I can understand why they want to do a remake. They're desperate for money, and the franchise has been a money maker (even with diminishing returns on the Fantastic Beasts movies).
That said, I just don't see myself being interested in a rehash of the books. Maybe they'll cover more stuff from the books, which could be cool. That original cast was pretty good, though. I just don't know if they can cast as good again.
I think they might have been better off trying to tell a new story.
They really should be looking for new stories. Even if they tried to tell parallel stories set in the same time period but with characters we don't know or barely know.
I can't imagine them doing a better job with a new Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Through a strange twist of fate, I've worked as a book seller and teacher through all of the original years of Harry Potter Fans. JK Rowling is so problematic to those folks due to her views on trans people that they are going to be turned off.
As a near 50 something gen x kid, I couldn't care less. It is hard to see how this new series finds an audience.
All true. I think the company is just desperate for some kind of money maker. Think back - at the time of the HP movies, they were also coming off the LotR movies, so they had a string of big money hits. They need that back.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Due to J.K. Rowling's very vocal transphobia, the franchise has lost many longtime and devoted fans. While I think the series still makes money (Rowling herself has bragged about all the money she is still making when former fans have said they are boycotting her work), it is nowhere near as popular as it once was. For those unaware of or, unfortunately, apathetic to that issue, many more have drifted away due to Fantastic Beasts' muddled storytelling. Given she is executive producing this series, I half expect this project is her desperate attempt to "prove" how popular she still is, anticipating a large viewership. It could garner enough of an audience of course (a recent Wizarding World based video game I believe has sold fairly well) but it reeks a bit to me of desperation and showboating let alone a willingness by either her or the network to find/develop something new.
On top of this, David Zaslav speaking of his support for the show (sorry I've lost the link)... well, given the kind of things he's been doing with (HBO)Max, I wouldn't be shocked if this is his way of also supporting Rowling's hateful views. I'm 100% certain he cancelled Batgirl because a trans woman is part of the story (and I'm disappointed so many fans bit the conveniently vague "it's bad" rumor as the reason--since when has that stopped the production of a DC series?). While this can only be speculation, I don't think I'm crazy for suggesting it.
I don't know any relevant facts re all the controversy but I do know that creativity wanes starting at about age 25 years, the decline is easily measurable by age 35, and is completely gone in the vast majority of people by 50. That's why JK is not producing anything new, and won't.
The only thing the series could do better than the movies is to rehabilitate Ron. Making him comic relief rather obscured his actual contribution to the Golden Trio.
And while it's true that "bad" hasn't stopped DC/CW (and so many others) in the recent past, the loss of many tens of $Billions these past few years rather dictates that the studios STOP with the hemorrhaging through exceedingly poorly written content. These days it seems even modestly good content doesn't make a reasonable ROI.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: … but I do know that creativity wanes starting at about age 25 years, the decline is easily measurable by age 35, and is completely gone in the vast majority of people by 50. Wait … what???
Marc Radle wrote: Quark Blast wrote: … but I do know that creativity wanes starting at about age 25 years, the decline is easily measurable by age 35, and is completely gone in the vast majority of people by 50. Wait … what??? Basic biology. After a certain time we are merely rehashing old ideas. Maybe in ways that are marketable, patent-able, and copyrightable, but virtually never in a way that makes a profound contribution to moving a field of thought forward in a way no one else has foreseen.
For example:
IMU wrote: The Fields Medal is awarded every four years on the occasion of the International Congress of Mathematicians to recognize outstanding mathematical achievement for existing work and for the promise of future achievement.
The Fields Medal Committee is chosen by the Executive Committee of the International Mathematical Union and is normally chaired by the IMU President. It is asked to choose at least two, with a strong preference for four, Fields Medalists, and to have regard in its choice to representing a diversity of mathematical fields. A candidate's 40th birthday must not occur before January 1st of the year of the Congress at which the Fields Medals are awarded.
The medals and cash prizes are funded by a trust established by J.C.Fields
at the University of Toronto, which has been supplemented periodically, but is still significantly
underfunded. The discrepancy in 2018 was made up by the University of Toronto and
the Fields Institute.
The name of the Chair of the Committee is made public, but the names of other members of the Committee remain anonymous until the award of the prize at the Congress.
Or, using music as an example, one can peruse the charts for The Rolling Stones. They've been their own tribute band for over three decades now and haven't been music innovators for over four or five decades - depending on how you measure. Looking at earnings of course and they're still bringing in tens of millions, but that's called 'living off the mojo' in R&R parlance, iirc.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Apropos of nothing, if anyone is looking for a good "magic school" book, I recommend the Scholomance series by Naomi Novik. Apparently it is going to be made into a movie or series by Universal, so that's exciting.
