When Warner Bros released the Justice League a few years ago, starring an ensemble of Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, and Ray Fisher, the fans knew it was not the product they were looking for. The trailer released before the movie had a completely different structure and visual grammar. It led to the online movement #releasetheSnydercut because the fans of the DC characters and Snyder himself wanted to see the director’s original version (which was later replaced by Marvel director Joss Whedon). After months and months of tweets, petitions, and other hashtags, the movement caught the attention of the filmmakers. In 2021, Zack Snyder’s Justice League was released by HBO Max and garnered mostly positive reviews. I wrote my own review because Snydercut was in every way better than the theatrical version.
Now that HBO Max announced the Harry Potter series’ reboot, am I expecting the same kind of positive response? Absolutely not! In fact, a Harry Potter reboot is stupid, if not a horrible idea!
Flaws In HP Adaptation
The first three films; ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, ‘Chamber of Secrets,’ and ‘Prisoner of Azkaban’ were adapted perfectly without losing the majority of the essential plot points, though it cannot be argued the same for the latter films (except Deathly Hallows owing to the two-part adaptations). Making a two- or two-and-a-half-hour-long movie based on a 600-page book is tedious. The filmmakers often disregard certain characters and plot points. For, eg: the overall characterisation of Ginny Weasley could have been better. Characters such as Peeves, Charlie Weasley, Andromeda Tonks, and Winky were removed. Ron’s characterisation, Luna Lovegood’s characterisation and Percy’s character arc, one of the book’s best parts, were removed. Other portions that were not initially included in the book are also added for the sake of the adaptation’s overall flow.
What Makes Harry Potter Movies Memorable?
The way the HP films were designed, the makers wanted to focus more on the action, effects, art direction, setting, and overall suspense.
Nothing can beat the cultural impact of the films with it’s majestic settings, background music, designs, character sketches, and effects. The films undoubtedly laid the foundations for all the fan art and merchandise of the Harry Potter world. Harry Potter’s theme music and the background score have their own fanbase.
The movies, while they had their flaws, also had their plus points, giving them their legendary status. Daniel Radcliffe, Ruper Grint, and Emma Watson’s lively portrayals of the characters immortalised Harry, Ron and Hermione in the minds of the moviegoers. The storyline gave space for the supporting characters to have their own place. Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, and Timothy Spall are all irreplaceable.
There are some aspects of the story where the movies did better than the books, destroying the cup and crown, the final battle between Harry and Voldemort (which was action-packed as opposed to the long monologues between the two characters), the climax as well as the ending of prisoner of Azkaban, and most importantly, the overall depiction of Prof Severus Snape. Alan Rickman is a brilliant actor, and he gave his 100% while bringing Snape to life, especially as someone who knew most of the storyline from Jo Rowling.
The book version of Snape cannot be glorified because he is a bigot and a bully. He traumatised Neville Longbottom with his bullying, instilling fear in the process. His prejudice and harshness towards the children were visible in the scene where he disregarded and sneered at the physical assault Malfoy committed on Hermione. His decision to serve Dumbledore and protect Harry is motivated by his own selfishness, losing the woman he loved to Voldemort. The fact is that he never cared about anyone or anything else. Harry’s decision to name his son after Snape was a big WTF for me while reading the book.
The movie version had a more humanised version of Snape because he is never projected as a bigot whose heart is filled with prejudice toward someone. He is nothing more than a curmudgeon teacher who intimidates children with his presence. His focus is on the welfare of the children, and he is even protective. The movie has few instances that project Snape’s goodness, like the scene where he shields Harry, Hermione and Ron from the werewolf. The TV series will probably stick to the book version.
Harry Potter Reboot And Rowling’s Transphobia
HBO Max’s official Twitter handle announced the series as a faithful franchise adaptation. “Max has ordered the first ever #HarryPotter scripted television series, a faithful adaptation of the iconic books,” they wrote on their handle. This announcement comes at a time when JK Rowling is on the wrong side of history with her comments on trans people. It started with a couple of “likes” and then a tweet on an article with the title “people who menstruate.”
“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” she tweeted.
Afterwards, she wrote long blog posts and several tweets, slamming the trans movement and expressing her fears. The essay published on her official website mentioned how the modern-day trans-movement is an attack on women. The majority of her arguments are centred around ideas such as trans activism erasing lived realities of women and their feminine experiences.
And the idea that modern-day trans activism leaves women vulnerable to male violence. “Transwomen are a threat to cis-women in safe spaces like prisons, bathrooms and changing rooms because they are assigned male at birth,” is an idea she has propagated in almost every tweet she puts out since 2020.
Jo Rowling’s words are fed by her own research set, including writers, researchers, and medical practitioners who have been vocally transphobic. She wrote a book about a transvestite serial killer.
Nothing justifies the threats that came her way. I personally won’t support the video clip of a person burning the Harry Potter books to show their detachment and protest against Rowling.
I believe that Rowling and women who have the same concerns as her have the right to express the same on a platform. And she did. What she didn’t do (and stubbornly wouldn’t do) is listen to the varying voices to counter her harmful rhetoric. Lived experiences of transwomen and transmen from around the world—people who are still denied rights because they are legally disavowed and even exploited as someone with the kind of popularity and financial advantage as Rowling is feeding harmful judgments about an extremely marginalised section of society. Suppose the artist’s reputation is important and should be considered for a piece of art to remain relevant. In that case, Rowling’s loud and proud transphobia feels like a betrayal to a generation of fans who grew up with her books. Instead, she continues to propagate this rhetoric and is supported by women who are either fed wrong ideas or feed the same to others in the name of feminism.
Harry Potter films provide solace for those who can’t let the characters go but also want to distance themselves from Rowling.
The original cast of Harry Potter distanced themselves from her and extended support to the transgender community. Daniel Radcliffe wrote an essay on Trevor Project’s official website, saying, “transwomen are women. Transmen are men.” Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and Eddie Redmayne, who plays Newt Scamander in the films, expressed their words supporting the community. JK Rowling was not part of the Harry Potter reunion and faced cancellation on various parts. This Harry Potter reboot, where she serves as an executive producer, is her way of reclaiming her rights to her material.
Even before her transphobic rhetoric, Rowling has done her part in ruining the franchise with her off-page revelations. In my blog post, I have mentioned how it ruins a reader’s experience with the book. Dumbledore’s homosexuality was never addressed canonically until the ‘Fantastic Beasts franchise. She dropped several off-page plot points that served as bombs, including a random Jewish character named Anthony Goldstein, wizards relieving themselves, and her regretting the pairing of Ron and Hermione.
In conclusion, many people who can’t let go of the franchise are excited about the new series because they can see a lot of plot points that were not included in the movies. But, this time, the experience will always be different. It will be under the shadow of Rowling’s harmful rhetoric against a marginalised community and the legendary status of the films. But, watching the first HP film for the first time is an experience that can never be replaced. And I wish that Rowling was the badass social media who helped people with her voice. But it is not the case.