- Joined
- Mar 29, 2020
he was scared of polish people
he wouldn't last a second around one of these freaks
Diseased Rowling Derangement Syndrome - "TERF/Woke Author Bad!!1"
- Thread starter 1440p Curved Monitor
- Start date
he wouldn't last a second around one of these freaks
Candidate No 7
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2023
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
The level at which these people are so desperate to hate on anything and everything Rowling did/does but always want o obsess and love Harry Potter is hilarious to me.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
How would that even work?
Most likely this is just some guess work based on something some random troon or gender special "insider" overheard.
I am guessing that if true, they are specifically wanting to buy her out of the rights to do with films, TV, and video game adaptions.
I don't see why they would want to buy out the book publishing/copyright parts. That can't be as lucrative as it used to be, unless it is about having complete creative control or something.
In any case, I doubt Rowling would sell. She can always refuse. She presumably already has all the money she needs, so unless they make moves to ruin her life and bankrupt her, then I can't see her needing to sell.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2021
I really like it's depicted as "could lose." As though it's being taken from her for poor behaviour rather than a business trying to buy out ownership from the original creator of the franchise.
I know it's Wizarding News, a journalist and Jeffrey Sneider who I cannot be bothered to find his opinions or Rowling but any sane human is going to look at that and see the bullshit. So it's exclusively pitched at idiots who are unable to recognise their own ignorance.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2021
It's because they live through these fictional chatacters. No different from erotomaniacs who fantasize about dating celebrities and get dangerously pissed off when their idols do something they disapprove of.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2020
Most tranny authors would be thrilled if someone tried to buy the rights to something they wrote for $1000, but they'll try to chalk it up as a a tranny W if Rowling ends up getting a billion dollars.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2021
Then the good people own it. Corporations!
Followed by posting a dozen things on social media railing against capitalism and "tear it all down."
Trollish and Suspicious
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2024
As a bisexual man who supports trans people and rights, I can assure you I have no interest in obsessing over the creepy old women or her children's books or seeing her botox-filled face all over the media.
Diesel Boogaloo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
A baker can lose his bread if he sells it. News at 11.
I've read the article and it's literally just that.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
It seems to just be that this Jeffery Sneider is commenting and speculating on some “rumors” he heard or just plain made up.
He thinks that Warner Brothers really want the original cast back in another Harry Potter film and Rowling’s continued involvement prevents that.
Considering that the original cast have all made other wildly different things and acted like they don’t want to be typecast, it sounds more like wishful thinking.
Especially as his take on the upcoming TV series is that it’s like a back up plan.
Rowling has an incredible amount of veto power over anything Potter related, but I doubt she would give that up. He claims she asked for an impossible sum of money for the rights, so that makes it clear she isn’t willing to sell.
Roald Dahl always hated the film adaptations of his books, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Rowling thinks she would feel the same. She wouldn’t have gone to the effort of establishing this amount of continued control if she didn’t.
Obviously she likes the money it gains her, but if it was just personal greed, then she would have let them fuck with the film editions and let her royalties roll in.
The problem that a lot of these morons have is that they seem to think they have some sort of ownership or right to Harry Potter and completely forget that ultimately it is JK Rowling’s creation and work.
Especially as his take on the upcoming TV series is that it’s like a back up plan.
Rowling has an incredible amount of veto power over anything Potter related, but I doubt she would give that up. He claims she asked for an impossible sum of money for the rights, so that makes it clear she isn’t willing to sell.
Roald Dahl always hated the film adaptations of his books, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Rowling thinks she would feel the same. She wouldn’t have gone to the effort of establishing this amount of continued control if she didn’t.
Obviously she likes the money it gains her, but if it was just personal greed, then she would have let them fuck with the film editions and let her royalties roll in.
The problem that a lot of these morons have is that they seem to think they have some sort of ownership or right to Harry Potter and completely forget that ultimately it is JK Rowling’s creation and work.
Candidate No 7
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2023
It's hard to overstate how rare it is for a whole series of books to be adapted successfully like that; the odds were against her. (They didn't finish Narnia for instance.) The fact Harry Potter worked so well on the screen is she kept a close eye on it, insisted they don't cast US actors etc...
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Fucking retards. That's like saying notch "lost" Minecraft when he decided to sell it for $2.5 fucking billion.
So she could DECIDE to sell it, probably for some obscene amount of money. If she felt like it. Or there's some mechanism for a hostile takeover. She's probably a better businesswoman than she is a writer, so I find this implausible even versus a horde of corporate goblin lawyers.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
Is there any mechanism for a hostile takeover of intellectual property? JKR isn't Bill Finger or the guys who created Superman, not at this point in the IP's life.
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
The only way I could think as I said before is if they make her desperate to sell.
Financially ruining her might do it, but I doubt they could manage that without it backfiring.
What has more often happened in terms of film rights and such is that writers have sold them to studios because they need the money.
Not many authors are millionaires from their writings, even popular ones.
Some allow their agent to do all the negotiation, so they end up with a fat enough cheque but have signed away creative control without fully realizing.
Rowling was lucky in part in that the book series was so phenomenally popular that she was a wealthy woman before the film rights were sold. This put her in a better position, because the lure of a quick payout wasn’t a factor for her.
This is probably also a big reason why the rights went to WB rather than Disney.
Disney don’t play well with others, when it comes to creative control.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Either that or they might wait for her to die before they ruin Harry Potter, similarly to what they did to Lord of the Rings.
But by then, society will have probably reached peak trans and nobody gives a shit anymore.
But by then, society will have probably reached peak trans and nobody gives a shit anymore.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
Jo's sister is a lawyer. I've never been able to confirm this, but I've always thought that was one of the reasons why she has unprecedented creative control over the Harry Potter property. The only part of the property that bleeds a little is Portkey Games, but even then, there's a ton of consistency in terms of how spells and potions work and world-building places and characters.
Jo will never sell. There is no amount of money large enough to offer her for the property; she already has enough money to support multiple generations of her family and her charities. Harry Potter is her baby and she will not risk it falling into the wrong hands. Warner Brothers attempted to wrest creative control from her when they wanted to start work on Cursed Child; she took back control again and worked on the story with the (well-regarded) playwright they hired, Jack Thorne. She wrote all the screenplays for Fantastic Beasts. At any point, she could have cut and run like George Lucas did, but she never has. I'm sure there's been offers, but it's not a question of a number for her. The only writer I know who had that kind of control over a property was Christopher Tolkien, and Amazon had to wait until he fucking died to get the rights to the literal appendices of Lord of the Rings, not even the actual Silmarillion or expanded universe. But that is why we only recently are seeing games, merch, more movies, and television shows.
Jo will never sell. There is no amount of money large enough to offer her for the property; she already has enough money to support multiple generations of her family and her charities. Harry Potter is her baby and she will not risk it falling into the wrong hands. Warner Brothers attempted to wrest creative control from her when they wanted to start work on Cursed Child; she took back control again and worked on the story with the (well-regarded) playwright they hired, Jack Thorne. She wrote all the screenplays for Fantastic Beasts. At any point, she could have cut and run like George Lucas did, but she never has. I'm sure there's been offers, but it's not a question of a number for her. The only writer I know who had that kind of control over a property was Christopher Tolkien, and Amazon had to wait until he fucking died to get the rights to the literal appendices of Lord of the Rings, not even the actual Silmarillion or expanded universe. But that is why we only recently are seeing games, merch, more movies, and television shows.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
And very very few are billionaires, and J.K. Rowling appears to be one of those few people. She is the definition of "fuck you money."
Kent Allard
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2023
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
True.
Even Steven King is “only” a half billionaire!
If anyone else would be through being an author, it’s him.