RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:15 pm *words*

When I said you’re threadbanned, I meant it. Do not let me catch you posting in this thread again.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:15 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 3:47 pm

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 3:29 pm 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.

Article in today's Guardian about the two mentioned above:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/a ... ter-series

Mylod, the director, worked on things like The Royle Family, Shooting Stars and Ali G Indahouse which you may or may not like but at least point to him being more than just fucking and drugs.

Damn. That’s quite a list of credits. I just knew him as the Succession guy who happened to do the awful ‘The Menu’ movie. Suggests a bit of versatility I guess.

I suppose I imagined it being older Harry Potter kids and coming out like Skins, or whatever equivalent teen drama exists now, given so much of HBO stuff is just the ‘adult’ version of normal bullshit TV.

A Harry Potter TV series. Dear god. We've had 8 films (and a few more spinoffs). The films were good adaptations (about as good as could have been made from the source material) and were extremely popular. The show is a money-spinner, nothing more. I won't be watching.

The enormous amounts of money and time (to make and to watch) would be far better spent on something original, or something that has only been poorly adapted. In the same vein, how about The Dark is Rising books which clearly inspired the derivative Harry Potter and have only had a mediocre movie to date?

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 3:20 pm A Harry Potter TV series. Dear god. We've had 8 films (and a few more spinoffs). The films were good adaptations (about as good as could have been made from the source material) and were extremely popular. The show is a money-spinner, nothing more. I won't be watching.

The enormous amounts of money and time (to make and to watch) would be far better spent on something original, or something that has only been poorly adapted. In the same vein, how about The Dark is Rising books which clearly inspired the derivative Harry Potter and have only had a mediocre movie to date?

You've answered your own question. The Harry Potter franchise makes shitloads of money at the end of the day, with the only Harry Potter thing underperforming being the most recent Fantastic Beasts movie (which was "based on a screenplay by JK Rowling" - i.e., her script was so fucking bad, they brought in Steve Kloves to hold her hand in a massive rewrite of her original screenplay, lol), and for the criticism Rowling being a gigantic piece of fucking shit gets, crap like Hogwarts Legacy made a cool billion dollars worldwide, with a massive marketing push from Warner Brothers.

Meanwhile, like you said, the Dark is Rising books got a film with a modest budget, and it still failed, and will remain where it is, until someone with clout and a vision comes along, it will remain largely unmined.

cashead wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 11:42 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 3:20 pm A Harry Potter TV series. Dear god. We've had 8 films (and a few more spinoffs). The films were good adaptations (about as good as could have been made from the source material) and were extremely popular. The show is a money-spinner, nothing more. I won't be watching.

The enormous amounts of money and time (to make and to watch) would be far better spent on something original, or something that has only been poorly adapted. In the same vein, how about The Dark is Rising books which clearly inspired the derivative Harry Potter and have only had a mediocre movie to date?

You've answered your own question. The Harry Potter franchise makes shitloads of money at the end of the day, with the only Harry Potter thing underperforming being the most recent Fantastic Beasts movie (which was "based on a screenplay by JK Rowling" - i.e., her script was so fucking bad, they brought in Steve Kloves to hold her hand in a massive rewrite of her original screenplay, lol), and for the criticism Rowling being a gigantic piece of fucking shit gets, crap like Hogwarts Legacy made a cool billion dollars worldwide, with a massive marketing push from Warner Brothers.

Meanwhile, like you said, the Dark is Rising books got a film with a modest budget, and it still failed, and will remain where it is, until someone with clout and a vision comes along, it will remain largely unmined.

Yeah, it makes economic sense to milk the cash cow but creatively it's worthless. I hope it fails - the world needs no more Harry Potter in it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 12:02 am

cashead wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 11:42 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 3:20 pm A Harry Potter TV series. Dear god. We've had 8 films (and a few more spinoffs). The films were good adaptations (about as good as could have been made from the source material) and were extremely popular. The show is a money-spinner, nothing more. I won't be watching.

The enormous amounts of money and time (to make and to watch) would be far better spent on something original, or something that has only been poorly adapted. In the same vein, how about The Dark is Rising books which clearly inspired the derivative Harry Potter and have only had a mediocre movie to date?

