acroyear | So what's more important?

'Cause this crap attitude is really starting to piss me off...

Although analysts have suggested that the three young stars of the Harry Potter movies are quickly outgrowing their characters, the Reuter News Agency on Tuesday, citing an industry source familiar with the matter, reported that they will likely return for the fourth Potter film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, due to be released in November 2005. By that time, Daniel Radcliffe, who portrays Harry Potter, will be 16 years old. Reuters quoted Seth Siegel, founder of The Beanstalk licensing and marketing consultancy group, as warning that if the stars are not replaced by younger actors, "licensing will fade away." Wendi Green, an agent for child actors with Abrams Artists Agency, told the wire service, "If [they] are too old, kids can't relate to it."

Sorry, guys, but its not like Potter is immortal and stuck at age 11. And prioritizing the money you make from merchanidising over maintaining an accurate representation of the work shows just how totally screwed up your priorities are...

Rowling is aging them in the books. The books cover one per year. They're SUPPOSED to be 15 and 16 by the time the 4th book is filmed. They're SUPPOSED to be 18 when the 7th book is done. [updated]And as for the actors getting too old to play teenagers? Give me a break ^ 2...Michael J. Fox was in his upper 20s playing high schoolers Alex and Marty. Alan Ruck was *30* as Cameron in Ferris Bueller. The Facts of Life girls were around 18-20 when they were playing 16 year olds at the series's peak.

Real children aren't meant to get trapped into this idea that nothing changes. That's actually one of the best things about the Potter books, when compared to other works for that age group like Goosebumps and the like. Most kids books are like the daily comics; they set their characters into a single year, and stick them to that to the point that they go through more adventures at age 13 then there are days in a year.

The kids who read the books aren't supposed to just have the books be part of their childhood. They're supposed to grow up with the books and their characters, just like the kids from the original Star Wars generation grew up with Luke and Han and Leia as they each accepted their responsibilities to freeing the galaxy and all that lot. Ditto those of us who grew up on Robotech. The reason most of us can't relate to the prequels in Star Wars is that we know that the one thing Anakin isn't going to do is grow up. All he does is let the future emperor pervert his adolescent feelings into a destructive weapon that will haunt the galaxy for 25 years. In a sense, we already know too much to be able to relate to the story Lucas is presenting (such as it is).

The Potter books are increasingly dealing with serious issues, things you can't just "play" with. He's had to deal now with deception and betrayal on a grand scale, face the facts that innocents are killed or are blamed for things they didn't commit, face that those in authority are willing to blind themselves to the truth of what goes on because they can't deal with it, and face that his own sacrifices seemingly for the better good have dire consequences. In short, he and the books are growing up VERY quickly.

So to all you accountants watching the world's children growing up and sticking with the Potter books and movies because they respect the craft put into them, and NOT buying the toys and tie-ins because they've outgrown them: Grow Up yourselves. Or find some other lackluster product to exploit and let good craftsmanship in media, what little is left, stand for itself.