Paolo wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:28 pm I must say, the boy sure grew up...

Damn, to be 17 again!

What we must keep in mind here is that Harry Potter is not real.

Daniel is.

He is an actor.

It is his choice of roles.

Everyone who has a problem with this needs to grow up - or get shot. I don't care which. Especially parents of children who think of him as their role model, raising such a fuss over this.

Harry is fictional.

Daniel is real.

Repeat.

He has male genitals...oh the shock!

Deal with it.

Paolo,

No child star "chooses" his own roles. You need to think this one through. Actors and actresses must pander to their public that grants them star status. If the public does not like this it will never be the public be damned. Instead, it will be Daniel be damned. That, my friend, would be a tragedy.

I view this this Equus starring role as payback to the folks who got him "started" in show business. He is sick of Harry Potter but Harry Potter has made him rich and famous. So, with Harry Potter it is a LOVE-HATE thing. Still, he needs to kill Harry and bury Harry. Equus should about do it but at what price? My issue is that few child stars make the transition into adult stars unscathed. I hope that he does, however, with a role like this I think that it will be difficult, even if he is successful with the public and the critics.

Here is why.

The problem is maturity. Does he have the fortitude to make character transitions as significant Sir Anthony Hopkins has from acting in Shakespeare to the movie character Hannibal Lector to the patriarch in Legends of the Fall? Hopkins even out-acted Brad Pitt in my view in "Legends", but of course, I am not hormonally challenged, either. The list goes on and on...

Of course, Daniel is not going to make it on "sex appeal" with the ladies like Brad Pitt. Of course, he may have sex appeal in other ways...but that remains to be seen. The Equus character is a failure at sex. Now, that is just what Daniel does NOT need after his character has basically ignored the personal and (ahhhem..) development of Hermione Granger throughout the Harry Potter series.

Personally, I think that he has made a mistake taking this role. The plot of Equus (http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/equus.html) is not something that he fits well in. Especially after playing the leading character in 5 Harry Potter films, and he still has not developed as well as has Emma Watson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Watson) who plays Hermione Granger in the same series. (Whatever pundit that says that she is neither pretty nor ugly IS an idiot. This kid is afflicted with SERIOUS gorgeousness...)

Tell me if I am wrong, but I can see her making a transition to a 'normal' teenager role in films. I cannot see her playing a plot like this, (http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/equus.html) of a main character doing a cruel deed with abnormal psychiatriac overtones but with a female role.

Here is a crude example. Take a story from the archive where a young female castrates her young male lover. Would any of you think that Emma Watson could move her career forward as an actress by playing this part? I mean, a PSYCHOPATH...?!??! No doubt this kind of a role could wreck her career.

I just see the Harry Potter series as a typecast and there are better ways to break a typecast than playing the role of a sexually constipated, mentally ill stableboy who blinds six horses because he has paranoid fantasies.

Here is another example. Elizabeth Berkley (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/155 ... 0Elizabeth) of "Saved by the Bell" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saved_by_the_Bell) Television fame made the movie Showgirls (http://showgirlsmovie.com/) in which she played a prostitute-stripper who goes to Las Vegas and becomes a significant attraction as a showgirl. (Here's another one who can sit in MY LAP anytime;) ) After this role, she has not done a lot of significant movie leads. The typecasting of the series has placed her in a role where her character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Berkley) was the antithesis of the one in Showgirls. The public (and the stupid critics) cannot easily make this transition so they reject the whole movie.

I mean, it was quite a shock to see her naked. It made me want to offer her some clothes after seeing her as a kid all of those years on television. It kind of hurt me in a strange way to see her acting that part...so, Daughter, I feel your hurt...

Then, the damned thing (Showgirls) gets a cult following of nasty old GEEZERS, who imagine themselves getting screwed (or beaten up) by her, or whatever else they fanticise and this even messes things up more. Suddenly, she becomes the good girl gone bad...in everybody's view, when she has done no worse role-wise than actress Demi Moore (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contribut ... 012196/bio)...

...Unlike actress Gina Gershon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Gershon) who plays the role so well of a butch lesbian lover of the "Gun Moll" character of actress Jennifer Tilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Tilly) in the movie Bound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_%28film%29) that she still has significant lead roles. Of course, I don't ever remember her as a teenager or a child, either.

It does not matter what character Gina Gershon does as long as it has sexual connotations she will be popular and keep on getting roles because of her sexuality. It is just like Brad Pitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Pitt) and his James Dean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dean) factor.

Now, with a six-year career that only dates back to 2001, what will happen to our 17-year old (going on 18 in July)Daniel Radcliffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Radcliffe), our own Harry Potter, if the play Equus flops? The only answer can be obscurity... this is because then...

1. He has NO sex appeal. (Well, not mainstream, anyways)

2. His "imaginary" worlds of typecast fictional character acting are tainted by the insanity of Equus.

3. He is permanently typecast as Harry Potter but he is too old to play the part.

4. Worse, he's permanently typecast as his failed caracter, a loser and by proxy a failed actor because his Equus performance was considered unsatisfactory to boot.

DO you all understand what I am saying here? There is everything to lose and not much to gain.

I think he needs to put some meat on his scrawny bones.

The actor who played Harry Potter going into nude movies is on a par with the schoolteacher who used to be a porn star, at least as far as the general public is concerned. On the other hand, Blue Lagoon didn't seem to come back to haunt those actors in later life. I don't really care one way or the other, but there are a lot of folks out there who think public nudity is a sin or worse....

Kangan (imported) wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:48 pm The actor who played Harry Potter going into nude movies is on a par with the schoolteacher who used to be a porn star, at least as far as the general public is concerned. On the other hand, Blue Lagoon didn't seem to come back to haunt those actors in later life. I don't really care one way or the other, but there are a lot of folks out there who think public nudity is a sin or worse....

The problem is contextual...

Brooke Shields first had nude photos taken at 10 years of age. Click here. (http://www.colleges.com/Umagazine/artic ... 004.BROOKE) Followed by nude scenes in 1978's "Pretty Baby" at age 13 in which her virginity was sold in a brothel at an auction, "Just You and Me Kid" where at age 14 she was hiding naked in George Burn's car trunk. The nude scenes in "The Blue Lagoon" at age 15 in 1980, the Calvin Klein ad "Nothing comes between me and my Calvin Kleins, and the list goes on and on.

The point here is that she was always given parts with sexual connotations even as a child. But, she was always portrayed as a victim or victim of unfortunate circumstances. She has not ever portrayed a psychopath that I am aware of. However, her career seemed to pander to the sexually charged adolesent or adult men who had a taste for young girls not yet of legal age. Maybe, even, those who wanted to re-live earlier sexual adventures at the time when they were her age.

Well, she is 41 now with 2 children of her own which nobody sees naked photos of in the media.

Now, what about Harry Potter?

No sexual connotations, squeaky clean, and then all of a sudden he portrays a youngster who blinds horses, has outrageous fantasies, and is a failure at sex.

I cannot see how you all cannot see what potential damage he is doing to his career by plunging into this Equus part which has the potential to alienate most of his current fan base. All of this before age 18.

By age 41 he may be as scarce in movies and TV as is Jerry Mathers as "The Beaver".

"... but ...Ward, aren't you being a little hard on the beaver?..."

Bunch of ignorant censors...they never did get that one, did they?

Brooke Shields' acting ability has more to do with the present day status of her career than does whether she appeared nude as a child. She never was that good an actor. I expect the same will be true for Radcliffe. Few child stars can make the transition to adult roles. It will be especially hard for Radcliffe, so strongly is he associated with the Harry Potter role.

I doubt the play will have much affect on his career one way or the other. It's a play. Relatively few people are going to see it, and most of those that do will probably go to see Harry Potter nude.

Just as Jerry Mathers was a cute kid that grew up to be an unattractive adult, Radcliffe -- in my opinion -- will have little going for him physically as an adult. He's not fat like Mathers, but he isn't particularly handsome. While I think he's done a good job as Harry Potter, he's no Elijah Wood or Leonardo DiCaprio.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:13 am Brooke Shields' acting ability has more to do with the present day status of her career than does whether she appeared nude as a child. She never was that good an actor. I expect the same will be true for Radcliffe. Few child stars can make the transition to adult roles. It will be especially hard for Radcliffe, so strongly is he associated with the Harry Potter role.

I doubt the play will have much affect on his career one way or the other. It's a play. Relatively few people are going to see it, and most of those that do will probably go to see Harry Potter nude.

Just as Jerry Mathers was a cute kid that grew up to be an unattractive adult, Radcliffe -- in my opinion -- will have little going for him physically as an adult. He's not fat like Mathers, but he isn't particularly handsome. While I think he's done a good job as Harry Potter, he's no Elijah Wood or Leonardo DiCaprio.

Still, Brooke worked in films steadily until 1999 when her filmography stopped abruptly. Reason:? She is raising her family and she is rich enough that she does not have to work.

Acting ability aside, she had a steady list of films up until 1999.

Mathers or nobody else has to be beautiful OR skinny to make it in films. That is a farce that is being perpetrated by assholes in Hollywood. Most of these asshoes are fatter than hell. Character actors and actresses do just fine regardless of looks or fatness.

Check out Kathy Bates

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:29 pm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Kathy_Bates) and John Goodm

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:29 pm an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J

ohn_Goodman). (Dig that wig...I wonder what River would look like in it?)

Both have sizzling careers and neither are beautiful or skinny. (I'm not talking about River now.)

Daniel has the potential for a similar career. He is not fat, he is not beautiful, but despite this I believe him to be a good character actor. He needs to pick his roles more carefully. That is my point. Choosing the wrong ones can kill off his career.

What is great about Harry Potter? I saw the first film. What a waste of my time. I tried to read one of the novels. :-\ Ugh! Now, back to Hobbits! Life is too short for this stuff.

Robert Blake was a child actor. Being a child actor is no sign one will be a happy adult. However, Blake is a fine actor. Poor man lost his wife.

Well, the possibilities seem a lot thinner for actors that aren't skinny, young and handsome/pretty. Especially so for women - there are usually not a lot of female characters that are middleaged. Sometimes there are a few roles for elder women, stereotypically portraited as wise and crony...

Males can be older - sometimes redicuosly old in comparison to what they do in a typical action movie.

But of course a lot of the complaints are self serving also. It IS easier to perform if you look the part. So if the character is young and fit, the role may go to someone young and fit instead of an older actor that is just as good. (Unless of course he/she is so well known, they know she/he will sell a lot more because of his name.)

But hey, it's showbusiness - and it has been the same for long enought that enyone getting in to it should know about it...

Sapient,

No brains and little talent can be compensated for by good looks. That is how George Clooney has managed to have a career. Parts that call for sex necessitate youth and thiness. Nobody wants to pay to see fat people fuck. Too bad that's almost 90% of Hollywood's output these days.

There is just no substitute for a character actor if the part calls for one.

Blaize,

I didn't say GREAT...I said good. He is a good actor.

Say, how did Robert Blake's trial come out? I would suppose that he was found innocent, because if he was found guilty it would have been all over the media.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:21 pm Sapient,

No brains and little talent can be compensated for by good looks. That is how George Clooney has managed to have a career. Parts that call for sex necessitate youth and thiness. Nobody wants to pay to see fat people fuck. Too bad that's almost 90% of Hollywood's output these days.

There is just no substitute for a character actor if the part calls for one.

Blaize,

I didn't say GREAT...I said good. He is a good actor.

Say, how did Robert Blake's trial come out? I would suppose that he was found innocent, because if he was found guilty it would have been all over the media.

The movie bored me. I think the young and old actors were fine. Some are among my favorite actors. The books are probably fine. I just did not connect with them.