Would the movies flop if they changed actors?

I don't think the movies would lose sales, as ultimately, people come to see the story. However, I think people would be sort of disappointed because there's a change so late in the series. It's take a while to get adjusted to the new actors - it just wouldn't be the same.

Definitely, they can't change them now! I mean, that would be like, replacing Harrison Ford on Star Wars!

If they left all the movies would stink, it would also kind of destroy the image of Harry whenever I read the books, because I've gotten used picturing Harry,Ron,and Hermoine as Dan Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson.

I would boycott the movies if they change the actors. It just wouldn't be the same, yeah they may get older, but no one else could do it better. If you've ever seen North and South, when they started changing the characters, it just upset the whole thing.

I stand by my earlier opinion that there would be a fair number of disgruntled fans (book and movie), but I doubt that it would impinge too much on the films.

It would be horrible if they changed any of the actors. Even the minor ones. I don't care if the actors are older than the age they play.

Yes. They better not switch!

I would be angry if they switched actors, but I'd still see the movies. So no, they would not flop.

I don't think they could replace any of the actors, and the trio-well I think the movies would really not be as good with different actors. We've gotten so used to them all playing the roles, and often when we read the books we imagine hearing their voices and seeing them as the characters. It would seem so strange and odd if they changed the actors. It just wouldn't be right. It would feel weird having totally different people play the trio when we have become so used to seeing them. So I would not like it very much at all if they changed any of the actors.

You know I think people would still go see the movies if the actors were other people because we would all want to after seeing all the other movies. But I dont think that I would like it that much because we have gotten so use to see Dan, Emma, and Rupert play the parts. When we got the new DD it was diffrent and I do love him but when I read the books I still see the old one.

By: Rain12274; When we got the new DD it was diffrent and I do love him but when I read the books I still see the old one.

I totally agree with you on that one. As I read the books I still see the old Dumbledore in the story. He seemed to be such a grandfather figure for Harry. Anyway, in the movies, I would be upset if characters were changed, but I'd still pay to see the movie. It would not be a flop. The series is just so big, bigger than any actor change.

I don't think they could replace any of the actors, and the trio-well I think the movies would really not be as good with different actors. We've gotten so used to them all playing the roles, and often when we read the books we imagine hearing their voices and seeing them as the characters. It would seem so strange and odd if they changed the actors. It just wouldn't be right. It would feel weird having totally different people play the trio when we have become so used to seeing them. So I would not like it very much at all if they changed any of the actors.

Exactly, ever since I saw the first movie I imangine the actors/actresses' voices in the 'movie in my head'. I highly doubt as many people would go see the movies if characters changed, especially any of the trio.

While reading HP books i m used to picturing the trio as Rupert, Daniel and Emma.I can't stand the idea of changing the trio cast in future movies.

I don't like Emma as Hermione.
But I would hate to see anyone else as Hermione after all this time. I would just be too diffrent and surreal.

I love the cast how it is.

I don't like Emma as Hermione.
But I would hate to see anyone else as Hermione after all this time. I would just be too diffrent and surreal.

I love the cast how it is.

agree. that would just make it even worse

Granted, Emma is not the Hermione of the books, but she has made it her own character. To bring in another actress at this point, even one more like the book Hermione, would be a jarring and distracting change. The chemistry that has been built through the first 5 movies would be lost. I personally wish they would have tried harder to match Hermione to the book from the beginning. They did pretty well with Harry, very well with Ron and the other Weasley's, great with Malfoy - why not Hermione? Oh well...

Granted, Emma is not the Hermione of the books, but she has made it her own character. To bring in another actress at this point, even one more like the book Hermione, would be a jarring and distracting change. The chemistry that has been built through the first 5 movies would be lost. I personally wish they would have tried harder to match Hermione to the book from the beginning. They did pretty well with Harry, very well with Ron and the other Weasley's, great with Malfoy - why not Hermione? Oh well...

I also heavily agree with your statement. It's always angered me slightly how emma's hermione is so different to the one we all loved, far too cliched and, well, just a bit too perfect imo, and hermione's much more original and insecure.... but you're right that we've got so used to her now, and there is chemistry with those 3 now. There's very little linkage between the films as it is, with different directors and such...we can't just get rid of one of them now! like i've said before, i want to see Rupert's Ron and Emma's hermione's relationship grow...as we've already seen it begin! We've seen the hugs, the glances.....now we want the kissing! lol!

i can only hope that they slowly change emma into more of a hermione, and they start giving ron more of a role (and a more serious, loyal one too). I think it can be done! (at least with rupert and ron), but we'll just have to see. even so, a new actor would just be....weird.

i think they needed a sterotypical girl to draw in the average-joe film-goers who want a heroine or someone to fancy on-screen. But there was always ginny......i suppose she didn't come in until late rthough....anyway....that's just my point!

I don't think that it would stop me from going to see the movie... I mean, in Soap Operas they change characters every year and yes, though it takes time to get used to it, you live with it because it's the story that you're really after.

I honestly hope that Emma will continue in the movies as Hermione - I think she's perfect in the role!

not flop,but fans of that character would be disappointed and maybe not go to see the movies.i know if they changed draco, i'd be devastated.

no. but it's not so good for the continuity. at the end of the day, if an actor decides it's time to pull the plug on the series, it's their choice. they are only responsible for their lives, not keeping fans happy.

I don't think the movies would flop, but the definitely wouldn't be the same.

I think they would. I think that all of the actors fit perfectly in their part, but Ginny's hair is looking more brown now.

I don't think the movies would flop but they wouldn't have the same appeal. The rumor that Emma might not come back to finish the last 2 movies is distressing to me. Nobody can fill her shoes. McGonagall can not be replaced. Maggie Smith is McGonagall.

well it depends which charaters, for me that is, I really want Draco to stay the same and McGonagal, and I love Ron.

*turns into crazy lady* You take my Ron and DIE!!!!

*truns back* eh hem, but I said that with the first Dumbledore too, and though I don't like the new one as Dumbledore, i still except it. So it might not be tottally bad if they change, I just might cry though..

I hate the new Dumbledore, can't stand him, so everytime his part comes on, I read a HP book with Dumbledore in it, the true Dumbledore.

I'd watch it if they changed the characters, especially Harry. Dan Radcliffe was never my original vision of Harry (or the books vision of Harry for the matter) He doesn't look like him. There are parts of the film that make me think he's "all right" for Harry, but most times, he doesn't suit Harry.

So I really don't mind.

I don't want him to change cause he is my official visiual effect, :lol: If they changed now it would be to confusing so I don't want anymore switching, :lol:

I think they most probably would! Rupert, Emma and Dan inbody the trio and to replace them is unthinkable to me!Even the other adult main character should stay the same! Unless some one dies, like Richard Harris! That's a different matter altogether!

I don't think the movies will flop for all people, but for some (like me), they would in a way. They're who I picture when I read the books now. And I think they're ALL good for the parts they play!

You people who don't like Emma as Hermione also have to think, it's not her fault how the crew decides to make her look. She's just the actress, not the hair and make-up specialist. I think she, as well and Dan and Rupert, are perfect together. And it would just seem weird to see some go and some stay. I mean, Daniel Radcliffe is Harry Potter. Nobody else. Same for the other two. Wouldn't it seem odd to see Ron kiss Hermione (if that happens) and that person wasn't Emma? (Or vice-vesa) Anyway, that's my view.

I think it would depend on how well the actors do. If they did a good job then I don't think the movies would flop.

i think the movies would flop coz now we r addicted to them ( especially the trio )

Really depends on the actors. If the actors act good, then the movies have no reason to flop.

People would still go to see the films regardless of the actors, even if they were upset that their favourite actor/actress was no longer in it. Plus, people might go just to see how the new people do. I don't think the films would flop at all. They might suffer critically and in the opinions of the viewers, but not in terms of gross, I wouldn't think.

It would ruin it for me if they replaced Dan because he really is Harry Potter to me, and Rupert I'd rather wasn't replaced because he plays Ron really well, but I wouldn't mind if they replaced Emma - at least they might get someone who actually looks like Hermione (granted, she did in movie 1) and who acts like Hermione, not an average empty-headed school girl. (no offence meant).

It annoyed me that the new Dumbledore has a short dark-grey beard and hair, which is bushy, rather than sleek and silver and long enough to tuck into his belt. And that he almost never wears his half-moon specs, and wears a wierd hat, and gets really violent (he almost strangled Harry in GoF) and no longer has any of the same lines, and has put in what he calls an Irish accent that is actually rubbish...sorry, rant over.

By the way, why did they change Flitwick. Sure, JKR said that she was surprised how he was at first, because she'd imagined him as just a small human, but to make him like a Mini-Hitler???

A change in actors would ruin DH but not HBP. If no actors are changed in HBP than it will be difficult for the audience to enjoy DH with even one different actor/actress. The entire feel and emotion of the film would be thrown off, especially if it was one of the trio that left. That actor/actress would not have enough time to truly feel the character and the actors that (s)he is working with. Thus, if DH brings about a new actor/actress, it would ruin the film (not in the sense of money, but in the opinions of the audience and critics).

However, if there is a new actor in HBP and that actor stays for DH, both of the films would not suffer as much criticism if a new actor was brought about in DH. This way, the actor has time to understand and portray his character well, and by the time of DH he and the rest of the cast will know each other well enough to create a successful film.

However, as leenielou said, the films will suffer a very minimal (if any at all) hurt in their gross incomes because the fans will come to see it no matter who the actors/actresses are. We must bear in mind that much of the audience does not read the books and only watches the movies - thus, they are probably not as obsessive, and will not care as much about the cast changes.

I honestly was never too impressed with Emma Watson as Hermione, so if she left like the rumor says she might I wouldn't be too sad.

Now if Dan left it'd be a whole different story....

I honestly was never too impressed with Emma Watson as Hermione, so if she left like the rumor says she might I wouldn't be too sad.

Now if Dan left it'd be a whole different story....

Exactly. I have never thought that Emma Watson was v good, but I would mind if she left because it would ruin the chemistry between the Trio by bringing in a new girl. Same with Rupert... execpt that I like him as Ron :D

But if there was no Dan *sob*( which, we now know that that is not possible as he just signed a contract for Movies 6 and 7), I think the amount of viewers and movie fans would go down.

i seriously would NOT watch the movies if they switched the trio. i mean, my friends don't hink of dan as dan, they think of hime as "harry potter", that alone shows the impact that these actors haave as the trio.

anyways, usually i like 2 watch the movies only because of Dan.:love:

lol

Personally I think if Dan, Emma, and Rupert were taken out then it would make the movies a whole lot better.

I wouldn't bother watching. I've come to accept Sir Micheal Gambon, but only becuase Richard Harris is dead. If Rupert or Emma left, I'd just forget about the movies.

I would be very upset if ANY of them left.
That is just destroying the Trio.
I mean they were together 5/7 movies.
[We know that Dan signed on for Movies 6&7..]
But if Rupert and Emma left, it wouldn't be the same.
It would be completely different if they changed in like the 2nd or 3rd movie.
But...just...I don't know.
It wouldn't seem right.

They would flop for me because I love the main actors.

Imho, I think they should have changed them for every film. Right now, they're too old for their parts and folks are too wedded to them.

It's not about Dan, Emma and Rupert, it's about Harry, Hermione and Ron- something that it has become entirely too easy to forget!

I think at this late date a change in one of the major actors would be really hard to get used to. It might effect the actors career for a while too.

I don't think they'd flop, I just think it would be rather annoying and weird.

I think they would flop if the trio was broken up. I think people would still see them, but they wouldn't do as well. Quite sure the trio is coming back for 6 & 7 now, though. I know Dan and Rupert are, and last I heard that Emma was...I'm a little behind on this news...but yay!

I think I would still see the films if they did find other actors to do it to see how they would act as Harry ,Ron and Hermione , but I would miss Dan , Rupert , and Emma though all the same because that's how I imagined Harry , Ron , and Hernione to look like , and I'm glad that Dan , Rupert , and Emma did decide to do films 6&7 to finish the series of Harry Potter . :love:

I think that depends on how good the new actors would be . I mean initially they would be a hit because people would see them out of curiosity but after that it would depend on the actors.

I think that depends on how good the new actors would be . I mean initially they would be a hit because people would see them out of curiosity but after that it would depend on the actors.

well,i watched first philosopher and theni started reading so to me those are the cahracters,still i mean what i like its the story stillit would be hard cadapting to new faces,glad its not gonna happen..
i still have trouble adpting to new dumbledore but thats another thread.

I think so. That was one of the greatest problems Mortal Kombat encountered when they made Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. Of all their actors, only Robin Shou and Talisa Soto returned. They had to replace Linden Ashby (Johnny Cage), Sonya Blade (Bridgette Wilson), and Raiden (Christopher Lambert), three of the biggest characters in the movies. Needless to say, it...didn't turn out well... :no:

I'd doubt they'd hurt much.

I honestly was never too impressed with Emma Watson as Hermione, so if she left like the rumor says she might I wouldn't be too sad.

Now if Dan left it'd be a whole different story....

Not if he's replaced with a better actor. :D

Exactly. I have never thought that Emma Watson was v good, but I would mind if she left because it would ruin the chemistry between the Trio by bringing in a new girl. Same with Rupert... execpt that I like him as Ron :D

But if there was no Dan *sob*( which, we now know that that is not possible as he just signed a contract for Movies 6 and 7), I think the amount of viewers and movie fans would go down.

i agree, but i would say she acted alot more hermioneish in the first 2 films and then when we got to third and fourth i feel her acting kinda declined or she acted slighly out of hermione's character (this is my personal opinion, so please don't flame me) but i do also think it's more the way she is directed when acting not just her acting skills.

