48 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

"Those who care about box office takings, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing."

You said it, Oscar.

[K1Bond007]

loved harry potter 3. i thought 4 was pretty good while 1 and 2 were god awful. have not gotten around to seeing 5.

Pretty much what I think about the Potter movies. I liked 5 though. 3 > 5 > 4 >>>>>> 1 > 2

[Cruiserweight]

There has been barely a word of praise in this entire thread for the Potter films.

Well afterall, CBn is exactly Harry Potter orientated.

True but there's no need to bash one film franchise just because of your love for another.I love both franchises in book and film just the same.And i say congratulations to the Harry Potter films and there continued success.

Right now in the present, Harry Potter is more popular than James BOnd. However Harry Potter is not a popular as James Bond was in the 1960s.

I don't know about that one with all the overnight bookstore sleep ins that went on with the books and the hype for the films i'd say that could be argued.

Edited by Cruiserweight, 12 September 2007 - 06:53 PM.

[Publius]

Not only doesn't it matter, and not only do they fail to take into account the longevity of Bond and the REAL value of commercial success (i.e., inflation), but the franchises play to different demographics. Sure there's overlap in appeal, but they're not even close to being similar movies, hence direct competition is a fantasy.

[Cruiserweight]

Not only doesn't it matter, and not only do they fail to take into account the longevity of Bond and the REAL value of commercial success (i.e., inflation), but the franchises play to different demographics. Sure there's overlap in appeal, but they're not even close to being similar movies, hence direct competition is a fantasy.

But if a Potter film and a Bond film were released at the same time as direct competition i'd have to think the Potter film would win that battle.

[Mister Asterix]

Crickey, some Bond fans are sensitive!

I'm no Potter fan, but the character - literary, cinematically - IS more popular than Bond. Just live with it.

I'm not living with anything of the sort, because it isn't true. Or rather, its one version of the truth. Which of these Potter films had more admissions than Thunderball or Goldfinger?

Here is a box office chart featuring the highest grosses of all time (US), adjusted for inflation - Goldfinger is at no.39 and Thunderball is 26. Harry Potter's sole entry is at no. 65 - Thanks for playing, Harry!

http://www.boxoffice...me/adjusted.htm

Funny that the Rocky Horror Picture Show is number 69.

[Publius]

Not only doesn't it matter, and not only do they fail to take into account the longevity of Bond and the REAL value of commercial success (i.e., inflation), but the franchises play to different demographics. Sure there's overlap in appeal, but they're not even close to being similar movies, hence direct competition is a fantasy.

But if a Potter film and a Bond film were released at the same time as direct competition i'd have to think the Potter film would win that battle.

Probably, but what I meant by direct competition is that such an occurrence wouldn't mean that significantly fewer people see Bond, just that a lot of people see Potter, some of whom wouldn't have seen Bond anyway, and some of whom see both (say, friends go to Bond, families go to Potter).

In other words, I don't think either does much "damage" to the other. Hell, there's the tentpole theory that sold-out showings would drive people to the other movie rather than home. After all, DAD was the second most successful Brosnan Bond, and it went up against Chamber of Secrets. Sure, only one could hold the #1 spot at any given time, but rankings are only relative and alone are no indicator of money actually made.

[LadySylvia]

First the BOURNE franchise is trying to compare itself to Bond . . . to the latter's advantage. And now, the HARRY POTTER franchise is making a similar stink. What the hell is going on? What is this - "The Summer of BOND Putdowns"?

Is there something about the BOND franchise that some of these others find so threatening?

Edited by LadySylvia, 12 September 2007 - 09:31 PM.

[Publius]

Is there something about the BOND franchise that some of these others find so threatening?

Everyone knows Bond is the purest of cinematic gold (or is that green?), has been around for most of movie history, can singlehandedly constitute a 48-hour movie marathon (without commercials), and is now being reborn with nigh-universal critical acclaim.

Basically, it's a compliment to get kicked by all these people. It means they're scrambling to climb and dethrone the king of the hill.

[OmarB]

Wow! And to think I've never seen even one of those movies. But then I hate most anything with "magic" in it.

[Odd Job]

Call me crazy, but I love both Bond and Potter! It's no suprise that the Harry Potter films bring in so much at the box office as they appeal to all ages, whereas the Bond films appeal mainly to adults (and some younger viewers - I was nine when I went to my first Bond movie but I was the exception, rather than the rule).

[Qwerty]

But if a Potter film and a Bond film were released at the same time as direct competition i'd have to think the Potter film would win that battle.

There will be about two weeks difference between the release of Bond 22 and the next Harry Potter film.

[Orion]

But if a Potter film and a Bond film were released at the same time as direct competition i'd have to think the Potter film would win that battle.

