I was just browsing around and found this story hot off the press:

"Harry Potter actor retires
June 15, 2003

HARRY Potter star Daniel Radcliffe will not play the schoolboy wizard again.
The 13-year-old has told friends he wants to concentrate on his studies and will not be involved in a fourth film of the series.

His decision ends months of speculation over his future, which surfaced after the premiere of the second film, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets.

Back then, Daniel made strong hints that he wanted to give up the coveted role which made him famous around the world.

Warners, which makes the films based on J.K. Rowling's books, is said to have been ready for such an event.

Insiders say there has been a series of informal casting sessions with young actors.

The decision also casts doubt on the future of the films' other child stars, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, who play Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.

The trio were only under contract for the first three films in the series, the third of which - Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban - is being filmed now.

Despite beating nearly 40,000 others to one of the most coveted roles in cinema - and earning an estimated $5 million per film - Daniel has never been a huge fan of the stories.

A friend at the private City of London School, at which he enrolled last year, said Daniel had had enough of playing Harry Potter and wanted to concentrate on his studies for the GCSE (the equivalent of Australia's School Certificate).

"He really just wants to get back to his ordinary life - he doesn't like the attention and just wants to concentrate on his exams."

The new Harry Potter book will be delivered to Australian bookshops this week under tough security.

Stores have had to sign legal documents promising not to open the boxes containing Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix until 9.01am on Saturday - timed to coincide with the launch in London.

More than 750,000 copies of the fifth book will be delivered to Australian stores alone.

The Sunday Telegraph"

Link:
http://entertainment.news.com.au/com...55Enbv,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's gong to be too strange seeing another kid as Harry Potter. Radcliffe was great. Still, I guess if I was 13, I wouldn't want to be stuck with the same role forever.

I find this a little disappointing though.

I thought he made the perfect Harry Potter.

More power too him...

At least he has his priorities straight... take $15M and run!!!!

Wonder if they'll ever make a fourth or fifth movie, the books are so huge they'd have to split them up anyway which would really hurt the stories IMHO.

They could always try George Lazenby.

At 600 million per film they will make these films as long as she cares to write the books, or until they no longer make money. From what I've read they have all but decided to split Goblet of Fire into two films.

According to this article, there is "no truth whatsoever" to the rumor that Radcliffe wants to quit. You can read the article yourself and decide which is correct. Rumors are easily started.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv...00/2990682.stm

The timeline for future movies, however, may necessitate a change of actors. There will be no way to continue a movie per year rate. There is a 2 year break between movie two and three. There will be at least another 2 year period before the Goblet movie is ready. By that time Radcliffe (who already looks older than the part) will be far too old for the role. The same is true for the other child actors. Whether Radciliffe wants to quit or not might be inconsequential.

I fail to see why this assertation keeps being reiterated. The actors will never be "too old" for the roles. Each book takes place a year after the last -- the characters age with the story. And even if they take 2-3 years between films, you still have actors in the twenties playing teenagers all the time without a problem. Hell, the actress who played Moaning Myrtle was in her mid-30s!

I could see why he'd want to leave. He made a nice chunk of change and was the envy of children everywhere. Stardom won't last forever, might as well make a graceful exit and start a normal life

Maybe Daniel Radcliffe correctly observed that many child actors find a way to ruin the rest of their lives, and that he wants for that not to happen to him.

Too bad. He was pretty much spot-on as Harry Potter, though a bit more bland than maybe some people would have preferred.

I could have sworn when the first movie came out they said these actors would only do the first three.

It's one thing having a 30 year old playing a highschooler, it's another having kids in the middle of growth spurts playing younger; especially when they can be referenced to their previous ages so easily. If they had taken a 16 year old kid to play 13 it might work, but it's harder to get away with when we have all witnessed him playing the same role of 11 at 11 and 12 at 12. That's why Hollywood loved Gary Coleman and Emmanuel Lewis so much. They never seemed to age. Now they are creepy because they are in their 30s and still could play kids.

Well if it is true, I hope it's not so he can hang around Jacko's Neverland Ranch...we all know what happened to THAT kid..

Rubbish!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv...00/2990682.stm

Infact, in this interview:
http://mugglenet.com/daninterview-one.shtml

he states that there is a 90% chance he will return.

Most kids going through puberty are pretty disgusting to look at, I don't know if any of the books make reference to Harry sprouting the short & curlies, or waking up with some morning wood.

Honk!

They already said movie #4 may be split into two parts - a la Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions (or Kill Bill if Tarintino gets his way).

Why not recast EVERYONE for the next three films and then you have two stand-alone trilogies that are nevertheless connected.

There is a year and a half break between movies 2 and 3 (movie 2 came out in November 2002, Movie 3 is set to come out in June 2004), and chances are the gap between movies 3 and 4 will only be a year to a year and a half, since Steve Kloves is already working on the script for movie 4, and IIRC filming is set to start early next year.

1. That would suck.
2. There will eventually be 7 books (and hopefully 7 movies), not 6.

either late last year or early this year chris colombus was doing interviews and stated that he had told all 3 actors that they should walk away after the 3rd film. can't remember why, i think b/c there is just no way to do all of them so he thought it'd be best for them to get back to their normal lives after their contract was up.

I agree that there is no way to do all seven, especially if Rowling keeps writing them at the current length of the last two.

If they re-cast, then it will be hard to accept the new cast for me. Once audiences get attached to certain characters, they also tend to get attached to the actors playing them, and changing up leads to often really hurts the flow of the story. I don't know if Radcliffe wants to walk away for sure or not, but he has made a great impression so far, and seems to have the ability to do more acting than Harry Potter films if he wishes, or if he just wants to leave the field altogether that's fine as well. Playing Potter through the whole series would forever trap him in that role, and I doubt he wants that lot in life.

I'd have to check (and I will when I have some more time), but I think what he said was that if after the 3rd film they're bored of playing the roles and don't want to any more, then they should walk away, i.e. they shouldn't feel obligated to be in more of them if they don't want to.

On the Special Features disc for the first film, Columbus remarks that it would be great to have the same kids for all the movies, but also admits that it would be a "pipedream" to actually pull it off.

As a side note, I am always amazed by how many people think Harry will stay at age 11 through all the films...even those who have read the books!

Harry of course grows so I don't see why it would be to far fetched to keep the same actor.. not to mention that if they could make 30 year olds look like high schoolers in 90210 then this shouldn't be to hard.

Harry Potter will never be the same without Daniel Radcliffe

The three kids have come out and said they'd stick together. If one walks, the other two will follow suit.

Frankly, Daniel Radcliffe can pull off the role till the seventh movie if he chooses. Harry is a year older in each successive book, and it looks like the movies will be 1 1/2 years apart, as a rule.

Hell, if the "kids" from Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90120 could play teenagers for the run of that show in spite of most of them being in their 30s, then a 20 year old Radcliffe playing a 16 year old Harry shouldn't be that much of a stretch.