Has Daniel Radcliffe outgrown Harry Potter?
 

I think Daniel Radcliffe looked considerably older in "Chamber of Secrets" than he did in "Sorcerer's Stone." At what point do you think they would have to get a "new" Harry Potter? He will turn 14 in July. Let me add that I have not read the books, so I am not familiar with the character's age progression.

Since each movie is supposed to take place a year after the previous, his aging fits pretty well. Don't replace him with another character. That is weak beyond belief.

There is one book a year, so as long as they can keep that schedule (which Chris Columbus calls a "pipe dream"), Radcliffe should be okay.

There are seven books planned in total. Harry is 11 in the first book, and will be 17 in the last.

At the rate they are going he will be in his 30's by the time the last film rolls around.

They've already missed that. There was a year and ah alf in between number one and two, and two years in between two and three. I'm guessing it will be another two years in between three and four (although it is currently listed as 2005 on IMDB).

Also, considering how long it took her to write the fifth book, I think he'll be at least a couple years older than 17 before the seventh book is written, much less brought to film.

They could possibly still use him though. We've certainly seen older actors play younger characters before (and if he's over 18 for the filming of any movies, they don't have to worry about child labor laws). Some of the other actors might be too old, though. The actor who plays Draco will be 16 in September.

Oh come now, you got actors in the 20s playing teenagers all the time. I don't see what the big deal is.

I agree keep to keep him.. even though when the first trailer was released and his one line in the trailer "You wish!" had some bass to it, I kept joking that it should be renamed to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Puberty.

Depends how long it takes them to come out. If he's 20 and playing a 14 year old, then no. If he's 20 and playing a 17 year old, then sure.

I'll be 29 at the end of the month, and up until a few years ago I got people thinking I was 4-5 years younger than I was all the time. If they keep cranking these movies, I don't see it being a problem.

that nothing. i am 28 and still get carded for R-rated movies. i say keep him.

THere was a Beverly Hills 90210 reunion last week-end and Jason Priestley still pretends he's 17 when he really is 67 years old. :D

I guess Radcliff will get tired of those films before the studio shut him off.

Re: Has Daniel Radcliffe outgrown Harry Potter?
 

Here is the grade Harry Potter is in during each book/movie:

Book/movie 1 = 6th grade
Book/movie 2 = 7th grade
Book/movie 3 = 8th grade
Book/movie 4 = 9th grade
Book/movie 5 = 10th grade
Book/movie 6 = 11th grade
Book/movie 7 = 12th grade

Not true - the first two movies were filmed back to back (with the first being released in November 2001 and the second in November 2002), but they took a break of half a year or so between the second and third movies, so it'll be released a year and a half after the second one (in Summer 2004). IIRC plans are to start filming the fourth movie in early 2004, but it's unknown if Daniel Radcliffe and the other child actors want to continue beyond the third movie.

To be honest, I think the only issue at hand is whether the kids want to continue or not. The way I see it, movie 4 could come in Summer 2005, and movie 5 in November 2006, and the actors would still only be roughly a year older than their characters. By that point book 6 will probably be finished, so they'll be able to start filming movie 6 before movie 5 is released. Chances are book 7 won't be finished until after movie 6 is released, but then, having a twentysomething actor playing an 18-year-old is very common in movies, so it wouldn't matter if they had to wait a few years.

And maybe the whole interrest for Harry Potter will be dead before that and there won't be any 5th, 6th or 7th movie.

Remember, there was a time when Hollywood producer were thinking Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle was an unlimited goldmine.

It's possible. I'll be disappointed if they end up not making them all for that reason though.

I would never argue that a 20 something actor can't play a teen in the movies. We all know SOME actors can get away with it. The problem is some people simply look their age (or older). Some people's faces change too much to get away with playing younger (look a Anthnony Michael Hall). I say: If he can get away with it, kudos. If he looks like a 25 year old "playing" a 16 year old; replace him.

If they had kept to the gritty, b&w comics roots, then it might have had a more lasting audience. Maybe not as mainstream, but at least more continuous.

With all the interest in kungfu movies these days, they really could have been something if they hadn't been made into a children's property.

they'll dump him after Prisoner.

Ralph Macchio was 30 years old when the Karate Kid par II was released and he was playing a kid fresh out of high school.

The TMNT are coming back. Look at what's happening at E3 and check out the toy aisles.

If Rowling doesn't get those last 2 books out fast, they will see a decline in Harry Potter popularity. It's a shame we have had to wait this long for the 5th book.

J

If Daniel is turning 14 this year and they are filming book three right now (where he's supposed to be 13 years old) sounds like they are right on schedule.

Besides, if 20-somethings can play high school students on TV, I see no reason why a 20-something Radcliffe couldn't play a 17 year old Potter - even if they don't get around to the last one until he's 24 (which is TEN years from now!).

John Travolta was 45 years old playing a high school senior in Grease. Olivia Newton John was 52. ;)

The real problem here is that the audience just doesn't expect or really want these characters to grow up. However, growing up is part of what the series is about.

What makes you say that?

The fact that people are always bringing up that they are getting too old to play the roles when they are in fact just about the right age. I think people's imagination keeps them as children in their minds when they read the books. I know mine did.

I mean, 13 is about the age when kids start getting tall and awkward looking.

Really? This thread is the first time I've ever heard that complaint.