Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 21, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Robert Pattinson, who played Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, has already stumbled into extreme success with the Twilight franchise. Do you expect Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint or any of the other stars of the film to match his success with other projects outside the Potter franchise, or do you think this is it for them?
Josh Spiegel: Essentially, it's too hard to say, as the three stars of these movies have done little outside of the franchise. Daniel Radcliffe is certainly trying very hard to get as far from Harry Potter as he can in his other projects (Equus and his cameo in Extras come to mind), and I can see him having future success, though in quirkier projects. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, though, seem a little less interested in doing films; I'm sure they both could do whatever projects they'd like, but who knows if they want to step near a film set ever again? Either way, we may be looking at the next Jodie Fosters or the kids from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
Kim Hollis: I agree that Radcliffe seems to be the likeliest candidate, if only because he seems so interested in honing his craft. This is a young man who is legitimately interested in growing as an actor, and learning more from accomplished directors. I foresee him continuing to take some risks, which might not put him in any big blockbusters, but will establish him as a performer to be taken seriously.
David Mumpower: What has always impressed me about the British acting community is that it's so tightly interconnected. People who know and like one another make a point to keep working together as much as possible. I'm not sure if anyone other than Radcliffe or Watson has a chance to become a celebrated movie star on the order of what Twilight has made Pattinson. I am, however, certain that many of the people involved with the creation of these films will always have work available to them if they so desire it simply because of their recognition and celebrity attained through the Potter franchise. I do have a great deal of curiosity about whether Radcliffe can be separated from the Potter character or if he's the new Leonard Nimoy. I don't believe Watson will have that problem and can easily envision her being the next Emily Blunt, a beautiful woman who also has significant acting chops. I wouldn't even rule her out as being the next Anne Hathaway. If you want a sleeper fro the franchise, I also believe that Bonnie Wright has a lot of upside as a 20-year-old recovering Mrs. Harry Potter with looks, humor and a kind of non-threatening beauty that could play very well here in the United States.
Tim Briody: The three leads probably never have to work a day in their lives again but Radcliffe will attempt to show himself as a Serious Actor in the next decade.
Jason Lee: With Emma Watson heading off to Brown University, I can easily imagine her going off to college and taking a good number of years before coming back to act in some smaller films. I find her easily to be the most natural actor of the three. I think it's smart of both Radcliffe and Grint to do some more artsy projects to stretch their acting skills - though I highly doubt that any of the three become huge headlining stars. The shadow of Potter stretches far indeed.
Scott Lumley: I think Radcliffe has the most potential to have a respected career after Potter, but I also think it's right on the money to assume that he's going to do a lot of quirky, weird projects that scream "I AM NOT HARRY POTTER!" (And the people watching them will wonder why Harry Potter is appearing in a film as a dyslexic, drug-addicted cross dresser.)
I'm not sure about Watson. She seems to have talent. She also seems to be very interested in not limiting herself to just acting.
As for Grint, he was a decent casting pick early on, but I think he seems like a poor fit for the character nowadays. Also, I feel that he's the least talented actor of the trio. I really hope he's socking his Harry Potter money away because I think when the whole thing is said and done he might not get a lot of work.
Max Braden: Radcliffe may be trying the hardest but I have a hard time seeing him carrying non-franchise big budget projects on his own. To me he's like Tobey Maguire, who fit into Spider-Man very well, but we aren't seeing him break out on his own. I don't know, maybe a buddy cop project with Zac Efron... Grint I could see as a more consistent earner in the action genre or as a go-to supporter. But I think Watson's the one with the biggest future if she wants it. She seemed to have the most presence and internal fire of the three when she was onscreen. That indicates to me a skill that would allow her to be versatile and broadly appealing to audiences.
Jim Van Nest: I like Max's comparison of Radcliffe to Tobey Maguire. I think that's pretty spot on. I think Radcliffe has the talent and, more importantly, the drive to hone his craft...and could potentially be in the running for some major awards down the road. Though I don't expect a huge run of blockbusteres for him.
Grint is the perfect Ron Weasley, but once Potter is over, films are going to require more than making funny faces and I'm not so sure he can deliver it.
I'm going to be the contrarian on Watson and say that I think it's best she go on to Brown and do her education thing. I think she's been fine in the Potter franchises, but as the kids are getting older and the acting is getting more multi-dimensional, she's stood out to me as the one who doesn't quite keep up.
Ultimately, though, I don't really see a whole bunch of success for any of the big three.
Sean Collier: I sharply disagree with Jim; if one of three becomes successful, I'm betting on Watson. Radcliffe is too identifiable as Potter, and Grint just isn't very good. Watson, however, can act, looks like a movie star and not like an overgrown wizard child, and certainly has the air of a star. Grint would be shocking, Radcliffe would be surprising, but I'm pretty much expecting it from Emma.
