One Harry Potter Actor Thought The Movies Were A Waste Of Money
Before author J.K. Rowling — on whose book series the films are based — said some awful, unforgivable, transphobic things, the "Harry Potter" franchise hooked audiences around the world. As someone who used to stand outside bookstores for the midnight launches of "Harry Potter" books, I can tell you that I was totally hooked.
For those who weren't into the books, the craze must have seemed bananas. People wandering around Universal Studios Hollywood's Wizarding World in the hot California summers, dressed in polyester wizard robes, waving their wands at walls ... well, we all looked nuts. If you didn't love the series the way fans did, the budget alone for these films would make a person cringe.
British actor Sir John Hurt, who played wand shop owner Garrick Ollivander, had some rather disparaging things to say about how much money was spent on these films, though put in context, it makes sense. Hurt, who passed away at the age of 77 in 2017, saw the industry develop over the six decades he spent in it, playing roles in films like "A Man for All Seasons," "I, Claudius," "Midnight Express," "Alien," "The Elephant Man," "V for Vendetta," and even played the War Doctor in the "Doctor Who" 50th anniversary special. When a guy like that has concerns about the industry, it's worth at least listening.
A big studio movie for Britain
Hurt spoke to Rotten Tomatoes in 2009 as the "Harry Potter" series was coming to an end, but still had scenes to shoot in the penultimate film. He spoke about the film franchise ending being "a big loss for Britain in terms of having a big studio movie here." However, he also said that it's "not representative of our culture in terms of the films that we make." Hurt called for the government of the United Kingdom to "take a bit more notice" because he thought that independent films were an important part of the British film industry, not just the mega-blockbusters like "Harry Potter."
He seemed a bit put out that even though many big films were shot at British studios like Pinewood and Shepperton, lots of them, even the "Harry Potter" titles, weren't British films and were crowding out other things. Despite the British setting and British actors, this was still a Hollywood picture. "I do think huge areas of the industry are being neglected, and we've lost the ability for middle-budget films," he said. That is pretty true of the industry in general, even now, arguably even more so. I tell you all of this to say that when Hurt is complaining about how much money the "Harry Potter" franchise spent, there is a reason behind his words.
'It's quite absurd, really'
In the Rotten Tomatoes interview, Hurt continued:
"... It's interesting seeing how much money gets spent on 'Harry Potter.' It's quite absurd, really. I watch it and think it's just the same as Hollywood. I look around and you've got three costumes there, none of which are likely to be worn, and they're all replicas of each other. It's a vacuous waste of money and it drives me insane."
If you took that out of context, it might seem like Hurt isn't into fantasy at all, and wonder why he did the films in the first place. Knowing that it was more about the fact that these weren't British films and that he was concerned more about the state of the industry's blockbusters taking over from smaller titles, it makes more sense. Hurt has certainly done sci-fi and fantasy, like in the previously mentioned "Doctor Who," voicing Aragon in the Ralph Bakshi animated "The Lord of the Rings," and appearing in "Spaceballs" and "Alien." While I loved the "Harry Potter" films at the time and was certainly happy to see Warner Bros. Studios spending money to make them what fans wanted to see, knowing where we are now with a glut of blockbuster films and their accompanying TV series, I get it. Maybe spending a little less on huge films isn't the worst idea.
All the "Harry Potter" films are currently streaming on Max.