Harry Potter and the Small Screen

[Brainbin]

As we all know, the Harry Potter series of novels was adapted into a series of films, starting with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (or Sorcerer's Stone, for those of you sadly underestimated by Scholastic) in 2001. This was the result of a search for adaptable properties by film producer David Heyman, who subsequently remained on board for all of the movies. However, and believe it or not, he made his pitch to adapt the then-fledgling series of books in 1997, shortly after the first had been published; this is a very early juncture for a series that had yet to pick up significant steam (it wasn't until after the release of the third, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, in 1999, that it began to become the phenomenon we all know it as today). But it turns out that Heyman had the perfect motive: desperation. Plans to adapt The Ogre Downstairs, a 1974 novel by the established fantasy author Diana Wynne Jones, had fallen through, with Harry Potter the result of a frantic last-minute search for a replacement.

But what if the plans for a film version of The Ogre Downstairs went through after all?

J.K. Rowling sold the film rights to Warner Bros. for one million pounds in 1998, IOTL. What's worth noting is that, this same year, a television adaptation of the superficially similar children's book series The Worst Witch, by Jill Murphy, premiered. An international co-production, it aired on ITV in the UK, children's network YTV in Canada, and eventually, HBO in the United States. A strong cast, and solid production values, developed this show into a reasonably successful program that proved to have "legs" (two spinoffs would follow). I mention this example as a test-bed for my own idea, something I've been thinking about for years.

A ridiculously common complaint by fans of the books is that the movies are too compressed, with a minimalist approach to the richly detailed world created by Rowling. There's always something to be lost in the adaptation from book to film, but a definite impression of jury-rigging and flying by the seat of one's pants has been made with the construction and formatting of those films. How else could the longest book (The Order of the Phoenix) turn into the shortest of the movies? There's also the problem that TV Tropes describes as Continuity Lockout, in which subsequent films rely on the details of earlier books that did not appear in their movie equivalents, in order to drive the plot.

But wouldn't it make more sense for Harry Potter to be adapted into a television program? Each novel could be adapted into a season (series) of episodes, with each episode loosely corresponding to a chapter. In my opinion, television is unquestionably the best possible medium for adaptation, because it is the most conducive to continuing story arcs, and is the likeliest to reflect the warmth, intimacy, and inviting nature of Rowling's world (the better to contrast with the starkness and brutality featured in later books). Sometime in the late 1990s, an enterprising television producer could notice this fledgling novel series, and (inspired by the example of The Worst Witch) decide to adapt it to television as well... only to find himself in over his head as Pottermania begins to take hold around the turn of the millennium. But it will attract more investors, which means more money, and the opportunity for something truly groundbreaking. We've seen truly high-quality serial programs of this nature in recent years, so it is plausible to have Harry Potter serve as a pioneer in that sense, a stepping stone between the competent-but-conventional Worst Witch and something altogether more ambitious.

Special thanks to e of pi for urging me to claim this idea and share it with all of you. This thread is going to chronicle the development of a Harry Potter television program, which will be entitled The Adventures of Harry Potter. It will be produced in the United Kingdom, though with involvement from other countries. Rowling will serve in a role roughly analogous to the one she had in the movies, as a "creative consultant". Among her "requests" will be the OTL prohibition against non-British (or Irish) actors in any of the roles. This won't be anything near as elaborate or detailed a timeline as my other project, That Wacky Redhead, if only because that is still in progress and I have no desire to abandon it after coming this far. Therefore, this thread will serve as something of a cross between a conventional WI discussion and a proper timeline. Many of you will have plenty of ideas about how a televised Harry Potter should look and feel, and I'll field all of your suggestions and requests in order to make it happen.

I look forward to reading your thoughts!

[ColeMercury]

It think this would probably be the best format to adapt Harry Potter to screen, actually.

[vultan]

If it's one of your projects, I eagerly await what comes of it! As long as it's one of your trademark stories with a relatively small POD that has long-reaching effects beyond the show itself.