Really, though, I want Evanna Lynch to have a career after this. Half-Blood Prince was actually the first Potter film I've seen, and she was my favorite performer by far.
Reagen Sulewski: Were I Rupert Grint's agent, I would advise him to start picking up a pen and writing his own parts. There's a very decent chance of him being Britain's answer to Michael Cera if he has the talent for it.
Rupert Grint's Agent: Oh, I daresay we aim a weeeeee bit higher than Michael Cera...
Sure, he's great with a wand. But can he operate the TARDIS?
Kim Hollis: Finally, on a sillier note, what odds do you give of Daniel Radcliffe eventually becoming Dr. Who or James Bond or both?
Josh Spiegel: I say we should stick with Dr. Who for Radcliffe, of those two choices. I know some people went crazy with a blond Bond, but a boy wizard as Bond? Not so much. Dr. Who is about as quirky as you get, though, so it might fit.
Kim Hollis: I could certainly see him filling the shoes of The Doctor, which would make him only the second actor out of the Potter franchise to have done so. With the direction the Bond franchise has taken, however, with Daniel Craig and "brute force", I just don't see him as ever being considered for that role. I think Robert Pattinson would be more likely, though I don't think he has a real chance, either.
David Mumpower: I like this question a lot, because it requires a projection of what he is going to be rather than what he is. Kim is right that the Bond franchise has taken a darker turn. Having said that, the reason why Bond went that route was as an impersonation of the Bourne franchise and it was done for one simple reason: to make more money. Given that acknowledgment, the presence of Radcliffe in the role at some point 15 years down the road (he doesn't even turn 20 until next week, so this is a looooong time in the future) should mean a lot of potential money for the Broccoli family.
I also think that when we look at the big picture of what the Harry Potter franchise can mean to an actor's career, David Tennant and Robert Pattinson are great examples of how much of a launching platform it is. If those relatively bit players can become the most popular television actor in Britain and the star of one of the biggest films of 2008 (and soon to be 2009 and 2010), just imagine what the combination of Harry Potter as James Bond would be like in terms of box office power.
With regards to Doctor Who, I just can't shake the feeling that this pretty much HAS to happen at some point. It's too perfect to ignore.
Jason Lee: It's not easy being the centerpiece in a story where every other side character is more interesting than you are. I think Radcliffe wears the "leading man" mantle well but I don't think he could quite handle the action sequences of Bond (not nearly cold and calculating enough). As for Dr. Who, my memories of that series are rather sketchy so I'll abstain from that part of the question.
Max Braden: I want to say there's no chance Radcliffe can fill the Bond tux, but never say never. Radcliffe turns 20 this week. At the same age, future bruiser Christian Bale was dancing it up in Swing Kids. Dr. Who is more likely but I don't know how big that would play in the U.S. I have only some experience watching the original series, and my impression of Dr. Who is someone with a quick and sharp wit. There again I'm not sure Radcliffe as is could fill that role. I'd actually love to see Robert Downey Jr. play the Doctor first.
I give it my lowest rating. Seven thumbs up.
Kim Hollis: If you've seen Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, what did you think of it?
Josh Spiegel: Again, I come to these movies as a big fan of the books; I feel, though, like a relatively rare breed, in that I am completely content with director David Yates (or whichever director not named Chris Columbus is behind the camera) differing from the source material as much as is necessary. So, I really enjoyed this adaptation of Half-Blood Prince, and thought it captured the essence of the book very well. The three young leads have all grown a lot in terms of their performances (I've felt that each one has always had some problems acting in past films), and all the supporting actors did a great job, especially Michael Gambon and Jim Broadbent. I'm sure some fans of the book will have problems with the changes that Yates and writer Steve Kloves made, but I never had an issue with it. I am frustrated with having to wait over a year for the next installment, but that's my only beef.
Kim Hollis: I love the books, too, Josh. Like you, I am completely pleased with this film. In fact, I've been completely pleased with every single movie from Prisoner of Azkaban forward (and I even think Chris Columbus's films are better on repeated viewings). Each one has done such a wonderful job of creating the world and having the characters grow into their roles. I laughed a lot during Half-Blood Prince - and almost came to tears at a point even though I knew exactly what would happen - and it made me very content. I can't ask for much more than that.
David Mumpower: The odd analogy I made on Twitter that I stand by is that it reminds me of season five of Friends. That's the year that Chandler and Monica were a secret couple. The show was almost 100 episodes old, so the expectation was that we knew all of the characters and we were comfortable with them. Somehow, the writers found a new angle that made everything fresh again and created an added level of enjoyment that season. Half Blood Prince works in a similar fashion in that everyone seems so comfortable in their own skin yet a subtle sight gag of Ron wearing a Leatherheads helmet or Luna Lovegood wearing...a lion is very, very fresh. As I said the other day, I laughed more during the first 90 minutes of Half Blood Prince than I did during the entirety of The Hangover and I LIKED The Hangover. I realize that there are some quibbles about the major mystery story of the film (the titular character's identity is crucial to the novel yet almost irrelevant to the film) and it does leave out some key subplots from J. K. Rowling's work. I am not bothered in the least by this, though. I realize that there are still two films yet to go and I'll reserve judgment on things like that until such a time as the series is finished. For now, what I know for certain is that I had a grand time at Harry Potter 6 and it's the rare two and a half hour film these days that didn't feel laboriously paced. Also, my date was euphoric throughout the proceedings, and that always helps aid my movie enjoyment.
