What will happen with the actors?

[durinsbane2244]

as anyone can obviously tell, by the time they're done making the harry potter movies, the actors will most likely be in their twenties. what will they do? i dont think they'll get new actors, they only did that cause the old dumbledore died :( :( so what CAN they do?

[azalea]

We were discussing this in another thread, and my opinion is that it won't be a problem. They'd only be a year or two older, and I'm happy to suspend my disbelief.
It's done all the time (actors being a couple of years or even more off from the character they are playing).

[Khamûl]

I agree with azalea. After all, Alan Ruck was almost 30 when he played high school senior Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. And he pulled it off.

[HOBBIT]

i agree with them - it won't be a problem. If at all, they would only be 2-3 years older than their characters - no biggie.

People in their 20s play teens all the time.

Aren't the actors the correct ages though? Or pretty darn close to it ? (like only off by a year or two).

If I remember correctly, there has been a Harry Potter movie every year (or just about every year) since the first movie -

- so in that case why would they be too old? They are just growing as the characters should be.


It is also best to have them look older and mature for the later love/relationship stuff.


The 4th one comes out in a few months, I believe (september?).

Would make NO SENSE to get new faces for remaining 3 films just because they may or may not look "too old"


2001 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
2002- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
2004- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
2005- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
2007- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
2008- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

And then I am guessing that the last movie will be a year or two after HBP (as in 2009 or 2010 - it will be written by then)

[IronParrot]

As Tristan said, it hasn't been a problem so far and I don't think it's going to be. I was surprised how early voices were breaking in Chamber, and the kids were definitely shooting up by the time Azkaban rolled around, but then my sibling hit twelve and thirteen and it all seemed a lot more accurate.

For a sense of perspective, keep in mind that Leonardo DiCaprio pulled off a convincing sixteen-year-old in Catch Me If You Can. In fact, for much of Hollywood's history, it was uncommon to cast teenagers at all. Check out old detective movies from the forties and you'll see what I mean.

[The Gaffer]

Hello IronParrot, long time since I've seen you posting.

Well, you wondered what all those Soviet gymnastics coaches were doing after their dodgy, adulthood-postponing methods were exposed? They are now in Hollywood slipping hormones into child stars' big macs on set.

Once they've finished the last one they will then be free to become corpulent drug addicts.

[sun-star]

2008- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2008... I wonder if Tony Blair will still be around to play himself in the first scene?

[Spock]

I'd read somewhere that the guy that plays "Harry" wanted to take some time off for school and wouldn't be doing the next film. Anyone else heard anything?

[Nurvingiel]

I haven't heard anything Spock, but I certainly wouldn't blame Daniel Radcliffe (who plays Harry) if he did want to do that. I mean, he's going to be writing his OWLs-- I mean his O'levels soon! :D
The movies would be a bit stupid with a new actor in the lead role, but then again, Dumbledore #2 seemed to be pretty successful.

2008... I wonder if Tony Blair will still be around to play himself in the first scene?
Aah, but that was not Tony Blair, nor was it John Major (?), Margaret Thatcher, or anyone specific. Rowling has cleverly written a timeless scene that doesn't cast any certain politician. :)

That being said, I think it would be awesome if Tony Blair played the Muggle PM. :D

[Spock]

yeah, and IMO he's enough of a regular guy to do it.

[Radagast The Brown]

Aah, but that was not Tony Blair, nor was it John Major (?), Margaret Thatcher, or anyone specific. Rowling has cleverly written a timeless scene that doesn't cast any certain politician. :)

That being said, I think it would be awesome if Tony Blair played the Muggle PM. :DIt's not timeless... she said exactly what year it is, when she wrote the Death day of Nearly Headless Nick was in 1492 and the 500 death day was in Harry's second year, meaning Harry's second year is 1992. And so - 5th year is 1995/6, and the summer of 6th year is in 1996.

[Fat middle]

It's not timeless... she said exactly what year it is, when she wrote the Death day of Nearly Headless Nick was in 1492 and the 500 death day was in Harry's second year, meaning Harry's second year is 1992. And so - 5th year is 1995/6, and the summer of 6th year is in 1996.
Yep, but the days of the week she uses don't fit with that calendar. Not to speak of moon phases (in the third book...)

although perhaps in the magic world there are some days that appear and disappear like the steps of the stairs... :p :D

[Nurvingiel]

See, it is timeless! Besides, she said maths wasn't her strong point, so give her a break! :D (I'll use whatever timeline the Harry Potter Lexicon deduces.)

[Spock]

hmmm, I almost understand that.

[Radagast The Brown]

It has nothing to do with Math but logics... it's really hard to make it all be on the right time when you givethe date (even though it seems like Tolkien did it well), I agree - then at least cut it off, and don't publish it IMO... there are many problems with the time she chose. For example, something that Neville through out of the window in one of hte books (I can't remember which) some kind of Playstation IIRC, was not yet invented in Japan at the time... :p