#3 - Hollywood Trends
Ok, look. I know I said I was going to keep writing about Harry Potter, and that this should be about Chamber of Secrets, but I really can't be bothered. If you're still curious: the book is great, the movie is fine. Sound familiar? What I had to say about Sorcerer's Stone can pretty easily be applied to any of those books/movies. There's no point in writing the same thing seven times.
BUT, that does lead to an interesting discussion about why that is - specifically, why the Harry Potter movies have the problems that they do. My theory (if you'll indulge me) is that they're all reactionary.
Let's take a few steps back. Hollywood, for better or worse, has always had a tendency to create and follow their own trends. A movie will come out, make a billion dollars, and then be followed by a dozen films trying to emulate that same success. Sometimes this works, and then Hollywood has two billion-dollar movies. But usually, audiences are privy to what's happening, or they're just tired of seeing the same movies over and over, and no one goes to see the copycat(s).
An obvious example of this is a little indie flick from 1977, called Star Wars. Star Wars made $775.4 million when it came out; adjusted for inflation, that's roughly a bazillion dollars. And for good reason! Star Wars was fresh, inventive, fun, and inspiring in all the best ways. Still to this day, it's everyone's dad's favorite movie (full disclosure - my dad actually prefers Empire).
But because Star Wars was such a hit, we were immediately subjected to a million imitations. Moonraker, Flash Gordon, and loads more were pumped out of Hollywood, all trying to be the next Star Wars. Essentially, Hollywood said to itself, "Oh, people like space movies now!" and then continued to gaze longingly at itself in the mirror.
Now let's jump to the distant past - the ancient era of 2015. Star Wars is back in a big way - The Force Awakens has the biggest box office draw of any Star Wars, making over 2 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation, that comes to roughly 2 billion dollars). Again, this was for good reason: although not everyone loved Force Awakens, the general consensus was that the movie felt like OG Star Wars. But of course, Hollywood saw this and thought, "Ok, an older franchise rebooted with the same actors? Got it." All of a sudden: Blade Runner 2049, T2 Trainspotting, and so on (I actually didn't see either of those - I heard they're both great - but they're definitely reactions to TFA).
"What does this have to do with Harry Potter, Drew?" Oh, don't you worry - I'll tell you. I think the Harry Potter films are just a reaction to The Lord of the Rings. Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Drew, the first movies in each of those series both came out in 2001! How could one be a reaction to the other?" That's a good point. BUT, when LOTR started shooting in 1999, it was a massive production - a huge cast, shooting almost entirely on location, a budget of almost $300 million - all the Hollywood bigheads thought it was bound to be a hit. So, what did they think to themselves? "Oh, fantasy novels made into big-budget movies? We can do that!" Boom. Sorcerer's Stone goes into production.
But Harry Potter beat Lord of the Rings by over $100 million at the box office. How? And why? I have a few ideas. First off, not much time had passed between those releases - Harry Potter was actually released a month earlier. Basically, this particular Hollywood trend hadn't taken it's toll yet. Secondly, Sorcerer's Stone and Fellowship of the Ring are very different movies for very different audiences. It's hard to think of the two as direct competition. But most importantly, the Harry Potter books were still being released at this point, and people were chomping at the bit for any Hogwarts-related stuff they could get their hands on. (Stay with me - I'm finally reaching the point)
Even though Harry Potter was a financial success, I (and a lot of others) don't think it's half as good as the book it's based on, whereas the LOTR movies easily rival their respective source material. Why?
Before the LOTR movies went into production, director Peter Jackson had been trying to get them going since 1995 - they didn't start shooting for another four years. Conversely, Harry Potter producer David Heyman (who?) was apparently looking for a children's book that could be adapted into a hit movie. Harry Potter wasn't even his first choice - he originally wanted to do The Ogre Downstairs, which I assume is a Shrek spin-off. After Ogre fell through, Heyman's assistant suggested Harry Potter, stating, "It's a cool idea." Chris Columbus (no relation) was then slated to direct only after Steven Spielberg declined the offer.
ALL THIS is to say: the Harry Potter films feel more like a cash grab then an impassioned project. This is evident from the behind-the-scenes, but I think it really shows in the movies as well. But look - there's no hard and fast rule for any of this. Maybe I'm just connecting dots that aren't really there. But probably not.
That about wraps it up. I promise I'll complain about something other than movies sometime in the future. But in the meantime, let me know your thoughts! Do you love the Harry Potter movies? Do you think Daniel Radcliffe could beat me in a fist fight? Was reading this a complete waste of time? I'd love to hear from you. As always, thanks for reading!
BUT, that does lead to an interesting discussion about why that is - specifically, why the Harry Potter movies have the problems that they do. My theory (if you'll indulge me) is that they're all reactionary.
Let's take a few steps back. Hollywood, for better or worse, has always had a tendency to create and follow their own trends. A movie will come out, make a billion dollars, and then be followed by a dozen films trying to emulate that same success. Sometimes this works, and then Hollywood has two billion-dollar movies. But usually, audiences are privy to what's happening, or they're just tired of seeing the same movies over and over, and no one goes to see the copycat(s).
An obvious example of this is a little indie flick from 1977, called Star Wars. Star Wars made $775.4 million when it came out; adjusted for inflation, that's roughly a bazillion dollars. And for good reason! Star Wars was fresh, inventive, fun, and inspiring in all the best ways. Still to this day, it's everyone's dad's favorite movie (full disclosure - my dad actually prefers Empire).
But because Star Wars was such a hit, we were immediately subjected to a million imitations. Moonraker, Flash Gordon, and loads more were pumped out of Hollywood, all trying to be the next Star Wars. Essentially, Hollywood said to itself, "Oh, people like space movies now!" and then continued to gaze longingly at itself in the mirror.
Now let's jump to the distant past - the ancient era of 2015. Star Wars is back in a big way - The Force Awakens has the biggest box office draw of any Star Wars, making over 2 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation, that comes to roughly 2 billion dollars). Again, this was for good reason: although not everyone loved Force Awakens, the general consensus was that the movie felt like OG Star Wars. But of course, Hollywood saw this and thought, "Ok, an older franchise rebooted with the same actors? Got it." All of a sudden: Blade Runner 2049, T2 Trainspotting, and so on (I actually didn't see either of those - I heard they're both great - but they're definitely reactions to TFA).
"What does this have to do with Harry Potter, Drew?" Oh, don't you worry - I'll tell you. I think the Harry Potter films are just a reaction to The Lord of the Rings. Now, I know what you're thinking: "But Drew, the first movies in each of those series both came out in 2001! How could one be a reaction to the other?" That's a good point. BUT, when LOTR started shooting in 1999, it was a massive production - a huge cast, shooting almost entirely on location, a budget of almost $300 million - all the Hollywood bigheads thought it was bound to be a hit. So, what did they think to themselves? "Oh, fantasy novels made into big-budget movies? We can do that!" Boom. Sorcerer's Stone goes into production.
But Harry Potter beat Lord of the Rings by over $100 million at the box office. How? And why? I have a few ideas. First off, not much time had passed between those releases - Harry Potter was actually released a month earlier. Basically, this particular Hollywood trend hadn't taken it's toll yet. Secondly, Sorcerer's Stone and Fellowship of the Ring are very different movies for very different audiences. It's hard to think of the two as direct competition. But most importantly, the Harry Potter books were still being released at this point, and people were chomping at the bit for any Hogwarts-related stuff they could get their hands on. (Stay with me - I'm finally reaching the point)
Even though Harry Potter was a financial success, I (and a lot of others) don't think it's half as good as the book it's based on, whereas the LOTR movies easily rival their respective source material. Why?
Before the LOTR movies went into production, director Peter Jackson had been trying to get them going since 1995 - they didn't start shooting for another four years. Conversely, Harry Potter producer David Heyman (who?) was apparently looking for a children's book that could be adapted into a hit movie. Harry Potter wasn't even his first choice - he originally wanted to do The Ogre Downstairs, which I assume is a Shrek spin-off. After Ogre fell through, Heyman's assistant suggested Harry Potter, stating, "It's a cool idea." Chris Columbus (no relation) was then slated to direct only after Steven Spielberg declined the offer.
ALL THIS is to say: the Harry Potter films feel more like a cash grab then an impassioned project. This is evident from the behind-the-scenes, but I think it really shows in the movies as well. But look - there's no hard and fast rule for any of this. Maybe I'm just connecting dots that aren't really there. But probably not.
That about wraps it up. I promise I'll complain about something other than movies sometime in the future. But in the meantime, let me know your thoughts! Do you love the Harry Potter movies? Do you think Daniel Radcliffe could beat me in a fist fight? Was reading this a complete waste of time? I'd love to hear from you. As always, thanks for reading!
Comments
Post a Comment