Wonka's back with a prequel that is not needed. Another origin story that isn't necessary but the box office Gods say it must happen although it'll probably be bad. - FOLLOW ME: Twitter ► / zeepsterd Instagram► / zeepsterd
The problem with Wonka I can see from the trailer is its dishonesty... we all know the archetype of wonka and he would not have got started making chocolate to honour his dead mommy or to stick it to the bullies in the chocolate guild or to help plucky orphan girls ... wonka is a morally ambivalent artistic genius auter his factory is a monument to his EGO his name is literally on the packaging ... theyre scared to make wonka a little evil, a big personality ...
Exact same thing with the Oz movies. You take this eccentric, somewhat mysterious, somewhat morally ambiguous character, strip all that interesting stuff out of them- preserving only the surface level stuff that audiences recognise- and in place of that you put in a sappy backstory, bland love interest, stock-standard hero-villain dynamic, etc. And of course, you overexplain the origin of every little thing the audience might recognise and throw in some self-aware jokes about how silly this all is for good measure. This ain't gonna be a movie about Wonka, it's gonna be a movie about a scrappy misunderstood youngster pulling himself up by his bootstraps - the type of bullshit story an actual ceo might tell you
Funny you mention that they may as well make a Wonka sequel because... There was actually a sequel to the original book: 1972's Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. And nobody read it because of the whole "Why read the book when I can wait for the movie instead" mentality that I'll never understand
@@glucosefructose Pretty much. It's like Peter Pan. Because the Disney version became so engraved into Pop Culture, that's the one people cling to most. Nobody knows/cares that they're technically based on books or if there's a genuine book to on-screen media adaptation that's mostly faithful to the source material (and there is: The Fox Cartoon Peter Pan and the Pirates). Forrest Gump may have been one of the feel-good movies to define the 90s, but hardly anybody knows that it was originally a very cynical book let alone its over the top sequel that makes David Lynch movies make sense. Oh hell, The Wizard of Oz is another example. The 1939 MGM Vaudeville Musical is so definitive, it's pretty much erased every form of Oz media from the spotlight, even the original books (and those books were very well written and ahead of their time). Even Return to Oz (which followed as close to L. Frank Baum's vision of the Oz Universe as possible) doesn't get much love because it's dismissed as dark and creepy (and it marked the only time Disney took very few creative liberties. And considering their track record, that's saying a lot) Then there's M*A*S*H. Everybody knows that was a TV show, few people know it was a movie before that, and nobody knows it was originally a book (and that's to the world's loss)
@@Lochlann-Nl Not necessarily. Hell, I read Dune before seeing any of the Dune movies. Same with Harry Potter when that was just becoming popular (to be fair, it was also before they turned it into movies). My parents are the same. For instance, in the 1990s when Stephen King media was that niche thing hardly anyone talked about outside of movie adaptations of his works, he released his book serial The Green Mile. My parents read the entirety of that (even once fought over one of the books like a couple of 12 year old kids) years before Hollywood invented the movie adaptation. The only times I ever saw the movie before reading the book happened with MASH and Rollerball (yes, that was originally a book too. Actually, it was a short story in Esquire Magazines in 1973 but later got rereleased as a stand-alone book when the movie came out in 1975).
@@RKingisRoald Dahl was an asshole. He hated the movie because of all the Jews involved with it. That movie is the only reason anyone cares. Dahl’s work is only tolerable when filtered through the lens of those he hated.
nothing against a prequel, but this just feels like a Fantastic Beasts movie. I feel like this movie was written by AI. The whole point of the world of the movies is that Wonka's a bizarre candy creator in a normal world a not a magical candy maker in some harry potter knockoff
Too bad Roald Dahl refused to sell the rights to the sequel when the original movie starring Gene Wilder displeased him greatly. That's the real reason Hollywood doesn't adapt the sequel. They'd have to persuade whoever is in charge of his estate to sell the rights.
@@duckymomo7935I’m tired of Hollywood adapting the works of bigots for the screen. Leave Roald Dahl behind for Oscar Wilde. At least you don’t have to pay royalties to his estate!
The necessity of Prequel is the same as the necessity of Sequels. It should serve to answer questions within the narrative through a new installment. The difference is that a sequel explains the effect, the consequence of the preceding event and changing the world. In this case, the question is, "What does it cause?". While a prequel explains the cause by recontextualizing the following event, and changing how we see the world. In this case, the question is "Why did it happen?" The problem is most films do not use prequels for this purpose, it's ultimately just a way for a fan favorite character retroactively to have more screen time when they cannot appear in the succeeding film.
