Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
Even if it weren't for JK Rowling I just don't care about this remake. It's unnecessary why are they doing it it's just weird.
No one seems to have a compulsion to remake other early 2000 movies into TV shows I don't know why they've got to start with Harry potter of all things. I would sort of get it if they just want to do tell more stories in the same universe but they're just going to rehash what's already being done. Why?
I feel like it's made to keep it relevant for newer kids. Kinda like Disney and doing live action remakes but worse.
I think it looks... fine. (It's missing color- the magic of cinema.) While I don't want it to succeed in my heart, I know waaaaay too many millennial parents that will be force feeding this to children.
The explanation is that the movies famously cut out a LOT from the books, and fans were kinda sad about it, and the show aims to restore a whole bunch of that. In a vacuum, this would be a nice thing actually, like a Lord of the Rings show that restores the full content of all of Tolkien's books properly, the people want the Bombadil cut (oh look, what's Stephen Colbert doing over there?). Fans wanted it, and a lot of people will be very happy about it as long as it doesn't bomb. It's just a shame that Rowling will also be very happy about it, couldn't even wait for her to die so that they don't have to pay her.
You pretty much summed it up. This new TV series is aimed more towards the people who loved the books but we're disappointed by the movies. The first 3 seasons though are probably going to be pretty similar to the movies because the first 3 books were pretty short And the movies did a decent job of following them. However, the 4th movie was where they really veered away from the books in a lot of ways. Its basically the equivalent of someone remaking The Hobbit, since there's a lot of Lord of The Rings fans that hated The Hobbit movies because they added a bunch of random shit to them that weren't in the book.
There is a solution. 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
Same thing but with homophobic chicken sandwich.
I've never understood the love for their food. It's not that good. I wouldn't eat there even if they weren't owned shitty people.
I might watch it, pirated. But that franchise will never see another penny from me.
I love HP. Hewlett-Packard? Oh fuck, that's worse.
according to this comic, does it make it okay if you pirate everything so that there's no financial transaction involved?
edit i guess i should state: i dont fuck with harry potter stuff. it was just something i thought of. i'm more of a wizards in space kinda guy (sci fi lol)
At that point you're someone standing next to the dude in the "I ❤️ HP" shirt. Supporting a fandom that is owned by bigots is still not great. At the end of the day you're perpetuating it's existence.
It's not nearly as bad, but it's not good.
If you absolutely must read those collections of poor writing and thinly veiled racism, you can get them from a used bookstore as well. The point is to not give fuckface money
It's kind of muddy and depends on your personal beliefs on how much you think interacting with a terrible person through uncritical devouring of their works is likely to taint your own worldview. Various factors include how many people were involved, did they have the views at the time, are you capable of reading the text in a manner where you seperate yourself a bit from it, etc.
I don't think it's worth the risk personally, but I tend to view art as a communication from one person to another, rather than a commodity or a consumable. I don't particularly go out of my way to communicate with terfs who are immune to critical thinking. Also if we get down to brass tacks, it's not that good of a series.
There is always piracy though.
Better to not engage with her output at all though. Plenty of other good shows and books in the world to enjoy, without providing further engagement and interest for her hate.
is this about the NEW movie?, everyone said the new "lookalikes" of the og cast look like AI generated, and JKR have been criticized for trying to white wash the og cast because they dont like jkr for her transphobia..
I just scrubbed through the trailer and it truly looks AI generated. Like they just remade the movie with different actors instead of re-imagining it to make something unique.
The age-old question...Can you separate the art from the artist?
This is not that question though.
The question of separation of art and artist is about if you should judge the art based on the artist. That is not required or even the criticism.
In fact, most people don't even say that HP is bad because of jk rolling. They say, it is bad to pay for HP products because jk rolling gets money from it.
I am fairly certain that people would be fine with someone pirating HP movies and watching them. Publicly screening is a different story.
https://vger.to/sopuli.xyz/comment/22643123 evidence for my claim.
Yeah but only after they're dead when they're not getting royalties anymore.
after they're dead when they're not getting royalties
Or actively trying to do harm.
"Can one separate art from artist?"
We need to stop having that conversation because That stopped being the question!
That WAS the question in the beginning when we as a society were really trying out a new form of advocacy where millions of people could have a parasocial relationship with an author in real time and learned that their "friend" was being a jerk but that is far from the question now.
JKR used her fantastic wealth to fund the lawyers that made the landmark decision to change the legal definitions of woman and render UK Gender recognition certificates moot. This decision has legitimately caused a surge in workplaces siding with transphobic employees, attacks on trans and cis people in bath and changing rooms, disqualified trans women (a population who is known to have high rates of domestic abuse, rape and human trafficking), from shelters and medical/mental services they desperately need.
And she lit a cigar and patted herself on the back for a good use of 700,000 pounds stirling.
There are other groups and causes she funds and supports through attention capture through her activism and bank account. This isn't separating art from artist - it is cutting off revenue streams to a hateful popular activist campaigning to make vulnerable people die because she finds them intellectually inconvenient.
Yes, but you can't separate your money you spend on their products from them. That's why pirating is the morally correct thing to do in that situation.
I can, but why would I? There's already more art than I can consume in a lifetime, made by people who weren't evil
