Who remembers this magazine photoshoot from 25 years ago

We're just over two months away from the series premiering on Christmas Day, and I'm just wondering when HBO is going to really kick off the promotion!

We haven't had much in the way of new content lately, and given the scale of this production, I was expecting a substantial promotional campaign! I thought 2nd September was the beginning of it but I don't think we've had anything since then?

I'm curious what everyone thinks we can expect between now and Christmas. Do we think we'll get another full trailer in November, followed by a big promotional push in December? Cast interviews, behind-the-scenes featurettes, character posters, premiere events, the whole lot? Or do you think HBO might take a different approach?

I'm probably just being impatient, but I can't help feeling like there should be more happening by now!

What are everyone's predictions? When do you think we'll get the next trailer / stills / featurettes, and how big do you reckon the marketing campaign will be?

What do you think—when will we finally get to hear something from the new soundtrack for the first time?

Remember, the pool of chapters I chose from to make this list were ones that were OMITTED FROM THE MOVIES. If it was chapters I’m excited to see adapted in general, I probably would’ve said every single chapter from the series lmao.

PS:
- Chapter 9, The Midnight Duel (confirmed)

Cos:
- Chapter 8, The Deathday Party

PoA:
- Chapter 18, Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs

GoF:
- Chapter 21, The House-Elf Liberation Front

OotP:
- Chapter 22, St Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries

HBP:
- Chapter 10, The House of Gaunt OR
- Chapter 20, Lord Voldemort’s Request (can’t decide between the two)

DH:
- Chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pyjamas (wasn't much to choose from as they included almost all the chapters in the two films)

Art is by Pottermore and Mary GrandPré

The article mentions:

"The first season of the upcoming Harry Potter streaming series is on track to cost more than any of the films, according to analysis of recently released filings.

They reveal that spending on the show hit £147.4m by the end of last year, even though it was only halfway through filming. The most expensive Harry Potter film is thought to have cost about $250m.

The eight Harry Potter films made by Warner Bros still hold the record as the highest-grossing adaptations of a book series, with $7.9bn (£5.9bn) in global ticket sales. HBO is sparing no expense in the hope that the streaming series casts a similarly powerful spell."

My take is why that the punishment for Harry, Hermione, Neville, and Malfoy for wandering around the castle at night is to accompany Hagrid into the Forbidden Forest at night to find out who is killing the unicorns.

Personally, I hope he won't be from Slytherin. I'd like him to be from Ravenclaw or even Gryffindor

So I literally grew up with Harry Potter, as in the character. My aunt got me the first three books on audio cassette for Christmas in 2000 when I was 12 and I fell in love. (I know Stephen Fry and the new full cast audiobooks have their fans but Jim Dale is the man) I recently went back and went through all of the books as a man who is now in his thirties, who now looks at the series a bit more critically and who also now sees Harry not as a child like myself, but as...well, just a child.

One thing I've pondered for a while now, even before my re-read (relisten?) was just how Sirius really isn't in the books that much, comparatively. He's barely in PoA or GoF and the book where he's most present is the one where he dies. Yet I think most of us had a profound attachment to him. His death is certainly the most shocking one in the series for me. (I knew Dumbledore was toast because "the mentor dies" is such an old trope)

And looking back at the series as an adult, I think I can really see why I and so many others gravitated instantly to Sirius, despite his lack of page time. He is the father Harry always wanted and was robbed of. He was the embodiment of the hope that Harry would finally escape his miserable home life with the Dursleys. We didn't know Sirius would die so we felt Harry's own deep, yearning desire to be with his godfather and we wanted to believe desperately that it would come true.

I bring up my age and all that because I feel it inevitably impacts how you engage with the story and its characters. Of course we all wanted Harry to be happy when we were kids but now I'm older, I also have the desire to protect Harry. As children like Harry, we commiserated with him. We felt his attachment to Sirius because we also would want to be rescued. But now we're adults, we naturally want to be the ones doing the protecting and rescuing.

