View Full Version : Do you think Harry Potter would be better as a TV series?

11th Sep 2011, 8:23 PM
I've been thinking about this for a while since the last movie was released. There have been so many different praises and criticisms of the movies by HP fans. One of the biggest annoyances is which portions of the books are included and omitted. I admit this is one of my pet peeves as well-especially with the epic fail that was the Half-Blood Prince movie- but do you think the directors and screenwriters have generally done a good job of bringing the HP series to life? Would the story be better portrayed as a TV show, or would that just make things worse?

I think if the right network and directors were involved, it could possibly surpass the movies in quality. Note that I don't hate the movies in general at all, I'm actually very fond of a few titles. It's just that I've always felt that a television show suited the series more. I suppose it could have been worse: Steven Spielberg might have successfully carried out his wish of directing the movies and we'd be forced to suffer an Americanized Harry Potter :lol:

11th Sep 2011, 9:55 PM
It's actually an interesting question. In some ways it definitely would, but in other ways Harry Potter is just not that kind of 'thing' suited to be a TV show.

12th Sep 2011, 12:47 AM
Harry Potter is meant to be experienced in 7 "chunks". The ideal situation would be to have 7 movies but the books get too long, it's either have a 4 hour movie or cut a ton of things (HBP was on the edge, not important enough for two movies but too long to do well in one). I think that they did an excellent job of converting to film throughout the entire series and they're my favorite book > movie conversions (if not my favorite movies). I don't think that they would work as TV shows because it would just be breaking them up even more. Also TV shows have a much smaller budget which would just hurt the series.

12th Sep 2011, 2:40 AM
The fifth and sixth movies were outright terrible, at least when compared with the books. I hate to sound like a snob, but I really do think that the books are the only way to go.

13th Sep 2011, 12:39 AM
You know, I see the logic in portraying HP with movies, but I just can't help but wonder what the story would be like on the small screen. Though the budget issue is a good point...I think qpldmff said it best.

HBP was absolutely terrible. I thought there was far too much emphasis on the romantic aspect of the story and I didn't appreciate the random injection of the burning Burrow scene. It kills me because it's one of my favorite books from the series and I really thought the director and screenwriter could've produced a great movie with the material from that book.

13th Sep 2011, 12:58 AM
Harry Potter is meant to be experienced in 7 "chunks".
I mostly agree, but I think this is debatable. As a counterpoint, consider Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice which, being a stand-alone novel, could be considered as meant to be consumed as 1 "chunk." However, the multi-part BBC adaptation, in which they really got to address all the subplots, is excellent. Books and movies (and TV shows) being such different media, I'm not sure the --shall we say-- serving size in one medium readily informs a different medium.

That said, I don't think a TV adaptation would be the way to go, especially since, as Robodl notes, TV tends to get a smaller budget than movies. The HP movies certainly have their flaws, but I think most of those flaws are failures to properly adapt key events and characterization. They books could have been wonderfully adapted as movies, even with the limited time for them.

On a tangential note, I'm surprised there hasn't been some kind of spin-off animated series put into action. It would be more effective than a live-action show, I believe, and would allow further franchise-milking.