Half Blood Prince film delayed...

[Andy 52]

...DELIBERATELY!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7562557.stm

Soooooo not impressed!

Just delaying it because they want to guarantee a summer blockbuster next year?

Isn't it these kinds of backhanded tactics that hurt the film industry in the first place?

MEH!

[Drake 53]

What a load of crap.

[Radioactive Isotope 28]

who cares if they have a "summer blockbuster" or not. it's freakin Harry Potter. they'll still get plenty of money.

although, it will save the husband and i a few bucks in our date fund, but that's a pretty weak silver lining. :mad:

[Tsl 6]

*cries*

[Andy 52]

I know it's a pretty poor show by WB, eh?

[Bad furday 57]

I am....quite disappointed. Quite. :mad:

[Andy 52]

A US source says it's to avoid a clash between the premiere of the film and Daniel Radcliff starring in Equus in the US in November.

Which would be a slightly better excuse...

However, WB continue to INSIST that it's so they can have a summer blockbuster. Surely, you don't go around admitting to everyone that you are money grabbing so-and-sos?

[Uncle Du 22]

Well why not, they don't care if people see em as greedy, you're still gonna see it aren't ya?

I am.

And what's this "reprising their roles" thing? Hadn't heard anything about that till now.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Du

[Andy 52]

It's just the BBC remaining neutral and not contributing to speculation on things that everybody knows even though it doesn't need confirming anyway.

[Chickenman 9]

I...want a neutral news source.

And as for the delay, damn it. I get to ignore it less. :p

[Uncle Du 22]

It's just the BBC remaining neutral and not contributing to speculation on things that everybody knows even though it doesn't need confirming anyway.

I'm feeling dense....what is everyone speculating about?

[Andy 52]

And what's this "reprising their roles" thing? Hadn't heard anything about that till now.

It's just the BBC remaining neutral and not contributing to speculation on things that everybody knows even though it doesn't need confirming anyway.

I'm feeling dense....what is everyone speculating about?

I assumed you were being sarcastic.

Daniel Radcliff and co. reprising their roles as Harry Potter etc? Who'd have guessed, eh? :p

Edited August 19, 2008 by Andy

[Uncle Du 22]

Oh wow. Yea, I totally spaced out on the meaning of that whole thing. I guess we'll just call that a Prin moment. ;)

[Andy 52]

I'm just peed off because I made this forum because we were come up to the releas... and now it's nearly a year away!

*sigh*

[Uncle Du 22]

That is pretty unbelievable when you stop to think about it. I mean, the movie is gonna make a ton of money no matter when it's released. This is just down-right greed on behalf of the studio cause they wanna compete in next years numbers. Ridiculous.

I mean, it's not like it's going to beat the Dark Knight any way. :p

[Drake 53]

Dark Knight, also released by WB, more than made up for any low "numbers" this year. Releasing two blockbusters in one year is overkill, especially if they don't have much in the way of good movies due to the writer's strike.

Still a pain in the ass, though.

[Uncle Du 22]

But who are we to question the almighty CEO's of Hollywood. :p

[Andy 52]

The people who decide whether to give them money or not. :p

[Chickenman 9]

Except that we'll go see their movies anyway, and even if we don't, legions of mindless idiots will.

Hollywood CEOs suck.

[Uncle Du 22]

And have a lot more money because of us. :p

[Radioactive Isotope 28]

we should steal their money. :p

[Chickenman 9]

Or, you know...not give it to them.

Probably easier and more legal. :p

[Princess 35]

Oh wow. Yea, I totally spaced out on the meaning of that whole thing. I guess we'll just call that a Prin moment.

*hits Du*

[Andy 52]

*saves that quote for later use*

[Radioactive Isotope 28]

Or, you know...not give it to them.

Probably easier and more legal.

but less fun :p