It's sort of the same feeling but also different. I couldn't have articulated any of this when I was a teenager, for one thing. And again, being an adult changes my relationship with Harry's character drastically. As a teen and an adult, I still want him to get away and be with Sirius. But of course I know what's going to happen now and also I look at it almost more from Sirius' perspective than Harry's.

I know this is a bit rambly, I hope it makes sense to somebody.

Does anyone else think it would have been better to release episode 1 at the start of December, so that the Christmas episode (eg episode 4 or 5) would coincide with Christmas Day instead? I feel like people would prefer to see a snow-covered Hogwarts on Christmas Day, instead of seeing Harry being abused for most of the episode. It would also be reminiscent of the mid-November releases of (some of) the original movies

I hope they consider this for future seasons, for example I would love to see the Yule Ball episode fall on/around Christmas Day

At first, I thought it was just his tie, until I noticed it was knotted from the back, so it could be an apron, which kind of makes sense, since it's during Potions.

But then again, I don't remember seeing any of the students wearing aprons or something similar in the Potions classroom shots in the "Finding Harry" documentary. So if it's not an apron, what is it?

It has always been my favorite opening scene, which draws on Vernon Dursley's Muggle perspective in the first chapter of *The Sorcerer's Stone* before Harry's arrival.

I’m really looking forward to seeing how the magical celebration of Voldemort’s “downfall” unfolds through the eyes of a completely normal—and perpetually irritable—Muggle, watching people in robes go about their business as usual and seeing owls on the news

I’d love to see this scene in Episode 1 of the series; I’m so excited for the days leading up to it to pass quickly

I love the movies to bits but it has always really bothered me that the back of the Chamber of Secrets door looks so Muggle. Especially since it was built by a pureblood and the front with the snakes is so lavish. It always takes me right out of the movie, lol.

What are some of your pet peeves/ridiculously tiny details (especially design-wise) that you want to see an alternate take on?

____________

EDIT:

The inadequacy of the back of the door wasn’t even the main point of my post, it was just supposed to illustrate the kind of “inconsequential detail you would like to see changed” that I was interested in.

But so long as people in the comments want to discuss the door itself and claim it looks medieval: No, not even the front of the door looks medieval, simply because a life-size cast-iron door thicker than Harry, full of industrial rivets, could not possibly have been made before the Industrial Revolution – so hardly by Salazar Slytherin in the 10th century. The aesthetic inspiration for some parts of the chamber is clearly as late as the late 19th century: submarines, vaults, manhole covers, and sewers in general (cue Harry, immediately after this scene, descending a metal ladder that looks as if it were taken out of a swimming pool). Harry Potter: Page to Screen says that even the chamber itself was inspired by “Victorian-era stone tunnels” (so 19th century), and not anything medieval.

In the CoS book, the entrance is made of stone, with two carved snakes flanking it, which is much more in keeping with 10th century historical accuracy. There is nothing wrong with the aesthetic they went with in the movie (it’s just a stylistic choice), but saying that the door is clearly medieval is simply incorrect. And me saying that its back design is more functional than ornamental should, I think, also hardly be controversial. Page to Screen calls the door “a complicated mechanism” and “a very intricate and clever piece of engineering”, so I’d guess that the radial spokes at the back are simply there to support the cameras or the snakes sliding into place. In universe, Slytherin making the outer door ornamental and then giving up on decorating the inside of his chamber (or, at the very least, leaving it smooth and minimalistic) seems highly out-of-character to me. But, at the end of the day, all of this is just a pet peeve of mine.

Just some analysis I did that I think people should be aware of when watching the show as I've seen a lot of misinformation about how apparently Harry is suspicious of Snape for no reason. If people actually read the book, they'd know this simply isn't true.

Chapter 7: The Sorting Hat
The first time Harry sees Snape, he is giving him an extremely dirty look and subsequently his scar starts hurting. He is simply reacting to this stranger staring at him and a pain in his forehead. He then asks Percy who the teacher is and quickly moves on. Harry got the vibe that Snape didn't like him but it never says that Harry disliked Snape...yet.

