Pedro Pascal Calls For Boycott of HBO's Upcoming $2 Billion ‘Harry Potter' Series — World of Reel
This guy just keeps getting more and more wonderful ❤️
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/4/25/pedro-pascal-calls-for-boycott-of-maxs-upcoming-2-billion-harry-potter-seriesOpen linkView original on lazysoci.al1236
Comments183
I wonder if the author of the article realizes "transgenderism" is a right-wing, anti-trans term?
EDIT: ah, it looks like the author of that blog is probably anti-trans and holds other right-wing views: https://old.reddit.com/r/blankies/comments/rcczql/can_someone_give_me_context_for_the_film_blog/
Good spot! Trans+ would have been better
Considering dolls is a term applied only to trans women, he should have just said "a term of endearment for trans women". The only reason he didn't is because he's anti-trans, and maybe he doesn't even understand that "dolls" is a term specific to trans women, or that trans men even exist, a lot of anti-trans bigots are obsessed with trans women and think the only trans people are trans women; there are estimated to be equal numbers of trans men as trans women, they just don't get the same attention.
The bathroom debate shows this mindset, anti-trans activist want trans women to use men's restrooms, but they aren't thinking about the fact that those same laws and policies force trans men into women's restrooms, leading to this kind of situation:
So the anti-trans movement claims they are keeping men out of women's restrooms, while doing exactly the opposite.
I think the anti-trans movement wants to claim that the entire idea of trans people is ideologically driven, but they have it in reverse - the gender binary and anti-trans movement is ideologically driven, while the position that trans people exists and should have gender-affirming care is based on actual empirical evidence. The science shows reality is much more complicated than the gender binary, and that being trans is biologically determined, genetically inherited, and part of natural human variation throughout our history as a species.
So it seems acknowledging the reality and gender of trans people is not so much ideologically driven as much as it is more aligned with reality than the status quo of assigning gender according to a model of binary sex based an a quick inspection of genitals at birth, which we know is ideologically driven. The only reason to reject the undisputed science is for religious and political reasons, there is no actual debate or ambiguity about the science. Every single major medical and scientific association endorses gender affirming care for minors and adults, there is a firm consensus on this. These organizations are typically conservative, not "woke", and they only support those treatments because they are the only known effective treatments of gender dysphoria.
The anti-trans movement has more in common with young earth creationism, the anti-vaxx movement, and other anti-science movements, which are often politically motivated and intersect with conservative forms of Christianity. These are truly ideologically based movements, and they support views of reality based not on what is empirically demonstrated but rather based on a dogmatic interpretation of religious texts.
For example, Matt Walsh's anti-trans film What is a Woman was compared to antivax films like VAXXED or the anti-evolution film Expelled!.
I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge #occupotty
And this is a stunning example of the power of male privilege.
and the fact that transphobia is mostly motivated by misogyny (see Julia Serano's concept of "transmisogyny" outlined in Whipping Girl).
Even transphobia against trans men is misogynistic, e.g. when trans men are treated as just vulnerable / hapless women or girls that need to protecting from "trans grooming", which is patronizing and conventionally sexist, or when
::: spoiler content warning corrective rape is used on trans men to re-assert their assigned gender, e.g. Sam Nordquist and Brandon Teena. :::
The violence trans men face is ultimately connected to violence against women, even if it is being applied to men to deny them their gender.
Wow. People really sicken me.
yeah, tough to stomach some aspects of humanity - but it's worth keeping it mind it's only a small minority of people, I try not to generalize the exceptional violence of the worst of us onto the rest of humanity.
I hear you, and I do try to practice that. I find so many to be disappointing, though. It definitely helps to remember that I can't control others, just my own actions/reactions.
Erasure is not a privilege
Oh, that's the point.
See, it's about men protecting women from bad things. Not about women feeling uncomfortable.
It's the same as the justification for Christian rejection of empathy (as opposed to more reserved compassion): the undertone is "women are more vulnerable to 'falling for' the empathee's sin."
Womens' perspectives may be where the thoughts stop, but that is no accident.
I think the anti-trans activists coming up with the policies are aware of trans men and have crafted this policy to stoke moral panic and to keep trans people out of public life. I guess in my mind, the naive anti-trans person who doesn't know about trans men were more like the average person duped by anti-trans propaganda.
The actual people running the movement know a trans man realistically won't be comfortable going to the women's restroom, so their intention isn't really to force them in there either - it's to increase risks for trans people so they either face violence in the wrong bathroom or face criminality, maybe with a long term goal of using the prisons to forcefully detransition trans people.
That some trans people are going ahead and complying with the bathroom law is maybe an unintended side effect, but it still achieves the effect of increasing risks for trans people - trans women are at much greater risk of violence in a men's restroom or in a men's prison than in a women's restroom or a women's prison, and thus achieving the genocidal goal of eradicating trans people.
I completely agree, women's safety was never the actual priority - nor does it accord with reality, the empirical evidence shows that trans inclusive policies do not increase crime and the idea that trans people pose any real threat are not based in reality.
Women never mattered here, and even the anti-trans "gender-critical" movement that claims feminist roots have distanced themselves from feminism, with increasing focus on targeting trans women and prioritizing anti-trans policies even when it contradicts feminist goals or beliefs.
I think it really depends. There are some leaders/influencers who know exactly what they're doing, and are using this moral panic as a engagement tool. Maybe some do have the idea of forcefully detransitioning the incarcerated, with a kind of Mike Pence attitude to it (who is much more supportive of conversion therapy than most people are aware of).
But (speaking as someone with some very evangelical southern US family), I think some supporters really are thinking of this from the "protect vunerable women" perspective. This thread weaves through everything, their whole ideology and perception of people... Women are supposed to need and accept men's protection and direction. So of course these scary "biological men" should be removed from their bathrooms, while being with "biological women" still fits that idealistic fantasy until they actually look at a picture like this. But that will never often happen because staying intellectually sheltered is part of the culture. Women are conditioned to not bluntly point out stuff like this.
Yes, I was trying to differentiate the kinds of anti-trans people, the clergy from the flock so to speak. The politicians like Mike Pence and activists like Matt Walsh are more likely to be strategic and knowledgeable about the issues.
The lay people who are influenced by those activist leaders are more likely to be ignorant and have different perspectives.
Whether leaders or lay people, I don't take them seriously when they say they are trying to "protect vulnerable women" any more than I think conservatives actually care about small government or states rights, everything is just rationalization and rhetoric to justify a less pleasant and less defensible position (like taking food stamps away from the poor, or eradicating trans people).
This pedro pascal guy seems like kind of a good dude man
A trans sister for one, so it would make sense he's not a fan of the TERF queen?
I mean… all her bullshit aside anyway; It’s too soon for a Harry Potter remake.
I still can't wrap my head around who this is meant to be for. Fans that are old enough to have grown up with the original series are never going to like this and fans that are younger will still have seen the old series. It's not like it's so old it's unwatchable.
I don't understand how anybody in an executive position thought this was a good idea, especially because there is loads of stuff you could make a show about in the wizarding world universe (cough marauders cough).
It’s meant for the people hoping to make money off of it. Just like the LOTR series.
But rings of power wasn't just a remake, it's actually set at a much earlier point in the history.
Well, there's the books.
Not everything needs to be turned into a video format.
Is it?
I can't say I have ever liked the films, so maybe they will produce something better.
I would say yes.
The amount of media coverage and fandom the series got pretty much immortalized the actors within their roles. Animated stuff, fine. But live-action, not for the next quarter-century, at least.
Aside from that. We need more new stories, ideas, and tales; not just rebooted/regurgitated slop, made just to bleed a successful franchise dry.
I agree with your last point, but is seems to me that people are enchanted with this setting and would really like to revisit Hogwarts. So I would say I disagree with you on that it is not soon enough.
A spinoff would be fine. It seems to be working pretty well for the Star Wars universe.
A "reboot" however, would be a bit silly, given how that usually means restarting the whole story from scratch, most often with a new cast and sometimes sizeable changes to the writing.
The article may have used the term a bit loosely and meant that just the writing was being restarted from a stop/hiatus, while retaining the original continuity.
Yeah, I think a spin off would be best.
But the fantastic beasts are rather dissapointing. I feel like Rowling will ruin any film she will write, and I doubt she will let someone else do it, so my hopes aren't high. The main story is at least decent and interesting enough.
It's been 24 years since the first movie was released and 28 years since the first book was released.
Wrong math aside, it doesn’t matter how old a movie/s are as long as they have aged well. Harry Potter movies are perfectly serviceable even with some questionable cgi because the music and general cinematography are fantastic.
Did you use AI to calculate that? Cuz it has only been 24 years.
Congratulations, you're an idiot!
Joanne’s really milking this cash cow for all it’s worth, and then some. Guess that’s your only option when you’re a one-hit wonder, though. Must not have stumbled across any new content she’s interested in plagiarizing.
You say that like anyone else wouldn't. If life gives you a golden cow, milk the shit out of it. Lol
Let's focus on her being a terrible person instead of making up nonsense reasons to further dislike her. There's no need.
No, I think most people wouldn't. Most people would be happy with literally becoming a fucking billionaire, and would be satisfied at that point.
I don't know any billionaires myself, but judging from what I read and see online that is not what people do when they literally become a billionaire.
Yeah I guess it's one of those things, where most people would be satisfied with becoming a billionaire, but generally, the type of people able to become a billionaire, are terrible people that wouldn't be satisfied with becoming a billionaire.
