|
Roz
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2005, 10:32:46 PM » |
|
SS/PS is actually what this thread is about - April/May apparently
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tower
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2005, 10:36:37 PM » |
|
Yes, but these are only rumours, or not? The other rumours came from the NSU-list i posted. Roz, what do you think will be correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2005, 10:42:41 PM » |
|
This is what Mike (Artbox MD) wrote to me in an email last night:
Hello Roz,
I have been out of the office. Yes, we are going ahead with Harry Potter
I in April-May 2005. Thank you!
Mike
I wouldn't have thought that "Harry Potter 1" would have been Chamber of Secrets.... but we'll see (sorry completely missed your NSU link earlier - I must have been too busy grinning at FTY's smirking about "Sorcerers"  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
olly
Guest
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2005, 10:44:57 PM » |
|
But why call it Harry Potter 1 at all. You would have thought he knew the names by now   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gimli
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2005, 10:48:47 PM » |
|
maybe he doesn't want to commit to a title either way yet or mabe it will be one title for the US and anther title for the Uk so twice as many to have to collect |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rns91294
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2005, 10:50:43 PM » |
|
Still confused that CoS is on that NSU list and not SS/PS. Also a little upset that the card show I plan to attend is April 1-2, so these probably won't be there yet either way. Bummer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2005, 10:52:36 PM » |
|
Like that wise philosopher * Meriadoc Brandibuck once said "I wouldn't count on it" * apologies to Americans to whom apparently "philosopher means somthing different... in the UK It's long admired thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, a good US example is Chomsky (Avram Noam) I am kidding... but I'd love to know what real difference the word "Philosopher" has in the US |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gimli
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2005, 10:54:15 PM » |
|
well i have to say that i take a lot of what is said on the NSU site with a pinch of salt things are often wrong it could just be an assumption or maybe we are being kept guessing
one thing I know for sure is people won't be forking out a lot of money on cases that end up almost worthless. If Artbox are wise they will be a little more careful when deciding on content, print run and packing of boxes this time.
If it is a split set in terms of title I hope they will get the insert rate right this time too
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rns91294
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2005, 10:56:38 PM » |
|
Roz, no clue why thet changed the name, as a Philospher means the same to me as you said it means there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2005, 10:57:13 PM » |
|
True true Chris, but Harry Potter 1 is less than explicit  so I'm double checking that. A split titled set might be too complex... I wonder whether it's possible to do a base set entitled PS as a Memo exclusive or something... and then somehow keep the high level chase cards with a logo that won't offend outside the US |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2005, 10:57:59 PM » |
|
Roz, no clue why thet changed the name, as a Philospher means the same to me as you said it means there.
Perhaps Scholastic thought it made the books look boring |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DewDude
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2005, 05:47:47 AM » |
|
Thanks for the link kbmum. I had always wondered the reason for changing the title. The reasoning seems a bit daft (lol, I've been on this board too long conversing with non-Yanks ). I think 'Sorcerers Stone' rolls off the tongue a little easier (alliteration will do that, or maybe I'm just used to the title) but I don't really understand the need to change from 'Philosopher's Stone' for the American children's sake. Just some dumb editors way to make his mark on the story. I can kind of understand the desire to change some of the words within the text where a child might not understand the British vernacular. Then again maybe leaving them in would have sparked an interest in some children to learn for themselves what the unfamiliar words meant and given them the subtle knowledge that the world is more diverse that what they see in the States. Mark |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2005, 06:01:36 AM by DewDude »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2005, 05:53:56 AM » |
|
- is daft a particularly Biritish thing to say then? In the UK it's probably moer a Northern UK thing to say too (but not always as we mix so much these days). Anyway - what about this COOL Japanese cartoon that's just being dubbed into "English" (I'm watching it in Japanese with English subtitles because I am weird like that) it's called "Full Metal Alchemist" (and coincidentally Artbox have a card set about it coming out in March... but that's not surprising since this is Japanese Anime and Artbox is owned by a Japanese paper company) I've noticed that they haven't changed the title of that into "Full Metal Sorcery of Sorts"  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DewDude
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2005, 06:00:57 AM » |
|
- is daft a particularly Biritish thing to say then? Well, I've never said it before. Maybe it's because I'm currently watching the 3 films back to back to back on DVD for the first time and I'm kind of imersed in it. 'Daft' sounds very Hagrid-ish. Mark |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kbmum
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2005, 06:03:29 AM » |
|
I can kind of understand the desire to change some of the words within the text where a child might not understand the British vernacular. Then again maybe leaving them in would have sparked an interest in some children to learn for themselves what the unfamiliar words meant and given them the subtle knowledge that the world is more diverse that what they see in the States. That's exactly why I bought books with the British text. I prefer to read them the way that JKR wrote them, but more importantly, when my kids are old enough, that's the version I want them to read. If I can't answer a question about a word, we'll look it up together. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 22, 2005, 06:16:56 AM by kbmum »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Trey
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2005, 06:13:09 AM » |
|
With this set, I think I will wait and see what cards will be included and the number of cases made. I am hoping for a hagrid costume card that would be fantastic I will possibly buy 1-5 boxes, depending on the above....I dont know if i would get a case, I was very disappointed with the update set (being the large number of cards at 1000 or above, and the box insert ratio) so I dont think I will take a big chance again unfortunately  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Brilliant Snape.... once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion!!
|
|
|
|
emmafan
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2005, 04:34:55 PM » |
|
I just can't really understand the rationale for one company to create THREE seperate HP movie card sets, all in the same year! Regardless of the number of cases pressed, does any company really expect collectors/fans to pump out money for all these? And even if their is public support for all three, can we really expect good quality across the board?
It seems that 'regular' (non-insert sets) have been produced for the first two movies. So logically a company would have to place inserts into these new sets, as incentives for collectors/dealers.
SS/PS was filmed four years ago now.....would it really be possible for these companies to get ahold a significant number of props/costumes to fill packs?
If these sets are produced for every movie, are fans going to be happy with the same simple autographs for each movie. Granted COS could have a SWEET Kenneth Branagh auto, and for GoF Ralph Fiennes would be amazing.
I apologize for being skeptical, but I'm just not sure what to think if these card sets are produced for previous movies. Regardless I'm sure these companies are going to come up with some great catchy inserts to have everyone drooling over. And I am also sure that I will be right alongside all of you throwing cash all around just to grab as many boxes as I can. But for now, I guess I just need more info.
Take care all,
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roz
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2005, 04:55:08 PM » |
|
It's true, a good deal of autos and costumes have already been covered, I wouldn't have expected them to get 3 such great autos for an update set but it does limit future movement.
And there are about 13 Harry costumes/auto cards already ... (can that possibly be right, I'll double check it).
There *might* be a limit on how many people really want and remain enthusiastic about.
Having said that there are a lot of cool costumes that have not been done yet such as:
McGonagal costume/auto
Snape costume/auto
Hagrid costume (apparently an auto is unlikely to say the least)
Hufflepuff tie
Ravenclaw tie
and literally tonnes more if we thought about it - but I think they have to try to keep it fresh because interest is already waning a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DewDude
|
|
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2005, 05:51:16 PM » |
|
Do you think they will come up with a new all around design for the base, custume, prop, and autograph cards? Not that the current design is bad but we have already seen so many cards with it that maybe a new design will help liven up the product a bit.
Although keeping the same design for 6 sets in a row didn't seem to hurt Topps' LOTR sets.
Mark
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 26, 2005, 05:56:51 PM by DewDude »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
