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
|
comments (12)
|
e-mail post
Scantily-Clad Women Used to Promote Israel
When this idea first came up at the Israeli consulate in New York, somebody should have had enough common sense to put it in the "Just Asking for Trouble" file.
In an effort to boost Israel's image with 18-to-35-year-old men in the United States (or as the site Truthdig put it, "Israel reaches out to horny U.S. men"), the Israeli Foreign Ministry consulate in New York encouraged the laddie's magazine Maxim to create a feature called "Women of the Israeli Defense Forces" for its July issue. The pictorial features four former Israeli women soldiers posing in Tel Aviv while wearing -- not much.
The magazine, which The Guardian reports was first approached with the idea by the consulate, said it's "pleased with the results of our work together."
Women in the Israeli Knesset aren't so pleased.
Zahava Gal On, the leader of the Meretz party, said it was inappropriate for western countries to market themselves using half-naked women. "It is unfortunate that the New York consulate thinks that Israel's relevance will be expressed by the use of naked women who are treated as an object, and not as women of substance who exude achievement and success," she said.
The New York Post featured a picture of one of the young women on its front page with the headline "Piece in the Middle East." The Jerusalem Post notes that if Israel's beaches fill up this summer with "an unusually high number of leering, beer-guzzling young American men," people will know who to blame.
In fact, if all the consulate wanted to do was promote Israel to testosterone-riddled U.S. males, they might have achieved the same result by dressing four beer cans in IDF uniforms.
9:34 AM ET
|
06-21-2007
|
permalink
|
comments (3)
|
e-mail post