...and the problem is?

IMDb is reporting that there are concerns that, by the time "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is ready to be filmed, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint will be too old for their roles.

Although analysts have suggested that the three young stars of the Harry Potter movies are quickly outgrowing their characters, the Reuter News Agency on Tuesday, citing an industry source familiar with the matter, reported that they will likely return for the fourth Potter film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, due to be released in November 2005. By that time, Daniel Radcliffe, who portrays Harry Potter, will be 16 years old. Reuters quoted Seth Siegel, founder of The Beanstalk licensing and marketing consultancy group, as warning that if the stars are not replaced by younger actors, "licensing will fade away." Wendi Green, an agent for child actors with Abrams Artists Agency, told the wire service, "If [they] are too old, kids can't relate to it."

I suppose I can understand some of the concern - that kids might not relate to teen-aged performers - but I think those concerns are a bit unfounded. The thing is, each book in the Harry Potter series takes place in sequential school years.

In the first book, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", Harry, Hermione and Ron were 11. "Goblet of Fire" is the 4th book - meaning that the characters at that point are 15 years old. In other words, the Harry Potter character in GOF is only one year younger than Dan Radcliffe, the actor playing him, will be in real life.

Kids who are reading the series have had no problem with adjusting to a 15-year-old Harry. Somehow I think they'll do OK with a 16-year-old playing him. And if the level of anticipation for "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is any indication, kids are ok with him aging even more beyond that.

Posted by thorswitch at June 18, 2003 03:27 PM | TrackBack