MovieMusic.com Message Boards: Why Harry Potter Sucks This Weekend

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

Why Harry Potter Sucks This Weekend (Page 2)

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

Author	Topic: Why Harry Potter Sucks This Weekend

Crono/Kyp Standard Userer	This entire thread has become a waste of time. --Brisn
posted 07-23-2007 11:37 PM PT (US)

James Standard Userer	Sean, Paramount -- "where dreams go to die," as Steven Soderbergh said -- left Star Trek out to rot for years until they finally gave it to J.J. Abrams, and everybody seems to believe that they only did that because he made it a condition of being signed over to them. If you came up to them and asked them if they wanted to switch a franchise they have long trashed and neglected in favor of a huge, high-profile product with a pre-sold audience guaranteed to shower them in hundreds of millions of dollars no matter how little effort they put into it, you'd have to be terribly naive to think they'd say no. And frankly, Star Trek would probably be better off, as it would finally be in the hands of a company (Warner Bros.) that actually seems to care about its product.
posted 07-23-2007 11:57 PM PT (US)

James Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Crono/Kyp: This entire thread has become a waste of time. Has become? [Message edited by James on 07-24-2007]
posted 07-24-2007 12:02 AM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Crono/Kyp: This entire thread has become a waste of time. --Brisn LMAO! Wasn't it already???
posted 07-24-2007 08:44 AM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by James: Sean, Paramount -- "where dreams go to die," as Steven Soderbergh said -- left Star Trek out to rot for years until they finally gave it to J.J. Abrams, and everybody seems to believe that they only did that because he made it a condition of being signed over to them. If you came up to them and asked them if they wanted to switch a franchise they have long trashed and neglected in favor of a huge, high-profile product with a pre-sold audience guaranteed to shower them in hundreds of millions of dollars no matter how little effort they put into it, you'd have to be terribly naive to think they'd say no. And frankly, Star Trek would probably be better off, as it would finally be in the hands of a company (Warner Bros.) that actually seems to care about its product. Yeah, and look at the **** Steven Soderbergh pumps out, he's an embarrassment. I wouldn't quote him if I were you. I'm not giving Paramount any props here, just stating that they wouldn't let Star Trek go to some other studio or hand it over to anyone else ... They just wouldn't (logic dictates that), and I have no idea why you think they would let that happen. Of course, there are many fans out there, me included, who are upset with some of the decisions made by the top brass with regards to Trek (putting Enterprise on UPN, for one!?), or how upsetting it can be to know we'll probably never get official full-releases of the motion picture scores, like The Final Frontier for example. Anyway, regardless of their recent treatment of the franchise (and yes, I think J. J. Abrams directing the next film is a bad move, as is having that retard ["I'll only use the good themes" (from the previous films!)—man, any ONE theme from a Trek film is better than Giacchino's entire body of work put together] Michael Giacchino score the picture is a negative, too), Paramount would not sell off Star Trek to another studio, it's just too rich a commodity to do away with, creatively and financially: just listen to Ron Moore talking about Paramount and their plans "for the next 50 years of Star Trek"—they ain't lettin' it go ... And I'll take the trinity of Kirk, Spock, and Bones any day over Harry, Doosseldorf, and Hermemine.
posted 07-24-2007 09:00 AM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Timmer: Still digesting his tombstone sized book I suspect Look, it's Tim! Nah, finished mine two days ago.
posted 07-24-2007 04:14 PM PT (US)

Cole Standard Userer	I was just crunching some numbers and discovered that all 11 Star Trek Films have grossed a mere $1.07 billion worldwide while the 5 Harry Potter movies have earned $3.5 billion. That's half as many movies earning twice as much money. I am not positive...but i think in the movie world popularity has something to do with the number of people who will pay money to see something. If this is indeed the case then doesnt logic dictate Which franchise is more popular? I mean, come on, Star Trek has a good 30 year head start over Harry Potter. I am willing to bet that if you asked a random sampling of people about the memorability of Spock's death, most people wouldn't even know he died. I feel confidant, however, that they could tell you exactly how Cedric Diggory died.
posted 07-25-2007 05:56 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Cole: I was just crunching some numbers and discovered that all 11 Star Trek Films have grossed a mere $1.07 billion worldwide while the 5 Harry Potter movies have earned $3.5 billion. That's half as many movies earning twice as much money. I am not positive...but i think in the movie world popularity has something to do with the number of people who will pay money to see something. If this is indeed the case then doesnt logic dictate Which franchise is more popular? I mean, come on, Star Trek has a good 30 year head start over Harry Potter. I am willing to bet that if you asked a random sampling of people about the memorability of Spock's death, most people wouldn't even know he died. I feel confidant, however, that they could tell you exactly how Cedric Diggory died. Well a) Spock doesn't die, just watch the next film Star trek III: The Search For Spock for all the evidence, and b) I wasn't talking about movie-only profits of the franchise ... you didn't take into account the 5 televisions shows and DVD sales etc., toys (trust me, 40 years from now, Art Asylum will not be revisiting Harry Potter for its top-notch lines), books (of which there is a mountain), CDs, etc. Look, I'm right and you're wrong ... Ever been to a Star Trek convention, ever seen how many people go to those things, it's madness (last time I went was 1991 [8 years old] and will not go again because of the hordes that attend). Name me ONE memorable Potter film moment that we'll hold up ... there are none. The time the little boy uses the broom maybe? Spock's death is something cool, man, you gotta' be a fan of cinema to like it, though.
posted 07-25-2007 07:39 PM PT (US)

