To think the acting in Harry Potter is really bad?

[Evennumberonthevolume]

Referring primarily to the main three.

I haven't seen the films in so long but watched them when they've been on this week and it's so bad.

The Weasley twins were absolulely dreadful. I tended to spend the films waiting for Alan Rickman to appear.

Oh god it's always been one of the world's greatest mysteries to me that the casting directors must have had their pick of young actors at the time and they chose those three. They are terrible - and no, it's not just because they're kids - there are some great child actors from the same era. Look at the little girl who played Lyra in the Golden Compass (although the boy who played Billy was pretty much the worst actor I've ever seen).

But the real prize turkeys of the films are the Weasley Twins. Stunningly appallingly bad. I can't believe they couldn't find anyone better than them..!

You are right but I still love it all!!

And Alan Rickman, great as he was, phoned in a sub Sheriff of Nottingham pantomime performance. He was watchable as ever, though, as was Richard Harris.

Seeing the films again - my oldest son is the same age as the main child actors so we saw them all at a cinema at the time - I was actually shocked how bad the child acting was. Rupert Grint is better after the first film. I thought HP was meant to be a bit square and wooden so Daniel R nailed it! Hermione couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. Ginny was like the worst extra in a long lost episode of Grange Hill. Only not so charismatic. Robert Pattinson acted them off the screen and he looked to not even be trying.

But then HP is not my thing - I love Terry Pratchett and Tolkien but these always seemed too flat and derivative, at least til the 3rd or 4th one when the writer seemed to benefit from experience and upped her game.

I have a friend who is a massive HP fan and would hang me for that. So I'm getting it off my chest here.

They all got better..

Malfoy was better than all the others from the start

Ron wasnt bad

Ginny was fucking awful bless her heart

I dont think Emma Watson can act at all, and i am not sure that Daniel Radcliffe is much better

I think Daniel Radcliffe is just naturally wooden in real life too though - I saw him on Graham Norton a while back and he was a stiff badly acted version of his own self.

Not a natural actor in any way, shape or form.

*And Alan Rickman, great as he was, phoned in a sub Sheriff of Nottingham pantomime performance. He was watchable as ever, though, as was Richard Harris.

Seeing the films again - my oldest son is the same age as the main child actors so we saw them all at a cinema at the time - I was actually shocked how bad the child acting was. Rupert Grint is better after the first film. I thought HP was meant to be a bit square and wooden so Daniel R nailed it! Hermione couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. Ginny was like the worst extra in a long lost episode of Grange Hill. Only not so charismatic. Robert Pattinson acted them off the screen and he looked to not even be trying.*

So true. But the boy playing Draco was imo by far the best of the child actors (didn't he originally audition for Harry and Ron?).

I love Tolkien's works but I do really like Harry Potter. Especially the first 4, actually. 6 is nice as well... but 7 and especially 5? Meh.

YANBU. The main three are dreadful. Harry is wooden and Hermione over emphasises. Though Ron did a passable grumpy teen.

Winds me up that these three have fame and fortune on the basis of no training and no talent.

Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix is FABULOUS though.

Some of the acting is alright .

However I am somewhat peeved that prime time ITV viewing is taken up till New Years Eve with every single sodding Harry bloody Potter film each night ! Shoddy programming ,, lazy.

Though I enjoyed the last two so might watch them but none the less, last few years a good ghost or thriller was put on at least once over Christmas.

I can't believe how many people think Ron is alright. I get that he suffers well by comparison but he pulls the same face over and over again whilst spouting lines without any inflection or emphasis. He's dreadful.

YANBU! The first few films are terrible. They do, however, get better I think. Even the amazing Alan rickman surprised me - snape was so understated. And where was dumbledore's quirky genius humour??

However they LOOK perfect. The castle, the characters, the ghosts - all exactly as you imagine it when you read the books.

