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.
1. Harry Potter? Hmmm. Never heard of him. Any relation to Dennis Potter?
Posted at 12:27AM on Aug 19th 2008 by Matt