Young stars futures was Re: Deleted scenes then wandering off into PoA country

[alhewison]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., "GulPlum" <plumeski at y...> wrote:
 
> As Columbus won't be directing it and the kids' contracts are up 
for renewal (the central half-dozen parts, including Neville, Draco, 
> Dean, the Twins, etc, were only signed up for the first two 
movies), there is an additional fear that the new team might want 
some changes on that front. 
> 
Felicia said:-
> > Chris Columbus said he thought it would be fascinating to see the 
> > characters all grow up, but I got the impression he was by no 
means  certain it would be done.

GulPlum said:
 
> Of course he wasn't. :-) Apart from the fact that the shortcomings 
of  11 or 12 year old actors are more easy to brush away than those 
of 14 or 15 year olds (let's face it, each of the Trio had their weak 
> points in the first movie!), these are real people with real lives 
to lead. Especially as both Radcliffe's and Watson's parents are 
> (rightly) fiercely protective of their respective only chilren 
(Grint is a little different; on the one hand he comes from a large 
family, and already seems to be assured of an acting career), and 
there are well-documented cases of famous teenage film stars going 
wildly off the rails. 
> 

I'm interested in why you cite Rupert Grint's case as different to 
Daniel Radcliffe's and Emma Watson's. Surely coming from a large 
family doesn't presuppose that his parents are not fiercely 
protective? I'm also a little unsure as to why he should be assured 
an acting career. Whilst I agree that he is good, and has already 
gone onto to star in Thunderpants, the fact remains that he is only 
13. Not only would he need to wish to continue to act, but surely he 
would have to carry on developing as an actor? Whiilst probable, this 
is not assured.


> Making movies is extremely disruptive both socially and 
academically for the young stars. (snip) the question at the 
fortemost of their parents' minds is whether or not they're *happy*. 
Thankfully, in this case we won't see something we've seen several 
times before  with child stars, where the parents make a grab for 
their kids' money - all of the Trio's parents are more than 
comfortably well off  already! (I know someone who works with Mrs 
Watson, and the kind of  money she makes would make most people green 
with envy.) :-)

I agree, the key question to me is whether they are happy. The 
academic side doesn't worry me so much, as I remember reading that 
Daniel Radcliffe had actually performed better academically since 
starting the filming - presumably because of the one-to-one tuition. 
But the social aspect is something that can't be taken up later. I 
also know someone who works with Mrs Watson, and as I understand it 
socially things have changed. The kids are quite simply away from 
their school mates too much, their experiences are now very different 
from the majority of kids their age. Yet, they will still go through 
all the normal pangs of adolescence that we  so love discussing on 
the main board! However *wonderful* it might sound to be rich and 
famous at such a young age, I imagine it will also be quite lonely to 
be so set apart. They are lucky that there is a group of them.


> 
> A related issue I've raised several times before is that school 
years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 will be Radcliffe's and Watson's GCSE 
years  at school - arguably the most important for any child in the 
British education system. I really don't see their parents allowing 
them to  spend those years making movies, regardless of how well 
they're doing with on-set tuition. Warners will then have to decide 
whether to delay filming, or to recast the parts.

Surely, if they are doing well with on-set tuition then carrying on 
with the movies would not be a problem - as long as there was a 
substantial gap whilst they were actually taking the exams. I agree 
though psychologically a complete break would be better. 
 
> Financial compensations aside, Radcliffe's not going to have an 
easy adult life as "The Man Who Was Harry Potter" if he makes all the 
HP movies, but if someone else takes on the part for later ones, at 
> least he'll be able to share the moniker. 

I actually can't see that it will make much difference to Dan whether 
someone else plays Harry Potter as well. He will always be remembered 
as the first Harry. What will matter is how much he is able to move 
on from the experience. Only time will tell. If the trio are given 
the choice to continue in their roles, I would not want to be in 
their parents shoes to make the final decision. (And yes, ultimately 
it would be the parents decision whatever the young actors desire) 


Ali

Who does worry for the young actors, and would not like her little 
kids to become child stars!