Are The Matrix sequels the reason for no Harry Potter this year?
04-16-03, 12:30 AM
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Are The Matrix sequels the reason for no Harry Potter this year?
I think it is. WB says it's so the child actors can get caught up with their schooling, but I believe that it's because Matrix Revolutions is scheduled for November and WB doesn't want any competiton among its two cash cows.
IMO, if there were no Matrix movie, we would be having another Harry Potter.
IMO, if there were no Matrix movie, we would be having another Harry Potter.
04-16-03, 01:09 AM
#2
Banned
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UNITED STATES!
Posts: 2,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL,
Actually, it's not. Director Alfonso Cuaron needs more time to finish the film. Coming off the heels of Chris Columbus's departure of the series, he needs more time to make sure the final product was up to standard...he doesn't have the experience of making the first two in order to make a third one in such a short time.
It makes little sense for WB to delay it for fear of competition, if they had the one two punch at the box office this holiday season I'm sure they'd think the more the merrier. These two films aren't really direct competitors, one's R and one's PG, they cater to 2 different crowds, although a lot of adults will watch both. And if it's the holiday season, people go watch movies all the time anyways, so I don't really buy the Matrix argument. Reloaded certainly hasn't hindered the release of all the other big summer movies this year.
Actually, it's not. Director Alfonso Cuaron needs more time to finish the film. Coming off the heels of Chris Columbus's departure of the series, he needs more time to make sure the final product was up to standard...he doesn't have the experience of making the first two in order to make a third one in such a short time.
It makes little sense for WB to delay it for fear of competition, if they had the one two punch at the box office this holiday season I'm sure they'd think the more the merrier. These two films aren't really direct competitors, one's R and one's PG, they cater to 2 different crowds, although a lot of adults will watch both. And if it's the holiday season, people go watch movies all the time anyways, so I don't really buy the Matrix argument. Reloaded certainly hasn't hindered the release of all the other big summer movies this year.
Last edited by UKingdom; 04-16-03 at 01:13 AM.
04-16-03, 01:39 AM
#3
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
UK makes a good point. One is R and the other PG. so why would they be competition to each other and in other words, why wouldn't WB want to cash in on the Whole market in general by releasing both and having a strong grip on ALL age groups in the theaters this holiday season. I would rather much buy the excuse that with a new director things wont be as easy to get done as they were if Chris columbus was at the helm of the series still.
04-16-03, 05:40 AM
#5
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
doing a Potter movie a year for the rest of the series is an extremely ambitious schedule. I doubt it if they could do that.
I also doubt if WB would intentionally delay either the Matrices or HP except for the quality of the product.
I also doubt if WB would intentionally delay either the Matrices or HP except for the quality of the product.
04-16-03, 07:09 AM
#6
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why they didnt go ahead and make the films in a row after the success of the first film to stay off the obvious aging of the kids is beyond me. I think theyre getting it together with pt 3and 4 though.
04-16-03, 08:00 AM
#7
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Taxachusetts
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I've heard is that Chris Columbus wanted to take some time off and stay with his family for awhile. Also, I heard that the studio wanted the kids to rest up--it's been almost 3 years since they have had a break, and that's a lot for a 12 or 13 year old. I have no problem with the delay because I've got The Hulk, The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, and LOTR:ROTK to tide me over. Also Book 5 is out this summer as well, so I will have plenty of Harry Potter until next summer.
04-16-03, 12:04 PM
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally posted by sherm42
And just FYI, they began shooting Harry Potter 3 last month and it will be released next Summer.
And just FYI, they began shooting Harry Potter 3 last month and it will be released next Summer.
04-16-03, 12:24 PM
#12
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 33,730
Received 638 Likes
on
464 Posts
Re: Are The Matrix sequels the reason for no Harry Potter this year?
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
I think it is. WB says it's so the child actors can get caught up with their schooling, but I believe that it's because Matrix Revolutions is scheduled for November and WB doesn't want any competiton among its two cash cows.
I think it is. WB says it's so the child actors can get caught up with their schooling, but I believe that it's because Matrix Revolutions is scheduled for November and WB doesn't want any competiton among its two cash cows.
04-16-03, 03:39 PM
#15
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by harosa
Why they didnt go ahead and make the films in a row after the success of the first film to stay off the obvious aging of the kids is beyond me.
Why they didnt go ahead and make the films in a row after the success of the first film to stay off the obvious aging of the kids is beyond me.
04-16-03, 04:13 PM
#16
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Regarding the aging of the kids, book one starts out with them at 11, by the third book/film which is filming now, 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 turned 13 on April 15, 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.
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.
