Should There Be a Harry Potter TV Show?

By
(L-r) EMMA WATSON as Hermione Granger, RUPERT GRINT as Ron Weasley and DANIEL RADCLIFFE as Harry Potter in Warner Bros. Pictures’ fantasy adventure “HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 2,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
(L-r) EMMA WATSON as Hermione Granger, RUPERT GRINT as Ron Weasley and DANIEL RADCLIFFE as Harry Potter in Warner Bros. Pictures’ fantasy adventure “HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART 2,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release. Photo: Jaap Buitendijk/(C) 2011 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. HARRY POTTER PUBLISHING RIGHTS (C) J.K.R. HARRY POTTER CHARACTERS, NAMES AND RELATED INDICIA ARE TRADEMARKS OF AND (C) WARNER BROS. ENT. ?ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Given the unstoppable popularity of the series, and the variety of platforms it has conquered, why is the small screen so out of the question? Linda Stasi wonders in the Post if a Hogwarts: The Next Generation show revolving around Harry's kids would work, given just how much other Potter paraphernalia there is. As much as Potter fans love the movies, if we had it to do all over again, is it possible that a Game of Thrones–style TV series, rather than eight movies, would have been more satisfying? Wave your wand and grant the premise that a show could happen: Would you watch? [NYP]