Would the movies flop if they changed actors?

I dont think they would flop per-say, but it would definatly put a dent in the movie's reputation. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre during POA was because of Emma Watson *girlish laughter*

And sadly we're stuck with the 10% on these boards. *sighs*.


Not at all. It's just that the people who disliked Gambon as Dumbledore are vocal in their disapproval. I think everyone else has grown tired of arguing with them.

Not at all. It's just that the people who disliked Gambon as Dumbledore are vocal in their disapproval. I think everyone else has grown tired of arguing with them.

That sound pootageous.

I think a lot of people would be ****** at first, but would still go see the movies either to see how they compare to the book or just because they love everything to do with Harry Potter...EX. I hate the new Bond, but I am still going to go see Casino Royale when it comes out because I love those movies...

But PoA got lower box office results than the previous 2 movies despite increases in the price of movie tickets and being shown in more theatres than the other 2 in the US. I think if it were truer to the books (i.e. try not to make it so cartoonish and the characters one-dimensional and explained the plot a little more) but kept the pace and artistic style that it had, I think it would have had much better results.


You are giving PoA far too much credit here. Consider the following: (1) PoA's advertising budget was much larger than PS or Cos, and it received tons of free promotion via segments on CNN and positive reviews from critics. (2) PoA opened up virtually unchallenged during summer blockbuster season (Shrek 2 was 3 weeks old), but CoS went nearly head to head with Monsters, INC. (2 weeks old) during the holiday season. (3) PoA had a bigger opening weekend to work with. To me, at least, the obvious conclusion was that PoA sufferred from poor word of mouth, or simply a lack of repeated viewings--which are usually higher in the summer. (And this is relevant to the topic because...)


I don't think it would be a good idea to change any of the main actors except Michael Gambon.

I agree with you here. I thought that Gambon completely misplayed the part. However, I don't think that he alone caused PoA to fall so far short. I'm also far from certain that our opinion on Gambon is the majority. I suspect that the change in style and abruptness did. In other words, the script writer, director, and producers have more destructive potential than actors. To this end, I doubt that changing any of the characters--even part of the trio-- would cause the series to stop making money. However, if they are poorly cast it could have a major impact on repeat viewings and the final movie or two.

Even though the previews have kept me sceptical of Gambon's Dumbledore, I'm still planning on seeing GoF. (Though I don't promise to see it twice).

i personally would hate it if they changed the actor's playing the trio. i think alot of people would get very confused and angry because 1)it's the middle of the "seriers" and 2) we've gotten so use to seeing Dan, Emma and Rupert as the trio that it would just be weird seeing three completely different faces playing their characters. if they did replace the trio, i think the rest of the movies would flop quite a bit because of the change in actors but i also think that alot of people would still be curious to see how the new actors would do.

Originally Posted by cgold
I don't think it would be a good idea to change any of the main actors except Michael Gambon.

i partly agree with you on that because his performance was no as good as harris' but i also partly disagree with you because for me i don't want to see anyone change right now. if they wanted to change some characters then i think they should have done that years ago;ive just gotten so use to the characters now that i can't really see anyone else playing their parts. i do miss harris though; he was the perfect dumbledore.

I fail to see why they would change the trio on the basis of age... The seventh movie is slated to be released in 2010, when Rupert will be 21, I think, Daniel 20, I think, and Emma 19, again I think, and they will all be playing 17-18 yr olds... I do not know about many of you, but I did not change much from 17 to 21...

wow 2010? true they probably won't be much different from 17-20 but 5 years is a long time to wait for the 7th movie.i heard that daniel was willing to do up to movie 6 ,and rupert and emma, up to movie 5. i hope they're all willing to go up to movie 7. it would be pretty stupid to just not do movie 6 and 7 because duh they'd be the last movies and the end...of it all.

Well, they might be offered other, more lucrative roles...

I don't rate any of the trio as actors and think that DR in aprticular has morphed into a very odd looking Harry (not to mention a ridiculously short one). By HBP he will have to stand on a box to kiss ginny!

I don't necessarily think the movies would flop but I think the world of Harry Potter fandom would be buzzing beyond belief. I doubt that people wouldn't go see the films. I know that if they suddenly changed some of the main characters (like the Trio for example), I wouldn't avoid the film but I would be incredibly annoyed, skeptical and most likely, disappointed by the end of the film.

I, like many people, have gorwn very used to the actors who play the main characters. It would be a huge shock to the system to suddenly see a different Hermione or Ron. I don't know about anyone else, but I have always pictured the actors while reading the books (which is probably because I didn't get into Harry Potter until after CoS was released, even though I had only seen about ten minutes of SS/PS before I read the books (and didn't watch any of the films in their entirety until after I read all five books)). To suddenly have someone else playing one of the characters would diminish my enjoyment while reading the books by confusing my brain as to who's, who. I can just see it now: Emma Watson's facial features melding with a new actress who has taken her place. It would be like Franken-Hermione! :rotfl:

Again, I don't think the movie would flop but I think it would be a mistake on the studio's part if they replaced any of the main characters. As we all know, they sadly had to get a new Dumbledore because of Richard Harris' passing. I know that I don't care for the way Gambon plays Dumbledore (and am disappointed sometimes) but that doesn't keep me from seeing the films (partly because Dumbledore isn't constantly on-screen like the Trio are). But I think that if the studio were to change actors, the film in which they debuted wouldn't flop but I think that if a majority of Harry Potter fans didn't like the choice WB made, that the next films would have lower attendance (but not necessarily so much as to consider it a flop).

Let's all just hope that all the main actors want to stay on and that WB is happy to keep them so that way we don't have to worry about it. It does seem, however, that with each new HP film that comes out, there is an upsurge of internet postings from people concerned that Dan will be replaced. I say let's just assume he's staying until we hear otherwise: afterall, he has said that he'd be honored to do the rest of the films and wouldn't go unless WB didn't want him anymore and I don't foresee that happening. =)

Sincerely,
Sarah aka HermyNymphadora

If, God forbid, something happened to one of the three main characters and they had to be replaced, people would go to see and compare. You never know what may happen... and if it did, the new actor might really be good. Ithink the kids have improved with each film as they gain experience.

If they changed the characters in my opinion then the movie would be abousolutely rubbish!! ^^ I mean, changing dumbledore i think proved it!! Richard Harris was a good dumbledore but Micheal Gambon just doesn't fill his shoes. And if that happened to all the characters it would totally ruin it!! ^^

I don't think they'd flop, but they wouldn't be as popular. Just like we've all grown up with the characters in the books, we've done the same with the characters in the films and it just wouldn't seem right if they changed.

I think the only one of the trio who is absolutely 'the' part is Rupert. Emma is great in the movies, but she isn't really the Hermione in the book (for one thing, she's too good looking). Dan and .... Draco (forgot his name) . They are playing the book characters, quite well, IMHO, and though Dan plays Harry well, so could others who stuck with the book character. Changing Dumbledore was not that great a change, although with Richard Harris you always knew that right underneath that kindly old gentlman was King Arthur or Marcus Aurelius - I would have LOVED to see Harris do the battle in the Ministry scene!

my mom thinks that if they change the characters, then the whole thing will be messed up. I agree! They should just keep the actors, until they are done with all the movies

By the way, the movie Snape is even better than the book Snape.

By the way, the movie Snape is even better than the book Snape.

I think the movie Snape is much more likeable, but that really detracts from his vileness and hinders some of the book conflicts that arise between him and Harry. It's hard to see Alan Rickman as evil which is the reason I think a lot of people right now are honestly questioning Snape's goodness (they don't absolutely hate him i mean) though their arguments may not be futile. But I digress

As for changing the main characters, the movies would survive, the fans would be up in arms, it would divide a lot of people, brothers fighting brothers, friends fighting friends, but eve more people would go see the movie to compare . . . it'd be a lot of free publicity buzz.

I myself hope they keep the same characters, they may not fit the book exactly, but i see the movies and books as different series almost. Changing an actor would be a bit like Ron suddenly becoming confident in the books or something.

As for the Dumbledore switch, though I loved Richard Harris and think Gambon isn't half what he was, I do think Gambon brings an uncertain, ambiguous, and ecentric nature to Dumbledore, one that I believe is present in the books, and makes it easier to see why some may not trust Dumbledore.

The thing about Richard Harris is you know that he is capable of 'Shakespearean' overacting - 'eating the scenery', so to speak (I don't mean that as disrespect - for some parts it is necessary and he did it very well). While I would have liked to have seen the Ministry battle with Harris, I would have LOVED to have seen the Harris of 20 or so years ago do Voldemort!

Omgsh If they changed any of the trio I would go mad and ballistic!! Possibly fainting could occur often. lol. PLEEASSE DO NOT CHANGE THE TRIO pleasse. *wipes tear* Makes me sad when I think about it.

I would take a flame gun and let fire to my HP dvd's....great now I think I'm insane O_o*creepy noises*

absolutely. no question about it.

at this point, the movies in themsleves have gathered a fanbase. people who have never picked up a book (which i never quite understood, to be frank...how could you see the movies and not be curious about the books? guess that's just the bookworm in me talking...) and yet follow the movies devotedly. these people would be horrifed to lose all that they have ever known as harry, ron, and hermione. i think it would be even worse for those who read the book prior, because then they would have "their harry", the "danciel radcliffe harry", and then "harry, the next generation". it would be immensely frustrating.

i maintain that people would rather squint and imagine a 40-year-old radcliffe looks something like a 16-year-old then suffer through a "new" harry. :p


But why does this make Ron dim and Harry not dim? Is it just because he actually voices it? Yes, Ron is extroverted and isn't Mr. Tact brought to life, but so what? Big deal. He wasn’t calling Hermione a Troll, it’s just that she’s insecure and aware of her feelings for Ron and is therefore, extra sensitive about her looks because she thinks he may not like her because of that. I'm not going to go around calling Ron shallow and petty because of her insecurities. He's just immature. She certainly doesn’t help with her “emotional range of a teaspoon” comments, her not believing in his abilities at quidditch, her calling Ron is worse than Harry behind his back just because he hasn't returned her feelings, which by the way, she's hiding from him, etc. She’s not exactly Miss Sensitivity herself.

