Harry Potter TV series on HBO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so tired of Harry Potter.

I'd just like to see all that cash flowing to new, fresh scripted series, not to something that already exists in several forms. So many stories that writers, producers, directors and actors might have to tell, which go untold dues to the desire by streaming services to keep making bank.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone follow the rise of Hogwarts HBCU on TikTok a month or two ago? It was a delightful takeover of Hogwarts by Black creators. There’s a fictional Hogwarts A&M website and I believe they’re hosting a Homecoming/Yule Ball at Universal this summer. The videos are so much fun.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ziathompson/hogwarts-hbcu-tiktok-trend-harry-potter

https://myhamu.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so tired of Harry Potter.

I'd just like to see all that cash flowing to new, fresh scripted series, not to something that already exists in several forms. So many stories that writers, producers, directors and actors might have to tell, which go untold dues to the desire by streaming services to keep making bank.

I don't agree with this. There is SO MUCH content being made right now. Yes, lots of it is based on existing, owned IP, like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or remaking Marvel movies or whatever.

But there's lots of new, original shows being made. Too many, actually -- there's a lot of stuff I haven't seen because who has the time. But I am actually excited about this because it might be something I could watch with my DC, and with them committing to doing 7 seasons, could be something we could share as she grows up. I'm guessing it will be well cast with good production values. I think some of the original HP movies don't hold up well, especially the first two.

No one will make you watch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so tired of Harry Potter.

I'd just like to see all that cash flowing to new, fresh scripted series, not to something that already exists in several forms. So many stories that writers, producers, directors and actors might have to tell, which go untold dues to the desire by streaming services to keep making bank.

I don't agree with this. There is SO MUCH content being made right now. Yes, lots of it is based on existing, owned IP, like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or remaking Marvel movies or whatever.

But there's lots of new, original shows being made. Too many, actually -- there's a lot of stuff I haven't seen because who has the time. But I am actually excited about this because it might be something I could watch with my DC, and with them committing to doing 7 seasons, could be something we could share as she grows up. I'm guessing it will be well cast with good production values. I think some of the original HP movies don't hold up well, especially the first two.

No one will make you watch it.

Yes, I know I don't have to watch it; no need to be snarky on that front, PP. I can still have an opinion on it, as someone who's read and enjoyed all the books and seen and mostly enjoyed the movies. And I still think this is milking the cash cow by returning to what the makers know is familiar, safe and salable.

As for "lots of new, original shows being made," sure, but they get axed unless they're huge hits immediately and very few are allowed by streaming services to build an audience over time. A lot of quality shows have gotten one season and then they're gone. The behemoth budget for seven seasons of HP could support new shows by new creators instead, and maybe keep those shows on long enough to get an actual audience. But hey, this show's happening no matter what, I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well speaking of a money grab, they're using the original actors in a film version of The Cursed Child, which just makes me puke. Talk about desperation.

As it is, that stupid Cursed Child play was grifter's move. Now they're grifting on the grift. Shame on Rowling, the actors, the producers, all of them.

Grifting? Shame? What are you going on about?

Ladies and gents, a low-key grifter has found our thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so tired of Harry Potter.

I'd just like to see all that cash flowing to new, fresh scripted series, not to something that already exists in several forms. So many stories that writers, producers, directors and actors might have to tell, which go untold dues to the desire by streaming services to keep making bank.

+1000

I'm tired of remakes and what passes for creativity these days. The problem is none of these studios want to take risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well speaking of a money grab, they're using the original actors in a film version of The Cursed Child, which just makes me puke. Talk about desperation.

As it is, that stupid Cursed Child play was grifter's move. Now they're grifting on the grift. Shame on Rowling, the actors, the producers, all of them.

Grifting? Shame? What are you going on about?

Surely you understand that the PP is saying the play and now this series are just attempts to squeeze more money out of the franchise. If you don't find that shameful, or at least distasteful, well, some of us do.

Is Toyota grifting and shameful for trying to sell new models every year? I don't understand your perspective. Authors are in the commercial business of selling their work to make money.

[Anonymous]

I'd like them to start with season 1 being when Harry was born. Then season 2 can start with book 1. True fans who read the books know there was SO MUCH information not included in the movies due to time. It would be wonderful to get 8-10 hours for each book vs 2.

As for actors, I'm fine with a new set. Clearly the originals are a bit too old at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well speaking of a money grab, they're using the original actors in a film version of The Cursed Child, which just makes me puke. Talk about desperation.

