Photo courtesy of US Weekly
On April 12, the multi-media conglomerate Warner Bros. Discovery announced, among many, many controversial plans, that they will remake the “Harry Potter” film series into a ten-year television serial on their newly-christened Max (formerly HBO Max) streaming service.
Much hullabaloo has been made about the announcement, from excitement over a new interpretation of a classic book franchise, annoyance over yet another Hollywood remake and concern over the involvement of series creator J.K. Rowling, who has courted controversy over repeated transphobia. In the midst of all of the commotion concerning the series, one important aspect has been looked over, and it’s an aspect that could change Hollywood decision-making for the worst: if the show is a success, then what Hollywood can (and will) remake will be virtually limitless.
To explain why this would be a problem, one needs to look at what Hollywood tends to remake. Hollywood tends to remake works that are not only proven to be successful but are also easy to reinterpret. A perfect example of this is the continual remaking of the film “A Star is Born.” It originally centered around Hollywood actors in its 1937 incarnation; the first remake added musical elements (and an absurdly hefty runtime) to the basic plot. The 1978 Barbra Streisand-led remake changed the profession from Hollywood acting to rock music – and the most recent remake from 2018 changed the genre to country. Despite those cosmetic changes, each film has the exact same basic premise – a fading male star takes a rising female star under his wing. This is how your average remake functions; take the basic plot and make changes as you see fit. Sometimes this can create beloved cinema that creates its own legacy – films like “Scarface,” “The Thing” and “Ocean’s Eleven” – or it reminds us of how important the “business” part of “show business” truly is. The omnipresence of Disney’s live-action remakes come to mind.
Despite this, there has been somewhat of an unspoken rule as to what is and isn’t acceptable to remake. For example, most people in Hollywood would rule against remaking culturally vital works that have stood the test of time. A film like “Citizen Kane,” for example, has basically been protected from ever being so much as considered for remaking. Its cultural significance means that no one will likely ever want to retell it, even if they may mine various aspects of it for their own work. The same is true for films like “The Godfather” or “Casablanca” – these films’ impact on the films that came after have served as a kind of protective bubble. For the longest time, the “Harry Potter” films functioned the same way; they were a monumental undertaking and true lightning-in-a-bottle works that continue to live on long after the series ended almost a decade ago.
The fact that Warner Bros. Discovery feels it is appropriate to take another crack at these films speaks more to the reliance of intellectual property than anything else. Everyone knows that this series will not be as successful artistically as the original series of films.
If anything, this series’ guaranteed success represents a sort of Pandora’s box for Hollywood, as any slightly popular work, no matter its continued significance or popularity, is ripe for the remake train. A few weeks after the “Harry Potter” series announcement, a “Twilight” television series was announced, clearly in competition. And for those who may scoff at fearing over remakes of children’s or young adult novel adaptations, their precedence is already being felt elsewhere; a remake of “Vertigo,” a film that is considered one of the greatest the medium has produced, was just announced to be in pre-production.
