Outraged Muggles!

[Ontir]

It seems people aren't so eager to let Daniel Radcliffe grow up. News of his appearance in the play Equus in London has caused all sorts of controversy, because in the play, Radcliffe is onstage, completely nude.

Thishttp://banners.broadwayworld.com/equus/equus_col1_hires.jpg is among the photos, which have set the parents of Potterites astir. Of course, as one friend pointed out, "If you don't want your 9 year-old to know about it, don't tell them!" If you live in London, and perhaps England, it's going to be a bit bigger news, and harder to avoid, but he is growing up, and does have to think of his career beyond a finite series of films. I say, "Break a leg!"

[Brian "Vash" Ashby]

as i understand it the play is about some kid who blinds like 8 horses with a spike. I much more interested in why someone would want to see a play about that, than harry's harries

[Scorpion13]

It seems people aren't so eager to let Daniel Radcliffe grow up. News of his appearance in the play Equus in London has caused all sorts of controversy, because in the play, Radcliffe is onstage, completely nude.

This is among the photos, which have set the parents of Potterites astir. Of course, as one friend pointed out, "If you don't want your 9 year-old to know about it, don't tell them!" If you live in London, and perhaps England, it's going to be a bit bigger news, and harder to avoid, but he is growing up, and does have to think of his career beyond a finite series of films. I say, "Break a leg!"

Thank you so much for posting that picture. That just what I needed to see. Harry Potter's pubes.

We really just could have taken your word for it, you know. Photographic evidence was not necessary.

[Ontir]

The play is actually quite good, as is the film (http://imdb.com/title/tt0075995/). The blinding of the horses is a part of the story, and certainly a disturbing part, but by no means the entire story.

Scorpion, it's not like it's a full-frontal, but even if it had been, I'm sure you could've managed.

Besides which his pubes aren't in the picture, they're lower, off-frame. All that's visible there, is "the trail."

[BoosterBronze]

I think Mr. Radcliffe is a talented young actor, and I respect his efforts to branch out.

But I really like him as Harry Potter, and hope this doesnt jeopardize his continual portrayal of the character.

[Black Atom]

Scorpion, it's not like it's a full-frontal, but even if it had been, I'm sure you could've managed.

Besides which his pubes aren't in the picture, they're lower, off-frame. All that's visible there, is "the trail."

No, I'm with Scorpion on this, man.

I understand that Radcliffe must be doing this so he's not seen as the pubescent wizard boy for the rest of his life, but it may already be too late. The guy has established some level of iconography and, in my mind, he's still a 12-year-old.

[king mob]

as i understand it the play is about some kid who blinds like 8 horses with a spike. I much more interested in why someone would want to see a play about that, than harry's harries


Because it's an excellent play that has more depth and intelligence in it than any Harry Potter book?

[Tobias March]

Good film too. Though a lot of the stuff that was alluded to on stage was shown on screen. And for me the power of the play is it's so descriptive (well plays in general, that's a given). I'd be afraid that this modern production would try and match the excesses of film.

[TheLazy]

The play is actually quite good, as is the film (http://imdb.com/title/tt0075995/). The blinding of the horses is a part of the story, and certainly a disturbing part, but by no means the entire story.

Scorpion, it's not like it's a full-frontal, but even if it had been, I'm sure you could've managed.

Besides which his pubes aren't in the picture, they're lower, off-frame. All that's visible there, is "the trail."

Yes you can definately see a w*nkers 'tash there. I havent heard or seen anything in the news today, but I suppose theres a good few days yet. I don't understand why parents would be kicking up a fuss though, because in bringing un-needed attention to this, they're the ones that possibly expose their children to the idea Harry being a sex-freak.

I cant see them changing actors two thirds of the way through the series either.

:)

[kmeyers]

Because it's an excellent play that has more depth and intelligence in it than any Harry Potter book?

Have you ever even read a Harry Potter book?

[KenK]

Anyone see him on Extras. That was just hilarious!

