The voices of tiny Potter have been heard throughout the entertainment industry this week. J.K. Rowling's $25 billion Harry Potter franchise returns to the past with a new series that tells the adventures of the world's most beloved wizard boy from scratch.
The rebooted Potter will be the cornerstone of Warner Bros and its streaming service in the next decade, which will be renamed from HBO Max to good old Max (the equivalent of the BBC changing its name to «iPlayer»). Ten years of «Harry, Hermione & Ron» is a big commitment from Warner, who said it will lead the screen adaptation «with the same epic craftsmanship, love and care that this global franchise is known for.»
In an industry dominated by franchises, it's easy to see why Warner Bros turned to Rowling again. But it's hard not to be struck by the contrast between his apparent confidence in Potter and the reaction on social media, where everyone expects Harry Reborn — with his all-new cast — to be dead on arrival.
The reason for the outrage is obvious. Rowling's controversial views on gender and her comments about transgender people have made her persona non grata for many on Twitter's echo chamber. In particular, her opinion provoked the terrible irony of millennials, whose childhoods were created by Potter, who found her unbearable as an adult.
Out there in the Wild West of the Internet, the HBO series is supposed to be doomed. “The Harry Potter franchise was unique, where the vast majority of fans were the same age as the characters in the novels and films, and grew up with both of them at the same time,” wrote an outraged former fan. «The series has captured the zeitgeist in a very specific way that no reboot can replicate.»
Others gave chase and called for a boycott. “Once again I beg you all: do not stream this. Don't spend more time, attention, or money on anything related to Harry Potter. [Rowling] is reportedly cashing in on this. It's all money-making out of fear of losing relevance.
The idea that J.K. Rowling is a vanishing cultural force is pervasive on social media — to the point where it is often considered an undeniable truth. Of course, there have always been Harry's detractors — many fantasy fans treated Rowling with her flying broomsticks and invisible train platforms like a bag from the very beginning (why read Harry Potter when you can enjoy the more complex and transgressive Wizard). Earthsea by Ursula Le Guin?).
There is also the fact that her books are up to date — leaving aside Rowling's views on transgender people, there is the problem of all the ethnic minorities of the Harry Potter characters, seemingly straight out of a seventies sitcom (for example, the Asian character is named Cho Chang).
All I ever wanted as a teenager was H*rry P*tter TV show and now all I want is to throw the whole franchise in a vat of acid 🙂 ✨ Obliviate ✨etc
— Caroline Daria Framke (@carolineframke ) April 12, 2023
That said, the idea that Rowling is in decline is simply absurd — just ask anyone with children of a sufficient age to discover her books. In my 13-year-old son's class, Rowling is by far the most popular author (although, I must say, mostly among girls).
The figures confirm this: in the first half of 2022, sales of Potter novels jumped by 35%. The strength of the franchise was highlighted in March when, despite calls for a boycott, the Hogwarts Legacy video game sold over 12 million copies in two weeks. The argument that JK Rowling ruined her career is the greatest fantasy of all.
Do you think the Harry Potter series is a good idea?
Skeptics will point to the decline in the Fantastic Beasts franchise. The most recent Dumbledore's Secret entry failed. The original Fantastic Beasts made $814 million in 2016, compared to the comparatively paltry $400 million Dumbledore made.
But this saga has had all sorts of troubles regardless of Rowling. Johnny Depp was replaced by Mads Mikkelson as the villainous Grindelwald after his failed libel case against the Sun. Meanwhile, the CGI action alienated those Potter fans who enjoyed the quirkiness of the Hogwarts originals growing up. These were two completely different animals, and the public did not hide which one they prefer. Hence the logic of Warner Bros' reload.
Rupert Grint, J.K. Rowling, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson at the world premiere of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in 2001. Photo: Getty
We also shouldn't pretend that the original films by Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are classics that can't be improved upon. The latter were bulky and too long. As for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)… Well, it's fair to say that few beloved cultural artifacts have aged worse. Special effects could have come straight out of an ITV children's television series in the eighties, and the young actors are clearly on their feet, as even they later admitted. “Of course, I am very embarrassed by some of my actions,” Radcliffe said in 2021.
There have been claims that viewers don't want to hear the same story told over and over again. This week, the Daily Beast cited Amazon's failed The Lord of the Rings prequel The Rings of Power as proof that no one needs Harry Potter anymore. But, of course, the real reason this show flopped—only 37 percent of the subscribers watched it to the end—is that it was impressively sloppy, from those dirty Irish hobbits to the portrayal of Sauron the Great as a petulant bitch. rude.
If Rings of Power has a lesson, it's that Amazon shouldn't be left next to a beloved franchise. Warner Bros and HBO, on the other hand, have done wonders time and time again. Last year, they turned George R. R. Martin's indigestible book into a stunning House of the Dragon. Just a few weeks ago, with the release of The Last Of Us, they turned a 10-year-old PlayStation game into a prestigious series not to be missed. They, not Harry and friends, are real wizards.
I am very happy to report that after a long stay in the literal sense of Hitler, I have become ideologically Stalin.< br>
With luck, hard work and your continued support, I believe I can make Vlad the Impaler by Christmas.
🙏❤️ pic.twitter.com/0Y4Q1KVAKo
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) March 30, 2023
If there is an obstacle, it will not be behind the cameras, but in front of them. Rowling's views were widely criticized by the original Harry Potter cast — Daniel Radcliffe, Harry Harry's most famous, went so far as to write an open letter in defense of the trans community («Transgender women are women,» he wrote).
This week, HBO chief executive Casey Bloys was questioned about the matter. “This is a very online conversation, very subtle and complex, and we're not going to get into it. Our priority is what is on the screen,” he said. “Obviously, the Harry Potter story is incredibly affirmative and positive, it's about love and self-acceptance. It's our priority, what's on screen.”
But will Hollywood agree? Anyone who subscribes to Potter — be it child actors or adults playing the roles of Dumbledore, Hagrid, etc. — can expect to be asked about Rowling at least once a day for the rest of their lives. Or they will be forced to issue a humiliating apology on Twitter, as actor Sebastian Croft did when it was revealed that he was the voice of Hogwarts Legacy.
Being in Harry Potter would change their careers, but it would also bring them to the forefront and center of the trans rights debate. It's a space that Rowling happily occupies, but many actors from a generation fearful of pissing off the mafia may think otherwise.
Свежие комментарии