Re: Harry Potter

by Bluebottle Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:54 pm

Harry Potter - Page 26 Tumblr_mul9omTyzR1rpo7r2o1_1280

Even Voldemort had certain standards of competence. Razz

by **Orwell** Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:37 pm

Are we still talking about HP? Shocked

I thought that fad died out like the hoola hooop? Shocked

by David H Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:40 pm

Yeah, or the ruby slipper! Rolling Eyes

by Eldorion Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:39 pm

Orwell wrote:Are we still talking about HP? I thought that fad died out like the hoola hooop?

You wish.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:07 am

I bet the cast now wish it even more.

by **Orwell** Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:37 am

David H wrote:Yeah, or the ruby slipper!

The the only ruby slipper I know of is still as popular as it ever was... since 1933 I believe... there was another one of far less alluring hue that is now forgotten by all but the most learnéd people (like me) and the most buccolic (apparently)... Nod

by chris63 Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:50 am

by bungobaggins Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:50 am

http://www.mommyish.com/2014/09/19/mom-rewrites-harry-potter-christian-story/#ixzz3EoksnVx3

A mom going by the name “proudhousewife” on FanFiction.net is rewriting the Harry Potter books so that they’re all about Christianity. “Do you want your little ones to read books; and they want to read the Harry Potter Books; but you do not want them to turn into witches?,” reads her bio. “Well-this is the story for you!” I guess those of us who DO want our kids to turn into witches should just kept reading the regular old Potter books and hope for the best.

Her story, Hogwarts School of Prayer and Miracles, is indeed for you if you like scintillating, creationist-filled dialogue like this:

“What is a Christian?” Harry queried innocently; and scuffed his shoe on the shaggy, yellow carpet which had not been vacuumed in quite some time.

“Christians are people who want to be good,” Hagrid explained wisely; and crouched down so he was on eye level with Harry. “We want to go to heaven after we die. Do you know what heaven is, Harry?”

Harry shook his head; and his big eyes were wide and curious.

“Heaven is a beautiful place where we can be with God.”

Aunt Petunia smacked her hands over Harry’s young ears; and her voice was sickly sweet when she said, “Thank you very much for your concern, sir, but he does not need your religion, he has science and socialism and birthdays. Haven’t you heard of Evolution? I have a very good textbook on Evolution that I could give you on it if you would like to learn things.”

Hagrid laughed wisely. “Evolution is a fairytale. You don’t really believe that, do you?”

“Yes, I do!” Aunt Petunia screeched.

“Well then prove it!”

Aunt Petunia could only stare at him; and her big mouth hung open dumbly. Here she thought she was so educated; and always demanded that Christians prove what they believed in; but she couldn’t even prove her own religion. It was then that Harry knew who the smart one here was!

As Harry moves through Hogwarts the different groups try to recruit him to their particular house of Christianity. The Slytherins are Mary-worshiping Catholics, the Hufflepuffs are super chill liberal Christians, and the Ravenclaws – lead by Draco – are just misogynist dicks. (As opposed to Harry, who’s a kind misogynist with backward beliefs from the 1820s.)

I'm guessing that Gryffindor are the evangelicals.

by Eldorion Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:16 am

Looks like Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality has finally met its match.

(Here's the Fanfiction.net page for that story.)

Also, Poe's Law is in full effect with this Christian one.

by Eldorion Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:00 am

Warner Bros. press release about the Fantastic Beasts trilogy

The Studio will release three pictures, in 2016, 2018 and 2020, based on best-selling author J.K. Rowling’s original story and screenwriting debut, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.” Set in an extension of her familiar wizarding world, featuring magical creatures and characters inspired by Harry Potter’s Hogwarts textbook and its fictitious author, Newt Scamander, “Fantastic Beasts” will be directed by David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter movies, and reunite the filmmaking team of David Heyman, J.K. Rowling, Steve Kloves and Lionel Wigram.

Still not really sure what to think about this. The idea of making a feature length film out of one of Rowling's silly de-fictionalizations for charity is absurd enough. But making it into a trilogy and basically trying to make it a return to the scale and success of HP proper is just ... I can't imagine it actually working. Much less being good. But even if it is good, just imagine all the shitty spin-off series that will be churned out by other franchises.

