WI: No Harry Potter movies, but a TV series franchise in the 2000s

The POD here would be November 2001.

Like in OTL, Harry Potter is released as a series, but as a TV series rather than a movie franchise.

If it were a TV series, what would be the biggest changes (apart maybe from casting) we'd see, given how TV / movie budgets differ?

Would it still be as much of a juggernaut franchise as in OTL, or would it be a franchise that'd be constantly rebooted, like other franchises in OTL?

ITTL, we probably wouldn't have Daniel Radcliffe, but who would play the main character? Who'd play the major villains etc.?

What would the critics say about it, and what do you think it would be like for pop culture of the 2000s in the ATL?
 
The problem is, as the series progressed, J.K. Rowling seems to me to have been increasingly writing 'big screen spectacle' style scenes. From the basilisk fight in Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets onwards, in fact. (Although you could maybe make a case for even the quidditch in book one.)
 
The POD here would be November 2001.

Like in OTL, Harry Potter is released as a series, but as a TV series rather than a movie franchise.

If it were a TV series, what would be the biggest changes (apart maybe from casting) we'd see, given how TV / movie budgets differ?

Would it still be as much of a juggernaut franchise as in OTL, or would it be a franchise that'd be constantly rebooted, like other franchises in OTL?

ITTL, we probably wouldn't have Daniel Radcliffe, but who would play the main character? Who'd play the major villains etc.?

What would the critics say about it, and what do you think it would be like for pop culture of the 2000s in the ATL?
JK ROWLING specifically wanted movies, seems like Dahl, she wasn't that big fan of tv
 
I think the POD would have to be a successful Superman movie by 1999.

Depending on the sort of script they go with, Warner Bros might still need something to fill the family friendly film series slot. And Harry Potter fits like a glove. But depending on how successful Superman is (plus WB also has The Matrix series, Lord of the Rings, and the Nolan Batman films) HP may not have gotten the attention it did IRL. Rowling was fairly new author and she probably wouldn't have as much say with the execs as she does. HP could wind up being sold to Universal or Sony (I don't see Rowling ever going to Disney), Rowling might have to suck up a TV adaptation, or the series doesn't get adapted.

And I wouldn't be surprised if it's cultural impact without a film adaption would be kind of like the Percy Jackson or Animorphs in that it's popular with it's demographic to the point there's a healthy fandom. And maybe parents and teachers will praise it for "getting boys to read" (something I take with a massive grain of salt), but nowhere near the all consuming juggernaut it still is IRL.
 
And maybe parents and teachers will praise it for "getting boys to read" (something I take with a massive grain of salt), but nowhere near the all consuming juggernaut it still is IRL.
HP without the movies might be an anglosphere restricted fandom, I know Animorphs thanks to the tv show as the books took an eternity to come into spanish
 
The bidding war between Disney, Nickelodeon, and Kids WB for broadcast rights to a Harry Potter TV show here in the U.S. would have been insane.

Fox on the other hand would have been kicking itself for (IIRC) having recently cashed out of Fox Family (sold to Disney, later ABC Family, now Freeform), because if there's one thing they know best, it's putting a fledgling network they own on the map with a big-name acquisition . . .
 
You could probably get a TV series with each chapter of the books as an episode (or two chapters if one is too small for an episode by itself). It would also lend itself to more worldbuilding, which would be a positive, since JKR tended to eschew it.
 
@Joshua Ben Ari building off that, being on TV would give the later books more breathing room. Or a meandering plot. Man the back half of the series was bloated.
Oh absolutely. It could also make Harry more of an everyman hero, the kind that the first three books sort of paint him as, the kind of wizard who will likely rival Voldemort and Dumbledore in terms of power. But with a TV series instead of movies, you have opportunity to explore the wizarding world or - at the very least - show it on screen more in depth.
 
How much budget would a TV series in the 2000s have? And what kind of CGI? The Harry Potter books, specially the later ones, are long enough to last a season each, and a TV show lends itself to better worldbuilding (something that came out flawed in the movies IMHO). And while poorer CGI compared to films (probably) can force the showrunners to focus more in the human drama, potentially subpar CGI can hurt some scenes
 
The problem is, as the series progressed, J.K. Rowling seems to me to have been increasingly writing 'big screen spectacle' style scenes. From the basilisk fight in Harry Potter and Chamber of Secrets onwards, in fact. (Although you could maybe make a case for even the quidditch in book one.)
A tv series might well be animated for that reason.
 
I'll also note that J.K. Rowling hasn't shown me that she's an Enid Blyton able to bash out twenty books a year. As far as I understand J.K. Rowling burnt out in 2001 after Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire after producing one book a year for four years, and had to cut back considerably after that.
I doubt she could do a TV adaptation producing a dozen or more episodes a year, and in 2001 (which the opening post indicates) I don't think she'd delegate any need to produce serious quantities of new material at that stage in her career to anyone else either.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it occurs to me that the 'Cormoran Strike' books (published under Rowling's alias, Robert Galbraith) have been TV adapted, but we're talking two to four TV episodes per book, with each episode (at least on British TV, without advert breaks) under an hour long.
Which on average may not come to that much more running time than would be in a Harry Potter film.

Edit:
It seems to me that that might be a workable format for any TV adaptation (instead of film) that Rowling was involved in in 2001 in the proposed alternate timeline.
 
Last edited:
A tv series might well be animated for that reason.
Which has the following advantages:

(1) The characters would actually resemble their book descriptions
(2) It removes the problem of terrible child acting, since all you need is a VA that can do a decent child's voice, of which there are many
(3) At least you don't have to deal with the issues of "not very good CGI in a live action film"
 
For the record, I love this idea and have a half written timeline featuring an HP BBC TV series.

The main issues would be these:
Budget, unless specifically produced in the USA, no British Network would have the budget to come close to doing it. A co-production would maybe work, but it would probably require multiple international partners.

For example, Gormenghast was a *MASSIVE* production done in 2000. It was a gold standard at the time and still stands up, but they managed to be efficient by setting it all in a number of sets or minimal location work.

Potter on the other hand, is easily 5 to 10 times the size required. Hogwarts alone would require loads of sets or location work, not to mention Diagon Alley & the Dursleys house etc etc etc.

And anything not cut out would need to be budgeted and paid for.

Experience: Due to the lack genre/sci-fi/horror/fantasy properties on British TV at the time, the production knowledge is either shipped off to a commercial entity or overseas.

The same goes for TV directors & producers who worked with effects, CGI etc, there had been no major, long running show which required extensive effects work, since arguably Doctor Who in 1989 (12 years before hand) and anything which did run was a limited series where the results were.... mixed, at best.

On the other hand.....

Harry Potter was a massive phenomenon in the Anglosphere. It was pretty much a licence to print money before the movies, the movies just kicked it into the stratosphere.

So here is how I made this work in my timeline.

Lets say the BBC get the rights. Now Rowling was fairly smart about the rights, keeping a certain amount of say in them. She demands an all British cast as per OTL. She also turned down an animated version IIRC.

The BBC do a star studded radio version of the first book. Imagine their 1981 Lord of the Rings as a comparison, legendary producer Dirk Maggs & legendary writer Brian Sibley pool their talents to create another "Audio Movie".

This is broadcast in a special afternoon BBC Radio 1 slot during the school summer holidays, similar to their 1990s broadcasts of Batman, Superman & Judge Dredd (all of which are fantastic by the way!)

This is a smash hit, and a second series is commissioned based on the second book to be recorded and broadcast over the nest summer.

The CD & tape cassette sales creates a significant income for the BBC & BBC enterprises which put it toward the basis for a TV series.

So the BBC needs a financing deal to get the rest of the money to do this properly. The broadcast rights will earn a packet. So an agreement is forged with ABC in the US, ABC in Australia, NZBC in New Zealand. BBC worldwide handles sales to non-English language countries. So most of the funding is now in place.

Production would begin in early 2001 with a broadcast date of October 2002 in mind so the series will finish around Christmas time.
 
Which has the following advantages:

(1) The characters would actually resemble their book descriptions
(2) It removes the problem of terrible child acting, since all you need is a VA that can do a decent child's voice, of which there are many
(3) At least you don't have to deal with the issues of "not very good CGI in a live action film"
But it will have a disadvantage of significantly reducing the audience and basicly limiting it to a kids show. To be fair, a life action tv series might do the same, but I think a life action tv series might attract older viewers a bit more easily, see for example dr Who. A kids show that also has an elder audience. I doubt you would be able to get it with an animated adaptation.
 
The film rights were sold in 1999. Were there any major television adaptations around then? I agree a BBC production seems most likely and would be far less popular internationally. Then another US television production, which “real fans” say isn’t as good as the BBC one, rather than a crossover hit.
 
Also as an addendum, I figured a smash hit HP series would result in the following as being probable butterflies:

No Doctor Who revival: The BBC see HP as fantasy, fresh, relevant and family, whilst Doctor Who is sci-fi, a tired, irrelevant. Also there would be questions about how they could afford both series at the same time.

Chronicles of Narnia: The BBC had done a very popular adaptation of these in the late 80s early 90s IIRC so redoing them would be very much on the cards.

Earlier "adult" fantasy boom: It becomes a much easier sell to make an adult fantasy series when an HP series is doing big numbers.

But it will have a disadvantage of significantly reducing the audience and basicly limiting it to a kids show. To be fair, a life action tv series might do the same, but I think a life action tv series might attract older viewers a bit more easily, see for example dr Who. A kids show that also has an elder audience. I doubt you would be able to get it with an animated adaptation.
The BBC actually had a rich history of doing "family" adaptations on a Sunday early evening slot, so the demographics drawn in would be more likely a family demographic rather than just kids and given we were still in a schedule dominated landscape in the early 2000s it would probably go out in that slot.
The film rights were sold in 1999. Were there any major television adaptations around then? I agree a BBC production seems most likely and would be far less popular internationally. Then another US television production, which “real fans” say isn’t as good as the BBC one, rather than a crossover hit.
The BBC did major adaptations of Gormenghast which I mentioned above & 2 series of the "Magicians House" which aired on a Sunday evening as well.
 
The BBC actually had a rich history of doing "family" adaptations on a Sunday early evening slot, so the demographics drawn in would be more likely a family demographic rather than just kids and given we were still in a schedule dominated landscape in the early 2000s it would probably go out in that slot.
As a cartoon? in that case it would just be adults who would watch it with their kids, but I doubt you would get a lot of teens, young adults or adults without (young) children who would watch it and it would probably just be a British phenomenon.
 
Top