Don't know if this has already been discussed at some point or not, but it KILLS me they didn't wait ten years to make the Harry Potter movies...because Asa would have been a perfect Harry. Don't get me wrong, I like Daniel Radcliffe well enough and I've heard the author chose him specifically after seeing his work on David Copperfield, BUT, I think Asa would have done a better job, talent-wise and looks-wise.
shareeh cast sas fine.
shareHe would have been an excellent choice.
That being said, though, there's no replacing Radcliffe no way no how!
I agree. Dan Radcliffe's HP is iconic now. Both actors are talented though imo.
share
You have an excellent point, but Hollywood doesn't wait to cash in on what's hot.
"Believe not what you only wish to believe, but that which truth demands."
Irony :D
shareFor one thing, he was too young when they started Harry Potter, and besides, his face grew narrower as he aged (though he's still young, obviously), and Harry is always described with a rounder, fuller face. Daniel Radcliffe fit that bill. They were lucky that as he got older, his features remained very consistent. As for the talent, don't diss Radcliffe; he really did a fine job.
shareIrony indeed, they waited 23 years to make enders game.
shareI heard that "Ender's Game" was for a long time considered to be unfilmable. So maybe that's why they waited so long.
share