Harry Potter - the TV series

[Which Tyler]

TV as in television, not transvestite - I don't think JK would greenlight that!

So, we've got the usual discussion on whether or not to boycott; both JKR herself, and this show / intellectual property. Whether it's even possible to separate the art from the artist etc.

Personally, I'm on the train of typically trying to separate; and when I do boycott, trying to be as accurate as realistically possible. A book is all about the author, with not that many other people involved.
A TV show is about far more, with the author not even the most important person involved - that'd be the show-runner, and more about the actors, directors, screen writers than the author - hell, it's more about the lighting director than the author!

And now we've a couple of new controversies.
https://www.harrypotter.com/news/hogwar ... hbo-series

American Dumbledore - surprises me, but I can't say I particularly care

Old Dumbledore - seems a risk, especially after having had to replace Richard Harris, and how good ageing effects can be these days.
My guess is that they'll "shoot" many of his important future scenes a few different ways on green-screen, and make sure they've a lot of footage, audio and visual - and get his permission in advance to digitally recreate him if necessary (whilst hoping it won't be) - which will be a controversy in itself.

Black Snape - that one's going to be tricky to pull off when he's an adult abusing a child for no apparent reason (and for anyone claiming his redemption arc, I... have views). Specifically, you will get James and Sirius literally hanging a black man under a tree - years before the start of the "redemption arc"

Anyone else remember the grief that American Gods got for the lynching scene?
In a show that was NOT for children, and had the easy defence of "yeah, that's the whole ******* point Jeremy!"



ETA: is there an agreed upon male / gender-neutral name to use instead of "Karen"?

[Stom]

TV as in television, not transvestite - I don't think JK would greenlight that!

So, we've got the usual discussion on whether or not to boycott; both JKR herself, and this show / intellectual property. Whether it's even possible to separate the art from the artist etc.

Personally, I'm on the train of typically trying to separate; and when I do boycott, trying to be as accurate as realistically possible. A book is all about the author, with not that many other people involved.
A TV show is about far more, with the author not even the most important person involved - that'd be the show-runner, and more about the actors, directors, screen writers than the author - hell, it's more about the lighting director than the author!

And now we've a couple of new controversies.
https://www.harrypotter.com/news/hogwar ... hbo-series

American Dumbledore - surprises me, but I can't say I particularly care

Old Dumbledore - seems a risk, especially after having had to replace Richard Harris, and how good ageing effects can be these days.
My guess is that they'll "shoot" many of his important future scenes a few different ways on green-screen, and make sure they've a lot of footage, audio and visual - and get his permission in advance to digitally recreate him if necessary (whilst hoping it won't be) - which will be a controversy in itself.

Black Snape - that one's going to be tricky to pull off when he's an adult abusing a child for no apparent reason (and for anyone claiming his redemption arc, I... have views). Specifically, you will get James and Sirius literally hanging a black man under a tree - years before the start of the "redemption arc"

Anyone else remember the grief that American Gods got for the lynching scene?
In a show that was NOT for children, and had the easy defence of "yeah, that's the whole ******* point Jeremy!"



ETA: is there an agreed upon male / gender-neutral name to use instead of "Karen"?

I had not thought about that...

Problematic...

I generally do not have a problem with casting most characters with BAME actors. Most of the time, their ethnicity in the source material is not important.

But this just feels like trolling. Take a character that was loved for the performance of an old, white, male actor, and then cast a black guy to play him.

It's just...unnecessary.

Neville would seem the perfect choice.

I am, personally, not interested in it. For one reason and one reason only: I HATE reboots that serve no purpose other than to make money for the studio. It is lazy. It quashes creativity because 100s of scriptwriters never see their work made, simply because studio execs see Harry Potter, Star Wars, Snow White...and $$$ fill their eyes.

It does not add anything.

[Puja]

So, we've got the usual discussion on whether or not to boycott; both JKR herself, and this show / intellectual property. Whether it's even possible to separate the art from the artist etc.

Personally, I'm on the train of typically trying to separate; and when I do boycott, trying to be as accurate as realistically possible. A book is all about the author, with not that many other people involved.
A TV show is about far more, with the author not even the most important person involved - that'd be the show-runner, and more about the actors, directors, screen writers than the author - hell, it's more about the lighting director than the author!

