MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Do We Need A Harry Potter Thread?

I’m going to call this a spoiler thread… so if you click through to comments, you have been warned.
Me? I don’t have that much to say… as my video review proved. But don’t let me stop you….

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “Do We Need A Harry Potter Thread?”

  1. berg says:

    By the time the eighth and final film comes out the stars will be old enough to be cast in the remake of Trainspotting.

  2. MeekayD says:

    And the winner for “Most Random, Vaguely Unpleasant Comment” of the day is…

  3. David Poland says:

    Yes, Meekay… but it is also very easy to imagine some producer trying to do a remake of Fatal Attraction with Harry & Hermione getting his wand out in the elevator.
    Of course, it will have to be an owl in the pot.

  4. Geoff says:

    $22 million midnights??? I know we’re all getting a little cynical about the big grosses, here, but that’s impressive for a sixth movie. Guess making the fans wait an extra seven months paid for Warner Bros.

  5. MeekayD says:

    Re: the midnight shows
    The local 30-plex which took my money to see the film last night claimed that 17 of the 30 screens were showing Harry Potter. They had to come in and make an announcement that our show wouldn’t be starting on time at 12:01 because they had to start so many screens simultaneously.
    And presumably all of them were packed.

  6. Nicol D says:

    Does Emma Watson get the Kelly MacDonald role?

  7. a_loco says:

    Dave asked a few threads ago why Facebook and social networking was so much different than people telling eachother about movies via Watercooler/Telephone.
    Well, this morning, I checked my Facebook and was treated to these status updates (all from non-film lovers, so feel free to trash their opinions):
    “I’m not impressed. Good cinematography, but…this isn’t Twilight!”
    ” Harry Potter…Biggest Flop in my life, well second to the most obvious.”
    “(insert name here)is disappointed.” (five people agreed to this one in the comment thread)
    That’s eight people all spreading bad word of mouth to a couple thousand people
    I wouldn’t have talked to any of these people today, so I wouldn’t have heard their opinions if it wasn’t for this. Point being, word-of-mouth spreads much faster thanks to social networking.
    And while I personally enjoyed the film, I don’t expect legs, out of the nine other people I know (filmlovers excepted) who saw it, only one enjoyed himself (and he didn’t update his status)

  8. Tofu says:

    Good cinematography, but…this isn’t Twilight!
    Say no more, I’m ordering a ticket now.

  9. Josh Massey says:

    Just got back. Don’t think I liked it as much as “Goblet of Fire” and “Order of the Phoenix,” but I’m not sure yet. It seemed a little different than the rest – very quiet, really. I think I’m judging it more harshly because it was my favorite book of the series, but really, the finale didn’t match up with what I had been waiting for.

  10. LexG says:

    Any movie with the word GOBLET is EPIC FAIL.
    GOBLET is the second stupidest/most embarrassing word in the English language, right after NOURISH and just ahead of SUSTENANCE.

  11. christian says:

    I’ve seen some FB posts praising the film, so…I think HP fans are not known for their objectivity…

  12. yancyskancy says:

    Lex: Can’t you at least give props to GOBLET for sounding so much like GOBBLE IT?

  13. jennab says:

    Well, I liked it, but I love the books…it is quiet, and Radcliffe has always been in a bit over his head…agree #3 is still the best. Another way to enjoy if you have a long commute: books on MP3 or CD, narrated by Jim Dale…yes, Pushing Daisies narrator who is SUPERB!

  14. a_loco says:

    Truth be told, while many of my friends are Harry Potter fiends, my age group is not exactly the target market for such material. I could be wrong about the word of mouth.
    Twitter people seem to have good things to say about it.

  15. Cadavra says:

    Anyone who decides whether to see a movie or not based on a few comments on Twitter is a jackass. Period.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon