Sign In

Potter eclipses Star Wars and Bond

Author
Time
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070911b.php

Of course, I'd like to see all these numbers adjusted for inflation. HP is great, but I doubt it has been viewed as many times or by as many people as the Original Trilogy, or Goldfinger or Thunderball.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
You have to really adjust for inflation, and that is why it is so hard to compare the OT to Harry Potter. You can compare the PT movies to Harry Potter cause they came out in the same years, but the OT movies adjusted for inflation are in the top 12 of all-time.

All-Time Domestic Gross (Adjusted Inflation) source: boxofficemojo.com

#2 - Star Wars 1.17 Billion

#12 - Empire Strikes Back 646 million

#14 - Return of the Jedi 618

Those numbers are mind boggling compared to todays numbers. Even if you take away the SE & Rerelease numbers from the movies, they still gross well over any movie today.
Author
Time
I really wish box office stats were measured in ticket sales instead of dollars.

I bet they'd give away showings if that's how a movie's prowess was earned. Instead, the cost of a ticket seems to go up a quarter every year.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I really wish box office stats were measured in ticket sales instead of dollars.

I agree. I remember thinking that when E.T. eclipsed Star Wars. I doubt very much that as many people went to see E.T. multiple times, as Star Wars.

Author
Time
my kids are into Transformers and Bratz. their friends are into stuff like Doctor Who and Pokémon. Harry Potter owes a lot to "The Worst Witch" if you ask me. HP is a great franchise, no doubt, but I think a lot of it is driven by adult women taking their kids to see it, rather than the kids asking to go to see it. I think it'll pan out like the 70s Planet of the Apes franchise which was also reasonably successful at the time. of course, I don't have a crystal ball and this HP news is undoubtedly good for the British Film Service industry.
Author
Time
the thing is i like star wars and bond better than harry potter.

sure i'll give you a few points on the fact that the potter films are better made than the prequels but they don't come close to the immortal trilogy circa 1977-1983. for those who do not know what i'm talking about is the real star wars trilogy all but destroyed and butchered by the special editions and the prequels.

the only series that came close was peter jackson's lord of the rings, and that bastardization of the original books is so far removed from tolkien and his christian ethics and symbolism to almost be a joke.

Bond is ruined now because of casino royale and the firing of peirce the last good bond.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
lol... wow... we know who's opinionated lol...

Sorry... I always saw Casino Royal as a separate take on Bond... I didn't see it as bad, but I've never read the book and knowing that it was written years ago... there is no way that movie was even loosely based on it...

tracking people via cell phones? lol
Although I did love Pierce lol... but I grew up with him in the Bond movis so lol... Goldeneye is still my favourite...

As far as Lord of the Rings... I've always heard how well adapted it was by fans...

And I do have to say this as I am the Co-Admin of the largest Jurassic Park resource on the web and we have to deal with people who do this all the time:

Never.... Ever.... Compare Novel to Film.


They are two separate media. To say one is better or worse then the other is simply not possible.

It's like saying you like The Great Gate of Kiev painting more than the Modest Mussorgsky suite. To say one has more detail or less is simply not possible and blind.

Why do I say this? Because you can't compare art like that.

Look at the films... you may not like them, but they have an amazing wealth of information, artwork (because they are mostly CG) and craftsman ship from countless people... not to mention symbolism of their own and a story of their own to weave. Limited by the artform, you can only do so much and only say so much.


The Great Gate of Kiev is a rather wonderful arch. The composition, however, does not say explicitly "It's a grand, rounded arch with a great spire from the top" in any lyrics BUT musically it goes Do--- Re---- Me, Do, Me, Re, sol which is like an arch... going up and back down again... but not ever stating "It has a spire" or "it is an arch with a tower" and to cite it as being flawed or mal-formed or BAD because it doesn't is simply not taking in what it does have to offer of its own.

Tolkein's novel is a great wealth of information of another kind. The symbolism you say is lost is replaced with another... similar to what I was saying with the music not explicitly stating something but showing it another way.



Personally, I've never read the novels, but the whole 'christian undertone' argument is kind of moot.

I saw "Narnia" and it is like the exact opposite. The whole time, I was stuck comparing it to the Bible. The whole story is like if you told the new testament but changed the nouns from 'Jesus' to 'Aslan' or from the two Mary's to the two girls.

I was stuck comparing it to the Bible and I couldn't see past that and see the film for what it is. For that, I think it greatly suffered if my eyes.

It may have been a good story and a moral one and what have you, but I personally could not see past the christian underpinnings and for me, that hindered the experience. It didn't go its own way or illustrate anything so dramatically different than the Bible. It didn't stand out as being as unique as the Bible; just a knock off copy.

I saw it once and never again. I have it on DVD but I didn't bother getting the expanded one...

So to update or to modify allusions and symbolism is just the thing an 'adaptation' needs to do... To make it's own mark in a certain art-scape.


So to go its own way I feel is a good thing....


Is it not sad that in this time, we are more surprised by acts of love than acts of hate?
-Me

Author
Time
I think movies are more design than art. Decisions about story and production design are made when transcribing from book to screenplay. And, frankly, what director can possibly hope to surpass your own imagination? So I agree that books and films are separate media - but I would stop short of calling 98% of movies 'art'. Art is the lie that makes us realise the truth. How many movies are that challenging to the human psyche?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: GoodMusician
As far as Lord of the Rings... I've always heard how well adapted it was by fans...

Which fans would that be? The first movie was the best adaptation. The second two (TTT and ROTK) were poor at best. Even listening to the commentary, Jackson says, in the first one, that they decided to keep things like the book most of the time because the fans would get mad and it wouldn't work any other way. When it comes to the second two, he plainly states that he decided to change a lot and then by the third they had to change even more because they changed things in the second one. Then, sometime during the third one, he states that if they had been able to release the movies a few months apart instead of one year apart, they would have stayed even more faithful to the books since it would be fresh in everyones mind. In fact, I think he even said that if it had been three movies straight to DVD it would have pretty much been the books on DVD.

I have seen an excellent fan edit of the movies that brings them as close as possible to the books and it does so remarkably well. No comic relief from Gimli. Very little Aragorn doubting himself. And just so much more than the original cuts had to offer.

Most true book fans would tell you that the first movie was done well, but the second two were done poorly. Even the first movie had many unnecessary changes, but they didn't change the overall story. The changes in the second two had major changes to characters that really were unnecessary.

Originally posted by: GoodMusician
Tolkein's novel is a great wealth of information of another kind. The symbolism you say is lost is replaced with another... similar to what I was saying with the music not explicitly stating something but showing it another way.



Personally, I've never read the novels, but the whole 'christian undertone' argument is kind of moot.

I saw "Narnia" and it is like the exact opposite. The whole time, I was stuck comparing it to the Bible. The whole story is like if you told the new testament but changed the nouns from 'Jesus' to 'Aslan' or from the two Mary's to the two girls.

I was stuck comparing it to the Bible and I couldn't see past that and see the film for what it is. For that, I think it greatly suffered if my eyes.

It may have been a good story and a moral one and what have you, but I personally could not see past the christian underpinnings and for me, that hindered the experience. It didn't go its own way or illustrate anything so dramatically different than the Bible. It didn't stand out as being as unique as the Bible; just a knock off copy.


The Christian undertone in Tolkien's work is there, but it requires a closer look than Lewis's does. In LOTR, the Wizards are Angels. Saruman is really just a lieutenant to Morgoth who is essentially Satan (fallen angel). Even the Balrog's are just corrupted Wizards. Most of this isn't in the novels or the movie though. It's in the appendix. It's not a great leap to get to it, it just requires some knowledge of Tolkien and the Bible.

Lewis's works are much more obvious. "Two daughts of Eve and two sons of Adam". If you know even a smidgeon of the Bible, it doesn't get more obvious than that. But it was suppose to be obvious. Lewis was a convert to Catholicism and he was essentially writing a Bible story for children. I didn't get it when I read it as a kid. It still doesn't hurt the story for me today.

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: miker71
I think movies are more design than art. Decisions about story and production design are made when transcribing from book to screenplay. And, frankly, what director can possibly hope to surpass your own imagination? So I agree that books and films are separate media - but I would stop short of calling 98% of movies 'art'. Art is the lie that makes us realise the truth. How many movies are that challenging to the human psyche?


Interesting philosophy, but one I would disagree with. "Art is the lie that makes us realize the truth," sounds good, but its not really saying anything profound in the final analysis. In actuality art conveys nothing more than what it is, and whatever a given work is that is what is true. Art can convey lies, but art itself is not a lie.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I really wish box office stats were measured in ticket sales instead of dollars.

I bet they'd give away showings if that's how a movie's prowess was earned. Instead, the cost of a ticket seems to go up a quarter every year.


In France, they count by ticket sales not by the money.


Author
Time
Originally posted by: GoodMusician

Sorry... I always saw Casino Royal as a separate take on Bond... I didn't see it as bad, but I've never read the book and knowing that it was written years ago... there is no way that movie was even loosely based on it...


Actually, Casino Royale is amazingly similiar to the novel on which it is based. I would almost go as far to say that it is one of the closest book to film adaptions I have seen in a long time. I have only read a few Bond books, but I have seen every film, and usually they are very loosely based on the novel, I was surprised when I saw Royale. Even the carpet beater sequence is almost straight out of the book.


"Never.... Ever.... Compare Novel to Film. They are two separate media. To say one is better or worse then the other is simply not possible."

That is an interesting thought, and to an extent I would agree with you. But I think it is not only possible, but inevitable. I agree both are art forms, no doubt about it, but we are not talking about the Great Gate of Kiev of the Modest Mussorgsky suite here. Those are too completely different styles and types of art, but both film and liturature are subcatagories of the art of story. And when it comes to books to films or films to books we are talking about one of these subcatagories retelling and already existing story. It would be more like Leonardo repainting the Mona Lisa but this time with water colors instead of oil paints. Of course people would compare the two, some would say they like the new dynamic brought to the work by the water colors, others would say it was a great painting before and that it was silly repaint it, while others would say they both unique and wonderful works of art. But they would be compared, no doubt about it.

When somebody writes a great novel and years later it is converted to film, of course people are going to compare the two. Some will like both, some will hate one and love the other, and others may hate them both. But they are anything but on comparable. Unlike the Great Gate of Kiev and the Modest Mussorgsky suite, Jurassic Park the novel and Jurassic Park the film are forever intertwined with one another, even if both incarnations are both excellent, as in the case of Jurassic Park, one is still a retelling or reimagining of the other.

As for Narnia, the reason it had such a theological message was because of how close it stayed true to Lewis' book. Those analogies from his original works were carried over to the film, being as it is the heart of the story, it would be impossible for it not to have been and to have stayed the same story. It is interesting you say you were stuck comparing it to the Bible and felt it was a knock off copy of the New Testament, because it really has very little in common with the Bible other than the theme of the savior and the sacrifice of an innocent life for a guilty one and the resurrection. Countless people have read those books and never picked up on any religious tones. As far as narrative goes, there is absolutely nothing in common with the New Testament (except perhaps for the resurrection, but you really have to be pulling to come up with that. Last time I read through my New Testament Jesus didn't run into battle with the women on his back right after he was brought back to life the very morning after he died). I think the problem with Narnia was that when it was released there were too many religious groups pushing the thing and preaching sermons on it. I can't even remember how many church billboards I passed that had some mention of The Chronicles of Narnia in it. Even the woman who drew the illustrations for the books didn't know that the book had anything to do with religion until much later, and was surprised when she found out. The comparisons in Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are pretty abstract, I don't think many people would pick up on them if it wasn't hinted to them before hand. Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it, it really is a great story, I think all of the religious groups pushing that film didn't help it any, I am afraid I have seen many people get too hung up on the religious "analogies" that they didn't see the story for what it really was. So, you are not the only one GM. Even Lewis' did not intend the thing to be a religious work. Aslan isn't even really suppose to be Christ. The idea Lewis had behind Aslan was more of "what if other worlds existed? If God were to send them a savior as he sent us Jesus, what would that savior be like?" Lewis was a theologian, so it stands to reason that he would throw a fair amount of theology into his fiction.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
I think comparing a novel to film is impossible, and 99% of the time, the novel is better. The novel can explain things in so much more detail, and if you try that in a movie, it comes off as talking down to the viewer. A book can be 200 or 400 or 800 pages and be a great read, cause you can put it down and start up again tomorrow. A movie is usually around 2+ hours, and some great epics are 3+ hours, but they are few and far between, and it is very hard to pull that off to keep the viewer interested. I try to keep the two seperate, as I either read the book or see the movie, but never both cause you will be letdown in the movie, it is just inevitable. Heck, even the PT novels were actually pretty good!
Author
Time
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
the potter films are better made than the prequels but they don't come close to the immortal trilogy circa 1977-1983.

No argument there! The Potter films had a good story for the films to follow. The Prequels barely had coherent plots.

I like the Potter books, and I think the films are very well done and are very true to the books, but I will never love any franchise as much as the OOT and I HATE the way the Prequels have sullied them.

Author
Time
The Potter books (and films) are nothing more than a drawn out version of LOTR. Or am I the only one that noticed that after the last book came out? Instead of taking several months to complete the quest, it takes Harry several years.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
I greatly respect J.K. Rowling for giving kids around the World something to read. However I hate Harry Potter. I just can't stand it. The books are ok, just not my cup of tea. And like I said before, J.K. is a great writer. But those movies are god awful. I'm talking episode one bad. They literally make me cringe. (I'm sorry Potter fans. I hope I haven't offended you. Just write off my comments if I have.)

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Crygor64
I greatly respect J.K. Rowling for giving kids around the World something to read. However I hate Harry Potter. I just can't stand it. The books are ok, just not my cup of tea. And like I said before, J.K. is a great writer. But those movies are god awful. I'm talking episode one bad. They literally make me cringe. (I'm sorry Potter fans. I hope I haven't offended you. Just write off my comments if I have.)


Dude, nothing is worse than Jar Jar Binks. Nothing. Even Jobby (sp?) wasn't that bad.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: GoodMusician

Sorry... I always saw Casino Royal as a separate take on Bond... I didn't see it as bad, but I've never read the book and knowing that it was written years ago... there is no way that movie was even loosely based on it...


Actually, Casino Royale is amazingly similiar to the novel on which it is based. I would almost go as far to say that it is one of the closest book to film adaptions I have seen in a long time.


C3PX is correct. Casino Royale is by far the closest 007 book-to-film adaptation. Most of the others are almost unrecognizable compared to the novels they take their names from.

For the record - I've been a 007 nerd since I was a kid. Saw my first Bond film in the theaters in 1973 - Live and Let Die. I was hooked instantly. I've seen them all more times than I can count, own the complete DVD set, have most of the soundtracks, post on a 007 forum, etc, etc.

For me, Casino Royale is far and away the best Bond film there has ever been. It's the Bond film I had always wanted to see. It's realistic, serious, and a believable story. It's a back-to-basics spy film, not gadget-laden silliness, with bad acting, caricature bad guys, and over-the-top comic relief - "he always did have an over inflated opinion of himself" - "I believe he's attempting re-entry, sir" - "now pay attention 007". No villains pressing the hidden foot pedal to open the trap door under "number 11" so that she falls into the Piranha tank. No villains operating from a secret base hidden inside a volcano.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time
Originally posted by: GoodMusician
...but I've never read the book
I've never read the novels, but ...
Never.... Ever.... Compare Novel to Film.


And in your case it seems, don't even bother reading them - but make absolute statements about them anyway, in a bloated, ego-stroking post.



It's like saying you like The Great Gate of Kiev painting more than the Modest Mussorgsky suite.


Are you referencing the original or Ravel's interpretation of Mussorgsky's interpretation of Hartmann's idea for The Heroes' Gate?




originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time
at least j.k. rowling has had an intimate involvement with the adaptation of her books into films. she even got to have input as to what director and actors would be in the movies.

i have heard she even gets say on final cut.

the tolkien estate had no control over the lord of the rings movies and i don't blame christopher tolkien for divorcing himself from those films which have almost nothing to do with the book it was based on.

As for Lucas while he remained in control of his baby and creation star wars he ruined it himself.

maybe having 100% control on a project and almost limitless funds is not a good thing.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I really wish box office stats were measured in ticket sales instead of dollars.

I bet they'd give away showings if that's how a movie's prowess was earned. Instead, the cost of a ticket seems to go up a quarter every year.


Yup, it should be by tickets sold!
George Lucas was seduced by the dark side. The OOT ceased to exist in his mind and became the Special Editions...." "They're more maching now than movies. Twisted and evil."