gobletoffire.jpg

"Dark and difficult times lie ahead, Harry ..."
- Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

As Potter-mania falls across the land, it seems like a good time to look forward at the franchise and ask … is all well for Harry’s magical movies? I’ve enjoyed the films and the books, but as I watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to review it for Cinematical this week, my mind couldn’t help but turn to my inner crystal ball of film prognostication, and I’m wondering if troubled times lie ahead – not merely for Harry and his friends, but also for the films themselves. How could I think any such thing? Bear in mind I’m not, as the kids say, '‘hatin’ on’ Harry Potter' (and I partially wanted to write that sentence so I could combine two phrases rarely seen in such proximity), but skepticism can creep into anyone’s appreciation. There are more than a few things I can see as concerns to contemplate for the future of the franchise, and they all lie below, titled Rowling-style.

1) … and the Revolving-Door Directors

Chris Columbus helmed the first two Potters; then, the unexpected candidate Alfonso Cuarón picked up the reins. Goblet of Fire's director's chair was occupied by Mike Newell, and Order of the Phoenix is already slated to be directed by David Yates … whose resume isn’t as sterling as those who have come before. Bear in mind that the Potters are big movies … and the series' look-and-feel is so firmly established that it’s hard to imagine a strong visionary (like Terry Gilliam, for example) stepping in because they’d feel too handcuffed to put any mark on the films. The alternative seems to be directors like Yates, jumping from a mostly-TV career to a huge studio production. Is there a depressing possibility that as the last films are prepared, the talent pool of future possible directors may be growing more and more limited?

2) … and the Aging Boy-Man

Daniel Radcliffe is a 16 year-old playing a 14-year old; in future years, that gap is going to grow. We’re not in Ian Ziering or Tom Welling territory with Goblet of Fire, and we may even be within a reasonable paramater of appearance-versus-age by the time Rowling finishes Book 7. But considering the amount of time it’ll take to mount any film production of the final book, Warner Brothers may be faced with the possibility of a young man in his mid-20’s playing an 18 year-old boy  … or the possibility of replacing an actor they’ve made recognizable worldwide.

3) … and the Laying-Down of the Quill

As disturbing as the possibility of losing Radcliffe is, the Potter series has already lost a key secret player – screenwriter Steve Kloves. A lot of Kloves’s work is hidden behind Rowling’s story and text, but his adaptations of the novels have been iron-strong, easy to like … and easier still to overlook. Kloves has been involved in the films far longer than any of its directors, and I have to wonder not just who’d be willing to take such a thankless job, but also who else could do it so well. I know that Michael Goldenberg -- who wrote Universal's under-seen, under-appreciated Peter Pan -- is on board for Order of the Phoenix, but Goldenberg is being left some very big shoes to fill by Kloves's departure.

4) … and the Creeping Credit-Roll Bloat

Even a cursory understanding of movie-nomics will suggest that actors who get parts in franchises like to earn more money when they return to them. Combine that with the simple fact that any next franchise will involve new actors to play new parts – and while Rowling doesn't have to pay new characters, Warner Brothers has to pay for actors to play them. As the speaking parts in the Potter films go up, more established characters lose space, and you get the curious sight in Goblet of Jason Isaacs uttering, at best, 50 words of dialogue while returning as Lucius Malfoy. Can the Potter films afford the casts they need to move forward in depicting Rowling’s expanding universe of characters?

5) … and the Page-Count of Infinity

The Potter books have upped the page-count substantively each step of the way, with Order of the Phoenix’s whopping 870-plus pages straining any bookshelf. If there's one thing I'm thinking about a lot as I prepare to write my review, it's that Goblet of Fire has a slightly rushed feel to it, like we’re skipping over pages and excising plots and scenes to keep the story filmable – and Order and Half-Blood might pose even more of a challenge to compress without crushing.

6) … and the Crazy-Ass Swings of the National Political Mood

Harry’s already on the American Library Association’s Top Banned Books list for alleged paganism and percieved anti-Christian virtues – and Order of the Phoenix’s sub-text offering a parable about power in perilous times might be viewed with a little more hostility on screen than it was on the page. Is Harry too left-flying for cultural conservatives? At the same time, there’s plenty for the other side of the aisle to suspect about the Harry films – as someone at my press screening of Goblet of Fire noted, why does Triwizard Tournament competitor Fleur Delacour (Clémence Poésy) have to be portrayed as a simpering scaredy-cat who constantly needs rescuing instead of as a qualified competitor who could give Cedric, Viktor and Harry a run for their money?

7) … and the Hovering Specter of Anti-Climax

Even with AOL/Time Warner behind the series (and somewhat in need of Harry's Golden Knuts), there’s no guarantee that by the time the 7th film rolls around people will even care. Will some new kid-culture obsession like the Narnia films or the as-yet unfilmed His Dark Materials lap Harry before he even gets to the finish line? Will fickle public appreciation turn against the saga on film after it’s over-and-done-with in print?

Do you have thoughts about the future of the Potter films?