[Philip Marlow]

Aside from anything else, the fact that this series is going to be another adaptation of the original books means that they will, once again, be casting child actors in the roles of Harry, Hermione and Ron; child actors who will age as the series progresses (assuming that it does progress) and who will inevitably begin to develop wild and dangerous opinions of their own. Can it be guaranteed that those views are going to accord with Rowling’s in the matter of The One True Subject That Matters?

Also, Radcliffe has recently won a Tony for his work in a Broadway musical. Obviously there are no guarantees in the acting profession, but the idea that he’s going to disappear into the void because a different take on Potter is being made is just batshit.

[Crabcakes]

Entirely setting aside the whole ‘traitor’ angle - which is in itself clearly sour grape flavoured bollocks, and in this case pathetically sycophantic at that - the films had absolutely stellar casts, eye-watering budgets allowing for incredible visuals and effects, great directors, and the benefit of being new. Is a TV series that is, at best, Warner Bros desperately trying to wring out more pennies from a franchise that is essentially done and dusted (given the Fantastic Beasts films died on their arse) really going to be *thousands of times better* just because JK Rowling is probably going to insist on some convoluted contract clause that means her lead actors can never criticise her?

(Then again, Warners are also the same studio that at one point had three people playing Batman *without* any multiverse shenanigans as an explanation, so they seem to be entirely oblivious to the law of diminishing returns.)

[Andy McDandy]

Batman, at least, has the scope for multiple versions. Any HP remake will be just that - another adaptation of the 7 books that the franchise is based on.

You may be familiar with the name Kevin McClory. He was a vague character who befriended Ian Fleming in the late 50s/early 60s, and tried to cash in after Fleming's death, saying he had the rights to James Bond etc. Lawsuits took place, and eventually he was left with the rights to Thunderball (IMO the worst of the Bond films). He later made Never Say Never Again, a remake of Thunderball. Right up to his death he was trying to remake it again and again.

For their part, Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli avoided using pot elements such as Blofeld and SPECTRE, because it would just invite another trip to court. UNtil, that is, they realised that while the rights to Ernst Stavro Blofeld may have been moot, nobody had copyrighted a generic bald villain in a wheelchair and stroking a white cat. So in the cold opening of 1981's "For Your Eyes Only" they dropped an unnamed but very obvious Blofeld down a chimney, as an unstated but very obvious fuck off to McClory.

The point being that with the "Wizarding World of Harry Potter" there is no expanded universe. The internal world barely holds together, and as Crabcakes points out, films attempting to explore the setting further have been shit and have flopped. And so, all you're left with is trying again and again to remake Thunderball.

[Crabcakes]

I will grant there is one exception - the Hogwart’s Legacy video game sold absolutely shit tons of copies, and is inevitably getting a sequel. However it’s arguably an outlier because (a) Rowling didn’t write a word of it and it’s all original characters set far before HP, and (b) it’s technically a good and satisfying game.

Even then, there has been a significant backlash against it from people who no longer wish to give Rowling any money in the form of royalties from any source, and the more vitriolic she gets - and as with her most recent shenanigans it’s worth bearing in mind even people who support/agree with her are starting to note that she can be really quite unpleasant and needlessly provocative - the stronger the feeling against her is getting.

What WB would really need to do is somehow buy her out entirely, as Disney did with George Lucas. Or more directly comparably, how Microsoft did with Notch*.

*for the uninitiated, Notch was the primary creator of cash-shitting videogame franchise Minecraft. He’s also turned out to be an utterly ghastly homophobic, sexist, conspiracy theory spreading loon.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The way she is now she'd make Warner Brothers buying her out into woke persecution.

[Philip Marlow]

What WB would really need to do is somehow buy her out entirely, as Disney did with George Lucas. Or more directly comparably, how Microsoft did with Notch*.

I’d be surprised if she agreed to this. Whatever you think of her as a person and/or a writer I think she does care about the wizarding world she created. And it’s not as if she needs the money.

The HBO project could actually be good. I do wonder about them making it through all seven books given that prestige US TV series can run to around twenty hour long episodes per season, with all of this conducted under time pressure, unless you want to see principles in their late twenties attempting to pass themselves off as teenagers. The adult cast could be a bit of an issue too, given how much of British thespdom the movies ate their way through.

[Andy McDandy]

I'd say she is good at gatekeeping her creation, but not so good at nurturing it. I'm currently reading Terry Pratchett's biography, and there was someone who ferociously kept creative control of their stuff.

Big series cost money - Rings of Power and the Sandman have episode budgets comparable to your average feature film, and still have to make a massive profit, because the slightest wobble will cause some studio executive to pull the plug.

[The Weeping Angel]

I will grant there is one exception - the Hogwart’s Legacy video game sold absolutely shit tons of copies, and is inevitably getting a sequel. However it’s arguably an outlier because (a) Rowling didn’t write a word of it and it’s all original characters set far before HP, and (b) it’s technically a good and satisfying game.

Even then, there has been a significant backlash against it from people who no longer wish to give Rowling any money in the form of royalties from any source, and the more vitriolic she gets - and as with her most recent shenanigans it’s worth bearing in mind even people who support/agree with her are starting to note that she can be really quite unpleasant and needlessly provocative - the stronger the feeling against her is getting.

What WB would really need to do is somehow buy her out entirely, as Disney did with George Lucas. Or more directly comparably, how Microsoft did with Notch*.

*for the uninitiated, Notch was the primary creator of cash-shitting videogame franchise Minecraft. He’s also turned out to be an utterly ghastly homophobic, sexist, conspiracy theory spreading loon.

It amused that the boycott for that game fell flat on its arse.

[davidjay]

I'm sure it's been explained before, but when and why did she turn so spectacularly vitriolic? Opinion is one thing but this has become a personal crusade and unlike her fellow bigots-in-arms it isn't like she needs a new grift.

[Crabcakes]

I'm sure it's been explained before, but when and why did she turn so spectacularly vitriolic? Opinion is one thing but this has become a personal crusade and unlike her fellow bigots-in-arms it isn't like she needs a new grift.

It’s been building for a few years, but the tipping point seemed to be when people who had previously supported her or worked with her started telling her to listen to other views or that she was wrong or needlessly provocative.

Whatever her personal issues that drive her position - and I know she has some quite legitimate and not to be dismissed concerns from person experience - the nastiness seems to come almost exclusively from a sense of betrayal and disloyalty. As if she cannot believe people have turned on her.

This also has revealed (or caused) this odd sense that she feels e.g. actors who appeared in HP owe her something, even though she didn’t hand pick them, and even if she had they still put in the work over a decade and 7 films and helped earn her a considerable fortune.

[Philip Marlow]

And is this ‘gender clinic veteran’ in the room with us right now?

The funniest thing Rowling’s done with her social media within living memory is resolutely decline to even acknowledge Linehan’s existence, despite the fact that he’s been reduced to explicitly asking her to support him.

[Andy McDandy]

Yes, I remember that episode of Beavis and Butthead, with the Army of Lovers video.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Crucified? That's a great single.

[Crabcakes]

By ‘veteran’ I assume he means ‘someone who was fired for being inappropriate’.

And that’s being generous in the extreme because I’m 95% sure it’s bullshit.

[Philip Marlow]

The piece itself isn’t at all to my taste - from the photographs anyway - but I unashamedly adore how cross it’s making the entirely predictable, awful people.

[davidjay]

I'm sure it's been explained before, but when and why did she turn so spectacularly vitriolic? Opinion is one thing but this has become a personal crusade and unlike her fellow bigots-in-arms it isn't like she needs a new grift.

It’s been building for a few years, but the tipping point seemed to be when people who had previously supported her or worked with her started telling her to listen to other views or that she was wrong or needlessly provocative.

Whatever her personal issues that drive her position - and I know she has some quite legitimate and not to be dismissed concerns from person experience - the nastiness seems to come almost exclusively from a sense of betrayal and disloyalty. As if she cannot believe people have turned on her.

This also has revealed (or caused) this odd sense that she feels e.g. actors who appeared in HP owe her something, even though she didn’t hand pick them, and even if she had they still put in the work over a decade and 7 films and helped earn her a considerable fortune.

But why did she become so provocative in the first place? That's the thing I can't work out.

[Crabcakes]

Graham Linehan has become one of the most abhorrent people imaginable.

He’s now pretending he didn’t know Janey Godley has terminal cancer (it seemingly passed him by for the best part of 2 years, despite her very public discussion of her condition and prognosis) after being called out for trying to goad her into a response about a gender issue she hadn’t even commented on. And he did this the day after she went into hospital, and as it turned out the day before she announced she was now in end of life care. And when he did ‘find out’ his response was ‘OK’. No apology, even for the atrocious timing. Just ‘OK’.

Just astonishing cruelty and unpleasantness. How on earth does someone end up so warped?

[davidjay]

That news about Janey Godley has saddened me. I don't particularly like her humour but she's a good woman.

[MisterMuncher]

I actively avoid Linehan where possible, but I think the capper on that exchange was where he asked people not to be cunts (in public) and crow about her death (in public), . Even that measure of ass-covering was a stretch too far for plenty of his followers.

[Philip Marlow]

However awful he becomes - and he’s started dabbling in the more toxic aspects of Israel boosterism and anti-immigrant rhetoric, to go along with his dominant obsession - there’s a part of me that can’t help but think of him in the context of his former career and the joy so much of the stuff he had a hand in brought me. Still brings me in fact. I’m not letting that horrible fucker ruin Father Ted under any circumstances.

That said, there’s a kind of justice in his railing away on socials and being treated, by a younger generation, no differently from any other foaming, terminally online loser of a certain age.

Of course, he had to come back and try to be funny…