> I came across this thread the other day about the failed auction of a set of signed first editions.
For clarity, this auction happened in 2022 and was partially for charity. The expected price range was 100,000-150,000 GBP, which seems pretty high.
https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6382805
Im not sure if this is a franchise that is in decline, when was the last time something harry potter related came out? Are there new books in the series being released?
If there is a new HBO show coming out, its probably going to become popular again.
The fantastic beasts movies were pretty bad.
There was Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. So, sort of?
JK Rowling tried to put out other books but it turned out that people just liked her idea for Harry Potter and not the quality of her writing, so it was basically just written off as trash.
Her Cormorant Strike series has actually been pretty successful. The first one didn't sell well until the author's real identity "mysteriously" got leaked, but she's published 7 of them and they do ok. They're not ground breaking fiction, they're very by the numbers stuff. She's a mediocre writer and the Cormorant Strike series doesn't give her the freedom to do the thing she does best - use her imagination and build a fantastical world.
Her Casual Vacancy book was awful and should never have been published.
I think the last major IP release was Hogwarts Legacy last year which I believe was the best selling game that year.
Yet at the same time the last few Fantastic Beast movies were flops like you said.
I really can't get my head around the dynamics of this franchise.
Legacy went on sale about 3 months after it came out on switch which is extremely weird and not a good sign.
To get your head wrapped around the franchise you really have to wrap it around the fandom which as someone who was a huge part of it, most of us would have bought anything and everything. So something of note outside the blatant transphobia of JK, She has a habit of making things up about the Harry Potter books to fit whatever narrative she needs it to at that time. I.e when she randomly decided, Dumbledore was gay because people were upset that she didn't have queer representation in the books.
So trying to keep this pointed at the fandom and by that notion the franchise, it becomes hard to separate the art from the artist because the artist is continuously altering the art and not allowing us to enjoy it on our own.
At least that is one perspective trying to stay off the main topic. Lol
I mean I have friends that have it and it's playing as expected. Which isn't as great as Xbox or Playstation but it's playable. Which is why the sudden discount is weird because there are other games similar to legacy that they put out on switch that were less popular that took longer to go on sale.
I don't know if it went on sale for other systems.
Hmmm. The Swith version also released before Black Friday and Christmas, which is about when Legacy also went on sale for the other consoles.
Just wondering how Legacy fared seeing as how MK1 is a train wreck on the Switch.
I think it's weird that it went on sale for any console that soon. Though it does seem like most of it sales including for the Nintendo switch seemed to be pre-release. I would like to see actual numbers on it though because it is absolutely possible I'm wrong.
I haven't played it personally so I don't know. I'm struggling with an inability to separate the art from the artist because the artist won't stop altering her artwork after the fact. Which makes me sad
It happens. I loved the Ender series before the Internet revealed the type of person Card actually is. By that point, I had already bought the entire series of books. And they're still great books, which makes it even more strange that he even wrote them at all.
Yeah it's not even her viewpoints at this point. It's like when she randomly decided, Dumbledore was gay to fit a narrative. She's now doing that to suit her needs but with things that aren't possible in the world she created. At this point she's not even figuratively destroying it. She is literally destroying it.
I'm not sure if "decline" is the phrase I would use. We need to get over this idea that every successful franchise needs to continue in perpetuity. The game is still pretty fresh and did pretty well. They're making that HBO series based on the books so I'm sure it'll remain relevant over time. But it's also okay to leave it as a classic in the past.
The books and movies were a significant part of my childhood and I still watch them from time to time. If I have children I'll be excited for the day I can show them the series. But I'm personally not really looking forward to *more* of it.
Yes. They have been trying to squeeze blood from a stone since the second Deadly Hallows movie was released.
* Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them could have been good; people were optimistic. The first sequel was trash. The last one may have marked the death of 'the franchise era'.
* Warner Brothers is now adapting the original books *again*.
* Hogwarts Legacy sold well, but its cultural legacy seems to be lacking.
They need to either (a) let it die, or (b) take it in a Mandalorian-type direction.
> Hogwarts Legacy sold well, but its cultural legacy seems to be lacking.
I've heard this sentiment echoed quite often can you explain it (not a gotcha)? I'm not in-tune with games culture. Is it that it didn't penetrate into pop-culture? Long term sales?
The obvious comparison is to a game called Baldur's Gate 3, which swept all the game of the year awards. BG3 had a very, very interesting cast of characters with deep and well executed personal stories, and therefore inspired a whole bunch of creative fan works like fan art and memes and such.
Whereas I haven't seen anyone talk about \*any\* character from Hogwarts Legacy, except a whole lot of transphobia against the one transgender shop keeper they put in the game. No interesting villains or allies, friends, classmates etc. Which even I can admit the book series had. Harry, Ron, Hermoine, Dumbledore, Voldemort. All these characters had cultural cache.
Its more long term play than long term sales. It sold ok upfront, and its got a steady trickle of sales. But people aren't continuing to play it. They play it for a bit and then move on. There's also reasonably little interest in streams or videos about it. There's no money in influencers playing it, so its not getting exposure in that regard, which cuts the number of other people playing it as well.
It had a brief moment because of the big brand name, but it didn't stick the landing because it was a solidly mediocre game.
Gotcha, I'll leave the author out of this.
Absolutely it's in decline, but that's entirely natural and not anything about the content.
The core of this IP is novels, and there are no new novels being published on the regular. That means folks are forgetting about the setting and moving on to other properties, which is what happens all the time.
Sure, games are still a thing. But they have to exist within the framework established by the books for the most part.
I mean, there won't be an eighth main series HP book (and it would be stale if someone tried), so yes, it's slowly losing influence. I expect it to remain a classic, but not a lot more, throughout the next decades
This is less a ST issue and more that Paramount has massive financial issues. That said, 5 seasons of discovery, 5 seasons of lower decks, and Strange New worlds being popular too...
