The adaptation of the Harry Potter novels into films is one that has been debated by fans the world over for a number of years. Should it have been just eight films? Should they remake them? Would they have worked better as a television series? This final question appears to have become the one most discussed in recent years, often using the popular HBO series Game of Thrones, the screen adaptation of George.R.R.Martin's unfinished fantasy epic A Song of Ice and Fire, as a reference point.
The arguments for Potter being a TV series - more plot, more rounded characters and generally just more content - are usually the same and a current article by WhatCulture doesn't divert from this too greatly. In fact the post, 5 Reasons Harry Potter Would Have Better As A TV Show, is referenced at having been provoked by the news of the recent death of Vernon Dursley actor, Richard Griffiths, and laments the lack of Dursley presence in the later films. The writer argues that within a television format, more screen time would have been given to these crucial supporting roles and their own storylines, as well as offering great actors like Griffiths the opportunity to truly embrace the characters.
However this is far from their only argument as they go into increased detail at what a television series could have offered. They also go on to consider the bigger messages that could have been delivered.
When considered in its rawest form, Harry Potter is not simply a book about wizards, a magic castle or a flying broomstick sport, but rather a dark tale of obsession, sacrifice and love, which could quite easily compete with any current thriller on television.
Do take the time to peruse this article as it really is an interesting read and let us know what you think of the writer's stance in the comments section below.