You must log in or # to comment.
There is always piracy though.
Better to not engage with her output at all though. Plenty of other good shows and books in the world to enjoy, without providing further engagement and interest for her hate.
Nah, I’ll probably just pirate it
I’d argue that’s still indirectly helping to a smaller extent by keeping the fandom alive. Although, one could pirate the game and donate the money that would go towards buying it to a trans related charity or something (Trevor Project?)
I recon this is a fringe opinion but i would much prefer embrace and transform the fandom into something explicitly inclusive and progressive, many aspects of the wizarding world have so much whimsical potential to explore human expression and identity. This is also why so many (ex) potterheads are queer.
I reject Rowling as the creator, most of it builds on pre existing ideas (The worst witch, existing folklore). All she really did was stumble on a good mix and then copyrighted it.
The fandom took that mix and have expanded it much further then Rowlings tiny brain can handle and it brought them together, i hate to lose what we had because of some corporate leech that sucks money out of it.
Now about this series, obviously she is going to profit from any profit its gets, so giving them profit is unethical, likewise hyping up the show without a critical perspective is also bad because others may then buy it or merch.
But it’s still that same mix of potential. The people who make the show may not all agree with Rowlings and reflect their own visions into it. Just like the original cast distance itself from her and also managed to project more than Rowling could even comprehend that world could contain. It’s at least worth a pirated watch to celebrate what it could be, while holding a critical perspective of the flaws it will certainly have.
Hatsune Miku wrote Harry Potter
Winky got fired from her job as a slave and became an alcoholic. That’s what slave owners said would happen to black people when abolition came. The books are evil.
I loathe the part in the fourth book where Hermione tries to advocate for freeing the elves working in Hogwarts kitchen and everyone else just doesn’t give a shit. Even Harry who didn’t grow up believing that the elves wanted to be slaves just couldn’t have cared less. Hermione just eventually gave up. The best thing about the movie is that, that part didn’t make it in.
Those books are really mean to Hermione and the other women for no reason. We all thought Hermione was the self insert, but it’s Harry.
Didn’t JK say that the closest thing to a self-insert in the books is that reporter? You know, the one that takes pictures of teenagers in the bathroom while disguised as a fly on the wall?
Why does that sound so familiar? 🤔
harry experiences a lot of how the government is bad especially in books 5 and 7 but still becomes a cop
Even if it weren’t for JK Rowling I just don’t care about this remake. It’s unnecessary why are they doing it it’s just weird.
No one seems to have a compulsion to remake other early 2000 movies into TV shows I don’t know why they’ve got to start with Harry potter of all things. I would sort of get it if they just want to do tell more stories in the same universe but they’re just going to rehash what’s already being done. Why?
The explanation is that the movies famously cut out a LOT from the books, and fans were kinda sad about it, and the show aims to restore a whole bunch of that. In a vacuum, this would be a nice thing actually, like a Lord of the Rings show that restores the full content of all of Tolkien’s books properly, the people want the Bombadil cut (oh look, what’s Stephen Colbert doing over there?). Fans wanted it, and a lot of people will be very happy about it as long as it doesn’t bomb. It’s just a shame that Rowling will also be very happy about it, couldn’t even wait for her to die so that they don’t have to pay her.
You pretty much summed it up. This new TV series is aimed more towards the people who loved the books but we’re disappointed by the movies. The first 3 seasons though are probably going to be pretty similar to the movies because the first 3 books were pretty short And the movies did a decent job of following them. However, the 4th movie was where they really veered away from the books in a lot of ways. Its basically the equivalent of someone remaking The Hobbit, since there’s a lot of Lord of The Rings fans that hated The Hobbit movies because they added a bunch of random shit to them that weren’t in the book.
I love HP. Hewlett-Packard? Oh fuck, that’s worse.
I love hitpoints. A nice way to handle health in games.
Except that for all of her anti-trans stuff, she never advocated for killing trans people or anything of the sort. Or did I miss something?
EDIT: Holy shit, so many downvotes for an honest and open question? I fully realize that what she advocates for is harmful (which was what I alluded to in my original question), but there’s still quite a difference between that and advocating for the murder of every trans person, jfc.
If you take healthcare away from trans people, suicide numbers go up. And she wants to take healthcare away from trans people and shove us back in the closet. She’s chosen to attack kids, the most vulnerable of us. I believe she’s already taken lives through her lobbying.
I might be wrong as I haven’t looked too much into it in recent years, so maybe her rhetoric has changed, but isn’t even that a little beyond what she actually has said? From what I recall, isn’t her entire stance just that trans women are not the same as biological women?
Again, I could be wrong, I might be going off of outdated info, but has she ever actually argued that trans people shouldnt exist, or that they should be denied medical care? From what I’ve seen, it’s all boiled down to not wanting trans women in sports or bathrooms. Which, yea, that’s problematic, but that’s not the same as saying they shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t have healthcare.
Here’s a fun one: She accused cisgender women’s Olympic gold medalist in boxing, Imane Khelif, of “being a man”. Seemingly just because she’s black.
Anyway, back on topic: https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-k-rowling-uses-harry-175223238.html?guccounter=1
Imane Khelif is biologically male and has said so directly:
People really want to hate on J.K. Rowling for that, but she was 100% correct.
Not what that article says at all.
Yes, it is
Okay, you’ve convinced me that the article says something that it doesn’t say at all. Good job.
The age-old question…Can you separate the art from the artist?
This is not that question though.
The question of separation of art and artist is about if you should judge the art based on the artist. That is not required or even the criticism.
In fact, most people don’t even say that HP is bad because of jk rolling. They say, it is bad to pay for HP products because jk rolling gets money from it.
I am fairly certain that people would be fine with someone pirating HP movies and watching them. Publicly screening is a different story.
https://vger.to/sopuli.xyz/comment/22643123 evidence for my claim.
It’s Rowling, btw
I don’t respect her enough to care.
I don’t like Harry Potter but I’m not much of an ally either.
