When Warner Bros. announced last Thursday that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had been pushed back from Nov. 21 to next July, hardcore fans immediately entered the five stages of nerd grief. So far we've worked our way through denial, anger, semi-literate Internet ranting, and conspiracy-theorizing. All that's left is acceptance, where we go ahead and watch the movie when it comes out next summer and forget any of this ever happened.

In the meantime, several myths about the date change have popped up, and we'd like to help separate fact from fiction.

MYTH #1: Half-Blood Prince was moved because WB was scared of Twilight.
According to some people who are fans of the Twilight novel and pre-fans of the Twilight movie, WB got nervous about Harry Potter coming out just three weeks before the teen-vampire chick flick, fearing it would siphon off too much of Harry's audience.

Most observers believe Twilight will indeed be a hit, but come on. The Harry Potter franchise the most lucrative in film history, with a total worldwide box-office gross so far of $4.5 billion. There's no reason for WB to fear any competition, no matter how formidable. Also, most of Harry Potter's income is from overseas, where Twilight, still largely a U.S. phenomenon, cannot hope to compete.

Plus, if Half-Blood Prince came out Nov. 21 and followed the usual pattern, it would have already made most of its projected income by the time Twilight showed up on Dec. 12 anyway. Three weeks is a huge gap in our modern, front-loaded, it's-all-about-opening-weekend movie culture. If there had only been one week between them, then maybe you'd have something.

Okay. I know that fandom usually leads to fanfic stories that center on a million different sexual scenarios, but what's with the Harry Potter nudity? If Ace Showbiz has it right, Daniel Radcliffe is stripping once again, but this time it isn't for a disturbing play about horses. It's for Harry Potter.

Yes, they report that the almost-20-year-old will strip down for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Radcliffe is quoted as saying: "At first I thought I'd have pants [underwear] on for the scene. Apparently not. But I've sort of done that before on stage. It's all old hat now, really."

Well, it may be old hat to him, but there are still many hordes of Harry fans who probably weren't expecting to see his ... you can guess where I'm going with this. Will audience be able to see a good bit of skin when all is said and done? That remains to be seen. While the films are getting darker, we all know that violence and darkness goes down a lot easier than some added skin, and this is still a kid-centric series.

Do you want to see Harry nude?

Harry Potter has got to end sometime, and by "sometime" I mean in less than three years when the second cinematic half of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows sees release. And some people would like to still have a career when that happens, thank you very much. To that end, Rupert Grint -- a.k.a. Ron Weasley -- has taken a role in an indie film called Cherry Bomb, which sounds about as far from Harry Potter as you can get without developing an erotic fixation on horses.

The film, written by acclaimed playwright Daragh Caville, focuses on three teens who set out for a wild weekend of drugs, sex and crime only to see it escalate into something far more serious than they imagined. It co-stars relative unknowns Robert Sheehan and Kimberley Nixon, and is set for release next year.

While Daniel Radcliffe has tried more extreme methods of branching out (mainly by taking that infamous role in Equus, which is coming to Broadway per the above link) and Emma Watson hasn't done very much at all (she voices a character in this year's The Tale of Despereaux, but that seems to be it), Grint has spent what spare time he has toiling away in indieville. Cherry Bomb was preceded by the reasonably well-received and much less racy Driving Lessons, about a troubled boy's friendship with a retired actress.

I didn't get beyond the fifth Harry Potter novel, so I'm not familiar with what goes on in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I never would have thought, however, that it features an adorable version of Voldemort (which reminded our own Kim Voynar of the young Anakin of The Phantom Menace), nor would I have ever imagined, in my wildest years, that it is anything like Trainspotting. Yet that's what Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe told Empire regarding the upcoming movie adaptation. He specifically likened Half-Blood Prince to the heroin-heavy movie, admitting that it is indeed strange to mention those two films in the same sentence. He also stated that in his movie, "there's a fair amount of sexual energy and drug parallels."

Now, of course, that doesn't mean there's actual sex and drugs featured in the movie. And this wouldn't be the first time the Harry Potter films included suggestive imagery or content. One of the early installments (I think it was the original, Sorcerer's Stone) features a scene in which Harry experiments with his wand under the covers late at night. Like with a similar scene from Spider-Man, in which Peter Parker wakes up in his own sticky web, it's pretty obvious what real-world experience the scene is meant to parallel. So, I'm not surprised that as the Harry Potter movies get darker and the cast grows up that we'll be seeing other kinds of innuendo. And knowing the franchise so far, even if the suggestive imagery or content is easily deciphered, there's sure to be good messages tied in. It's not like Warner Bros. would permit improper subliminal encouragements.

This morning I got an email from Snitchseeker.com, a Harry Potter fansite, pointing me to some pics they have up of young Hero Fiennes-Tiffin (nephew of Ralph Fiennes, who plays the evil Voldemort in the Harry Potter franchise). Fiennes-Tiffin is playing Young Tom Riddle (aka the Future Dark Lord, Voldemort) in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Nice call on the part of the casting director to have a relative of Fiennes play the younger character.

