News New Harry Potter Series Announced

[Oddish]

Yes. Early books had Americanized dialogue, most notably "Sorcerer's Stone" instead of "Philosopher's Stone", but also substituted "Mom" for "Mum", "sweater" for "jumper", et cetera. Later books didn’t bother with this.

If they do a reboot, I wouldn't be surprised if they use the British terms start to finish.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

"Sorcerer's Stone" is particularly annoying and invalid IMO* because it was made up by the US editors on a whim, whereas the Philosopher's Stone is a real concept that the fictional one jn the story at least resembles.

* Except when referring only to changes from the original text in the US market.

 

[Oddish]

"Sorcerer's Stone" is particularly annoying and invalid IMO* because it was made up by the US editors on a whim, whereas the Philosopher's Stone is a real concept that the fictional one jn the story at least resembles.

It would be fine with me if they did.

 

[bdub76]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

John Lithgow confirms he will play Dumbledore in the ‘HARRY POTTER’ series.“It's going to define me for the last chapter of my life... I'll be about 87 years old at the wrap party, but I've said yes”

Dumbledore actors always die. I doubt he'll make it to 87. It's a cursed role.

 

[Oddish]

Dumbledore actors always die.

Because Dumbledore is 117 years old, and they hire old guys to play him.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, probably not; both were adapted reasonably faithfully the first time. Later books had to be severely hacked and slashed to fit a 2.5-hour running time.

Yeah, you're right. That I could see, and that's where a series giving them more time would be beneficial. At the same time, it presents a conundrum. Because you can't just adapt the later books.

Which is why I'm in favour of doing something new altogether. Either do something set after Harry's time, or before, but don't simply retread.

 

[Gaith]

Dumbledore actors always die. I doubt he'll make it to 87. It's a cursed role.

Er, what? If the movies had cast Gambon straight away, they'd have been fine.

For example, Order of the Phoenix (the longest book) is nearly three and a half times longer than Philosopher's Stone but almost ten per cent less runtime.

It was also by far the worst book, and justly earned its ruthless trimming.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Yeah, you're right. That I could see, and that's where a series giving them more time would be beneficial. At the same time, it presents a conundrum. Because you can't just adapt the later books.

The thing is... a big part of the reason why the later books are longer is because they actually tell a full years narrative.

Philosopher's Stone spends the first 5 chapters on introduction, then the next 5 on the first two months of narrative (mostly the first two weeks or so actually), the next 5 skimming over the next five to six months of narrative, then the last 2 chapters on the climax and a little bit of aftermath (though this at least a week shorter than later books suggest it should be), so there's plenty room to expand on the story and explore other narrative of the main and recurring characters as tv series often do.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

It was also by far the worst book, and justly earned its ruthless trimming.

To a certain extent, but when "trimming" cuts out entire character arcs (and indeed a character or two), and substantially changes several plotlines, then I question whether there might be a "happy medium" between the two.

I personally think that Prisoner of Azkaban probably gets the length about right and is the better book for it.

 

[Owain Taggart]

The thing is... a big part of the reason why the later books are longer is because they actually tell a full years narrative.

Good point. So essentially, a season could represent an entire year, give or take.

Another reason for the lengths is that readers essentially grew with the books, getting more and more complex as they went along, and I would say that was intentional on the part of Rowling. They changed as the readers changed, more or less. By the time the final book came out, readers didn't blink at the size of the tome as they were avid readers.

 

[Oddish]

It was also by far the worst book, and justly earned its ruthless trimming.

Really. It took me three days to claw through all the angst. Books 4, 6, and 7, it was "buy at midnight, read until 4 AM, sleep a few hours, read the rest of it, done by mid-afternoon."

The movie wasn't bad, though.

 

[Gaith]

The big question here is whether people will get fired up to revisit a story many of them have already read and seen. The Lord of the Rings movies were based on old books, but they'd never been adapted to live-action before, and they had a groundbreakings scale. Game of Thrones probably benefited from the endpoint not being known even to those who'd read the extant books. And the Potter series benefited enormously by having books and movies releasing concurrently, with the last movie coming out just four years after the last book. People genuinely wondered if Harry would survive the big finale.

But now we know how it all ends, and we know that, contrary to what Dumbledore promised, the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang and other magical societies didn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things. Umbridge didn't amount to nil, and Snape and his obsession with Harry barely moved the needle. In the end, all that really mattered was breaking a few horcruxes scattered here and there, and a big fight that Harry won in large part on a technicality about Elder Wand nonsense. The house-elves, Sirius Black, Lupin the werewolf, Hagrid's giant relatives, the still-alive Grindelwald, Dumbledore's brother, Quidditch, Harry and Ginny's "romance"... all pretty much irrelevant by the time of the big fight, which doesn't even take place anywhere other than the same place 95% of the series takes place. It all boils down to a Voldy vs. Harry duel, and a crucial technicality.

