought they may make for some interesting reading, and perhaps start a bit of intelligent discussion as opposed to the "I want my movie to be better than yours" rubbish that most of this thread has been proliferated with
1) Hollywood initially wanted to make Harry Potter as an animated movie, but Rowling refused them the rights.
2) Spielberg was rumoured to want to do the first three books as one movie, but this was also refused. (I'm skeptical of this one because of the next item). Another version of this is that Spielberg turned it down because of "fan expectations and artistic limitations"
3) Speilberg is interested in directing the thrid movie, as he reckons it is the best written and darkest of the first three
4) Rowling apparently only agreed to the current director (Chris Colombus) on the condition that she had some input into the style of the movie - she was concerned that his track record of movies such as Home Alone would result in the film not being "dark" enough.
5) There are persistent stories about the actors and actresses in the first movie getting relatively little pay by todays standards, causing the potential for problems in the second movie if the same cast is to be used
6) The excusive first-showing-on-TV rights for HP broke the previous record ($30m) set by Titanic. HP went for $70m. This is suppsedly where the "bigger than Titanic" comment from the producer originated.
7) The fourth book, The Goblet of Fire, may end up being produced as two movies due to the length of the book. Should this happen, it is also possible that they get released as little as 3 months apart (in 2004)
jc0 -
-
Advertisement
-
sometimes i wish i could put points accross as well as bonkey has done so.
...yea.... em, dont have much to say after that. Good points there likes..... but fudge it... i still want my movie to do better
...darn films gettin us all worked up.0 -
Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
sometimes i wish i could put points accross as well as bonkey has done so.
bas7ard
I'm glad you included the "bastard" in there, or I'd be in danger of getting a big head.
I feel all guilty now....this thread went from being all busy to being practically dead.
Damn....I'll have to sign up again as "yeknob" and use that for being abusive about LOTR or something
jc0 -
-
-
-
Well, I for one am looking forward to the films .. both HP and Lotr.
I've read both sets of books and enjoyed both for different reasons. From what I've heard, both films are sticking incredibly close to the written material.
Anyone else read the comparisons of HP and Lotr in some tabloid?
I forget which one but one of the reason why HP was considered (by that paper) better than Lotr was "it's got more magic in it".
hmmm, I somehow can't see HP standing toe to toe with Balrog but from the clips, that fluffy thing looks like it could give a nasty nip
However, as I did with TPM and most films I want to see, I'm going to ignore the hype, avoid the spoilers and just go with as open a mind as possible. Things are always so much more enjoyable that way...
one thing I did think was funny, if true, wasn't the HP title changed in America from Philosophers stone to Sorcerors stone because they weren't sure american kids would understand what was meant by the original title?
ahhh, me sits back and waits for the "Demonic! Eeeeevil! Spawn of Satan's Loins!" cries from the hardliners who are against anything even hinting at witchcraft and magic.
and on a final note: I anyone wants to whinge about marketing go and have a listen to the latest buzz about Barbie.. Barbie and the Nutcracker Suite!! ffs, now if that isn't blatant marketing, not to mention a form of sacrilege I don't know what is!
PS. anyone comparing the quality of a book by using it's sales figures is mistaking quality with advertising. One exapmle: The Bible.. it's a Good Book but not really a great book now.. more seriously, Jose Saramago's Bible according to Jesus Christ and Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist both sold a lot less than any Gemmell or King book but the quality of the first two far exceeds anything produced in the latter's works.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Are you kidding me? Product placement is in virtually ever film you see. For example, car manufacturers bid over the rights to supply Bond's next car. Food and drink purveyors pay to have their coffee cup on the table, or their drive-thru being the one visited.Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Product placement is generally seen as being "tacky", and very few films actually resort to it. A few exceptions exist ("Mac and Me", "Happy Gilmore"), but on the whole, very few directors will do it - simply because with something like Harry
Whenever you see a brand-logo in-shot, you can pretty much be guaranteed that it was paid for. When no payment is available, then the studios prefer to go with fictional brands.
OK - the Harry Potter movies dont lend themselves to massive amounts of product placement because of their setting, but trust me - Hollywood could easily have worked it in...You're comparing the sales of 4 barely-100+ page childrens books to the sales of 3 400+ page books that have been called (paraphrasing a quote from the back of FOTR) "a masterpiece of literature"? I would have thought the differences in sales would be obvious - and barely relevant to what we were discussing.
I was actually referring back to the point that someone made that HP wouldnt even be remembered in 10 years. I think with sales like that, it is firmly enshrined in the "classic" section because books have never suffered the fate of pop groups.
Also you were the one who mentioned that LOTR was one of the most-read books....I was just supplying the counterpoint that the popularity of LOTR does not make it, in any way, a better bet.
