to think that Daniel Radcliff is not and never has been Harry Potter?

[AtYourCervix]

He is just so wrong for the part. What were those casting people thinking?

His head is the wrong shape

his hair is wrong

he can't act

most glaringly wrong is his blue eyes.

HARRY POTTER HAS GREEN EYES FFS!

AIBU?

YANBU Very poor casting choice

i think you might be!!

so which actor would be the perfect Harry?

Little late now!

I dunno... I was very at first with the casting of all 3 of them... But I do feel they've grown into the roles quite well.

I always envisaged a grown up Harry Potter as looking like Tim Henman.

No idea if he has green eyes!

YANBU I was expecting someone thinner, more... green eyed, yes!

I would disagree, I thought they were all perfect for the parts they played.

Was so interesting watching the documentary yesterday after watching the first film and seeing how they have grown up so much over the years. Neville was the funniest... he looks about 30 now!

YABU, he's fine, though I think they could have shelled out for some green contacts.

Ginny Weasley however is rubbish - she just didn't grow up right, and Ron is awful. Part of the problem with both those two is that Emma Watson grew up so gorgeous that the maths didn't add up - you have an 8 and a 9 ending up with a 7 and a 4.

Luna Lovegood OTOH is beyond brilliant.

Has anyone noticed Daniel Radcliffe looks like Harry Enfield?

Well... a bit unreasonable...

His head is the wrong shape??? Huh??? It is head shaped, surely?

I'm not sure what is wrong with his hair either... and whilst the Harry Potter in the book has green eyes, it is probably quite challenging to find a suitable boy actor of the right age with dark hair and green eyes. Not terribly common. And besides - I think it is unreasonable to think someone in a film should look EXACTLY like the person described in the book. And it is not important either.

As for the acting - I think the children were all fairly wooden in the early films, but think they have improved enormously throughout the series. And I think Daniel Radcliffe has become a reasonably accomplished actor, if not as brilliant as Alan Rickman and some of the more experienced adult actors.

YADNBU! Said it from day one. I was so upset when they chose him (I was a preteen alright? ) and he's flipping awful. He was only chosen because of some random link to the director. They screwed up Hermione as well, casting choice was brilliant there, but then they combed her hair! [hshock] And put her in flattering clothes! That isn't Hermione...

May I add that I don't think Alan Rickman is right for his role either. Yes, he is a great actor, yes he is a pleasure to watch, yes we love him- but he is old and it shows in the way he moves. Snape is supposed to be in his late thirties, the whole plot hinges on him being young enough to have been Harry's dad if things had gone differently.

I always thought in the early films 'Hermoine' was a poor actress, and looking at them now, the boys were too old for thier parts.

I know someone who was short listed for Hermoine and she was 2 years younger than Emma.

Rupert Grint was an inspired choice. He's exactly as I pictured Ron. The other two, meh, they could have done better. Hermione was smart arsed in a likeable way after her early run in with the boys. Emma Watson isn't likeable at all.

YABVVVVVU!! [hangry] [hwink]

Green eyes are not a common colour for a start. He looks as much like HP as you can get I imagine. On the other hand, Hermoine isn't suppose to be that attractive but Emma Watson was never a minger.

Even though Hermoine annoys the hell out of me and I do think EW overacts her, I think they are all good for the part.

Should have been Ian McKellan for Dumbledore after Richard Harris died. Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith were perfect as Snape and McGonagal though.

I am off in half an hour to watch it!!!! [hgrin] Can't wait!!!!!!!!!

Apparently, he didn't get one well with the green contacts, so they just left them.

I did question the casting for the first few films, but they seem to have grown into the roles.

Don't know who would be better.

I do think he got better tbh and the eye thing really doesn't matter. In fact, I did think in the Kings Cross station scene, where he's without his glasses, what lovely eyes he's got. It's a bit that he didn't grow a bit because next to Emma W he looks so short but otherwise, I think it could have been a lot worse. Rupert Grint far and away the best of the three though.

I would have loved an Ian McKellan Dumbledore, but he'd already been a wizard, it would have made it seem like he was hogging all the wizard parts.

I know how you feel. Tom Hanks was NOT Professor RObert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code. It was Harrison Ford.

Yeah yeah I watched the Da Vinci Code. AND read it! I blow a raspberry to you all!

YANBU. I think originally Joel Haley Osment (?) was set to be Harry, but someone insisted on a British actor. JHO would have been wrong too.
Hermione is ok but not toothy and bushy enough, Ron was good in the first couple of years, but IMO grew out of the part.
The casting of Maggie Smith was inspired, and Draco is perfect.

Alan Rickman makes the most PERFECT Snape

I've always struggled a but with Emma Watson though. There are bits where she laughs in Prisoner of Azkaban when I want to leap in the tv and stab her to death with her wand.

I agree that while Rickman is brilliant he is just too old for Snape. I think Matthew Macfadyen or (especially) Rufus Sewell could have made a decent stab at it with the right make up.

Oh bum faverolles, you beat me to it. I was about to say that Draco was by far the best of the child actors, and he played him to perfection.

Rupert Grint was great at Ron too.

Rufus Sewell..... He would have made a very fine Sirius as well. I think wotzizface wasn't nearly haunted and handsome enough for Sirius.

Thank God that awful Haley Joe Osmond wasn't Harry. That would have been utterly utterly awful.