Daniel Radcliffe as Sam Houser

GwenRaiden

GwenRaiden

AKA Apology Girl
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
6,939
Age
39
Location
Ecosse
Black Thorn
From wired.com

THE BBC HAS revealed the first trailer for its upcoming film about the development of the Grand Theft Auto series.​

The Gamechangers, set to air on BBC Two on September 15, will detail a period in developer Rockstar’s history from 2002 to 2005, focusing on the moral panic and ensuing legal battles surrounding the GTA series from after the release of Grand Theft Auto III through the “Hot Coffee” scandal in the wake of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.​

The 30-second spot gives us our first view of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) as a heavily bearded Sam Houser, who the trailer’s narrator calls “the creative genius behind the most lucrative video game ever.” Opposite Radcliffe, Bill Paxton (Apollo 13) appears as then-attorney Jack Thompson (he was permanently disbarred in 2008), who spent most of the mid-aughts crusading against what he saw as objectionable content in videogames, Rockstar’s in particular.

The film’s treatment looks pretty self-serious, particularly considering its irreverent subject matter. Radcliffe seems to be doing his best Jesse-Eisenberg-as-Mark Zuckerberg, and at one point insists that “we’re going to create the world’s first truly adaptable hero,” a phrase that I’m certain means something, though what I could not tell you.

The trailer -


​
Will anyone be watching? I used to be a mega GTA fan, would play it all day everyday. My ex-partner worked there, too, so it was always a talked about topic. I'm not a massive fan of Radcliffe though, and it does look overly serious. I have enjoyed some of the BBC's own productions in the past (even though I do hate the BBC as corporation), and legal stuff in films does pique my interest a lot of the time.
 
It could make for an interesting subject for a film and like you say the BBC's own productions are normally worth seeing. But yeah I think that Radcliffe is trying a little too hard to play against type and do the whole "lets physcially transform myself and look adult" thing. It feels forced. I still think that Emma Watson is the best of the Potter actors.
 
There is not much that can be said about Daniel Radcliffe's ability as an actor, he is pretty good. Ask the people in the trade who have worked with him.
One of my favourite films at present is, ' The Woman in Black ' I bought the original solely because the screenplay was done by Nigel Kneale. It was Nigel Kneale who is responsible for one of the UK's first Sci-fi's that had a cult following that included the Queen of England. Unfortunately I didn't think much of the film so when I saw the DVD re-make I bought it, and it was a thousand times better. That was mainly due to Daniel Radcliffe's acting ability, he was believable as a father of a five year old.
He does, however, have a flaw in that he looks like and sounds like he did in Harry Potter. So to see him with a hat, big sunny's and a beard he does not look like Daniel Radcliffe. That allows the members of the audience to see the story and not him.
Personally I couldn't give a flying f.. .. if the program is any good or not, I can't be bothered to watch it.

If a person isn't told who the actors are they can watch the story unfold, but if they are told who the actors are they will always have that thing in the back of their heads comparing him with past noteable performances. (by that I mean the Harry Potter stuff not him appearing on stage totally naked).
 
GwenRaiden
GwenRaiden
Still haven't seen The Woman in Black! Too scared.
ILLYRIAN said:
There is not much that can be said about Daniel Radcliffe's ability as an actor, he is pretty good. Ask the people in the trade who have worked with him.
One of my favourite films at present is, ' The Woman in Black ' I bought the original solely because the screenplay was done by Nigel Kneale. It was Nigel Kneale who is responsible for one of the UK's first Sci-fi's that had a cult following that included the Queen of England. Unfortunately I didn't think much of the film so when I saw the DVD re-make I bought it, and it was a thousand times better. That was mainly due to Daniel Radcliffe's acting ability, he was believable as a father of a five year old.
He does, however, have a flaw in that he looks like and sounds like he did in Harry Potter. So to see him with a hat, big sunny's and a beard he does not look like Daniel Radcliffe. That allows the members of the audience to see the story and not him.
Personally I couldn't give a flying f.. .. if the program is any good or not, I can't be bothered to watch it.

If a person isn't told who the actors are they can watch the story unfold, but if they are told who the actors are they will always have that thing in the back of their heads comparing him with past noteable performances. (by that I mean the Harry Potter stuff not him appearing on stage totally naked).
Click to expand...

But wasn't the problem with his casting in TWIB that he was just too young to play that part? Of course coming off Potter people still have that character in their minds. Its the sort of part which maybe he should have waited a few years before playing.
 
I love DR, not really my cup of tea material wise, but I'd be curious to see how he does. Might watched a bit just to see him, I think he's a great actor.
 
Mr Trick
Mr Trick
I think he has do more to be called great.
@Mr Trick I think he's done quite a bit actually, if you include his theatre acting also. I loved his performance in Kill Your Darlings and A Young Doctor's Notebook, which not many people have seen and are really underrated as performances. I think for an actor of his age, he can be called great. But I don't really judge an actor by the amount of stuff he/she has done. (I know I always use this example), but look at Tatiana Maslany, she's more than great, but has only been in a handful of show/movies.
 
I still think he is learning as an actor and needs to make some better choices post-Potter films. Don't forget that acting on stage and acting on film are two different things. He improved a lot since the early Potter films, but still has a long way to go for me.
 
All actors continue to learn and hone their skills of acting in each film they do. I think most people are aware that stage and film require different capabilities of acting.
 
ILLYRIAN said:
All actors continue to learn and hone their skills of acting in each film they do. I think most people are aware that stage and film require different capabilities of acting.
Click to expand...

I just think fandom is a danagous thing, and that is what this idea of Radcliffe as being a great falls into. For me a great actor is someone who constantly challeges themselves, and is consistently good over ten-twenty films, but also they has to be a natural deveolpment. I give Radcliffe credit for going in a different direction post-Potter, but then what else was he going to do. It just feels like he should be in less films, but pick the ones which best suit his talents, and then grow from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom