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?

I did work out that none of the “parents” in GoT would have been older than about 32, with Tyrion being about 26.

They easily could have kept the children’s characters only a few years older, so late teens at most by choosing film far less graphic sex scenes. But sex sells!

Yes, Semperldem I think most of the parents were between 32 and 35. There are even more glaring inconsistencies - such as the Hound (27) who should be 5 years younger than the Mountain (32). In reality the actor is 20 years older than his ‘older brother’. It wasn’t so glaringly obvious in season 1.

It doesn’t help that only 2 years have passed in the books but the TV show will have been going for 9 years when it finishes. Harry Potter never suffered from that problem.

parents were between 32 and 35

Seems like Hollywood has a 30's problem. They've got 50 year olds playing 30 years olds and 30 year olds playing teenagers.

I think that the Phelps twins were good and did well.....with what they had. As with Ginny and Tonks, most of their best dialogue/scenes from the books never made it to the films. Movie Ginny was so wet, yet she had a real ballsy attitude in the books.

Also I think being a Professor a Hogwarts is a courtesy title, such as being a (say) Maths Master or Mistress still happens in some schools, especially public schools.

What always got on my pip is that Harry had no living grandparents to look after him.
James and Lily were so young, yet no mention of their parents?

James parents were older when they had him (I have assumed early 50's miracle baby!) and so were dead by the time Harry was born. Nothing is said about extended family, so we can only assume James, as an only, came from 2 onlies.

There was a bit in the first book about Harry seeing his extended family in the Mirror of Erised but it doesnt mention Aunts and Uncles iirc.

Sorry....that should be Great Aunts and Uncles.

And thinking further, JK could say that they were killed in the first wizarding war, as both of Molly's brothers were.

James’s parents were older when they had him (like significantly older than usual). I think they’d died by the time Harry was born. I’m not sure about the relationship the couple had with Lily’s parents, Petunia was pretty horrible to them. Plus she was Muggle-born and he was a wizard, I’m not sure about all the rules surrounding that.

As for the Professor thing, I think that might just be what teachers are called at Hogwarts, rather than them holding actual professorships.

Also I think being a Professor a Hogwarts is a courtesy title
Must be. Unless you can get a PhD and tenureship in 3 years following your graduation from Hogwarts...then again, it's not like the place taught Maths or Physics, maybe wand-waving is easier to master....

Also: between leaving Hogwarts and their deaths, Lily and James spent most of their time in hiding. I assume that’s why they couldn’t visit Lily’s parents. Plus Vernon and Petunia weren’t likely to mention his wizard-ness; Lily’s parents were proud when they found out Lily was a witch, so they’d have mentioned that kind of thing to Harry. It was important (to Dumbledore at least) that Harry grew up ignorant in that sense.

There aren’t any wizarding universities, Hogwarts leavers tend to go straight into a job. I presume they get on-the-job training.

I was in school during the casting of the very first film a boy in my class was second choice for Harry.

He would not have been a good Harry Potter though. Can't believe he got as far as he did.

It's Dumbledore that I think they got really wrong in the films. In the books he's eccentric and jolly and largely unflappable. In the films, he's much too serious, you never really get that sense of fun that book Dumbledore gave you.

I feel like Richard Harris was a bit like that. Michael Gambon isn’t that popular with the fans. But I don’t know how many options they had.

Not that it matters, but in the UK, a PhD doesn't make you a professor, and tenure doesn't exist as such.

'Professor' is what you call your (university) teachers in the US. In the UK, it means you're a very senior academic. I don't mind American-style stuff in the slightest, but it strikes me as incongruous given Rowling was so big on British actors for the films.

Luna was completely wrong in the films! The actress looks like a Hollywood child star, in the books she's meant to have dirty-blonde hair (ie nearly brown, not white-blonde!) and protuberant eyes! Definitely not meant to be pretty - I'm sure that's part of Rowling's point about people thinking she's weird. The Luna of the films would have been the quirky, cool, popular girl, not the misfit.

OMG - DD and I have been watching the new Star Trek and we had no idea the captain was actually Lucius Malfoy!

Richard Harris didn't look right to me either. He was too old, and Michael Gambon was too young (and not whimsical or funny).

God, I love Jason Isaacs

I'm not sure anyone other than Alan Rickman could have done Snape full justice. But yes, he was far too old.

God, I love Jason Isaacs

Yes, that pretty much sums it up for me.

Emma Watson acts with her eyebrows, she does my head in.

YES. They wiggle all over the place and it's so distracting.

I agree that Ginny was all wrong too. She was supposed to be feisty and badass but she had the personality of a wet dishrag. Awful.

I always fancied Draco but now I'm old enough to fancy Luscious Lucius instead

Well given that Dumbledore was 150 when he died, I don’t see how Richard Harris was too old...

Whilst I agree with what people are saying, I think the most important thing was that the kids were the right age, which they were (give or take a couple of years by the end).

I always thought the woman who played Cam (Tracy's adopted mum) in Tracey Beaker would have been the perfect Tonks. Had the right mischief in her face she was too old but it didn't matter for anyone rlse.

Mrs Weasley was way too shrill. She had a temper but above all was full of love. Unfortunately the actress (my mind has gone blank) seems to just get told to play Petunia from Dinner Ladies now instead of being allowed to do character work.

Ginny was an idiot in the films.

Julie Walters. Damn my brain!

It's a pet peeve of mine. I reckon it's was because Rickman was perfect for Snape, so they matched their ages with his. It is annoying though!