Edit: actually, I'm pretty sure we can blame this emergent trend on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but still.

by Mrs Figg Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:10 pm

Yates = Shitty

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:18 pm

Eldorion wrote:Still not really sure what to think about this. The idea of making a feature length film out of one of Rowling's silly de-fictionalizations for charity is absurd enough. But making it into a trilogy and basically trying to make it a return to the scale and success of HP proper is just ... I can't imagine it actually working. Much less being good.

That's kind of the thing. It won't even really be based on the book. That'll just be the starting point. And a very diffuse starting point at that. It'll pretty much be like she's writing three new books, just she's doing them as movies instead. Which is an interesting idea. (Though I always preferred the books to the movies anyway.)

I, like you though, with the lack of any tie in to the previous series, struggle to see what will make it interesting or appeal even to the fans of the already released material.

by Bluebottle Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:19 pm

Eldorion wrote:But even if it is good, just imagine all the shitty spin-off series that will be churned out by other franchises.

Shhhhhhhhh.. Peter Jackson might be listening. pale

by malickfan Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:11 pm

Eldorion wrote:Warner Bros. press release about the Fantastic Beasts trilogy

The Studio will release three pictures, in 2016, 2018 and 2020, based on best-selling author J.K. Rowling’s original story and screenwriting debut, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.” Set in an extension of her familiar wizarding world, featuring magical creatures and characters inspired by Harry Potter’s Hogwarts textbook and its fictitious author, Newt Scamander, “Fantastic Beasts” will be directed by David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter movies, and reunite the filmmaking team of David Heyman, J.K. Rowling, Steve Kloves and Lionel Wigram.

Still not really sure what to think about this. The idea of making a feature length film out of one of Rowling's silly de-fictionalizations for charity is absurd enough. But making it into a trilogy and basically trying to make it a return to the scale and success of HP proper is just ... I can't imagine it actually working. Much less being good. But even if it is good, just imagine all the shitty spin-off series that will be churned out by other franchises.

Edit: actually, I'm pretty sure we can blame this emergent trend on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but still.

All I can say is scratch

I don't see how this can't come across as a box ticking grab for cash, Potter for better or worse was a passing Phenomen (Eldo you work in a book shop right? Is it still popular?), I can't really see the appeal of this myself, a loosely connected generic sounding spin off based on a 50 page book? Where is the story hook to tie it in with the other films? What will set this apart in the way the Potter films did? JK Rowling is imo a better storyteller than writer, so it's rather surprising to see her as sole screenwriter.

Isn't this supposed to be set in the USA?

I'm actually glad Yates got the gig (though I would have preferred Cuaron), other than the lighting issue, I really enjoyed his take on the Potter books (in terms of visuals and the performances he got out of the cast-I always felt the last four films (much like the last three books) felt kinda disconnected from the earlier ones in the way they adapted the material), and for better or worse he's had a bigger impact on the series than anyone else, I guess it makes sense to have a old hand round for things.

by Eldorion Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:45 pm

Harry Potter is still a big seller, though naturally not as big as something like The Hunger Games which is in the middle of its movie release cycle right now. But HP has a much larger lingering presence than Twilight, even though the HP films ended a year and a half before the Twilight films did.

This is an unusual choice for a spin-off, and it is something of a risk, so I suppose "cash-grab" wouldn't be the best descriptor for it. And again, maybe it'll be cool. But I'm not sure I have enough faith in JK Rowling as a writer to go into this with the expectation of quality. Don't get me wrong, I still love HP, but I've become more conscious of Rowling's weaknesses as I've gotten older. I don't expect these films to be particularly deep or artistic; they'll still (probably) be action-adventure blockbusters even though they won't have a kid/teen protagonist. But at the same time, they're not exploring any of the "lore" elements that people were actually curious about. And of course, Rowling's worldbuilding is notoriously shoddy, and only a few places outside Hogwarts have a well-defined identity, so setting these films as far from Hogwarts as possible feels like a really questionable move (though it was probably a deliberate decision). Of all the possible HP spin-offs she could have chosen, this feels like one that nobody asked for.

But of course, it's not like we're owed anything, nor do fans have any ownership over the franchise, so whatevs. Razz

by malickfan Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:06 pm

Eldorion wrote:Harry Potter is still a big seller, though naturally not as big as something like The Hunger Games which is in the middle of its movie release cycle right now. But HP has a much larger lingering presencethat sounds quite ominous actually... than Twilight, even though the HP films ended a year and a half before the Twilight films did.

