Harry Potter TV Series in the works

[Director of Poltergeist 8,048]

These TV adaptations are the future. Rings of Power, The Acolyte, Max Potter. They will continue to surpass the movies and the studios won't have to pay ridiculous fees to overrated mainstream Hollywood actors in a failing industry. TV is just better.

[bored 564]

7 minutes ago, John Dutton said:

TV is just filler.

 

Fixed.

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

Amazing Stories was better.

[Director of Poltergeist 8,048]

I suspect they'll find kids that can actually emote for the series and easily blow away the bland cast of the movies. It was a series known for memorable supporting characters in bit roles who leaned into it and seemed happy to be there, while the main cast frowned and had blank stares most of the time. They were monotone and boring. Hermione was done acting after the first couple. The kid who played Ron had comedic chops, I'll give him that.

[bollemanneke 3,999]

You can't beat movies 1-4, whatever their shortcomings may be. You just can't. YOu can have a different take, but not a better one.

[Edmilson 10,434]

The books and the first four movies are my childhood. If this show presents the saga to a new generation then great, but I doubt I'll have any fond memories of it as much as I have for the first few movies and the book series.

[Quintus 5,680]

I was never into Harry Potter stuff much, even though I made the effort to read The Philosopher's Stone back in the day. It was alright, but I wasn't sucked into Rowling's wizardry world like so many were. Still, I admire the author a lot, she's a great Brit with impressive accomplishments, in fact one of the greatest Brits ever according to a BBC poll from a few years ago. Is the author involved with the TV version a lot? Hands-on, I mean. Because if this new adaption were to adopt a somewhat more idiosyncratic edge, an eccentricity that was entirely absent in the Hollywood blockbuster movies but which I detected in the first book, then I could be interested to check it out. I could always imagine a Rachel Portman fiddle-led soundtrack to this media.

 

I appreciate that adults who were kids at the time now have nostalgic fond memories of the first films, but I was already older when Sorcerer's Stone debuted, and I remember quite well the lukewarm response to the brash Hollywoodised Chris Columbus effort - a director who was at the time considered a pretty inappropriate and mediocre American helmsman to be handling J. K. Rowling's very English fantasy.

 

People seem to regard his first film as magical nowadays, but I too saw it at the cinema and I agreed with the critics who found it workmanlike and tonally overblown compared to what was originally a quite quirky little side read.

 

It was very apparent to me that the three children were amateurs, but Radcliffe was harmlessly appealing enough I suppose, even if he was entirely lacking in screen presence like the greatest hand-picked Spielberg child actors of older movies always were. Daniel was no Heather O'Rourke, he wasn't charmingly natural like that. Take a look at Ke Huy Quan in Temple of Doom. Wow! To me, the young kids in the first movie presented like they had taken their stage markers and were reciting memorised lines, which is obviously what they were doing and probably sounds a bit mean of me to describe it so stingily, but I essentially mean that I found their performances a little too... unqualified. Emma Watson was at least a bit more spirited, but these were forgettable first attempt performances overall, if we're being honest.

 

I know the young cast grew into their roles a bit as the movies went on, but the second movie was terrible anyway, another undercooked Chris Columbus effort. No surprises there. It would take three films and a new director before proceedings would take a marked uptick in directorial quality and juicy drama, by which time Radcliffe had set in just by virtue of him growing with his character, yet not much more than that IMO. He was still a fairly rudimentary performer at that time in his career (I haven't watched him much else since). The later instalments fell off completely for me, they were those awfully dull green movies that were bizarrely all the rage in the mid 2000s.

 

So if this new TV series brings in a trio of particularly inspired and interesting casting choices, who imo also look much more the part than the original cast ever did, it could yet end up surpassing the movie versions in a way which most people likely don't even anticipate. But being truthful, that isn't really that tall an order; nostalgia is probably the only barrier to overcome in that mission.

 

Who's producing this, HBO? That's at least encouraging.

[Yavar Moradi 3,542]

I’m quite a fan of Radcliffe as an actor, actually — one need only check out his performances in Swiss Army Man and the remake of The Woman in Black to discover his impressive range. But I agree that better Potter adaptations could be made and I don’t think the child actors in the films can’t be bettered in a new adaptation.

 

Yavar

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

12 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

one need only check out his performances in Swiss Army Man

 

Weekend At Harry's.

 

Seems the role he was meant for.

[Richard P 4,752]

2 hours ago, Quintus said:

People seem to regard his first film as magical nowadays, but I too saw it at the cinema and I agreed with the critics who found it workmanlike and tonally overblown compared to what was originally a quite quirky little side read.

