Been loving your stuff lately! I'll have to echo your dad's point that, as much of a train wreck as GoT was, I did love the first season of House of the Dragon. My hope is that they learned their lesson last time around, and since this source material has an end, they can do a coherent arc instead of stumbling into shit
Thank you, the kind words are appreciated. I'll admit, whenever House of the Dragon ends, I'd be willing to give it a try, so long as general consensus is that it had a competent ending, and I feel as if I'm ready for more Westeros. So long as David Benioff and DB Weiss are kept away from it... conceptually, the ending for GoT could have been acceptable, if not good, and certainly not great, if handled well, but by all accounts the two were so eager to wash their hands of the series and jump to Disney to collect that sweet, sweet LucasFilm cash (they never got) that they bungled an easy home run.
That's a fair take, lol. Truly tragic the way GoT was handled. Really, House of the Dragon could go either way-- I remember reading somewhere Dumb and Dumber were asked to be involved with the show, thank fuck they both declined.
I didn't hear that, but that is good for everyone involved and the audience. How those two still have a career is beyond me. They dipped out on HBO and left them holding a flaming bag of dog shit with GoT to chase a check from LucasFilm, and they left LucasFilm for an even more lucrative deal to develop... something for Netflix. It wasn't even specified what, and so far as I'm aware, it still hasn't come to fruition. Clearly, the guys will leave their current employers high and dry for a paycheck. On one hand, I respect the hustle, but on the other hand, given how flaky they are, I would never hire them if I were in charge of a production.
I felt the same, felt too burned to really enjoy House of the Dragon. It seemed okay but I wasn't in the mood for it, the aesthetic felt very different than GoT.
Given that those who control Hollywoke have now obviously fully committed to cultural revolution, soon the question will be asked: They obviously aren't making any money at this, how are they still in business, and what's so important about The Message (tm) that they'll go bankrupt pushing it?
Dave Cullen of Computing Forever pointed out in his review of the new Indiana Jones that, even to the average, everyday, uninitiated public, it should be obvious that more than just ticket sales are funding these movies. Of course, it's awful lofty to think the hoi polloi would cue into something like that, especially with the spin doctors in Disney's employ at work doing everything they can to downplay the film's catastrophic failure, but he is right when he says the only way they're even scraping enough together to limp along is due to angel investments from groups like BlackRock and other hedge funds that exist almost solely to curb the losses of companies that lose money from promoting "The Message" (TM). The real question is BlackRock's pockets are deep, yes, but are they truly infinite? Maybe. But I can't imagine this system of subsidizing movies that lose three hundred million dollars a pop is sustainable in the long run.
Maybe. But I think the public will be more concerned with "All these movies/series suck!" though. Dave works at Cornell and is active online (I think) so he's mostly dealing with curious, above-average types.
The word around town is the movie/video industry's main purpose is money laundering. Which makes more and more sense, the more ridiculous their offerings get. It's really about how much money you can shove through them.
That sounds reasonable, if not likely in some cases. I've also heard the term "loss leader" come up a few times with things like Indiana Jones and several other projects. Wouldn't surprise me if they purposefully tank some of these projects if they feel as if it's going to be a dud so they can get a tax write-off on it. Seems like a great way to say, "Well, we're gonna lose money on it anyways, might as well dump more in so we can scrape some off the top."
"Ancillary merchandise" can make a lot of money, thru toys, clothes, and other promotionals, but yeah they can't keep losing $300 million every summer.
Even a lot of that merchandise is bleeding money. Don't get me wrong, Star Wars and Marvel still move a lot of toys and what not, but a lot of the more recent Marvel offering like Black Panther 2 and Shang-chi have merch clogging up discount retailer shelves across the country. Even that white hot Baby Yoda merch is beginning to stagnate, though, I think that's more from a case of plain overproduction than apathy for the character. There are rumors that Hasbro is reevaluating their relationship with Disney after the last few lines for their properties had lukewarm sales, but that's all toy industry hearsay. Either way, merch is an important revenue stream for these companies, yes.
