By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - New Harry Potter film announced

Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).



Around the Network
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).

Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).

Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it. 

 

You mean every book, movie, video game and play that has something to do with Harry's journey. The book on which this movie is based is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them".

Using your logic, then the Lord of the Rings movies are actually The Hobbit movies because they are set in the same universe and The Hobbit came first.



thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).

Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it. 

 

You mean every book, movie, video game and play that has something to do with Harry's journey. The book on which this movie is based is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them".

Using your logic, then the Lord of the Rings movies are actually The Hobbit movies because they are set in the same universe and The Hobbit came first.

LOTR and The Hobbit are two different series set in the same franchise. My point is that Warner clearly wants this in the Harry Potter series even if it's not connected to the character.



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Anfebious said:
The problem is that the fifth movie was really really bad in my opinion. I guess I should give the rest of the movies a try... but I lost all interest in Harry Potter. I really liked the first four though.

Order of the Phoenix was the only Potter film not written by Steve Kloves (it was written by Michael Goldenburg) and it definitely shows. Many consider it the weakest in the film series (I'm one of them), but the series rebounds fantastically with The Half Blood Prince and then Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 (2 is especially brilliant).

I would highly recommend giving the last of the films a try.

@OP

The Harry Potter world is one of the most untapped fictional worlds we have, thanks to J.K. Rowling's amazing writing and Christopher Coloumbus/Steve Kloves uncanny ability to bring a world to life (every other Potter director built upon the world that Columbus created, and it held up fantastically). I'm really excited that this is not only getting her blessing, but that she's involved in such a degree.

Really looking forward to this!



Around the Network
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).

Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it. 

 

You mean every book, movie, video game and play that has something to do with Harry's journey. The book on which this movie is based is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them".

Using your logic, then the Lord of the Rings movies are actually The Hobbit movies because they are set in the same universe and The Hobbit came first.

LOTR and The Hobbit are two different series set in the same franchise. My point is that Warner clearly wants this in the Harry Potter series even if it's not connected to the character.

HP and this one are also two different series set in the same franchise. And what gives you the impression that Warner want this to be known as an essential part of the HP series? In fact, if we are going by J. K. Rowling then it sounds to me like the opposite... I mean, she literally says that the movie has no connection to the plot of the main series aside from the world.



Smeags said:
Anfebious said:
The problem is that the fifth movie was really really bad in my opinion. I guess I should give the rest of the movies a try... but I lost all interest in Harry Potter. I really liked the first four though.

Order of the Phoenix was the only Potter film not written by Steve Kloves (it was written by Michael Goldenburg) and it definitely shows. Many consider it the weakest in the film series (I'm one of them), but the series rebounds fantastically with The Half Blood Prince and then Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 (2 is especially brilliant).

I would highly recommend giving the last of the films a try.

@OP

The Harry Potter world is one of the most untapped fictional worlds we have, thanks to J.K. Rowling's amazing writing and Christopher Coloumbus/Steve Kloves uncanny ability to bring a world to life (every other Potter director built upon the world that Columbus created, and it held up fantastically). I'm really excited that this is not only getting her blessing, but that she's involved in such a degree.

Really looking forward to this!

don't forget the real reason the films were successful...  emma.



thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).

Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it. 

 

You mean every book, movie, video game and play that has something to do with Harry's journey. The book on which this movie is based is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them".

Using your logic, then the Lord of the Rings movies are actually The Hobbit movies because they are set in the same universe and The Hobbit came first.

LOTR and The Hobbit are two different series set in the same franchise. My point is that Warner clearly wants this in the Harry Potter series even if it's not connected to the character.

HP and this one are also two different series set in the same franchise. And what gives you the impression that Warner want this to be known as an essential part of the HP series? In fact, if we are going by J. K. Rowling then it sounds to me like the opposite... I mean, she literally says that the movie has no connection to the plot of the main series aside from the world.

Because Harry Potter = $$$$$



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
Fusioncode said:
thelalaby said:
This isn't a new "Harry Potter" movie... it is just set in the same universe.

Harry Potter is the name of the series. So by setting in the same universe it's a Harry Potter movie. Even if it doesn't star the character. 


A movie without Harry Potter is not a Harry Potter movie... set in the same universe indeed, but still it is inaccurate to call it that. Saying it is a HP movie indicates that it is a prequel or a sequel (which it is neither, as the author clarifies in the press release).

Yes but Harry Potter is the name of the series. Every book, movie, video game, play and whatever has Harry Potter's name on it. 

 

You mean every book, movie, video game and play that has something to do with Harry's journey. The book on which this movie is based is called "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them".

Using your logic, then the Lord of the Rings movies are actually The Hobbit movies because they are set in the same universe and The Hobbit came first.

LOTR and The Hobbit are two different series set in the same franchise. My point is that Warner clearly wants this in the Harry Potter series even if it's not connected to the character.

HP and this one are also two different series set in the same franchise. And what gives you the impression that Warner want this to be known as an essential part of the HP series? In fact, if we are going by J. K. Rowling then it sounds to me like the opposite... I mean, she literally says that the movie has no connection to the plot of the main series aside from the world.

Because Harry Potter = $$$$$

Yet still, the film won't be a HP film. It won't have "Harry Potter" in the title.



Liked the books wasn't crazy about movies.




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers