beef Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/8/14/half-blood-prince-movie-pushed-to-july-2009 Does anyone actually buy these reasons? "the after effects of the writers strike" ? what does that have to do with a film thats *ALREADY* been filmed, edited and prepped for release? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 The way they reported it on the news on Radio 1 was (and I quote) they wanted to guarantee a Summer block-buster success Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 15, 2008 Author Share Posted August 15, 2008 Even then, people are going to see harry potter no matter what, its going to make a fortune even if its released at 1am on xmas eve and only shows in the following 24 hours. Delaying a movie by almost a year to "guarantee" a big cash flow = your not seeing a penny of my money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inver Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 So I didn't need to rush and finish the book after all then:motz: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 16, 2008 Author Share Posted August 16, 2008 So I didn't need to rush and finish the book after all then:motz: meh, half blood was uneventful, i cant even remember it, thats how bland it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 Oh, no way!! I've been looking forward to this movie, even though I agree with Beef - it's my least favourite of the HP books, and even the trailer looks a bit dull. Still, it's a Harry Potter movie and I want to see it! But 8 more months?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inver Posted August 16, 2008 Share Posted August 16, 2008 meh, half blood was uneventful, i cant even remember it, thats how bland it was. Have to say it did take most of the book to get to the point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laramie Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I've heard it's because a few movies are coming out in November, but in the Summer there's a weekend when nothing comes out, so they're doing it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 I've heard it's because a few movies are coming out in November, but in the Summer there's a weekend when nothing comes out, so they're doing it then. but schedules change all the time, there is no garantee that because no movies are coming out on that weekend as of now that things wont change. I see this as a massive slap in the fact to fans to be honest. They should have just released a press statement saying "we wish to squeeze every single penny out of these already hugely profitable movies, no matter how much it makes fans wait" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen1 Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Another possible reason doing the rounds is that it's because Daniel Radcliffe will be in the middle of the Broadway run of Equis at the time of the orginal date of release. A play that shows him naked and having sex. One theory is that it's not the image that Warner Brothers wants associated with Harry Potter which is primarily a childrens film. How much truth there is in this theory I'm not too sure as if it was going to be that big of a deal surely WB would have put a stop to him taking on the role to begin with but then again maybe they didn't know it was going to be so successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 Another possible reason doing the rounds is that it's because Daniel Radcliffe will be in the middle of the Broadway run of Equis at the time of the orginal date of release. A play that shows him naked and having sex. One theory is that it's not the image that Warner Brothers wants associated with Harry Potter which is primarily a childrens film. How much truth there is in this theory I'm not too sure as if it was going to be that big of a deal surely WB would have put a stop to him taking on the role to begin with but then again maybe they didn't know it was going to be so successful. Thats a good point, I have lost track of the times ive went for a quiet night out at the theater only to be confronted by a packed house of children. WB will just look more and more stupid if these theories continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Andrea~ Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Bah I was looking forward to that I enjoyed the book (although it was the first one I read) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 What? That's a bit stupid. I think I've heard that Number Seven's going to be split into two parts also because of this excuse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 18, 2008 Author Share Posted August 18, 2008 What? That's a bit stupid. I think I've heard that Number Seven's going to be split into two parts also because of this excuse... Part 7 was always planned as 2 movies as there was going to be too much to cram in (book 7 is huge to be fair). Then again they could have released it as a super long movie, but there would be less profit in that I suppose. Money grabbing studio's make me a sad panda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylie Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 On the one hand, I agree that splitting 7 is a money-grabbing exercise, however, I also think if it had been done as 1 movie, we wouldn't have been very happy with it because too much important stuff would have been left out. Hopefully it will be a win-win situation for everyone (I really, really hope they do justice to the last book). You could almost argue that book 5 could have been split in 2 as well, because of it's length and the number of important events that happened. I, for one, would have liked the Ministry of Magic part to be longer (incorporating all the rooms they went through in the book, for starters!) Oh well, what's done is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I agree, Kylie. I was really disappointed with the 5th movie. I thought that way too much stuff was left out. I hate having to wait longer to complete the series, but I think 2 movies is a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 What? That's a bit stupid. I think I've heard that Number Seven's going to be split into two parts also because of this excuse... Part 7 was always planned as 2 movies as there was going to be too much to cram