They still are only teenagers afterall and will continue to progress as actors, my main critasism for emma watson is that she moves her eyebrows way to much and relies on shouting to covey emotion. I hope she has improved by the next film.

But i have to agree it would be really strange to see a different trio, however i don't think it would really matter . I see the trio in the films alot different to the trio in the books.

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 actually love the New Dumbledore, he doesnt have that solemn, calm characteristic but in OotP he's supposed to grasp that concept..plus the old dumbledore(R.I.P) wasnt as funny as the new one....

I personally think that Alan Rickman plays an excellent Snape, he perfect.and if the trio were changed i dont think i would like the movies very well...i also feel Emma's a little less Hermonieish, but i still couldnt see the movies without Dan, Emma, and Rupert.and i really dont think that Mogonigail should be changed....really i want all the same characters, like Seamus, and the twins, it just wouldnt be the same.....

Definitly. Look what happened when they recast Dubledore! not that they had a choice, but it would totally ruin the chemistry between them. :no: At this point though, it's really too late because changing the three main actors would make the last two movies so weird.
Besides, I just read the mugglenet main page and it said that all three actors will be returning. :lol:

the three of them are harry ron and hermine
any movie would flop
given what it cost to make them

but all three are signed for the rest so wb accounts can breath now

There would be the curious factor, people going to see the film to see how the new actors fit.

I think would be a big flop. Nobody will be able to adjust to the new actors.

I dont think it would flop but lots of people would be extremely disappointed.

I would still go and see it because it's Harry Potter, and most of the public might do the same, but I do think it would be weird without the original three. They work really well together and by now, everyone is so used to associating them with Harry, Ron, and Hermione and the films. No matter what people say about the bad bits in the films, I think most people have become somewhat attached to the actors and I'm glad they are staying!

Imho, I think they should have changed them for every film. Right now, they're too old for their parts and folks are too wedded to them.

It's not about Dan, Emma and Rupert, it's about Harry, Hermione and Ron- something that it has become entirely too easy to forget!


Very true. :agree:

Yes, becuase people have growned to them and it changes the whole ideal character being portrayed.

Originally Posted by Lillbet View Post
Imho, I think they should have changed them for every film. Right now, they're too old for their parts and folks are too wedded to them.

I'll never understand why people think they are too old.

The trio are only a few years different then the characters they're playing. Why is this a problem? Dan will be a just turned 18 year old playing a 16 year old in HBP. Why is 2 years older too old?

There have been plenty of movies and TV show where the high school age character is being played by a 20-something year old actor and no one whines about them.

Shoot, Sarah Michelle Gellar was 20 years old when she started playing Buffy, a sophomore high school student (15 years old) and no one complained about that!

I would be so disappointed if they switched the trio right now. Even though I don't really like Emma as Hermione, it wouldn't feel the same if she left. I think the films wouldn't lose that much business because of the change but they would lose some.

And I don't think the trio is old at all! In fact, Emma is actually younger than Hermione. Rupert and Dan aren't that much older than their characters and I don't think they have a problem.

The trio are signed for the rest of the movies. We all know that Richard Harris (R.I.P.) was replace and we accepted that change. I would have to say for myself, a character change would not bother me. Does James Bond ring a bell? I've seen the arguments that HP is a series and JB is a franchise. Actor changes do work, not all the time but they do.

okay I'm sorry but I will not compare the actors of James Bond to the actors of Harry Potter. If they changed anymore actors of Harry Potter the movie just wouldn't be good anymore. Daniel, Rupert, and Emma were the best fit actors/actress for the movies since the first one. Replacing them for the last two movies (assuming that they make the last two movies) would be crazy and would kind of ruin the movie "series"...

I'll never understand why people think they are too old.

The trio are only a few years different then the characters they're playing. Why is this a problem? Dan will be a just turned 18 year old playing a 16 year old in HBP. Why is 2 years older too old?

There have been plenty of movies and TV show where the high school age character is being played by a 20-something year old actor and no one whines about them.

Shoot, Sarah Michelle Gellar was 20 years old when she started playing Buffy, a sophomore high school student (15 years old) and no one complained about that!

Yup, and John Travolta and Olivia Newton John were in their 20's when they played high school students too. And the cast of 90210... well, let's not go there. Just because it's been done doesn't mean it's been done well.

One of the reasons I liked the casting choices they made for the HP movies was that the kids were just about the age of their characters, which I thought was fantastic- very real and believable. Radcliffe is now 2 years older than his character, which really showed in GoF, imo. It's not his fault, as there was a substantial lag between the books and the subsequent movies, but frankly I wouldn't have minded a bit if they'd replaced him- or better, if they'd held off on making the movies until all 7 books were out. We would have had a different Harry, but he might have been better.

In the meantime, career-wise, Radcliffe would probably have been better off if a new Harry had taken his place. Now Radcliffe is stuck in the role by contractual obligation and he's rapidly moving from child to adult star. He's got other projects he'd like to pursue and is probably sick to death of being hounded by the media when he chooses an adult role, (hullo Equus?), he's in serious danger of being typecast despite all of his best efforts (Equus, you there?) and frankly it's a little offputting that his acting has still not substantially improved in the 7 years he's been at this. (And no, we can't keep blaming the directors, scriptwriters, etc. for his shortcomings.)

So yeah, kid's too old in this "people"'s opinion.

And so was SMG :p

Y Radcliffe is now 2 years older than his character, which really showed in GoF, imo. It's not his fault, as there was a substantial lag between the books and the subsequent movies, but frankly I wouldn't have minded a bit if they'd replaced him- or better, if they'd held off on making the movies until all 7 books were out. We would have had a different Harry, but he might have been better.

It would've been good if they waited until all the books were out. Right now I don't think the book releases have messed up the movies too much, but they could've been better if they knew the whole outcome.

Probably. I mean, people are used to seeing Dan, Emma, and Rupert play Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Replacing them with other actors seems so... wrong.

Plus, from what we've seen in the clips from GoP, their acting is only getting better.

I disagree completely. I think th acting is getting horrible due to the fact that they talk way to fast in order to get like 50% of he book into the movie. In the beginning of GOF the Riddle House scene in the movie was nothing like in the book. Wormtail was smiling and laughing the whole time and voldemort didnt pause once as he talked. Plus the rest of them just didnt pause as they spoke for most of the scenes due to the fact that you dont put a 700 page book into a movie and expect it to be the same. I think after the second one they all flopped big time. They changed the setting for hogwarts and the new dumbledore sucks. The orignial spoke in such a deep, commanding, yet loving voice that demanded respect. In POA and GOF the new dumbledore's a moron. They didnt even dress him right. Instead of the splened robes from the first two, he wore raggedy grey robes, which leads me to believe the new dumbledore is hobo tey foud of the street. :no: But still if they changed any of the actors the movies just wouldnt be the same :upset:

At this point? It would be extremely difficult to find actors who could match the way the actors have already started to act the parts. But the movies wouldn't flop. They're still harry potter movies

I don't think that they would flop at all. The characters in the movies were based on characters from the books, not the actors. So many people read the books and are familiar with the books, that the individual actors should not hold a large significance. Only people who have never touched the books would give up the movies for such a reason.

