Harry Potter TV Series (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Someone should tell Warner Bros: there’s no such thing as magic. No matter how uncanny the rabbit from the hat, how mesmeric the levitation, it’s always just an illusion. The notion of readapting Harry Potter for a new TV series – which the studio has just confirmed under its new streaming service, Max – has the neon allure of a great magic trick.

One wave of the wand, and you’ve got a seven-season TV sensation at your fingertips. An army of devotees conjured in a flash. That’s the idea, of course. But for us muggles in the real world, things are never so simple.

The truth is, there have been signs for years that Harry Potter’s spell over the general public may be slowly wearing off. This is somewhat inevitable, of course, when you have a brand as globally popular as JK Rowling’s wizarding series once was.

The books on their own have made billions of pounds; the eight film adaptations, starring Daniel Radcliffe as the tousle-haired boy wizard, made just as much. Potter’s early 2000s ubiquity was never going to be sustainable.

But in recent years, other unexpected doubts have set in. Some of these, of course, have to do with Rowling, whose public image has been consumed by a transphobia row that has rendered her a deeply unpopular figure with many queer and otherwise progressive audiences. Any new adaptation will inevitably face criticism in this regard, but if the recent sales figures of the Hogwarts Legacy video game are anything to go by, we’re not at the point where Rowling’s association can be considered a meaningful financial deterrent.

There are, however, countless other reasons to question the logic behind a Harry Potter TV series. Less than a year has passed since Warner Bros had to – rather humiliatingly – abandon its spin-off franchise, Fantastic Beasts, halfway through the planned run of five films.

There have been a number of factors ascribed to Beasts’ failure. The controversial presences of Johnny Depp and Ezra Miller. The jarring period setting. For many people, though, the problem was that it just wasn’t Harry Potter.

While the 2001-2011 films drew mixed critical receptions, they had been embraced wholeheartedly by the Potter fanbase. It scarcely mattered that Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson were stilted, dramatically uncompelling child actors. To the fans, they were Harry, Ron and Hermione.

Likewise, the countless older thesps who filled out the world of Hogwarts: Robbie Coltrane; Maggie Smith; Alan Rickman. How do you possibly re-cast Severus Snape? However good the new cast is, it’s always going to feel like you’ve been served Pepsi and told it’s Coke…….

A Harry Potter TV adaptation is a cursed idea

Bringing JK Rowling’s wizarding franchise back to the screen might seem like a no brainer for Warner Bros, writes Louis Chilton. Look closer, though, and it’s clear a reboot is a dicey proposition

www.independent.co.uk

 

[livefromDC]

Someone should tell Warner Bros: there’s no such thing as magic. No matter how uncanny the rabbit from the hat, how mesmeric the levitation, it’s always just an illusion. The notion of readapting Harry Potter for a new TV series – which the studio has just confirmed under its new streaming service, Max – has the neon allure of a great magic trick.

One wave of the wand, and you’ve got a seven-season TV sensation at your fingertips. An army of devotees conjured in a flash. That’s the idea, of course. But for us muggles in the real world, things are never so simple.

The truth is, there have been signs for years that Harry Potter’s spell over the general public may be slowly wearing off. This is somewhat inevitable, of course, when you have a brand as globally popular as JK Rowling’s wizarding series once was.

The books on their own have made billions of pounds; the eight film adaptations, starring Daniel Radcliffe as the tousle-haired boy wizard, made just as much. Potter’s early 2000s ubiquity was never going to be sustainable.

But in recent years, other unexpected doubts have set in. Some of these, of course, have to do with Rowling, whose public image has been consumed by a transphobia row that has rendered her a deeply unpopular figure with many queer and otherwise progressive audiences. Any new adaptation will inevitably face criticism in this regard, but if the recent sales figures of the Hogwarts Legacy video game are anything to go by, we’re not at the point where Rowling’s association can be considered a meaningful financial deterrent.

There are, however, countless other reasons to question the logic behind a Harry Potter TV series. Less than a year has passed since Warner Bros had to – rather humiliatingly – abandon its spin-off franchise, Fantastic Beasts, halfway through the planned run of five films.

There have been a number of factors ascribed to Beasts’ failure. The controversial presences of Johnny Depp and Ezra Miller. The jarring period setting. For many people, though, the problem was that it just wasn’t Harry Potter.

While the 2001-2011 films drew mixed critical receptions, they had been embraced wholeheartedly by the Potter fanbase. It scarcely mattered that Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson were stilted, dramatically uncompelling child actors. To the fans, they were Harry, Ron and Hermione.

Likewise, the countless older thesps who filled out the world of Hogwarts: Robbie Coltrane; Maggie Smith; Alan Rickman. How do you possibly re-cast Severus Snape? However good the new cast is, it’s always going to feel like you’ve been served Pepsi and told it’s Coke…….

A Harry Potter TV adaptation is a cursed idea

Bringing JK Rowling’s wizarding franchise back to the screen might seem like a no brainer for Warner Bros, writes Louis Chilton. Look closer, though, and it’s clear a reboot is a dicey proposition

www.independent.co.uk

I think the author is deluding themselves. They start by indicating what went wrong with Beasts and acknowledge that in large the failing was that it was not "Harry Potter". They then begrudgingly admit that the video game has been very successful. Couple that with the viral sensation that has been Hogwarts U or Hogwarts A&M on social media and one thing is abundantly clear. The Harry Potter Universe is still incredibly popular. The author seems to overlook that no one is suggesting a show based on Beasts. No, the show is going to based on the books. That is still very magical...and popular. Despite how some fans, many fan even, may feel about JK Rowling, millions haven't divorced themselves from the books choosing to embrace the books while opposing Rowling's position. The fact that Rowling has been unscathed by her remarks should be testament enough to the lasting powers of the book. But this author, like Hollywood, seems to struggle with the same concept that has doomed many book to screen projects; if the source material is beloved, don't stray from the source material. This series, if given the attention to detail and budget the books necessitate, will be a huge hit for WB and HBO. And the author, despite the existing proof that the fervor for the books is still there will be left scratching their head.

The following quote indicates just how little the author understands about the draw to Harry Potter: "While the 2001-2011 films drew mixed critical receptions, they had been embraced wholeheartedly by the Potter fanbase. It scarcely mattered that Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson were stilted, dramatically uncompelling child actors. To the fans, they were Harry, Ron and Hermione." It never mattered how compelling the actors were (and don't get me wrong there were some standout performances by several actors throughout the series). It was always about immersion in a world that fans came to love. A TV series will just further that opportunity to relive it or experience it for the first time. The books are still as magical as they have ever been and I think will prove to be for a new generation of readers. Yes, recasting Severus Snape will be sad and hard to do based on the shoes Alan Rickman left to be filled. But like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and Romeo, Severus Snape can and will be played well by new people. The notion that literary interpretation should stop with the 2010s is absurd. The next Severus Snape will also have the benefit of knowing his characters full story arc. Of course, that doesn't guarantee a good performance but it gives the next actor character depth that the great Alan Rickman didn't have when he first took on the role.

 

[superchuck500]

This is going to get so much incel hate once Hermione isn't an attractive white girl.

 

[tenordas]

They probably won’t go that far, but they’re definitely going to make a lot of the subtext text (in terms of identity, sexuality, etc)
I also feel pretty sure they’ll ‘address’ issues with house elves and goblins

Broadly, as Bud Light is the latest to demonstrate, brands realize that provoking the ‘anti-woke’ crowd is a win win
It’s free publicity, they don’t have the numbers for an effective boycott, and they galvanize the sentiments of sentient folk

What an odd statement. Do you realize Anheuser-Busch has lost over 6 billion dollars in the few weeks? That's definitely not free publicity.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

What an odd statement. Do you realize Anheuser-Busch has lost over 6 billion dollars in the few weeks? That's definitely not free publicity.

$5-6B is the amount I see on right meaning sites
$3B in others (sure that’s still a lot of money), but I don’t see any in depth analysis
I would need to see how this boycott was successful while most others have had inverse results

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Semper]

I am so tired of this stuff. Everything is always about social stuff these days. We have adults worried about the sexual orientation of children in a television show…. Will they be gay or straight or trans. Does it ever end? Can it just be a show about a magical world?

My neighbors kid Sammy just went to a Harry Potter University event in Antioch IL. He is 8 years old. When he came over to show me his wand and tell me about all the stuff he had fun with he didn’t once mention this crap. He just mentioned how fun it was.

Why are adults so mesmerized by what a person does in the privacy of their home? Or what direction they lean in a fictional show? It’s about freakin magic and fantasy not sex.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Why are adults so mesmerized by what a person does in the privacy of their home? Or what direction they lean in a fictional show? It’s about freakin magic and fantasy not sex.

fantasy stories have always always always been about social issues - usually a way for marginalized communities to have a voice without the status quo getting in a twist
i mean, X-men is not about people getting cool powers - you know that, right?
Superman was an avatar for the jewish writers who were imaging a savior for their tribe
most alien invasion stories were some sort of Cold War paranoia
etc
etc

 

[Taurus]

I think the author is deluding themselves. They start by indicating what went wrong with Beasts and acknowledge that in large the failing was that it was not "Harry Potter". They then begrudgingly admit that the video game has been very successful. Couple that with the viral sensation that has been Hogwarts U or Hogwarts A&M on social media and one thing is abundantly clear. The Harry Potter Universe is still incredibly popular. The author seems to overlook that no one is suggesting a show based on Beasts. No, the show is going to based on the books. That is still very magical...and popular. Despite how some fans, many fan even, may feel about JK Rowling, millions haven't divorced themselves from the books choosing to embrace the books while opposing Rowling's position. The fact that Rowling has been unscathed by her remarks should be testament enough to the lasting powers of the book. But this author, like Hollywood, seems to struggle with the same concept that has doomed many book to screen projects; if the source material is beloved, don't stray from the source material. This series, if given the attention to detail and budget the books necessitate, will be a huge hit for WB and HBO. And the author, despite the existing proof that the fervor for the books is still there will be left scratching their head.

