Its coming Christmas! Was not expecting that.

As for the trailer, the trio casting is superb, the rest? Eh not convinced

Edited Thursday at 12:165 days by Henessy Lake

I mean, I won’t touch this because I’m giving JK Rowling none of my money but there really isn’t a point. A lot of the sets look the same, the styling is very similar and Warwick Davies is still in it.

Plus there really wasn’t much left out from the books that would even be interesting in film. I think there’s one character and one sequence from the first book that wasn’t in the film so how are they going to stretch the material over a series?

Its a tv series your not giving JK Rowling money either way ?

Isn't JK Rowling an executive producer?

11 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

Its a tv series your not giving JK Rowling money either way ?

She’s getting paid as long as it’s successful. Potential viewers not tuning in will make a difference.

12 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

Its a tv series your not giving JK Rowling money either way ?

even worse, the streaming service funding this (HBO) will be pulling it out of money on their balance sheet, some of which comes from money from their subscribers, so anyone subscribed to HBO is indirectly causing this. Not that that means one should necessarily boycott them because in super capitalism boycotts are worse than useless but even if you're not literally giving money to the next person in the chain, by choosing not to watch it and ignoring it, not giving it engagement is a good signifier for your morality and rejection of JK's.

Anyway this will be absolutely derided in all respectable comment sections and websites and will make a bajillion dollars because everyone who doesn't spend their time doing that will tune into what is still possibly the biggest IP on the planet getting a major (if completely pointless) remake.

Just now, T Boy said:

She’s getting paid as long as it’s successful. Potential viewers not tuning in will make a difference.

People are going to tune in regardless harry Potter is still a massive franchise whatever you think of JK Rowling, new clothing , toy ranges et al are released regularly, there won't be a massive boycott it will probably get one of the largest debuts for a HBO max original 😅

4 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

People are going to tune in regardless harry Potter is still a massive franchise whatever you think of JK Rowling, new clothing , toy ranges et al are released regularly, there won't be a massive boycott it will probably get one of the largest debuts for a HBO max original 😅

Sure there will but I won’t be part of it.

Why are you actually laughing at me about this?

1 minute ago, T Boy said:

Sure there will but I won’t be part of it.

Why are you actually laughing at me about this?

Think you should learn the difference between emojis because 😅 isn't laughing

I'll be checking it out regardless because I can separate the person from the art, I dont agree with what she says but I still very much enjoy the Harry Potter franchise as it was literally my childhood

3 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

Think you should learn the difference between emojis because 😅 isn't laughing

I'll be checking it out regardless because I can separate the person from the art, I dont agree with what she says but I still very much enjoy the Harry Potter franchise as it was literally my childhood

Maybe instead of being passive aggressive you should just tell me what that emoji means.

Because I feel like you’re making fun of me and your tone isn’t changing my mind.

2 minutes ago, 777666jason said:

I'll be checking it out regardless because I can separate the person from the art, I dont agree with what she says but I still very much enjoy the Harry Potter franchise as it was literally my childhood

The difference separating the art from the ‘artist’ here being that a lot of her beliefs are woven throughout the whole thing in subtle ways. This innocent little world of wizards and magic is actually quite grim when you notice.

1 minute ago, T Boy said:

Maybe instead of being passive aggressive you should just tell me what that emoji means.

Because I feel like you’re making fun of me and your tone isn’t changing my mind.

😅 is commonly used to mean akward

Really in zero way

1 minute ago, Calum said:

The difference separating the art from the ‘artist’ here being that a lot of her beliefs are woven throughout the whole thing in subtle ways. This innocent little world of wizards and magic is actually quite grim when you notice.

Isn't that like in everything though

I think separating art from artist becomes harder when that artist is actively profiting and having their platform strengthened by investing in their work. She is one of the most powerful and influential people in the country in terms of controlling the media narrative, and when that power's being used to make life harder for minority groups, the best way is ignoring them. I don't judge anyone else for not doing that, it's a huge IP that meant a lot for my generation growing up (probably helped that, while I did enjoy the films, I wasn't overly interested in the books and it wasn't an instrumental part of my growing up), but the brand is forever tainted for me in a way that can't currently be split.

But keeping the thread on topic - I wouldn't have any interest whoever produced it, the casting was near perfect in the films and I'm not convinced there was a lot of worthy material left out of the adaptation (the SPEW storyline in Goblet of Fire sounds questionable to say the least and the books seem to reflect the author's narrow neoliberal worldview), I have zero interest in a pointless remake using that as a crutch to milk an IP, it will invite comparison so much until you wonder what the hell the point is when you have the original films. It'll be huge, probably the biggest of the year, but I will be pretending it doesn't exist.

Well I won't be watching this as I don't have HBO Max and have no desire to get it just because of this.