Chapter 8: The Potions Master
During the first Potions lesson, Snape embarrasses Harry in front of the whole class for no apparent reason (with hindsight we know why though) and Harry concludes that Snape not only dislikes him, but hates him. By this point it’s pretty clear that Harry now dislikes Snape but this was a response to Snape not liking him and singling him out. Who wouldn't dislike someone who does that to you?

Chapter 10: Hallowe'en
Harry and Ron notice Snape heading to the third floor which is suspicious because he should be in the dungeons with the other teachers. Harry is justifiably intrigued why Snape is going to the same area of the castle they found Fluffy.

Chapter 11: Quidditch
Harry notices Snape limping and when he tries to get his Quidditch book back from Snape he sees Filch treating a bad injury on Snape's leg who says "How are you supposed to keep your eyes on all three heads at once?" (cut from the movie). This is evidence to Harry that Snape tried to get past Fluffy on Halloween while everyone was distracted by the troll. This is when Harry theorises he's trying to steal whatever the dog is guarding.

Chapter 13: Nicolas Flamel
This is when Harry is fully convinced that his theory is correct. He eavesdrops on a conversation between Snape and Quirrell in the Forbidden Forest (cut from the movie) in which Snape asks Quirrell if he had figured out how to get past Fluffy. By this point he knows the object Fluffy is guarding is the Philosopher's Stone and now thinks that Snape is coercing Quirrell to get the Stone for him.

This evidence from the source material makes two things quite clear:

- Harry dislikes Snape because Snape treats him horribly and is the one who instigates their feud by humiliating him in front of the class and insulting him at a time when his confidence about his magical ability is low. It is a response rather than intuition.

- Harry doesn't assume Snape is trying to steal the Stone until he begins to gather evidence (which in hindsight was flawed but the point still stands).

In the second season I want to see the degnoming of the garden. Anyone else looking forward to it? I want to see them shot putting those things over the garden wall.

DEADLINE: Rafe, you’re doing a lot of work at the moment. What does the next year or two look like for you?

SPALL: I’m doing Harry Potter at the moment. If people like it, I’ll be doing that for a long time.....

DEADLINE: Are you nervous about Harry Potter, Rafe? We’re hearing the sets are looking amazing, like nothing else.

SPALL: I’ve never seen production values like it. I’ve been lucky enough to do things such as Prometheus and Jurassic World, big franchise projects, but I’ve never seen sets like these. Kate Hall, who does the hair and make up and worked on The Crown, is extraordinary. Holly Waddington, who won an Oscar for Poor Things, is doing the costumes. I’ve never come out of costume fittings feeling so excited. I was around true genius — a costume designer who just blows my mind.

So I’m not nervous about it. I’m just really enjoying it. It’s funny that my dad played Ron’s rat and now I’m playing Arthur Weasley. The other day I was on set and Ron’s rat was there. I took a photograph next to it. If I had social media, I would post it.

Likely not, but I was curious to see what other people thought.

Actually, thinking about it, Harry could’ve offered the tiara as an upfront substitute, with the provision that if Griphook stayed loyal he’d receive the sword as well after Harry had finished with it.

Meaning that Griphook would have incentive to stay loyal as he could walk away with both.

If I were a Hogwarts student, what is the exact method for getting sorted into the house that suits me best? Also, which Hogwarts house sorting test do you think is the most accurate?

This will probably be a hot take, so hear me out.

And no, this isn't about Snape's casting, although he's certainly one of the many characters people bring up when complaining about filmmakers supposedly ignoring basic physical descriptions.

I want to talk about something else. The Harry Potter books frequently describe characters in ways that are so exaggerated, animalistic, or outright grotesque that reproducing those descriptions literally on screen would be difficult, if not downright ridiculous.

And this is especially true of characters we're supposed to dislike.

1. Rowling doesn't just describe some characters. She practically turns them into animals.

The Dursleys are the perfect examples.

Uncle Vernon is large, beefy, and sporting a walrus moustache. He charges around like a bull. Aunt Petunia has a neck so long that she can peer over garden fences. And Dudley? Rowling goes absolutely feral describing that boy.