A writer with strictly average talent would write <i>The Silkworm</i> or <i>Troubled Blood.</i> As for <i>The Casual Vacancy</i> - it reads like the product of a disaffected social studies professor with an academic grant riding on how miserable and pretentious he can make the paint-by-numbers denunciation of suburbia. But the rest of Rowling's post-Potter oeuvre shows she's still got dynamite in her sleeves when it comes to writing a good children's novel or mystery.
I haven't read any of her post-Potter works, so I can't speak to that, but I will admit I went a little hard on Rowling's ability as an author in this piece. I won't lie, I wrote this shortly after the Hogwarts Legacy dust-up and I was very much in the mood of "Can we just move past this series already?" which, I still think is valid, but at the same time, the broader Harry Potter fandom is not something Rowling is directly responsible for and doesn't reflect her writing abilities or the quality of the books, which I've come back around on in a way. I still think there's a lot of interesting political subtext to them, but, taken strictly on their own merits, I think that throughout the course of the series the quality of Rowling's authorship really did improve tremendously... which is more than a lot of other authors I can think of.
In hindsight, I'm also not certain how much of the Wizarding World's inability to stray too far past the Potter-pen is really her fault, and how much of it is mandated by Warner Brother's, since they own the copyright. I still think the world-building of the broader Wizarding World is pretty half-assed, but I also don't think that responsibility is squarely hers to shoulder.
I disagree strongly about Harry Potter; even tho the audience of Woke bugmen are very cringe, Harry Potter is a beautiful work of genius, and Rowling is an amazing, highly underrated author. But other than that, I loved this essay, very well written. (I do agree that Harry Potter the franchise is dead, the literary academic criticism for a children's book series won't compare to Tolkien, Harry Potter's setting is too weird to fit into a formulaic Hollywood blockbuster franchise, etc. )
Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. I will also admit that, when it comes to Harry Potter, I have a tendency to get a bit... hyperbolic in my criticisms. Taken objectively, without personal bias, there's a reason the books were successful and they are better than a lot of similar series in the same vein. I think Rowling has her limitations but she also demonstrated an immense increase in ability between the first book and the last, and I remember thinking as such when reading the books as they came out. As much as one would hope someone would develop better skills after doing something for twenty years, I've seen the opposite happen with other authors. I think a lot of my vitriol comes from a perhaps unfair mental association with the fans and, as you so eloquently describe them, woke bugmen circa 2015/2016, when it became exceedingly clear these people were incapable of seeing reality without the filter of some pop culture property, and EVERYTHING had to be put in context of either Harry Potter or Star Wars, and I just got sick to death of it. The constant glut of subpar spin-off material doesn't help. That all being said, I am somewhat interested in the prospect of a television adaptation. Without being confined to the length of a movie, I'm curious to see what elements they either expound upon or what elements they bring in that were left out of the film series, but I'm very interested to see if they incorporate the "Black Hermione and South Asian Harry" trope that seems to have gained traction in the community over the past few years.
It does make me sad on some level that Rowling doesn't seem like she will ever put out anything special, or as good as Harry Potter again. But everything is beautiful in its time, then fades. Basically I don't think she wants to work as hard as a billionaire as she did when she was poor. Can't blame her for that. And it's genuine that she loves writing, she wrote a bunch of mystery novels under a male pen name. I read like 120 pages of "The Casual Vacancy", hated it, stopped reading it.
Maybe the best thing Rowling does is her plot design, and juggling subplots and secondary characters. Extremely fast-paced. She will give 2 lines, or 2 paragraphs to some minor character, to set up a plot point that comes in 7 chapters later. I think that kind of pacing and economy lends scale to her work.
Been loving your stuff lately! I'll have to echo your dad's point that, as much of a train wreck as GoT was, I did love the first season of House of the Dragon. My hope is that they learned their lesson last time around, and since this source material has an end, they can do a coherent arc instead of stumbling into shit
Thank you, the kind words are appreciated. I'll admit, whenever House of the Dragon ends, I'd be willing to give it a try, so long as general consensus is that it had a competent ending, and I feel as if I'm ready for more Westeros. So long as David Benioff and DB Weiss are kept away from it... conceptually, the ending for GoT could have been acceptable, if not good, and certainly not great, if handled well, but by all accounts the two were so eager to wash their hands of the series and jump to Disney to collect that sweet, sweet LucasFilm cash (they never got) that they bungled an easy home run.
That's a fair take, lol. Truly tragic the way GoT was handled. Really, House of the Dragon could go either way-- I remember reading somewhere Dumb and Dumber were asked to be involved with the show, thank fuck they both declined.
I didn't hear that, but that is good for everyone involved and the audience. How those two still have a career is beyond me. They dipped out on HBO and left them holding a flaming bag of dog shit with GoT to chase a check from LucasFilm, and they left LucasFilm for an even more lucrative deal to develop... something for Netflix. It wasn't even specified what, and so far as I'm aware, it still hasn't come to fruition. Clearly, the guys will leave their current employers high and dry for a paycheck. On one hand, I respect the hustle, but on the other hand, given how flaky they are, I would never hire them if I were in charge of a production.
I felt the same, felt too burned to really enjoy House of the Dragon. It seemed okay but I wasn't in the mood for it, the aesthetic felt very different than GoT.
Here's my guess about the most likely ending of A Song of Ice and Fire, if Martin lives long enough:
The Mountain tortures all of the other characters to death. The end.
And that's as good as anyone is going to get, because Martin ain't finishing that fucker.
Given that those who control Hollywoke have now obviously fully committed to cultural revolution, soon the question will be asked: They obviously aren't making any money at this, how are they still in business, and what's so important about The Message (tm) that they'll go bankrupt pushing it?
Dave Cullen of Computing Forever pointed out in his review of the new Indiana Jones that, even to the average, everyday, uninitiated public, it should be obvious that more than just ticket sales are funding these movies. Of course, it's awful lofty to think the hoi polloi would cue into something like that, especially with the spin doctors in Disney's employ at work doing everything they can to downplay the film's catastrophic failure, but he is right when he says the only way they're even scraping enough together to limp along is due to angel investments from groups like BlackRock and other hedge funds that exist almost solely to curb the losses of companies that lose money from promoting "The Message" (TM). The real question is BlackRock's pockets are deep, yes, but are they truly infinite? Maybe. But I can't imagine this system of subsidizing movies that lose three hundred million dollars a pop is sustainable in the long run.
Maybe. But I think the public will be more concerned with "All these movies/series suck!" though. Dave works at Cornell and is active online (I think) so he's mostly dealing with curious, above-average types.
The word around town is the movie/video industry's main purpose is money laundering. Which makes more and more sense, the more ridiculous their offerings get. It's really about how much money you can shove through them.
That sounds reasonable, if not likely in some cases. I've also heard the term "loss leader" come up a few times with things like Indiana Jones and several other projects. Wouldn't surprise me if they purposefully tank some of these projects if they feel as if it's going to be a dud so they can get a tax write-off on it. Seems like a great way to say, "Well, we're gonna lose money on it anyways, might as well dump more in so we can scrape some off the top."
"Ancillary merchandise" can make a lot of money, thru toys, clothes, and other promotionals, but yeah they can't keep losing $300 million every summer.
Even a lot of that merchandise is bleeding money. Don't get me wrong, Star Wars and Marvel still move a lot of toys and what not, but a lot of the more recent Marvel offering like Black Panther 2 and Shang-chi have merch clogging up discount retailer shelves across the country. Even that white hot Baby Yoda merch is beginning to stagnate, though, I think that's more from a case of plain overproduction than apathy for the character. There are rumors that Hasbro is reevaluating their relationship with Disney after the last few lines for their properties had lukewarm sales, but that's all toy industry hearsay. Either way, merch is an important revenue stream for these companies, yes.