[Orville_third]

Please don't let it butterfly away Tennant or Eccleston.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by ColeMercury

It think this would probably be the best format to adapt Harry Potter to screen, actually.

That was sort of what we were thinking--a standard TV season of 13 episodes of 45 minutes each would total about 585 minutes of run-time, compared to an average of about 150 minutes per film. For the early seasons/books, this would let them have more time to establish the world--perhaps even fleshing out details beyond the books, such as showing the characters in moments not directly related to solving the mystery of the year, or including background details introduced in later books to better integrate them. For the later books, of course, there's a lot more stuff to get through and they might not be able to add anything, but the roughly four times longer running time would at least help with getting through the existing material without as much cutting of stuff.

Another aspect that occurs to me is the effect of spreading the "year" of character time over a full season of real-time. That'd create an effect very distinct from the couple hours of concentrated exposure that comes with a movie, or of the day or few days it takes to read a book. That'd create a very different feel, I think, since the passing of time in the story would reflect some in passage of real time.

Originally Posted by vultan

If it's one of your projects, I eagerly await what comes of it! As long as it's one of your trademark stories with a relatively small POD that has long-reaching effects beyond the show itself.

Well, at the moment we're really just messing with the idea of what this might do to Harry Potter itself, not so much anything it might effect. Really, there's not much more to this idea than what's in this post and Brainbin's intro--we're hoping to mine the collective wisdom of AH a bit.

Originally Posted by Orville_third

Please don't let it butterfly away Tennant or Eccleston.

Not really sure why it would, unless they get cast into a role in HP and are unavailable or typecast somehow. Or maybe having a successful HP show already existing means they don't think New Who has a shot and cancel it out of the gate? (The latter case seems unlikely, if only because of how much it'd piss off my SO if we did that. )

[Brainbin]

Originally Posted by ColeMercury

It think this would probably be the best format to adapt Harry Potter to screen, actually.

Thank you! I'm glad you think so, too.

Originally Posted by vultan

If it's one of your projects, I eagerly await what comes of it! As long as it's one of your trademark stories with a relatively small POD that has long-reaching effects beyond the show itself.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, vultan, but this is very much a WYSIWYG timeline. TWR is my baby, and that's where all of my grand planning and scheming will be allowed to take the spotlight. This is more along the lines of a writer's conference where everyone is throwing out their own ideas, and I'm just the showrunner who gets to tie everything together into a neatly digestible package. (Ironically, I'm using American television analogies to describe a timeline about a British program.)

Originally Posted by Orville_third

Please don't let it butterfly away Tennant or Eccleston.

Well, I've technically already butterflied Tennant away, as he appeared in one of the OTL Harry Potter films as Barty Crouch, Jr.

Originally Posted by e of pi

That was sort of what we were thinking--a standard TV season of 13 episodes of 45 minutes each would total about 585 minutes of run-time, compared to an average of about 150 minutes per film. For the early seasons/books, this would let them have more time to establish the world--perhaps even fleshing out details beyond the books, such as showing the characters in moments not directly related to solving the mystery of the year, or including background details introduced in later books to better integrate them. For the later books, of course, there's a lot more stuff to get through and they might not be able to add anything, but the roughly four times longer running time would at least help with getting through the existing material without as much cutting of stuff.

13 episodes is a good happy medium between the "standards" on both sides of the Pond at the time; 6-8 episodes in the UK and 22-26 episodes stateside. It also borrows from the OTL example of Doctor Who, which was relaunched a few years later with that precise episode count (and length). This makes it marketable throughout the Anglosphere, and therefore the show would consequently attract investment from throughout the Anglosphere as well. I can't see a Canadian network not getting involved; one did in the case of The Worst Witch as well as that of the OTL Doctor Who relaunch. Canadian funding will furnish the production of The Adventures of Harry Potter as well, no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by e of pi

Another aspect that occurs to me is the effect of spreading the "year" of character time over a full season of real-time. That'd create an effect very distinct from the couple hours of concentrated exposure that comes with a movie, or of the day or few days it takes to read a book. That'd create a very different feel, I think, since the passing of time in the story would reflect some in passage of real time.

