Debunking the Myths Surrounding the Harry Potter Date Change
Filed under: Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Warner Brothers, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Distribution, Harry Potter
When Warner Bros. announced last Thursday that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had been pushed back from Nov. 21 to next July, hardcore fans immediately entered the five stages of nerd grief. So far we've worked our way through denial, anger, semi-literate Internet ranting, and conspiracy-theorizing. All that's left is acceptance, where we go ahead and watch the movie when it comes out next summer and forget any of this ever happened.
In the meantime, several myths about the date change have popped up, and we'd like to help separate fact from fiction.
MYTH #1: Half-Blood Prince was moved because WB was scared of Twilight.
According to some people who are fans of the Twilight novel and pre-fans of the Twilight movie, WB got nervous about Harry Potter coming out just three weeks before the teen-vampire chick flick, fearing it would siphon off too much of Harry's audience.
Most observers believe Twilight will indeed be a hit, but come on. The Harry Potter franchise the most lucrative in film history, with a total worldwide box-office gross so far of $4.5 billion. There's no reason for WB to fear any competition, no matter how formidable. Also, most of Harry Potter's income is from overseas, where Twilight, still largely a U.S. phenomenon, cannot hope to compete.
Plus, if Half-Blood Prince came out Nov. 21 and followed the usual pattern, it would have already made most of its projected income by the time Twilight showed up on Dec. 12 anyway. Three weeks is a huge gap in our modern, front-loaded, it's-all-about-opening-weekend movie culture. If there had only been one week between them, then maybe you'd have something.
MYTH #2: It got moved because WB was nervous about Daniel Radcliffe's extra-curricular activities.This comes from Fox News entertainment writer Roger Friedman, who says that since Radcliffe will be appearing on Broadway in Equus -- a play involving full-frontal nudity and other steamy content -- in November, WB moved the film to avoid the association. After all, Friedman reasons, they wouldn't want Radcliffe doing interviews for Half-Blood Prince while having to answer questions about Equus. "That's not the image Warner Bros. wants associated with bespectacled Harry, who remains chaste and virginal," Friedman says.
Friedman doesn't cite any sources for this theory (which he states as fact), and it's easily debunked anyway. As the good folks at Defamer pointed out, Radcliffe had just appeared in Equus in London, just as naked and even younger (only 17!), when Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released, and it didn't pose any problems. It certainly didn't hurt that film's box office. By now, Radcliffe in Equus is old news. Why would WB suddenly be embarrassed by it?
MYTH #3: WB moved Half-Blood Prince to the one-year anniversary of The Dark Knight in the hopes of duplicating that film's success.
Harry's new release date of July 17, 2009, is exactly 52 Fridays after WB's The Dark Knight opened to record-shattering numbers. That's certainly not a coincidence, but we shouldn't read too much into it. WB honcho Alan Horn told the Los Angeles Times that it was summertime they were after, not The Dark Knight's slot specifically. Kids are out of school, so movies aimed at them can theoretically make more money than they would in the fall. July 10 or 24 would have suited Half-Blood Prince just as well as July 17 will.
The Dark Knight may have been a factor in other ways, though. Entertainment Weekly quotes an unnamed rival-studio exec as saying, "They don't need the money this year anymore.... When a movie overperforms the way Dark Knight has, you really don't need Harry Potter in the fall." The one-two punch of Dark Knight and Half-Blood Prince all in one year would have made 2008 look huge on WB's account sheet -- and it would have made 2009 look like a tremendous disappointment in comparison. Giant fluctuations like that don't sit well with stockholders and board members. Putting the films in different years balances things out and keeps the WB machine running smoothly. MYTH #4: Sending a petition to Warner Bros. demanding they reverse their decision will yield any results whatsoever.
I understand that you're frustrated and you want to do something. So by all means, if you want to make your voice heard, sign one of the online petitions going around and let WB know how you feel. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it will matter.
Do you think the Warner Bros. honchos who made the decision were unaware that fans would be outraged? Like they're going to get the petition and go, "What? You mean the fans are upset that we pushed the movie back eight months?! Well, we'd better move it back, then!" Come on, kids. Changing the film's release date was a major decision, and WB knew fans would be disappointed. They're not going to change their minds now, no matter how many e-signatures those e-petitions get.
Likewise, the talk of boycotting WB that we've seen all over the Internet (Google half blood prince boycott) is fruitless. So far, most of the "boycotts" have been along the lines of "I'm not going to watch any other WB movies besides this one" or "I'm going to wait and see it on DVD" or "I'm not going to see it until it's been in theaters for a month." None of those would have any impact on WB. The only way to really punish them would be to not pay to see the movie at all -- not in theaters, and certainly not on DVD (where the profit margins are higher). And you'd have to get a few million of your friends to do it, too. But any Harry Potter fan rabid enough to take such drastic measures would be unable to endure the torment of not seeing the movie.
Let's be honest: You're still gonna see the movie as soon as it opens, and you're still gonna like it. Yes, it's frustrating to realize that Warner Bros. holds all the cards and you can't do anything about it. But if there's one thing we've learned from the Boy Who Lived, it's that life isn't always fair.
Related Headlines
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. i think their decision to move it in the summer is ridiculous. it won't get any more money in the summer than it will in at christmas time. the harry potter fanbase is well established at htis point. those who have seen the movies before will definitely go and see it and those who haven't... won't. its as simple as that.
but i do understand that the anger and the petitions are pretty much pointless because us HP fans will watch it no matter wot. if they postponed it till 2010, we'd be more pissed, but we'd still go watch it when it comes out.
