tv show Harry Potter | HBO series

[Terylee]

53 minutes ago, Venice B said:

Are they really considering Sharon Horgan and Rachel Weisz to play McGonagall? they both look super young for the role

She is much younger in the books than portrait in the films. In the books she should be in her late 50s/early 60s.

[Venice B]

2 minutes ago, Terylee said:

She is much younger in the books than portrait in the films. In the books she should be in her late 50s/early 60s.

Yeah I know, but both actresses look mid 40's at best  

[cognitus.]

4 hours ago, Venice B said:

Yeah I know, but both actresses look mid 40's at best  

There is make-up?

[Lovett]

 

[Achilles.]

I feel like they must be desperate for names if they're letting Americans in now. 
 

Or maybe winning an Emmy for playing Winston Churchill just makes you an honorary Brit. 

[R.E.M.]

On 12/27/2024 at 5:12 PM, NoAngelus said:

I am a fan and I could barely go through the pages whenever that story was up. 

 

At this point I am 100% sure that 'books are better than movies' people are just using that as personality trait thinking it gives them some kind of prestige. 

This isn't even exclusive to Harry Potter, but books are always better than their movie adaptations. The latter is limited by time constraints (often eliminating plot points/characters for the sake of time and pacing), budgets, talent pool, etc. whereas the sky is the limit for books.

 

This isn't to diminish the HP movies because as far as movie adaptations go, they're really solid, but the books are miles better. The plot points you find 'boring' are actually important for character development.

[ICLDXU4HS]

Wait, I love the idea of Rachel Weisz as McGonagall.

 

I hope Olivia Colman is in it eventually. She's so versatile, she'd eat as Trelawney, Rita Skeeter or Umbridge. 

[ctlp27]

Great choice for Dumbledore. Of course there's always a risk of death but true to the books Albus is not young and not agitated like that awful version of him after Harris died. Lithgow has had great roles lately and he can def be in the nuance of being pissed and cold calm.

[NoAngelus]

21 hours ago, R.E.M. said:

This isn't even exclusive to Harry Potter, but books are always better than their movie adaptations. The latter is limited by time constraints (often eliminating plot points/characters for the sake of time and pacing), budgets, talent pool, etc. whereas the sky is the limit for books.

 

This isn't to diminish the HP movies because as far as movie adaptations go, they're really solid, but the books are miles better. The plot points you find 'boring' are actually important for character development.

I absolutely disagree, just because you might read something first and create something in your head first that is different from movie it doesn't mean it's better. 

 

There are plenty of movies that are considered to be better than their books. 

 

I watched them first and then read the books and I didn't find anything relevant missing from the movies except of that chapter from Azkaban. Care to name things that ae so relevant but left out from the movies?

 

 

[Venice B]

John Lithgow was amazing in The Crown, so this is a good choice. And the fact they're casting american actors give me hope R*****g is not that involved with the project since it was her demand to cast only british actors for the movies (or maybe there aren't that many british actors willing to attatch their names to this project)

[Drowned8World]

22 hours ago, ICLDXU4HS said:

Wait, I love the idea of Rachel Weisz as McGonagall.

 

I hope Olivia Colman is in it eventually. She's so versatile, she'd eat as Trelawney, Rita Skeeter or Umbridge. 

oh you ate there

[AxelFox]

So when are they hoping to get this out? 

[TrinityDanger]

4 hours ago, AxelFox said:

So when are they hoping to get this out? 

They first said late 2026 (fall/winter), but it will probably be 2027. Filming is supposed to start this summer. 

[Badgalbriel]

19 hours ago, NoAngelus said:

I absolutely disagree, just because you might read something first and create something in your head first that is different from movie it doesn't mean it's better. 

 

There are plenty of movies that are considered to be better than their books. 

 

I watched them first and then read the books and I didn't find anything relevant missing from the movies except of that chapter from Azkaban. Care to name things that ae so relevant but left out from the movies?

 

 

There are literally hundreds of pages of important information missing from the movies. You just can't compare. Not to mention how BAD everything after the 4th movie was. 

[Rhythm]

Have to say, I'm of the same opinion with those that can't quite justify Lithgow's casting completely. Yes, I'm familiar with his work. He's an exceptional actor and makes for a more than convincing Englishman. However, the age is still a primary concern. He's already significantly older than either of the previous two actors were when they'd been cast (note: it was considered a risk even then to have casted Harris at 69, and he was barely able to give them two years). Even omitting the grim consideration of premature death or illness, Dumbledore's role also becomes more physically demanding as the books progress (again, a valid concern voiced during the casting process back when they were finalizing Harris). And, unlike the previous two, he's committing to filming 8 hours worth of content per year, as opposed to just around 90 or so minutes.
 

The only rationale I can give is that they've considered all of these possibilities with the intent to recast, should the situation demand it, and just want to ride off of Lithgow's hype early-on for the inception of the series.

Personally, I also don't quite understand bypassing so many native actors to hire an American. Yes, we know Lithgow can measure up quite well, but it feels like an awful lot of unnecessary work to have to get someone into character as opposed to one that can just speak fluently.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Rhythm

[Venice B]

1 hour ago, Rhythm said:

Have to say, I'm of the same opinion with those that can't quite justify Lithgow's casting completely. Yes, I'm familiar with his work. He's an exceptional actor and makes for a more than convincing Englishman. However, the age is still a primary concern. He's already significantly older than either of the previous two actors were when they'd been cast (note: it was considered a risk even then to have casted Harris at 69, and he was barely able to give them two years). Even omitting the grim consideration of premature death or illness, Dumbledore's role also becomes more physically demanding as the books progress (again, a valid concern voiced during the casting process back when they were finalizing Harris). And, unlike the previous two, he's committing to filming 8 hours worth of content per year, as opposed to just around 90 or so minutes.
 

The only rationale I can give is that they've considered all of these possibilities with the intent to recast, should the situation demand it, and just want to ride off of Lithgow's hype early-on for the inception of the series.

Personally, I also don't quite understand bypassing so many native actors to hire an American. Yes, we know Lithgow can measure up quite well, but it feels like an awful lot of unnecessary work to have to get someone into character as opposed to one that can just speak fluently.

 

 

 

 

But we also have to take into consideration that even if each season has eight episodes with one hour Dumbledore doesn't show up THAT much to require him to work full time. In the first few books he shows up here and there and he's absente for most of the fifth one, the only book where he really shows up like a lot is Half Blood Prince. As for his role becoming more phisically demanding... there's always body doubles for that, but if I remember correctly the movies made his battle against Voldemort in OOTP way more intense than the books. 

 

I understand the sentiment, though. Even if they manage to film one season per year, he will be almost 90 when things wrap up. I like that they're going for an old man though, Dumbledore is really old so fingers crossed things work out. And if they're willing to cast a man this old to play Dumbledore, I hope they don't cast a 40 year something McGonagall, that wouldn't make any sense  

[NoAngelus]

5 hours ago, Badgalbriel said:

There are literally hundreds of pages of important information missing from the movies. You just can't compare. Not to mention how BAD everything after the 4th movie was. 

I always get this answer. I never get the explanation what exactly is missing so much...

 

I totally disagree. Love both books and movies and they made the right chose cutting filler. Not every page needs to be on screen. 

[NoAngelus]

1 hour ago, Rhythm said:

Have to say, I'm of the same opinion with those that can't quite justify Lithgow's casting completely. Yes, I'm familiar with his work. He's an exceptional actor and makes for a more than convincing Englishman. However, the age is still a primary concern. He's already significantly older than either of the previous two actors were when they'd been cast (note: it was considered a risk even then to have casted Harris at 69, and he was barely able to give them two years). Even omitting the grim consideration of premature death or illness, Dumbledore's role also becomes more physically demanding as the books progress (again, a valid concern voiced during the casting process back when they were finalizing Harris). And, unlike the previous two, he's committing to filming 8 hours worth of content per year, as opposed to just around 90 or so minutes.
 

The only rationale I can give is that they've considered all of these possibilities with the intent to recast, should the situation demand it, and just want to ride off of Lithgow's hype early-on for the inception of the series.

Personally, I also don't quite understand bypassing so many native actors to hire an American. Yes, we know Lithgow can measure up quite well, but it feels like an awful lot of unnecessary work to have to get someone into character as opposed to one that can just speak fluently.

 

 

 

 

At this point I won't be surprised if they scan him and use AI if needed.

[John Slayne]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:33 AM, ICLDXU4HS said:

I hope Olivia Colman is in it eventually. She's so versatile, she'd eat as Trelawney, Rita Skeeter or Umbridge. 

she'd absolutely eat as Umbridge, she can play mean so well 

[Venice B]

1 minute ago, NoAngelus said:

I always get this answer. I never get the explanation what exactly is missing so much...

 

I totally disagree. Love both books and movies and they made the right chose cutting filler. Not every page needs to be on screen. 

While I agree with that, the cuts they made in OOTP and HBP are awful. I still don't understand their decision of making the lengthiest book into the shortest movie when they were so willing into splitting GOF movie into two parts.

[DevilsRollTheDice]

4 hours ago, NoAngelus said:

I always get this answer. I never get the explanation what exactly is missing so much...

 

I totally disagree. Love both books and movies and they made the right chose cutting filler. Not every page needs to be on screen. 

There are lots of examples of things that just reduce the richness of the story and the world. The marauders aren't even really touched in the films and many people love and relate to those characters and their dynamics. The Goblet of Fire mystery is much more compelling and complex in the novels, the entire red heron of Ludo Bagman is missing from the film. SPEW and Hermione's work with the house elves, which is a pretty significant part of her character, is also entirely cut. In OOTP the entire interaction of meeting Neville's parents—one of the most stirring and powerful scenes in the entire series—is cut and, more importantly, the prophecy is greatly edited. Some of the best parts of the prophecy (like Neville being equally likely until Voldemort marked Harry personally/more explicit responsibility of Snape for the Potters' death) are gone. "Voldemort created his own enemy as tyrants often do." That's a very powerful message in the story that is cut for the film, making it sound as though Harry was cosmically ordained to be the chosen one. In HBP, Harry and Ginny's relationship is incredibly underdeveloped and awkward compared to the lovely buildup in the novel. You also lose TONS of Voldemort lore and memories that were very interesting and creepy. For Deathly Hallows, the ending couldn't be more botched. Harry fought Voldemort in front of everyone and actually explained the wand lore that allowed him to win properly. Voldemort also properly dies and collapses with a mundane finality (like anyone else) which was his worst nightmare. It makes the ending much more powerful. The films also cut Harry repairing his wand which was an important scene to many people. 
 

All throughout, many side characters don't appear or are very reduced. Main characters lose much of their characterization or are reduced to essential elements considerably flattening them. No one got remotely close to playing Dumbledore correctly who balances being downright silly and bizarre with formidable and intimidating. The prophecy and wand lore stuff is also SO bare minimum in the films that aspects it are much more confusing/plot hole ridden than they actually are in the story. 
 

I say all this as someone who adores the films and I pretty much think they're as good as they could've been (aside from the unforgivable Voldemort death sequence that kinda undermined the entire story's lesson), but the films miss a lot of good stuff. I think the show might actually suit the story better if they take the time to pull it off properly. 
 

EDIT: Adding Petigrew's actual death sequence which is so vastly superior than his little moment of comic relief in the basement of Malfoy Manner. Harry's pity for Petigrew in PoA ended up saving their lives which is another powerful message that gets entirely lost. 
 

EDIT 2: Also want to emphasize what is lost in the Voldemort memories. It isn't just like…atmospheric, you learn SO MUCH about his background in HBP and even see why he is pitiable. I think that is critically important for any villain and it's entirely removed (other than the fact that he's generically in an orphanage) for the films. 

Edited February 27 by DevilsRollTheDice

[Rhythm]

5 hours ago, Venice B said:

But we also have to take into consideration that even if each season has eight episodes with one hour Dumbledore doesn't show up THAT much to require him to work full time. In the first few books he shows up here and there and he's absente for most of the fifth one, the only book where he really shows up like a lot is Half Blood Prince. As for his role becoming more phisically demanding... there's always body doubles for that, but if I remember correctly the movies made his battle against Voldemort in OOTP way more intense than the books. 

 

I understand the sentiment, though. Even if they manage to film one season per year, he will be almost 90 when things wrap up. I like that they're going for an old man though, Dumbledore is really old so fingers crossed things work out. And if they're willing to cast a man this old to play Dumbledore, I hope they don't cast a 40 year something McGonagall, that wouldn't make any sense  

To be honest, I've already resigned myself to the fact that there may require a bit of suspension of belief when the series finally airs, at least where the casting is concerned. Alongside Lithgow's hire as Dumbledore, the other most persistent casting rumor is that Snape will be black.

[TrinityDanger]

15 hours ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

There are lots of examples of things that just reduce the richness of the story and the world. The marauders aren't even really touched in the films and many people love and relate to those characters and their dynamics. The Goblet of Fire mystery is much more compelling and complex in the novels, the entire red heron of Ludo Bagman is missing from the film. SPEW and Hermione's work with the house elves, which is a pretty significant part of her character, is also entirely cut. In OOTP the entire interaction of meeting Neville's parents—one of the most stirring and powerful scenes in the entire series—is cut and, more importantly, the prophecy is greatly edited. Some of the best parts of the prophecy (like Neville being equally likely until Voldemort marked Harry personally/more explicit responsibility of Snape for the Potters' death) are gone. "Voldemort created his own enemy as tyrants often do." That's a very powerful message in the story that is cut for the film, making it sound as though Harry was cosmically ordained to be the chosen one. In HBP, Harry and Ginny's relationship is incredibly underdeveloped and awkward compared to the lovely buildup in the novel. You also lose TONS of Voldemort lore and memories that were very interesting and creepy. For Deathly Hallows, the ending couldn't be more botched. Harry fought Voldemort in front of everyone and actually explained the wand lore that allowed him to win properly. Voldemort also properly dies and collapses with a mundane finality (like anyone else) which was his worst nightmare. It makes the ending much more powerful. The films also cut Harry repairing his wand which was an important scene to many people. 
 

All throughout, many side characters don't appear or are very reduced. Main characters lose much of their characterization or are reduced to essential elements considerably flattening them. No one got remotely close to playing Dumbledore correctly who balances being downright silly and bizarre with formidable and intimidating. The prophecy and wand lore stuff is also SO bare minimum in the films that aspects it are much more confusing/plot hole ridden than they actually are in the story. 
 

I say all this as someone who adores the films and I pretty much think they're as good as they could've been (aside from the unforgivable Voldemort death sequence that kinda undermined the entire story's lesson), but the films miss a lot of good stuff. I think the show might actually suit the story better if they take the time to pull it off properly. 
 

EDIT: Adding Petigrew's actual death sequence which is so vastly superior than his little moment of comic relief in the basement of Malfoy Manner. Harry's pity for Petigrew in PoA ended up saving their lives which is another powerful message that gets entirely lost. 
 

EDIT 2: Also want to emphasize what is lost in the Voldemort memories. It isn't just like…atmospheric, you learn SO MUCH about his background in HBP and even see why he is pitiable. I think that is critically important for any villain and it's entirely removed (other than the fact that he's generically in an orphanage) for the films. 

Wow, you put my exact feelings into words. Beautifully said. 

 

I for one can not wait to see the show. I'm optimistic that it will be good (it is HBO after all). I also believe that this story is much more suited for a series than movies. I do wonder about the first two books/seasons though. 

 

While I think that starting with book 3 they definitely have enough material for eight episodes, I'm not sure they do for the first two books. They will have to add a lot of story, I think, to have 8 hours of television. But this could be the perfect opportunity to expand on side characters (such as Neville, Dean, Seamus, Oliver Wood, Angelina, etc.) and the teachers and explore Hogwarts more. 

 

I don't like or dislike the casting of John Litgow personally. I do think he's a wonderful actor and has proven to be able to do a perfect English accent (if that's what they're going for). So I'm excited that Dumbledore will be portrayed by a seasoned and respected actor. I worry a bit about his age, but I'm sure that this is something that the showrunners and HBO have thought through. 

 

Can't wait to see the other castings, although I'm sure many meltdowns and targeted attacks will follow, especially if they cast a person of color as a character that was white in the books or films. Snape is rumoured to be played by a black actor (Paapa Essiedu)... I don't mind at all, but in today's climate... Who knows. 

[NoAngelus]

Show is never gonna be accepted, like can you imagine when fans see new Hogwarts, new sets, everything will be compared negativlly to the movies.

 

Doing show so soon after movies that are still relevant today is such a waste of time and money. 

[May]

4 minutes ago, NoAngelus said:

Show is never gonna be accepted, like can you imagine when fans see new Hogwarts, new sets, everything will be compared negativlly to the movies.

 

Doing show so soon after movies that are still relevant today is such a waste of time and money. 

it's not 'so soon' after the movies though.

Have you watched the first 2 movies recently? they've aged like a stinking cat turd in Spanish heat.

 

over the course of the 8 movies the entire tone and feelings changed COMPLETELY numerous times. and at the time fans justified it by saying "it gets darker with each movie because the audience is growing up with each release!" in reality nobody wanted to admit that this franchise was literally making it up as they went along. they didnt know what was coming next. 
 

i still enjoy the movies, very much, but 1 and 2 are a chore to get through and many of the movies seem completely disjointed from one another because of the sudden changes in tone, acting skills, character introductions (and character changes - with characters even changing RACES between films…)

 

so yeah as someone who grew up w the films im 100% here for the TV show adaptation because maybe finally now we can get an iteration of the story that is actually cohesive and not sloppily mushed together as each new book comes out.