Doesn't change the fact that there are types of prequel media unnecessary. Wonka being one of those examples. I mean by that logic, let's give Barney the Purple Dinosaur, Teddy Ruxpin, the Blue Meanies from Yellow Submarine, Doc Brown, Pee-Wee Herman, and Elmo their own origin stories while we're at it 🙄
I LOVE the remake but I am literally not interested at all in getting to know how Willy Wonka became so famous and made such a big factory, not knowing that was part of the magic of the universe.
"i love the remake" you are disgrace to the original willy wonka movies and you should be ashamed you are supporting this kind of degenerate trash movies that only spit on the original, get some real standards for quality loser
Instead of prequel I think it would have been cool if we completed a Charlie Bucket trilogy by having the third planned book Charlie in the White House come to the big screen.
Didn't we get multiple flashbacks of Wonka's past in the Tim Burton version? What gave the team the idea to make a whole movie about Wily Wonka's uprising?
In the docuseries 1982: Greatest Geek Year Ever, Dean Devlin said he wrote a script and people kept telling him it was great but nobody would pick it up. Frustrated, he finally asked why, and someone said it was because it wasn’t based on anything. “But my movie Independence Day wasn’t based on something,” he said. “I wouldn’t make Independence Day today unless you called it War of the Worlds” was the reply.
11 месяцев назад
''All aboard the lack of originality'' Literally the embodiment of Hollywood.
I just leave an answer here to let everyone know that this is a bot that steals comments using multi-account bot on different popular channels like Zeepsterd, Penguinz0, Markiplier, Saperpark, among others. (Count of how many times I leave this comment: 1)
Fun fact: Hollywood never had any original ideas even when it was first invented. Hell, all them famous Horror Movies we have now like Chucky and Freddy and Jason and Scream and all them, those ideas were ripped off from Japanese Monster Films from the 1970s. All the famous Comedy Movies that made the 80s and 90s, just rip-offs of B-Comedy Films from the 1920s and 30s (with the difference being the 80s and 90s films are laden with poo poo jokes while the ones from the 30s couldn't get away with those). And don't get me started on Indiana Jones and Star Wars being every obscure cliffhanger serial redone and made simplistic for the average viewer. Point is, Hollywood doesn't have originality (the way them hipster indie film directors in Portland and Los Angeles do). They just don't want to admit it to anyone because the blind ignorance of the average person is how big Hollywood executives get rich(er)
@@AutisticJoker88True, Hollywood has never had an original idea, but nowadays movie scripts are terribly written. I think there is a better way to tell the story of sequels on Ao3 than in Hollywood
@@mask82-uh4pm Movie scripts were just as bad in the 80s and 90s. For instance, you had incest in Back to the Future (ew). The Breakfast Club was nothing but teenagers dinking around in a school library for 90 minutes (yawn!). Overboard's plot aged like milk, but nobody is ready for that discussion (and never will be ready for that discussion). And don't get me started on Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, and/or Mike Myers movies in the 90s and early 2000s (all their films were, were just repetitive obnoxious shtick meant to comfort the average idiot. You've seen one film from any of those big-name celebrities, you've pretty much seen all of them). Sure, you occasionally had brilliant ideas (mostly in films nobody wanted to watch) but that was neither here nor there in the mainstream (and even when it was, it hardly was). I've seen better (and more original) ideas come out of a vandalized port-o-crapper in a homeless meth park.
@@AutisticJoker88 Yes, but those 80's and 90's movies were fun to watch, even star wars didn't have a good script. But today it is much worse and worse, I think less and less films they have 35 or more dialogues in movies
Solo also failed because of Last Jedi. Like, Solo has A LOT of problems since it's a fan film with a multi million dollar budget, but people like my dad were so put off by TLJ that they said "I'm not watching Star Wars again."
I'm going to paraphrase Patton Oswalt's analogy about movie prequels here - "Do you like chocolate? Well here's a big bag of cocoa powder - when you add milk and sugar it'll be chocolate." "I DON'T GIVE A S*** WHERE THE STUFF I LOVE COMES FROM, I LOVE THE STUFF I LOVE!"
@@AutisticJoker88 almost all the more reason to make a movie out of it. Now more people will know about it and when the certain cuts have to be made to condense it into a 1.5-2.5 hour movie people will find it.
