ArgusLeader.com

July 15, 2007

How long will ‘Potter’ leave readers, filmgoers spellbound?
By By Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic

With a worldwide box office of $3.5 billion, there’s little doubt Harry Potter has cast a spell on moviegoers around the globe.

But how long will it take to wear off?

With four movies already done, and a fifth, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” that came out July 11, Potter frenzy continues unabated. The Web site Fandango.com reports that the “Order of the Phoenix” leads all summer films in advance ticket sales.

J.K. Rowling has finished the seventh and final book about the young wizard and his Hogwarts Academy classmates, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” which hits shelves July 21. It, too, will be made into a film.

That’s sure to extend the Potter craze a few more years, but what happens after that? Will they endure like such fantasy classics as “Star Wars,” “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Wizard of Oz?” Or will they fade away, classified as competent but forgettable companions to the books.

The jury’s still out.

“I suspect that the Harry Potter films will not age well,” says Tim Morris, an English professor at the University of Texas at Arlington and author of “You’re Only Young Twice: Children’s Literature and Film.”

“Oddly enough, they hew too closely to the books; they’re too much an attempt to ’convey’ the feeling of the books. ’The Wizard of Oz’ and ’Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,’ for instance, take all kinds of weird liberties with the classic texts. They have an energy of their own that is lacking in the ’Harry Potter’ films, which are enjoyable for fans but take no chances with the franchise.”

“Harry Potter” fan Jen McKernan, of Glendale, Ariz., disagrees.

“I think that people are still discovering the books and, once they discover the books, they’re going to want to see the movies or vice versa,” she says. “I think that as a series it’s really very strong and it’s going to have a lot of staying power.”

McKernan says “Harry Potter” has the advantage of appealing to all ages.

“It’s something that parents can take their kids to, and not think, ’Oh God, I’m going to be bored for the next two hours,”’ says McKernan, 25, an admissions representative for Anthem College Online. “I think it appeals to a lot of different people, and that really contributes to how popular it is.”

The key to longevity for any movie series is staying popular while competing with new films. With leisure time at a premium for most people, can Potter hold a prime spot on the DVD shelf, or will it be shoved aside for the latest hit?

Once the final Potter movie exits the big screen, the inevitable DVD boxed sets will rival all comers, says Brian Deveny, chairman of the Arizona Theatre Owners Association.

“As far as staying power, I think the whole (thing) is very enduring to some people,” he says. “It’s kind of like with the books – (fans) pretty much know what they’re going to get, but they’re going to see something that they’ve never seen before on the screen. I’ve never really spoken to anybody who’s been disappointed with the film after reading the books, and that’s very rare.”

With seven movies in total, he adds, “Harry Potter” is unique among film series.
“(That) really opens up to a lot of really good marketing down the road with Warner Bros., as far as box sets and that kind of thing ... they’re going to make it, when it’s all done, very, very attractive to own them if you’re a big fan.”

Although a majority of “Harry Potter” fans generally love the movies, the films are not exactly cinematic art. Consider the Oscar tally between “Potter” and its main competition for the fantasy movie crown, “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

The four Potter movies released so far – “Sorcerer’s Stone,” “Chamber of Secrets,” “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Goblet of Fire” – were nominated for six Oscars, never in a major category, and won none. The three “Lord of the Rings” films – “The Fellowship of the Ring,” “The Two Towers” and “The Return of the King” – were nominated 30 times and won 17, including best picture and best director (Peter Jackson) for “Return of the King.”

Yet, while comparisons between “Potter” and “Lord of the Rings” are unavoidable, they may not necessarily be fair. “The Lord of the Rings” movies were aimed more at adults, and Jackson had the advantage of making the films after the fan base had mellowed considerably.

For instance, after Jackson (wisely) excised Tom Bombadil, a cartoonish character who sings many of his lines, from “The Fellowship of the Ring,” there was little blowback. The J.R.R. Tolkien books, first published in 1954 and ’55, are considered classics, but as popularity goes, they were far past their heyday when the movies came out.

No so with Harry Potter. Not only is Rowling still around, she was still writing the books as the first movies were being made. The fans were primed and ready, clipboards in hand, to jot down each little discrepancy or departure from the text.

That has to add a lot of pressure, which was reflected in the first two films, “The Sorcerer’s Stone” and “The Chamber of Secrets,” directed by Chris Columbus. If there’s a single word to describe them, cautious comes to mind.

Alfonso Cuaron, who directed the third film, “The Prisoner of Azkaban,” proffered a much darker version of Potter and took the most chances with the text. Critics enjoyed Azkaban, but it was the lowest-grossing Potter film, even though it did a respectable $249 million domestic.

As fantasy series go, the all-time champ remains “Star Wars.” Three decades after the first movie came out; people are still buying the DVDs, as director George Lucas continues to explore new ways to make a buck off the films.

Cynthia King, director of the Center for Entertainment and Tourism Studies at Cal State Fullerton, says the Potter films may not have the impact of “Star Wars” or “The Wizard of Oz.”

King says the Potter books, not the movies, are the strength of the series.

“There’s enough people in the world that if you did, in 20 years, a Harry Potter big event, certainly you’d get people to show up,” she says. “But I don’t know if it’s going to be the same kind of phenomenon, culturally. I don’t know culturally that it will have an identity.”