Posted at 1:40AM on Aug 19th 2008 by joits
3. I think the two things that I agree the most are these:
1. They're moving HP because they already have made a lot this year with The Dark Knight and thus can spread the wealth onto 2009. Having a record year followed by a possibly disappointing year DOES look worse than having two good solid years.
2. Harry Potter fans will STILL see this movie. And the next one. And the final one. All these petitions and call to boycott are ridiculous. Like you said, if these rabid fans are so emotionally invested enough in a series that they want to boycott the studio then I can NOT see them NOT see the movie. Maybe they won't see it opening weekend as a form of "protest" but they WILL see it. Silly rabbits.
Having said that, *I* am still disappointed I have to wait a few more months. But yeah, whatcha gonna do?
Posted at 6:54AM on Aug 19th 2008 by Ryan
4. Ryan nails it. This is purely an accounting move. You can't have a windfall success with no follow-up plan, thus Harry Potter was called in to subsist an otherwise paltry forecast.
Posted at 8:16AM on Aug 19th 2008 by Peter Hall
5. Just as long as it doesn't turn into the horrible slop that OotP was, I'm fine with them moving the date. Hopefully it'll make it better not worse.
Posted at 8:46AM on Aug 19th 2008 by Jennifer
6. If Twilight fans actually are arguing that they moved HP because of that movie than they are even crazier than they have been coming off up to this point. Of all the movies that are even announced to be coming out in the next few years the only one that might make HP a little nervous is The Hobbit. Outside of that I think Harry Potter would scare the bejesus out of any other production company hoping to go up against it.
Posted at 9:45AM on Aug 19th 2008 by Kevin
7. Umm dont know much bout the twilight book..but I did see a sneek peek n it was (sorry to you twilight fans)kinda crappy..granted only a sneek peek but the acting was horrible..I for 1 am ticked that they changed the date..why all the hype n previews to later just hold off for another 8mos..By the time they make the last Hp movie who knows if the actors will be able to pull off as decent teens....I hate that they did this..for the record twilight would hold NO competition to HP in the box office..so that can't be it...
Posted at 7:33PM on Aug 19th 2008 by Missy
8. Well, it's obvious isn't it? Big profits this year + big risk next year (Fox's Watchmen litigation - boo!) = they need an equalizer for next year.
Posted at 10:13AM on Aug 19th 2008 by ML
9. Excellent article, very well written. I have to agree with the other comments, its a money thing. They made enough this year with Dark Knight, they want a safety net for next year.
Posted at 12:17PM on Aug 19th 2008 by Julie
10. By moving the release to summer 2009 and keeping the release of the last film in December 2009, that means that the DVD will be coming out as Potter 7 hits the theater. Buzz for the movie will generate more buzz for the DVD, and vice versa.
Posted at 12:18PM on Aug 19th 2008 by JP
11. Ok, let's just separate HP and Twilight, two things that should never have been compared in the first place for any reason (I think maybe this was a media created battle). I love both series, but HP is pretty much a juggernaut which has no competition. I was not happy to see the movie moved to next summer--I had my holiday movie hopping all mapped out--but when I read the WB statement, I saw exactly where they were at: its all $$$, and an HP summer release will guarantee them beyond a shadow of a doubt some big bucks during the summer season, '09. I may not like the fact I have to wait longer, but I will still be there to see it.
And oh yeah, it will give them plenty of time to move along on their marketing campaign, which has not been really up to par just yet in comparison with the other HP movies (and other long awaited productions--movies like Iron Man, The Dark Knight and so on--were doing plenty of marketing months before release...yet we just barely got the teaser for HBP).
Posted at 12:18AM on Aug 20th 2008 by Cindy
12. JP...You need to re check your facts man. Deathly Hallows doesnt come out till 2010! the second part is slated for may 2011...
I don't know where the heck you got Dec 2009 from...
Posted at 3:04PM on Aug 21st 2008 by charline
13. This is ridiculous! That's all there is to say about it! It's completely outrageous that they would do this, to prey on our loyalty like this. People are right: they do just want to make more money by putting it out in the summer. How horrible to get our hopes up like this and then send them crashing down all because summer makes it easier for them to get people to line up outside the movie theater! I hate this, and I hope it comes back to bite them in the butt, I really do. I think it just might. I was going to go see Dark Knight (still playing around here) with my husband, but not anymore. And you, writing this article, you're a little rude and dismissive of our outrage. Maybe signing the petitions won't make them change their minds, and nor will any boycott, but at least in Summer 2009, when the movie doesn't do quite as well as they hoped, they will have lists of thousands of people who said, "I told you so" and it will be their own fault! Their nonchalant attitude has got us all in an uproar, and I cannot imagine any Potter fans raving about Warner Brothers or affiliates anytime soon. I bet J. K. Rowling is upset too! Jo would never change the date to summer to score more money. As long as Potter fans know she has nothing to do with it, and it's the idiots she sold the rights to the story to, not her. I'm sure if she could have, she would have stopped this jagged knife from stabbing her devoted fans in the back in the name of greed.
Posted at 10:17PM on Aug 21st 2008 by Jenny
14. It's all about the money. In everything from politics to movies to war, it's about the money.
Posted at 4:57PM on Aug 26th 2008 by Pat
1. Harry Potter? Hmmm. Never heard of him. Any relation to Dennis Potter?
Posted at 12:27AM on Aug 19th 2008 by Matt