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

[keysersoze123]

Stories themselves are not transphobic or anti-semitic. Its not as if JK lost all the fans. Her books are still selling. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11359165/Sales-Harry-Potter-books-soar-magically-despite-calls-boycott-JK-Rowling.html

 

 

[TMP]

2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable take. The simple fact is that the Wizarding World brand is tainted. There is a definite stigma associated with it at this point, regardless of where you stand on J.K. Rowling. 

a franchise which just had the highest grossing video game of the year and a billion dollar theme park is not tainted. You always have so much weird performative concern over this stuff lmao 

[WittyUsername]

6 minutes ago, TMP said:

a franchise which just had the highest grossing video game of the year and a billion dollar theme park is not tainted. You always have so much weird performative concern over this stuff lmao 

Did I claim the franchise isn’t still popular? I said it’s tainted because of the stigma associated with J.K. Rowling. Fox News and The Daily Wire are also popular. Does that mean they aren’t controversial? And what do you mean “performative?” I was making no personal judgments about Rowling or her views. I simply stated an objective fact. 
 

FYI, Rowling’s profits have actually plummeted recently. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by WittyUsername

[TMP]

1 minute ago, WittyUsername said:

Did I claim the franchise isn’t still popular? I said it’s tainted because of the stigma associated with J.K. Rowling. The Daily Wire is also popular. Does that mean it isn’t controversial? And what do you mean “performative?” I was making no personal statements about Rowling or her views. I simply stated an objective fact. 
 

FYI, Rowling’s profits have actually plummeted recently. 

I don't see how it's synonymous with "hate-mongering" like the tweet said, and I don't think the child actors cast are going to suddenly be accused of preaching the hateful ideals that the creator holds just for being cast.

[keysersoze123]

2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Did I claim the franchise isn’t still popular? I said it’s tainted because of the stigma associated with J.K. Rowling. The Daily Wire is also popular. Does that mean it isn’t controversial? And what do you mean “performative?” I was making no personal statements about Rowling or her views. I simply stated an objective fact. 
 

FYI, Rowling’s profits have actually plummeted recently. 

Obviously its well past era when the books were published. I am not sure how much "profit" she needs as she is sitting on 1.1B net worth at this point. I am saying stigma would preclude this series from succeeding even if there will be a vocal crowd against it. 

[John Marston]

14 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable take. The simple fact is that the Wizarding World brand is tainted. There is a definite stigma associated with it at this point, regardless of where you stand on J.K. Rowling. 

 

 

this isn’t true. The books, movies, theme parks, and now the video game are all doing incredibly well

 

 

the main issue is simply deciding how to create new content for the franchise and they seem to have decided a reboot is the best course of action. 

[WittyUsername]

 

8 minutes ago, TMP said:

I don't see how it's synonymous with "hate-mongering" like the tweet said, and I don't think the child actors cast are going to suddenly be accused of preaching the hateful ideals that the creator holds just for being cast.

I can’t speak for the person who posted the tweet, but again, I myself made no judgments about Rowling as a person. I shared the tweet because I felt it brought up a decent point about how the child actors who take part in the show may not realize what they’re getting into. 
 

8 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

Obviously its well past era when the books were published. I am not sure how much "profit" she needs as she is sitting on 1.1B net worth at this point. I am saying stigma would preclude this series from succeeding even if there will be a vocal crowd against it. 

I have no clue if the show will be successful or not. Maybe it’ll be the biggest hit in the history of the service. I don’t know. That’s irrelevant to whether or not the brand is controversial. Is Passion of the Christ not a controversial movie, just because it was extremely successful? 

Edited April 12, 2023 by WittyUsername

[Ken]

I might be the only one in the world who remembers this really old interview from 2010 where, around the 1:28 mark, Daniel Radcliffe joked at the prospect of Harry Potter eventually being remade, and scoffed at the idea of participating in it.

[excel1]

I think the series will likely be a pretty large hit TBH, IDK why everyone thinks it will be some instant failure.

 

That said...they must have tried to get the OG trio back for some films and failed, right? I can't imagine this direction was their first choice. 

[WittyUsername]

8 minutes ago, excel1 said:

I think the series will likely be a pretty large hit TBH, IDK why everyone thinks it will be some instant failure.

 

That said...they must have tried to get the OG trio back for some films and failed, right? I can't imagine this direction was their first choice. 

I’m sure Zaslav would’ve much preferred a sequel with the OG cast, but Rowling doesn’t seem to want that, and even if she did want it, there’s no guarantee the trio would even want to come back. 

