Why Remake 'Harry Potter'? The Pros And Cons Of This Decision
Image Source: Deadline
For us Muggles looking for another glimpse of the Wizarding World, our wait may not be too long in the coming: HBO is actively working on a Harry Potter TV series. J.K. Rowling, the author of the best-selling books and executive producer for the upcoming television series, is pleased with the direction this new endeavor is taking, saying it is “preserving the integrity" [of her books] and "will allow for a degree of depth and detail only afforded by a long-form television series". But do these books-turned-movies really need to be rebooted into a small-screen version? Here, we will take a look at some reasons why there are remakes and see if Harry Potter truly fits the bill.
5. The Original Was A Flop
Image Source: The Atlantic
One of the most famous movie failures was the late David Lynch’s Dune. Lynch took liberties with the original novel source, and, coupled with production issues and not seeing eye-to-eye with his producer, the end result was something that Lynch refused to ever talk about in public. Not only was it critically panned, but Dune also did not do well at the box office: It made $30.9 million but had a budget of upwards of $40 million, making it a financial loss for Universal Pictures. Almost forty years later, Denis Villeneuve’s 2021 remake of the Frank Herbert novel is considered a critical box office success, making $407.7 million at box offices worldwide, compared to a $165 million budget.
RELATED:
The Harry Potter franchise does not fall into this category. Not only were the original novels bestsellers, but each movie performed very well at the box office: Altogether, the combined movies have made over $7.7 billion worldwide, making it the third most successful movie franchise of all time. The last installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, made over $1.2 billion alone. No one has to swoop in and remake the books into film form to save everyone’s perception of the Wizarding World. So why bother? According to the analysis given by Henry Ladd at Screenrant, it’s precisely for this reason: The Harry Potter money pit seems to be bottomless, so HBO should go ahead and continue the remakes and spin-offs, as people are still willing to pay into the franchise.
4. The Material Can Be Introduced To A New Audience
Image Source: TCM.com
Sometimes, an old classic can be lost to the annals of history, especially since Turner Classic Movies is not readily available to such a wide audience anymore. There have been quite a few movies over the years and genres that have been remade: The original Ocean’s Eleven of 1960 starred the classic acting of the “Rat Pack” members Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Sammy Davis, Jr., but the 2001 version starring Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Carl Reiner, and Bernie Mac is a very good movie in its own right. A Star is Born was originally done in 1937 and remade twice. Although the definitive Scarface for most of us is Al Pacino, the original was on screen in 1932. Horror classics such as Dracula and The Mummy have also been redone for audiences decades after their first releases.
The pattern I see here is the number of years in between each rendition. Looking into this topic, there have been decades separating the iterations of these films. And, when many of these movies were redone, streaming was not yet readily available, so the availability of the originals was not widespread. The Harry Potter movies, on the other hand, are easy to find on streaming services. They are also on a pretty regular rotation on basic cable stations in the United States. Audiences have access to these films, so they do not really need to be introduced for anyone to enjoy for the first time.
3. Show A New Perspective/Point Of View
Image Source: Variety
Maybe there’s a different point of view in a film that a director might like to explore. When Godzilla was marketed for American audiences, Raymond Burr was cast in the film to bring an Americanized viewpoint to stateside audiences. Shakespeare’s classic Hamlet has had multiple movie versions, including Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which also made a jump from stage to screen, showing us the point of view of two seemingly minor characters. You can go to Quora and Reddit and see how many people clamor for their favorite classics to be redone from another character’s perspective.
Image Source: Deadline
Once again, this idea does not really apply. The name of the entire franchise is “Harry Potter”. Harry is the main character of the books and movies, the point of the action in the entire arc. Although there are some places where the point of view shifts, and we do see the action through other characters’ eyes, this is done to emphasize how the action is going to affect Harry, and the point of view quickly goes back to him. While I cannot see this changing in any remake, Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter in all the films, has a different take on the situation:
“And I think the thing, you know, the comparison I’ve made is like to a story like ‘Sherlock Holmes.’ You know, it was always gonna, I think the Potter series of books was always going to be bigger than like one interpretation or one franchise. So it’ll be cool to like, see the, the torch get passed on.”
2. Add More Diversity
Image Source: EW.com
Many movie studios are taking a hard look at their previous casting policies, realizing that instead of reflecting the audience’s world, past films have stuck to a “safe” motif: mostly white, with a few BIPOC characters thrown in to show how inclusive the production truly was. If the project was truly daring, there would be a homosexual character thrown in for comic relief.
The Harry Potter franchise has also been criticized for its lack of diversity among its main characters. Lee Jordan, Cho Chang, the Patil twins, and Kingsley Shackleford are described in the books and also are also portrayed in the movies as representing different ethnic groups, though aside from their outward appearance, there isn’t much that showcases their cultures. And let’s not forget Rowling’s outing of Dumbledore as a gay man AFTER the books had been published and released.
Image Source: Variety
Honestly, while I am reading through articles to do my research, I don’t see any sign that the TV series is going to be too much different. The actor most likely in the running for Severus Snape is Paapa Essiedu, who has been in Black Doves, The Gangs of London, and The Lazarus Project. The authors of “The Harry Potter Cast Power List” in the British GQ, Jack King and Killian Faith-Kelly, point out that by this casting, “it's a strong pivot away from any attempt to imitate the Alan Rickman's own unassailable performance”. The other controversial casting call right now is John Lithgow as Albus Dumbledore. This is considered controversial because of Lithgow’s age - he will be closer to Dumbledore’s book age, but at 79, signing on to a decade-plus project seems rather daunting, and if he is signed, it is moving away from J.K. Rowling’s insistence when the movies were cast that the characters would be British. There is no word yet as to who will be the young actors who play Harry, Hermione, or Ron.
Image Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Jason Isaacs, who played Lucious Malfoy in the original film series, seems to be keeping up with the casting calls. In an interview with Patrick Schwarzenegger, he assures him that he knows who is being looked at: “Oh, I know who they're casting. They're incredible actors”. Isaacs goes on to say, “And it's being done by the same people who did the films and Mark Mylod's running it, who is a brilliant showrunner. I worked with him years ago on Entourage, but he ran, he did lots of Game of Thrones. We did Succession as well. It's a phenomenally talented man, and they don't need any advice from me”.
1. Add In Details That Were Omitted Or Changed
Image Source: Screenrant
As anyone who watches the movie after reading the book knows, there are always going to be some changes going from the page to the screen. Some changes go with the flow and are tolerated by the viewers - The Wizard of Oz, for instance, while others have notoriously caused an uproar among the audience. Disney’s A Wrinkle in Time and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief are two such examples that spring to my mind of beloved children’s books that were changed so much from the original text that audiences that had come to see them were very disappointed. As I mentioned above, David Lynch’s Dune deviated so much from Herbert’s text that people stayed away after hearing about it. But, in Denis Villeneuve’s hands, Dune was able to be spread over two (so far!) films, giving it enough time to put in the details that the Lynch version took out or had over-manipulated. The Percy Jackson films, which were abandoned after the second one in the series (out of five books), are also being remade on Disney+ as a TV series, to much better reviews.
Hopefully, the same will hold true for this new Harry Potter series. While the movies were not loudly called out for deviating too much from the books, even my own children noticed what was changed and what was missing from the books. There are plenty of sites on the Internet that dedicate themselves to explaining exactly what these changes are and how they deviate from the original texts. Like the Percy Jackson series, now that Harry Potter is being adapted for a longer format, more of the subplots can be included.
Again, Daniel Radcliffe also hopes that this will be the case. He says:
“I’m excited for it as a viewer. I’ll be able to enjoy it with everyone else possibly, with a slightly different perspective. It’s a nice thing that a whole new generation is going to get introduced to the stories in a new way. They’ll see it as a TV series, so they’ll probably have time to go into all the things. So for the people that were angry about things that were cut from the film, hopefully, they will finally be able to see the full version they wanted.”
Filming is set to begin this summer, with a drop date of either late 2026 or early 2027.
READ NEXT:
Latest News
Featured
