HBO in talks to remake Harry Potter as TV series

Literal. Violence.

I hope jk Rowling makes a bundle. The only reason I'd watch this commercial stunt

A serialization after perfection was achieved by the original movies, what could go wrong?

J.K. Rowling is a biological woman.

Literally no one will watch this.

I always thought those Harry Potter movies were drivel.

MEIN VOLDEMORT

Who needs this? We just got the 8th movie made only 5 (6?) years ago.

R8 She already has s hit series, her Comoran Strike books. They are not on the same level of success as Harry Potter, because nothing ever will. But, the books are best sellers and have a very popular TV show about them as well.

What black child will be cast as Harry?

The Harry Potter series of movies left out quite a bit of "info" found in the books. There would be room to remake each novel in 8 hourly installments incorporating all the stuff that was left out of the original 2-hour movies per novel.

I like this idea. It will interesting to see how they come up with a different tone and aesthetic than the movies. They should completely redesign Hogwarts and make it much bigger. I'd like to see a wider variety of magic too.

I never thought a person who created such beautiful, magical worlds and brought delight to millions had the intention of CAUSING SUICIDE AND VIOLENCE to people who want to be what they felt they were.

I do think her comments were profoundly misunderstood and warped into something unfortunate. As an author it makes sense she was pointing out the Orwellian word play.

Stephen King trashed her and didn't seem to understand it either. His work always needs a lot of editing to make it work on the screen anyway. I can't imagine Shawshank working without Morgan Freeman's sincerity. The JFK series started well but lost momentum.

I hope she has nothing to do with an HBO reboot only because the Fantastic Beasts movies were so shitty and they need to move away that.

gotta wuv the people that will watch because they agree with her politics or won't watch it because they disagree...

of course, it's more entertaining with the people that hated her for grooming their kids into witchcraft are the diehard "fans" of it now.

[quote] I never thought a person who created such beautiful, magical worlds and brought delight to millions had the intention ...

R13 Because she didn't

I’d love this!! The movies were always a mess because the tones changed so drastically due to the Merry Go Round of directors. One would have pods of magic with Star Wars style duals. The other would be more funny. They always tried to be kid friendly but also dark and it was a mess.

Compare it to Lord of the Rungs which was consistent.

Also, the final battle looked so cheap and rushed. Hogwarts being destroyed should feel like a big deal. Instead, it looked cheap and far too short. A series would be outstanding to flesh out this story.

[quote]Milk it, Joanne

Pics please.

Go Joanne, make that money girl.

She’s smart to cash in.

Sorry, r7. I did search for “Harry Potter” before posting.

I'd probably watch it, at least the first season. I wasn't a fan of any but the first couple of books and didn't complete the whole series of books or the movies. I do really like the origin story, though, and would enjoy seeing it get a full treatment.

Confirmed with Rowling as exec producer

“10 year run”

EVERY one of those Harry Potter movies was DRIVEL and all of these big name British stars lined up to appear in said DRIVEL.

A 10-episode season per book?! Sounds like watching paint dry.

There’s not even ten books, but seven. I could see later seasons having more episodes just because the books are longer, but the early books don’t really warrant ten hours. And ten seasons is excessive.

JKR must derive pleasure from the prospect that this will eclipse Radcliffe and Watson in the popular conception of Harry Potter. Or at least I would, if I were in her position.

I was a reluctant fan of the books. My eldest nephew was seven or eight when the first book came out. I read it to him. Thought it was just ok. And then we read the next one together too. Which was also okay.

He read the third book on his own. And read it too, just because I loved talking with him about how much he liked the books. But dammit if that third book didn't totally hook me! I devoured the rest.

Now he's 30, and an avid reader. We are still both huge fans.

I can't wait.

This seems... tiresome? The original film series was enough. Why can't they do a prequel, going way back in time (although I didn't care for the Fantastic Beasts series)? Or something that takes place years after the events of the books? The world Rowling created isn't limited to Britain. There were schools in other areas of the world, alluded to in the novels. A lot could be done with that. I respect Rowling and she deserves to make money off of what she created, but this is disappointing in that it shows, yet again, that Hollywood is out of ideas.

30 yo & still potterhead?

so sad r27

Oh gosh. Save your pity for someone else, R29.

My nephew (and me) are doing just fine.

Oh, is that you posho, R29?

If so, figures you'd be nothing but a useless waste of a post.

I can understand doing this for “His Dark Materials” because the film series stalled, but it does seem a tad soon to remake Potter in its entirety. I suppose “Hogwarts Legacy” has helped rejuvenate interest.

10 years? That’s ridiculous. Make it stop.

First dumbshit reality TV in my HBO [Max], now this.

I honestly love this because the movies are pretty bad when it comes to the source material . Give me Peeves and Ginny with a personality and stop stealing the good stuff Ron did and giving it to Hermione . The movies were made at a time when streaming was not a thing and TV not as popular as it's now . So yes I love the idea of getting a faithfull adaption .

I never get the obsession with a faithful adaption. No "faithful" adaption can measure up to the reader's own mind translating the words of the novel into moving pictures. All we can look forward to is "this actor / actress is totally miscast!" "OMG, it's so damn wooooooke!" and "WTF? That's not how it is in the books, the fork was on the OTHER side! BLASPHEMY!".

Give me a new interesting point of view, an angle. If I want the magic from the books, I fucking read the books.

A whole new generation will fall in love with the world of Harry..suck on it haters.

Oh no. Everyone is gonna be black this time. When will the insanity stop.

[quote] Literally no one will watch this.

Literally millions worldwide will watch it, especially in countries where no one gives a shit about J.K. Rowling controversies.

Harry Pottah

As someone mentioned above, it’d probably be best for the production design to look as different from the films as possible. A whole new Hogwarts. Might help give it its own voice rather than just being the films in episodic format.

Et voilà!

The new Hogwarts!

Clearly, Voldemort is going to be a tranny who chops off pieces of her body to turn them into horcruxes making Harry have to deal with a chopped of penis at one point. Harry Potter and the Tranny Penis of SwishKebab.

I only started reading the books after seeing the first movie. And I loved all the movies and the books. I don't love JK Rowling's take on trans women or her tepid defense that she's misunderstood and only trying to protect women's safe spaces. She's aligned herself with much more hardline anti-trans bigots. It's like saying "I have a lot of gay friends but I vote Republican because of their economic policies" 🙄. Bitch, even those are terrible!!

I thought the movies were really well done and I'm not really interested in a ten year series that's just blatantly a money grab. And I'd like to see them try to replace Minerva McGonagall after Maggie Smith just OWNED that role.

[quote] chopped of

I was randomly thinking not that long ago that this series of books would probably benefit from being made into a tv series, as the movies seemed very rushed, and they clearly didn't know what was going to be important by the final movie and what wasn't when it came to adapting the books. The books drop hints and situations all the way through; in the movies, important things just happen for the first time in the final movies.

Harry Potter is not really my thing, but I do think this format is probably more suitable for the adaptations.

R45 I'm pretty sure if streaming had been a thing 20 odd years ago there would be no movies today.

Debut planned for 2026. How many of us will still be alive by then, fucking hell.

How involved was she with the original films?

Very limited involvement in the early movies (veto power over major decisions) and increased involvement later on, in the form of additional story details for the screenwriters. But nothing beyond that.

Potential writers for this show have already been pitching their ideas (unclear whether to her or to someone else), but she'll be involved in the decision-making process once it enters production, as she is exec-producing it.

Perfection R3? Please bffr.

It cracks me up how the ts and there bizarre cohorts think Rowling has been canceled. She’s going to make a fortune off this series again and has creative control over a major prestige project at HBO that will likely run over a decade. lol. Eat it, haters.

Yeah, all these movie reactions to the HP series that have started popping up on YouTube in recent years are indicative of the fact that her cancellation very much didn't take. Before that, anyone who dared react to these movies would get brigaded in the comments and disliked into oblivion.

Something has definitely changed recently and only the most performative of libs are still clinging onto the fatwa issued on her head. I think people eventually read what she actually said and realised it was nowhere near as bad as the ensuing game of telephone made it seem like.

Never mind racial changes - what male characters do you think will be female in the series? That seems to be a big trend in adaptations these days.

Ruth Wilson as Severessa Snape.

