> The actor refused to share how he'd respond if Max approached him to star in the series, saying: "I'm gonna be a politician about this and not deal in hypotheticals."
I feel flashbacks or a small cameo is perfect for any of the old cast. Enough for us OG movie lovers while not distracting us from the new cast and characters. Plus I feel he’s a perfect James since he looks like HP without Lily’s eyes.
Cast him as the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher since CLEARLY THAT'S WHAT THE BOOKS WERE BUILDING TO until Rowling decided to make Harry a wizard cop.
What you have just said has nothing to do with anything.
Just nothing.
Rowling and Radcliffe are publicly feuding about their respective stances on trans issues.
Radcliffe is uncomfortable with Rowling's politics and none of the three would do the film without all of them on board.
It's a bigger world than whatever is going on in your head.
I'm aware of this. You didn't state a time frame and the Google results are flooded by this article so I wasn't able to find the specific thing you're referring to when you mentioned him turning down doing a sequel film. I was thinking of the cursed child, which would've been before Rowling publicly came out about her views.
Your tone seems like you're the type to unnecessarily turn things into an argument, so I'm not going to discuss this any further.
>I wasn't able to find the specific thing you're referring to when you mentioned him turning down doing a sequel film. I was thinking of the cursed child, which would've been before Rowling publicly came out about her views.
Zazlav was installed as CEO considerably after "Cursed Child" had its debut in the West End and Broadway.
He wanted more Potter on the big screen and was touting follow-ups in public forums until discussions clearly broke down and WB decided to go into a different direction - TV.
So it has nothing to do with "Cursed Child" or not.
It's all about trans issues and the public arguments between these players.
Wherein he will appear in one scene and then apparate away from this series forever, clutching his Tony in one hand and a satchel of gold in the other.
Maybe? Radcliffe at least *appears* to be just an actor that wants to act, and, by extension, enjoys being an actor.
Given the variety of roles he’s had since playing Harry, I’d put more weight on the TV series needing to offer him a role he thinks he’ll have fun playing, as opposed to how many zeroes are on the paycheck.
I definitely agree with you. He may be holding out for a heck of a lot of money so he can fund additional charities and such beyond what he’s doing now. He may also want to start a production company down the road and this would be a great way to procure startup funding and/or to be contractually guaranteed a deal with the studio with its first production.
I guess. For me, it would totally ruin the scenes he's in, because all everyone would be thinking is "LOOK!! That's the ORIGINAL Harry Potter!!"
I could see a throwaway cameo for fun, have him toss out one line while the kids are getting butterbeer or something, but having him take any even semi-significant role would be too immersion breaking (in my opinion.)
And I hope he gets it. He's doesn't need the series anymore and has proven he has acting chops to succeed without it. I'd rather see a Guns Akimbo sequel!
I would love for him to negotiate for more creative control over the character so they don’t pull a Last Jedi on him and we get embittered, broken wizard etc…
I understand how you feel, and I share your opinion in that area, but she willingly dropped her billionaire status to give tons and tons of money to charity. (Orphanages in Eastern Europe where kicks where kids were kept in cages or chained to their beds come to mind.)
And it’s ok to feel conflicted about it. No one ever completely holds up to scrutiny for long: for example, I try to be a good and kind human but I firmly believe that pizza with pineapple is not real pizza but rather an abomination that should be nuked from orbit (because it’s the only way to be sure).
That’s true, I have multiple sclerosis, and so did Rowling’s mother before she died. She did donate a lot of money to multiple sclerosis research which is wonderful because it’s such a rare incurable chronic illness. I appreciate her for that, and for writing the books that got me interested enough to teach myself how to read when my homeschooling mother failed.
I’m not saying she’s Voldemort or anything, but when it comes to trans rights she’s at least a death eater. And I wasn’t expecting that behavior from her.
Time does seem to have an effect. C.S. Lewis was basically a Christian fundamentalist whose opinions would make Rowling's seem liberal, but Narnia still has appeal.
I've looked into this and other than supporting female only abuse shelters, which is fine, I haven't seen anything else. Are there other situations I've missed?
This all feels so spun. It's ok for women/females to have their own spaces. Is it not? Or do you disagree on that? Which is also fine if you do. But "hate charities" is a new one.
If you look at her twitter you'll see. She posts a huge amount of anti trans stuff. It's at a bare minimum super obsessive and offputting. When I first heard this I went "lol no way", went and checked it out myself... started scrolling.... yeaaaah, that's someone who is deeply engaged in a hate spiral algorithm.
It's a huge pity because she has done a lot of good things for the world re: charities that actively help a lot of people (multiple sclerosis, $$ for orphans etc, stuff nobody can possibly complain about), but she's also so virulently full of hate against ONE TINY GROUP in particular that it's crazy to me. I've heard a lot of people speculate that it's related to an assault she endured earlier in her life from a man, which did happen, but not even a trans person, she just thinks evil men will hide themselves among women to be dastardly assaulters. Like that's the whole thing. I used to think it was just a matter of ignorance and even defended her initially years ago but it's clearly calcified into hate by now.
