Daniel Radcliffe wants to ensure that we don’t always think of him as a teenage Harry Potter. Considering I’m one of the few people that has never seen the films, it’s not a problem for me. I only judge Daniel on his interviews, and he always seems so intelligent, charming, funny and sweet. But just because I enjoy him, doesn’t mean that I’m not aware of his very careful publicity campaign to remake his image as an adult actor with an adult fan base. Thus, he’s been talking about his preferences for your mons fur (bring on the 1970s bush, says DanRad), and now, in several new interviews, he’s talking about boy-on-boy crushes and boning groupies. Oh, DanRad.

Daniel has a crush on The Gosdong: “No [I'm not gay]. I can quite happily say someone is handsome, good-looking, and I can see why someone would want to f**k them, but I’ve never felt that way about a man myself. There is that moment in your late teens when you ask yourself the question, ‘Am I?’ but I wasn’t…This year I have a talent crush on Ryan Gosling. I think he’s fantastic and…(ahem) you know he’d be nice afterwards. He seems smart. If I was gay, I would go for a smart man.”

Boning Potter groupies: “I was always very nervous about the groupie thing. I like to like somebody before I sleep with them. You know, you’re going to have to talk to them afterwards, even if it is a one-night stand. I have… I mean, that has happened, but generally speaking I’ve known the person. Apart from a few times when I was drinking.”

His girlfriend Rosie: “I haven’t seen her for weeks and I won’t be back for Valentine’s. I’ll be home a few days later, though, so I’ll have to make up for lost time. I’ve got three weeks off so we can be together – although I do plan to watch quite a bit of sport on TV.” Award-winning Radcliffe credited Rosie, whom he met on set of the last Harry Potter film where she worked as a production assistant, for being ‘very understanding’ and ‘incredibly adaptable’ and ‘far too good for me’. Daniel’s praise for his girlfriend goes hand-in-hand with his modesty, claiming he is ‘not an easy person to love’ and frequently quite ‘useless’.

On the three (technical) Oscar nominations for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2: “I don’t think the Oscars like commercial films, or kids’ films, unless they’re directed by Martin Scorsese. I was watching Hugo the other day and going, ‘Why is this nominated and we’re not?’ I was slightly miffed. There’s a certain amount of snobbery. It’s kind of disheartening. I never thought I’d care. But it would’ve been nice to have some recognition, just for the hours put in.”

On gay marriage: “Don’t define yourself by your sexuality, don’t define as straight or gay, define yourself as people and help another person if they’re in trouble. The ultimate reason gay marriage should be legalized everywhere is because, as a kid, you look to your mum and dad and they’re married, then you look at the gay couple who’ve been together for the same amount of time, but because they can’t get married their relationship doesn’t seem the same. Yes, gay marriage is about symbolically blessing a relationship, but the larger issue is about transmitting a fundamental message about equality. Gay people should have equality in law everywhere. If you grow up as a young gay man knowing you dont’ have the same opportuniteies as everyone else, you’re going to feel victimised and massive prejudice towards you.”

On religion: “I’m not religious, I’m an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation. We need sex education in schools. Schools have to talk to kids from a young age about relationships, gay and straight.”

On the Republican presidential candidates: “…they disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing ‘the Brokeback jacket’, and I think pretend to be homophobic just to win votes.”

[From Celebuzz, Us Weekly and The Mail]

Just because I feel like doing this, can we analyze his comment about Ryan Gosling? Is Ryan the kind of dude that straight guys are like, “Yeah, I’d hit that”???? I always think that straight dudes have boy-crushes on men like… I don’t know… Brad Pitt? George Clooney? Michael Fassbender? If I was a straight guy, I’d probably have a boy crush on Fassy. As it is, I’m a straight girl with a lady-boner for Fassy, so it’s not all that different, maybe? Anyway, I have a question about Daniel’s comment of “I think he’s fantastic and…(ahem) you know he’d be nice afterwards.” O RLY? Do straight guys really think that far ahead? I’m not giving DanRad the Gyllenhaal “Girl Please” side-eye, but I’m starting to wonder if Daniel might have some bisexual urges. It’s fine if he does. But he better show Fassy some man-love, I’m just sayin’.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Daniel Radcliffe hasn’t had an alcoholic beverage since August 2010. He spoke about his alcoholism last year, while he was promoting the last Harry Potter film. While I respected Daniel’s decision to stop boozing, I also had some doubt as to whether Daniel was really an alcoholic, or whether he was just a kid who liked to drink and who hadn’t found his limit, you know? I think there’s a difference between “a kid who can’t hold his s–t together while wasted” and “alcoholism”. But that was before I knew this – Daniel’s boozing was so bad at one point, he was “still drunk” while he worked on Harry Potter. Oh, DanRad. That’s a bad sign.

We’d like to buy a trend. Less than a week after Wheel of Fortune host Pat Sajak admitted to being drunk at work, news of another celebrity who has revealed that he, too, was under the influence in front of the camera, is making the rounds.

Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe tells the British celebrity magazine Heat that he went to work on the set while drunk.

But unlike Sajak’s lighthearted account of margaritas with Vanna White on filming breaks, Radcliffe, 22, shares a darker experience.

“I went into work still drunk,” he tells the magazine. “I can point to many scenes where I’m just gone. Dead behind the eyes. I have a very addictive personality. It was a problem.”

Stressing that he didn’t drink at work, Radcliffe adds that, “People with problems like that are very adept at hiding it. It was bad. I drank a lot and it was … nightly.”

The actor has said that he no longer drinks. “You either have to change something,” he tells Heat, “or give into that shame.

[From People]

Ah, so he wasn’t “drinking at work,” he just showed up to work still drunk. You know what this reminds me of? All of those stories about Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole and all of those actors from another generation who not only showed up to work still drunk from the night before, but continued to drink throughout the day. Like, they would never NOT be wasted. Would their performances have been better without the booze? I don’t know. But I’m glad Daniel is talking about this stuff so openly, and I’m beginning to think that he did probably have a problem.

By the way, Daniel’s new film, The Woman In Black, came close to being the number one film at this weekend’s box office. It made $21 million, and that means that DanRad can still make movies beyond the Harry Potter franchise. Sober! (Sidenote: I can’t even watch the ads for The Woman In Black! I hate scary movies so much.)

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

These are some new photos of Daniel Radcliffe at the premiere of his film, The Lady In Black. Look… I love DanRad. I think he’s funny, charming, bright, cool and interesting. I find myself attracted to him just because of his personality, and because I personally like a 1970s-style natural bush, and I get the feeling that Daniel does too. All of that being said, this is an AWFUL look for Daniel. I get the feeling that he’s really trying to be “cool” in a James Dean way, and it just looks like a really cheesy costume. Don’t make me feel sorry for you, Daniel! Just wear a suit to your premieres, for the love of God. This leather jacket makes him look like a really young, really short little kid who just saw Rebel Without A Cause for the first time. Oh, and Daniel needs to pluck his eyebrows. They’re getting into Lily Collins territory.

Guess who else showed up at the premiere? DanRad’s friend Tom Felton. Damn it, Felton looks HOT. He’s been spending more time in America’s beaches, getting some color and working a breezier style. I can’t say that I like his outfit, but at least Felton looks like he didn’t spend an hour on it. Tom Felton: I would hit it. Hard.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

Like Kaiser, the more I hear from Daniel Radcliffe, the more my admiration for him grows. He just seems like such a decent, standup, funny guy. Radcliffe’s new period horror film, The Woman in Black, opens in the US this weekend. It’s a crucial moment for his career as it’s the first film he’s done since the Harry Potter series concluded. He’s doing some interviews to promote it, and is on the cover of Esquire UK’s March edition. Kaiser found me some nice quotes from his interview, in which he talks about first asking his girlfriend, production assistant Rosie Coker, on a date (you can see a photo of her here) and about being a rich and famous celebrity. He’s very low key about it all, which is why we love him. Here’s more:

The 22-year-old Harry Potter star, whose latest film The Woman in Black is set for its UK release on Friday (February 3), spoke about his current relationship with girlfriend Rosie Coker in the latest edition of Esquire.

He confessed: “It was around the end of the seventh film (The Deathly Hallows: Part 1) and I started looking at Rosie and going, ‘Jesus, I quite fancy you!’ So I plucked up the courage to ask her out on a date.

“I’m a serial monogamist. I’m not one of those people that can date loads of people at the same time, it’s all too complicated.”
Radcliffe also admitted to having to deal with over-zealous fans, saying: “I recently had this woman who wrote to me a couple of times, offering sex. She didn’t say it explicitly, but she said, ‘This is my hotel room number, I will be sitting in row C, seat 26 and wearing a red scarf’.”

Despite appearing in the Harry Potter franchise for a decade, Radcliffe said that he rarely gets recognized while out in New York,

“I’m 5ft 5in, so no one gives me a second glance. And New Yorkers are quite blasé about celebrities, anyway.”

On his estimated wealth, with some reports suggesting the actor is worth over £51 million, the actor added: “I have no idea how much money I’ve got. Do I deserve it? F**k no! No actor does. But at the same time, you wouldn’t turn it down, would you?”

Read the full Daniel Radcliffe interview in the March issue of Esquire, on sale Thursday, 2 February.

[From Digital Spy]

That’s awesome that he’s all “I don’t deserve the money, but I’ll take it” and that he’s so self deprecating without feeling sorry for himself or complaining. He’s a lucky guy and he has no illusions about it.

Daniel is also about to shoot another film, in which he’ll probably go full frontal as he did in Equus on stage. In an interview with Heat Magazine, he said that he was asked by filmmakers not to shave down there in order to portray the character accurately, but that it wasn’t an issue for him. He also said “I don’t like girls with nothing down there either. It freaks me out.”

“This is way too much information, but I don’t like girls with nothing down there either. It freaks me out. You have to have something, otherwise it’s f**king creepy,” he told Heat magazine.

Radcliffe made the comment when asked about the controversy over getting naked for 2007 stage show ‘Equus’ and the fuss over his ample of pubic hair.

“I was like, ‘Yeah, of course I do!’” Radcliffe said. “I’m a Jewish man! We have hair down there.”

He said he was told to keep it natural for his new project playing a Jewish man in ‘Kill Your Darlings’.

“It’s funny actually, I’ve just been having a discussion with the guy who’s directing my new project,” he said.

“It might have a bit of nudity and he said, ‘Just to let you know, if you’re getting naked, no landscaping of any kind. This is the ’40s and you’re playing a Jew’.

“I was like, ‘Pretty much there anyway, mate! Not a huge amount of maintenance going on’. I mean, there’s a little bit obviously, for courtesy.”

[From Entertainmentwise]

Well Daniel doesn’t have this issue because he’s admittedly not manscaping, but why would filmmakers insist that he not tidy up down there? Don’t they have merkins for men, or are they hard to come by? God, that is cracking me up so hard! I’ll try to be brief on the issue of female intimate grooming, as it’s a touchy subject. I’ll just say that I’ve never dated a guy who shared Radcliffe’s stance on this issue and I’ll leave it at that. (Janeane Garofalo agrees with him though.) I’m sure there’s a tasteless Harry Potter joke in this story, but all the ones that come to mind are real groaners.

Here are some photos from The Woman in Black premiere in London on 1-24-12 and from an appearance Daniel made on Much Music in Canada on 1-26-12. Credit: WENN.com. Esquire photos via Digital Spy.

After the unprecedented success of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, one would think that star Daniel Radcliffe would take a bit of a breather, but the adorable young Brit is still running amuck like an Energizer bunny. After a decade of being in the spotlight, he’s surprisingly well-adjusted and has a rather healthy outlook on fame, and Radcliffe recently sat down with Access Hollywood to unwittingly demonstrate this fact. In addition, he also talks about Robert Pattinson, who appeared alongside Radcliffe in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (my daughter still cries when Cedric bites it). In particular, Radcliffe feels that Sparkles has a much more difficult type of fame with which to cope:

On The Final Harry Potter Movie’s Success: Radcliffe says that he’s glad it ended the way it did: On top. “We did the source material and we’re not going to create anything else just for the films and we did it very, very well. And particularly, this last film. I’m so proud of the way we’ve gone out, because I think it’s so much better than any of other films we’ve made. For me, it ended on a better note than I could have ever have expected or hoped for. I was very, very happy.”

On His Adorably Manic Japanese Fans: Radcliffe says the most extreme fans of the franchise had to be the Japanese ones. He says they would show up by the hundreds when his plane landed in their country, as well as follow him down the street in groups. He also tells a story of how he accidentally bumped into a school girl during a promotional event and she fainted as he was apologizing. “I’ve already been [to Japan] twice and it’s an amazing country. And they are the most unbelievable fans of Potter, because when they embrace something, they embrace it as a nation, like they love it.”

On The Ephemeral Nature Of Fame: “I’m not going to have this fame forever. I have it now and it’s going to go. There’s going to be some other new franchise and some other young new guy. So, you’ve got to enjoy this stuff while it happens.”

On The Sparkler: “He’s a very, very nice guy.” And as far as fame goes, Radcliffe says that he believes his former colleague has had it harder with the Twilight franchise. “I think he’s had to do with kind of a lot more,” Radcliffe explains. “I had a very gradual easing in to the idea of fame, because I was doing the first two films back to back almost. So, while the whole Potter film franchise was exploding, I was in studios filming and kind of unaware that this thing was going massive outside. Where as Rob, [he] was suddenly the most famous guy in the world. I think that’s a lot harder to deal with.”

[From Access Hollywood via the Hollywood Reporter]

It’s impossible not to adore Radcliffe, isn’t it? Obviously, he couldn’t have anticipated being asked about Sparkles, but he handles the surprise well. Both boys men are soon appearing in period pieces (the better to separate oneself from an enduring franchise). We’ve already discussed the trailers for both Radcliffe’s scary turn in The Woman in Black and Pattinson’s fist-chomping fury in the upcoming Bel Ami. The collective response appears to be that Radcliffe will likely win this round in the acting department, but Sparkles isn’t terrible — he just isn’t a good actor. However, both blokes come across quite well during interviews and also share a self-depreciating humor. Here, Radcliffe’s words are both diplomatic and sincere, and Sparkles would probably share in the conversational wealth if only he were given the opportunity. Unfortunately however, most interview questions posed to Sparkles revolve around his hair.

Ultimately, my opinion is that Radcliffe will perservere much longer than Sparkles as far as their post-franchise acting careers are concerned. Part of this has to do with talent, but another aspect has to do with being taken seriously. Obviously, Harry Potter is much more of a well-respected entity from both the literary and cinematic standpoints.

Meanwhile, Sparkles nailed himself into several years of playing a weepy, vegetarian, high-school vampire. It’s okay though — he’s made more than enough money to survive without ever having to lift a finger again.

For the curious among you, here’s a video clip from Radcliffe’s above-excerpted interview, courtesy of Access Hollywood. I love how he admits that New Yorkers are not impressed by him.

Photos courtesy of Fame and AllMoviePhoto

Forgive me for sounding hyperbolic, but this is a very crucial moment in time for Daniel Radclffe. Yes, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II broke nearly every box-office record in existence, but now this young lead actor must prove that he can carry a movie beyond wizardry and built-in franchises based upon already successful books. In short, he’s probably got a few years and a couple of misses to rely upon, but Radcliffe must prevail beyond the character that he portrayed for nearly a decade. And he’s certainly got a promising start; for three years ago, he made his (nude) Broadway debut in Equus to rave reviews. Now, Radcliffe makes his post-Harry Potter cinematic debut in a film called The Woman in Black. If you’re interested in an official description, well sure. Here you go:

The story follows a young lawyer, Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe), who is ordered to travel to a remote village and sort out a recently deceased client’s papers. As he works alone in the client’s isolated house, Kipps begins to uncover tragic secrets, his unease growing when he glimpses a mysterious woman dressed only in black. Receiving only silence from the locals, Kipps is forced to uncover the true identity of the Woman in Black on his own, leading to a desperate race against time when he discovers her true intent.

[From Hammer Films]

C’mon. This is an an adaptation of the 1983 novel (by Susan Hill) about a specter that haunts an English town, so we could at least characterize Radcliffe’s character as a proper “barrister,” right? Check out the trailer, and afterwards, we’ll discuss:

Freaky, right? That “thing” at 1:15 completely threw me off guard, and I seriously doubt that poor Kaiser will be sleeping for at least the next three nights. Mostly, the atmosphere is what does the trick here, although the creepy little girls and Radcliffe certainly don’t hurt matters. The film does look quite interesting, but we’ll have to wait a bit longer to see the full theatrical trailer, which will hopefully arrive in short order, no?

Movie stills courtesy of HammerFilms.com

Over the weekend, the world sent off one of the most beloved literary/cinematic franchises in grand style. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (which, just in case you’ve been living under a cyber rock, stars Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint) scored the best opening 3-day weekend of all time with an estimated domestic $168.6 million total, which captured the top domestic prize from The Dark Knight (whose previous winning total was $158.4 million); the movie also captured an additional foreign take of $307 million with a worldwide total $475.6 million. At the risk of sounding chintzy, these numbers are nothing less than magical.

Here are the records set thus far by Deathly Hallows: Part II: Biggest midnight-showing total of $43.5 million; biggest one-day opening day and Friday total with $92.1 million; and biggest international opening weekend of $307 million, which ousts the record set just earlier this summer by Pirates Of The Caribbean 4, which took in $260.4 million internationally during its opener. The only major record that Deathly Hallows: Part II didn’t break was the Saturday record of $51.3 million previously set by Spider-Man 3 — not that this slight omission matters in the grand scheme of things.

In terms of likewise comparisons, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II has already scored half of the worldwide $955 million total of Deathly Hallows: Part I, which kicked off with merely a $125 million domestic opening weekend, so I imagine that Part II still has many legs with which to stride in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, Transformers: Dark of the Moon held onto second place in its third week with $21.3 million (and a $302.8 million domestic total) while a couple of two-week holdovers — Horrible Bosses (with $17.6 million) and Zookeeper ($12.3 million ) — took third and fourth place, respectively speaking. In fifth place, Cars 2 added another $8.3 million in its fourth week (for a domestic total of $165.3 million).

Sadly, this weekend’s only other wide-release debut, Winnie The Pooh, took in only $8 million. This was a wonderfully touching movie, but Disney really chose a bad weekend with which to introduce the latest contribution to the Pooh franchise. In other words, attempting to compete against the last installment of the Harry Potter francise is a losing game, no matter how one looks the situation. Still, I suspect that Pooh will do quite well in the home video market.

Movie stills courtesy of AllMoviePhoto

Last night was the big NY premiere of Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2. As this incredible long-running franchise comes to an end, everyone is looking back at how these kids have grown over the ten years since we were first introduced to their magical world. (Have you seen this five minute look back video of all the HP movies?) I thought it would be fun to include photos of them from the first two movies, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (2001) and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002). I remember the first time I saw Harry Potter in the movies, and how impressed I was at how intricate and engrossing the scenery was, and what great child actors they were. It’s bittersweet to say goodbye, but it seems like time to me. Especially when we see how these sweet kids have grown up into some really gorgeous men. It feels a little wrong though to notice.

Above we have star Daniel Radcliffe, who is just 21 yet possesses the grace and professionalism of a seasoned actor. I just love him.

Matthew Lewis, 22. (Neville Longbottom). This before photo is actually from 2007′s Order of the Phoenix. Can you believe how great he looks now?

Tom Felton, 23. (Draco Malfoy) Sniveling little Draco grew up to be quite a lovely young man. He recently said he might start some kind of career as a rapper, but some outlets are guessing that he was just joking about it. He also said he was flattered to hear that his co-star Emma Watson had a crush on him when they were 12.