There will be about two weeks difference between the release of Bond 22 and the next Harry Potter film.

There was a two week gap between Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets and Die Another Day.

[Jim]

First the BOURNE franchise is trying to compare itself to Bond . . . to the latter's advantage. And now, the HARRY POTTER franchise is making a similar stink. What the hell is going on? What is this - "The Summer of BOND Putdowns"?

Is there something about the BOND franchise that some of these others find so threatening?

Not really. I suspect it's because (I accept this is a generalisation) even people without an interest in films may well have seen a Bond film, given that it is the most famous English-language franchise, and this is simply marketing their own product on the basis of "it's a bit like that film series even you have heard of, but then not quite like it, please watch this".

Harry Potter 6 will make a few hundred million more than Bond 22.

Other people's money; fascinating.

[Zorin Industries]

Well it just shows the public will pay money to see anything. The HARRY POTTER films are tepid, episodic and over-designed films based on tepid, episodic and over-written books. The first couple or so books were okay for their market, but when success loomed for Ms Rowling, out went a story editor and in came countless passages of waffle under the guise of wonderment.

The films have fared no better as they are dull and safe retreads of the books episodic structure that have been treading water narrative-wise for two films now (a bit like books 4 and 5).

JK Rowling may have had her finger on the pulse once and fair play to her success, but she really should have butted out of the films which should have soared above the books, but have only been bogged down by cramming every detail in. And if someone else says to me when I despise the films, "yes, but that character needed to be in that film as they are important in the next book", I will scream. For instance, Helena Bonham Carter's role in the fifth film was redundant. I don't care that she has narrative importance in future books. This is the fifth film and needs to work as a stand-alone film (something the HARRY POTTER films will never achieve when compared to BOND). If characters and plotlines are so intrinsically intertwined with later books and films, I see that as a major flaw in both.

No-one said DARTH VADER is necessary because he turns out to be LUKE's father. DARTH VADER was a rounded character BEFORE we had that revelation.

BOND has nothing to worry about. I can't see HARRY POTTER films still being discussed in depth on websites in 50 years time...

HARRY POTTER films are like a Happy Meal. They're an okay idea at the time, but give you little cinematic nourishment once you've parted with your money. And Daniel Radcliffe is the worst child actor ever and continues to get poorer. He allegedly only got the gig as his Dad was the UK's leading literary agent with in-roads into the publishing house in question.

Wow. And you love A View To A Kill?

Yes I do. The likes of A VIEW TO A KILL are solid films, with a beginning, middle and end. The HARRY POTTER films are fragmented, filmed vignettes of the book with terrible pacing and story arcs in every film. A VIEW TO A KILL - despite what anyone thinks of it - is a crisp piece of mainstream cinema. The HARRY POTTER films suffer because they are pretending they are culturally more important than the likes of BOND et al. The casting of major British thesps (however competent they are) says it all. Everything is shoe-horned into a HARRY POTTER film - the plot, the casting, the set-pieces and the writing. They have no organic flow to them.

[marktmurphy]

First the BOURNE franchise is trying to compare itself to Bond . . . to the latter's advantage. And now, the HARRY POTTER franchise is making a similar stink. What the hell is going on? What is this - "The Summer of BOND Putdowns"?

Is there something about the BOND franchise that some of these others find so threatening?

They're not comparing themselves to Bond; they've simply beaten Bond in a chart. Bond was number 1, it's now number 2.
Accusing them of 'making a stink' is like saying that the band with the number one album in the charts have some sort of an inadequency because another band are at number 2 in the same chart; you make no sense.

[Jim]

First the BOURNE franchise is trying to compare itself to Bond . . . to the latter's advantage. And now, the HARRY POTTER franchise is making a similar stink. What the hell is going on? What is this - "The Summer of BOND Putdowns"?

Is there something about the BOND franchise that some of these others find so threatening?

They're not comparing themselves to Bond; they've simply beaten Bond in a chart. Bond was number 1, it's now number 2.
Accusing them of 'making a stink' is like saying that the band with the number one album in the charts have some sort of an inadequency because another band are at number 2 in the same chart; you make no sense.

That Citizen Kane, eh? Whorra stink it makes every time it tops the Best Film Ever Made chart ahead of Octopussy.

The scoundrels.

[Cruiserweight]

Well it just shows the public will pay money to see anything. The HARRY POTTER films are tepid, episodic and over-designed films based on tepid, episodic and over-written books. The first couple or so books were okay for their market, but when success loomed for Ms Rowling, out went a story editor and in came countless passages of waffle under the guise of wonderment.

