The actors who played Snape, Sirius, Lupin, etc were all too old in the movies..

[TheHulksPurplePanties]

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Alan Rickman. But I recently started playing the new Harry Potter "Mystery at Hogwarts" game and I came to the realization (because I OBVIOUSLY don't have better things to think about) that Snape should only be 23/24 in this game. He should have been 31 at the start of the Potter series, but Rickman was in late 50's. I know life was difficult in the Potterverse but come-on, a 31 year old does not look 50.

I'm sure the reasoning was that they wanted bigger names in the movies to get more of a draw, but surely there were actors in their 30's who could have played the roles?

The ages in Game of Thrones were all skew-whiff partly because the children had to be cast as older than they were in the books. Book Danaerys is only 13 when she marries Drogo.

@ncjane I love the shoebox project. It's incredible.

Rufus Sewell as Sirius. My brain has just exploded.

Azkaban was ageing I would imagine.

Yeah, the Game of Thrones characters are way off age wise. But there were legal implications to that (sex scene's with an under 18, etc). Other than Alan Rickman being the perfect Snape, I can't see why the Marauders were so ill-cast....

Loved luna, she was perfect as was snape (forget the age, that voice!) They needed far more Tonks as she was too brilliant a character to get shafted like that.

I was disappointed at Ginny too but I'm not sure whether is was the casting or the way she was written in the movies. The book Ginny was wonderful and they totally messed it up.

Gary Oldman is a wife beater? :(

Sex scenes filmed by young actors don't explain older characters being the better part of twenty years out!

Even if they aged up the younger ones slightly, they still could have gone for actors in their mid to late thirties for the parents. It's usual in medieval type societies to have younger parents breeding a bunch of sprogs.

I think it's not so much these films being miscast but an issue with how films are cast in general. Most films use 20 somethings and even 30 somethings to play teenagers, so when we see actors rhis age on screen we kind of age them down? Plus I think there had to be a really clear "these are parents" picture for the children watching the first movie, so the actors playing Harry's mum and dad are kind of the right age for parents of a 10-12 year old, which would have been the main market for movie 1

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/culture/2018/3/2/17058230/gary-oldman-oscars-domestic-violence-accusation

The Weasley parents and the Weasley twins were all well cast.

Sirius had been in Azkaban for 16 year, he was ment to look old and starved and like he had been tortured

I think most were cast well.

The main one that never sat right for me was Dan Radcliff. Particularly in the early films, his acting is appalling.

I also would have preferred Hugh Grant as Lockhart. It's a shame he had to turn it down.

It was absolute sacrilege that they cut Peeves. Rik Mayall couldn't have been more perfect for the part.

The age of the Maurauders and Snape doesn't bother me really - I love all the actors and they were fantastic at their parts. I could write books about what did bother me though.

Radcliffe *

Most films use 20 somethings and even 30 somethings to play teenagers

I agree, using a 30 year old Zac Efron to play a teenager drives me mad. And I like the Harry Potter movies because the kids were actually the right ages, they only started being slightly older than the actual characters towards the end due to filming schedules, the older generation, (McGonagal, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Mad-Eye) are the right ages (as right as you can be given Dumbledore is supposed to be over 100), but then casting 50 & 60 years to play characters in their early 30's? Surely there are some good British actors in their 30's?

Maybe it's hitting me because I'm in my 30's and I want to see my generation represented!

I think that Luna was brilliantly cast, she was exactly how I imagined her to be, Ron too.

I thoguth Mrs Weasley was very poorly cast, far too shrill.

Harry’s parents being too old is one of the things that annoys me most in the films, along with he other Marauders. It’s like they wanted them all to be ‘parent age’ rather than saying, yes the Potter’s married and had Harry very young. It skews the timeline in general if you’re watching it and not reading.
The Weasley twins were not well cast, they always seem a bit uninspiring to me compared to the books. I like Emma Watson but she’s too pretty for Hermione really.

Rufus Sewell would have been great as Sirius and far more handsome

This has annoyed me for years! It’s part of the reason I don’t rate the films that much, it’s such a glaring inconsistency.

I had a crush on Rickman, too, but when he was the Sheriff of Nottingham in 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves'. He was great in that movie. He was very good as Snape, but obviously much older.

I feel they did a disservice to all of us 30 year olds who would have liked some eye candy in the movies

but when he was the Sheriff of Nottingham in 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves'.

The hair!!! The wonderful perm.

but when he was the Sheriff of Nottingham in 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves'.

my first ever young massive teenage crush on him as the Sheriff of Nottingham.....sparked off my love for him in absolutely everything

CadyHeron Alan Rickman yes, but the Snape costume made him look even older than 60. Jason Issacs, yes but not with the blonde wig. Gary Oldman....meh. He looked older than Rickman!

I agree, the twins are rubbish.

To be honest, I find it far moe irritating in Game of Thrones where the characters are played by actors who are often 20 years older that their book counterparts. The age difference has fundamentally altered the characters physically and emotionally, but that’s a whole ohter thread.

Agree about Luscious Malfoy though - perfect in every way!