Harry Potter Reboot in the works?

[Gigantis]

There's been quite a lot of talks about this in recent days. Keep in mind, we're still just talking rumors here, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was true, considering the Fantastic Beasts movies haven't gotten the best reception.

https://movieweb.com/harry-potter-reboot-rumor/

https://insidethemagic.net/2022/12/enti ... -cast-ab1/

It includes recasting all of the characters. Again, take this stuff with a grain of salt for now. Maybe we'll get news sometime in the following months.

[Cryptid_Liker]

I'm surprised anyone wants anything to do with Harry Potter, considering the "antics" of you-know-who.

[Spuro]

I'm surprised anyone wants anything to do with Harry Potter, considering the "antics" of you-know-who.

Speaking as possibly the biggest Harry Potter fan on this board, I have no idea why either. The franchise is poison for a lot of fans right now, and that's ignoring what an ugly prospect a reboot for an eleven year old series would be.

[JAGzilla]

The artist's views on trans people don't make it into her art, so far as I ever noticed. You can definitely accuse her of hypocrisy, given that she condemns bigotry throughout her books and makes a main character an activist for minority rights while being what she is in real life, I'll say that. But it's entirely possible to just enjoy her fantastic storytelling skills without agreeing with her opinions.

See, this is what bugs me about cancel culture. You're (and I'm not talking to anyone specific here) taking this person, zeroing in on one opinion they hold, and defining their entire identity based on that one detail. I disagree with you on this one issue, so nothing else you say or do matters. You should be ignored, marginalized, cast out into darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Who the fuck are you going to win over with that approach? Build bridges. Find common ground. Keep fighting the good fight and setting the good example, and eventually you will get some people to come around. Hell, I would expect Harry Potter megafans to take that much away from the books. Ron spends three books rolling his eyes at Hermione's promotion of House Elf rights, and instead of cancelling him, she just keeps on keeping on, and then Ron finally starts looking out for elves himself in the end.

As for the movie reboot, whatever. This was inevitable; the franchise is too popular to just be allowed to end. I think I'd like to see a TV show this, time, though. The movies struggled badly to cram the stories into their runtime, while a show would have plenty of time to let things breathe. I'm also open to experimentation and alteration; a straightforward remake would be boring.

[LSD Jellyfish]

The artist's views on trans people don't make it into her art, so far as I ever noticed. You can definitely accuse her of hypocrisy, given that she condemns bigotry throughout her books and makes a main character an activist for minority rights while being what she is in real life, I'll say that. But it's entirely possible to just enjoy her fantastic storytelling skills without agreeing with her opinions.

Hard disagree with the italicized. Maybe not specifically with trans people, but there’s an incredible high level of insanely mean-spirited and off-putting characterizations within the books. Last year, for a course I took on children’s literature, I read Prisoner of Azkaban. Having no strong opinions on the series, I was shocked how nasty it is from the get-go with fat shaming. A lot of characters in the Harry Potter series, who are evil or act wrong, typically tend to be overweight. There’s a strong association with ugliness and other character traits in a negative light. Even without the trans debate at hand, it’s noticeable that JK Rowling is just a nasty person. Seriously, read the introduction to Harry’s adoptive aunt and you’ll get what I mean.

Next, while I didn’t read these recently myself, I’ve seen that a lot of Harry Potter’s overall theming seems “anti-bigotry”, but is really devoid of any actual meaning, and in some cases is actually pretty consistent with a lot of bad racial ideas.

Also look into “Cho Chang” and how seriously the original Harry Potter series lacks many actual minority or characters that break the mold; it’s probably why JK went back and said things like,”Dumbledore is gay”. There’s a lot of weird class and social analysis on the series that I’ve seen that is weird against poor people and people that don’t fit in.

JK Rowling just isn’t a good person. Even if you agree with her opinions on trans folk, it leaves a sour taste in people’s mouths, especially by those that looked up to her at a point in their lives.

And for trans people, Rowling is an active enemy. I’m not talking about someone made a transphobic joke to their buddy at work, or wrote a stupid Ill-informed opinion on trans people; she actively supports and is cohorts with TERFS, and other weird bigots. She uses her platform, and recent books, to double down on all this.

I don’t think that the Harry Potter movies themselves are a bad thing. If you’re nostalgic for the movies and they’re part of your childhood then that’s fine. Keep in mind that I think the people other than Rowling who made those films, including all the actors, did a fantastic time. Enjoy what you enjoy, but be aware that Rowling is a POS.