Indeed, in some ways it's an even more effective way to "grow up with the series", as Rowling herself would say, than reading the books.

Originally Posted by e of pi

Well, at the moment we're really just messing with the idea of what this might do to Harry Potter itself, not so much anything it might effect. Really, there's not much more to this idea than what's in this post and Brainbin's intro--we're hoping to mine the collective wisdom of AH a bit.

Indeed, I will not be using this POD to create an effective causal chain that would somehow have someone appear on The Adventures of Harry Potter, and in doing so directly affect the results of the 2000 presidential election in the USA, which in turn sees Al Gore elected instead of George W. Bush. Sorry to disappoint

Originally Posted by e of pi

Not really sure why it would, unless they get cast into a role in HP and are unavailable or typecast somehow. Or maybe having a successful HP show already existing means they don't think New Who has a shot and cancel it out of the gate? (The latter case seems unlikely, if only because of how much it'd piss off my SO if we did that. )

Not to mention half the people on this board. Many of whom already have a grudge against me for my previous casting decisions...

---

The first major decision to make is when this new series will be optioned, and by extension, when it will premiere. A few key dates:

• June, 1998 (UK release of Chamber of Secrets)
• September, 1998 (US release of Sorcerer's Stone)
• October, 1998 (premiere of The Worst Witch TV series)
• June, 1999 (US release of Chamber of Secrets)
• July, 1999 (UK release of Prisoner of Azkaban)
• September, 1999 (US release of Prisoner of Azkaban)

By late 1999, Harry Potter is a worldwide phenomenon. It seems to me that the golden window for the rights of a television series to be sold is sometime between October, 1998, and June, 1999. Development (pre-production) would presumably take one to two years, with filming for the first season/series taking place up to a year before OTL.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

The first major decision to make is when this new series will be optioned, and by extension, when it will premiere. *date list snipped* By late 1999, Harry Potter is a worldwide phenomenon. It seems to me that the golden window for the rights of a television series to be sold is sometime between October, 1998, and June, 1999. Development (pre-production) would presumably take one to two years, with filming for the first season/series taking place up to a year before OTL.

Hmm. Seems like late '98 would be about right to express interest, then over the next few months they work out the negotiations of price for the rights, who'll kick in what money for filming and such, amount of creative input or veto power Rowlings gets, all that kind of stuff that needs to be sorted before "proper" pre-production. So then in early Spring 1999, the get the full greenlight to move into pre-production, aiming for a fall 2000 release--and as they're working on that, their series' rights buy turns out to be the media coup of a lifetime. Book 4 was the first world-synchronized release, in July 2000, and I think I could maybe see that being pushed back slightly so the TV show and the book both come out at roughly the same time amid a total media blitz. Could be a strange scenario where they keeps getting allocated more money during production, as opposed to seeing budgets cut or over-runs--it becomes apparent there's the chance of a lifetime to tap a great market, so the execs might be really, really willing to sign checks to "do it right" and avoid fans turning off.

[Evan]

I know next to nothing about television production, and it's been years since I read Harry Potter (I never came back after the fourth book.) Still, I'm already thinking about future effects. If my finger is on the pulse of pop culture correctly (okay, a huge assumption), Harry Potter was the first of the huge YA book/movie productions followed by LOTR, Twilight, and Hunger Games. Might HP going to television instead of movie have an effect on the others?

Okay, very likely not. Hollywood still will be shopping around for blockbusters of proven interest (we're not going to change their broken production model by one TV serial), and Peter Jackson is probably still going to get his hands on the movie rights. Unless we can get him interested in a TV serial for LOTR too?

