>I'll never be a rich man. But I will lead a rich life.
it's interesting how relative this statement is. For a lot of people, being able to lead a rich life means you're already rich; if you're not worrying about money every day (and i mean literally checking your bank account before going to the grocery store), you are rich.
King's come around by saying basically it is a good movie but a bad adaption, and he's not wrong. They're two different stories with different characters.
Oh, dang. The screenwriting she's done for fantastic beasts is not on par with her novel writing.
If she's something like a show runner here with hands on each script, it would make the series suffer. Some people are great at story tellingin one medium but that doesn't always translate.
I assumed that statement meant she would be involved similarly to how she was with the movies, when she didn't do any screenwriting AFAICT (because the movies were faithful adaptations of the books, so there wasn't much to write).
It seems like the TV series will also be an adaptation of the books, which means there won't be any need for new stories like there was with Fantastic Beasts.
I guess it will be just like the movies, but without the need to cut much from the story. Sounds pretty cool tbh.
Honestly, she just hit the lottery with a reasonably good story at a pivotal time. The late 90s to the late 2000s was the one period in human history with maximum teenage readership. Paper books were still in vogue, bookshops were still a thing not being swallowed by Amazon, a lot of cheap paperbacks and copies were appearing in the emerging market countries, reading was significantly encouraged at schools, with many places stocking Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, Goosebumps and the likes in an effort to encourage teen readership. Also, no mobile devices!
I doubt we'll ever get a period like that ever again. Those 2 or 3 decades were the peak for writers. Almost every prolific writer of that time with a reasonably good (not great) hand at writing could mint money. It's no surprise that some of the biggest hit authors of that time were Rowling (catering to the teen market in general, with a fantasy theme that easily mirrors school - unlike LOTR), Danielle Steele (catering to the female teen market) and Tom Clancy (catering to the male teen market).
I asked it to list an outline for a French course, then for each item in the outline I asked it to make a table of English-French sentence pairs of increasing complexity.
Depends on your political alignment. Superhero movies are basically fascist propaganda (the people who are most powerful will have your best interests in mind and save you, you dear children who enjoy comic books in your adulthood).
Who watches superhero movies to feel they’re protected by the fictional character in real life? People watch because they want to be like the superhero, not the extras.
Adults relate to the superhero, because they're empowered with agency over themselves and their environment.
These things were supposed to be for children. They have no control over anything and are supposed to look to the big strong adults to solve all their problems.
But even adults are susceptible. Lately politicians have been marketing themselves as the heroes we need to solve the problems we can't.
I was a kid once, I never thought that way. However, the politicians that have been marketing themselves as literal superheroes are also the ones I've voted against, so maybe it's a certain type of people that get that out of superhero movies. They're also the ones every modern superhero story warns against, so your point is confusing.
it's interesting how relative this statement is. For a lot of people, being able to lead a rich life means you're already rich; if you're not worrying about money every day (and i mean literally checking your bank account before going to the grocery store), you are rich.