|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Nov 30, 2005 21:20:17 GMT -5
Yes, filming 7 movies fluidly rather than breaking them into pieces would really be SO MUCH more expensive, expensive enough to drive the studio bankrupt when those movies are some of the most popular of all time. Um, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasabi on Dec 17, 2005 19:11:50 GMT -5
I'm gonna cry at the end of the 6th movie! *grabs tissue box* I'll probably need to take one with me to the theatre! *upset*
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Dec 17, 2005 21:43:24 GMT -5
mm, I'm not sure if I even want to see movie 6. But of course I will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2005 10:32:03 GMT -5
Yes, filming 7 movies fluidly rather than breaking them into pieces would really be SO MUCH more expensive, expensive enough to drive the studio bankrupt when those movies are some of the most popular of all time. Um, no. Including marketing: SS-$165 million CoS-$150 million PoA-$180 million GoF-$200 million Estimates: OotP:$200 million HBP-$220 million 7-$250 million Total $1.6 Billion, it just wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by Ron Weasley on Dec 19, 2005 2:04:20 GMT -5
i hope they dont change actors or actisses. that would suck [glow=orange,2,300]I wish Daniel Radcliffe would stop playing Harry. I think he sucks.[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by lauren on Dec 19, 2005 4:59:41 GMT -5
I'm gonna cry at the end of the 6th movie! *grabs tissue box* I'll probably need to take one with me to the theatre! *upset* I intend to laugh at the end of the 6th movie, laugh insanely and ruin the movie for everyone ;D Oh and I too wish someone else will take on the role of Harry in the upcoming films. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2005 17:33:00 GMT -5
Yes, filming 7 movies fluidly rather than breaking them into pieces would really be SO MUCH more expensive, expensive enough to drive the studio bankrupt when those movies are some of the most popular of all time. Um, no. Including marketing: SS-$165 million CoS-$150 million PoA-$180 million GoF-$200 million Estimates: OotP:$200 million HBP-$220 million 7-$250 million Total $1.6 Billion, it just wouldn't work. Not only that, but they would pretty much open up a bording school. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Dec 19, 2005 21:47:06 GMT -5
But they're spending the same amount, just in different pieces. That's the exact same thing they'd be doing if they did them all together like other people and myself were suggesting, they would just get produced quicker and, I think, flow better if they were to do them at way. It wouldn't impact the spending at all, in fact I think it'd lower spending, since they'd be using up less time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2005 16:47:12 GMT -5
But they're spending the same amount, just in different pieces. That's the exact same thing they'd be doing if they did them all together like other people and myself were suggesting, they would just get produced quicker and, I think, flow better if they were to do them at way. It wouldn't impact the spending at all, in fact I think it'd lower spending, since they'd be using up less time. But they wouldn't have the revenues from the previous Harry Potter's to fund the following ones. It would take roughly 40 months to FILM not only that, while they finish filming they would be editing and adding special effects so they would hire a whole other crew. Not only that, look at the criticism that the directors are getting especially Curon. Plus if they got a crappy director and they sucked no one would see the later ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Dec 20, 2005 20:28:36 GMT -5
*shrug* I'm sure they could make the system work if they tried. And what did they do for the first one? They didn't have revenues from the previous ones to fund that one...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2005 15:21:25 GMT -5
*shrug* I'm sure they could make the system work if they tried. And what did they do for the first one? They didn't have revenues from the previous ones to fund that one... It wasn't over a BILLION dollars it was only like 150 million, for a big studio that is a hunk of change. The movie Alexander almost made Waner Bros. go bankrupt, and that was just under 200 million. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Dec 21, 2005 21:33:03 GMT -5
But the point is they wouldn't be spending the billion all at once, they'd be spending it gradually like the way they're doing it now except with less space in between. As revenues would be pooring in from the first one they'd be beginning the second one which is what they did, filming for the second one started the day after the first one was released in theaters, if they'd continued that it would've gone much faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Snicket on Dec 22, 2005 17:17:41 GMT -5
The locations are staying in London and the areas they have filmed in before. They decided not to move. Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have signed on to do the fifth movie. In an interview I read a week ago, Emma said that there was a break in between filming. I don't think filming has started yet. According to what I heard, filming is going to begin in January or Febuary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2005 19:50:23 GMT -5
Plus the kids need to have semi-normal lives. They need time off to be with family and friends in their hometowns.
|
|
|
|
Post by fadingfawkes on Dec 31, 2005 18:52:49 GMT -5
Nope they said it was going to be in June since #4 was released in November. It goes like June, November, June, November, June, November and so on.
Making starts February 2006 ^^.
|
|
