25 Years Ago, The First Harry Potter Movie Made A Magical Choice That Still Holds Up Today

Warner Bros.

The first "Harry Potter" movie, "Harry Potter and nan Sorcerer's Stone," released connected November 16, 2001 ... meaning that we're approaching nan film's 25th anniversary. (Considering that November 16, 2001 was my 11th birthday, this only freaks maine retired a little bit.) Now that we've seen the first trailer for HBO's TV adjustment of "Harry Potter" — which has nan stated nonsubjective of creating a "fuller" adjustment by devoting an full play to each of nan 7 books successful nan original bid — it's fixed maine immoderate penetration into that first "Harry Potter" movie. Specifically, it gives maine penetration into what that movie did right: It created a consciousness of fantastical whimsy that seems wholly absent from nan TV show's trailer.

It's nary concealed that, crossed nan board, franchise reboots person been aiming for darker tones complete nan past respective years, virtually and figuratively. Not only are reboots a batch "grittier" now, but you besides can't see a batch of nan action because colour grading successful TV and movie is getting truthful muted and dark. This impulse is all complete nan teaser trailer for nan "Harry Potter" TV show. 

So why is this attack categorically wrong?

There was a genuinely magical value to nan first "Harry Potter" film. One point it had connected its side, obviously, was timing; nan book bid written by J.K. Rowling was still being released, and fervor for immoderate "Potter" contented was astatine an all-time high. It was also, for deficiency of a amended term, the vibes. "Harry Potter and nan Sorcerer's Stone" included immoderate of nan book's darker elements, but it was also fun.

Warner Bros.

I'm not going to beryllium present and dress that Chris Columbus is immoderate untouchable titan of a director, but he's bully astatine making movies for kids, and it's besides a fool's errand to dress that nan first "Harry Potter" movie, "Harry Potter and nan Sorcerer's Stone," isn't a movie for kids. This besides isn't conscionable because Columbus, who besides directed "Home Alone," changed nan root material; nan first "Harry Potter" book is also distinctly childlike, particularly erstwhile you comparison it to nan remainder of nan series. (I'll circle backmost to that.)

Columbus' activity connected "Harry Potter and nan Sorcerer's Stone" — which he saw fundamentally replicated successful immoderate of nan show's first-look photos — is notable chiefly because it yet gave fans of nan "Harry Potter" books their first look astatine nan wizarding world and Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. That look introduced said fans to a warm, welcoming, and honestly visually fascinating world stocked pinch magical artifacts, moving portraits, cocoa frogs that travel to life, and classes wherever you tin either formed an guiltless charm aliases origin a full-fledged explosion. Even erstwhile Harry Potter and his champion friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger — portrayed successful these movies by Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson — travel face-to-face pinch a three-headed canine named Fluffy who's guarding a concealed trap door, there's a consciousness of wonderment that manages to override immoderate consciousness of superior fear. 

It already looks, based connected nan trailer, for illustration nan "Harry Potter" bid mightiness not support that consciousness of wonder. Not only is this disappointing, but it raises a beautiful important question: who's nan intended assemblage for nan "Harry Potter" reboot if it's not nan full family?

Let maine beryllium incredibly clear: as you get to nan extremity of "Harry Potter," it positions itself arsenic a young-adult bid that veers into immoderate beautiful superior acheronian and becomes a small little friends for kids of each ages. Still, nan first book, astatine nan very least, is simply a elemental and joyful child's story, contempt nan truth that a young Harry is orphaned successful nan first fewer pages aft nan series' Big Bad kills his parents and tries to termination him too. Yes, there's threat and darkness, but there's besides magical candy, Quidditch matches, and, again, whimsy.

Yeah, I cognize location are shots successful nan trailer of Dominic McLaughlin and Alastair Stout's Harry Potter and Ron Weasley roasting marshmallows and doing tiny kid stuff. I'll besides admit that Stout's small "pew!" astatine nan extremity erstwhile he sees Harry's scar is very endearing. But let's besides see that we look to beryllium successful for a bunch of scenes wherever Harry gets bullied astatine his non-magical Muggle schoolhouse and emotionally abused by his Aunt Petunia (Bel Powley). (Think "Adolescence" pinch magic wands.) It's wild, to me, that we're getting into nan acheronian stuff so quickly erstwhile nan original movies took their clip and eased young audiences into it. 

That's why I can't wholly fig retired who this show is for. It's not for kids, truthful I conjecture it's for millennials who grew up pinch nan bid ... but we already person nan movies, truthful that conception makes it consciousness moreover much for illustration a soulless rate grab. And those movies, particularly nan first one? They're filled pinch immoderate sorely needed and, situation I say, magical whimsy. The first 1 still holds up aft almost 25 years.