Calvin Trager: I've always kind of felt the Harry Potter movies should count as a separate form of visual media because I don't think they work particularly well on their own, but they make outstanding companions to the books. If you're a fan of the books, there's not much fault to find with the movies. And I should add a caveat to what I'm about to say with an acknowledgement that I'm very fond of both the books and the movies, so I'm stepping outside myself a bit to offer this criticism. I think the films rely too much on the audience's familiarity with the source material to smooth over aspects that, taken on their own, would be cited as signs of sub-par filmmaking. Maybe I should say screenwriting instead of filmmaking, because the actual visual elements are what work the absolute best. What I find lacking when I consider the films on their own are things like overarching cohesion, dialogue, establishing character motivation, and the like. For me the movies have always felt like a strung-together collection of scenes that portray key moments from the books, and that's it. Personally I don't need much more than that but I've always wondered how the movies could possibly be satisfying to someone who didn't already know what they were looking at.
David Mumpower: Out of curiosity, did you have the same criticism of The Lord of the Rings trilogy?
Calvin Trager: It may not be the comparison you're looking for, because I didn't read the LOTR books and I thought the movies held together on their own just fine.
Marty Doskins: I agree with Calvin on the Lord of the Rings movies and I'll give you another example like this. I think that the movie Twilight works well on its own. I haven't read the book yet, but the movie made sense to me. I'm also on the same page with Calvin in that if you haven't read the Harry Potter books, while still being entertained, you probably didn't get what was happening in the film. The flow just isn't there. It's more like a bunch of scenes hooked together rather than a developed story.
David Mumpower: Oh, Marty. Marty Marty Marty. You've gone native on us.
Jason Lee: I enjoyed the film but frankly, and I think a lot of people who read the books will agree with me, I think the filmmakers have laid themselves a REALLY hard road for them for movies 7 and 8. All I could think of while watching the movie was how many KEY pieces of information they left out. Far be it from me to adopt a pouty sneer while whining, "THAT'S not how it was in the book!", but in knowing how the seventh book comes out, it will not be easy to tie up all the loose ends while doing Rowling's work justice. That's all I'm saying.
Scott Lumley: I haven't read the books. I've tried, and her writing style is anathema to me. I'm sure some people love her style, but I'm not one of them.
This puts me in an odd position. There are parts of the movie I really liked. There are characters I really appreciate. But the last half hour or so of the movie really left me with no idea what the hell was going on. A friend that had read the books explained to me later that (CENSORED) with (DELETED) by (SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!) with the (NOPE, WE'RE NOT SPILLING THE BEANS.). But if he hadn't done that, it would have left me very, very confused.
Max Braden: I texted both my brothers (aged around 30) this weekend, "Let me know if you're seeing Potter, I'll join you," kind of expecting their wives would have planned to go. They both independently responded, "Yeah right, I won't be going any time soon." So I didn't bother going. I haven't read the books and have really only watched the previous movies with analytical interest, so I've never really been invested in the series. I find them more appealing when they're dealing with deadly magic and sleuthing rather than Quidditch and gee-wiz classroom scenes. I may still see Half-Blood Prince in theaters because it's a big screen type of movie.
Jim Van Nest: I don't want to spoil anything, but I was VERY disappointed with the ending of the movie. I liked it all the way up to the end, but I wasn't very happy with how they chose to end it. They took a major piece of the climax out of the film...and I can't understand why. I understand why they took the epilogue out, as it really wasn't needed...but I sure would have liked to see it end the right way.
Sean Collier: I'm the patent opposite of the target audience - I've never read a Potter book, I've never seen a Potter film, and I was only at this one because I had to review it. That being said, I thought the film was visually strong, well acted, well paced, and thoroughly entertaining, to the point where I might see the next two even if not required to do so - can't imagine I'm going to start from the top, but the movie did a decent job of getting me turned around on the franchise.
Scott Lumley: Way off topic, but I will mention that I do own a copy of the first film and it does a great job of introducing the world of Potter. I'm not really a fan of the series, but even I can recommend that one heartily.
Kim Hollis: And I would counter that the first film is easily the weakest of the series, but it does in fact hold up better than I remembered. They all have a nice flow from one to the next, which is especially impressive given the fact that the directors changed from time to time.