5 Reasons Why HBO's Harry Potter TV Series Is Destined To Flop

Everything old is new again, according to Hollywood. Pretty much everything in the current entertainment sphere seems to be based on or a reboot of existing intellectual property — in the sense that studios are apprehensive to commit to new ideas, preferring to stick with things that have a better guarantee of making a lot of money — and saying that this approach provides mixed results is a severe understatement. Sure, shows like "The Penguin," which cuts out the "main" character of Batman to focus on the vicious crime families inhabiting Gotham, works — but if I'm going to stay in the same cinematic universe for this comparison, look at the overwhelmingly middling to bad reviews of "Joker: Folie á Deux," a sequel nobody particularly wanted (or liked, apparently). This is all to say that some things should probably be left alone, and that includes the "Harry Potter" franchise.

I'm fighting a losing battle here because like it or not, we are getting a "Harry Potter" series intended to span seven seasons at HBO. "Succession" veterans Francesca Gardiner and Mark Mylod will serve as showrunner and executive producer, respectively, and some actors are being eyed for major roles (it was recently reported that Mark Rylance is circling the role of Albus Dumbledore, played in the film franchise by Richard Harris and Michael Gambon after the former passed away). HBO and Max CEO Casey Bloys then revealed (via Collider) that fans might be able to expect the show's first outing in early 2027. It's happening, and it shouldn't!

I've been against this reboot from its very inception, and I've only grown more wary of the entire thing as it's progressed. In fact, I think it's going to flop to the point where we won't even get seven seasons, and I'm saying this as a lifelong "Harry Potter" fan. Here's why.

During a recent interview with The Independent for their series "Go to Bat," Jared Harris — a prolific actor known for projects like "Chernobyl," "Mad Men," and "Morbius" — weighed in on the whole issue of a "Harry Potter" reboot. He might seem like a random person to ask about the whole thing, but he's not; the original Albus Dumbledore, Richard Harris, was his father and passed away in 2002. After saying he did not want to play Dumbledore in the new series, Harris was pretty blunt: "Also, I mean, why do it? I don't understand. The films were fantastic — leave them alone."

Harris is absolutely right, and we should listen to him! After the original books by Joanne Kathleen (J.K.) Rowling started their run in 1997 and became international bestsellers, a movie adaptation seemed inevitable — and the first installment, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (or "Philosopher's Stone" if you're not in the United States) hit theaters in the fall of 2001. The movies aren't perfect, per se; as Harris actually said later on in that Independent interview, a lot of stuff that happens in the "Potter" books got left on the cutting room floor in the end. (He's right about that too.) Still, they only concluded their run in 2011 with a two-part finale — "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is one of the first adaptations to pull the shameless move of splitting a film into two parts spaced out over several months — which wasn't that long ago. For a generation of "Harry Potter" fans, the movies are the definitive filmed version of "Harry Potter," and it's not like they've aged that poorly or anything; newcomers to the fandom can certainly enjoy them too. We don't need this reboot. The movies are right there.

It's another understatement to say that, in recent years, the aforementioned Joanne Kathleen Rowling has become ... a controversial figure. I'll be blunt and say that her views on trans women are harmful, bigoted, and actually pretty disgusting; under the guise of "feminism." Rowling has declared that she's an ardent defender of women's rights at the expense of a marginalized group that needs and deserves support from all people, especially women. Ironic, because on her own website, Rowling notes that she used the pen name "J.K." to appear more masculine and appeal to a wider swath of young readers, as well as her pen name of "Robert Galbraith." Funny how she's allowed to subvert her gender presentation in such a way — specifically, for profit. For many "Harry Potter" fans, including me, it's been devastating and gutting to watch a series beloved to so many people lose its luster over the odious views of its creator. 

As the owner and creator of all things "Harry Potter," it's safe to assume that Rowling will be pretty heavily involved in the reboot, as she was with the original film franchise. After she really kicked off her transphobic run in 2020, several of the original film's actors, including star Daniel Radcliffe, released statements of support for the transgender community and spoke out against Rowling, but the damage was done — and after realizing who Rowling really is, fans started to look a little more closely at the content of "Harry Potter" and second-guessed some things. Do we really want a full season of a "Harry Potter" TV show based on the fourth book, "Goblet of Fire," where the story argues that slavery is okay because the slaves (house elves) love it? Let's be serious.