If Wonka is well done. That would be nice but I do hope original ideas get a comeback and are actually well advertised. Honestly at this point, I’ve had thoughts of doing a story with original characters and selling it as a novel. That way, I could at least have it adapted into a cartoon if it takes off.
On that note, Hollywood has never had any original ideas. All the movie's they've done for years have typically come from other people's ideas. All the famous Horror movies like Freddy and Chucky and Jason and all them. They were all ripped off from Japanese Monster Movies from the 50s through 70s. And all the famous repetitive shtick Comedy movies of the 90s and 2000s like Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, those movies stole their ideas from B-Comedy Movies and old Three Stooges Shorts from the 1930s (with the difference being the B-Comedy Movies and Stooges Shorts didn't have forced toilet humour like the 90s and 2000s ones did). And then there's George Lucas and Steven Spielberg Blockbusters. Those were just every Cliffhanger Serial of the 30s and 40s condensed into something more simplistic and accessible for the average viewer. Point is, Hollywood has been giving people the same thing for years but won't admit it because blind ignorance of the average person is how big Hollywood Executives make their money.
Wonka was a recluse, if he really had friends, they'll NEED to betray him or disappear by the end, and it has to hurt enough for him to never talk to people again. I doubt they care about the original source material though.
@@rosefandom285Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The people who give out awards for movies have no idea how to distinguish a good one from a poor one. If they did, nobody ever would’ve heard of this nobody. He’s ugly, he looks malnourished which makes him miscast as a candy man, and worst of all, he cannot act.
It looks like they're trying to cram WW into a Harry Potter mold. And who is the audience they think is going to watch it? Fans of the books probably won't, fans of the movies probably won't. I'd almost rather watch Tom and Jerry's Willy Wonka because at least that has its own kind of insanity, this just looks like they're trying to erase all that.
@firstsonofthesea7938 the Gene Wilder movie is a classic, people have been showing it to their kids for decades. Even the Johnny Depp one has a significant fan base and the backstory they used there made a lot of sense for the character. The books have never gone out of print in the last 50+ years and have been read by millions of people. This prequel doesn't offer anything of value to the character, it won't improve or build on what's already out there, because it can't. Visually, it looks like it was filmed at the HP world at Universal Studios. It looks like a cheap and lazy attempt to try to appeal to the demographic of people who go to see HP and similar movies. What exactly about this trailer and description appeal to you though? Please describe in full and precise detail what you find attractive or watchable about this movie.
@@CinnamonGrrlErin1 who gives a fuck about building on the character this isn’t an anime or game of thrones its an hour movie that tells a fun story nobody cares about that stupid shit and the only reason you mentioned Harry Potter is because you know its got the same producers and Harry Potter was a continuation not a short story about a chocolate factory
Tbh we had plenty of (pretty logical) backstory in the Tim Burton film. It just makes sense! Like Willy Wonka became a Candy maker just because he wasnt allowed to eat any, by his absolutely strict dentist dad... He watched candy literally getting burned infront of him. So many kids that are strictly not allowed by their parents to do some certain things end up doing them just to piss of their parents, or please their younger selves! Seeing a longer version of that backstory would be so much more enjoyable. For example what happened to him and his dad relationship afterwards, or how did he managed to build his "empire" company etc... Also, I think the Paddington type of humor that i saw in the movie doesnt fit his character at all. He doesnt act, speak or do things as you know Willy Wonka would normally do. Like yeah, he is a dreamer but he doesnt care about others dreams! Yeah he wants to make solutions to help kids in povetry (in the 1st film), but he is aslo the one causing them by firing all of his workers and closing his company! He is simply a capitalist and he doesnt give a single f about orphans! I know this is supposed to be him before his adulthood but i dont think he ever was that much caring and nice, and suddenly one day he became weird! His name, Wonka comes from the word wonky that means weird!
Warner bros discovery is getting very desperate. Theyre running out of profitable movies, and with as much budget cutting and debt they have to deal with, I think it's safe to say the company won't last very long.
They've been out of original ideas for years. All the classics they made that dominated each decade all came from either books, B-Movies, or foreign films nobody wants to watch
They are cooking the books on Barbie and Wonka to cover up for their billions of dollars that they are hemorrhaging in losses. It’s like two *Springtime for Hitlers* for the price of one!
