TV/Movies Megathread

[Barrister]

She was pretty involved in the original movies as well.

My problem with JK as a steward of her own world is that she is the literary George Lucas, she is always going back and retroactively changing her original materials and almost always makes it stupider. Nagini the snake being an actual person comes to mind. So as much as doing a small screen version of the books to let the plots and characters breath a little it could easily be a trainwreck just because of her tendency to do that sort of thing.

But hey no matter what happens the original films and books will always exist.

My point was that she's become persona non grata to certain online activists...

But yes she keeps re-writing and re-interpreting.  Like how she just suddenly decided Dumbledore was gay, despite being no hint of it in the text of the books.  I have nothing against him being gay, it was just such an obvious ret-con.

[Josquius]

I dunno on the dumbledore gay thing.
There was no sign he had ANY sexuality. Being gay is just as valid there as straight.
 And a lonely elderly gay guy whose prime was in the days of zero tolerance, had one love and lost him, is kind of a cliche she could have been channeling.

But yes. The snake as a woman is WTF. There it being a snake or a woman are not equally valid possibilities.

[Valmy]

She was pretty involved in the original movies as well.

My problem with JK as a steward of her own world is that she is the literary George Lucas, she is always going back and retroactively changing her original materials and almost always makes it stupider. Nagini the snake being an actual person comes to mind. So as much as doing a small screen version of the books to let the plots and characters breath a little it could easily be a trainwreck just because of her tendency to do that sort of thing.

But hey no matter what happens the original films and books will always exist.

My point was that she's become persona non grata to certain online activists...

But yes she keeps re-writing and re-interpreting.  Like how she just suddenly decided Dumbledore was gay, despite being no hint of it in the text of the books.  I have nothing against him being gay, it was just such an obvious ret-con.

Yeah well that's twitter brain. Yes she apparently sucks politically but it all seems to be related to her early life trauma, nobody is perfect. But if she was still making great Harry Potter content instead of shitty movies (ok the first Fantastic Beasts was...ok) and mediocre plays and bad retcons only a tiny group would care that much.

Dumbledore being gay is only the beginning, and actually that is one of the least problematic. And she always pretends that was what she was doing all along despite fans bringing up mountains of evidence in the text and other related materials she is lying. It is just weird, and as I said, makes it all stupider. If she was making interesting ret-cons that made it more compelling that would be one thing.

My confidence in her doing something really good these days is low. I will just say that.

[Gups]

Meh, the books were only ever ok kids/YA books. Not exactly sacrosanct literature. People get sucked into the world and then get semi-religious about it.

[Sheilbh]

I thought the play was pretty good

I mean it's not ground-breaking theatre. But I can't think of any spin-off play that is.

[Valmy]

Meh, the books were only ever ok kids/YA books. Not exactly sacrosanct literature. People get sucked into the world and then get semi-religious about it.

If you say so. I thought they were good.

I am not semi-religious about it, I have just observed her stuff after those books has been bad.

I don't get the weird accusations of religiousness just because I think some media is good and other media bad.

I thought the play was pretty good

I mean it's not ground-breaking theatre. But I can't think of any spin-off play that is.

Oh god, I thought it was wretched. But then most time travel plots are. The Prisoner of Azkaban kind of stood out for being a fun little time travel story.

But hey it is just my opinion. If you thought it was good, you thought it was good.

[Barrister]

Meh, the books were only ever ok kids/YA books. Not exactly sacrosanct literature. People get sucked into the world and then get semi-religious about it.

I think you and I were just too old when they came out.  My mother gave me the first three books for Christmas one year (all the ones that were out) - I was in my mid-20s.  I was surprised that I enjoyed them at all as they were kids books, but it was just mild enjoyment.

The ones that are super-dedicated to them are the kids that grew up with those books: the Millenials.

Incidentally my kids have zero interest in Harry Potter.  We tried watching the movies a couple of times, they just wandered away.  Never wanted to read the books (although they're pretty good readers).

[Gups]

Meh, the books were only ever ok kids/YA books. Not exactly sacrosanct literature. People get sucked into the world and then get semi-religious about it.