He's fat, piglike, stupid, and ugly. At various points, his size is compared to that of a killer whale, among other things. The boy is practically a walking collection of insults about his appearance.

And it doesn't stop with the Dursleys.

Piers Polkiss, Dudley's friend, is described as ratlike. Umbridge resembles a toad, complete with a little black bow that makes her look as though she has a fly sitting on top of her head. Snape is repeatedly compared to a bat, with his greasy hair and hooked nose contributing to the effect. Pansy Parkinson has a puglike face.

Even Slughorn gets the treatment. Rowling describes him as so enormously fat that he resembles a large armchair.

These aren't exactly subtle descriptions. They're caricatures. Rowling uses physical features to make certain characters seem unpleasant, ridiculous, threatening, or downright repulsive before they've even opened their mouths.

And yes, I know that the books are written from Harry's perspective to a considerable extent, and that the descriptions are part of Rowling's comedic and narrative style. I'm not necessarily arguing that she should have written them differently.

I'm pointing out that a caricature on the page doesn't necessarily translate into a convincing human being on screen.

2. And no, I don't think Rowling simply hates fat people.

Before anyone jumps to that conclusion, I don't think the explanation is quite that straightforward.

Neville is plump. Ernie Macmillan is stout. Molly Weasley is also described as plump. Yet their weight isn't consistently presented through the same relentless stream of demeaning animal comparisons that Rowling uses for Dudley.

Even Ernie, who initially comes across as antagonistic toward Harry, isn't subjected to the same sort of sustained physical mockery.

The difference, at least in part, seems to be how Rowling wants us to perceive these characters. When she wants someone to be grotesque or contemptible, she can make their physical description part of the joke. When she doesn't, a character can simply be plump or stout.

That's a writing choice. You can certainly criticize it, but I'm not going to pretend every description of an overweight character in the books serves the same purpose.

The larger point is that Rowling's descriptions are often doing more than telling us what a character looks like. They're telling us how we're supposed to feel about that character.

And that matters when we start discussing adaptations.

3. A book description isn't always a realistic casting brief.

Consider Snape.

His appearance is described through several distinctive features: greasy black hair, a hooked nose, sallow skin, and a generally batlike appearance. Those details combine to create a particular impression in the reader's mind.

But how literally is a filmmaker supposed to interpret that?

Does the actor need to have a genuinely hooked nose? How greasy should his hair be? How much should his facial features resemble a bat before the resemblance starts looking unintentionally comical?

The same problem applies to other characters.

Does Petunia need a neck so extraordinarily long that she can peer over fences? Does Pansy need to look so much like a pug that the comparison becomes the first thing you notice about her face? Should Umbridge look like an actual toad in a pink cardigan? Should Hagrid have large dustpin size hands and "too big to be allowed?"

At some point, a filmmaker has to decide which details are essential to the character and which are literary exaggerations intended to create an impression.

And the books themselves give us plenty of reason to believe that Rowling's descriptions are often impressionistic rather than realistic.

Take Harry's eyes. In the books, he has his mother's green eyes, and that resemblance is important to the story. But black hair and green eyes aren't exactly the most statistically common combination in the human population.

Now consider the Malfoys. Draco's eyes are described as gray, while Luna's are described as silvery. Those are evocative descriptions, but they're also the sort of details that can become difficult to reproduce faithfully when translated into actual human faces.

And that brings me to another thing I've noticed is that the Harry Potter books seem to treat certain eye colors as considerably more common than they are in real life.

Gray eyes exist, of course, but they're relatively uncommon. And silver eyes? That's a literary description, not a standard human eye color. You can approximate the effect with lighting, makeup, or contact lenses, but you aren't going to find a huge number of people walking around with naturally metallic-looking irises.

And I'm not saying filmmakers should ignore eye color. Rather, there's a difference between describing a character in evocative literary terms and expecting a real person to embody every detail exactly as written. The latter is unrealistic.

4. Adaptation is interpretation, not photocopying.

This is where I think some of the complaints about character appearances become a little unreasonable.

