“The release date change does not alter the production schedule for this or future Harry Potter films. Post-production on Half-Blood Prince was completed on time, and the studio’s release plans for the two-part Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will not be affected by this change. We know Harry Potter fans are eagerly anticipating seeing the final chapters unfold onscreen. In fact, the good news for them is that the gap will now be shortened between Half-Blood Prince and the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."

Indeed, ecstatic Potter fans around the world rejoiced at having to wait another 11 months for the series' next installment — particularly those at MuggleNet, where glowing reactions ranged from "I AM SO PISSED RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE NO IDEA. 2008 is officially the "WORST YEAR EVER" to creatively spelled calls for a Warner Bros. boycott. And of course, feel free to sign the inevitable angry petition for an earlier release date.

Now Variety reports that Disney is moving its own animated fall tentpole Bolt — which would have opened opposite Potter on Nov. 28 — back to July 17 as well. Universal and Will Ferrell, meanwhile, which previously had that day to itself for Land of the Lost, were last spotted scouting downtown window ledges at lunch. Send our apologies if you see them.

• 'Half-Blood Prince' moves to July [Variety]

And while we can't and/or wouldn't argue any of these points, a ceremonious Warners rimjob also seems untimely. After all, what did Meyer do with his Speed Racer faxes on opening weekend? That and a few more pressing questions after the jump.

1. What about Speed Racer? Warners' legacy is one of adventurous flops and sturdy gambles, not messianic cultural events like TDK. If the point is a "content" state-of-the-union, then it's worth noting that the studio also dropped the summer's biggest bomb. For which, by the way, we love them; Where the Wild Things Are isn't likely to fare much better, but it is nice to know it's there.

2. What about Warner Independent and Picturehouse? The slimmed-down New Line earns a cursory mention, but its return to genre-junk roots is one of Time Warner's signature (and slightly desperate) content revisions since the AOL merger. And the axed Picturehouse — which had a strong summer of Mongol and Kit Kittredge after winning three Oscars in February — was all about "content" that's hit and missed just as regularly as the mother ship.

3. What about Get Smart? Again, the sturdy gamble is the thing: A hit that's grossed $200 million worldwide, will land equally hard on DVD and VOD and has sequels on the way. Screw TDK, really — Bewkes needs more like this, and he needs them recognized.

4. Did you know that Charlie Sheen makes $800,000 per episode of Two and a Half Men? A bit of rehash of an earlier question here at Defamer, we know, but a phenomenon we've come to now grudgingly accept knowing that T&HM is the flagship of a $4 billion television empire. Not that we get it; feel free to continue discussing below.

5. Whither questions and actual answers about new media revenues? Just because Tim Arango is writing all about Warners' precious "content" doesn't mean Bewkes can get away without answering his own query, "[T]he consumption of entertainment products is growing rapidly... The question is how do you offer it, and how do you get paid for it?" And this guy wonders why TW stock still hovers around $16. Come on, Jeff.

• Holy Cash Cow, Batman! Content Is Back [NYT]

Tina Fey (30 Rock), Glenn Close (Damages), America Ferrera (Ugly Betty), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (The New Adventures of Old Christine), Felicity Huffman (Desperate Housewives), Mariska Hargitay (Law and Order: SVU), Kyra Sedgewick (The Closer), Minnie Driver (The Riches), Elisabeth Moss (Mad Men) and Jeanne Tripplehorn (Big Love): these were the women who were nominated for Emmys, by-in-large playing strong, capable, well-written roles. And what's more, most of these women are, gasp, over 35.

Are there so many more available roles for women of a certain age on TV because producing a television show is that much cheaper? Are aging bodies less obvious on the small screen, and so they're more acceptable? Are Hollywood honchos just stuck believing that women don't see movies, or that men don't want to see movies with anything but eye candy? It's probably a combination of all of the above, and even though those televised, meaty roles are something to be proud of, there is not a single black actress on the short list for Best Actress Emmy (there are two Latinas: Ferrera and Eva Longoria-Parker).

I know I've said this so many times before, but there is something concrete we can do to help: go see movies made by women, or made with women in respectable roles. I'd tell you to go see something specific this weekend, but the only recent release with a plucky female protagonist is Kit Kittredge, and if you're not a Jezemom, I'm guessing that holds limited interest for you. Sigh. We clearly have a long way to go.

