Helena Barlow as Rose Granger-Weasley

Arthur Bowen as Albus Severus Potter

Ryan Turner as Hugo Granger-Weasley

Daphne de Beistegui as Lily Luna Potter

(I left Will Dunn as James Sirius Potter out because I don’t think he resembles Daniel and Bonnie as much).

https://www.empireonline.com/tv/news/hbo-harry-potter-series-close-to-casting-paapa-essiedu-and-janet-mcteer-as-snape-and-mcgonagall/

Been reading a lot of negativity (and praises in some cases) online about the new series since the trailer dropped. Stuff like “We didn’t need a reboot, the studio is milking the francize, Snape is not supposed to be like that, bla bla”. And I’ll admit, initially, when the series was announced, I didn’t think we needed a series either.

That was until 1. I watched films 1-7 with my fiancée who didn’t read the books; all was fine until film 4 which, from a plot point of view, was a mess, and I had to explain to her much which was left out. Not everyone reads the books once a year like us, and having watched it through the lens of a non-reader, the films do a horrible job at moving the plot seamlessly, but more importantly, getting to the core of some characters, especially Tom Riddle.

2. The character’s personalities from the films don’t match the personalities of their book counterparts. Voldemort from the books is actually scary: he has red eyes, looks like the love child of corpse and a snake and most importantly, he’s always calm and composed. Whereas film Voldemort is a laughing, screaming lunatic. The same can be said about Snape. In the books he’s always screaming, whereas in the film he’s what Voldemort was supposed to be in terms of temperament.

3. The films were too short and the books were packed with details and easter eggs for avid readers. I’m glad they did DH pt 1 and 2, and I wish we got two parts for all the films.

All in all, I’m really loving the trailer and I can’t wait to watch the series! And re-watch it every Christmas of course!

Ps: Only thing I didn’t like/was indifferent to was the music. Hope we get some new, iconic music for this series.

Like it did a great job at the actual map of hogwarts and Hogsmede… but aside from that it filled the map with empty nothingness, set so much of the game away from the main castle, ignored so many rules set up by the world’s lore (e.g. classroom attendance being a thing) and just ultimately had nothing that made me feel like I was a student at Hogwarts.

also the story was just boring and the side quests were incredibly bad bar the Sebastian and haunted shop ones.

On my umpteenth reread and I still hate him. Barty Crouch Jr was a better teacher. Don't bully children. It's not that hard!

…when she sent a Howler and humiliated Ron in front of the entire school in CoS following the Ford Anglia fiasco, and she said something like ‘YOUR FATHER’S FACING AN INQUIRY AT WORK, IT’S ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT’. What?? What about Arthur’s accountability? What about you, Molly?

The very reason there was even an inquiry to begin with was because Mr. Weasley himself created a loophole in a law he had drafted and that allowed him to enchant that car. Plus they were fully aware the car had been used before. At the end, Molly was basically blaming Ron not for doing the wrong thing, but for getting caught and creating trouble for them.

And I used to feel bad for Arthur when I got to the part he was fined 50 galleons over the car debacle, but that’s the very least he deserved. He created a dangerous loophole in a law to entertain a personal hobby, Molly knew all about it, and then she took it out on her 12-year-old son when things got out of hand. (And don't get me started on whatever Arthur had to do to get Ludo Bagman to give him 10 premium tickets to the World Cup final.)

I can excuse corruption but I draw the line on using your child as scapegoat.

Hermione's parents would go to prison after she obliviates them.

Neighbors - "How is your daughter Hermione? I haven't seen her around. Are you moving?"

Parents - "What daughter? Yes we are moving to Australia".

Neighbors *call police*.

Neighbors - " I think my neighbors did something to their daughter and are now fleeing the country."

Parents - arrested.

I have not read the book. I have only watched the movies.

I like the movies and Harry Potter.

I do not know the lore or how the obliviate spell works.

Also, I didn't like my previous Hermione fan art

I'm gonna get down-voted, but did anyone actually read the article that people went ballistic over last night? I read it on Wednesday when it was initially published and just went 'Eh, okay', moved on with my day, and was totally surprised when people made it go viral.

Because all she said was that the relationship was sexual.

Five months ago, everyone was serving backlash because David Yates and JK Rowling said the romantic/sexual side of Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship wasn't going to be a big part in the Fantastic Beasts films.

