If Warner Bros. are indeed working on a movie version of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, they’ll likely be looking to bring back the o.g. Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe.
Update: There are currently no plans at Warner Bros. for a Cursed Child film. The company says in a statement: “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is a stage play, with no plans for there to be a film.”
We already knew they weren’t doing a trilogy, but it’s nice to have confirmation that this isn’t happening whatsoever.
The hot buzz from NY Daily News hints that Warner Bros. is looking to get Dan Radcliffe back as Harry Potter for a Cursed Child movie adaptation.
Their “Tinseltown sources” also say that a movie version of the play could arrive as early as 2020, and that it might evolve into a trilogy about Harry and his son Albus, although that seems highly unlikely.
Daniel Radcliffe — the same Daniel Radcliffe who proclaimed in 2010 that “I’m working very hard to establish myself as an actor outside of this series,” and who hasn’t even been to see Cursed Child yet — is reportedly Warner Bros.’ choice to play Harry in the series, which (as unlikely as it is to actually happen) may very well be true.
After all, as amazing as Jamie Parker is as Harry Potter on stage, Warner Bros., must be aware that most Harry Potter fans won’t be able to see the play live, and therefore — if a movie adaptation was indeed happening — fans wouldn’t necessarily be as hyped about a ‘Harry Potter movie’ that didn’t star the actors from the original movie series.
As NY Daily News notes, however, Radcliffe is very much doing his own thing, with even the sources admitting that he’d “need some persuading” before agreeing to reprise the role he’s trying very hard to distance himself from.
Aside from this small inconvenience, there are plenty of other reasons why this would not — and perhaps should not — work out.
First of all, Dan Radcliffe is currently 27 years old, and if Warner Bros. was really planning the Cursed Child movie for 2020, he’d have to play the part of a 36-40-year-old Harry in the movie at age >30. We all remember how awkward the Deathly Hallows epilogue turned out, and we’re sure there aren’t many of us who’d want an hours-long version of that (for not to mention the possibility that they’d split this story into two movies).
Second, once they got Radcliffe back, they’d have to get everyone else, too. You couldn’t just have the original Harry back while introducing a brand new Hermione, Ron, Draco, Ginny, etc.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly: Daniel Radcliffe is not Harry Potter. While movie fans will probably always see Radcliffe’s face when thinking about the character, he existed on the pages of the novel series first, which means a potential Cursed Child movie wouldn’t be recasting anyone if they went with new actors — they’d simply pick a new, older set of actors to embody the iconic characters.
Having seen the play on stage, this writer would personally much rather see the original Cursed Child cast reprise their roles for any eventual movie version that Warner Bros. puts together. A lot of the play’s success hinges on these actors’ performances and chemistry, and it’d be a shame to lose that magic on screen.
What we all really want is a recorded version of the stageplay, which, while not officially in the works, will hopefully happen eventually.