in (book 7 is huge to be fair). You could almost argue that book 5 could have been split in 2 as well, because of it's length and the number of important events that happened. Yup - Book 5 is the thickest one in the set and they didn't split THAT one. Most of Book 7 is taken up with the Terrific Trio camping for, like, EVER - you don't need to spread that over 2 films - personally, I thought the 7th book far to long because the camping was sooooooo drawn out. To me, slplitting the final book into 2 films is an excuse to prolongue the series and make extra money, as is the delay of the 6th film to a spot where there is less/no competition. I am now VERY much inclined to boycott the final films because of all this nonsense. After all, I wasn't all that impressed with the last one (too much missed out and glossed over to hold my interest)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 19, 2008 Author Share Posted August 19, 2008 Yup - Book 5 is the thickest one in the set and they didn't split THAT one. Most of Book 7 is taken up with the Terrific Trio camping for, like, EVER - you don't need to spread that over 2 films - personally, I thought the 7th book far to long because the camping was sooooooo drawn out. To me, slplitting the final book into 2 films is an excuse to prolongue the series and make extra money, as is the delay of the 6th film to a spot where there is less/no competition. I am now VERY much inclined to boycott the final films because of all this nonsense. After all, I wasn't all that impressed with the last one (too much missed out and glossed over to hold my interest)... me too. Il see you outside the cinema with picket signs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Yup - Book 5 is the thickest one in the set and they didn't split THAT one. Most of Book 7 is taken up with the Terrific Trio camping for, like, EVER - you don't need to spread that over 2 films - personally, I thought the 7th book far to long because the camping was sooooooo drawn out. To me, slplitting the final book into 2 films is an excuse to prolongue the series and make extra money, as is the delay of the 6th film to a spot where there is less/no competition. I am now VERY much inclined to boycott the final films because of all this nonsense. After all, I wasn't all that impressed with the last one (too much missed out and glossed over to hold my interest)... I know:roll: I was really looking forward to it, and was quite disappointed, in my opinion not as interesting as 1-6, I much better liked it when they were at Hogwarts- all that camping drags. And then to split it in two? It's gonna drag even more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 19, 2008 Author Share Posted August 19, 2008 I know:roll: I was really looking forward to it, and was quite disappointed, in my opinion not as interesting as 1-6, I much better liked it when they were at Hogwarts- all that camping drags. And then to split it in two? It's gonna drag even more! it gets worse, the two movies will be ages apart, maybe even a year if they stick to their current attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Why does it take so long to release a movie that has already been made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisJ Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 It will all be down to money. They won't release two movies close together as the merchandising would be half as much. But it does give me more time to complete my replica wand set! i already have 4.... I know i'm sad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 20, 2008 Author Share Posted August 20, 2008 Why does it take so long to release a movie that has already been made? Well once its finished it has to go through post production, editing etc, make sure its done right and nothing needs re-filmed, then the promotion and such takes place..then its released to its baying public, it sometimes takes months to brainwash people that your movie is awesome. However in the case of harry potter, i can see that movie being available for download someplace before cinema, the pirate groups now have 9 months to get to that movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 I'm annoyed at this, it was due out on my birthday and Mr Nellie was going to take me to see it as a treat. Perhaps I should write and complain my birthday has been ruined. I think the new James Bond is due out the same week, and due to needing to be sure that they will have a revenue stream next year, they need to save one or other for 2009. When you think that the studios have to fund a lot of films that make a loss in order to find the one that will make them money, they need one big one a year to be able to bank roll the others. Apparently spotting a sure fire hit is almost impossible apart from perhaps Harry Potter. I'm still not very happy about it though. I may sulk until July. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beef Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 I'm annoyed at this, it was due out on my birthday and Mr Nellie was going to take me to see it as a treat. Perhaps I should write and complain my birthday has been ruined. I think the new James Bond is due out the same week, and due to needing to be sure that they will have a revenue stream next year, they need to save one or other for 2009. When you think that the studios have to fund a lot of films that make a loss in order to find the one that will make them money, they need one big one a year to be able to bank roll the others. Apparently spotting a sure fire hit is almost impossible apart from perhaps Harry Potter. I'm still not very happy about it though. I may sulk until July. To be honest, there are not many movies that make a loss, untill a director has a proven track record, vast amounts of money is not just thrown at them, Kevin smith had 3-4 movies under his belt before mirimax started pressuring him to spend more money. Then there is merch! companies are still profiting off movies that have been out for years, pulp fiction, scarface alone have *huge* amounts of poster/tshirt etc sales. Movie companies and Record companies have a lot in common - they both cry at the prospect of loosing a few quid profit when there profits are in the billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.