Succession duo gets the gig.

Francesca Gardiner, who was a consulting producer on seasons three and four of Succession, will serve as showrunner and exec producer, while Mylod, who directed over a dozen episodes of the show, will direct multiple episodes and also exec produce.

Seems an odd choice. Given that and the network I take it the first seasons aren't going to be as light hearted as the films were.

Where will they be able to find actors brave enough to work on the cancelled JK Rowling's subject matter?

Gardener did fine work on “His Dark Materials.” I’ll be interested to see how she handles this. It can’t be too heavy right at the start, there has to be a degree of lightness there, too.

Hermione will be the hero of the series; the men will be useless. We demand it.

r57 Yeah, while there was obviously some darkness in the first couple of movies (Voldemort killing his parents was as dark as it gets), the main appeal was the unbeatable cosiness of Hogwarts. Everything looked so comfy and inviting. That's what I resent those Fantastic Beasts movies the most – the overpolished CG made Hogwarts look completely sterile and bland.

It sounds like a recipe for disaster. The audiobook for The Philosopher's Stone is around 8 hours, so it sounds like the TV version will be longer than just reading the books verbatim.

To me, that says bloat.

Lefties won't watch it because of the trans culture wars and HBO will likely cast some ethnic minorities in roles that were filled by white actors in the movies and, as it's HBO, they'll likely make Dumbledore's homosexuality more explicit. (JKR would surely green light that given she's confirmed he was gay.) This means right wingers will denounce it as "woke" and they won't watch it either. Finally I expect they'll deviate from the books in some areas - otherwise anyone who's read the books will know how it all pans out from the start and that'll piss off the purists.

All that notwithstanding it feels like the ship has somewhat sailed on it all now. If this had been closer to the release of the books and movies it might have done okay, but I just can't see there being an appetite for 10 years of overly long book adaptations.

We'll see. The Walking Dead was on for twelve years, ten years goes by in no time.

[quote]Lefties won't watch it because of the trans culture wars

This is so delusional.

Back when the movies were being released, Emma Watson was the hot ticket that everyone thought would have a huge career.

I never thought she was a particularly good actress or hot, contrary to what apparently all men who grew up with the books and movies thought (lol - wonder why).

I think it's interesting that she's disappeared and Radcliffe just won a Tony. Even Grint has started acting again in some high profile roles.

I don't see the point of remaking it as a series other than greatly expanding them to include all the storylines that were cut out of the movies.

Terminally online lefties are like 0,1% of the population, get real. Also, HBO doesn't broadcast its content only in America, there are more than enough people abroad who have no issue with Rowling and are big Potter fans.

There's are several audiences for it: kids already swept up in the series, adults who want to introduce the stories to their children and the rabid fans who INSIST that the films were the most unfaithful adaptations of a book EVAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!

They especially get annoyed with aging up the characters.

Yep, sorry that the filmmakers cast the likes of Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman and Maggie Smith. Who cares about screen presence or the talent to spin dross to gold?

They should have cast James Frain, Stuart Townsend and some younger "Coronation Street" actress, instead.

I wasn't into it before, and I'm not into it now.

As long as the bathrooms on set are male or female only.

[quote]they'll likely make Dumbledore's homosexuality more explicit

I'd be up for that, but how on earth would you make his homosexuality more explicit, he's like eleventy years old. They should have done that in the Fantastic Beasts movies when he was young.

Established actors are going to be desperate to be involved with this. For all the online outrage generated the prospect of being in HARRY FUCKING POTTER, something their kids, grand kids, nieces and nephews absolutely love will be too much to resist.

And actors in their late 30s early 40s who loved the books as children will jump at the chance to play the roles that aren't needed. Who wouldn't want to play Dolores Umbrage? Jeremy Strong has probably asked to play Voldemort already.

Did we see Voldemort killing Harry’s parents in the first film? I think we just hear about it.

It's kind of obscured but you see him kill Lily.

[quote]Jeremy Strong has probably asked to play Voldemort already.

Doubt they're going to be casting too many Americans.

He’s Tony and Emmy winner Jeremy Fucking Strong!