We've come to know and love these actors so well, it just wouldnt feel right going to see some other kids being Harry, Ron, and Hermione.

It would've been good if they waited until all the books were out. Right now I don't think the book releases have messed up the movies too much, but they could've been better if they knew the whole outcome.

Agreed. Not only would the movies have been arguably better (this should be on the thread about when the movies should have been made, but I'm going to go there) if the screenwriters had been more aware of what they were cutting (and not removing fugure plot points, etc.) but the actors themselves might have had a clearer idea of what they were meant to do.

As it is, the changes in directors have been a good thing- Harry has evolved and so has the mood of each film. It might also have been a good thing to throw a new actor into the mix each time- a fresh take on the character to go with a new director and focusing on the story rather than the actor and his/her limitations would be a good way to go, in my opinion.

Of course, then the issue becomes so-and-so playing "Little Harry" or "Moody Harry" or "Snogs with Cho Harry"... but maybe that's not a bad thing after all :p

I don't know if they would flop but I think it would be really weird. We know that the trio are set for the final two movies. But if Ginny were replaced I would have a hard time with that.
I think a lot of fans would be unhappy but I would still go see the movies, we always have the books!!!

Well I don't think they would be "flops" but I don't think they would be near as successful. It would be too distracting to have them played by different actors than what the audience was used to. Plus everyone associates those actors with the characters and to change them would ruin the continuity of the franchise.

I don't think it will flop. After all the actors didn't put the Harry Potter movies on the map and make it famous because of their "superb":lol: acting abilities. No matter who play the characters, the movies will be watch by the fans not because of the actors but because it bears the name of Harry Potter. It's Harry Potter who made the actors famous not the other way around.

If the new actors were better, I don't think people would lament the loss of the old ones.

If Daniel Radcliffe woul not play Harry anymore or Rupert would not play Ron, or emma not Hermoine I think it would be very strange and abnormal. Now we are fimilar with these actors and if it would change it'd be hard to adapt to the new ones

I would still see the movies because I love Harry Potter but I think to others who REALLY like Dan, Rupert, Emma and the rest wouldn't like it and there is a majority so yeah, I think it would flop.

In my opinion, they would definately go downhill, the movies just wouldnt be right without the original actors for me..especially Dan! :drool:

I don't think you could change the trio or Snape without changing the way people see the movies, the trio might not be excellent actors but I have them engraved in my head as their characters I can't imagine the movies without them!

i think they would be less ''popular''. We have seen a lot fo the actors and actresses from the beginning, and we have seen them as they have changed as actors as well as the character has changed. To change them now, it really wouldn't be the same. It is like during year 10 of school a couple of years back, we were doing Tess of the D'Urbervilles (sp?) and we watched the movie of it too, but half way through we had to watch another version of it. it just wasn't right after watching other actors doing the scenes and the characters for the past weeks. i guess it would be like that. I would become less fond of the films if they changed the trio, it really wouldn;t be right. Especially Dan, yes yes i know, i just had to add that. He is great!!!! :D

I don't think you could change the trio or Snape without changing the way people see the movies, the trio might not be excellent actors but I have them engraved in my head as their characters I can't imagine the movies without them!

Totally agree, people just get used to the image of the trio and identify them and relate to the movie. i just think if they change now then the movie series will definetly take a huge blow.

I don't think the films would have the same appeal or popularity for many because people might feel that part of the story has been lost due to the change in casting, and so a lack in continuity.

I, personally, would find it a bit jarring at first to have new actors in the trio's place but even then I am not the greatest fan of all three actors. If the new castings were good actors and kept close enough to the portrayals in previous films and the books, I would still watch that film as I have all the others. With my disappointment in some of the present casting, I could actually enjoy it more, as many others could to.

Very true, it would be hard to come to really like the new actors, after the previous ones have done so well (in my opinion). Although...I think the movie definately WOULD NOT flop. Harry Potter is way too popular and the next two movies (HBP, DH), are much too important to afford to miss because of an actor change.

I don't the they would flop but i think a lot of people would think it was riddiculous to be swtiching actors so far into the series. It would be interesting to see how a diferent person acted Harry/Ron/Hermione. They could bring something different to the character.

Id still watch the films, however I dont think that theyd be as good, I think that they would flop because people have gotten so used to seeing them play the main trio, itd be like JKR having changed Harry Ron and Hermione characters which is just stupid

Id still watch the films, however I dont think that theyd be as good, I think that they would flop because people have gotten so used to seeing them play the main trio, itd be like JKR having changed Harry Ron and Hermione characters which is just stupid

exactly, and no matter how good the actors/actresses would be, the film wouldn't be right, because i think no one can replace them. Especially RON, he's legend :D

I believe that I will be very disapointed with the result of changes in some main characters, like the trio, but also others, like Snape, Hagrid and Prof. McGonagall and Sirius. But of course I will keep seeing the movies. When they had to change Dumbledore I had a very hard time to accept the huge change in Michale Gambon's performance, but I'm getting used to him now. So any replace made in the maincharacters will have a huge impact for us.

Hard to say, the magic and awe of Harry Potter is hard to resist,I would buy the movies, but wouldnt enjoy them as much, Harry potter was made famous not only from the books, but from the movies, if you remove the actors who made them film famous, it wont do as well. So I think it would flop.

If they change Harry, Ron, Hermione or Draco I'll never watch again their movies!:lol: Seriously, we are all used to them. It would look weird without Dan, Emma, Rupert or Tom. :no:

I don't think that the movies would completely flop but I do think that they would start doing pretty bad. I can't stand it when they use different people in sequels. It's annoying. I wouldn't go see them in theaters and once I did see them, I'd never watch them again.

I don't know if I would totally avoid the movies, but I don't think it would be the same if they changed anyone one of the "main" characters, which actually to me include a lot of people, even Dean and Seamus have been played by the same people, I couldn't stand to see them go either. These people as these characters are just engraved into most people's mind as these characters. If they had changed like every movie, it might be one thing, but since they didn't I think they are too far into it to start changing anyone now unless something major came up

If they changed The trio, Neville, Snape, any other Weasley, or Luna, I'd be furious! But I don't really like Michael Gambon, Richard Harris was a lot better.

i think they would ok enough if they changed the actors...however nowhere near as good than if they stuck to the original cast! it all comes down to consistencey!!:)

I don't think the films would have the same appeal or popularity for many because people might feel that part of the story has been lost due to the change in casting, and so a lack in continuity.

