Author Topic: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...  (Read 12154 times)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2007, 04:04:15 pm »
Joanne Christie, his costar in the show.



Thanks, Honey!
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Karan13

  • Sr. Ranch Hand
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Fun loving open minded the future Mrs Depp or Gyll
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2007, 06:03:49 pm »
Shame on you all , he`s still a young lad, i will gladly take him under my wing [ AS SHE CHECKS HANGING SKIN UNDERARMS} He has indeed grown into a lovely lad , i loved him in Extras he was great , it`s good he`s trying to break away from Harry P it must be very hard to be so successfull so young , if acting is your love you wouid want to move away and carve a new niche for yourself to show how serious you are , nothing better than that than on the London Stage. xxx
It`s not the breaths you take , it`s what makes you lose one !

Offline Kd5000

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 910
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2007, 07:02:28 pm »
It will be interesting to see what sort of reviews Equus gets.  It seems a bit dated, a psychological pot-boiler from the 1970's.

I guess we've seen so much because I didn't find it "shocking," i.e. his reason for blinding the horses.  I saw it in the mid 1990's and I'm paraphrasing what the critic said about the play as well.  ;)  Though with Daniel Radcliffe in it, I'm sure it will draw a packed house.  THe photos look very "interesting."   The poster is really well done.  I hope it's an intense production. 

moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2007, 07:08:06 pm »
One thing I'm wondering about: Radcliffe doesn't turn eighteen until July 23rd. If he were in the United States, he would be considered a minor until that date. I really wonder if he could appear in on-stage nude scenes in this country under those circumstances. As the production is playing in Britain, are British laws somewhat different than American on this issue? Is it permissable for a seventeen-year-old to pose nude there? I just find it extraordinary, given the current widespread anxiety over the sexuality and sexual exploitation of children, that no mention of this element seems to have entered the discourse over Radcliffe's upcoming stint.

Offline Karan13

  • Sr. Ranch Hand
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Fun loving open minded the future Mrs Depp or Gyll
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2007, 07:28:38 pm »
You know moremojo i live here and i`m not sure about that , i know kids are getting pregnant at 11 now in this country , which i still can`t get my head around. I know parents are worried as Daniel is a role model to many young fans , i have mixed feelings about it i know he wants to move on from Harry , but i don`t know if all fan`s will follow him. xx
It`s not the breaths you take , it`s what makes you lose one !

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2007, 08:08:16 pm »
i know he wants to move on from Harry , but i don`t know if all fan`s will follow him. xx

I would suspect that people who want him to remain Harry Potter, age 11, or whatever, forever won't follow him.

(Maybe sorta like folks who want Jake Gyllenhaal to remain Jack Twist forever. ...  :-\ )
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2007, 09:07:24 pm »
Are they still planning on making a movie for each of the books?

And if so, is Daniel planning to play Harry in the rest of them? Because he's going to be awfully old by the time the last movie is made.

I don't understand how they plan on doing it.  ???
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

Offline dot-matrix

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,865
  • www.maleimagegallery.com ~Come Join Us~
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2007, 09:11:35 pm »
One thing I'm wondering about: Radcliffe doesn't turn eighteen until July 23rd. If he were in the United States, he would be considered a minor until that date. I really wonder if he could appear in on-stage nude scenes in this country under those circumstances. As the production is playing in Britain, are British laws somewhat different than American on this issue? Is it permissable for a seventeen-year-old to pose nude there? I just find it extraordinary, given the current widespread anxiety over the sexuality and sexual exploitation of children, that no mention of this element seems to have entered the discourse over Radcliffe's upcoming stint.

My understanding from a friend in the know, is that the age of consent in GB is 16; so Dan is plenty old enough to make this choice and appear nude in the play.  I personally feel the fact that so many people what to stilt this young man's life and career because the character he plays in a "movie" is a role model to their children is all the more reason for him to take on a break out role like this and regain control. He is NOT Harry Potter and he cannot play Harry Potter for the rest of his life.  Anyone who doesn't like it can get themselves a serious reality check :(  JMO
Life is not a dress rehearsal

Offline dot-matrix

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,865
  • www.maleimagegallery.com ~Come Join Us~
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2007, 09:15:18 pm »
Are they still planning on making a movie for each of the books?

And if so, is Daniel planning to play Harry in the rest of them? Because he's going to be awfully old by the time the last movie is made.

I don't understand how they plan on doing it.  ???

Yes David they are and last I heard Dan was committed to finishing the series.  There are afterall only 2 left.  Dan is 17 right now.  Harry is 17 in the next book.  Not a very big stretch.  But even if production takes in his early 20's no big deal.  If Jake Gyllenhaall at 23 can play 17 in the Day After Tomorrow then I think Dan, Emma and Rupert should be just fine finishing this series.  Most of the actors you see playing teenagers in films today are in their mid to late 20's.
Life is not a dress rehearsal

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Little Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) isn't so little anymore...
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2007, 09:18:46 pm »
Yes David they are and last I heard Dan was committed to finishing the series.  There are afterall only 2 left.  Dan is 17 right now.  Harry is 17 in the next book.  Not a very big stretch.  But even if production takes in his early 20's no big deal.  If Jake Gyllenhaall at 23 can play 17 in the Day After Tomorrow then I think Dan, Emma and Rupert should be just fine finishing this series.   Most of the actors you see playing teenagers in films today are in their mid to late 20's.

That's true too. I never thought about it like that before!

Thanks Dottie!  :D
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.