Harry Potter series

[Samof94]

Is this idea good or bad given her bigotry?

[Alben Barkley]

Is Rowling “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” now or something?

LOL

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Took me a bit to realize that you meant the potential TV series.

As long as she doesn’t trash her own canon like the Play-That-Must-Not-Be-Named or the Beast movies, I’m fine with it. Yeah, she’s a turd, but there’s so many turds in the world that I can’t really be bothered to do anything more than call her a turd.

[Crumpets]

JK Rowling aside, if it were to be done now, it would have to walk such a tight line between expanding upon the original series and being a shameless reboot of the original for cash that I don't know if it could be done well. We already have Fantastic Beasts which, I think has actually done exceptionally well in this regard, and I feel like adding another layer onto that could doom both as "Harry Potter overload."

There are two ways I think it could be done well: One would be to just wait until Fantastic Beasts is over and JK Rowling isn't as much in the limelight and just make it a continuation of the story from maybe another time period or focusing on another minor character, and just making it basically more of the same. Or two (my preferred, less likely option) would be to try a completely different stylistic approach and let the series age with its fanbase. So maybe do a Harry Potter tv series that is also a political drama or even a Wizarding World sitcom aimed at 20-30 year olds. (God knows we could use something that isn't network TV). Something that isn't fantasy-adventure, but that at least keeps the "rules" of the original series.

[morgankingsley]

Jesus at this rate people are going to ban the mere sale of harry potter books and movies

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

JK Rowling aside, if it were to be done now, it would have to walk such a tight line between expanding upon the original series and being a shameless reboot of the original for cash that I don't know if it could be done well. We already have Fantastic Beasts which, I think has actually done exceptionally well in this regard, and I feel like adding another layer onto that could doom both as "Harry Potter overload."

There are two ways I think it could be done well: One would be to just wait until Fantastic Beasts is over and JK Rowling isn't as much in the limelight and just make it a continuation of the story from maybe another time period or focusing on another minor character, and just making it basically more of the same. Or two (my preferred, less likely option) would be to try a completely different stylistic approach and let the series age with its fanbase. So maybe do a Harry Potter tv series that is also a political drama or even a Wizarding World sitcom aimed at 20-30 year olds. (God knows we could use something that isn't network TV). Something that isn't fantasy-adventure, but that at least keeps the "rules" of the original series.

So something filling in the gaps between the end of Deathly Hallows and the epilogue?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I strongly dislike her, and believe the movies / books are extremely overrated, but I'm not a fan of cancel culture either.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Is Rowling “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” now or something?

LOL

LOL hypocrite

This will ruin Pink Floyd for you:

https://twitter.com/rogerwaters/status/1140007546822041600?lang=en

Used to be a huge fan but have found it hard to listen to them ever since I realized Roger Waters is a tankie. Honestly easier to listen to Michael Jackson despite knowing he might have been a pedo.

[morgankingsley]

believe the movies / books are extremely overrated

hard not to be when they used to be the highest grossing film series of all time

[Crumpets]

JK Rowling aside, if it were to be done now, it would have to walk such a tight line between expanding upon the original series and being a shameless reboot of the original for cash that I don't know if it could be done well. We already have Fantastic Beasts which, I think has actually done exceptionally well in this regard, and I feel like adding another layer onto that could doom both as "Harry Potter overload."

There are two ways I think it could be done well: One would be to just wait until Fantastic Beasts is over and JK Rowling isn't as much in the limelight and just make it a continuation of the story from maybe another time period or focusing on another minor character, and just making it basically more of the same. Or two (my preferred, less likely option) would be to try a completely different stylistic approach and let the series age with its fanbase. So maybe do a Harry Potter tv series that is also a political drama or even a Wizarding World sitcom aimed at 20-30 year olds. (God knows we could use something that isn't network TV). Something that isn't fantasy-adventure, but that at least keeps the "rules" of the original series.

So something filling in the gaps between the end of Deathly Hallows and the epilogue?

Yeah, something like that, although it wouldn't necessarily have to focus on the original main characters. Maybe something like a Friends/HIMYM show about the life of some side character like Hannah Abbott who doesn't get a ton of backstory in the original books or like a Madam Secretary-type show about someone who runs the Auror office and they can do allegories about hot button issues without having to be too obvious about it and allowing for a little escapism.

[John Dule]

Harry Potter is a good, moralistic, conservative story about a privileged white man who inherits a fortune from his parents and is born with incredible powers that naturally place him at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. It was always awesome, even after it was co-opted by idiots who interpreted it as "progressive."

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think it's worth doing if Rowling's involvement is minimal. She can produce or executive produce and it probably wouldn't be much of a big deal. Anyway, at a minimum she will be credited as the one responsible for the property. Honestly, we wouldn't be missing out on much in that case. The 'Fantastic Beasts' movies are crap. She is not a good screenwriter.

Also the only thing the TV series should be about are the four founders of Hogwarts.  Anything else and I'll care as little as I did about Newt Salamander or whatever the f*** his name was. It's mind-boggling how Warner Bros. didn't think to do that in the first place as their next foray into squeezing more movies out of the franchise.

[GoTfan]

JK Rowling is a TERF, so not interested.

[Illiniwek]

Intrigued. I’ll probably watch it.