[grim22]

1 minute ago, WittyUsername said:

I’m sure Zaslav would’ve much preferred a sequel with the OG cast, but Rowling doesn’t seem to want that, and even if she did want it, there’s no guarantee the trio would even want to come back. 

I think it's pretty inevitable that a sequel with the original trio will happen within the next 5 years. 15-20 years is pretty much the right nostalgia line where the original fans can take their kids to the theater. The 3 actors alone will cost like 60M+ to the budget before anything else but that's probably the most worthwhile investment ever.

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, TMP said:

a franchise which just had the highest grossing video game of the year and a billion dollar theme park is not tainted. You always have so much weird performative concern over this stuff lmao 

The franchsie is still popular, I just wonder if  a remake of the original novels not really all the long after the movies is a good idea.

[excel1]

44 minutes ago, grim22 said:

I think it's pretty inevitable that a sequel with the original trio will happen within the next 5 years. 15-20 years is pretty much the right nostalgia line where the original fans can take their kids to the theater. The 3 actors alone will cost like 60M+ to the budget before anything else but that's probably the most worthwhile investment ever.

 

I feel like a film with the OT launching while this series is underway would make no sense to anyone. 

[Ozymandias]

38 minutes ago, grim22 said:

I think it's pretty inevitable that a sequel with the original trio will happen within the next 5 years. 15-20 years is pretty much the right nostalgia line where the original fans can take their kids to the theater. The 3 actors alone will cost like 60M+ to the budget before anything else but that's probably the most worthwhile investment ever.

 

Two different sets of actors playing the same characters in the same IP in different projects at the same time would be funny but that's where we're headed in what has become such an overly franchise dependent industry.  It's already happening soon with Amazon and WB in their dueling Tolkien content.

[TMP]

8 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

Two different sets of actors playing the same characters in the same IP in different projects at the same time would be funny but that's where we're headed in what has become such an overly franchise dependent industry.  It's already happening soon with Amazon and WB in their dueling Tolkien content.

even outside of that we have 3 different actors lined up for batman in upcoming movies (4 if affleck's cameo counts)

[WeThrones]

The problem with the original trio returning for a sequel is that there is no story there to tell. It would be like Star Wars sequel trilogy but even worse.

 

 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

26 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I’m sure Zaslav would’ve much preferred a sequel with the OG cast, but Rowling doesn’t seem to want that, and even if she did want it, there’s no guarantee the trio would even want to come back. 

I agree, Daniel, Rupert and Emma made bank from the movies/residuals, it's not like they were on some Saturday morning teen show and were broke/washed up at 25. AFAIK, they haven't lost all their fortunes through bad drug problems/investments/expensive divorces, like a lot of actors who grudgingly revisted their most iconic roles. Daniel has carved out a career on stage and pops up often enough in movies, Rupert seems to be a muse for M Night Shyamalan, and Emma is practically retired from acting. Maybe when they're 40s-50s and if their other options have dried up, they'd come back to playing the Trio but IMO we're not there yet. That's not even getting into the JK Rowling of it all...

 

Other actors from the series would probably be a bit more amenable to Potter 9 right now, but maybe WB doesn't have the same faith in Harry Potter Presents: Neville vs Draco...

[Jonwo]

The  Potter series won't arrive until 2025 at the earliest, that means that'll be 24 years since the first HP film and in terms of time between new adaptations, it's a decent length. Great Expectations is adapted every decade and no one bats an eyelid. 

 

 

[AMC Theaters Enjoyer]

Something that got overlooked in the Creature Commandos news from earlier is that it's launching next year. Kinda surprised cause it seemed like DC was mostly taking 2024 off save for Joker 2 & The Penguin (and I guess Sandman S2 but most people don't know that's DC) and were gonna have their big cinematic relaunch for 2025. Personally I woulda kept it until then to give the new DCU some breathing room from the old DCEU (esp depending on how the rest of this year's movies are recieved).

[filmlover]

8 hours ago, AJG said:

I wouldn't wish a 10 year commitment on anyone let alone a child.

To be fair, there wasn't any guarantee that Radcliffe/Watson/Grint/the other child actors would stick around for the whole series when they were cast back in 2000 either (heck, one of the bombshells in that reunion special was that Watson wanted to leave the franchise at one point) and look what ended up happening there. That said, the people behind the movies were in a different position than those behind this series since they didn't know when the first movie was given the green light how the story would ultimately end (only the first three books out of the seven had been published when Sorcerer's Stone was given the go-ahead, with the rest being written/released as the movie series was ongoing), so all it would've taken was for one of those to collapse and render the possibility of any recasting scenarios moot.