The Harry Potter television reboot, slated for release by HBO, has become a lightning rod for controversy, with the casting of Paapa Essiedu as Severus Snape drawing sharp criticism from prominent figures in the entertainment industry. James Gunn, the acclaimed director and co-head of DC Studios, recently unleashed a scathing critique of Mark Mylod, the director overseeing the series, accusing him of disrespecting J.K. Rowling’s source material. Gunn’s remarks, which included a provocative call to “remove that guy whose skin color is not suitable for Severus Snape,” have ignited a firestorm of debate about fidelity to literature, artistic liberty, and the role of race in modern adaptations.

Gunn’s comments, first reported by Variety in March 2025, stem from his belief that Mylod’s decision to cast Essiedu, a Black British actor known for I May Destroy You, betrays the essence of Snape as described in Rowling’s novels. The books depict Snape as a pale, hook-nosed potions master with greasy black hair, a description immortalized by Alan Rickman in the original films. “Adapting a book means honoring its soul, not rewriting it to fit some agenda,” Gunn reportedly said, framing Mylod’s choice as an affront to the film industry’s duty to respect literary foundations. His inflammatory suggestion that Essiedu’s race makes him unsuitable for the role has drawn accusations of racism, though Gunn’s supporters argue he is defending artistic integrity.

The backlash on X has been fierce and divided. Some users align with Gunn, asserting that Snape’s physical appearance is inseparable from his character. One post read, “Rowling wrote Snape a certain way—pale, gaunt, dark. Casting someone who doesn’t fit breaks the immersion.” Others, however, condemn Gunn’s remarks as exclusionary, praising Essiedu’s casting as a bold step toward inclusivity. “Snape’s story is about pain and redemption, not skin color. Gunn’s obsession with ‘the book’ feels like gatekeeping,” another X user wrote. These polarized reactions underscore the challenges of reimagining a cultural phenomenon like Harry Potter in an era that demands both diversity and authenticity.

J.K. Rowling, whose influence over the wizarding world remains significant, has also hinted at her disapproval of Essiedu’s casting. In a statement referenced on X in April 2025, she emphasized the importance of Snape’s “specific aesthetic” to his narrative arc, fueling speculation that she shares Gunn’s concerns. Rowling’s stance, combined with her history of controversial opinions, has intensified the scrutiny on Mylod’s creative choices. Yet, Mylod has defended the casting, arguing that Essiedu’s talent and ability to embody Snape’s complexity outweigh strict adherence to physical descriptions. In a recent interview, he suggested that the reboot aims to honor the spirit of Rowling’s work while making it resonate with a global audience.

Essiedu’s supporters point to his proven acting prowess, arguing that his performance could redefine Snape for a new generation. They draw parallels to successful diverse casting in other adaptations, such as The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, where actors of color have taken on traditionally white roles to critical acclaim. Industry insiders note that Mylod’s vision for the series prioritizes emotional authenticity over literal interpretations, a choice that aligns with HBO’s goal of refreshing the franchise for modern viewers.

Gunn’s critique, however, raises broader questions about the balance between adaptation and invention. His stature as a filmmaker lends weight to his argument that directors have a responsibility to preserve the core of a story, particularly when adapting a work as beloved as Harry Potter. Yet, his focus on Essiedu’s race has alienated many who see the casting as a necessary evolution in a franchise that has faced criticism for its lack of diversity.

As the Harry Potter reboot moves toward production, the controversy surrounding Essiedu’s casting shows no signs of abating. Gunn’s outspoken criticism of Mylod has cast a shadow over the project, pitting purists against progressives in a battle over the wizarding world’s future. Whether Essiedu’s portrayal will vindicate Mylod’s vision or validate Gunn’s warnings remains uncertain. For now, the debate serves as a stark reminder that adapting a cherished story is as much about navigating cultural fault lines as it is about casting spells.