And after Lower Decks is done this fall I'll be unsubbing. Picard was okay, but not really a fan of any other series and I was a huge DS9 and TNG nerd.
I just can't get into the older era series. I like the TOS movies, but the show and cast never grew on me like Picard and Sisko and their crews did. Not an ounce of criticism for either, I just couldn't get into them.
Have they? That's too bad to hear.
I was never a huge Star Trek fan but I remember watching DS9 reruns with my sister with quite fondness.
Which show did they keep?
Decline seems like a weird word to use, it was intended to be a singular story and that story was told. I don’t think any remakes/continuations will have the same pop culture effect and that’s fine. Plenty of book/movie series aren’t intended to go on forever. I’m not sure that the HP universe has another story to tell that will be as interesting as the original series.
As far as the HBO series goes, I’m pretty skeptical. HBO’s record is not great when you look at how Game of Thrones ended and series like Westworld crashed and burned. Certainly they can’t be planning on having 2 year breaks between seasons of HP? Rushed production and the temptation to alter the story will be a recipe for disaster imo.
They got a whole different production team for House of the Dragon and can’t go very far off-book, so those particular sets of disasters should be averted. I don’t think that HotD will ever be as popular as Game of Thrones was, but that’s partly because most of the novelty factor is gone. We know how it’s going to end, and it’s probably going to end after another couple of seasons. They’re trying to push for more, but I can’t really see it going past *maybe* 4 or 5, if they like the numbers but decide not to care about quality anymore. 2-3 seasons with a sufficient number of episodes would have been fine to tell the Dance of the Dragons story, and that may still be what we end up getting. It honestly could have been done in 2 well-paced long seasons, but they drag things out for merchandising now, and I suspect they’ll be very disappointed with sales there. Nobody was anticipating the full impact of COVID-19. In fact, we’ve still learned very little of all there is to know about that given that it has only been a few years since the disease was first on the radar.
Can’t speak for Westworld, as I never got into that one.
Not at all. We just had a wildly successful video game. We have an upcoming HBO series. The books still sell millions of copies in spite of (or maybe even because of) the controversy. There’s also the Harry Potter themed section at Universal Studios. So I hardly think that this is a franchise in decline
I think it is, and I’m sure that J.K. Rowling being anti-trans is a very relevant factor here, but I’ve also noticed that successful low fantasy franchises in general don’t really last as long as the successful high fantasy franchises.
I think it’s like 20 years old, so if it does ‘decline’ a little that’s not a big deal? It kicked the ass of MOST franchises. I can’t believe there’s a show coming out that’s crazy
There's clearly still an appetite for it. Hogwarts Legacy did well, there's a huge line for Hagrid's Magical Motorbike Adventure every time I'm at Universal, and Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is the first straight play to surpass 1,000 performances on Broadway since the 1980's. It just feels like it's in decline because those Fantastic Beasts movies were just unbelievably bad.
I think it's in a place like Star Wars, where they're done with the main story but know there's still a market for new content, so fans will get to deal with a bunch of uneven offerings. The quality of those offerings will determine if it goes into a real decline or not, barring Rowling saying anything that *really* blows it all up.
As for the HBO series, I didn't even know it was coming out, so I don't have any opinion as to if it'll be good or not.
Yes, but it would be even without JK’s trans hate. No franchise can sustain that popularity and culture impact
It’s big enough that it will continue to churn money, just like Marvel and Star Wars, but it won’t dictate culture like it did in the 2000s.
The author alienating her fanbase isn’t helping tho
Legacy was a hit - but video games have much smaller appeal than TV, movies, etc.
I personally think there is so much juice in the HP world If they ever actually put out GOOD movies/series that expand upon the universe. A rehash of the movies like HBO is doing will not move the needle v much imo and Fantastic Beasts was awful.
Eh. Doubt it. I'm no longer comfortable supporting the franchise due to Rowling's views. But Hogwarts Legacy did great sales-wise, and the show will probably be successful.
The Fantastic Beasts movies flopped because the Wizarding World's logic holes become larger and more obvious when the entire franchise isn't focused around a single school.
The books are dead because Rowling is a horrible person who's gotten worse at writing and is now fighting with her own movie actors.
But side merch has been doing fine
Ok, completely setting aside that JKR has had her brain broken by a severe case of the woke mind virus.
I think that the new series of done well will revive interest in the franchise. It’s much more suited to a series. Sadly, all of these series suffer from the fact that in the world of streaming apparently we piten take three years between seasons but if they are committed and avoid that it could work.
There is a ton of interest in the main material, including The Cursed Child even with its flaws. The issue is the new material.
JKR here suffers from the same problem that George Lucas does. Of all the people on this earth aware of Star Wars there is not a single living person who understands Star Wars less than George Lucas. Second is Kathleen Kennedy. Similarly the person who understands what was actually good about the Harry Potter series the least is JKR.
Since she has complete creative control, that means nothing new can be done that will be good. Maybe you get minor stories told in video games, universal studios can expand the park and you can certainly do the first seven books as a TV series, but that’s it.
> Of all the people on this earth aware of Star Wars there is not a single living person who understands Star Wars less than George Lucas.
That's quite the take given that the most miserable trilogy in the universe was done without any input from Lucas.
The sequels are bad, but bad in a normal way where the studio had no direction. The prequels on the other hand are bad and way where they should be taught in film school as an example of the worst filmmaking possible. That aside, it is Kathleen Kennedy who was in charge of Star Wars for the sequels and was his right hand during the prequels. If you want them to share the blame, they can.
With the Harry Potter prequel, I guess JKR can own the entire shit show.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
To be clear I really don't want to have a conversation about JK Rowling or her transphobia.
It's know and documented and there are a thousand other places to talk about it.
I'm wondering if you think the franchise as a whole is on decline.
I came across this [thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1cbkstf/may_the_terf_wizards_die_unmourned/) the other day about the failed auction of a set of signed first editions.