I have read the book and honestly the remake with Johnny Depp is more accurate to the book. People just have rose-colored glasses with the Gene Wilder version. I mean Gene Wilder's is more fun and makes the chocolate a lot more desirable but the remake is just more accurate to the book. Personally I like both versions for their own unique reasons but a prequel that is a totally original story and is not part of the book and has nothing to do with what the author intended is wholly unnecessary.
That's kind of the point with this prequel (besides the fact that Hollywood just loooooooooooooooooves doing the whole overly done Origin Story Trope as of the last 20+ years)
im a willy wonka superfan lol i grew up watching the 1971 movie with gene wilder and watched it daily as a child this prequel is a disgrace man nobody is willy wonka other than gene wilder no gene there is no willy wonka i definitely will be avoiding this movie
This movie shameful for Hugh grant to be portraying someone with dwarfism when he clearly isn’t . This literally no different from blackface and , he should truly be ashamed of himself . All those actors will burn in hell
I went to an elementary school built in the 50s and the school library had an first edition Charlie and the chocolate factory book, I read it and wonka is a short generous abstract man in his later age anyway I only realized that the book was a first edition because it was brown and old and that’s not until a few years ago I saw a video explaining that the first editions are worth thousands I was like 🙀, worse part they demolished the original section of the school including the library I have no clue if it was moved to the new section or not
@@marc7248 no i just hate that everyone is hating on this movie, i feel like this is a needed movie to actualy understand wonka. Most we got from his back story was in the depp version where his dad was a dentist
I gotta say, the Cruella movie was an incredible movie regardless if the IP was there or not, but they were probably too scared to put it out as it's own thing. That is a big issue in the fanfiction community, people will use characters from famous franchises and then they'll replace their personality with something they created because otherwise no one would read their story. That's pretty much what Hollywood is doing to everything these days
Cruella DeVille skins puppies to make fur coats, she's not a rebellious anti-hero type character whose mother was killed by Dalmatians. You can enjoy that movie, just don't act like changing her character was a good thing. Her name is CRUELla DEVILe, she's supposed to be EVIL!
Probably not a popular opinion but personally I am excited cause I love new movies regardless of what people do say and then I’ll figure out my opinion after Plus I love Willy winks and the chocolate factory so it’s a win in my book even if it’s unnecessary
The first review from a critic said terrible, the next pretty good. The word Pretty usually translates as 'only just above average' or 'acceptable', which is common for the trend of remakes just for the sake of it. The main gripe some critics had was the actor playing Wonka being just your usual normal guy who's probably inherited the factory from his rich parents. Perhaps that ties in with today's reality tv and influencer generation quite well, who didn't start from scratch as they'd like you to think they did. The other versions of Wonka have been more unusual (trying to hard to ignore Depp's Michael Jackson Wonka) and an out of the ordinary darker character (Wilder). I've heard the book isn't as sickly sweet (pun intended) as this version may be either. Looking half the age of those in the previous roles won't help anyone take him seriously, but this seems to be the most family friendly version of the movie. Hugh Grant blocking out applications from actors with dwarfism in playing a notable part, is a questionable move. I think they were in too minds over whether to do it or not. They could not really win over the river of social media complaints that the print media take far too seriously in their search for controversy. If they allowed people with height issues to play a role, then people online would claim the Little People in the movie are being shamed and made fun of in their little costumes and Trumpesque makeup. Whereas if they block them all out with a big headed Hugh Grant, then the movie is shamed in not being liberal enough, not allowing disabled people to have a part in a major movie. Instead it has progressive undertones of trying hard not to offend -entitled social media users deemed woke hiding under an artificial self given label of progressive or liberal- . Yet people forget (ignore) the real minority in society who are severely limited in the media, the old and disabled. Those two encompass all, but the media is far too focused on ethnicity to care about being inclusive on that level.
I wonder if this needed to go through Roald Dahls estate/wife first for approval or if it didn't need to. If it got approved I have a little confidence in it though the trailer doesn't look that bad
yes i saw this and emeidetly went. Timothy? Really? You mean timothys supposed to play a lunatic outcast? Not only that but theyre also making it an origin story? Like honestly whats with this moneytrain riding stuff
I don’t get it. When I was younger this was my favorite movie. The trailers don’t look that bad honestly. It’s not even out why you saying it’s bad😢It could be like lego movie and be good when everyone thought it was going to be bad
Nobody asked for this movie but it’s directed by Paul King the GOAT so y’all need to have some faith god damn. Man has made two of the best films of all time back to back. Show him the respect he deserves and give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe this was just a badly made trailer which happens all the god damn time.