For me, I like some of the original films, but the magic is ruined. I don’t see Harry Potter being one of those generational franchises where kids of kids enjoy it, and they remake it with new actors (see Batman, Godzilla etc…). The impact just isn’t as good.

[Spuro]

-snip-

You really took the words right out of my mouth, LSD.

Harry Potter was, for me as a child, at the same level as the Godzilla series in how influential it was for me growing up. I can be counted among those who used to once look up to JKR back in the day, as youthful aspiring writer. Things like Cho Change, the Gringotts Goblins, and the house elves flew right over my head as a kid and teenager. I hate what JKR has turned into... or perhaps she was already this the whole time. The evidence certainly seems to be there.

And JVM... there really isn't much common ground to be found when someone as rich and powerful and influential as JKR is spearheading campaigns to discriminate against an entire branch of people.

[JAGzilla]

@LSD: The movies are unimportant to me; some are pretty good and I enjoy them, but I'm a fan of the books first and foremost. Having read them all (minus Cursed Child) multiple times, I disagree with a lot of your points.

The series is set in the UK, which at the time the books were being written was well over 90% White. The overwhelming majority of the characters logically should be White. Rowling didn't go out of her way to spotlight minorities, but... so? That's not a requirement. Not every work of fiction needs to target or support every demographic. Anyway, what's wrong with the minority characters she has? What molds are they stuck in? Dean Thomas, Lee Jordan, Angelina Johnson, and Kingsley Shacklebolt were just random filler characters with varied personalities who happened to be Black. Had they been any other race, little or nothing would have changed. Isn't that the goal? Would it have been better somehow to zero in on them as "the Black characters?" What did Cho Chang do wrong as an Asian character? Were Pavarti and Padma Patil not Indian enough?

"Fat shaming." No. That's ludicrous. Dudley isn't incidentally fat because of genetics or something, he's a spoiled, stupid glutton that sits in front of the TV all day chugging burgers and chips, only getting exercise when he's beating up little kids. The fat is a key part of his character. It's who and what he is. Uncle Vernon is a similar person who encourages and enables Dudley's lifestyle, so it stands to reason that he'd be overweight, too. Same with his sister, Aunt Marge. *thinks for a minute* Okay... I guess I admittedly can't think of a fat character that does anything positive, but again, that's not a requirement. It's a bit unfortunate at worst, and probably not intentionally malicious on Rowling's part.

'Ugly' traits are sometimes associated with negative characters, yes, but not at all exclusively. Hermione had prominent buck teeth that people made fun of, for example. On the flip side, few characters are singled out as being notably beautiful, and those that are tend to have that balanced out with flawed personalities.

What does the series do wrong with regards to poor people? The Weasleys are broke and constantly scrounging for money, and they're the heroes. By contrast, the most prominent wealthy people are the Malfoys.

[Major sssspielberg!]

I grew up on Harry Potter and yeah, I have no interest in going back to the books because of JK's person.
I've been talking with a friend at work about the old "separate art from the artist" debate, and the older I get the harder it is for me to do that. Potter is a chief example.
Whether you wanna get into the weird problematic stuff in the books or not, I don't wanna take in art by anyone who actively invalidates trans people's existence, especially a person who was propped up for years as a champion of the underdog and relished in that image, only to turn around and spit on a whole community of people that have it hard enough.
Of course, I still watch Star Wars which features some pretty egregious stereotyping. And King Kong vs Godzilla which features literal blackface. So I understand where you're coming from JAG. But personally I think LSD is right about the content of the series.

[Legion1979]

Yup you (and I) still watch Star Wars and King King vs Godzilla but I don't think Lucas or Honda/Tsburuaya/Sekizawa themselves were awful toxic people the way Rowling is. Big difference there.

Another great example where its hard to seprate the art from the artisr is Ren and Stimpy. A lot of wonderful people worked on that show, but the creator of the series and the guy who directed many of the cartoons is a known pedophile, child groomer and all around disgusting human being. Makes it pretty gard to watch the series now, regardless of the great people who also had a part in it.

[StardustGenius]

This reminds me a bit of G-Fan's article on their fear that the Godzilla movies are gonna be cancelled which, IMO, was hugely overblown. Especially since the standard response is "These portrayals were wrong back them, they're still wrong now, but that's how it was." Also, like, Godzilla as a franchise is just not helmed by someone who is actively bigoted and contributing to the discrimination and systemic harm of people. Thankfully the dopes at G-Fan aren't in charge of Godzilla.

Going to the Ren and Stimpy comment, that is just very true. I don't go back and watch it all that much because of how icky it feels. I like the Harry Potter movies, but man are they a hard watch nowadays.

"I separate the art from the artist" can only go so far. Happens all the time unfortunately in some parts of the art community. If someone who draws really cool character designs and robots, is a full blown nazi, unfortunately for a lot of people that isn't a line in the sand. It is for me though, and I just can't support that kind of crap. If Harry Potter reboots itself, it's going to have to do so free from any kind of influence of JK Rowling. And I just don't see that happening over there on TERF Island.

[Legion1979]

This reminds me a bit of G-Fan's article on their fear that the Godzilla movies are gonna be cancelled which, IMO, was hugely overblown.

Oh God that whole article was so fucking stupid. It also was published at the same time Lees was publically downplaying COVID in the hopes he could still hold his plastic toy and rubber monster convention that July.

Thankfully the dopes at G-Fan aren't in charge of Godzilla.

It's really just one guy. I dont think anyone else behind the scenes is really like that. Lees is so adamant about not getting vaccinated to enter the US he made his daughter the official "face" of G-FEST. He's still going to influence it, and I know a lot of people who help run the show aren't thrilled.

Going to the Ren and Stimpy comment, that is just very true. I don't go back and watch it all that much because of how icky it feels.

Its a shame because some of the cartoons John K directed are truly fantastic if divorced from the behind the scenes drama. Stimpy's Invention is easily one of the greatest 12 minutes of television animation ever produced.

I like the Harry Potter movies, but man are they a hard watch nowadays.

I don't think Harry Potter stands a chance with future generations who are going to already be aware of Rowling's toxicity, unlike their parents who adored the series long before the woman decided to show what a disgusting bitch she actually was.

[JAGzilla]

I grew up on Harry Potter and yeah, I have no interest in going back to the books because of JK's person.
I've been talking with a friend at work about the old "separate art from the artist" debate, and the older I get the harder it is for me to do that. Potter is a chief example.
Whether you wanna get into the weird problematic stuff in the books or not, I don't wanna take in art by anyone who actively invalidates trans people's existence, especially a person who was propped up for years as a champion of the underdog and relished in that image, only to turn around and spit on a whole community of people that have it hard enough.
Of course, I still watch Star Wars which features some pretty egregious stereotyping. And King Kong vs Godzilla which features literal blackface. So I understand where you're coming from JAG. But personally I think LSD is right about the content of the series.

I'm not defending Rowling's anti-trans stance. If she actually is aggressively campaigning against them, that's terrible. We can agree there.

I do want to see further elaboration on all of this "weird, problematic stuff" in the books, though. This angle strikes me as being what's (intentionally or not) mean-spirited, not the actual content. I'm getting the impression that there's some confirmation bias going on here. People found out that Rowling is transphobic, and now are trying to re-evaluate the books through that lens, trying to find evidence that Rowling is this overall disgusting person who oppresses every minority group. Every line that mentions a sensitive topic is now ammo, and context isn't important. "Look, she says people are bad because they're fat." No, they're fat because they're bad.

I'm not trying to die on Rowling Hill, here. This isn't even about Rowling specifically or nostalgia or any of that. I just see elements of a witch hunt going on, and that's what I'm opposing. I want to make sure that the accusations being thrown around here are based on evidence and analysis rather than assumption or hearsay or convenience.

[LegendZilla]

If they are really gonna reboot Harry Potter, they might have to drastically alter the storyline. By that I mean the same way that The Boys TV show diverges from the comics. What changes do you think would be necessary? Here's some suggestions :

1. They should abolish the Dursley's guardianship over Harry as soon as he goes to Hogwarts for one thing.

2. Change Cho Chang's name to something more Chinese-accurate.

3. Don't make every character who's fat and/or ugly a bad person.

[Major sssspielberg!]

I'm not trying to die on Rowling Hill, here. This isn't even about Rowling specifically or nostalgia or any of that. I just see elements of a witch hunt going on, and that's what I'm opposing. I want to make sure that the accusations being thrown around here are based on evidence and analysis rather than assumption or hearsay or convenience.

