http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35539552 On July 31st of this year, there will be a brand new Harry Potter book coming out. It's called Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, set 19 years after we last saw Harry in The Deathly Hallows. It'll be based off of the play by the same name, but unfortunately it looks like it'll be in script format, rather than narrative. Gist of Plot as I understand it: It's set 19 years after we last saw Harry in The Deathly Hallows. It examines Harry's life as an adult, his parents life before they were murdered and it examines what it must be like to be the son of the most famous wizard in the world. So what do you all think? Excited about the new Harry Potter book that's gonna come out? Think JK Rowling is once again milking the cash cow, and should stop and move on? Thoughts? Personally, I'm kind of curious about it. Might give it a check just for nostalgia's sake. I've never read the sixth Harry Potter book (I skipped it and went straight to the seventh -- and last book.) Maybe I'll finally read it in preparation for this new book coming out.
I liked the fact it's going to be released on Harry's birthday. Personally, I'm excited. The more I think about it, the more I want it. I want to know a bit of his family life and how much he's grown as a wizard. I want to know how Albus Potter is dealing with his legacy. As for JK Rowing milking the cow, I don't think it's her fault. She's famous because of Harry Potter. She came into the scene with her magnum opus.
She's milking the cash cow. If not her, then the people who have control over the Potterverse are. If she wants to write and publish other things, she should try writing something else. Has she ever published anything Non-Harry-Potter related? Then again, this is coming from someone who liked the movies more than the books. So, I hope she's happy.
From what I gather, she wrote two mystery stories under a pseudonym but it was quickly discovered that she wrote them. In my opinion, she's stuck in a lose-lose situation. Write More Harry Potter - She's milking the cash cow of a series that ended a decade ago. Not Write More Harry Potter - Her works are compared to Harry Potter. Though on a personal note, I would love to learn more about the adventures of James, Remus, Sirius, and Peter; as well as the rivalry between Severus Snape and the love affair with Lily Potter. Harry's story is done, but I'd love to learn more about his father. What was his life like?
Lots of authors write more than 7 books in a given series/world. Nothing unusual here, and she's free to do as she pleases. If the works are good, then more power to her.
I'd like her to write books set in the same universe, but just not ones that follow the Potter family. I think it's the best middle ground she could take.
I'd like that as well, but I think she's facing a criticism here simply because her works are popular. There are a lot of writers who write way more than seven books following the same character or set of characters. Some spend their entire career doing it. "Milking" makes more sense as an argument for some of those writers. If you're just making enough to get by on each book in a proven series, it's likely that you'll keep putting out new books in the series in order to make that sure income. Rowling doesn't have to write another book in her life, or do anything else, ever, and she'll still have more money than she can spend. The idea of milking doesn't make nearly as much sense when applied to authors like Rowling, nor do other parties really have any leverage over someone that successful.
I know, I think authors have the right to milk the cow till its dry if they want. However, it's a pet peeve of mine that authors think that always have to follow the same characters. It's why I'm looking forward to the star wars spin offs instead of the main films.
It is, but they're releasing the scripts as a book. I'm just mostly annoyed that the book comes out at the end of July and my tickets for the play aren't until October! She certainly has; The Casual Vacancy, a novel about middle-England hypocrisy and small-town thinking (which I rather liked) under her own name (the BBC miniseries adaptation misses the point completely, though), and a series of crime novels under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith.
Depends on the circumstance; as far as I know, the Fantastic Beasts movies are happening because Warner Brothers own the film rights to the book already - they effectively told Rowling they were doing the film regardless of her involvement. But, of course, since it's got her name plastered on it whether she wants it or not, she agreed to be involved in the writing.
So will you refrain from reading it until you've seen the play? I hear the Galbraith novels are supposed to be all right. And someone made me realise that even the Potter books are kinda like mystery/crime novels - they're just investigating fantastical things rather than real-world crimes, but the structure and skills involved would be similar to writing a regular crime novel. So it makes sense Rowling turned to crime.
That is my current conundrum; right now I have a choice between trying desperately to avoid spoilers for three months, or seeing a play I've already memorised (and paying a fortune to get to and stay in London to do so). Kinda wish they'd at least waited til the initial run was over to release the script.
Then I'd rather just read the book first, because then at least you get to enjoy it once. Imagine getting spoilers before you've neither read it nor seen it!
To be perfectly honest, I like my endings to be definite. Harry Potter ended with "All was well", period. I can fill out the rest with my imagination .