I put the figures in context to show why the HP movie is a big deal. Even if you want to compare it to LOTR, its still a big deal. LOTR as a movie is not a big deal because its a classic work of literature - its a big deal because its a hugely successful work of literature. So is HP - and arguably more successful when you take "sales per year" instead of sales.
OK - maybe the HP are the first "pop books" which will dispapear in 10 years despite ruling the roost in their day, but I do not believe so. Like I said before, they will be remembered as kids classics, alongside works like those of CS Lewis.
It also explains why such a huge deal is being made of the movie. The HP series is huge. It doesnt even matter if its good or bad - it is huge beyond comprehension. When you take something that popular, and translate it to the screen, it is a massive deal.
Oh - one last thing - the fourth HP book is in excess of 500 pages - it is in the same "size category" as any of the LOTR books, and is also the largest selling HP book yet.One last thing, just to clarify - in case it hasn't been entirely obvious, my problem is not with the Harry Potter books. As I've said, I've read TPS, didn't see what all the fuss was about, but a lot of people seem to like it, so the problem must lie on my side, there must be something there that I'm missing. My whole problem with this whole situation lies with the Harry Potter movie, which I've already expounded on.
But I disagree with your reasoning "against" the movie.
HP did not need a movie for the Christmas merchandising. It was already going to sell most/all of that anyway. The movie is just another money-making angle, and Christmas is the best time to release a "kids movie". Summer is blockbuster land for adults, and Christmas is the kids movies. I'm actually surprised that LOTR isnt aimed at a June/July timeframe, as its target audience is more actively cinema-going around then.
Regarding marketing and hype - LOTR has been advertised (and not all that quietly) for more than a year...you can hardly say that this is "without a massive advertising blitz". In fact, I can honestly say I've seen and heard more about LOTR than about the HP movie. I've heard so much about it, for so damned long, that I'm almost fed up waiting for the damn thing to arrive. Bit like Phantom Menace and Jurassic Park 2 really...."teaser trailers" 12 months in advance of the movie. Really.
Finally, Harry Potter did not get a tag about being bigger than Titanic for no reason - it has broken the "first show rights" cost record (taking it from Titanic), it will break the "most screens on opening day" record, and will almost unquestionably be the largest box-office hit of this year due to its incredible popularity. The comment was made because of these facts...not to help make them a reality.
It will not, however, be "movie of the year" in my book, or most critics. At the moment, that seems to be held by "Amelie of Montmartre" which is the best thing I've seen in I've forgotten how long. Anyone who puts HP as "movie of the year" has about the same quality of taste (IMHO) as those who reckoned FF-TSW was "the best movie I ever saw".
So...in conclusion...you have a beef about the movie, and I think you are being unfair in most of your criticisms. Lets agree to differ
jc0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Gotta love folk who begrudge anything successful its success
Magnificent film; great ensemble cast, the kids show a lot of promising talent, the special effects are great and the Quidditch match set-piece is absolutely jaw dropping. Those who thought that the podrace sequence in TPM was impressive are no doubt hunting for their jaws on the floor right at this moment, in fact...
Now all I want is for LOTR to live up to its promise as much as this did, and my Christmas is complete.... Don't let that put you all off buying me presents naturally 0 -
-
Originally posted by Goodshape
...simply untrue. Havint been botherd to read your whole post (kinda bored of this topic), but ObeyGiant was right, product placement isint used that much anymore.
This would explain why there are over 100 different product placement companies in the US, and an Association of these companies to imofy their efforts? Do a google search on "product placement", or check www.erma.org for more info
Product placement is HUGE business.
Well, actually, if you dont have product placement agreements, then the film producers would be liable to the goods manufacturers for using their products without permission. This would end up with the studios paying the goods manufacturers in order to show their product on-screen.
but using fictional brands because your not getting paid not to (er, yea..) is just stupid.
Therefore, you can rest assured, despite what you may believe, that any branded product shown on-screen is either a non-existant brand, or a brand for which the studio has a license. The only thrid option is to avoid brand names...have no visible labels on anything, which is well difficult to do in the "mainstream" movie arena.
This licensing is most typically handled by "flat fee" or "no fee" agreements, where the likes of (say) Heinz pay a small flat fee, (or no fee in some cases) which allows their product to be used in any number of movies, as long as it is "background" placement. If the placement is to place the product in the spotlight, then specific fees may be used.
So, while I would agree that Bond's z3 is an exceptional case, it does not mean that product placement has gone out of fashion....it is still a big deal.
I'm sure coke would have loved that
Anyway, what did you expect... Harry Potter nocking back a diet coke while he runs off to save... ah, what ever it is he saves? I mean, they spent $150m as the sole "tie-in advertiser", and all they get out of it is the right to put HP images on their stuff. They didnt get in the movie, and they dont get to show Harry drinking Coke even in their own promo's. Suckers
jc0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement