Harry Potter Movie Problems

RESPECTFUL REBUTTALS AND VERY SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST VARIOUS AND SUNDRY ASPECTS, INACCURACIES, INFIDELITIES, EGREGIOUS ERRORS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WRONG WITH THE HARRY POTTER MOVIES

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

you know even aside from the VERY warranted criticisms of Joanne and her despicable politics I think everyone's been really wondering what the fuck there is to do with this enormous HP series on HBO other than beat more money out of the dead horse. like, what is there to explore that hasn't been covered by the generally well-received and inarguably iconic movies? what fresh interpretation of the story justifies all that?

and I do not have to hand it to them, but I will say that I never in a million years could have guessed that one of their hot new character reimaginings was going to be taking the head of the blood purity house, the guy who torments his students beyond reason on a regular basis, the guy who has a specific hate-on for the protagonist because he wanted to fuck that kid's mom, the guy whose hair and nose are frequently remarked on to emphasize that he's a unpleasant and creepy-looking motherfucker—never would I ever have guessed that anyone would have come up "hey, what if that guy was Black?"

and they went through with it! deranged! and you can't even chalk it up to any notable effort to diversify the series or anything; I've checked! this cast is still white as shit! as far as I can tell this is the only Black person employed by the entire wizard school! whole rest of the staff, white as hell. couldn't even pretend they gave enough of a shit to cast any other Black actors or other actors of color. just made the biggest shithead there a Black guy and patted themselves on the backs. truly everything Joanne touches is so seething with bigotry it's unreal.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

it's like JK looked at all the bigotry in her series to see if she'd missed anything and realized she'd forgotten a scary Black man 💀

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

this post has the dubious honor of spawning one of the most genuinely braindead replies I've seen in over a decade of voluntary confinement in this clown fiesta of a website, which is a person expressing doubts that the British even known about the Scary Black Man stereotype and then doubling down by suggesting that British people are only scared of the Romani (not the term they used) because you need to actually know about something to be scared of it, which seems to imply that they think the British might not have anti-Blackness. what is it like to live in the world knowing so little about anything at all.

[teslafactory]

[15hopes]

i love love love emma watson but seeing hermione be pretty in the movies did have a pretty negative impact on my self image as a little girl with buck teeth and bushy brown hair. i get that the teeth didn’t work for emma watson but they just stopped trying on her hair after a couple movies. i grew up being asked if i would let people do a “princess diaries” style makeover on me. i identified so heavily with hermione specifically because she wasn’t always depicted as attractive but was still valued for qualities that i shared with her, like her drive and academic aptitude. basically i just really hope that the new series leans further into hermione’s canon appearance. and also that they don’t steal all of ron’s personality and give it to her bc i am a ron weasley defender 🤍

[harrypottermovieproblems]

What are your thoughts on the show not following the book beat for beat as is apparently rumored? They're going to have to add a lot of material to make such a small book stretch 8 hours, and they're bringing in characters like Fudge and Lucius early. Kind of defeats the promise of "book accuracy" if you ask me, even if this wasn't a needless project.

Hello!

I haven’t been keeping up with general news about the project, but I fully agree that a “book accurate adaptation” seemed to be the original excuse for the project, and that it has become increasingly clear they do not intend to do that.

I genuinely don’t think they need to create extra material to pad out the seasons, either. The books are long and cover an entire year; there’s something like three quidditch matches in the first book alone.

Things need to be formatted to fit a television format and for satisfactory pacing over eight episodes, obviously, but every decision they’ve made this underlines exactly what you say -

It’s thus far not staying true to, or indeed fixing, the original material and is therefore a completely pointless project.

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

Sorry you're having to deal with some obnoxious TERFs and JKR stans on Tumblr of all places. Their argument that the HP show is comparable to things like the various comic book movies is dishonest, however. Comic book stories refresh by design and each one is telling something different. The HP show is the exact same story, with the exact same visual look, told in the way already done in a live action medium.

Hullo!

You're very kind to reach out in solidarity. ♥

However, obnoxious TERFs are, by definition, fairly unintelligent, so I'm dealing with them quite cheerfully.

And your point about comic book movies is completely accurate, of course. Even at their most exhausting and artistically bankrupt (and I say this as someone who loves comic book movies), they are consistently based on new and different re-imaginings of decades worth of written and visual material from dozens of artists.

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

….What is the point?

[hjellacott]

What's not the point? Why not do it? Like I absolutely cannot understand these pricks asking what's the point or why watch it, you just sound so stupid, and I work in film, I understand what the point is fucking perfectly.

[sarcastic-sunshine]

People say 'what's the point', but hey, I can ask that about all the numerous different adaptations of superheros; like we've got so many Superman's, Batman's, Spiderman's, etc, etc...and hardly anyone complains and asks what's the point—besides the snobs that think their taste in movies is superior and who keep complaining how the 'movie industry is dead'. Then there are numerous adaptations of other books, like Pride and Prejudice, or Emma, and again, people don't wonder what's the point, they just go and watch those adaptations. So what makes HP so special that they gotta ask this question(it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer).