Just enjoyed this..its fun and heart warming..its Christmas..switch off..be entertained..just enjoy it without over thinking it! Kids loved it too😅 ..hooray!
And it revealed why the original movie was right to make the changes it made. Roald Dahl is the weak link in everything he writes. Trying to be more faithful to his work only makes it worse, not better. Willy Wonka had no creator. He created himself.
Timmeh makes it unwatchable. I can’t even look at him. To vandalize one of my favorite movies this way again not only does not let the Johnny Depp version off the hook, it only makes me hate not only that but the book as well. At least Johnny Depp and Tim Burton made other things that were good. I wish the original movie had come first without having to suffer through the rantings of this bilious antisemite to get it. Same reason I wish we could get *The Jeffersons* without having to suffer through *All in the Family* first.
DEY GOTTA KEEP THEY HANDS OFF THE 2005 CHARLIE ND THA CHOC MOVIE, THAS LIKE MY FAV MOVIE OF ALL TIME IDGAF WHAT NOBODY THINKS THAT MOVIE I SO GOOD THEY BETTER NOT PLAY ROUND WID THAT
I find most modern movies look sterile. I hate how American movies have been getting uglier and uglier since the end of the 1960s, and none of the attempts to reverse that trend have come close to equaling the beauty that Hollywood created in the golden age.
I find the whole origin story trope overrated (and have even before it became standard), but what do I know? I'm just a self-aware snooty hipster type (if you took away the ironically mainstream overtones they carried a few years back when Portlandia made them popular) who doesn't see the appeal in a lot of things everybody else likes. I know, I know, I need to get better tastes and shut up because nobody asked me 🙄 Having said that, my favourite origin story was Manos: The Rise of Torgo. That movie had everything: Bad acting, poor lip synching, Torgo eating nothing but his mom's fried chicken (and not gaining an ounce of weight for some reason), and the little girl who played Deborah in the original Manos movie all grown up and returned to play a Satanic deity. Too bad nobody watched it (let alone, knows of its existence) though. It was definitely one of the better films in recent years
@@CinnamonGrrlErin1 I congratulate you. You're the first person I've come across to know about that Torgo movie. As for MST3k, unpopular opinion, but I hate that show and the fact that they wrongfully rip on movies that are actually good. I can think of a million films that deserve to be torn a new asshole but none of those films will be Public Domain until we're all dead (that and they're all either William Shatner movies or repetitive obnoxious shtick comedies with Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey in them). Having said that, I certainly never would have known about Manos if not for MST3k
You will never replace him. You can give him the same lines, you can give him the same clothes, but you will never be him. He was the one and only Willy Wonka. Just remaster and re-release the original.
They did. The 4K UHD version is probably the best looking version yet despite the lack of an original mono soundtrack and the failure to restore a missing line at the end of “I’ve Got a Golden Ticket.* It even restores the Paramount logo! If Warner and Paramount merge, then that movie will finally be home and so will *My Fair Lady,* a Warner Bros. picture CBS took back the rights to the underlying source material to seven years after it was made.
Not the Wonka prequel, but there was another prequel in the works that just made me angry. Apparently there's talk about a prequel series for Jurassic Park, about John Hammond creating the park. And i just thought... why? What more can you get from this? What further important/interesting information could you glean from a prequel series that wasn't already told through the movies? And what could the conflict even be? Just him trying to make the park with his billions of dollars? A park that we already know will tremendously fail (multiple times, in fact)? There is no point to this besides getting a stranglehold on the current demographic's nostalgic and squeezing every last bit of money out of the Jurassic Park franchise's lifeless corpse. The Wonka trailer just made me tired, though. Only thing that made me mad was the CG oompa loompa.
The Jurassic Park one is actually a good idea that you have misconstrued. It was about John Hammond prior to the parks with Isla Sorna and the ultimate creation of the first dinosaurs that would have been awesome.
@@Darin_Tomlinson I know what all it's about, I guess I didn't get that point across in my original comment bc it was late at night when I posted this and I was tired. Still (imo at least) I don't find the concept very interesting as I don't find Hammond himself interesting enough past what we've already seen in the films. Maybe it's just bc I'm tired of the Jurassic Park franchise as a whole at this point, but eh.
