I got mine for $9.99 also and it was one of the best deals I have ever done. The movie has been watched many times in the past and more viewings coming in the future.

I never put off buying a movie I will be watching many times.

Go buy it used for $10.

Well avid, being interested in the history of alchemy, I'd rather have the version that would keep true to that history. It's not a big deal either way, but I find most people want to have the original title too.

To me, like I said before, I wouldn't want the Ark in Raiders to be changed to "The Box of Magic" because people will understand that better, since the correct item in history has a real name.

Most people here want the original Star Wars over the SE, even though Lucas made those. So I don't think the fact the author decided the alternate title for the US means much.

As for others mostly knowing about this. I don't belive this is true... many people are unaware.

I'm sorry for saying you made a xenophobic comment, I'm sure it was in jest, and I'm cool with that. I'm just sensative right now, as all over the world, people are getting treated badly based on their countries actions in the whole war thing, no matter what side they're on. As a Canadian, people have refused to sell me stuff on Ebay, I've had friends who have had their tires slashed and car vandalised while visiting the US (ironically enough, they support the war.) My apologies again.

I have to give BizRodian the right of way here as I was completely unaware of the title change. In fact, I always wondered why Rowling gave the Philospher's Stone such a goofy name in the first book. I had no idea it was the publishers that convinced her to change the title. And though I am not that versed in the history of the study of alchemy (I didn't even know who Nicholas Flemmel was) calling the stone the Sorcerer's Stone took me out of the film for a moment when I first got to see it in English. (When I saw it in theatres I was only able to see the Spanish dubbed version in which the film was called Harry Potter y la Piedra Filosofal.)

Anyhoo, this past Friday I found a widescreen copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and couldn't resist the urge to purchase the DVD. Now all i gotta do is order the Canadian copy of Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone ($19 US doesn't sound that bad).

I assume they're planning on doing movie versions of all the books, right? I mean, I can't see them stopping after three, with them being so successful...

But there's no way that the kid actors they've got now are still going to look the proper age -- they looked a little too old for #2, and since it's going to be an even longer break now, they're gonna look really too old for #3... Seems to me they're going to have to recast and start from scratch with #4...

(I almost wish they'd done it now, with #3, since we've already got a new Dumbledore and a new director...)

Any word in the entertainment press about what their plans are?

adamblast, Warner Bros has the movie rights for the first four books. I would imagine they have a clause to option the other books if they so desire, but I have not read that they actually do. It would make sense, but it would also make sense to write all four screenplays when they got the rights (apparently they didn't) and to have less time between shoots. There is talk that after the next film the kids might be replaced.

BizRodian, I too prefer The Philosopher’s Stone. I do like how it refers to actual history. The reason I am fine with the title change is because it was for the first USA printing. If they called it Philosopher’s Stone and then changed it, I would be completely against that. When a movie is finished, before it is released in other countries changes are made such as subtitles, possibly a title change and some edits. I consider that the theatrical release for those countries, which is why I consider Sorcerer's Stone valid. In perfect world, the title would not have been changed. I am actually embarrassed about the "dumbing down for American kids" and I do think the USA needs to improve their education.

I'm sorry about my comments, they do not read the way I meant. I was in a rush when I wrote it, and I thought about it later and wish I had written it differently, or not all. I am also sorry that people from the US are treating Canadians that way. That is just wrong.

You might be glad to know that if my team can't get the Stanley Cup, I always hope a Canadian team does. :)

A friend and I had a Potter conversation, and an interesting question was raised.

Since Warner has a class-act animation department (see also "The Iron Giant". And I do mean see it), why not simultaneously make two Potter adaptations of two different books, one animated and one live-action?

Before you scoff, think about it. (Then scoff all you want. ;) )

This method would enable WB to keep releasing the films quickly and cost-effectively. Animated films are getting more expensive and can take more time these days as new tricks are employed, but one only has to look at the DIsney misfires of late to see that costly, time-consuming animation advances do not an entertaining film make. An animated Harry Potter film wouldn't HAVE to take years to create.

An animated film could plan around its cast better, too. With such grand casts as the Potter films, it's hard to plan around so many schedules - meanwhile, with voice roles, the actors don't have to be at one set for ages - or even on set, because they can be recorded near THEM instead of having to fly them out to a set.

Such large casts will be hard to bring back time and time again - why not have them record voice roles while they still have interest in the role?

Animated films can have even wider international appeal than live action films. A foreign language dub of an animated film is far less off-putting than a live action dub (and I don't want to insult the Anime buffs when I say that), so non-english-speaking children might even relate to an animated Harry better than they do to Daniel Radcliffe dubbed into french/russian/vogon.