MWRuger Standard Userer	If you are going to include the money the TV shows made then you should probably include the profits from the Potter books, (which are vast) as well as the revenue from the video games. (There are very few well selling ST games despite many efforts to make it so.) Harry Potter could become more popular than Star Trek. It will depend on what comes next. If Rowling continues to produce material then it could. If she does as she planned, and this is indeed the last book, then it will probably not.
posted 07-25-2007 10:35 PM PT (US)

Jeron Standard Userer	Next weekend I'm going to start a thread called "Why 'Why Harry Potter Sucks This Weekend' Thread Sucks This Weekend". Star Trek vs. Harry Potter is the most ridiculous debate ever. Pure retardedness to the max. How about we start a Total Recall vs. Lord of the Rings debate? 1.... 2.... 3.... GO!
posted 07-25-2007 11:52 PM PT (US)

Cole Standard Userer	Jeron, everybody knows total recall is much more culturally relevant than the lord of the rings
posted 07-26-2007 12:35 AM PT (US)

nuts_score Standard Userer	I've come in too late, it seems. Look, Harry Potter and Star Trek both serve their purposes in the pop culture canon and the zenon of the 20th and 21st Century. There will be those fans who flock to see the "little magical kid in glasses" and those who just want to be beamed up into a place and time outside our own. Personally, I'll side with the latter. Here's why: the Potter films have been continuously underwhelming with the exception of The Prisoner of Azkaban. At least with Trek, you have an absolute sci-fi classic in Wrath of Khan as well as some generally amazing moments scattered through the rest of the films; plus 40-some years of television mythology to look at. Potter is brand new, just oozing his way onto the surface of attention, and to be completely honest, Rowling is a generic writer. I don't understand the praise being showered upon the summer dreck that was The Order of the Phoenix, a film that I hoped and prayed would save this tired and pointless 2007 film year. Unfortunately for me and some others, the film was a mess; in both style and execution. The major conflict of the entire piece was treated as a one-note joke ("He's back!") and characters that have been well-established and provide the franchise with deeper roots than it so requires were given less-than-admirable send-offs (I'm looking at Gary Oldman's unimportant death after a amazing team-up with Harry, which includes a wonderful moment where Oldman's Sirius refers to Harry as James) and the magnificent Imelda Staunton's rushed departure of what could have been an incredible foil for Dumbledore in Dolores Umbridge. In looking at this franchise as films, it seems that the filmmakers and producers have little imagination in how to use their characters, whether they want to be faithful to the novels or not. The wizard battles were hackeneyed imitations of LotR and Star Wars and the music was limp throughout. I think it would be a great challenge - though risky and dangerous on a filmmakers part - if they considered straying from the source material, if even in the smallest moments (like holding off on Sirius' death). That movie was undoubtedly the weakest of the series, and I absolutely loathe the first two Chris Columbus nightmares. But with Trek, we'll always have TOS and The Wrath of Khan. [Message edited by nuts_score on 07-26-2007]
posted 07-26-2007 12:52 AM PT (US)

Crono/Kyp Standard Userer	Next time, I'll pick up the phone. --Brian
posted 07-26-2007 06:49 PM PT (US)

vdemona Standard Userer	>>the Potter films have been continuously underwhelming with the exception of The Prisoner of Azkaban. At least with Trek, you have an absolute sci-fi classic in Wrath of Khan<< Yeah, well, that really depends on one's own viewpoint. Back when WoK was released in theaters the only people who thought it would be a real classic or would be any good were Trek fans. How is this any different or better than HP fandom? IMO, the Potter films have been getting better and more interesting.
posted 07-26-2007 07:16 PM PT (US)

