![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Commentators Is Soooooo Stupid
Not a rant on political commentators this time, though Cthulhu knows there's always more than enough red meat there. Nope, this is on the other batch of commentators that presume they understand Life, The Universe And Everything way better than we poor shlubs ever could.
It was announced today that Daniel Radcliffe has signed on for the last two Harry Potter films. Not at all a surprise there; it's a huge amount of money, and he's already taking steps to make sure he's not typecast.
But check out the last paragraph of the story:
News flash for you bozos: Radcliffe's core fan base is mostly young to middle-aged women. Many of whom read -- or write -- fanfic that would sear the paint off the walls of J. K. Rowling's mansion.
The day those photos were released, there were sketches and photomanips based on them. And it's not like I subscribe to the hardcore HP groups.
The other point is equally ludicrous, and always has been. Gasp! At 18 or 19 or 20, Radcliffe (and Watson and Grint) might be too old to play... 15- and 16- and 17-year-olds.
I call to the stand Exhibit A: Grease.
When that film was made in 1978, John Travolta was 24. He'd just got done playing a teen on Welcome Back, Kotter, starting two years past his own high school graduation date. Jeff Conaway was 28. Olivia Newton-John was 30. Stockard Channing was 34. (Ages corrected -- thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pickledcritter for spotting my lousy math.)
I'm not sayin' they looked the parts; just that the foofrah of the Trio being a couple years older than their characters is nothing. And the idiots who really think the fans want to see anyone in those roles for the last two movies besides Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint -- especially for the bogus "reason" that they're too old -- has Not The First Clue.
Edit: ... Anne and I were boggling on the phone about the ages of the folks in Grease, and I mentioned that ON-J is still actually pretty hot. Only now she's sixty-three. (Which was inaccurate, by the way -- see above.) And Anne laughed and said, as if she was ON-J sayin' Yeah, I still look gooooood, "Look at me!"
And I almost choked as I sang, "Look at me, I'm sixty-three...."
It was announced today that Daniel Radcliffe has signed on for the last two Harry Potter films. Not at all a surprise there; it's a huge amount of money, and he's already taking steps to make sure he's not typecast.
But check out the last paragraph of the story:
Movie commentators had wondered if Radcliffe could sustain the role of Potter throughout the film franchise, and whether the raunchy publicity shots of Radcliffe for "Equus" would alienate him from his core fan base.Oh, really?
News flash for you bozos: Radcliffe's core fan base is mostly young to middle-aged women. Many of whom read -- or write -- fanfic that would sear the paint off the walls of J. K. Rowling's mansion.
The day those photos were released, there were sketches and photomanips based on them. And it's not like I subscribe to the hardcore HP groups.
The other point is equally ludicrous, and always has been. Gasp! At 18 or 19 or 20, Radcliffe (and Watson and Grint) might be too old to play... 15- and 16- and 17-year-olds.
I call to the stand Exhibit A: Grease.
When that film was made in 1978, John Travolta was 24. He'd just got done playing a teen on Welcome Back, Kotter, starting two years past his own high school graduation date. Jeff Conaway was 28. Olivia Newton-John was 30. Stockard Channing was 34. (Ages corrected -- thanks to
pickledcritter for spotting my lousy math.)I'm not sayin' they looked the parts; just that the foofrah of the Trio being a couple years older than their characters is nothing. And the idiots who really think the fans want to see anyone in those roles for the last two movies besides Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint -- especially for the bogus "reason" that they're too old -- has Not The First Clue.
Edit: ... Anne and I were boggling on the phone about the ages of the folks in Grease, and I mentioned that ON-J is still actually pretty hot. Only now she's sixty-three. (Which was inaccurate, by the way -- see above.) And Anne laughed and said, as if she was ON-J sayin' Yeah, I still look gooooood, "Look at me!"
And I almost choked as I sang, "Look at me, I'm sixty-three...."
63 ?
In any even, it doesn't obviate the fact that Hollywood almost *never* casts high-school age actors for high-school age parts. My favorite example is Michael J. Fox - in Back to the Future, Marty is a high school kid, while MJF was 23 when the first one was filmed and 28/29 when pts 2 and 3 were filmed. Oh, and Teen Wolf - yeah, he hadn't seen his teens for 5 or 6 years when the thing was shot.
Re: 63 ?
That's as it may be with MJF and other actors who don't look their age. Gary Coleman and his kidney condition must have been a godsend, until he started looking adultish in the skin texture. However, to the best of my observation, none of the kids in Harry Potter were particularly neotenous, they all looked their age and still do, which is why it's even an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
Re: 63 ?
Re: 63 ?
Nope, because when they do, by law any actor/actress under 18 years of age has to spend at least half the day in on-set school, and there are limits to how many hours a day they can work. Adult actors have no such problem, so Hollywood studios prefer to cast them unless there's some compelling reason to use a real teen.