[tallthinkev]

It has to be British made and almost a must for the BBC though Channel 4 may do just as good a job. With it being BBC made, 50 mins in length is the why to go. No ad's! With that said, it also makes it an hour for a company to show an hour version, with ad's, and without cuts. Money could be hard for one firm, a UK/US co-prodution but still British made. But if Grade is still anywhere near TV you can forget the whole thing.

[Custard Cream Monster]

Channel 4 in the UK, HBO in the US?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by ColeMercury

It think this would probably be the best format to adapt Harry Potter to screen, actually.

I agree--though not the way Brainbin describes it. That would be too early, and given how the books changed and evolved (deliberately, the 'growing up with the reader' thing) over time, the production style would clash with the later books. This was true to some extent even with the (awful) films in OTL.

A Harry Potter miniseries would be the only way to truly do that series justice. People miss the point about it--it's not popular because it's about kids in a wizard school, loads of stuff has done that (Brainbin mentioned The Worst Witch for instance). It's popular partly because of the Roald Dahl-esque evocative descriptive writing, but because of the plots, which owe more to Agatha Christie than other children's fantasy. They're gripping mysteries full of clues and plot twists. And the films usually missed half of this out in favour of pointless long action scenes and trying to cram everything in so they ended up as being an incoherent mess of unconnected scenes. Imagine watching Murder on the Orient Express with half the scenes cut out so Poirot's summation at the end is based on clues that weren't actually in the film--that sums up the Harry Potter film franchise.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Custard Cream Monster

Channel 4 in the UK, HBO in the US?

Channel 4 make something set in a public school?

Remember we're talking about soon after the publication of the first book here, before the phenomenon hit and it started redeeming public school institutions like school houses and house points in the eyes of many kids (and canny teachers capitalising on it). Channel 4 in 1997 would call it elitist propaganda (and to be fair, in some ways it is, though not in the public school sense) and refuse to have anything to do with it.

[Brainbin]

Originally Posted by Evan

I know next to nothing about television production, and it's been years since I read Harry Potter (I never came back after the fourth book.) Still, I'm already thinking about future effects. If my finger is on the pulse of pop culture correctly (okay, a huge assumption), Harry Potter was the first of the huge YA book/movie productions followed by LOTR, Twilight, and Hunger Games. Might HP going to television instead of movie have an effect on the others?

Okay, very likely not. Hollywood still will be shopping around for blockbusters of proven interest (we're not going to change their broken production model by one TV serial), and Peter Jackson is probably still going to get his hands on the movie rights. Unless we can get him interested in a TV serial for LOTR too?

The Lord of the Rings film was in development for much longer than the first Harry Potter movie, and Jackson had been going around pitching his idea for quite some time beforehand (originally offering to "only" make two movies, before New Line benevolently offered to fund three, one per novel). Lord of the Rings is definitely epic motion picture material, right from the get-go (deceptively cozy opening chapters aside). Harry Potter, judging by the first book, is your basic Roald Dahl-style madcap adventure in a surreal setting (with the mystery element). The books gradually get darker, but subtly enough that Goblet of Fire was still a major wham moment. Especially in the wake of The Worst Witch (which is basically a defanged Harry Potter), people are going to look for imitators (success breeds imitation, after all), and surely the Potter books are going to stand out amongst the crowd (as they did for Heyman in 1997 IOTL, at which time there was only the one).

But LOTR being made into movies probably can't be avoided by the time The Adventures of Harry Potter gets rolling. And LOTR is going to get boffo grosses, as it did IOTL (perhaps slightly higher, if we assume that there were some diehard Harry Potter holdouts? Probably not, but still... ) That's inspiration enough for a Twilight and a Hunger Games to be adapted into film as well (along with all of the failed fantasy franchises: Eragon, The Golden Compass, etc.).

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

It has to be British made and almost a must for the BBC though Channel 4 may do just as good a job. With it being BBC made, 50 mins in length is the why to go. No ad's! With that said, it also makes it an hour for a company to show an hour version, with ad's, and without cuts. Money could be hard for one firm, a UK/US co-prodution but still British made. But if Grade is still anywhere near TV you can forget the whole thing.

