DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   DVD Talk Archive (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk-archive-54/)
-   -   Now that Chris Colombus' Harry Potter run is over... (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/dvd-talk-archive/284711-now-chris-colombus-harry-potter-run-over.html)

RocShemp 04-08-03 09:12 PM

Now that Chris Colombus' Harry Potter run is over...
 
I remeber reading a while back that Chris Colombus was planning on re-releasing Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone on DVD with more "adult" extras, no games necessary to access the extras, and an audio commentary once he was done making the first two Harry Potter films. My question is now that his Harry Potter run is over will this re-release actually happen? If so, will he also work on a re-release of Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets as well (maybe to coincide with the theatrical release of Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire)?

I ask because I've held off from buying the first Harry Potter film for so long and now that I just rented Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets (I sadly missed it duiring its theatrical run) I'm really tempted topurchase both films right now but am still afraid that this re-release is somewhere around the corner.

PixyJunket 04-08-03 09:22 PM

I say wait for the re-release, which could be next year, or 10 years from now.

Meanwhile.. I'll have watched the current discs a gazillion times by then.

Enjoy!

pdjennings 04-08-03 09:37 PM

Buy them! They're cheap enough.... and I'd rather have something in my hands than hold off and be without it for..... months? years? more?

If a re-release happens.... all the better!

bboisvert 04-08-03 10:56 PM


Originally posted by RocShemp
I ask because I've held off from buying the first Harry Potter film for so long
I've seen this DVD several times during the past year for like 7 or 8 bucks... why bother waiting?

Yes, they'll eventually re-release this. As they will re-release just about every blockbuster film. But that is really cancelled out by the fact that most stores practially give it away upon release. I'd rather get it now for the price of 2 rentals rather than sitting around wondering about it for 2-3 years in the hopes that the director has time to record a commentary track.

RocShemp 04-08-03 11:02 PM

Where have you seen it for $7 or $8? The cheapest I've ever seen Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone for is $20.

PolloDiablo 04-08-03 11:19 PM

This would be great, my girlfriend absolutely loves Harry Potter and so I've bought her the two current DVDs, but I've held off getting them for myself since I can't ever justify buying something I can just borrow from her whenever I want. But if they do re-release them then I would have no problem buying them for myself, especially if they aim the extras a little more towards the adult crowd, I would love to see some good documentary type of stuff and a good commentary on this film.

Rammsteinfan 04-08-03 11:30 PM

I got my Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone on the first day for $9.99 last year.

BizRodian 04-08-03 11:34 PM

Import it from Canada. No bilingual packaging, and the correct title :D

RocShemp 04-09-03 12:42 AM

BizRodian,

About that: how is "The Philosoupher's Stone" the correct title when in the film the item in question constantly refered to as the Sorcerer's Stone? Did they do an alternate ADR for the US release of the film?

Anyhoo, I guess I'll buy the film IF I findit as cheep as some have mentioned. I guess I can trade itin at EB if a new edition is released.

DVDGUY1116 04-09-03 12:51 AM


Originally posted by RocShemp
how is "The Philosoupher's Stone" the correct title when in the film the item in question constantly refered to as the Sorcerer's Stone? Did they do an alternate ADR for the US release of the film?
In every other part of the world, with the exception of the US, the title of the book is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. The book title was changed for the US release as the publisher thought it would be easier for American's to understand what a Sorcerer's Stone is rather than a Philosopher's Stone...eventhough they are the same thing. All the mention's of a Philosopher's Stone were changed to Sorcerer's Stone in the US publishing of the book and yes they did do ADR on all stone reference's in the movie.

RocShemp 04-09-03 01:00 AM

Interesting. Tough I'm preplexed astowhy the publishers of the book would assume that Americans would be unfamiliar with the term Philosopher's Stone.

So I amcorrectin assuming that the Canadian DVD notonly has the correct title but also lacks the ADR alterations found in the US release? With that in mind, how does the Canadian DVD compare to the US DVD sound/transfer-wise?

BizRodian 04-09-03 01:25 AM

The philospher's stone is a REAL item in mythology. Having it changed is like changing the ark of the covenat in Raiders of the Lost Ark to "The magic box" because people think an ark is a boat.

Nicholas Flamel was a REAL person in the 14th century who tried to create a Philospher's Stone which would give him eternal life, and turn lead into gold. Some people belive he succeded, and actually created the Philospher's Stone.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/graphics/flamel.jpg

But that's all ruined, because the american publisher thought kids in the US were too stupid to pick up a book with a funny word in the title.

The Canadian DVD is identical other then the name changes on the cover and in the movie... (yes, they use the correct name in the film.) There might be a tiny bit of extra text on the back that has the Canadian rating, but you'd not notice unless you really looked hard. That is all. There is no reason not to get the true version.

eedoon 04-09-03 07:21 AM


Originally posted by BizRodian
The philospher's stone is a REAL item in mythology. Having it changed is like changing the ark of the covenat in Raiders of the Lost Ark to "The magic box" because people think an ark is a boat.

Nicholas Flamel was a REAL person in the 14th century who tried to create a Philospher's Stone which would give him eternal life, and turn lead into gold. Some people belive he succeded, and actually created the Philospher's Stone.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/graphics/flamel.jpg

But that's all ruined, because the american publisher thought kids in the US were too stupid to pick up a book with a funny word in the title.

The Canadian DVD is identical other then the name changes on the cover and in the movie... (yes, they use the correct name in the film.) There might be a tiny bit of extra text on the back that has the Canadian rating, but you'd not notice unless you really looked hard. That is all. There is no reason not to get the true version.

That was interesting. Where did you get that information?

PalmerJoss 04-09-03 07:44 AM

Now that Chris Columbus' run on Harry Potter is over...I am happy. I can't wait to see what a director like Alfonso Cuaron will bring to the screen, especially with a movie like Prisoner of Azkaban(my personal favorite Harry Potter novel). I would happily buy a SE of the films in the future when they are released.

RichardW 04-09-03 07:55 AM


Originally posted by BizRodian
Import it from Canada. No bilingual packaging, and the correct title :D
That's what I did! :up:

adamblast 04-09-03 08:34 AM


Originally posted by RichardW
That's what I did! :up:
Me too -- not to mention buying the book thru Amazon UK... :)

Avid 04-09-03 09:49 AM


Originally posted by BizRodian
Import it from Canada. No bilingual packaging, and the correct title :D
Still talking about the different titles? At least it gives Canadians another since of national pride to go along with drinking Americans under the table because the alcohol content in their beers is higher.

Both of the movie titles are the correct version. They reflect the title of the book released in that country and whether Scholastic should or shouldn’t have done that is a different debate.

Back to the original topic of this thread. RocShemp, since you have waited this long and the DVD release of Chamber of Secrets is around the corner, you might want to wait a few more weeks to see if any new information about the SE comes out. News of the SE came out the day of The Sorcerer's Stone DVD release, just as talk of a Grease SE came out the day that movie came to DVD.

sherm42 04-09-03 10:43 AM

Just FYI on Chris Columbus and his involvement in HP. He is still a producer on Prisoner and he has stated that he is seriously considering directing Goblet of Fire as it is his favorite of the books. Although he is not directing the current version, he still seems to be very busy with the movies. I'd say, just buy them.

As for the alternate versions, they did not use ADR, which means they simply dubbed new lines over the existing ones. They actually shot alternate takes the different versions. Small but important difference.

RocShemp 04-09-03 12:29 PM

Oh okay. I was gonna see if I caught it on TV again as I was amazed I didn't catch the lipsinc issue that would arise from an ADR to the lines in the movie.

As for Alfonso Cuaron, I am not really looking forward to his involvment as director in the next Harry Potter film as I hated Y Tu Mama Tambien and even though I liked A Little Princess I don't see his style working with a film like Harry Potter. But I'll still keep an open mind as I'm looking forward to see Michael Gambon as Dumbledore (this is no longer a rumour, right?) and Garry Oldman too.

I think it's good though that Colombus is still there as producer, though, and that (if he directs Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire) he is considering splitting the fourth book into two movies so as not to have to cut too much out.

But I suppose I may just wait as Avid suggested. Even though I've waited all this time (sometimes feels like too long) I guess a few more weeks wont hurt me.

BTW, Avid, why do you say that the release of Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets is "around the corner"? Isn't it already available? Or was this a rent-through?

Philip Reuben 04-09-03 01:14 PM


Originally posted by sherm42
As for the alternate versions, they did not use ADR, which means they simply dubbed new lines over the existing ones. They actually shot alternate takes the different versions. Small but important difference.
They did either, depending on the scene. More than once, the person saying the name of the stone was off-camera (eg. when Hagrid slams the door of his hut, and the kids say, "We know about the Philosopher's Stone!"), and then they would have just used ADR to add the dialogue, probably in both versions.