Based on the House of Dragons example, HBO may recast as the characters age. Probably safer. Of course, HOD had jumps in time that arguably made it necessary to recast, but unless they film HP two season’s at a time, it’s hard to avoid the child actors’ rapidly being visibly older than their characters. And a charming child actor rarely matures well as an attractive adult or as an actor.

The show should have a trans woman character who acknowledges that she is biologically male and is mindful of that when being around biological women. What would be inclusive of trans while also reflecting Rowling’s concerns.

[quote]The show should have a trans woman character who acknowledges that she is biologically male and is mindful of that when being around biological women. What would be inclusive of trans while also reflecting Rowling’s concerns.

Laverne Cox *IS* Moaning M'yrtle, a sassy trans sex worker stuck in the toilets.

Jk Rowling is not putting a trans woman in the girl’s bathroom.

In the tv adaptation Moaning M'yrtle is a sex worker brought into Hogwarts by one of the teachers for some glory hole fun in the bathroom with one of the teachers but the wrong kind of snake appears and M'yrtle remains trapped in the bathroom for an eternity.

She appears now and then to offer advice like "Oh, boo, just no, those bangs aren't gonna get Victor Krum waving his wand in your direction, no ma'am".

R60 the video game last year was the best selling game of the year by far, and that was with the media trying to downtalk it, and it frankly not being that great. So there's definetly still a large audience for this.

[quote]Did we see Voldemort killing Harry’s parents in the first film? I think we just hear about it.

They show Voldemort killing Lily but not James R70. It is brief and pretty sanitary (flash of green light and a scream)

Well all I can say is I hope the asshole who posted a thread titled “Dumbledore Dies!” the day The Half Blood Prince was published is dead before that year gets made. I couldn’t bear another spoiler like that.

I wonder whether they'll stick to the only British actors rule they had for the movies.

I wonder whether anyone from the movies will be cast, either in a new part or the same part. Imelda Stauton was great as Dolores Umbridge and could do it again. But, you know, they'll cast Olivia Coleman because she's the only female British actress of that age range these days.

Matthew Lewis is looking pretty hot these days, unlike his lumpy Neville Longbottom period during the movies.

I imagine many of the the kids will make cameos as minor adult characters, if they can get over the cancellation.

Which characters are most likely to become either black or female?

I’m guessing Hermione will be black because of the stage show.

Probably some minor students will now be female, like Deena Thomas and Colleen Creevy.

r81 Lewis said the other day he won't be doing this show, he's moved on.

[quote]Which characters are most likely to become either black or female?

It will be interesting to see whether they'd risk the backlash.

Whether Hermione is white or not is mostly irrelevant to the story. Having Lupin and Sirius be lovers ("arguing like an old married couple") or gender switching does.

Now, if they really wanted controversy and a huge FU to Rowling, they'd make one of the girls T - extra FU points if it's Cho Chang or Lavender Brown (a drag name if I've ever heard one).

She's an exec producer with a far greater involvement than during the movies, they won't cast actors behind her back.

I doubt Rowling will veto casting decisions.

As for more diverse casting Golda Rosheuvel has been a jobbing actor for decades and finally has some fame through Bridgerton. She'd be a great McGonagall.

Actors who are well known but not major stars will do a series as one of the teachers. The Billie Piper, Suranne Jones, Keeley Hawes level of fame.

[quote]Doubt they're going to be casting too many Americans.

See, that's double standard bullshit, because Brits these days are often cast in American productions -- even as Americans at the expense of American actors.

I know several working actors who henceforth will be voting for conservatives down the ticket, because they feel that liberals have deserted them and don't have their best interests anymore.

Liberals have been in charge of Hollywood since the late 1960s, when they pushed out the religious conservatives and abolished the Motion Picture Production Code (aka Hays Code) which had been in effect since the early 1930s.

Nevertheless, Hollywood remained left-of-center and neutral territory and generally gave Americans first dibs in projects until fairly recently.

However, in the past decade, the U.S. entertainment industry went far-left when it was usurped by radical feminists/extremists (i.e. "woke") who despise their fellow Americans but for some reason are pushovers for Europeans and are giving them all the roles.

This is not going unnoticed by many Americans, who are beginning to resent being represented by Europeans. and losing acting opportunities to them.