NeoVoyager Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by vdemona: How is this any different or better than HP fandom? IMO, the Potter films have been getting better and more interesting. Ditto on just about everything Nuts_score said. I think they have been getting better and more interesting until GoF, which was a bit worse than PoA. Then The Order of the Phoenix came along, which is about as pleasant as a whack on the nose with a rusty poker. IMHO, of course.
posted 07-26-2007 08:53 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by vdemona: Yeah, well, that really depends on one's own viewpoint. Back when WoK was released in theaters the only people who thought it would be a real classic or would be any good were Trek fans. How is this any different or better than HP fandom? IMO, the Potter films have been getting better and more interesting. Ah BOOO! That's BS all-the-way from you. Go check out the Box Office revenues for Khan: And case-in-point where it wasn't only fans who liked it [besides the obvious box-office success], go read Janet Maslin's excellent review of it for The New York Times.
posted 07-26-2007 09:04 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	nuts: I agree with you all the way about Potter, though I find none of the films redeemable. But, just a side about Star Trek: There's some other great Trek movies other than Wrath Of Khan; The Voyage Home might actually be the best, in all honesty, and Star trek VI is fantastic, too, with stunning performances from all the principles and of course Christopher Plummer and David Warner sure step up to bat with everything they've got. The success of those three films should be credited to Nicholas Meyer, who is a brilliant and intelligent writer and talented director (his body of work is small, too small if you ask me, but his contribution to Trek is impressive, to say the least), and he also took a gamble in hiring James Horner for Khan and that delivered, as did Cliff Eidelman on The Undiscovered Country; and lastly, the Ronald D. Moore scripted First Contact is awesome, too, and easily dominates over the Next Generation films. [Message edited by sean on 07-26-2007]
posted 07-26-2007 09:13 PM PT (US)

BigT1981 Standard Userer	I agree with the notion that Star Trek's II, IV and VI were the best for the Original Series crew. All though I like all 10 movies. Well for Star Trek V, I liked most of it until they reached the Great Barrier then from that point on it killed the rest of the mood for the film and shot itself in the foot.
posted 07-26-2007 10:55 PM PT (US)

vdemona Standard Userer	Naw, I don't think so. Most people I know who aren't nerds or geeks have no interest in either series (HP or ST.)Whatsoever. However I have no statistics to back this up. Only my own observations. [Message edited by vdemona on 07-27-2007]
posted 07-27-2007 07:52 PM PT (US)

BigT1981 Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by vdemona: Naw, I don't think so. Most people I know who aren't nerds or geeks have no interest in either series (HP or ST.)Whatsoever. However I have no statistics to back this up. Only my own observations. [Message edited by vdemona on 07-27-2007] HEY! I resent that! I'm a geek (or nerd) of Star Trek and PROUD of it. No I don't go around dressing up in Star Trek outfits or collecting everything under the sun for Star Trek but I am proud to be a Trekkie. "I find that insulting" - Spock from Star Trek VI [Message edited by BigT1981 on 07-27-2007]
posted 07-27-2007 10:46 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by vdemona: Naw, I don't think so. Most people I know who aren't nerds or geeks have no interest in either series (HP or ST.)Whatsoever. However I have no statistics to back this up. Only my own observations. I don't hate to burst your bubble here, but everyone is a nerd/geek about something ... cars, tools, stamps, paintings, pornography, books, movies, music, Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, whatever ... there's no one who isn't a nerd/geek about something. I'm a geek about a great many things, but scores tops it off.
posted 07-28-2007 12:40 AM PT (US)

Cole Standard Userer	I definately think that we can all agree that film scores are where its at. It's pretty incredible that we live in a time where we can come together and discuss our likes and dislikes in such an amazing medium. While we won't always agree on everything we still share a common love for this artform that our different opinions only enhance. It's fun to compare and contrast Harry Potter and Star Trek (and pretty nerdy too)And where else are you gonna do it? Sometimes you just gotta throw some fuel on the fire to get things going. Contrary to how it may seem in this thread I am a huge Star Trek fan, and I love hearing what everyone has to say about one series vs the other. Jeron and I will always have the John Williams vs Jerry Goldsmith debate going on between us. And while I will continuously produce overwhelming evidence to Williams' superiority, we both understand that neither of us dislike one of the composers. A good time is had by all talking about it. Here's hoping that all of us at MM.com will continue this great dialogue about the wonderful world of film scores! Beam me up/Mischief managed
posted 07-28-2007 08:05 PM PT (US)

