Harry Potter isn't something like Batman where there can be different interpretations. The series follows a very straightforward story, and the movies followed the books page for page. They could do remakes but there's no real point in that IMO.
What popular film series will not be revamped, rebooted, sequelized or prequelized?
- Thread starter border
- Start date
- Status
Harry Potter isn't something like Batman where there can be different interpretations. The series follows a very straightforward story, and the movies followed the books page for page. They could do remakes but there's no real point in that IMO.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
I was hypothetically speaking.
Non of theses other that the Godfather are series though, and I can see someone eventually trying to remake the Dollars trilogy.
Right, but nothing is sacred to Hollywood. Someone will want to do it at some point. It has nothing to do with whether people want such a thing to happen, or if it's a good idea. It's just business and profit.
Plus, I just noticed the thread title refers specifically to film series, so I shouldn't have brought up a tv show.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Yeah, I really hope they never fuck with Nightmare Before Christmas. It's so perfect as it is.
angular graphics
Banned
Yahtzee Crenshaw Is Dead
Banned
I forgot about that, and good thing I did.
I guess there could be a more straight adaption, but seeing as how the film is it's own thing I wouldn't worry about it.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Maybe lord of the rings
I hate to break it to you, man.....
The Power Of Snap
Member
Alien 
Only one Tolkien hates the Jackson movies, Christopher Tolkien. Everyone else in the family seems to enjoy them, hell one was a extra in the one of them.
Yeah the first movie was pretty true to the book save for a few things. Like Armand is supposed to be a young Angelic boy around 13 or 14, not GAF Banderas. "Queen of the Damned" on the other hand is steaming pile of shit. They mashed up QotD with "The Vampire Lestat" and got almost every fucking detail of the books wrong.
They could potentially start a new series/sequel since the new movie opened up the possibility and retconned GT.
Tolkien only sold off the film rights to LotR and The Hobbit so he could pay for his dying wife's medical bills. As such the Tolkien Estate has never had a stellar relationship with the Saul Zaentz Company (who would license the film rights to MGM/WB/New Line).
Tolkien's oldest son, Christopher, is particularly protective of his father's work. For obvious reasons, he has a closer connection to the material than anybody.
The rights to LOTR and The Hobbit have never belonged to the Tolkien Estate. JRRT himself sold them off before his death. His philosophy for adaptations was that he wanted to receive "cash or kudos"; that is, either a very substantial amount of money or a measure of creative control. He got paid, but his Estate has no say about the movies whatsoever. However, they control the rights to all of his posthumously published works, and are unlikely to sell those even after Christopher Tolkien's death.PK
The rights have belonged to the Saul Zaentz company, as Loxley says, since the '70s. They have been licensed to New Line (and Warner Bros., since the former was absorbed into the latter), but my understanding is that New Line has to make a new Middle-earth film once every decade or so or they lose the license. It will be interesting to see if any sort of spin-offs are pushed following The Hobbit since PJ has pretty much drained the well (seemingly deliberately so, since it's unlikely he'll return to Middle-earth again).
There are several Tolkiens who dislike the film, including Christopher's sister Priscilla, who will succeed him as Tolkien's literary executor, and his younger son (and the one who will likely be calling the shots when the next generation takes over), Adam Tolkien.
The rights have belonged to the Saul Zaentz company, as Loxley says, since the '70s. They have been licensed to New Line (and Warner Bros., since the former was absorbed into the latter), but my understanding is that New Line has to make a new Middle-earth film once every decade or so or they lose the license. It will be interesting to see if any sort of spin-offs are pushed following The Hobbit since PJ has pretty much drained the well (seemingly deliberately so, since it's unlikely he'll return to Middle-earth again).
There are several Tolkiens who dislike the film, including Christopher's sister Priscilla, who will succeed him as Tolkien's literary executor, and his younger son (and the one who will likely be calling the shots when the next generation takes over), Adam Tolkien.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I dunno. Harry Potter seems like one of those series where the actors are too closely tied to their roles, like Star Wars. It's not Harry Potter without Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, and Gary Oldman.
Phire Phox
Banned
Going to miss ya buddy.
With that aside, I feel that there will always be some sort of revamp or reboot of some sort for any movie.
Er...?
TransTrender
Gold Member
Is this in reference to some obscure documentary series? If so, then it will be refreshed and duplicated unless there is some international law passed to prevent such studies.
LoneTraveler
Member
Speed Racer probably won't ever be touched again, at least not in movie form. I think a cartoon based on the property will surface every couple years.
- Status