I don't mind the idea (though obviously it won't be greenlit tomorrow), but I'd still prefer the Yates "bring their own style" approach rather than Chris Columbus' "stay ridiculously close to the books" one, even if they had more time to spread out during a TV series.
edited 16th Aug '11 12:12:03 PM by OldManHoOh
Well, if it's the same length of time per book as the movies then the whole "building over time" bit is sort of irrelevant. It's just the movies chopped up. It's better to give each book its own season. And given the length of British seasons, that would be pretty much ideal.
And yes, the thought has occurred to me, too. The two shows I've seen that were based on books are amazing, so yeah, I think it could work. Plus, the timing would be more restricted (shows are typically released a season per year, which is how the books are written. So we won't start out with the right-aged actors and end up with Dawson Casting).
And if I claim to be a wise man, well, it surely means that I don't know.Columbus brought his own style for SS and CoS.
Cuaron made a radically different film out of PoA.
Other than toning down some of the more ridiculous things Cuaron brought in, I don't see much difference Mike Newell made in GoF.
David Yates directed the entire second half of the series.
So what exactly do you mean by that?
Personally, I really liked Columbus's approach. The latter five films are a better fit for the series overall, but he had the two most innocent, children-oriented films, and his style fits that like a glove.
PoA is my least favorite because Cuaron's craziness doesn't match Rowling's mad world, but most of the aesthetics have been proven by the latter five.
Fresh-eyed movie blogMany years back (about 2001 while being interviewed on 60 Minutes), Rowling mentioned that she wanted to do a TV series based on the books (after the films had finished up). I could see an concept where it is focused around the rarely seen Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff groups.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/I always did think Harry Potter would work better as a TV series than a film series, partially because of time constraints (like people have said, more room for world-building and for developing characters that got shafted by the movies), but also because I think it'd be nifty to see things redone now the book series is complete and the film-makers aren't flailing around cutting out scenes that are actually really important to the arc plot.
The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.I've thought it would've worked better as a TV show for ages. I agree with all the good points mentioned above, but feel I need to bring one bad point up - not only would a TV series budget make for less impressive visuals, but it would also make it harder to keep consistent actors for each character throughout the series. This is especially true for the child characters, who I think should be played (at first) by people slightly younger than the characters to avoid the problems the films had with the actors' ages.
Educomix: "Good. I'll make toast."I think this would really work. As for the visuals, considering we'll be 10 years into the future with better technology, The budget might be enough to have visuals at least on par with PS/SS, if not more. Remember, a project like Harry Potter is bound to get a relatively large budget.
It could also start with 22 minute episodes for the first few, child-oriented books that have less material, as well as "filler" episodes that follow minor characters and expand on adventures only briefly mentioned in the books. (e.g. an episode showing the Weasley twins enchanting snowballs to attack Quirrel)
Then the 45 minute episodes could start around Po A or Go F to include more material.
That Weasley twins incident doesn't deserve a whole episode, I feel - it barely seems worth making more than one scene about it, considering Quirrell's relevance is downplayed that early in the story.
Educomix: "Good. I'll make toast."Budget might be a problem (for the networks), but if they draw enough of an audience, like Who or Torchwood, it might fly.
I'm a skeptical squirrelYes, it would have to fit in the Who/Merlin 'family TV' slot so it could get the budget.
That said, the first generation of kids who read Harry Potter are probably about 24 by now, and are probably starting to give birth to their own sprogs. So wait ten years and there'll be a 'family audience' ready and waiting to sit down and enjoy HP as a family - with the parents hoping that their children will love it as well.
That was how Who got its restart audience; parents who'd watched Doctor Who as kids and wanted their own kids to have that 'behind the sofa' experience.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.I've just had a thought - what if it were a cartoon? The problem of actors' ages would be averted, and, if done well, it could give the series a unique style that could further distinguish it from the book and movie versions.
Educomix: "Good. I'll make toast."Steven Spielberg wanted the first movie to be animated. I think it would be a good idea if done right.
It would also mean the characters' appearances could be closer to the book descriptions without having to get people that look like them - for example, the guy that played Mundungus Fletcher played him well, but in the book he had long ginger hair, which was very different to the movie version!
Educomix: "Good. I'll make toast."I think that it's possible that they may be able to avoid the budget problem. Some shows with enough of a hype can get a lot of money for a big budget, and given that it's Harry Potter they may be able to make it work.
And if I claim to be a wise man, well, it surely means that I don't know.I think I'd enjoy it more as a tv series, honestly.
‽‽‽‽ ^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.This, plus is only a matter of time, I am not sure how soon, but if one isn't made in 15 years I will be surprised.
"Here to welcome our new golden-eyed overlords," said Addy promptly.I'd love to see a series set in the Harry Potter universe, if not a direct adaptation of the books.
If the HP Encyclopedia ever comes out, a potential TV series would have a lot more material to draw from.
Educomix: "Good. I'll make toast."I know someone will agree and I think most books would work better as shows for the simple fact books can take hours, days, weeks or even months to read. A movie takes a little over one hour at most. Really long movies make you hungry, sleepy or give you the urge to use the bathroom. That's where you take the book with you or shut it and book mark it, TV has commercials for the same purpose, film does not.
Not all books, time can be lost...we don't have to actually describe appearances and sounds now but a 7-11 hour book to a two hour movie is iffy.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackI've been thinking for a while that Harry Potter: The Animated Series would be pretty damn awesome.
Always, somewhere, someone is fighting for you. As long as you remember them, you are not alone.This could be interesting...but I worry about it being live action. Seriously how could they pull off all the magical effects and stuff needed to make it look like a wizarding school on a TV show budget?
Also who would it focus on, Harry and the gang? They'd have to do some really clever casting to keep people from complaining.
edited 31st Aug '11 6:43:51 PM by Kostya
There are a lot of similar shows that do alright with magic and other effects. It may not be as immersive as the films, but the films, while fairly immersive, weren't as good at showing the expansiveness of the magical world as the books were, just because of how much time they had.
Fresh-eyed movie blogExpansive? Wouldn't the show be confined to the school and surrounding area almost exclusively? That's not really good for showing the larger wizarding world.
Would Harry Potter work as a tv series? I've been thinking about this for a while.
Most british series are only 6 or 8 episodes long (13 in the case of Doctor Who). If each episode was only 45 minutes then, going on the length of the first 2 movies, one series could cover the first 2 books alone. They'd have more time to tell the story and unlike the movies wouldn't need to cut out a serious chunk of story.
Obviously they should probably wait a few years before they did something like this. Maybe 10? And there would be a whole new generation of kids just waiting to be introduced to the world of Harry Potter! Thoughts?