A report that WarnerMedia is considering a Harry Potter series for HBO Max shouldn't come as a surprise, even if the entertainment conglomerate denies any such project is in the works. After all, the Boy Who Lived has been one of Warner Bros.' most successful franchises for 20 years, and the fledgling streaming service HBO Max needs all of the marquee, exclusive content it can get. Over the past few years, however, Harry Potter has become a complicated subject for many fans who've grown deeply disappointed by author J.K. Rowling's anti-trans comments.
Questionable tweets eventually led to a full-blown manifesto accusing trans women of threatening the safety of cisgender women, and trans men of being confused girls. Her negative views on trans rights even became part of her most recent crime novel, Troubled Blood, written under her pseudonym, Robert Galbraith. Can interest in a potential new Wizarding World streaming series be separated from support for Rowling? Sadly, the answer is no.
Obviously, individuals can still love the Potter novels while disapproving of the views and actions of their author, especially given that the books' morals often contradict Rowling's espoused beliefs. However, financial support and public platforming is a different issue from personal enjoyment, and for fans who find Rowling's anti-trans activism odious, there's not really any way to support new Potter media without the author benefiting from that in one way or another.
Separating the art from the artist is something one can do intellectually, but when dealing with living artists in a position to receive royalties, it's not actually financially possible. With the Harry Potter franchise, it's especially difficult because Rowling holds a level of creative control over the franchise that few authors have. Every piece of Potter media released has to meet her approval. She's deeply involved in the film adaptations and wrote the screenplays for the Fantastic Beasts spinoffs. And, while she's less hands-on with the video games, she certainly reaps the financial benefits.
Some conflicted viewers might feel more relaxed about watching through a streaming series than they are with purchasing a novel or a movie ticket, because they wouldn't be paying directly for a new Potter project. While the finances of streaming are opaque, we know that even if your subscription isn't directly pay Rowling, a show's popularity will almost inevitably result in a season renewal, further enriching her.
Another way to address the consumption of work by problematic artists is by offsetting potential profits from your purchases with donations to charities that combat their negative activism. A Potter super-fan who feels as if they must watch any related series or movie could potentially offset that with the donation of the subscription or ticket price to, say, The Trevor Project, the LGBTQ anti-suicide hotline endorsed by Daniel Radcliffe. That might be a good solution for some, but too expensive for others.
WarnerMedia has released statements distancing itself from Rowling's views, but those ring hollow if the company is going to keep working with Rowling. Continuing on with the Fantastic Beasts movies, even in the face of their own controversies and diminishing box office returns, at least makes some degree of sense because of the initial investments. But developing a new Potter project in the aftermath of Rowling's repeated anti-trans remarks would be irresponsible.
WarnerMedia's insistence that, "There are no Harry Potter series in development at the studio or on the streaming platform" is speculated by The Hollywood Reporter to mean the project is merely in the super-early stages. If that's indeed the case, then hopefully, the negative response from people who love, or used to love, Harry Potter will put an end to any moment. After all, there are plenty of other, less problematic, fantasy series HBO Max could adapt.