Harry Potter TV Series in the works

[Edmilson 10,517]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

Film is a collaborative medium so I’m sure the stories would have been quite different, had she written the FB series as books first and not as movies first.

Yes! I'm pretty sure that had she written the Fantastic Beasts saga as novels and then delivered them to Kloves for him to turn them into movies, they wouldn't be that criticized. Also, we'd have three (or five?) more JKR Potterverse novels, so even if the movies weren't exactly outstanding we could still ignore them and just read the books (kinda like what I do with the Yates HP movies).

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

I don't know, I really think @Docteur Qui nailed it with this comment...

 

21 hours ago, Docteur Qui said:

the Potter books are very entertaining whodunnits first and fantasy stories second. The reason the spinoffs didn't work is because they focused too much on the world-building/fantasy elements and not a coherent mystery with compelling characters. The contrast is even more stark when you read her ongoing Strike detective novels; they're enjoyable page-turners, infinitely more appealing than her screenplays, and that's because they play to her strengths.

 

And @Chen G. with this one...

 

11 hours ago, Chen G. said:

the draw of these stories for most people is not "The Wizarding World" in the abstract: its Hogwarts. Its something about the combination of the atmosphere of an English boarding school with magic and a mystery story that created the right alchemy.

 

"Alchemy" is a good word here. It's really hard to say exactly which combination of elements in what amount make a story work. But I think both dynamics mentioned here, among others, are definitely a factor, and take away any one ingredient, and you lose the magic (no pun intended). I'm just sceptical about the potential for an "expanded" Wizarding World Universe.

 

 

[Chen G. 5,172]

20 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And @Chen G. with this one...

 

It wasn't me. 'twas the ever-inventive, totally-hadn't-made-Chen-all-smitten Lakhitia from Fellowship of Fans.

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It wasn't me. 'twas the ever-inventive, totally-hadn't-made-Chen-all-smitten Lakhitia from Fellowship of Fans.

 

Behind every great man there's a woman whose ideas he steals.

[bollemanneke 4,013]

I didn't mind the world-building in FB1 at all. Heck, I'd have loved more Second  Salemers and Macusa. I think the problem was first and foremost that nobody knew if they should do the beasts or the politics, then their director, and also the fact that Grindelwald is, well, just Voldemort 0.5 really. This universe doesn't seem to allow for any other type of villain.

[Yavar Moradi 3,597]

10 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

and also the fact that Grindelwald is, well, just Voldemort 0.5 really. This universe doesn't seem to allow for any other type of villain.

 

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

Yep. While Voldemort is the classic pure evil fantasy villain, Umbridge shows us the banality of evil.  She's actually much more interesting, and therefore easier to hate, IMO.

[Henry Sítrónu 573]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMM!!!

great moment to quote Horner talking about Zimmer and scores for super hero movies from a BBC interview in 2013. God I miss him.  

 

[Schilkeman 1,460]

Yes, I had forgotten how the novels are really mystery stories at heart. Production companies love “worlds” because they’re exploitable, but a world Is just a setting, not a story.
 

Although I liked the first FB film well enough, that series never had a compelling reason to exist, but if the craft had been high enough, it could have worked. Not playing to her strengths as a mystery writer did it no favors. 
 

Keeping the mystery front and center for each episode is going to be difficult. Of course, if it doesn’t work out, who cares? The books are still good, and half the movies we already have are solid. They will spend a fortune on this show, I'm sure, but will it be Rings if Power or… actually, now that I think about it, I struggle to think of a fantasy tv adaptation that I’ve liked. Oh well, they’re screwed. 

[Chen G. 5,172]

I saw the second Fantastic Beasts first, and understandably enough it made not one lick of sense to me. But I was led to believe the first film was much better and there was a fall-off.

 

Then I watched the first...

 

Hated it.

 

Muddled and confused. Rowling wrote it at a time when the Potter productions were relatively fresh on her mind, and it struck me how someone who hadn't seen a good couple of Potter films, and at least one relatively recently as an aide mémoire, would have surely been completely lost.

[mstrox 7,215]

Just because the first one was the best doesn’t mean it was good!

[bollemanneke 4,013]

1 hour ago, mstrox said:

Just because the first one was the best doesn’t mean it was good!

But it was.

[bored 565]

Well, it was directed by David "I hate style" Yates.

[Schilkeman 1,460]

The first one was solid. Just a dude who loves animals, and a very nice score. They did that thing the Hobbit did where they forgot it was about Fantastic Beasts and How to Get All of Them, and the guy who wants to be the very best, like no one ever was, and tried for the recontextualizingly heavy prequel.

[Mr. Who 1,000]

The main story was always about Grindelwald and to some extent Dumbledore. I prefer the second movie to the first (which is great as well) and wish the third movie (which was not as good and completely ruined/rushed through the plot lines set up) had not been a Kloves rewrite.

 

I don’t understand why some people wanted movies about just the beasts. The main antagonist of Beasts 1 is literally Grindelwald and it sets up the whole conflict with Grindelwald’s anti muggle cause. As much as I like the first film, it has no scene like the climax of the sequel with the rally in Paris.

 

The best scenario would of course have been to have 5 books written before the films were made. This way JKR could have written it exactly like she wanted to and then Kloves could have adapted it for the screen and added stuff he wanted, which might not have been in the books, like more Hogwarts etc.

 

For instance Yates says in the commentary for FB1 that the first draft was darker than the final film and that he asked her to write a lighter version in tone. It’s a collaborative medium of course and I think that while the first film is very fun and wholesome, some people really tend overlook that it’s also quite dark in places. The main characters are literally sentenced to death by poison (death potion) at one point in the film and the Salemers scenes with the orphans being beaten etc is definitively not light IMO. The shift to the second film finally is not as big as some people make it out to be.

[Once 903]

2 hours ago, Mr. Who said:

I think that while the first film is very fun and wholesome, some people really tend overlook that it’s also quite dark in places.

I think this is true for all of the Potter books as well. These are dark stories set in a whimsical, colorful world and the contrast makes it work even better. I'd love to see this adaptation realize that on the screen. That would be a perfect adaptation, in my opinion.

Colorful, magical whodunnits filled with season-specific and season-crossing mysteries, a vast ensemble of great characters and that twisted darkness that the plots all feature (from kidnappings to frame-ups to... whatever happened to Bertha Jorkins!) - although Rowling's dry humor is hard to translate to the screen as it's mostly done through the narrator or the world building.

 

By the way, I love that the books have such fun world building. It might create more so-called 'plot holes' than a methodical, realistic world building would have, but there's always an entertaining, original idea behind them that makes the wizarding world such fun to live in as a reader.

[bollemanneke 4,013]

7 hours ago, Mr. Who said:

The main story was always about Grindelwald and to some extent Dumbledore. I prefer the second movie to the first (which is great as well) and wish the third movie (which was not as good and completely ruined/rushed through the plot lines set up) had not been a Kloves rewrite.

 

I don’t understand why some people wanted movies about just the beasts. The main antagonist of Beasts 1 is literally Grindelwald and it sets up the whole conflict with Grindelwald’s anti muggle cause. As much as I like the first film, it has no scene like the climax of the sequel with the rally in Paris.

 

The best scenario would of course have been to have 5 books written before the films were made. This way JKR could have written it exactly like she wanted to and then Kloves could have adapted it for the screen and added stuff he wanted, which might not have been in the books, like more Hogwarts etc.

 

For instance Yates says in the commentary for FB1 that the first draft was darker than the final film and that he asked her to write a lighter version in tone. It’s a collaborative medium of course and I think that while the first film is very fun and wholesome, some people really tend overlook that it’s also quite dark in places. The main characters are literally sentenced to death by poison (death potion) at one point in the film and the Salemers scenes with the orphans being beaten etc is definitively not light IMO. The shift to the second film finally is not as big as some people make it out to be.

The thing is, I agree with what you say about how FB1 is dark too in principle, but there's still something different about 2 and 3 that I just don't like. No idea if it's bad plotting, bad writing, bad directing or something else, but it just became dull. I'd have loved more Mary Lou, more political intrigue, more Tina and Macusa lady, and fewer beasts, but instead we get this forced amalgamation in which I constantly want Newt to just go away and someone else to make a more gripping movie. Not five movies, not even three, just one decent one that gets to the point.

[Jay 42,446]

Open Casting Begins For HBO’s ‘Harry Potter’ TV Series For Harry, Ron and Hermione

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

Casting is going to make or break this show, especially the three leads. And the controversy surrounding it is going to make the internet explode. HBO will get criticised no matter what they do.  On the other hand, good news for Amazon, Rings of Power will no longer be the most divisive show on TV.

 

The casting call, for the children anyway, is asking for actors in the UK and Ireland, which is a good sign. Which you'd expect, since Rowling apparently is heavily involved in casting and has always wanted British and Irish actors. They really struck gold with the casting in the movies, not just for Harry, Ron and Hermione, but all the supporting actors as well, and hopefully lighting strikes twice and the same happens with the show.

 

 

[toothless 1,021]

I’m wondering if they’ll cast known actors for roles such as professors or if they’ll go full unknowns. 

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

Probably a mix. I imagine a lot of big names are going to be reluctant to commit to seven seasons. However, IMO they're going to need at least one or two prestigious thespians to "anchor" the show and give it credibility, starting with Dumbledore.

 

That said, I have to reluctantly admit I can see Adam Driver as Snape (even though he's American) and Hugh Grant as Lockhart (even though he's too old).

[bollemanneke 4,013]

How grand would an Irish Hermione be?

[Chen G. 5,172]

16 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

That said, I'd love to see Adam Driver as Snape (even though he's American) and Hugh Grant as Lockhart (even though he's too old).

 

By way of somewhat eccentric casting calls, I think Sir John Tomlinson would be a good Dumbeldore:

 

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

By way of somewhat eccentric casting calls, I think Sir John Tomlinson would be a good Dumbeldore:

 

Interesting. Probably too old. And maybe too fat?

 

I mean, Dumbledore’s not Wotan, and the cast of every future Harry Potter and Tolkien project can’t be composed entirely of Wagner alumni, you know. 😂

 

Mad Eye Moody, perhaps. 😜

[Chen G. 5,172]

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Mad Eye Moody, perhaps. 😜

 

Perhaps. 

 

I actually don't care for Tomlinson's Wotan: too coarse and effortful - he's more of a Hagen. But I hear he recently made a pretty good King Lear, and since Dumbeldore doesn't have to sing high notes...

 

An authoritative, dark, rolling bass is certainly a plus for a headmaster role.

[Richard P 4,772]

20 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Probably a mix. I imagine a lot of big names are going to be reluctant to commit to seven seasons. However, IMO they're going to need at least one or two prestigious thespians to "anchor" the show and give it credibility, starting with Dumbledore.

 

That said, I'd love to see Adam Driver as Snape (even though he's American) and Hugh Grant as Lockhart (even though he's too old).

 

I'd agree with both of those, and they probably do need at least one huge name in there somewhere. The stumbling block for non-UK actors may still be Rowling, who wouldn't allow non-UK actors. Did I read correctly Columbus' daughter wasn't allowed to have lines because she's American? There comes a point where a creator's demands seem a bit far fetching for me.

 

Dumbledore is the crucial one for me, as neither Harris nor Gambon did it for me. The role needs someone with an almost childlike, whimsical aspect, but then a deadly serious or parental aspect when needed. No one comes to mind right now.

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

I quite liked Richard Harris as Dumbledore, and I do think he brought a hint of that "childlike, whimsical" aspect of the character out very well. Right now I'm thinking of his delivery of the "alas, ear wax" line, but there are a few nice moments like that.  In fact it's one of the most endearing aspects to his performance, IMO.  I wish we'd have more of him in the role, it was a loss.

 

On the other hand, I didn't care for Michael Gambon at all. His physical abuse of Harry in GOF was a microcosm of everything that was wrong with his portrayal. And I never felt he truly inhabited Dumbledore. 

[GerateWohl 5,959]

Harris proofed to be irreplacable as Dumbledore. 

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

My first choice would be Jared Harris, Richard's son. I think he could be a fine Dumbledore. I just finished The Expanse, and he really impressed me. He was great in The Crown and Chernobyl as well.

 

Alternatively, I can also see Charles Dance in the role. He's got outstanding acting chops and I think he'd make for a fascinating Dumbledore. Another Game of Thrones alum, Iain Glenn, could also be an interesting pick.

 

On the other hand, they should stay away from Gandalf rejects like Anthony Hopkins and Patrick Stewart. Both fine actors who are simply too old, and too recognizable, for the role. Basically, any actor you'd think "he'd be a great wizard!" is probably all wrong for Dumbledore.

 

Michael Caine, I think, could have been a wonderful Dumbledore, but he's retired and again, obviously way too old for the role. In fact I can think of a lot of great choices, but unfortunately they're all dead.

[Chen G. 5,172]

What about...Daniel Weyman... 

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

It will probably be Sean Bean. 

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,901]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

Harrison proofed to be irreplacable as Dumbledore. 

 

Yeah I liked George Harrison in the role.

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

4 minutes ago, Unlucky Bastard said:

 

Yeah I liked George Harrison in the role.

 

You're thinking of Gandalf!

[GerateWohl 5,959]

Bloody auto-correction.

 

What about Geoff Morrell? Watching him in RoP I thought, he might look good as Dumbledore. 

[Stark 713]

I’d accept Jared Harris in literally any role 

[Yavar Moradi 3,597]

30 minutes ago, Stark said:

I’d accept Jared Harris in literally any role 

 

I actually think Jared Harris would be a better Dumbledore than his father was.

 

Here's my nomination for Umbridge:

 

Yavar

[Richard P 4,772]

She's too likeable for Umbridge. (I just binged most of Peep Show - I don't want her to turn nasty)

 

Jared Harris would be more Dumbledore-like than Richard was, but I think the perfect actor is still to be found.

[Alex 2,939]

It will be interesting to see if they cast the likes of Snape, Aunt Petunia etc as their book accurate ages or whether they’ll take the the more liberal approach as the films did. Technically they should be in 30/31 in the first book.

[bored 565]

1 hour ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Here's my nomination for Umbridge:

 

 

Looking at her there, I think she should be Aunt Petunia.

[Yavar Moradi 3,597]

1 hour ago, Richard Penna said:

She's too likeable for Umbridge.

 

Then you need to see Fleabag! Her smile is a perfect Umbridge smile.

 

I don't really think of Petunia smiling at all; she's more pinched and uptight. Umbridge will smile big at you but there's a threat behind it.

 

Yavar

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

Dev Patel, who is British, could be an interesting choice for Snape.

[Yavar Moradi 3,597]

9 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Dev Patel, who is British, could be an interesting choice for Snape.

 

He's certainly got the acting chops, and playing a seemingly-villainous character could be really interesting for him. They could even go with book Snape's look and have Patel with facial hair:

 

 

I mean, maybe he's a little too handsome for Snape? But I'm sure they could Snapeify him with the proper makeup treatment.

 

Yavar

[Alex 2,939]

I think these would be good:

 

Aunt Petunia - Rachel Weisz

Hagrid - Mark Addy

Snape - Jamie Bell

Quirrell - Alan Cumming

Voldemort - Andrew Scott

 

 

[Once 903]

I like a lot of these choices. When such a large part of the cast is bound to be newcomers and unknowns (all the kids) I hope they keep the same approach as the movies did and cast some thespians in the adult roles. They might not be able to match them (like having Oscar winner Julie Christie as... Madam Rosmerta) but with the series format even the small roles could be juicier and there are still a lot of great/big British actors who didn't get a chance to appear (like Helen Mirren said to David Heyman; "only because you never asked!").

 

Funnily enough I've always thought Miriam Margolyes could make a really sinister Umbridge if she was directed to give a subtle performance. Obviously she had already appeared as Sprout when the fifth book was published.

[bored 565]

I have a feeling this series might have the same problem as the Series of Unfortunate Events one in that aspect. They had such good casting originally in the movie, to the point that there's nothing new or better they can do in the TV adaptation. Say what you will about Jim Carrey vs. Neil Patrick Harris, but there's no way you can replace Meryl Streep as Aunt Josephine or Billy Connolly as Uncle Monty.

[Director of Poltergeist 8,112]

They've got to get rid of the activist actors, poor ones at that, who betrayed JK Rowling. It's time to die. Or, I mean, be replaced. They were poor actors anyway. 

[Lady Dimitrescu 9,901]

Especially Alan Rickman and his unacceptable anti-Williams rhetoric.

 

[bored 565]

I agree his hate of Williams was... blasphemous! But man he did a fantastic job in the role.

[JWFan Moderators 116]

Rowling's politics are off-topic anywhere on the forums. Please keep this thread focused on the TV series. Thank you.

[Nick1Ø66 6,776]

10 hours ago, John Dutton said:

They were poor actors anyway.

Not anymore. £€$