In 2015, the creators of the 1986 fantasy horror film Troll made a surprising public claim that stirred the entertainment world: they contended that their movie was the true origin of the Harry Potter story. The assertion, centering on their character “Harry Potter Jr.,” launched a brief but intense media controversy, pitting the producers of a cult B-movie against one of the most powerful literary and cinematic franchises in history. While no formal lawsuit was ever filed, the episode serves as a compelling case study in the complexities of intellectual property, the nature of creative influence, and how legacy media narratives are shaped and remembered in the digital age.
John Buechler and Peter Davy, the filmmakers behind Troll, announced plans for an animated remake titled Troll: The Rise of Harry Potter Jr. To preempt legal challenges, they enlisted high-profile attorney Tom Girardi. They stated their goal was not to sue J.K. Rowling or Warner Bros. but to protect their own project from accusations of plagiarism, with Girardi famously arguing, “Even if someone who took it for a while makes it more valuable, that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that this is ours.” The response from the Potter camp was swift and unequivocal; a spokesperson for Warner Bros. and Rowling dismissed the claims as “ridiculous” and vowed to “vigorously defend our intellectual property rights.”
The core of the claim rested on perceived similarities between the two stories. In Troll, a young boy named Harry Potter Jr. discovers he is a wizard and must battle a troll that has possessed a family member to save his family. Proponents pointed to the shared elements of a young, bespectacled hero named Harry Potter, a hidden magical world, a struggle against a dark magical creature, and the hero’s destiny to save loved ones. However, critics and most observers noted that these are broad fantasy tropes and that the execution, tone, cultural impact, and depth of world-building between the two properties are vastly different.
Deconstructing the Core Claims: Narrative, Law, and Public Perception
To understand the 2015 controversy, it’s essential to examine the specific arguments from both sides, the legal landscape they navigated, and how the story was framed in the media.
The Filmmakers’ Narrative and Legal Positioning
Buechler and Davy’s strategy was multifaceted. They did not pursue a direct copyright infringement lawsuit, which legal experts widely agreed would have been exceptionally difficult to win. Instead, they framed their public campaign around establishing prior art and protecting their own new venture. By announcing their remake and proactively hiring a renowned attorney, they sought to legitimize their claim in the court of public opinion and secure a bargaining position. Their public statements focused less on alleging theft and more on asserting their own ownership of the “Harry Potter Jr.” concept, aiming to clear the path for their project without a protracted legal battle with a corporate giant.
The Legal and Creative Rebuttal
The defense from J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. was rooted in established copyright law and the history of the Potter franchise’s creation. Copyright law does not protect ideas, only the specific expression of those ideas. The generic concept of a “boy wizard” is not copyrightable; the detailed characters, plots, dialogue, and the unique world of Hogwarts are. Rowling had consistently and publicly documented the genesis of her story, dating it to a 1990 train journey, years after Troll was released but long before its 2015 resurgence in the news. The studios’ forceful statement served as both a legal warning and a public relations move to delegitimize the claim and shield their invaluable brand from any perceived tarnish or confusion.
Media Framing and the “Stolen Idea” Trope
The story gained traction because it fit a compelling media narrative: the little guy claiming a mega-corporation stole his idea. Outlets covered the “bizarre” or “shocking” claim, often highlighting the superficial similarities while downplaying the contextual and qualitative chasm between the two works. This coverage, while not endorsing the claim, gave it oxygen. It tapped into public fascination with the origins of beloved stories and the perennial question of where inspiration ends and appropriation begins. The narrative was less about legal merit and more about a symbolic David-vs-Goliath story in the creative industries.
A Comparative Analysis: Troll (1986) vs. The Harry Potter Phenomenon
Beyond the headlines, a side-by-side look at the two properties reveals why one faded into cult obscurity and the other became a global epoch.
- Character of the Protagonist: Troll‘s Harry Potter Jr. is a passive child who is largely acted upon by the plot and the magical adults around him. In stark contrast, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter is an actively heroic, deeply characterized individual whose choices, flaws, friendships, and internal struggles drive the entire seven-book saga. The connection is essentially in name only.
- Scope of the Magical World: The magic in Troll is limited, serving as a plot device for a single film’s conflict. The Wizarding World, however, is a meticulously built, fully operational secondary universe with its own history, politics, economy, sports, education system, and rules—a world that feels like it exists beyond the pages of the books.
- Central Conflict and Antagonist: The villain in Troll is a literal monster, a generic evil creature. The Harry Potter series features Lord Voldemort, a complex villain whose ideology of pure-blood supremacy, fear of death, and personal history with Harry create a profound and thematic conflict that explores death, love, prejudice, and choice.
- Thematic Depth and Audience: Troll is a straightforward, campy creature feature aimed at a niche horror/fantasy audience. The Potter series matures with its readers, tackling increasingly complex themes like bureaucracy, corruption, propaganda, sacrifice, and the moral ambiguities of war, resonating across generations and cultures.
- Cultural Impact and Legacy: Troll is a footnote in 1980s cinema, remembered by few. Harry Potter sparked a global literary revival, a blockbuster film franchise, theme parks, a theatrical play, video games, and a vast scholarly field of study. It reshaped publishing and popular culture.
The Anatomy of an Idea: Inspiration, Archetypes, and Coincidence
The human mind is a pattern-seeking engine, and in the realm of storytelling, certain patterns are universal. The “Troll” claim forces a broader discussion about how creativity works.
Stories about unlikely heroes discovering hidden powers are ancient, from King Arthur pulling the sword from the stone to Luke Skywalker learning about the Force. Joseph Campbell’s monomyth of the “Hero’s Journey” outlines a common template for narratives across cultures. Both Troll and Harry Potter use elements of this template—a call to adventure, a magical mentor, a confrontation with evil. This doesn’t prove copying; it proves both are drawing from the same deep well of mythological archetypes that have resonated for millennia.
Furthermore, the specific combination of a young hero and witchcraft has many precedents. British literature is rich with examples, from the whimsical magical schools in the novels of Jill Murphy (The Worst Witch, 1974) and Eva Ibbotson, to the darker coming-of-age tales of Susan Cooper. Rowling’s genius was not in inventing the concept of a boy wizard but in synthesizing these familiar elements—the British boarding school story, fantasy tropes, detective novel pacing—into an entirely fresh, emotionally authentic, and staggeringly detailed epic. The claim of direct influence from Troll ignores this rich literary tapestry in favor of a simplistic, one-to-one correlation.
Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: Brand Management and Legacy
The 2015 incident occurred at a time when the Harry Potter franchise was solidifying its status as a perpetual, multi-platform entity. The response illustrates modern IP defense strategy.
For a franchise worth billions, any claim, however frivolous, is treated as a potential threat. The goal is not just to win in court but to prevent brand dilution, consumer confusion, and the setting of any unfavorable precedent. Warner Bros.’ aggressive public statement was a calculated deterrent, signaling to the claimants and any other potential challengers the immense financial and legal resources they were prepared to deploy. This “fortress defense” approach is standard for mega-franchises, where protecting the integrity of the brand is as important as protecting the copyrights themselves.
The episode also highlights the lifecycle of media in the internet era. Before 2015, Troll was largely forgotten, a relic on VHS. The digital age, with its streaming platforms, fan wikis, and social media deep dives, allows even the most obscure media to be rediscovered, recontextualized, and leveraged. The filmmakers’ claim can be seen as an attempt to use the powerful search engine of Potter’s fame to draw attention to their own dormant property—a common tactic in a crowded media landscape where any connection to a cultural titan can generate clicks, news coverage, and renewed interest.
Enduring Questions in Creative Industries
The Troll claim, while legally insubstantial, lingers as a thought experiment that touches on ongoing debates in arts and entertainment.
When does homage become infringement? How do we distinguish between the protection of an artist’s original expression and the need for culture to freely build upon shared ideas and archetypes? The case underscores the tension in copyright law, which seeks to balance rewarding creators with allowing future creativity. Most artists are, as Isaac Newton acknowledged, “standing on the shoulders of giants.” Rowling was influenced by a wide range of literature, mythology, and history, transforming those influences into something new. The Troll claim mistakes the reuse of basic building blocks for the theft of a fully constructed cathedral.
Finally, the saga speaks to the powerful role of the audience and fandom in certifying what is “canon” and what is not. The global Potter fandom, one of the most knowledgeable and dedicated in the world, largely met the 2015 claims with derision or amusement. Their collective knowledge of Rowling’s detailed lore, published backstories, and the sheer qualitative difference between the works acted as a powerful social validator. In the end, the court of public opinion, much like any potential court of law, found the evidence for a meaningful connection severely lacking.
Lessons from a Wizarding World Controversy
The 2015 claim by the creators of Troll serves as a multifaceted artifact of modern media culture. It was, on its surface, a minor publicity stunt that briefly flared in the news cycle. Yet, it provides a clear window into several enduring realities: the aggressive protection strategies of global intellectual property empires, the media’s appetite for “stolen idea” narratives, and the public’s fascination with the origins of beloved stories.
While the specific legal and promotional gambit faded without lasting impact on the Harry Potter franchise, it leaves behind a useful reference point. It demonstrates the vast gulf between possessing a generic story concept and executing a transformative, culturally resonant work of art. It reminds us that true creative innovation lies not in a lone, isolated idea, but in the authorial voice, the depth of execution, and the emotional truth that an artist brings to timeless archetypes. The story of the boy wizard who lived was not found in the forgotten reels of a 1986 B-movie, but in the unique imagination of J.K. Rowling, who took threads from the rich tapestry of storytelling and wove them into a spell that captivated the world.
Conclusion
The 2015 claim that the Harry Potter saga originated from the film Troll was a brief but instructive episode in popular culture. It highlighted the ongoing challenges of defining intellectual property in an industry built on archetypal stories. The filmmakers’ assertion, while generating temporary media buzz, failed to demonstrate the substantive and specific similarities required to support a claim of creative theft, instead relying on superficial overlaps in common fantasy tropes. The robust defense mounted by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. underscored the importance of protecting a globally cherished brand from dilution, while also affirming the established narrative of the series’ independent creation. Ultimately, the controversy served less as a credible legal challenge and more as a case study in how legacy media can be resurrected and repositioned in the digital age, and how the depth, authenticity, and cultural impact of a work like Harry Potter firmly secures its legacy against such transient claims.
