Daniel Radcliffe Says He's Done Playing Harry Potter But Here's Why We Shouldn't Be Upset

MOSCOW, RUSSIA - FEBRUARY 15: Actor Daniel Radcliffe attends the premiere of Woman in Black in Oktyabr Cinema on February 15, 2012 in Moscow, Russia. (Photo by Oleg Nikishin/Epsilon/Getty Images)
Source: Oleg Nikishin/Getty Images News/Getty Images

We knew it was too good to be true. After J.K. Rowling surprised the world Tuesday morning by releasing a new Harry Potter story on Pottermore, fans of the series immediately began wondering if it was a prelude to something more — could Rowling's story, about Harry, Ron, and Hermione as thirty-somethings, be a way to get readers revved up for a new Potter movie starring the trio as adults? Sure, it was a long shot, but so was that Fantastic Beasts spin-off; a new film would be surprising, but certainly not out of the question. Now, though, it seems clear that it's not going to happen, as Daniel Radcliffe said that he doesn't plan to ever play Harry Potter again.

During a Tuesday press tour for A Young Doctor's Notebook, his British TV series about to enter its second season, Radcliffe addressed a reporter's question about if he'd ever want to reprise his role as the Boy Who Lived. His answer? "My inclination is to say no."

“I don’t think it’s a question — not even a hypothetical at this moment," Radcliffe said, adding that while he hasn't yet read the new Potter story, he doesn't think it's a project capable of being adapted to film.

“As I understand it it’s a very, very short piece, I’m not sure it is of itself worthy of adaptation to film," he said. "(Harry) is at least 12 years older in it than I am now. I don’t think I’ll have to worry about it for a long time.”

Sure, the actor's answer is a bit better than a definite "no, I'll never, ever do it," but it's not exactly promising. Assuming Rowling doesn't write any more Potter stories soon, Radcliffe — and, presumably, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint — won't be reprising his famous role at least anytime in the near future, and quite possibly ever. If he was truly interested in taking on the part again, like, say, Aaron Paul about playing Jesse again in Better Call Saul, he had the chance to make that clear; instead, he said "no."

This might seem like terrible news at first, considering how much we all long to see Harry, Ron, and Hermione re-appear on our screens once more. Thinking about it more, though, Radcliffe's statement is not actually so bad. As great as it would be to see a Potter reunion, do we really need another movie? The eight films that exist are perfectly done, with a great, satisfying ending that came complete with an epilogue. Adding on another film, even one set many years later, would likely be a mistake. As is, Harry Potter is a compete set, and there's no need to make room for another movie that could potentially ruin what already exists.

That said, we aren't opposed to a few cast cameos here or there. Perhaps Radcliffe is set about not reprising his role in a direct Potter movie, but maybe he's willing to make an appearance in Fantastic Beasts? Yes, we know, the timeline doesn't work, but we're sure the producers could figure something out. After all, Rowling's writing the script — we imagine that if Radcliffe or the others told her they wanted to show up for a minute or two, she wouldn't have any qualms about making it happen. 

Must Reads