[hjellacott]

Exactly right lol. Also how thick do they have to be to keep acting as if the series is imitating films and not books close to 30 years old

[harrypottermovieproblems]

Why not do it?

Funding a targeted attack on the civil rights of vulnerable minorities.

A wealth of problematic material in the original text that could easily be fixed in adaptation but, based on everything we've seen from the casting decisions thus far, probably won't be.

Too soon.

Do audiences frequently feel frustration with the constant remakes of other franchises and novels?

Yes.

Is there a point to re-adapting an original text that has already seen adaptation?

Indeed!

Specifically, if the filmmakers or showrunners plan to update the material, portray elements of the original that were not previously portrayed faithfully, or apply a new artistic interpretation to the project.

Does the HBO Harry Potter show appear to be doing any of the above?

No.

Is there specific evidence that the series is indeed imitating the films instead of faithfully re-adapting the books?

Yep. 👔

xoxo

[hjellacott]

What a load of ignorance and bullshit. Apparently protecting women and children is now funding attacks on minorities. Lol. You're such a sexist pollock.

[harrypottermovieproblems]

Aw, I'm glad to hear that you're as dedicated to protecting women and children as I am! So in the interest of educating women, this is a perfect segue into another little FAQ -

Is 'protecting women and children' the same thing as 'funding attacks on minorities'?

No!

Is JK Rowling currently funding attacks on minorities?

Yes!

Am I sexist?

No! In fact, I have been a loud and ardent feminist for the entirety of my adult life. (A real feminist, not a fake one, because real feminism includes trans women. ♥)

Am I a 'pollock'?

No! Unfortunately, I am not a lean, white marine food fish. (I am mixed race.)

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

I think they are making the remake look like an exact copy of the originals because half the point is that JKR wants to replace the originals because so much of the main cast has distanced themselves from her and rebuked her transphobia bullshit. It’s like when a toxic parent has another child to replace the first one who has gone no contact.

Hullo!

Yes, it's deeply unfortunate that there's such an obvious state of creative bankruptcy in what we've seen of the project so far, besides the obvious moral bankruptcy.

On the other hand, though, it's probably a good thing. If it was genuinely a great series with a fresh new artistic vision and a perfect adaptation of the text that people grew up with, some audiences would probably have a harder time denouncing it, despite their politics.

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

….What is the point?

[hjellacott]

What's not the point? Why not do it? Like I absolutely cannot understand these pricks asking what's the point or why watch it, you just sound so stupid, and I work in film, I understand what the point is fucking perfectly.

[sarcastic-sunshine]

People say 'what's the point', but hey, I can ask that about all the numerous different adaptations of superheros; like we've got so many Superman's, Batman's, Spiderman's, etc, etc...and hardly anyone complains and asks what's the point—besides the snobs that think their taste in movies is superior and who keep complaining how the 'movie industry is dead'. Then there are numerous adaptations of other books, like Pride and Prejudice, or Emma, and again, people don't wonder what's the point, they just go and watch those adaptations. So what makes HP so special that they gotta ask this question(it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer).

[hjellacott]

Exactly right lol. Also how thick do they have to be to keep acting as if the series is imitating films and not books close to 30 years old

[harrypottermovieproblems]

Why not do it?

Funding a targeted attack on the civil rights of vulnerable minorities.

A wealth of problematic material in the original text that could easily be fixed in adaptation but, based on everything we've seen from the casting decisions thus far, probably won't be.

Too soon.

Do audiences frequently feel frustration with the constant remakes of other franchises and novels?

Yes.

Is there a point to re-adapting an original text that has already seen adaptation?

Indeed!

Specifically, if the filmmakers or showrunners plan to update the material, portray elements of the original that were not previously portrayed faithfully, or apply a new artistic interpretation to the project.

Does the HBO Harry Potter show appear to be doing any of the above?

No.

Is there specific evidence that the series is indeed imitating the films instead of faithfully re-adapting the books?

Yep. 👔

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

That cash grab show cast Warwick Davis as Flitwick. How dire must it be.

I just saw that this morning!

The whole endeavor feels increasingly pointless.

[harrypottermovieproblems]

….What is the point?

[harrypottermovieproblems]

What are your thoughts on the TV show going for an aggressive/stereotypical 90s look when that wasn't something that was stressed in the books?

Hello!

I think that if a book is set explicitly in the 90's, it would make sense for an adaptation of those books to also look 90's as a result, even if that aesthetic wasn't originally stressed on the written page.

Unfortunately, fresh and bold creative decisions on the HBO Harry Potter series seem to be lacking, wholesale.

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

....What is even the point of re-adapting something if it looks exactly like the first adaptation?

And Harry still doesn't have jet black messy hair.

