Batgirl movie shelved despite near-completion.

[Darth Yan]

Zaslav insisted on standing by Ezra Miller even when they repeatedly got in trouble with the law. It's almost like he WANTS to oppose diversity

[bilateralrope]

I don't think it's that simple. What coverage I've seen of Ezra Miller uses nonbinary pronouns. If Zazlav was doing this purely to oppose diversity, that would make them easier to fire.

The speculation I've seen is that the Flash movie is so critical to whatever the plans are for the DCU that it can't be canceled.

[Solauren]

Oh, that's going to backfire spectacularly.
FIRST -- where can they go with Potter? From what I understand, the last movie didn't do as well as hoped.
SECOND - Rowling herself is opening her mouth and causing publicity problems due to TERF-ness. There was also a tweet where she stated the sound of money in her bank was louder than people griping about her. Not a good look for a "children's author".

There are several directions they could take Harry Potter
#1 - Post Hogwarts - rebuilding of Wizarding England
#2 - Explore the other parts of 'Magical Earth'.
#3 - "Marauders/Lily/Snapes" time at school. That could be tricky
#4 - Founding/Early Year of Hogwarts. Twist reveal - Salazaar wasn't a blood purist. Someone claimed that years later.
#5 - Ignore the Epilogue/Cursed Child play (glorified fan-fiction. it even reads like most fan-fiction.). Give the fans what they want - Harry and Hermione. Alternatively - the actors from the original series are old enough to play themselves in that time period.


As for Rowling? Ignore her. Just add a 1 line acknowledgement - "Based on the world created by JKR". Done. Don't consult with her, don't listen to her. Just don't contradict the movies/novels to date.

[Solauren]

The speculation I've seen is that the Flash movie is so critical to whatever the plans are for the DCU that it can't be canceled.

Also, the fact they managed to get Micheal Keaton back in the Batsuit. That's huge. It's unlikely he'd do that again if the movie was scrapped.

[Crazedwraith]

Keaton's been replaced by Affleck for the Flash movie I think? Or possibly one of the other movie's he was cameoing in.

Plus his presence wasn't enough to save Batgirl. So they don't seem afraid of alienating him.

[bilateralrope]

Alternatively - the actors from the original series are old enough to play themselves in that time period.

How many might want to come back ?

Radcliffe is the only one I know is still acting and it doesn't sound like he's interested in any more Harry Potter.

[Lost Soal]

Alternatively - the actors from the original series are old enough to play themselves in that time period.

How many might want to come back ?

Radcliffe is the only one I know is still acting and it doesn't sound like he's interested in any more Harry Potter.

Rupert Grint was just in Cabinet of Curiosities and I believe I read somewhere that Rawlings deal means they actually need her permission, they can't just create a an HP movie and say its based on her works.

[Solauren]

Alternatively - the actors from the original series are old enough to play themselves in that time period.

How many might want to come back ?

Radcliffe is the only one I know is still acting and it doesn't sound like he's interested in any more Harry Potter.

All the living principals are still acting. Just none of their projects have approached the level of the Harry Potter franchise.
Well, except the dude who played Voldemort. He's now 'M' in the James Bond Franchise. And Helen Bonham Carter is Helen Bonham Carter...
All the invited 'young' wizards (i.e Hogwarts students) showed up for the Reunion as well.

If you were doing Cursed Child, you'd have to recast Hagrid and Snape, but probably no one else.

[bilateralrope]

Alternatively - the actors from the original series are old enough to play themselves in that time period.

How many might want to come back ?

Radcliffe is the only one I know is still acting and it doesn't sound like he's interested in any more Harry Potter.

All the living principals are still acting. Just none of their projects have approached the level of the Harry Potter franchise.
Well, except the dude who played Voldemort. He's now 'M' in the James Bond Franchise. And Helen Bonham Carter is Helen Bonham Carter...
All the invited 'young' wizards (i.e Hogwarts students) showed up for the Reunion as well.

If you were doing Cursed Child, you'd have to recast Hagrid and Snape, but probably no one else.

A reunion is one thing. That probably doesn't take up much of their time.

A movie or TV series is a bigger commitment from them. So I'll point to two things about Radcliffe that could make him refuse another HP role:
- He recently said that he wants to do comedies.
- His political views include supporting the transgender community in response to Rowling's bigotry. That could make working with her a problem and, if Lost Soal is correct, keeping her away from a HP film/series might not be possible.

So I'd assume that he's not going to play Harry again.

[Solauren]

Easy enough to solve -
'Hey Danny, do another Harry Potter, we'll pay you $30Million, green light any three comedies you want to star in, and all advertising for the movies will include statements supporting Transgender rights""

Combine that with tossing a large chunk of change at Rowling for her to not be involved in more HP movies, and there ya go.

Nothing insurmountable with a big enough bank account to work with.

[Ralin]

Easy enough to solve -
'Hey Danny, do another Harry Potter, we'll pay you $30Million, green light any three comedies you want to star in, and all advertising for the movies will include statements supporting Transgender rights""

Combine that with tossing a large chunk of change at Rowling for her to not be involved in more HP movies, and there ya go.

Nothing insurmountable with a big enough bank account to work with.

Rowling probably wouldn't accept that because the franchise is the cornerstone of her vast wealth and even if they could come up with enough money to be worth giving up personal control she wouldn't want to anyway since it's important to her personally and she's wealthy enough that it wouldn't make a difference either way. And also because transphobia and opposing trans rights is to all appearances her hobby at this point.

