Unlucky Bastard

First, I plan to soil myself. Then I'm going to regroup and come up with another plan. Any thoughts?

J.K. Rowling Addresses Fans Who Plan to Boycott HBO’s ‘Harry Potter’ TV Series: I Plan to Lay in ‘A Large Stock of Champagne’
 
 

I think the major disconnect for me is just how much this whole thing feels so unnecessary, of which I absolutely am not helping by having had any involvement in the first place. I just couldn't fathom why simply saying "well I'm fairly certain I explained myself in the first place" off the bat wasn't considered, since telling someone to get a hold of themselves wasn't going to quell any inquiries that were had. And Qui did like my initial response, so I haven't had any indication til now that my presence was causing further conflict, since I figured you were ignoring me (the lack of responses to some of my questions in past conversations certainly furthered this impression). I just wanted to make sense of things a bit, since I am guilty of being a bit blind in believing every response is rational to some degree, so I'm foolish for trying to goad a reason that no one has any obligation to give me.
 
The subject I do think is an interesting one, and one that merits a lot more nuanced discussion than I think other online circles have really allowed for. A more natural way of approaching it would've been starting my own, but some of the points raised made my curiosity get the better of me (even if the focus point was very misaimed). I certainly regret much of it now that you've showed me a couple of my errors (especially with the all-ages point, since I was trying to allude to something that I'm sure would've made this an off-forum discussion).

He might've thought Nick in the original post was implying Dumbledore's characterization would be more on the campier/fruitier side in some way, since that would be an easy yet stereotypical shorthand for his sexuality without actually making it an overtly textual thing. But since neither men have actually explained the exact thinking behind their statements, the only other thing I'm left to guess is that it could be random moments/tidbits inserted without really doing anything to inform the character much, which could very easily make it shallow (and thus lead some viewers to complain more about the diversity talking points you see be brought up here sometimes).
 
There's also the whole attitude thing, since Nick could've easily just said nothing if he's gonna critique Qui's approach more than actually tell him why he's wrong/said what he did. Doesn't reflect well if he seemingly cares more about looking like he's accused of something than properly proving he isn't that thing.

it's because she's a homophobe. that's why they're an evil character and an evil? character that becomes an establishment character, and then she has to kill the second one.
 
in general, she is upset by gender things. this is pretty much everywhere. the bathroom plotline, the disgust at fat women, the assertions that lycanthropy is a metaphor and the "evil werewolf" character who bites children, the general disregard to friendship between women, murdering tonks specifically after pairing her with lupin specifically, and so on. she was really, really mad once when a fan simply imagined sirius as gay (sirius/lupin tends to be popular).
 
can some of this be done? surely, but not by her. and i'm not even particularly gatekeepy. if she were more overt, it'd be unsufferable.
 
there's also some reoccuring antagonism against hermione, which i find interesting.
 
sometimes it's unclear, going only by the text, whether the mean attitutude to some things is just an attempt at comedy, or more casual than that.
 
besides the tonks thing, nothing really makes me as mad as the destruction of the timeturners and writing the dursleys out of the story. i think it'd be funny to keep those things around. it's hard to care much about whether the dumbledore thing is hidden or not.

Oh good grief. Heaven forbid, the creator of Harry Potter wants final say over Harry Potter. And yes, the "small stuff" matters, as much as the big stuff. If not more.
 
And the idea of making Cursed Child into a film is a terrible one.
 

I think it’s a terrible idea. Even when you put aside JKR’s toxic beliefs (and her OCD on having final say over everything Potter related like small stuff in the theme parks), telling the same story with the caveat that it will be faithful to the books is setting yourself up for failure. Passages or scenes that play out fine in the book can fall flat in a screen format— that’s what dramatic license is for. And I don’t miss annoying characters like Peeves in the films.
 
WB is better off getting Cursed Child made into a film.

This series is going to be a trainwreck. There's so much that can go wrong with committing to a 7-season project like this, just look at what happened to Fantastic Beasts. Who's going to be the show-runner? As proven by shows like The Last of Us and Thrones, the quality and success of these kinds of shows rests on the passion and dedication of the people making it, and considering the state of affairs around Rowling at the moment I imagine the best candidates wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole. That announcement trailer says it all - this isn't a reimagining or a retelling of the story. Why else would they have Hedwig's Theme and an image of the film's Hogwarts Castle? Any creative working on this will not have the freedom to re-imagine the books the way they should. It just reeks of corporate desperation, and of Warner Bros trying to cash in on their biggest IP. 
 
Worst of all is that it'll tarnish the branding of HBO as a producer of prestige television because most people don't know the difference between HBO and HBO Max.

in the show specially, they have certainly averted part of catastrophic climate change (half of the problematic carbon has been emitted in the last 30 years), although there are probably ecological issues going on (invasive species that were never eradicated and ran rampant, likely threatened species that were never reintroduced, and who knows what else). the californian vaquita probably still exists.