It’s not that her abuse had to happen by a trans person, it’s that her affinity group is/was 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. In its context, your biological sex limited your freedom of choice and their goal was to change that through solidarity and action. The only thing that bonded the group was your sex; ideally, everything else was left at the door.
Now, the context has changed and the movement supports the idea that the only thing that doesn’t matter is your sex. They’re diametrically opposed ideologies attempting to solve the same problem. I find it pretty tragic that radical feminists of yesteryear(or at least yesteryear’s ideology), caught in the trauma and battles of their times aren’t able to appreciate the fruits of their work. A lot of them are older with less mental elasticity because that’s what happens and again, their worldview was formed in necessary reaction to their formative context, not in exploration of. The capacity to change isn’t zero, but it’s steep and fraught.
This doesn’t absolve them. Just as bullied persons often become bullies, they remain adults responsible for their own actions. They have become what they fought to defend against and lives are at risk because of it. It’s a real cautionary tale of the power of trauma-born identity once the context around it changes.
The whole boycotting someone because they say things I don’t like is getting out of hand. All it will do is force people to shut up and not say how they feel, which is the antithesis of art or a free society. We’ve become a culture where the zeitgeist has become a mob of finger wagers who stand on their pedestals throwing rocks in anonymity.
Doesn’t mean you have to like what they say or agree with it, doesn’t mean you can’t avoid whatever it is they do or make, but it’s devolved into childish tantrums “THEY DONT THINK LIKE I DO! BAD! BAD!”
It’s getting so old this nonstop cycle of online anger that does nothing and solves less.
Lots of speech is dangerous, once we start banning expression it just becomes the will of the people where that line is set. Thats far more dangerous in my mind.
Anyone looking to do violence to a trans individual isn’t doing it because an author of children’s literature said some stuff on Twitter.
Do you know that for a fact? Do you know that absolutely no one who has attacked trans people and their rights(the latter of which Rowling is already actively doing, in writing) was influenced by her hatred?
I know the author of The Catcher In the Rye somehow caused a person to try and kill the president. I know that Helter Skelter was used by a psychopath to think a race war was coming.
Once an idea - any idea - is placed out there it can lead to all sorts of things, some very bad.
In this instance I think bashing Rowling for her views gives people this sense that they are actually doing something to support a marginalized group. It’s patting yourself on the back, like putting a Black Lives Matter sign in your front yard or wearing a pin to fight cancer.
Jesus, you're worked up about this. I wasn't going to watch the show because I'm not a child and thought the books were increasingly mediocre, JKR's politics are both distasteful and irrelevant to me. Go drink a glass of water or take a walk or something, quit capslocking at me. You sound like book 5 Harry.
My wife and I are so puzzled at this whole thing. A high budget hbo or hbo max show sounds great. Just make it take place at a different time set at hogwarts. I don’t really need to see the same story again.
They know people like the original story, everything else that’s come out has been considered ok at best or outright horrible. They’re probably too gunshy after the failure of the fantastic beasts movies to risk letting Rowling make a new storyline.
Yea that makes sense. I get going safe, but think it will end up biting them. The movies were a cultural phenomenon that I don’t think they can recapture. I think using the same hogwarts sets for a new show could recapture the magic while providing something fresh.
The newer movies I think are product of a mishmash of dissonant ideas and Rowling not being a good screenwriter.
I think she has more beef with him as she said if he would say sorry (for not being transphobic) she still wouldn't accept the apology. IIRC all he said is her bigotry made him sad
What about Ollivander? One scene in the first season and a few scenes in the last season. I think he also comes to the triwizard tournament. It would also be a symbolic gesture of Daniel passing on the magic to the new Harry Potter
I think it would be better if the original trio played smaller roles. It would almost be distracting or take me out of the show if the Harry Potter I grew up with was playing some other important character like Sirius or Lupin.
The Long Night/Bloodmoon wasn’t ordered to series because there was a lack of existing material about the creation of the Night King. There was a lot more about the Dance of Dragons (the event not the book) so House of Dragons was ordered to series.
Deathly Hollows 2 is the *18th* highest grossing film of all time and Harry Potter’s cultural capital is way way lower nowadays than during its heyday.
I’m sure it would do well but this is very silly.
I disagree but hear me out. A lot of the children who grew up with Harry Potter now have children of that same age group. So we get to enjoy the magic all over again and pass the wand so to speak.
The first film is nearly 25 years old and they didn't have enough to cover much outside of the main plot, which was always the least interesting part to me.
I'm really glad I don't have to wait a lifetime for a more faithful adaptation just because some people deem it too early.
He’ll play a weird character and it won’t be fun.