As for the whole being nude around horse thing. . . .GET OVER IT! This is how you get respect in showbiz! Nuding up in an idie flick is one thing, but nuding up in a stage play? That takes balls! (no pun intended!:D )

[The Foreigner]

I think it's hilarious that this would "stir up controversy." If he wants to be nude in a play, why should I care? He's an actor; he's trying new things. Good for him.

He's got a pretty good body too, it seems.

[Mac Danny]

What I don't understand is, when it was announced he was going to be performing in Equus, who didn't think he'd end up naked? It's Equus for god's sake!

People have way to much to worry about.

[Spike-X]

I saw a bit of the "outrage" over this on TV here last night. All I could think was, "Get over it, nerds."

Too many people seem to think that just because they've paid money to enjoy a performer's work, that means they've somehow bought the rights to the performer him/herself. Sorry, no. It doesn't work like that.

[Joe Rice]

Have you ever even read a Harry Potter book?

I've not read much, but, c'mon, it's Equus.

[Guitar Hero]

I agree, i don't think the dude wants to be know as "Harry Potter" all his life, he'd rather be known as that naked dude in the play, chics dig that. :D

[Ontir]

w*nkers-'tash

Pee Wee, I believe we have our "word of the day!" :p

Good name for a band, too!

[Athena Bast]

On imdb.com they had it in their news yesterday. One parent to a Harry Potter fansite said

"We as parents feel Daniel should not appear nude. Our nine-year-old son looks up to him as a role model. We are very disappointed and will avoid the future movies he makes."

And as a 9 year old he shouldn't see Equus.

It's almost the same thing Dakota Fanning is going through right now. Tho with less nudity and more just growing up.

[Spike-X]

"We as parents feel Daniel should not appear nude. Or be naked at all, ever. And he shouldn't even think about growing up and making his own decisions. Ever."

Twits.

[Gladiaria_Alata]

"We as parents feel Daniel should not appear nude. Or be naked at all, ever. And he shouldn't even think about growing up and making his own decisions. Ever."

Twits.

Yup.

Something to do with people not liking things changing without their consent.

Or violating their 'comfort zones'.

[Ontir]

"We are very disappointed and will avoid the future movies he makes."

Poor Radcliffe, I guess he'll just have to comfort himself with his millions of £, €, and $

[Robin3]

I don't mind that he did the play, but I think it was a bad career move on his part. He probably didn't want to get typecast, so went for part that was 180 degrees away from what he did in Harry Potter.

Even with that said, if I were a producer of the film or J.K. Rowling, I'd have to fire him, he'd be too much a liability for the movie. Kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he got caught masturbating in public.(granted it was an adult theater).

I have no problem with Dakota Fanning's choice. It's all about, Fanning isn't doing the same roles. Radcliffe hasn't finished all the Harry Potter movies yet, and in a way, it's him essentially saying that he doesn't want to be in any more. That's okay, but it could hurt his professional network and career to get kicked off a major production, if that happens.

[Brian "Vash" Ashby]

Harry potters "wand" is slytherin

[Quarterwolf]

Even with that said, if I were a producer of the film or J.K. Rowling, I'd have to fire him, he'd be too much a liability for the movie. Kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he got caught masturbating in public.(granted it was an adult theater).

Did I wake up in Bizarro land today? Why should he be fired? because he dared to do something that was not Harry Potter or because he did a play where he was naked on stage? Rowlings struck gold with him and will, I have a feeling, stick with him. And Pee Wee was a totally different thing. He was MASTERBATING IN PUBLIC. Radcliffe was ACTING IN A PLAY. If you cannot see the differance you really have issues.

Plus I have yet to hear of someone who did a nude shot in a movie never being allowed to do kids movies. Hell Eddie Murphys stand up alone should make sure he never does a movie under an R rating.

[Athena Bast]

All I have to say is that he must be a very VERY confident young man :D

[Scorpion13]

I don't mind that he did the play, but I think it was a bad career move on his part. He probably didn't want to get typecast, so went for part that was 180 degrees away from what he did in Harry Potter.

Im not going to comment on your other wacky statements, and wacky they are sir, but I will say that I totally agree with you on this one.

How many times have we seen a former/near former child star who wanted to break out of they typecasting they were in by being in something were they were nude or someting else?

And how often has that ploy worked? When are these kids gonna get it through thier heads that nudity =/= legitimacy in the eyes of the public?

I dont know if the play is any good or not, but it really seems to me that the main reason why he is in it is because the idea is that being naked will make people take him seriously.

[Joe Rice]

Equus is one of the most famous, difficult plays ever. And this is supposedly an excellent production. It's not like Drew Barrymore showing her boobs in a slasher flick.

[K'Nort]

Have you ever even read a Harry Potter book?

Equus is very complex. Saying it is more complex than a book for children is much more a "go figure" than a slam.

[Corrina]

It's a very complex play and a very demanding part--the nudity is probably the easy part of it.

If Radcliffe does well, then he's off to a good start at having a long term career. Jodi Foster did all those kid's movies for Disney, after all, and did "Taxi Driver."

Also, the European attitude to nudity on-stage tends to be a little less Puritan than in America.

[kalorama]

I don't mind that he did the play, but I think it was a bad career move on his part. He probably didn't want to get typecast, so went for part that was 180 degrees away from what he did in Harry Potter.

Even with that said, if I were a producer of the film or J.K. Rowling, I'd have to fire him, he'd be too much a liability for the movie. Kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he got caught masturbating in public.(granted it was an adult theater).

I have no problem with Dakota Fanning's choice. It's all about, Fanning isn't doing the same roles. Radcliffe hasn't finished all the Harry Potter movies yet, and in a way, it's him essentially saying that he doesn't want to be in any more. That's okay, but it could hurt his professional network and career to get kicked off a major production, if that happens.

That's ridiculous. Fire him? Yeah, that'll happen. As far as fans of the film are concerned, he IS Harry Potter. Firing him would be tantamount to the producers dumping millions of dollars in a big hole and setting it on fire. To say nothing of the fact that, to the vast majority of the obscene numbers of people who pony up money for the Potter films, this whole Equus thing is as insignificant as a fart upwind from a landfill. most of them will never hear about about it and most of them that do won't give a damn.

And comparing this to what Reubens did is beyond off-base. Equus is an award winning play that's been performed on stage by numerous well-regarded actors over the course of several decades. How, exactly, does that compare to a guy in a raincoat beating off in a porno house?

Much ado about less than nothing.

[kalorama]

And how often has that ploy worked? When are these kids gonna get it through thier heads that nudity =/= legitimacy in the eyes of the public?

It's not necessarily about "legitimacy" at least in the creative sense. Often it's about nothing more than making a clean break by forcing the potential audience of their future work to recognize that they're no longer kids.

[Scorpion13]

It's not necessarily about "legitimacy" at least in the creative sense. Often it's about nothing more than making a clean break by forcing the potential audience of their future work to recognize that they're no longer kids.


I could see it working out well for Whatshisname, he's in an excellent stage play, but most of the time, it doesnt work that way.

Most times hese child stars go and do a movie or something that will supposedly shock the public into thinking that theyre legitimate actors, and they mostly turn into the butt of jokes, and are taken less seriously than before.

Whats more, this kid has the chance of that happening to him too, even though the show is actually pretty good, simply because he's nude in it.

[Kirayoshi]

How dare Daniel Radcliffe not be typecast? Shame on him!

:rolleyes:

Actually, I could see Radcliffe doing a biopic on the Beatles, especially during the Hamburg period(too bad someone already did that with Backbeat). He kinda looks like a young John Lennon, doesn't he?

[kalorama]

I could see it working out well for Whatshisname, he's in an excellent stage play, but most of the time, it doesnt work that way.

Most times hese child stars go and do a movie or something that will supposedly shock the public into thinking that theyre legitimate actors, and they mostly turn into the butt of jokes, and are taken less seriously than before.