Yub-nub is a sin against humanity. Otherwise, sure. (Coming from a serial Lucas apologist who doesn’t mind the changes)

Half of me wants to watch this, the other half doesn't want to give JK any money. I do hope they at least make it accurate to the books, though.

No, no he doesn't.
 
Let these braindead activist filmmakers swim and sink on their own.
Making sequels to one of the most damaging sci fi movies of all time - Episode IX - has to be one of the worst decisions ever made by a studio that can't afford it.
 
Maybe Natalie Holt will have another chance to write a Star Wars score that will turn out to be "studio directive" once people find out how terrible it is.
 
Yeah, I mean, man, these characters are so beloved, come on! 
 
You do realize that all three of them are probably elated their Stat Wars work has wrapped?

It was a very considered choice of words!

Because some of those ideas are seriously questionable? Honest to god: given so much of recent events, I'm half-convinced she stopped properly caring about the franchise a while ago, and only really is using it to go into avenues she hadn't prior into her career. A stage play? Sounds neat as hell, so we'll think of a premise that allows us to revisit past events without actually changing the current status quo much. A prequel movie franchise? We'll mash different premises together without any consideration over if they make any real sense being paired up.

It really feels like it's just about the opportunities presented, and nothing more. All for the sake of keeping the franchise afloat, since heaven knows Joanne ain't gonna write another proper novel for it anytime soon. Hell, given the recent news about her publishing company being down 70% in profit, the timing is almost suspicious.

Harry Potter is a surefire moneymaker for Warner Bros Discovery, a company which has had significant financial woes over the past few years.  It’s a no-brainer that they’d do something like this.
 
Personally, I’d prefer that the series died quietly along with its author.

I think it’s important to know that it is canonical in the game that the procedure would have worked and that a vaccine would have been made from killing Ellie. I’ve seen a lot of people siding with Joel’s decision in the show because of this uncertainty.
 
Joel is the villain, to me. 

And I bet she’s paid less than lots of other (probably men) who are considered more famous “stars”… quite an achievement though, must watch some of the other films she’s been in lol 

Sad opinion and terrible take buddy.

So "THIS IS" the new hot TV series?
 
I watched the first Episode, and 10 minutes of the Episode 2... then I stopped it.
 
I think Pedro Pascal is a much better actor when he wears a mask!
 
I'm not sure about the young actress who plays the 14 yo girl too...
 
So I discover this is a series adapted from a videogame... ah... I should have guessed that!

Even putting aside her as a person, you earnestly can't tell me someone who thought Cho Chang was a fitting Asian name doesn't have some issues with writing some foreign nationalities. Why is that considered mean to critique?
 
Besides, after her last book had someone who legitimately gets murdered that had received online hate for their work prior, I feel like some scorn is deserved if she's no different from other famous artists that ran out of ideas post their biggest works (I personally feel owed an apology for Cursed Child existing).

I mean, I just find it an interesting discussion about the media I enjoy. A lot of the time, folks still find things to appreciate, even if it appears like they're being overly critical on stuff. I definitely have it in me to make written pieces on some of my favorite works, and approach it from the opposite angle because I can understand where someone might think it doesn't work as well as I do.
 
Granted, I've had much more time to consume written and video essays on several subjects, so the nuance comes a bit more easily to me admittedly. The people I've discussed this particular topic with certainly still enjoy what they do about the franchise, so it isn't all gloom and doom about the subject.

I figure if we're genuinely going to think about these things critically, then looking at some of the facts might help here:
 
 
So like, while it isn't fully baseless as a name, it is inherently outdated if a more modern system would render it a bit differently. It's enough to tell me that Rowling likely shot darts at a couple of foreign names if she didn't give it this much consideration (which I wouldn't consider a crime if the topic invites cultural discussion).
 
Edmilson's post above tells me she still has issues with it if the latest Fantastic Beasts has an example of it. And if you tell me it shouldn't matter, well that just tells me your own cultures must be fairly homogenized if no name could possibly sound weird to you.
 
If we're gonna incorporate foreign cultures, then I sure would hope it'd be a bit better than Tom Cruise mashing up shit for a Spain scene in one of his flicks.

They may have, but the idiots who pull these campaigns always have a way around those kinds of protections. At any rate we're talking about IMDB which clearly has no such interventions.

But you can't trust the protests to always be in good faith, which is the main argument against it here. Given that it is a recent phenomenon, I don't think the "it's inevitable with a system like that" counterpoint works at all if this never has been an issue in the past. So I figure something like how RT did it after it happened to them in a few instances would be ideal, but the big issue is that these companies in essence hate actual moderation, so it probably isn't on their radar for now (though this being a notable case might turn that around).