Rupert Grint, 22. (Ron Weasley). Grint is in dire need of a haircut and styling – that suit looks a little too big for him. Still, I sense that he’s one of those guys who just doesn’t take themselves too seriously. Rupert has a new interview with Parade where he reminisces about his favorite scenes and talks about how hard it was to say goodbye after 12 years working on set. (And here’s a link to a segment of his interview with Regis & Kelly, where he talks about kissing Emma Watson. He’s adorable.)

We can’t forget Alan Rickman, 65. (Severus Snape) He didn’t grow up in the films like our other featured actors and Snape doesn’t really do it for me, but his voice is just incredible. I’m also surprised to read that he’s 65, because I would have put him at 15 years younger. He has a naughty glint in his eye, doesn’t he?

Photo credits: WENN, Fame and AllMoviePhoto

I’ll use any excuse to write about my little pocket boyfriend Daniel Radcliffe, but this story is actually newsworthy and interesting. It seems that at the ripe old age of 22, DanRad has decided that he’s on the wagon. Meaning, I think, that Daniel isn’t self-identifying as an alcoholic, but he’s not going to be drinking the sauce anytime soon. What caused Daniel to make this decision? He became “reliant” on alcohol for his good times. So… good for him?

Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe has revealed he has given up drinking after a long battle with alcohol. The 22-year-old actor told GQ magazine he realised he was becoming too reliant on alcohol. And Daniel revealed he hasn’t drunk anything since August 2010 after accepting he may have had a problem.

He said: ‘I became so reliant on alcohol to enjoy stuff. There were a few years there when I was just so enamoured with the idea of living some sort of famous person’s lifestyle that really isn’t suited to me. I really got away with that because there were many instances when a paparazzi shot like that could have been taken.’

Daniel also said life with his girlfriend, whose identity has not yet been revealed, has become easier since he decided to become tee-total.

He added to GQ magazine: ‘I’m actually enjoying the fact I can have a relationship with my girlfriend where I’m really pleasant and I’m not f*****g up totally all the time. As much as I would love to be a person that goes to parties and has a couple of drinks and has a nice time, that doesn’t work for me. I do that very unsuccessfully. I’d just rather sit at home and read, or talk to somebody that makes me laugh. There’s no shame in enjoying the quiet life. And that’s been the realisation of the past few years for me.’

Daniel can soon be seen in the final Harry Potter film, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part II. And the actor, who is currently starring in Broadway show How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying, said he is hoping to be able to forge a career for himself in the film world once the Potter franchise is over.

He said: ‘If I can make a career for myself after Potter, and it goes well, and is varied and with longevity, then that puts to bed the ‘child actors argument’. If I can do it, in the biggest film franchise of all time, no other child actor who comes after will ever have to answer those same bloody questions.’

Since starring as teenage wizard Potter in the film adaptations of J.K. Rowling’s novels, Daniel has accumulated a fortune of somewhere in the region of £48million. However, he said he won’t be blowing all his hard-earned cash on the latest top of the range cars.

He said: ‘I don’t know what to do with it. I’m very fortunate to have it, and it gives you room to maneuver. But the main thing about having money is it means you don’t have to worry about it. And that for me is a lovely thing. It’s not for fast cars and hookers.’

[From The Mail]

I went through a similar realization when I was around 22 as well, so I know what Daniel is talking about – it’s good to go through a period of time as a young adult where your life doesn’t have to revolve around the next time you’re going to get messed up, drunk or on drugs. Of course, I began drinking again after several years passed, and I came to the realization then that I’m not an alcoholic, and that I just went through a bad, self-destructive phase in my late teens. However, I just recently gave up the sauce yet again, but this time it was for a diet, not out of concern that I might have a drinking problem. My biggest problem? I like having a drink late at night to help me sleep. Going off the sauce again brought another round of sleep problems for me. I wonder if Daniel is having problems sleeping? I could help him out. We could have a “quiet life” together!

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Daniel Radcliffe gave an extensive interview to Movieline in which he kind of scolded young stars for not handling the transition to adult actors well and chastised the public for digging into their private life. I guess I understand what he’s saying, although it’s hard to reconcile the two points he’s making. Kaiser and I were e-mailing about this, since she’s a DanRad loonie, and she thinks that he’s referring to the scrutiny over Emma Watson dropping out of college. As far as his comment about “trainwrecks” goes, I don’t think there are any true trainwrecks at this point who didn’t bring it onto themselves, and I’ll get into that in a moment.