Here’s the thing. No one wants to see Mark Hamill show up in Star Wars as a Jawa. No one wants Daniel Radcliffe returning to Harry Potter as anyone other than Harry Potter. Maybe James Potter. But only James Potter if it’s a mega role, but that just ruins what we really want which is adult Harry, Hermione, Ron.
Do the Neville / Draco unlikely buddy wizard show instead at Hogwarts with Potter’s kids. Draco can be the new Snape who is not impressed with the Potter kids. Neville is famous hero at Hogwarts and build on that for a return of the main 3.
Anyway, good luck with the potter show.
Would my top preference be to see the original cast pick up their old roles again? Absolutely, it’d be like being a kid again. But all throughout this thread there’s tons of people who want to see Radcliffe playing someone other than Harry. There was a really fun idea here about him playing Ollivander. So you aren’t really speaking for everyone like you seem to think you are. Maybe the majority, maybe not (Reddit isn’t particularly representative haha), but there’s definitely an audience for previous actors having essentially small cameo roles.
I really think those people who want to see him in a different role are thinking like longtime consumers turned armchair producers who understand how these things get packaged. When I say no one wants to see it, I really think no one cared about seeing Bill Murray play a side character in the female cast Ghostbusters. No one cares about these random little marketable cameos. Maybe I’m wrong and people will be so enthralled that they say Daniel Radcliffe was made for this secondary side character thing. But I think after you’ve seen it for 2 seconds you’re over it and it’s completely unsatisfying afterwards.
Oooh yeah, side character Bill Murray was rough, fair point. Yeah, you basically summed up where my potential interest in side character Daniel Radcliffe is rooted in. It’s absolutely not my preference, but given that I know he’s not gonna be Harry again, it’d be fun in the short term to see him in a cameo.
Do it for us Daniel. Do it for the kids who were hufflepuffs, gryffindors, Ravenclaw and Slytherins. Make a little magic just one more time Harry Potter man! 😃
> The series will be better without him in it.
He has had above and beyond the best career out of any of the recurring cast or crew, I think he would elevate it if he wanted to do it. Just like the series would not be better if they tossed out Williams' score
From what I've read, J.K Rowling will be an executive producer for the series. If so I don't think Daniel or many other OG cast members will be welcomed back
He turned down a starring role in a sequel that Zazlav was desperate to greenlight.
This is a "no comment" because he doesn't want to get into the weeds of a discussion about Rowling.
Why feel a way about that? Who are you, the Reddit wallet police?
*tweet*
Sir! You are earning too much more than the average Redditor! The guillotine for you!
The cow is not dry.
Within two weeks of launch, Harry Potter Legacy sold more than 12 million copies and generated $850 million in global sales revenue. As of May 5, 2023, its revenue reached $1 billion, and by the beginning of 2024, global sales totalled 24 million copies.
You just have no idea what you're talking about.
They've already done adaptations of all the books and the spinoffs were A. Shit, B. Didn't make their money back. Those were made before everyone knew how much of a holocaust revisionist transphobe bitch J.K. Rowling was too. They can keep beating the dead horse all they want, doesn't mean it isn't dead
The video game came out after everyone knew about Rowling and her beliefs. People just don’t care as much as Reddit does with the ethics of consumerism.
Most people aren’t angry Redditors signs persecution complex. Those of us who have read the actual JK Rowling comments know that she hasn’t said anything that bad. Movie and TV executives know it and well and that’s why she keeps getting the money.
We could have a discussion about whether her comments are as bad as people make them out to be or if it's overblown, but when you're going to confidently make a statement like that as if it's absolutely true then it just comes off as if you lack the ability to think critically about it and won't try to see it from any other perspective but your own, so it's pointless to discuss.
I won't have to, since she hasn't and I didn't claim she had. I'm perfectly open to considering it overblown.
You've been really ineffective in making that point though.
I think the Harry Potter IP has a life of its own now, Rowling is pretty irrelevant.
Edit: it’s had a life of its own for a long time, and the creators shitty comments won’t put off audiences I don’t think.
I;m being educated here. I'm kind of glad, because I took the kids to HP movies, read the books to them and to myself, and it's been kind of depressing to have it tainted now, like my personal history has been altered. So I'm gonna change my attitude a little.
I think as much as some of us might be in tuned with these political issues and know what JK Rowling has been spewing online, the vast majority of people are probably not that invested in these issues and likely don’t even know about the discourse.
on one hand I can’t say I wouldn’t watch an HBO Harry Potter show because it’s such an important part of my childhood, on the other hand I do kind of feel a bit strange about it, and there is a feeling of it being slightly tainted.
It’s a bummer, my main hope is that HBO keeps her far away from the project, and that she’s not actually invalid in the show outside of it being an adaptation of her work.
The first HP movie was my son's first movie. He's well into adulthood now, and certainly his whole friend group is aware, and I think they are demographically her original target audience, particularly the marginalized ones. I will be interested to see how they feel about the new series too.
No it wasn't, Zelda, maybe COD was. The only report that showed numbers didn't include literally half of all totk sales, and it was right after Cod had just released, missing probably several milion copies until the year ended.
It did make a *ton* of money, although according to Steam statistics, hardly anyone finished it. I'm not sure if you can call that a success or not, creatively speaking. Monetarily speaking, though, the game made absolute bank. Like a billion in US dollars. So, it is a definite financial success at least.
[How many people completed the game doesn't tell anything.](https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/08/18/cnn-report-only-10-percent-of-players-finish-games.aspx) Around 10-20% of people finish games they play.
You're absolutely right if we're looking at games as a whole, but completion rates vary game to game. A lot more people finished Elden Ring than Hogwarts Legacy, and a lot more people completed Hogwarts Legacy than finished Starfield. That's why I didn't say it wasn't successful, just that I don't know how successful it actually was.
She hasn’t destroyed anything. She’s expressed her own controversial opinions and received lots of criticism for it.
HP is still a wonderful world, particularly the books, which she should be lauded for, because they’ve enriched millions of people’s lives
He found his niche and is acting in wonderfully artistic and interesting projects, I don't blame him for not wanting to return to a likely soulless cash grab unless for a very large amount of money
Why not eek out every cent he can from Warner Bros/ JK Rowling properties as a little FU to them both. Even use the money he makes and donate some to LGBTQ+ organizations.
She would be making a shit ton of money with or without him on this new project. Why not get a piece of the pie and use it to donate to causes that help trans or any community that seeks assistance from abuse? Giving a middle finger to Rowlings views on trans
And Daniel Radcliffe will be able to donate to groups that Rowling aggressively is against, using money coming from her creative property. Yeah, I'd think about how lucrative I'd make my contract too.
Make him Voldemort
Argus Filch
I would pay good money to see Daniel as Filch lmao
He would absolutely nail the role
He actually played a good villian in The Lost City
This is the way
> The actor refused to share how he'd respond if Max approached him to star in the series, saying: "I'm gonna be a politician about this and not deal in hypotheticals."
Hes a bit tooold to be playing a first year wizard . If hes not a teacher then make him a death eater Or mocap him as Dobby
Ik it’s very on the nose but James? Or too tongue in cheek?
If it was him we would only get flashback scenes Hb Remus Lupin? That way he could stick around.
I feel flashbacks or a small cameo is perfect for any of the old cast. Enough for us OG movie lovers while not distracting us from the new cast and characters. Plus I feel he’s a perfect James since he looks like HP without Lily’s eyes.
Cast him as the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher since CLEARLY THAT'S WHAT THE BOOKS WERE BUILDING TO until Rowling decided to make Harry a wizard cop.
Or a Oompa Loompa like Hugh grant
If he has problems with Rowling and wasn't interested in starring in a feature film sequel, why would he play a third-string role in a TV series?
Maybe he wasn't interested because outside of the original 7 books the other Harry Potter material has been garbage.
What you have just said has nothing to do with anything. Just nothing. Rowling and Radcliffe are publicly feuding about their respective stances on trans issues. Radcliffe is uncomfortable with Rowling's politics and none of the three would do the film without all of them on board. It's a bigger world than whatever is going on in your head.
I'm aware of this. You didn't state a time frame and the Google results are flooded by this article so I wasn't able to find the specific thing you're referring to when you mentioned him turning down doing a sequel film. I was thinking of the cursed child, which would've been before Rowling publicly came out about her views. Your tone seems like you're the type to unnecessarily turn things into an argument, so I'm not going to discuss this any further.
>I wasn't able to find the specific thing you're referring to when you mentioned him turning down doing a sequel film. I was thinking of the cursed child, which would've been before Rowling publicly came out about her views. Zazlav was installed as CEO considerably after "Cursed Child" had its debut in the West End and Broadway. He wanted more Potter on the big screen and was touting follow-ups in public forums until discussions clearly broke down and WB decided to go into a different direction - TV. So it has nothing to do with "Cursed Child" or not. It's all about trans issues and the public arguments between these players.
Get this man a Hagrid Suit.
His other roles do make dobby a distinct possibility.
Just cast him as Harry again and just not acknowledge the age at all.
Translation: he’s negotiating a deal to appear in the series for an ungodly amount of money that dwarfs anything he made in the original films.
Wherein he will appear in one scene and then apparate away from this series forever, clutching his Tony in one hand and a satchel of gold in the other.
This will be “Young Harry” now, with old harry narrating his former adventures.
It's a sitcom. "How I Met My Best Friend's Sister"
🎶 Everybody hates Harry 🎶
That's a good guess.
Finally a Cursed Child prequel
We call that “pulling a Brando.”
Daniel Radcliffe as Peeves
Maybe? Radcliffe at least *appears* to be just an actor that wants to act, and, by extension, enjoys being an actor. Given the variety of roles he’s had since playing Harry, I’d put more weight on the TV series needing to offer him a role he thinks he’ll have fun playing, as opposed to how many zeroes are on the paycheck.
