Unless Disney has a publishing house who can get to Rowling before Bloomsbury (a budding, small group who gave her the benefit of the doubt when no other publisher would), their chances of having an effect on her creative process are less than slim-to-nil. And for the love of all that’s decent do NOT suggest a fortuitous random encounter with Jim Henson, OK? Geekhis has been phenomenal at making a lot of these ideas organic (including Art freaking Spiegelman being convinced that his work will be respectfully adapted), we don’t need a Henson ex Machina on that level...
I have watched a lot of Dominic’s content, but I did not know he thinks the movie made Snape more of a dickwad; or is that your opinion? Because if anything I thought it was the other way around, what with a lot of his most petty moments being cut (and adding stuff like shielding the GT from werewolf!Lupin with his own damned body!) At worst some of his actions lack context due to the adaptation neutering the exposition (cutting the Marauder backstory for instance), or his not using the Pensieve to better protect his memories, making Harry’s intrusion into them a more deliberate violation (and in that case, his response was still MORE restrained in the film, not less, although for some reason NOBODY raises their voices to shouting in the films and thus the impact of some lines is lost).
Oh fie, we could even have someone pull the And You Thought It Would Fail:
“Convince her to change the title, no child would understand what a Philosopher’s Stone is!”
“And what child would know what a Sorcerer’s Stone is?”
“You... that’s... that is completely not the point...”
“Oh look, it’s selling like hotcakes with the title Rowling - who BTW we let use her first name - chose!”
“But... that’s impossible! Noooooo...”
Though arguably the dearly departed Alan Rickman did too good of a job portraying Snape as an asshole. He wasn't quite so petty and violent in the books. At least so I remember Dominic Noble teaching me.
I have watched a lot of Dominic’s content, but I did not know he thinks the movie made Snape more of a dickwad; or is that your opinion? Because if anything I thought it was the other way around, what with a lot of his most petty moments being cut (and adding stuff like shielding the GT from werewolf!Lupin with his own damned body!) At worst some of his actions lack context due to the adaptation neutering the exposition (cutting the Marauder backstory for instance), or his not using the Pensieve to better protect his memories, making Harry’s intrusion into them a more deliberate violation (and in that case, his response was still MORE restrained in the film, not less, although for some reason NOBODY raises their voices to shouting in the films and thus the impact of some lines is lost).
Fun fact: Perkins’ widow was on one of the hijacked 9/11 planes IOTL... small world, no?Wasn't Freddie Mercury confirmed to be alive ITTL, if I recall?
Maybe Anthony Perkins could be alive but I doubt it.
All true; if they had the option to be involved in ANY way, you know Jim would do it. This is the man who innovated the idea of felt puppetry; the idea of novels aimed at children being 50,000+ words would be paltry in comparison, and that’s without the content being right up his alley.The thing is, it's much harder for Disney to lose Harry Potter ITTL than it was for OTL. Harry Potter just checks so many boxes for Jim Henson and Disney in general, that I would be very surprised if Disney Publishing does not accept the American publishing rights outright or Jim personally ignores HP (which would be weird because he is much more connected to the British audience than Eisner was so he would know of HP's popularity in Britain and its latent potential), so it's not completely out of the blue that people are assuming that HP will be a Disney IP.
I'm fairly neutral of story changes aside from the lycanthropy-HIV/AIDS comparison, because that's probably one thing that Disney would absolutely change with JK Rowling in the aftermath of The Song of Susan, but it's inevitable that at least some changes would occur as a result of Disney's partnership with JK Rowling.
It'd be hilarious if Disney does not change the title for The Philosopher's Stone and there's literally no negative change in readership as a result of that.
Oh fie, we could even have someone pull the And You Thought It Would Fail:
“Convince her to change the title, no child would understand what a Philosopher’s Stone is!”
“And what child would know what a Sorcerer’s Stone is?”
“You... that’s... that is completely not the point...”
“Oh look, it’s selling like hotcakes with the title Rowling - who BTW we let use her first name - chose!”
“But... that’s impossible! Noooooo...”