Haha the worst that happened was the guy who played Crabbe got caught with weed.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I was thinking "Well, if he shaved his head, they could just get a wig for him." but then I realized that's Britney Spears, not Lindsay Lohan.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What is a 'Lindsay Lohan''?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ha, with a cash cow like Harry Potter, WB would have just recast him, and believe me, it would still make a ton of money. Hate to break it to you, but Dan Radcliffe isn't so great at playing Potter.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How would you know? Nobody else has played him in the movies. There would have been a ton of unfavorable comparisons, and whether or not he's a great actor, it would have still ruined the continuation of the movie. One of the coolest things about HP is that the entire cast grows up over the course of the movies. So yeah, he would have been recast, but we don't know there's anyone better than him out there.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

(>_>): I hope you don't mind me joining in on this comment thread... D:I agree with >_> - There hasn't been anyone to compare Radcliffe to, so it is not possible to make a statement of Radcliffe acting as HP not well enough. Though I also agree with MrRight, he is not a great actor. And they WOULD replace him to continue the series, at any cost. Radcliffe *is* Harry Potter and probably will be, for the rest of his life, whether he likes it or not. That or Mister Horselovin' McNudeyPants. Your pick.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

EQUUS!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I respectfully disagree with your comments about how I can't judge since no one else has seriously played Potter. Just because no one else has played a role doesn't mean that I can't tell what's a mediocre performance and what isn't. Following that logic, no one should be able to say that Johnny Depp was a good Jack Sparrow or that Nathan Fillion was a good Captain Reynolds as we have no one to compare them to in those roles. I understand if you like him in the role, that's your opinion, but to say that a performance is impossible to judge unless others have played the same role is just incorrect. However, I do agree that even if I found the next actor's performance better than Radcliffe's, it would still feel awkward to see someone new after 5-6 films with one actor regardless.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

OK, you got me there. My achy brain has no response for this, haha! Also you mentioned two of my favourite actors, so you also got me biased into agreeing with you :D I'm no big fan of Radcliffe, he's OK, though his acting range is rather limited. There have been scenes about which I thought 'Wow!' and scenes about which I thought 'Meh.' I think I remember Radcliffe being chosen for his "stunning eyes" or something. Like when a casting person saw his face, he thought, 'That is Harry Potter!' Perhaps WB put more emphasis on looks than acting talent? Aifinkso. And a belated Happy New Year to you, (including but not limited to) MrRight!

by Anonymous 13 years ago