I am not going to be going into this thread very much, because I find the topic inextricably linked with LGBTQIA+ rights and cannot talk of one without the other. I will take a moment to remind everyone that Hammy has explicitly barred threads about trans rights on the board because they turn into a debate and people's existence should not be a debate.

However, I couldn't pass by without noting that "separate the art from the artist" should be for situations where the artist is dead or otherwise divorced from the work, and where consuming it does not cause further harm. Given that Joanne is very active in politics, both in spreading hate herself and in funding like-minded politicans/groups, and that she openly and repeatedly conflates Harry Potter's popularity with the popularity of her views (and said politicians/groups often reciprocate when citing her), I do not see how supporting her staying current and relevant can be justified.

This is not to mention that the main reason she has supported a reboot is because she despises the three stars of the films, due to them repudiating her views, but they're still what the majority of people picture when they think of Harry, Ron, and Hermione. She wants a new version of the characters that can be the public faces of her product and whom she can put on merchandise without giving money and cachet to people that she hates.

A TV show boycott might affect more people than the author, but it won't be the lighting director that gets the fame from it. TV shows fail all the time and put actors/directors/screen-writers out of a job; at least this one failing would be in a better cause than, "Didn't achieve worldwide success in the first 5 minutes so Netflix cancelled it."

Puja

[Donny osmond]

Wow. I don't envy you, living with that inside your head.

[Donny osmond]

TV as in television, not transvestite - I don't think JK would greenlight that!

So, we've got the usual discussion on whether or not to boycott; both JKR herself, and this show / intellectual property. Whether it's even possible to separate the art from the artist etc.

Personally, I'm on the train of typically trying to separate; and when I do boycott, trying to be as accurate as realistically possible. A book is all about the author, with not that many other people involved.
A TV show is about far more, with the author not even the most important person involved - that'd be the show-runner, and more about the actors, directors, screen writers than the author - hell, it's more about the lighting director than the author!

And now we've a couple of new controversies.
https://www.harrypotter.com/news/hogwar ... hbo-series

American Dumbledore - surprises me, but I can't say I particularly care

Old Dumbledore - seems a risk, especially after having had to replace Richard Harris, and how good ageing effects can be these days.
My guess is that they'll "shoot" many of his important future scenes a few different ways on green-screen, and make sure they've a lot of footage, audio and visual - and get his permission in advance to digitally recreate him if necessary (whilst hoping it won't be) - which will be a controversy in itself.

Black Snape - that one's going to be tricky to pull off when he's an adult abusing a child for no apparent reason (and for anyone claiming his redemption arc, I... have views). Specifically, you will get James and Sirius literally hanging a black man under a tree - years before the start of the "redemption arc"

Anyone else remember the grief that American Gods got for the lynching scene?
In a show that was NOT for children, and had the easy defence of "yeah, that's the whole ******* point Jeremy!"



ETA: is there an agreed upon male / gender-neutral name to use instead of "Karen"?

I had not thought about that...

Problematic...

I generally do not have a problem with casting most characters with BAME actors. Most of the time, their ethnicity in the source material is not important.

But this just feels like trolling. Take a character that was loved for the performance of an old, white, male actor, and then cast a black guy to play him.

It's just...unnecessary.

Neville would seem the perfect choice.

I am, personally, not interested in it. For one reason and one reason only: I HATE reboots that serve no purpose other than to make money for the studio. It is lazy. It quashes creativity because 100s of scriptwriters never see their work made, simply because studio execs see Harry Potter, Star Wars, Snow White...and $$$ fill their eyes.

It does not add anything.

I get what you mean, but i don't agree that it serves no purpose other than to make money. The books had plenty of both content and meaning that couldn't be expressed in the films, a tv series is a great way of getting that out there.

On the scenes where Snape is hung, or seen in an abused/abusive light, that will obviously be problematic given that the actor is black, but not insurmountable surely? There are many ways of portraying that behaviour.

[Puja]

Wow. I don't envy you, living with that inside your head.

