**Reminder about Diversity Discussion:**
Let's keep discussions respectful: Comments questioning diversity in casting or using terms like 'forced diversity' may be subject to removal or a ban if this behavior persists. We won't allow:
- Criticizing diversity in official casting news or fancasts.
- Labeling the show as 'woke.'
- Disrespecting actors or dismissing fancasts based on race.
Remember, if you see offending content, please report and don't engage with the user and start arguments. Otherwise, you may also be subject to a ban. Please remember to discuss with civility. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HarryPotteronHBO) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A retcon means you change information that had already been established. Adding new information and expanding the story and characters are NOT retcons.
Dumblebore being gay is not an "edit" or a "retcon", it's literally just adding more information that wasn't revealed in the story. It's only a retcon if the original story established that he was straight, which it didn't. The hints to him being gay were also obvious in book 7 to anyone with a bit of discernment.
Showing more of McGonagall's past is also not a retcon or edit, again, it's just expanding the character. (Her teaching at Hogwarts in 1937 in Fantastic Beasts IS a retcon, however, as book 5 established her age). Nagini's story is also not a retcon. It's adding detail that wasn't there. It's not incompatible with anything in the 7 books. People may not like that Nagini is a Maledictus, but it's not a retcon. The "wizards used to vanish their poop" is also not a retcon, as it was never established that wizards *didn't* used to vanish their poop. I get that people didn't like it, but that doesn't make it a retcon.
Saying these things are "edits" or "retcons" is like saying Snape loved Lily, revealed in book 7, is a retcon, because books 1-6 didn't tell us Snape loved Lily. No, it's just revealing new information.
Words the internet has ruined:
- Retcon
Has been turned into "new information about this story or character that I didn't like"
- Uncanny valley
Has been turned into "bad CGI", when in reality, it specifically refers to a *face* that almost looks like a human face, but not quite. It only refers to humanoid faces.
- Objectively
Has been turned into "in my opinion". People will say "this piece of art is objectively bad" (art can't be objectively good or bad) just because they cannot handle the fact that other people disagree with them, so they pretend their opinion is "objective"
They said “retcons and edits”.
And calling them “edits” is perfectly reasonable, given how much of Pottermore has a clear ancestry in fan fiction and fan theories discussing things JK Rowling clearly had never thought about at the time of writing.
She isn’t editing the original text, but she’s clearly editing the world, by taking things that, again, she clearly never thought about before fans started discussing them & coopting her favorite theories.
I don't know about Credence as I've forgotten all of Fantastic Beasts 2 and didn't bother to watch 3. Something about him being a Dumbledore?
Is there anything established about Dumbledore in books 1-7 that contradicts Credence's story?
Not technically it's just weird. Book 7 really delves into the dumbledore family. If he existed in the books, it would be weird for it not to be mentioned he existed.
Especially like Arianna, he also was obscurus.
And I'm not saying it contradicts. I'm just wondering if a reference or two would be added about him.
I don't mean to spoil anything, but yes, he is a dumbledore thought I won't spoiler how.
Just random theorizing
I'm spoiling things to explain. If you don't want to know how credence is a Dumbledore stop reading.
There are several reasons for it to not be mentioned in the book, and why it might not be carried to the show. First and foremost we learn about Albus's past, not his brother's or the Dumbledore's as a whole. The book that Harry reads that details those events is focused solely on Albus. Yes we do get information about the fight that happened between all 3 of the boys, including both Dumbledore brothers that resulted in Ariana's death, but we don't know what Aberforth does before or after all of that. We know he eventually ends up as the bar keep at hogs head, but other than that nothing about what he does, or who he spent his time with is mentioned in the main books. The only reason we get as much information about him as we do is, because his presence, and subsequently Ariana's death, during the fight with Grindelwald are extremely huge motivating factors that led Albus to being who he was in the present day. And the reason why is pretty simple, the only details that mattered about him to the story at that time was that he's the hogs head barkeep and the fact that hes Albus's brother explains why hed be willing to help the students. Nothing else about Aberforth specifically matters to Harry's point of view, or the story that was being told in the present day, and when he told Harry of the fight with Grindelwald he only did so to highlight the worst part of Albus's history because he was trying to deter Harry from continuing the mission. In truth, Harry still hardly knew anything about the Dumbledore's and everything he did know was almost solely focused on Albus.
Second, the Dumbledores are described as being very secretive, a nature taught to them by their mother with the intention of protecting Ariana. Albus for sure displays those secretive qualities still, well into his later life. Aberforth very well could've as well, and kept Credence's existence relatively quiet so as to protect him in the same manner he'd been taught to protect his sister.
Edited: spelling
Regardless, none of that was in the Harry Potter books or really relevant, so I would imagine it wouldn't be in a show thats supposed to be a faithful adaptation of the Harry Potter books.
I know itbwas just a question.
My thoughts was it was in the greater Wizarding world and she might make references to them. Nothing big of course.
But like referencing albus has a nephew or somwthing
I can imagine that they throw in some Pottermore info in the show, escpecially in the first seasons, since those books are not so extensive. Maybe they'll do a The Last of Us "Frank/Bill "episode kind of thing with some background stories, but I'm not sure if that's necessary.
Thank God.
Have you seen what happened to The Witcher on Netflix, whose writers mocked the source material, ignored the author and thought they could "improve" his books?
Have you seen what's happened to Star Wars post-George Lucas?
Rings of Power, which was made with zero knowledge of or respect for Tolkien's writings?
Yes, JKR is not a good screenwriter. But at least we know it will be faithful to the books, and not """improved""" by some incompetent, arrogant showrunner like the franchises mentioned above.
She had pretty much nothing to do with Hogwarts Legacy and that was excellent. The new perspective that the fresh eyes brought made for some awesome moments. I agree with what you’re saying about those shows, but HP has already proven itself with new people and JK has proven herself with The Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts. I’d rather compare it to what’s happening in its own franchise than others when there’s so much there already
> She had pretty much nothing to do with Hogwarts Legacy and that was excellent.
Was it? The story was pretty meh. I don't even remember it, honestly. The good parts of it was literally all due to her universe (the magic, Deathly Hallows quest, exploring Hogwarts and Hogsmeade, etc.). It was good in every area that was directly faithful to JKRs work, and mediocre in the areas where it was original. IMO
> HP has already proven itself with new people
Are you talking about the movies? She was involved in the 8 movies. Without her involvement, they may have been set in the US with an american cast. They may have been 3D animated and directed by Steven Spielberg. It's because of her putting her foot down that we got the British, live-action HP movies that we did.
I agree that FB wasn't good. But it was mostly due to bad pacing, and her packing too much into too little time. If they were books, they probably would be fine.
It sounds like you agree with me then that the makers of the game had absolute respect for her universe, which I thought was your point about Witcher, Rings of Power etc?
And I wasn’t referring to the movies, sorry if that was confusing, it was in reference to my point about the game having fresh eyes but the new HP media involving JK not living up to expectations
You're right, they had a respect for her books (mostly) and that's why it was good
My point is that without her involvement as an executive producer, and if Warner Bros was then entirely in charge of the production, there's a very real risk they'll get producers, writers and a showrunner who does not care about her books, and maybe even someone who *resents* JKR and her work. They might make changes out of their resentment
(This is what happened with the Witcher, Star Wars and Rings of Power - they actively resented the author and their work)
Studio executives are notorious for being very bad at understand their own franchises. They do not care. They never learn the right lessons. Star Wars has been garbage for a decade, and Disney *still* refuses to learn why and fix the problems.
Yeah, it’s definitely something to worry about. I suppose a best case scenario for me would be that she helps pick the right people to make sure they are fans of the source material, but stays away from the scripts?
I think that's what's happening. She's not working as a writer on this. Executive producers sometimes do A LOT of work, but other times, they barely do anything and simply get a title. Regardless, she has the power to decide literally anything, if she wants to use that power
I mean, HL is a great game, but it would make a boring ass tv show. The problem with Fantastic Beasts is that there's no Harry Potter. The problem with Cursed Child is that it was fanfiction some playwrights wrote that JK just signed off on. That's literally it. She did not write Cursed Child, she just approved it. Did you watch the Harry Potter movies? Because she'll have about the same involvement as she did with those, and we'll also get an HBO budget and production level.
I think you tried to make the point that different mediums matter there, which I also agree with. In saying that, TV is different from movies, and one thing I’m worried about is that it could end up like Marvel shows where they feel like a movie that’s been stretched out. If she can find writers who understand TV as well as being fans of HP, and she trusts them enough to do for TV what the Legacy makers did for video games, then I think we’re in for a belter
No. Jack Thorne and Tiffany wrote the story and presented the idea to her for approval. Her name being listed first is both a marketing ploy, and probably a requirement since it's her IP.