TIL People who would be satisfied with being a billionaire feel satisfied long before they actually become a billionaire.
Money has high diminishing returns on happiness long before a billion. It wouldn't be surprising if literally nobody was satisfied by crossing 1,000,000,000. Some people will never be satisfied and they're the only ones who would keep trying.
Sounds... terribly logical.
I think most billionaires are not very visible.
I mean, you could tell the point in book 4 where they said "Fuck it, bring in the ghost writers".
I doubt she's probably written anything in 30 years that wasn't drunkenly pounded out on Twitter
Makes sense, since I think it's a lot better than the previous books.
CouLd you point me to what original she plagiarized? I need some light reading material and this sounds promising.
Here is a pretty decent list: https://elftor.medium.com/harry-potter-and-the-possible-plagiarism-of-one-j-rowling-c19f1b05595c
I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, and don't like Rowling, but I read that whole damn essay and was not at all convinced. Half the examples could be said to be plagiarising each other by the standard they're using. They say at the start the coincidences are too strong to be attributed to tropes, but I really disagree with that. Almost everything they list are common tropes, many even outside magical wizard settings. Mean adoptive family? Did she also plagiarise Cinderella?
Sure, her books generally aren't original themes, but to say they're so similar that they are direct plagiarism is a real stretch in my opinion. Especially when you have to list like 30 books that have one or two things in common each, and mostly in a general sense.
Exactly. It shouldn't be considered a crime to use and build on eternal tropes. That's what culture is about. The terrible things about JKR lie elsewhere.
The first two or three books felt far more like a Roald Dahl novel than any standard issue YA novel.
She's clearly been influenced by other children's books. But yeah, so much of the "Rowling plagiarized!" critique boils down to how bland and generic the story was.
I never thought she was a plagiarist, just a hack.
I think they're referring to A Wizard of Earthsea? It's been on my reading list for a few years now, but I still haven't gotten around to it.
And especially "the worst witch" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Witch?wprov=sfla1
When I heard they were remaking the series i was certain they were going to modernize and edit the material to move away from JK and her issues, in order to try and save the Harry Potter universe from her toxic claws. Then I heard she’s the producer so wrf is the point? Is she just gonna double down and it’s gonna be somehow more racist?
Yeah, no kidding, I had tried everything else she did before she started getting really noisy, none of it was remotely interesting.
Stopped me from buying the books for my kids quickly enough, though.
She's a terrible person, but saying she's a one-hit wonder is unfair. Here's a list of famous and acclaimed authors who only wrote one novel. And she wrote several, even if all in the same series. Criticize for for her true faults: being a hateful hag that makes the world a worse place and isn't worth the O2 she consumes.
I don't think the existence of other one-hit wonders affects her status as one-hit wonder, but I'll accept the argument that she wrote ~7 popular books.
HBO previously did a adaption of The Casually Vacancy. I never watched it but I read the book which is terrible.
Oh, what did you find terrible about the book? I thought it was sad but written with a lot of empathy. I liked the gray characters. It was even worse for me to realize what JKR was like after reading this book that seemed so right to me. But maybe I overlooked something.
The dialogue.
i've been a harry potter fan since 2000. i went to multiple leakycons and pottercast tapings. i posted on leaky. i went to midnight shows. i discovered starkid bc of it. i used to pay international shippings for the uk books. hp saved my life before i was out of the closet.
i would have been so excited for this if it happened 15 years ago. now? i just don't care. i want it to go away. i'm much more interested in the twilight anniversary. hp is just go away heat now.
also anyone who is looking for an alternative; chris colfer's land of stories series is AMAZING.
I felt SO OLD in the cinema with my kid...
Since we got Life and Death on the 10th anniversary I hope we get Edythe's Midnight Sun this year. We won't but it would be nice.
Edit: Better yet give us the sapphic vampires we deserve with a retelling of Twilight with Edythe and Bella. Do it, Steph, you coward.
id love an extended universe of rosalies history tbh (in the style of the vampire chronicles)
also im so sad that young kim had health issues that kept them from finishing the rest of the graphic novels :(
more like Bae-dro Pascal amirite
daddy pascal
Papi Pascal
I love Pedro Pascal.
So many queers grew up on Harry Potter. If you still cherish the series from before the author apparently had a stroke, and can't give it up, you can at least do society a favour by sailing the high seas (pirate it).
I wasn't gonna watch it anyways but if Pedro says don't, I sure as heck ain't!
I'm gonna not watch it even harder!
Harry Potter is already dead to me. Fuck JKR.
There are... other ways
I assume you mean piracy, but I think you misunderstood. I have no desire to give JKRs works any of my attention and I regret my past love of HP. She is a disgusting bigot and her legacy is forever tainted for me. I'm simply not interested.