You've answered your own question. The Harry Potter franchise makes shitloads of money at the end of the day, with the only Harry Potter thing underperforming being the most recent Fantastic Beasts movie (which was "based on a screenplay by JK Rowling" - i.e., her script was so fucking bad, they brought in Steve Kloves to hold her hand in a massive rewrite of her original screenplay, lol), and for the criticism Rowling being a gigantic piece of fucking shit gets, crap like Hogwarts Legacy made a cool billion dollars worldwide, with a massive marketing push from Warner Brothers.

Meanwhile, like you said, the Dark is Rising books got a film with a modest budget, and it still failed, and will remain where it is, until someone with clout and a vision comes along, it will remain largely unmined.

Yeah, it makes economic sense to milk the cash cow but creatively it's worthless. I hope it fails - the world needs no more Harry Potter in it.

Wait until it becomes a zombie franchise that continues to outlive its creators, like LOTR, Anpanman, Doraemon, Crayon Shin-Chan or Dragon Ball.

cashead wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 12:58 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 12:02 am

cashead wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 11:42 pm

You've answered your own question. The Harry Potter franchise makes shitloads of money at the end of the day, with the only Harry Potter thing underperforming being the most recent Fantastic Beasts movie (which was "based on a screenplay by JK Rowling" - i.e., her script was so fucking bad, they brought in Steve Kloves to hold her hand in a massive rewrite of her original screenplay, lol), and for the criticism Rowling being a gigantic piece of fucking shit gets, crap like Hogwarts Legacy made a cool billion dollars worldwide, with a massive marketing push from Warner Brothers.

Meanwhile, like you said, the Dark is Rising books got a film with a modest budget, and it still failed, and will remain where it is, until someone with clout and a vision comes along, it will remain largely unmined.

Yeah, it makes economic sense to milk the cash cow but creatively it's worthless. I hope it fails - the world needs no more Harry Potter in it.

Wait until it becomes a zombie franchise that continues to outlive its creators, like LOTR, Anpanman, Doraemon, Crayon Shin-Chan or Dragon Ball.

Yes, unfortunately I agree, given how big HP is (or has been) it will probably be one of those, a James Bond, a Star Trek or Wars, going on indefinitely.

I'm not particularly interested in this but the one thing I would say is the "hanging scene" that's been referred to isn't a hanging scene as such, he just magics him into the air and turns him upside down, it has no similarity to hanging by a noose in any way that I can see.

Not to mention that the visual of bullies calling a mixed-race actor "Mudblood" is going to be interesting.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 7:30 am Not to mention that the visual of bullies calling a mixed-race actor "Mudblood" is going to be interesting.

That would work in its favour, I'd presume (though, just wait for the racists to be calling non-white mudblood in a "It's not racist, just a cultural reference - honest" afterwards)
For the jpg's point - it would require a little rewriting, but could easily be used as a learning opportunity and show growth for Ron and Harry - have Hermione actually convince them to be more active in SPEW(?). After all, it's not like the reader wasn't supposed to agree with Hermione in the books.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 8:13 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 7:30 am Not to mention that the visual of bullies calling a mixed-race actor "Mudblood" is going to be interesting.

That would work in its favour, I'd presume (though, just wait for the racists to be calling non-white mudblood in a "It's not racist, just a cultural reference - honest" afterwards)
For the jpg's point - it would require a little rewriting, but could easily be used as a learning opportunity and show growth for Ron and Harry - have Hermione actually convince them to be more active in SPEW(?). After all, it's not like the reader wasn't supposed to agree with Hermione in the books.

I will admit that it's been a very long time since I've read the books but I recall that SPEW was treated as a punchline (the acronym alone), with the narrative being that these slaves really enjoyed being slaves and didn't want to be freed. I don't think the reader was expected to agree with Hermione; I think they were expected to laugh at her.

ETA. Yup - a google says "the majority of house-elves were accustomed to their work and enjoyed it. They regarded Hermione's actions as insults to their race and refused to clean the Gryffindor common room any more". Which is a decent commentary on white-knighting and the importance of actually listening to the marginalised groups that you're advocating for rather than just deciding you know what's best, but is incredibly awkward when applied to literal chattel slavery.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 9:28 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 8:13 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 7:30 am Not to mention that the visual of bullies calling a mixed-race actor "Mudblood" is going to be interesting.