Harry is clearly also just as interested in pretty girls and expresses his shallowness in various ways including unflattering descriptions of Luna and other females throughout the books and when he said that girl was so big or whatever. His desire for Cho is also very shallow. I don’t hear anyone killing his character over it. Harry does not disagree with Ron on any of his comments or think them out of hand in any way but actually laughs at the idea of Neville asking Hermione out. Harry probably still doesn’t truly view Hermione as a girl. She’s probably still one of the guys to him, especially since she's not very girly.

Ron’s had Hermione as his best friend for the past 3-4 years and even though his attraction has probably been growing during that time, how on earth does not recognising it make him anything more than a cluesless about girls 14 year old boy, in love with his best friend and not knowing it. Anyone who thinks Ron shallow for this reason well, I’m not going to really argue with because that just seems silly to me. Dim is fine because most guys are certainly dim about girls at this age especially Harry himself as was seen by Hermione’s exasperation while explaining things to him.

You know what I don’t get about people’s perception of this fight - why does this make Ron seem dim? He thought Harry deceived and lied to him. Harry stated that he would have waited in the night to put his name in the Goblet thus planting in Ron's mind the idea that Harry could have done it. If this were true, it would have been an awful thing for Harry to have done. However, it looks bad on Ron’s part because he allowed his jealousy of Harry’s fame and fortune (something he desires) to cloud his good judgement.

What I also don’t get is how the shallow and petty part comes into it unless we ignore who Ron is. Ron clearly shows in the Mirror of Erised that his desire to be seen as better than his brothers etc. and to be seen as a great individual is very important him as the youngest boy in a family of very talented wizards who have overshadowed him. This is a very common desire that makes Ron one of the most realistic characters in the series and really should be one of the most likeable since many people can relate to this desire. Why is one person’s despair counted as minor against another? I had a friend who committed suicide over something like this. I gave this example once long ago to express this point. You have people starving on a daily basis in some parts of Africa and their main desire in life is some food or a home. You also have the girl living in a good home but her parents travel a lot and pay her little attention. She is promised a vacation with them if she was able to pass her exams. She failed one and killed herself. Out of the person living in Africa and this girl, whose problems were worse? It was the person in Africa of course but that doesn't make the girls feelings of inadequacy and her despair any less deep, it's just different and perhaps trivial to most but not to her.

Just because Harry has his Voldemort-sized issues and the book is all about him, doesn’t mean that we should just dismiss Ron’s greatest desire as petty and inconsequential. It may not be important to you but it’s important to him and important to many people. Why is Ron’s despair over his inability to be seen as an individual and not one of the Weasley boys or Harry Potter’s best friend less important than Harry’s? He doesn’t have Harry’s problems and Harry doesn’t have his. Harry wants what Ron has and Ron wants what Harry has. Why is Hermione not seen as stupid beyond belief for having her fear of failure as her boggart. It’s very stupid to me but to someone like her it’s very real and very important. Ron is not a real person but there are many like him. I would prefer if we not call his desires and his despair over not being seen or achieving what he wants to petty and shallow. It’s not shallow to him or real people like him. It’s not like his jealousy has caused Harry harm or turned him traitor or he left Harry at a life threatening or crucial moment. It was a simple fight between friends that was caused by a little misunderstanding because of jealousy and prolonged because the two said friends were very stubborn and their mutual friend was incapable of helping because that is not her forte. It did not bring about the Apocalypse. It brought about growth in their friendship. It was the beginning stages of Ron outgrowing his childhood desire from the mirror and by the end of HBP we have seen that he is no longer plagued by these issues.


I was very disappointed in how Ron’s character had started to be portrayed and I was glad while reading the book that he wasn’t like that. Honestly, how could they give him those lines.


Cheers :tu:

amen to that, sistah. :p

you have eloquently stated many things that i agree 100% with, and could never find the words for myself. i have always been a fan of ron's. there are so many things about his character i find endearing. he's real, he's honest, he's, well, he's ron. and i love him. :blush:
anyway, thanks! this was a great explaination of (mostly) why.

Yes definately!
Daniel Radcliffe - Rupert Grint - Emma Watson forever!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a311/Sugar_Plum_15/trio014.gif

I would prefer the trio to stay in the movies. I think that any one of them leaving may effect the movies only if the replacement actor/actress does not do a good job.

Dumbledore we know can be changed. There are several actors that could portray Dumbledore and do well.

I think that Alan Rickman needs to continue to be Snape, as I cannot think of a better actor for that part.

Jason Isaacs plays Lucius Malfoy well, and I would not like to see him go, as I would not like to see Tom Felton leave either.

I think they need to hang on to the original actors/actresses as much as possible. I think any changes take away from the series. If changes are made, they should be made with insignificant roles. I think all the main characters need to remain for the rest of the series, they owe it to the fans. They knew when they signed up that this would be a 7 part series, so they shouldn't bail until it's finished.

I wouldn't be entirely heart broken if they recast Harry. Dan just doesn't seem to have the acting chops to go into the emotional depth required for books 5 and 6 and probably 7.

I mean, look at POA, he has two facial expressions...angry and not angry. He was fine for the first few books, but as the latter books come along, Harry's character gains more depth and I'm not sure Dan will be able to pull it off.

I mean, look at the GOF trailer...I literally cringed when he spit out his drink when the BEauxbatons entered the room. It was so forced, so fake...it wasn't natural at all. It was someone who was told to do something. Just one example.

I wouldn't mind if they changed actors. They already have for DD after all. Although I will be gutted if the actors playing McG, Snape and Hagrid quit (and it looks possible that Robbie Coltrane will), simply because IMO they do such a good job, if their replacements are good then I'll be happy.

I think the films might actually improve with new kids, since I'm not a huge fan of any of them, and since the movies are taking so long to produce they might end up far too old for the parts.

I don't think your average audience member would care if they changed the kids either.

However, apparently Daniel Radcliffe (and I think the other two as well) have been signed on for OotP. It might be a wee bit weird having three random new kids for the last two films only. It's a shame they didn't change earlier.

If the tro was changed the fan base around the tro would dissipate. WB can not afford to change the actors for the next moves.

It would be a horrible mistake to change the actors now. People love the current actors, plus, it just wouldn't be the same. I think it would be very hard to figure out who was who if there were new actors.

I don't think the movie would flop, as they are from such an internationally popular book, so people would still go and see it.

But I don't see the point of changing the actors. Ok, they are getting a bit old, but you can still see they are growing up, so it doesn't really matter that much.

I just really like continuity in these sorts of things, and it makes sense to keep the same actors.

Does anyone know if they are planning to keep Bonnie Wright as Ginny. Considering how big her part become, will they switch her?

Does anyone know if they are planning to keep Bonnie Wright as Ginny. Considering how big her part become, will they switch her? I don't think that should happen. I think she has more acting experience than all the Trio (this is not true in terms of actual screen time but I think she's appeared in more movies) and she's very pretty to me or can be made up to be very pretty if they don't consider her that already.

Basically, I can't think of any reason for them to change her.

Cheers :tu:

[/QUOTE]
I have to agree with cgold on this. Even though Bonnie doesn't have parts like dan, emma, and rupert, I think that the movies just wouldn't be the same if even the characters with small parts weren't in the future movies.

I have to agree with cgold on this. Even though Bonnie doesn't have parts like dan, emma, and rupert, I think that the movies just wouldn't be the same if even the characters with small parts weren't in the future movies. Especially since recent pictures of her have proved what I have known all along that she's really pretty, I can see no reason for them to change her and since she is the image of Ginny that I have in my head I sincerely hope that they don't. I'm quite attached to her.

Cheers :tu:

I guess it wouldn't flop but it wouldn't be the same..If Michael Gambon receives the hard critics he does, can you imagine the actor who played "Harry Potter" instead of Dan Radcliffe?:huh:

No it would not flop. I think there is one thing we as consumers have demonstrated and that is if we like the product (in this case HP movies) we are willing to adapt to almost anything. They may not be quite the sucess they are now, but they would be close.

I don't think it would flop but it would be something to get used to.

But I, personally, do not want the actors to change - it would be hard to adapt to and I think it would just be weird.

I think they should keep the actors and characters the way they are.

i think it will not flop but it would be nice it the actors remains the same (the major characters - trio, ginny, twins,snape,etc) :eyebrows:

By the way, the movie Snape is even better than the book Snape.

So true!! He looks more evil in the movie then he does when they described him in the books.

I personally think you can replace everyone but 5 people. Rupert, Dan, Emma, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane. I know Robbie is mentioned to be leaving. I suppose anyone can put on that big Hagrid suit. But come on Alan Rickman is Snape, Daniel, Emma and Rupert are the Trio.

I agree here. It would ruin the continuity of the movies. The Dumbledore change was not so much because he was a lesser character in the early movies. I think it would be difficult to replace Hagrid simply because Robbie Coltrane has done so many now. He has established himself as Hagrid. Same goes for the trio. I would hate to see anyone but Alan Rickman as Snape.

I don't think it would flop, everyone is too involved with the movies now, but it would be weird as many of you have said. I still dont like the guy that plays the new Dumbledore. I know that the change had to be done but when I see him in the films I just don't believe him to be Dumbledore as I did with the previous actor...now if the main characters e.g. Harry , Hermione, or Ron were changed yeah then there would be a problem :grumble:

I think Dan Radcliffe should be known as Pinocchio, the Wooden Puppet. You would think that he would learn something about acting with the experience he has had. I find his performance as Harry frustrating to watch because he doesn't seem to react much to anything. He just is.

I think that now that Dan, Rupert, and Emma are all doing 5 (at least it appears that way), then they can't replace them anymore. If they were going to replace the actors, to me it would have been best to do it before either 4 or 5. But now, there's only 2 movies left after this one. That would just be strange to have new actors for 2 movies. And of all the recent interviews I've seen with Dan, he seems pretty willing to keep going. As long as the trio wants to go on, then they won't be getting rid of them.