I, personally, would find it a bit jarring at first to have new actors in the trio's place but even then I am not the greatest fan of all three actors. If the new castings were good actors and kept close enough to the portrayals in previous films and the books, I would still watch that film as I have all the others. With my disappointment in some of the present casting, I could actually enjoy it more, as many others could to.


I agree :tu:

At this point, I don't think it makes sense to change actors. I'm not sure the movies would flop if the actors were changed, but I do think that it would probably lose viewers. I think a new face for an already-introduced character might also confuse the audience.

I couldn't imagine it. And I think Emma Watson is sooo Hermione that she's definitely irreplaceable.
I like Rupert, but I could live with a different Ron if the actor was really good.
Dan has pretty much got to stay too, or it all unhinges.

I was miserable when Dumbledore was changed, but of course what could they do?
I bet in the future, they'll take all kinds of measurements and photos of an actor and then just use a motion tracked CGI version of the actor.

I could even imagine a future set of HP DVDs (say 25 years from now) where they digitally "restore" Richard Harris to the role for the last 7 films - that'd be cool!! They'd have to use phonetics to recreate his voice into saying words he never actually said, but who knows what technology will be able to do by then.

Maybe you can mess around with the secondary cast those with little screen time or one or two lines...

If you replace any of the original... Lets just say... It go... SPLAT! And the producers and director wont ever get another job in Hollywood or in ANY OTHER TOWN again!

Maybe you can mess around with the secondary cast those with little screen time or one or two lines...
That they could. Non-book readers really wouldn't notice that. I'm sure us book readers would, but it really isn't a big deal if the characters are small and are only in a scene or two.

As for the main characters, the films would plummet in ratings, sales, everything! Mostly because there really isn't any other actors and actresses who could play these characters and because the viewers would notice all too well.

The Dark Knight may have gotten away with replacing the actress who played Rachel Dawes, but I doubt anyone could ever get away with replacing a member of the trio or any other main characters in Harry Potter.

If anyone from the trio was changed that would be horribl.e Everyoneknows who they are. Maybe if secondary characters had to be changed it wouldnt be too big of a deal. By now though everyone has their established roles. Hopefully for these last 2 movies they don't have to change any secondary characters. I like the continuity lol

I think that if they had made the movies with different actors each time, we wouldn't care, but given they have made 5 movies with the same actors, I think we would find it very strange indeed. That said, I don't think they would be a flop, as people like me, and I'm sure there are many, watch the movies as just a supplement to the book- to see the books come to life. I don't watch the movies because I thought they were great movies in the first place.

I think that if they had made the movies with different actors each time, we wouldn't care, but given they have made 5 movies with the same actors, I think we would find it very strange indeed. That said, I don't think they would be a flop, as people like me, and I'm sure there are many, watch the movies as just a supplement to the book- to see the books come to life. I don't watch the movies because I thought they were great movies in the first place.

i agree with most of what u said there! :agree: although i think alot of the fandom would have been really upset (me included :lol:) if they had changed the actors from movie to movie!

i agree with most of what u said there! :agree: although i think alot of the fandom would have been really upset (me included :lol:) if they had changed the actors from movie to movie!

Well its hard to say- if they had set a precedent from the very beginning, we wouldn't have become so attached to the actors. I don't think that anyone would really be upset. I mean, there wouldn't probably have been very much outcry if Harris had been let go and Gambon brought in by choice, would there?

I mean, there wouldn't probably have been very much outcry if Harris had been let go and Gambon brought in by choice, would there?
i honestly think there would have been a pretty big outcry if they had changed Harris after PS! for me Harris was the perfect choice to play that part, he was Albus Dumbledore, straight from book to movie!! :)

It's Harry Potter, the movies wouldn't of floped if the changed anyone, but I probably wouldn't have seen all of them if they had. :no: but i do miss Harris as Dumbledore, I agree with mactheknife, he is the Dumbledore right out of the books.

It wouldn't make the slightest difference, any more than the various James Bonds and Moneypennys et al make any difference to a franchise which has lasted far longer.

With Potter as with Bond, the brand name is the thing.

The thing is, I would like to see all of the actors and actresses to keep with the franchise. But at the same time I don't want them to burn out...or really feel horrible afterwards and become another Where are they now? Child Actors edition victim. I mean this isn't like going to be a 5-7 year season of a television series. I mean these child actors are going to be their character for a solid DECADE.

Yeah but at the same time, they must have known that coming into the whole thing.

I'm not dogging anyone personally, but when you reach a level of superstardom as a result of a huge series like HP, then suddenly you don't want to be around for the LAST of seven films, that just seems stupid and ungracious to me. They know how many huge fans would be turned off if principal actors would replace, so how serious could they be about wanting to leave the franchise?

Yeah but at the same time, they must have known that coming into the whole thing.

I'm not dogging anyone personally, but when you reach a level of superstardom as a result of a huge series like HP, then suddenly you don't want to be around for the LAST of seven films, that just seems stupid and ungracious to me. They know how many huge fans would be turned off if principal actors would replace, so how serious could they be about wanting to leave the franchise?Yeah, you'd have to either be sort of stupid not expecting to be roped in for all seven movies, although you could also argue that they were too young to know what they were getting into.

Still, for the whole worry about them being typecast, it's only a worry if they let it happen to them. There are lots more ways to act than doing big-budget blockbusters all the time where they'd naturally be expected to portray identical characters. I imagine the trio are making fairly good amounts of cash for doing this; why not go underground and act in tiny-budget indie films or art flicks where the directors probably don't want Harry Potter in the first place? Or try going to acting school? Or go act in theatre buck-naked ;)
For the first while after the HP movies none of the actors who starred in it should have any issue whatsoever getting at least one other movie out of their popularity. Only if they let themselves be typecast or if they fail to improve their actual acting ability will they essentially "burn out".

Hell, they seem to be doing well for themselves, so I don't think it'll be a problem. Equus, Wild Target, and Watson deciding to stay in school . . . it doesn't sound like they're being typecast. These kids aren't being obliterated for money like poor Macaulay Culkin (even his Wikipedia page has a photo of him as a kid), who made what, thirteen movies in nine years?

Sorry for going on a tangent there, not entirely related.


Would the films flop? If they had established a precedent of using different actors than no, they wouldn't. And they had to change Dumbledore, and I don't think it greatly harmed the film's success. But I do think if they had to change, say, Harry or Hermione to a different actor midseries it could have caused some awkwardness, but I doubt it would make them flop.

It wouldn't make the slightest difference, any more than the various James Bonds and Moneypennys .

i think it would have made a difference in the Potter series, and the impression i get from most Bond fanatics (my 2 best friends are as obsessed with James Bond, as i am with HP :lol:), is that the films with Timothy Dalton & George Lazenby are far less popular than the films with Connery & Moore! im not saying that the Dalton & Lazenby movies are not liked, however i think the general opinion of most Bond fans is that they are the 'least liked' of the franchise, by a considerable margin:)

They have changed a few of the minor characters. Not the major ones. We know that Dan, Emma, and Rupert are going to complete the series. But, I wonder what would happen if they remade the whole series, say in 10-15 years from now. They would have new actors for all the characters. That would be strange.

There has been a change of a major character in Dumbledore.
I don't think that most people who watch the HP films have really noticed, even though there has been a lot of discussion on here about which actor was best.
In that light, I think that changes in the actors at the beginning of the films would have bothered the general public.
Now I think that there would be some grumbling, but I don't think that it would really affect the numbers ...

... however I could be wrong.

YES
I think that the movies are successful partially because of the actors, and if they would have switched them out, the movies would have not done as well. The only exception for me is Dumbledore. I personally like Gambon better than Harris. But that had to be done anyways. Plus the chemistry would have changed so much. Dumbledore was not too involved in the first two movies as he is in the rest, so there wasn't much chemistry between him and the other characters. Now if Hermione was recast, the way Dan and Rupert and everyone else for that matter would act with the new actress would be completely different than the way they have with Emma.

Yeah, you'd have to either be sort of stupid not expecting to be roped in for all seven movies, although you could also argue that they were too young to know what they were getting into.


Yeah but not with their parents and agents looking out for them (hopefully)

I think with the trio, it was the movies roles that made them famous, rather than the actors making the movies famous.
:)

I think with the trio, it was the movies roles that made them famous, rather than the actors making the movies famous.
:)

I complete agree :) :tu: The movie roles made 'The Trio' famous! :agree:

If they changed Harry, Ron and Hermione say halfway through the books I think the box office takings would drop as the world are used to Dan, Emma and Rupert.

I agree the films made the actors not the actors making the film.

I think WB going with unknowns for the trio was a brilliant idea.

I think WB going with unknowns for the trio was a brilliant idea. Indeed! It gave me the laughs during the beginning with their amateur acting. :whistle::lol:

But it's really good to also see how they're progressed in their acting careers.

As for Tom Felton, he's a natural. I only just watched Anna and the King the first time last month, and though he's much younger than the trio when they started acting, he seems like a natural. :tu:

Well, it hardly matters now with one movie left, but if some or all of the principal actors had left or been removed at some point, I think there would have been a drop in box office, but nowhere near a flop. Ultimately, most people are going to see a Harry Potter movie, not a Daniel Radcliffe movie or a Tom Felton movie (yes, I'll admit, Emma Watson is a big draw for myself).

IenjoyAcidPops, it's a fair point.

This may apply to people who are not Hp fans:
Certain people go to see movies depending on which actors are in the movie. I've done it with other movies - if there's an actor/actress I'm a fan of, I just sit and watch the movie without bothering to find out what it's about. Same might apply to other poeple - they don't know the actors, they don't bother watching it! :lol:

Keep dropping actors and replacing them? You'll confuse the poor bugger trying to follow the movie without ever having read the books. And he'll probably give up half way through the series. :lol:

yes, I'll admit, Emma Watson is a big draw for myself :lol: :tu:

I love the actors for the trio... especially emma watson. if any of them had dropped out of the movies or been replaced, i don't know how keen i would be to continue going to the movies... i'm sure they'd be just as good but it wouldn't have been the same.

Definitely. I'm so used to the actors that I don't think I could stand it if they replaced anyone! It took me a while to get over the whole Harris to Gambon part, but in the end, I realized that Gambon is a great Dumbledore. However, Harris will always be remembered as my favorite Dumbledore. Shame. :(

Yes, I think so..
but it's doesn't matter, only one movie left.

I don't think they would flop. It depends if they got good replacements. If the new actors were better then the movies could actually be better. I don't have any emotional attachment to the current actors or anything.

Definitely. I'm so used to the actors that I don't think I could stand it if they replaced anyone! It took me a while to get over the whole Harris to Gambon part, but in the end, I realized that Gambon is a great Dumbledore. However, Harris will always be remembered as my favorite Dumbledore. Shame. :(

Ian McKellan would be the best Dumbledore, IMO. Harris was pretty good though...too bad.

Ian McKellan would be the best Dumbledore, IMO. Harris was pretty good though...too bad.

That would have been awesome. Too bad we will never know. Ian is a great actor.

If they changed the actors after all this time, like for the last movies, I think they would flop. But only because we have had the same actors throughout the whole series (except for R.Harris, RIP).

Wasn't Ian McKellen supposed to take over the role of Dumbledore after Harris died? In an interview, he said he decided to turn the offer down after hearing that Harris described Ian as a "dreadful" actor. He thought it would be inappropriate to take the role, especially since Harris didn't like him (no idea why - Ian is an amazing actor). He would have been an excellent Dumbledore, though, despite his role as Gandalf. He could have made it work.

Ian is gay, too. Like Dumbledore! Ha.

I WOULD still go to see the movies, of course.

But there would be no way I would see them still as a part of the same series.

If they changed the actors after all this time, like for the last movies, I think they would flop. But only because we have had the same actors throughout the whole series (except for R.Harris, RIP).

i think if they changed actors the movies would change but if the actors were good and make the movies better then i wouldnt mind at all.

I think it is hard when actors change. That's the beauty of Harry Potter, minus a few actors here and there like Angelina and Pansy (and not counting Harris), none of the actors have changed. For an 8 part series that's huge. We've got big name actors coming back for small bits. They have a big part that draws them in like Timothy Spall playing Pettigrew in PoA and GoF, but they come back to reclaim their role for their tiny one line one scene parts, like Spall does in HBP. For the small part Snape had in OOTP if that was the only movie, Rickman most likely would have never signed on, but he's still there doing his tiny part (of course, that's because he knows he's got much bigger roles coming up). I'm glad the actors never changed. It's always Maggie Smith as McGonagall, Dan Radcliffe as Harry, Rupert Grint as Ron, Emma Watson as Hermione (and there was the time when she considered quitting but decided against it because she didn't want anyone else playing Hermione), and Rickman as Snape. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Would the movies had flopped if the actors had changed? A big part of their success is the books, so they may have lost some money, but I doubt it would have been anything substantial.

I think if the actors had changed, like Dan stopped being Harry i would still watch the movie but it wouldn't be the same because it wouldn't be the [movie] harry i fell in love with,

it would be like a stranger playing the role of your mum.. too weird.

I am not sure if they would flop. Like Hollie said before me, I would still go to see the movie(s), but it wouldn't be the same. Then again did James Bond flop because the Bond changed, ummmm, too many times to count? I think that Harry Potter movies are great entertainment either way.

I think at this late date, they won't change anyone. They even have the trio for the epilogue. They just have to figure out how to make them look older.

Not really. There would be a general grumbling about it and people would be unhappy. But by the time the movie came out we'd all line up to watch it anyway! :)

Not really. There would be a general grumbling about it and people would be unhappy. But by the time the movie came out we'd all line up to watch it anyway! :)

Exactly. Harry Potter is more than the sum of its parts.

At this point it'd be impossible to replace anyone but if they did, and it pains me to admit this because I think he's far and beyond the best actor of the three, Rupert would've be the one to go as his character is the most ripped up by the series.

I think it would be stupid if they changed actors when just 2 parts left.
I don't care if they are too old when there is so short time.
I mean, have they been in this for 10 years, I bet they can do another movie, well..
two in this case (DH pt1&2)

Changing actors this late would feel too odd, especially with the trio.

If they'd changed any of the trio (or Draco, or Snape), I'd never have gone to another movie. Although I'm mainly a book fan, that would have been too much of a change for me.

I know for a fact that I would not watch it if Rupert wasn't Ron. :)

I've gotten so used to Dan, Emma, and Rupe being the trio that I can't bear it if I'll see someone else acting their parts. And I was inflamed when Emma almost didn't return for HBP! Seeing another girl playing Hermione would be revolting :(

Yes, adjusting to others in those parts would be hard. I would say yes, they would definitely flop, but they managed to change Dumbledore between movies! But they could never change Luna, Snape, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Draco, etc. Maybe minor characters like Sprout or Pomfrey or something, but that is about it now. The only reason the DD change went over as easily as it did was because it was early in the series. For instance, it would be easier to change a cast member in the first half-hour of the first movie than in the last hour of the last movie.

Would they flop in MY eyes? Yes. Because I simply couldn't bear seeing anyone but the original ones playing each other. I even wish they had kept the same Pansy Parkinson, but because she wasn't a main character or even an important one I was ok with that.
But any of the main ones then yes in my opinion it would flop completely.

Would they flop in OTHERS eyes? Depends on the actual person. Some people go more for the magic and drama rather than the characters. Some people wouldn't be too bothered by it, others would but would still go and see it. Some wouldn't see it at all.

It's bad enough they replaced Coulson as Tom Riddle. They just couldn't change any of the main characters it just wouldn't work. They got away with replacing Dumbledore (RIP Richard Harris) because they had to and it's not that hard to make someone of the right age, stature etc. look like DD with a beard, hair, robes etc. But could you imagine if they replaced Alan Rickman! That would be riddikulus ;)

Introducing new actors for any of the main parts would hurt the movies and the actors have that as a bargaining chip during contract talks for the last movie. However I would like to see a BBC/A&E or PBS mini-series based on the books that would stick more to the actual story and plot and have actors that resemble the characters more, ie. Harry Potter with GREEEN eyes or Hermione with actual bushy hair and Weasley twins that are shorter than Ron. It would be more accurate akin to the BBC/A&E Pride and Prejudice mini-series which was awesome.

I think it would seriously hurt the movies if they ever had to replace any of the main actors, like the Trio, Ginny, Malfoy, Luna, Fred or George. With these and so many of the other kids we've watched them grow up with their characters, and it would be strange to see someone replace them. And with the older characters like Snape, Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, or Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, it would still be hard to adjust as they all play their characters SO well. The only major character change was with Dumbledore, and that really couldn't be helped. :no: All of these actors have become their characters, so I'm glad it seems they're all continuing on. :rockon:

If they changed the actors I would NOT watch the movies...There my vision on how the characters should look.....I'd deffinatley not watch the movies if Dan,Emma,Rupert, and Tom werent in them..

If they changed the actors, especially with the main characters, specifically the trio, I would not watch it. And neither would a lot of other fans. Well, I wouldn't WANT to watch it, but I would watch it anyways, just because it's Harry Potter.
It just would be so awkward watching a beloved character replaced with an unfamiliar face. It just wouldn't be the same, and I'd probably sit there wondering, "Where the heck did [so and so actor/character] go? I don't know who this new person is!" :lol:
And it wouldn't make sense for them to change in the last two movies. It just...wouldn't. :shrug:

Introducing new actors for any of the main parts would hurt the movies and the actors have that as a bargaining chip during contract talks for the last movie. However I would like to see a BBC/A&E or PBS mini-series based on the books that would stick more to the actual story and plot and have actors that resemble the characters more, ie. Harry Potter with GREEEN eyes or Hermione with actual bushy hair and Weasley twins that are shorter than Ron. It would be more accurate akin to the BBC/A&E Pride and Prejudice mini-series which was awesome.

IMO it doesn't really matter whether Harry's eyes are green, only that they look exactly like Lily's so that looking into Harry's eyes will have the needed affect on Slughorn and Snape.

I don't think the movies would flop, because many people are going to see the next film(s) no matter what - I know I am. I would be hugely disappointed though, especially at this stage, just before the last couple of films. It would just be too weird, you're so used this particular set of actors.

From here on, I don't think it will matter much even if they do change some members of the cast. HP is HUGE! I don't think anything will stop fans watching the next 2 installments. Grudgingly, maybe if certain important characters are changed. But I don't see HP movies flopping.

It will neither flop nor be a huge hit as it is become now.If they changed the main cast for the trio,Snape,Malfoy,...The film will suffer a huge loss.

It wouldn't change anything. Everyone will still go see the movie (save maybe a couple of die hards) but I guarantee a majority of real film fans would not be happy about it.

The movies would definitely take a huge hit in viewings. I for one would still go and see them seeing as only 2 movies remain. But it would be terrible to see anyone replaced especially with the trio. It would be really unfair to the person who came and filled in the position. Snape would be bad just because he has a huge role in 7 and no one wants to see someone else do that. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't go and see the movies but I couldn't see those people refusing to see the movies for the rest of their lives. I would be willing to bet that sometime down the road they would give in and see it

Oh, I'm so glad all of the actors (at least the trio and other main characters) are going to stay in their roles in the HP-world. If they had changed I don't think it would have felt like Harry Potter anymore.

At this point, I think if they changed the actors, it would confuse a lot of people and the film may become unsalvageable. :no:

Well I'm not a huge fan of the films to begin with. I mean I have them all and saw them countless times, but in my opinion they could have been a lot better.
I think if they'd change the better actors (The trio, Alan Rickman, Tom Felton, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes,...) many people would be frustrated. But changing some things like making Flitwick look less like a small Hitler would actually make it a better film. For me that is :D

At this point ant time, replacing any of the noticeable cast members like the trio, or Snape would be a disappointment, and confusing as ever. Minor characters are one thing because they really don't move the plot unless they're important, sorta like Wormtail or Luna, but characters like the Patil twins only work for certain parts (Yule Ball).

Honestly I would be disappointed if they did replace one of the more noticeable characters because I've grown attached to the ones playing them at this point and time. And with two movies left in the series, it would be a waste to replace them with someone else. Many have grown to love the cast as they are.

Changing actors in the middle of a movie series is always bad in my opinion.
It just confuses the audience. But I guess it is acceptable if its a minor character. I probably wouldn't have watched a single movie if they would have changed a major character like the trio, Snape, Hagrid, McGonagal etc.
Of course it is totally different is the actor dies or gets too ill to play the character, As we say with Dumbledore. Richard Harris died so they had to take some other actor to play the part of Dumbledore- Michael Gambon. I remember reading on the news that the trio might change after the third movie and I was shocked, but fortunately that didn't happen.

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 will throw a fit if I have to watch another actor take Alan Rickman's place! He portrays Severus Snape exactly as I had imagined in the books, and his voice is to die for

It would have been awful if any of the Trio were recast - I remember when there was all the talk in the media a few years ago that Daniel and Emma were considering not renewing their contracts. It turned out to be completely untrue obviously but at the time I thought, I just can't imagine Harry Potter without Dan, Emma and Rupert.

I remember when I first saw PoA and I thought they had replaced Daniel Radcliffe because he looked so different to how he did in the first two and I had to actually check the credits to know if it was him or not :whistle: I can't remember whether it bothered me that much but I got through the film so I must have adjusted quickly. Actually, all the actors look so different in that film compared to the first two so I probably just got used to them looking different.

But I think if they replaced the trio, Draco, Snape, the Weasleys and McGonnagall later on then the audience would have been more confused and the movies would have suffered, because the other actors would have known the characters better. Other people have said Luna as well but I don't think replacing her would be as bad (don't get me wrong, I didn't want her to be replaced I'm just saying) because she's only a minor character in the previous two films - not as big a deal as if they had changed Neville for example, even though he is also a minor character but he's been in the films from the start.

I mentioned something similar in a separate thread (a much more recently updated one) regarding the necessity of the original trio. I couldn't honestly imagine how the series would have turned out if any of the main three actors had been replaced in the middle. Part of the appeal for me, with regard to the trio's relationship in the film, was based on the fact that the actors had a playful chemistry from working together for so long. If a new actor/actress had been thrown in the mix (or if all three of them had been replaced mid-swing) it could have completely destroyed the connection, something I think would have been reflected in the finished product.

I believe the films would certainly have flopped if they switched actors. Growing up with the Harry Potter books and movies, I felt a connection to Harry potter and I associated the trio's actors with the trio in the books.
I know if the actors were re-casted then I would have lost some interest in the movies, for sure.

I don't think they would have flopped, but they would certainly not have been as well recieved by fans. It would be really wierd if they had to re-cast anyone from the original cast. Especially for the people who havn't read the books it would be really confusing if they had done it. Good thing that never happened :)

Other people have said Luna as well but I don't think replacing her would be as bad (don't get me wrong, I didn't want her to be replaced I'm just saying) because she's only a minor character in the previous two films - not as big a deal as if they had changed Neville for example, even though he is also a minor character but he's been in the films from the start.

I know this is an old post, but I disagree. I thought Evanna made quite an impact playing Luna in the 5th movie. Her very distinctive voice and long bright blonde hair (yes, I know it was bleached) quickly made her character memorable in the movie series. She also played the part incredibly well I thought. I remember watching a youtube video of her auditioning for the part and the director (or producer, someone along those lines) said that among the thousands of girls that tried to act the part of Luna, she was the only one that could truely BE Luna. Although she did not get as much screen time as the trio in the movies, had they replaced her with someone else, it would just have confused a good percentage of the audience. At least that's what I think.

As for Neville, lol, I'm not sure about him. He's changed sooo much since the first film, I feel they almost could have gotten away with changing the actor that played him if they absolutely HAD to. But that being said, I'm glad they didn't have to replace too many of the actors throughout the 10 years they were filming the movies. It's hard to get used to a new actor/actress after someone else had played the part for so long. I mean, hell, even after all this time, I'm STILL trying to get used to the new Dumbledore...

I think if they changed any of the main characters (Jo's Super 7) or the Wesleys the movies would have been hurt. I would have been disappointed.

I giggled at the new Crabbe in DH2.

I think the worst thing a movie can do is change it's cast especially if the cast is doing well i can't even think of Alan Rickman playing snape

I think if they changed any of the main characters (Jo's Super 7) or the Wesleys the movies would have been hurt. I would have been disappointed.

I giggled at the new Crabbe in DH2.

:huh:I think that was supposed to be Blaise Zabini and not Crabbe.

Isn't it just brilliantly amazing? I think to a degree we take it for granted that we got to keep this cast of kids for 10 years?? It's really unheard of and such an achievement. It's really unprecedented. But, then, everything Potter is unprecedented.

It's hard for me to imagine anybody else as these characters now. Most of the actors are now how I see the characters when I read the books. And it's not just their appearances, but their voices. Can anybody honestly imagine a different Harry yelling "Expecto Patronum!" with a different voice? It's virtually patented.

It would have been a horrible move to recast the trio, mostly because everyone grew up with Dan, Rupert, and Emma. I only see them as Harry, Ron, and Hermione nobody else would have done a better job portraying the famous trio.

I don't know if they would have flopped, but I don't think they would have turned out as well as they have. Plus, there would be wayy to much comparison between the original actor and the replacement, such as we have seen with Richard Harris and Michael Gambon.

What's great about keeping the same cast is that they all got to bond over the years, specifically the trio, to make their on-screen friendships, relationships, etc. seem genuine. They are all able to interact well together and I think that is a sign of how well they know each other off-screen, not just that they are brilliant actors. The dynamic would have changed if some of the actors had been replaced.

These are all faces we have come to recognize as the characters and actors we have come to love and support. It definitely would have been disconcerting for us as fans to have to see our beloved characters in a new way.

I think if they changed any of the main characters (Jo's Super 7) or the Wesleys the movies would have been hurt. I would have been disappointed.

I giggled at the new Crabbe in DH2.

That was Blaise Zabini...
The actor who played Crabbe didn't return because of some real-life problems (I think drug related). So in the movie they made Draco and Goyle team up with Zabini and for Goyle to die instead of Crabbe.

Also with regards to the actors overall, one of the things that made this franchise so special was the consistency of the cast members. Ones like the trio, who grew up in front of our eyes, and we grew with them. Even keeping the others like Dean, Seamus, Neville, etc. all made for something very believable that we could connect to easily, because we experienced other scenes/films in the franchise with the same faces.

I would watch it simply because i love harry potter but i wouldnt enjoy it the same as i did the other movies. Once they start using a certian actor for a certain character i get hooked and whenver i see them i think "oh look harry potter" so if anyone else had become harry potter i'd be more like "who is that again?:hmm:".