I'm sure Will Ferrell is thrilled that his remake of an old cheesy rubber costume show is now up against one of the most popular film franchises in the entire world. Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Sounds like I've got birthday plans now...
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Ugh.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Will this be the first year then since the first movie that there has been no new Harry Potter movie coming out?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
2003 didn't have a Harry Potter film, nor did 2006.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: 2003 didn't have a Harry Potter film, nor did 2006.
Ah, I guess you are right. Didn't think about it long enough before asking.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
But the movies rotated between Thanksgiving and Summer releases. It was an 18 month thing. Meh, as long as it doesn't effect filming for seven and *ahem* eight, I don't really care- unless of course they come to their senses and make one movie.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
So, is it purely for money reasons? 'Cause I can't fathom that they're too far behind on production...I've been keeping up with it since the strike ended. Still, almost a year delay...sheesh. If it's simply because they have nothing to nab a profit with next summer, that's pretty mean.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
That's probably what it is. I'm pretty sure it would have been done in time.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I've enjoyed a lot of the things that came out this summer, but I don't think it would kill Hollywood to occasionally have a year that's more of a marathon than a sprint.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What a bunch of crap.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
"Admits" it? That implies they tried to say it wasn't.
They've been very open that they're moving the film because they think it'll make more money as a summer blockbuster, there being a shortage of family-oriented films for that period in '09.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is one of those things where, had they not announced it was coming out in November at all and just released it in July, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But instead they dangled the dream and then took it away.
I always tell my boss at work when he's making my prep list in the morning that if he puts it on there before I see the list, no matter how big the list is, I'll be fine with it, but if he adds stuff on afterwards, it's going to piss me off. I don't know why, but it does.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
This really stinks.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
How do you think Entertainment Weekly feels? They're owned by the same company as Warner Brothers, but no one told them their "Fall Preview" issue now has an extremely inaccurate cover. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that this is supposedly a family oriented film. Nothing like a little magic and murder for gain.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I'm always surprised to find the later HP books in the children's section of the bookstore. In the library they've got books 1-4 in the kids' section, and the rest in the YA section.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that this is supposedly a family oriented film. Nothing like a little magic and murder for gain.
There are people who consider Hansel & Gretel a story suitable for little children...and that has deliberate parental abandonment, cannibalism, witchcraft, murder, and robbery.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I guess the only thing that makes it adult is sex.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Most of our fairy tales and other "children's" stories were sanitized by the Grimm brothers and Hans Christian Andersen. For instance here is a version of Little Red Ridding Hood that includes cannibalism.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
You know, I was just thinking today about how violent a lot of Jim Henson's stuff was... Muppets getting blasted by cannons for humor and the like. Or their "I've Got You Under My Skin", where a monster eats a smaller one as he protests.
Yet, I don't think I'd really object to my daughter seeing most of it... And I'd certainly prefer it to, say, Space Chimps or Beverly Hills Chihuahua.
I remember not too long ago watching Warner Brothers cartoons where someone had edited out most of the violence... Maybe we're getting a little too protective?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
It's going to do $200 million easy, right? I can't imagine any way that WB makes enough additional money to compensate for losing 8 months of the time value of money on $200 million (or whatever very large share WB gets from it). Which means the shareholders almost certainly do worse overall because of this move.
The revenue-smoothing hypothesis is the best one, and it's illustrative of a major weakness in quarter-to-quarter revenue reports.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Looking at Box Office Mojo, the Harry Potter films usually make about 250-300 million domestically. Add in worldwide box office and it's an easy 800-900 million.
Yeah, I'm thinking this was mostly done so the WB wouldn't be left without a big 2009 movie.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)