A bizarre yet understated aspect of Harry Potter books is that they consider them as pieces of periods. AT FIRST GLANANCE THEY MIGHT SEEM LIKE THEY TAKE PLACE IN THE VAGUE HERE AND NOW, But on Closer Inspectation It Clear That "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone," Published in 1998, Actually Takes Place From Summer 1991 To of 1992. The final book, publiched in 2007, Takes Place from 1997 to 1998. It's a shame harry was so preoccupied with Preventing Voldemort from taking over the world, because he could've be enjoying The Golden Age of the Simpsons Instead. I guess it's just one of the many disadvantages of the terror of the dark Lord.

The reason for this 90s time frame is surprising to some of the more abundant fans is that the book series does not have such a strong feeling of the 90's. Since Harry is excluded in a secluded world of magic most of the time, he barely thinks or communicates with everything that happens with the world of mugl outside. What did Harry think about the trial of OJ Simpson, or the death of Princess Diana? The books, maybe wisely, deny us any insight.

However, books pay attention to the years. Gifts Dudley gets for his birthday in the first book are many toys that a child would want in the 1990s. When Privet Drive deals with a heat wave at the beginning of the "line of Phoenix", this is based on A real historical heat wave It happened that summer. The clearest indication of what time these books comes from "Death Sanctuary". There, Harry visits the graves of his parents, who mark their death as in 1981.

So, if the books are set from 1991 to 1998, with the last epilogue jumping forward to 2017, what is the contract with the books? Were they also greatly set up in the 1990s, or did the films update in the 2000s? Well, it's complicated ...

Like the books, the Harry Potter movies are trying to achieve a timeless feeling, but every time they show us the world of fogs, they are forced to make countless choices that imply a specific period of time. In the first film, the Darslis car has been a model since 1999; For the 2025 viewer the car can easily be wrong for the early car of the 1990s, but for viewers in 2001 it clearly implies that this film was set in 1999 at the earliest.

Later in the "semi-blood prince", death dishes are shown Attacking Muglie on the Millennium Bridge in LondonA bridge that has not yet been built in the fall of 1996. In "Death Sanctuary: Part 1", where the main trio is briefly hiding in London, the clothes around them (and the general look of the city) seems to point to modern London, not London since the fall of 1997. Nothing explicitly gives it as 2011, but it certainly doesn't seem like the film is convinced of us in another way.

Perhaps the most attractive piece in favor of the films takes place in the 2000s is the moment of blink and you are missed in the "wizard stone". When Harry reads an article about Gringos, you can see (in the picture above) "Friday 14 August 2001" marked on the upper right of the newspaper. This seems to solve the debate, right? Well, there is still some evidence in the other direction.

One notion of fans is the beginning of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", which, like the book, begins with the UK going through a large heat wave as it did in 1995. Well, I don't find this argument particularly attractive, as a heat wave can happen every summer. The heat wave could have been the case of film to record the same oppressive atmosphere of the book opening without copying the exact date of the book.

The real smoking gun Comes to "Death Sanctures: Part 1", Where Harry and Hermione visit the tombstone of Harry's parents. As in books, Harry's parents are shown here that they died in 1981. (Ok, you You really need to quarrel to single out those numbers.) So what gives? Is the problem that Multiple series directors Lead to contrasting ideas for the time frame? Is that a simple mistake from the design team design?

I think the most sensible interpretation is that the Harry Potter films exist on a floating timetable. Certain important events can be fixed at a certain time, but the characters remain in the vaguely defined "now" to avoid something dating. This approach is most common with Animated shows such as "Simpsons" or "Family Guy", who must find a way to reconcile their characters who never age with their desire to cope with thematic themes.

However, similar tricks are withdrawn in live shows. "Orange is the new black", for example, began in 2013 and had its main character to pass 16 months in prison. But when she came out of prison in season 7, she lived in the world of 2019, the year she announced the season. It is a semi-volid creative approach, an example for Magic TV viewers expected to go together. So how could Harry's film be born in 1980, but still 17 years old in 2010? It only makes sense with a floating time schedule. Don't think about it too hard.

To make all this more complicated is that the Harry Potter books themselves are not great to keep their established timetable. In the Goblet of Fire (which begins in the summer of 1994), we learn that Dudley owns PlayStation, although PlayStation was not released in the UK by December that year. Boy, I sure hope someone fired for that mistake.

Aside from the anachronisms, what complicates the Harry Potter timeline in many memories of fans is that the last three books (published in '03, '05 and '07 respectively) have A. a lot Strong 2000s feel. These were the three books "Potter" written in the world after 9/11, and were beautifully tapped at the new time of paranoia and the government's approach. The rise of the villain Dolores Umbridge In the fifth book, they distorted conservative authoritarianism and destroyed any illusions that Harry had that the government would ever have its best interests in the heart.

Of course, it is probably that many of these conspiracy points have been planned in the 90's, that they are not Complete The result of the world political environment in the 2000s, but that does not change the impact of books. "Harry Potter" went from a charming children's series in the first four books in angry, rebellious text in the early 2000s, catching that anti-establishment "Hunger Games" will soon hug to even greater success. The last three Harry Potter books can literally take place in the mid-1990s, but spiritually they take place in the mid-200s.

With each update to Upcoming TV -Show HBO MAX Rebooting the Harry Potter franchise is the usual criticism: What's the point? The films have already done perfectly respectable work in adapting books, so what can this TV do otherwise what will allow it to feel fresh? There are many potential answers to that question, but a small solution to avoid that repetitive feeling is to update the time frame. Maybe this time Harry Potter receives his letter to Hogwarts in the summer of 2025. Maybe Dudley can still throw his playstation through the window, except this time it's PlayStation 5.

Today's Harry Potter would not make a huge difference in the series (given how disinterested books in Mugl's research), but it can still be a fun, low key way to distinguish the series from the films. It can also be fun to see writers address how wizards handle the improvement of fog technology; E -Lasts are much faster and more comfortable than OWL messages, for example, and it would be fascinating to see if any of these new fog innovations bleeding in the magic world. Of course, the complications inherent in improving the technology of muggles may require more time to deal with, but it's a TV show; They have much more time to refer to this kind than the movies did.

When the reboot finally clarifies what the timeline will be, it will be a good indication of what kind of TV we get. If they are just trying to make a living for nostalgia, returning to the 90's makes a lot of sense. If they are trying to do something at least a little fresh, perhaps the updated timetable is the smartest bet.