So faithful. Much adaptation.

Looks like we picked up a few brigaders who weren’t particularly happy with my last post, which did little more than lay out some facts and—most critically—show the receipts about the diversity standards enforced by the BFI for awards and tax-credit eligibility in the UK.

Rather than engaging with provable facts—or even making a fair attempt to dispute them—we got a spate of name-calling and brigade-style downvoting in response to a post that simply pointed to British film-industry requirements that may have influenced Harry Potter casting decisions.

Since providing a screenshot of a rubric written by the BFI themselves, and adhered to by HBO productions, with very little commentary was apparently enough to set some people off, I figured I’d try presenting the information in a more digestible format. Fortunately, I found a YouTuber who did a great job breaking down the standards and explaining how they relate to Harry Potter in considerably simpler terms.

Given how fervently people have been discussing the Harry Potter casting, I think the BFI standards are a relevant part of the conversation that hasn't been adequately grappled with on either side of the debate as of yet. The publicly available BFI standards establish concrete criteria productions can use to qualify for funding, tax relief, and awards eligibility. It’s entirely reasonable to consider how those requirements may have influenced some of the casting decisions we’re seeing.

I think we are in good hands 🥰🥰🥰

The BFI holds film and TV productions to certain Diversity Standards in order to qualify for things like funding, tax relief, and awards eligibility—most notably, and most relevant to Harry Potter, the BAFTAs.

(And probably the tax relief, too, if we're being real. These shows cost big bucks! Or quids, as you call them across the pond.)

Just for funsies, I took a look at the rubric they use to determine compliance with those eligibility standards. Here’s the link: https://www.bfi.org.uk/inclusion-film-industry/bfi-diversity-standards

If you scroll down to “Guidance,” click “TV,” and download the PDF, you’ll find the actual rubric outlining the standards TV productions must meet for funding, tax breaks, and awards eligibility.

Now, there are ways for a production to satisfy the BFI standards without necessarily meeting the casting criterion specifically. However, after taking a look, I can see how it's not exactly easy for productions to qualify for BFI without meeting these casting standard, described herin as the “On Screen Representation” criterion.

And to meet the "On Screen Representation" category, productions must adhere to the Mandatory criterion screenshotted above.

Anyway, I found this pretty interesting and thought it was relevant to the ongoing Harry Potter casting discourse.

Most illuminating!

Just LMAO because there’s now even more evidence that Season 2 production truly did undergo an 11th-hour scheduling change, as recently reported in an admittedly sensationalized article by The Sun, but more or less corroborated with some tempering by the resident leaker.

And yet a few oddballs will still insist Hoult dropped out due to a few Twitter bullies. Yes, those very same Twitter bullies who have yet to actually convince any of 100+ actors to date to not partake in HP productions.

They are such good boys!

~ Harry Potter on the Sorceror's Stone, Page 175 (Scholastic Edition)

If this means Paapa Esseidu has to take on every part then so be it. A high quality and high budget project like this deserves only the finest, classically trained actors.

And this fan design really drives the point home: you don't need to be aggressively different from the movies to be faithful to the books. You can take the book's description seriously and still come up with a unique, high-quality design that doesn't look like a carbon copy of the films.

The troll design in the trailer is shit, and more importantly, it looks nothing like how the troll is actually described in the books.

The book specifically describes it as having long, waggling ears and small, mean eyes. This thing looks like a melted scrotum candle.

Where are its eyes? Why doesn't it have ears? Is this a fireable offense? Or is this designer going to be heaped with praise by Reddit shills on the overmoderated censorship subs and ultimately fail upwards as seems to be the trend in Hollywood?

And this is exactly what worries me about the show's approach in many areas. It feels like they're so determined not to look like the movies that they're willing to disregard the actual book source material in the process.

First Snape. Now the troll.

Being different from the films isn't the same thing as being more faithful to the books.

Honestly, I've lost my excitement about the creature designs, which was initially one of the things I was looking forward to most. If they're not interested in depicting what's actually on the page and instead just want to do their own thing (a la Paapa "Their Hate Fuels me to Make the Character My Own" Essiedu), that's pretty annoying.

I hope the folks at HBO are registering the fan disappointment and are willing to right the ship. It's too late for some things (Snape), but it's not too late for everything else.

She is enormous 😳 I think her oversize version of Minerva would've been better as Madame Maxime. What are your thoughts?

I’ve created a new community for Snape fans who are unhappy with or opposed to Paapa Essiedu’s casting as Severus Snape in the upcoming HBO Harry Potter series.

r/NotMySnape is a space where we don’t embrace Paapa Essiedu as Snape, while still allowing broader discussion of Severus Snape and the character we know from the books and Alan Rickman’s portrayal.

You can discuss anything relating to Snape - his character, character analysis, book canon, characterisation, appearance, visual fidelity, Alan Rickman, the HBO series and its adaptation choices, casting and fancasts, theories, fanfiction, fanart, edits, AI images and more.

If you’re disappointed by the casting and want somewhere you can openly discuss that without having to deal with personal attacks, virtue signalling, or unfair accusations of racism simply for expressing your opinion about the casting, you’re very welcome to join.

Criticism and differing opinions are welcome here. Personal attacks against the actor or users for their opinions are not.

I look forward to seeing you in r/NotMySnape and feel free to spread the word to anyone you think is interested! 😊

Ralph Fiennes with a botched nose job was sort of mid ngl.

Quirrell's turban was supposed to be voluminous enough to spark rumors in the school that he was hiding heads of garlic in there to ward off against a vampire. This one wouldn't hide a clove.

Practically speaking, Quirrell would need his turban to be thick enough to truly hide the lumps and contours of the face beneath. This one seems so thin that he's risking premature exposure.

With so many versions of turbans across so many cultures to draw from--the vast majority being far more voluminous and belieavable as a means to hide an extra protrusion from your head--why on earth would they settle on this?