Harry Potter

bonkey

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

jc

Goodshape

I'll have to sign up again as "yeknob" and use that for being abusive about LOTR or something

[sarcasm]
...abusive towards LOTR?!? ....what are you talking about?? its OBVIOUSLY the better book / film bla bla bla... etc.
[/sarcasm]*




* sarcasm device TM and (C) WhiteWashMan. Used here without permision for non-profit purposes.

bonkey

Here's a few more tidbits I picked up today :

1) It appears likely that HP will break the record for "number of screens opened on" in the US. the current record is held by MI2 (3653 screens). HP may open on 7000+ screens, which is approx 1 in 6 screens in the US.

2) Robin Williams wanted to be in the films, but was turned down because of a ban on American actors appearing in the movie.

Both of these come from todays IMDB news....

jc

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Bonkey
These three films were all shot together, and it will not take a year to finish each of the remaining two movies. The reason they are spread out like this is pure marketing - nothing more.

As I have already stated, the most likely reason the films are being released seperately is because bringing out one film, encompassing the three books would be insane. Can you imagine if Lucas released all three (or six) SW films as one? Just to make it even bearable (three hours generally being accepted as the cut-off limit for a "bearable" film), a significant proportion of the film would have to be cut out, thus compromising the director's "vision" (despite how bent that sounds)

Originally posted by Bonkey
All you people who are complaining about HP being a "marketing ploiy" should really make themselves aware of some facts. ... Secondly, JKR banned any product placement in the movies, as she felt it would not be appropriate - hardly the work of a marketing campaign.

I recently went into Smyth's toy shop to start some of my Christmas shopping, and believe me, the film didn't need product placement.

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 Potter, there is absolutely no need, the film has enough marketing possibilities without it. Please, even take a look at the example you have already given - Star Wars. There is no product placement in that film (unless you count the dodgy ladyshave they used as a walkie-talkie), but that did not stop Lucas & Co. churning out buckets of plastic junk emblazoned with the Star Wars logo.

Originally posted by Bonkey
The simple fact is that in 50 years, LOTR is estimated to have sold close to 100,000,000 copies - pretty impressive. Harry Potter, on the other hand, has racked up 100,000,000 sales across the four books in just 4 years. While this is across the four books, the sales figures continue to climb for all books, and it is highly probably that by the time the 7-book series is complete that the sales figures will be in the region of 40-50 million per title.

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.

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.

LoLth

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.

Goodshape

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?

...its true... silly americans! I guess it never crossed there mind that kids may actually find out what it ment, hence actually learning something.

bonkey

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

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.

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

jc

Goodshape

Originally posted by bonkey

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.

...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. Thats not to say its not used at all, Bond has his cars fair enough, but using fictional brands because your not getting paid not to (er, yea..) is just stupid.

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?

of corse HP seems to have gone the other way here... placement on product rather than product placement.... Harry Potter Cola anyone?

WhiteWashMan

by the way, bloody good film

and the trailer for lotr and starwars 2 also.

very exciting.

bashibazouk

Frankly, I'm looking forward to the FOTR movie in the hopes that it will avoid the interminably boring "ingenius" songs and poems that made my eyes glaze over when I read the book. Also, I'll be looking forward to seeing how the pathetic female characters are handled in the film. LOTR had a good premise but it is woefully written and interminably boring at times and hopefully the film will set this right.

As for Harry Potter and merchandising: there is a market for it, kids want it, our economy is based on supply and demand. Merchandising is merely a symptom, it's what the consumer has demanded and therefore the problem lies with us, the consumer, and not people who are merely doing their jobs and supplying what has been demanded. It is people that overspend. I have studied advertising at length and the consumer is not as stupid as we would like to believe.

The book is extremely enjoyable, clever and well-written. The film sticks to the book very well and brings the book to life with respect for both the book and the audience. It is not a botch job in time for Christmas and I find people who claim that it is so without viewing the film are speaking out of their rectal passages. Spiceworld is an example of a product that was vomited out in about 5 minutes to please a preteen audience.

Shinji

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

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Shinji
Don't let that put you all off buying me presents naturally

arf!

bonkey

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.

but using fictional brands because your not getting paid not to (er, yea..) is just stupid.

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.

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.

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'm sure coke would have loved that 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

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
Magnificent film; great ensemble cast, the kids show a lot of

Grrr. Not released here (Switzerland) till this Friday. Bah

jc

the celtic tiger

i saw it the other day.

a really magical kids movie.

i really enjoyed it......REALLY!!!!

Goodshape

Originally posted by bonkey
...Product placement is HUGE business...

...damn you and your points :rolleyes: !

...maybe it was only a particular technique of product placement that is no longer used or somat..... I definitely read something about it anyway.

of course I have been known to make mistakes. from time to time.

bonkey

Originally posted by Goodshape
...damn you and your points !

...maybe it was only a particular technique of product placement that is no longer used or somat..... I definitely read something about it anyway.

I'm guessing what you read was the fact that the fees paid for pp peaked in (I think) the late 80s or early 90s.