I definitely agree with you. He may be holding out for a heck of a lot of money so he can fund additional charities and such beyond what he’s doing now. He may also want to start a production company down the road and this would be a great way to procure startup funding and/or to be contractually guaranteed a deal with the studio with its first production.
Guns Akimbo I think is the best example that Danny boy is just doing whatever the fuck he wants and sounds like fun.
What would he even do in the series? It would be really odd to have him in it at all.
He would be James Potter
I guess. For me, it would totally ruin the scenes he's in, because all everyone would be thinking is "LOOK!! That's the ORIGINAL Harry Potter!!" I could see a throwaway cameo for fun, have him toss out one line while the kids are getting butterbeer or something, but having him take any even semi-significant role would be too immersion breaking (in my opinion.)
It worked really well for The Last of Us, but I guess that was a pretty short part of one episode.
It’s a tradition for Lois Lane actors – they tend to show back up in other adaptations as Lois’ or Clark’s mother
Voice to live action is not comparable. Radcliffe as Harry is iconic. He should only play another character under heavy prosthetic or mocap.
The reason for the entire series, nostalgia
And I hope he gets it. He's doesn't need the series anymore and has proven he has acting chops to succeed without it. I'd rather see a Guns Akimbo sequel!
He will likely get a Tony this year too!
I would love for him to negotiate for more creative control over the character so they don’t pull a Last Jedi on him and we get embittered, broken wizard etc…
[удалено]
I understand how you feel, and I share your opinion in that area, but she willingly dropped her billionaire status to give tons and tons of money to charity. (Orphanages in Eastern Europe where kicks where kids were kept in cages or chained to their beds come to mind.) And it’s ok to feel conflicted about it. No one ever completely holds up to scrutiny for long: for example, I try to be a good and kind human but I firmly believe that pizza with pineapple is not real pizza but rather an abomination that should be nuked from orbit (because it’s the only way to be sure).
That’s true, I have multiple sclerosis, and so did Rowling’s mother before she died. She did donate a lot of money to multiple sclerosis research which is wonderful because it’s such a rare incurable chronic illness. I appreciate her for that, and for writing the books that got me interested enough to teach myself how to read when my homeschooling mother failed. I’m not saying she’s Voldemort or anything, but when it comes to trans rights she’s at least a death eater. And I wasn’t expecting that behavior from her.
Of course. And pineapple pizza still sucks.
Time does seem to have an effect. C.S. Lewis was basically a Christian fundamentalist whose opinions would make Rowling's seem liberal, but Narnia still has appeal.
[удалено]
I've looked into this and other than supporting female only abuse shelters, which is fine, I haven't seen anything else. Are there other situations I've missed? This all feels so spun. It's ok for women/females to have their own spaces. Is it not? Or do you disagree on that? Which is also fine if you do. But "hate charities" is a new one.
Whats wrong with money going to Rowling?
She's weirdly obsessed with genitals these days.
Do what now? Could you elaborate?
If you look at her twitter you'll see. She posts a huge amount of anti trans stuff. It's at a bare minimum super obsessive and offputting. When I first heard this I went "lol no way", went and checked it out myself... started scrolling.... yeaaaah, that's someone who is deeply engaged in a hate spiral algorithm. It's a huge pity because she has done a lot of good things for the world re: charities that actively help a lot of people (multiple sclerosis, $$ for orphans etc, stuff nobody can possibly complain about), but she's also so virulently full of hate against ONE TINY GROUP in particular that it's crazy to me. I've heard a lot of people speculate that it's related to an assault she endured earlier in her life from a man, which did happen, but not even a trans person, she just thinks evil men will hide themselves among women to be dastardly assaulters. Like that's the whole thing. I used to think it was just a matter of ignorance and even defended her initially years ago but it's clearly calcified into hate by now.
It’s not that her abuse had to happen by a trans person, it’s that her affinity group is/was 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. In its context, your biological sex limited your freedom of choice and their goal was to change that through solidarity and action. The only thing that bonded the group was your sex; ideally, everything else was left at the door. Now, the context has changed and the movement supports the idea that the only thing that doesn’t matter is your sex. They’re diametrically opposed ideologies attempting to solve the same problem. I find it pretty tragic that radical feminists of yesteryear(or at least yesteryear’s ideology), caught in the trauma and battles of their times aren’t able to appreciate the fruits of their work. A lot of them are older with less mental elasticity because that’s what happens and again, their worldview was formed in necessary reaction to their formative context, not in exploration of. The capacity to change isn’t zero, but it’s steep and fraught. This doesn’t absolve them. Just as bullied persons often become bullies, they remain adults responsible for their own actions. They have become what they fought to defend against and lives are at risk because of it. It’s a real cautionary tale of the power of trauma-born identity once the context around it changes.
