Cinematical Seven: The Trouble with Harry
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Warner Brothers, Family Films, Cinematical Seven, Harry Potter, Five Days of Fire, Comic/Superhero/Geek
"Dark and difficult times lie ahead, Harry ..."
- Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
As Potter-mania falls across the land, it seems like a good time to look forward at the franchise and ask … is all well for Harry’s magical movies? I’ve enjoyed the films and the books, but as I watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to review it for Cinematical this week, my mind couldn’t help but turn to my inner crystal ball of film prognostication, and I’m wondering if troubled times lie ahead – not merely for Harry and his friends, but also for the films themselves. How could I think any such thing? Bear in mind I’m not, as the kids say, '‘hatin’ on’ Harry Potter' (and I partially wanted to write that sentence so I could combine two phrases rarely seen in such proximity), but skepticism can creep into anyone’s appreciation. There are more than a few things I can see as concerns to contemplate for the future of the franchise, and they all lie below, titled Rowling-style.
1) … and the Revolving-Door Directors
Chris Columbus helmed the first two Potters; then, the unexpected candidate Alfonso Cuarón picked up the reins. Goblet of Fire's director's chair was occupied by Mike Newell, and Order of the Phoenix is already slated to be directed by David Yates … whose resume isn’t as sterling as those who have come before. Bear in mind that the Potters are big movies … and the series' look-and-feel is so firmly established that it’s hard to imagine a strong visionary (like Terry Gilliam, for example) stepping in because they’d feel too handcuffed to put any mark on the films. The alternative seems to be directors like Yates, jumping from a mostly-TV career to a huge studio production. Is there a depressing possibility that as the last films are prepared, the talent pool of future possible directors may be growing more and more limited?
2) … and the Aging Boy-Man
Daniel Radcliffe is a 16 year-old playing a 14-year old; in future years, that gap is going to grow. We’re not in Ian Ziering or Tom Welling territory with Goblet of Fire, and we may even be within a reasonable paramater of appearance-versus-age by the time Rowling finishes Book 7. But considering the amount of time it’ll take to mount any film production of the final book, Warner Brothers may be faced with the possibility of a young man in his mid-20’s playing an 18 year-old boy … or the possibility of replacing an actor they’ve made recognizable worldwide.
3) … and the Laying-Down of the Quill
As disturbing as the possibility of losing Radcliffe is, the Potter series has already lost a key secret player – screenwriter Steve Kloves. A lot of Kloves’s work is hidden behind Rowling’s story and text, but his adaptations of the novels have been iron-strong, easy to like … and easier still to overlook. Kloves has been involved in the films far longer than any of its directors, and I have to wonder not just who’d be willing to take such a thankless job, but also who else could do it so well. I know that Michael Goldenberg -- who wrote Universal's under-seen, under-appreciated Peter Pan -- is on board for Order of the Phoenix, but Goldenberg is being left some very big shoes to fill by Kloves's departure.
4) … and the Creeping Credit-Roll Bloat
Even a cursory understanding of movie-nomics will suggest that actors who get parts in franchises like to earn more money when they return to them. Combine that with the simple fact that any next franchise will involve new actors to play new parts – and while Rowling doesn't have to pay new characters, Warner Brothers has to pay for actors to play them. As the speaking parts in the Potter films go up, more established characters lose space, and you get the curious sight in Goblet of Jason Isaacs uttering, at best, 50 words of dialogue while returning as Lucius Malfoy. Can the Potter films afford the casts they need to move forward in depicting Rowling’s expanding universe of characters?
5) … and the Page-Count of Infinity
The Potter books have upped the page-count substantively each step of the way, with Order of the Phoenix’s whopping 870-plus pages straining any bookshelf. If there's one thing I'm thinking about a lot as I prepare to write my review, it's that Goblet of Fire has a slightly rushed feel to it, like we’re skipping over pages and excising plots and scenes to keep the story filmable – and Order and Half-Blood might pose even more of a challenge to compress without crushing.