That would work in its favour, I'd presume (though, just wait for the racists to be calling non-white mudblood in a "It's not racist, just a cultural reference - honest" afterwards)
For the jpg's point - it would require a little rewriting, but could easily be used as a learning opportunity and show growth for Ron and Harry - have Hermione actually convince them to be more active in SPEW(?). After all, it's not like the reader wasn't supposed to agree with Hermione in the books.

I will admit that it's been a very long time since I've read the books but I recall that SPEW was treated as a punchline (the acronym alone), with the narrative being that these slaves really enjoyed being slaves and didn't want to be freed. I don't think the reader was expected to agree with Hermione; I think they were expected to laugh at her.

ETA. Yup - a google says "the majority of house-elves were accustomed to their work and enjoyed it. They regarded Hermione's actions as insults to their race and refused to clean the Gryffindor common room any more". Which is a decent commentary on white-knighting and the importance of actually listening to the marginalised groups that you're advocating for rather than just deciding you know what's best, but is incredibly awkward when applied to literal chattel slavery.

Puja

Jesus, the amount of creative energy that'll be wasted reproducing this mediocrity.

Casting a mixed-race actor as the 'mudblood' of the team is mental (ie it will be totally confusing, at the very least, offensive at worst) although I'm sure the producers think it's genius (for the time being). Better to change Harry or Ron's race, if they feel the need to mix things up.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:58 am Jesus, the amount of creative energy that'll be wasted reproducing this mediocrity.

Casting a mixed-race actor as the 'mudblood' of the team is mental (ie it will be totally confusing, at the very least, offensive at worst) although I'm sure the producers think it's genius (for the time being). Better to change Harry or Ron's race, if they feel the need to mix things up.

Jebus, the amount of energy some posters put into posting about something they've declared that they don't care about and won't watch.
FTR, the term "mudblood" is SUPPOSED to be offensive - that's the actual point. It'll just hit harder with a mixed-race actor.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 8:58 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:58 am Jesus, the amount of creative energy that'll be wasted reproducing this mediocrity.

Casting a mixed-race actor as the 'mudblood' of the team is mental (ie it will be totally confusing, at the very least, offensive at worst) although I'm sure the producers think it's genius (for the time being). Better to change Harry or Ron's race, if they feel the need to mix things up.

Jebus, the amount of energy some posters put into posting about something they've declared that they don't care about and won't watch.
FTR, the term "mudblood" is SUPPOSED to be offensive - that's the actual point. It'll just hit harder with a mixed-race actor.

The issue is that mixed-race people aren't generally thrilled about having the real life racism that they experience be used as an additional spice to enhance fantasy racism.

It's also worth noting the "default" skin colour in Western fiction, especially children's fiction - if a character's skin is not mentioned, they're generally assumed to be white, whereas any other skin colour is actively described. Harry's skin colour is never mentioned in the books, yet every illustration, book cover, and casting decision has made him white (and I can only imagine the internet's reaction if they did otherwise). Given that every character not specifically described as non-white (or given a very specifically racially coded name) is assumed white, casting an actor of colour is going to be viewed as making a choice (as "changing" from the book) and so it's notable who they are choosing to be a PoC and, just as pertinently, who they're not.

There's never a question that the main character would be white, but so are all the heroic teachers and figures of narrative authority like Malfoys and Voldemort. They have allowed two (2) characters in the main cast to be played by PoC and they are the main exemplars of a caste seen as inferior because of their impure blood. All of the long-standing wizard families of pure-blood (and inherited wealth and power) are white.

Whether intentional or not, that's a heck of a statement about who they feel comfortable "changing the ethnicity of" when they do the casting.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 8:58 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:58 am Jesus, the amount of creative energy that'll be wasted reproducing this mediocrity.

Casting a mixed-race actor as the 'mudblood' of the team is mental (ie it will be totally confusing, at the very least, offensive at worst) although I'm sure the producers think it's genius (for the time being). Better to change Harry or Ron's race, if they feel the need to mix things up.

