Posted: 2005-04-13 03:21pm
Actually, since it's quite evident she's gone through a lot of puberty, the right term is ephebophile. Just so you know. 

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
You are a dirty old man. Stay away from my territory.Stravo wrote:Emma Watson is turning out to be quite the hottie I imagined she would be since the first movie. Niiicceee.
Nope, not your territory anymore. Mine, all MineIlluminatus Primus wrote:You are a dirty old man. Stay away from my territory.Stravo wrote:Emma Watson is turning out to be quite the hottie I imagined she would be since the first movie. Niiicceee.
No they're not. I expect and desire no changes amongst the core cast. (though IIRC Daniel Radcliffe wants to bail)Vympel wrote:So when are they going to replace the actors, who are getting way too old for this stuff?
I don't know wether they will...Vympel wrote:So when are they going to replace the actors, who are getting way too old for this stuff?
I've decided I look enough like Radcliffe that I shouldn't be looking at him.Dahak wrote:Yes, Radcliffe starts to be a real hottie...
Not comparable to Draco, but still...
The FOX Network uses 20-something people to play teenagers all the time. It works for them.Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:Looking at their ages on imdb, Daniel Radcliffe will be 21 by the time the final Harry Potter movie is made. So we'll have a 21 year old playing a high school senior.
(I based that theory on this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/movieconnections If the final Potter movie is made in 2009 or 2010, Radcliffe will be no older than 20 at the time of filming)
I wouldn't worry about the actors growing too old, as they would still be younger than a lot of actors in Hollywood playing teenagers. I'd worry more about them simply getting tired of it all and bailing.
how about posting comparison pics....?I've decided I look enough like Radcliffe that I shouldn't be looking at him.
Not right now, let the hair grow back again(I've recently cut it) then its alot more obvious.generator_g1 wrote:
how aobut posting comparison pics....?
Didn't some shows and movies have instances of people in their early thirties playing high schoolers?Macross wrote:The FOX Network uses 20-something people to play teenagers all the time. It works for them.Bug-Eyed Earl wrote:Looking at their ages on imdb, Daniel Radcliffe will be 21 by the time the final Harry Potter movie is made. So we'll have a 21 year old playing a high school senior.
(I based that theory on this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/movieconnections If the final Potter movie is made in 2009 or 2010, Radcliffe will be no older than 20 at the time of filming)
I wouldn't worry about the actors growing too old, as they would still be younger than a lot of actors in Hollywood playing teenagers. I'd worry more about them simply getting tired of it all and bailing.
Why would they do that? They're making a movie a year. Each movie covers one year at school. The characters would be turning 18 just about the time the actors will, so what's the problem?Vympel wrote:So when are they going to replace the actors, who are getting way too old for this stuff?
Its not a movie a year, its only because HP3 and HP4 were shot back to back like LOTR.Rogue 9 wrote:Why would they do that? They're making a movie a year. Each movie covers one year at school. The characters would be turning 18 just about the time the actors will, so what's the problem?Vympel wrote:So when are they going to replace the actors, who are getting way too old for this stuff?
Hah... cute....Wired_Grenadier wrote:What's Hitler doing in the pic with Dumbledore?
Who else?Elheru Aran wrote:Hah... cute....Wired_Grenadier wrote:What's Hitler doing in the pic with Dumbledore?![]()
More seriously? I've got a feeling that's Kakaroff, but I'm not sure...
That's funny. I thought it looked like something out of a bad '60s dinosaur movie.DPDarkPrimus wrote:That dragon looks awesome. Here's hoping for great SFX.