GoFlength--money talks?

[Tim]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, "sophiamcl" <sophiamcl at h...> 
wrote:
> About a week ago, I read the following on the Askaban Club-site:
> 
> "Wizard News has now learned, according to reliable sources 
> inside Warner Brothers, that they are looking INTO the possibility 
> of making Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire INTO one movie, 
> four hours long, with an intermission. " The heading of this little 
> blurb clearly states that it is just a rumour, but it got me 
thinking 
> nevertheless.
> 
> I am one of the people who signed the online petition and sent 
> WB a letter as well, in the hopes of rescuing GoF from being 
> butchered into a 2 1/2 h movie. However, in the entertainment 
> business "money talks"--and often has the final say-so too. From 
> a WB-point of view, there might be many financial drawbacks to 
> making a 4 h movie, even if there are Potter fanatics like us out 
> there (or here, as the case may be) who would love to see it 
> happen. 
> 
> Which of the following posts on the balance sheet carries the 
> most weight (I don't have any statistics on this, and so not 
> consider myself an authority: I'm just guessing here): a)The 
> scores and scores of people who really want to see it but are 
> content to do it once and are happy that way , b) nutters like us 
> who want to watch it ten-odd times while it's still in cinemas. My 
> guess would be the first. So, even if WB made a GoF that 
> sucked, just about everybody would still go see it that one time, 
> and it might not make that big a difference if the obsessives 
> didn't return. I'll have to be honest: Even if it's butchered, I'd 
> probably still return a few times just to see a particular scene or 
> two again--especially since we know the trio is staying on...
> 
> As for the four-hour version: Though there will be some truly 
> scary stuff in it, it's Harry Potter, and Harry is still synonymous 
> with family entertainment. If I were a mother of three, would I 
> really take them to a four-hour movie? (I guess if they badgered 
> me long enough...) Even if there's an intermission, can you 
> imagine the length of the line outside the restrooms? It would 
> just be a hassle.
> 
> And another thing: The ticket price of a four-hour movie, though 
> perhaps a little higher than that of your average feature, would 
> still be a lot lower that the combined ticket-prices of the two 
> movies that could be shown in the same space of time. Wouldn't 
> that be considered a drawback for the cinemas?
> 
> Having said that--this isn't just any movie we're talking about, 
it's 
> Harry Potter, and he's hot stuff. Before Harry noone would ever in 
> their wildest dreams have imagined children  willingly plowing 
> through--zipping through--700 p. tomes en masse, so who's to 
> say a four-hour movie can't be incredibly successful and 
> lucrative?
> 
> Besides, WB would want to make sure the fans come back for 
> more, and they have some articstic pride too, right? So maybe 
> there's hope even if the above rumour isn't true. Though we know 
> Kloves has been asked to produce a script for a 2 1/2h GoF, 
> there's still time for WB to change their tack, still time to 
listen to 
> the nutters...
> 
> Sophia

Why would a 4 hour movie necessarily cost more for the patron than 
the normal film to see?  I don't understand that comment.  A lot of 
the "epic" films of the 50s and 60s ... ie. Ben Hur, The Ten 
Commandments, How the West Was Won, etc... were 3+ hour movies with 
intermissions built in.  The price to see these movies was no more 
than seeing any other at the time.  Lord of the Rings proved, once 
again, that people will sit through a 3+ hour movie if it is 
entertaining.  In fact, Lord of the Rings is taking it a step further 
by show all three films in the series on one date, back to back.  
Patrons of this event will be able to see the entire 10+ hour saga in 
one sitting, with 30 minute intermissions between each film.  I, for 
one, am planning on doing this... and I expect it to be sold out.