That's absolutely fair, JAG. I don't think anybody thinks you're trying to die on Rowling Hill (worst Sonic stage ever btw).
I think it's kinda like how you said though, JK is being reevaluated based on actual hateful things she's said, and thus people are going back through the books and seeing things that do stick out now that she's had over a decade of online presence to show her thinking.
I don't really have the energy atm to get into why the story of the house elves is a weird way to include a commentary on slavery in your seven book epic but I feel like it's self explanatory, for those familiar with the books.
I think the critique of fat shaming is valid, because the books do tend to attribute deformity and obesity to cruel and stupid characters (excepting Mad Eye Moody maybe). That's kind of what makes it problematic, that being overweight is associated with gross shitty people constantly.
Cho Chang wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't presented as generically asian (from what I recall) and had a name that sounds like something Clint Eastwood would have said derogatorily in Gran Torino.
Those are some of the things that I see through my lens, and yeah, they're shaped by my current perception of JK Rowling as a blatant transphobe that likes to pretend she's a martyr for not recognizing trans people as valid or even implying they're all closeted perverts and sex abusers.
Circling back to why I brought up Star Wars and King Kong vs Godzilla, the problematic stuff within the Harry Potter series *can* arguably be handwaved by saying that it was made in a time before we really began to reexamine fantasy tropes and their roots. For me personally, it's hard to not see the stories and any problematic elements therein as an extension of someone who has proven to be hateful, which isn't the case with KKvsG or SW.
Bottom line though, I'm not saying you can't enjoy the books, or that you shouldn't. I personally can't anymore, and don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, despite what a crucial part of my upbringing those stories were. I just hope you know I'm not trying to shit all over something you enjoy just for giggles.

[JAGzilla]

As usual, I think the truth here probably lies somewhere in the middle. If Rowling is capable of being hateful toward one group, that part of her personality does presumably manifest itself in her outlook on other topics. I really doubt most of the problematic aspects of her books were intentional, though. If there was a bias against fat characters, it was very unlikely to be seriously reflective of anything she really believes. Authors are human, and writing is hard. Accidents happen. When you're trying to bang out 800+ page novels quickly enough to appease your waiting fanbase, you may not have the time or presence of mind to consider every implication or interpretation of every little choice you make. But who knows.

Regarding the race issue, what about Cho Chang is stereotypical? Name anything she did that was 'generically Asian'. Anything at all.

[LSD Jellyfish]

In regards to Cho Chang, the character herself isn’t so bad in a microcosm, but people have pointed out that it’s a weird mish-mash of Korean and Chinese surnames. I personally don’t think it’s a major issue, but my point of bringing it up was that it was just the example I could remember. I’ve seen analysis from various Asian people that one of the very few Asian characters in the film and book series, is ultimately just a bright student who just serves as a love interest for Harry. It might just be authoritative laziness, but I dunno.

In a rare rebuttal from me on “wokeism” I do think that these things can/need to be discussed without immediately demonizing the writer/creator. We can’t really say how intentional or misinformed any singular mistakes are. Like you mention, I agree people make mistakes, and I don’t think if it had just been little things like Cho Chang, we’d be having this conversation. It’s it, and many other issues with the series. Children’s literature is a lightning rod for debate because often it is the first time we are exposed to tropic ideas, akin to fables.

Here’s just a little textual example of what I meant by fat shaming, and what originally soured me when I read prisoner of Azkaban:

Spoiler:

On the threshold stood Aunt Marge. She was very like Uncle Vernon: large, beefy, and purple- faced, she even had a mustache, though not as bushy as his. In one hand she held an enormous suitcase, and tucked under the other was an old and evil-tempered bulldog.

"Where's my Dudders?" roared Aunt Marge. "Where's my neffy-poo?"

Dudley came waddling down the hall, his blond hair plastered flat to his fat head, a bow tie just visible under his many chins. Aunt Marge thrust the suitcase into Harry's stomach, knocking the wind out of him, seized Dudley in a tight one-armed hug, and planted a large kiss on his cheek.
Harry knew perfectly well that Dudley only put up with Aunt Marge's hugs because he was well paid for it, and sure enough, when they broke apart, Dudley had a crisp twenty-pound note clutched in his fat fist.

"Petunia!" shouted Aunt Marge, striding past Harry as though he was a hat stand. Aunt Marge and Aunt Petunia kissed, or rather, Aunt Marge bumped her large jaw against Aunt Petunia's bony cheekbone.

-Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Maybe the above isn’t “offensive or bad”, but to me it was weird reading the lengths that JK Rowling goes to discuss how fat and bad the Dursleys are. It’s a reoccurring theme in her work, and the “Aunt Marge is manly” by the mustache line deserves a lot of scrutiny now that we know her actual beliefs. Once again, there are worse things that people have done and said over the years, far worse and more fascist writers, but it draws attention given the popularity of the books.

Major Spielberg brought it up, but the whole thing with the House Elves is really bizarre, and itself has major cognitive dissonance within the franchise. The way that Dobby is a slave, and him and the other elves are happy to be slaves, is a really strange thing to include in a children’s book.


Switching gears to reboot discussion:
Disregarding some of the controversies surrounding JK Rowling, and actually addressing the topic at hand, I think a reboot is silly, because to me that’s what the Fantastic Beasts sub series was, and it failed badly. The first movie was pretty decent, and did an alright job at expanding the Harry Potter universe. However, after the second film, which was really bad, it lost momentum.

Unlike franchises like Star Wars, JK Rowling is tied at the legs to HP. Star Wars was George Lucas’s baby, but they pretty instantly involved other directors and talents. Star Wars quickly got other novelizations, comics, and an expanded universe, effectively allowing Star Wars to exist without Lucas. And it was expansive in scope, even if some of it wasn’t so great. But it left room to tell different stories, introduce different characters and go different places.

Does anyone care much about the lore or world of Harry Potter outside of the books or films? Is anyone actually interested in the Wizarding World? I’m sure there are people, but it’s not like Star Wars.

I can’t really see anyone else as Harry Potter other than Daniel Radcliffe. Same goes for Rupert Grint as Ron, and Emma Watson as Hermoine. I like the early entries in the series a lot, and the first few films are great. There’s an aura of magic in the first film that I don’t think can be replicated.

[JAGzilla]

Five minutes on Reddit gave me a whole range of takes regarding Cho Chang as a name. Some people concluded that it's a perfectly plausible Chinese name, though maybe not spelled in the most standard way. I think this is a good time to bear in mind that the character was named 20+ years ago, when the internet was in its infancy. Looking up info on the intricacies of foreign naming systems was probably not as simple as it is now.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from with the Prisoner of Azkaban quote. Rowling does lay it on a little thick there. The manly description of Aunt Marge, yeah, it's safe to say that detail was rooted in Rowling's dark side. Hammering home that the Dursleys are fat, though... I haven't read any of the books in several years, but from what I remember, Rowling tends to do that a lot with her adjectives and descriptions. Not for everything, but I suspect we get a similar level of emphasis on important descriptors like Hagrid's size, Voldemort's deformed snakelike qualities, Umbridge's toadlike qualities, etc. I would say she does mostly do this with the characters that look abnormal in some way. Normal people tend to warrant much less detail. I think the only physical details we ever get on Cho Chang, for instance, are that she's 'very pretty' and possibly that she has black hair. You could make the argument that Rowling is singling out anyone who doesn't fit in, but that doesn't have to come from a negative place. She may very well just have been trying to immerse readers and help them put together a clear, detailed picture of what these unconventional people look like. A good practice, I'd say, when we're talking about legitimately odd magical people in a fantasy setting. Dudley gets a similar treatment because he's monstrously, cartoonishly fat, wider than he is tall.

Either way, I'm glad you posted that passage. It's actually kind of interesting, re-reading a familiar scene from a new angle, focusing in on the specific word choices and thinking critically about the intent. I don't typically read fiction on that level, I just stay on the surface and have fun with the plot. Next time I revisit the books, I'll definitely pay more attention to Rowling's use of description.

[Spirit Ghidorah 2010]

Major Spielberg brought it up, but the whole thing with the House Elves is really bizarre, and itself has major cognitive dissonance within the franchise. The way that Dobby is a slave, and him and the other elves are happy to be slaves, is a really strange thing to include in a children’s book.

What I found egregious about the whole sordid thing is that Rowling justified enslaving elves with the exact same excuses real slave owners historically used (ie they like being enslaved, we pay them for it, they'd be layabout drunkards if we didn't keep them in line, etc).

[JAGzilla]

Major Spielberg brought it up, but the whole thing with the House Elves is really bizarre, and itself has major cognitive dissonance within the franchise. The way that Dobby is a slave, and him and the other elves are happy to be slaves, is a really strange thing to include in a children’s book.

What I found egregious about the whole sordid thing is that Rowling justified enslaving elves with the exact same excuses real slave owners historically used (ie they like being enslaved, we pay them for it, they'd be layabout drunkards if we didn't keep them in line, etc).

I think this deserves closer examination, too. It should be mentioned for context that House Elves are based on various elf and goblin type beings out of real European folklore, which lived in homes and, if fed and respected by the homeowners, came out at night to clean and do chores. Rowling definitely took them in a darker direction, but she absolutely was not using them to defend slavery.

First off, Dobby was not happy to be a slave. He fucking hated it and constantly cried and complained about it in his appearances in Chamber of Secrets. He was ecstatic when Harry suckered Lucius Malfoy into freeing him, and immediately put his freedom to work standing up to his former oppressor. When we see him again in Goblet of Fire, he has taken a job at Hogwarts after turning down multiple job offers with other Wizard families because none of them will pay him. If he's going to work, he wants fair compensation. He takes tremendous pleasure and pride in buying new clothes with his pay and wearing them all at once so the world can see how free he is and how that benefits him. He pushes the other Hogwarts elves to follow his example, and ends up as a social reject for it.

The portrayal of the other elves is where things look strange, at least on the surface. They are happy with their position as slaves, aggressively turning down any offer of freedom or pay. They take pride in slavery. It's what their families have always done. It's what a good house elf is and should be. Freedom is a horrifying punishment to them, the worst case scenario. Winky begs Barty Crouch not to free her, and plunges into depression and alcoholism afterward.

So we have two extremes here. I don't know what Rowling's intent was with this plotline. The bulk of her exploration of it occurs in Goblet of Fire, so I think it would be instructive to look at the rest of the book and pick out overall themes and ideas. Not my forte, and not something I have time for right now. I'll try and unpack more later.

Other things to quickly factor in:

- Wizard community has long history of conflict with other magical creatures including Goblins, Giants, and Centaurs. They are looked down on, oppressed, marginalized, exterminated, etc. This idea surfaces throughout the series, always in a negative light.

- The only four families (I can remember) we directly see owning House Elves are old, wealthy "Pure Blood" families. Malfoys and Blacks have strong association with Dark Arts and bigotry. Crouches and elderly lady of the fourth family (can't remember her name) shown to be very flawed as well.

- Two of the Elves working for said families were very old, and we only see one Elf per family. This suggests that the practice may be dying out. Hogwarts has about 100 Elves; maybe it takes in those that are freed?

- Ron, from an old Wizard family, casually supports House Elf enslavement. It's the normal, natural state of things in his eyes, and as a Wizard, he directly reaps the benefits. Ron is never malicious about this, and shows signs of change by the end. Muggle-born Hermione and Harry are outsiders, so House Elf enslavement looks different to them. Hermione sees it as a crime to be stamped out. Harry, IIRC, takes it on a case by case basis and lets the Elves make their own choices.

Whatever the intention, it's not wrong of Rowling to include this stuff in a children's book. Whatever else she may be, I respect that she doesn't talk down to kids at all. She hands them huge, complex subjects that adults struggle with and doesn't pull punches in crafting her setting to reflect the real world. More on that later.

[JAGzilla]

Another thing I just consciously recognized yesterday is that Rowling makes use of an unreliable narrator. That's a crucial factor to keep in mind when evaluating what her books are trying to say. Almost everything we see in the story is filtered through Harry's POV, and he's a flawed, emotional teenager with a stressful life. He doesn't always say or do or think what's right.

I realized the importance of this because the character of Marietta Edgecombe randomly crossed my mind for probably the first time ever. "Who?" some of you will be asking. Exactly. A minor character in Order of the Phoenix. She plays a prominent role in two or three scenes, and then is left behind as Harry's plot moves on. The movie doesn't even bother to include her, but gives a severely neutered version of her role to Cho Chang. Her hilariously in-depth Wiki page provides all the relevant and irrelevant info:

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Marietta_Edgecombe

Besides highlighting why the narrator shouldn't be blindly trusted, she exemplifies Rowling's ability and willingness to portray dark subjects (info wars, in this case) in all the cold, heartless, grey complexity they deserve. I never gave a second thought about Marietta beyond what Harry and friends tell me in all the six or seven+ times I've read the book, and I'm sure that was the intention. She's suddenly one of my favorite characters.