Ignoring the Rowling assholery, wasn’t the point of the show to be closer to the books?
Mind you, I’m fine with significant reframing of characters in that way, it just runs contrary to making a show that’s always going to be compared unfavorably to the movies, if they aren’t going to serve the book experience. Like, what’s the point? Hoping nostalgia will bring viewers that also happen to be fan fic fans and aren’t going to knee jerk whine about changing genders and races?
Even if I had been interested in retreading the same ground this soon, this seems really stupid.
Nobody asked, but the first movie came out in 2001, which was 25 years ago. The time between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace was 16 years. Indiana Jones 4 was 19 years after The Last Crusade. Gladiator II was 24 years after Gladiator, and people were asking why bother after such a long time. “Oh, but the most recent one came out way later than 2001!” Yep. 2011. 15 years ago. It’s older than Gangnam Style.
I’m not that interested in this new Potter show, but let’s not pretend that the movies just came out a couple years ago. Time is just speeding by. You didn’t have back pain when you first saw quidditch on the big screen, but you do now.
The difference is that those were sequels, whereas this is a remake. Would you want The Lord of the Rings remade? It’s been about the same amount of time. Maybe that’s a bad example though because they’re trying to milk that franchise too and fans are pretty meh on it.
Honestly I don’t want anything remade. It was made, and it was good enough. Time to move on. It reminds me of an interview with Danny Elfman, some young guy was trying to be flattering by asking “do you plan on releasing a remaster of that album?” In his head he was asking “are you gonna cash in on your lasting popularity?” But instead the temperature in the room dropped ten degrees in an instant and Elfman responded, “what wrong with the master?” Wish I could remember what interview that was.
Fan or not, you can see his point, though. Any remake immediately puts the original on trial, and must be able to make the case for itself. We don’t need generational remakes of every mythos with any cultural efficacy, any more than a good album needs a remaster.
I generally agree with you, with one caveat. When a visual version of a book does not treat its source material with respect, and it’s a source material I love, then I’m okay with trying again. Some could make the case for HP falling into this category, I guess. But I’m thinking more along the lines of Disney’s Black Cauldron, an unholy mashup of the first two books of a series I adore, that not only disrespected its source material but straight up changed basically all of it. I would love to see a faithful adaptation some day but I suspect I never will, so I’ll keep rereading it every ten years or so instead.
Remaking things that were originally visual media, though? Or remaking anything in the same format it appeared in originally? I tend to agree with you. Extend the story instead if you must; skip the rehash. And we’ve seen the trap that these mega-franchises get into when they can’t escape what they see as the gravitational pull of the original.
I’ve been meaning to read that series. I was always drawn to that movie, I loved how dark and compelling that world was but even as a kid I felt the story itself had issues. I didn’t even find out it was based on a book until a couple years ago.
I generally agree but there is a counterpoint that could be regarded, too: younger generations have different consumption habits than their predecessors and an effort to make art accessible to a new audience is IMHO a commendable effort.
Now, that is not an argument for the new HP show (I’d love to see that franchise go to ruins and the abyss of irrelevance together with its awful creator), just a general thought I have when talking about remakes, continuation, new adaptation etc.
Progressing technology and changing habits impact different media differently, and there is a general spectrum from books (or written storytelling, generally least affected) to video games (generally most affected). Especially the latter has gone through enormous changes over the last three decades alone and I often wish there were more actual remakes of older games I never got to play but really don’t feel like playing now because really outdated graphics and awkward controls are somewhat repelling.
And for movies and TV you can see a shift, too. I don’t think The Lord of the Rings would have been made today like it was in the early 2000s and some movies (often adapting other media, but that’s a different discussion) are already readapted into a more serialised storytelling for streaming instead of cinematic movies (e.g. Snowpiercer or Percy Jackson) while Disney is producing life action remakes of their animated catalogue.
That does not mean there is anything wrong with the source material, it just means a story is made accessible for a wider audience. Is the motivation for that a capitalism driven greed for money? Yes it is. Would these adaptations still happen in a world where artists would not be objected to monetary pressure? I do think so. Maybe not to the extend we see in our world, but maybe just with a different focus.
For sure that can make sense, but when tastes have changed enough to warrant a remake, I could just as easily file that under “making a case for itself”. Just like how history books have to be constantly rewritten not just to incorporate new findings, but to continually be the translation layer between how people back then understood things and how contemporary readers understand the world. History books are not a mere tome of facts, but a deliberately crafted lens to account for past fuzziness and present distortions. In the same way, I can see last year’s Frankenstein film as a fresh and valuable take on the old story. Remakes aren’t inherently bad, but like I said, they do put prior installations on trial. That can be a good thing!
Ignoring the Rowling assholery, wasn’t the point of the show to be closer to the books?
