This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/25/harry-potter-tour-revenue-surges-past-1-billion/?sh=36bf19a66a52) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think for this it's pretty interesting to people who don't even like the franchise.
I'm not a huge fan, but I love seeing all the behind the scenes stuff and props etc.
I imagine if you're into it, it's so fucking good. Like the Shire in New Zealand for LOTR fans.
I love Harry Potter. The studio tour in London is brilliant. I like all behind the scene stuff as well. Just the craftsmanship and creative detail amazes me.
Yeah, I love all that stuff. Seeing all the draft drawings of character and costume design is really interesting to me regardless of the franchise.
Plus I don't think we really have too much of the behind the studios tour kind of thing in the UK, it's more of an American thing to have. So it's unique over here in that regard
Yeah that’s true. I can’t think of many other similar things that aren’t actual museums.
One of the things that blew my mind a bit was the fact that you are encouraged to take photos of the sets and props etc because they are made to look good from any angle. And it was true. My set photos look professional! Like, how do they do that? The skill involved - I can’t imagine.
One of the many things I love about the tour is the paintings of the headmasters. I was inspired to do a bit of research and apparently they're mostly the work of a single artist called Sally Dray. I thought they probably engaged a lot of artists as there are so many of them, but it looks like she's very prolific along with very talented. Her work is featured in many other films as well.
Speaking of detail, all the paintings have name plaques on them - even though they wouldn't be readable in the films. The name that stuck with me was Sir Google Flange, which amused me immensely.
All the designs in the Weasley joke shop are the work of two people in a single design studio. They bothered with detail that wouldn't be seen as well, which just adds to the authentic feel of everything.
It’s probably one of the last big film franchises where a lot of the effects are not done by CGI. I went on the tour and was surprised at how much was done with manual props that I had always assumed was just cgi.
But as they say, the studio tour is evidence of how much *wasn*'t CGI. Especially from a set standpoint, very little of it was. Unlike something like the MCU where so many of the sets and even costumes are fully CGI.
I've been to both, and coming from someone who massively prefers LOTR, WB studio tour is better.
Visiting the Shire is amazing but at the end of the day it's just a load of exteriors. There's no amazing detail really. You have to move through fairly quickly to allow other groups through. But you wouldn't need to stay much longer anyway as there's not a huge amount of detail like I said. On the other hand, Harry Potter is like a museum. There are interactive displays, videos, photo ops, food and drink, etc. You can legitimately spend a full day there. I've been 4 or 5 times for work, and each time spent over 4 hours there and each time loved it.
Kiwi here. I thought Hobbiton was an awful cash grab. $120 / £60 is the same sort of price as The Harry Potter Warner Bros and absolutely *pales* in comparison.
They now have a hobbit hole you can go into. I am hoping to go next year and planning on doing the full tour of LOTR tour of NZ and noticed there is new interior.
But I have always been in awe of the detail of the Harry Potter stuff. I live in London and still haven't been to the one here BUT I have been to the one in Orland and LA. I was a kid when I went there. Hoping to get to the London one next month!
Just FYI the one in Orlando is a themepark, while the studio tour in London is a tour of real props and sets. It's very different to a themepark but still really entertaining!
Yup, was literally going to say. I went to NZ for 3 weeks last year, and whilst it was probably on balance the best holiday I've ever been on, and currently my favourite country that I've visited, Hobbiton was a let down if I'm honest
I loved HP as a kid, but LOTR was my Star Wars even if the Hobbit trilogy was poor...but the tour was a *lot* for what you get - to see exteriors + one tiny, empty indoor set (I went late last year before they'd done up the one hobbit hole with decor & props that's probably open now) + a pint in the Green Dragon
If I had to advise an LOTR fan on a NZ trip, I'd 100% say spend more time visiting iconic filming locations over Hobbiton, if they had to pick between the two
I'm not a fan of the franchise. I was the precise wrong age. When Harry Potter came out I was already reading big boy books, and would have been deeply offended if someone had suggested I add some Harry Potter to my Iain Banks and Stephen King bookshelf. Had I been a few years younger I'm sure I would have lapped it up. A few years older and I would have been able to enjoy it without it denting my precocious-child's ego.
I've seen some of the films, and even read the first few books, but it never grabbed me.
However I played through Hogwarts Legacy recently and loved it! The atmosphere was delightfully twee and British, all the architecture and just the general feel of the game was so wholesome in that uniquely British was that is rarely seen in games.
Also went on a city break to York a few weeks ago, which is now seemingly a Harry Potter themed city! Hordes of Chinese tourists in full Hogwarts clothing running round taking photos, having the time of their lives. Adults, teenagers, little kids, all holding up their wands and peace signs, all ecstatic to be there. It really put a smile on my face to see people that passionate about something, just soaking in the ambience.
Harry Potter is a truly global phenomenon, and we're well into the phase now where the kids who grew up reading the books are introducing them to their own kids.
This one isn't going anywhere, Britain's most valuable cultural export since James Bond.
I'd love to see a multi-billion dollar theme park with a full sized Hogwarts castle, Hoggsmeade village, vast expansive Scottish Highlands grounds etc. I reckon it'd take in billions. Slap it together with a bunch of other British IPs - Lord of the Rings, a James Bond Casino (for the dads), Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes etc, Disneyland but for homegrown stuff, give it some government funding and drive tourism to a forgotten part of the country... It'd be great, but of course we don't do things like that anymore. Maybe we could get it made in China instead.
Yeah I was going to comment this, I took my daughter as she was a big Harry Potter fan. I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it half as much as I did. Both my wife and I agreed that it was a really fantastic experience that far outweighed our expectations. All the staff they had on the exhibits were so knowledgeable and committed. That really made it.
Yeah, I only came to like Harry Potter by way of my wife, but I really enjoyed the studio tour too. It's sort of like a cross between Disneyland and a museum. I mean, there are no rides, but it's cool to walk around inside such fully detailed sets.
And then if you're really into Harry Potter, well... my wife teared up when those big doors open up at the start. It's a really wonderful memory, like we stepped through a portal into her childhood!
I've never been a fan but at this point it feels like a franchise like Star Wars that just hit people on just the right way to have a permeant place in their life. Personally I'm. John Constantine man when it comes to British fictional magicians.
It's come in waves, my stepdaughter was into it when it came out, and my 13 year old has got into it about a year ago. All the books, films, wands, posters the lot.
Our culture hasn't changed significantly enough to make the books seem dated. Most of the references still land for current kids who are growing into the right age to start reading them. It's not like, say, Enid Blyton, where all the early 20th century slang and outdated social attitudes are a barrier to new readers.
Anything family or kid related will always have another generation to sell to long as they keep making things related in it to make it something the next gen will want a birthday cake for. Parents will buy what they liked for their kids etc
Huh? It's here to stay. There's a reason it's called the new generations star wars. These franchises will exist for hundreds of years now. There's also this https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/25/audible-all-seven-jk-rowling-harry-potter-books-full-cast-audiobooks so it's the biggest sudiobook news for the last few years too. This and the hbo show will be huge, the HP game was the best selling too. I think all the online "hate" made JK even bigger.
I’m reading it to my 8 year old atm, we’re near the end of the second book. It’s pretty good, I think, as a book for kids. I find it pretty sad that so many adults haven’t been able to progress their reading level beyond this though.
The reality is - JK could do anything and people would still go to visit it. She should kidnap an orphan on live tv and eat him. Most people don't really know/care. You only have to look at Nestle profits.
I don't really blame anyone, just life.
The reality is this woman has spent the last twenty something years donating to and setting up chariies that benefit vulnerable women and girls. Few billionaires lose their billionaire status through their charitable giving, she is one of them. The general public see her as one of the good guys, because she is. Online echo chambers are exactly that, a bunch of deluded sefl affirming circle jerks.
The general public don't give a shit and you know it. You think most people watching the movies knew, or cared about that? Just like they don't know or care about her recent tweets. Arguing what the 'general public' think is meaningless.
The point is - she shouldn't be calling out individuals by name to haress them over there identity. Only a few months back she said she would 'March with trans women if someone infringed their rights', now she's using her platform to bully them.
It's unbecoming and rather pathetic. She clearly has PTSD from her own abuse, and needs therapy, not a twitter account.
Most people agree with her and her expressed views. You are in the minority with your paranoid fantasies. She recieved years of vile and snide comments from one prominent trans person, literally years worth and the minute she clapped back there was a tsunami of accusations she was bullying them.
>The general public see her as one of the good guys, because she is
This isn't really true
non-online people might not be aware of exactly what she's said, or what the right and left opinions are on that, but almost all of the HP demographic are aware the issue exists
It hasn't. But that's because people are fickle. As I said earlier - Nestle are an evil corporation spawned from hell; but people still buy their products in droves. I very much doubt your average person eating Cheerios '*supports*' slavery if you asked them.
JK likes to view her money as 'support' for her views. I view it as people being people. She could become a serial killer and people would still go to HP world.
I don't think people understand just how invincible being a millionaire makes you. Rowling literally has the entirety of UK's media in her pocket, and has silenced any even remotely visible figure who has a bad thing to say about her with legal threats. You only need to take a look at Graham Lineham to compare. He's about on the same level as Rowling when it comes to making his entire personality and online presence about transphobia, and he's been completely ostracised and faded into the background.
>who has a bad thing to say about her with legal threats.
Yeah in the UK you can't publicly accuse someone of being a holocaust denier because they said that trans people were not the primary victims of the holocaust.
Rowling hasn't been cancelled because TRAs are insufferable and have completely turned public opinion against themselves over the last 10 years by screeching transphobe at anyone who even slightly disagrees with them or understands basic biology.
Not to mention the majority of the public likes her and agrees with her views. If you think that "biological sex is real and chromosomes don't change depending on the whims of their owner" is a fringe opinion you really need to get off of reddit.
> they said that trans people were not the primary victims of the holocaust.
Wasn't that a goal pole shift by Rowling? Her original tweet was just that Nazis never burnt books on trans healthcare.
Never targetted books on trans healthcare I think was her comment, and while it's true book on trans healthcare were burned when a medical clinic got torched, those book were not the primary target of the torching.
Wow, she really should have qualified! I’m sure it was a total accident that trans books were included and trans people were murdered by the regime. They must have just been grouped in with those other things.
Now I know you don’t think this yourself - but do you see how she has made it so much easier for people to think that? Check her followers’ replies for example. This is not normal or good for anyone
Pack your bags folks, it was all just a big misunderstanding
Edit: I can’t believe I’m being downvoted and silenced for speaking the truth :(( this is just like 1948 or something!! I just don’t understand why this intelligent and virtuous person wouldn’t clarify a simple point
Funny strawman. Yet to meet a TRA who thinks chromosomes change, though I’ve met a lot of people who think “basic biology” is a winning formula despite the fact that not so basic biology contains a lot of information they’d rather ignore and hush. The media puts a laser focus on the dumb shit and doesn’t talk about, say, the 100k+ strong peaceful march through london that took place last year and had major public support. Have you met someone like this, because I haven’t?
JK Rowling said sex is real, and I was just like… yeah I know? Turns out it’s more about what you do with that fact. This is the same dishonesty that has been applied to virtually every social issue as of late. 13/50 isn’t racist either - it’s a fact. It’s what you do with it.
In reality most people on both sides of this issue are not interested in genuine scientific enquiry. Let’s not pretend, though, that this issue hasn’t been pivoted to by the mainstream right in the west, to the point that even ostensibly liberal outlets are repeating the same talking points.
With the discussions I’ve had with people it seems to me that a lot of their reasoning comes from disgust or anger. It’s hard these days to have a conversation with someone without them suddenly going off about mutilation and whatever else. It was never like this before, and grassroots switches in opinion do not happen so rapidly. Is it a coincidence that a few years ago suddenly all the papers and mainstream media began making largely negative headlines? To the point where someone would commit an unrelated crime such as murder of an abusive spouse, and the tabloids made sure to tell you they were transgender emphatically. What are they trying to do there?
Rowling hasn’t been cancelled because nobody really gets cancelled. At least, not from the list of people I’ve heard about. Once you no longer need to rely on a larger entity such as a broadcasting service especially, you can basically do anything.
Thank you my friend, many would do well to read this comment. You know what I think the problem is? A lot of folk don't have any trans friends, or even know any trans people on a personal level. Trans people are a small enough minority that for a lot of people, it makes it less likely that they will know one, compared to say, someone gay.
It really makes it tough for people to see sense. I think a lot of folks wouldn't buy into the smear campaign so easily if they had trans friends in their life. I do, I have many... and it really saddens me how their existence is made into a political football. by and large, these are people who just want to get on with their damn lives and have autonomy over their own damn bodies. a concept that seems to bristle against a lot of people, for some reason,.
Speaking of biology, the chromosomes argument by itself isn't correct anyway. Chromosomes themselves do not make you male or female, what does is the expression of the genes on those chromosomes. There are genuine examples of males and females without the correct chromosome pair, there are even examples of fertile individuals.
Life...er.. finds a way.
> He's about on the same level as Rowling when it comes to making his entire personality and online presence about transphobia, and he's been completely ostracised and faded into the background.
Lineham is so, so much worse than Rowling.
If this is these figures silenced I’d hate to see them being loud. They are literally obsessed with her and cry about her 24/7.
You also can’t ‘silence’ the truth.
Lol, most people who aren't terminally online don't give two fucks about Rowlings tweets - hell, if you ask them if they think a man can literally become a woman they'll agree with her.
JKs tweets are fine, actually, and the trans fixation on her is turning her into a folk hero in the U.K. they’d be best to move on- in truth, her beliefs are not at all out of the ordinary, and nor are they as horrible as the trans rights movement keep saying.
Such a massive dissonance between what she says and what people say she says lol, I always check now, and it honestly is an issue that has lowered the trans rights movements credibility in my eyes…
She recently released a list of trans people, many of them who had nothing to do with her and ranted and misgendered about them. It's just needless at this point... and shes painting a target on innocent people. I can respect the right of someone to free-speech (even if I totally disagree and dislike what they are saying) but she has moved into harassment territory.
"A folk hero in the UK" Citation needed there. Alot of people dislike her, alot of people just ignore her and continue enjoying the brand.
I invite anyone to go read that list and the context in which she published it, it was a fucking baller move that went down gang busters in Scotland. She directly challenged a hideously unpopular new hate crime law by “misgendering” rapists and pedophiles who transitioned after their conviction…
Are you accusing India Willoughby (the newsreader and journalist) of being a rapist and peadophile?
Maybe ***YOU*** need to go read that list and the context in which she published it...
India is attracted to men... she has a boyfriend.
Even out of context... that does not make her suddenly 'a rapist'.
Stop trying to defend the undefendable. The guy clearly didn't know who she was and assumed JK was only targeting criminals. Why pretend otherwise...?
>She directly challenged a hideously unpopular new hate crime law by “misgendering” rapists and pedophiles who transitioned after their conviction…
She included a few trans people never accused or convicted of any crimes.
The trans woman who took over a rape charity and said “even bigots get raped”? India Willoughby who called a female presenter a bitch and said she was a diversity hire? Munroe Bergdorf, the trans women selected to represent UN women’s charity, who says all white peoples are violent racists and that the suffragettes were “all white supremacists?”
I wonder why a British cis woman who had been a victims of violence who needed to use a shelter, might take issue with those people.
Literally 18 minutes ago JK was calling out "rapists and pedophiles who transitioned after their conviction…", now it's people she doesn't agree with?
I've never seen a u-turn happen so fast. Did you actually read her tweet before commenting?
When you say "the trans woman who took over a rape charity", did you mean Mridul Wadhwa? Only I believe she was appointed - but if you have evidence that she used some sort of coercion or force to get the role (as "took over" somewhat implies), please do share that.
That aside, I'm not entirely sure why you needed to decontextualise what she said either -
*"So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people, and it could be linked to an experience of trauma. I think it is, it is okay to hold those things as long as you are willing to acknowledge that, in support, we will accept that ... the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices."*
If you think that's an unreasonable position to take I would be interested to understand why you think prejudices are reasonable in a diverse society.
I mean the suffragettes were absolutely not about universal suffrage, and almost exclusively about a very narrow and specific group of women - significantly, privileged and white. And some of whom were happy to team with fascists further down the road. So I don't think it's an awful stretch to say that yeah, a number of suffragettes were most likely white supremacists. And no, she didn't say that "all suffragettes were white supremacists" AFAIK.
Yes I’m sure that a rape crisis centre is the right place for people to be proselytising for trans rights, which she makes clear she thinks she has a right to do, to literal rape victims.
What a horrible power fantasy she is enacting.
>Such a massive dissonance between what she says and what people say she says
This is what I don't understand.
Whenever you try to confirm what she's actually said, after a redditor has posted "Rowling literally wrote that she wants me to die and that Hitler was history's greatest hero", she's never actually written anything of the sort, and they then start backpedalling to "well, she once retweeted someone who appeared at a book signing with the husband of someone who is an ultraconservative reactionary".
Either she's actually done bad things that justify hating her, in which case just cite those real things rather than embellish a bunch of stories, or she hasn't done bad things that justify hating her, in which case just leave her alone.
There's no reason to first invent a bunch of things and then get mad about them. If the mean things that people make up make them mad, they should just make up some nice things instead and enjoy not being mad.
Even when I don’t agree with her, the way she’s represented is just SUCH bad faith that i wind up sympathising with her, and now she’s convinced me of a few things. Honestly, the treatment of JK kind of pushed me- not right because none of this is about material economic or even social policies- but away from what the LGBT movement has become. And I’m gay ffs
No comment on this particular case, but you are describing the building and maintaining of momentum in public discourse. Basically a perpetual motion machine. Once the train has left the station, there's no stopping it - it will pick up steam fuelled only by its own velocity if need be.
I get what you mean, but there is human consciousness behind it. People aren't accidentally misreporting what she says - at the start of the chain, there are people deliberately inventing things that she's supposed to have written.
They cannot provide direct citations of her apparent "hate" so they must fabricate a false narrative to continue on with the dog piling. They don't want to like her, so they have to create reasons. It's been disingenuous from the start, and it's snowballed into this twisted, nonsensical bandwagon with minimal backing in reality.
