Harry Potter series Behind The Scenes episode out on HBO Max on April 5th

[nATAH 57,013]

my god some of you need to MOVE ON

it's just FICTION

your children's book are OLD NEWS

[monketsharona 90,127]

No shade you all can support or not, it's very personal. But anyone expecting this to tank is delulu. The trailer was watched like 227M in two days, being the biggest of HBO (overdoing it of twice the previous record)

It's like the delulu who thought Scream 7 would tank in box office because Melissa Barrera being gone would be a commercial hurt for the brand. Like well  

Online boycott campaigns always fails hard, on the contrary it often helps in performance. 

Edited April 2 by monketsharona

[Bronco 25,129]

48 minutes ago, Hadrian said:

Someone who isn't a transphobic asshole really needs to make something like harry potter so we can all move on from harry potter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wizard_of_Earthsea 

[Meruk Holland 2,358]

6 hours ago, darkgaga said:

Well, it is just as a huge exaggeration to say watching this show makes you transfobe because of what JK said, while hundreds of others are working on this show to make it the best they can. If people watching, which will be millions of people worldwide, from young children to adults who grew up with Harry Potter are transfobe already, what does is make the actor, cameraman, VFX artists, and other crew?

 

People are allowed to decide for themselves if they want to watch this, for whatever reason they want to. That does not automatically make them agree with Rowlings views. There is a very clear separation. We might not agree, but I will not remain silent while people who do not know me are calling me very serious names, because I am going to watch a TV show that millions of people are going to watch. And just to be clear, I have trans friends, who I will support always, and even most of them are going to watch this show. 

You are not anti-trans for wanting to consume media knowing that it directly benefits and enables it's anti-trans creator (unless you're consuming it solely for that reason). It does mean that you are explicitly not pro-trans though. Any justification you make does not change that. It doesn't matter if it'll already be successful, it doesn't matter that other media does it while hiding it. JKR and her works are unique in that she is the face of the anti-trans movement, she is the most well-known anti-trans activist. And on top of that, she makes it well known that she intends to use profits to further that activism. Even Chick-fil-A can say "we aren't actively donating to anti-queer organizations anymore".

Everyone involved in this series - from the writers, to the film crew, to the audience - they are making the choice, no matter how informed or not, to ignore the fact that they're contributing to anti-queer activism. That doesn't make them anti-trans. But that does mean they aren't trans allies. Meanwhile, actual anti-trans activists are going to use the same defenses that you're employing to come into pro-queer spaces to hide the fact they aren't anti-trans, and sew discontent within the community. 

So it's safer for us to nip this in the bud. Why would I want to risk bad faith actors coming here just so you can talk about how excited you are for a tv show that will enable JKR to harm more trans people? Why would I want that for my community? To see ""allies"" demonstrably show that they only care about trans issues insofar as it doesn't inconvenience their enjoyment? Is that how little your trans friends mean to you?

[ThisGuyTony 34,914]

Rumors say that the cost is $75-$100M per episode  

How is that even possible?

[REALITY 80,165]

3 hours ago, monketsharona said:

No shade you all can support or not, it's very personal. But anyone expecting this to tank is delulu. The trailer was watched like 227M in two days, being the biggest of HBO (overdoing it of twice the previous record)

It's like the delulu who thought Scream 7 would tank in box office because Melissa Barrera being gone would be a commercial hurt for the brand. Like well  

Online boycott campaigns always fails hard, on the contrary it often helps in performance. 

This 1000%. Everyone has the right to boycott if they want to, but just know that this show will be massive. Unfortunately most people don't care about trans issues enough to boycott something. Unless it's actively harming them, or a big enough group of people to ignore, you have to make do with the fact that these boycotts are largely from chronically online people. I'm sure general audiences have a passing idea of what JK has said and done, but none of them are keyed in like we are. And if they are, again, they just don't care enough about it.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,972]

9 hours ago, monketsharona said:

To be real honest the tone of the Hogwart castle and general sets in the books are kind of dark even in the first books 

The choice of making it very bright in the first two movies was a choice tbh

I think it was a storytelling element to show how excited Harry was to be there. You don't have all the mental notes from Harry as you would in the books so this visual helps a lot with the happy tone he had. Also believe the third film is when they decided to greenlight the rest of the films so they actually got a real budget for the sets. 

7 hours ago, RAMROD said:

That’s a huge exaggeration. Your argument relies on a slippery slope. Not separating art from artist doesn’t mean rejecting everything, it just means being selective in cases where harm is clear. It’s not about obsessively filtering every piece of media, it’s about having boundaries when harm is clear and ongoing.

People already do this with brands and public figures all the time and still enjoy life just fine. There’s more than enough art out there to choose from, you’re not losing enjoyment, you’re just choosing what you’re comfortable supporting.

So the only way to enjoy art is to actively and knowingly ignore harmful behavior from the artist because of nostalgia? That seems like a pretty low standard for enjoyment

I understand where everyone comes from when they make this argument but at the end of the day it's a rough argument to make in general and kind of cherry picks. We all know child labor is used for clothing yet so many of us consume fast fashion. We all know child labor is used for rare earth metals that are used for a lot of our technology. Film/television in general has a lot of names tied to it that are associated with some sort of sexual misconduct. Yet we're judging people for this? Most of us could live ethical lives by buying local and quitting a lot of the lifestyle we have established. But we all choose not to because the dopamine feels nice just like the dopamine from nostalgia feels nice. A lot of us on here are gay and have traumas associated with that self-discovery or self-acceptance, traumas that still show up in our everyday lives now as adults. We know the grip our childhoods have on us but we're being condescending about what is essentially that same feeling on a topic you dont feel as personally attached to?

24 minutes ago, Meruk Holland said:

You are not anti-trans for wanting to consume media knowing that it directly benefits and enables it's anti-trans creator (unless you're consuming it solely for that reason). It does mean that you are explicitly not pro-trans though. Any justification you make does not change that. It doesn't matter if it'll already be successful, it doesn't matter that other media does it while hiding it. JKR and her works are unique in that she is the face of the anti-trans movement, she is the most well-known anti-trans activist. And on top of that, she makes it well known that she intends to use profits to further that activism. Even Chick-fil-A can say "we aren't actively donating to anti-queer organizations anymore".

Everyone involved in this series - from the writers, to the film crew, to the audience - they are making the choice, no matter how informed or not, to ignore the fact that they're contributing to anti-queer activism. That doesn't make them anti-trans. But that does mean they aren't trans allies. Meanwhile, actual anti-trans activists are going to use the same defenses that you're employing to come into pro-queer spaces to hide the fact they aren't anti-trans, and sew discontent within the community. 

So it's safer for us to nip this in the bud. Why would I want to risk bad faith actors coming here just so you can talk about how excited you are for a tv show that will enable JKR to harm more trans people? Why would I want that for my community? To see ""allies"" demonstrably show that they only care about trans issues insofar as it doesn't inconvenience their enjoyment? Is that how little your trans friends mean to you?

To be fair, the only people still maintaining JKR's image as the face of the anti-trans movement are the people within the LGBTQ community. People that are explicitly and vocally anti-trans are going to want to pedestal anyone and anything related to the movement but the general public would not give two damns about Joanne. She's not actually held any media relevance as an individual for the last 10 years and publications would stop posting her TERF hate posts if the LGBT community stopped so actively engaging. She'd fall to the same obscurity as an individual as George Lucas if we just left her alone. 

[Mr Oak 7,761]

Well, it looks amazing 

[gumzy3000 7,901]

Boycotting this because the creator is transphobic but discrediting the potentially 1000s of people working on this project to bring this iconic series to life is unfair I think. The people making this series are probably not all transphobic so why should they be punished?