“I’m not anything special”
“Harry Potter was a phenomenon when I was 7, that’s when it came out; it was a phenomenon before I was even remotely attached. The reason I say [that anyone who played him would have become famous], and the thing that made me realize this — I was speaking to the director of the first Twilight film [Catherine Hardwicke]. She said she went to a reading of the books — Stephenie Meyer was giving a reading of the first Twilight book; this was before Robert Pattinson was cast. And she said the name Edward Cullen, and the audience went crazy. At the name. I’m sure if the demographic had been slightly different, the reaction would be the same for Harry Potter at a J.K. Rowling reading. Whoever stepped into that was going to receive a certain amount of attention and — dare I say — adulation. Which is not — in my opinion — justified, because I know me, I’m not anything special or big to fuss about.”

“If I can [transition into an adult actor] no one else has any excuses”
“Here’s the thing,” Radcliffe said about the example he’s setting in his transition from child star to adult actor, “if I can do it — in the biggest film franchise of all-time in terms of grosses — no one else has any excuses. I just want the next generation of child actors to not have to answer all those bloody questions in interviews, ‘So, how long do you expect this to last?’ Essentially, that is what we get asked. A lot. I have had that phrased that way. So I just want the next lot of kids who want to act not to have to deal with those questions.”

“People love a trainwreck”
“There are people that would love — the sad truth is that people love a train wreck. People talk all the time about young people — particularly in Hollywood — who get into trouble,” Radcliffe said about the image problems some young stars face. “First of all, it’s none of your business what they’re going through. Second of all, you have no comprehension about what they’re going through, so don’t pass judgment on it.”

Radcliffe knows that even he has potential to wind up in the celebrity barrel — not that he’d ever let that happen. “I find all that stuff very distressing, but people are interested in it and people would love to see it from me. When I switch on the TV and watch a program I really don’t like where there’s people sitting around chatting and passing judgment on people… I don’t ever want to be the person they’re talking about. It’s sad, but as soon as you are somebody in the public eye who is showing up a lot, you are theirs to debate on every level. I’m not comfortable with that.”

[From Movieline via E! Online]

Here’s the thing – no one manages their business as well as Radcliffe. He went to work on stage and really put an effort in. He never acted the diva or saw himself as anything more than a hard working actor. He hasn’t given any cringe-worthy quotes, he hasn’t been stumbling out of clubs, and he’s generally been a responsible, stand up guy. The Harry Potter stars have all pretty much stayed out of trouble and conducted themselves with grace. We can’t quite say the same for the Twilight kids, although Robert Pattinson is getting there. Some of the lesser players in Twilight are calling the paps on themselves and planting stories in the tabloids. (You know I’m talking about Ashley Greene and Kellan Lutz, who give the rest of them a bad name. We barely hear about the others.) Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart get a lot of gossip press for their relationship, but Rob handles it pretty well. I can’t really say the same for Kristen although at least she stays away from Twitter.

I’m hard pressed to think of any true trainwrecks who didn’t bring the media scrutiny on themselves. There are those that go to rehab and who never really courted the press. We talk about them briefly without harping on it. (Like say, Demi Lovato or Kirsten Dunst.) But I would venture that all the really big trainwrecks (and who is there really at this time except Linnocent?) all bring it on themselves somehow. Paris has been doing well since her cocaine conviction and Britney has reigned it in with the help of a team. So we talk about Lindsay, but she leaks stories to the press all the time and calls the paps on herself.

I get what he’s saying about how we should have empathy for young stars, and I like to think we do when it’s warranted. Look at how nice people have been to Demi Lovato after she got out of rehab and was so open about what she went through. Lindsay pissed away any good will people might have had for her years ago. She’s endangered lives and generally acted like an entitled brat. She deserves all the scrutiny and then some.

Daniel Radcliffe is shown on 5/2/11 and 3/27/11. Credit: WENN.com