Whats more, this kid has the chance of that happening to him too, even though the show is actually pretty good, simply because he's nude in it.

Even if that's true (and it's hardly a given that it is)... So what?

Better he should play it safe for the rest of his life/career and risk nothing? Because that always works out so well.

[Ontir]

It's a very complex play and a very demanding part--the nudity is probably the easy part of it.

If Radcliffe does well, then he's off to a good start at having a long term career. Jodi Foster did all those kid's movies for Disney, after all, and did "Taxi Driver."

Also, the European attitude to nudity on-stage tends to be a little less Puritan than in America.

It's like Jeremy Irons once said (and I'm paraphrasing), physical nudity is easy, because it's just buttons and zippers. Emotionally nudity is very difficult, because it's real.

He isn't doing the Naked Mile, or even Hair. It's Equus, and that DOES count for something. The emotional side of his part is immense, and I think probably a little difficult to live with, 8 shows a week, for a year. He has to really break down, on stage, 8 times a week, sometimes twice a day, in a play. Unlike film or TV, there's no stopping and starting. It's a marathon.

[king mob]

Have you ever even read a Harry Potter book?

Yes I have, they're poorly written kids books with good concepts and are shallower than a shallow thing. As you can gather i'm no fan but even the most hardcore fan can't compare the literary merits of Potter to Equus.

[Ontir]

That'd be kind of like comparing the Brady Bunch to Six Feet Under.

[thehod]

"We as parents feel Daniel should not appear nude. Our nine-year-old son looks up to him as a role model. We are very disappointed and will avoid the future movies he makes."

Translation:
"We as parents promise to cease any further procreation, because we clearly haven't got the first clue about what we are talking about."

[thehod]

Also, the European attitude to nudity on-stage tends to be a little less Puritan than in America.

This is something that has always confused me about the States. I thought us Brits were prudish, but America is one of the worlds biggest producers of porn, yet on the other hand if a nipple so much as sneaks onto TV its like:

"A nipple. A NIPPLE!!!! BURN IT. BUUUUURRRRRN!!!!!"

[Spike-X]

"We as parents feel Daniel should not appear nude. Our nine-year-old son looks up to him as a role model. We are very disappointed and will avoid the future movies he makes."

Yeah, try explaining that to the kids.

"Mum, can we go see the new Harry Potter movie?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Because the young man who plays Harry appeared nude in a play that nobody in this family would ever have the slightest interest in seeing."

"...WTF?"

[Pól Rua]

I don't mind that he did the play, but I think it was a bad career move on his part. He probably didn't want to get typecast, so went for part that was 180 degrees away from what he did in Harry Potter.

Even with that said, if I were a producer of the film or J.K. Rowling, I'd have to fire him, he'd be too much a liability for the movie. Kind of like Pee Wee Herman when he got caught masturbating in public.(granted it was an adult theater).

It's 'Equus', not 'Party In Your Arse Vol.8'.
Oooh, what a liability, he doesn't want to dress up like a boy wizard for the rest of his life! What a bastard!

[Pól Rua]

IAnd how often has that ploy worked? When are these kids gonna get it through thier heads that nudity =/= legitimacy in the eyes of the public?

I dont know if the play is any good or not, but it really seems to me that the main reason why he is in it is because the idea is that being naked will make people take him seriously.

The play isn't 'legitimate' because it features nudity.
It's legitimate because it's GOOD.
This isn't Julie Andrews showing her boobs in 'S.O.B.' so that people won't think she's Maria forever, it's a young actor taking on a challenging role so that people might actually believe that he can... O, I dunno... ACT maybe.

[Mac Danny]

All I have to say is that he must be a very VERY confident young man :D

That boy is hung like Hagrid!

[Ontir]

This is something that has always confused me about the States. I thought us Brits were prudish, but America is one of the worlds biggest producers of porn, yet on the other hand if a nipple so much as sneaks onto TV its like:

"A nipple. A NIPPLE!!!! BURN IT. BUUUUURRRRRN!!!!!"

You have to remember that America began with a bunch of people who thought that the British of the 17th century, were too wild and crazy.

[Copper]

You have to remember that America began with a bunch of people who thought that the British of the 17th century, were too wild and crazy.

Thanks...that called up a mental picture of Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd in 17th century clothing. *cleans tea off monitor.*

[Brian "Vash" Ashby]

So i googled the play, apparently its much more interesting than i was led to believe by one of my friends. I thought it was one of those artsy fartsy type numbers where its just about nakedness and horse stabbing. I love psychological stuff. Might have to find a script or something.


at least this isnt getting the type of crazy flack that Dakota Fanning is getting from her rape movie.

[Dreadstar]

Interesting. They allow full-frontal nudity on stage at the age of 17 in England?

That means that Emma Watson is like only 3 months from possibly joining the cast of the London production of Oh! Calcutta! ?


...interesting...

[KenK]

Interesting. They allow full-frontal nudity on stage at the age of 17 in England?

That means that Emma Watson is like only 3 months from possibly joining the cast of the London production of Oh! Calcutta! ?


...interesting...

The UK is a bit more lax with nudity than in the states. I think Keira Knightley was about 16 when she appeared nude in The Hole.

[Ontir]

Thanks...that called up a mental picture of Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd in 17th century clothing. *cleans tea off monitor.*

Always glad to be of service... :p

Nothing like a boiling spit-take, is there?

[Dreadstar]

sound of joke completley missing the target


Oh, well.

[Bouncing Boy]

sound of joke completley missing the target


Oh, well.

If it helps, the joke made my choke on my Special K, I'm dead now thanks to you! BASTARD!!!!

[malephoenix]

I don't understand why no one seems to be focusing on the concept that he could easily have claimed some "legitimacy" or grown away from being typecast by performing in, oh, say...countless other plays/films that wouldn't require something that would gather such a strong negative reaction from so much of the public in America?

What's even more confusing to me is that I would have thought that this wouldn't even really be an issue for most of America's Harry Potter fans, anyway. A lot of "Christendom" has been against HP on the basis of the magic aspects. I would have thought that swept away most of the parents who would cry "Naked!" right along with it. (Not the best wording in there, but I'm sure you get my drift.)

Beyond that, this is just another yes-thread. A thread like this is like a thread on how people feel about republicans, homosexuality, or the Daredevil flick. Everyone's going to jump on and say the same thing and slam the same group. Come on, there must be more lurkers around here that could add something thought-provoking for the other side of this coin?

[Black Atom]

This is something that has always confused me about the States. I thought us Brits were prudish, but America is one of the worlds biggest producers of porn, yet on the other hand if a nipple so much as sneaks onto TV its like:

"A nipple. A NIPPLE!!!! BURN IT. BUUUUURRRRRN!!!!!"

It's simple really. By making nudity and sex something socially forbidden, it makes them all that more satisfying. Really, we Americans almost fetishize sex itself.

[Joe Rice]

Beyond that, this is just another yes-thread. A thread like this is like a thread on how people feel about republicans, homosexuality, or the Daredevil flick. Everyone's going to jump on and say the same thing and slam the same group. Come on, there must be more lurkers around here that could add something thought-provoking for the other side of this coin?

Sometimes it's not a conspiracy when everyone agrees.

Equus is a major play and most actors would die to get a chance to do it.

[kalorama]

I don't understand why no one seems to be focusing on the concept that he could easily have claimed some "legitimacy" or grown away from being typecast by performing in, oh, say...countless other plays/films that wouldn't require something that would gather such a strong negative reaction from so much of the public in America?

Perhaps because we are not cynically assuming that the only reason he took the job was because of some desperate attempt to prove his "legitimacy." Perhaps we're willing to believe that he took the gig because he thought it was a great opportunity for him as an actor (and if, in the process, it makes audiences and employers for his future work see him in a different light, then even better for him).

What's even more confusing to me is that I would have thought that this wouldn't even really be an issue for most of America's Harry Potter fans, anyway. A lot of "Christendom" has been against HP on the basis of the magic aspects. I would have thought that swept away most of the parents who would cry "Naked!" right along with it. (Not the best wording in there, but I'm sure you get my drift.)

In all likelihood it won't be an issue for most Harry potter fans, in America or anywhere else, because it's really not that big a deal. There's hardly been a wellspring of protest in the USA. In fact, most of the people who will queue up for tickets to the next Potter movie will probably not know/remember/care anything about his.

Beyond that, this is just another yes-thread. A thread like this is like a thread on how people feel about republicans, homosexuality, or the Daredevil flick. Everyone's going to jump on and say the same thing and slam the same group. Come on, there must be more lurkers around here that could add something thought-provoking for the other side of this coin?

Thought provoking like joining the crowd of cynical naysayers who say things like "he could easily have claimed some "legitimacy" or grown away from being typecast by performing in, oh, say...countless other plays/films that wouldn't require something that would gather such a strong negative reaction from so much of the public in America"?

[the film freak]

I'm all for the kid expanding his dramatic chops. But do we really need to see Harry Potter's happy trail in this thread?

Otherwise I say no big deal. It's not like most kids are going to being hanging out in the West End.

[malephoenix]

Perhaps because we are not cynically assuming that the only reason he took the job was because of some desperate attempt to prove his "legitimacy." Perhaps we're willing to believe that he took the gig because he thought it was a great opportunity for him as an actor (and if, in the process, it makes audiences and employers for his future work see him in a different light, then even better for him).

Then maybe I need to read the thread again. It seemed like the former was more commonly expressed than the latter. With or without the cynicism.




Thought provoking like joining the crowd of cynical naysayers who say things like "he could easily have claimed some "legitimacy" or grown away from being typecast by performing in, oh, say...countless other plays/films that wouldn't require something that would gather such a strong negative reaction from so much of the public in America"?

I thought my working was fairly clear that I wasn't on either side of this. Again, perhaps I'm at fault for that. But to answer your q - assuming it was sincere and only read sarcastic - No. I mean, more thought provoking than someone like me, who doesn't care much about the issue. Although I will maintain that it is still a good point.



And to Joe and anyone else, I wasn't meaning that as an accusation, or to imply conspiritous circles, etc. It's just a phenomena that I'm getting used to. It probably happens on all message boards, and if I was used to this "internet" thing, I probably would have realized that years ago.

[Black Atom]

There's really not a great deal of thought-provoking conversation to be had because the subject is not interesting. Daniel Radcliffe choosing to act in Equus is, perhaps, interesting. Discussing the reactions to the reactions to Daniel Radcliffe choosing to act in Equus, on the other hand, is much less interesting and basically an invitation for idignant circle-jerking and ranking on housewives who, bored as they are, would still rather be doing something else than defending themselves on these boards.

[kmeyers]

Yes I have, they're poorly written kids books with good concepts and are shallower than a shallow thing. As you can gather i'm no fan but even the most hardcore fan can't compare the literary merits of Potter to Equus.

I wasn't comparing them, because I don't know that much about Equus. I was just wondering if it was another baseless slam against Harry Potter.

It's kind of hard for a person to compare two literary works when they haven't read them both. Even if one is considered to be a classic(which I was unaware that Equus was).

[kalorama]

No. I mean, more thought provoking than someone like me, who doesn't care much about the issue. Although I will maintain that it is still a good point.

Wellllll ... if, by your own admisssion, you don't care about the topic and have nothing interesting or thought provoking to say about it yourself then what, exactly, is your justification/rationale for critizing others for their lack of thought provocation? If you don't care about the issue, why do you care whether the discussion is thought-provoking or not?

[Ontir]

I'm all for the kid expanding his dramatic chops. But do we really need to see Harry Potter's happy trail in this thread?

Otherwise I say no big deal. It's not like most kids are going to being hanging out in the West End.


A friend said that was the cover of the Playbill. I didn't check Playbill, myself, but it IS at least in the advertisements for the play, and it's no worse than an Abercrombie & Fitch ad, or that beefcake photo of Ryan Reynolds, that was posted EVERYWHERE for awhile around the opening of Blade III.

[Scorpion13]

A friend said that was the cover of the Playbill. I didn't check Playbill, myself, but it IS at least in the advertisements for the play, and it's no worse than an Abercrombie & Fitch ad, or that beefcake photo of Ryan Reynolds, that was posted EVERYWHERE for awhile around the opening of Blade III.

You say it like we, or nobody else had a problem with that, either.

But at least Equus is good. Blade 3.....gruh...

[Ontir]

Well, consider all the cheesecake photos that have been posted here year in and out and, in the immortal words of Leah DiLaria:

NOW YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL! :D

[Sean Walsh]

I'd rather pretend I never saw this image and instead focus on his appearance last weekend on EXTRAS, which was just bloody awesome. Him hitting on Emma Peel was possibly the greatest thing I've ever seen in a modern-day comedy.

[TheLazy]

The one with the homeless guy is better.;)

:)

[king mob]

I find people liking Extras far more disturbing than a semi-naked actor!

[king mob]

Interesting. They allow full-frontal nudity on stage at the age of 17 in England?

That means that Emma Watson is like only 3 months from possibly joining the cast of the London production of Oh! Calcutta! ?


...interesting...


Our age of consent is 16, both straight and gay. We might have a bunch of lying, crooked thieves running our country but at least we're civillised in some respects.

[Spike-X]

I don't understand why no one seems to be focusing on the concept that he could easily have claimed some "legitimacy" or grown away from being typecast by performing in, oh, say...countless other plays/films that wouldn't require something that would gather such a strong negative reaction from so much of the public in America?

Maybe he could have. Maybe he really, really wanted to play this particular role for his own reasons that have nothing to do with the British, American, Australian, or any other bloody public one way or the other?

[Spike-X]

I'm all for the kid expanding his dramatic chops. But do we really need to see Harry Potter's happy trail in this thread?


Oh, get over it guys. We see more revealing pictures of women posted on CBR every day. If you're that afraid of liking it, just get your browser to block the image.

[malephoenix]

Wellllll ... if, by your own admisssion, you don't care about the topic and have nothing interesting or thought provoking to say about it yourself then what, exactly, is your justification/rationale for critizing others for their lack of thought provocation? If you don't care about the issue, why do you care whether the discussion is thought-provoking or not?

Me saying he could have chosen other projects was a good point. But that doesn't mean I fall on that side of the issue.

I wasn't criticizing others. I was asking for someone to present something for the other side, because this thread is heavily one-sided. Relax, man. Not everything's a conspiracy just like not everything's criticism.

[Black Atom]

Oh, get over it guys. We see more revealing pictures of women posted on CBR every day.

Got a link?

[kmeyers]

Maybe he could have. Maybe he really, really wanted to play this particular role for his own reasons that have nothing to do with the British, American, Australian, or any other bloody public one way or the other?

How DARE he make a decision for himself! I cannot believe the audacity this guy has to not listen to career advice from a bunch of idiots he's never heard of!

I mean, what's next? Free will?

[kalorama]

Me saying he could have chosen other projects was a good point. But that doesn't mean I fall on that side of the issue.

I wasn't criticizing others. I was asking for someone to present something for the other side, because this thread is heavily one-sided. Relax, man. Not everything's a conspiracy just like not everything's criticism.

You're right. Criticism was the wrong word.

I meant to say complaining.

[Taltos]

No, I'm with Scorpion on this, man.

I understand that Radcliffe must be doing this so he's not seen as the pubescent wizard boy for the rest of his life, but it may already be too late. The guy has established some level of iconography and, in my mind, he's still a 12-year-old.

funny, to me he never was harry potter.

[malephoenix]

You're right. Criticism was the wrong word.

I meant to say complaining.

*shrug* Sure, man. Whatever.