That's disappointing. Any casting of this show is going to leave me disappointed in certain people.
News New Harry Potter Series Announced
- Thread starter Eckauskas
- Start date
It seems an odd choice, but as much as I like John Lithgow, I'm willing to give him a shot. He does have a pretty convincing English accent.
The entire casting of this show will be under deep scrutiny. There will never be another Alan Rickman, Dame Maggie Smith or Robbie Coltrane.
The main three will be tough too. Critics were pretty savage to Daniel Radcliffe at first, but he grew to own the role.
The entire casting of this show will be under deep scrutiny. There will never be another Alan Rickman, Dame Maggie Smith or Robbie Coltrane.
The main three will be tough too. Critics were pretty savage to Daniel Radcliffe at first, but he grew to own the role.
True, but for the wrong reasons.
There's The Worst Witch book series the first of which was published in the 1970s.
Ok, but still not a very common setting, no?
That IP spawned a funny Fairuza Balk made-for-HBO adventure, and later at least two separate TV series.
This project strikes me as a disastrous idea on all kinds of levels, and I honestly hope it tanks. It might have a shot at (relative) greatness if they killed Harry in the S1 finale, and rewrote the rest of the series with Hermione as the protagonist, and Neville filling out the trio, but that obviously won't happen.
Lithgow may get an advantage in that Richard Harris was too old and frail to play Dumbledore in the first movie, let alone the second, so he's the only one not almost certainly doomed to be compared negatively to the old cast. But for all the others... yeesh.
Lithgow may get an advantage in that Richard Harris was too old and frail to play Dumbledore in the first movie, let alone the second, so he's the only one not almost certainly doomed to be compared negatively to the old cast. But for all the others... yeesh.
What's the problem with Harry? I understand (though don't share) the issues some people have with the creator of the series, but she created Neville and Hermione as well.
Granted, it could make for a fun what-if scenario in the universe. They could even go further by saying Harry had never been born, therefore a different someone had to take his place.
True enough. And I like your idea in general, otherwise they're just retreading with a new coat of paint, which is highly risky given how popular the movies were.
In a sense, you're preaching to the choir. In "GPers", a massive HP fanfiction project I was a part of years ago, I had my character end up in an alternate universe where Harry was dead: Voldemort had spared Lily, denying Harry the protection of her love. He killed Harry easily enough, and continued in his takeover of society. Nearly everyone's life was darker for it, though (strange irony) my character's counterpart actually had a better childhood than he did.
Sounds like another major fantasy series that completely shattered expectations that way. No names or spoilers, of course.
Interesting. I do think the wizarding world is a big enough IP to venture out of its comfort zone. I don't see any real value in just redoing the movies at this juncture.
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.
Philosopher's Stone.
Deathly Hallows faired reasonably well in that sense, it was Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince that particularly suffered in that sense.
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.
By contrast, Deathly Hallows had a little over two-and-a-half times the word count of Philosopher's Stone and a little less than twice the runtime across the two movies.
Similar threads