A book has the luxury of exaggeration. It can describe someone's face as resembling an animal, give them impossibly distinctive features, or use a particular physical trait as shorthand for their personality. The reader then builds a mental image from the description, the surrounding prose, and their own imagination.

A film has to put an actual human face on the screen.

And once an actor is cast, the filmmakers have to work with that actor's real features. Makeup, prosthetics, wigs, costumes, and contact lenses can accomplish a lot, but they have limits. More importantly, pushing every feature to its absolute extreme doesn't necessarily produce a better adaptation. It can produce something distracting, cartoonish, or simply less believable.

There's also the question of what matters most to the character.

If a character's eye color is important to the plot, that's a detail worth making an effort to preserve. If their hooked nose or animalistic appearance is part of the author's way of making them seem unpleasant, there may be other ways to communicate that impression without trying to recreate every metaphor literally.

And sometimes, a casting choice can capture a character's personality, presence, and mannerisms so effectively that a minor physical discrepancy doesn't matter nearly as much as people think it does.

Of course, filmmakers can absolutely get appearances wrong. They can ignore distinctive features, overlook important family resemblances, or make changes that undermine something meaningful in the source material.

I'm not arguing that adaptations should get a free pass. Rather, we need to distinguish between failing to reproduce an important physical detail and failing to reproduce a literary caricature literally. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

This is done in the films too! In the books, everybody forgets: Neville and Dudley are blonde. That book appearance has been sidelined in popular media in favor of them having black hair because they did in the films. The physical appearance of Snape in the films was nailed in favor of watering down his actual personality. Now, we're getting the inverse. My point being, we're simply asing for too much. There comes a point where you're no longer asking for a 1/1 adaptation. You want a cartoon. One where the bad guys look repulsive and animalistic and the good guys are regular humans, and for everyone to look at that, and take it seriously.

So, I guess my point is I feel like when people complain that a Harry Potter character doesn't look exactly like their description in the books, I think it's worth asking: Are we talking about a genuinely important physical characteristic, or are we expecting a real human being to look exactly like an exaggerated description written to make a fictional character seem more ridiculous, repulsive, or memorable?

Because those are two very different standards to hold a film adaptation to.

Edit: No, guys, it isn't ChatGPT. I actually left Chat ages ago, can't afford Claude and Gemini is too dumb to make this point. Looking back, I see why you think so, the formatting, the length, easy. But I wrote long posts like this before. If I could prove it, I would. But unfortunately, that's not possible.

From the article:

DEADLINE: Rafe, you’re doing a lot of work at the moment. What does the next year or two look like for you?

SPALL: I’m doing Harry Potter at the moment. If people like it, I’ll be doing that for a long time.

DEADLINE: Are you nervous about Harry Potter, Rafe? We’re hearing the sets are looking amazing, like nothing else.

SPALL: I’ve never seen production values like it. I’ve been lucky enough to do things such as Prometheus and Jurassic World, big franchise projects, but I’ve never seen sets like these. Kate Hall, who does the hair and make up and worked on The Crown, is extraordinary. Holly Waddington, who won an Oscar for Poor Things, is doing the costumes. I’ve never come out of costume fittings feeling so excited. I was around true genius — a costume designer who just blows my mind.

So I’m not nervous about it. I’m just really enjoying it. It’s funny that my dad played Ron’s rat and now I’m playing Arthur Weasley. The other day I was on set and Ron’s rat was there. I took a photograph next to it. If I had social media, I would post it.

DEADLINE: Talking of which, do you worry about the social media reaction, given the controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling?

SPALL: I’m mercifully not on any form of social media, and I don’t feel I have anything further to contribute to that debate. I’m just feeling really lucky to be part of something full of amazingly creative, brilliant people, all working at the top of their game. There are fabulous actors involved. Katherine Parkinson and I play the Weasley parents, and to my mind, she’s one of the best actors in the world. She’s phenomenal. The other day it was me, her, Kit Harington and Johnny Flynn. It was just fun.