I'm kind of the opinion that Harry Potter should have just ended with the deathly hallows book and 2 movies.
you drag out and milk an IP for too long and you just become star wars. and that isnt a compliment.
But the line must go up!
It seems like Rowling has been pushing for the series to be made because she doesn't like the OG movie cast members for calling her out on her bigotry. Anytime Radcliffe or Watson tweet in support of humanity, Rowling gets all twisty-knickered and pouty because people still call them Harry Potter and Hermione.
But making something new comes with the risk of it not working, much easier to just keep milking the same thing infinitely.
Well, if I watch it I guarantee I won't pay for it.
Be better. Don't watch at all.
Nothing worse then when people don’t even want to pirate your shit.
EXACTLY! Pirating let's them know you're interested.
They’re not even gonna fuckin know lawl
https://screenrant.com/games-thrones-most-pirated-tv-show/
Yes, they will. The GoT showrunners used to brag about it during interviews.
::: spoiler The Last of Us spoilers What are they gonna do? Kill him off? :::
FYI your spoiler tag didn't work on this comment. Also I heard they're adapting Last of Us Part II into 2 seasons of the show, since it's so much longer plot-wise.
Odd, I see it blacked out on my side. Apologies to all.
I don't see Pedro even working for HBO going forward. He is attacking another HBO show, and you know it's all about bottom line. Could be wrong.
Regardless, Pedro is the man.
I just read that... You should edit to either remove or correct the tags. Anyway, I will remember that so no worries.. But for others.
Meh, I don't think character shows up in flashbacks after their death is something that's spoiler tag worthy imo.
There is the whole episode of season 1 with Otterman that's a flashback
:::spoiler Last of us season 2 spoiler I'd be more bummed about "after his death" then "flashbacks" :::
Defeating the Terf queen, rowlings
I support this man, and his ideas.
This sucks. I mean, I read Harry Potter as an adult, and still loved the stories, even if some parts were problematic (Cho Chang? The Irish kid blows stuff up? REALLY?). But I refuse to give that woman any of my money to do more evil with.
Harry Potter is one of the few IP’s that I 100% pirate guilt-free. In many cases, I use piracy to “try out” things before I buy them. For instance, I have the *arr stack running on my Jellyfin server, but most of the media on it is from my old DVD/Blu-ray collection. I have a few pirated games, but end up buying most of them if I enjoy them.
But not with Harry Potter. That shit gets pirated and stays pirated. I have the e-books and movies torrented, and will never spend a dime on them. I’ll never buy anything with a Hogwarts house on it. I’ll never stream any of the movies on Max. As far as capitalism is concerned, I have a full Harry Potter blackout.
Might be better to just let it go entirely.
don't forget the white washing of lavender brown
OK let me defend Cho Chang specifically. Qiū Cháng is a perfectly valid chinese name. It is pronounced "Cho Chang." Cho would not be standard (pinyin), but Chinese people historically have not always use Pinyin to transliterate their names. (And I assume a wizard might not use muggle pinyin.)
What was wrong with cho chang?
it just follows a trend of jkr using really shitty stereotypical names and sometimes just using down right offensive names. the only Asian character is cho chang, the only black character is literally named kingsley shacklebolt, etc. in Hogwarts legacy they named the first trans women in the series sirona ryan.
Jfc those are all so fucking racist holy shit
Dafuq
My brain right now.
The Indian chicks being fucking patels.
TBH the magic system seems low-effort too. You need a wand and pseudo-Latin, but neither are strictly necessary?
no complex spell casting with rare ingredients, like some other shows that uses magic, kinda like SCARLETS witches no-words spellcasting , yea because its low effort cuts corners.
it sounds like CHING CHONG, just reworded to make it sound like its not offensive. theres also the issue her labeling goblins as bankers, aka greedy jews, by nature and lore goblins are greedy.
I can get Irish people blowing things up as problematic, but surely cho Chang and the goblins are people just trying to make problems out of nothing?
Where do you get Jews from?
I think we can all agree that a stereotype is that bankers are greedy
IMO she's already rich, and more of your money goes to an evil multi-billion dollar corporation than to her. If you enjoy the world fuck it, enjoy the shows, have, books, etc... There is no ethical consumption under capitalism and we're in dark times. You need to covet the things that bring you joy.
Side note: She plagiarized most of the first book from Anthony Horowitz's "Groomsham Grange". I understand there's a lot of books about magical schools but seriously if you read them back to back it's clear. This isn't important to the conversation other than to supply another reason to hate the bitch.
Edit: you can't boycott someone who's already rich off selling the IP. Be mad as you want, people aren't enabling her by purchasing content made by freaking Warner Brothers. She already got her bag.
