What's the big deal?
January 10, 2007 8:09am CST
Why does so many people post about whether they think Daniel Radcliff (and the rest of the cast as well) should be replaced as Harry Potter? He's a little over a year older than the character he's playing. This is a very common thing in Hollywood. Kirsten Dunst just recently stopped playing teenage roles and she's like 24 now. When 90210 was on TV they where all well out of high school. Most of them in their mid-twenties. The movie Saved! - Jena Malone was not even a teenager anymore. Gilmore Girls - Rory a (15 year old when it started) was played by a 19 year old. Keiko Agena (Lane) by the way is 34 right (27 when it started also playing 15/16 year old). Those are just a few examples I can think of right off the top of my head. So why is their such a debate over wheter or not Daniel Radcliff should be replaced? Forget that it would be a huge mistake fincially for the films... Forget that he is who everyone thinks of when you say Harry Potter... I just want to know why it's a debate at all?
• United States
17 Feb 07
Well actually now with the latest movie some of the actors are 4 or 5 years older then the ones they are playing due to the fact of so much time between movies. I agree though just because they are older it doesn't matter. After all Mark Hamill who had to play the 18 year old Luke Skywalker was only 27 at the time. Right now on Smallville Tom Welling plays a 19 to 20 year old Clark Kent even though he's going on 30 years old It doesn't matter the actual age of the actor. It matters if they look the part. So long as they look the right age that is all that is important.