this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
395 points (96.3% liked)

LGBTQ+

4678 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml 22 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Why do we even need a remake of the old movies? The movies are still holding up very well in this day and age. Why couldn't they focus on some other story? Expand the universe a little. Hogwarts is not the only magic school that exists...

[–] ratsnake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They tried expanding the world, it sucked and nobody liked it (also, the worldbuilding is so weak that it falls apart if you consider wider society outside of Hogwarts for five minutes, because the series started as books for grade schoolers)

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The world building is weak because Rowling is a bad fantasy writer, not because it was written for grade schoolers. There are tons of series aimed at grade schoolers with incredible world building - Redwall, Warrior Cats, Earthsea, just to name a few, all have way better world building than Harry Potter.

[–] ratsnake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 days ago

Eh, I think it's a bit of both? The first books just generally where fairly whimsy and light-hearted and you don't really need your demographics and societal structures to make sense when you are writing a whimsical, light-hearted story for kids.

The later books become darker and more serious so the artifacts of those earlier worldbuilding decisions become more and more obvious over time.

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Earthsea has some of the best world building of all time, but I'm not sure I'd say it was written for grade schoolers.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I feel like Earthsea is appropriate for middle-school-aged kids (so like 11-14ish), right? Maybe our definitions of "grade schoolers" is different, but I was trying to give examples for a wide range of ages

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Actually that's totally fair. There's just some heady concepts in there, it certainly makes HP look much more childish and goofy.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

but that excuse doesnt hold water either, why spend money on a remake when you can make money on a quick and easy and CHEAP remaster/re-release without any effort or inevitable backlash around casting choices

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Remasters rarely make money.

The Blu-ray remaster of Star Trek (can't remember which series) lost money.

No one would buy a re-release of a decade old Harry Potter film.

[–] egg82@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was 2001, 25 years ago. Deathly Hallows was 2011, 15 years ago.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

Because JK Rowling is pissed that the original cast doesn’t support her becoming a raging transphobe/capitalist goon.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 6 days ago

Money and the Hollywood is going to mine the nostalgia until there is no more money left.