[harrypottermovieproblems]

[x]

[harrypottermovieproblems]

Every time TERFs crawl out of the woodwork to call critics of Harry Potter anti-woman, they just prove that they're a bunch of racists. Because even if they were right about Rowling's stances on trans people, the racism issues would still be there. Like there's no excusing Cho Chang and Kingsley Shacklebolt's names, Ilvermorny and Mahoutokoro's lore, etc. These people are the living embodiment of the "I can excuse racism" meme.

Hello!

I'm sure some of the TERFs are racist, but I doubt everyone calling out critics of the series is necessarily defending the worst of the series' contents. To be clear, they're already wrong in principle because they're TERFs, but you can stand on a principle without engaging with other areas of a franchise.

E.g. there were certainly misogynistic comments after the first Wonder Woman film, and calling those out doesn't mean one agrees with Gal Gadot's politics or the IDF. There was horrific racism aimed at cast members after Rings of Power, and speaking about that doesn't mean those people are defending the series as well-written. There's a history of bigotry and problematic portrayals throughout just about comic book franchise and major properties like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but you can defend Ahmed Best while simultaneously acknowledging that Jar Jar Binks was written by a white man as a racist caricature.

So yes, some of the TERFs are racist, and where there's examples of that they should be immediately called out on it, but I don't think this specifically is proof of it as a commonality on the whole.

(Luckily, we know they're already on the bad side of history anyway, because they're TERFs.)

As for the bigotry displayed or implied within Harry Potter, some of it is indicative of the author's particular ignorance, some of it was largely indicative of the time, and some of the examples that get frequently raised in discussion are on shaky ground when it comes to validity.

(Seamus Finnegan exploding things is probably the most obvious example of this. It gets brought up a lot, but that's a movie thing, not a book thing.)

The biggest issue in the books themselves is clearly the House Elves, possibly followed by Rowling's inexplicable decision to make Nagini an Asian snake slave lady in Fantastic Beasts with almost zero positive representation for people of color in the rest of those films. Ilvermorny and Mahoutokoro were obviously crafted by someone who did little research and dedicated very little thought to the socio-political or cultural environments in which those schools were placed.

It's also worth nothing that, while comparatively fewer people in the late 90's would have been reading Harry Potter with an eye to missing racial representation as opposed to these days, the Patil twins being the only South Asian attendees of Hogwarts is probably statistically inaccurate for the UK.

'Cho Chang' is a bad name for a Chinese character because 'Cho' is a Korean name, not a Chinese one, although 'Chang' is accurate enough. I've heard a variation of opinions from Asian and Asian-American (former) fans on whether they think the name is a purposeful 'ching chong' 'joke,' though. Alliteration is common in the series, and this may have been an attempt at a Stan Shunpike/Dudley Dursley/Godric Gryffindor type of situation that Rowling in retrospect got unlucky with, or it may have been a purposeful allusion to the slur. Genuinely hard to say, and I don't like personally planting my flag for an argument that I don't have confidence in.

(If it helps, I'm saying this as a person of partial Chinese heritage.)

'Kingsley Shacklebolt' is another iffy one. The accusation is that 'shacklebolt' is a reference to slavery, obviously, but a shackle bolt is also a symbol in British heraldry to denote a victor in war or someone who has taken prisoners. It means someone who has shackled others, not who has been shackled himself, and the character is a British law enforcement officer from an ancient Pureblood family who eventually becomes Minister of Magic. Again, could this be a result of Rowling's bias? Possibly, possibly not.

To be clear, I agree with your general feelings on Rowling, on TERFs, and on the fact that the books have various examples of bigotry in their contents.

I'm just also a big proponent of, where possible, only making unassailable arguments, and not everything in your message is something I would carry into argument with Rowling herself if given the opportunity.

(And you can bet I'd love the opportunity.)

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

same anon who asked about nick frost's hagrid - your response made perfect sense, thank you! I even stumbled across a reddit thread where multiple people said something similar. not excited about the hbo series either bc fuck rowling but these do feel like odd decisions

Hullo!

No worries, and much agreed.

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

HBO Harry Potter: Eliminating the original story's fatphobia by thinwashing all the fat characters! (They've even slimmed Hagrid!)

Hello! I’ll be honest, this isn’t where I’d plant my flag?

Hagrid was never described as fat in the books - he was called large and wide and implied to be imposing and a bunch of other things, but was never directly called “fat.” He may well have been, but that’s an interpretation from the reader, unless Rowling spoke on it at some point that I’m unaware of. Either way, Nick Frost isn’t a particularly skinny individual.

So the way Rowling talks about fat people in the books is an issue, yes, but I don’t see a basis for this argument specifically, so sorry!

xoxo

[harrypottermovieproblems]

*taps mic*

Yes, hello, question for “loyal” Harry Potter fans who are excited for the HBO show because they hope it will provide them with a long form, book-accurate adaptation in a way that the movies did not?

You are aware that the literal only information they’ve released about their new take on the worldbuilding so far indicates that they are already not being book-accurate?