Harry Potter and the Sudden Overexposure

Bill Wright Fri, Feb 9, 2007 at 12:59 AM EST

I can't believe the acceptance this little stunt is getting. What ever happend to responsibility. In America famous sports heros can't advertise for beer or tobacco ads because any dope on the street, including advertising companies, realize young kids, the kind that read Harry Potter and link the movie character to the book, are impressionable. And what are they being impressed with? A familiar hero playing a role thats stoops into bestiality. I know that no one is being forced to see the play he will be in, but enough will be said about it, and I personally see nothing sophisticated in this play. There are plenty of other sophisticated plays that could balance his career. I believe Julie Andrews did somthing similar to get out of the whole Marry Poppins thing, but i don't think it helped her career. She ended up with princess diaries. Jimmy Stewart never did any raunchy movies, that I am aware of. What's wrong with having an actor that is known for good morals?

Roxanne Fri, Feb 2, 2007 at 07:41 PM EST

The decision-makers at scholastic?!!! The editor of the ORIGINAL edition of HP is Bloomsbury! Not scholastic! The only other that could be considered decison maker about HP is Warner Bros.

Mk Fri, Feb 2, 2007 at 12:51 AM EST

I just looked up "harry potter's birthday" and the consensus seems to be July 31st. Good for Mr. Radcliff. An actor needs to grow. It makes sense to do this while he's still HP. Shows everyone he's multi-faceted.

Jasper Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 10:17 PM EST

Rob I think you're on the right path. I think I heard it was also the release date of the first book.

Rob Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 09:53 PM EST

Isn't the 21st of July Harry's birthday? And Rowling's birthday? I could be wrong, but I think the date has more to do with that and less with Radcliffe's image, especially considering that Scholastic and Warner Bros are two different companies.

Ken Sturmer Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 09:21 PM EST

Finally, posters who have brains! I saw Equus years ago, and it would seem many bloggers are totally unaware that it was a play years ago, and later a movie. The US fans of Harry Potter have to realize that the rest of the world is not as hung up on nudidy ( shall I say male nudity )as many Americans. Likewise the age of consent is lower in other parts of the world including Great Britain. They do not see anything wrong with a seventeen year old having a nude scene.

Tiff in the OK Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 06:52 PM EST

If Scholastic and the movie studio (WB?) are really concerned about the hoopla of Radcliffe's play and any other character he may choose to play outside of Harry, then they should have contracted him out from the get go. But being as how that kind of servitude isn't really legal, well he gets to make his own decisions.
But yeah, so long as the worst he does is walk around a stage nude as part of a scripted play, I think they'll be ok.

Ralph Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 06:20 PM EST

Not to be the math geek, but it's 170 days until July 21, not counting today.

wildecat Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 06:06 PM EST

You're joking, right? I hardly see this as over-exposure. In a world where we are endlessly bombarded with minute-by-minute reports about the Rosie-Donald "fued," Isaiah Washington's homophobia, and Paula Abdul's increasingly sad and bizarre antics, the fact that there are a couple of newsworthy items involving a) brilliant comedy, b) theater, and c) READING, comes as a blessed relief!!

meme Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 03:34 PM EST

It's not porn, it's Equus for goodness sake! The play's been around for years. Best of luck to him in a challenging prestigious role.

kcholt68 Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 03:17 PM EST

Geeze, first Dakota Fanning and now Daniel Radcliffe ... what do these kids think they can do, grow up ???

Juan Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 03:10 PM EST

I wish people could still get entertainment from something they KNEW was fabricated - in other words, fiction. It's as if Harry Potter were Santa Claus or something. I mean, I get it, he's a phenom and kids idolize him (Harry), but he's fictional and the actor is real. The actor needs to think about his own life before the "needs" of those who think he should stay Harry forever.

Jakeem Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 02:40 PM EST

This happens all the time. Imagine how shocking it was to see a grown-up Shirley Temple chasing Cary Grant in "The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer"!
By the way, I can't believe that EW left out Thora Birch from its list of child stars who growed up real good on film!

Nose Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 02:10 PM EST

I just watched the clip from Extras. That was hilarious. I am glad Daniel and his agent/family, etc have a seemingly healthy attitude towards the whole Harry Potter thing...he won't be Harry Potter forever, and he is able to poke fun at himself in a hilarious way. Plus, Ricky Gervais is awesome in Extras too. The people who are upset about the pictures and the play are the same sort of people who consider Michaelangelo's David pornography.

Stephanie Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 02:06 PM EST

Psst. Jane, Wrong post. Sorry.

Jane Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 01:09 PM EST

I heard about it in advance and didn't watch because I hate that punk Ilan. Marcel- congrats on not winning Top Chef. You're going to go far and you won't have to give Collichio any credit for your success.

Stephanie Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 01:05 PM EST

I have to agree with EP on this. Look, the fact is that Radcliffe is an established actor. He did dramatic movies for the BBC, he's done British theater, and yeah he looks like a young Andy Partridge of the band XTC. The point is he is doing a seriously complicated role in a 35 year old play. At least he is not lollygaging around London in a drunken stooper with other young actors like some of our young American actresses here.

RobinG Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 01:02 PM EST

If people are going to worry about who their kids' role models are, they should be more worried about skanks like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. Daniel Radcliffe is actually doing something... it's called acting.

Fire Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 12:20 PM EST

I agree with previous posters who pointed out that this new part is a very serious and challenging role for someone of DR's age. He is proving, in one fell swoop, that he can act, be an adult, do serious theater, and chose good roles for himself. For all those who would object due to him being a role model for children... how many children are honestly going to even hear about Equus, much less understand what it's about? It IS a theater production in Great Britain after all, I don't imagine many 12 year olds will be attending.

I think taking this part was a very smart move for Mr Radcliffe and I hope he does very well with it.

Stacey Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 12:16 PM EST

Such an overreaction. I think he's being smart about positioning himself for a career post-Potter. And did anyone see him in "Extras?" Absolutely hilarous!

marykate Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 12:14 PM EST

HELLS YEAH, book 7!

Christopher Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM EST

Much ado about nothing. Equus is more than 35 years old and doesn't need defending, and neither does Daniel Radcliffe need defending for portraying a character in a play. The people who think this somehow damages Radcliffe's reputation are insipid gossiping fools anyways. Let them boycott, let them tell their children they can't watch Harry Potter-- they probably have difficulty seperating the actor from parts he plays, anyways.

Nicole Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 11:46 AM EST

I think it's great that he's clearly moving on from the Harry Potter franchise. It's been wonderful to him, obviously, but if he doesn't take on other, more grown up challenges, he risks getting trapped in Harry Potter land forever. I think that Scholastic is no doubt panicking over the recent photos and such, but that is their worry - not his. Does anyone in their right mind think that something like this will detract from the movie sales or the book sales? HP is a bohemoth in it's own right and will not be derailed by some topless photos. Besides - JK Rowling is the author, not Daniel Radcliffe. He really has nothing to do with the book other than the fact that he will likely one day play the title role in the inevitable film version. People have to learn to separate actor from role. All the power to him!

Ep Sato Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 11:43 AM EST

See, if other Chris Columbus stars made smart moves after their child acting days ended, they might still be acting in movies instead of growing into that role of "child actor turned stoner who gets in trouble with the law for pot possession" (see Macauley Caulkin for more details).

I cheer Daniel Radcliff for what he's doing. So long as he doesn't hit the party circuit with Paris Hilton he should be fine...

Phil Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 11:40 AM EST

If Daniel thought to follow in Britney's foot steps and go sans underwear, someone needs to grab his publicist and give him a whooping! *GIGGLE* All kidding aside, the recent splash of publicity this week has reached the point of oversaturation. When my normal quiet friend who works a 9 to 5 job at a hospital calls me to ask me about this Daniel Radcliffe play where he goes nude, I'm like that announcement was made months ago, why are you just hearing about it NOW? Then I see all the news stories with the pictures. Hype machine much??

fredric Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 11:32 AM EST

3 stories is hardly overexposure, especially considering that he's not in the news every single day like other celebs.

Marie Thu, Feb 1, 2007 at 11:26 AM EST

I don't really think Radcliffe is in the need of image saving at the moment. It was inevitable that if he wanted to be a serious actor that he was going to start moving beyond the world of Harry Potter and he's started to do that in a rather bold and daring way. The fact that he's chosen the difficult role in Equus demonstrates that he wants to be a serious actor. More power to him for taking control of his image and having some fun with it. Lord knows other people have been making money off his face since he was 11 so it's time he had a say in the matter.