Harry Potter - the TV series

[cashead]

*words*

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

[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.

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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?

[cashead]

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[cashead]

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[Numbers]

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.

[Puja]

FB_IMG_1748413618766.jpg

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

Puja

[Which Tyler]

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.

[Puja]

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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.

[Which Tyler]

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.

[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.

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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!').