Will audiences really be jazzed to go through all of that nonsense again?

 

[Oddish]

Will audiences really be jazzed to go through all of that nonsense again?

That's... a good question, actually.

As I was a mod on a community for Potterheads, a big part of our discussion was speculation about what lay ahead. The community declined after Book 7 came out, and pretty well died when the last movies. By the end, I felt like the security guard in an abandoned shopping mall.

Maybe "Fantastic Beasts" was on the right track... new Potterverse stories are the way forward.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Maybe "Fantastic Beasts" was on the right track... new Potterverse stories are the way forward.

IDK, Fantastic Beasts got a lot of the same negativity in terms of "why are they telling this story" as the HBO remake is, and IMO any show using the IP will suffer due to JKR being a lot more controversial and divisive than she used to be (not that she hasn't always been to an extent).

 

[Oddish]

I know why she's controversial now, but what was she controversial for before? Blasting Donald Trump on Twitter?

15 of the most brutal J.K. Rowling Twitter shutdowns of 2017

Wands at the ready.

mashable.com

(Post edited for clarity)

 

[Gaith]

The problem with Harry Potter as a fictional universe is it's a narrative dead end. There's no real science, art, or innovation... you just go to school, learn some spells and potions, and then hide away in cozy comfort from the rest of the world. You either become a teacher, a cop, a bureaucrat, or a low-level service industry worker.

And then there's the core worldbuilding problem, which is that other nations' magical societies apparently don't really care about each other. Wizarding Britain is taken over by a murderous dictator, and not only do other nations not intervene, they don't even remotely figure into the story. This keeps the story insular and intimate, but also wildly limits almost any other political story.

The only real way for the franchise to innovate would be to have the wizarding world reveal itself and start integrating into the real world, but that would reshape the narrative fundamentals so thoroughly it's dubious fans would accept such a story.

It's a world that makes for a few charming kids' books about kids, and that's about it.

 

[Oddish]

And then there's the core worldbuilding problem, which is that other nations' magical societies apparently don't really care about each other. Wizarding Britain is taken over by a murderous dictator, and not only do other nations not intervene, they don't even remotely figure into the story. This keeps the story insular and intimate, but also wildly limits almost any other political story.

JKR took some pains to keep her character count down. I mean as far as we know, there were only eight Gryffindors in Harry's year (Harry, Ron, Neville, Sean, Seamus, Hermione, Lavender, and Parvati). Based on Rowling's latest student count data (Hogwarts has 600 students), there should have been about 21.

In addition to that, she seems to have trouble writing successful romances. I mean, how many scenes did Harry and Ginny have together before getting together (three, none of them even slightly romantic). And Harry never has a romance he's really invested himself in go bad (despite that being a staple of teen life). He goes from Unsuccessful Date to Fizzled Crush to One True Love.

 

[suarezguy]

I think the movie series already adapted the story pretty thoroughly and well enough, they did miss a few nice/good scenes, aspects but the only one that felt like just "collection of scenes" was HBP (and OTOH DH1 then felt a little too having, doing absolutely everything). And really don't see how other actors could be better than Rickman, Coltrane, Smith.

While this doesn't seem to have much point, I think it's probably better idea than just doing series about the Marauders, don't really get their popularity, doing that sounds like just doing the Trio again but Cooler, Like Fred and George(!), as much or more retread.

we know that, contrary to what Dumbledore promised, the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang and other magical societies didn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things. Umbridge didn't amount to nil, and Snape and his obsession with Harry barely moved the needle. In the end, all that really mattered was breaking a few horcruxes scattered here and there, and a big fight that Harry won in large part on a technicality about Elder Wand nonsense. The house-elves, Sirius Black, Lupin the werewolf, Hagrid's giant relatives, the still-alive Grindelwald, Dumbledore's brother, Quidditch, Harry and Ginny's "romance"... all pretty much irrelevant by the time of the big fight, which doesn't even take place anywhere other than the same place 95% of the series takes place. It all boils down to a Voldy vs. Harry duel, and a crucial technicality.

Will audiences really be jazzed to go through all of that nonsense again?

I think a lot of people enjoy and focus on the character relationships and also themes more than just the plot-conflict and outcome, I still care about Lupin and Sirius, to extent Quidditch, the relationship with Ginny, still find the House-Elves fairly interesting, though I never did care about the other giants.

 

[Set Harth]

I know why she's controversial now, but what was she controversial for before?

Same thing.

It's not "Trump supporters" burning her books, despite desperate spin on the part of "mashable".

 

[Oddish]

It's not "Trump supporters" burning her books, despite desperate spin on the part of "mashable".

Check the date on that mashable post: it was written in 2017. The first allegations of transphobia against Rowling didn't come into existence until 2019, when she proclaimed support for a woman who had been fired for allegedly transphobic comments.

There was no desperate spin in that article because no spinning was needed.