Harry Potter - the TV series

[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!').

[Which Tyler]

Also, I care more about this.

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

[Which Tyler]

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

[Which Tyler]

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

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.

[Son of Mathonwy]

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]

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?

[Son of Mathonwy]

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?

Assume normal rules apply.

What are the normal rules?

[Stom]

And this is why it's important to have understandable, clear, and consistent rules

[Sandydragon]

Ladies, gentlemen.

Hammy has ruled that there will be no discussion of transgender issues on this board. Period. Please don’t try to be smart and find loop holes.

There are plenty of other subjects to discuss.

If you feel that a mod has exercised their authority inappropriately then please take it up with an admin or Hammy.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ladies, gentlemen.

Hammy has ruled that there will be no discussion of transgender issues on this board. Period. Please don’t try to be smart and find loop holes.

There are plenty of other subjects to discuss.

If you feel that a mod has exercised their authority inappropriately then please take it up with an admin or Hammy.

Thanks for the clarity.

[UKHamlet]

Let me state from the outset, I'm well-disposed towards transgender rights. They ARE an oppressed minority, and deserve the protection of society at large. I have three trans relatives, two F>M, and one M>F. Their choice and it is one I respect. They're quite close in the family tree, too - two (were) nieces, who are now two nephews, and a second-cousin, who is roughly the same age as me, and after losing his/her wife and retiring from academia, came out as initially, a TV, and then transgender. She said to me, no more than a week ago, it is too late to undergo gender reassignment surgery, but made clear their intent to live out their life as a woman. I respect and support that position.

People will eventually come to realise transgender people are a reality and, irrespective of the motivations ascribed to them, they're here to stay.

The underpinning raison d'etre for the ban on trans discussions is very simple. It is an unnecessarily heated debate, which refuses any attempt to defuse it. There are other forums better suited to the discussions, forums that thrive on conflict. This one is not such a forum. The ban remains, and that's the end of the discussion. I will brook no further debate, and I will start handing out bans to transgressors.