In defense of the new “Harry Potter” show


Wikimedia Commons

Corinne McDevitt gives her defense of the new “Harry Potter” show in production.

Corinne McDevitt, Social Media Editor

HBO Max (or Max as of May 23) recently announced that they would be running a seven-season television adaptation of J.K. Rowling’s beloved “Harry Potter” series. The news has sparked media attention, both positive and negative, with the latter more vocal. The movies did many things true to the books and will always have their place in history and the hearts of fans. 

I cannot imagine they will ever find a better cast. What I hope is they find better writers and directors. Lovers of the books know that much of the series was mishandled, rewritten and left out all together. If this show does what it promises, and is faithful to the books, there is so much I cannot wait to see on my screen. Here is a short list of my top priorities:

1. Ginny Weasley. 

In the books, Ginny is an incredibly dynamic character with personality and passion. In the movies, she is a shoe-tying limp afterthought. The thing I am hoping most from this show is to see the brave, steadfast, intelligent Ginny that I loved so much in the books. 

2. Percy Weasley Redemption Arch. 

The dramatic prodigal son return of Percy Weasley before the Battle of Hogwarts is one of my favorite scenes in literature. This emotional moment was completely absent from the movies. It better be included in the show.

3. Ron Weasley’s Intelligence. 

There seems to be a recurring theme of the movies inaccurately portraying the Weasleys. The movies showed Ron as bumbling comedic relief who goes along with the mistreatment of Hermione. In the books Ron has so much more depth, character, heart and, well…value.  He is Hermine’s fiercest protector and the romance between the two feels natural. 

4. Harry’s Phoenix Feather Wand. 

This one is more nitpicky, but I nearly got up and left the theater when Harry did not repair his old wand with the elder wand before returning it to its place in Dumbledore’s grave. This moment was so telling for his character and the cheap destruction of the Elder Wand the movies portrayed was lazy and thoughtless.

5. Emotional Depth. 

Anyone who has read the books knows the complex portrayal of love, loss and life. Oftentimes the movies felt more like action films with more time spent on CGI than the conversation, connection and complexities of the characters. 

Many Potterheads are crying out that they would have much preferred a Marauders Show, following the friend group of Potter’s father, James. There is a massive following for this niche, but with such variation among the headcannons the show would never satisfy everyone. Much of the lore that surrounds the Marauders is purely fan-made. The only thing canonically known about the school years of this group is that they were jerks. I also personally don’t believe that Rowling would sign off on it, but after the fever dream that was “The Cursed Child” and the garbage fire that is the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise, I suppose anything is possible. If something were to happen in the realm of a Marauders series it would likely be years down the line when the estate of Potter is no longer owned and run by its creator. 

Many viewers are furious that Rowling will be included in the production of the show at all. Whether or not you agree with Rowling’s personal and political beliefs, the claim of this show is that it will be faithful to the books, so it makes sense that the writer of said books would be involved. The idea that Potter has nothing to do with Rowling and belongs entirely to the readers and fans is the arrogant take of a scorned child. 

McDevitt, a lifelong reader, ignores her baby sister in favor of literature. (Corinne Mc)

The separation between art and artist is a topic that has sparked much conversation recently. One reason art, whether it be books, music or visuals, has such an impact is that it becomes our own when we consume it. It does not however stop being the artists’ creation. While the two can be separate and enjoyed without relation to each other, the connection between them remains. 

To say that the consumer is the only owner of art is disrespectful to anyone who has ever created anything. That is the sort of thinking that allows AI to copy a painting and call it an original. The erasure of the creator is selfish and fatal. To create is to pour oneself out. It is to open your veins and let others look in. They may peer in and say that they do not like it, but what kills is to say it is not yours at all. To say the blood running through doesn’t belong to you, that it would exist without you. In a world where everything we make is subject to someone denying we are the maker we are walking towards a future where authors and artists will simply stop sharing their magic with others. A world where we can’t respect creators is a world where nothing will ever be created. 

No movie or television show will ever be as good as the books, but I have my fingers crossed for an accurate portrayal of the series I love so dearly. If this is another “Cursed Child” situation, I am going to violently riot.