You can see all the pics over on Snitchseeker; they're apparently from another film the young actor is in, Bigga than Ben. Fiennes-Tiffin looks oh-so-sweet-and-innocent -- he hardly looks like the sort who'd grow up to wreak havoc on the wizarding world, tossing around Imperius curses at his enemies and plotting to rid the world of good guys like Albus Dumbledore and Harry Potter. But then again, it's always the innocent looking ones who sneak up on you and turn out to be evil dark lords trying to take over the world, isn't it?

Few adaptations have been pored over and scrutinized for adherence to cannon as intensely as the Harry Potter films. Every omission and deviation gets pounced upon immediately. Speculation ran rampant that each of the later, longer volumes would be split into two films to accommodate J.K. Rowling's sprawling storylines, until it was finally announced that the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, actually will be. In a few weeks, I'll take a look at the prospects for David Yates' Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, due this November. This week, I want to look back at the sole Potter installment to date where the film not only did right by the book, but expanded it, improved it, brought it to life. And that would be Alfonso Cuarón's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

I'm usually lavish in my praise for the film; I'm fond of saying that I like it better than Cuaron's purportedly more "serious" works like Children of Men and Y Tu Mamá También. What I don't often get a chance to mention is that I'm much less enamored of the novel on which it's based. Don't get me wrong -- Rowling's Azkaban is still Harry Potter, and as such it's fast, and funny, and filled with all sorts of wonderful, world-building detail. But when I read it, shortly after tearing through The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets, I couldn't help but be a bit disappointed. It seemed a little contrived, I thought, and overdramatic; a little cheesy. The climax involved a lot of ALL-CAPS YELLING to signify big emotion, the whole thing feeling like it was about to turn into a wizard soap opera. And I remember rolling my eyes at the time-travel, which felt like a cheat despite being gracelessly telegraphed a dozen times.

When I was a kid, I watched all the awards shows ... except the Tonys. Even when I was involved in theater as a teenager I wasn't a follower of Broadway. And I lived an hour away from Manhattan. But today's youths may be more interested in tuning in to the 2008 Tony Awards, because everyone's favorite boy wizard is among the presenters. Daniel Radcliffe will likely be there solely to promote his Broadway debut this fall, in Equus, but that shouldn't deter fans of the Harry Potter films, the latest of which, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, also opens in the fall. Despite the significance of Radcliffe's role in Equus (remember those sexy photos?), Radcliffe will presumably be dressed fully and sharply.

Other presenters include Laura Linney, Alec Baldwin, Marisa Tomei and Radcliffe's costar in both the Equus and the Harry Potter films, Richard Griffiths. This year's Tonys are also of interest to movie fans for its nominees, which include movies-turned-musicals Cry-Baby (4 nominations), Xanadu (4 nominations), The Little Mermaid (2 nominations) and Young Frankenstein (3 nominations), as well as the comic adaption of The 39 Steps (6 nominations), based on the John Buchan book that Alfred Hitchcock and others turned into hit films (with a fourth version reportedly in the works).

The Tony Awards will be held at Radio City Music Hall, and broadcast live on CBS, June 15.

One of the best casting decisions in recent memory is Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. The kid just looks like the spitting image of the literary icon, and he wears the scar and glasses like they're completely natural, like they've always been there. But can you imagine the Potter world without Radcliffe? Like, could you imagine William Moseley being the guy that gets to befriend Hermione and Ron, come onto Cho Chang,* chum up to Dumbledore, and take on Voldemort?

The actor recently talked with MTV, and mentions that he was up for the part of Harry, but that "I don't quite fit the bill, I think." Moseley certainly would've been a much different choice. Luckily, losing that role left him open to play a British child in a different epic, fantastical gig. He plays Peter Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia franchise.

He admits that he wonders what it would have been like, but that "if I could have chosen one part for myself, I would have chosen Peter every single time." So from an actor's perspective, he's happy with Peter, but I wonder, who is your preferred hero?

*Edited thanks to Monster. I don't know why I keep calling her Chen....

It's official! Harry Potter, otherwise known as Daniel Radcliffe, is heading to Broadway. Back in September of last year, I posted about the Brit's plans to reprise his starring role in Equus on Broadway, dropping trou for a whole new set of fans. Now Yahoo has confirmed it.

The young actor will make his Broadway debut on September 5 of this year, in previews for a limited, 22-week run that will stretch from September 25 to February 8 of 2009. Yes, folks, that means he'll be in New York City as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince hits theaters. I'm thinking that the chances for a big premiere in the Big Apple are pretty darned good -- and just think -- if you book tickets for the play around November 2, you can have a double Radcliffe whammy!

Thea Sharrock is directing the play, which is based on the true story of a troubled young man who blinds horses with a metal hoof pick. Richard Griffiths (who plays Uncle Vernon in the Potter franchise) will also reprise his role as the psychiatrist who treats Radcliffe's troubled lead. Now the question becomes: Will Daniel's nudity and smoking create an uproar here as well? He is now 18, so that should stop some of the skin qualms, but the Big Apple certainly isn't the most smoke-friendly city these days.