You're definitely correct! Just this week, Shang-Chi's main actor announced his film got pushed back indefinitely.
Spend a lot on a stinker, funnel the money back to you and your friends, and take a tax loss, sure. But also flat out laundering https://sanctionscanner.com/blog/film-industry-and-money-laundering-402
A writer with strictly average talent would write <i>The Silkworm</i> or <i>Troubled Blood.</i> As for <i>The Casual Vacancy</i> - it reads like the product of a disaffected social studies professor with an academic grant riding on how miserable and pretentious he can make the paint-by-numbers denunciation of suburbia. But the rest of Rowling's post-Potter oeuvre shows she's still got dynamite in her sleeves when it comes to writing a good children's novel or mystery.
I haven't read any of her post-Potter works, so I can't speak to that, but I will admit I went a little hard on Rowling's ability as an author in this piece. I won't lie, I wrote this shortly after the Hogwarts Legacy dust-up and I was very much in the mood of "Can we just move past this series already?" which, I still think is valid, but at the same time, the broader Harry Potter fandom is not something Rowling is directly responsible for and doesn't reflect her writing abilities or the quality of the books, which I've come back around on in a way. I still think there's a lot of interesting political subtext to them, but, taken strictly on their own merits, I think that throughout the course of the series the quality of Rowling's authorship really did improve tremendously... which is more than a lot of other authors I can think of.
In hindsight, I'm also not certain how much of the Wizarding World's inability to stray too far past the Potter-pen is really her fault, and how much of it is mandated by Warner Brother's, since they own the copyright. I still think the world-building of the broader Wizarding World is pretty half-assed, but I also don't think that responsibility is squarely hers to shoulder.
I disagree strongly about Harry Potter; even tho the audience of Woke bugmen are very cringe, Harry Potter is a beautiful work of genius, and Rowling is an amazing, highly underrated author. But other than that, I loved this essay, very well written. (I do agree that Harry Potter the franchise is dead, the literary academic criticism for a children's book series won't compare to Tolkien, Harry Potter's setting is too weird to fit into a formulaic Hollywood blockbuster franchise, etc. )
Thank you, I appreciate the kind words. I will also admit that, when it comes to Harry Potter, I have a tendency to get a bit... hyperbolic in my criticisms. Taken objectively, without personal bias, there's a reason the books were successful and they are better than a lot of similar series in the same vein. I think Rowling has her limitations but she also demonstrated an immense increase in ability between the first book and the last, and I remember thinking as such when reading the books as they came out. As much as one would hope someone would develop better skills after doing something for twenty years, I've seen the opposite happen with other authors. I think a lot of my vitriol comes from a perhaps unfair mental association with the fans and, as you so eloquently describe them, woke bugmen circa 2015/2016, when it became exceedingly clear these people were incapable of seeing reality without the filter of some pop culture property, and EVERYTHING had to be put in context of either Harry Potter or Star Wars, and I just got sick to death of it. The constant glut of subpar spin-off material doesn't help. That all being said, I am somewhat interested in the prospect of a television adaptation. Without being confined to the length of a movie, I'm curious to see what elements they either expound upon or what elements they bring in that were left out of the film series, but I'm very interested to see if they incorporate the "Black Hermione and South Asian Harry" trope that seems to have gained traction in the community over the past few years.
Overall great analysis.
It does make me sad on some level that Rowling doesn't seem like she will ever put out anything special, or as good as Harry Potter again. But everything is beautiful in its time, then fades. Basically I don't think she wants to work as hard as a billionaire as she did when she was poor. Can't blame her for that. And it's genuine that she loves writing, she wrote a bunch of mystery novels under a male pen name. I read like 120 pages of "The Casual Vacancy", hated it, stopped reading it.
Maybe the best thing Rowling does is her plot design, and juggling subplots and secondary characters. Extremely fast-paced. She will give 2 lines, or 2 paragraphs to some minor character, to set up a plot point that comes in 7 chapters later. I think that kind of pacing and economy lends scale to her work.