No ethical consumption means: it's hard to arrange for there to be clear alignment in people to boycott a particular entity, meaning many things that ought to go boycotted don't. Therefore, when such a heinous person as Rowling or Musk arises that we can cohesively land a boycott, we ought to take advantage of it.
You can't boycott Rowlings at this point though, she's made her fortune off the IP already. You're essentially virtue signaling.
Musk on the other hand has most his wealth tied to the stock of his company. They aren't remotely similar.
Remember family guys skits of jk Rowling, they kinda predicted her current behavior, one of them was Peter "reminiscing "now problematic jk Rowling writing, and the other
https://www.tiktok.com/@stewiesdomain/video/7195031901214723330
Probably this right here is the second one?
https://www.offtiktok.com/post/1758 non tiktok link
Arent you guys sick of the same 4 franchises? Marvel, Star wars, Lord of the rings, Harry Potter.
It's a bit unfair to rope LOTR into this, it only has a single spin-off series which is pretty great. Which is pretty great if you're not a fascist or hardcore nerd of the books. And hardcore nerds only have "fun" criticism discussing how the story spanning 3000 years is being adapted.
Mmmmmm. LOTR has 6 movies running 18hrs theatrical, 22hrs extended cut.
Multiple anime, TV show, comics, graphic novels, books, spin offs and more...over done. Over cooked. Trite.
Star wars has 9 mainline movies spanning 20hrs.
Multiple anime, TV show, comics, graphic novels, books, spin offs and more...Disney is literally wearing this franchise as a skin suit to keep it going.
The Marvel Infinity Saga core movies, 19 hours.....etc....blah blah blah....Disney. Morning Erection...something something, cum daddy.
Haha forgot about the Hobbit and didn't know about the anime. Comics, well, whatever. But I don't think it can be compared to the constant marketing and big screen content of the other franchises. Tolkien estate is pretty careful not to turn out endless pulp.
Okay I'll give it to you. But there are still significant and painful advertisement campaigns that are beating us over the head with the other 3 franchises
I actually think often about how franchises are (miss)managed and how IP laws suck and should work. Just watched "Dune Prophecy" yesterday, which I avoided so far because it's partially based on Frank Herbert's hack writer of a son's novel (it was ok though). Besides the profit motive, there it seems more like a psychological need to bastardize the franchise. Marvel was never serious so I don't mind it much, it's just annoying. Star Wars sequels suck but again, never was serious literature. I do hate the new Star Trek Kelvin timeline with a burning passion though because Star Trek was a cultural touchstone.
Fast and Furious has more entries than LOTR. It does not belong on this list, it has a few iterations of different stories within its lore.
Marvel is mostly boring now so agreed. Star Wars is the same, Andor is the obvious exception that it is unfortunate we had to get so much meh to get there. Harry Potter is led by a horrible person. The original story is great and the adaptions mostly childhood classics. Boring to rehash and the spinoffs were terrible mush.
Marvel - 86 years old. Star wars - 48 years old Harry Potter - 28 years old Lord of the Rings - 70 years old.
The fast and the furious movies aren't made for the American market. They're made for the Chinese market.
All Star wars is trite. Marvel has been rung out like an old dish rag. Harry Potter was fucking stupid and still is.
I want to see it... But imagine if pirates made it so accessible it was easier to view without buying it. Saturated to the point YouTube recommends the full episodes.
Watching/playing/acquiring media without paying for it only sends the message that the demand is there; it's just that the anti-piracy enforcement schemes haven't been perfected yet.
If 100 million people watch this show on day one, but only 1 million paid to do so, the question is going to be "How can we force those other 99 million people to pay for this?" But if zero people watch this show, the immediate red flag will be "People used to love Harry Potter? Why aren't they watching it now?"
You want to show that Joanne Rowling's bigotry isn't to be tolerated? You don't show her that her content is still wanted; you shut her out completely.
How would they know that 99 million people pirated it?
They track these things.
They track torrent file downloads so they can send threatening DMCA takedown letters to people that don't use VPNs to obfuscate their IPs. Even if you do use a VPN, they may not know who you are, but they can count the download.
Does pirating a show via streaming site circumvent this or does that get tracked too?
I don't think a third party can track your steaming without the allowance of the site you are using. With torrents, it's the nature of Peer to Peer transfers that your client or connecting to other clients to share the files, which is how they get your IP. With a streaming service, there is no open Peer to Peer download, so they could only track your streaming via cookies on the website or something like that. That is my understanding anyway.
Counter point. If there's a drop in subscriptions and a spike on piracy after they release, they can conclude that the best approach is to drop the show and J. Terf Rowling.
That, and have all the discourse of the show be around her bigotry.
I have to interest on the show
Media execs don't see piracy as an economics or social issue. They believe it's a technological issue and they just need to find the right silver bullet to force you to watch the content that they know you want to watch (why would you be pirating it otherwise?) while paying them for it.
No corporation has seen an increase of piracy of their content and thought anything other than "We need stricter anti-piracy measures."
The company doesn't care about popularity lmfao. They only care about money
Lots of media are popular that didn't make money, but there's no media that made lots of money that wasn't also popular.
Money directly correlates with popularity when talking about films/books/television. Why do you think, for example, that there was only one Eragon movie despite there being four books? And yet Twilight also had four books, but had five movies made?
You seriously think the suits spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars making movies or tv shows don't care about what's popular? Then why the hell are they remaking Harry Potter?
That's not what the decision said, but JK and their ilk are trying to push it as that.
Their decision is limited to what they believe was meant in the Equality Act 2010. It's just them indicating what a law meant originally.
A law that was written by people who didn't know better.
Now we know better, as the science is undeniable, but what we know now doesn't change what the law meant. That's why what the UK needs to do now is change the law to properly match science.
Rowling and other flavors of transfobes want to muddle the waters and act as if everything was set in stone, but it isn't.
There have been amendments to the Equality act before, the latest in in 2023 and 2024, they can do more.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary?title=Equality+Act+2010+amendment
Do not play into their game. Instead, push for change.
I'm way ahead of this because I absolutely HATE the originals because of how often they play them on TV. The transphobic writer of the original wanting to do a do-over most likely because the original cast spoke out against her is also real atrocious as well.
The franchise is actually really bad when you think about it. Full of plotholes and really poor writing but the vibe of the original movie (and maybe the sequel) was really spot on for that time period.
The best writers can do is take creative control from her and add things that will show her up, like what they did in the latest videogame, and add transgender characters and actors.
Wait that's why they're doing this? What a clown she is.
she wanted to rewrite the characthers, probably to her "terf beliefs" and people already indicated in the past her books were already what she currently believes in, just very subtle.
Oh God.... She's absolutely going to create a monster that pretends to be a human as some kind of lazy "Trans Bad" parable..
This is going to be the fucking Heathers Reboot all over again
Is that true? She had a few non traditional characters. Seamus was the only stand out horrible viewpoint.
No idea if it's true, but it's a rumor I've heard that sounds plausible enough. Can't speak for all the cast, but I'm fairly certain the main trio have spoken up against her, though.
she probably want different actors, or rewriting to make it look like they cant question her terf. she will be hardpressed to find someone who is an actor and is a terf like her, those actors have largely been expelled from hollywood, and only making shitty christian or anti-woke movies.
Yeah, I wish there was a way I could meaningfully boycott something which I had no interest in to begin with. But oh well.
Well wasn't going to anyways because Rowling is a horrible person but now I'll double down in not watching it.
Don't watch it, twice! Three times even!
Going to pirate it, burn to cds and then recycle them into sex toys for the transgender. That'll show em!
I am no literature snob but I thought the first few books were good at the time for YA fiction. I still have the full set on my shelves and would be overjoyed if my kids read any novels, even imperfect ones.
People have nit picked JKs works to death and yes, there are problems. Half the stuff I was reading and watching as a kid was far, far worse. Like I was reading stuff that on reflection was clearly written by very far right authors, pedos etc as well as stuff that went way in other directions. I get why people boycott shit like that but I think its probably good to be exposed to some other points of view, even ones you vehemently reject.
People should be supporting new authors and new stories and stop throwing money at tired old corporate franchises. And that goes for the lazy Disney shit as well and all the Hollywood remakes. Unfortunately we have all been squeezed economically so there is fuck all money left to buy media and we are being squeezed for attention so nobody is taking time to read novels or listen to albums. The culture wars are certainly very significant (as a straight white male I know I have blind spots here), particularly for minorities with a lot at stake. But I feel the real enemy is the death of individual economic freedom and free time. Do we really need another big streaming series that brings nothing new to our lives and exists only to enhance shareholder value?
Not to ruin something you like, but you might enjoy reading the Worst Witch series, which Joanne copied for her early books.
I am an old man so I don't read much kid's/YA fiction and I wasn't ever a huge HP fan. I tried to watch a tv adaption of WW with my daughter and we didn't get past the first episode for some reason. We do like a lot of other witchy fiction though. I am hoping the Witchhat Atelier anime is high quality and doesn't have creepy fan service. That had a really interesting magic system.
JKs works are full of tropes as is most fiction and it clearly isn't great literature but I am not persuaded by accusations of plagiarism. Every Tarantino movie rips off other movies. The Dollars trilogy was clearly a retelling of Kurosawa samurai movies.
I don't want to praise JK given her open hostility to the community here but the cross over appeal of her works was a cultural phenomenal at the time. I understand why many people are motivated to rip her work and legacy to shreds. She has very much earned peoples disrespect. As someone who is not targeted by her hateful views I feel detached enough to reject JK as a person without completely dismissing her works and cultural impact. Yeah, that's some privilege at work but we are who we are. I am never going to have the same awareness or sensitivity about lack of representation, stereotypes etc in her writing.
There's a huge difference between "homage" and "copying." For example, Rowling references many legendary myths, like the Nicholas Flamel and the Philosopher's Stone. That's a reference, and while it's not original, it's not so much stealing as using the existing tapestry.
The problem is not that she used existing concepts and tropes, but that she only used existing concepts and tropes. There literally isn't a single original concept in any of the books, and the source material is usually (but not always) better. It's like somebody made artwork out of clip art and photographs of famous paintings. And that's fine, but it's not creative or even well-crafted.
The dialogue is distractingly bad, the fantasy elements are disjointed and inconsistent, the mysteries are either obviously telegraphed or non-sequitur deus ex magicka that erase all tension or intrigue.
Is an Oreo cookie a good cookie? It's very popular, and many people love them. It's a knock off of Hydrox, of course, but that's not why it's not a good cookie. The cream filling is waxy and cloying, the cookies are cocoa-adjacent and stale, and they are mass produced by a company that is deforesting the planet and relying on child slaves. But they taste good dunked in milk. I like them. And that's OK. Not everything has to be the best possible version of what it could, or shoul, be.
But if the inventor of the Oreo was running around going "I'm the best baker in the world because I came up with the Oreo, and also disabled people should be euthanized," we can say that this hypothetical person sucks at both being a person and at baking cookies. The former is obviously worse than the latter, but then you have defenders saying "yes, OK, this person may not be a good person, but what they created is great." No. What they created is popular but that doesn't make it good.
I tried to read Twilight on a dare once. I dare anyone to suggest JK's writing is worse than Stephenie Meyer. A lot of popular fantasy and YA isn't much better than fan fiction. Hunger Games feels even more derivative in many ways but I don't know if that hurts it.
I agree HP isn't great art. I read the books once when they came out and that was enough for me. It was a genuine cultural phenomenon though. In the late 90s. early 2000s, before iPhone, Facebook, Youtube it was just some pop culture that filled in the many hours of analog leisure time. It brought joy to a lot of people and relieved some boredom for others. The series had good and bad. The good was the accessibility and interest it generated in reading for a relatively wide audience. Given JK's current reputation as a person I think it is too easy to dwell on the bad and completely ignore the rest. It is reasonable to cease supporting the HP franchise though. Whatever its merits it had run its course a long time ago.
Some people really like Twilight -- maybe you are not the target demographic.
I really liked the first 4 Harry Potter books as a kid. I don't really agree with the criticism above. I thought it was cool to read about this little boy like me discovering magic and exploring a cool castle and fighting dark wizards.
There is a lot of criticism I agree with -- like isn't it weird that Harry's magic society is a capitalist paradise where he buys wands and his poor best friend spends their lottery windfall on a vacation so they must not be that poor, and anyway how can you have poverty in a post-scarcity magical society?
But on the other hand it was so relatable to see Harry go on shopping trips because that's what I was doing in the 90s/2000s, and having feelings about how the rich kid's dad always paid for him to have cool toys like a nimbus 2001...
twilight target demographic were young female teens,
You don't need to tell me twice. I only have nostalgia for the original Harry Potter movies and games because it has a lot of super popular British actors, and I was about 6-years-old when they came out.
I have no nostalgia for the books, and I have no interest in watching the same story again but HBO-ified.
Does anyone want anything to do with this?
Well essentially, he's one of the most qualified guys to turn straight males gay. I know that because I'm a straight dude and it's basically him and Henry Cavill that I have a mancrush on. That's the complete list.
Anyway, things you may have seen, or heard of, where he's played a role, ordered from least important character to most: Game of Thrones, Narcos, The Last of Us, The Mandalorian and he's set to play Mister Fantastic in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie.
Most importantly, he's just a very charming actor who seems like a great down to earth guy. Might be because it took him about a decade and a half to score his first moderately big role, rather than reaching peak fame at the age of 20. Bits I just found out while fact-checking myself: He also has a queer best friend (Sarah Paulson) and his little sister is a trans rights activist who says he's been hugely supportive.
Polygraphs are bullshit, but this is a fun watch.
TL;DR: One of the coolest/nicest people in Hollywood
And that is why (along with being an amazing actor) that he is the favorite
It's be interesting how the fascist agitprop will boost this show. We've seen many cases of feminist or pro trans themes in shows incurred massive backlash from influencers and their hordes. Part of the "culture war". I'd expect a lot of hype and praises for the show no matter how good or bad it is.