Originally posted by RocShemp
BTW, Avid, why do you say that the release of Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets is "around the corner"? Isn't it already available? Or was this a rent-through?
It comes out on Friday. I can't wait! :)

BizRodian 04-09-03 01:56 PM

eedoon I got the information from my head. The picture came from about.com :)


Still talking about the different titles? At least it gives Canadians another since of national pride to go along with drinking Americans under the table because the alcohol content in their beers is higher.
Xenophobic comments have NOTHING to do with this. Why on earth did you bring that up?

I said import the Canadian version because it's the only region 1 title with the original title. Both discs are made by the same people... just most would prefer to have the version that was originally intended by the author, judging by how everone want's OAR.

If I was her, I would have made them change the title back for the american release. But I remember her once saying she heard a child pronounce a character's name wrong, and then corrected the child. Later on, she felt bad because the child's the one doing the reading, and could call the character whatever they wanted. I guess that's the logic here, and I'm fine with that... but I'd rather have the version intended, the version correct in history.


Both of the movie titles are the correct version. They reflect the title of the book released in that country and whether Scholastic should or shouldn’t have done that is a different debate.
No, it's what I'm talking about now. They shouldn't have changed it for the book, and they shouldn't have kept changed it for the movie...

eedoon 04-09-03 03:58 PM


Originally posted by BizRodian
eedoon I got the information from my head. The picture came from about.com :)

Oh. Can I have your head (not in some pervert kind of way!) :p

DVDGUY1116 04-09-03 05:00 PM


Originally posted by RocShemp
As for Alfonso Cuaron, I am not really looking forward to his involvment as director in the next Harry Potter film as I hated Y Tu Mama Tambien and even though I liked A Little Princess I don't see his style working with a film like Harry Potter.

I am not a big fan of Chris Columbus and I am not that familiar with Alfonso Cuaron's work; however, I am not that worried about the Director change. From what I understand it can't hurt. I really believe that there is nothing to worry about as JK Rowling has such an enormous say in everything that goes into the movies and I doubt Warner's will allow him to do anything to seriously alter the look or feel of the film...just in case a change he makes causes the film to only make a 500 million worldwide as opposed to nearly a billion! I would like to see a Director come in and make a Harry Potter movie that doesn't quite follow the book so closely,like the first two do, and instead adapt their vision and take on the book...like PJ did for Lord of the Rings.

As for the casting...I am really looking forward to Oldman as well. My only hope is that they put a lot of the history of that character, which is discussed at the end of the book, towards the beginning of the movie as I don't want to wait till the end to watch him act.


That was interesting. Where did you get that information?
eedoon, while I have no doubt that BizRodian had the knowledge about the Philosopher's Stone in his head you can also find it and the facts behind the title changes on many Harry Potter sites such as www.mugglenet.com and www.The-Leaky-Cauldron.org.

BizRodian 04-09-03 05:40 PM

Thanks for the links DVDguy!

Avid 04-10-03 03:20 AM


Originally posted by BizRodian
Xenophobic comments have NOTHING to do with this. Why on earth did you bring that up?
It wasn't meant as an insult. I was wondering why you brought the different titles into the thread, most people already know about them.

The Philosopher’s Stone was published in Britain in 1997, and the Sorcerer's Stone was published in the United States in 1998. That is (part of) the book's history. I believe both of the titles are correct and we should agree to disagree on this.

IMHO The Sorcerer's Stone is one of the correct titles because the author and publisher chose to name it so before the initial United States printing. Not only did J.K. Rowlings agree to the change, she allegedly came up with The Sorcerer's Stone. Since a name was created for a certain part of the world and with the author’s participation, I believe that name is a legitimate, true, correct name.

Iron_Giant 04-10-03 11:19 AM


Originally posted by Rammsteinfan
I got my Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone on the first day for $9.99 last year.
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.

BizRodian 04-10-03 05:33 PM

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.

RocShemp 04-13-03 04:14 PM

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).

adamblast 04-13-03 11:20 PM

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?

Avid 04-14-03 12:38 AM

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. :)

DonnachaOne 04-14-03 01:00 AM

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?

Jackskeleton 04-14-03 01:16 AM

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.

RocShemp 04-14-03 11:13 AM


Originally posted by adamblast
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...
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.

adamblast 04-14-03 11:34 AM


Originally posted by RocShemp
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...

RocShemp 04-14-03 12:15 PM

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.

sherm42 04-14-03 12:23 PM

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.

RocShemp 04-14-03 12:35 PM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.