In Goblet of Fire I wanted to give all the boys haircuts. Awful look for them. Was pleased about David Tennant turning up though. Went to see Fantastic Beasts the other day and now have slight obsession with Eddie Redmayne...

Mm I don't think they do look the part.

Harry is meant to have black hair that's messy. Instead they found a boy with brown hair that's perfectly tidy. Ron yes, he's ginger but the lankiness and the freckles aren't there. Hermione is supposed to be unattractive and really isn't. Ginny is meant to be pretty and isn't - feel mean now, but she's not.

A part of me does think that maybe they should never have been made into films and just left as books.

I'm genuinely baffled that at least two posters have said Daniel Radcliffe is a good actor. I know these things are subjective but... seriously!?

Beauty and the Breast is ruined for me already.

Me too. I much preferred Debbie Does Dallas. Or Laurence of A-Labia.

I. Am. Dying 😂😂😂

The acting is awful in the first couple of films, but I remember seeing an interview with Daniel Radcliffr where he highlighted the weight of expectation, the hype around the films etc was all a bit much for the young actors and he did acknowledge they were ropey. I have a lot of time for him and think the later films were much better. Emma Watson is far too posh and conventionally pretty to be Hermione though, imo.

Rupert Grint is brilliant, love his warmth and energy.

They picked the kids when they were 10-11. There is no way they could've controlled how they looked when they grew up. Changing the actors would've been too confusing/too much of a faff.
Plus they had had no formal training when they were chosen. Casual drama clubs do not equal years-long training at drama school.

I saw DanRad on stage when he did Equus, and I couldn't believe it was the same guy. So charismatic and gave so much emotion in his performance. My sister saw him on Broadway doing a play last year and said he was unbelievably good.

I actually don't think he's that bad of an actor - I think he needs something to feed off. So he was great with a live audience, and the scenes he did 1-1 with adult actors were always much better than those with Ron and Hermione... I think theatre is much better for him than film!

Rachel Harry Potter is always on ITV at Christmas, usually it's spread out over the course of December with the final 4 films placed over the Christmas/New Year week. I'm surprised that they've only got aired from Christmas Eve.

Watching Half blood prince now and there was a terrible bit where Hermione really overacts 'disbelief' during the Quidditch map by shaking her head and clapping.

I love Harry Potter, but I have always had issues with the movies - mostly stemming from the fact that they started filming the movies when the book series was still being written, so it wasn't a closed canon, and the way JKR put little hints in books of things that would become important in later books couldn't be picked up, and so were cut out of the movies to then become problematic when they were needed as they were a big plot point in the later movies.

I think that the child stars suffered a little bit from having so many talented and well known British adult actors in the movies, especially the first two - these were kids where the most experienced was Tom Felton (Malfoy) who had done "Anna and the King" and "The Borrowers" before HP and most of the rest had done a few school plays or drama club, acting alongside the likes of Dame Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Warwick Davies, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, Julie Walters etc etc (and that's just the first film) and it was always going to be clear that there was a gulf in talent that really wasn't the childrens' fault.

As for the trio, I have always found that Daniel Radcliffe is just a bit ... awkward, and Emma was always trying too hard. I loved Rupert (I still do XD) but he suffered from the fact that in the later films a lot of his lines and character progression was given to other characters so he was left being one of the main trio with very little to actually do beyond the comedic stuff (which he is actually good at, he has great comic timing)

I also felt that the films suffered from having a lot of different directors who wanted different styles and the cast to portray their characters differently whilst also trying to keep things vaguely consistent, this is why Prisoner of Azkaban is my least favourite movie - I love Alfonso Cuaron as a director and he makes amazing films, but as the director of a movie in a series, he's awful and a lot of the things he took out of the movie in order to make room for his stylistic choices affected the future movies and how awkward/rushed things were.

The main three kids were just playing themselves and they didn't really improve as the films went on . I thought the adult actors carried the flims. none of them now can open a film by themselves and I won't be watching beauty it looks rubbish and Emma Watson will just be playing herself