Trust me, I'd really rather it wasn't something inside my head too, but the current state of the world means that the safety and health of some of my friends and relatives is being put at risk, so I don't have the luxury of getting to ignore it.

Anyway, have said my piece - I will now allow y'all to discuss reboots and recasting in peace.

Puja

[Stom]

TV as in television, not transvestite - I don't think JK would greenlight that!

So, we've got the usual discussion on whether or not to boycott; both JKR herself, and this show / intellectual property. Whether it's even possible to separate the art from the artist etc.

Personally, I'm on the train of typically trying to separate; and when I do boycott, trying to be as accurate as realistically possible. A book is all about the author, with not that many other people involved.
A TV show is about far more, with the author not even the most important person involved - that'd be the show-runner, and more about the actors, directors, screen writers than the author - hell, it's more about the lighting director than the author!

And now we've a couple of new controversies.
https://www.harrypotter.com/news/hogwar ... hbo-series

American Dumbledore - surprises me, but I can't say I particularly care

Old Dumbledore - seems a risk, especially after having had to replace Richard Harris, and how good ageing effects can be these days.
My guess is that they'll "shoot" many of his important future scenes a few different ways on green-screen, and make sure they've a lot of footage, audio and visual - and get his permission in advance to digitally recreate him if necessary (whilst hoping it won't be) - which will be a controversy in itself.

Black Snape - that one's going to be tricky to pull off when he's an adult abusing a child for no apparent reason (and for anyone claiming his redemption arc, I... have views). Specifically, you will get James and Sirius literally hanging a black man under a tree - years before the start of the "redemption arc"

Anyone else remember the grief that American Gods got for the lynching scene?
In a show that was NOT for children, and had the easy defence of "yeah, that's the whole ******* point Jeremy!"



ETA: is there an agreed upon male / gender-neutral name to use instead of "Karen"?

I had not thought about that...

Problematic...

I generally do not have a problem with casting most characters with BAME actors. Most of the time, their ethnicity in the source material is not important.

But this just feels like trolling. Take a character that was loved for the performance of an old, white, male actor, and then cast a black guy to play him.

It's just...unnecessary.

Neville would seem the perfect choice.

I am, personally, not interested in it. For one reason and one reason only: I HATE reboots that serve no purpose other than to make money for the studio. It is lazy. It quashes creativity because 100s of scriptwriters never see their work made, simply because studio execs see Harry Potter, Star Wars, Snow White...and $$$ fill their eyes.

It does not add anything.

I get what you mean, but i don't agree that it serves no purpose other than to make money. The books had plenty of both content and meaning that couldn't be expressed in the films, a tv series is a great way of getting that out there.

On the scenes where Snape is hung, or seen in an abused/abusive light, that will obviously be problematic given that the actor is black, but not insurmountable surely? There are many ways of portraying that behaviour.

I will have to disagree here. The books are not deep works of psychological fiction with hidden meaning. They are "rolicking teen fiction", the language is obvious, the tropes are plentiful, and the imagery is...obvious. They are not works of literary genius with hidden depth.

I don't feel like the movies missed anything useful or important to storytelling. At least far less than most adaptations.

To think this is anything but a money spinner is naive.

It prevents new ideas from being made. It is a representation of the problems with film and visual media today (and music for that matter, too). And the fact that the author of the source material is such a reprehensible person is still there, too.

Look, I know I'm not the average person when it comes to TV. I do not watch and have not watched the Mandalorian, despite being a big Star Wars fan as a young adult. I have no intention. I do not watch Marvel movies despite collecting Marvel comics as a teenager. I did not watch the Hobbit "trilogy" because I completely disagreed with the idea of making a short book a 9 hour movie...despite that short book being one of my favourites.

I am a firm believer in creativity being given funding and screen time.

This is not that.

[Donny osmond]

All of which begs the question, what are acceptable remakes/reboots? Can the Potter films never be remade? Can a new and different take on the stories never be told simply because they are children's books rather than high literature?

I've never watched The Mandalorian or The Hobbit films either, and only watched the Marvel films because my kids were of that age, (although I did enjoy the Marvel films up to Endgame).

