Secrets behind £1.6bn Harry Potter TV series – & why Hollywood is backing JK Rowling after trans row
SAY the name JK Rowling and be ready to take cover as sanctimonious snowflakes screech hate about her views on transgender people.
But attempts by leftie woke warriors to cancel the Harry Potter author have failed, with news she will definitely play a key role in a £1.6billion, ten-year TV adaptation of her books about the boy wizard.
Furious trans activists had complained about Rowling being an executive producer on the show, which is being made in Britain for American TV channel HBO’s streaming service Max.
Rowling has previously come under fire for claiming the “trans women are women” mantra is “idiotic”, and for campaigning against former Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s gender bill.
But she denies being trans-phobic — and now excitement about the new TV project has drowned out calls for a boycott of her participation.
JK Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.
HBO
At the weekend, HBO said: “We are proud to once again tell the story of Harry Potter — the heartwarming books that speak to the power of friendship, resolve and acceptance.
“JK Rowling has a right to express her personal views. We will remain focused on the development of the new series, which will only benefit from her involvement.”
The announcement has quietened those who have lined up to deny the 59-year-old her views on transgender questions.
Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, stars of the Harry Potter movie franchise, have previously slammed her comments on transgender rights.
Casting open to public
But Daniel, who played Harry, and Rupert, famed as Potter’s pal Ron Weasley at wizard school Hogwarts, have now both said they are looking forward to HBO bringing back the characters they played in eight films.
And well they might — the TV series, which promises to “dive deep into each one of the iconic books” is a seriously big deal.
Thousands of children have auditioned to play Harry, Ron and their friend Hermione Granger — portrayed in the films by Emma Watson — ahead of the expected start of filming in the spring.
Meanwhile, Gary Oldman, who played wizard Sirius Black in the movies, has put his hat in the ring for future projects, saying, “Maybe in a few years I can play [Hogwarts headmaster] Dumbledore”.
His former fellow cast members, including Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes and Jim Broadbent, have all defended Rowling’s right to express her opinions.
If there’s a better hill to die on than the rights and safety of women and children, I’ve never found it.
JK Rowling
These public displays of support for the writer reflect a shift in Holly-wood, which appears to be tiring of political correctness, which has proven to be a turn-off at the box office.
Four years ago when Rowling mocked “people who menstruate” as a term to describe “women”, she faced a huge backlash from stars including Emma Watson.
But rather than be cowed by the criticism, JK has continued to stand up for her beliefs. Last week she posted defiantly: “If there’s a better hill to die on than the rights and safety of women and children, I’ve never found it.”
The appeal of the story of orphan schoolboy Harry who discovers he has magical powers appears to be just as strong as ever.
Since the first novel was published in 1997, and followed by six sequels, more than 600million books have been sold across the world.
Shops selling merchandise, such as scarves and wands, continue to open and next month streaming platform Amazon Prime Video launches a Great British Bake Off-style TV show titled Harry Potter: Wizards Of Baking.
When anti-Rowling campaigners called for a boycott of the Hogwarts Legacy video game last year, their protest had little or no effect as sales soared past 12million in just a couple of months.
Meanwhile, stage play Harry Potter And The Cursed Child is still going strong in London’s West End after eight years.
It is no surprise, then, that HBO parent company Warner Bros, whose eight Harry Potter films made around £ 7 billion combined, was keen to return to the Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
The movie giant’s streaming channel Max, previously known as HBO Max, will air the TV series in 2026.
Succession and Killing Eve producer Francesca Gardiner will lead the project with British director Mark Mylod, whose CV includes Game Of Thrones.
There are rumours Brit actor Mark Rylance, star of BBC period drama Wolf Hall, is in line to play Hogwarts Professor Albus Dumbledore.
In September it was announced that the casting process for all the young Hogwarts characters — from Harry to his nemesis and fellow wizarding student Draco Malfoy — would be open to the public.
They are looking for talented kids aged nine to 11 who live in the UK or Ireland. No acting experience is necessary, although show bosses have also been scouting stage schools.
The website taking applications has now closed due to the huge response.
It is a massive boost for the British TV industry, with the bulk of the series set to be made at Warner Bros’ studios in Leavesden, near Watford.
The budget for each of the ten seasons is reckoned to be around £159million and the plan is to film each series back to back because bosses do not want the cast to age too much on screen.
But it will be tricky because there are strict regulations about the hours school-age actors and actresses are allowed to work.
Daniel Radcliffe, now aged 35, who had the most scenes in the Potter movies, had to be taught on set between shoots.
He earned a reported £86million from the films but it is unlikely any of the wannabe Harrys eyeing up the TV gig would enjoy the same sort of payday.
Daniel has backed the remake, saying: “It’ll be cool to see the torch get passed on.”
Rupert Grint agrees, telling GQ magazine: “I’d love to see Harry Potter be adapted into a TV show. It would really work.”
Rowling, who is worth an estimated £945million, retains the rights to her books and she has always insisted strongly on having her say about any Potter-related projects.
It was thanks to the Gloucestershire-born author, who now lives in Scotland, that the movies were not Americanised.
HBO and Max chairman and CEO Casey Bloys says Rowling has been “very, very involved in the process of selecting the writer and director” for the telly series.
Bloys also denied that her comments about trans issues had “affected the casting or hiring of writers or production staff”.
Indeed, Warner Bros are not the only ones who wish to work with the hugely imaginative writer.
Even though the BBC twice apologised last year after Rowling was described during its programmes as “anti-trans”, the corporation keep adapting her Cormoran Strike crime novels into TV shows.
Activists are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show. As forewarned is forearmed, I’ve taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.
JK Rowling
This December, her fictional detective played by Tom Burke will return for a BBC One four-part dramatisation of her 2022 novel The Ink Black Heart.
Meanwhile, plenty of actors are backing JK. Broadbent, who played Hogwarts’ Professor Horace Slug-horn in two Potter films, said, “JK Rowling is amazing”, and Bonham Carter, who portrayed evil Bellatrix Lestrange, commented: “She has been hounded.”
Fiennes, who played Lord Voldemort, described the attacks on the author as “appalling”, and Evanna Lynch, witch Luna Love-good in the films, said: “I do wish people would just give her more grace and listen to her.”
But this type of comment is at odds with much of Gen Z.
Not that JK is too worried about being cancelled, as she just shrugs if all off.
Last April she said: “Activists are trying to organise yet another boycott of my work, this time of the Harry Potter TV show.
“As forewarned is forearmed, I’ve taken the precaution of laying in a large stock of champagne.”
JK HAS DEFIED HATE
By Julie Bindel, feminist and friend of JK Rowling
JK ROWLING’S pinned tweet, in response to a trans activist claiming he burns her books and toasts marshmallows over the flame, reads: “I get the same royalties whether you read them or burn them. Enjoy your marshmallows!”
Having bullied the majority into submission for so long, these activists are now losing ground. Increasingly, they are ignored and sidelined.
Rowling is a feminist hero. Since first speaking out against the crazed gender ideology that has swept much of the world, including treasured institutions, she has made an immeasurable difference to women and girls everywhere. As one of the most famous authors ever, Rowling had no need to take a stand on this contentious, toxic issue – she did it because she could not remain silent.
Having spent millions supporting orphaned children and other disadvantaged groups through her charitable work, she decided that adding her voice to the fight against those determined to see an end to female-only spaces and facilities would be worth the inevitable backlash.
And what a backlash: in addition to innumerable rape and death threats, she has been publicly maligned by those whose fame and fortune she helped create. The actors who played Harry, Ron and Hermione have all stuck the knife in.
As a lesbian, and as someone lucky enough to be able to call Rowling a personal friend, I know their claims are utter fabrication.
Calls to boycott the new HBO Harry Potter TV series is nothing but bullying and posturing. I don’t know how those responsible sleep at night, when the ideology Rowling speaks out against leads to children being unnecessarily medicalised for life.
Asked by a trans activist why she wanted to “die on this hill”, Rowling replied in her usual forthright manner: “If there’s a better hill to die on than the rights and safety of women and children, I’ve never found it.”