6) … and the Crazy-Ass Swings of the National Political Mood
Harry’s already on the American Library Association’s Top Banned Books list for alleged paganism and percieved anti-Christian virtues – and Order of the Phoenix’s sub-text offering a parable about power in perilous times might be viewed with a little more hostility on screen than it was on the page. Is Harry too left-flying for cultural conservatives? At the same time, there’s plenty for the other side of the aisle to suspect about the Harry films – as someone at my press screening of Goblet of Fire noted, why does Triwizard Tournament competitor Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy) have to be portrayed as a simpering scaredy-cat who constantly needs rescuing instead of as a qualified competitor who could give Cedric, Viktor and Harry a run for their money?
7) … and the Hovering Specter of Anti-Climax
Even with AOL/Time Warner behind the series (and somewhat in need of Harry's Golden Knuts), there’s no guarantee that by the time the 7th film rolls around people will even care. Will some new kid-culture obsession like the Narnia films or the as-yet unfilmed His Dark Materials lap Harry before he even gets to the finish line? Will fickle public appreciation turn against the saga on film after it’s over-and-done-with in print?
Do you have thoughts about the future of the Potter films?
Review: The X-Files: I Want To Believe
Live from SDCC: Preview Night Gallery!
Live from SDCC: Time to Get Our Con On!
Discuss: Wednesday is the New Friday_thumbnail.jpg)
EXCLUSIVE: 'Lakeview Terrace' Poster Premiere
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg "Watchmen Storyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-15-2005 @ 4:28AM
Josh Bell said...
Well, you can put one of your concerns to rest: Producers have said that Kloves will return to write the sixth movie:
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---27092,00.html
Reply
11-15-2005 @ 10:46AM
Hilary Ray said...
It's Jason IsAAcs, not ISSacs. Thanks for the singling out--perhaps for different reasons, I'm dismayed at reports of Lucius' tiny role as well.
Reply
11-15-2005 @ 12:31PM
funindc said...
Regarding the age of the actors, you overlook the fact that Radcliffe was 14 when he started filming this movie where he plays a 14 year old. He's 16 now and starts filming in January to play a 15 year old in Phoeneix due out in summer 2007. He will likely begin filming Prince in early '07 when he'll be 17 playing 16 with a release scheduled for fall 2008. Not a stretch. Remember, the majority of the time involved in the filming of these movies is editing and effects creation after princpal photography is done. Also, considering that it took Rowling two years to publish Prince after Phoenix, book 7 will likely be out in mid 2007. Since Harry and his friends will technically be wizarding adults in that book, slightly older actors should not make a difference.
Reply
11-15-2005 @ 9:05PM
Paul said...
I am a huge Potter fan, but I've fizzled out with the anticipation of the new Narnia films. The trailer of AMAZING, and frankly smuthers Harry Potter in presentation. I'm more looking forward to the next narnia films than Potter. I hate to say it.. =(
Potter's change in directors turned me off and the failure of excitment in the Goblet's trailer has left me dead in the water. I dunno what else to say.
Reply
11-16-2005 @ 9:30AM
Lily White said...
As a Jason Isaacs fan I am dismayed to hear his part is so small. Perhaps in the future they will, rather than giving a new actor work, as Narcissa, give her part to Lucius. I think that could be made to work quite as well as the replacement of the house elves in the current movie.
Reply
11-16-2005 @ 6:41PM
Lynn said...
I think most of your concerns aren't really issues. You make the point that the look and feel of the series is well-established; the director needs to be competent and get out of the way, and a skilled TV director probably fits the bill perfectly well.
And seriously, you're worried about the budget for *actors*? How much do you think they pay these folks? They cast, for the most part, skilled working actors, not stars who demand millions. It's a drop in the bucket of the budget, and these are hugely profitable movies.
Nor am I concerned about the young actor's ages. After puberty, there's a lot more latitude in age range. A 15 year old can't play 11, but a 19 year old can certainly play 16. We're so used to it from TV that it's beyond notice for most people. How old was the cast of Buffy when they were playing 16? How old is the cast of Veronica Mars playing 17? Recasting would be a disaster compared to the relatively minor age-fudging.