As it is, that stupid Cursed Child play was grifter's move. Now they're grifting on the grift. Shame on Rowling, the actors, the producers, all of them.

Grifting? Shame? What are you going on about?

Surely you understand that the PP is saying the play and now this series are just attempts to squeeze more money out of the franchise. If you don't find that shameful, or at least distasteful, well, some of us do.

Is Toyota grifting and shameful for trying to sell new models every year? I don't understand your perspective. Authors are in the commercial business of selling their work to make money.

DP. You don't understand because you are a grifter, and likely have learned to justify your greed and innate lack of originality and integrity since you were a child. But those of us who never sold out can tell the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you replace Emma Watson? Easily. Radcliffe and Grint didn't do particularly well in HP either (my opinion), but at least they've really learned to perform as young adults. Watson never learned how to act. If anything, it's just become increasingly obvious over the years that she lucked out big time as a kid, and the only reason she still has any ability to secure any roles in the industry is because she's basically able-bodied, basically smart, and managed to avoid a drug-fueled fall from grace.

I’m an average Harry Potter fan, but I don’t think the child acting did the characters justice. If you think of amazing child actor performances, I think of the stand by me kids, Anna paquin, Haley Joel osment, Elijah wood. Actually a young Elijah wood would have been a great Harry Potter. It’s sad to me that people picture the movies when they think of Harry Potter, and not richer and layered books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well speaking of a money grab, they're using the original actors in a film version of The Cursed Child, which just makes me puke. Talk about desperation.

As it is, that stupid Cursed Child play was grifter's move. Now they're grifting on the grift. Shame on Rowling, the actors, the producers, all of them.

Grifting? Shame? What are you going on about?

Surely you understand that the PP is saying the play and now this series are just attempts to squeeze more money out of the franchise. If you don't find that shameful, or at least distasteful, well, some of us do.

Is Toyota grifting and shameful for trying to sell new models every year? I don't understand your perspective. Authors are in the commercial business of selling their work to make money.

DP. You don't understand because you are a grifter, and likely have learned to justify your greed and innate lack of originality and integrity since you were a child. But those of us who never sold out can tell the difference.

can you explain your comment a bit more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you replace Emma Watson? Easily. Radcliffe and Grint didn't do particularly well in HP either (my opinion), but at least they've really learned to perform as young adults. Watson never learned how to act. If anything, it's just become increasingly obvious over the years that she lucked out big time as a kid, and the only reason she still has any ability to secure any roles in the industry is because she's basically able-bodied, basically smart, and managed to avoid a drug-fueled fall from grace.

I’m an average Harry Potter fan, but I don’t think the child acting did the characters justice. If you think of amazing child actor performances, I think of the stand by me kids, Anna paquin, Haley Joel osment, Elijah wood. Actually a young Elijah wood would have been a great Harry Potter. It’s sad to me that people picture the movies when they think of Harry Potter, and not richer and layered books.

Well not all the HP child actors were talentless, it was mostly just Hermione Granger. The Luna Lovegood actress was fantastic, as was Fleur and several others.

[Anonymous]

I thought Emma Watson was fine in the HP movies.
Didn't love her as Belle in Beauty and the Beast, but okay as Hermione.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you replace Emma Watson? Easily. Radcliffe and Grint didn't do particularly well in HP either (my opinion), but at least they've really learned to perform as young adults. Watson never learned how to act. If anything, it's just become increasingly obvious over the years that she lucked out big time as a kid, and the only reason she still has any ability to secure any roles in the industry is because she's basically able-bodied, basically smart, and managed to avoid a drug-fueled fall from grace.

I’m an average Harry Potter fan, but I don’t think the child acting did the characters justice. If you think of amazing child actor performances, I think of the stand by me kids, Anna paquin, Haley Joel osment, Elijah wood. Actually a young Elijah wood would have been a great Harry Potter. It’s sad to me that people picture the movies when they think of Harry Potter, and not richer and layered books.

Well not all the HP child actors were talentless, it was mostly just Hermione Granger. The Luna Lovegood actress was fantastic, as was Fleur and several others.

Oh yeah, totally agree about luna lovegood!

[Anonymous]

According to the article, one season of the show will be based on one HP book.

I would welcome what would be essentially be a mini series of the later bigger books, particularly order of the phoenix onwards. I think that the movies struggled trying to fit all that detail into under 2-3 hours.

That’s assuming good casting and production.

TV usually films one season a year right? So I wonder if they will match the child actors natural ageing to their characters from age 11-18? I.E film 7 seasons over 7 years.