Rowling has a tight grip on Harry Potter, which is good for two reasons. First, it represents a victory for creatives in the creative/executive battle. Second, it means the property won’t be endlessly spun off.

Possibly, but from what I can tell (and I am, admittedly, speaking with all the authority and wisdom of an anonymous rando on the interwebs) it seems that even if that’s the case she still has plenty of clout. She had casting approval and scriptwriting right-of-refusal (among other things) over Fantastic Beasts IIRC,…

I think you may be referring to the 1980 Roger Corman movie “Battle Beyond the Stars”. Like most of Corman’s works, this was completely original and in no way inspired by something else.

On the flipside, though, given that she’s already raking in more billions thanks to Harry Potter, at the moment she doesn’t really have an incentive to essentially go “Okay, I’ll stop raking in all the money ever if someone gives me a one-off payment of just a comparatively little bit of the money.”

Colbert loves LOTR and brings it up as a bit in his show. There are plenty of people who love Star Trek as a comforting show.

“More billions” is generally a big draw for billionaires. Lucas sold Star Wars for something like $4 billion. I would expect the Potterverse would be worth as much or more. Now, IDK if any entity other than Disney would be willing and able to spend that much, but anything can be had, given an infinite bank account.

Because it’s hers. That’s the simple answer. She created it, it’s her intellectual property, she owns the rights to it, and she’s still alive. Until she sells her rights in entirety or dies, nothing — nothing — happens in Harry Potterland without either JK Rowling’s blessing or JK Rowling getting a big fat check out…

In conclusion, Mehmet Oz is a land of contrasts.

Only to discover when they arrive that the VW van is their new Worker Housing Unit.

“We actually have very little in common, which explains why we’re on different sides of this good vs evil issue!”

Just once, I want a villain in a movie to say “We’re very different, you and I.”

I’m still waiting to see Batman take off his suit and reveal he’s wearing a My Chemical Romance shirt underneath.  Bruce Wayne looks like an emo kid who’s trying way too hard.

Catwoman said it in a trailer that showed during Spider-Man. My eye roll was practically audible.

I just assumed yesterday everyone who was still working for the A.V. Club piled their meager possessions into a VW Van and drove to their new Worker Housing Units in LA.

I can’t wait to hear this version of Batman utter his iconic line, “You know, I’m something of a scientist myself.”

He has past domestic violence allegations. So people were probably just waiting for more to come out.

Surely given the subject matter of the film, the grade should have been C++?

Grounding Toomes in a very real setting helped sell him as the villain so much. When you see him as the leader of a gang of crooks, he’s menacing; when you see him as Liz’s suburban dad, he’s terrifying.

Also... his motivations are consistent! He tries to break off the fight midway because he sees the thing he wants to steal and that’s more important to him than (muah hah hah hah) beating Spider-Man.

I really, really like that he doesn’t die at the end - he has a showdown with Spider-Man, and Spider-Man carries him away from it. None of the other movies captured the idea that Spider-Man deliberately pulls his punches.