WB have a nice one-two punch going with two Matrix films coming up - a stunt we have yet to see the result of - so imagine if they released a animated Potter film in summer, followed by a live-action film in its regular thanksgiving slot. Box Office Gold.

Or, maybe, don't even release it theatrically. WB could solve the "too-long-book" problem by releasing an animated TV show based on one of the longer books. Why have one two-and-a-half hour film when you can have thirteen twentysomething-minute animated episodes?

As the Iron Giant shows, Animation is not accepted by Adults as a form of entertainment.

As it stands, the Live action films bring in both a kid audiance aswell as being left open for an adult take on them. Turning them into animated pieces will cheapen the effect that they have. Look at the Lord of the rings cartoon vs. the Live action.

I think it's a really lame idea to make 3 live action films and then continue for the longer books with an animated version. it doesn't follow any order. As it stands, the kids growing older doesn't have too much effect on the films considering the kids are SUPPOSE to be growing up as each film takes place since each film covers one year and in all honesty, if hollywood could make 30 year old actors look like 18-20 year old high school students in 90210, then it would be no problem to make Potter and the cast look a little bit younger. Besides, the props and the locations are pretty much recycled unless the book showed you something new so it's not to much trouble in that area. ;)

I don't like the idea of having one live action and one animated.

Actually I remember reading an interview with Emma Watson recently where she stated that now that she's 12 she's the same age her character is in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Besides, considering that each book as I understand it is supposed to be each a year in the life of the main characters (anyone has actually read the books please feel free to correct me) I think it's okay that the actors look older in each film.

Besides, Tom Welling is in his twenties and I hear no one colpaining about him playing a 16 year old Clark Kent in Smallville so what's the big deal. Plenty of times actors who are too oldto be their respective characters get cast to play younger roles andpeople rarely complain. Why start now?

As for a new Dumbledore, we're only getting a new one since Richard Harris died. That would have never happened had he lived since Warner Bros. had him sign on for all the Harry Potter films they had in mind to make (whether that be the first four or all those based on the seven books).

Unless the kids or the older actors get horribly disfigured or die (or some other extreme occurrence take place in their lives) I see no point in re-casting any of the other roles.

An attractive and healthy 30-year-old can fake playing much younger--even high school age, depending on their face & body-type... Not so with kids and teens--especially around puberty... You can't have a normal 16-year-old, for example, playing an elementary school kid...

Even though movies #1 & #2 were filmed only a year apart, Daniel Radcliffe looked more like 2 or 3 years older. He's gonna look like a full teenager by the time the next one comes out... A far cry from his look in #1, supposedly just two school years earlier...

I'm not positive that re-casting is a good idea either... Perhaps just ignoring it is still the best compromise. But the kids are aging about twice as fast as the characters should. And that's with an ultra-rushed filming schedule. If it was apparent in movie #2 it'll be obvious as hell by #4...

Maybe I should have rephrased my post. My point is that actors like Tom Welling look nothing like the youngsters they are protraying (anybody who thinks he looks 16 has seen some mighty old looking 16 year old boys) but are excused as their performances aren't half bad and they somehow fit the characters. I believe Daniel Radcliffe really fits the role of Harry Potter and his performance in the second film was way better than in the first. I only see him getting better so I figure the age difference should be ignored.

Heck in the novel Logan's Run renewal happened when you turned twenty but since the studio couldn't find actors that young that they felt could carry the performances across they changed the age of renewal to thirty in the movie. My point is the movie doesn't have to be 100% by the book but at least the filmmakers are trying and I believe the actors ages should be ignored so long as Daniel Radcliffe or Rupert Grint don't show up sporting beards in any of the upcoming films.

Is there much of an age difference though? By the third book/film, Harry starts the year out at 13. According to IMDB, Daniel Radcliffe was born on July 23, 1989 which means he is 13 right now, soon to be 14. Emma Watson turns 13 tomorrow, and Rupert Grint is the oldest at 14, turning 15 on August 24th.

Could it be that our view of what they should look like is skewed? I know that reading the books, I kept imagining them as young, but the truth is that they will be 18 years old by the seventh book/film. I think that in reality, they look pretty much as they should. The fact is, they are not supposed to be elementary school aged. High school starts for most kids at 13-14.

I think it would be a mistake to recast them as younger for future films. They are supposed to grow up before our eyes.

sherm42,

So the casting is fine as is. There is no need to replace any of the actors therefor I hope they stay for all the films based on the seven books.