Again, Doctor Who (produced by the BBC) was 45 minutes long, and this was almost certainly done with an eye for American distribution (standard length of an hour-long episode in the US market is approximately 43-44 minutes, with the rest going to commercials). I don't know enough about the politics of British television in the late 1990s to say definitively whether the BBC would be willing to engage in such base copycat behaviour (The Worst Witch airs on ITV), but they're far and away the best-placed network to exploit international involvement (and, later, success). I was also thinking of having ITV itself attempt to capture lightning in a bottle twice.

Originally Posted by Custard Cream Monster

Channel 4 in the UK, HBO in the US?

HBO seems the logical US partner (hard to believe, but they were involved with a lot of children's shows, once upon a time). Though again, there's a narrow window of opportunity. When it becomes clear that Harry Potter is a thing, networks with larger viewership might want in - and there's the concern that HBO (which is pay cable) doesn't have a large enough audience base for this surefire hit. Then again, it could be to that network what The Sopranos was IOTL, so it's a delicate balance.

Originally Posted by Thande

I agree--though not the way Brainbin describes it. That would be too early, and given how the books changed and evolved (deliberately, the 'growing up with the reader' thing) over time, the production style would clash with the later books. This was true to some extent even with the (awful) films in OTL.

Do I agree that a Harry Potter adaptation should have waited to enter production until after the last book? Absolutely, no question. But sadly, that would never happen. The latest possible point that an adaptation (and by that point, most definitely a film adaptation) would be optioned is the end of 1999 (after Azkaban hits both sides of the Atlantic). So my hands are tied in that sense, if I want to create a "realistic" timeline. That said, I think that there is room for the earlier seasons to be lighter, more "whimsical" than the later ones, because the books are actually like that, and it's very easy to explain away as Harry being more ignorant of his surroundings because he's younger (and, as we know from later books, deliberately being kept in the dark about many things). And with television, it's easier to make subtle changes over time.

Originally Posted by Thande

A Harry Potter miniseries would be the only way to truly do that series justice. People miss the point about it--it's not popular because it's about kids in a wizard school, loads of stuff has done that (Brainbin mentioned The Worst Witch for instance). It's popular partly because of the Roald Dahl-esque evocative descriptive writing, but because of the plots, which owe more to Agatha Christie than other children's fantasy. They're gripping mysteries full of clues and plot twists. And the films usually missed half of this out in favour of pointless long action scenes and trying to cram everything in so they ended up as being an incoherent mess of unconnected scenes. Imagine watching Murder on the Orient Express with half the scenes cut out so Poirot's summation at the end is based on clues that weren't actually in the film--that sums up the Harry Potter film franchise.

I have to disagree with a miniseries - I was thinking about that myself, but it wouldn't work because the one unambiguous advantage, to my mind, that the movie series had was that we really did get to see these kids grow up and become adults. If it's a one-and-done miniseries, we either cast one cohort of actors who play the same characters over a seven-year span (which includes puberty), or we cast multiple cohorts, which prevents that sort of bond from forming. If you're talking about multiple miniseries, then as far as I'm concerned that's largely imperceptible from the kind of program that I'm talking about - especially if it's British-produced (at least from a North American perspective).

Originally Posted by Thande

Remember we're talking about soon after the publication of the first book here, before the phenomenon hit and it started redeeming public school institutions like school houses and house points in the eyes of many kids (and canny teachers capitalising on it). Channel 4 in 1997 would call it elitist propaganda (and to be fair, in some ways it is, though not in the public school sense) and refuse to have anything to do with it.

So, not Channel 4. So now we've eliminated someone. Not that they were on my list anyway

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Thande

I agree--though not the way Brainbin describes it. That would be too early, and given how the books changed and evolved (deliberately, the 'growing up with the reader' thing) over time, the production style would clash with the later books. This was true to some extent even with the (awful) films in OTL.