I’m pretty sure I read that the 3 of them came up with a treatment in her writers room? Even then there’s quotes from Jack Thorne saying she gave notes on everything and steered them in the right direction - that’s quite far from ‘nothing to do with it…literally at all’?
Thorn and Tiffany wrote the treatment and the whole script. Not Rowling. She may have made suggestions when they presented the treatment to her, but they wrote the treatment first, and wrote the entirety of the script. Yes, Rowling does certainly act like she was more involved form the very start, because it's her IP and she wanted to demonstrate absolute control over it, but when talk of the play first began, she didn't even know what the story was and directly stated it was a prequel surrounding Harry's childhood as an orphan, and then had to backtrack that when she realized it wasn't. If she had been involved in writing the original treatment and knew what the story was, she never would've made that claim.
"Rowling first revealed she was developing a Harry Potter prequel back in 2013 when she released a statement stating the play would 'explore the previously untold story of Harry’s early years as an orphan and outcast'"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150628212032/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-jk-rowling-play-telling-new-potter-story-coming-to-londons-west-end-in-2016-10347063.html
She may have been writing a story about that, so that may not be a false claim, but the storyline of Cursed Child is not that by any means.
And almost all the articles from around that time, including the one I linked, even state that the JTs wrote it and JKR would just be listed as a producer in the credits because it's her IP. It's only more recent articles that give her much more credit.
The prequels sucked ass, but not for the same reasons the Disney Star Wars do
The prequels had horrendous dialogue and a plot that was so boring you almost wanted to fall asleep. And embarassing CGI overuse.
But it understood what Star Wars *was about*, it understood the force, characters etc. The "spirit" was intact, so to speak.
Disney doesn't understand Star Wars, and they hire people who don't care. They hire people who don't even *like* Star Wars.
lol the prequels didn’t understand Star Wars either. They made up midichlorians, adding useless science and over complicating things. If Disney had done that the haters today wouldn’t be able to shut up about it. The prequels retconned things too, such as Yoda not being Obi-Wan’s master. They were far from perfect, and they had a much different idea of the force than the OG trilogy. Midichlorians? Cmon, some of the dumbest shit ever
It’s not confirmed whether she is writing them like she did with FB but I imagine they would have announced it already if she were to be writing the script for it
First, WarnerDiscovery has said repeatedly that JKR will not be involved in the day to day on the show. Her production company is serving as an EP. Now that that the showrunner and director is hired, I’d expect her involvement to mostly be giving sign off on casting choices and then giving very general sign off on scripts the way any producer would. But she’s not going to be in the room with the writers hashing things out or writing any scripts herself. So yes, she’s involved. But she’s not hugely more involved in the show than she was with the films.
As for your question, the only thing she has added to the story via Twitter decree (😂) that I think they’ll make clearer in the show is Dumbledore being gay. Especially considering that they addressed it explicitly in the FB films. Which even though they’re not living in the same universe as the show (the FB films have continuity with the Harry Potter movie universe), it did really solidify it as canon.
I don’t think they’ll make a big deal out of it and have some big scene about Dumbledore being gay. But I think they’ll find just a line or two somewhere where it’s made clear. Other than that one, I don’t see them working in any other things.
I would love it if stuff from Pottermore and other additions that were left out due to pacing made it into the tv series, I dont want anything from the original series to be left out like in the movies but im so down for expanding the universe
Also think it could be cool to "correct" stuff from the books, like for instance figure out a way in which in the Triwizard Tournament the audience could spectate tasks 2 and 3 without it messing with the plot.
The possibilities to expand and polish the story and world are endless, i get so excited just thining about it :p
If any clarifications are included, I don't see how that would be a negative thing anyway.
To speak to the mentioned examples:
Those who've engaged in extended canon such as Hogwarts Mystery wouldn't be surprised by the existence of McGonagall's husband (who has passed away). But what reason would she have to tell this to Harry/the trio? The show is to focus on them, as the books originally did. If it was mentioned in some manner, I think it would simply expand McGonagall to the viewers. She isn't *only* a strict but caring professor and head of house; she's a person who has experienced life, love, and loss.
Credence probably wouldn't even require a specific mention. Finding out about Ariana was heavily about Harry discovering a whole side of Albus that he'd never been aware of, not necessarily about the details of an obscurus. Credence would've been dead, by the trio's time, anyway. Given that Albus didn't know Credence for most of the boy's life and wasn't close to him, there'd be no reason to mention the tragedy of his nephew.
I think most universe information expansion would only serve to give life to the world, the story, and the characters. Not all of it will be perfect, or liked across the board. The format of a show does allow for new details, hopefully ones that support the story in a positive way, to be brought in.
Vernon supporting brexit
Credence
Naginis history
The toilet thing
Delphine refrnxes like a pregnant bellatrix
Her diversity claims
McGonagalls llhusband
How would vernon supporting brexit even come into it, the brexit referendum was 18 year after the battle of hogwarts and i doubt it would be included in the 19 years later epilogue
Obviously I don't know but I imagine it will be set in contemporary Britain. It's expensive to try and set something out of time and really the fact that it takes place in the 90s is totally irrelevant to the plot.
That being said I still doubt why Vernon's Brexit views would come up.
They say theyre sticking to the books so i guarantee it will be set in the 90s, its well established in canon that the series events take place in the 90s, and HBO Max makes some of the biggest shows in the world not set in the modern day with some of the biggest budgets in TV history, its not even slightly going to be a problem, even cheap low budget things manage to take place in the past, i will genuinely eat my shoe if this series doesn’t take place in the 90s
Being set in the 90s has absolutely zero baring on the story. Even the movies didn't set it in the 90s. I'd be amazed if that was a decision they took.
Doesnt matter to the story, no, but explicitly stated to be the case, yes.
Id be amazed if they dont do it, if they are committed to staying true to the books then it would make no sense for them to do otherwise, theres no reason not to set it in the 90s it wont make the show cost much more at all, and this is looking to be the most expensive show of all time, surely a few things to fit it in the 90s wouldnt be an issue.
Furthermore, if it is set in modern day they would actually have to change more to make it fit, more modern technology in the Dursley’s not mentioned in the books, Dudley would absolutely have to have the newest iphone and so on, it just makes no sense not for them to set it in the 90s
I will genuinely cook and eat my shoe and post it publicly if this series is not set in the 90s
It would be strange to see these characters with modern technology it just would, theres no reasonable justification for them not to set this in the period its supposed to be set
There absolutely is a reason and it’s the exact same reason the books were set in the 90s to begin with while the movies weren’t.
The first book was published in 1997 (and written before that) for children who grew up in the 90s.
It’s not only what life was when the book was written, it’s the life the audience could relate to.
The movies were set in their modern day for the same reason. It’s not only when they were made, but it’s the life the audience knew.
There’s no reason for the children targeted by the new show to get a show about the lives of their parents, rather than something they themselves can relate to.
I have no idea what they will or won’t do.
But I do know that your claim that there’s no reason to not have the story set 30 years ago, when the entire point from the beginning was to give children a contemporary story about their own childhood, is just nonsense.
I would like it if the producers expanded on the magical world in the show. There are certain social aspects of being a teenage wizard the books didn't really dive into - the other clubs Harry didn't belong to - popular music (did they listen to music in the common rooms? Their dorm rooms) activities. I would love to see more of them just hanging out, being teenage wizards, what day to day life is like. I don't think JKR would be great at that since she never really expanded on it much in the books. Frankly most of the stuff she's announced since the books were over seemed more like her trying to get attention then really thinking things through. I think the producers would be smart enough to keep her crazier ideas away from the show. But hopefully we'll see more spells and magical creatures from pottermore on the show then we read in the books.
**Reminder about Diversity Discussion:** Let's keep discussions respectful: Comments questioning diversity in casting or using terms like 'forced diversity' may be subject to removal or a ban if this behavior persists. We won't allow: - Criticizing diversity in official casting news or fancasts. - Labeling the show as 'woke.' - Disrespecting actors or dismissing fancasts based on race. Remember, if you see offending content, please report and don't engage with the user and start arguments. Otherwise, you may also be subject to a ban. Please remember to discuss with civility. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HarryPotteronHBO) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A retcon means you change information that had already been established. Adding new information and expanding the story and characters are NOT retcons. Dumblebore being gay is not an "edit" or a "retcon", it's literally just adding more information that wasn't revealed in the story. It's only a retcon if the original story established that he was straight, which it didn't. The hints to him being gay were also obvious in book 7 to anyone with a bit of discernment. Showing more of McGonagall's past is also not a retcon or edit, again, it's just expanding the character. (Her teaching at Hogwarts in 1937 in Fantastic Beasts IS a retcon, however, as book 5 established her age). Nagini's story is also not a retcon. It's adding detail that wasn't there. It's not incompatible with anything in the 7 books. People may not like that Nagini is a Maledictus, but it's not a retcon. The "wizards used to vanish their poop" is also not a retcon, as it was never established that wizards *didn't* used to vanish their poop. I get that people didn't like it, but that doesn't make it a retcon. Saying these things are "edits" or "retcons" is like saying Snape loved Lily, revealed in book 7, is a retcon, because books 1-6 didn't tell us Snape loved Lily. No, it's just revealing new information.
I’m so glad someone has finally said this. I’m sick of the word “retcon” at this point
Words the internet has ruined: - Retcon Has been turned into "new information about this story or character that I didn't like" - Uncanny valley Has been turned into "bad CGI", when in reality, it specifically refers to a *face* that almost looks like a human face, but not quite. It only refers to humanoid faces. - Objectively Has been turned into "in my opinion". People will say "this piece of art is objectively bad" (art can't be objectively good or bad) just because they cannot handle the fact that other people disagree with them, so they pretend their opinion is "objective"
Don’t forget mixing up remake vs new adaptation, or remake vs remaster (for video games) lol
“obvious in book 7” The man showed up in book 1 at number 4 privet drive in high heels. Girl that’s drag.
Lol period
They said “retcons and edits”. And calling them “edits” is perfectly reasonable, given how much of Pottermore has a clear ancestry in fan fiction and fan theories discussing things JK Rowling clearly had never thought about at the time of writing. She isn’t editing the original text, but she’s clearly editing the world, by taking things that, again, she clearly never thought about before fans started discussing them & coopting her favorite theories.
I also said clarifications. But you're right I also meant to say additions. What do you think of Credence?
I don't know about Credence as I've forgotten all of Fantastic Beasts 2 and didn't bother to watch 3. Something about him being a Dumbledore? Is there anything established about Dumbledore in books 1-7 that contradicts Credence's story?
Not technically it's just weird. Book 7 really delves into the dumbledore family. If he existed in the books, it would be weird for it not to be mentioned he existed. Especially like Arianna, he also was obscurus. And I'm not saying it contradicts. I'm just wondering if a reference or two would be added about him. I don't mean to spoil anything, but yes, he is a dumbledore thought I won't spoiler how. Just random theorizing
I'm spoiling things to explain. If you don't want to know how credence is a Dumbledore stop reading. There are several reasons for it to not be mentioned in the book, and why it might not be carried to the show. First and foremost we learn about Albus's past, not his brother's or the Dumbledore's as a whole. The book that Harry reads that details those events is focused solely on Albus. Yes we do get information about the fight that happened between all 3 of the boys, including both Dumbledore brothers that resulted in Ariana's death, but we don't know what Aberforth does before or after all of that. We know he eventually ends up as the bar keep at hogs head, but other than that nothing about what he does, or who he spent his time with is mentioned in the main books. The only reason we get as much information about him as we do is, because his presence, and subsequently Ariana's death, during the fight with Grindelwald are extremely huge motivating factors that led Albus to being who he was in the present day. And the reason why is pretty simple, the only details that mattered about him to the story at that time was that he's the hogs head barkeep and the fact that hes Albus's brother explains why hed be willing to help the students. Nothing else about Aberforth specifically matters to Harry's point of view, or the story that was being told in the present day, and when he told Harry of the fight with Grindelwald he only did so to highlight the worst part of Albus's history because he was trying to deter Harry from continuing the mission. In truth, Harry still hardly knew anything about the Dumbledore's and everything he did know was almost solely focused on Albus. Second, the Dumbledores are described as being very secretive, a nature taught to them by their mother with the intention of protecting Ariana. Albus for sure displays those secretive qualities still, well into his later life. Aberforth very well could've as well, and kept Credence's existence relatively quiet so as to protect him in the same manner he'd been taught to protect his sister. Edited: spelling
Regardless, none of that was in the Harry Potter books or really relevant, so I would imagine it wouldn't be in a show thats supposed to be a faithful adaptation of the Harry Potter books.
I know itbwas just a question. My thoughts was it was in the greater Wizarding world and she might make references to them. Nothing big of course. But like referencing albus has a nephew or somwthing
I doubt they'll spend valuable screentime on making references to irrelevant things though.
Yeah man it wasn’t a retcon! It was cowardice! Get it right.
Whats up with the downvotes in this post? It seems a normal discussion to me.
Ehhh who knows
I can imagine that they throw in some Pottermore info in the show, escpecially in the first seasons, since those books are not so extensive. Maybe they'll do a The Last of Us "Frank/Bill "episode kind of thing with some background stories, but I'm not sure if that's necessary.
Do we know how involved in the Show she is? Like on a scale of ‘Hogwarts Legacy’ to ‘Fantastic Beasts’?
She is an executive producer personally involved in picking the show runner and writer
…shit.
Thank God. Have you seen what happened to The Witcher on Netflix, whose writers mocked the source material, ignored the author and thought they could "improve" his books? Have you seen what's happened to Star Wars post-George Lucas? Rings of Power, which was made with zero knowledge of or respect for Tolkien's writings? Yes, JKR is not a good screenwriter. But at least we know it will be faithful to the books, and not """improved""" by some incompetent, arrogant showrunner like the franchises mentioned above.
She had pretty much nothing to do with Hogwarts Legacy and that was excellent. The new perspective that the fresh eyes brought made for some awesome moments. I agree with what you’re saying about those shows, but HP has already proven itself with new people and JK has proven herself with The Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts. I’d rather compare it to what’s happening in its own franchise than others when there’s so much there already
> She had pretty much nothing to do with Hogwarts Legacy and that was excellent. Was it? The story was pretty meh. I don't even remember it, honestly. The good parts of it was literally all due to her universe (the magic, Deathly Hallows quest, exploring Hogwarts and Hogsmeade, etc.). It was good in every area that was directly faithful to JKRs work, and mediocre in the areas where it was original. IMO > HP has already proven itself with new people Are you talking about the movies? She was involved in the 8 movies. Without her involvement, they may have been set in the US with an american cast. They may have been 3D animated and directed by Steven Spielberg. It's because of her putting her foot down that we got the British, live-action HP movies that we did. I agree that FB wasn't good. But it was mostly due to bad pacing, and her packing too much into too little time. If they were books, they probably would be fine.
It sounds like you agree with me then that the makers of the game had absolute respect for her universe, which I thought was your point about Witcher, Rings of Power etc? And I wasn’t referring to the movies, sorry if that was confusing, it was in reference to my point about the game having fresh eyes but the new HP media involving JK not living up to expectations
You're right, they had a respect for her books (mostly) and that's why it was good My point is that without her involvement as an executive producer, and if Warner Bros was then entirely in charge of the production, there's a very real risk they'll get producers, writers and a showrunner who does not care about her books, and maybe even someone who *resents* JKR and her work. They might make changes out of their resentment (This is what happened with the Witcher, Star Wars and Rings of Power - they actively resented the author and their work) Studio executives are notorious for being very bad at understand their own franchises. They do not care. They never learn the right lessons. Star Wars has been garbage for a decade, and Disney *still* refuses to learn why and fix the problems.
Yeah, it’s definitely something to worry about. I suppose a best case scenario for me would be that she helps pick the right people to make sure they are fans of the source material, but stays away from the scripts?
I think that's what's happening. She's not working as a writer on this. Executive producers sometimes do A LOT of work, but other times, they barely do anything and simply get a title. Regardless, she has the power to decide literally anything, if she wants to use that power
I mean, HL is a great game, but it would make a boring ass tv show. The problem with Fantastic Beasts is that there's no Harry Potter. The problem with Cursed Child is that it was fanfiction some playwrights wrote that JK just signed off on. That's literally it. She did not write Cursed Child, she just approved it. Did you watch the Harry Potter movies? Because she'll have about the same involvement as she did with those, and we'll also get an HBO budget and production level.
I think you tried to make the point that different mediums matter there, which I also agree with. In saying that, TV is different from movies, and one thing I’m worried about is that it could end up like Marvel shows where they feel like a movie that’s been stretched out. If she can find writers who understand TV as well as being fans of HP, and she trusts them enough to do for TV what the Legacy makers did for video games, then I think we’re in for a belter
She won’t be picking the writers though.She helped to choose the showrunner, and the showrunner will choose the writers.
*find a showrunner who understands TV and is a fan
HL was a good game (Although I think it suffered for it's lack of focus) but the worse part about it was the fairly prosaic and thin plot line.
Hogwarts legacy is a phenomenal setting, but it is not a great game. Also JKR had nothing to do with Cursed Child. Literally at all.
I thought she wrote the story with Jack Thorne and John Tiffany, then the JTs wrote the script from that?
No. Jack Thorne and Tiffany wrote the story and presented the idea to her for approval. Her name being listed first is both a marketing ploy, and probably a requirement since it's her IP.
I’m pretty sure I read that the 3 of them came up with a treatment in her writers room? Even then there’s quotes from Jack Thorne saying she gave notes on everything and steered them in the right direction - that’s quite far from ‘nothing to do with it…literally at all’?
Thorn and Tiffany wrote the treatment and the whole script. Not Rowling. She may have made suggestions when they presented the treatment to her, but they wrote the treatment first, and wrote the entirety of the script. Yes, Rowling does certainly act like she was more involved form the very start, because it's her IP and she wanted to demonstrate absolute control over it, but when talk of the play first began, she didn't even know what the story was and directly stated it was a prequel surrounding Harry's childhood as an orphan, and then had to backtrack that when she realized it wasn't. If she had been involved in writing the original treatment and knew what the story was, she never would've made that claim. "Rowling first revealed she was developing a Harry Potter prequel back in 2013 when she released a statement stating the play would 'explore the previously untold story of Harry’s early years as an orphan and outcast'" https://web.archive.org/web/20150628212032/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/harry-potter-and-the-cursed-child-jk-rowling-play-telling-new-potter-story-coming-to-londons-west-end-in-2016-10347063.html She may have been writing a story about that, so that may not be a false claim, but the storyline of Cursed Child is not that by any means. And almost all the articles from around that time, including the one I linked, even state that the JTs wrote it and JKR would just be listed as a producer in the credits because it's her IP. It's only more recent articles that give her much more credit.
Let’s not act like Star Wars hadn’t already gone downhill when George Lucas made the prequels. Like damn everyone seems to forget how hated they were
The prequels sucked ass, but not for the same reasons the Disney Star Wars do The prequels had horrendous dialogue and a plot that was so boring you almost wanted to fall asleep. And embarassing CGI overuse. But it understood what Star Wars *was about*, it understood the force, characters etc. The "spirit" was intact, so to speak. Disney doesn't understand Star Wars, and they hire people who don't care. They hire people who don't even *like* Star Wars.
lol the prequels didn’t understand Star Wars either. They made up midichlorians, adding useless science and over complicating things. If Disney had done that the haters today wouldn’t be able to shut up about it. The prequels retconned things too, such as Yoda not being Obi-Wan’s master. They were far from perfect, and they had a much different idea of the force than the OG trilogy. Midichlorians? Cmon, some of the dumbest shit ever
It’s not confirmed whether she is writing them like she did with FB but I imagine they would have announced it already if she were to be writing the script for it
First, WarnerDiscovery has said repeatedly that JKR will not be involved in the day to day on the show. Her production company is serving as an EP. Now that that the showrunner and director is hired, I’d expect her involvement to mostly be giving sign off on casting choices and then giving very general sign off on scripts the way any producer would. But she’s not going to be in the room with the writers hashing things out or writing any scripts herself. So yes, she’s involved. But she’s not hugely more involved in the show than she was with the films. As for your question, the only thing she has added to the story via Twitter decree (😂) that I think they’ll make clearer in the show is Dumbledore being gay. Especially considering that they addressed it explicitly in the FB films. Which even though they’re not living in the same universe as the show (the FB films have continuity with the Harry Potter movie universe), it did really solidify it as canon. I don’t think they’ll make a big deal out of it and have some big scene about Dumbledore being gay. But I think they’ll find just a line or two somewhere where it’s made clear. Other than that one, I don’t see them working in any other things.
