LegendofDragoonLives
Member
That was WB? Ughh... Man that nice one off was fucked by padding it so much.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Warner Bros. reportedly wants Radcliffe for Harry Potter & Cursed Child film trilogy
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
I don't see Radcliffe being particularly eager to take up this offer, no matter how much money Warner Brother's is looking to desperately fling in his general direction.
The guy has spent the last few years slowly distancing himself from the character by taking on a variety of different roles, mostly in low-budget, independent productions. I imagine he wants to escape being typecast, and so far has been doing a great job of cementing a respectable reputation for himself outside of Harry Potter.
I'm sure Radcliffe is very keen to put the days of random audience members yelling out "SHOW US YOUR WAND, HARRY!" in the theatre whenever he happens to get himself cast in a national production of Equus.
The guy has spent the last few years slowly distancing himself from the character by taking on a variety of different roles, mostly in low-budget, independent productions. I imagine he wants to escape being typecast, and so far has been doing a great job of cementing a respectable reputation for himself outside of Harry Potter.
I'm sure Radcliffe is very keen to put the days of random audience members yelling out "SHOW US YOUR WAND, HARRY!" in the theatre whenever he happens to get himself cast in a national production of Equus.
Harry Potter isn't the main character in this story, he's just a glorified cameo.
They're making three films out of this play.
Harry Potter will not just be a glorified cameo in this.
WadiumArcadium
Member
It would be better if Rowling wrote some new adventures for Albus and Severus and they adapted those, instead of them going back to previous storylines. All the best parts of the script were those smaller character moments, not the novelty of 'Oh we're at the Triwizard Tournament again'.
The story is about their children. You can expand it into three films, and it would still be about their children. There being more scenes with Harry Potter doesn't mean there will be an increased proportion of scenes with Harry Potter. I guess glorified cameo is a poor choice of words, but as a supporting role I really doubt he would turn it down. It's like Anthony Hopkins returning to each Thor film even though he clearly doesn't give a fuck about the franchise!
Supporting role I can see, I mostly just took issue with assuming the character would be designated as a "glorified cameo". The studio will want to utilize the character more than that, especially if they stick with the "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" title. That alone sets an immediate level of expectation.
Well, how long is the play? If it's like 2-5 hours, it'd make sense to stretch it out like that to show it completely. But if they're stretching it just to make money, they can piss up a rope.
Road of Ease
Member
I have a feeling this is a wild rumour and I hope I'm right.
Warner Bros might be stupid enough to want this, but I'm mostly confident that Rowling has enough good sense not to allow it. She has been pretty adamant that it's meant to be a play.
Warner Bros might be stupid enough to want this, but I'm mostly confident that Rowling has enough good sense not to allow it. She has been pretty adamant that it's meant to be a play.
You think movie companies do anything that wouldn't get them money?
Not at all. But it makes no sense to stretch 2-5 hour play into something like the Lord of the Rings extended edition 12 hour epic. None.
The format/script IS BUILT for a movie that is 2 hours or so (depending on how long the play goes for), which is fine. RENT as a film worked (despite cutting some songs IIRC) because plays already have a script that can be "telescript"'d into a movie. Same with this. But you can't just extend things that aren't in the script already and make it seem like it was there all along.
I doubt it. The only kid that doesn't have massive success post-Potter of the three is Rupert Grint. I think he's done films, but he doesn't have the buzz that Emma Watson or Daniel Radcliffe has done, so he's gotten an ice cream truck and driven off to quirky British richness.
Lights and Waves
Member
You're a lizard, Harry.
paragonpro
Banned
Ooh, yeah about the cursed child...maybe dont adapt that one nedlessly into a bloated three movie trilogy, there are plenty of other better books you can do that to.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
You didn't read it then? No idea how you came to this conclusion duck. He's a vital through line to the story.
They are making a trilogy on a 36? page book in Fantastic Beasts. Main difference is that JK will work with them to rewrite.
GamingOblivion
Banned
no, its not lol
The movie isn't really an adaptation of the in-fiction book though, it's about the author of the in-fiction book and the adventures he went on that led to him writing the in-fiction book.
Evil's Bane
Member
That explains a lot of things, though JK was still a cowriter.
I was under the impression she had written the whole thing, but two other writers who probably did most of the heavy lifting explains a few things
CrocMother
Banned
They are backing the giant truck full of money up to his house as we speak.
Indeed. There isn't really stopping them from applying a similar process to Cursed Child: keep the general lines and write something completely else, bigger with Rowling. This isn't Hobbit where they could only really follow the book.
- Status