Hasbro Harry Potter

[joshsquash729]

Ah, dang. I always wanted a good, well articulated line for HP back in the day. Those old PopCo figures and sets always looked so cool. But like ya'll, I just can't in good conscience knowingly give even a penny to Rowling. No cool display is worth feeling like a piece of shit or my trans friends feeling like they can't trust me. Happy for those who want it, I guess, but it ain't for me.

 

[Misfit]

I just found it interesting that quite soon after the announcement was made Wizards of the Coast came out to basically say they won't be having anything to do with this license. Could just be to get ahead of people asking for HP Magic cards, or could be interpreted as a way to distance themselves from this deal given the author's stance on social issues.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Not to derail things, but if you had a 12-year-old kid who said they wanted to read Harry Potter, would you discourage that due to JK?

I don't have kids, but I don't think I would discourage my kid from reading, period. Forming healthy reading habits is key to being a functioning member of society. I don't care if you're reading Moby Dick, Playboy essays, or comic books. Reading is good for your brain.

I would contextualize their reading with who Rowling is and what she stands for. I might offer alternatives, like Le Guin or one of the many other books about magical schools.

As far as these figures, Rowling, and the HP IP, I won't support them. I absolutely would've before she outed herself as a transphobe. She's a miserable little troll who spends her mountains of cash making other people's lives worse.

While the figures may not succeed (many have tried, none have stuck), I think the show will do well for HBO. Unless the backlash to Trump 2.0 and the resurgence of Woke 2.0 are stronger than I expect, I think the show will go the length of the books.

 

[Misfit]

I have zero affection for the franchise so it's very easy for me to boycott, but I'm five years older than my wife and somewhere in those five years is basically where Harry Potter took off for kids. She grew up with it, loves it, and wants to share it with our kids. I stay out of it as I don't want to deprive her of something she had probably been looking forward to most of her life. I won't spend money on the franchise and she's aware of that. I haven't brought up my dislike for the author with my kids because it has yet to come up (neither has really embraced it, my son was somewhat interested and kind of lost interest while my daughter could not care less), but they're old enough now that I'd be happy to discuss it with them should that happen.

 

[fac]

I enjoyed the books and films but it was never a "big thing" for me, and I never really cared about JK herself, so I can leave it behind - but at the same time I am not prepared to burn the books or remove the Legos.

I was trying to think of someone who I honestly respected as a person as well as an artist whose later behavior made that difficult, and for me it would be Bill Cosby - that disappointed me and I can't enjoy his stuff anymore, even the past stuff. I think it is harder for the folks who viewed the books as being about outsiders and identified with the characters and therefore her views feels more like a betrayal from a perceived ally.

But getting back to the toys, I also think the problem is that while the books and films have "action" sequences, the characters are not very toyetic or actiony. It works really well for the aforementioned Legos for the world building and large scope of characters, but would anyone really "play" with a Harry figure the way that you might play with a Gandalf or Legolas? Even if I had been 10 when the movies started, not sure I would have wanted toys from it, the way I would have for the MCU or Jurassic stuff...

 

[joshsquash729]

Not to derail things, but if you had a 12-year-old kid who said they wanted to read Harry Potter, would you discourage that due to JK?

Unlike say a Roald Dahl, who I think some of his views on race can be found in his books at times (looking at you Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator), Rowling's anti-trans stuff isn't found in the books near as I can tell, while the content of the books are pretty good in terms of social messaging overall.

I enjoyed the books and films but it was never a "big thing" for me, and I never really cared about JK herself, so I can leave it behind - but at the same time I am not prepared to burn the books or remove the Legos.

I was trying to think of someone who I honestly respected as a person as well as an artist whose later behavior made that difficult, and for me it would be Bill Cosby - that disappointed me and I can't enjoy his stuff anymore, even the past stuff. I think it is harder for the folks who viewed the books as being about outsiders and identified with the characters and therefore her views feels more like a betrayal from a perceived ally.

But getting back to the toys, I also think the problem is that while the books and films have "action" sequences, the characters are not very toyetic or actiony. It works really well for the aforementioned Legos for the world building and large scope of characters, but would anyone really "play" with a Harry figure the way that you might play with a Gandalf or Legolas? Even if I had been 10 when the movies started, not sure I would have wanted toys from it, the way I would have for the MCU or Jurassic stuff...

I think, like TSI, I wouldn't discourage reading at all. God knows we need kids to appreciate actual literal books over technology. Especially if it gets their imagination going. If/when I ever have kids, I don't plan on sugarcoating or shielding them from the horrors of the world (to an extent, of course). Not saying I'm gonna throw 'em to the wolves, but I think where a lot of folks go wrong is assuming that kids are dumb and don't know anything. Many are, granted, but many aren't, and are actually quite observant. Most, I think, are far more likely to listen to you if you give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them like a person. As someone- especially a minority of any kind- who's grown up being beaten down by the world, I think it's all the more important to teach your kids there are people out there who view others as sub-human, and why it's important to fight against that. There's definite truth to the claim that her books are actually about inclusivity and good triumphing over evil, which makes it all the more baffling that she's become who she's become. But regarding the lesson, it's oftentimes not what you say, but how you say it. You can teach your kids whatever you want if it's worded carefully enough; if they want to read the books and learn it's real message, that's fine by me, but we'll be doing it in a way that doesn't give her any further money.

Regarding the toys, I think there's definite ways you can make them more toyetic. Sorta like the Last Airbender figures- there are effects you can throw in, or make their robes or whatever pre-posed. Not to mention, people love magical creatures and cool playsets. A lot of kids don't even really need accessories at all- if they like something, they're gonna find a way to incorporate it into play. I think it'll ultimately come down to value above all else. Admittedly, I'm a bit relieved that I won't have to worry about any of that.

 

[fac]

Thinking about it more, when I was reading as a kid there was no social media or discussion groups or whatever, so all you really knew about most authors was the bio in the book, maybe for really established folks you might find an encyclopedia entry or a magazine article or something. But the person behind the book was a lot harder to look into - and you certainly didn't know their opinion on most current events. Might change my thinking a bit. But I think it was a lot easier in the past to separate the art from the artist because the artist was often an unknown.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Thinking about it more, when I was reading as a kid there was no social media or discussion groups or whatever, so all you really knew about most authors was the bio in the book, maybe for really established folks you might find an encyclopedia entry or a magazine article or something. But the person behind the book was a lot harder to look into - and you certainly didn't know their opinion on most current events. Might change my thinking a bit. But I think it was a lot easier in the past to separate the art from the artist because the artist was often an unknown.

I've heard it described, I believe by Ryen Russillo, as the "roommate theory." Basically, when you get a new roommate, you learn everything about them—their habits, their political beliefs, and how they load the dishwasher. You don't want to know that much about most people. Thanks to social media, everyone is our roommate. I know everything about work colleagues that I never would've heard from again if we worked together in the 1980s.

A lot of the muscles we built up over thousands of years of evolution have flipped overnight. Twenty-five thousand years ago, I would've known 18 people. Now I know hundreds. Thousands. Tens of thousands, if you include celebrities or those in the news. I know Rowling as if she were my roommate. It isn't good for anyone.

 

[docsilence]

Not to derail things, but if you had a 12-year-old kid who said they wanted to read Harry Potter, would you discourage that due to JK?

I'm a working author and my partner's a librarian - if we had a kid who wanted to read, they'd have more options than they'd ever want for. But by the same token, right now, my sister doesn't read at all, her kids BARELY read, and her oldest is reading Harry Potter and fuck it, I'll take the win, he's opening an actual book made of paper. He's old enough to have that conversation, for sure, but I'm too fuckin' tired of all the awful shitty rich people in the world to tell my sister don't let your kid read the ONLY book he's shown interest in!

I mean, I read Orson Scott Card. Ender's Game was pivotal in my becoming a writer. I wouldn't put Card in front of a kid anymore if I was the parent, but I'm not, and if a kid wants to read Ender's Game, I'm not gonna stop him. In fact I think Card's better than Rowling because Card's early writing is wildly open-minded, deeply humanist, and progressive for its time. The man failed his readers, but not before creating something better than he was. I think Rowling's stuff is readably mediocre and it got a TON of kids reading, but I don't think you lose anything intellectually by not reading it.

 

[docsilence]

(Actually, addendum - if the kid is developing critical thinking skills, HP has become a VERY good tool for addressing subtle bias. "Can you understand why Asian communities are upset that the only character representing them is named Cho Chang? Do you understand the historical relevance of the only Irish child being a bomb maker and how that could be perceived as a cruel slight to the Irish culture? Let's discuss the name Kingsley Shacklebolt - how might she have named him better without evoking deep trauma? Her goblins have often been cited as a racial stereotype - even given a generous read that it was not deliberate, let's take a look at why those aspects were harmful even if unintended."

But all this actually requires the reader to be open to literary analysis, a strong enough reader to more than surface read, and a teacher with the time to teach critical analysis without getting fired by some review board in Texas for addressing racial issues in the classroom or whatever.)

 

[fac]

I've heard it described, I believe by Ryen Russillo, as the "roommate theory." Basically, when you get a new roommate, you learn everything about them—their habits, their political beliefs, and how they load the dishwasher. You don't want to know that much about most people. Thanks to social media, everyone is our roommate.

I like this concept. In some ways it is more evidence for not idolizing the person behind the work. I think we'd all be disappointed in some ways with everyone we knew, if we really knew everything about them.

 

[docsilence]

During the early days of MeToo I had a list of five or eight people I was hoping wouldn't let me down. (There were a lot of people I was like "I also hope they are not terrible, but they were rich actors in the 70s and 80s, there's no way they didn't do SOMETHING questionable at some point" and didn't include them on the list.)

Right now the only people remaining on that list are dead.

 

[Ru1977]

Reminds me of the Carlin bit about when someone dies...

And they get up and they say, don’t he look good? Don’t he look good? You crazy, he’s dead. I know, but he never looked that good. Well, they say the nicest things about you, they say the nicest things when you die. Your popularity goes straight up when you die. They say the greatest things there are that can be said, they’ll even make stuff up if they have to. Well, he was a real asshole, but he meant well, you know? He was a well-meaning asshole. Yes, you get so popular when you die, all the flowers you get, think of the flowers you get when you die. You get more flowers when you die than you got in your whole life. All your flowers arrive at once, too late. And guys will say, oh, yeah, well, you know Bill is dead, yeah, poor Bill, poor Bill is dead, yeah. Poor Dave, yeah, poor Dave is gone now. Ed, yeah, poor Ed is gone. Dan, that motherfucker is still alive, isn’t he? I wish he would die so I could like him.

I wish he would die so I could like him.

 

[altcunningham]

Not to derail things, but if you had a 12-year-old kid who said they wanted to read Harry Potter, would you discourage that due to JK?

Unlike say a Roald Dahl, who I think some of his views on race can be found in his books at times (looking at you Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator), Rowling's anti-trans stuff isn't found in the books near as I can tell, while the content of the books are pretty good in terms of social messaging overall.

It's not solely her opinions on that. Over the years there have been discussions about Cho Chang's name, the goblins as Jewish people, how she handles other cultures (Irish, French), classism (Weasley's are poor with a ton of kids), the decree could just roll off the throne and out the throne room if I kept going with the list of things I've seen.

But yeah I do have a 10-year-old niece and while my opinion is that the franchise is bigger than the author, and I always believe that properties belong to the fans after a certain point, no matter what the authors say, my sister wanted me to have that talk with her. So I just laid out the facts and she decided she wanted to read other things.

There's no shortage of magical kid alternatives if that's really the draw. Honestly, I don't even know too many kids who care about Harry Potter that haven't been drip-fed it from their adults. In a sterile environment there's too much other cool stuff that we don't even clock as old people.

 

[spinc]

I remember as a kid reading the books and some of JKR's comments on fat people, and as I always was a big kid, yeah that sort of thing made me feel bad, of course. Add to that the rumors going around that either she or the cast for some reason disliked Mexican people, and that made me feel worse. British people are just weird like that, I think. But I related so much to Harry himself in so many ways, wanting to escape my world to go into that magical one, I think I just loved the characters and world too much to mind whatever fatphobic comments she made back then.

I think there's enough people who want collectible Harry Potter figures out there that the line will at least go on for a few waves. Most people, especially around the world, don't really know or care what an author says or does. People care about the franchises and the characters. Just see how much all the Lego sets sell, or how much merch the parks sell, or how many people go to them. A clear example of how most people separate the art from the artist, or simply don't care.

I really don't wanna cause a war here so from now on I'll just speak about the figures themselves and what I would like to see about them. I think that, while they won't sell gangbusters, they will sell good enough. Hopefully they give us the older versions of the characters and of course, the cool adult characters like Dumbledore and Mad Eye. Personally I would love to see the line base itself around the looks for Order of the Phoenix, since that movie had the most "standard" looks.

Basically a 6" redo of the Popco line would be great. Man, I wanted that line so much as a kid, I don't understand how they never sold them in America. They're so expensive nowdays too.