Definitely milking the cash cow. It's a play and they think they can make more money by basically printing the script out in a book. If you can't afford to see the play (due to finances or not being able to travel) then you get this second-hand account. She can do what she wants but she's made enough money. I remember when she said Dumbledore was gay and caused this whole uproar even though she never even hinted at a LGBT character in her books. Honestly, I feel her fans are here for the nostalgia, causing some sort of artificial inflation. I think it's time to move on.
Eh, if she wanted to make the most cash she'd probably release another book rather than a play, and then go for a movie deal based on the book. I don't think a play will make anywhere near as much as a novel. I'm not aware of any successful movie adaptions of plays for example. Maybe she just enjoys writing scripts (which she at least got her feet wet on when working on the Harry Potter movies)? The series appeals to a young audience and is of varying quality at some parts, but it's still a really good series. More power to her.
She already has another movie trilogy coming out. It's like Disney trying to milk something: make the movie, the theme park exhibit, the ice show, the Broadway musical...etc. I read the Harry Potter books and enjoyed them, but lets not pretend there's no cash involved here.
I wasn't aware that Fantastic Beasts was going to be a trilogy. That one does feel like a stretch to me though. It's based off of a reference book that doesn't have a narrative at all if I recall correctly. It makes me wonder whether someone realized that they had the movie rights to that reference book and is now taking advantage of them. This reminds me of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game Alive, which was an audiobook version of Ender's Game that was tweaked heavily to work with dialogue only, and tie in with the movie a little bit better. I wouldn't necessarily call that book "milking the cash cow," although I'm sure it was profitable, although maybe we all just have different definitions of that. To me, milking the cash cow would be making something blatantly bad purely for the sake of profit, with no artistic motives at all. Technically, we all want to get paid, so I wouldn't criticize anyone for creating something high quality and making a profit off of it.
Warner Bros approached her about turning the textbook into a film and Rowling pitched her own idea for it. She's the screenwriter. She's a producer. I doubt she's being taken advantage of. She is the "they." I think you're more forgiving than I am. Milking your one past success to continue generating profit (even if you are extremely well off already) seems like using a cash cow to me. I don't like it, but I'd rather people be direct about doing it instead of dressing it up as merely trying to get their artistic vision out, and out, and out.
The way I hear it, Warner already owned the rights to the book anyway as part of their original deal - they pretty much told her they're making a film regardless of her input (I anticipate a Quidditch Through the Ages trilogy afterwards, for the same reason). Dunno about you, but if someone was going to plaster my name and reputation all over something, I'd want as much involvement as possible. I'd hardly say it's her only success, though, from what I hear, her crime novels are also successful (though of course nothing's going to rival Potter at this point). Besides, you are talking about a woman who became a billionaire, and then stopped being a billionaire due to the sheer amount of money she was giving to charities.
Can you point me to a source where Warner bought the film rights to Fantastic Beasts and for how much? I've been looking at various articles, but they only mention her selling the rights to her main Harry Potter books (for what is said to be 2 million USD). So to me, it seems like Warner suggested the film and this partnership resulted. So, Rowling is just a ~$800 millionaire now...Some of her net loss is due to high taxes. Am I glad she donates to charity? Yes. Do I think she's a horrible person? No. Do I think she's largely making money on Harry Potter and that her other books were immensely boosted by its success and the fame it gave her? Yes. A cash cow is "any business venture, operation, or product that is a dependable source of income or profit" and Harry Potter is it.
I'm just working from memory here, so I can't, unfortunately. I checked with the girlfriend (she knows Potter better than I do) and she remembers reading that, but can't remember where either. I'll get back to you. Edit: Your link there specifies just the deal for the first four books - when Fantastic Beasts, et al. had yet to be written (they were released two years later). If I were WB's legal department, I'd certainly make sure the second lot of rights purchased also covered the supplemental materials, just in case some other studio tried their luck. It's not as if they couldn't afford them. Also, the comment that "Rowling was hesitant to sell the rights because she "didn't want to give them control over the rest of the story" by selling the rights to the characters, which would have enabled WB to make non-author-written sequels." would support the idea that she would want to write any potential spin-offs and sequels personally. Oh what a horribly worded article. Business Insider occasionally makes Donald Trump's ramblings look sane. "Forced to pay" "extremely high British taxes" indeed - that article might as well be written by Robert Nozick. She has actually said on several occasions that she's deliberately staying in Scotland so that she CAN pay the higher tax rate (Scotland has a higher tax rate than the rest of the UK), since as a former welfare recipient she recognises the importance of a social safety net and the wealthy paying their share. It's not like she can't afford to move.