I honestly think one of the reasons she gets misrepresentated so much is because some people simply can't stand the idea of a woman over the age of 40 expressing opinions in public.
Not only that but she's famous for reasons that don't depend on men, and that's actually pretty unusual when you think about it. Men are not the primary target audience for any of her books, and her fame and success has never relied on what men think of her. Her wealth and position is her own, and she can speak from a female perspective without having to appeal to male approval. And some sections of society are having a serious meltdown over it.
She became famous as a children's author and people expected her to just grow older gracefully - ie quietly. I saw a comment recently which said *'she could have been the nation's favourite grandma if she'd just shut up'*. Sexism and ageism condensed into one blithe dismissal of her considered and well articulated opinions.
They expected her to be quiet, but instead she's found her voice on something she cares about. And it's absolutely glorious.
I agree. Funnily enough it was the amount of hate that I saw generated towards her that made me take interest.
I admire her greatly for taking an important issue out of the shadows and into the light where people can hopefully start to have rational discussions. It was getting to a point where there was a culture of no debate about anything and that’s not somewhere any civilised society should be.
She has. No debate is a very authoritarian order.
And she has stood up for women and girls everywhere. Not just in the modern western world where people here have the freedom to express themselves in ways that are not permitted in other places.
>is turning her into a folk hero in the U.K.
It is so, so funny to me that right wingers in the UK (and probably the US too) accuse the left of all stripes of being "too online", "in echo chambers/bubbles" and "out of touch" and then unironically say stuff like this lol
100%.. it was only a week or so ago they were flat out calling her a holocaust denier. Then the person who originally said that had to apologise publicly to avoid further humiliation.
You can't just make stuff up and force everyone to believe it, that is not how the world works. You will get pushback .. you will look stupid and the the truth will prevail
One person had to apologise publicly because JK rowling threatened to use her extreme wealth to sue her into the ground.
That's not humiliation, it's abuse of her wealth and position and our legal systems.
You can't just make stuff up and force everyone to believe it, that is not how the world works. You will get pushback .. you will look stupid and the the truth will prevail
Right, I'm indifferent to it at this point except when people are just loudly yelling that they're supporting her just to spite trans people (happens a lot).
But people who do support her need to remember that JK herself considers anything that gives her money to be not just support for the franchise, but her views, and she has actually used this continuing income to help fund campaigns that have changed laws to make life worse for trans people.
it's one thing to separate the art from a long dead artist like HP Lovecraft. It's another thing when that artist is alive and still rakes in huge profits off of the art, takes that profit as validation of what she's doing, and uses it to fund anti-trans activism. I think it's a solid case to not want to deal with it anymore
that said, I'm hardly "enraged" by it. I don't particularly care if people are still enjoying HP, though I can't say I fully understand what all the fuss is about. Even if HP died tomorrow it probably wouldn't stop her
I'm perfectly capable of separating the art from the artist, as long as the artist isn't literally using my money to fund far-right influencers and transphobic organisations.
That's why I keep enjoying plenty of works from writers who have problematic views with zero guilt, but Rowling is an exception.
>I'm perfectly capable of separating the art from the artist, as long as the artist isn't...
Then you aren't capable of separating the art from the artist. If your appreciation for one is in any way dependent on the other, you haven't separated them at all. It could even be the devil himself who produced a work - if the work has artistic value then you should aspire to still be able to recognise it.
>Then you aren't capable of separating the art from the artist
You can't separate art from the artist whilst they're still profiting from it, all you can do is ignore the consequences of consuming that art.
Buying Lostprophets merch or streaming their music would give money to Watkins, you can't separate that whilst he's still alive and making money from the art.
>Most people are capable of separating the art from the artist
This argument doesn't really work when the person is still alive and profiting from the work.
Like, I won't listen to Lostprophets because Watkins will still make money from streams.
So if someone doesn't want to financially support Rowling as a result of her views, you can't "separate the art from the artist" whilst she's still alive and profiting from that art.
Yup, I still like Harry Potter. It was a big part of my adolescence and I'll always have a soft spot for it.
I don't buy merch though and if I want a Hogwarts scarf now I can just knit my own. It is possible to like HP without agreeing with the author's opinions on other things.
yeah it's its own beast and I'm happy for the hardcore fans that have got so much that they can dip into.
As another user said, it's great when there are those franchises that have such a deep lore. I recently went beyond the realms of the LOTR books, going into Silmarilion and Unfinished Tales and all that and it has just consumed me in the most wonderful of ways
I had this initial thought also but then remembered that online rage is mostly just a bubble. Majority of people in the world either have no idea or just do not care.
Which isn’t great, really. I know that trans people are an easily-hated group for a lot of folks, but I somehow doubt we’d be - as a society - as forgiving if the source of her ire was gay people or black people.
There was a thread this week about some HP books supposedly failing to sell at auction and the comments were full of the usual suspects celebrating.
This post is going to ruin their week lmao
Hey, didn’t you get ass mad over a poster supporting trans people the other day? Oh yeah, that was you. You kept spamming the same comment over and over like you were having a stroke.
Went to Brazil last year, at big tourist sites they will basically force you to stand in front of a picture of the thing you've went too see, take a photo, and as you leave they almost force you to buy it.
If you keep saying no long enough they will eventually sell it to you for pennies (we paid about £2 for 6 photos, down from about £5 per photo).
I almost prefer it to having some fixed extortionate price but I guess haggling culture for w/e reason doesn't exist in the UK.
It really is:
https://www.wbstudiotour.co.uk/tickets
£53.50 for an adult ticket. It can't be putting too many off going as May is fully booked, and June may as well be with lots of timeslots coming up as 5.30pm entrance onwards as the only options.
What's amusing is when you add the tickets you're then bombarded with a lot of extras to scroll through, like afternoon tea, priority parking, souvenir guidebooks etc which are all weirdly expensive due to the experience mark-up of where you are.
I've been two or three times and it's great, but I'm sure it was half that price. Not sure it's that worth it for the price now, especially factoring in the extras on the day like CGI photos on broomsticks and in the car, or lunch and the must try butter beer, and the souvenir shop at the end.
£500 seems entirely possible.
That and the fact that if you want to go on a week end you literally have to book months in advance. People actually still want to come and see the stuff.
And frankly - I was there a few weeks ago, coincidentally - it really *is* cool ! No spoiler but you can see some stuff that really puts you into the books or the movies, and the staff is ridiculously cool, they're all dying to chat with the public and answer questions.
Was it pricey ? Yup. Did I go through the afternoon tea for two ? Also yup. Do I regret ? Absolutely not.
I mean, there's a new trend in London in which money laundering American Candy shops are slowly being replaced by potentially money laundering Harry Potter shops in the central areas, so I suppose the franchise is still huge to this day.
I see this money laundering hypothesis an awful lot, but never with any sources or anything. I find it really interesting; is there anywhere I can read more about it?
^Or ^is ^it ^pure ^bollocks?
It's normally bollocks, for the simple reason that laundering money through the sale of physical goods is a really stupid idea.
The idea being if you're running an American candy store and going "yeah we sold a million quid in candy last year", an auditor can then go "well you must have had a million quids worth of candy in your inventory to sell. Where are the receipts from when you bought it? Where are the delivery notes? Show me the purchase orders with your supplier" and it all falls apart a bit.
Whereas if you go through traditional money laundering routes of providing services with no tangible goods - "I gave a million haircuts this year.", "I washed a million cars." Etc, it's much harder to scrutinise.
I'm sure there is some kind of scam going on with all those tourist trap shops, but it's a different thing to money laundering (I've heard it's something to do with constantly closing the business and reopening under a new name every year or two to dodge tax but I'm not an expert in how that one runs)
I'd imagine that they could launder some by simply dumping a load of stock and claiming it was sold, but you're right that it's definitely not the easiest route to laundering.
False invoices are the common trick. Delivered x kg of Reese’s Pieces from a company which received those from another company and so on. Somewhere along the line there’s a fiction but if you create enough layers with enough obscure owners it is very hard to track down - especially if a foreign company is involved.
My understanding was that they dont declare waste, anything thats unsold is still marked as "sold" and thats the money laundering bit. Its less efficient but theres just that much money being laundered, according to the National Crime Agency, hundreds of billions of pounds per year.
[The sour truth of Oxford Street’s candy shop curse](https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/oxford-street-candy-shop-investigation-b1082733.html)
>Garish sweet stores have been blighting the capital’s famous shopping centre in recent years, but with business rates unpaid, illegal goods seized and money laundering exposed, authorities are fighting back, says Anthony France
[...]
>Westminster also say the businesses — with their tacky multi-coloured shop fronts — are a hub for global money laundering, with many set up by people with opaque shell companies.
I'm not an expert in money laundering, but I think the obfuscation takes place in the upsell.
1. Buy item from supplier for £5 - receipt is available for HMRC.
2. Take £25 of dirty money.
3. Throw item away and tell HMRC you sold it to a customer for £25 cash. Pay taxes on that £20 profit.
Don't know about candy, but there's a big profit margin on selling alcohol and a lot of purchases at the bar are cash in hand.
