Has Daniel Radcliffe outgrown Harry Potter?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: michigan
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#2
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 3,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#3
Moderator
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.
There are seven books planned in total. Harry is 11 in the first book, and will be 17 in the last.
#4
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Groucho
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.
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.
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Groucho
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 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.
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.
#7
DVD Talk Legend
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.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Matt Millheiser
Oh come now, you got actors in the 20s playing teenagers all the time. I don't see what the big deal is.
Oh come now, you got actors in the 20s playing teenagers all the time. I don't see what the big deal is.
#9
DVD Talk Legend
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.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I guess Radcliff will get tired of those films before the studio shut him off.
I guess Radcliff will get tired of those films before the studio shut him off.
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Space Junk Galaxy
Posts: 2,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Has Daniel Radcliffe outgrown Harry Potter?
Originally posted by borisdisco
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.
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.
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
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by juiio
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.
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.
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.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Remember, there was a time when Hollywood producer were thinking Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle was an unlimited goldmine.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by nice_skis
And maybe the whole interrest for Harry Potter will be dead before that and there won't be any 5th, 6th or 7th movie.
And maybe the whole interrest for Harry Potter will be dead before that and there won't be any 5th, 6th or 7th movie.
#16
DVD Talk Legend
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.
#17
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by nice_skis
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.
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.
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.
#19
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#20
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!).
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!).
#22
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
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.
#23
Moderator
Originally posted by sherm42
The real problem here is that the audience just doesn't expect or really want these characters to grow up.
The real problem here is that the audience just doesn't expect or really want these characters to grow up.
#24
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by Groucho
What makes you say that?
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.
#25
Moderator
Originally posted by sherm42
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.
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.