 

I was massively into the books, and I was 16 when the first film came out, but I agree with most of this. I wasn't wowed by the film at all - I don't think it's a bad film, just very, very pedestrian, a lot of inexperienced child actors and a screenplay that felt like it was geared towards those that know the story, rather than those who needed an introduction to the Potter world.

 

So I very much look forward to an updated adaptation with a new director, new actors, and perhaps a bit more casting flexibility if JKR doesn't insist on a British cast again. Plus updated effects, more room for extended storylines and generally a more imaginative take.

 

Of course, the one element that any composer will find difficult to replicate will be the score, but then TV scoring is very different - a committment of potentially years, multiple times the amount of music needed compared to a film. I'd say McCreary but something tells me he's a bit busy at the moment with some other show.

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

2 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

 

I was massively into the books, and I was 16 when the first film came out, but I agree with most of this. I wasn't wowed by the film at all - I don't think it's a bad film, just very, very pedestrian, a lot of inexperienced child actors and a screenplay that felt like it was geared towards those that know the story, rather than those who needed an introduction to the Potter world.

 

So I very much look forward to an updated adaptation with a new director, new actors, and perhaps a bit more casting flexibility if JKR doesn't insist on a British cast again. Plus updated effects, more room for extended storylines and generally a more imaginative take.

 

Ha we're the same age. I only saw HP1 in November 2001 out of loyalty to JW, but I liked it enough to give the books a go, and had fun with the hype of the next two flicks. But once JW was out, so was I. I only watched the remaining films as a formality and I haven't revisited them since.

[Director of Poltergeist 8,048]

Hollywood typically had a type with child actors. For every Elliot in E.T., we got 50 Daniel Radcliffes. Almost everything with kids was insufferable and unwatchable, even when I was a kid. In the HP movies, you had a dull main cast reading lines and being directed, and it was all soulless. Whenever the mean blonde kid was around for his 5 minutes of screen time, it was at least entertaining.

 

I noticed a shift in recent years where the bar has been raised for younger actors and I can now actually watch and enjoy things about younger people. It's one thing that's actually improved in the entertainment industry somehow. The days of cringey HP actors are hopefully behind us. I'm sure they're still in Disney and Nickelodeon swill for babies, but I'm not talking about that kind of thing. A HP series cast with actual modern talent like Yellowjackets could very easily blow away the movies. 

[Stark 682]

The challenge with a Harry Potter re-adaption, as well as a LOTR re-adaption that hopefully won’t happen for another couple decades, is not that it would be impossible to make a better adaption - if only because both film series truncate so much. It’s that it’s just plain hard to do as many things right as both film series did. I suppose Harry Potter seems like an easier task (showing my LOTR bias) but between the music, older actors, pacing, designs that (at least partly) will change, and so on, and of course audience nostalgia, the list of challenging (if not impossible) hurdles is just so long.

If HBO does manage to pull this off, it will be incredibly interesting… and probably will make a LOTR re-adaption more likely as well…

[Nick1Ø66 6,741]

2 hours ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

I only watched the remaining films as a formality

Did you wear a tuxedo?

[King Mark 3,827]

8 hours ago, Quintus said:

I was never into Harry Potter stuff much, even though I made the effort to read The Philosopher's Stone back in the day. It was alright, but I wasn't sucked into Rowling's wizardry world like so many were.

 

For me the first 2 books were tedious to read for some reason. Really got better by Azcaban and from there they were page turners

[Jurassic Shark 14,946]

Perhaps because they're children's books?

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

9 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Did you wear a tuxedo?

 

With a white dinner jacket.

[Director of Poltergeist 8,048]

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Perhaps because they're children's books?

 

Isn't children's entertainment generally what this forum is all about? SW, HP, comic books...

[Jurassic Shark 14,946]

Probably, but the first two books are especially for children, I'd say.

[Nick1Ø66 6,741]

12 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

 

With a white dinner jacket.

Good. Anything goes!

[bollemanneke 3,999]

...

God, why I can't quote someone without messing up the entire post?

4 hours ago, Stark said:

The challenge with a Harry Potter re-adaption, as well as a LOTR re-adaption that hopefully won’t happen for another couple decades, is not that it would be impossible to make a better adaption - if only because both film series truncate so much. It’s that it’s just plain hard to do as many things right as both film series did. I suppose Harry Potter seems like an easier task (showing my LOTR bias) but between the music, older actors, pacing, designs that (at least partly) will change, and so on, and of course audience nostalgia, the list of challenging (if not impossible) hurdles is just so long.

If HBO does manage to pull this off, it will be incredibly interesting… and probably will make a LOTR re-adaption more likely as well…

I have a HP bias, but the LOTr films are unbeatable, not just because they are above and beyond the tedious source material. Nothing will ever come remotely close to what that team created.

3 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Perhaps because they're children's books?

Interesting point, because I would agree, but I also think that the first films are not as childish as the books, perhaps because they don't force you into Harry's limited mind.

[DarthDementous 1,424]

On 15/09/2024 at 12:17 AM, John Dutton said:

These TV adaptations are the future. Rings of Power, The Acolyte, Max Potter. They will continue to surpass the movies and the studios won't have to pay ridiculous fees to overrated mainstream Hollywood actors in a failing industry. TV is just better.

It's funny you mention Rings of Power because this TV adaptation of Harry Potter is about to run into some incredibly similar challenges to that show, the biggest of which being "do you capitalize on being what most people already recognize, or do you go out of your way to set yourself apart from the existing, and seen as the 'definitive' adaptation out there?". Rings of Power falls in an awkward middle only made more awkward by limited licensing rights, there's potential to thread the needle better here as we're working off adaptations of full books of which the movies already had to make substantial changes to better fit the medium of film. However, I don't think you're ever going to be able to have this project stand on its own without having a really bold and strikingly different approach. The thought of which would probably terrify executives, as it means potentially severing your connection to the existing fans of the films.

[Director of Poltergeist 8,048]

I actually think those were bad examples because people hate those shows, and I'm sure they suck, but I'm too busy watching reruns of Buffy and Yellowstone to give them any airtime. What I meant was, long form adaptations of these franchises on streaming services are the future. I'm tired of hearing about the short attention span of the Tik Tok generation and how everything has to be short clips or they pull up their phones and livestream. The reality is what is enduring right now and into the future will be quality long form entertainment. The Joe Rogan Experience, Oppenheimer, Avatar 2, binge-watching great shows. This shit actually attracts viewers and makes money. The industry will adapt to this, if they're smart.

[DarthDementous 1,424]

23 minutes ago, John Dutton said:

I actually think those were bad examples because people hate those shows, and I'm sure they suck, but I'm too busy watching reruns of Buffy and Yellowstone to give them any airtime. What I meant was, long form adaptations of these franchises on streaming services are the future. I'm tired of hearing about the short attention span of the Tik Tok generation and how everything has to be short clips or they pull up their phones and livestream. The reality is what is enduring right now and into the future will be quality long form entertainment. The Joe Rogan Experience, Oppenheimer, Avatar 2, binge-watching great shows. This shit actually attracts viewers and makes money. The industry will adapt to this, if they're smart.

It's an interesting paradox isn't it, the rise of both short-form and long-form content at what looks like the same time

I think you are right though, we've been seeing a shift from more condensed mediums to longer form and more 'ambitious' storytelling, and especially in the streaming space I don't think that formula has been worked out very well yet, but I do feel it's only a matter of time. Or...the industry will implode and revert back to smaller scale storytelling, that's also a possibility

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

1 hour ago, John Dutton said:

I actually think those were bad examples because people hate those shows, and I'm sure they suck, but I'm too busy watching reruns of Buffy and Yellowstone to give them any airtime. What I meant was, long form adaptations of these franchises on streaming services are the future. I'm tired of hearing about the short attention span of the Tik Tok generation and how everything has to be short clips or they pull up their phones and livestream. The reality is what is enduring right now and into the future will be quality long form entertainment. The Joe Rogan Experience, Oppenheimer, Avatar 2, binge-watching great shows. This shit actually attracts viewers and makes money. The industry will adapt to this, if they're smart.

 

What I think young people really do is they like long form shows playing in the background as room ambience while they're scrolling their phones.

[GerateWohl 5,918]

I said it before. I think, the show that might best compare to this Harry Potter series is Percy Jackson and the Olympians on Disney+. It is as well about a boy having grown up as a normal human and is then thrown into a fantasy world having to play a key role in a struggle against an old evil power (Kronos).

 

And that adaptation is quite good. Ok. The Potter books are better. And probably the TV show won't be. But I just wish, the HP show would be at least half as good as the PERCY JACKSON show. That would be better than the movies already. 

[Jurassic Shark 14,946]

4 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

It is as well about a boy having grown up as a normal human and is then thrown into a fantasy world having to play a key role in a struggle against an old evil power (Kronos).

 

They aren't that bad.

 

 

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

Maybe a more apt comparison is the HBO/BBC production of His Dark Materials, which I persevered through two seasons, and gave up a couple of eps into its third and final season. Maybe Pullman isn't for me, or the show was a mess, I dunno, but its persistently gloomy tone and the actors with zero charisma really put me off.

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

If HP was made in the 2020s

[Director of Poltergeist 8,048]

I thought the current in look for the young male lead is boney and androgynous.

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

Depends. Hollyweird seems split on this. Some casts are swole af on steroids, while others go for that scawny, sexually ambiguous look.

[Chen G. 5,124]

https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/news/harry-potter-movies-dumbledore-jk-rowling-b2616236.html

[toothless 1,019]

Random thoughts: 

 

Hagrid: Mark Addy

Dumbledore: Anthony Head

McGonagall: Elizabeth McGovern
 

[Nick1Ø66 6,741]

[Bilbo 3,998]

ThatsGoodNews.gif 

[tomsmoviemadness 4,234]

Paapa Essiedu Eyed to Play Severus Snape in HBO’s Harry Potter TV Show

[HunterTech 1,502]

Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure of what to make of this choice, since Snape has such a specific energy and demeanor that is not really coming across in Essiedu's appearance. It might help to watch a few clips from his acting reel, but I think he looks too much like a regular guy as is. Though then again, even the illustrations in the US editions of the books are coloring my perception here, so I guess it's harder to envision some dude in the role based on that .

[Mr. Who 1,000]

I have never seen Essiedu in anything but based on his age he seems a bit young to play the part right? Maybe they want to go a different route than the movies did with characterization. There was talk about Mark Rylance playing Dumbledore I saw also. In the books Snape is described as a surly looking guy with long dark greasy hair and a hooked nose which isn't the vibe I'm getting from Essiedu based on a quick google haha but I hope the make up department will do something to honor these book characteristics in some way if they end up casting him.

[tomsmoviemadness 4,234]

He is far too young for Snape in my opinion, however good of an actor he is.

 

I'm going to be critical of every casting announcement of this because I grew up with the films and feels this series is completely unneccesary. They can't do better than the cast they had for the films and I'm seriously wondering what the point of this whole endeavor is.

 

[Holko 11,343]

The Marauders/Snape are supposed to be in their 30s throughout the books so that's perfectly fine. They just aged them all up for the movies.

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,807]

Maybe wizards just age faster.

[Richard P 4,752]

2 hours ago, HunterTech said:

Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure of what to make of this choice, since Snape has such a specific energy and demeanor that is not really coming across in Essiedu's appearance.

 

My exact thought - he looks like a nice chap, with absolutely none of what Rickman oozed just by looking at you. But as you say, we haven't seen his reel.

 

Overall they're going to struggle to recast Hagrid, McGonnagall, Ollivander and maybe the odd other actor, but I didn't think either Dumbledore was right, and Radcliffe/Watson/Grint weren't exactly irreplaceable performances.

[Mr. Who 1,000]

1 hour ago, Holko said:

The Marauders/Snape are supposed to be in their 30s throughout the books so that's perfectly fine. They just aged them all up for the movies.

You’re actually right. I’ve read the books countless times but still think of Snape as significantly older than 30s.

[Jay 42,358]

Snape is supposed to be the same age as Remus Lupin, Sirius Black, James Potter and Peter Pettigrew - they were all at Hogwarts at the same time, all in the same grade.  Lupin, Black, Potter, and Pettigrew were the four Marauders that made the map, not that the films ever bothered to reveal.

 

So yeah, if James and Lilly had Harry in their early 20s, then in Book/Film/Season 1 when Harry is 11 years old, Snape, Lupin, Black, and Pettigrew would all be in their early/mid 30s.

 

The films should never have cast someone as old as Alan Rickman to play Snape, basically - or after they did, they should have cast Lupin/Sirius/Peter to be the same age as Rickman, and explained that James and Lilly had Harry later in life than average.

[Holko 11,343]

James and Lily look older in the Mirror, too - but that can be explained away by Harry seeing them with him as they would have been had they lived.

[Toillion 386]

I  think I've only seen him in a Black Mirror episode which he was good. I think it's a good idea to cast relatively unknown actors for some of these important roles. If the plan is to follow the source material more closely then I can't see how they will make him look like Snape. I hope they know what they are doing but I think he is way too good looking to pull of Snape lol. 

[enderdrag64 1,420]

Yeah if they're not going to make it more book accurate then what is the point of this series again?

 

I'm hoping it doesn't turn out like that Percy Jackson series a couple years ago, I read a lot of fans were disappointed by it because it was promised to be book accurate unlike the films and it wasn't, it just made different changes

[Edmilson 10,434]

22 minutes ago, enderdrag64 said:

Yeah if they're not going to make it more book accurate then what is the point of this series again?

 

[Jay 42,358]

This has been delayed to 2027

 

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/white-lotus-season-3-premiere-february-euphoria-2026-1236234105/

[Toillion 386]

26 minutes ago, Jay said:

This has been delayed to 2027

 

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/white-lotus-season-3-premiere-february-euphoria-2026-1236234105/

 

Did they put these casting feelers out there and after a bit of backlash decided they better push it back and keep looking? 

They better have the whole thing planned out or else the kids will age out of their roles too quickly with how long it is between seasons these days.