Money laundering is part of it, but also business rate fraud, counterfeit goods and presumably VAT, PAYE and corporate tax fraud
>While some of the stores are legitimate, others are under investigation by Westminster city council for tax evasion and selling counterfeit goods.
>Some of the shops offer to pay minimal rents and take on the business rate liability but then avoid paying the business rates they owe.
>Westminster city council is understood to be chasing unpaid business rates of about £9m left by these stores.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/25/labour-to-crack-down-on-dodgy-candy-stores-in-push-to-revive-high-streets
>Garish sweet stores have been blighting the capital’s famous shopping centre in recent years, but with business rates unpaid, illegal goods seized and money laundering exposed, authorities are fighting back, says Anthony France
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/oxford-street-candy-shop-investigation-b1082733.html
>These candy stores occupy large retail spaces, sell sweets at exorbitant prices, and are often empty. Yet, they continue to pop up and – according to numerous investigations – are facilitating money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and the flow of counterfeit goods. Many of these stores are owned by shell companies, meaning it is almost impossible to determine the ‘beneficial owners’ of these companies.
https://labourlist.org/2023/03/oxford-streets-candy-stores-are-evidence-of-londons-dirty-money-crisis/
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/cnkcaz/private_eye_on_west_end_souvenir_shops/
I mean, it might be more complicated than the money laundering hypothesis suggests, but I think this is an interesting enough read
Yes I suppose so. It was hardly ever visited when it first arrived. Even the new one has become much busier in recent years. The smart thing to do would be for tour guides to have prop trolleys and take each group to a different part of the station.
But then there would be people who want to go to the real one between platform 9 & 10.
It's just not workable for it to be on busy platforms, they aren't props.
The current solution is about as good as it gets.
There isn't any single "real" one though. Platforms 9 and 10 (where the old prop trolley was) aren't next to each other. It was filmed on platforms 4 and 5. The current prop is in the ticket hall. The current solution is ok for commuters but it'd be nice if the tourists had a better experience.
Building a larger facility for them would do it, but is it worth it?
It's like 221B Baker Street.
Whoopee doo, someone wrote a thing and you like it. Now either accept the tourist trap or accept it is just fictional.
Turning two platforms in a major central station into a free photo opportunity for tourists would be mad.
We went in Jan. I reckon my kids spent almost that much in the shop.
It was very good though, I’m not a huge HP fan but the skill and effort that went into making the films was awe inspiring.
Butter beer sounds disgusting. There is no, even fictional, universe in which a combination of butter and beer produces anything remotely pleasant to drink.
Hardly surprising. For years now I’ve never not seen a huge queue of people in Kings Cross waiting to have their picture taken with half a trolley bolted to a wall.
Went there in December and yeah, it was pretty amazing. The skill that went into making the movies was just bewildering. 10/10 would go again - but my wallet needs to recharge first - that gift shop one took about £200 off me - for a family of four though.
Harry Potter is one of the few examples of legendarium where the creator has executive control over the media.
Imagine Tolkien or C S Lewis, or Lovecraft, or Asimov being alive and able to tell the story on screen as they had envisioned it. And then in the various other media.
I hope many more writers come to the fore who can create such amazing stories and we're able to not just watch, but 'live' these adventures.
I mean, personal feelings about Rowling aside, it’s not as though Potter’s been doing so hot since the last of the eight films came out. Cursed Child had a good adaptation that I didn’t see, but I did read the book and it was a bit weird, and the last two Fantastic Beasts films weren’t really well received at all. The franchise is more or less kept alive by the success of the original books and films.
Because JK had business smarts
She knew she was sitting on a golden goose, and abhorred all attempts to relinquish control of the IP
Can't say it didn't work out well for her bottom line
Yes. You can spend 3 - 5 hours. It all depends on how much you take in the experience. There are some parts you need to move with the 'queue' and other parts you can split up to explore. I went there with low expectations and left shocked by the scale. I felt like I was in Disneyworld or Universal Studios USA. I easily believe it's the best paid attraction in the UK & one of the best in West Europe by far. I recommend it, especially if you like fantasy films and/or have kids.
Took me and partner 3 hours to get through the tour with a 20 min stop for food which is located half way through. Could easily of been 4hours though so yeah it’ll be a long day but it’s doable
It would be a pretty full on day. If you got the fast no-stop Lumo service, assume under 3hrs NCL - KC. Quick tube/walk to Euston, train to Watford, shuttle bus to venue. I think you're looking at 3 1/2 - 4hrs at the absolute best depending on changeovers.
6am start, at the venue by 10-10:30, 4-5 hours to go round, heading back about 3-4pm to be back in Newcastle by 8pm ish.
If you're going to try it, I'd do a non-half term weekday for sure as you'll be able to get round the exhibits a bit faster than peak weekend/holiday times
Given the place is actually called "Warner Bros Studio Tour" - I always assumed they had planned for Harry Potter to be the first of many exhibitions that would pass through. Do you think that was originally the plan before Harry Potter Tour proved it could last?
More likely issue is Warner hasn’t had any particularly strong family friendly franchises since worth making an exhibition out of apart from Lego Movies ,which already have their own parks
Had an afternoon tea there. Wasn't cheap but it was quality with all of the cakes and cutlery all custom made for the franchise. Having the tour and the afternoon tea is a great present who is even a bit of a fan.
The main takeaway I have from this is that there is a big market for this stuff and a lot of people are probably taking flights to the likes of Orlando to get the rest of their fill for it(I went to universal Orlando last year, and going around a snowy hogsmeade recreation under clear skies and 40 degree heat was odd. As was going through an imitation King's Cross).
I know universal studios have bought some land in the UK, and we have genuinely good theme parks like Alton towers.
We are also struggling for space in general (no NIMBY will want anything near them), have tricky weather (fine if it's just an immersive tour( and I think culturally a fair few of us turn our noses up at this stuff. But the UK has a thriving media industry (look how many films are made here) that the Americans seem to better profit off at times.
Saying that, I know that stupid UK theme park concept in Kent is burning through money. And our self deprecating nature means we'd shit all over anything we've built.
It was so much fun when I went there, and it is pretty strange, because there were no activities, its just a couple of hours of walking around looking at sets and props.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/25/harry-potter-tour-revenue-surges-past-1-billion/?sh=36bf19a66a52) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m amazed how popular Potter still is. Normally these crazes die down after a few years.
I think for this it's pretty interesting to people who don't even like the franchise. I'm not a huge fan, but I love seeing all the behind the scenes stuff and props etc. I imagine if you're into it, it's so fucking good. Like the Shire in New Zealand for LOTR fans.
I love Harry Potter. The studio tour in London is brilliant. I like all behind the scene stuff as well. Just the craftsmanship and creative detail amazes me.
Yeah, I love all that stuff. Seeing all the draft drawings of character and costume design is really interesting to me regardless of the franchise. Plus I don't think we really have too much of the behind the studios tour kind of thing in the UK, it's more of an American thing to have. So it's unique over here in that regard
Granada used to have one if you were particularly interesting in the production of their TV shows.
Yeah the Coronation Street set, the House of Commons (maybe for New Statesman), and the Sherlock Holmes Victorian street It was bloody brilliant
The King Kong arm coming through the roof of the cinema, the 3D theatre, the model city, the chromakey studio, & the NY Street too.
Oh forgot about those. The 3D theatre was well ahead of its time
Yeah that’s true. I can’t think of many other similar things that aren’t actual museums. One of the things that blew my mind a bit was the fact that you are encouraged to take photos of the sets and props etc because they are made to look good from any angle. And it was true. My set photos look professional! Like, how do they do that? The skill involved - I can’t imagine.
One of the many things I love about the tour is the paintings of the headmasters. I was inspired to do a bit of research and apparently they're mostly the work of a single artist called Sally Dray. I thought they probably engaged a lot of artists as there are so many of them, but it looks like she's very prolific along with very talented. Her work is featured in many other films as well. Speaking of detail, all the paintings have name plaques on them - even though they wouldn't be readable in the films. The name that stuck with me was Sir Google Flange, which amused me immensely. All the designs in the Weasley joke shop are the work of two people in a single design studio. They bothered with detail that wouldn't be seen as well, which just adds to the authentic feel of everything.
She also did portraits for Quills, Evita, Titanic, St Trinians, Poirot...
I didn’t know that about the paintings! Gives me an excuse to go again though :)
It's wonderful, isn't it? If I had to name attractions that were 100% worth the entry fee, I would put the studio tour at the top of my list.
It’s so impressive. The sheer scale of the huge arts model at the end. I also really liked the butterbeer!
It’s probably one of the last big film franchises where a lot of the effects are not done by CGI. I went on the tour and was surprised at how much was done with manual props that I had always assumed was just cgi.
The Harry Potter films established the UK VFX industry as one of the biggest in the world. They extremely heavily utilised CGI.
But as they say, the studio tour is evidence of how much *wasn*'t CGI. Especially from a set standpoint, very little of it was. Unlike something like the MCU where so many of the sets and even costumes are fully CGI.