I don't know, like you said some of that change in tone was deliberate on the part of the author. And by the point of Book 4, she obviously had some plans that things would be getting a little dark--it's the one where Voldemort comes back, even though the ministry don't believe him. So if they want a consistent tone, they can have one if they're in pre-production working with her as she's polishing Book 4. Or, they can echo the same change in tone that'd appear in the novels in the show.

A Harry Potter miniseries would be the only way to truly do that series justice....They're gripping mysteries full of clues and plot twists. And the films usually missed half of this out in favour of pointless long action scenes and trying to cram everything in so they ended up as being an incoherent mess of unconnected scenes.

I'm not sure this makes sense if you mean a total miniseries of say 12 episodes for the entire franchise. That'd be about 600 minutes, even with UK-length 50-minute episodes, which would actually be 50% less than the movies. They'd have to cut more. They'd have to do two seasons worth (24+ episodes) just to make parity with the OTL movie runtime, and three or more to really start leaving in stuff the movies had to cut.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Again, Doctor Who (produced by the BBC) was 45 minutes long, and this was almost certainly done with an eye for American distribution (standard length of an hour-long episode in the US market is approximately 43-44 minutes, with the rest going to commercials). I don't know enough about the politics of British television in the late 1990s to say definitively whether the BBC would be willing to engage in such base copycat behaviour (The Worst Witch airs on ITV), but they're far and away the best-placed network to exploit international involvement (and, later, success).

If this is done just after the first book it will unambiguously be seen as a children's series exclusively--I believe JK Rowling has said that a lot of parents wrote complaining letters because they were shocked at the relatively gory ending of Chamber of Secrets. While in some ways ITV would be more amenable to the aforementioned boarding school political thing than the BBC (I remember this show from my youth set in a boarding school for instance), they're unlikely to pick it up because they're already doing "The Worst Witch", so the BBC may think they're doing a modern copycat at first and not realise how big a phenomenon it will be at the time. (Of course, that's assuming it is--while it's not a very nice prospect, there is always the possibility that the BBC series might be prominent enough to colour people's preconceptions of the books as for children and delay or prevent its more crossover takeoff).

So I would expect to see this handled by CBBC (which at the time was just the name for a block of children's programming on BBC1, not the separate channel it is now). Because it's not seen as an international phenomenon yet, they will be less in-your-face British in style than the OTL films, and they may even do the usual trick of writing in an original character who's an American just to try and sell it to the Stateside audience.

Perhaps it might be a 'fantastic sitcom' as many other children's shows at the time were, like this and this. If I remember correctly, such fantastic sitcoms usually went out at 5pm, at least on CITV, but I can't really help you on their CBBC equivalents because I was a CITV boy growing up due to my working-class roots and hadn't graduated to the bourgeois middle-class channel flip transition

OTOH, it might also be portrayed more seriously in tone as a fantasy answer to the children's science fiction dramas popular on ITV a few years ago, like this and this and my personal favourite, this. Depends on how the execs see the book and whether JK Rowling warns them it will get more dramatic later, and whether they listen. For that matter, it might graduate from the first to the second genre as the characters get older and the tone darkens.

Pshaw, looking all that stuff up has now made me all nostalgic

Do I agree that a Harry Potter adaptation should have waited to enter production until after the last book? Absolutely, no question. But sadly, that would never happen.

Well yes; really when I talk about a Potter miniseries I'm thinking more of something that might be done a few years down the line in OTL, not something that would replace the OTL films.

I have to disagree with a miniseries - I was thinking about that myself, but it wouldn't work because the one unambiguous advantage, to my mind, that the movie series had was that we really did get to see these kids grow up and become adults. If it's a one-and-done miniseries, we either cast one cohort of actors who play the same characters over a seven-year span (which includes puberty), or we cast multiple cohorts, which prevents that sort of bond from forming. If you're talking about multiple miniseries, then as far as I'm concerned that's largely imperceptible from the kind of program that I'm talking about - especially if it's British-produced (at least from a North American perspective).