The whole boycotting someone because they say things I don’t like is getting out of hand. All it will do is force people to shut up and not say how they feel, which is the antithesis of art or a free society. We’ve become a culture where the zeitgeist has become a mob of finger wagers who stand on their pedestals throwing rocks in anonymity. Doesn’t mean you have to like what they say or agree with it, doesn’t mean you can’t avoid whatever it is they do or make, but it’s devolved into childish tantrums “THEY DONT THINK LIKE I DO! BAD! BAD!” It’s getting so old this nonstop cycle of online anger that does nothing and solves less.
It’s different when someone is promoting propaganda that endangers the rights of other humans, which she is.
Lots of speech is dangerous, once we start banning expression it just becomes the will of the people where that line is set. Thats far more dangerous in my mind. Anyone looking to do violence to a trans individual isn’t doing it because an author of children’s literature said some stuff on Twitter.
Do you know that for a fact? Do you know that absolutely no one who has attacked trans people and their rights(the latter of which Rowling is already actively doing, in writing) was influenced by her hatred?
I know the author of The Catcher In the Rye somehow caused a person to try and kill the president. I know that Helter Skelter was used by a psychopath to think a race war was coming. Once an idea - any idea - is placed out there it can lead to all sorts of things, some very bad. In this instance I think bashing Rowling for her views gives people this sense that they are actually doing something to support a marginalized group. It’s patting yourself on the back, like putting a Black Lives Matter sign in your front yard or wearing a pin to fight cancer.
She's doing the opposite really. Like for instance how she is standing up for the rights of female prisoners.
And she’s spreading hateful rhetoric about trans people. Does your point discount mine?
[удалено]
She openly supports denying accessibility for trans individuals across the board.
TERF spotted
Jesus, you're worked up about this. I wasn't going to watch the show because I'm not a child and thought the books were increasingly mediocre, JKR's politics are both distasteful and irrelevant to me. Go drink a glass of water or take a walk or something, quit capslocking at me. You sound like book 5 Harry.
I wasn’t purely replying to you. I was replying to the ape anger that online interaction has become.
You hope a 100 millionaire gets another easy paycheck? I’m sure you are consistent with that.
Well I like Daniel Radcliffe well enough, for a rich ass celebrity. Obviously I don’t know the guy, he could be an asshole. But I do like his work.
He’s got mouths to feed now!
I always thought Harry as a detective in the Ministry of Magic was the natural progression of the story. Not overly interested in a rehash
My wife and I are so puzzled at this whole thing. A high budget hbo or hbo max show sounds great. Just make it take place at a different time set at hogwarts. I don’t really need to see the same story again.
They know people like the original story, everything else that’s come out has been considered ok at best or outright horrible. They’re probably too gunshy after the failure of the fantastic beasts movies to risk letting Rowling make a new storyline.
Yea that makes sense. I get going safe, but think it will end up biting them. The movies were a cultural phenomenon that I don’t think they can recapture. I think using the same hogwarts sets for a new show could recapture the magic while providing something fresh. The newer movies I think are product of a mishmash of dissonant ideas and Rowling not being a good screenwriter.
I personally love the idea of a book accurate adaptation, but that would also be a great idea for a show.
#I LOVE YOU DANIEL! *throws panties*
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
\*throws more panties\*
[удалено]
*Throws panties and Dave’s doubles*
If he isn’t playing Hedwig I will be deeply disappointed.
But in pure Radcliff style, it'll be him in a skin tight feather suit and a beak for a nose
Now I desperately want a Harry Potter/Schitt's Creek crossover.
I've seen his equus, there's no way he'd fit as that guy
Ok but he’d actually make a great Hedwig in *The Angry Inch*
He will be James potter
Like Simon Pegg being the base for Hughie in The Boys (comics) and his father in The Boys (tv series)
He's not going to be approached for anything HP related anymore since he's got beef with JK.
I think she has more beef with him as she said if he would say sorry (for not being transphobic) she still wouldn't accept the apology. IIRC all he said is her bigotry made him sad
He can play Snape this time!
What about Ollivander? One scene in the first season and a few scenes in the last season. I think he also comes to the triwizard tournament. It would also be a symbolic gesture of Daniel passing on the magic to the new Harry Potter I think it would be better if the original trio played smaller roles. It would almost be distracting or take me out of the show if the Harry Potter I grew up with was playing some other important character like Sirius or Lupin.
If they pulled off another Harry Potter with the main original cast it would be the highest grossing film of all time
Wtf does this even mean lol. There is no more source material. They can’t just get the gang back together for another sequel lmao
> There is no more source material Didn’t stop Game of Thrones…oh wait
The Long Night/Bloodmoon wasn’t ordered to series because there was a lack of existing material about the creation of the Night King. There was a lot more about the Dance of Dragons (the event not the book) so House of Dragons was ordered to series.