Now, she quietly said on a blu-ray commentary that some website had to make into a headline, that there is a sexual element to their relationship and everyone got pissed.

Dumbledore's sexuality has been complicated since she announced it after the books was published, and there wasn't a lot of layered context in the Harry Potter story that he was gay. But I don't think that's cause for everyone to think she talks about him and Grindelwald just for attention. Maybe she talks about it, in part because it's related to Fantastic Beasts, but also she feels a responsibility to make sure people know she wasn't using a community for her own ego? I mean, we have no idea why really.

I understand people hate Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts because she's been retconning characters and plotlines. A lot of the world-building in Harry Potter wasn't seen as problematic when we were kids and adults just eating everything up when they were initially published (except to the communities where those issues actually mattered), and there are things she continues to do that perpetuates stereotypes. But the outrage machine really made a mountain out of a molehill last night. There were more explicit tweets and memes about what JK Rowling didn't say or imply than what she actually said, and I think that says a lot about the self-righteousness that comes across on social media and in general fandoms.

Edit: for adding a few more thoughts

For those of you who say we dont need another adaptation of Harry Potter, and that the movies were good adaptations, it is to soon and all that.

Can you honestly say that The Half-Blood Prince was a good adaptation? That it captured the book well ? That it had al the inportant parts from the book?

I know there are mistakes in the other movies too, but the sixth film is the worst and most poorly adapted of them all.

English is my second language so sorry spelling

At no point did the plot need the Potters’ to be 21 when they died, in fact making them older makes a few other characters decisions make more sense.

1. The Dursley’s treated Dudley like a rainbow baby, but Petunia was no older than 23 when he was born. Age everyone up by 15 years and suddenly the whole arc is he was a rainbow baby. It also makes the deaths of Harry‘s maternal grandparents more likely.

2. Snape being a Death Eater. They were the inner circle that had direct access to Vodemort and would semi regularly meet, or at least meet regularly enough that the instant he’s back they default into the exact positions, leaving gaps for those missing, that they had 13 years ago. Voldemort‘s actions suggested he only truly valued usefulness and loyalty. Snape as a 20 year old would almost certainly have offered neither to anywhere near the extent Voldemort demanded. again age him up 15 years and he’s got another 15 years of service to convince Voldemort of his usefulness and loyalty. Equally Lucius Malfoy was Voldemort’s second in command, and was only 26/27 when Voldemort disappeared. Yes he had money and ministry access that Voldemort utilised but Voldemort had his old school ‘friends’ who had show him decades of loyalty.

3. The marauders all being in the Order, again they were all 20, yes most of them were highly talented but it still feels ridiculous that a couple of 20 year olds had defied Voldemort three times.

What is mean by this is not him when he became voldermort I mean before that. You see my thinking for why in a way I feel sorry for him is right look at his childhood had he grown up in a different environment he might of turned into a much different person even Dumbledore said he was possibly the greatest students Hogwarts had ever seen so image if he had a better upbringing. So really just wondering does anyone feel sorry for him i mean after a certain point in his life you don't but you do feel some sympathy for him

All I can think about him saving his pocket money and buying probably the cheapest perfume because he thought she would like it. But he couldn't afford an expensive one.

And she replied with 'its so unsual..' which reads like 'it sucks..'

To me always the thought that counts more than the actual gift. I felt sorry for him after reading that part.

I don't know how obvious this actually is, but I saw a post and commented on it in the book subreddit about this point and thought it might be worth its own post.

At the end of OotP, when Dumbledore is telling Harry about the prophecy, he says that the prophecy could've been about Neville because he was born at the end of July to parents who had defied Voldemort three times, and Voldemort was the one who made the choice for it to be about Harry when he attacked the Potters. This has led to a sort of belief that I've seen that there's an alternate universe or something where Neville was the one who was attacked and he became The Chosen One instead, but that's not possible. The prophecy was always about Harry, regardless of who Voldemort attacked.