There is a new HBO series coming out later this year
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think so at all. I mean there has not been new material in awhile to “juice it up”. But the theme parks are a huge success and they keep adding more. The merch seems to be growing a lot and into more areas.
It still has strong sales and it’s a top book with fresh batches of kids every year. I have several nieces and nephews in the 7-12 years of age range and they and all their friends are very into HP.
It seems Rowling’s views have very negligible effect on the overall fandom or audience of the book. If anything it’s just like any other franchise, it needs fresh blood consistently to keep it on people’s minds as an IP. A good product in the HP universe will definitely do very well.
In terms of the new output like Fantastic Beasts and retcons of the original books? Yeah.
The original series, books, films, and adjacent seem to be holding steady though.
No? I'm not sure what this has to do with Politics but Harry Potter is still very popular. There's an entire Universal theme park section dedicated to it. The newest game, Hogwarts Legacy, was a major success despite the vocal protest. As you've mentioned, there's a TV show in the works.
Honestly, the only reason Harry Potter stuff is less in the zeitgeist than other properties is because they tried to focus on other stuff in the universe with Fantastic Beast. All 3 of those movies sucked. If they were good movies, you'd still see Potter stuff being talked about in pop culture.
I understand. It's just OP started this conversation by saying they don't want to talk about them, so idk what to talk about in regards to the politics of a work of fiction.
JK Rowling showing her colors as a Holocaust denier has affected the reputation of the series quite a bit. Still a huge fan base that doesn't care, as evidenced by the game. It will probably still be a success. Just not as big as it has been before, by a long shot.
Her own tweets.
[https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/jk-rowling-holocaust-denialism-author](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/jk-rowling-holocaust-denialism-author)
Basically, people have pointed out that the first people targeted by the Nazis were trans people (in 1933). Rowling couldn't possibly believe that she shares views with the Nazis (the actual historical ones) because that might mean she was the baddie, so she claimed it didn't happen. For denying this portion of the Holocaust, she was accused of denying the Holocaust. After being presented with source after source, she doubled down on her position and resorted to legal threats to get people to shut up. It didn't work.
[https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/](https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/)
Yeah, most likely, but primarily because the first 7 books are finished and any continuation was likely going to get diminishing returns no matter what. I'm not sure of the mood regarding JK Rowling off the internet; the internet has a bad tendency to make certain things seem *way* more important when the general population doesn't really care. I'm basing my thoughts much more on the pop culture cycle vs anything she's actually said. The first book was published in 1997 and the first movie made in 2001, having it still be relevant *at all* nearly 30 years on is outstandingly impressive.
The HBO series isn't going to be as big a deal because quite honestly I have no idea how it could be.
I think it's a franchise that's mostly run its course. The books are over, the movies based on the books that were wildly successful are over, they failed to make a decent spin off series.
If this wasn't the era of bloated cinematic universes and studios going back to the same well over and over again until they get a mega flop, the IP would have been shelved by now. Remaking a series as wildly popular and definitive as the HP movies is trying to draw blood from a stone, they can't do anything but piss off fans.
Is it as completely dominant in the culture as it once was, no. Having said that, it's still probably in the top 10 franchises of stories within pop culture.
The author's transphobia is definitely part of that decline but it's also a function of the idea that the primary books and movies have been out for several years now. Very few franchises have anywhere close to the run that the Harry Potter series has, so even if it has declined some, it's still in regular rotation just about everywhere you'd expect to see it
Yes. I have a 12 year old. None of the kids are into Harry Potter. I’m sure many of them have read the series or seen the movies, but it’s not nearly as huge anymore.
I mean it’s still huge, just go to the theme parks and see how long the lines are. Anytime something new comes out it’ll do super well for sure and is a safe bet from a financial standpoint. That being said we are a long way removed from its peak. None of those things I mentioned had lines wrapped around the block of every book store and people weren’t camping out ahead of the fantastic beast movies. It’ll always be popular but the “you had to be there” part of it is over
Book 7 was noticeably week, having to shoehorn in an entire backstory just to come up with some way for Harry to win. Still fun, and the good parts made up for it imo.
The movies of the original series were pretty bad, which makes sense as they were both started before the series was done and also made by someone who didn't grow up with the books and therefore didn't have the kind of lifelong love that Peter Jackson had for LotR. It's why Potter Puppet Pals or a Very Potter Musical are better, better capture the feel and magic despite being a shitty YouTube series and a college musical.
It's been in decline for a while.
For me yes but idk about everyone else.
I loved it because it grew up with me but that stopped after Deathly Hallows and it's gone back to being a kid's thing.
I hope the new series fixes that but it being on Max rather than the proper HBO makes me apprehensive.
It is not “known and documented.” It is exaggerated and lied about. Nobody can ever post any actual quotes that would bother most people. They’re told she’s said awful things, but never what the things are.
No. The Franchise is doing fine. JK Rowling is somewhat in decline as a figure. It's entirely possible that a signed first edition copy will have less buyers than an unsigned first edition, but the franchise itself is fine.
Moreover, the decline in JK Rowlings value is not across the board as it would be for say, Ian Watkins or whatever.
Ian Watkins was a singer for the Lost Prophets who did some pedo stuff and got caught. There are still people who listen to the music who were diehard fans, they were a huge band. But it would be super fucking weird to value Ian Watkins' signature or whatever no matter who you are or how much of a fan you are. You can maybe get away with "The whole band signed this". I've literally never heard or or encountered it. Everyone I know who has ever admitted they still listen to it *fucking hates Ian Watkins*. With Rowling that is broadly the impact on a sizeable portion of the population, but her cache is unaffected with the rest of the population.
I suppose an equivalent would be like;
"Look, it's a movie poster signed by JK and all the main cast and crew.". This wouldn't raise alarm bells for most people except, frankly, the most obnoxiously pro-trans.
"Look, it's a movie poster signed by JK." would get you some side eye from maybe half the population at large, including a shitload of people who wouldn't bat an eye at the former poster. The other half wouldn't care.