The only concern you mention that I'd consider major is the adaptation of the longer books, from 4 onwards. If most fans seem happy with the film version of GoF, which is the first long book, I don't see a reason to assume they'd be unhappy with 5 onwards, either. Harry Potter books, despite their length, are easier to adapt than, say, something like Lord of the Rings, with its multiple narratives in different locations. You can pare down a lot of the subplots in HP without losing much that's important.
Reply
11-16-2005 @ 8:35PM
Sal Carthy said...
If there is so much concern about the characters aging so quickly....why don't they film two movies at once like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings (filming all three together). Granted Frodo did look a little young in some of the scenes in the Return of the King.......but it's a thought.
Reply
11-17-2005 @ 5:34PM
eb said...
How could ANYBODY think that the trailer was not exciting?!? You must be on some heavy-duty benzodiazepenes!
Reply
11-21-2005 @ 4:01AM
LadyJaz said...
i dont thinkthat age is an issue. What difference is there between say a 16 year old and a19 year old. Where as with Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban there was a big difference between the 12/13 year olds in COS and the 14/15 year old in POA. People wont care if the actors look slightly older, look at Shirley Henderson who plays Moaning Myrtle shes 40 years old and no one has an issue. However a change in casting would be an absoloute disaster!
Reply
11-21-2005 @ 12:25PM
Ivy said...
The only problem I have is condensing the books into a cohesive plot on screen - which I think they failed at for GOF. I agree with you that it felt way too rushed. I am sure that everyone who paid to see the movie would have sat for another 30 minutes if it made for a better film.
Reply
11-23-2005 @ 7:56AM
Val Campbell said...
I had a real good laugh over some of the "worrying" aspects of Harry Potter.
Daniel was a 14yr old playing 14yrs. So what if he is 21/22 when he's playing an 17yr old. My daughter is 26 and she gets taken for a 15yr old.
Steven Kloves is back for Half Blood Prince.
A lot of Potter fans think that OotP can be reduced quite successfully as it was a little overstuffed. So the film shouldn't be a problem.
I have seen GoF and I would say fast paced rather than rushed, I loved it, it's my favourite to date.
I do think that with all the intense interest in this one that the HP phenomenon may have peaked. I hope not, but this remains to be seen.
Narnia looks interesting, but I'm not keen on having religion thrust down my throat so I won't be going.
Reply
11-23-2005 @ 7:24PM
Sasha said...
After reading the above comments I cannot help but think that it is downright bizarre and quite frankly un-newsworthy that all these issues around age, popularity, book length and screen adaption are raised AGAIN.
I find the writer's arguments downright boring and the comments following the article far more interesting.
Honestly,when writing about Harry Potter ensure that you have something newsworthy/interesting to write about as your audience is usually up-to-date with the latest news on the boy wizard.
Reply
11-24-2005 @ 8:54PM
Amanda said...
Ok i dont care about any of that stuff because i am a HUGE Harry Potter fan.and by the time the 7th movie comes out i will be 17...but who cares im pretty sure im still going to see it.Also If dan,emma or rupert didnt do the rest of the movies that would really mess them up.The audence already has them established as harry ron and hermione.So no body cares how old they are...
Reply
11-30-2005 @ 7:45AM
Valerie Flowe said...
As to whether the fickle movie-going audience will want to sit through the next 3 HP movies...my bet is YES! There are so many HP fans out there. They will remain faithful till the end.
Frankly I was amazed at the incredible turnout for GOF. The 3rd top-grossing film of all time in the opening weekend?!?!? For a 4th sequel, that's incredible. I am an extreme HP fan, so of course I was counting the months, weeks, days, til GOF opened! But I was surprised at how many people apparently were anxious to see Harry's continuing cinematic saga.
I was also there at midnight at Borders Books for my copy of HBP, along with hundreds of other fans. Can you imagine the crowds for the grand finale book?!! This franchise is not fizzling out anytime soon.
Reply