Mind you, I’m fine with significant reframing of characters in that way, it just runs contrary to making a show that’s always going to be compared unfavorably to the movies, if they aren’t going to serve the book experience. Like, what’s the point? Hoping nostalgia will bring viewers that also happen to be fan fic fans and aren’t going to knee jerk whine about changing genders and races?
Even if I had been interested in retreading the same ground this soon, this seems really stupid.
Nobody asked, but the first movie came out in 2001, which was 25 years ago. The time between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace was 16 years. Indiana Jones 4 was 19 years after The Last Crusade. Gladiator II was 24 years after Gladiator, and people were asking why bother after such a long time. “Oh, but the most recent one came out way later than 2001!” Yep. 2011. 15 years ago. It’s older than Gangnam Style.
I’m not that interested in this new Potter show, but let’s not pretend that the movies just came out a couple years ago. Time is just speeding by. You didn’t have back pain when you first saw quidditch on the big screen, but you do now.
Lmmfao.
I was a nurse’s assistant. I’ve had back pain since the mid nineties
I’m not ready for this truth.
The difference is that those were sequels, whereas this is a remake. Would you want The Lord of the Rings remade? It’s been about the same amount of time. Maybe that’s a bad example though because they’re trying to milk that franchise too and fans are pretty meh on it.
Good point.
Honestly I don’t want anything remade. It was made, and it was good enough. Time to move on. It reminds me of an interview with Danny Elfman, some young guy was trying to be flattering by asking “do you plan on releasing a remaster of that album?” In his head he was asking “are you gonna cash in on your lasting popularity?” But instead the temperature in the room dropped ten degrees in an instant and Elfman responded, “what wrong with the master?” Wish I could remember what interview that was.
Fan or not, you can see his point, though. Any remake immediately puts the original on trial, and must be able to make the case for itself. We don’t need generational remakes of every mythos with any cultural efficacy, any more than a good album needs a remaster.
I generally agree with you, with one caveat. When a visual version of a book does not treat its source material with respect, and it’s a source material I love, then I’m okay with trying again. Some could make the case for HP falling into this category, I guess. But I’m thinking more along the lines of Disney’s Black Cauldron, an unholy mashup of the first two books of a series I adore, that not only disrespected its source material but straight up changed basically all of it. I would love to see a faithful adaptation some day but I suspect I never will, so I’ll keep rereading it every ten years or so instead.
Remaking things that were originally visual media, though? Or remaking anything in the same format it appeared in originally? I tend to agree with you. Extend the story instead if you must; skip the rehash. And we’ve seen the trap that these mega-franchises get into when they can’t escape what they see as the gravitational pull of the original.
I’ve been meaning to read that series. I was always drawn to that movie, I loved how dark and compelling that world was but even as a kid I felt the story itself had issues. I didn’t even find out it was based on a book until a couple years ago.
I generally agree but there is a counterpoint that could be regarded, too: younger generations have different consumption habits than their predecessors and an effort to make art accessible to a new audience is IMHO a commendable effort.
Now, that is not an argument for the new HP show (I’d love to see that franchise go to ruins and the abyss of irrelevance together with its awful creator), just a general thought I have when talking about remakes, continuation, new adaptation etc.
Progressing technology and changing habits impact different media differently, and there is a general spectrum from books (or written storytelling, generally least affected) to video games (generally most affected). Especially the latter has gone through enormous changes over the last three decades alone and I often wish there were more actual remakes of older games I never got to play but really don’t feel like playing now because really outdated graphics and awkward controls are somewhat repelling.
And for movies and TV you can see a shift, too. I don’t think The Lord of the Rings would have been made today like it was in the early 2000s and some movies (often adapting other media, but that’s a different discussion) are already readapted into a more serialised storytelling for streaming instead of cinematic movies (e.g. Snowpiercer or Percy Jackson) while Disney is producing life action remakes of their animated catalogue.
That does not mean there is anything wrong with the source material, it just means a story is made accessible for a wider audience. Is the motivation for that a capitalism driven greed for money? Yes it is. Would these adaptations still happen in a world where artists would not be objected to monetary pressure? I do think so. Maybe not to the extend we see in our world, but maybe just with a different focus.
For sure that can make sense, but when tastes have changed enough to warrant a remake, I could just as easily file that under “making a case for itself”. Just like how history books have to be constantly rewritten not just to incorporate new findings, but to continually be the translation layer between how people back then understood things and how contemporary readers understand the world. History books are not a mere tome of facts, but a deliberately crafted lens to account for past fuzziness and present distortions. In the same way, I can see last year’s Frankenstein film as a fresh and valuable take on the old story. Remakes aren’t inherently bad, but like I said, they do put prior installations on trial. That can be a good thing!
But you could print more money. To platform more bigots.