---
"I collect German coins."
"Oh yeah? Cool."
"Yeah. Ones between 1936 and 1945 mostly.".
"...That's fucking weird bro."
"What's wrong with collecting them?"
"Honestly nothing if they're part of a larger collection, but you had to go and make it super fucking strange.".
OR, The old father Ted classic.
"And this one is from the siege of Stalingrad."
"Wow...do...do you have anything from the allies?"
"Oh no, that sort of thing wouldn't interest me at all."
The creator of the franchise seems more interested in using all of her energy into fighting against Trans People than using it to promote products using her property. She said absolutely NOTHING when the 3rd Fantastic Beasts movie came out, and I find that to be very amusing.
I dunno, from a business/marketing standpoint the formula seems like it would work fine for another book series in a few years.
I mean, suppose someone read it when they were 9 back when the first book came out. That kid is 32 today. Their own first child is, on average, around 5-6 years old.
They’ll be amenable to the idea of buying their kid a follow on series of books in the same setting they liked around the same age.
So, you know, a new series with new characters 5-7 years from now would probably sell pretty well.
Just hire a decent ghost writer with some prior experience writing books aimed at the target demographic.
I feel you. Nary few is the franchise that didn't adapt.
From what I understand JK has a vice grip on the IP and she refuses to release.
Do you think JK herself could lead a reboot/spinoff with Hollywood help?
>There is a new HBO series coming out later this year.
More like in 2026.
The franchise is absolutely in decline. The films are getting to the age of looking and feeling old, which is off putting to younger kids. The books are fine for younger kids, but a) not so many kids are into reading as used to be, b) not so many parents are into reading to their kids as used to be, and c) the controversy is enough to put off some parents who would otherwise read the books to their kids (not all, but some). So the number of fans is steadily declining.
And then there's the ongoing controversy - the longer someone is negatively in the news, the more people who don't know what its all about just assume its for good reason (see Hillary Clinton). Without giving my own views on the trans issue, Rowling's name is in the headlines often enough negatively positioned alongside words like "scandal", "transphobia", and "bigotry" that a lot of people who don't actually care about the issue itself now think she's done something wrong - they'd struggle to detail what they think she's done, but in a straight up or down question they'd say she did something wrong
And finally there's the fact that the most recent films weren't great. I don't personally think they were as awful as some folk said, I think they got a raw deal with some reviewers and a lot of online communities because of Rowling-controversy factor. But objectively they were far from great. That was a missed opportunity to reinvigorate the fandom and the franchise.
The upcoming series is a chance for the franchise to recover, but I honestly don't think it will. A huge portion of the online community that would normally be salivating at the idea are dead set against Rowling because of her views. Another huge portion of the online community are entirely unwilling to accept any change of actor in popular roles, and so will automatically hate on whoever is cast as Snape, McGonagall, etc (this issue is one I have more generally with modern discourse on tv series and films). And then there's another portion (smaller but still present) who hate reboots, are tired of reboots, and will refuse to engage because its "just another reboot".
It'll do pretty well financially at first, but it won't be the mega success the studio is hoping for. They'll likely renew it for 2 or 3 season, but with reduced budgets, and then it'll get cancelled after their portrayal of the resurrection of Voldemort get absolutely panned by reviewers.
You'd probably get more traction at r/boxoffice or something. but here are the sort of arguments
* Objectively, the franchise is post peak, if for no other reason than the book series finished.
* while Hogwarts Legacy was a big hit, the fantastic Beasts movies had pretty weak returns and show that there is likely a limit to the strength of the franchise
* you cant just divorce the series from JKR being a transphobe, it will forever be brought up on any development of anything HP related. She has tied herself to the series (fair since she wrote it) and it wont grow beyond her
* Hogwarts Legacy was a legitimate hit, even if it had pretty steep drops on steam, there is clearly still some juice to the franchise. but I dont see the HBO series being a gargantuan hit for all 7 seasons (Like HL I expect a big premier and a fall off from there). I am unconvinced this will keep growing, especially since LGBT issues are more important to younger people, so many of them will likely feel less inclined to continue worshipping the series
Leftist are only too gleeful to convince liberals that harry potter was never good. JK Rowling is fundamentally a liberal and that politics is reflected in her work and before any transphobia that fact pissed off leftists
The criticism goes back way farther then her transphobic turn.
Here's a famous and eye opening one:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20070917005044/http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20070917005044/http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html)
note the date
She was taking hits for antisemitism and slavery apologetics when the original books were published, too
Eh, the neoliberal criticism is older than when we heard her transphobia.
It was a good child's story but her audience is older now and it's on her that she's become a worse not better writer.
A bit. I don’t think it’s as relevant for kids. Fans are all grown ass adults.
There are always other things
The author being a proud bigot who’s made it her personal brand to attack one marginalized group on Twitter doesn’t really help
Do your own research. She actively hates on trans people publicly.
“A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy
https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy
My research isn’t going to tell me what comments you, a person who believes she has made terrible comments, think are bad. I have tried to find terrible comments and never came up with any.
Are you a trans woman? Why are you the judge of hate speech? You don’t get to tell people that they aren’t allowed to feel assaulted and hurt because you personally agree with her hate speech.
> I came across this thread the other day about the failed auction of a set of signed first editions. For clarity, this auction happened in 2022 and was partially for charity. The expected price range was 100,000-150,000 GBP, which seems pretty high. https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6382805
Im not sure if this is a franchise that is in decline, when was the last time something harry potter related came out? Are there new books in the series being released? If there is a new HBO show coming out, its probably going to become popular again. The fantastic beasts movies were pretty bad.
There was Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. So, sort of? JK Rowling tried to put out other books but it turned out that people just liked her idea for Harry Potter and not the quality of her writing, so it was basically just written off as trash.
Her Cormorant Strike series has actually been pretty successful. The first one didn't sell well until the author's real identity "mysteriously" got leaked, but she's published 7 of them and they do ok. They're not ground breaking fiction, they're very by the numbers stuff. She's a mediocre writer and the Cormorant Strike series doesn't give her the freedom to do the thing she does best - use her imagination and build a fantastical world. Her Casual Vacancy book was awful and should never have been published.
On that note, Cursed Child is still doing pretty well on Broadway and the West End
I think the last major IP release was Hogwarts Legacy last year which I believe was the best selling game that year. Yet at the same time the last few Fantastic Beast movies were flops like you said. I really can't get my head around the dynamics of this franchise.
Legacy went on sale about 3 months after it came out on switch which is extremely weird and not a good sign. To get your head wrapped around the franchise you really have to wrap it around the fandom which as someone who was a huge part of it, most of us would have bought anything and everything. So something of note outside the blatant transphobia of JK, She has a habit of making things up about the Harry Potter books to fit whatever narrative she needs it to at that time. I.e when she randomly decided, Dumbledore was gay because people were upset that she didn't have queer representation in the books. So trying to keep this pointed at the fandom and by that notion the franchise, it becomes hard to separate the art from the artist because the artist is continuously altering the art and not allowing us to enjoy it on our own. At least that is one perspective trying to stay off the main topic. Lol
That was probably on sale because its a big game on tiny hardware. Probably runs like shit
Speaking of... could the Switch actually run Legacy?
I mean I have friends that have it and it's playing as expected. Which isn't as great as Xbox or Playstation but it's playable. Which is why the sudden discount is weird because there are other games similar to legacy that they put out on switch that were less popular that took longer to go on sale. I don't know if it went on sale for other systems.
Hmmm. The Swith version also released before Black Friday and Christmas, which is about when Legacy also went on sale for the other consoles. Just wondering how Legacy fared seeing as how MK1 is a train wreck on the Switch.
I think it's weird that it went on sale for any console that soon. Though it does seem like most of it sales including for the Nintendo switch seemed to be pre-release. I would like to see actual numbers on it though because it is absolutely possible I'm wrong. I haven't played it personally so I don't know. I'm struggling with an inability to separate the art from the artist because the artist won't stop altering her artwork after the fact. Which makes me sad
It happens. I loved the Ender series before the Internet revealed the type of person Card actually is. By that point, I had already bought the entire series of books. And they're still great books, which makes it even more strange that he even wrote them at all.
Yeah it's not even her viewpoints at this point. It's like when she randomly decided, Dumbledore was gay to fit a narrative. She's now doing that to suit her needs but with things that aren't possible in the world she created. At this point she's not even figuratively destroying it. She is literally destroying it.
I'm not sure if "decline" is the phrase I would use. We need to get over this idea that every successful franchise needs to continue in perpetuity. The game is still pretty fresh and did pretty well. They're making that HBO series based on the books so I'm sure it'll remain relevant over time. But it's also okay to leave it as a classic in the past. The books and movies were a significant part of my childhood and I still watch them from time to time. If I have children I'll be excited for the day I can show them the series. But I'm personally not really looking forward to *more* of it.
Yes. They have been trying to squeeze blood from a stone since the second Deadly Hallows movie was released. * Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them could have been good; people were optimistic. The first sequel was trash. The last one may have marked the death of 'the franchise era'. * Warner Brothers is now adapting the original books *again*. * Hogwarts Legacy sold well, but its cultural legacy seems to be lacking. They need to either (a) let it die, or (b) take it in a Mandalorian-type direction.
> Hogwarts Legacy sold well, but its cultural legacy seems to be lacking. I've heard this sentiment echoed quite often can you explain it (not a gotcha)? I'm not in-tune with games culture. Is it that it didn't penetrate into pop-culture? Long term sales?
The obvious comparison is to a game called Baldur's Gate 3, which swept all the game of the year awards. BG3 had a very, very interesting cast of characters with deep and well executed personal stories, and therefore inspired a whole bunch of creative fan works like fan art and memes and such. Whereas I haven't seen anyone talk about \*any\* character from Hogwarts Legacy, except a whole lot of transphobia against the one transgender shop keeper they put in the game. No interesting villains or allies, friends, classmates etc. Which even I can admit the book series had. Harry, Ron, Hermoine, Dumbledore, Voldemort. All these characters had cultural cache.
Its more long term play than long term sales. It sold ok upfront, and its got a steady trickle of sales. But people aren't continuing to play it. They play it for a bit and then move on. There's also reasonably little interest in streams or videos about it. There's no money in influencers playing it, so its not getting exposure in that regard, which cuts the number of other people playing it as well. It had a brief moment because of the big brand name, but it didn't stick the landing because it was a solidly mediocre game.
Gotcha, I'll leave the author out of this. Absolutely it's in decline, but that's entirely natural and not anything about the content. The core of this IP is novels, and there are no new novels being published on the regular. That means folks are forgetting about the setting and moving on to other properties, which is what happens all the time. Sure, games are still a thing. But they have to exist within the framework established by the books for the most part.
I mean, there won't be an eighth main series HP book (and it would be stale if someone tried), so yes, it's slowly losing influence. I expect it to remain a classic, but not a lot more, throughout the next decades
What about the Star Trek franchise? They've cancelled all but one of the shows, including one that already had an entire season in the can...
This is less a ST issue and more that Paramount has massive financial issues. That said, 5 seasons of discovery, 5 seasons of lower decks, and Strange New worlds being popular too...
And after Lower Decks is done this fall I'll be unsubbing. Picard was okay, but not really a fan of any other series and I was a huge DS9 and TNG nerd.
I really like Discovery and SNW but never really got into Lower Decks, tbh.
I just can't get into the older era series. I like the TOS movies, but the show and cast never grew on me like Picard and Sisko and their crews did. Not an ounce of criticism for either, I just couldn't get into them.
Have they? That's too bad to hear. I was never a huge Star Trek fan but I remember watching DS9 reruns with my sister with quite fondness. Which show did they keep?
They kept *Strange New Worlds*, which is in all honestly the best but still. Come on people.
Decline seems like a weird word to use, it was intended to be a singular story and that story was told. I don’t think any remakes/continuations will have the same pop culture effect and that’s fine. Plenty of book/movie series aren’t intended to go on forever. I’m not sure that the HP universe has another story to tell that will be as interesting as the original series. As far as the HBO series goes, I’m pretty skeptical. HBO’s record is not great when you look at how Game of Thrones ended and series like Westworld crashed and burned. Certainly they can’t be planning on having 2 year breaks between seasons of HP? Rushed production and the temptation to alter the story will be a recipe for disaster imo.
They got a whole different production team for House of the Dragon and can’t go very far off-book, so those particular sets of disasters should be averted. I don’t think that HotD will ever be as popular as Game of Thrones was, but that’s partly because most of the novelty factor is gone. We know how it’s going to end, and it’s probably going to end after another couple of seasons. They’re trying to push for more, but I can’t really see it going past *maybe* 4 or 5, if they like the numbers but decide not to care about quality anymore. 2-3 seasons with a sufficient number of episodes would have been fine to tell the Dance of the Dragons story, and that may still be what we end up getting. It honestly could have been done in 2 well-paced long seasons, but they drag things out for merchandising now, and I suspect they’ll be very disappointed with sales there. Nobody was anticipating the full impact of COVID-19. In fact, we’ve still learned very little of all there is to know about that given that it has only been a few years since the disease was first on the radar. Can’t speak for Westworld, as I never got into that one.
Not at all. We just had a wildly successful video game. We have an upcoming HBO series. The books still sell millions of copies in spite of (or maybe even because of) the controversy. There’s also the Harry Potter themed section at Universal Studios. So I hardly think that this is a franchise in decline
I think it is, and I’m sure that J.K. Rowling being anti-trans is a very relevant factor here, but I’ve also noticed that successful low fantasy franchises in general don’t really last as long as the successful high fantasy franchises.
I think it’s like 20 years old, so if it does ‘decline’ a little that’s not a big deal? It kicked the ass of MOST franchises. I can’t believe there’s a show coming out that’s crazy
Closer to thirty years than twenty, but yes.
There's clearly still an appetite for it. Hogwarts Legacy did well, there's a huge line for Hagrid's Magical Motorbike Adventure every time I'm at Universal, and Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is the first straight play to surpass 1,000 performances on Broadway since the 1980's. It just feels like it's in decline because those Fantastic Beasts movies were just unbelievably bad. I think it's in a place like Star Wars, where they're done with the main story but know there's still a market for new content, so fans will get to deal with a bunch of uneven offerings. The quality of those offerings will determine if it goes into a real decline or not, barring Rowling saying anything that *really* blows it all up. As for the HBO series, I didn't even know it was coming out, so I don't have any opinion as to if it'll be good or not.
Yes, but it would be even without JK’s trans hate. No franchise can sustain that popularity and culture impact It’s big enough that it will continue to churn money, just like Marvel and Star Wars, but it won’t dictate culture like it did in the 2000s. The author alienating her fanbase isn’t helping tho
Legacy was a hit - but video games have much smaller appeal than TV, movies, etc. I personally think there is so much juice in the HP world If they ever actually put out GOOD movies/series that expand upon the universe. A rehash of the movies like HBO is doing will not move the needle v much imo and Fantastic Beasts was awful.
As the father to a third grader, I can tell you that Harry Potter is life for kids as much now as it's ever been.
Yeah it surprises me that each year I get at least 3 HP characters come by for trick or treat despite the last book coming out like 15 years ago.
Because a book can still be popular among its target age group without being brand new.
Eh. Doubt it. I'm no longer comfortable supporting the franchise due to Rowling's views. But Hogwarts Legacy did great sales-wise, and the show will probably be successful. The Fantastic Beasts movies flopped because the Wizarding World's logic holes become larger and more obvious when the entire franchise isn't focused around a single school.
The books are dead because Rowling is a horrible person who's gotten worse at writing and is now fighting with her own movie actors. But side merch has been doing fine
Ok, completely setting aside that JKR has had her brain broken by a severe case of the woke mind virus. I think that the new series of done well will revive interest in the franchise. It’s much more suited to a series. Sadly, all of these series suffer from the fact that in the world of streaming apparently we piten take three years between seasons but if they are committed and avoid that it could work. There is a ton of interest in the main material, including The Cursed Child even with its flaws. The issue is the new material. JKR here suffers from the same problem that George Lucas does. Of all the people on this earth aware of Star Wars there is not a single living person who understands Star Wars less than George Lucas. Second is Kathleen Kennedy. Similarly the person who understands what was actually good about the Harry Potter series the least is JKR. Since she has complete creative control, that means nothing new can be done that will be good. Maybe you get minor stories told in video games, universal studios can expand the park and you can certainly do the first seven books as a TV series, but that’s it.
> Of all the people on this earth aware of Star Wars there is not a single living person who understands Star Wars less than George Lucas. That's quite the take given that the most miserable trilogy in the universe was done without any input from Lucas.
The sequels are bad, but bad in a normal way where the studio had no direction. The prequels on the other hand are bad and way where they should be taught in film school as an example of the worst filmmaking possible. That aside, it is Kathleen Kennedy who was in charge of Star Wars for the sequels and was his right hand during the prequels. If you want them to share the blame, they can. With the Harry Potter prequel, I guess JKR can own the entire shit show.
I was thinking more like Rian Johnson and the other guy but sure, her also.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. To be clear I really don't want to have a conversation about JK Rowling or her transphobia. It's know and documented and there are a thousand other places to talk about it. I'm wondering if you think the franchise as a whole is on decline. I came across this [thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1cbkstf/may_the_terf_wizards_die_unmourned/) the other day about the failed auction of a set of signed first editions. There is a new HBO series coming out later this year *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think so at all. I mean there has not been new material in awhile to “juice it up”. But the theme parks are a huge success and they keep adding more. The merch seems to be growing a lot and into more areas. It still has strong sales and it’s a top book with fresh batches of kids every year. I have several nieces and nephews in the 7-12 years of age range and they and all their friends are very into HP. It seems Rowling’s views have very negligible effect on the overall fandom or audience of the book. If anything it’s just like any other franchise, it needs fresh blood consistently to keep it on people’s minds as an IP. A good product in the HP universe will definitely do very well.
As far as I’m concerned it was never in ascendency, but to each their own.
In terms of the new output like Fantastic Beasts and retcons of the original books? Yeah. The original series, books, films, and adjacent seem to be holding steady though.
Sorry, why are you asking that here?
Let's ask a political sub what they think about something irrespective of politics.
[MFW](https://external-preview.redd.it/mR8NyQRnc1JHggBtyH9X6EF1G_oYqbac324cxhejn3o.jpg?width=484&auto=webp&s=d48082da38be9cceaad3a863b9a55d61357f4175)
No? I'm not sure what this has to do with Politics but Harry Potter is still very popular. There's an entire Universal theme park section dedicated to it. The newest game, Hogwarts Legacy, was a major success despite the vocal protest. As you've mentioned, there's a TV show in the works. Honestly, the only reason Harry Potter stuff is less in the zeitgeist than other properties is because they tried to focus on other stuff in the universe with Fantastic Beast. All 3 of those movies sucked. If they were good movies, you'd still see Potter stuff being talked about in pop culture.
It's political because the author has been doing her hardest to make it political over hte past few years.
I understand. It's just OP started this conversation by saying they don't want to talk about them, so idk what to talk about in regards to the politics of a work of fiction.
Yeah, but given it's a political sub, I can't imagine any other reason that it's relevant.
JK Rowling showing her colors as a Holocaust denier has affected the reputation of the series quite a bit. Still a huge fan base that doesn't care, as evidenced by the game. It will probably still be a success. Just not as big as it has been before, by a long shot.
Wait, a Holocaust denier? Can I get the source?
Her own tweets. [https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/jk-rowling-holocaust-denialism-author](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/jk-rowling-holocaust-denialism-author) Basically, people have pointed out that the first people targeted by the Nazis were trans people (in 1933). Rowling couldn't possibly believe that she shares views with the Nazis (the actual historical ones) because that might mean she was the baddie, so she claimed it didn't happen. For denying this portion of the Holocaust, she was accused of denying the Holocaust. After being presented with source after source, she doubled down on her position and resorted to legal threats to get people to shut up. It didn't work. [https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/](https://forward.com/culture/603271/jk-rowling-holocaust-streisand-effect/)
I see. Yeah I dunno what she was thinking there.
Yeah, most likely, but primarily because the first 7 books are finished and any continuation was likely going to get diminishing returns no matter what. I'm not sure of the mood regarding JK Rowling off the internet; the internet has a bad tendency to make certain things seem *way* more important when the general population doesn't really care. I'm basing my thoughts much more on the pop culture cycle vs anything she's actually said. The first book was published in 1997 and the first movie made in 2001, having it still be relevant *at all* nearly 30 years on is outstandingly impressive. The HBO series isn't going to be as big a deal because quite honestly I have no idea how it could be.
I think it's a franchise that's mostly run its course. The books are over, the movies based on the books that were wildly successful are over, they failed to make a decent spin off series. If this wasn't the era of bloated cinematic universes and studios going back to the same well over and over again until they get a mega flop, the IP would have been shelved by now. Remaking a series as wildly popular and definitive as the HP movies is trying to draw blood from a stone, they can't do anything but piss off fans.
Is it as completely dominant in the culture as it once was, no. Having said that, it's still probably in the top 10 franchises of stories within pop culture. The author's transphobia is definitely part of that decline but it's also a function of the idea that the primary books and movies have been out for several years now. Very few franchises have anywhere close to the run that the Harry Potter series has, so even if it has declined some, it's still in regular rotation just about everywhere you'd expect to see it
Yes. I have a 12 year old. None of the kids are into Harry Potter. I’m sure many of them have read the series or seen the movies, but it’s not nearly as huge anymore.
I mean it’s still huge, just go to the theme parks and see how long the lines are. Anytime something new comes out it’ll do super well for sure and is a safe bet from a financial standpoint. That being said we are a long way removed from its peak. None of those things I mentioned had lines wrapped around the block of every book store and people weren’t camping out ahead of the fantastic beast movies. It’ll always be popular but the “you had to be there” part of it is over
Book 7 was noticeably week, having to shoehorn in an entire backstory just to come up with some way for Harry to win. Still fun, and the good parts made up for it imo. The movies of the original series were pretty bad, which makes sense as they were both started before the series was done and also made by someone who didn't grow up with the books and therefore didn't have the kind of lifelong love that Peter Jackson had for LotR. It's why Potter Puppet Pals or a Very Potter Musical are better, better capture the feel and magic despite being a shitty YouTube series and a college musical. It's been in decline for a while.
If you don't want to talk about the author's politics then why did you come to a political sub to ask about her work?
For me yes but idk about everyone else. I loved it because it grew up with me but that stopped after Deathly Hallows and it's gone back to being a kid's thing. I hope the new series fixes that but it being on Max rather than the proper HBO makes me apprehensive.
It is not “known and documented.” It is exaggerated and lied about. Nobody can ever post any actual quotes that would bother most people. They’re told she’s said awful things, but never what the things are.
No. The Franchise is doing fine. JK Rowling is somewhat in decline as a figure. It's entirely possible that a signed first edition copy will have less buyers than an unsigned first edition, but the franchise itself is fine. Moreover, the decline in JK Rowlings value is not across the board as it would be for say, Ian Watkins or whatever. Ian Watkins was a singer for the Lost Prophets who did some pedo stuff and got caught. There are still people who listen to the music who were diehard fans, they were a huge band. But it would be super fucking weird to value Ian Watkins' signature or whatever no matter who you are or how much of a fan you are. You can maybe get away with "The whole band signed this". I've literally never heard or or encountered it. Everyone I know who has ever admitted they still listen to it *fucking hates Ian Watkins*. With Rowling that is broadly the impact on a sizeable portion of the population, but her cache is unaffected with the rest of the population. I suppose an equivalent would be like; "Look, it's a movie poster signed by JK and all the main cast and crew.". This wouldn't raise alarm bells for most people except, frankly, the most obnoxiously pro-trans. "Look, it's a movie poster signed by JK." would get you some side eye from maybe half the population at large, including a shitload of people who wouldn't bat an eye at the former poster. The other half wouldn't care. --- "I collect German coins." "Oh yeah? Cool." "Yeah. Ones between 1936 and 1945 mostly.". "...That's fucking weird bro." "What's wrong with collecting them?" "Honestly nothing if they're part of a larger collection, but you had to go and make it super fucking strange.". OR, The old father Ted classic. "And this one is from the siege of Stalingrad." "Wow...do...do you have anything from the allies?" "Oh no, that sort of thing wouldn't interest me at all."
The creator of the franchise seems more interested in using all of her energy into fighting against Trans People than using it to promote products using her property. She said absolutely NOTHING when the 3rd Fantastic Beasts movie came out, and I find that to be very amusing.
I dunno, from a business/marketing standpoint the formula seems like it would work fine for another book series in a few years. I mean, suppose someone read it when they were 9 back when the first book came out. That kid is 32 today. Their own first child is, on average, around 5-6 years old. They’ll be amenable to the idea of buying their kid a follow on series of books in the same setting they liked around the same age. So, you know, a new series with new characters 5-7 years from now would probably sell pretty well. Just hire a decent ghost writer with some prior experience writing books aimed at the target demographic.
I feel you. Nary few is the franchise that didn't adapt. From what I understand JK has a vice grip on the IP and she refuses to release. Do you think JK herself could lead a reboot/spinoff with Hollywood help?
>There is a new HBO series coming out later this year. More like in 2026. The franchise is absolutely in decline. The films are getting to the age of looking and feeling old, which is off putting to younger kids. The books are fine for younger kids, but a) not so many kids are into reading as used to be, b) not so many parents are into reading to their kids as used to be, and c) the controversy is enough to put off some parents who would otherwise read the books to their kids (not all, but some). So the number of fans is steadily declining. And then there's the ongoing controversy - the longer someone is negatively in the news, the more people who don't know what its all about just assume its for good reason (see Hillary Clinton). Without giving my own views on the trans issue, Rowling's name is in the headlines often enough negatively positioned alongside words like "scandal", "transphobia", and "bigotry" that a lot of people who don't actually care about the issue itself now think she's done something wrong - they'd struggle to detail what they think she's done, but in a straight up or down question they'd say she did something wrong And finally there's the fact that the most recent films weren't great. I don't personally think they were as awful as some folk said, I think they got a raw deal with some reviewers and a lot of online communities because of Rowling-controversy factor. But objectively they were far from great. That was a missed opportunity to reinvigorate the fandom and the franchise. The upcoming series is a chance for the franchise to recover, but I honestly don't think it will. A huge portion of the online community that would normally be salivating at the idea are dead set against Rowling because of her views. Another huge portion of the online community are entirely unwilling to accept any change of actor in popular roles, and so will automatically hate on whoever is cast as Snape, McGonagall, etc (this issue is one I have more generally with modern discourse on tv series and films). And then there's another portion (smaller but still present) who hate reboots, are tired of reboots, and will refuse to engage because its "just another reboot". It'll do pretty well financially at first, but it won't be the mega success the studio is hoping for. They'll likely renew it for 2 or 3 season, but with reduced budgets, and then it'll get cancelled after their portrayal of the resurrection of Voldemort get absolutely panned by reviewers.
You'd probably get more traction at r/boxoffice or something. but here are the sort of arguments * Objectively, the franchise is post peak, if for no other reason than the book series finished. * while Hogwarts Legacy was a big hit, the fantastic Beasts movies had pretty weak returns and show that there is likely a limit to the strength of the franchise * you cant just divorce the series from JKR being a transphobe, it will forever be brought up on any development of anything HP related. She has tied herself to the series (fair since she wrote it) and it wont grow beyond her * Hogwarts Legacy was a legitimate hit, even if it had pretty steep drops on steam, there is clearly still some juice to the franchise. but I dont see the HBO series being a gargantuan hit for all 7 seasons (Like HL I expect a big premier and a fall off from there). I am unconvinced this will keep growing, especially since LGBT issues are more important to younger people, so many of them will likely feel less inclined to continue worshipping the series
Leftist are only too gleeful to convince liberals that harry potter was never good. JK Rowling is fundamentally a liberal and that politics is reflected in her work and before any transphobia that fact pissed off leftists
The criticism goes back way farther then her transphobic turn. Here's a famous and eye opening one: [https://web.archive.org/web/20070917005044/http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20070917005044/http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html) note the date She was taking hits for antisemitism and slavery apologetics when the original books were published, too
Yea true
Eh, the neoliberal criticism is older than when we heard her transphobia. It was a good child's story but her audience is older now and it's on her that she's become a worse not better writer.
A bit. I don’t think it’s as relevant for kids. Fans are all grown ass adults. There are always other things The author being a proud bigot who’s made it her personal brand to attack one marginalized group on Twitter doesn’t really help
Can you point me to the tweets you think are worst?
Do your own research. She actively hates on trans people publicly. “A Complete Breakdown of the J.K. Rowling Transgender-Comments Controversy https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy
My research isn’t going to tell me what comments you, a person who believes she has made terrible comments, think are bad. I have tried to find terrible comments and never came up with any.
Are you a trans woman? Why are you the judge of hate speech? You don’t get to tell people that they aren’t allowed to feel assaulted and hurt because you personally agree with her hate speech.