I meant one that comes back every year. I think we may be using different definitions here--by miniseries I mean "something like HBO would produce".

[Thande]

Originally Posted by e of pi

I'm not sure this makes sense if you mean a total miniseries of say 12 episodes for the entire franchise. That'd be about 600 minutes, even with UK-length 50-minute episodes, which would actually be 50% less than the movies. They'd have to cut more. They'd have to do two seasons worth (24+ episodes) just to make parity with the OTL movie runtime, and three or more to really start leaving in stuff the movies had to cut.

See above--I think miniseries means something different to me than it does to you and Brainbin.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Thande

If this is done just after the first book it will unambiguously be seen as a children's series exclusively--I believe JK Rowling has said that a lot of parents wrote complaining letters because they were shocked at the relatively gory ending of Chamber of Secrets.

Well, recall that there's a two-year or so delay built into the process between buying the rights and airing the first episodes--if they buy the rights in late 1998, they can probably have Book 4 in hand (prerelease copies) before they finish filming Season One--end it and Book 4 would likely release roughly simultaneously.

Well yes; really when I talk about a Potter miniseries I'm thinking more of something that might be done a few years down the line in OTL, not something that would replace the OTL films.

Ah, well, that's hardly AH at all, then, is it? We're trying to look at options for a TV series that would replace the OTL movies, not one that would be made now.

I meant one that comes back every year. I think we may be using different definitions here--by miniseries I mean "something like HBO would produce".

Originally Posted by Thande

See above--I think miniseries means something different to me than it does to you and Brainbin.

So it would appear. How many episodes do you mean in a miniseries, then? Because even HBO-style series tend to have 10-12 episodes per season, so a series like that that runs 7 seasons or so would be basically identical to what Brainbin and I were already proposing.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by e of pi

So it would appear. How many episodes do you mean in a miniseries, then? Because even HBO-style series tend to have 10-12 episodes per season, so a series like that that runs 7 seasons or so would be basically identical to what Brainbin and I were already proposing.

"Miniseries" in the UK has basically come to mean "American high production values drama show with about 10 episodes per series" here.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Thande

"Miniseries" in the UK has basically come to mean "American high production values drama show with about 10 episodes per series" here.

Ah. Over here, it tends to mean a roughly 10 episode one-and-done series, like the Ken Burns Civil War series or The Pacific (to name a few history-focused ones). "Two people, separated by a common language," eh? Anyway, I really don't think adaption can be delayed until the end of the series one way or the other. Once it's clear it's an international phenomena in late 1999, it will be optioned for adaption into either a show or a movie--a little thing like it not being done yet won't stop them, and the tendency will be to jump on it--get in on the craze while it's hot. So it's not going to be possible to get an ideal adaption, the question is if it's possible to get a better one on TV than they get in the movies OTL.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Ah. Over here, it tends to mean a roughly 10 episode one-and-done series, like the Ken Burns Civil War series or The Pacific (to name a few history-focused ones). "Two people, separated by a common language," eh? Anyway, I really don't think adaption can be delayed until the end of the series one way or the other. Once it's clear it's an international phenomena in late 1999, it will be optioned for adaption into either a show or a movie--a little thing like it not being done yet won't stop them, and the tendency will be to jump on it--get in on the craze while it's hot. So it's not going to be possible to get an ideal adaption, the question is if it's possible to get a better one on TV than they get in the movies OTL.

No, that's clear, I was mixing my own personal musing into an AH discussion, never a sensible thing

I suspect there will still be a movie series in TTL just because the TV show would be fairly low budget--but it would obviously be a different kind of movie series to OTL. Probably better in terms of plotting and getting the key moments in, but possibly more Americanised in style and cast rather than being the Equity pension scheme it is in OTL.