I'm Radcliffe's age, and so I would've been around the right age when they cast the movies.
My point isn't I would've gone, as I'm not even British, but rather that currently, I'm (and thus Dan as well) are canonically the right age to play the older generation Sirius, Snape, Lupin, etc. I would add Harry's parents, but they died when they were like 21, so no need for 30+ actors in their case.
But like, Radcliffe as Sirius, Snape or Lupin? ;P
I think he's pretty fed up with JK, I doubt he or the other two will have anything to do with it if JK is involved. JK had to appear via video link for the anniversary special on her own series because enough of 5he cast didn't want her there.
Oh yeah he is, like is Emma Watson and Rupert Grint as well.
But if all that jazz could be ignored (and it can't, this is just a hypothetical), I wonder if he'd be interested in playing the story he knows — but from "the other side", as it were.
Not enough to do it, but like, would he be intrigued by the challenge, as it were.
He's made it pretty clear he doesn't want to do Potter anymore.
https://playbill.com/article/daniel-radcliffe-says-he-doesnt-want-to-star-in-cursed-child-on-screen
James would be my choice. He's not attractive enough, but neither was the older actor they picked for James in the films.
Yeah James has so few scenes that it could even be possible, and fitting in a way.
But he has said he's not really interested in doing Potter anymore.
But if we could disregard that... we should remember that Radcliffe is currently 35. And James Potter, when he died, was 21.
It would've been rather weird to have some barely twenties actor doing James in the movies, lol.
The scene with the Mirror of Erised where he sees his family as he wanted, that was the correct use of the older James as he's be 30s if Harry was at hogwarts. The times he appeared, such as the voldamort graveyard scene, were wrong as that should have been the 20s James as that was his actual spirit.
If we go with that, then a one-off for Daniel, then that's doable without JK.
I actually did give it a bit of thought as to if some of the representations would have aged.
Well reasoned there that a magical portrayal of Harry's wishes would show aging, but the "true" spirit would not.
I like it.
Well reasoned there that a magical portrayal of Harry's wishes would show aging, but the "true" spirit would not.
Huh, I never thought about it that way. I like it too.
It would've been rather weird to have some barely twenties actor doing James in the movies
Why? It's canon that Lily and James died young.
Yeah, it definitely is. But I'm sure there were a lot of people who either had read the book but hadn't considered the timeline (it's not like they specify Lily and James' age iirc) and a lot of people who hadn't ever even gone through the story before seeing the first movie. (I mean, most probably were fans, like me, but I was like, well, Harry's age, and hadn't really paid attention to the ages and I'm sure I would've felt Harry's dad being a bit young had they been 21.)
No, it shouldn't be weird, but you know what I mean.
it's not like they specify Lily and James' age iirc
Their ages are specified in the books, but not (I think) until DH, which was released in 2007, the same year the OotP movie was released. By that point, Snape, Lupin, Sirius, etc. were already cast, so it was a bit too late to fix it.
Hopefully for the new series, they can cast age appropriate actors from the start.
They should do an age swap. Bring all the child actors from the movie back as the same characters and replace all the adult parts with children.
Radcliffe as Sirius, Snape or Lupin?
Maybe? Radcliffe is so well-known as the Harry Potter that:
I definitely agree that they should go with younger actors for Snape and the Marauders this time around though.
Oh I don't know. I don't think he'd actually do it, or even be cast, but I do think Daniel himself might find it interesting an idea to get to play "the other side" of some of those story lines.
But yes, it would be distracting for him to be there.
I definitely agree that they should go with younger actors for Snape and the Marauders this time around though.
Definitely. Alan Rickman was 54 in the first potter, and 64 in the last, when the character of Snape was like 32 when Harry was first year. And because movie Snape was so much older, it really fucked me when I turned 32 and realised I was "Snape's age", because my mental image was of a 54 year old Alan Rickman.
Zaslav wasting money again.
You think so? There's a decent amount of nostalgia for HP, and the films omitted a quite a bit of plot from the books. I can see there being a market for the show. Only time will tell, of course.
I think there's a chance that the nostalgia market might pay off, if it's good, which will be very tricky due to the films being a great adaptation by modern standards. The theme park success is impressive, but it's parallel to the films not replacing them.
However, I am not sure it's going to bring in modern kids. At least in the UK HP simply doesn't have the penetration with kids of today. It's quite rare for many to have read or watched as with it the first time around.
I'm not saying nobody reads it, just that it's fallen to a very low level compared to its height, there is nowhere near the same level of anticipation.
As much as I loved HP as a kid, it's been too tainted by what a monstrous person JK has turned out to be in the years since. It really should be left alone, not brought out so the fond memories we all have of it can be ruined by its inseparable association with her brand of performative political cruelty.
Not to mention the cursed child and fantastic beasts movies.