I feel like you're being a little extreme here. How do you know there won't be any new ideas expressed? You've written them off before filming has even started.

Oh and BTW, the UK Supreme Court has just handed down a judgement that should give pause for though to everyone on the "I hate JK" train.

[Mikey Brown]

Not really got much of an opinion on the films as I kind of missed them. The books/tapes were great as a kid, but JKR is obviously a ****.

It feels like remakes are great for when good source material didn’t translate in to a good film/tv/whatever. From what I understand the films are generally loved by the HP audience though. I don’t know what a new version would be doing differently, beyond getting people more riled up about politics and culture war stuff.

[Stom]

All of which begs the question, what are acceptable remakes/reboots? Can the Potter films never be remade? Can a new and different take on the stories never be told simply because they are children's books rather than high literature?

I've never watched The Mandalorian or The Hobbit films either, and only watched the Marvel films because my kids were of that age, (although I did enjoy the Marvel films up to Endgame).

I feel like you're being a little extreme here. How do you know there won't be any new ideas expressed? You've written them off before filming has even started.

Oh and BTW, the UK Supreme Court has just handed down a judgement that should give pause for though to everyone on the "I hate JK" train.

Remakes, as MB said, are generally done to explore new directions in stories that aren't particularly linear, or when the originally was just poor.

The latter is shown perfectly with His Dark Materials. The film was so poor they didn't bother making the 2nd or 3rd. So they made a TV series that was well received and told the whole story.

The Dune movies are a bit of both.

Most TV adaptations continue the story in some way, or show the story from another character. Those I do not have a huge problem with.

BUT

The point is that new screenplays are what is needed. Fresh ideas, new concepts. Not just rehashing the same story time after again, as that is what 90% of TV and cinema is nowadays.

Breaking Bad - Better Call Saul & El Camino
Yellowstone - 1883, 1932, and The Madison
All the new Star Wars
All the new Marvel

I don't think it's unfair to want new stories.

On your last point, you can simply get lost. It has no place here, you know we're not going to have any conversation on it, and you're simply stirring shit.

[Donny osmond]

I get your point about new material and screen plays, I'd rather see new stuff than rehashed old stuff, but I'm not going to write something off before watching it based on my own preconceptions.

And on your last point..
WT can make reference to it, Puja can write a full, long post specifically about it, no comment; but when I simply refer to a legal judgement from the highest court in the land, suddenly I'm the one stirring shit? Aye right.

[Donny osmond]

On a slow afternoon I read that "Francesca Gardiner has been tapped as the writer and executive producer of the Harry Potter reboot. Her previous production credits include Succession and Killing Eve. As a writer, she's credited for His Dark Materials, The Man in the High Castle, and more. Mark Mylod (Entourage, Game of Thrones, Shameless) will be an executive producer and director."

Which is some pretty decent pedigree in the creative side of things.

[Stom]

I get your point about new material and screen plays, I'd rather see new stuff than rehashed old stuff, but I'm not going to write something off before watching it based on my own preconceptions.

And on your last point..
WT can make reference to it, Puja can write a full, long post specifically about it, no comment; but when I simply refer to a legal judgement from the highest court in the land, suddenly I'm the one stirring shit? Aye right.

You can make reference to the author


But to bring up a piece of law where it appears that it’s ruled on a technicality, and new regulations are being proposed in place…as some kind of validation of a bigot…

No, not the same.

[Mikey Brown]

On a slow afternoon I read that "Francesca Gardiner has been tapped as the writer and executive producer of the Harry Potter reboot. Her previous production credits include Succession and Killing Eve. As a writer, she's credited for His Dark Materials, The Man in the High Castle, and more. Mark Mylod (Entourage, Game of Thrones, Shameless) will be an executive producer and director."

Which is some pretty decent pedigree in the creative side of things.

I’m a bit torn about this. Impressive names but I still can’t picture what the goal is.

It’s still kids stuff about a wizard, right? Or is it going to be a serious, high-brow, ‘prestige’ show now? That sounds god awful. Are they all going to be fucking and taking drugs?

It will be impressive if they make this not-shit, but I’m struggling to see how that will work.