I'm so tired of Harry Potter.

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.

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?

I'll watch it.

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.

She seems intelligent, bland and not really an actress, certainly not as an older teen and now an adult. It would be great to see her producing if she wants to stay in the industry, or something like that. But she seems to have neither the innate talent nor the training or even enough continued experience for real acting. She turns up in things but never leaves an impression. Radcliffe has wisely challenged himself with a LOT of extremely varied roles, and seems unafraid to do anything, even projects that are crazy silly. Good for him. He also keeps going back to stage work, which is grueling stuff, and something he could just not do -- it's not nearly as remunerative as movies or even streaming TV shows, but he seems to embrace it for its own sake.

I genuinely enjoy Daniel Radcliffe's post-HP work. We saw him in The Woman in Black recently (a horror movie, don't recommend unless you're into horror) and he was so fully in character that both Daniel Radcliffe and Harry Potter disappeared. The movie itself was meh, but we were blown away by his performance. He's also great in Imperium and Weird: The Al Yankovic Story.

Rupert Grint is pretty funny in Sick Note. I haven't seen him in much else?

Emma Watson makes me cringe unfortunately.

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.

I’m a big HP fan and I’m excited about this. The movies leave PLENTY to improve upon, and the nice thing about a series is that won’t have to be as broad strokes. I know people who haven’t read the books or maybe only read the first couple might not think there’s nuance, but there is. Also, both the books and the movies are uneven. Some are better than others, and Rowling at her worst can be pretty mediocre, but at her best really extraordinary. Those books make people feel things.

I think people will acclimate to new actors in these roles faster than you think. There are lots of great actors how they’re and I think it will be interesting to see new interpretations.

I know neither the movies or books have been around that long but I’m still enthusiastic and will definitely watch.

It's not clear that they're retelling the stories tho. Or if they're expanding stories Rowling only touched on in the books.

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.

She seems intelligent, bland and not really an actress, certainly not as an older teen and now an adult. It would be great to see her producing if she wants to stay in the industry, or something like that. But she seems to have neither the innate talent nor the training or even enough continued experience for real acting. She turns up in things but never leaves an impression. Radcliffe has wisely challenged himself with a LOT of extremely varied roles, and seems unafraid to do anything, even projects that are crazy silly. Good for him. He also keeps going back to stage work, which is grueling stuff, and something he could just not do -- it's not nearly as remunerative as movies or even streaming TV shows, but he seems to embrace it for its own sake.

Honestly I feel like she's a desk job person. She is a processor, not a creator.

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.

She seems intelligent, bland and not really an actress, certainly not as an older teen and now an adult. It would be great to see her producing if she wants to stay in the industry, or something like that. But she seems to have neither the innate talent nor the training or even enough continued experience for real acting. She turns up in things but never leaves an impression. Radcliffe has wisely challenged himself with a LOT of extremely varied roles, and seems unafraid to do anything, even projects that are crazy silly. Good for him. He also keeps going back to stage work, which is grueling stuff, and something he could just not do -- it's not nearly as remunerative as movies or even streaming TV shows, but he seems to embrace it for its own sake.

The pity is that HBO will spend untold sums to make this series and that's money that could have gone toward something, anything, fresh and new. Supporting new writers. Directors with interesting ideas. Stories we haven't all read or seen already. They can flesh it out all they like--word is that the series will be seven seasons, one for each novel. But we still have been here before. Ah, but HBO and sad to say, Rowling, want that sure-thing payoff. And I say all this as someone who enjoyed the books and movies, with a now-adult kid who loved them.

I'm not saying the Potter franchise is stale; I'm saying it lives on in perfectly good, well-made movies, a stage play (I don't know about here on Broadway but in London the play is a long-running, huge $$ hit), more books, books about the books....This series is milking it even more, plain and simple. And they're probably banking on the idea that a younger generation will maybe be less attached to the feature films, and will be fine with a new version on streaming. And let's face it, every project now wants to be on streaming.

The contrasting situation is the upcoming Disney+ series of "Percy Jackson and the Olympians." That's understandable and, for fans, greatly anticipated: Those books had two feature films that flopped, both widely panned and seriously miscast with young adults in the roles of 12-year-olds. A third film never happened (thank heaven). But now there will be a series, intended to be one book per season too, I think. Best of all the author, Rick Riordan, is taking a very active role in the series' creation, whereas for the movies, a studio just took the rights and ran with its own versions. The Percy Jackson fandom seems very excited by the casting (actual kids playing kids) and the chance to get a do-over on the awful movies that relatively few people have even seen.

THAT project I get. But the Potter series just reeks of money grab.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I don't know how I feel about this:
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-max-series-warner-bros-closing-deal-1235572610/

How do you improve on the movies? How do you replace Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint??

We're a big harry potter family and I find this idea somewhat mind-blowing.

Why?

I really hope they don't cast the old kid actors in adult/professor roles in a series like this. Frankly, growing upni was disappointed in the Harry Potter movies and I'd like my own DD to get a chance to see something well-written and well-directed. Very few of the child actors from the Harry Potter movies actually did a good job.

And yeah, Emma Watson is one of the less talented ones even in that group. Now she sees fit to throw J.K. Rowling under the bus, without whom her talentless ass would have no chance in Hollywood, and proclaim herself a feminist.

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.

Wow, I don't know how I feel about this:
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/harry-potter-hbo-max-series-warner-bros-closing-deal-1235572610/

How do you improve on the movies? How do you replace Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint??

We're a big harry potter family and I find this idea somewhat mind-blowing.