The following quote indicates just how little the author understands about the draw to Harry Potter: "While the 2001-2011 films drew mixed critical receptions, they had been embraced wholeheartedly by the Potter fanbase. It scarcely mattered that Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson were stilted, dramatically uncompelling child actors. To the fans, they were Harry, Ron and Hermione." It never mattered how compelling the actors were (and don't get me wrong there were some standout performances by several actors throughout the series). It was always about immersion in a world that fans came to love. A TV series will just further that opportunity to relive it or experience it for the first time. The books are still as magical as they have ever been and I think will prove to be for a new generation of readers. Yes, recasting Severus Snape will be sad and hard to do based on the shoes Alan Rickman left to be filled. But like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, and Romeo, Severus Snape can and will be played well by new people. The notion that literary interpretation should stop with the 2010s is absurd. The next Severus Snape will also have the benefit of knowing his characters full story arc. Of course, that doesn't guarantee a good performance but it gives the next actor character depth that the great Alan Rickman didn't have when he first took on the role.

Or they could go the Rings of Power route and make Hermione a vicious harridan with all the people skills of a honey badger.

 

[Taurus]

fantasy stories have always always always been about social issues - usually a way for marginalized communities to have a voice without the status quo getting in a twist
i mean, X-men is not about people getting cool powers - you know that, right?
Superman was an avatar for the jewish writers who were imaging a savior for their tribe
most alien invasion stories were some sort of Cold War paranoia
etc
etc

To me, it's like that line from God in Futurama. "If you do it right, they're not sure you did anything at all."
Star Trek TOS did it right regarding the crew. (Species-ist rants by McCoy notwithstanding) They never talked about having a multi-ethnic, coed crew...they just were.

 

[Semper]

To me, it's like that line from God in Futurama. "If you do it right, they're not sure you did anything at all."
Star Trek TOS did it right regarding the crew. (Species-ist rants by McCoy notwithstanding) They never talked about having a multi-ethnic, coed crew...they just were.

This right here. And it’s most likely just because so many options are out there for people to voice their opinion around the world.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

To me, it's like that line from God in Futurama. "If you do it right, they're not sure you did anything at all."
Star Trek TOS did it right regarding the crew. (Species-ist rants by McCoy notwithstanding) They never talked about having a multi-ethnic, coed crew...they just were.

And it’s really the same now - the ‘woke’ stuff is the meta commentary
It’s not like Little Mermaid wrote a new song about the importance of mermaids being light skinnded

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

This right here. And it’s most likely just because so many options are out there for people to voice their opinion around the world.

It’s not much different actually- believe it or not, in a time when people were spitting on AA kids who were just trying to go to school, the blowback the gene Roddenberry got for a mixed race cast was… significant
Just like we tend to mythologize our cultural history, the hate kaepernick got is analogous to what Ali got
Wokeism doesn’t happen bc grad students or cub reporters get bored, it happens bc the status quo backslides from hard earned social progressions

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting but I don't think a single one happens.

I'm thinking that the new show doesn't have anyone from the movies appear

Maybe Radcliffe as James Potter as a clever nod to the movies but I really think the whole cast will be all new actors
==================================================

The upcoming Harry Potter HBO reboot can delight audiences by bringing back actors from the original film series in new roles as grown-up characters. The Harry Potter movies were so beloved by viewers that, when the series does air, it will undoubtedly be compared to the films and the new actors will have to see how they stack up against the cast members who embodied these parts across eight movies.

It will be hard for viewers to separate the two adaptations and one way to connect them would be by having some of the earlier actors reappear as older characters.

While the main trio of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, will undoubtedly be played by new actors, the various family members, professors, and villains that populate the world of Harry Potter could surely be played by familiar faces.

The question of what characters previous Harry Potter actors would like to play has been asked to several cast members, and some have even voiced their preference.

While it’s unlikely that major cast members like Daniel Radcliffe will agree to reappear in the series, it is still interesting to think about what characters they would be best suited to playing..........

Matthew Lewis As Professor Remus Lupin originally portrayed Neville Longbottom​

Tom Felton As Lucius Malfoy originally portrayed Draco Malfoy​

Bonnie Wright As Dolores Umbridge originally portrayed Ginny Weasley​

Robert Pattinson As Severus Snape originally portrayed Cedric Diggory​

Evanna Lynch As Professor Trelawney originally portrayed Luna Lovegood​

Frank Dillane As Lord Voldemort originally portrayed Young Tom Riddle​

Harry Melling As Rubeus Hagrid originally portrayed Dudley Dursley​

Rupert Grint As Bill Weasley originally portrayed Ron Weasley​

Emma Watson As Bellatrix Lestrange originally portrayed Hermione Granger​

Daniel Radcliffe As Sirius Black originally portrayed Harry Potter..........​

Recasting Harry Potter's Original Actors As Grown-Up Characters For HBO's Reboot

A dream cast list of Harry Potter actors for the HBO series.

screenrant.com

 

[Cage1]

There will be one somewhat famous actor, one or two you recognize but don’t know the names of. All the rest will be completely unknown. And there is zero chance anyone from the movies shows up in this.