Re: DH Movie Rumor


"Thom Madura" <Tommadura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:47954903$0$11596$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx
DaveD wrote:

"Richard Eney" <dicconf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:13p4t472b5v9u8f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <47923706$0$6400$607ed4bc@xxxxxx>,
Thom Madura <Tommadura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AC wrote:

I have always felt that the movies slaughtered the books and that most of
them should be either 2 parters or each book done as a mega high budget
TV miniseries.

There was never a chance for the movies to directly follow the books.
There are just too many side stories to include. A movie can only be so
long - and we have no real idea if a multiple part set of movies would
work.

The Lord of the Rings.
The "Carry On" movies - a long series, though admittedly each one had
its own story.
The old "Mr. Moto" series of movies lasted quite a while, too.

Or the lowest denominator, the "Halloween" serie of horror movies.

The days of the mega-high budget mini-series are also over. Even the
high budget single movie is almost dead. You would need such a series to
be sponsored by group of deep pocket advertisers BEFORE anyone would
even try - and even then - the individual stations in smaller markets
would scream bloody murder.

When the project is successful, the next one gets more funding. The
DVD market is big enough to overcome a lot of objections.

A two-part miniseries is equivalent to two or three movies. Pratchett's
"Hogfather" was a success, and the DVDs are selling worldwide. They
are now filming the first books in the Discworld series with a bigger
budget, with apparently every intention of continuing as long as the
audience watches and buys the DVDs. After JKR, Pratchett is the best-
selling living British author, and there are dozens of books. :-)

If you consider 7 books - split into just two - at 1 1/2 hours per
episode - and maybe more for GOF - we are talking about 21 hours of
programming - something that has never been done before.

Except in long-running shows. How many years for Dr Who? Or the
daytime soaps. Or the cowboy shows in their heyday: "Gunsmoke" lasted
quite a long time.


Also the various incarnations of Star Trek - the last one being the shortest because imho they went back to a 1960s ethos in story lines that didn't fit the 2000s zeitgeist, but even that one lasted 4 series, iirc. Though I accept the most successful were the 90s ones. There's Babylon5 also from the 90s, and more recently Buffy and Smallville. They've all had a lot more than 21 hours of shows, though it might have to be spread over a couple of series, perhaps 13 x 2 or even 3?

But I think it's definitely feasible, and given just how successful the films and books have been, I doubt they'll be able to leave the Potterverse alone for too long after the films are completed.


Since WB holds the rights to such programming - it would have to be
either done or licensed by them as well. Also understand that it
would have to be AFTER the first set of movies would be completed -
and AFTER they ran their course on Television as well.

They only have two movies to go: HBP and DH. Call it 2010 or 2011.
Meanwhile, the others have already been on tv.

There's not necessarily a problem with competing versions either.
There are animated versions of The Lord of the Rings.
How many versions of "Peter Pan" or "A Christmas Carol" are there?
Hollywood lives by the remake and the sequel.

WE have no idea what the target audience would be into
maybe 25 years into the future.
I doubt it will ever happen.

Try four years in the future. Unless HP is just a flash in the pan
and we're all avidly into discussing the Pratchett movies then.
(The books still have their own newsgroups and websites.)

=Tamar


I agree, closer to 5 years from the end of DH, rather than 25.

DaveD

There is really no way to compare a mini-series of the magnitude required for Harry Potter to Gunsmoke, Bonanza, or other long running television sit-coms - even MASH. THe size of the casts - the complexity of the stories - and the continuity required just are not on the same level.

Comparing these movies to Star Trek and lines of horror movies is also not a true comparison. THose movies are not re-makes of an already wildly successful set of movies. We have no real comparison there.


I wasn't comparing it to any films (and definitely not to sit-coms - what an odd comparison!)

I was referring to the TV series of Star Trek and Buffy, although I accept there have been films of both.


I am wondering if anybody would even consider watching remakes of all the Gunsmoke episodes with different casts - but with longer run times and more information - but essentially the same stories and endings. Why would anybody even try to do that?

At the same time - the DVD market is a question mark as well - another right that WB holds. THe question would be - would they be willing to give up those rights (Or produce another set of movies themselves)? I do not see where the potential profit comes from.


The profit comes from new viewers:

- children (they're a great audience for entertainment products cos they keep growing up or at least growing out of a particular target-group, and are replaced every few years, unlike adults who generally linger for ages!); and

- adults/older and grown-up children who may have seen the films a while ago but are happy to see a new version of them, especially if it adds detail that may not have been present in the film (and they may not have read the books) so they're not just a copy of the film in slow motion, but a new version with extra depth and richness.
</sales job>

The question is, would a new series, 5 years after the film of DH, make sufficient profits to justify the risk? I think yes, but have no idea what TV companies would think, although judging by films, redoing even relatively recent films seems to be popular, judging by the number of remakes around. And the HP world is a proven lucrative success so once the income from the films dries up, and assuming they're restricted by JKR from doing any more films about the Potterverse (even without Harry in them), they'll be itching to revisit it to re-establish that income stream.


I disagree with five years into the future as well. You will certainly not see WB interest in selling its rights until the profitability has run its course in both first run movie showing around the world, DVD (And similar) sales, and television showings, not to mention allied product sales. With the new HD video formats - there is potential to re-release the movies and make money again - just as the VHS releasers did with DVDs. THe final first run release of DH is likely to take that long alone. Note - not all the different language versions of that book have reached distrubution yet.

Add a few years for video sales - and a few more for TV showings - and you are well past the 5 year level. The longer the existing movies and books stay popular - along with the HP merchandise - the further a potential for re-filming them it forced into the future. You are looking at least 10 to 15 years into the future - not 3-4. If they end up doing other Harry Potter things (Like maybe toons for kids) - it will only move the date even further into the future.

Even then - you would have to convince WB that such a plan could make enough money to offset the enormous costs of making 14 movies to replace the 7 we already have. Since they own the rights - JKR would not truly be involved in this. You are talking about a couple of Billion Dollars in today's money by then.

And all of this assumes that JKR(or anyone else) doesn't write an even more successful series of books that replaces Harry Potter in Popularity by then.


That's true, the hype machine's already looking for the "new" Harry Potter phenomenon. But I doubt they'll find one quite so profitable as HP! (famous last words...)

DaveD

.

Quantcast