The films have fared no better as they are dull and safe retreads of the books episodic structure that have been treading water narrative-wise for two films now (a bit like books 4 and 5).

JK Rowling may have had her finger on the pulse once and fair play to her success, but she really should have butted out of the films which should have soared above the books, but have only been bogged down by cramming every detail in. And if someone else says to me when I despise the films, "yes, but that character needed to be in that film as they are important in the next book", I will scream. For instance, Helena Bonham Carter's role in the fifth film was redundant. I don't care that she has narrative importance in future books. This is the fifth film and needs to work as a stand-alone film (something the HARRY POTTER films will never achieve when compared to BOND). If characters and plotlines are so intrinsically intertwined with later books and films, I see that as a major flaw in both.

No-one said DARTH VADER is necessary because he turns out to be LUKE's father. DARTH VADER was a rounded character BEFORE we had that revelation.

BOND has nothing to worry about. I can't see HARRY POTTER films still being discussed in depth on websites in 50 years time...

HARRY POTTER films are like a Happy Meal. They're an okay idea at the time, but give you little cinematic nourishment once you've parted with your money. And Daniel Radcliffe is the worst child actor ever and continues to get poorer. He allegedly only got the gig as his Dad was the UK's leading literary agent with in-roads into the publishing house in question.

Wow. And you love A View To A Kill?

Yes I do. The likes of A VIEW TO A KILL are solid films, with a beginning, middle and end. The HARRY POTTER films are fragmented, filmed vignettes of the book with terrible pacing and story arcs in every film. A VIEW TO A KILL - despite what anyone thinks of it - is a crisp piece of mainstream cinema. The HARRY POTTER films suffer because they are pretending they are culturally more important than the likes of BOND et al. The casting of major British thesps (however competent they are) says it all. Everything is shoe-horned into a HARRY POTTER film - the plot, the casting, the set-pieces and the writing. They have no organic flow to them.

I too say wow! AVTAK superior to the Potter films???!!! Sorry to break it to you but the Potter films,books are more culturally important right now then bond is.

Edited by Cruiserweight, 13 September 2007 - 12:36 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Well it just shows the public will pay money to see anything. The HARRY POTTER films are tepid, episodic and over-designed films based on tepid, episodic and over-written books. The first couple or so books were okay for their market, but when success loomed for Ms Rowling, out went a story editor and in came countless passages of waffle under the guise of wonderment.

The films have fared no better as they are dull and safe retreads of the books episodic structure that have been treading water narrative-wise for two films now (a bit like books 4 and 5).

JK Rowling may have had her finger on the pulse once and fair play to her success, but she really should have butted out of the films which should have soared above the books, but have only been bogged down by cramming every detail in. And if someone else says to me when I despise the films, "yes, but that character needed to be in that film as they are important in the next book", I will scream. For instance, Helena Bonham Carter's role in the fifth film was redundant. I don't care that she has narrative importance in future books. This is the fifth film and needs to work as a stand-alone film (something the HARRY POTTER films will never achieve when compared to BOND). If characters and plotlines are so intrinsically intertwined with later books and films, I see that as a major flaw in both.

No-one said DARTH VADER is necessary because he turns out to be LUKE's father. DARTH VADER was a rounded character BEFORE we had that revelation.

BOND has nothing to worry about. I can't see HARRY POTTER films still being discussed in depth on websites in 50 years time...

HARRY POTTER films are like a Happy Meal. They're an okay idea at the time, but give you little cinematic nourishment once you've parted with your money. And Daniel Radcliffe is the worst child actor ever and continues to get poorer. He allegedly only got the gig as his Dad was the UK's leading literary agent with in-roads into the publishing house in question.

Wow. And you love A View To A Kill?

Yes I do. The likes of A VIEW TO A KILL are solid films, with a beginning, middle and end. The HARRY POTTER films are fragmented, filmed vignettes of the book with terrible pacing and story arcs in every film. A VIEW TO A KILL - despite what anyone thinks of it - is a crisp piece of mainstream cinema. The HARRY POTTER films suffer because they are pretending they are culturally more important than the likes of BOND et al. The casting of major British thesps (however competent they are) says it all. Everything is shoe-horned into a HARRY POTTER film - the plot, the casting, the set-pieces and the writing. They have no organic flow to them.

I too say wow! AVTAK superior to the Potter films???!!! Sorry to break it to you but the Potter films,books are more culturally important right now then bond is.

Unfortunately you are probably right. And that is a shame as the HARRY POTTER books and films are ramshackle and lazy additions to British culture. And yes - I would say that something like A VIEW TO A KILL is a far superior piece of mainstream cinema than any of Daniel Radcliffe's tea-time amateur dramatics screen offerings.