There may be more "Harry Potter" movies — but there's a catch
For those of you who have somehow managed to avoid the published play, it tells the story of the exploits of Harry’s son, Albus Severus and features fun cameos from all our old favorites. As of right now this potential movie is all hearsay, but would it really be that surprising if a studio like WB wanted to continue the Harry Potter franchise? No it would not. Because Warner Bros. understands what the fans want and they are very aware how addicted we all are to Harry Potter (the first step is admitting you have a problem).
But there’s one hippogriff in the ointment, and that is that Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who famously played the Boy-Who-Lived in the entire Harry Potter series may not want to take on the role of an older Potter. As far back as 2013, Radcliffe spoke to the New York Times about trying to divorce himself from the role, saying of his performance in his first post-Potter film The Woman in Black, “I was struggling in vain to not come close to making a face that would make people think of Harry.”
Radcliffe is doing edgier work these days, like Swiss Army Man, a film about the friendship between a bloated corpse and a stranded guy on an island. Maybe Harry Potter just isn’t his thing anymore.
Still, sources told Daily News that Warner Brothers “has talked about a storyline that focuses on Potter’s son and would be willing to throw huge sums of cash to turn the story into a potential new trilogy.” So it looks like whether Radcliffe wants to be in the film(s) or not — they might just get made. Which, despite Radcliffe’s feelings on the matter, makes me as a HP fan pretty gosh-darn excited.
The source claims that the English actor has “made it clear that his mind is certainly not focused on returning to the role anytime soon — and that could be until he hits 40.” But I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t mind waiting until then. Bring on the new trilogy — even if we have to wait fifteen years!