HBO has just confirmed that it will be rebooting the 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:Harry Potter universe into a decade-long television series, with sevꦺen seasons, one for each book. I can see a universe where this makes money, but I’m not sure it’s this one, with both the current entertainment climate and Rowling’s outs꧟poken stance on trans rights. I’m not convinced this will ever happen (plenty of announced projects don’t get off the ground) but if it does, we should not be watching it.
Let’s briefly leave JK Rowling out of it and discuss the idea on merit. The movies are still firmly lodged in the public consciousness, to the point where a TV series feels unnecessary. At least The Rings of Power did something different to 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and even then its huge IP couldn’t save it. Will Harry Potter do any better just because it’s the same story again? 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:It feels like that would be worse, if a🥃nything.
Then there’s the rocky track record. Harry Potter still sells well when it comes to pencil cases and Lego sets (though Rowling’s income has been falling), but the big projects aren’t hitting. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have all publicly defended trans rights (implicitly criticising 🌠Rowling), while Fantastic Beasts flopped hard enough that the last two planned movies were quietly shelved. Heading back to the books feels like a last resort - a normal series would just do a Hermione spin-off with Watson at the helm, but Rowling is so toxic none of the main cast would come back.
Now let’s get back to Rowling. A big factor in a lot of people’s decision to play 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:Hogwarts Legacy (or at least, a common excuse offered 🏅in the desperation to a🍸ppear to be a good person) was that JK Rowling was not involved in the game - you know, aside from being the 168澳洲🐼幸运5开奖网:indelible creator who still owns the IP and profits financially and in her public platform whenever we buy Harry Potter things. This time, there’s no hiding. Rowling iꩲs executive prod🅠ucer and will have sign-off on all of the ideas within the show.
There was a lot of talk after Hogwarts Legacy’s sales that the boycott didn’t work, but I’m not so sure that’s true. As many of us consistently stated, it was not about getting everyone to stop playing. You don’t slay the Titan on the first♔ level. The fact is a huge chunk of the people who bought the Harry Potter game did so sheepishlyꩲ, with faux apologies offered, and some content creators avoided or ditched the game after their community asked them to.
I personally was offered more news appearances and interviews outside of gaming for Hogwarts Legacy than I have for anything else in my career (I rejected most of them, like Fox News), and even those celebrating the game could ♍not avoid the boycott. It didn’t fell the beast but it left a scar.
What Warner Bros. is doing here is hoping that the current hostility and indifference to trans people remains stagnant over the next decade, as well as betting that Rowling keeps her current position of being loud enough to influence politicians and press while never going so extreme that the public at large pays much attention. That’s a very risky bet. that the reboot team won't be discussing. Whether Rowling's reputation stays confined to online spaces is a huge gamble, when trans rights are an increasingly heated topic.
But then again, perhaps that doesn’t matter. This thing could never get off the ground. In the reveal, HBO used the movie’s theme, the movie’s logo, and the movie’s Hogwarts. No casꦛt has been revealed yet. HBO just revealed it’s changing the name of its streaming service (usually a bad sign) and this is instant good press. It’s also a lot of value added with limitedꦐ output if this is merely to boost the share price in the event of the long-rumoured sale of Warner Bros., so this could all be for nothing.
There are a lot of individua🐭l arguments you could make. The huge budgets and VFX required will make it impossible to grow up with the cast the way the movies did (plus the fact the target audience will be Harry Potter adults anyway). The many problematic factors of the book that will likely be changed even in this ‘more faithful’ adaptation. The fact each book varies wildly in length and depth, meaning early seasons will likely need a lot of filler that later, overstuffed seasons will need to resolve.
None of that matters. This show, if it exists, is made specifically under the watchful eye of JK Rowling. She was your excuse for Hogwarts Legacy and that card has already been burned. JK Rowling’s continued association with Harry Potter has poisoned the brand beyond all redemption so long as she remains in charge, and this TV show will be no exception. If it comes to pass, we shouldn’t support it, and I will be extremely surprised if Rowling is able to teeter on his platform of respectability for the next decade and not bring the whole thing crashing d🐬own anyway.