As for Robbie Coltrane and Alan Rickman, I definitely see them and nobody else as Hagrid and Snape. Especially Alan - he's the perfect Snape. But Robbie doesn't seem too thrilled about continuing on, so if he doesn't want to do anymore, then that's his decision. He's not as big of a character, so if they replace him, it wouldn't be as strange as replacing the trio.

YES

I never even noticed that Dumbledore was a different actor when I saw the third movie. Someone had to point it out to me. :/

I don't think they'd be as good without the current actors.. i'll only watch the movies with the actors we have now.

yes the actors were different because Richard Harris died.

note: he was in camelot.

i totally agree with you if the trio left it would deffo lose its appeal big time. When the actor that played DD in the first 2 movies past away and he was replaced it just wasn't the same at all infact i hate the new guy who plays him now he is not a patch on the last DD.

I agree with you 100% Richard Harris was ment to be DD havnt you noticed that since chris columbus left that DD also seems a lot more stern and serious? his beard is also darker? nah i definately like the cast how they are!

And Gambon is a bit more agressive in comparison with Harris. Which isn't actually how Rowling perceives him to be in the book. He's described as a lot more gentle-mannered, calm and understanding. Gambon is a good actor - he just doesn't suit Dumbledore's role very well . . .

If Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, or Rupert Grint decided to quit and they replaced them for the new movies...I think I would cry. Or kick something. The movies wouldn't be the same without them! Also if they replaced Alan or any of the other actors who play the main teachers...that would stink, but not as much as the main trio.

It wouldn't matter if they replaced Ralph Fiennes though, since he was completely unrecognizable. He looked like how he did in The English Patient.

I'd still watch the movies, but I doubt they'd be as good.

The movies would not flop and they just might be better. I don't think that these actors and actress are the best they could of done a better job. But the moives would not flop I mean they had to change DD and the movies are going strong.

I really don't think that they should change the actors. I really hope that Dan, Emma, and Rupert agree to do the remaining three movies.

You can't change horses midstream

i would not watch if they changed any of the trio, snape, hagrid, draco, weaslies, lucius, magonagle, sirius or lupin for any reason other than death. I don't like the new Dubmbledore, so they can change him if they want.

Without at doubt, it would break my heart if they changed the kids. Love them or hate them (and I love them) they are the commerical face of Harry Potter and Millions of kids (and adults) have been "growing" up with them.

I feel like we have been there for Dan, Emma, and Rupert ... and too see others try to fill that void would be like watching a slow and painful death.

I would be heartbroken ... and I think it would affect the overall box office sales.

I think it would be sad to lose this trio as the Harry Potter actors, but let's face it, they are getting too old for their parts. Daniel and Rupert barely pass for 14 year old boys and by the time they make the next movie, it'll be tough to pass them off as 15 year olds. They'll have a hard time replacing them, but they can't pass off as teens much longer.

i think it would lose SO many film fans if the change actors or actresses

I think it would be sad to lose this trio as the Harry Potter actors, but let's face it, they are getting too old for their parts. Daniel and Rupert barely pass for 14 year old boys and by the time they make the next movie, it'll be tough to pass them off as 15 year olds. They'll have a hard time replacing them, but they can't pass off as teens much longer.
'

that has to do with their musculature, they need to stop working out so hard

anyway..umm they are only 16/17 now..it's no big deal, they'll be 20 by the time 2010 rolls around meaning they'll be 19 when the whole thing wraps...19 yr olds playing 16 yr olds is NOTHING...

rachel mcadams is notorious for doing this, she's 30 now, and she plays 18 yr olds..

To me, it's very simple. Consistency is success, no matter how much opinion may differ on the current quality of acting of the main actors and actresses. I don't really understand the whole "they're getting too old" thing because by the seventh movie, the most the age gap would be is about 6-7 years (probably even smaller), and being young, I really doubt it would show. There is not a specific definition of what one is like at a certain age, it all depends on your experience, so I see no problem in keeping the trio.

I definitely believe that if Harry, Ron, and Hermione were recasted it would ruin the movies for me. Thankfully I don't really forsee that happening.

The movies would not flop if they changed actors, however most people have become accustomed to the current trio and would be disappointed if they recast. Rickman IS Snape. Anyone else in that role would be inferior. Coltrane would be hard to replace because who doesn't like Hagrid. My only complaint is that Dan still lacks a full range of facial expressions. He has great eyes but does not know how to use them to full advantage. He is young, I'm sure he'll learn.

it's doubtful of them recasting..very doubtful, they aren't stupid

as for it flopping, it's harry potter, it would never flop, but it would stop breaking records..it would just be another hyped movie..but nowhere near what it is now...everyone loves daniel radcliffe, emma watson, rupert grint..or generally everyone, and for good reason...these kids are all lovable

this isn't james bond...we can't have a revolving door of cast members

They wouldn't exactly flop. But I'm guessing that not many people will be as enthusiastic. Some of the audience, like the non-book reading fangirls, probably only watch the films to swoon over Dan, or Rupert, or Tom. If you took that away, there might be a possibility that these people wouldn't come and watch the next movie. I for one have gotten very attached the the current cast, and I would be very disappointed if they were to change it just for the sole reason that they've gotten too old to play their roles. I've seen many actors who are in their 20s, but act as teenagers.

I know it would be very difficult for me to swallow new actors/actresses for the Trio and some of the biggest secondary roles. Maggie Smith is McGonagall. Coltrane is Hagrid. DD is still Harris, though Gambon did better in GoF.

Maybe it's because I was one that saw SS before ever reading the books. Thus, the movie put images in my head on what the books looked like before I could make my own images.

i think i would still go see the movies. but not be that happy about it all. i know the three have signed on to be in the 5th movie. which im happy about and if theres talks about changing the trio after that its like oh come on theres two more movies left and then we are done!....i just hope that the trio will be able to break away from the harry potter movies and always be known as the harry potter kids and all...i think they are also scared of that happening and thats when there was talks about the kids not being in all movies.

The only one of the trio whose re-casting would make any difference to me is Rupert Grint as Ron. Frankly, neither Dan nor Emma really fit what my own personal idea of what Harry or Hermione were like. So I wouldn't be too overly disappointed. As long as they were to stick to the book descriptions of characters, and make them as real as possible, I'm not majorly opposed to re-casting. (the whole Emmione thing bugs me).

i completely agree, Rupert always seemed to me as the only one of the three that actually knew how to act and played his part properly, the other two seem to either overact or act as though they don't know where they are or what they're doing.

it would take a little to get used to, but I don't think changing them would make too huge of a difference if those who replaced them really did their job well.

If a change was to be made I think it should've happened before GoF as IMO in PoA Dan and Emma were horrible, though in GoF they do seem to have gotten better.

i agree with a lot of others---i think that the movie would not break any records with recast. and besides after four movies--it wouldn't be the same if the trio were recast. for me it would be ruined, because they are now the characters you expect to see.

No, of course they wouldn't flop, but there would be even more rage on these forums (if that's even possible) because its so hard to replace actors in a series this big. Take Michael Gambon for example, everyone still sees Richard Harris in that character because he's the Dumbledore we were introduced to. It would take an amazing actor to replace someone in the trio; hopefully they all stay on through numero 7.

i think the boys have already started going through their growth stages, so from the 4th movie on, i don't think they'll start looking too much older than they already do. as for hermione, there's always female actors 20+ yrs doing young high school roles, so it won't be a problem. i did read on mugglenet.com that draco has a 50% chance of coming back for OoTP; he'd really like to return, but he's just maturing and growing too quickly.

if they replace the trio, snape, mcgonnagol, or (i shudder to think) dumbledore the movies would flop like a fish out of water and personally, i dont think i can handle that kind of trauma...

I would not be happy. I think the movies would make less money, less people would see it. Emma, Daniel, & Rupert grew up as the trio. They are the trio. I'm not sure if I would see it. I'd have to see who they pick.

Flop is a big word, but if they would change one of the trio, they can be sure of a lot of complaining. It hardly never works when suddenly a character gets a different face. You get attached to the original actor. With Dumbledore the producers can see what happened. They were forced to change the actor and to be honest everyone wants Richard Harris back and compares Michael Gambon with him.

Flop is a big word, but if they would change one of the trio, they can be sure of a lot of complaining. It hardly never works when suddenly a character gets a different face.

James Bond and Batman are two major movie series where changing the lead actor had little affect. There really are not very many other movie series that we can


They were forced to change the actor and to be honest everyone wants Richard Harris back and compares Michael Gambon with him.

Only Harry Potter fans were upset, and they are a minority of the audience. Most people did not notice, and those who have generally have prefered Gambon's performance. Many reviewers noted that Gambon has played the role with much more verve and zest. They are careful not to fault Harris for his stilted performance, as they are well aware that Harris was very ill and (literally) dying. However, the more "Gandalf" like Dumbledore strikes people (the majority of whom have not read the books) as more appropriate.

It wouldnt hurt much because people see the movies simply because it is Harry Potter. If the characters were to switch there would be some dissapointment but people would get over it unless the people who replace the original people stunk. :p :cool:

WEll since in some casses yes and others no. If they changed Dan to somebody else it would probaly be very obvious the change and that case yes. If for example Dumbledore how he changed, it was known to the fans, but not to the people who didn't really know anything about HP. So in that case no.

I'm not sure it would flop, but I doubt I'd see it if they replaced the trio. As for Snape, the more familiar I become with Alan Rickman's other work, the more accepting I am of another actor playing Snape. Although I would be a bit disappointed, especially with 5, 6 & 7 coming up.

Definetely. Absolutely. Nothing truer*.

* Is that even a word?

Probably, but I'd watch them anyway. It is hard enough watching a new Dumbledore, and we all know that was tragically unavoidable. I wasn't even thrilled we got a new Fat Lady ... but I'll watch no matter what.

certain characters need to stay...trio, snape, mcgonagall, hagrid, weasly's, draco

it was hard enough with dumbledore

i definitely don't think it would flop completely but it would definitely decrease in sales rather than increase as it has been doing recently.

i didn't even liked that they chancged padma patil and parvati!!!! in the fourth movie! i would really hate if the actors were changed!!! not because it's like i imagine them when i read the books but for the movies sake!! i've started to think of them as independent from the books... because of the fourth movie... it really didn't catched the whole book and important parts needed for the fifth movie were left out... so changing the charachters AND the story?! what a mess...

i didn't even liked that they chancged padma patil and parvati!!!! in the fourth movie! i would really hate if the actors were changed!!! not because it's like i imagine them when i read the books but for the movies sake!! i've started to think of them as independent from the books... because of the fourth movie... it really didn't catched the whole book and important parts needed for the fifth movie were left out... so changing the charachters AND the story?! what a mess...

Well I can't quite remember seeing Padma Patil in PoA, although there was a very brief appearance by Parvati when she had her turn with the Boggart in Moony's class, but since her character is minor and was needed in GoF to play out a slightly bigger role, the casting crew probably wanted a bit of skill in acting and experience. The actresses playing the Patil twins were quite good and the moviegoers couldn't tell the difference because they barely remember Parvati in PoA.

I don't know if they would flop completely, but I don't think they would do as strongly as they have been. Most of the times, the actors become the characters and messes up the story (or at least, for me, my attentiveness to the story) if the original actors are changed. I know that I would be sooooo ANGRY if they changed them. Emma, Dan, and Rupert ARE the trio for me. I can't really see anyone else doing Hermione, Harry, and Ron.

I don't know if they would flop completely, but I don't think they would do as strongly as they have been. Most of the times, the actors become the characters and messes up the story (or at least, for me, my attentiveness to the story) if the original actors are changed. I know that I would be sooooo ANGRY if they changed them. Emma, Dan, and Rupert ARE the trio for me. I can't really see anyone else doing Hermione, Harry, and Ron.

ya thats my feelings exactly. to me, its like watching a whole differnt series, the connection between the previous installments would be gone. i dont think it would be that big of a deal if they were 4 or 5 years older than the age theyre supposed to be playing.

I don't think they'd flop, but I can say I don't think they would do quite as well as the other films. We've already come to recognize these actors, these people, as Harry, Ron, Hermione, Draco, Snape etc. etc. It'd be a shame and not believable for any single one of them to be changed.

I'm also an adult who came to the series late - I had seen the first three films before reading the books. All of the main characters are who I see when I read. Because of the changes in the storyline from book to film - new actors would make me loose the connection between the two. I'd probably still watch the films, but I would probably not be happy about it. Dan, Rupert and Emma are my Harry, Ron and Hermione! (They better not change Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid, Lupin or Moody now either!)

The reason changing main characters with Bond, Batman, Star Wars and others is that they aren't a continual series. Star Wars 1-3 are one time frame and 4-6 are another. No way could you have the older Obi-Wan portraying himself 20 years younger. James Bond and Batman are the same way - they are different adventures and jump around in time. It would never work to try to go backwards in time. HP is a continuous story and part of the magic is seeing the kids grow up as the characters grow up. Yes - at some point Harry and Ron get an adam's apple and Hermione gets cleavage - it's part of growing up!

On the discussion of ages - I don't think the kids are going to outgrow their roles. First of all - on 18 month cycles with filming ending 6 months before release we have OotP wrapping up late this year - the kids will be 16 (Emma), 17 (Dan), 18 (Rupert). They would be no older than 19, 20 and 21 at the end of filming of movie 7. Harry is the youngest in the story and the 7th will open with him at 17 (or only a month before he turns 17) - that's only 3 years difference.

It wouldn't have worked to have the 14 year old kids in the first film, but the characters are basically adults by the 7th, so it fits just fine.
I have 3 sons in their teens and there is as much a wide range of physical maturity in those years as there is in emotional maturity. A 20 year old Dan will easily make a believable 17 year old Harry, provided he doesn't suddenly take up weightlifting and grow 10 inches. (We CAN'T have Harry towering over Voldemort at the end.)

I think that if some of the minor characters changed as the Patil sisters did, I don't think that it would have a significant effect of the sales of the movie. I think, though, the more visible and important the character is to the plot the more effect it would have on the audience tendancy to attend, I think. For example, I think replacing Hermione or Ron at this stage would have a tremendous effect on the success of the movie whereas Ernie Macmillan or the Patil twins is noticible, but I don't think that it had much effect on the box office.

Don't think they would. This is the list of the character returning:

Principal Characters
Harry Potter - Daniel Radcliffe
Ron Weasley - Rupert Grint
Hermione Granger - Emma Watson

Hogwarts Staff
Wilhelmina Grubbly-Plank - Apple Brook
Rubeus Hagrid - Robbie Coltrane
Albus Dumbledore - Michael Gambon
Severus Snape - Alan Rickman
Dolores Umbridge - Imelda Staunton
Sybill Trelawney - Emma Thompson

Hogwarts Students
Padma Patil - Afshan Azad
Angelina Johnson - Tiana Benjamin
Parvati Patil - Shefali Chowdhury
Dean Thomas - Alfred Enoch
Draco Malfoy - Tom Felton
Gregory Goyle - Joshua Herdman
Cho Chang - Katie Leung
Neville Longbottom - Matthew Lewis
Luna Lovegood - Evanna Lynch
Seamus Finnigan - Devon Murray
Fred Weasley - James Phelps
George Weasley - Oliver Phelps
Zacharias Smith - Nick Shim
Vincent Crabbe - Jamie Waylett
Ginny Weasley - Bonnie Wright

Ministry of Magic
Kingsley Shacklebolt - George Harris
Dawlish - Richard Leaf
Percy Weasley - Chris Rankin
Nymphadora Tonks - Natalia Tena
Amelia Bones - Sian Thomas

Other Order of the Phoenix Members
Arabella Figg - Kathryn Hunter
Aberforth Dumbledore - Jim McManus
Sirius Black - Gary Oldman
Remus Lupin - David Thewlis
Molly Weasley - Julie Walters

Voldemort and his Death Eaters
Bellatrix Lestrange - Helena Bonham Carter
Lord Voldemort/Tom Marvolo Riddle - Ralph Fiennes

Non-Humans
Grawp (voice) - Tony Maudsle
Bane - Jason Piper
Magorian - Michael Wildman

Muggles
Piers Polkiss - Jason Boyd
Vernon Dursley - Richard Griffiths
Malcolm (Dudley's gang) - Richard Macklin
Dudley Dursley - Harry Melling
Petunia Dursley - Fiona Shaw

Pensieve Scene
Young Severus Snape - Alec Hopkins
Young Peter Pettigrew - Charles Hughes
Young James Potter - Robbie Jarvis
Young Lily Potter - Susie Shinner
Young Remus Lupin - James Utechin
Young Sirius Black - James Walters

So, it will not flop; most of the characters are returning. :)

jamondperry is Maggie Smith not coming back?

jamondperry is Maggie Smith not coming back?

I hope she is! I love her!

If they changed actors for any of the trio, it would seriously affect the movie. I hated how they switched Dumbledores, but that was unavoidable.

For example, I think replacing Hermione or Ron at this stage would have a tremendous effect on the success of the movie whereas Ernie Macmillan or the Patil twins is noticible, but I don't think that it had much effect on the box office.

Replacing one of the trio probably would not have a huge effect, either. These are not "Dan Radcliffe" or "Emma Watson" movies: they are Harry Potter. Just like James Bond, people are interested in the character and the general stories.

Indeed, Emma Watson changed so much in appearance between CoS and PoA that a common question at non-HP sites was, why had they changed actresses? However, PoA sold nearly as many tickets as CoS, which was a lot more than it was expected to sell.


So, it will not flop; most of the characters are returning. :)

These are two unrelated issues! OotP will not flop: GoF was very popular with audiences (~90% approval rating, which is outstanding), so the vast majority will return. OotP will not sell as many tickets as GoF because it will be in a much less favorable season: movie attendance is very low during the summer in Europe and Asia, and OotP will actually be coming out after the summer movie season in N. America.


People will return for HBP if they liked OotP. If Radcliffe or Watson do not return, it will make little difference if OotP is popular; conversely, if theydo return but OotP is not popular, then it will make little difference in the other direction!

Replacing one of the trio probably would not have a huge effect, either. These are not "Dan Radcliffe" or "Emma Watson" movies: they are Harry Potter. Just like James Bond, people are interested in the character and the general stories.


James Bond is actually a good example that re-casting doesn't matter, as I thought a lot of the charm of the early Bond pictures had to do with Sean Connery, opposed to the character. He dominates the early pictures, and that he could be replaced successfully (by Moore, lets forget about that brief Lazenby run), indicates that almost anybody can.

There are very few characters that are a part of a series that I can't envision anybody else playing. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, Keifer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, Dan Castellaneta as Homer Simpson... Like I said, very few.

This will come up again surely, when they have to get around to re-casting Spider-Man in a few years. Some people argue that Tobey Maguire is irreplaceble, but like with Batman and Superman and other iconic characters, the character is bigger than the actor and I think they could have done without him on the last picture if his back injury flared-up again.

There are very few characters that are a part of a series that I can't envision anybody else playing. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, Keifer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, Dan Castellaneta as Homer Simpson... Like I said, very few.


Also, these would (for the most part) would be comparable to replacing Radcliffe. It is even less important with Watson and Grint. The three Indiana Jones movies had three different leading ladies. This was even "worse" in the sense that the characters changed, and Marion was probably the most popular of the "Jones' Girls." These secondary characters are the ones comparable to Hermione and Ron. Now, John Rhys-Davies was a great Sallah, but Sallah was a great character: had (say) Robbie Coltrane played Sallah in Crusade, I doubt anybody would have complained.

The ticket sales dropped as the Indiana Jones progressed, but a) that almost always happens, and b) "Temple of Doom" was not very good, leaving a smaller audience for "Last Crusade." The changes in the secondary characters was not the problem.


The Dr. Who series ran into this, with numerous actors playing the Doctor and innumerable companions. Some were more popular than others, but what really drove the series (for good or ill) was the quality of the stories and the time slot in which it was shown.

yup they would.......

jamondperry is Maggie Smith not coming back?

Sorry for not getting back to you in a timely manner; I didn't know you had posted a question for me. Here's the information I received:

Minerva McGonagall-Maggie Smith: Smith seems enthusiastic to return, McGonagall will be in the film.

There you have it. :) She will be there, and she is awesome!

Thats great new, she was fantastic acting as McGonagall. I would be disappointed if they changed any of the major characters in the movie, but i don't mind if they change a minor character. I don't think the movie will flop even if they change actors because HP has a huge fan base and i'm sure many of them will still wanna watch though the movie might not do as well as the previous movies.

I think, now that we've got beyond the halfway mark that the actors should be kept, if at all possible.

I think if I was one of the main characters I would actually want to see it through to it's final moments.

I haven't overly enjoyed the last two movies but I watched them because I liked the actors in it, so yes, for me, I'm not sure I would bother if they changed too much - they take the script so far away from the book they can't do anything else!

they take the script so far away from the book they can't do anything else!


Actually, HP films are so close to the books (even the last two), that many movie mavens sneer that Kloves is a psuedonym for "Xerox."


By comparison, Lord of the Rings, Master and Commander, and nearly every other movie adapted from a book changed a lot more than PoA and GoF combined changed!


That, however, is a separate issue, except for the fact that it has had only a positive effect on the box office. I do not htink that changing the actors would have any effect one way or the other. To be honest, I doubt that the majority of the audience would notice if anyone other than Radcliffe left. Indeed, even if Radcliffe left, a lot of people would suspect that he had just changed due to puberty. Emma Watson changed enough between CoS and PoA that a lot of people thought that she had changed! (Of course, it seems that a decent proportion of the PoA audience had not seen Emma since PSS, so the change would have been even more marked.)

And yet the audience has slowly rebounded through that.

I would more than likly have a bad outlook on the movie, if it in fact changed actors. I hate it when this happens in a series. The dumbledore thing didnt bother me because old men are easily interchangable. (Dont take that as disrespect to Richard Harris, I am just saying this particular character really wasnt noticable with a change)

I doubt it. People would go to watch just to see how the new actors perform. They will undoubtedly get better actors than they currently have if they decide to change the actors so people would still enjoy the movie even if the loud grumblings of the various die hard fans of the actors made it difficult to hear the movie. In the end, it's Harry Potter that's popular and has made Dan, Rupert, Emma, etc. popular by association. The movies would definitely flop if they changed Alan Rickman ;)

they take the script so far away from the book they can't do anything else!

No they don't. They are very careful when it comes to the books. They only change some things for time purposes, like in the First Movie, I believe, when Hagrid had to get rid of the Dragon; they embeliished it, but it was for time purposes only.

I feel they do a good job on the movies when dealing with the Book. :)

I'd still see the movie if there were diffrent characters...Just an example but if this has to do with age difrence from the chacters in the books and the characters in the movies....Tom something-rather in Smallville is around 30 and he is supposed to play a teenager around 17 or 18. He fits it...So will Rupert, Dan and Emma.

i do think the movie would flop if they changed the actors. i think that everyone would go see the first one with the replaced actor, but then in the next film no one will want to see it.

yep they sure would flop

It flopped with Dumbeldore.

probably it will flop

i think it wouldn't because people didn't go to see the actors but the adaptation of the books. And for the first, it would have curiosity. But, i think fans of some actors could boycott it :) .
Anyway, it would be quite disturbing because now we are used to these actors and for the moment, i don't see goods reasons to justify a change.

I think they wouldnt flop if the actors were changed, but the whole dynamic of the films would be changed. Everyone would still go to see the films because they are Harry Potter films but there would possibly be alot of hostility towards the replacements due to the large fan-basis all of the actors have.

I don't think it'll flop, but I'd feel dejected nonetheless. People will come see the movie still, primarily to witness the books materialize into movies, and also out of curiosity as to how the new actors will fare. Obviously, comparisons are inevitable. But when I look at Dan, Rupert, Emma, and the rest of the cast, I consider them part of the whole Harry Potter experience. I've witnessed them grow in terms of their acting abilities and I haven't been significantly disappointed. I've developed a certain fondness towards these people, and though I completely understand why there might be a need to change the actors, I think it'll take a whole lot to instigate how I felt towards the old actors with the new ones again.

I am certain that it would not do as good unless the originals stayed apart of the cast. Would it completely flop? Probably not. It would still rack in more than most movies easily.

Depends on which actor is replaced. If any of the trio is replaced I can see there being a lot of fans girls and fan boys who will not want to see the film if one of them is replaced. I honestly would HATE it if any of the kids are replaced...actually, I would hate it if any of the actors were replaced at this point....

Depends on which actor is replaced. If any of the trio is replaced I can see there being a lot of fans girls and fan boys who will not want to see the film if one of them is replaced. I honestly would HATE it if any of the kids are replaced...actually, I would hate it if any of the actors were replaced at this point....

Me too. Dumbledore was enough. I didn't go to see Prisoner of Azkaban until it came out on On Demand or whatever about a month or so after it came out. Dumbledore was a major one...Harry, Ron, or Hermione might be even hostile! If Tom, Dan, Emma, Rupert, Bonnie, James and Oliver, especially Alan, Maggie, or any person who is actually loved for their role would be devistating to who goes to see the movie and who doesn't. They would still make a lot of money and it wouldn't be a complete flop because there are some who just watch it to watch it and don't get too emotional like that :p.

I would obviously still see the movie, but I wouldn't like it as much, it would be too different, Only two more movies to go, so I hope they don't change them.
What would be a positive change though, would be Replacing Michael Gambon, with someone who is actually somewhat like how Dumbledore is supposed to be.

I think the movies would still do tremendously well, but I bet a lot of people would be upset, and I bet the movies wouldn't be as good without our beloved actors!

I'd be very apprehensive towards watching "Half Blood Prince" if they decided to use different actors.

It'd be like living beside someone for many years, and all of a sudden you wake up and you have new neighbours. Sure, they play nice and be good and all that, but it's new and no one likes change.

Definitely. It would be some kind of miracle if the movie made it better with different actors.

I mean seriously can one imagine a different actor playing Draco? I think this would actually be more tragic to people then replacing the trio. (I could be wrong.)

if WB changed actors, the movie would deffinately flop!! mostly if the trio was changed, but if a trivial character like crabe, goyle, or percy changed then it would be that big of a deal.

As long as Dan and Rupert aren't battling 5 o'clock shadows in a bad way, I don't see a problem with them being older. Besides, the young man that played Tom Riddle in movie CoS was older and he could have passed for 16 with movie magic.

I really hope they don't leave the movies though. I've been a bit upset with the change in some of the other actors (though hardly could be upset about changing Dumbledore).

Conidia

For me, it would just be too hard to see any of the characters changed. Especially the trio, Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid, Lupin, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Ginny, Fred, George. The Dumbledore in the 3rd and 4th movies was really good. It was weird seeing the change, but I got used to it. At least they looked similar. But now after having these characters for the first 5 movies, it just wouldn't be the same. I mean it was weird seeing how Flitwick looked in the 4th movie. Imagine seeing completely different people so far along in the movies.

There are been thousands and thousands of posts strictly about the Dumbledore change which could not be helped in any way. If any of the main characters changed this site might crash!!!!

I look at the casting of a character as been not important unless the actor or actress I know would definately not suit the part when given their range or what they have done before getting the said role. Having said that, a role is essencially faceless and is open to be cast for any actor who goes for it and in that vien it is open for a different interpretation by the way certain actors can portray the role and how the collaborate with the director.
As for a reason they had to recast the trio or any of the teachers, I think that for the moment they are safe in their respective roles in the HP franchise unless they become too demanding or too expensive to hire. Daniel radcliffe will essentially get what he wants as he IS the face of the franchise and the main character, so his part I think will not be recast this far down the line unless he volentary leaves or the director of the next film wanted to take the series into a direction he was not happy with personally. As for Ron and Hermoine it seems that they are happy just to be in the HP films so far and have no plans of trying to leave them or stretch their acting muscles by trying over roles in films or television.

I would still watch the films, but I'd be devastated if they switched the characters. I just can't picture anyone else playing the parts. I would be furious if they switched out Draco, I just don't see anyone else but Tom playing the part. And Snape.. ugh, they couldn't change him out. He IS Snape, just as I pictured from the book.. and the voice is just spectacular.

This probably has been dissguessed ever since before Harry Potter 3 was made but does any of you think they can't replace Dan, Rupert and Emma as the trio. Clearly to me they are who we view as Harry Ron and Hermione in the movies. So if warner brothers would change them would you still watch the films. I for one wouldn't simply because they for four films were Harry, Ron and Hermione. It would be stupid to switch them with 3 movies to go. I hear that Dan is willing to do up to 6 and Emma and Rupert are pretty much a certainty for harry potter 5.
Does anyone think these movies would flop big without the current trio.

I personally think you can replace everyone but 5 people. Rupert, Dan, Emma, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane. I know Robbie is mentioned to be leaving. I suppose anyone can put on that big Hagrid suit. But come on Alan Rickman is Snape, Daniel, Emma and Rupert are the Trio.

I totally agree with you

i would say that i would boycott the movies if they changed any of the trio, but go to see it anyway and complain about how the other actors could do better. harry potter wouldnt be the same without them,

I wouldn't say it would flop because HP has many fans who really really are with it no matter what....but I would say it would defenitly not get as many views or hold any records if they changed actors. If they do change them for whatever reason, then they deserve it. The ones they have now are fine and changing them would not be cool at all.

If ANYONE were to change at this moment, it would ruin it, it would just be that last straw to make me most disappointed in the movies....

Even if an actor dies (although thats not their fault...) and they recast, it would ruin it.
(Yes I am very disappointed in Michael Gambon; I hate his representation of Dumbledore..he makes him way too aggressive...among other things)

I was just thinking of this literally two hours ago when I was thinking about when Maggie Smith dies, I will be sad.

I agree with almost everybody on this thread. IT will not be the same. We are used to seeing certain people doing these movies. If they change the actors...sorry WB but a lot of people are not going to see the movies. When I read the books I think of Dan, Rupert and Emma as Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I don't picture anybody else. I can picture them saying the quotes in the book.

I enjoyed watched "Friends." If they would have changed the actors. I would have stopped watching. Why? Because it is not the same. I can't picture anybody else playing the part of Monica than Cortney. Or anybody else.

I wouldn't say it would flop because HP has many fans who really really are with it no matter what....but I would say it would defenitly not get as many views or hold any records if they changed actors..

Actually, it is the other way around. The HP fans might get upset, but the general public would not notice. Consider PoA: many people thought that there was a new girl playing Hermione whereas few people noticed that there was a new person playing Dumbledore.

Other movies series have recast major roles, the most notable being James Bond. People argue about their favorite Bond, but recasting has not hurt the series. The #1 factor that affects movie attendance for each Bond film is how much people liked the prior James Bond film.


As for "records," HP does not really have many except for opening weekends. Remember, the film series has been something of a disappointment, especially in N. American where it sells only 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the tickets that big SciFi/Fantasy films like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Spiderman sell (sold), and only 2/3rds of the tickets that big children's movies like Shrek II sell. It does better overseas than several of those movies only because they are summer movies, and summer box offices are very small in Europe and Asia (where movie going is a "winter" activity). People are going for the action/adventure: they are not going because they are Radcliffe fans.


At this point in a movie series, the #1 thing that will make people stop seeing the movies is if they do not like the prior movies. That is why the box offices tumbled so dramatically after the first two movies: people did not like the Columbus films anywhere near as much as they liked LotR, Spidey, etc., or as much as they liked the last two films. Because GoF was much more popular than CoS(~90% approval vs. ~80% approval) and because the last two films built the audience back up to CoS's level, there are more people interested in the next Harry Potter movie now than there were 3 years ago.

However, if Dan Radcliffe walked off of the set, then almost nothing would change because the vast majority of people who go to the movies have no idea who Dan Radcliffe is.

I agree with a lot of the comments previously posted. I just would not be the same if the trio, or any other characters were recast.

I don't know if it'd flop, but the feel of the movies wouldn't be the same. The trio have a chemistry, a great one, and it'd suck to see them go. I hope they stay around till movie 7

I don't thinkthat they would necessarily flop, as millions of people would still go and see it, but I think they would lose alot of fans, and get bad reviews. And loads of hatemail from the fangirls. :lol:

I don't thinkthat they would necessarily flop, as millions of people would still go and see it, but I think they would lose alot of fans, and get bad reviews. And loads of hatemail from the fangirls.

Well, if any of the Trio leave at this late point, most probably it will be because they want to avoid being type cast as Harry, Ron or Hermione for the rest of their days.

As for the other things, I seriously doubt that it would affect the reviews. There have been reviewers commenting that the actors are much too old to be playing pre-teens, as many (if not most) people are unaware that Harry Potter is very different from most series in having the characters age. (Classic boarding school and kids mystery stories have kids be 12 forever, just as comic books, James Bond, Jeeves & Woster, etc., all have ageless characters.) At this point, ageless characters are so common-place that people are surprised to see anything different.

Actually, it is the other way around. The HP fans might get upset, but the general public would not notice. Consider PoA: many people thought that there was a new girl playing Hermione whereas few people noticed that there was a new person playing Dumbledore.

Other movies series have recast major roles, the most notable being James Bond. People argue about their favorite Bond, but recasting has not hurt the series. The #1 factor that affects movie attendance for each Bond film is how much people liked the prior James Bond film.


As for "records," HP does not really have many except for opening weekends. Remember, the film series has been something of a disappointment, especially in N. American where it sells only 2/3rds - 3/4ths of the tickets that big SciFi/Fantasy films like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Spiderman sell (sold), and only 2/3rds of the tickets that big children's movies like Shrek II sell. It does better overseas than several of those movies only because they are summer movies, and summer box offices are very small in Europe and Asia (where movie going is a "winter" activity). People are going for the action/adventure: they are not going because they are Radcliffe fans.


At this point in a movie series, the #1 thing that will make people stop seeing the movies is if they do not like the prior movies. That is why the box offices tumbled so dramatically after the first two movies: people did not like the Columbus films anywhere near as much as they liked LotR, Spidey, etc., or as much as they liked the last two films. Because GoF was much more popular than CoS(~90% approval vs. ~80% approval) and because the last two films built the audience back up to CoS's level, there are more people interested in the next Harry Potter movie now than there were 3 years ago.

However, if Dan Radcliffe walked off of the set, then almost nothing would change because the vast majority of people who go to the movies have no idea who Dan Radcliffe is.
I must say that this is one of the few things with relation to the movies that you and I almost completely agree on. However, I think we may defer in our reasons why the movies "flop". I think the movies "flop" because the first two movies were done in a very boring fashion and the screenwriting for the past 4 movies have not been very well done at all. The screenwriter seems incapable of capturing the dynamic of the Trio, which most people love and which I think is essential to having a good adaptation of JK's story. Most of the characters are also too one-dimensionally written for the most part. I've read somewhere recently that the screenwriter said in an interview that he's written the characters with the stars in mind. I found him barely tolerable before but after hearing that, I must say he now hardly has any redeeming qualities. He's making the mistake that many fans seem to do in thinking that Dan, Rupert and Emma are what makes the movie and HP should be happy to have them. The point is that Dan, Rupert and Emma are currently popular simply because they are in HP and not the other way around (this may or may not change for Rupert but we'll have to wait and see). Not many people want to see Dan, Rupert and Emma on screen. They want to see Harry, Ron and Hermione. I think the main problem with the movies have been screenwriting. I think a better screenwriter, one who understands that the books, understands all the characters and realize that written as they are, the books are very loved for a reason (and I hope Michael is although I'm not so sure based on his resume). I believe this would vastly improve the movies as well as an increase in use of the very talented adult cast which I'm astonished continues to just get cameo roles. Absolutely ridiculous since the children are nowhere near as talented. I'm not saying the screenwriter should just hand them JK's book but I think any streamlined version of the book should capture the correct dynamic among the characters and this has failed for the past 2/3 movies.

Daniel, Rupert and Emma think they're a lot better at acting than they really are - I wish they'd all shut up with the whole "type cast" thing. :rolleyes: Never again will they be lucky enough to work on films as famous as Harry Potter.
I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard Rupert say that. I also know that he's stated his willingness to continue for all 7 movies. I also think that Rupert is a very talented actor who is not utilized enough in the movies. He reminds be of the very talented adult cast that are just not give enough to do even though they are better than the children. I have no clue what the people involved are on about but I blame this mostly on screenwriting as well.

Cheers :tu:

I beleave the movei would do more than flop If they replaced the acters.
I'd fall down and get stuck in a tar pit!

If they replaced any of the main 3 I'm sure there would be millions of ****** off people. I would still see it, but it would seem really different...

The movies would definitely change if they cast different actors for the movie. for one everyone would be disappointed because tons of fans all arounf the world love the actors now especially the trio and it would be a shmae if they were to ptu different actors in their place. second i would like to say that evertone has gotten quite used to the actors that are fulfilling the roles now and many fans have said that they play the parts perfectly. the whole entire series in my opinion would be changed and the theme and everything within the movies. it's one thing when you change directors but it's another if you cast different actors for the parts. the movie definitely wouldn't do very well in theaters although a lot of harry potter fans would go see it because it is part of the series. i would see it just to see what it would be like but i know it wouldn't be as fascinating as the other movies that i grew up with. i don't think they'll be changing actors any time soon as far as i've heard which is great news. still if it ever happens i will be highly disappointed and miss the trio and other actors as well.

I think the movies would kind of flop if they changed the actors. We're all used to seeing Dan, Rupert and Emma as Harry, Ron and Hermione, and then if they change them, it just won't be the same and it'll take time to get used to.:no: :upset:

I could be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard Rupert say that. I also know that he's stated his willingness to continue for all 7 movies. I also think that Rupert is a very talented actor who is not utilized enough in the movies. He reminds be of the very talented adult cast that are just not give enough to do even though they are better than the children. I have no clue what the people involved are on about but I blame this mostly on screenwriting as well.

I agree with this. He is a very good actor, but I don't think it is that he isn't used enough, but that they completely changed Ron's character, making many others to be misled into thinking that he's just another actor.

I think that the hard-core HP fans would dislike it by changing the actors, but the general public would really not notice at all. It's the effort that's put into making the film that determines whether it will flop or not.

Hm, I guess they wouldnt flop..but itd be a huge shock to the world. i mean replacing 3 of the most known faces in the world for 3 other strangers. I cant see anybody else playing those parts. Dan, Emma and Rupert ARE Harry, Hermione and Ron. I think i heard somewhere that they were only signed for the first 5? Please correct me if im wrong. But I'd feel horrible for the people replacing them, im sure theyd get tons of bashing against them.

I would definately be devestated. I probably wouldnt even want to see the movie, but i'd just see it to see how it turns out.

Is there a chance that theyll even make it to the 6th film? Im seriously expecting this to be their last movie, with the same actors at least. The trio would be old..and i know Tom Felton is already like playing 16 year old when hes 19 or something like that. But, if they do replace the characters, itd be a huge dissappointment to alot of people.

The screenwriter seems incapable of capturing the dynamic of the Trio, which most people love

First, most HP fans might love the trio, but I doubt that the majority of the film-goers care. They are there to see the main character, Harry Potter.

Second, the screenwriter is not the one who generates the dynamics; that is the director.


I've read somewhere recently that the screenwriter said in an interview that he's written the characters with the stars in mind. I found him barely tolerable before but after hearing that, I must say he now hardly has any redeeming qualities.

All good screenwriters write to the actors strengths and weaknesses if they know in advance who they are. Kloves is a very highly regarded screenwriter who many people feel is wasting his talent on a kids series. JKR, however, lauds him and has more than once noted that he has a much better understanding of the stories and the characters than do a lot of the fans.


Not many people want to see Dan, Rupert and Emma on screen. They want to see Harry, Ron and Hermione.

Actually, they want to see Harry, some good cinematic magical "oomph" and hopefully get a decent story.


I think the main problem with the movies have been screenwriting.

Actually, it has been entirely direction, and then only for the first two movies. Yes, the trio's acting in the first two was not brilliant, but it was passable.


I think a better screenwriter, one who understands that the books, understands all the characters

Rowling says that Kloves understands them better than do most of the fans. Moreover, you leave out the most important thing that a screenwriter needs to understand: the story. That is what really should sell the HP movies, and that is why having the trio exchanged for three other teens would not have a huge effect on the franchise. If the story is well presented (Cuarón and Newell did that, Columbus did not), then people enjoy the movie.


I believe this would vastly improve the movies as well as an increase in use of the very talented adult cast which I'm astonished continues to just get cameo roles.

All of the adults are tertiary characters, except for Hagrid. Yes, it is a waste, but you simply cannot make Snape or Dumbledore or McGonagal a much bigger character than they are without changing the narrative focus of the tale.


I'm not saying the screenwriter should just hand them JK's book

The problem with the first two movies is that, in the end, they did just use the book. Kloves' hands were somewhat tied, of course. Then, after Peter Jackson showed WB how a fantasy tale should be adapted, they let Kloves go a bit more with the screenplays, and instructed the directors to adapt rather than mimic.

Remember, each Harry Potter story is about choices, and in particular about Harry's choices. That is what drives the tale and that is what the audience wants. HeRon are sidekicks, nothing more, nothing less. Indeed, they have been put in fairly high company on that score! However, they are not main characters in the strict sense of the term, and they should not be treated as such.


This is a bit off-track. Again, what really sells that HP movies is how well the story is presented. The series took a big hit because the first two movies did poor jobs of telling the story. The last two have exceeded box office expectations and also have been critical hits because they did good jobs of telling the story. Keep doing that, and they can have different actors playing the trio each time: they still will get a big return for the next movie.

Yeah for sure! I wouldn't want to watch the movies if it wasn't with these present actors. They've grown on us and we've gotten used to them. The movies just wouldn't be the same without them...

Hilary :p :blush:

I don't think the movie will flop if they changed actors. The numbers of people who liked it will probably flop but they'll still see the movies despite it. Just like with Dumbledore. And it's not just the actors but its the screenwriting as well. I was ****** off with the way things were changed in the fourth movie but it was a good movie on its own.

hmm..I think it would effect the numbers of Harry Potter movie fans. I mean its like when we read about Hermione in the book I think its safe to say we picture an Emma Watson and same with the other characters. Fans get attached easily to an actor that portrays a character.

We're so used to seeing the trio as they are. Changing it now would suck. I'm not sure I'd see a Hp movie without Dan, Emma and Rupert. Maybe out of curiousity only.

it would flop it for me!!
oh they can't do that!!
no no no no!!!

Well, I certainly wouldn't enjoy it as much, because like the characters in the books, I feel that we know them so personally. As with the actors, we are so used to see them as Dan - Harry, Rupert - Ron and Emma - Hermione, that I would find it very hard to concerntrate on the movie, but rather on, the what the ? happened to the actors.

It's what ruined PoA for me, I didn't know that Richard Harris had passed away and because PoA also got a face lift that year, it took me awhile to figure out what was bothering me the whole time. Though now I'm used to seeing Michael, it did take quite a bit of getting used to, that it took me until GoF to actually get used to it. :D

Though now I'm used to seeing Michael, it did take quite a bit of getting used to, that it took me until GoF to actually get used to it. :D

I still haven't got used to it. It's giving me some very long and tearful nights to adjust to not having Richard around. But change....the.....actors.....are you insane? That's like having a raspberry ripple ice cream and then deciding you want chocolate. No-one wants chocolate. Ever. I can't imagine life without Emma Watson.

I still haven't got used to it. It's giving me some very long and tearful nights to adjust to not having Richard around. But change....the.....actors.....are you insane? That's like having a raspberry ripple ice cream and then deciding you want chocolate. No-one wants chocolate. Ever. I can't imagine life without Emma Watson.

While I actually agree with what you are trying to say, I disagree with your example because everyone loves chocolate :agree: :D

ooohhh yes it would

The movies wouldn't flop with different actors (so long as they were good - that goes without saying I guess).

But there'd probably be a lot of whining on fan forums for a while.

I think it would be really weird if they changed actors. I would still go see the movies, but it wouldn't be the same with different actors. Lots of people are saying that the current trio are getting a lot older than the characters in the books. There are many TV series, where there are actors in thier late twenties playing teenagers. I would definitely keep the current actors.

who knows? Really tough to say unless you see which ones they are and how they do.

I don't think the trio are famous enough in North America for it to flop. Outside of the fanbase, I don't think many people know their real names.

The "Harry Potter" name sells tickets, not Daniel Radcliffe.

I don't think it would flop, BUT it would certainly make alot of people (including myself) very upset. Daniel, Emma, and Rupert ARE Harry Potter kids, everyone knows them for it. Changing because of age makes sense, but doesn't make people happy.

You know, I really don't know... I guess that given all three of them have been so integral to the success of the films, it just wouldn't feel right if they decided that any one or all three of them needed replacing. But then again, sometimes they'll deliver a line and you just think to yourself, argh... I suppose that'd just be the fan of the books coming out in me is all... High expectations... all that...

I am not sure what part of the movie base even bothers to read the books. On the other hand, have Dan, Rupert and Emma reached the level Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley? At a certain point actors are so identified with a role that someone else is a distraction. On the other hand, how many Doctor Whos have there been? But then they have always addressed the change in appearance, rather than ignored it.

I think a bigger problem than loosing fans by changing actors would be returning to the start as far as the abilities of new, unknown actors goes.

I'd imagine it'd be possible (not easy mind) to find new actors who looked similar enough to the old ones. I could probably pass for Daniel Radcliffe if my hair was darker (taking into account the fact i'm, ooh, 7ish years older, haha).

Hmm, if he quits, someone get the studio to gimmie a call, hahahaha

Now I highly doubt this will ever happen, but let's say that Warner Brothers decided to replace Emma Watson and hire a different actress to play Hermione. For whatever reason.

-Would you still see the movie?

-And would you criticize and bad mouth whoever was selected to replace her, even if they were really good?

-Finally, if you had to sugest an actress who you feel would do justice to the role of Hermione, who would you pick?

(I only brought this up because I know there has been loads of speculation recently that the trio might get replaced or something b/c they are getting too old for their characters.)

Yeah but not so sure if Daniel Radcliffe leaves...

I would still watch the movies of course. I don't go for Emma Watson, I go for Harry Potter in its majesty. I would be dissapointed, but it's not that big of a deal. Dumbledore's old character, I don't recall his name right now, left and I think that was a bad loss. He was a perfect character for Dumbledore, but I'm not so sure about Emma. She's a wodnerfull actress and all, but she's too pretty. I don't really know the names of any British actresses of that age so I'm not even going to try and name someone who would be a good replacement.

Interesting, if slightly random, question!

-Would you still see the movie? Of course I'd still see the movie! I would take into account the new actress when deciding how well I liked it but I'd definitly see it. I'm too big a movie fan to skip and HP movie.

-And would you criticize and bad mouth whoever was selected to replace her, even if they were really good? I doubt I'd ever critcize her replacement, though I would probably have a favorite. I've never criticized the Dumbledore switch because both actors did well in their own ways. I'd probably do the same if Emma was replaced.

-Finally, if you had to sugest an actress who you feel would do justice to the role of Hermione, who would you pick? My first thought is Natalie Portman because I think she's amazing as a actress. Keira Knightley would be awesome too but she doesn't look like Hermione to me. However both s are older than Emma so using them would defeat the purpose of getting a younger star.

That's just my thoughts- what about everyone else?

If any of the characters were replaced, I would still watch the movies. I go to the movies not for the actors, but for the plotline.

-Would you still see the movie? I'd still see the movie, since I go for the story, not to see the actors. However, I'm one that likes consistency, so I'd be extremely bugged to see a different face there for three-quarters of the movie. Considering that movie five filming finishes soon, however, and the fact that they still look reasonable young, I do believe they'll stick around.

-And would you criticize and bad mouth whoever was selected to replace her, even if they were really good? No, I feel that it's unfair to criticize them if they're really good. However, I think it's expected - the audience has grown accustomed to seeing a familiar face in the role of Hermoine. If you have a sudden chance, especially in the last movie or so, there's bound to be some criticism.

-Finally, if you had to sugest an actress who you feel would do justice to the role of Hermione, who would you pick? Hm, I honestly don't know. I don't know too many actresses around her age, so it's hard for me to pick.

I think this thread might help: Would the Movies Flop If They Changed the Actors? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=65239)

-Would you still see the movie?

-And would you criticize and bad mouth whoever was selected to replace her, even if they were really good?

-Finally, if you had to sugest an actress who you feel would do justice to the role of Hermione, who would you pick?




1. Of course!

2. I don't think so. Let that for the people unable to face the fact that Miss Watson has decided to move on .


3. Rachel Hurd-Wood (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1248393/) , I guess...

I'd watch it, but I don't think it would be as good. It'd be strange to see anybody from the trio change.... I don't know who else I would want to play her, but if she was really good, I wouldn't criticize.

I'd still watch it, But I would be concerned. I just remember when the original Dumbledore passed away and was replaced, I'm still disapointed.

Shanna. Next time don't post such a misleading Thread Title. Almost gave me and probably a few others a heart attack.

I'd still go see it. I'm not the biggest fan of Emma Watson.

I would be dissapointed, but it's not that big of a deal. Dumbledore's old character, I don't recall his name right now, left and I think that was a bad loss. He was a perfect character for Dumbledore.

If you are refering to the Actor who portaited Dumbledore in the first two movies. His name is Richard Harris, if i have heard it right; that actor had passed away. :(

Now I highly doubt this will ever happen, but let's say that Warner Brothers decided to replace Emma Watson and hire a different actress to play Hermione. For whatever reason.

-Would you still see the movie?

-And would you criticize and bad mouth whoever was selected to replace her, even if they were really good?

-Finally, if you had to suggest an actress who you feel would do justice to the role of Hermione, who would you pick?

(I only brought this up because I know there has been loads of speculation recently that the trio might get replaced or something b/c they are getting too old for their characters.)
-Yes

-No, but only if she was really, really good.

-Good question. I don't know. Maybe Kerri Green.

- To be honest, if they would replace the trio, I still would watch the movies, but probebly only to critize the new trio all the time.:lol:

I'm merging this with Would the movie flop if they changed actors? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=65239&highlight=acto%2A) Please also see Should they change the actors? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=81966&highlight=acto%2A) for similar discussion :)

This thread is at the wrong website. We are all baised. You need to poll this at IMDB. Fact is most ppl that view Potter movies are non fans. We would ALL be devastated if they'd even consider replacing some. The audience is more mild than we are I believe.

i definitely don't think it would. i wouldn't be excited to go and see it (i've grown to love the current actors) but i would end up seeing it. they will probably make it cause they know they can make money off of it. it probably wouldnt' be as popular though.

On the other hand, how many Doctor Whos have there been? But then they have always addressed the change in appearance, rather than ignored it.

On the other hand, James Bond has changed several times, as has Batman, Superman, etc. The franchises continue to do quite well.


Now I highly doubt this will ever happen, but let's say that Warner Brothers decided to replace Emma Watson and hire a different actress to play Hermione. For whatever reason

It was commonly thought that Hermione was played by a different actress in PoA. This had no negative effect on GoF's box office.


(I only brought this up because I know there has been loads of speculation recently that the trio might get replaced or something b/c they are getting too old for their characters.)

That is speculation either by fans who do not realize that 15-17 year old characters typically are played by people in their early 20's, or by non-fans who think that Harry is supposed to be 12 in every book (as most children's book characters would do).


On the other hand, how many Doctor Whos have there been? But then they have always addressed the change in appearance, rather than ignored it.

On the other hand, James Bond has changed several times, as has Batman, Superman, etc. The franchises continue to do quite well.


This thread is at the wrong website. We are all baised. You need to poll this at IMDB. Fact is most ppl that view Potter movies are non fans. We would ALL be devastated if they'd even consider replacing some. The audience is more mild than we are I believe.

You are very correct. Given general audience responses to PoA contrasted with COS responses to PoA, hardcore HP fans are no more than 15% of the audience.

Depends on who they change them to. I don't think it would be the cause of any "flop" unless the actors were just so horrible. I stil think Alison Hannigan would make a GREAT Ginny Weasley.

On the other hand, James Bond has changed several times, as has Batman, Superman, etc. The franchises continue to do quite well. However, the transition from film to film in the Bond series has not always been a smooth one. Individual actors were given harsh criticism because they could not fill the shoes of the previous actor; George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton are perfect examples. While most movie franchises such as SuperMan and Batman have undergone actor changes, they are not generally released within a year or two of a previous release such as the Potter movies are.

I think if there is an actor/actress change, it could prove to be somewhat detrimental to the series if the actor gives a less than stellar performance/portrayal of the character we've grown accustomed to. While I don't think this will necessarily be the case, it is something that I hope the studio would consider.

I don't think the movies would flop, but they would not be nearly as succesful. When a movie flops it fails to make its budget which I think it still could. I don't think it would surpass its budget by much though.

They could replace any of the actors and I'd still go see the movie, and I'm willing to bet lots of other fans would too. I definitely have a soft spot for the actors we have now (I'm pretty sure most everyone does in a way) and I'd be disappointed to see them go, especially Daniel Radcliffe.

I don't think the movies would flop, but they certainly wouldn't be as popular as they are now. The other problem I see is that people would have a lot of questions. I know people who didn't read PoA or GoF before they saw the movies and they had a ton of questions.

Now I highly doubt this will ever happen, but let's say that Warner Brothers decided to replace Emma Watson and hire a different actress to play Hermione. For whatever reason.

-Would you still see the movie?

-And would you criticize and bad mouth whoever was selected to replace her, even if they were really good?

-Finally, if you had to sugest an actress who you feel would do justice to the role of Hermione, who would you pick?

(I only brought this up because I know there has been loads of speculation recently that the trio might get replaced or something b/c they are getting too old for their characters.)
Yes, I would still see the movies. I would praise the new Hermione if her acting was better than Emma's. I don't have a recommendation, though.

Probebly becouse we love (almost) all the actors who play the Characters. Even if they would change these actors with other, better actors, we would still not like it becouse of the big change. So yes, the movie would DEFINETLY flop.

Depends on who they change them to. I don't think it would be the cause of any "flop" unless the actors were just so horrible. I stil think Alison Hannigan would make a GREAT Ginny Weasley.

However, the transition from film to film in the Bond series has not always been a smooth one. Individual actors were given harsh criticism because they could not fill the shoes of the previous actor; George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton are perfect examples. While most movie franchises such as SuperMan and Batman have undergone actor changes, they are not generally released within a year or two of a previous release such as the Potter movies are.

I think if there is an actor/actress change, it could prove to be somewhat detrimental to the series if the actor gives a less than stellar performance/portrayal of the character we've grown accustomed to. While I don't think this will necessarily be the case, it is something that I hope the studio would consider.

Bond Trivia : skip if you're not interested.

Daniel Craig gives me great hope for the future of Bond. He has the KGB aura (stolen from Dalton); even looks a bit like Putin. Because let's the be honest the last 3 movies were nothing but ****.

This is the new trailer. http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/site/

However, the transition from film to film in the Bond series has not always been a smooth one.

This is true. However, that tends to affect the box office of the next Bond movie: Bond movies are a classic case of how the box office of movie X depends on the box office of movie X-1. Some classic Bond films did far worse than some real duds because the classic film came after a dud and/or preceded the dud.

So, if Radcliffe had opted out of OotP and his replacement bellywhopped, then HBP would have paid the price.

However, Watson and/or Grint would be far less important: the secondary characters of Bond movies (like Batman, etc.) do not even return for the next movie, so clearly people do not care too much about such characters. This has come up in several TV series recently where prominent secondary characters (e.g., Monk's assistant) have demanded more money and just been dropped: the producers knew that only the main character was important.


Probebly becouse we love (almost) all the actors who play the Characters. Even if they would change these actors with other, better actors, we would still not like it becouse of the big change. So yes, the movie would DEFINETLY flop.

You forget that "we" are a small portion of the box office: the 85% of the audience who are not hardcore Harry Potter fans won't really care.

Some classic Bond films did far worse than some real duds because the classic film came after a dud and/or preceded the dud.

A good example is Moonraker which is stuck between Moore's best films The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only. Lots of people went to see Moonraker based on TSPWLM, then Moonraker was so lousy it killed the audience for FYEO.

This has come up in several TV series recently where prominent secondary characters (e.g., Monk's assistant) have demanded more money and just been dropped: the producers knew that only the main character was important.


24 is a good example, as the secondary characters are killed off left and right leaving only Jack Bauer. The only other character still around from the first episode is a quarternary Secret Service agent who makes a minor appearance in most seasons (although he finally did something in the most recent one).

I think it will kill it. People will still watch, but the whole "suspension of disbelief" will be much more difficult, because many people have established the current actors as being that specific character. It wasn't too bad when they changed Dumbledores, but that was out of necessity, as the former Dumbledore had died. People could understand that, and he was only there for two films. (come to think of it, Dumbledore isn't actually seen that much in those films. Compared to other characters, that is.)

if they recast the characters then they will have a huge angry mob to answer to including me so all in all it will totally distroy the whole series of harry potter movies

I still stick to my previous post, that the movie would definetly FLOP!

It would make no difference whatsoever if they changed the actors IMO.

Moreover the cast might change because of other circumstances. Sadly, we have already had one death. Other actors may want to move on (the adult parts are not remotely challenging).

It will be extraordinary if 95% of the cast sees the whole 7 film saga through!

It wasn't too bad when they changed Dumbledores, but that was out of necessity, as the former Dumbledore had died. People could understand that, and he was only there for two films.

Insofar as I can see, more people thought that Hermione was played by a new actress than realized that Dumbledore was played by a new actor.


I still stick to my previous post, that the movie would definetly FLOP!

Why? These are Harry Potter movies, not Dan Radcliffe or Rupert Grint movies. There is no reason to think that a majority of the audience would even notice. The effects of impending adulthood will alter (and has already altered) the casts' appearances greatly, after all.

I beleave the movei would do more than flop If they replaced the acters.
I'd fall down and get stuck in a tar pit!

:lol: Nice one Arckon. I think for a lot of fans all around the world it would feel like the world is ending or something. Too much change for something can often backfire and lead to some horibble endings.

yes that is true

i think the movie would majorly flop...i thought it was bad enough that they had to get a new dumbledore...

Well its not their fault that the old dumbledor died

I don't think it would flop because most people would see it regardless just because it is a Harry Potter movie. But I might not like it as much. I didn't enjoy the fourth movie but I saw it in theaters and bought it when it first came out. So it might not be good, but it will still sell to the true fans.

yea it twas good

There is no way they would flop. There are not enough people that would notice, or care. Even if they did change, us HP fans would still see the movies anyways.

I can't imagine the movie with different actors. Even though I'm sure I wouldn't like the movies if they changed the actors, I don't really see that it matters. I hated GOF, but still bought the dvd because it's HP. I think the movies would be the same way, people would still go just because they're HP. So I don't think they'd ever flop, HP has too many fans.

A lot of hard core fans would be disappointed , but no way would they stay away from the movies.

As far as the general movie going audience, as long as the movie is exciting, the majority of them won't care one way or the other.

So, no way would simply changing actors make it a flop.

I'd be very disappointed. To me, the acters ARE the characters in the movies. I don't want anyone to be replaced :upset: the movie could still have a good plot, but it would flop for me

i would say that if they changed the trio in this movie i dont think that it would be the same..in real life they are great friends and that helps when they act they are comfortable with each other but if they change one person it ruins the whole chemistry that there was between them...i just dont think that they should change them and if the actors change their mind the movies would be different

I think it would Daniel Radcliffe makes a great Harry Potter i hope he dosen't change:upset: