Harry Potter…Again…From the Beginning…on HBO

You know, if only there was some kind of format that could more easily get away with using older actors. As if... instead of filming actual, live reality, the were filming some kind of... artificial... thing. Like, maybe if you took like... a comic perhaps, and brought it to life, like say... oh... if only I could find the word on the tip of my tongue...
But the executives insist animation is a dying format. Please ignore the knives they keep sticking in animation's back and anime constantly growing in popularity as they support it less and less.
 
But the executives insist animation is a dying format. Please ignore the knives they keep sticking in animation's back and anime constantly growing in popularity as they support it less and less.
I've always wondered about that view. Disney made itself huge off animated cartoons, after all, and there's certainly a fair bit of demand around for them nowadays. Whether eastern or western produced/styles.
 
I've always wondered about that view. Disney made itself huge off animated cartoons, after all, and there's certainly a fair bit of demand around for them nowadays. Whether eastern or western produced/styles.
People in charge grew up when animation was a mix of no-budget Hanna-Barbera schlock and literal toy commercials.

The idea that animation can be more, has become more, does not occur to them, and as they are too wealthy and egotistical to learn anything, they insist nobody but idiot children can possibly care about it and think turning animated works and things best suited to animation into live action makes them more Real and Superior and Evolved because they're no longer in the Idiotic Small Children medium.
 
Maybe if we told them that an animated show could be made cheaper than a live-action one, that would do the trick? Considering how insanely bloated a lot of tv show budgets have been lately, I'm sure at least one greedy muddy-grubbing capitalist could be convinced that animation is the more practical option for their pockets if nothing else.
 
Maybe if we told them that an animated show could be made cheaper than a live-action one, that would do the trick? Considering how insanely bloated a lot of tv show budgets have been lately, I'm sure at least one greedy muddy-grubbing capitalist could be convinced that animation is the more practical option for their pockets if nothing else.
You assume that these are reasonable individuals who will make logical decisions based on actual data.

Unfortunately a lot of the stupid ones making these decisions are so up their own asses that reality need not apply when their biases are seemingly confirmed by the results of their own actions motivated by that bias and spite for anyone who disagrees. For example, movies would be cheaper and sell better if they kept the writers on hand the entire production to make sure it works throughout, but they would rather hire them at the start, drop them when they have a script, and then film and edit three movies worth of scenes then complain when no one wants to see it because the scenes aren't stitched together well enough to make a good movie, leading to a massive loss in budget, and when the writers tried to protest this on these and more points they wanted to replace them with AI since you don't need to pay a program, even if the result is shit.

The people running a lot of "struggling" industries like that have little to no experience in those fields and are managing them as investments to cut up and sell off for tax write offs whenever they want to give themselves a raise while trying to avoid paying most of the employees enough for them to actually consume what they produce to make the bottom line look good for the next quarter.
 
We're getting plenty of high budget animated showings honestly these days. Even from HBO, though time warner is currently the most backwards of the major media companies.
 
there's still a prevailing attitude that animation is too niche. you can have animated side projects to round out your selection of content but it can't be the flagship of a major franchise
 
variety.com

Sky Sues Warner Bros. Over Refusal to Partner on ‘Harry Potter’ TV Series

Sky accuses Warner Bros. of backing out of its partnership agreement as it seeks to roll out its Max streaming service in Europe.
Sky has long distributed Warner Bros. content in the UK, but the relationship has deteriorated recently as Warners has prepared to launch its competing Max streaming service in Europe.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York, marks a full breakdown in the partnership. According to the suit, Warners is obligated to offer four Max series per year to be co-financed and co-produced by Sky and distributed exclusively to Sky viewers in the UK and other European territories.

But Sky alleges that Warner Bros. has failed to live up to that deal since it began in 2021, most recently by refusing to co-produce the upcoming "Harry Potter" series.

...

In the lawsuit, Sky accuses Warner Bros. of giving it the runaround on "Harry Potter." The series was publicly announced in April 2023, but a month later, when Sky executives asked why it had not been offered to Sky under their partnership, Warner Bros. executives said the series had not been "ordered" and that they had not seen their own company's press release, according to the lawsuit.

Contradicting the press release, the executives said the series had not been greenlit, and might never be, and therefore was not subject to the Sky co-financing arrangement.
 
variety.com

HBO Says ‘Harry Potter’ Series Will ‘Benefit’ From J.K. Rowling’s Involvement: She ‘Has the Right to Express Her Personal Views’

HBO supports J.K. Rowling's involvement with the new "Harry Potter" show as the core fanbase grapples with Rowling’s controversial views on trans identity.
... HBO chief Casey Bloys told reporters at a press event on Nov. 12 that Rowling was "very, very involved in the process selecting the writer and the director," and her anti-trans statements "haven't affected the casting or hiring of writers or productions staff" for the show. And a spokesperson for the network said in a statement to Variety that its parent company has "been working with J.K. Rowling and in the Harry Potter business for over 20 years" and "her contribution has been invaluable."

The statement continued: "J.K. Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement."

... For her part, Rowling has affirmed that she's unconcerned about her gender activism affecting her legacy, and in April, she made clear that she would not forgive any creative collaborators who have spoken out in opposition to her beliefs: "Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women's hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces."
 
variety.com

HBO Says ‘Harry Potter’ Series Will ‘Benefit’ From J.K. Rowling’s Involvement: She ‘Has the Right to Express Her Personal Views’

HBO supports J.K. Rowling's involvement with the new "Harry Potter" show as the core fanbase grapples with Rowling’s controversial views on trans identity.
Well... the time when big media companies pandered the progressive audience was nice while it lasted.
I forsee a lot of this in the wake of another Trump term. Companies slowly backing away from commitments to diversity or equality in favour of letting people do what they want.
 
variety.com

HBO Says ‘Harry Potter’ Series Will ‘Benefit’ From J.K. Rowling’s Involvement: She ‘Has the Right to Express Her Personal Views’

HBO supports J.K. Rowling's involvement with the new "Harry Potter" show as the core fanbase grapples with Rowling’s controversial views on trans identity.
So as we knew already basically. Rowling's historically controlling attention on her creative rights remains as is, to no great surprise.

The weird fantasising by her about expecting people to be asking her for apologies is also remaining rather cringe.

Well... the time when big media companies pandered the progressive audience was nice while it lasted.
I forsee a lot of this in the wake of another Trump term. Companies slowly backing away from commitments to diversity or equality in favour of letting people do what they want.
I think they're trying to have their cake and eat it, much like with the Hogwarts game. rainbow diversity capitalism full steam ahead... just possibly without specifically trans diversity on this occasion. They were very exact in their wording about her "being entitled to her own views", so it seems clear they want to neither publicly approve of, nor publicly argue with the rights-owning walking problem. So of course they're going to please nobody in trying to appease everybody.

We are entering unprecedented levels of radical centrism.
 
Last edited:
As I understand, aside from being run by a Trump Donor, WBD is especially eager among the media conglomerates to kiss up to Trump in order to secure the merger/buyout that will dig them out of 40 billion in debt.

I have great sympathy for the child actors that are going to have their lives destroyed by this no matter what, because I'm going to guess that at least Hermione is going to be where the studio starts performative laundering; but any adults who should no better deserve nothing but scorn if they sign on to this
 
As I understand, aside from being run by a Trump Donor, WBD is especially eager among the media conglomerates to kiss up to Trump in order to secure the merger/buyout that will dig them out of 40 billion in debt.
WB has been like that for a while, and it's been very two-faced in that regard - you see it all the time with DC who they own which is much more progressive-aimed. I expect them to largely continue talking out of both sides of their face, especially since Rowling, who holds the juicy HP financial keys, hates Trump.

Grab your popcorn. :V
 
I think they're trying to have their cake and eat it, much like with the Hogwarts game. rainbow diversity capitalism full steam ahead... just possibly without specifically trans diversity on this occasion. They were very exact in their wording about her "being entitled to her own views", so it seems clear they want to neither publicly approve of, nor publicly argue with the rights-owning walking problem. So of course they're going to please nobody in trying to appease everybody.

We are entering unprecedented levels of radical centrism.
Eh, I dont want to doom post but I think this is part of a larger picture. In the last few weeks:
-Numerous liberal celebrities have back peddled on what they said during the election.
-Disney removed a episode of a cartoon from Disney plus because it had a prominent trans character
-ridley Scott deleted scenes from gladiator 2 that had a Palestinian actor in them
-Sebastian Stan has left on read by various media groups after he portrayed Donald Trump in the apprentice.

It really feels like there is a effort by media companies to play it safe and "uncontoversial" regarding the new administration which kinda inevitably means throwing minorities under the bus.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I so t want to doom post but I think this is part of a larger picture. In the last few weeks:
-Numerous liberal celebrities have back peddled on what they said during the election.
-Disney removed a episode of a cartoon from Disney plus because it had a prominent trans character
-ridley Scott deleted scenes from gladiator 2 that had a Palestinian actor in them
-Sebastian Stan has left on read by various media groups after he portrayed Donald Trump in the apprentice.

It really feels like there is a effort by media companies to play it safe and "uncontoversial" regarding the new administration which kinda inevitably means throwing minorities under the bus.
I guess we'll see if that extends to stuff like Superman suddenly siding with the klan. The tricky thing for WB is they've got multiple IPs which have built their brand on some form of trying to appeal to various progressive interests (which of course made the Rowling TERF unmasking super awkward for them already). So I'd expect the exact borders of which forms of rainbow capitalism are in vogue to change, as we're seeing, but they're still likely to try and vy for the forms that they feel are okay... while simultaneously trying to pacify the general rightward shift.

I don't expect they'll be terribly adept at it.

On the broad scale I'd say you're right so far as the wider media landsape, but when it comes to specifics where various IPs have tied their wagon to stuff, the results are likely to be... interesting.
 
There's a number of differing calculus for the media conglomerates than in 2016, but i'd say the fact that he's outright threatened fucking with broadcast rights as retaliation for negative coverage (Comcast is apparently sprinting to put a measure of distance between themselves and MSNBC) is arguably as much an immediate cause as more consolidation or more allied/cowed billionaire owners.

I'm sure Rowling's due a "wait a minute... these leopards are eating faces, my fasces face!" moment from the crowd she jumped into feet first and eyes open sooner or later; but the amount of lives that will be destroyed by that point in no small part due to her contribution to toxicity that's pickled the young people's brains removes even the slightest iota of schadenfreude that might be enjoyed when it occurs.
 
I guess we'll see if that extends to stuff like Superman suddenly siding with the klan. The tricky thing for WB is they've got multiple IPs which have built their brand on some form of trying to appeal to various progressive interests (which of course made the Rowling TERF unmasking super awkward for them already). So I'd expect the exact borders of which forms of rainbow capitalism are in vogue to change, as we're seeing, but they're still likely to try and vy for the forms that they feel are okay... while simultaneously trying to pacify the general rightward shift.

I don't expect they'll be terribly adept at it.

On the broad scale I'd say you're right so far as the wider media landsape, but when it comes to specifics where various IPs have tied their wagon to stuff, the results are likely to be... interesting.
He won't need to side with the klan, though you might get him side with the IDF, who are worse than the klan these days.

He'll just never acknowledge lgbt people again. Jimmy will be white again. Et cetera et cetera
 
Well... the time when big media companies pandered the progressive audience was nice while it lasted.
Even if it was hollow and condescending how they expected applause for their "first gay character" every year or so.
WB has been like that for a while, and it's been very two-faced in that regard - you see it all the time with DC who they own which is much more progressive-aimed.
Which does explain part of why things in it have been getting cut before release.
-Disney removed a episode of a cartoon from Disney plus because it had a prominent trans character
Damnit, which one?
 
Back
Top