May 25, 2004

So?

.... The 14-year-old face of the "Harry Potter" movies is getting too old to play the part, so his role may eventually be recast with a younger actor, producers admitted yesterday.

The same goes for the other young "Potter" stars, Rupert Grint (who plays Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), both of whom are also 14.

"There will come a point when one, two, or all three of them will move on," said David Heyman, who has produced all the Potter films, including "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," which opens June 4.

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

Radcliffe, who will turn 15 on July 23, is now two years older than his character, and the age difference will just get bigger, because Potter only grows one year older in each successive movie and producers haven't been able to keep up the pace.

And I say, so what? Lots of young actors play parts younger than themselves. Off the top of my head, Alexis Bledel who plays Rory in Gilmore Girls is four/five years older than her character, and Amber Tamblyn who's 21 plays a teenager on Joan of Arcadia. And what about Alyson Hannigan? She's 30, so she was what, 22 when Buffy started? Those are just the ones that come to mind immediately, but I know there's more.

Posted by Ithildin at May 25, 2004 11:31 AM | PROCURE FINE OLD WORLD ABSINTHE

That's what I don't understand. Who cares. The kid who plays Malfoy, is too old for that character. It doesn't matter. I always was told I looked older than what I was.

Of course it doesn't help if they are like: "Hey! These guys are tooo old for their parts."

Posted by: Jen at May 25, 2004 11:51 AM

And I always looked younger. I used to be given children's menus when I was 16 :) I hated it!!! My mum said I'd appreciate it when I was older -- she was right (of course)

Posted by: Ith at May 25, 2004 11:59 AM

I'm guessing the producers are afraid once they hit the older teen years that younger kids in the audience just won't be able to relate to them. Besides, there's only one more book left in the series to do as a movie (Goblet)...and who knows how long it will take JK Rowling to do the next one, if she's even started.

Posted by: Norman at May 25, 2004 3:28 PM

No, there's one after GoF: Order of the Phoenix.

But they are older teens in the later books.

Posted by: Ith at May 25, 2004 3:53 PM

Yeah, it doesn't seem that big a deal to me either. When I was 12 I was mistaken for a college student all the time. As I got older I started looking younger - to where most people tell me that I look 28ish now. I'll take that!

I say keep the originals!

Posted by: jen at May 25, 2004 6:52 PM

Yep. Another significant one would be Tom Welling, who plays Clark Kent in Smallville. He's 27, and his character is 17 or 18.

Posted by: Susan at May 26, 2004 6:18 AM

Sorry about the mistake - but apparently they've reconsidered. Here's the link from Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=5254709&src=rss/Entertainment§ion=news

Posted by: Norman at May 26, 2004 8:23 AM

Perhaps the reason they were thinking about replacing the actor who plays Harry is because in the books Harry is always described as being small for his age.

Just a thought.

I think they should keep the same actors through the whole thing, though. A new cast would be irritating.

Posted by: Cobby at May 26, 2004 8:55 AM

Norman, you're forgiven :)

Posted by: Ith at May 26, 2004 10:11 AM

I like to think it's because his muggle idiotic family didn't feed him enough food as he was growing up, that has something to do with it.

Oh and do you really think the actors will look 100% like their book counterparts? Look at Tom Felton, he looks like Aaron Carter not Draco Malfoy.

Posted by: Jen at May 31, 2004 9:10 PM