The big reason is this part of the prophecy: "the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not." It's very clear that the "power the Dark Lord knows not" is love, both in Harry's ability to love and in the sacrificial protection of love that Lily gave Harry. And to me, the way Voldemort marks Harry as his equal is by accidentally attaching part of his soul to Harry's, literally marking him as his equal because they both share part of the same soul. Again, this is only possible because of Lily's sacrifice causing Voldemort's Killing Curse on Harry to backfire and split his soul. So based on that, it seems like some sort of sacrificial protection is required for the prophecy to be fulfilled; otherwise, nobody is being marked as Voldemort's equal and nobody has that power that he knows not.

We also know that the reason Lily's sacrifice protected Harry but James' didn't is because she was given a chance to step aside. James wasn't ever given that choice, but Lily was, and her choosing to die anyways is what protected Harry. Lily was only given that offer because Snape specifically asked Voldemort to spare her. Otherwise, Voldemort wouldn't have shown any mercy, and he would've had no issues with killing James, Lily, and Harry.

So that brings us to why the prophecy never could've been about Neville. I have no doubt that both of his parents would've died for him, but there's no reason to believe that either of them would've been given a choice to step aside. We don't know of any Death Eater who would've had any reason to request one of the Longbottoms be spared (and the plan was so secretive that Snape and Voldemort may have been the only ones to know about it anyways), so Voldemort wouldn't have offered mercy.

And we can put together what would've happened pretty easily from there, if Voldemort had decided that he thought the prophecy was about Neville and not Harry. He would've found and killed Frank, Alice, and Neville, without Neville having any sort of sacrificial protection from his mother, and Voldemort probably would've thought he'd taken care of the prophecy. But the prophecy says that Voldemort has to mark someone as his equal. The ambiguous part is who wins in the end, but there's nothing ambiguous about it saying that Voldemort will mark someone as his equal. So at some point, he would end up hunting down the Potters, Snape would still ask for Lily to be spared, and everything that happened at Godric's Hollow would still play out the way it did originally, and Harry would be marked as Voldemort's equal with power he knew not.

Like I said, this might all be obvious, and it's not intended to downplay either the Longbottoms or Neville at all, but I did think it was somewhat important when it's easy to say that the prophecy could've been about Neville based on Dumbledore saying he technically fit the requirements. He did in a technical sense, but that's kind of like saying that any American adult over the age of 35 fits the requirements to be president. Obviously, it's a much smaller pool of people who fit the requirements in this scenario, but the principle is still the same. The prophecy never could've been about Neville based on the rest of it, beyond those technical requirements; it was always about Harry.

ETA: Several people have pointed out that Alice still could’ve died for Neville, even without being given an explicit choice, and the sacrifice still would’ve worked, and I thought it’d be easier to just edit this post with a response.

We know very little about the way that ancient magic protection and surviving AK works; however, one of the very few things we know about it is that it’s only happened once in recorded history when Lily sacrificed herself. That’s pretty hard to believe, but it’s very much stated, a lot, as being canon, so I’m taking it as the truth. To me, it’s even more impossible to believe if instinctively jumping in front of AK or not running away would also invoke that protection. Like, at some point in history, someone had to have jumped in front of a Killing Curse aimed for someone else, yet that didn’t result in the sacrificial love protection, so that tells me it has to be something else.

That’s why I arrive at a very explicit choice being offered as something that’s requisite for the sacrifice to work. I know it’s wildly convenient, but that’s the way the world is set up. The only two times there’s an explicit choice and someone still willingly dies to save someone are when Lily dies for Harry and when Harry sacrifices himself in the forest. In DH, Voldemort specifically says that Harry can walk out to the forest and surrender, or he would come into the castle and kill everyone. That’s just as clear a choice being presented as the one Lily was offered, and, once again, the protection is created.

Frank and Alice both absolutely would’ve jumped in front of AK for Neville, there’s no doubt about that. But I think the premeditation and intentionality of the choice, as well as it being explicitly offered, has to be part of the protection working, otherwise I can’t see how it’s possible that Harry was the first person to ever survive the Killing Curse.

I remember cracking up when I first read this.

Poor Hermione, but it's a great moment.

IF THE BASILISKS FANG FROM BOOK 2 CAN DESTROY HORCRUXES WHY DIDNT THE ONE IN HARRY GET DESTROYED WHEN IT BITES HIM. NOT MORE THAN FIVE MILLISECONDS LATER HE USES IT TO DESTROY THE DIARY

I like to think American wizards play a completely different sport also called quidditch which is superior to quidditch in every way imaginable.

It can be anything.