should daniel redcliffe should be replace as harry potter?
By vik24587
@vik24587 (144)
India
20 responses
@starr4all (2863)
•
7 Jan 07
Nope, he is the face of harry potter and it would be annoying and I think less people would watch if they replace him. It just means they need to crank out these movies faster before they all get too old!
@GnosticGoddess (5626)
• United States
8 Jan 07
They should be able to start filming a little faster now that Emma is about of age. They could only film so many ours a day because of the child labor laws in England. They had to have so many hours of school and such. I think I read in Movie magaizine once that they only can film 4 hours a day.
@kellyp513 (63)
• United States
8 Jan 07
I totally agree with you -- I can't imagine anyone else playing the role but Daniel. And you're right, they should be making these movies faster!
@yoleis27 (557)
• Israel
7 Jan 07
Well it is kinda strange that harry potter look much more older then he should..
But it will be rather ennoying if the main character will be replaced by someone else..
Also Daniel really looks like harry potter, and I think that it will be quiet hard to find him a replacment..
@GnosticGoddess (5626)
• United States
8 Jan 07
I disagree with you. I don't think he looks that much older than the character is. He's only playing like a year or younger. Right now he's 17. When he was filming the part he was 16 and maybe some when he was 17. That's not a great big difference at all.
@sanjanasc (39)
• India
8 Jan 07
no i dont think he should be replaced for one think if you read the books you will see that harry potter is fast growing and is portrayed way maturer than his years and tho daniel radcliffe is older than harry potter it dsnt matter because he still has the right look for the part
and any way since one movie is let i dont think people would take kindly to him being changed because he is harry potter he is the face of harry potter taking him away would almost be like killing harry potter
@markus31 (57)
• Philippines
1 Feb 07
I don't think they should replace Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter. because already picture harry as daniel. and replacing him would be a disaster. An actor who is much older than the character his playing is never an issue in hollywood. There a many actors in there late 20's and still acting as a high school student. and we already identify Daniel Radcliffe as Harry.
@theirishimp (126)
• United States
2 Feb 07
yes and not to mention young readers now picture daniel as they read the books
@juicemilk (2283)
• Australia
1 Feb 07
how do you know when he will be married?? and how does that affect his acting ability?
as others have said he is only a year or 2 older than his character, and even if it was 5 years by the last movie thats not a huge difference.
They had 30 year olds play teenagers in Beverly Hills 90210, so I'm sure noone would complain if Harry Potter looked a couple years older than he should
@jricbt (1454)
• Brazil
1 Feb 07
I don't think that it should be done.
Another actor would just , how can I say it. It wouldn't feel right.
simple as that.
@GnosticGoddess (5626)
• United States
8 Jan 07
No way should he be replaced. It would not be good for the movies if he was. I wouldn't watch them. He is Harry Potter. He knows the character and it shows in his performance. Of course he's older but it's only like a year or so. It's not that big of a deal. Everyone on Beverly Hills 90210 was in their 20's and Andrea was like 30. Radcliff does a fantasic job and should not ever be replaced.
@wickedstepma (940)
• United States
1 Feb 07
No, I don't think he should be replaced. All the characters are growing up in the books, so they should be maturing in the movies as well. It's not such a big deal that in reality they are a bit older than portraying. As it was mentioned before, when reading the books, these are now the faces we picture.
@carinnadia (17)
• Indonesia
1 Feb 07
he's perfect for the cast n harry potter wudnt b the same without dan. so i think its fine. he has tht baby face luks anyway
@sexymutant (253)
• India
31 Jan 07
No way.... He is imprinted in the minds as HARRY...The incredible
@kerjostalit (196)
• United States
31 Jan 07
NO! He should not be replaced. Actors play younger characters all the time and there is no reason that Daniel should be replaced. I probably would not even watch it without him.
@theirishimp (126)
• United States
2 Feb 07
no they should not even be thinking of replacing him... they are already wanted to replce Tom Felton [who plays Draco] but it just would not work... but if they do replace Daniel the actor who replaces him should look a lot like him or at least smilar to him
@prashanth_vv (848)
• India
10 Jan 07
well daniel was really cool in the movies and no he shouldn't be replaced.it won't be nice.
@sehgalskapil (1332)
• India
29 Jan 07
yes ,,,he can be why not,,,,changes shud also be recommended..no problem at all..
@smarty_genious (33)
• India
30 Jan 07
nooooooooooooooooooo not at alll he is best as harry potter.......
actually we r fond of seeing him as harry......
so he should be there until the last movie.........
daniel is acting very goood.....
n whats the matter if he is older than the mentioned age of harry potter......
he has a impression of harry potter from the start so it will not be a goood idea to replace him ........
even commercially tooo replacing him will suffer losses for the movie makers ie. warner brothers......
@sexymutant (253)
• India
30 Jan 07
No way.... Daniel is imprinted in the minds of people as incredible HARRY POTTER
@ladyhera (39)
• Philippines
30 Jan 07
i think he should stay until HP7... he had already owned the character to the audience minds.