Based on Rowling's super-slim fake textbook "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them," the "Fantastic Beasts" franchise was ostensibly meant to cater to "Harry Potter" fans, but it, uh, didn't. The first movie came out in 2016, followed by two sequels — "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" in 2018 and "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore" in 2022 — and while they all made decent amounts of money, interest definitely waned, and now, it seems like the franchise might be dead. Star Eddie Redmayne, who plays the franchise's lead Newt Scamander, told ComicBook that he's pretty sure the movies are over. "I think [fans] probably have [seen the last of Newt]," Redmayne said in October 2024. "That was a very frank answer, but yeah. And that's as far as I know. I mean, you'd have to speak to the people at Warner Bros. and J.K Rowling, but as far as I know, that's it." Jude Law, who plays Albus Dumbledore in the movies, said something similar to Variety, noting that the franchise is "certainly on hold" and remarking that he thinks all of the creative energy that went towards "Fantastic Beasts" will likely go to the reboot instead.

Putting aside the fact that the "Fantastic Beasts" movies have actually and legitimately interfered with the canon of the original series — we already know all of Dumbledore's siblings, and he doesn't have a secret brother!!! — the spin-off franchise is underwhelming at best and actively bad at worst, but its failure might point to a larger issue. If "Harry Potter" fans are cooling on the entire universe for a number of reasons, the reboot might go the same way as "Fantastic Beasts" when all is said and done.

There are certainly nits to pick with the original "Harry Potter" movies, but one thing about that film franchise is legitimately perfect — and that's the casting. First of all, the powers that be (namely, the first film's casting director Susan Figgis) found the perfect main trio in Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, who played Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson throughout the entire series. Not only did these three kids have to inhabit three characters that were, by the time they joined the film franchise, already beloved by millions of people, but they also had to grow up on-screen and keep playing them. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are all ideal for their roles, and that's to say absolutely nothing of the adult casting, which is nothing short of incredible. 

With luminaries like Dame Maggie Smith (as the stern yet big-hearted Transfiguration professor Minerva McGonagall), Alan Rickman (as the often cruel Potions master Severus Snape), Ralph Fiennes (as the Dark Lord Voldemort), and a ton of other legends like Helena Bonham Carter, Kenneth Branagh, Gary Oldman, Julie Walters, Jim Broadbent, and Imelda Staunton, just to name a few, the original "Harry Potter" cast is perfect. You can't improve on it, and I dare the reboot's casting team to try. Please try to picture anybody but the late, great Rickman playing Snape and tell me it doesn't make you extremely depressed. You can't.

I'm approaching this mental exercise from the perspective of a lifelong "Harry Potter" fan, as I mentioned, and I'm really not trying to be a wet blanket, but come on; we don't want this. It's not just the fact that Rowling has a lot more in common with the sadistic, close-minded Hogwarts professor Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) than she'd probably care to admit, but the fact that if there's going to be more "Harry Potter" content, there are more interesting options than simply redoing a film franchise that already exists, except that it's longer and on the small screen.

Here's an elevator pitch: what if, instead of a reboot of a series of movies that only ended in the 2010s, we picked something actually interesting from the "Harry Potter" canon like a prequel centered around the Marauders? In the third book and movie, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," we find out that Harry's late father James Potter and his best friends Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew — played respectively by Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, and Timothy Spall, as James is long-deceased before the narrative begins — got into a lot of pretty cool trouble at school. Not only were they secret Animagi — James, Sirius, and Peter could transform into a stag, a dog, and a rat at will to keep Remus, a werewolf, company during his monthly transformations — but they created a magical object known as the Marauder's Map that tracked all the comings and goings throughout Hogwarts. Why can't we have a series about that?! That sounds way cooler!

Anyway, because the top brass at Warner Bros. is definitely ignoring my emails at this point, this reboot is definitely happening. In the meantime, you can watch the original movies on Peacock.