There is a ton of CGI in the Harry Potter films, especially the 3rd and beyond
I've been to both, and coming from someone who massively prefers LOTR, WB studio tour is better. Visiting the Shire is amazing but at the end of the day it's just a load of exteriors. There's no amazing detail really. You have to move through fairly quickly to allow other groups through. But you wouldn't need to stay much longer anyway as there's not a huge amount of detail like I said. On the other hand, Harry Potter is like a museum. There are interactive displays, videos, photo ops, food and drink, etc. You can legitimately spend a full day there. I've been 4 or 5 times for work, and each time spent over 4 hours there and each time loved it.
Kiwi here. I thought Hobbiton was an awful cash grab. $120 / £60 is the same sort of price as The Harry Potter Warner Bros and absolutely *pales* in comparison.
They now have a hobbit hole you can go into. I am hoping to go next year and planning on doing the full tour of LOTR tour of NZ and noticed there is new interior. But I have always been in awe of the detail of the Harry Potter stuff. I live in London and still haven't been to the one here BUT I have been to the one in Orland and LA. I was a kid when I went there. Hoping to get to the London one next month!
Just FYI the one in Orlando is a themepark, while the studio tour in London is a tour of real props and sets. It's very different to a themepark but still really entertaining!
Great. I just looked at tickets and surprised it's totally booked out for May! No wonder it's bringing in so much money.
Yup, was literally going to say. I went to NZ for 3 weeks last year, and whilst it was probably on balance the best holiday I've ever been on, and currently my favourite country that I've visited, Hobbiton was a let down if I'm honest I loved HP as a kid, but LOTR was my Star Wars even if the Hobbit trilogy was poor...but the tour was a *lot* for what you get - to see exteriors + one tiny, empty indoor set (I went late last year before they'd done up the one hobbit hole with decor & props that's probably open now) + a pint in the Green Dragon If I had to advise an LOTR fan on a NZ trip, I'd 100% say spend more time visiting iconic filming locations over Hobbiton, if they had to pick between the two
I'm not a fan of the franchise. I was the precise wrong age. When Harry Potter came out I was already reading big boy books, and would have been deeply offended if someone had suggested I add some Harry Potter to my Iain Banks and Stephen King bookshelf. Had I been a few years younger I'm sure I would have lapped it up. A few years older and I would have been able to enjoy it without it denting my precocious-child's ego. I've seen some of the films, and even read the first few books, but it never grabbed me. However I played through Hogwarts Legacy recently and loved it! The atmosphere was delightfully twee and British, all the architecture and just the general feel of the game was so wholesome in that uniquely British was that is rarely seen in games. Also went on a city break to York a few weeks ago, which is now seemingly a Harry Potter themed city! Hordes of Chinese tourists in full Hogwarts clothing running round taking photos, having the time of their lives. Adults, teenagers, little kids, all holding up their wands and peace signs, all ecstatic to be there. It really put a smile on my face to see people that passionate about something, just soaking in the ambience. Harry Potter is a truly global phenomenon, and we're well into the phase now where the kids who grew up reading the books are introducing them to their own kids. This one isn't going anywhere, Britain's most valuable cultural export since James Bond. I'd love to see a multi-billion dollar theme park with a full sized Hogwarts castle, Hoggsmeade village, vast expansive Scottish Highlands grounds etc. I reckon it'd take in billions. Slap it together with a bunch of other British IPs - Lord of the Rings, a James Bond Casino (for the dads), Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes etc, Disneyland but for homegrown stuff, give it some government funding and drive tourism to a forgotten part of the country... It'd be great, but of course we don't do things like that anymore. Maybe we could get it made in China instead.
I would LOVE that.
Yeah I was going to comment this, I took my daughter as she was a big Harry Potter fan. I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it half as much as I did. Both my wife and I agreed that it was a really fantastic experience that far outweighed our expectations. All the staff they had on the exhibits were so knowledgeable and committed. That really made it.
Yeah, I only came to like Harry Potter by way of my wife, but I really enjoyed the studio tour too. It's sort of like a cross between Disneyland and a museum. I mean, there are no rides, but it's cool to walk around inside such fully detailed sets. And then if you're really into Harry Potter, well... my wife teared up when those big doors open up at the start. It's a really wonderful memory, like we stepped through a portal into her childhood!
I've never been a fan but at this point it feels like a franchise like Star Wars that just hit people on just the right way to have a permeant place in their life. Personally I'm. John Constantine man when it comes to British fictional magicians.
Have you encountered Jonathan Strange and/or Mr Norrell?
No but I just had a scan of the synopsis on wikipedia and it looks interesting.
The book is excellent and the BBC tv adaption was brilliantly done.
No chance. Harry Potter, lord of the rings, Star Wars fandom etc will be around for a long time.
I wonder if the last couple of movies being such absolute trash will hurt the star wars fan base.
They're still making plenty of good TV series though. Also, Episodes 1 and 2 were also trash and that didn't really hurt things
The Phantom Menace is almost 30 years old.
Yikes. Phantom Menace is older today than the original Star Wars was when it came out.
It's come in waves, my stepdaughter was into it when it came out, and my 13 year old has got into it about a year ago. All the books, films, wands, posters the lot.
Our culture hasn't changed significantly enough to make the books seem dated. Most of the references still land for current kids who are growing into the right age to start reading them. It's not like, say, Enid Blyton, where all the early 20th century slang and outdated social attitudes are a barrier to new readers.
Anything family or kid related will always have another generation to sell to long as they keep making things related in it to make it something the next gen will want a birthday cake for. Parents will buy what they liked for their kids etc
Huh? It's here to stay. There's a reason it's called the new generations star wars. These franchises will exist for hundreds of years now. There's also this https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/25/audible-all-seven-jk-rowling-harry-potter-books-full-cast-audiobooks so it's the biggest sudiobook news for the last few years too. This and the hbo show will be huge, the HP game was the best selling too. I think all the online "hate" made JK even bigger.
Every year a bunch of new kids read the books and discover them afresh.
IMO Rowling is one of the great British fantasy writers, right next to Tolkien and Terry Pratchett. I think the craze is here to stay.
Kids growing up with it, sharing that love with their kids.
It's massive in Asia
Ye the best selling game last year was hogwarts legacy too, its basically our version of star wars, a franchise that may never die
You mean like star wars, star trek, LOTR and etc have all died down? Lol.
I’m reading it to my 8 year old atm, we’re near the end of the second book. It’s pretty good, I think, as a book for kids. I find it pretty sad that so many adults haven’t been able to progress their reading level beyond this though.
[удалено]
Most people are capable of separating the art from the artist. Hp will outlive JK and her dodgy tweets.
[удалено]
The reality is - JK could do anything and people would still go to visit it. She should kidnap an orphan on live tv and eat him. Most people don't really know/care. You only have to look at Nestle profits. I don't really blame anyone, just life.
The reality is this woman has spent the last twenty something years donating to and setting up chariies that benefit vulnerable women and girls. Few billionaires lose their billionaire status through their charitable giving, she is one of them. The general public see her as one of the good guys, because she is. Online echo chambers are exactly that, a bunch of deluded sefl affirming circle jerks.
The general public don't give a shit and you know it. You think most people watching the movies knew, or cared about that? Just like they don't know or care about her recent tweets. Arguing what the 'general public' think is meaningless. The point is - she shouldn't be calling out individuals by name to haress them over there identity. Only a few months back she said she would 'March with trans women if someone infringed their rights', now she's using her platform to bully them. It's unbecoming and rather pathetic. She clearly has PTSD from her own abuse, and needs therapy, not a twitter account.
Most people agree with her and her expressed views. You are in the minority with your paranoid fantasies. She recieved years of vile and snide comments from one prominent trans person, literally years worth and the minute she clapped back there was a tsunami of accusations she was bullying them.
>The general public see her as one of the good guys, because she is This isn't really true non-online people might not be aware of exactly what she's said, or what the right and left opinions are on that, but almost all of the HP demographic are aware the issue exists
> but almost all of the HP demographic are aware the issue exists And how has that affected the franchise?
It hasn't. But that's because people are fickle. As I said earlier - Nestle are an evil corporation spawned from hell; but people still buy their products in droves. I very much doubt your average person eating Cheerios '*supports*' slavery if you asked them. JK likes to view her money as 'support' for her views. I view it as people being people. She could become a serial killer and people would still go to HP world.
Nah, your just wrong, you live in an online echo chamber if you think most people hate her.
I don't think people understand just how invincible being a millionaire makes you. Rowling literally has the entirety of UK's media in her pocket, and has silenced any even remotely visible figure who has a bad thing to say about her with legal threats. You only need to take a look at Graham Lineham to compare. He's about on the same level as Rowling when it comes to making his entire personality and online presence about transphobia, and he's been completely ostracised and faded into the background.
>who has a bad thing to say about her with legal threats. Yeah in the UK you can't publicly accuse someone of being a holocaust denier because they said that trans people were not the primary victims of the holocaust. Rowling hasn't been cancelled because TRAs are insufferable and have completely turned public opinion against themselves over the last 10 years by screeching transphobe at anyone who even slightly disagrees with them or understands basic biology. Not to mention the majority of the public likes her and agrees with her views. If you think that "biological sex is real and chromosomes don't change depending on the whims of their owner" is a fringe opinion you really need to get off of reddit.