I would love it if stuff from Pottermore and other additions that were left out due to pacing made it into the tv series, I dont want anything from the original series to be left out like in the movies but im so down for expanding the universe Also think it could be cool to "correct" stuff from the books, like for instance figure out a way in which in the Triwizard Tournament the audience could spectate tasks 2 and 3 without it messing with the plot. The possibilities to expand and polish the story and world are endless, i get so excited just thining about it :p
If any clarifications are included, I don't see how that would be a negative thing anyway. To speak to the mentioned examples: Those who've engaged in extended canon such as Hogwarts Mystery wouldn't be surprised by the existence of McGonagall's husband (who has passed away). But what reason would she have to tell this to Harry/the trio? The show is to focus on them, as the books originally did. If it was mentioned in some manner, I think it would simply expand McGonagall to the viewers. She isn't *only* a strict but caring professor and head of house; she's a person who has experienced life, love, and loss. Credence probably wouldn't even require a specific mention. Finding out about Ariana was heavily about Harry discovering a whole side of Albus that he'd never been aware of, not necessarily about the details of an obscurus. Credence would've been dead, by the trio's time, anyway. Given that Albus didn't know Credence for most of the boy's life and wasn't close to him, there'd be no reason to mention the tragedy of his nephew. I think most universe information expansion would only serve to give life to the world, the story, and the characters. Not all of it will be perfect, or liked across the board. The format of a show does allow for new details, hopefully ones that support the story in a positive way, to be brought in.
Such as? Besides Dumbledore being gay, what else? Just curious
Dumbledore being gay is not a retcon. Did the 7 books establish that he was in fact straight?
The OP comment also mentions clarifications not only retcons.. Commentor isn't claiming that D is straight...
Yeah I don’t understand the downvotes. It was a simple question 🤣
Vernon supporting brexit Credence Naginis history The toilet thing Delphine refrnxes like a pregnant bellatrix Her diversity claims McGonagalls llhusband
How would vernon supporting brexit even come into it, the brexit referendum was 18 year after the battle of hogwarts and i doubt it would be included in the 19 years later epilogue
Obviously I don't know but I imagine it will be set in contemporary Britain. It's expensive to try and set something out of time and really the fact that it takes place in the 90s is totally irrelevant to the plot. That being said I still doubt why Vernon's Brexit views would come up.
They say theyre sticking to the books so i guarantee it will be set in the 90s, its well established in canon that the series events take place in the 90s, and HBO Max makes some of the biggest shows in the world not set in the modern day with some of the biggest budgets in TV history, its not even slightly going to be a problem, even cheap low budget things manage to take place in the past, i will genuinely eat my shoe if this series doesn’t take place in the 90s
Being set in the 90s has absolutely zero baring on the story. Even the movies didn't set it in the 90s. I'd be amazed if that was a decision they took.
Doesnt matter to the story, no, but explicitly stated to be the case, yes. Id be amazed if they dont do it, if they are committed to staying true to the books then it would make no sense for them to do otherwise, theres no reason not to set it in the 90s it wont make the show cost much more at all, and this is looking to be the most expensive show of all time, surely a few things to fit it in the 90s wouldnt be an issue. Furthermore, if it is set in modern day they would actually have to change more to make it fit, more modern technology in the Dursley’s not mentioned in the books, Dudley would absolutely have to have the newest iphone and so on, it just makes no sense not for them to set it in the 90s I will genuinely cook and eat my shoe and post it publicly if this series is not set in the 90s
None of this makes a difference. They aren't going to stick so rigidly to the source material that Dudley having an iPhone will be a no go 🤣
It would be strange to see these characters with modern technology it just would, theres no reasonable justification for them not to set this in the period its supposed to be set
There absolutely is a reason and it’s the exact same reason the books were set in the 90s to begin with while the movies weren’t. The first book was published in 1997 (and written before that) for children who grew up in the 90s. It’s not only what life was when the book was written, it’s the life the audience could relate to. The movies were set in their modern day for the same reason. It’s not only when they were made, but it’s the life the audience knew. There’s no reason for the children targeted by the new show to get a show about the lives of their parents, rather than something they themselves can relate to. I have no idea what they will or won’t do. But I do know that your claim that there’s no reason to not have the story set 30 years ago, when the entire point from the beginning was to give children a contemporary story about their own childhood, is just nonsense.
I would like it if the producers expanded on the magical world in the show. There are certain social aspects of being a teenage wizard the books didn't really dive into - the other clubs Harry didn't belong to - popular music (did they listen to music in the common rooms? Their dorm rooms) activities. I would love to see more of them just hanging out, being teenage wizards, what day to day life is like. I don't think JKR would be great at that since she never really expanded on it much in the books. Frankly most of the stuff she's announced since the books were over seemed more like her trying to get attention then really thinking things through. I think the producers would be smart enough to keep her crazier ideas away from the show. But hopefully we'll see more spells and magical creatures from pottermore on the show then we read in the books.