Just another example of how out of touch liberals have become with the average American.

A huge FU to the audience seems irresistible to modern producers.

"if they really wanted controversy and a huge FU to Rowling" - Why would they want either controversy or a huge FU to Rowling, r85?

Golda Rosheuvel is also a lez, r87.

[quote] I know several working actors who henceforth will be voting for conservatives down the ticket, because they feel that liberals have deserted them and don't have their best interests anymore.

Politics is not about casting movies.

One. Billion. Dollars.

It’s gna flop. Because of the heightened media awareness of Rowling’s valid criticism about the trans community, trans activist will demand there be a trans character. Rowling will refuse, the mainstream gay community and GLAAD will pick sides. Of course they will be hoodwinked by tranny foot soldiers. Rowling will double down. Show will be canceled.

R94, no one gives a shit about the trans activists or GLAAD.

[quote]I know several working actors who henceforth will be voting for conservatives down the ticket, because they feel that liberals have deserted them and don't have their best interests anymore.

Delusional. Disingenuous. Deplorable.

Who asked for this?

People who choose political sides based on “what’s in it for me” are already conservatives as far as I’m concerned.

All I know is Rodeo Drive shops have all shut down. We must do something about crime.

r97 Millennials who grew up with it and still won't shut up about it even if they hate the author now, and WB who are massively in debt mostly.

Goddamnit. We already did this with the movies. We've seen it. It's enough.

just ruin everything.

[quote] I’m guessing Hermione will be black because of the stage show.

There is a 9/10 year old girl who will be insulted, smeared and abused online when she is announced and that will continue for the rest of her life.

And the commentators doing so will pretend that's not exactly what they are doing.

And, when said actress will defend her right to exist, said commentators will accuse her of being "political".

We've found our trans Hermione!

[quote]As for more diverse casting Golda Rosheuvel has been a jobbing actor for decades and finally has some fame through Bridgerton. She'd be a great McGonagall.

I could get behind this or Adjoa Andoh, also from Bridgerton.

Besides the kids, Snape is crucial. No one can match Alan Rickman.

All the characters should be played by trans, take that, Rowling!

There are plenty of British actors who can take on Snape.

Rafe Spall would great. His dad was in the original films and he has kids who will be HP fans. Éanna Hardwicke was just in The Sixth Commandment and was amazing. Great physical presence but maybe too young at the moment.

Jared Harris as Dumbledore? Damian Lewis might like a small part considering Helen McCrory's history in the films.

There are plenty of actors who will make these iconic characters their own.

Semi related . But has anyone seen the post Covid version of The Cursed Child? The re-writers apparently did all they could to dodge Rowling and WB and confirm Harry and Draco's sons as being gay for each other.

Not interested. Ready for Season 2 of The Last of Us. I know, I know, 2025.

Everyone and their TERF mom is gonna watch this. I know I am, I love the wizarding world so much. When it's done right, that is. Hopefully they've learned from the mess that is the Fantastic Beasts franchise.

CG has come a long way since those HP movies as well, it's gonna look awesome. CG animals in particular look great these days, as seen in His Dark Materials show.

Why tho.

Does anyone really thing the movies can be improved on?

It's just fun to splash around in that magical world for more than those highly condensed movies allow for. That's pretty much most of the appeal of doing it as a TV show and it's enough in my view to justify another adaptation.

This will be great. No movie can capture everything found in a book. This will give the source material time to breath and revamp the product. Lord of the Rings is the only large epic to come close to a smooth storyline from large books. Even then, loads of things had to be cut.

Finally, I’ll have more lines!

I think it shows how much JKR loves money. You've got the book sales, the money the movies made initially and continue to make, the many theme parks, Harry Potter World, the merchandise, the video games and now she's greenlit a 10 season TV series based on the same books.

The proverbial sponge that is the Harry Potter universe has surely been wrung almost to its last drop at this point, but she keeps putting that to the test.

Most other authors would say it was done now and would prefer to focus on their other works.

I’m curious what the castle will look like. People have gotten so used to its film appearance, which can be seen at theme parks, video games, and even influenced the Hogwarts Legacy design to a large extent.