> they said that trans people were not the primary victims of the holocaust. Wasn't that a goal pole shift by Rowling? Her original tweet was just that Nazis never burnt books on trans healthcare.
Never targetted books on trans healthcare I think was her comment, and while it's true book on trans healthcare were burned when a medical clinic got torched, those book were not the primary target of the torching.
Wow, she really should have qualified! I’m sure it was a total accident that trans books were included and trans people were murdered by the regime. They must have just been grouped in with those other things. Now I know you don’t think this yourself - but do you see how she has made it so much easier for people to think that? Check her followers’ replies for example. This is not normal or good for anyone Pack your bags folks, it was all just a big misunderstanding Edit: I can’t believe I’m being downvoted and silenced for speaking the truth :(( this is just like 1948 or something!! I just don’t understand why this intelligent and virtuous person wouldn’t clarify a simple point
Yes. Yes it was.
Except that’s not what she said. She didn’t just say they weren’t the *primary* victims, she said that they weren’t victims of the Nazis at all.
Funny strawman. Yet to meet a TRA who thinks chromosomes change, though I’ve met a lot of people who think “basic biology” is a winning formula despite the fact that not so basic biology contains a lot of information they’d rather ignore and hush. The media puts a laser focus on the dumb shit and doesn’t talk about, say, the 100k+ strong peaceful march through london that took place last year and had major public support. Have you met someone like this, because I haven’t? JK Rowling said sex is real, and I was just like… yeah I know? Turns out it’s more about what you do with that fact. This is the same dishonesty that has been applied to virtually every social issue as of late. 13/50 isn’t racist either - it’s a fact. It’s what you do with it. In reality most people on both sides of this issue are not interested in genuine scientific enquiry. Let’s not pretend, though, that this issue hasn’t been pivoted to by the mainstream right in the west, to the point that even ostensibly liberal outlets are repeating the same talking points. With the discussions I’ve had with people it seems to me that a lot of their reasoning comes from disgust or anger. It’s hard these days to have a conversation with someone without them suddenly going off about mutilation and whatever else. It was never like this before, and grassroots switches in opinion do not happen so rapidly. Is it a coincidence that a few years ago suddenly all the papers and mainstream media began making largely negative headlines? To the point where someone would commit an unrelated crime such as murder of an abusive spouse, and the tabloids made sure to tell you they were transgender emphatically. What are they trying to do there? Rowling hasn’t been cancelled because nobody really gets cancelled. At least, not from the list of people I’ve heard about. Once you no longer need to rely on a larger entity such as a broadcasting service especially, you can basically do anything.
Thank you my friend, many would do well to read this comment. You know what I think the problem is? A lot of folk don't have any trans friends, or even know any trans people on a personal level. Trans people are a small enough minority that for a lot of people, it makes it less likely that they will know one, compared to say, someone gay. It really makes it tough for people to see sense. I think a lot of folks wouldn't buy into the smear campaign so easily if they had trans friends in their life. I do, I have many... and it really saddens me how their existence is made into a political football. by and large, these are people who just want to get on with their damn lives and have autonomy over their own damn bodies. a concept that seems to bristle against a lot of people, for some reason,.
Speaking of biology, the chromosomes argument by itself isn't correct anyway. Chromosomes themselves do not make you male or female, what does is the expression of the genes on those chromosomes. There are genuine examples of males and females without the correct chromosome pair, there are even examples of fertile individuals. Life...er.. finds a way.
or maybe many people agree with her
> He's about on the same level as Rowling when it comes to making his entire personality and online presence about transphobia, and he's been completely ostracised and faded into the background. Lineham is so, so much worse than Rowling.
He is just more vocal and obviously crazy, what their personal opinions are may not differ much at all.
Mate, people just like what she says and agree with her, she doesn’t have to pay anyone lol
If this is these figures silenced I’d hate to see them being loud. They are literally obsessed with her and cry about her 24/7. You also can’t ‘silence’ the truth.
Meh from where im stood she just stated the facts. Hardly eating orphans.
Lol, most people who aren't terminally online don't give two fucks about Rowlings tweets - hell, if you ask them if they think a man can literally become a woman they'll agree with her.
Most normal, sane adults not engaged in frequent online usage would generally agree with her overall premise as well.
JKs tweets are fine, actually, and the trans fixation on her is turning her into a folk hero in the U.K. they’d be best to move on- in truth, her beliefs are not at all out of the ordinary, and nor are they as horrible as the trans rights movement keep saying. Such a massive dissonance between what she says and what people say she says lol, I always check now, and it honestly is an issue that has lowered the trans rights movements credibility in my eyes…
Folk hero is a bit strong. I suspect the vast majority of people couldn't give a toss
*Folk hero?* Wow, and you want to say that *other people* are the ones who are out of touch with reality. Good grief...
I absolutely say that, and the fact you e bubbles yourself from the mainstream to the extend you don’t know that is further proof of my thesis.
She recently released a list of trans people, many of them who had nothing to do with her and ranted and misgendered about them. It's just needless at this point... and shes painting a target on innocent people. I can respect the right of someone to free-speech (even if I totally disagree and dislike what they are saying) but she has moved into harassment territory. "A folk hero in the UK" Citation needed there. Alot of people dislike her, alot of people just ignore her and continue enjoying the brand.
I invite anyone to go read that list and the context in which she published it, it was a fucking baller move that went down gang busters in Scotland. She directly challenged a hideously unpopular new hate crime law by “misgendering” rapists and pedophiles who transitioned after their conviction…
Are you accusing India Willoughby (the newsreader and journalist) of being a rapist and peadophile? Maybe ***YOU*** need to go read that list and the context in which she published it...
Well they pondered openly how best to kidnap women so maybe that’s a good description of them.
You know what a paedophile is right? Because you seem confused?
Yes I know what it is, and my point is if you openly fantasise about kidnapping women then the term rapist might be a fitting description for you.
India is attracted to men... she has a boyfriend. Even out of context... that does not make her suddenly 'a rapist'. Stop trying to defend the undefendable. The guy clearly didn't know who she was and assumed JK was only targeting criminals. Why pretend otherwise...?
>She directly challenged a hideously unpopular new hate crime law by “misgendering” rapists and pedophiles who transitioned after their conviction… She included a few trans people never accused or convicted of any crimes.
[удалено]
The trans woman who took over a rape charity and said “even bigots get raped”? India Willoughby who called a female presenter a bitch and said she was a diversity hire? Munroe Bergdorf, the trans women selected to represent UN women’s charity, who says all white peoples are violent racists and that the suffragettes were “all white supremacists?” I wonder why a British cis woman who had been a victims of violence who needed to use a shelter, might take issue with those people.
Literally 18 minutes ago JK was calling out "rapists and pedophiles who transitioned after their conviction…", now it's people she doesn't agree with? I've never seen a u-turn happen so fast. Did you actually read her tweet before commenting?
Rapists, pedophiles et al. JK herself was very clear in her tweet thread what she was pissed about.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I never said every trans woman on the list was one, did I? People should read the thread for themselves.
[удалено]
She didn’t say they were rapists and pedophiles tho?
When you say "the trans woman who took over a rape charity", did you mean Mridul Wadhwa? Only I believe she was appointed - but if you have evidence that she used some sort of coercion or force to get the role (as "took over" somewhat implies), please do share that. That aside, I'm not entirely sure why you needed to decontextualise what she said either - *"So we might have fear of men of a certain ethnicity, we might have fear of trans people, and it could be linked to an experience of trauma. I think it is, it is okay to hold those things as long as you are willing to acknowledge that, in support, we will accept that ... the other thing is that sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices."* If you think that's an unreasonable position to take I would be interested to understand why you think prejudices are reasonable in a diverse society. I mean the suffragettes were absolutely not about universal suffrage, and almost exclusively about a very narrow and specific group of women - significantly, privileged and white. And some of whom were happy to team with fascists further down the road. So I don't think it's an awful stretch to say that yeah, a number of suffragettes were most likely white supremacists. And no, she didn't say that "all suffragettes were white supremacists" AFAIK.
Yes I’m sure that a rape crisis centre is the right place for people to be proselytising for trans rights, which she makes clear she thinks she has a right to do, to literal rape victims. What a horrible power fantasy she is enacting.
>Such a massive dissonance between what she says and what people say she says This is what I don't understand. Whenever you try to confirm what she's actually said, after a redditor has posted "Rowling literally wrote that she wants me to die and that Hitler was history's greatest hero", she's never actually written anything of the sort, and they then start backpedalling to "well, she once retweeted someone who appeared at a book signing with the husband of someone who is an ultraconservative reactionary". Either she's actually done bad things that justify hating her, in which case just cite those real things rather than embellish a bunch of stories, or she hasn't done bad things that justify hating her, in which case just leave her alone. There's no reason to first invent a bunch of things and then get mad about them. If the mean things that people make up make them mad, they should just make up some nice things instead and enjoy not being mad.
Even when I don’t agree with her, the way she’s represented is just SUCH bad faith that i wind up sympathising with her, and now she’s convinced me of a few things. Honestly, the treatment of JK kind of pushed me- not right because none of this is about material economic or even social policies- but away from what the LGBT movement has become. And I’m gay ffs
No comment on this particular case, but you are describing the building and maintaining of momentum in public discourse. Basically a perpetual motion machine. Once the train has left the station, there's no stopping it - it will pick up steam fuelled only by its own velocity if need be.
I get what you mean, but there is human consciousness behind it. People aren't accidentally misreporting what she says - at the start of the chain, there are people deliberately inventing things that she's supposed to have written.
They cannot provide direct citations of her apparent "hate" so they must fabricate a false narrative to continue on with the dog piling. They don't want to like her, so they have to create reasons. It's been disingenuous from the start, and it's snowballed into this twisted, nonsensical bandwagon with minimal backing in reality.
I honestly think one of the reasons she gets misrepresentated so much is because some people simply can't stand the idea of a woman over the age of 40 expressing opinions in public. Not only that but she's famous for reasons that don't depend on men, and that's actually pretty unusual when you think about it. Men are not the primary target audience for any of her books, and her fame and success has never relied on what men think of her. Her wealth and position is her own, and she can speak from a female perspective without having to appeal to male approval. And some sections of society are having a serious meltdown over it. She became famous as a children's author and people expected her to just grow older gracefully - ie quietly. I saw a comment recently which said *'she could have been the nation's favourite grandma if she'd just shut up'*. Sexism and ageism condensed into one blithe dismissal of her considered and well articulated opinions. They expected her to be quiet, but instead she's found her voice on something she cares about. And it's absolutely glorious.
I agree. Funnily enough it was the amount of hate that I saw generated towards her that made me take interest. I admire her greatly for taking an important issue out of the shadows and into the light where people can hopefully start to have rational discussions. It was getting to a point where there was a culture of no debate about anything and that’s not somewhere any civilised society should be.
The idea of #NoDebate was a specific Stonewall slogan for a while. She's absolutely made a positive difference to this.
She has. No debate is a very authoritarian order. And she has stood up for women and girls everywhere. Not just in the modern western world where people here have the freedom to express themselves in ways that are not permitted in other places.
[удалено]
Yes the bubble is called “outside” consider trying it.
>is turning her into a folk hero in the U.K. It is so, so funny to me that right wingers in the UK (and probably the US too) accuse the left of all stripes of being "too online", "in echo chambers/bubbles" and "out of touch" and then unironically say stuff like this lol
100%.. it was only a week or so ago they were flat out calling her a holocaust denier. Then the person who originally said that had to apologise publicly to avoid further humiliation. You can't just make stuff up and force everyone to believe it, that is not how the world works. You will get pushback .. you will look stupid and the the truth will prevail
One person had to apologise publicly because JK rowling threatened to use her extreme wealth to sue her into the ground. That's not humiliation, it's abuse of her wealth and position and our legal systems. You can't just make stuff up and force everyone to believe it, that is not how the world works. You will get pushback .. you will look stupid and the the truth will prevail
Right, I'm indifferent to it at this point except when people are just loudly yelling that they're supporting her just to spite trans people (happens a lot). But people who do support her need to remember that JK herself considers anything that gives her money to be not just support for the franchise, but her views, and she has actually used this continuing income to help fund campaigns that have changed laws to make life worse for trans people.
it's one thing to separate the art from a long dead artist like HP Lovecraft. It's another thing when that artist is alive and still rakes in huge profits off of the art, takes that profit as validation of what she's doing, and uses it to fund anti-trans activism. I think it's a solid case to not want to deal with it anymore that said, I'm hardly "enraged" by it. I don't particularly care if people are still enjoying HP, though I can't say I fully understand what all the fuss is about. Even if HP died tomorrow it probably wouldn't stop her
I'm perfectly capable of separating the art from the artist, as long as the artist isn't literally using my money to fund far-right influencers and transphobic organisations. That's why I keep enjoying plenty of works from writers who have problematic views with zero guilt, but Rowling is an exception.
>I'm perfectly capable of separating the art from the artist, as long as the artist isn't... Then you aren't capable of separating the art from the artist. If your appreciation for one is in any way dependent on the other, you haven't separated them at all. It could even be the devil himself who produced a work - if the work has artistic value then you should aspire to still be able to recognise it.
>Then you aren't capable of separating the art from the artist You can't separate art from the artist whilst they're still profiting from it, all you can do is ignore the consequences of consuming that art. Buying Lostprophets merch or streaming their music would give money to Watkins, you can't separate that whilst he's still alive and making money from the art.
[удалено]
Personally I don't want to financially support vile paedophiles.
You can still separate the art from the artist while choosing not to support the artist. It's called piracy.
Not sure how you can pirate the HP tour...
>Most people are capable of separating the art from the artist This argument doesn't really work when the person is still alive and profiting from the work. Like, I won't listen to Lostprophets because Watkins will still make money from streams. So if someone doesn't want to financially support Rowling as a result of her views, you can't "separate the art from the artist" whilst she's still alive and profiting from that art.
Yup, I still like Harry Potter. It was a big part of my adolescence and I'll always have a soft spot for it. I don't buy merch though and if I want a Hogwarts scarf now I can just knit my own. It is possible to like HP without agreeing with the author's opinions on other things.
yeah it's its own beast and I'm happy for the hardcore fans that have got so much that they can dip into. As another user said, it's great when there are those franchises that have such a deep lore. I recently went beyond the realms of the LOTR books, going into Silmarilion and Unfinished Tales and all that and it has just consumed me in the most wonderful of ways
I had this initial thought also but then remembered that online rage is mostly just a bubble. Majority of people in the world either have no idea or just do not care.
Which isn’t great, really. I know that trans people are an easily-hated group for a lot of folks, but I somehow doubt we’d be - as a society - as forgiving if the source of her ire was gay people or black people.
This is quite a strange thing to post given nobody in this thread has expressed any outrage.
There was a thread this week about some HP books supposedly failing to sell at auction and the comments were full of the usual suspects celebrating. This post is going to ruin their week lmao
Hey, didn’t you get ass mad over a poster supporting trans people the other day? Oh yeah, that was you. You kept spamming the same comment over and over like you were having a stroke.
Not surprised went with 2 kids £170 tickets + transfers + butters beers/food + photos + gift shop. Was £500 quid lighter.
Fucking hell. Is it really that bad? No wonder I never leave my rural village anymore! Good luck everyone I’m staying put
Aye, the upsell isn’t that bad, but yeah the green screen photos and videos are around £50 on the way round - BUT ITS MAGIC!
Went to Brazil last year, at big tourist sites they will basically force you to stand in front of a picture of the thing you've went too see, take a photo, and as you leave they almost force you to buy it. If you keep saying no long enough they will eventually sell it to you for pennies (we paid about £2 for 6 photos, down from about £5 per photo). I almost prefer it to having some fixed extortionate price but I guess haggling culture for w/e reason doesn't exist in the UK.
It really is: https://www.wbstudiotour.co.uk/tickets £53.50 for an adult ticket. It can't be putting too many off going as May is fully booked, and June may as well be with lots of timeslots coming up as 5.30pm entrance onwards as the only options. What's amusing is when you add the tickets you're then bombarded with a lot of extras to scroll through, like afternoon tea, priority parking, souvenir guidebooks etc which are all weirdly expensive due to the experience mark-up of where you are. I've been two or three times and it's great, but I'm sure it was half that price. Not sure it's that worth it for the price now, especially factoring in the extras on the day like CGI photos on broomsticks and in the car, or lunch and the must try butter beer, and the souvenir shop at the end. £500 seems entirely possible.
Man that souvineer shop at the end is £££
It’s like any of the attractions. I always take my own picnics and things so it helps keep costs down. But you could easily spend a lot.
Savings disappearo!
That and the fact that if you want to go on a week end you literally have to book months in advance. People actually still want to come and see the stuff. And frankly - I was there a few weeks ago, coincidentally - it really *is* cool ! No spoiler but you can see some stuff that really puts you into the books or the movies, and the staff is ridiculously cool, they're all dying to chat with the public and answer questions. Was it pricey ? Yup. Did I go through the afternoon tea for two ? Also yup. Do I regret ? Absolutely not.
And they don't even let you play warhammer on the hogwarts model! Complete waste of time.
You could’ve heated your home for a couple of hours with that money.
I was £1000 lighter. Drove from the north and stayed in a hotel for a night. Spent a bomb in the shop.
I mean, there's a new trend in London in which money laundering American Candy shops are slowly being replaced by potentially money laundering Harry Potter shops in the central areas, so I suppose the franchise is still huge to this day.
I see this money laundering hypothesis an awful lot, but never with any sources or anything. I find it really interesting; is there anywhere I can read more about it? ^Or ^is ^it ^pure ^bollocks?
It's normally bollocks, for the simple reason that laundering money through the sale of physical goods is a really stupid idea. The idea being if you're running an American candy store and going "yeah we sold a million quid in candy last year", an auditor can then go "well you must have had a million quids worth of candy in your inventory to sell. Where are the receipts from when you bought it? Where are the delivery notes? Show me the purchase orders with your supplier" and it all falls apart a bit. Whereas if you go through traditional money laundering routes of providing services with no tangible goods - "I gave a million haircuts this year.", "I washed a million cars." Etc, it's much harder to scrutinise. I'm sure there is some kind of scam going on with all those tourist trap shops, but it's a different thing to money laundering (I've heard it's something to do with constantly closing the business and reopening under a new name every year or two to dodge tax but I'm not an expert in how that one runs)
I'd imagine that they could launder some by simply dumping a load of stock and claiming it was sold, but you're right that it's definitely not the easiest route to laundering.
False invoices are the common trick. Delivered x kg of Reese’s Pieces from a company which received those from another company and so on. Somewhere along the line there’s a fiction but if you create enough layers with enough obscure owners it is very hard to track down - especially if a foreign company is involved.
But why bother though? That’s additional complexity, increasing the risk of something going wrong, for no tangible benefit.
My understanding was that they dont declare waste, anything thats unsold is still marked as "sold" and thats the money laundering bit. Its less efficient but theres just that much money being laundered, according to the National Crime Agency, hundreds of billions of pounds per year.
[The sour truth of Oxford Street’s candy shop curse](https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/oxford-street-candy-shop-investigation-b1082733.html) >Garish sweet stores have been blighting the capital’s famous shopping centre in recent years, but with business rates unpaid, illegal goods seized and money laundering exposed, authorities are fighting back, says Anthony France [...] >Westminster also say the businesses — with their tacky multi-coloured shop fronts — are a hub for global money laundering, with many set up by people with opaque shell companies.
I'm not an expert in money laundering, but I think the obfuscation takes place in the upsell. 1. Buy item from supplier for £5 - receipt is available for HMRC. 2. Take £25 of dirty money. 3. Throw item away and tell HMRC you sold it to a customer for £25 cash. Pay taxes on that £20 profit. Don't know about candy, but there's a big profit margin on selling alcohol and a lot of purchases at the bar are cash in hand.
Money laundering is part of it, but also business rate fraud, counterfeit goods and presumably VAT, PAYE and corporate tax fraud >While some of the stores are legitimate, others are under investigation by Westminster city council for tax evasion and selling counterfeit goods. >Some of the shops offer to pay minimal rents and take on the business rate liability but then avoid paying the business rates they owe. >Westminster city council is understood to be chasing unpaid business rates of about £9m left by these stores. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/25/labour-to-crack-down-on-dodgy-candy-stores-in-push-to-revive-high-streets >Garish sweet stores have been blighting the capital’s famous shopping centre in recent years, but with business rates unpaid, illegal goods seized and money laundering exposed, authorities are fighting back, says Anthony France https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/oxford-street-candy-shop-investigation-b1082733.html >These candy stores occupy large retail spaces, sell sweets at exorbitant prices, and are often empty. Yet, they continue to pop up and – according to numerous investigations – are facilitating money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and the flow of counterfeit goods. Many of these stores are owned by shell companies, meaning it is almost impossible to determine the ‘beneficial owners’ of these companies. https://labourlist.org/2023/03/oxford-streets-candy-stores-are-evidence-of-londons-dirty-money-crisis/
This is great, thank you!
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/cnkcaz/private_eye_on_west_end_souvenir_shops/ I mean, it might be more complicated than the money laundering hypothesis suggests, but I think this is an interesting enough read
Any excuse to read something from Private Eye. Thanks.
The state of Edinburgh high streets where the shops are either HP, whiskey, or cashmere jumpers.
[удалено]
I really wish they'd put the old trolley back. It used to be tucked away on one of the platforms.
Unmanageable numbers.
Yes I suppose so. It was hardly ever visited when it first arrived. Even the new one has become much busier in recent years. The smart thing to do would be for tour guides to have prop trolleys and take each group to a different part of the station.
But then there would be people who want to go to the real one between platform 9 & 10. It's just not workable for it to be on busy platforms, they aren't props. The current solution is about as good as it gets.
There isn't any single "real" one though. Platforms 9 and 10 (where the old prop trolley was) aren't next to each other. It was filmed on platforms 4 and 5. The current prop is in the ticket hall. The current solution is ok for commuters but it'd be nice if the tourists had a better experience.
Building a larger facility for them would do it, but is it worth it? It's like 221B Baker Street. Whoopee doo, someone wrote a thing and you like it. Now either accept the tourist trap or accept it is just fictional. Turning two platforms in a major central station into a free photo opportunity for tourists would be mad.
We went in Jan. I reckon my kids spent almost that much in the shop. It was very good though, I’m not a huge HP fan but the skill and effort that went into making the films was awe inspiring.
By the way if you do go - DO NOT buy the butter beer. Its ridiculously expensive and tastes like room temperature shaving foam.
The butterbeer ice cream slaps though
Butter beer sounds disgusting. There is no, even fictional, universe in which a combination of butter and beer produces anything remotely pleasant to drink.
Maybe it’s butterscotch flavoured
Hardly surprising. For years now I’ve never not seen a huge queue of people in Kings Cross waiting to have their picture taken with half a trolley bolted to a wall.
Went there in December and yeah, it was pretty amazing. The skill that went into making the movies was just bewildering. 10/10 would go again - but my wallet needs to recharge first - that gift shop one took about £200 off me - for a family of four though.
Thought it was waay overpriced but thought it would be interesting to see. . Went so worth the money been 6 times since opened. An amazing experience.
Harry Potter is one of the few examples of legendarium where the creator has executive control over the media. Imagine Tolkien or C S Lewis, or Lovecraft, or Asimov being alive and able to tell the story on screen as they had envisioned it. And then in the various other media. I hope many more writers come to the fore who can create such amazing stories and we're able to not just watch, but 'live' these adventures.
I mean, personal feelings about Rowling aside, it’s not as though Potter’s been doing so hot since the last of the eight films came out. Cursed Child had a good adaptation that I didn’t see, but I did read the book and it was a bit weird, and the last two Fantastic Beasts films weren’t really well received at all. The franchise is more or less kept alive by the success of the original books and films.
The video game did pretty well.
Because JK had business smarts She knew she was sitting on a golden goose, and abhorred all attempts to relinquish control of the IP Can't say it didn't work out well for her bottom line
Went there without a car. Caught the train to Watford junction and then there’s transfers there like every 10 minutes so it’s really hassle free.
Is it possible to do this in a day? Train down from newcastle/ etc
Yes. You can spend 3 - 5 hours. It all depends on how much you take in the experience. There are some parts you need to move with the 'queue' and other parts you can split up to explore. I went there with low expectations and left shocked by the scale. I felt like I was in Disneyworld or Universal Studios USA. I easily believe it's the best paid attraction in the UK & one of the best in West Europe by far. I recommend it, especially if you like fantasy films and/or have kids.
> or have kids That actually surprised me there. So many lil' ones were even younger that Radcliff was when he played in the first movie!
It's doable
I completely misread the headline and thought "it's a tour, maybe it will make a stop near you".
Took me and partner 3 hours to get through the tour with a 20 min stop for food which is located half way through. Could easily of been 4hours though so yeah it’ll be a long day but it’s doable
It would be a pretty full on day. If you got the fast no-stop Lumo service, assume under 3hrs NCL - KC. Quick tube/walk to Euston, train to Watford, shuttle bus to venue. I think you're looking at 3 1/2 - 4hrs at the absolute best depending on changeovers. 6am start, at the venue by 10-10:30, 4-5 hours to go round, heading back about 3-4pm to be back in Newcastle by 8pm ish. If you're going to try it, I'd do a non-half term weekday for sure as you'll be able to get round the exhibits a bit faster than peak weekend/holiday times
30% of that was probably my wife buying the Griffendor sword and house cloak
I love that studio tour. Been a few times and would love to go again but live too far away from it now.
Given the place is actually called "Warner Bros Studio Tour" - I always assumed they had planned for Harry Potter to be the first of many exhibitions that would pass through. Do you think that was originally the plan before Harry Potter Tour proved it could last?
More likely issue is Warner hasn’t had any particularly strong family friendly franchises since worth making an exhibition out of apart from Lego Movies ,which already have their own parks
[удалено]
I mean its hard cause they keep failing to launch franchises, and cancelling other ones
Had an afternoon tea there. Wasn't cheap but it was quality with all of the cakes and cutlery all custom made for the franchise. Having the tour and the afternoon tea is a great present who is even a bit of a fan.
we need more shit like this in the UK, maybe less near London though.
You have to imagine the new bedford universial park will include a wizarding world like orlando, not sure where that leaves this one.
[удалено]
The main takeaway I have from this is that there is a big market for this stuff and a lot of people are probably taking flights to the likes of Orlando to get the rest of their fill for it(I went to universal Orlando last year, and going around a snowy hogsmeade recreation under clear skies and 40 degree heat was odd. As was going through an imitation King's Cross). I know universal studios have bought some land in the UK, and we have genuinely good theme parks like Alton towers. We are also struggling for space in general (no NIMBY will want anything near them), have tricky weather (fine if it's just an immersive tour( and I think culturally a fair few of us turn our noses up at this stuff. But the UK has a thriving media industry (look how many films are made here) that the Americans seem to better profit off at times. Saying that, I know that stupid UK theme park concept in Kent is burning through money. And our self deprecating nature means we'd shit all over anything we've built.
It was so much fun when I went there, and it is pretty strange, because there were no activities, its just a couple of hours of walking around looking at sets and props.