This Christmas, Warner Bros studios is bringing back the iconic “Harry Potter” franchise in TV show-form, to the delight of some Potterheads and the dread of others.
The HBO series, planned to run for seven seasons, is aimed at adapting more accurately to J.K. Rowling’s seven-book series. Hollywood’s habit in recent years of remaking old-gold children’s films* continues its tiresome course, but this series arguably has been greeted with more raised eyebrows than the usual unprompted sequel or live action remake.
( *Examples of other recent unoriginal projects – with Disney as the main perpetrator – include Inside Out 2 (2024), Moana 2 (2024), Mufasa: The Lion King (2024), Lilo & Stitch (2025), Snow White (2025), Zootopia 2 (2025) and Freakier Friday (2025), with more in the making (such as Frozen 3, scheduled for 2027). These movies aren’t necessarily bad-quality, but they reflect a lack of originality from one of the largest players in the children’s films industry – a trend that could consequently be mirrored by other companies hoping to build larger young audiences. )
Not only does it threaten to erase the magic of a universe beloved by millennials and Gen Z; it offers Gen Alpha less accuracy in a way that is deeply problematic: its casting. It seems Hollywood has learned little from the backlash to Snow White (2025), with “Harry Potter’s” Severus Snape being played by Paapa Essiedu.
Based on how Rowling describes Snape’s physical characteristics and his interactions with society, this casting decision does not feel reflective of the character’s intended identity.
The blatant disregard for the character’s intended identities may be claimed as an effort for diverse representation, but such efforts are usually superficial. (Especially considering an Italian actress has been cast to play one of the series’ two South Asian characters.) Casting already-established characters incorrectly, in “Harry Potter” especially, is deeply ignorant of the wizarding world’s character dynamics and societal hierarchies.
Author J.K. Rowling wrote Severus Snape upon his first appearance in the novels as a man with “greasy, black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin.” That description alone may not necessarily point towards a particular racial identity. But beyond the basic visual imagery, Snape’s interactions with other characters – and how they perceive him – do build a specific depiction.
From the day Harry Potter arrives at Hogwarts, our magical young hero is awe-struck by everyone and everything… except for the determinedly suspicious-looking Potions teacher, Professor Severus Snape.
When Potter sees Snape for the first time – not even meets him yet – he immediately distrusts him. To put it plainly, HBO’s version of the story would have Harry instinctively suspicious of the only prominent teacher of color at Hogwarts.
When Snape makes clear that the feeling is mutual, another essential plot line from the original series is called into question. Harry’s father, James Potter, is repeatedly described to have bullied Snape relentlessly when the two were students at Hogwarts themselves about twenty years prior to the events of “Harry Potter.” The enmity between the two is deeply one-sided, with James socially alienating Snape, publicly humiliating and even getting his friends – none of whom are people of color in either Rowling’s or HBO’s telling of the story – to mock and ostracize their socially awkward classmate for no real reason.
With Snape being cast the way he is in the new series, does that character dynamic not become something else entirely? Not merely schoolboy follies, but an implication of racial prejudice on James Potter’s end?
And the anti-Snape crusade does not end with the individual Potters. It could be argued that the entire societal structure of the franchise was originally a political allegory for real-world issues like classism and racism. Rowling herself has compared the pure-blood ideology in the wizarding world to real-world supremacist thinking. The death eaters are a hate group dedicated to organized crime against marginalized populations.
Snape spends much of his life affiliated with those on the dark side because of family ties before ultimately turning against the movement. That designation carries a different designation when the double-spy is part of a racial minority.
The same issue extends to the casting of Arabella Stanton as Harry Potter’s friend Hermione Granger. Granger, arguably, is even more of a symbolic character than Snape is for the discrimination minorities face in the real world. When she is played by a person of color, the slurs hurled at her (again, by primarily Caucasian characters) like ‘mudblood’ carry meaning beyond the mere fictional societal dynamics, and risk crossing the boundary into real racism.
These castings are often defended by the fact that ‘it’s just a children’s fantasy series,’ but such an excuse ignores the influence media wields over public opinion, and specifically, ignores the existing allegorical structure of “Harry Potter.” Media representation absolutely matters. Yes, children deserve to see heroes that look like them. But when those heroes are cast to check off this box on a superficial level, the decision, ironically, risks perpetuating stereotypes. Furthermore, “Harry Potter” is already a child-friendly cautionary tale against alienation of certain populations and bigotry. So adding another layer of real-world controversy only makes things more complex.
If Hollywood truly wants to commit to diverse representation, rebooting popular, but old-fashioned franchises is a lazy way to do it. Instead, newer stories with original characters – who are intentionally written with consideration of their identities – should be prioritized.
HBO’s casting choice for the deeply misunderstood, constantly discriminated against, and suspicious-acting character was definitely not thought through. A character’s race does not exist in isolation to their lives; whether Hollywood wants to admit it or not, an actor’s identity does make a difference to a character’s story. Media shapes societal views, but this TV series’ creators are not taking their potential to influence the masses seriously.