R116 HBO have form for that sort of thing with Game of Thrones/House of the Dragon. So that part will at least look good.

[quote] I think it shows how much JKR loves money ... Most other authors would say it was done now and would prefer to focus on their other works.

I think it shows that Zazlav wants to exploit all its IP: Potter, Superman, Batman, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Willy Wonka, IT.

Zazzy wanted a "Cursed Child" adaptation but - when it became clear that Radcliffe wouldn't associate with Rowling again - WB went with Plan B.

I really don't think that Rowling would be doing much besides offering feedback on scripts and giving encouragement to the child actors.

R118 Probably not doing much, other than taking home a decent cut of whatever it makes.

The real problem is that the media is controlled by incompetent nepo-babies and sociopathic opportunists who don't have an ounce of talent, originality or intelligence among them, and they are at the service of parasitic investment fund managers who want to get huge profit margins for a minimal investment.

Thus, nothing new or special is being created, and they're looking to exploit any formulas that have already been proven successful for all they're worth. NOBODY has been asking for a Harry Potter series, since the films are still very much popular and are recent enough for people of all generations to have watched them. This is only an attempt to milk the cow until it's completely dry, as they did with anything related to Tolkien.

[quote] NOBODY has been asking for a Harry Potter series, since the films are still very much popular and are recent enough for people of all generations to have watched them.

The fans have because they're still butt-hurt over the films cutting out characters and incidents as well as choices in characterisation.

Hence we'll get younger actors for the teachers, a Dumbledore more Harris than Gambon, a consistent visual approach across the series and a better balance in the portrayals of Ron and Hermione.

R121 How many of those fans have since moved on, though?

The fact of the matter is that HP is still big, both in the US but especially abroad. Just look at how many new reactions to the movies there are on YouTube almost on a weekly basis and how many views they pull in. Some of the highest ratings for any movie reaction. That sort of thing shows immense interest in the HP world.

The "Fantastic Beasts" franchise failed bigtime. Those movies were bores and snores, and they ended up cancelling the whole thing before they completed it.

This isn't Rowling's idea, r115.

[quote]Most other authors would say it was done now and would prefer to focus on their other works.

She manages to get a new Strike novel out every year and they're numbering over a 1000 pages each now. Do you have any idea what the fuck you're talking about?

Harry Potter is never going to lose popularity and JKR’s haters are going to need therapy.

The generation who read these books at school when they first came out and queued at midnight for the new books and saw the films in the cinema when they were released think Harry Potter is theirs.

I didn’t hate the Fantastic Beasts films, but the first one was by far the strongest. It had a sense of whimsy and fun that the later two lacked. 2 and 3 weren’t bad, but seemed more preoccupied with establishing a “franchise” than being their own stories.

R125 Oh yeah I'm aware of the Strike novels. I'd expect her to want to focus more fully on that, or even another new book series. I'd be surprised if she doesn't have other ideas.

HP has been done to death. Yes, it was great, but surely it's time to move on. Not saying to tear down Harry Potter World or remove merchandising - sure, keep making money from what already exists, but embarking on a 10 season show based on books that already have so much surrounding them just seems pointless.

And I say this as someone who's read all the books and seen all the movies. I'm not a "hater", but I'm not a weirdo worshipper either.

[quote]I'd expect her to want to focus more fully on that, or even another new book series. I'd be surprised if she doesn't have other ideas.

She's a woman in her late 50s, she's not in a fucking coma. She is capable of doing more than one thing at once. That includes writing Strike, campaigning on issues that matter to her and being executive producer on a tv adaptation of her books.

[quote]HP has been done to death. Yes, it was great, but surely it's time to move on.

But they haven't been done to death. The books were adapted for films, and by the time the tv show airs it will be over a quarter of a century ago since the first movie premiered. And there was a play. That's it when it comes to Potter.

To make a comparison, since the first Potter book was published there have been FIVE English language adaptations of Great Expectations - Anne Bancroft, Charlotte Rampling, Gillian Anderson, Helena Bonham Carter and Olivia Colman have all played Miss Havisham. That's excessive.

[quote]Does anyone really think the movies can be improved on?

Lets make them MUSICALS. Solos, Duets, EXTRAVAGANT PRODUCTION NUMBERS.

R125, has anyone even ever heard of a "Strike" novel? I sure haven't. Nobody talks about them. I mean, I heard she did one new book under a man's pen-name (the irony of her, being anti-Trans, identifying as a male for her writing!) but I've literally heard nothing else about anything she's done since other than be a virulently cunty anti-Trans bigot.

Cry harder R131

Her Strike novels are best sellers and the TV adaptations are a major success. Of course when you're the most successful author in history everything that comes after will be an anti climax to some. But she remains successful despite the smears.

R129 Oh come on. Even if you enjoy them, you can't deny the amount of media that surrounds them is excessive. You mention the films and the play, but there's so much more than that. From the theme parks, the video games, the colossal amount of merchandising (shops, clothes, model wands, sweets, stationery, etc etc).

I just think a 10 season TV show is indulgent and unnecessary, given how much media already surrounds it. It could be like the Rings of Power... Three films were made of the Lord of the Rings books and were very successful. Then a TV series comes along and is panned.

I guess it's pointless arguing. Time will tell which of us is right. :)

R131:

[quote]As of February 2024, the series has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide and was published in more than 50 countries, being translated into 43 languages.[3]

If you stepped outside your bigoted little misogynistic bubble you might discover that Rowling is very popular all over the world and also that most of humanity does not believe that trans women are women.

[quote] I just think a 10 season TV show is indulgent and unnecessary, given how much media already surrounds it.

I'm not even sure what this argument is.

Are you sick of it and think "enough already"?

That's a fair response.

But WB knows that there's an audience that could hit peak HBO numbers for a more exhaustive retelling of the seven novels.

This is the audience that thought that Columbus' films were the peak of the films because of their slavish faithfulness to the source material.

It's a win for all involved: WB has a guaranteed hit, Rowling has another revenue stream and there's a cottage industry of actors/craftspeople who will have 10 years of employment.

And you are not obligated to watch it.

The only possible victims in all this are the TV critics who have no interested in Harry Potter and have to watch more of it but (a) they'll only watch the first couple of episodes and (b) TV writers are the worst, most basic critics and are probably the target audience for a faithful show.

[quote]Her Strike novels are best sellers and the TV adaptations are a major success.

... there are TV adaptations?!? I've literally never heard of the books, let alone any TV show. I'm half convinced you're just making shit up.

[quote]... there are TV adaptations?!? I've literally never heard of the books, let alone any TV show. I'm half convinced you're just making shit up.

The first 5 books have been adapted with Tom Burke and H Grainger as the leads and are shown in a primetime BBC slot.

The most recent series dipped in the ratings a bit following the first episode but it was the first time they released all episodes on iPlayer.

Each time r136 posts he just shows himself up even more.

[quote]I just think a 10 season TV show is indulgent and unnecessary, given how much media already surrounds it.

I thought the plan was one season per book.

The later books are LONG 200-240K words compared to the earlier books which are closer to 100K. So, perhaps 10 seasons does make more sense.

Obviously, no War and Peace long, but still.

Really R138? The only thing he posted was that it was a BBC series... which... I've never seen advertised or anything here in the USA. So... maybe as not as popular as you think if it's exclusively a UK thing?

R139 It's been described as running for "10 consecutive years". But I suppose it's early days.

You can find out more from this weirdo. (I'm not sure what makes him weirder - the fact he's obsessed with HP at his age, or the fact he clearly tries to look like Harry Potter).

Yes, really, r140. It's a BBC series for the UK. The BBC puts our tons of stuff you've never heard of. Are you really trying to argue that Rowling is no longer a popular author or isn't focusing on any new work post-Potter because you've never heard of the BBC primetime dramatisation of her post-Potter book series?

HBO, put season two of The Last of Us on fast forward. One of your best endeavors.

If they do it, it will be pure shyte.

Delayed until 2027.

[quote]Warner Bros. Discovery global streaming chief JB Perrette said of the move: “As you look at ’26 and into ’27, you begin a 10-year journey on the ‘Harry Potter’ series, which we’re super excited about. And I’d argue, may be the biggest event by the time we get to that series.”

Jesus fucking Christ. We need this NOW, given our grim present circumstances.