I think you and I were just too old when they came out.  My mother gave me the first three books for Christmas one year (all the ones that were out) - I was in my mid-20s.  I was surprised that I enjoyed them at all as they were kids books, but it was just mild enjoyment.

The ones that are super-dedicated to them are the kids that grew up with those books: the Millenials.

Incidentally my kids have zero interest in Harry Potter.  We tried watching the movies a couple of times, they just wandered away.  Never wanted to read the books (although they're pretty good readers).

Sure, I'm the same. I enjoyed reading the books to my son and watching the films. They are skilfully constructed to build a world for kids and teenagers to buy into, which is fine. But 40 something's getting obsessed about changes in subsequent reiterations is kind of ridiculous to me.

Same applies to LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel etc. I guess I just flunked out at nerd academy.

[Josquius]

I was slightly too old for Harry Potter when it came out. I'd certainly long since moved onto more advanced stuff. I think it was only after the first film I read them. But they were pretty good light reads.

[Barrister]

Sure, I'm the same. I enjoyed reading the books to my son and watching the films. They are skilfully constructed to build a world for kids and teenagers to buy into, which is fine. But 40 something's getting obsessed about changes in subsequent reiterations is kind of ridiculous to me.

Same applies to LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel etc. I guess I just flunked out at nerd academy.

But see the first three I did grow up with.  I'm not a super-obsessive fan, but those franchises mean far more to me than Harry Potter ever will.  Never a big comic books guy either.

[Gups]

Meh, the books were only ever ok kids/YA books. Not exactly sacrosanct literature. People get sucked into the world and then get semi-religious about it.

If you say so. I thought they were good.

I am not semi-religious about it, I have just observed her stuff after those books has been bad.

I don't get the weird accusations of religiousness just because I think some media is good and other media bad.

Wasn't really aimed at you but people are weird about fantasy and sci-fi in a way they aren't about other forms of literature or film.

[Gups]

Sure, I'm the same. I enjoyed reading the books to my son and watching the films. They are skilfully constructed to build a world for kids and teenagers to buy into, which is fine. But 40 something's getting obsessed about changes in subsequent reiterations is kind of ridiculous to me.

Same applies to LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel etc. I guess I just flunked out at nerd academy.

But see the first three I did grow up with.  I'm not a super-obsessive fan, but those franchises mean far more to me than Harry Potter ever will.  Never a big comic books guy either.

I did too. I've read LOTR three times and I'm sure I'll read it again. I thought the Amazon series was pretty crap but my response is that I won't bother with subsequent series rather than taking it as a betrayal of my childhood

[Josephus]

I got into the Harry Potter books. I was fairly old but my niece and nephew were into them and I wanted to see what the fuss was about.  They were fun, though they had a tendency to be over long once the publishers stopped editing her. 

I thought the play, story wise, was fairly boring. I did enjoy it though. The effects were brilliant

I do really like the detective series she's writing under the Robert Galbraith pseudonym

Regarding the new Potter series. I'm interested but boy is it going to be tough to cast

[Crazy_Ivan80]

We'll see. Maybe it'll be something we can watch with the kids, since they've not shown much interest in the movies themselves and we only have the english versions of the books (instead of the dutch which they could already read). It's won't be a must though.

[garbon]

Meh, the books were only ever ok kids/YA books. Not exactly sacrosanct literature. People get sucked into the world and then get semi-religious about it.

I think you and I were just too old when they came out.  My mother gave me the first three books for Christmas one year (all the ones that were out) - I was in my mid-20s.  I was surprised that I enjoyed them at all as they were kids books, but it was just mild enjoyment.

The ones that are super-dedicated to them are the kids that grew up with those books: the Millenials.

Incidentally my kids have zero interest in Harry Potter.  We tried watching the movies a couple of times, they just wandered away.  Never wanted to read the books (although they're pretty good readers).

As a millenial, I was in the right age range initially. I think my family read at least the first 3 together. By the time of the 4th and certainly 5+, I'd aged out of the audience window and was no longer interested.

I did catch up and read them all for free on prime reading in my late 20s. I did not find them magical.