Of course I can also post this in Books, but figured I'd throw it out here as well.
GM SuperTumbler wrote: They really should be looking for new stories. Even if they tried to tell parallel stories set in the same time period but with characters we don't know or barely know.
I can't imagine them doing a better job with a new Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Through a strange twist of fate, I've worked as a book seller and teacher through all of the original years of Harry Potter Fans. JK Rowling is so problematic to those folks due to her views on trans people that they are going to be turned off.
As a near 50 something gen x kid, I couldn't care less. It is hard to see how this new series finds an audience.
Not to be prideful in quoting myself. I just reread this post and realized it might not communicate what I meant. I absolutely do care about the transphobia. I don't care at all about any sort of Potter reboot. I don't love the IP. It hasn't been a big part of my imaginative life.
But I do know lots of late Millenials and Gen Z folks who love it and also feel betrayed by its creator. The folks I know in that group aren't going to go for a reboot for all of these reasons.
George Clooney said in an interview about Ocean's 11 that the best way to go was to remake bad movies. When you remake a bad movie, you have a chance to do something better. When you remake a good movie, you have to make something better and ovecome nostalgia. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter movies. Those are good. Work on something bad and remake it well. Or hell, take one of the bajillion YA books and create a new series from it.
So...does that mean we should remake St. Elmo's Fire then?
Thomas Seitz wrote: So...does that mean we should remake St. Elmo's Fire then? Are you implying St. Elmo’s Fire is a bad move??
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Thomas Seitz wrote: It isn't?? No, not at all.
You and I must have seen two different movies...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I know this was riffing off a comment someone else made, but given a 1980s brat pack film that was not liked by critics but a box office success has little to do with Harry Potter or the magic school genre or series on HBO Max, maybe continuing this conversation might be more productive under its own thread in the movies category?
I mean, y'all do you, just thinking it might be helpful. Carry on how you like.
It's fine DQ. I'm done with it. Continue to employ your best thoughts. (or worst. I like either.)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: I don't know any relevant facts re all the controversy but I do know that creativity wanes starting at about age 25 years, the decline is easily measurable by age 35, and is completely gone in the vast majority of people by 50. That's why JK is not producing anything new, and won't. On the other hand, J.R.R. Tolkien published THE LORD OF THE RINGS at the age of 62, George R.R. Martin published A GAME OF THRONES at 47 (and its sequels at 50, 51, 57 and 62) and Arthur C. Clarke published his best-known novel RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA at 56. Ridley Scott directed his last great movie, THE MARTIAN, at 77. Cormac McCarthy published THE ROAD at 73.
It's also worth noting that Rowling is continuing her crime fiction series, but given it's somewhat tedious, that may actually prove the inverse.
Werthead wrote: Quark Blast wrote: I don't know any relevant facts re all the controversy but I do know that creativity wanes starting at about age 25 years, the decline is easily measurable by age 35, and is completely gone in the vast majority of people by 50. That's why JK is not producing anything new, and won't. On the other hand, J.R.R. Tolkien published THE LORD OF THE RINGS at the age of 62, George R.R. Martin published A GAME OF THRONES at 47 (and its sequels at 50, 51, 57 and 62) and Arthur C. Clarke published his best-known novel* RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA at 56. Ridley Scott directed his last great movie, THE MARTIAN, at 77. Cormac McCarthy published THE ROAD at 73.
It's also worth noting that Rowling is continuing her crime fiction series, but given it's somewhat tedious, that may actually prove the inverse. Good points but these are all writers. Painters sometimes too are known for producing their best works late in life. But for writers one often does not know how long the ideas were bouncing around inside their head before it finally got printed. Tolkien had been writing that story in dribs and drabs since the Great War and was expressly banging away at "the new Hobbit" for 15 years, more or less, prior to it's publishing dates. At any rate, a few exceptions doesn't really break the rule and it's not obvious to me that these writers are exceptions - though I think your strongest case is Cormac McCarthy!
* Shouldn't that be 2001?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Good points but these are all writers. Painters sometimes too are known for producing their best works late in life. But for writers one often does not know how long the ideas were bouncing around inside their head before it finally got printed. Tolkien had been writing that story in dribs and drabs since the Great War and was expressly banging away at "the new Hobbit" for 15 years, more or less, prior to it's publishing dates. At any rate, a few exceptions doesn't really break the rule and it's not obvious to me that these writers are exceptions - though I think your strongest case is Cormac McCarthy!
* Shouldn't that be 2001?
JK Rowling is a writer as well, so the comparison seemed reasonable. Although I also noted Ridley Scott, a film director.
2001 is a film novelization that Clarke co-developed with Stanley Kubrick, and some people get antsy over its definition. Rendezvous with Rama doesn't have that categorisation problem, and was his most critically acclaimed novel. Although it is - finally! - getting a movie adaptation courtesey of Denis Villeneuve once he's done with DUNE.
Speaking of remaking bad movies and re-igniting the passion in a franchise, what if someone took a darker, more gritty pass at the Percy Jackson series?
St Elmo's Fire was a treasure. Also I like to kick, stretch and kick b/c I'm 50.
My girls are 19 and 21, grew up with HP series. After several years of enduring Rowling on social media, both have quit the franchise. I'm in the camp with folks saying there just won't be as much of an audience for this.
I will never understand some of you loving a movie I couldn't stand after 10 minutes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I will never understand some of you not standing a movie after 10 minutes that I love
Werthead wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Good points but these are all writers. Painters sometimes too are known for producing their best works late in life. But for writers one often does not know how long the ideas were bouncing around inside their head before it finally got printed. Tolkien had been writing that story in dribs and drabs since the Great War and was expressly banging away at "the new Hobbit" for 15 years, more or less, prior to it's publishing dates. At any rate, a few exceptions doesn't really break the rule and it's not obvious to me that these writers are exceptions - though I think your strongest case is Cormac McCarthy!
* Shouldn't that be 2001?
JK Rowling is a writer as well, so the comparison seemed reasonable. Although I also noted Ridley Scott, a film director.
2001 is a film novelization that Clarke co-developed with Stanley Kubrick, and some people get antsy over its definition. Rendezvous with Rama doesn't have that categorisation problem, and was his most critically acclaimed novel. Although it is - finally! - getting a movie adaptation courtesey of Denis Villeneuve once he's done with DUNE. I just meant that with writers one can't be certain how long the work sat before the final push to publish the idea. Clarke's Rama was, as you noted, published at 56 - not so very far from my average upper limit of 50 - and could be an outlier (though I think Cormac McCarthy is a better candidate!), have had a ghost writer, or truly be his magnum opus*.
JK might get lucky again but it's a very long shot and I'm comfortable prognosticating it to be a middling success; mostly on the strength of name recognition from her previous works of approximately two decades past. I'm not so concerned she has "lost her audience" as people are incredibly fickle - fans think they're owed so much and creators owe them nothing. It's a good lesson to learn, as it applies to so much in life.
* In fact, I'll put it on my ever-growing list of books to 'read' someday.... somewhere near the top because I'll want to read it before Ville's movie adaptation.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Clarke might have had a ghost writer? You're joking, right?
Of course you started by saying creativity starts waning at 25, is easily measurable by 35 and completely gone by 50. As far as I can tell, all of his works were published after 25. The vast majority after 35.
This isn't uncommon. It's fair to say there's often a drop off later in life, but that can be balanced by experience and growing skill at the craft. It's certainly nothing like "completely gone by 50".
Nor is this needed to explain Rowling. She caught fire with one series that hit the right niche at the right time. That she can't do it again for an entirely different target market doesn't need special explanation.
thejeff wrote: Clarke might have had a ghost writer? You're joking, right?
Of course you started by saying creativity starts waning at 25, is easily measurable by 35 and completely gone by 50. As far as I can tell, all of his works were published after 25. The vast majority after 35.
This isn't uncommon. It's fair to say there's often a drop off later in life, but that can be balanced by experience and growing skill at the craft. It's certainly nothing like "completely gone by 50".
Nor is this needed to explain Rowling. She caught fire with one series that hit the right niche at the right time. That she can't do it again for an entirely different target market doesn't need special explanation.
Do you know he didn't have help? Other famous writers have.
Do you know that Clarke hadn't been mulling and hacking away at the same or similar story for years or decades prior? Other famous writers have.
Are his later books adaptations/expansions of prior short stories (published or not)?
Beethoven seems to have been remarkably creative late in life but perhaps that was driven by his lack of hearing condition.
Rowling rehashed a very well trodden path of coming of age fantasy fiction. She succeeded by crafting a decent yarn lived by compelling characters - both sympathetic and not. The long-con of Snape being a prime example from that series.
At any rate, finding one exemplar from among a thousand writers hardly merits a refutation of the well documented general thesis of creative decline with the onset and progression of adulthood.
Which brings me to a needed a point of correction:
Since quoting me verbatim is too easy on these forums, I can only assume you did it on purpose but....
I said, "completely gone in the vast majority of people by 50".
Counter to that notion is the seeming trend of the vast majority of people thinking the rule doesn't really apply to their case for.... reasons.
Good ones too I'm sure.
;D
Recent threads in Television
|
