Harry Potter: the TV series

IMG_7561.jpeg
 
haven't their parents told them how PROBLEMATIC these roles are!!
 
Even without the problematic JKR, is ANYONE actually interested in this? I can see it going the same way as the LOTR Amazon series
 
Oh I’m sure there are plenty of horrible *activate happy dance* millennials in the US on the Disney adult spectrum who’ll lap it up.

 
I wouldn't underestimate the appeal of LITERALLY ANY OLD SHITE that parents can stick their kids in front of.
 
Joseph said:
I imagine it will be massive
Click to expand...
Yeah, those who think otherwise, need to get out of their echo chamber. JK Rowling being a bigot and lunatic has only slightly diluted the brand, no significant damage.

Roald Dahl's material lasted for a while despite him being an absolute bigot. Although I'm not sure his stuff is worth much now. Hopefully she'll die soon.
 
it will obviously have huge figures for the first few episodes out of curiosity. but unless it's properly great I imagine those will fall off quickly.

if anything I see it going the way of Fantastic Beasts - they'll make two or three seasons and then realise they're throwing money at a product nobody really wants more of.
 
I dunno, this has a whiff of flop about it. The Fantastic Beast films flopped, and I think it is still too soon after the films for there to be an audience for this.
 
I mean as of December the sales were still increasing for the series.

IMG_1491.jpeg
 
that's a separate media though. of course the franchise is still huge, but the series isn't guaranteed to be.
 
I get that but even if there’s a dip I can’t see it being enough for it to be a flop.

Now if there’s series is absolute garbage i can see it going downhill but with the money behind it I have a hard time believing it won’t do well.
 
I’m assuming that it’s going to be a huge success because the world is just that shitty, but at the same time, I do think that it’s going to have significant format issues. The first two books are really not well suited to being a TV series. If it’s attempting to be typical premium HBO, they’ll need it to be at least six hours and I don’t see how you spin those two books out that much without the kids being bored to tears. If you add extra kiddie stuff, I would not expect the child free part of HBO audience to sit through two to three terrible series before it might get good.
 
In a perfect world it would flop hard and not be picked up for season 2.

The first couple of books are very kiddie and don’t really get “good” until book 4
 
I don't be mean to be cruel but Tom Felton is THIRTY SEVEN???

:garfield:
 
Met with an old colleague at WB yesterday. They’re expecting this to be bigger than GOT.
 
This is so obviously going to be huge and anybody expecting a flop is deluded.
 
Art Decade said:
View attachment 36549
Click to expand...
I’ve had the stink eye for Parkinson for ages. I remember her slagging off Madonna in an interview a few years ago. She was saying M was a bad example for young women because she was too strong and powerful looking in the late 80s/early 90s and nobody could relate to that.
 
Last edited:
JK Rowling aside, he’s absolutely right. What a colossal waste of time. One of the biggest franchises in the history of entertainment and they’re redoing the original story? Why?
 
the films didn't even chop much. other than some tiny subplots or minor characters pretty much everything made it in. they'll have to invent a ton to have a season per book, there's no way to dress it up as anything but a cash grab.
 
According to ChatGPT this is what was excluded from the movies and could be covered in a 10 episode per book season -

Philosopher’s Stone / Sorcerer’s Stone​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • Peeves the Poltergeist (cut entirely from all films).
    • More detail on how Snape protects the Stone (the potions riddle is gone).
    • The extended build-up of the Stone’s protections (in the book, each teacher contributes more visibly).
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Professor Binns (History of Magic teacher, absent in all films).
    • The Dursleys’ cruelty is more toned down in the movie.


Chamber of Secrets​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • Deathday Party (Nearly Headless Nick invites Harry, Ron, Hermione).
    • More of Ginny’s struggle with the diary before being taken to the Chamber.
    • Filch’s squib backstory (explains his bitterness).
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Percy’s ambition and role as a Prefect is mostly brushed over.
    • Ginny’s importance is reduced — she seems background until the climax.


Prisoner of Azkaban​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • The full Marauders’ backstory (how James, Sirius, Lupin, and Pettigrew created the Marauder’s Map and became Animagi for Lupin’s sake).
    • Quidditch Cup victory (huge for Harry in the book).
    • The explanation of the Firebolt gift at the end.
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Crookshanks (his role in exposing Scabbers is cut down).
    • The new Minister for Magic, Cornelius Fudge, is underplayed.


Goblet of Fire​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • Hermione’s S.P.E.W. campaign for house-elf rights.
    • The full Quidditch World Cup aftermath (house-elves, Winky, Crouch Jr. backstory).
    • Ludo Bagman’s role in the tournament and debt subplot.
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Winky the house-elf (crucial in the book to Barty Crouch Jr.’s reveal).
    • Charlie Weasley (he helps with the dragons but doesn’t appear).


Order of the Phoenix​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • Quidditch season with Ron’s nerves and eventual triumph (omitted).
    • St. Mungo’s Hospital visit (Neville’s parents’ tragic condition is hinted at, not shown fully).
    • More detail on Dumbledore’s estrangement from Harry.
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Marietta Edgecombe (Cho’s friend who betrays Dumbledore’s Army).
    • Firenze the centaur (teaches Divination in book 5, absent in films).


Half-Blood Prince​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • Gaunt family backstory (how Voldemort descended from the Peverells and Slytherin).
    • More of Dumbledore’s “Voldemort history lessons” (diary, ring, cup, locket, etc.).
    • The full exploration of the Half-Blood Prince identity (Snape’s teenage life).
    • Dumbledore’s funeral.
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Tonks (book shows her depression and relationship with Lupin).
    • Rufus Scrimgeour (new Minister in book, only introduced in Deathly Hallows).


Deathly Hallows (Parts 1 & 2)​


  • Excluded subplots:
    • Dumbledore’s family history (his sister Ariana, Grindelwald, Aberforth — barely touched).
    • Kreacher’s redemption arc (training him and showing his loyalty).
    • Subtle politics of wandlore (Harry taking Draco’s wand is oversimplified).
    • The house-elf uprising in the Battle of Hogwarts (book has them fighting bravely).
  • Characters not highlighted:
    • Ted Tonks (Tonks’ father, important in the books).
    • Lavender Brown’s fate is unclear compared to book.
    • The Deathly Hallows’ backstory (in relation to Dumbledore/Grindelwald) is simplified.


👉 In short:


  • Biggest lost subplots: House-elves (S.P.E.W., Winky, Kreacher), Quidditch (especially Ron’s role), Marauders’ backstory, Voldemort’s full family history, and Dumbledore’s past.
  • Most underdeveloped characters: Ginny (much stronger in books), Neville (major growth in books but downplayed until final film), Tonks & Lupin, Percy Weasley (family estrangement plot cut), Winky, and Peeves.


Can't wait for people to complain about a WOKE S.P..E.W season arch :eyes:
 
Also if the gaps between seasons are anything like the other HBO big banner shows like Euphoria, House of Dragon, etc. The kids are going to be 20 by the time they get round to do doing Prisoner of Azkaban. :eyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom