In case you missed it, HBO Max has recently begun advertising its production of a brand-new Harry Potter series. Creators are promising the show will be near-exact adaptations of the books, and each book will have its own eight-episode season.
While Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was released in 2011, the most recent Wizarding World film—Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore—was released in 2022, just four years ago. This isn’t the quickest we’ve seen a remake happen (that honor goes to Disney for announcing a live-action Moana despite Moana 2 having been released in 2024), but it did leave me with one big question:
What about the original actors?
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint (Harry, Hermione, and Ron, respectively) have been the faces of the franchise since 2001’s release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. They’re on the shirts, the mugs, the notebooks and backpacks, the bookmarks, and every other product imaginable that can hold a face. Funko Pops and similar character toys arguably resemble the actors’ likenesses more than the book descriptions.
Because of that, I don’t think any of these actors will be forgotten (though the former Lucius Malfoy actor seems to be worried about just that). For many people, these actors are their characters. The movies are simply too iconic, too ingrained in pop culture, for the actors to be forgotten so easily. People who become fans because of the TV show are just as likely to watch the movies as they are to read the books.
But the compensation they’ve received for the past two and a half decades might be in danger of running out with this new production. To see how this is true, we first need to understand two key concepts: residuals and royalties.
Residuals
Residuals are the compensation actors and writers are given when a project they’ve worked on is replayed. The more times something is aired, the more money an actor or writer will receive in their residual check. These checks are usually distributed monthly (in contrast, streaming services send out their residual checks yearly) and can, unfortunately, offer only a few pennies to the hardworking actors and writers receiving the payout. This low amount is so infamous, in fact, that a bar in LA (aptly named Residuals Tavern) will give a free drink in exchange for a residual check worth less than a dollar.
Basically, every time you watch a rerun of NCIS, The Simpsons, Bones, or Futurama (all shows that often have reruns playing daily on cable TV), the actors and writers of those episodes receive a little bit of money. Technically, they should also receive residuals from streaming services, but talking about the disparity between cable and streaming residuals is for another blog.
If you want to know more, I highly recommend this article from the LA Times about the SAG-AFTRA (the actors and writers unions) strike in 2023.
Honestly, I believe the actors' residuals will remain, if not steady, at least something they will continue to receive. HBO hasn't indicated that cable can air episodes of the new show, so networks can only air the movies. Additionally, anyone who watches the new show on HBO is just as likely to watch the original movies on the same platform.
Royalties
Like residuals, royalties are compensation for the use of something. The difference lies in what is being compensated. While residuals are concerned with reruns, royalties are concerned with the use of the property itself. Any intellectual property or resource can be subject to royalties when being used by someone other than the owner of said property.
The only exception is if the owner has given express permission for their work to be used without paying royalties.
Most people have heard about royalties through the music industry. Using a song requires the creator of the commercial to pay a royalty fee (unless it's in the public domain; you can read one of our library blogs about public domain here). They usually do this by contacting the studio or original owner of the song to coordinate permission and payment. That fee is then given to the people involved in creating the song. If they don’t receive permission or rights, they could face legal action for copyright infringement.
When it comes to actors, most get paid royalties for the use of their face or likeness on products beyond their original work. So, for every T-shirt featuring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint, the three of them are receiving royalties because their faces are on the shirt.
Considering the sheer amount of Harry Potter merch that is always being sold (and just how much of it features at least one actor's face), you can imagine how big those royalty checks might be.
New vs Old
The Harry Potter franchise is, undeniably, a cash cow. No matter how controversial the author now is, J.K. Rowling created a series that forever changed pop culture and, subsequently, made a lot of people a lot of money. Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who portrayed Harry Potter in the movies, has a net worth of over $100 million, with costars Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), and Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) trailing behind him in the tens of millions.
While part of that worth comes from more recent projects (Radcliffe and Watson have continued acting in movies like The Swiss-Army Man and Disney’s live-action Beauty and the Beast, respectively), a significant portion comes from a combination of merchandise royalties and movie residuals.
With a new generation of Harry Potter actors being introduced, we’ll start seeing new faces on merch in stores like Hot Topic or Barnes & Noble. Should the HBO show meet with the same—or better—success as the movies, we’ll likely see the old actors phased out of merch in favor of the new ones.
So, despite introducing generations of people to the Harry Potter franchise, the actors of the original movies could see a significant cut to their royalty checks in the future.
Watch or Not
Personally, I don’t think I’ll be tuning in to watch the new show. I outgrew my Harry Potter phase a few years ago, and like many others, I wonder what the point of a new show even is—aside from profit, of course. Additionally, I personally don’t want to engage with Rowling's creations, considering her recent support of anti-trans causes.
That said, I do understand those who feel attached to the franchise. For many, the Harry Potter books were what got them to enjoy reading. They introduced many kids (and adults) to the fantasy genre and offered some valuable escapism in the process. The franchise holds a nostalgic and rose-tinted place in many people’s childhoods.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Fans of the franchise are understandably looking forward to the new content, and many do so with a Death of the Author mindset, which is the idea that examining a text should focus on the reader’s personal connection to the content rather than the author’s intended interpretation or subconscious biases. They focus more on the messages they perceive from the book: good triumphing over evil, what it means for children when they’re the main actors in an ideological conflict, and an indictment of excluding people based on a perceived fault. With the show promising to be so faithful to the books, these fans are understandably looking forward to those themes featuring prominently.
Ultimately, whether to watch the show is entirely up to you.
Read-a-Likes
Whether you’re looking forward to the new series or not, if you clicked on this blog, you probably enjoyed the books or movies at some point. If you’re feeling an itch for similar content, here are a few of my personal recommendations that touch on the same tropes as Harry Potter:
Add a comment to: What the New Harry Potter Might Mean for the Movies’ Actors