Would Rowling Really Kill Off Her Golden Goose?
July looks like it's shaping up to be national Harry Potter Month.
USA Today gives a preview of the coming Potter onslaught. On July 11, the fifth film, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, will hit (and I do mean hit) theaters across America. Then 10 days later, at midnight, the last book, Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows, will take over the country's bookstores.
Some Potter fans are calling it a cross-promotional nightmare. Emerson Spartz, who founded the Potter fan site MuggleNet.com eight years ago, when he was 12, says, "I would think that both Warner Bros. and Scholastic would want to spread the buzz out for a longer period of time."
Oh, nonsense, I say. Won't make a philosopher's stone worth of difference. Both the book and the film will generate millions, dare I say, a billion or more dollars, for these companies and for author J.K. Rowling.
And this leads us to the question that has dominated Potter talk ever since Rowling hinted she might kill Harry off. Allow me to offer an answer:
It won't happen. Because (as we saw above) it's all about the Benjamins.
Harry Potter is an economic engine of a ferocious nature. I know this because I have four children who have read the books, seen the movies, bought themed Lego sets, wands, costumes, computer games, etc. They LOVE Potter. But if Potter were not to survive the final book ... I'm not so sure their attention would either.
I can see young and old fans not going to the final two movies if they knew of such an outcome, regardless of how noble it might be. And future fans hesitating. (Would Star Wars be as popular if Luke died in the final episode?) And all the peripheral marketing bits would suffer as well.
Rowling may still risk all by killing Harry (Arthur Conan Doyle tried the same tactic with Sherlock Holmes and it didn't work), but I can't see her walking away from her Golden Goose.
2:48 PM ET | 06-21-2007 | permalink

