|
JUNE 17, 2003 at 4:59 PM
From Reuters
:
With the new "Harry Potter" book hitting retail shelves this week, the movie industry has trained an eye on whether the films about the British boy wizard can continue casting their lucrative spell over box offices and merchandise sales. The stars, Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Potter, and Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, who portray his sidekicks Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, are aging beyond the range of their characters, and the series' loyal fans are growing older.
All signs indicate the next movie, Prisoner of Azkaban will help Harry Potter replace Jurassic Park as the third-largest money-making franchise in history when it hits theaters in summer 2004, said Kaufman Bros. analyst Mark May.
It will be followed in November 2005 by Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and the movie for this week's Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix will come about 18 months later, a Warner Bros. spokeswoman said.
Enthusiasm for the books is unlikely to wane, but Seth Siegel, co-founder of licensing agency and consultant The Beanstalk Group, said merchandise attached to the franchise may appeal to a smaller audience if the movies take an older, darker turn.
Is this the first confirmation of approximate movie dates for the fourth and fifth films? Thanks very much to Geri for this tip!
Reader Comments (40)
click to read...
Your Thoughts
click to write...
Copyright © 2002-2010 HPANA. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. 
HPANA is an unofficial fan site, in no way affiliated with J.K. Rowling,
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury Publishing or Warner Bros. Entertainment. All
trademarks and copyrighted material are the property of their respective owners.
About HPANA | Movie 6 | Send a news tip | Contact us | Privacy policy
Order of Merlin, 1st Class
Points: 1881
DarkPhoenixRising says:
Well, these kids arent the only actors in Europe. Kids get older, it happens. I'm kinda bummed GoF and OotP movies are coming out so close together. That means we will have to wait until at least 2006 or 2007 for book 6... I'd rather have the book than see the movies...
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 5:19 PM EST
Headmaster
(Moderator)
Cheeser says:
pknail: I completely agree. They didn't seem to have a problem casting whats-her-30-year-old-name as Moaning Myrtle, a ghost *student* at Hogwarts.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 5:33 PM EST
Prefect
Points: 377
jamesthom says:
It is not has if the actors are in their twentys, they are only a year if that older than their parts now. The main thing is if JKR can write the last 2 books before the films catch up with her.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 5:54 PM EST
Witch
Points: 558
Quagmire127 says:
They so need to get over the whole "too old" thing. All the viewers can accept it.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 6:03 PM EST
Editor of the Squibbler
(Moderator)
Points: 2031
eudaemonia says:
I sometimes wonder what they mean with "old for their roles". "Old" as in old in age, which I'm sure many of us disagree with; or "old" as in they want new faces taking over those parts because they're bored with them.
I suspect it's more towards the latter. Unless it's stirring up news constantly like J.Lo, Jacko or insert-a-Hollywood-celeb's-name-here (and the trio's private lives are exceptionally protected from the private eye, good for them), people lose interest and want to move on. The industry has a short attention span.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 6:25 PM EST
Marauder
Points: 3954
jade says:
I am so fed up of hearing that they are getting too old. They are roughly the same age as the characters. They should just leave it alone. They are growing with the characters just like we are. The popularity will still defenitly still be there from the true fan(atics).
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 6:42 PM EST
Prefect
Points: 354
LostMeWand says:
Cannot wait...gettin' ready for auditions for CHO!!!!! E-mail me anytime! thuy_le_pham@yahoo.com
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 7:02 PM EST
Prefect
Points: 354
LostMeWand says:
Oh yes...I mean come on...please Freddie P. Jr. was what? 60 years old when he played in "She's all That" And Matt whatever or whoever the guy who plays Shaggy, he was 29 when he played in a teen movie thing... and come on Dan, Rupert and Emma have grown *INTO* these roles quite well... I think frankly it'll just be weird seeing M Gambon as DD this time...how strange would it be to see Dan replaced?!!!
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 7:05 PM EST
Points: 11
Flick and Swish says:
If they change Dan, it'll be like, a totally different movie, I mean, changing the main character means changing the whole film. Agreed?
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 7:28 PM EST
Points: 1450
Gopotter2004 says:
I realize that we all want to keep around the same characters, because we adore them in their parts. I can't imagine a better Ron, for example (though, to be quite honest, the twins aren't my favourite, nor percy, but that's just MHO). But let's do the math, shall we? The OotP movie should be coming in May 2006, according to this snippet. It took her 3 years to write this book, which was so very, very long. Let's estimate it taking the same amount of time for the next one. (Though it may be shorter: without all the promotions, maybe she won't be as burnt out... though she does have a little baby now to take care of, in addition to her daughter). Three years from now is Summer 2006. If it takes a year and a half (18 months) to make that movie, it brings us to Christmas 2007. At this point, Rupert will be around 19, Daniel 18, and Emma 17. So 3 years after the Summer of 2006 is the Summer of 2009. 18 months after that is Christmas of 2010, when the final movie might come out. That would make our 3 main charactors 22, 21, and 20...while playing 18 year olds. Come to think of it, if everyone sticks to this schedule, it should be possible. Potential problem: If Moaning Myrtle is in her 30s now, it might be rather difficult to make her look in her teens when she is in her 40s... Just a thought.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 7:43 PM EST
Head Boy
Points: 468
siriushp says:
ok, one of the big themes in the story is how harry (and ron and hermione also) are GROWING UP and becoming wizards. now i don't think it makes any sense at all if you don't let dan, emma, and rupert GOW UP with their characters
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 8:55 PM EST
Witch
Points: 609
Aravis says:
Dan, Emma, and Rupert are our personifications of Harry, Hermione, and Ron...they can't change them. I don't think the actors will age that much more than the book characters. As been said before, the books are about the characters growing up or "coming of age" as the expression goes. Also, and I know this sounds stupid, I think the actors know would do a better job as their characters in the later films because they've played that character for so many years, versus someone new coming in.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 9:58 PM EST
Witch
Points: 576
Chandra80D says:
::sighs:: "Enthusiasm for the books is unlikely to wane, but Seth Siegel, co-founder of licensing agency and consultant The Beanstalk Group, said merchandise attached to the franchise may appeal to a smaller audience if the movies take an older, darker turn." Forgive me, but I've always had this tiny rift with the whole "merchandising" deals with HP...reminds me of "sell-out" - but then again it's not. I mean, some things are alright, posters, calendars, scarfs, t-shirts, (maybe) action figures. But it's really getting out of hand, toothpaste, toothbrushes, shampoo, crayons, glue, stuffed animals, etc. etc. for all we know - once Hermione starts her period, they'll be coming out with "Hermione Tampax" or something. Sick - I know, but it's just a point because the merchandise has gotten crazy. As for the actors - the number one way for the movie to lose it's ticket sales is to change the actors - if the industry was concerned about the money these movies are making (which they should, these movies rake in BIG), they would listen to the fans, not the CEOs of WB. Personally...I'd prefer the movies to take a "darker, mature" twist, considering the books will be doing so, and they're trying to keep in tune with the books. If your child is old enough to read the book, and visualize these things in his/her head, then they're old enough to see it played out on screen. I'm not going to go into my rant about how they should bump the ratings up to PG-13 in later books as I did before, but I stand by my opinion, all of them. Hate me or Love me, do as you all will.
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 10:14 PM EST
Points: 27
Nothlit says:
For another example of an "older" actor playing a much younger character, look at the hit WB show Smallville... Tom Welling, age 26 if I recall correctly, plays teenage Clark Kent (Superman) who's supposed to be somewhere in the midst of high school, and it works well. It's one of the WB's most popular shows...
Posted Jun 17, 2003 at 11:21 PM EST
Points: 157
thethirdman says:
I think the whole rumor of changing tha actors is a publicity stunt. Why would you drop something that's making you a buttload of money?