Companies realised that it wasnt worth *that* much money, and that a big success from pp is quite rare. That said, what remains is still a big business.....just not a silly big one. Massive bidding sprees in the order of Bond's z3 are now quite rare.

jc

azezil

I'm not geting involved in your little debate, I just wanna say what I thought of the film....

Boreing, predictable, snore fest, I think is how I'd sum up this film... I really like fantasy and magic stuff but this bored the hell outta me! His little friend did all the cool stuff, the only good part was the was in the woods n that lasted all of 30 seconds.

They should put a big sign up on the door saying "UNDER 12'S ONLY!" because imo theres nothing in this film for anyone older than that.

SweetBirdOfTruth

too many ppl with too many issues round here, imo. if star wars and lord of the rings are the height of cultural achievement in your world, then really i want to get off this planet pretty damn quick.

but to the subject. harry potter. the flick.

as kids flicks go, it went. it's easily be up there with chitty chitty bang bang, willy wonka's chocolate factory, mary poppins and the railway children.

Xterminator

Just want to say, enjoyed the film, very good entertainment.

I am a big LOTR fan, and look forward to it too.

X

Shinji

if star wars and lord of the rings are the height of cultural achievement in your world, then really i want to get off this planet pretty damn quick.

Cultural snob warning!

Go on then, humour me. What's the height of cultural achievement on YOUR world? I mean obviously a groundbreaking and massively entertaining, if cliched, adventure story like Star Wars can't be great, it's much too popular. And that Lord of The Rings - I mean, sure, innovative use of the English language, fascinating and rich backstory, beautifully developed central storyline and characters, but hey - it's all bloody orcs and rubbish like that! Tripe! And look at all the uncultured people who like it! Tsk.

I'm sure some random turkish language film that four people have seen ever is much better. How could it not be?

SweetBirdOfTruth

and you want to call me a snob? come off it mate, you're as bad as the vision you seek to represent me as.

"random turkish language film that four people have seen" aren't exactly up my street, i'm afraid. give me a copy of the searchers or the godfather and a packet of m+m's and i'll be a happy little camper.

enjoyable as star wars was when i were a nipper, the simple fact is i'm unable to sit through it today on video without wanting to get up and go mow the lawn. and we concreted over the garden three years ago. as for the subsequent films - well hell, yes, i ***DO*** hate muppets.

as for lord of the rings, well i read it when i was a teenager. gripping in places but outright twaddle in others. today, i'm actually happier with the sword and sorcery of a crap thraxas book or the "innovation" of, say, damon runyon.

i'm not knocking star wars and lord of the rings. i accept, there's a lot of people out there get a lot of pleasure from them. but there's a lot of people out there get a lot of pleasure from mcdonald's burgers and crap tv. at the end of the day, each to his own.

Shinji

Oh for crying out loud; could you be any more blinkered? "I don't like it, therefore it isn't high culture"?

What a downright ludicrous attitude. Yes, you're right, there are many things which are popular that are NOT good; but to include things like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings in this simply because you personally no longer enjoy them is frankly ridiculous.

Frankly, that's even more bizarre than the sniffy critic point of view I was originally accusing you of subscribing to...

BlitzKrieg

I've seen Harry Potter (Just because i go to see alot of films) And i'd give it a 6-8 in the 1-10 scale. I'm unsure because I've never read harry potter until after the film (Doh wrong way around!) Now I liked its fantasy world ideals. But I have to say its heavily marked down for being "rushed" at points. (The scene in the forest is such a let down.) and at other points dumping too much information on us too quickly or too little. I was just glad someone who hadnt read the book could watch it and ejoy it. Now on the Lotr Hp war. Well i've read 1 HP book. And about 20% of LOTR (never finished cause I started a week before junior cert and my mom panicked when she saw me reading instead of revising??) And i say i found the bit of LOTR i read. (And all of the hobbit) a bit too simplistic at times. Probably just a slow start so dont eat me about that comment.


THe one major gripe I have with HP is that I think (note Think and I so dont BS me) the author was a smart person to take all the fantasy ideals and put them in 1 childrens book and really catch the immagination. Its good, its better then being re-fed garbage on some of todays cartoons. (excludign CN) BUT because I read fantasy books before Harry Potter alot of this i knew. And I couldnt stop myself in the film and the library scene started shouting. "Rincewind dont open that book!!!" I just felt it was too similer.


ahh well

sceptre

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
And I couldnt stop myself in the film and the library scene started shouting. "Rincewind dont open that book!!!" I just felt it was too similer.

Indeed. Went to see it yesterday. Think I was the only person in the cinema who didn't jump when that happened. Predictable, I suppose (not complaining)

Must say I was impressed with Potter. Bit rushed at times but all in all a good movie.

I see John Rhys Davies is pretty sure that LOTR will blow Potter out of the water (link at www.fellowshipofthering.info) - I'll wait and see (heard that before again and again, anyone remember the Jacksons Victory?) but with any luck both will be good enough to be big hits.