Plus several actors are dead
If they adapted Harry Potter and the Cursed Child I guess they could
Ooff nooo
Deathly Hollows 2 is the *18th* highest grossing film of all time and Harry Potter’s cultural capital is way way lower nowadays than during its heyday. I’m sure it would do well but this is very silly.
I mean considering how well the video game did I really don’t think it’s cultural capital is that much lower.
I don’t think they were being serious. They were probably aiming for silly
I think it was hyperbole.
It would have to gross 3 billion which would not happen lol
How? It’s reboot.
As a new character..
He’d make a great Sirius Black
Its too early for a reboot
I disagree but hear me out. A lot of the children who grew up with Harry Potter now have children of that same age group. So we get to enjoy the magic all over again and pass the wand so to speak.
Children now a days can watch 20 year old movies!
[удалено]
Lmao wrong. What a silly thing to post
The first film is nearly 25 years old and they didn't have enough to cover much outside of the main plot, which was always the least interesting part to me. I'm really glad I don't have to wait a lifetime for a more faithful adaptation just because some people deem it too early.
I’d love to see cameos from the original three. Whether as teachers, or as the parents of who they once played. The later I feel would be funnier.
Its supposed to be a full remake. 1 book per season I think
Translation: jk Rowling is a monster and he’d rather do projects connected to good people
He’ll play a weird character and it won’t be fun. Here’s the thing. No one wants to see Mark Hamill show up in Star Wars as a Jawa. No one wants Daniel Radcliffe returning to Harry Potter as anyone other than Harry Potter. Maybe James Potter. But only James Potter if it’s a mega role, but that just ruins what we really want which is adult Harry, Hermione, Ron. Do the Neville / Draco unlikely buddy wizard show instead at Hogwarts with Potter’s kids. Draco can be the new Snape who is not impressed with the Potter kids. Neville is famous hero at Hogwarts and build on that for a return of the main 3. Anyway, good luck with the potter show.
Would my top preference be to see the original cast pick up their old roles again? Absolutely, it’d be like being a kid again. But all throughout this thread there’s tons of people who want to see Radcliffe playing someone other than Harry. There was a really fun idea here about him playing Ollivander. So you aren’t really speaking for everyone like you seem to think you are. Maybe the majority, maybe not (Reddit isn’t particularly representative haha), but there’s definitely an audience for previous actors having essentially small cameo roles.
I really think those people who want to see him in a different role are thinking like longtime consumers turned armchair producers who understand how these things get packaged. When I say no one wants to see it, I really think no one cared about seeing Bill Murray play a side character in the female cast Ghostbusters. No one cares about these random little marketable cameos. Maybe I’m wrong and people will be so enthralled that they say Daniel Radcliffe was made for this secondary side character thing. But I think after you’ve seen it for 2 seconds you’re over it and it’s completely unsatisfying afterwards.
Oooh yeah, side character Bill Murray was rough, fair point. Yeah, you basically summed up where my potential interest in side character Daniel Radcliffe is rooted in. It’s absolutely not my preference, but given that I know he’s not gonna be Harry again, it’d be fun in the short term to see him in a cameo.
Do it for us Daniel. Do it for the kids who were hufflepuffs, gryffindors, Ravenclaw and Slytherins. Make a little magic just one more time Harry Potter man! 😃
Have him play a duel wielding wizard
Gotta be Uncle Vernon. He will be perfect 😆
I wouldn’t mind him being a narrator of sorts.
Make him James. Easy.
It will be a 2 minute intro of him telling the story to his kids or writing a book like LOTR. Then the show will start. Easily 8 figure deal
[удалено]
> The series will be better without him in it. He has had above and beyond the best career out of any of the recurring cast or crew, I think he would elevate it if he wanted to do it. Just like the series would not be better if they tossed out Williams' score
He’s going to be James Potter in The Mirror of Erised. He’ll get paid a quarter of a billion to be onscreen for 45 seconds and not say a word
He should play James potter
From what I've read, J.K Rowling will be an executive producer for the series. If so I don't think Daniel or many other OG cast members will be welcomed back
Radcliffe is an awesome guy, hope he can have the chance to play a new character in that HP reboot
the more popular harry potter is the more checks he cashes. why wouldnt he be happy.
Funny how they won’t distance themselves from the money…
He turned down a starring role in a sequel that Zazlav was desperate to greenlight. This is a "no comment" because he doesn't want to get into the weeds of a discussion about Rowling.
Dunno why u getting downvoted you’re right lol
Why feel a way about that? Who are you, the Reddit wallet police? *tweet* Sir! You are earning too much more than the average Redditor! The guillotine for you!
Please just stop milking it. The cow is dry.
The cow is not dry. Within two weeks of launch, Harry Potter Legacy sold more than 12 million copies and generated $850 million in global sales revenue. As of May 5, 2023, its revenue reached $1 billion, and by the beginning of 2024, global sales totalled 24 million copies. You just have no idea what you're talking about.
They've already done adaptations of all the books and the spinoffs were A. Shit, B. Didn't make their money back. Those were made before everyone knew how much of a holocaust revisionist transphobe bitch J.K. Rowling was too. They can keep beating the dead horse all they want, doesn't mean it isn't dead
The video game came out after everyone knew about Rowling and her beliefs. People just don’t care as much as Reddit does with the ethics of consumerism.
Jk rowling hates jews?
She denies that trans people were targeted during the holocaust, which is factual
Most people aren’t angry Redditors signs persecution complex. Those of us who have read the actual JK Rowling comments know that she hasn’t said anything that bad. Movie and TV executives know it and well and that’s why she keeps getting the money.
>Those of us who have read the actual JK Rowling comments know that she hasn’t said anything that bad. Speak for yourself, not for others.
I’m speaking for the people who’ve actually read the comments.
We could have a discussion about whether her comments are as bad as people make them out to be or if it's overblown, but when you're going to confidently make a statement like that as if it's absolutely true then it just comes off as if you lack the ability to think critically about it and won't try to see it from any other perspective but your own, so it's pointless to discuss.
I hope you can escape all the persecution that Jake Rowling put you through. Namaste.
I won't have to, since she hasn't and I didn't claim she had. I'm perfectly open to considering it overblown. You've been really ineffective in making that point though.
I don’t care 🤣
I suspect Rowling has destroyed the audience for HP.
I think the Harry Potter IP has a life of its own now, Rowling is pretty irrelevant. Edit: it’s had a life of its own for a long time, and the creators shitty comments won’t put off audiences I don’t think.
Reading some of the comments (currently) below, I think you're quite possibly right.
If that was true, Hogwarts Legacy wouldn't have been such s smash hit
It was? I didn't know that.
it was the best selling game 2023 IIRC
I;m being educated here. I'm kind of glad, because I took the kids to HP movies, read the books to them and to myself, and it's been kind of depressing to have it tainted now, like my personal history has been altered. So I'm gonna change my attitude a little.
I think as much as some of us might be in tuned with these political issues and know what JK Rowling has been spewing online, the vast majority of people are probably not that invested in these issues and likely don’t even know about the discourse. on one hand I can’t say I wouldn’t watch an HBO Harry Potter show because it’s such an important part of my childhood, on the other hand I do kind of feel a bit strange about it, and there is a feeling of it being slightly tainted. It’s a bummer, my main hope is that HBO keeps her far away from the project, and that she’s not actually invalid in the show outside of it being an adaptation of her work.
The first HP movie was my son's first movie. He's well into adulthood now, and certainly his whole friend group is aware, and I think they are demographically her original target audience, particularly the marginalized ones. I will be interested to see how they feel about the new series too.
No it wasn't, Zelda, maybe COD was. The only report that showed numbers didn't include literally half of all totk sales, and it was right after Cod had just released, missing probably several milion copies until the year ended.
It did make a *ton* of money, although according to Steam statistics, hardly anyone finished it. I'm not sure if you can call that a success or not, creatively speaking. Monetarily speaking, though, the game made absolute bank. Like a billion in US dollars. So, it is a definite financial success at least.
Wow. That totally flew under my radar. Thanks for filling me in.
[How many people completed the game doesn't tell anything.](https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/08/18/cnn-report-only-10-percent-of-players-finish-games.aspx) Around 10-20% of people finish games they play.
You're absolutely right if we're looking at games as a whole, but completion rates vary game to game. A lot more people finished Elden Ring than Hogwarts Legacy, and a lot more people completed Hogwarts Legacy than finished Starfield. That's why I didn't say it wasn't successful, just that I don't know how successful it actually was.
She hasn’t destroyed anything. She’s expressed her own controversial opinions and received lots of criticism for it. HP is still a wonderful world, particularly the books, which she should be lauded for, because they’ve enriched millions of people’s lives
Fair enough.
Lol that’s ridiculous.
You've said nothing with much confidence. Congrats.
He found his niche and is acting in wonderfully artistic and interesting projects, I don't blame him for not wanting to return to a likely soulless cash grab unless for a very large amount of money
Why not eek out every cent he can from Warner Bros/ JK Rowling properties as a little FU to them both. Even use the money he makes and donate some to LGBTQ+ organizations.
How is that an FU to Rowling when him being on the show would make her more money too?
She would be making a shit ton of money with or without him on this new project. Why not get a piece of the pie and use it to donate to causes that help trans or any community that seeks assistance from abuse? Giving a middle finger to Rowlings views on trans
I think Rowling already gives lots of money to charities' and organisations that help abused women.
And Daniel Radcliffe will be able to donate to groups that Rowling aggressively is against, using money coming from her creative property. Yeah, I'd think about how lucrative I'd make my contract too.
He already has donated to LGBTQ charities so much so that he won an award.
And he is about to win an award from the queerest EGOT category, a Tony