Sometimes I wonder did they make Snape casting on purpose just to cause hatred? Unless Harry Potter and his friends are also non-white or they change the story from the books heavily this is gonna be a wild ride to watch in this America where racists rule the roost.
Does it count as a boycott if never intended to watch it in the first place? Or that I haven't watched any of them except the first one when it was new?
Way ahead of you
I saw, I think, the first two movies. I didn't know there was a new project. I'll join the boycott in that I had no intention of watching them in the first place.
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler Damn, spoiler warning. :::
I never watched or read any Harry potter media (except for the parody Harry is a Pothead and the Sorcerer's stoned), so this boycott is easy for me.
I wasn't going to watch it anyway, because I'm not a child.
I'm not watching it until they correctly cast Severus Snape.
And even then, I probably won't watch it.
JK Rowling doesn't like the trans community? Oh well. Don't watch it. Don't ruin it for everyone else. Nothing like fighting fascism with fascism.
If he really wants it to do badly, he should join the show and then get killed off two episodes in. Apparently this makes shows do pretty badly...
Great books and some good movies too. I'll watch the show and i hope it's good. Not everything is political and i wish people could move beyond being defined by their political beliefs. It makes the world a shitty place.
Shitty people being shitty makes the world a shitty place.
Stop giving money to shitty people and they won't be able to afford to be as shitty, or at least won't have the reach/means to be AS shitty.
Simple logic, no?
The creator has spent a ton of her money and time lobbying against trans people in politics. She is the one who made it political. Trans people just want to exist and have the same rights as everyone else.
Let's be clear, they are popular books. They are not great books. The writing is middling at best, and the stories, mythologies, and cleverness are all lifted from better authors.
Yeah yeah this is great and all but can we not fawn over the guy working for a rabid zionist bc he's doing the barest trans advocacy? Not to get all dark woke or anything but if he's calling to boycott Harry potter bc JK is a bigot what should we do with his show written by a genocide supporter? It just seems silly. I won't be watching either show but cmon. If we're gonna hold people accountable for their hate based views let's not stop at trans people.
Edit: I'm not writing it off I'm saying there's plenty of shame to go around. Most people who are rich and famous are shitty people and being on the right side of a single issue because you are personally affected by it doesn't make you exalted above everyone else in Hollywood. JK Rowling is a demonic cretin and deserves ridicule and condemnation from everyone, not just the one actor with a trans sibling. All I'm saying is it doesn't make this guy Jesus.
If all you want is perfect allies, then you should expect none. Instead take the imperfect ally and work to achieve a positive result.
We must identify the primary contradiction and struggle against it, not endlessly shift our focus as opportunities arise.
I don't need perfect allies, but I need my allies to not be fascists or fascist collaborators.
Where do you work? I need to find out if your employer is a zionist before I listen to what you have to say.
Who?
I think he means Drukmann, the creator of The Last of Us.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-not-so-hidden-israeli-politics-of-the-last-of-us-part-ii/
Seems a bit overblown though.
Wikipedia's summary of an article interviewing him and other studio members pretty much says he actually doesn't support Israel and in fact felt disgusted about having had feelings of anger for the Palestinian protestors who killed 2 Israeli soldiers in 2000. And he pretty much says that in the game he wanted the player to go on a similar emotional rollercoaster.
He supposedly also donated to emergency response teams on both sides of the conflict
I honestly had no idea who the dude was until now as I'm not really a PlayStation guy, but I'm not sure he's much of a zionist. He was born in an Israeli settlement and it's certainly shaped him in some ways, but has he ever voiced support for the genocide?
Ya that's mostly my view on it from what little I've read. The donations was days after the attack as well. It says a lot that he still donated to both sides even when he comes from Israel and when at the time, Israel was very much the victim in the eyes of the media.
I have no idea. Pedro Pascal worked the The Mandalorian, which was created by Jon Favreau, but I don't think he's a Zionist.
Sorry, you think the trans community is the cult?
lol, maga nuts can't even boycott China without having someone force them to
However, please go more into detail. I would love to help you understand how the actions of oppressing others and being oppressed are different.
Let the law decide personal decisions, great precedent to set.
I think you might be out of place here, and might feel a bit safer on twitter with the rest of the Nazis❤️
thank you Lemmy user "tiddy", I will now upvote this so that my digital footprint will be permanently marked that I like "tiddy" content.
actually though, it's insane that people think the law represents morality 🙃
You're a stupid fucking misogynist and a moron if you think gatekeeping womanhood at all is good, let alone the dumbfuck way that the UK is trying to do it. Get the fuck out of here, this is not Reddit where your ignorance and hateful rhetoric is tolerated.
which in doing so oppresses people outside of that overgeneralized definition
What's a cult?
Don't you have to have a leader for it to be a cult?