This is an unusual choice for a spin-offI actually wasn't surprised, it is something Rowling had already written, so that is a bonus for fans, unlike the Quiditch book or some made up sequel I do find it easy to see why the studio went for this first-magical beasts-just sounds too obvious, I do however find it hard to see how a interesting story could be fabricated, and it is something of a risk, so I suppose "cash-grab" wouldn't be the best descriptor for it. And again, maybe it'll be coolI'm no longer 12 so its kinda hard to get back into the mindframe of being a kid-that's why I asked about book sales, will newer fans/family audiences be enough to make it a sucess? Anyone who grew up with the series is going to be in their late teens when it comes out, going to be interesting to see how they make it relevant for new viewers.... But I'm not sure I have enough faith in JK Rowling as a writer to go into this with the expectation of quality. Don't get me wrong, I still love HP, but I've become more conscious of Rowling's weaknesses as I've gotten olderYeah.... I don't expect these films to be particularly deep or artisticBeing kinda selfish but I hope they keep the production crew largely from UK again, it would feel kinda weird having a Hollywood crew nick our stories ; they'll still (probably) be action-adventure blockbusters even though they won't have a kid/teen protagonist. But at the same time, they're not exploring any of the "lore" elements that people were actually curious about. And of course, Rowling's worldbuilding is notoriously shoddyShe even admits this herself, I always had trouble working out how big the Wizard population was, and only a few places outside Hogwarts have a well-defined identity, so setting these films as far from Hogwarts as possible feels like a really questionable move (though it was probably a deliberate decisionI'd rather they took the risk with something new instead of retreading old ground). Of all the possible HP spin-offs she could have chosen, this feels like one that nobody asked forGiven what I know of the more hardcore areas of the fandom, I dread to think what would happen if the fans were in charge....

But of course, it's not like we're owed anythingI still want to know what happened to the flying car dammit, nor do fans have any ownership over the franchise, so whatevs.

by Eldorion Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:21 pm

Fair point about them not retreading old ground, but given Rowling's track record, I'm not expecting anything very coherent (or even all that interesting) for the setting. But that's in part because "secret magic world hidden inside the real one" never appealed that much to me, and HP's setting was at its most interesting to me when it was far away from the Muggle world. I just hope we don't see ol' Newt chasing magical womprats up the Empire State Building or something.

by Mrs Figg Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:45 pm

I dont think her worldbuilding is shoddy at all, a lot of her locations outside Hogwarts are great and very atmospheric.

by Forest Shepherd Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:28 am

Bluebottle wrote:
Eldorion wrote:But even if it is good, just imagine all the shitty spin-off series that will be churned out by other franchises.

Shhhhhhhhh.. Peter Jackson might be listening.

I'm pretty sure it's too bloody late for that!

And Yates isn't crappy! Mad

And Rowling's worldbuilding isn't shoddy!

by Bluebottle Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:43 am

by Bluebottle Fri Oct 17, 2014 12:44 am

One kind of wonders if we'll get a movie triology about quidditch next, doesn't one. Razz

by Eldorion Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:28 pm

In what world is Rowling's worldhuilding not shoddy? The inconsistencies are evident even when reading the books (she never really figured out how many students Hogwarts has, for example, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination.

It's a fun world to read about, and Rowling had plenty of interesting ideas, but her strength has never been worldbuilding.

by Norc Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:33 pm

Elaborate please

by Eldorion Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:43 pm

How can there be a wizarding population in Britain large enough to require a government bureaucracy of thousands, yet so few children that the entire country has only one school with a few hundred students? On that same topic, why is Hogwarts sometimes described as having 800 or so students when Harry's entire year has about 40? Even if we accept that food can't just be magic ed into existence, why do the impoverished Weasleys have to wear threadbare robes when they are talented magicians and spells like "reparo" exist? Why have witches and wizards adopted Muggle inventions like radio but not ballpoint pens or pants?

There's loads more but I'm on my phone so that will have to suffice for now.

by halfwise Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:43 pm

Rather than "shoddy" I think "lacking in foundation" would be a better description. Her backdrops are interesting and sometimes well described, but seem to come out of nowhere compared to Tolkien's middle earth. They are inventive rather than cohesive. It's not entirely clear what the internal rules are.

There's nothing wrong with inventiveness, which is why I think the stigma attached to a word like "shoddy" should be avoided.