Timmer Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Marian Schedenig: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by Timmer: [b]Still digesting his tombstone sized book I suspect <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE> Look, it's Tim! Nah, finished mine two days ago.[/B] Yep! I remember how fast you read! p.s. Gomaz says "Hi Jerry!"
posted 07-28-2007 09:33 PM PT (US)

Dinko Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Cole: I was just crunching some numbers and discovered that all 11 Star Trek Films have grossed a mere $1.07 billion worldwide while the 5 Harry Potter movies have earned $3.5 billion. Are those Trek numbers adjusted for inflation? Because ticket prices in 1979 weren't comparable to the 13$ you pay today. See that's what I really like about the French and Germans: they count ticket sales, not revenue. So you can easily compare popularity accross decades.
posted 07-29-2007 03:30 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Dinko: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by Cole: [b]I was just crunching some numbers and discovered that all 11 Star Trek Films have grossed a mere $1.07 billion worldwide while the 5 Harry Potter movies have earned $3.5 billion. <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE> Are those Trek numbers adjusted for inflation? Because ticket prices in 1979 weren't comparable to the 13$ you pay today. See that's what I really like about the French and Germans: they count ticket sales, not revenue. So you can easily compare popularity accross decades.[/B] I agree. Cole, return when you've done better homework.
posted 07-29-2007 03:57 PM PT (US)

BigT1981 Standard Userer	Gotta agree with Dinko's and Sean's post. You got to remember the time those films came out even Nemesis you weren't paying nearly as much for tickets like you are now.
posted 07-29-2007 09:47 PM PT (US)

Cole Standard Userer	Well, honestly I did thought about the inflation factor but i did not want to do any algebra. I don't see how inflation and ticket price increases are going to add the extra $2 billion it would take for Star Trek to surpass Harry Potter. The numbers I found are stil very telling even without the aforementioned factors. If anyone feels differently then they should be the ones providing evidence otherwise. PS i think i gotta little bit cheesy in my previous post as i sit here and reread it. It's possible i may have been drinking.
posted 07-31-2007 05:15 PM PT (US)

sean Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Cole: Well, honestly I did thought about the inflation factor but i did not want to do any algebra. I don't see how inflation and ticket price increases are going to add the extra $2 billion it would take for Star Trek to surpass Harry Potter. The numbers I found are stil very telling even without the aforementioned factors. If anyone feels differently then they should be the ones providing evidence otherwise. PS i think i gotta little bit cheesy in my previous post as i sit here and reread it. It's possible i may have been drinking. The issue wasn't dollars, but popularity ... That's why Dinko mentioned ticket sales and not revenue. No one else is doing your homework for you, because we know we're right and you're wrong.
posted 07-31-2007 07:34 PM PT (US)

Cole Standard Userer	You must have misunderstood me. If you know you are right and i am wrong then it is up to you to prove it. I am the one who has presented valid evidence to support my argument. I welcome any information that refutes mine. I am afraid a simple "we know we are right and you are wrong" really doesn't mean much. On the other hand, you are right in that popularity (not mere revenue) is the original point of contension. I happen to think that revenue (while not absolute)is a good indicator of popularity. I think perhaps Star Trek is more popular to you because you like it more - and that is fine. Popularity can be measured by opinion; but it has to be more than your own. And while yes, Star Trek has had TV shows and other things which indicate its popularity that Harry Potter Does not have, It still seems evident (based on the money generated by Harry Potter) that the Harry Potter movies are more successfull and therefore more popular than the Star Trek movies. I am not trying to say that Star Trek isn't popular or successfull or anything that contradicts my own opinion of Star Trek being some kick ass sci-fi. I am only saying that the numbers seem to show that more people have gone to see Harry Potter movies than Star Trek movies. And more people tends to mean more popular. If anyone can show me otherwise i am happy to hear it. Also...if anybody could tell me if i am wasting my time here i would greatly appreciate it? [Message edited by Cole on 07-31-2007]
posted 07-31-2007 08:56 PM PT (US)

BigT1981 Standard Userer	Star Trek and Star Wars COMBINED will always be more popular than Harry Potthead, even when Harry Potthead dies down after a while. People will always remember Star Trek and Star Wars. Edit: Star Wars and Star Trek (movies, TV shows...) is kick ass Sci-Fi entertainment. I can sit and watch Star Wars and Star Trek OVER AND OVER again, not get bored but would not be able to get through even one sitting through one Harry Potthead movie. Star Trek and Star Wars combined have become more successful than Harry Potthead... [Message edited by BigT1981 on 07-31-2007]
posted 07-31-2007 10:44 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB