I know the movies cut a bunch of stuff, but they nailed the casting. Its gonna be tough to top
Harry Potter remake in the works at HBO
27,997 Views |
208 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by YouBet
I think it will be incredibly hard or pretty much impossible to top the adult actors in the movies. They were damn near perfect other than Dumbledore number 2 who improved later on and I don't really like the way Voldemort was portrayed in a lot of scenes.
That being said, those choices for dumbledore and hagrid would be solid I think. I think no matter who they choose for Snape/Mcgonagall is going to be torn to shreds because how do you possibly live up to those two actors.
That being said, those choices for dumbledore and hagrid would be solid I think. I think no matter who they choose for Snape/Mcgonagall is going to be torn to shreds because how do you possibly live up to those two actors.
It should have been an animated series.
Maggie Smith has got to be the #1 casting choice in the entire series, for me.
Mark Strong going from the villain on Shazaam to Dumbledore? Rachel Weisz as McGonagall makes her every wizard's favorite prof by default
That would be DAME Maggie Smith, thank you very much!Lathspell said:
Maggie Smith has got to be the #1 casting choice in the entire series, for me.
Agree with all of you. Just about a perfect casting all around with perhaps a small dip of Voldemort.
Make the entire thing darker and less goofy and I might watch. Great source material. Movies had everything you needed to be awesome. But it just couldn't get away from that kiddy level of camp.
I think HBO can make a decent series. I really wouldn't want to be disappointed.
Got it bad, got it bad, got it bad, I'm hot for teacher.The Porkchop Express said:
Mark Strong going from the villain on Shazaam to Dumbledore? Rachel Weisz as McGonagall makes her every wizard's favorite prof by default
Anytime your casting announcement compares your new actors to the original actors instead of to book art work should make you question what the point is.
Love love love the Harry Potter movie series. Watching them grow up literally in front of our eyes was pretty special.
My only gripe was Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. Sometimes he came across a little too campy for me. Not a deal breaker for sure.
Just don't know how they can cast Harry Potter. Radcliffe was kind of perfect.
My only gripe was Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort. Sometimes he came across a little too campy for me. Not a deal breaker for sure.
Just don't know how they can cast Harry Potter. Radcliffe was kind of perfect.
That was the worst actor in the entire series, imo.maroon man said:
Just don't know how they can cast Harry Potter. Radcliffe was kind of perfect.
Thought he was awful.
This is America, bub.Eliminatus said:That would be DAME Maggie Smith, thank you very much!Lathspell said:
Maggie Smith has got to be the #1 casting choice in the entire series, for me.
TCTTS said:‘Harry Potter’ TV series RUMORED list of roles-
— Deadline (@DEADLINE) December 7, 2024
Dumbledore - Mark Rylance, Mark Strong
Snape - Paapa Essiedu
Minerva McGonagall - Sharon Horgan, Rachel Weisz
Hagrid - Brett Goldstein
None of the actors are believed to have formal offers to join the cast https://t.co/N1ANKJFlOS
Well now I'm just going to be pissed if they don't hire Brett Goldstein for Hagrid.
Lathspell said:
Maggie Smith has got to be the #1 casting choice in the entire series, for me.
In all seriousness, I don't know that i've ever seen a better casting in any movie, ever, than Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid.
EXCLUSIVE: A beloved actor is poised to play a beloved #HarryPotter character. Six-time Emmy winner John Lithgow is in final negotiations to portray Professor Albus Dumbledore in HBO‘s high-profile series adaptation of the hugely popular fantasy books, sources tell Deadline… pic.twitter.com/phZK0yy1qS
— Deadline (@DEADLINE) February 12, 2025
I think that's actually potentially a really good choice
If they do this, they better not try to drag out the first 3 over 3 individual season. That would be epically bad. 3 1-hour episodes would be all you need for each of the first 3, and you could still go deeper than either of the movies. Granted, the first 3 movies are by far the most true to the books. I did miss not getting more backstory on the Marauders, in the movie, and nearly cutting Crookshanks out completely.
Season 1: Books 1, 2 and 3
Season 2: Books 4 and 5
Season 3: Books 6 and 7
8 episodes per season
That's all you need to fully tell the stories, with all the good stuff they completely cut out of the movies. Ugh... just thinking about the Half Blood Prince again made me vomit in my mouth a bit...
Also, does anyone else kind of laugh to themselves about the thought of casting a black Snape when you think about how Rowling describes him in the book? One of those descriptions starts to sound very racist, rofl.
Season 1: Books 1, 2 and 3
Season 2: Books 4 and 5
Season 3: Books 6 and 7
8 episodes per season
That's all you need to fully tell the stories, with all the good stuff they completely cut out of the movies. Ugh... just thinking about the Half Blood Prince again made me vomit in my mouth a bit...
Also, does anyone else kind of laugh to themselves about the thought of casting a black Snape when you think about how Rowling describes him in the book? One of those descriptions starts to sound very racist, rofl.
Lathspell said:
If they do this, they better not try to drag out the first 3 over 3 individual season. That would be epically bad. 3 1-hour episodes would be all you need for each of the first 3, and you could still go deeper than either of the movies. Granted, the first 3 movies are by far the most true to the books. I did miss not getting more backstory on the Marauders, in the movie, and nearly cutting Crookshanks out completely.
Season 1: Books 1, 2 and 3
Season 2: Books 4 and 5
Season 3: Books 6 and 7
8 episodes per season
That's all you need to fully tell the stories, with all the good stuff they completely cut out of the movies. Ugh... just thinking about the Half Blood Prince again made me vomit in my mouth a bit...
Also, does anyone else kind of laugh to themselves about the thought of casting a black Snape when you think about how Rowling describes him in the book? One of those descriptions starts to sound very racist, rofl.
Honestly if they're smart, they make it 7 seasons of incredibly variable length, like 3-5 episodes so us olds can easily pick a season vs searching through episodes to find a specific book.
The Original Houston 1836
Joined:
Feb 6, 2025
Posts:
2,919
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not having the scene where Voldemort comes to apply for the Defense Against the Dark Arts job in Dumbledore's flashback is criminally insane!Lathspell said:
If they do this, they better not try to drag out the first 3 over 3 individual season. That would be epically bad. 3 1-hour episodes would be all you need for each of the first 3, and you could still go deeper than either of the movies. Granted, the first 3 movies are by far the most true to the books. I did miss not getting more backstory on the Marauders, in the movie, and nearly cutting Crookshanks out completely.
Season 1: Books 1, 2 and 3
Season 2: Books 4 and 5
Season 3: Books 6 and 7
8 episodes per season
That's all you need to fully tell the stories, with all the good stuff they completely cut out of the movies. Ugh... just thinking about the Half Blood Prince again made me vomit in my mouth a bit...
Also, does anyone else kind of laugh to themselves about the thought of casting a black Snape when you think about how Rowling describes him in the book? One of those descriptions starts to sound very racist, rofl.
Or substituting the Weasley house fire for the entire climax of the book….
They keep saying the show is to tell the whole story and stuff that got cute from the movies. You can't do that with only 1-2 episodes for book.
I still don't see how they get it done with how slow shows are made these days. Look at stranger things. It's dragged out and the kids have aged so much.
Looking back, it'd actually really impressive that the movies pulled off
I still don't see how they get it done with how slow shows are made these days. Look at stranger things. It's dragged out and the kids have aged so much.
Looking back, it'd actually really impressive that the movies pulled off
I only recently read the books (They were great!). But I've never seen the movies. Sounds like I don't need to.
First three movies are good, then they just turn into magical action movies with completely neutered stories from the book. They dedicate around 15 seconds to Harry and Dumbledore's conversation at the end of the books and just quickly give you the smallest of info you need. For any reader of the books, we all know those are some of the best parts to any of the books. The movies just decided the ADD culture can't take 5-10 minutes of diving into the real story and giving us so many great explanations and reveals.double aught said:
I only recently read the books (They were great!). But I've never seen the movies. Sounds like I don't need to.
They turn The Half Blood Prince into a RomCom, basically remove the entire plot from it, and then completely remove the big action scene from the book and add a ridiculous scene at the Burrow that makes absolutely no sense.
I will say, their depiction of Harry taking the Felix Felicis potion and the adaptation of the cave scene were perfectly done. Had they done the rest of the series so faithfully, it could have been great.
I think it's worth a watch if you have never seen them. The only objectively bad movie imo is Goblet of Fire. And it makes up for it with great quotes (THAT'S MY BOOY!) All the rest are mediocre to great movies, where the main complaint is that they didn't follow the books close enough.
After 4 they started shortening the movies to be more standard feature length action movies, and that is where a lot of complaints come from (especially since the books just got longer as the series went on).
Just an aside, HP is very unique in that I feel like the intended audience of each book or movie is targeted at the same age as Harry is in the books. I really can't think of another series like that.
After 4 they started shortening the movies to be more standard feature length action movies, and that is where a lot of complaints come from (especially since the books just got longer as the series went on).
Just an aside, HP is very unique in that I feel like the intended audience of each book or movie is targeted at the same age as Harry is in the books. I really can't think of another series like that.
Goblet of Fire is a masterpiece compared to the Half Blood Prince.
EXCLUSIVE: HBO is closing in on two more main cast members for its high-profile series adaptation of the hugely popular #HarryPotter fantasy books.
— Deadline (@DEADLINE) March 7, 2025
Oscar and Emmy-nominated actress Janet McTeer is in negotiations to play Professor Minerva McGonagall, sources tell… pic.twitter.com/I07Zcb6KSL
I'm not normally one to complain about race swapping a character. But casting a black man to play a character that is bullied and picked on as a child for his looks and mixed parentage seems unwise and an unnecessary distraction.
Yeah, I've even seen liberal Film Twitter types expressing the same sentiment today. Everyone says he's an amazing actor but the choice could end up really backfiring, in multiple ways.
Pretty bad decision….
Double post 
25 years will have passed between the first Harry Potter movie and the HBO reboot series. That's like a damn quarter quell.
Where did the time go?
Where did the time go?
Lathspell said:First three movies are good, then they just turn into magical action movies with completely neutered stories from the book. They dedicate around 15 seconds to Harry and Dumbledore's conversation at the end of the books and just quickly give you the smallest of info you need. For any reader of the books, we all know those are some of the best parts to any of the books. The movies just decided the ADD culture can't take 5-10 minutes of diving into the real story and giving us so many great explanations and reveals.double aught said:
I only recently read the books (They were great!). But I've never seen the movies. Sounds like I don't need to.
They turn The Half Blood Prince into a RomCom, basically remove the entire plot from it, and then completely remove the big action scene from the book and add a ridiculous scene at the Burrow that makes absolutely no sense.
I will say, their depiction of Harry taking the Felix Felicis potion and the adaptation of the cave scene were perfectly done. Had they done the rest of the series so faithfully, it could have been great.
This x1000. HBP is my favorite Potter book and the worst film.
And one of the key physical insults levied against him in the books is his greasy hair...
Featured Stories
See All
25:58
2d ago
4.6k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
14:26
2d ago
3.4k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
9:03
2d ago
1.6k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell
The Asset 07
Last 5 star (composite) to play like a 5 star at A&M?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
85
AgPrognosticator
I asked ChatGPT to turn Concepcion into a Rockwell
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
52