Warner Brothers Decides To Embrace The Women [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
Why Won't Warner Embrace The Women? [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
Warner's Robinov Bitchslaps Film Women [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
Sarah Silverman Lands In The Top 10 List Of Emmy semifinalists For Best Comedy Actress! [Gold Derby LAT]
Looks like Mary McDonnell Of 'Battlestar Galactica' And Elisabeth Moss Of 'Mad Men' Are On The Emmy Top 10 List [Gold Derby LAT]

Earlier: Ultimate Chick Flick The Women Is Finally About To See The Silver Screen

Kimberly Peirce: I just love when she's having that mood swing. That is hilarious.

Margaret Nagle: I totally believed her having sex with him to begin with.

Lynda Obst: Jesus, Margaret, that wasn't what I was looking for. [Laughter]

Nagle: I did! I did! He was furry and sweet.

Callie Khouri: I had a rough time with it.

Obst: Thank you, Callie.

Khouri: I mean, I've seen stranger things happen in this town. Fat, ugly guys get laid by beautiful women every day of the week. So based on that, I was able to go with it. But was it satisfying as a female moviegoer? It's not wish fulfillment, in a way. [...]

Donna Langley: [President of production for Universal, who produced the film]: The premise of the movie from Judd [Apatow]'s perspective, and I'm not being defensive, but for me the comedic premise was: What if this guy got this girl pregnant. And, to be honest, a lot of the attempt at heart and character —

Obst: Came from you. We knew it. [Laughter]

Langley: It wasn't there in the original inception. I'm not going to take anything from Judd; he deserves all the credit. But the original intention of the movie was not to make an observational gender comedy. It was, What if this goofball guy got this really hot piece of ass pregnant.

We're not completely surprised to learn that Apatow's winning formula of raunch-and-heart might have at first been a little heavy in the snips, snails, and puppy dog tails department. Luckily, with Langley on hand to inject a womanly touch, what was initially conceived as the hilarious story of an upwardly mobile TV anchor accidentally getting pregnant, then learning to enjoy her new life as a shared concubine among the father's group of ragtag, internet-sex-addicted friends, was eventually reshaped into a touching story of love, personal redemption, and crowning baby heads to which audiences of both sexes couldn't help but surrender.

• Chicks behind the flicks [Salon]

Robinov is currently in final negotiations for a Cameron Diaz picture. And he made aggressive bids to land both Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" and the "Sex in the City" movie, but lost the deals to DreamWorks and New Line, respectively.

Citing such Warners hit chick flicks as "Cinderella Story" and "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" (a sequel is in the works), Robinov said he is still in the business of making pics with women. Warners is producing an adaptation of the Nicholas Sparks novel "Nights in Rodanthe," starring Diane Lane and Richard Gere. Also in the pipeline are "Spring Breakdown," a fish-out-of-water comedy about 20ish women on spring break, and the romantic comedy "Fool's Gold," starring Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. Robinov said he would happily make Nikki Caro's noble failure "North Country," starring Charlize Theron, again.

So there you have it: some of Robinov's best friends are A-list actresses, and he's more than willing to light a few million dollars on fire for their passion projects if there's the possibility of some Oscar nominations. Now that this matter is settled, he and his studio-running peers can resume the important business of issuing press releases claiming that the unreasonable Writers Guild won't be happy until all of Hollywood is consumed by the flames of their residual-craving creed.

• Warner Bros still committed to women [Variety]

"If Superman had done twice what it did, the whole summer would have looked different," said Mr. Robinov. "It's as much about perception as reality. Even with the failure of a movie like 'Poseidon,' we've had much smaller movies we've lost as much on."

Mr. Horn agreed. "I've seen movies that cost $15 million lose as much as $20 million," he said. "But when event movies don't perform well, it is very high profile."

It's a point well-taken, for any hack studio exec can easily fritter away tens of millions of dollars promoting the megabudgeted revival of a supposedly-can't-miss superhero franchise like Superman, but it takes a true visionary to select just the right $15 million labor of love on which to suffer an eight-figure loss.

• After Big Flops, Warner Hopes for 'Sleeper' Hit in Smaller Films [NY Times]