Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter, #7) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows discussion


91 views
Actors too old for parts?

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Lizzy (new)

Lizzy I know this is random, but one big criticism a lot of people have about the movies is that Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the others are growing too old to play their teenage roles. There was even some speculation awhile ago about replacing them (although they all will finish the series.) Do you think so? I personally have no problem with it. Dan Radcliffe is only 18, which isn't bad considering he is playing a 16 year old. Grint I think is 19, and Watson is about 17. They are all relatively close to the ages of their characters, and plus movie makeup can age them however they need. Still, lots of people think differently. What do you all think?


Jordz Prudz i agree lizzy and also if you get some one else they look completely different and they wont work with the same effort as these 3 plus look what happened with dumbledore in the third film he is completely different and they shouldnt have done that swap soz if any bad mistake or minor ones but im 13 and dont take care of my typing please comment on this urgent matter HP RULES!!!


Rima I also dont see a problem in the cast for the film. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint still the right actors and actress for Potter the movie. I absolutely agree with Jordz, Richard Harris played brilliatly as Dumbledore and no one seemed play better than Harris.


Midori Things like this have been going on in movies since ever basically. It doesn't really matter what age they really are only if they look the part. It's not like they're 25 playing a teen. That'd be weird......


Ilene before i saw the 5th movie i saw the 1st movie!!
i did not believe that dudley was dudley!!
he grew sooooooooo much!


Cristina Ooh, I know they have grown! And they look super cute in the 1st movie:)


Sasha Richard Harris was brilliant in a role of Dumbledore, but unfortiunatly, he died so they had to replace him. I dont like new Dumbledore so much. As for the other actors, I dont see what the big deal is. I think that people would hate new actors if they actually do replace Radcliffe, Grint and Watson. I know I would... We are just so used to them and they do their jobs perfectly. Lets face the truth, they are Harry, Ron and Hermione no matter are they playing them in a film or two. I dont think that producers wolud actually take that risc of swiching them.


Rebeccah Marie Lizzy, you're actually wrong.
Emma Waston is the same age as, more-or-less, Hermoine in each movie, to tell you the truth.
Get your facts straight.

The new Dumbledore sucked, me and my buds HATED HATED HATED him.
The woman they used for Umbridge was good, even if I hate the character.
Grint and Radcliffe are fine, so don't complaint.
The Phleps Twins=LOVE. c=
Evanna Lynch was perfect for Luna, as well, not too old, not too young, right?

I don't understand WHY anyone would replace them.
They can't do it.

P.S. They're making DH into TWO, count 'em TWO, movies.
=DDDD


message 9: by Lizzy (last edited Jan 18, 2008 07:30PM) (new)

Lizzy Grrr, Rebeccah, let's not get too upset here. My facts are straight. If you'll notice, I actually did say that they all ARE relatively close to their character's ages, and as the youngest of the bunch, Emma Watson would naturally be closest. If you'll also notice, I also said I have no problem with it. Actually, those are my favorite movies. I was just bringing something up that many people have issues with, those aren't my personal opinions.

Besides, they aren't even sure that DH will be two seperate movies. No script exists yet because of the writers strike. That is just speculation.


Rebeccah Marie Another wrong anwser.
It is garunteeed it's gunna be two movies.
Look it up.

They made it two movies because they didn't want to miss any details of said book.

And, I wasn't trying to make anyone mad, just pointing out facts.


message 11: by Kate (new) - rated it 4 stars

Kate Speaking of two movies = one book...

I would have really liked for the Goblet of Fire to have been made into 2 separate movies. There were many things I did not like about that movie adaption, but the producers pulled it off: more power to them!

I most enjoy watching the 3rd movie - I really love that director. (Cuaron?)

Regarding the splitting up of the final book into two movies... as we can see from book four onward, producers of the movie really have to cram and edit to get a whole book into a movie that doesn't become unwieldy. Obviously, they COULD do one movie of DH if they wanted to. However, I can't help but wonder if Warner Bros. or whomever owns the rights would like to stretch things out for as along as they can, financially-speaking. The Harry Potter movies have to be great money-makers for them and I'm sure they would happily put out 7 movies rather than 8.


message 12: by Lizzy (last edited Jan 23, 2008 12:37PM) (new)

Lizzy Rebeccah, you're at it again. I'm not the one who needs to get my facts straight. Once again, it is not guaranteed that DH will be two seperate movies. This is a RUMOR. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe two of the top Harry Potter news sites, with quotes taken word-for-word? If you'd like to check up on them youself, I'll also post the URL.

From Mugglenet: "Empire Online is now quoting WB as saying 'no decision has been made,' in part because no script exists yet. Steve Kloves cannot begin work on the Deathly Hallows script because of the US writer's strike."
URL: www.mugglenet.com (home page)

From Veritaserum: "The Daily Mail published a buzz-worthy article today stating that the seventh and final Harry Potter film, Deathly Hallows, will be split into two movies. According to the newspaper, this information comes from 'crew working on the sixth' movie...Warner Bros. has confirmed to Empire Magazine that the rumors are false. According to the magazine, Steve Kloves, who will be the screenwriter, hasn't created the script yet, therefore no decision about the seventh movie has been taken so far."
URL: www.veritaserum.com (home page)

I assume that The Daily Mail, and sites getting information from there, is where you also learned about this, as in your last message you told me "It is guaranteed it's going to be two movies. Look it up" (or something very close to that, as I took the liberty of correcting your spelling.) Well, I suggest that you look it up. I also suggest that next time you get your information from sites that do a better job checking for accuracy, such as Mugglenet and Veritaserum. There's nothing like attacking someone over a lie, is there?



message 13: by Lynn (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lynn I think the actors are fine and don't look too old. To replace them 5 movies into the series would ruin it for me. When they replaced Dumbledore early on it was okay and I barely noticed the transition, but to have someone else play the 3 main roles...no way. That would be like someone else playing Snape! It'll be fine.


message 14: by Emily (new)

Emily They should stay. How can the Harry Potter movies be likeable without them? Tom Felton is too hot to get rid of anyway.


Stacia I think that when they have a movie that BIG--- they cant just get rid of the faces. So yes, i think they are a little old, but it doesnt matter because everyone has grew to love them.
And at least they all arn't 30...17 is a little old, but an ok stretch....


ashley-megan lol ya... they are old for who they are suposed to be playing but you are right stacia that at least they are not in their 30s.
its funny that they started out acting as the age they were suposed to be, but then it just took longer to make each movie.


Emily Rule I don't think they're too old at all and if they change them I will be very, very, very, very angry. ANGRY!!!!!! You can't just change actors in the middle of the series, I'm sorry but you just can't. I mean, look at Star Wars. If the emperor had been another actor in the new movies it would have screwed up everything. They just need to make the movies with the actors as are. I think they're adorable!


Ciara They are in no way too old. They play the parts excellently, and it would be a bit silly and confusing to just change all of the actors/actresses mid-way through the series, or even in the last film. I actually heard that Emma Watson was considering quitting the series before the fifth film, but she didn't and she made the right decision!


message 19: by [deleted user] (new)

Lizzy wrote: "I know this is random, but one big criticism a lot of people have about the movies is that Radcliffe, Grint, Watson, and the others are growing too old to play their teenage roles. There was even s..."

I don't think the age matters, as long as they look the part. If you are 16 years old, and you look 15, then who's to say that you can't play the role? It's just idiotic, people!


message 20: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 13, 2012 02:00PM) (new)

Lizzy wrote: "Rebeccah, you're at it again. I'm not the one who needs to get my facts straight. Once again, it is not guaranteed that DH will be two seperate movies. This is a RUMOR. If you don't believe me, may..."

Look back at what you said now. Today, the movies were done, and they were 2 different parts.
lol, FAIL on your part, huh? XD

Just sayin', don't get mad at someone for saying their opinion even if it contradicts to yours. Seeing as you wrote this in 2008 before DH movie came out, I undertsand the confusion you must have had. But don't go saying that someone is wrong when your sources might be wrong instead. Sorry, but it had to be said.


message 21: by Mel (new) - rated it 4 stars

Mel (Daily Prophecy) I don't think that they were too old and I'm glad that they were there. How horrible would the movie be if they just replaced them with other actors :o?


back to top