Latest Site Notices

crazedfan · #1 (**permalink**) 05-27-2004, 01:51 PM

[img]http://www.snitchseeker.com/images/news/hogwarts_80.jpg' align='middle'> Harry Potter and The Ageing Cast -

Summary:
As film fans prepare for the third Harry Potter film, BBC News Online asks whether its teenage stars are in danger of outgrowing their characters.

Article:

An atricle just recently posted on BBC Online article questioned whether the cast will be able to make it till the last movie as the steadily age:

Quote:

Just as Harry Potter has grown up over the years, so has the actor who plays him in the films.

Daniel Radcliffe was just 10 when he was cast as the boy wizard. His co-stars Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley, and Emma Watson, who stars as Hermione, were the same age.

But as Harry Potter and The Prisoner Of Azkaban is released, speculation has been mounting about how long the teenage cast can continue to stay with the series.

Radcliffe turns 15 in July, while Grint, the eldest of the trio, is almost 16. Watson recently celebrated her 14th birthday - not much older than their characters, who are hitting their early teens in the third book.

Fans of Radcliffe and his co-stars will be relieved to know all three have signed on for the fourth film, Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire, which is due for release in November 2005.

Some are concerned the actors are growing up faster than the books are being published and films being made.

"There will come a point when one, two or all three of them will move on," producer David Heyman recently told the New York Post.

"I don't know when that will be - with the fifth, sixth or seventh movies - but it's inevitable.

But other observers are more optimistic about the trio's futures at Hogwart's.
"Actors have been 'acting-up' in age and 'acting-down' for 100 years," says Colin Kennedy, editor of film magazine Empire.

"I don't think that the problems of additional make-up or forced perspective, to keep them all the same height, are as significant as finding a new Harry and introducing him to the established audience. "

"The way I see it, the older the characters get in the book, the easier they are to play them," adds Dan Jolin, Features Editor of Total Film.

"The actors are at that age where they can play slightly older rather than younger, and I think the producers would prefer to keep the same actors as they've become so recognisable."

"Whether they want to carry on playing the parts is another matter."

The film of the fifth book, Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix, is due in 2007 - by which time Radcliffe will be 18.

But as the other two books in the series are still some way off publication, it could be years before the last two films are released.

That all suggests Radcliffe, Watson and Grint could be well into their 20s by the time Potter makes his final screen appearance.

If they were to remain in the roles, they would not be the first twentysomething actors to portray teenagers on screen.

Michael J Fox was 23 when he starred as 17-year-old Marty McFly in the 1985 blockbuster Back to the Future - and reprised the role in two sequels in 1989 and 1990, although the character was still in his teens.

Actress Stockard Channing was even older - 33, to be precise - when she took on the role of teenage wild child Rizzo in Grease, while co-star Olivia Newton-John, starring as 17-year-old Sandy, was 30.

BBC News

Eowyn Weasley · 05-27-2004, 08:53 PM

I think it all depends on how old they look. If they look like 17 year olds when they're 20 then it'll be ok but if they look old then the producers might have to change the actors. It would be good if they kept the same people though! :sorcerer:

hermioneg288 · 05-27-2004, 08:53 PM

wow, cool thanks for that! i really hope they continue to do the series for all 7 films because nobody could ever replace them and do as well. i definitely think they will do the fifth film-after that who knows? i think they will though because they've all said it'd be weird to have someone else play their parts. I don't think it would be a problem to have them play characters younger than they are-they still will look young enough to play 17 in their early 20s. i really hope they stay on!!

bageLiciouss · 05-27-2004, 09:05 PM

I HATE reading about stuff like this

!!

cutiepie0319 · 05-27-2004, 09:08 PM

i dont think they will replace them.

05-28-2004, 03:43 AM

They CAN'T replace him her and him (again) aka Rubert Emma Daniel!!!
I mean they don't LOOK that old i mean show a little mercy 4 them :petpet:

And if they DO im com'n over there and kill'n them darn_n00b .
Cuz they r da bestest evers!

:mrgreen: !!!

*DNMR*4ever · 05-28-2004, 04:10 AM

If they replace them it'll be just like them replacing dumbledore on POA. but the movies just wont be the same if they change the characters.

O.WoodChicGH · 05-28-2004, 05:22 AM

I think they all should stay for the next three movies. They are growing up as the characters the casting people make it seem as if the hogwarts students are from neverland and don't age. Sorry news flash they get older just like the rest of us and the trio is growing up in about the same amount of time as they are in the movies (almost) it should be illegal to replace these kids. So what if they look a little bit older then their character I'm 22 and i look 16 I have a friend who is 46 and looks 28 no one looks their age these days anymore so what is the point. okay and where any of the people who played in Dawson's creek teenagers No they were all in their 20's also the same thing with Beverly Hills 90210 when it was on they can't change the characters they are too pivitol to the success of the movies when they leave most of the fans will too.

sorry for ranting just giving my 2 cents