The Warner Bros. Thread | Will NOT merge with Paramount...capitalism is still terrible

[TheDude391]

5 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

 

Hollywood is becoming such a creative Wasteland.  Harry Potter reboot is a giant el oh el, Lord of the Rings probably isn't far behind.

Me: 100% I agree, so tired of these constant reboots and sequels.

 

Also me: HEAT 2 SO TRUE LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Eric Prime]

For all you WB stans who love yourself some Potter, DC, Clint Eastwood, etc., please contribute to the Top 100 Warner Bros. Movies countdown. You have until June 4 to submit a list to me via PM, but this is a good reminder to get a start and catch up on the movies you love and begin marathoning the classics you haven't seen before.

 

 

[WeThrones]

7 hours ago, TheDude391 said:

This HP show is gonna get memoryholed like Rings of Power did.

This is a completely different situation because it is another adaptation of the iconic book series.

 

Attempts to do a "new story" would've flopped like The Rings of Power. Or Fantastic Beasts. 

 

Harry Potter Universe is not made to be expanded. Another adaptation is the only logical option. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by WeThrones

[grim22]

6 minutes ago, WeThrones said:

This is a completely different situation because it is another adaptation of the iconic book series.

 

Attempts to do a "new story" would've flopped like The Rings of Power. Or Fantastic Beasts. 

 

Harry Potter Universe is not made to be expanded. Another adaptation is the only logical option. 

The biggest issue I see is that the movies were the best possible adaptation, they included everything necessary and removed extraneous stuff and most importantly they got the casting so spot on that the actors became iconic for the roles. 

 

Casting and comparisons to the original cast will be the biggest hurdle this adaptation will have to overcome because anything less than stellar casting will have it feeling like a knockoff.

[John Marston]

wait is the show confirmed to be a reboot of the franchise? I had a strong feeling a reboot was the only option but I thought it would be with movies rather than TV

[WeThrones]

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

the movies were the best possible adaptation,

I disagree. Movies were never the right medium for this story. But back in 2001 that was the only option. 

 

Since Game of Thrones, Harry Potter fans hoped for something like this. This is going to be a massive hit.

I agree that casting will be a huge challenge, but I don't think something that can't solved. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by WeThrones

[WeThrones]

1 hour ago, John Marston said:

wait is the show confirmed to be a reboot of the franchise?

Yes. 7 seasons for 7 books. 

[robertman2]

there's nothing the show can really do to feel like anything other than a cheap knock off of the movies

[WittyUsername]

I’m pretty sure no one asked for a Harry Potter reboot, but a television reboot makes slightly more sense than doing it in movie form. 
 

I do have to wonder if this is desperation on Rowling’s part. Her company’s profits did take a massive hit recently. 

[Jonwo]

I've said this on the other thread but doing the list of 100 greatest WB films makes me realise how incredible their output have been over the last century and that extend to TV as well. 

 

Happy 100th WB!

[Mojoguy]

Harry Potter show is a perfect fit for HBO MAX.

 

It will go on for 7 seasons and the show will be relatively cheap because it will take place in a school location with no massive battles until the last year.

 

Also with it being 7 seasons, people will be subscribing for 7 years. Perfect fit for HBO MAX which desperately needs content!

[kayumanggi]

The movies also left out a lot from the books. I hope I'd still be alive when the series gets released. 😅

[Mojoguy]

39 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I do have to wonder if this is desperation on Rowling’s part. Her company’s profits did take a massive hit recently. 

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

 

Rowling

Lucas

Abrams

[excel1]

....where is potter 9 with the original trio!?!?

[WeThrones]

I don't think they want to work with Rowling anymore.

 

Fantastic Beasts is done. This is the only logical move when you think about it. If they do it right it can provide them a decade of content. 

 

I think it's easier to hire the great cast and make great sets, than to create an amazing story. Fantastic Beasts had a great cast, but the story was a problem.

 

Cursed Child wasn't popular either. 

 

Idk. I think there is a greater chance of this show being good than any sequel with the original trio, because the story just isn't there. 

[keysersoze123]

I think TV series based on these books make much better sense. Only concern is the budget. It wont be cheap but if they can reuse sets/props from the movies, it may not go that crazy. By the time they get to Book 4 I expect them to split them across multiple years :-)

[Jonwo]

I dispute that Cursed Child is unpopular, it's still running in the West End and on Broadway, it's very much a hit.

[ChipDerby]

If Rowling is profiting off this, I'll be avoiding it.

[WeThrones]

58 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

I dispute that Cursed Child is unpopular, it's still running in the West End and on Broadway, it's very much a hit.

The story is unpopular, the show is amazing I heard. But it wouldn't work as a movie. 

[dudalb]

5 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

I’m pretty sure no one asked for a Harry Potter reboot, but a television reboot makes slightly more sense than doing it in movie form. 
 

I do have to wonder if this is desperation on Rowling’s part. Her company’s profits did take a massive hit recently. 

I just think it's too soon for a new version of the books.

Yeah, the die hard Potter fans will watch, not so sure the casual fans.

It is just too soon for this.