On this whole planet, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more devoted Harry Potter fan than me. At the ripe age of 20, I can still answer nearly every Hogwarts trivia question with perfect accuracy, rattle off quotes from the books and movies, and I own an embarrassing amount of merchandise from my peak fandom days, which includes a solid collection of homemade wands! I’m even taking a class dedicated to the series next semester. So take it from an expert: there’s nothing we need less than a rebooted Harry Potter.
In case you missed it, HBO Max unveiled the trailer for its new Harry Potter series this week. The vision is for seven seasons, with each covering one of the books. On paper, this sounds perfect. It allows for more detail, including scenes that were missing from the original eight-movie run, and a completely revamped cast and set. While unknown young actors were chosen for the roles of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, some notable actors are filling some of the adult roles — John Lithgow will be portraying Hogwarts’ headmaster Albus Dumbledore, while comedian Nick Frost is stepping into the role of Hagrid.
Yet, even with a promise of fresh talent and a more “accurate” adaptation, I can’t help but wonder: why revisit a universe and story that feels entirely cinematically complete?
I’ll be the first to say that, in terms of accuracy to the source material, the Harry Potter film series lagged a little. With eight movies released between 2001 and 2011, it was a herculean task to condense nearly 4,000 pages into that runtime. From small details like minor characters and side plots to major ones (they don’t even explain who the Marauders are!), so much was left out of the silver screen adaptation. But the movies are still good. They’re great, even. And more importantly, they established the visual and emotional language of Harry Potter so well that it’s almost impossible to separate them.
The aesthetics set up by the Harry Potter film series have elevated Harry Potter so far beyond the books that it’s hard to imagine a rebooted series comparing. Almost all of the vital imagery from the universe had its groundwork laid in the films — the iconic music, the costume and character designs, and the castle itself. And Warner Bros. (that helmed both the films and the new series) clearly recognizes this. Billions of dollars in revenue have been generated across the films, tie-in merchandise, and theme parks, all built on those same designs.
Even the actors have cemented themselves so firmly in their characters that I can’t imagine anyone else when rereading. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson were perfectly cast as Harry, Ron, and Hermione, but it’s the side characters who truly shine. Alan Rickman as Severus Snape, Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid…in my mind, these actors are inseparable from the roles they play.
The films haven’t faded over time, either. They’ve maintained constant cultural relevancy since the last one came out 15 years ago. No matter how shoddy some early CGI may be, or any details left out of the books, Harry Potter has never left the cultural spotlight, and that’s largely due to the strength of the films.
And of course, the creators of the show know all of this. If you’ve watched the trailer, you can see how closely the character and set designs stick to what the films established. Sure, they’re based on the same source material, but you’d expect a new adaptation to differentiate itself, at least somewhat, from its cinematic predecessor. Instead, this series sticks to the exact same aesthetics and designs. The castle is the same. The costumes are the same. The props are the same. If a reboot isn’t trying to establish its own creative or visual identity, what is it actually offering audiences?
The answer is simple: Harry Potter prints money. A new series means new viewers, new merchandise, new everything. In an era with endless reboots and remakes, familiarity and nostalgia are the easiest cards to play if you want a guaranteed hit.
My more cynical opinion? The push for an entirely new Harry Potter is also tied to growing discomfort with its creator, J. K. Rowling. While Rowling was widely beloved during the years the films were released, that sentiment has shifted. In recent years, she’s embraced transphobic views and “TERF”-ism (trans-exclusionary radical feminism), which has alienated many fans, myself included. And it’s not just audiences. Several cast members from the original films, including Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson, have spoken out in support of the trans community and pushed back on Rowling’s remarks.
Is it possible Rowling wants a fresh start on her series with actors who already know her beliefs, and are less likely to speak out against her? Maybe. But it’s hard not to wonder.
Hollywood is in a massive originality rut, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the latest victim of reboot-ism is the still-lauded Harry Potter series. Intriguingly, if Warner Bros. wanted to keep milking its cash cow, it could have set a series in just about any other period — following Harry’s parents during their time at Hogwarts, his children during their school years, or even the founding of the wizarding school. It’s a strange creative decision to get the remake machine churning for a series that concluded in 2011, rather than exploring avenues that would allow for far more individuality.
The Harry Potter series is bound to draw comparisons to the films, and based on the trailer, there’s little effort to separate the two creatively or visually. I’m curious to see what the finished product looks like when it hits streaming at the end of 2026, but if the preview is any indication, it may struggle to offer anything new to a universe that already feels complete.