One movie and new kids? RANT

[thegreatwebguru]

bboy_mn wrote:
> 
> High? They are positively smoking crack.
> 
> And speaking of crack, what is this 'aging kid stars' crack. My 
mother
> at 75 is aging; Dan Radcliffe at 14 is not 'aging' in this context 
in
> any sense.
> 
> Have you ever heard the expression, killing the goose that lays the
> golden eggs? When you get too greedy, you frequently end up with 
less
> instead of more. I could easily see that happening with Warner 
Brothers. 
> 
> An speaking of the goose, not only is it not wise to kill the goose
> that lays the billion dollar eggs, but it's also unwise to not feed
> the goose. True we don't know what pay Dan and the other primary
> characters have negotiated for Goblet of Fire, but I have no doubt 
it
> is way below the Hollywood standard for a money making franchise 
like
> this. JKR did Warner a great favor in insisting of British actors,
> because they work on a different scale and a much lower level of 
greed
> than US actors.
> 
>  Frankie Muniz (Malcom in the Middle) got $5 million for Agent Cody
> Banks which grossed $45 million. Dan Radcliffe got $2 million for a
> movie that grossed over $800 million. And with his pathetic gross 
of
> $45 million, they sign Frankie Muniz for Agent Cody Banks II. Also,
> keep in mind that Dan only got the $2 million because the Actor's
> Equity Union step in and force Warner to increase his salary. That
> makes me think that $2 million is like minimum wage for a roll like
> this. I would also like to know if Dan and the other actors are
> getting secondary royalties from mechandising rights, etc....
> 
> Warner certainly has a proven franchise here, they know for a fact
> that there is no way these movies can NOT make money, they have no
> excuse for low balling the primary actors on their salaries.
> 
> The greatest threat to these movies is not the actors or the actors
> age, but the short sightedness of the studios. The attempt to make
> Goblet of Fire into a single 2.5 hour movie in unconscionable and
> irrational. 
> 
> The two existing movies by any standard were gutted to the limit. 
The
> movies, but more so CoS, jump from scene to scene with no 
explaination
> as to why things are happening, no plot development, no underlying
> character motivation. I have trouble believing that anyone who had
> never read the book could even make a coherent story out of what 
they
> were shown in CoS. Many of the scene that were filmed that 
developed
> the story line and explained people's action were found in the DVD
> extras. The movie would have been substantially improved if those
> scenes had been left in, and their total running time is not that 
much.
> 
> If they try to squeeze PoA, which I think is one of the most 
important
> movies in the franchise, into 2.5 hrs, they will gut it to the 
point
> where it is a pointless hollow shell. 
> 
> If they try to do that to GoF, there won't even be enough left to
> resemble a movie. Can they really squeeze a coherent trip to the 
World
> Cup, three Triwizards tasks, and the confrontation and resolution 
of
> an encounter with Voldemort in to 2.5 hrs? I don't think so. We are
> esentially talking about losing far far more than half the book, to
> make the movie. If they do that, I suspect this will be the last HP
> movie of any significants. I simple can't believe that any HP fan 
will
> be satisfied with the movie, and it will certainly not reach the 
near
> billion dollar mark that the other movies have. This will be the 
axe
> falling on the neck of the Golden Billion Dollar Goose.
> 
> What they realy need is a director and producer who have some
> independant artistic vision. Director and producer who will fight 
for
> that artistic vision and not let it be compromised. So far, none of
> the director I've heard suggested are anything more that product
> packaging technicians; stooges of corporate desire.
> 
> Personally, I think Warner is hopelessly misguided, and will in my
> opinion be the doom of the franchise. PoA is there chance to prove
> that they do understand the story and they understand their 
audiences.
> If this movie doesn't live up to a reasonable standard, I think
> interest in future movies will fade fast.
> 
> Of course, that just my opinion.
> 
> bboy_mn



now me:

See the problem with that, is it makes too much sense.  These movies 
are going to be readapted in the next 50 years by a director who 
appreciates the literature much more.  It is really difficult to 
make a series of movies when you don't know the ending.  This 
adaptation doesn't know what charachters to develope, what hints to 
throw out, and what themes to cover.  All the news I have heard has 
been negative about the future of the films.  I've all but given up, 
and couldn't agree more with that well written summation of 
frustration about how those corprate big heads at WB are really 
messing up big time.