[bilateralrope]

Easy enough to solve -
'Hey Danny, do another Harry Potter, we'll pay you $30Million, green light any three comedies you want to star in, and all advertising for the movies will include statements supporting Transgender rights""

Combine that with tossing a large chunk of change at Rowling for her to not be involved in more HP movies, and there ya go.

Nothing insurmountable with a big enough bank account to work with.

Then you run into three problems:
- Keeping the movies profitable. If it doesn't look like they will be profitable, they won't get made.
- Radcliffe deciding that he's rich enough that it's not about the money. Wikipeida cites a source that estimates his wealth at £95 million
- Rowling deciding that she's rich enough that it's not about the money. I don't have an estimate for her wealth.

[Formless]

Another problem: Daniel Radcliff may decide that he simply doesn't want to help enrich Rowling no matter what messages WB tries to attach to the series, because it helps her spread her toxicity either way. Much like why so many people boycotted the Ender's Game movie. It was nothing to do with any of the creative staff of the movie, and everything to do with people not wanting to give money to Orson Scott Card so that he could spread his own brand of toxicity.

[bilateralrope]

green light any three comedies you want to star in,

What would it take to convince Radcliffe that those comedies will be treated any better than Batgirl ?

[Solauren]

green light any three comedies you want to star in,

What would it take to convince Radcliffe that those comedies will be treated any better than Batgirl ?

You'd have to ask Radcliffe. In his place, I'd want creative control, and the contract written in a way that any movie that cancel or refuse to release doesn't count. So, say, he did three comedies, and it was decided to withhold 2 of them, only the one that was released in theaters counts, and they still owe him 2 more.

[bilateralrope]

green light any three comedies you want to star in,

What would it take to convince Radcliffe that those comedies will be treated any better than Batgirl ?

You'd have to ask Radcliffe. In his place, I'd want creative control, and the contract written in a way that any movie that cancel or refuse to release doesn't count. So, say, he did three comedies, and it was decided to withhold 2 of them, only the one that was released in theaters counts, and they still owe him 2 more.

I don't see anyone thinking Radcliffe is valuable enough for a promise that expensive.

[Ralin]

While also antagonizing the woman who owns the franchise in the process.

[Formless]

Yeah, especially when all you own is the license, not the IP rights. She could just tell them "no" to any movie starring Daniel Radcliffe and instead try to get them to focus on more Fantastic Beasts movies no matter how poorly they do at the box office. For all the effort it would take to continue Harry Potter on film with the titular character played by his original actor, it would just be easier to either recast him, find another young adult fantasy series to adapt to screen, continue doing what they have been doing, or even create a new fantasy series whole cloth that fills the same niche as the Potter films. Then they could get Radcliffe onboard just fine, he could even write the thing if he wanted to!

Or, you know, make DC movies about some lesser known fantasy based superheroes which Warner Bros. already owns the rights to. Trend chasing is what Hollywood does best, after all.

[Ralin]

And again, as noted Rowling is not just a transphobe but to all appearances has made public transphobia her personal hobby and seems to greatly enjoy it.

[bilateralrope]

And again, as noted Rowling is not just a transphobe but to all appearances has made public transphobia her personal hobby and seems to greatly enjoy it.

Which also means that people who cause money to go her way might want to investigate how much of that money will end up funding transphobic groups.

[LadyTevar]

Or, you know, make DC movies about some lesser known fantasy based superheroes which Warner Bros. already owns the rights to. Trend chasing is what Hollywood does best, after all.

I heard Black Adam was a pretty good movie, from a guy who runs a comic store in my area.

[Ralin]

And again, as noted Rowling is not just a transphobe but to all appearances has made public transphobia her personal hobby and seems to greatly enjoy it.

Which also means that people who cause money to go her way might want to investigate how much of that money will end up funding transphobic groups.

Should, but she's probably past the critical mass point where it doesn't really make a practical difference either way. What matters more is the message that it sends to trans people around people choosing to spend that money.

[bilateralrope]

And again, as noted Rowling is not just a transphobe but to all appearances has made public transphobia her personal hobby and seems to greatly enjoy it.

Which also means that people who cause money to go her way might want to investigate how much of that money will end up funding transphobic groups.

Should, but she's probably past the critical mass point where it doesn't really make a practical difference either way. What matters more is the message that it sends to trans people around people choosing to spend that money.

An individual movie ticket probably won't make much difference.

Enough people staying home that HBO decides that HP movies aren't worth investing in would send a bigger message.

[bilateralrope]

Since I last posted, HBO has removed more cartoons including Justice League and large chunks of Looney Tunes and Flintstones.

I only mention them now to add context to the following article:

HBO Max Price Increase Announced Despite Removing WB’s Own Content

JANUARY 12, 2023
BY SPENCER LEGACY

Warner Bros. Discovery has announced that its popular streaming service, HBO Max, will be seeing its first price increase as of today.

As of January 12, HBO Max will cost $15.99 (plus applicable taxes) each month — a one dollar increase from the previous price of $14.99. Current subscribers to the platform will see the increase from their next billing cycle on or after Saturday, February 11, 2023 onwards.

“This price increase of one dollar will allow us to continue to invest in providing even more culture-defining programming and improving our customer experience for all users,” said a statement from the company.

This marks the first price increase for the streamer since launching in May 2020. The service has seen the controversial removal of numerous Warner Bros. shows and movies in recent months following the Warner Bros. Discovery merger.

Cutting content while raising the price doesn't seem like a good move. It's like they want their customers to go away.

[Darth Yan]

Zaslav seems to just be stubborn at this point; he doesn't want to admit he's pissing people off so he's doubling down.