Okay, translated this simply means, "I want more money."

To which my response is: "You deserve it."

I think there are more possible reasons for Daniel Radcliffe to quit than that... but who knows, maybe that is the deciding factor.

Is it just me, but I don't find Radcliffe all that good of an actor. He's like a blank when he's on the screening, acting-wise.

I agree; I only saw the first movie, and while he physically looked the part, I thought his acting was pretty wooden and unexpressive, especially next to the actors playing Ron & Hermione. Did he improve at all in CoS?

Yes - each BOOK takes place the school year after the previous. HOWEVER, Rowling isn't WRITING them that fast. As I recall Order of the Phoenix was supposed to be finished almost a year ago. In my opinion, I'd rather have her write a great book than crank them out every year for the sake of keeping the same child actors in those roles.

If the three of them do decide to leave, I'd prefer it if WB would put production of the remaining books on hold until Year 7 has been written. There is a point where one should pause the "Potter machine" rather than continue to wear out the poor production staffs that are being goaded into cranking out a film a year.

Personally I think the last film was noticeably weakener than the first because they were rushing to get it done. JUST DO THEM WELL AND DO THEM RIGHT. I didn't care about switching James Bonds either (esp. when it meant buh-bye to Moore!).

You think they would have considered the fact that he was going to grow up before they cast him.

I've not read the books, but if they take place over a 7 year period, who cares if Danielle Radcliffe is a couple of years older than he should be? Isn't it better to use him rather than recast, which would be far more jarring?

Movies and TV have always been full of older actors playing high school and teenage parts.

They just need to break down and cast the boy who played "Agent Cody Banks"....

I thought he was the perfect Harry. What exactly is the kids plans that he would quit the movies? If he is making $5M a movie, what field will give him that kind of salery even over a whole career? He is probably almost out of school anyways. I say just do the last few movies and then go into whatever field he wants. How much time does filming take anyways. A few months each year? Why not schedule to film the movies during the summer vacation so they won't miss much school if they are so concerned about it.

EDIT: I misunderstood and wrote something dumb. Yay me!

Without question he made a great Harry, but I can't say I blame him one bit if this turns out to be true. He's a kid, and he should be able to do what all kids to--play, have fun, and go to school. If he doesn't want to do anymore movies more power to him I say.

If he is 11 playing an 11 year old, then 12 playing a 12 year old, then is 16 or 17 and a foot and a half taller with 5 o'clock shadow playing a 13 year old (assuming he hits puberty normally), you don't think that is going to seem a bit odd? I mean, yeah, some actors play younger most of their careers, but they are genetic cases where they look young for a long time, like, say, Matthew Broderick, or Neil Patrick Harris, or Bernadette Peters. Or they can be like That 70s Show's Hyde or the Power Ranger's original Blue Ranger where you just shake your head everytime they say they're 17.

He had a career before HP. He probably doesn't want to be like Jay "Dennis the Menace" North or Jerry "Beaver" Mathers and be identified with the role forever.

When did I ever assert that she should hurry up the books before the actors get too old?

You won't find a bigger fan of the novels that Eucretia Chastity Bush of Lutz, Florida, but I come a pretty close second. I don't mind waiting 3 years between novels as long as the quality is up to Rowling's usual impeccable standards. But let us presuppose that Book Six comes out in another 3 years (2006) and Book Seven following suit (2009). By 2009, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grimes will be 19, 20, and 21 -- provided they don't look like something that would make a freight train take a dirt road, they could pass for teenagers easily (remember by Book Seven, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will all be 17 turning 18).

Now, if they are sick of the roles and don't want to play them anymore, more power to them. They've already been part of history and some fun movies. But if they wanted to stick it out, and they didn't suddenly start sprouting inoperative pustulent nodules over inopportune portions of their faces, they could do it.

Yes, that would be a bit odd, but that isn't what is happening. The third movie is in production right now, just one year after the filming of the second movie. So, we don't have to worry about a 17-year-old Daniel Radcliffe trying to convincingly portray a 13-year-old Harry Potter. True, it might end up (if he stays with the series, AND they film all of them) that we eventually have a 20- or 21-year-old Radcliffe portraying a 17- or 18-year-old Potter, but that is well within the realm of possibility and believability.

I long for the day when I can see Hermoine's actress at 21 years old..