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 12:26 AM EST
Witch
Points: 975
Lilune says:
About being darker movies: I don't think it would really matter, after all, a PG13 Harry movie would be cool. If the books are getting darker, why shouldnt the movies? They shouldn't soften them for us, i mean if we've read the books obviously we know what happens anyway! Also, movies 1 and 2 were both quite 'dark' compared to the books. Yeah, they did have SOME funny stuff, but the books have a lot more humor spread throughout. The movies are quite serious anyway, compared. I wish they's left in all Lockhart's colourful robes and those singing valentines! (His eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad...)
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 1:49 AM EST
Editor of the Squibbler
(Moderator)
Points: 2031
eudaemonia says:
thethirdman: Good point re: changing the actors rumors = publicity stunt. Because the actors aren't in the limelight as much as most celebrities I'm sure this kind of publicity is the only way to provoke them into making some news. A good example would be how Radcliffe had to recently speak out against those rumors that surfaced.
Re: darker movies - I'm not sure if the audience rating directly correlates to how dark a movie can get. Anyone ever seen/heard of The Ring? That was only PG-13 yet I heard it traumatized many adults by how dark it was -- many felt it should have been an R rating. Now I'm not saying HP will or won't get that dark in the future, but it might be possible with the right direction and still maintain a PG rating, no?
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 2:08 AM EST
Witch
Points: 975
Lilune says:
Wow ... yeah that's good thinking. :)
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 2:12 AM EST
Student
Points: 279
Iisashes says:
LOL, I was watching the first and second movies today and I started crying about how "My little babies are growing up" lol, I love watching them grow, I kind of feel maternal (although it would be kinda weird cuz I have a huge thing for dan) about them. I think they should stay for all the movies.
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 5:05 AM EST
Witch
Points: 576
Chandra80D says:
I just hope that JKR doesn't decide in her final two books to write them for movies...if you catch my point, you know - shorter, easier to put on screen. I really do hope she doesn't modify her writing style and such so they can make better movies out of it.
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 10:09 AM EST
Student
Points: 213
zaahn says:
Theres not really anything original I can say, as everything i've wanted to say has been put into better words than I could have written myself! The main thing is that the fans dont care about age - and its us they're doing the movies for. In the end our opinion should be the most important of all...
...in a perfect world...
zaahn -xxx-
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 1:01 PM EST
Magical Music Professor
Points: 5131
MagicalMusicDreamer says:
The characters are growing up with us --- with the actors too.
People feel as if they personally know these actors, and these actors are absolutely terrific!
It would be a shame to change them. We feel like they are our personal friends.
The screenwriter is very good too. Needless to say Rowling is brilliant.
As one gets older,one sees that age and life are mysteries; and if one doesn't get hung up in "growing old" but stays young in spirit, life is much better.
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 7:51 PM EST
Squib
Points: 117
gray_moth says:
I agree. Why change the actors if they're 13 now, except Rupert, but I like him too much to want him changed, and they're supposed to be 13 in book 3? C'mon like y'all have mentioned 'why change when you've not changed in Grease or other movies'??
Great comments all.
Posted Jun 18, 2003 at 8:55 PM EST
Prefect
Points: 361
LaDonna says:
I hope they keep all three of the main actors/actress. I don't care if they get older than their characters are suppose to be. It would be wrong to replace them. I don't think I'd really want to see a Harry Potter movie without Daniel, Rupert and Emma.
Posted Jun 24, 2003 at 10:18 PM EST
Points: 10
drmmrgrl13 says:
I think the actors should stay. It is already a big bummer that the portrayer of Dumbledore has passed on and we fans will have to get used to a different face in our favorite movies. I tihnk all the current cast members should keep acting the same roles. Its unanymous that mnore fans would like to see the same kids for all the series. :)
Posted Jun 26, 2003 at 12:31 PM EST
Witch
Points: 523
ProfessorMaffioli says:
Only one movie for GOF? What happened to them spliting in 2 like Matrix? They can not do it justice in 2.5 hours. I hope they don't gut it to make it one film.
Posted Jun 27, 2003 at 11:47 PM EST
Back to top of page