@@FuchsiaNeko I personally would love to see that. It would actually take the franchise in a good direction away from the last two films and I would love to learn more about John Hammond.
How ironic that that is what Ryan Murphy is threatening to do to *A Chorus Line* since most fans of the play hated what Richard Attenborough did with it as director of the movie. It wasn’t even his first musical, but unless you count a fake movie from the last *Naked Gun* movie, it sure was his last.
I have a bunch of problems with this prequel, here they are. 1. Willy Wonka is not a character who needs a backstory. 2. This film feels like it has no passion, nor does it feel like the people behind it really care about the franchise. 3. If this is a prequel to Burton's Wonka, why are the Oompa Loompas depicted with Gene Wilder's version of Oompa Loompas? 4. Why are they not casting any dwarfs for the Oompa Loompas? If Gene can get a hold of many dwarfs just after the holocaust, then why can't Hollywood find any? We went from about 11 or 20 dwarfs, to 1 dwarf, know finally 0. Finally 5. Why do they have to make a joke about the Oompa Loompas singing and dancing? Do they really think that they are somehow better than the "silly" source material? God the egos on display is insulting. Check out just stop's video on Annie 2014 if you want a more in-depth version of reason 5.
Yeah well, that's Hollywood for you. The only reason they made this prequel is because... $$$ and lots of it to be made. That, and I don't how much you've been keeping up on current events but the origin story trope has been in major popularity for like 20+ years now: Dark Bader got one between 1999 and 2005 The Grinch got one in 2000 Clark Kent got one between 2001 and 2009 Wolverine got one in 2009 (a really crappy one but an origin story nonetheless) Monsters Inc got one in 2013 The Wizard of Oz got one in 2013 Bruce Wayne got one between 2014 and 2019 Torgo got one in 2018 Hans Solo got one in 2018 And the list goes on... Hollywood is going to keep on with the Origin Story Trope for as long as they can continue to milk it even after it falls out of cultural relevance. And nobody can say or do nothing about it because the average person only watches the same thing just to be entertained. Blind ignorance is how Hollywood Executives get rich(er). Only a matter of time before they're giving Doc Brown, Pee-Wee Herman, Barney the Dinosaur, Ren & Stimpy, Bozo the Clown, Teddy Ruxpin, The Muppets, and Deadpool their own origin stories whether necessary or not
@@AutisticJoker88 Deadpool and Batman already got origin story movies. (BTW i know about Gotham, but that was more an origin story for the Commish and others.)
@@shawnotoole9195 Huh... Didn't know Deadpool had an origin movie already (nor do I care). Honestly, it's hard to keep track of who has an origin movie anymore. That and all them comic book movies that spam up the big screen look alike to me. All they are are just billion dollar explosions, cringy lines that make The SuperFriends Power Hour look like freaking Rollerball, some overplayed Rock song and the ghost of Stan Lee in them. Rinse and repeat.
He’s a talentless soyboy hack, and he rode to undeserved fame on the coattails of a criminal when they were both in a movie glorifying child abuse and anti-Semitism. He should have been canceled along with Armie Hammer. It’s not OK to like that movie and it’s not OK to like any movie by anybody involved with that movie. That leaves this out. The 10 Commandments of Movie Musicals I. Thou shalt have no Willy Wonkas besides Gene Wilder. II. Thou shalt have no Miss Hannigans besides Carol Burnett. III. Thou shalt have no Marias besides Natalie Wood. IV. Thou shalt have no Anna Leonowenses besides Deborah Kerr. V. Thou shalt not use autotune. VI. Thou shalt not leave key songs on the cutting room floor, especially when those songs are by the Sherman Brothers. VII. Thou shalt not make unto thee any movies out of shows by Andrew Lloyd Webber or Lin Manuel Miranda. Sondheim’s negotiable. VIII. Remember Judy Garland’s birthday to keep it holy. IX. Thou shalt not let Rob Marshall or Ryan Murphy remake anything. X. Thou shalt not remake musicals into non-musicals. Hello, *Pete’s Dragon.*
I know Harry Potter has hit rock bottom as an I.P but Timothee Chamalet would make for a great young Severus Snape in a hypothetical Maurauders TV/Film prequel.
I disagree. I think if you really loved the original, youd recognise that a prequel is entirely unnecessary and could potentially only serve to cheapen that same original. To use Star Wars as an example, in the original, we are told Vader was seduced by the dark side, only to find out that he was just tricked into it by Palpy.
