
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Delay Explained
Firstly I would like to thank you for your simple and to the point explanation of the Warner Brothers’ decision last month to push back the film release date of the sixth installment of the Harry Potter franchise. President and Chief Operating Officer Alan Horn’s announcement rocked the world for a large and loyal fan base. Due to the skyrocketing costs associated with producing blockbusters the marketing aspect of film production appears to be taking the front seat to film quality and consumer (viewer) delight. I agree with you, Warner Brothers is abusing fan loyalty in attempt to get more money. I don’t believe that the writers’ strike has anything to do with the delay, do you? At least the WB was brave enough and smart enough to admit that the change in release dates had less to do with the quality of the film and completion status than marketing and overall studio business. With the type of loyal built-in fan base that Harry Potter receives do you think that the box office numbers of July instead of those in November will be that different? Large studios heavily seek both release dates. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is expected to have a final budget of around $200 million. With $200 million at risk companies must do anything and everything to minimize costs and reduce risk as much as possible. Are loyal Harry Potter fans willing to have a film produced on a $30 million dollar non-studio budget in trade for not dealing with the business and marketing ploys of the large studios? Are we as consumers addicted to the high-octane special effects and major star power that drives up the production costs of films today? Is it too much to ask the large studios to be honest and great at making big-budget films?
HARVEY WEINSTEIN VS THE WORLD, PART 1:
Nikki Finke, thank you for your prompt and sensible post. It seems as though the business side of Hollywood and the artistic side have clashed yet again in the ongoing battle for importance and control over the life of a film. As you well know the days when studios made hundreds of smaller, character-driven pictures each year for moderate budgets and respectable gains are long gone. The skyrocketing costs associated with film production have allowed the marketing aspect of film production to gain more importance than the overall quality of the film. The time it takes for an artist to realize his/her vision is no longer as important as finishing the film on the agreed upon completion date.
As the annual slate of blockbusters squeezes out competition from the bulk of lower-budget films, marketing executives go to battle for the increasingly coveted perfect release date. How important is releasing the film on time for blockbuster success and academy award consideration? Is this type of disagreement typical for the industry or is this a response to the general dislike for Harvey Weinstein by the films producer and director? Daldry’s email to Weinstein illustrates the distaste towards the man and his business practices. Do you think Daldry may have been able to finish on time and choose not to in order to exercise the little power artists have over business executives in the film industry today?
1 comment:
Walking out of the last installment of one of my favorite movie franchises, I should have been feeling pretty good. However when that last installment was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. This is just one example of exactly what you very concisely spoke about. You had great examples for your purpose as well and I couldn't agree more. The trend of Hollywood's priorities towards making a buck (or a few million) over making a great film is becoming more and more prominent. Other recent examples are Spiderman 3, I am Legend, Speed Racer, Luve Guru, and the list could go on. However I don't think that things are as dire as they may seem, and, if you will allow, I would like to describe some examples to the contrary.
While studios and production companies rely on guys like Michael Bay (Transformers) to bring in their summer cash, not only by making a hit, but for the merchandising licensing that comes along with it, they also create some really great fall and winter movies. It's arguable that they do so only for Oscar notoriety, but whatever their intention, the art of cinema is far from dead. Paramount/Dreamworks, for example, in 2007 released summer hits Shrek 3, and Transformers, but also released No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Two of the runaway Oscar winners, and pretty unanimously considered great pieces of cinematic art.
There are even exceptions in the Summer Blockbuster category, though very few. Iron Man, and The Dark Knight are two examples (if not the only examples) of 2008 summer hits that came together in a very captivating, well done, and even artistic way. Unfortunately I suppose that in these days of declining ticket sales, it's a situation where the consumer has to deal with the bad in order to get the good. Studios have very high costs to run, and they rely on summer hits to help with these costs. Let's just pray that in the pursuit of the blockbuster, they don't forget about the Cohen brothers, Scorsese, Wes Anderson, and all the other talented filmmakers who are still making great films.
Post a Comment