Jebus, the amount of energy some posters put into posting about something they've declared that they don't care about and won't watch.
FTR, the term "mudblood" is SUPPOSED to be offensive - that's the actual point. It'll just hit harder with a mixed-race actor.

Energy? Hah, I can gripe about shows I'll never watch without breaking a sweat.

I hadn't noticed that Snape is also played by a non-white actor and is (I had forgotten this) only of half-wizard stock. It seems like they're deliberately conflating non-white with non-pure wizard blood. I wonder if that is going to be carried on into minor characters (ie actually be part of the plot) or is simply a strong impression given by the casting of the main characters.

As I said, I think this is a mistake because:
a) it's not what half-blood or mudblood actually mean,
b) it will be confusing to anyone new to the story (ie younger viewers who, more and more, will have this as their entry point into the franchise), ie they may well think that these terms relate to the appearance of the actors,
c) it removes the useful eye-opening effect for white viewers to see a white person treated as a second-class citizen for the quality of their blood,
d) it might actually wind up making mudblood into a term of racial abuse in schools (but with a fallback defence:'I was only talking about Harry Potter!').

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 8:58 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:58 am Jesus, the amount of creative energy that'll be wasted reproducing this mediocrity.

Casting a mixed-race actor as the 'mudblood' of the team is mental (ie it will be totally confusing, at the very least, offensive at worst) although I'm sure the producers think it's genius (for the time being). Better to change Harry or Ron's race, if they feel the need to mix things up.

Jebus, the amount of energy some posters put into posting about something they've declared that they don't care about and won't watch.
FTR, the term "mudblood" is SUPPOSED to be offensive - that's the actual point. It'll just hit harder with a mixed-race actor.

Because I don't trust fucking Harry Potter to handle it with the nuance that it requires. Cho Chang, anyone? Fucking orientalist-ass shit.

Also, I care more about this.

J.K. Rowling uses Harry Potter wealth to fund anti-transgender organization

Ryan Adamczeski
Thu, May 29, 2025 at 5:52 AM GMT+12

J.K. Rowling is using her wealth attained from the Harry Potter series to create an organization dedicated to removing transgender people's rights "in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces.”

The author announced in a Saturday post to X, formerly Twitter, that she would be founding the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund, using her personal fortune. The website for the group states that it “offers legal funding support to individuals and organisations fighting to retain women’s sex-based rights in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces.”

“I looked into all options and a private fund is the most efficient, streamlined way for me to do this,” she said. “Lots of people are offering to contribute, which I truly appreciate, but there are many other women’s rights orgs that could do with the money, so donate away, just not to me!”

Fuck this fucking show, fuck JK Rowling, and fuck every single fucker that watches this shit. Anyone who is willing to tune in is complicit in the beliefs and actions of a woman that has spent the better part of the last twenty years desperately propping up individuals that hang out with neo-nazis and have called for genocides, and any cunt that watches this show is complicit. No exceptions. "But but but I grew up with it." Yes, and you're a cunt and you're complicit, fuck you.. Yes, how dare this vulnerable community *checks notes* wish to exist in public.

cashead wrote: ↑Fri May 30, 2025 6:04 am Also, I care more about this.

Didn't know mods were allowed to talk about stuff the rest of us aren't

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri May 30, 2025 11:26 am

cashead wrote: ↑Fri May 30, 2025 6:04 am Also, I care more about this.

Didn't know mods were allowed to talk about stuff the rest of us aren't

Has more to do with some fucking assholes being incapable of not trying to turn things into a debate about whether certain vulnerable communities should be allowed to exist, so let's see if the rest of you can behave yourselves.

The person with a history of doing that has been threadbanned, and it’s a topic that is unavoidable with Rowling. It’s like making a thread about Roman Polanski and then expecting the fact that he’s a rapist and a paedophile to not be brought up.

So we're not allowed to talk about something, but you're allowed to bait us into talking about it... as a test?

gods alone how you ever got mod powers

If you want to talk about the issue in this thread, I’ll be making an exception due to the relevance to the topic at hand.

However, anyone that uses it as an opportunity to be a bigoted fuck or try to make it a debate about whether some communities deserve to exist will face sanctions.

I thought that was clear. The only person that can’t is the one explicitly banned from participating in this thread because of their posting history.

You see "I'll allow it in this thread, but don't be a bigoted fuck about it," and you interpret as "oh, it's a test." Says more about you, really.

So Hammy has banned discussion of a topic.
But bringing it up, baiting other people to talk about it, and unbanning for all bar 1 poster... who's been banned from talking about anything at all in this thread?

My problem isn't with the ban. My problem is your attitude as explicitly noted above.
If that says more about me, then what it said is that I obviously don't understand what Hammy meant when he banned discussion of the subject. I thought it was clear. When the person whomowns Rugby rebels said "conversation about this topic is banned" I thought it meant that conversation about that topic was banned, not that 1 poster is banned from that topic, but anyone else can talk about it if they get Cashead's permission.

For myself, I intend to watch the show, .I've given my rationale above on separating the art from the artist, I don't require anyone to agree with me. That's even a conversation I'm quite interested in.
If you want to "fuck you" at me, feel free, that is your right. Just as it's my right to watch a TV show.

ETA, FTR, this was the official mod announcement at the top of the thread

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:50 pm 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.

I will note, that I remembered that as "the topic is banned", not "threads about the topic are banned" though I'd suggest that the difference is pretty pedantic.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:21 pm So Hammy has banned discussion of a topic.
But bringing it up, baiting other people to talk about it, and unbanning for all bar 1 poster... who's been banned from talking about anything at all in this thread?

My problem isn't with the ban. My problem is your attitude as explicitly noted above.
If that says more about me, then what it said is that I obviously don't understand what Hammy meant when he banned discussion of the subject. I thought it was clear. When the person whomowns Rugby rebels said "conversation about this topic is banned" I thought it meant that conversation about that topic was banned, not that 1 poster is banned from that topic, but anyone else can talk about it if they get Cashead's permission.

For myself, I intend to watch the show, .I've given my rationale above on separating the art from the artist, I don't require anyone to agree with me. That's even a conversation I'm quite interested in.
If you want to "fuck you" at me, feel free, that is your right. Just as it's my right to watch a TV show.

ETA, FTR, this was the official mod announcement at the top of the thread

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:50 pm 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.

I will note, that I remembered that as "the topic is banned", not "threads about the topic are banned" though I'd suggest that the difference is pretty pedantic.

The difference is pretty significant, but if you want to continue packing a sad about it, feel free to do so. As far as I'm concerned, my interpretation of the ruling is that there are to be no threads that are made to be a discussion about trans rights or issues.

Aside from that, the topic has been explicitly tied to the show by the comments and actions of the creator of the franchise, explicitly linking the show and the IP to hatred towards that particular community - and in this case, the artist has outright stated the proceeds that she earns from her art will fund hate groups. I mean, I assume you're intelligent enough to recognise how "well, I separate the art from the artist" is a statement that reeks of privilege, especially when enough people separate the art from the artist to enable a hateful shitbag to punch down further at a vulnerable community at a time when anti-LGBTQ+ violence has been on the increase.

So, just to be clear, is this the rule: we can talk about trans issues but we can't start any threads specifically on that topic?

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:19 am So, just to be clear, is this the rule: we can talk about trans issues but we can't start any threads specifically on that topic?

Until stated otherwise, consider this thread to be the exception, where the topic can be discussed as long as it pertains to Rowling and the Harry Potter TV series and people are able to behave themselves. In other words, I will be keeping a very close eye on the discussion, and if it starts to go wrong, action will be taken. I am also trusting you assholes to have the maturity to not be a bunch of bigoted fucks about it.

cashead wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:35 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 9:19 am So, just to be clear, is this the rule: we can talk about trans issues but we can't start any threads specifically on that topic?

Until stated otherwise, consider this thread to be the exception, where the topic can be discussed as long as it pertains to Rowling and the Harry Potter TV series and people are able to behave themselves. In other words, I will be keeping a very close eye on the discussion, and if it starts to go wrong, action will be taken. I am also trusting you assholes to have the maturity to not be a bunch of bigoted fucks about it.

So, off this thread, what is the rule? No talking about it at all unless stated otherwise?