GoFlength--money talks?

[Scully931]

You bring up some good points. I too sent a letter and signed the 
petition. I'm sure thousands upon thousands did - hopefully. But, 
for every one person who did, there are a thousand who, like you 
say, would be perfectly content to see a condensed version. 
(morons;-) I can also see, even in my own situation, how a four hour 
movie may limit recurring ticket sales. I generally go to opening 
night with my mom, then again with my mom and my sister, then again 
with my friend over the holidays and again with my sister before it 
leaves. My mom and sister both like the movies, but I think I may 
have to drag them back to see a four hour movie a second time. 
That's a big chunk of someone's day. Know what I mean? They've got 
to be taking recurring sales into account. Teens who go because they 
are midly interested, parents who go for their kids. Are these 
people as likely to go for a second time if it's four hours worth of 
film. Now, as much as I would like not to count those people, WB 
certainly do. 

In my way of thinking, a two parter would be more likely to make 
them money. But, again, you'll have parents saying, "We don't need 
to go to the first one again, the next one will be out in a couple 
months." Argh! Yes, as much as I hate to say it and as much as I 
think they will have no choice but to butcher the storyline, I can 
see where they will not make as much money with an four hour movie. 

Deborah


--- 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