#1 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (4137 posts) -

The wizarding world of Harry Potter is coming back to the big screen through a new spin-off movie written by J.K. Rowling herself. The movie will be set 70 years before the events of Harry Potter, and will follow the adventures of Newt Scamander. For big fans, Scamander's name may be familiar — in the original series, he was the author of a textbook called Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, which Harry was required to buy. Warner Bros. announced the new film this morning, saying that it would be the first in a whole new series, and that some familiar characters and creatures could turn up once again.

The Verge: 'Harry Potter' spin-off movie series announced, written by J.K. Rowling

Newt Scamander.. That sounds like some 20 year old dude that fights griffons with magic-shotguns. :D

#2 Posted by SirOptimusPrime (1915 posts) -

Newt is more like an Ecology dork, so...

Uhh, not exactly. Then again, WB has proven that 100% accuracy is not always important when dealing with Rowling.

#3 Edited by Marcsman (3094 posts) -

Shameless money grubbing ploy. Isn't J. K. Rowling rich enough yet?

#4 Edited by Sploder (917 posts) -

Sounds wack. It should be about Hagrid being allowed to be a wizard again and re-entering school as an adult learner.

#5 Edited by believer258 (11563 posts) -

@marcsman said:

Shameless money grubbing ploy. Isn't J. K. Rowling rich enough yet?

It's better than WB just blowing off the original author and getting someone else to fart something out.

'Course, then again, Rowling might just fart something out and get a new yacht with the royalties.

#6 Edited by believer258 (11563 posts) -

EDIT: Why do we still have the "I pushed the post button once, it took two minutes to post, and it posted two messages in a row" issue?

#7 Edited by Aterons (198 posts) -

While I have a deep hate for any shitty fantasy Novel aimed at teens and people that fell nostalgia for it because they read it when they were a kid, I can see how stuff like Harry Potter or Twilight will help and have helped boast the audience of quality fantasy books/movies and video games.

So as far as I am concerned, there's nothing wrong with her grabbing more money of the back of some people and maybe getting 1/100 of them interested in a genre that needs more fans atm.

#8 Posted by MildMolasses (3211 posts) -

@marcsman said:

Shameless money grubbing ploy. Isn't J. K. Rowling rich enough yet?

So she isn't allowed to expand upon the universe she created which millions of people love?

Also, complaining about her being money grubbing just shows how little you know about her

#10 Edited by I_Stay_Puft (2955 posts) -

@marcsman said:

Shameless money grubbing ploy. Isn't J. K. Rowling rich enough yet?

Sounds that way. Now where's my wallet cause I'm in!

#11 Edited by Animasta (14633 posts) -

@aterons: equating harry potter and twilight? Twilight is so much worse than Harry Potter or Hunger Games is. Twilight is literally one of the worst books I've read combined with an even worse message, while HP has a fantastic message and is also written quite decently.

my only complaint is that I much prefer reading shit so I'm not as excited as I should be D:

#12 Posted by joshwent (2051 posts) -

What a weird reaction.

Are you guys actually mad that she's creating something and getting paid for it? You do know that most of the proceeds from most of her more recent Potter stuff went to charity. As well, the charming fake 42 page textbook meant to be written by that title character (and it's companion, "Quidditch Through the Ages", both which came out all the way back in 2001, even) made over 17 million fucking pounds for starving children around the world.

Man, people are jaded.

Well, I'm really excited about this. As a big fan of the books, but not such a fan of the movies (except the third one), it seems like this is a great opportunity to make a film in that universe that won't suffer from having to adapt a huge novel awkwardly in to 2 hours.

Only sad that we won't be able to get a Vinny & Ryan Quick Look of the inevitable shitty tie-in game. :/

#13 Posted by Humanity (8714 posts) -

We all knew the money would be too good to pass up.

#14 Posted by Animasta (14633 posts) -

@joshwent: you do raise a good point; the movie wouldn't have a book to compare them to so I'd probably like it more.

I've also just realized I've lapsed on pottermore but I don't know how far they are in getting all the books up.

#15 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@marcsman said:

Shameless money grubbing ploy. Isn't J. K. Rowling rich enough yet?

I love the HP movies&books. Bring on more movies.

#16 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7039 posts) -

How dare one of the most charitable celebrities alive try to cash in on her own creation in order to make more money....that she'll almost certainly give to charity. Seriously, if there was any one celebrity, currently alive, not to be a jaded asshole about it's J.K. Rowling. But, I suppose, assholes will always find a way.

#17 Posted by Aterons (198 posts) -

@animasta said:

@aterons: equating harry potter and twilight? Twilight is so much worse than Harry Potter or Hunger Games is. Twilight is literally one of the worst books I've read combined with an even worse message, while HP has a fantastic message and is also written quite decently.

my only complaint is that I much prefer reading shit so I'm not as excited as I should be D:

Im comparing them because they are both relatively fantasy-light books/movies aimed at a young audience, they both have the traits to do that:

-Set in the real world

-Teenage protagonist

-Relatively light on the fantasy side of things

-Characters that have a moral code, language and way of thinking similar to your average contemporary non-magical person

-Little to no actual "back-story" and color to the world, they lack an in-depth view of things other than the main character and the main plot line

I didn't read all those books or watched all those movies so I can't compare them or say which is best, I am aware that "the internet" is generally bias toward Harry Potter but in real life most people that I know which have an interest in harry potter ( which is few, I admit ) also like Twilight and most of the time they like it best... so that's really subjective. I found what little I read and heard of them horrible, boring and even depressing to be honest.

#18 Posted by Animasta (14633 posts) -

@aterons: harry potter has plenty of back story and mythology. That's why this movie is being made; this is straight up backstory. So does, technically, Twilight, but it's really stupid backstory so whatever. I also don't get what really light on the fantasy side of things means, but HP takes place in a magical school with magical shit happening all the time and only like 3 chapters take place in the real world, as it were.

Twilight is straight up a terrible book though full of terrible messages though and to even compare that to HP is pretty unfair. Twilight has a grown ass man take a newborn to be his wife. That is Literally a Thing that Happens.

#19 Edited by Aterons (198 posts) -

@animasta said:

@aterons: harry potter has plenty of back story and mythology. That's why this movie is being made; this is straight up backstory. So does, technically, Twilight, but it's really stupid backstory so whatever. I also don't get what really light on the fantasy side of things means, but HP takes place in a magical school with magical shit happening all the time and only like 3 chapters take place in the real world, as it were.

Twilight is straight up a terrible book though full of terrible messages though and to even compare that to HP is pretty unfair. Twilight has a grown ass man take a newborn to be his wife. That is Literally a Thing that Happens.

I say they are light on the fantasy side of things, as opposed to something like Dragonlance or Tolkien books, because they have relatively "easy to imagine" and "easy to understand" worlds. Yes, both of them have magic, but that magic is generally an augmentation of ones abilities or a slight twist on what an object does.

Magic is viewed as "I am a vampire so I am strong", "I am a wizard so I am able o move things with my wand" as opposed to "These things are called the Silmarilion and they don't do anything obvious but they are the second strongest object to ever be created so let me explain you via 1000 pages of character interaction, war and culture exposure why that is so".

Those books are very easy to interpret, very easy to understand and "get behind" ( you don't need to remember that many names, races, customs... everything is pretty obvious ) and they are pretty straight forward and easy to imagine. A "magic duel" between harry potter and X is pretty easy to interpret, the duel between Fingolfin and Melkor has so many interpretations it's not even fun to read them all.

Same with backstory... people like Gorge RR martin have so may foods, traditions and history written down that it would probably take a book series the size of harry potter to go trough it all with a reasonable amount of detail, Tolkein as invented 3 languages and a few dozen races with different customs, cultures and history for his books.