Daniel Radcliffe

[D_alex8]

while i respect the moderators decision Im greatly saddened that America now appears to be a country where a shirtless 17 year old is now considered obscene.

The problem is not merely the image per se, but also the associated sexualization of it through being posted here. A thread started earlier on Radcliffe immediately led to the question: "I wonder how long it will be before he shows 'the goods'?". That is clearly a sexualized discussion of a minor, and as such, would open the site up to accusations of promoting pedophilia, etc. It's hard to argue that posting the images in a forum titled "Celebrity Endowments" could be construed as anything other than an act of sexualization, in fact.

It only took images (albeit full frontal) of one 17-year-old celebrity to get Homocaine closed down last year - and that was an Italian-hosted site, not a US-hosted one. Since then, that site's replacement (TheCelebArchive) and other celebrity sites (including JustUsBoys and Hunkvideo/Campfire) have introduced a similar over-18s-only policy. You can indeed see the sticky posted at JustUsBoys with regard to the issue of Radcliffe here:

---> Daniel Radcliffe & Equus - JustUsBoys.com Gay Community

In a climate where certain people are looking for any reason they can to get sites closed down where sexuality is being discussed and featured openly... Rob's and the other sites' policy becomes quite understandable. It happened at Homocaine overnight without warning, so don't think that it couldn't happen here. Of course, one can go look at the images on certain UK-hosted sites, if there really aren't enough over-18 celebs in the world to keep you happy... but remember that even having these images on your hard-drive or in your cache may likewise be problematic in some jurisdictions.

 

[Ganymede]

Kinda bizarre. The pictures are perfectly legal and within the context of a fine arts theatre performance. Go figure.

All links to Daniel Radcliffe have been removed.

He is 17 years old, he is a minor.

This is an adult site with adult content and as such ALL images of minors will be removed for the safety of the board. They are prohibited by the terms of service.

 

[Ganymede]

Possession of nude pictures of minors is perfectly legal in the US -- granted that the nudity is within a non-sexualized context.

Technically its because hes a minor in the USA,

hes not a minor for most of the rest of the world, in Australia, New Zealand, Japan , and most of Europe a minor is below the age of 16. so hes actually of perfectly legal age for these slightly less prudish countries

 

[D_alex8]

granted that the nudity is within a non-sexualized context.

And therein lies the problem.

This is a sexualized forum called "Celebrity Endowments".

The third post on this thread already reads: "i wanna know how big he is y cant the pics go lower?"

 

[kalipygian]

Didn't occur to me, but perhaps my gallery pic of me camping it up in a mumu and wig at 7 years is perhaps on the wrong side of this policy.

 

[Ganymede]

There's also some picture of some guy posing with his three-year-old nephew, interspersed with pictures of erections, in the gallery. I thought that was inappropriate.

About the Radcliffe pictures, I'm not saying I disagree with them being taken down. My personal opinion is that they probably should, because in this country there are many people who would do anything they could to try to get a site like this shut down. Don't give them the slightest opportunity.

 

[Ganymede]

I'm not passing any personal judgment on this guy, just saying the picture strikes me as out of place.

http://www.lpsg.org/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/9618

 

[CardiffDillon]

Daniel Radcliffe's own website has high resolution versions of the pics, and an explanation (presumably following legal advice) of their status and artistic merit.

None of which precludes the owner of this site from deciding whether they should be allowed to be posted here. Contrary to the belief of some members, freedom of speech is not a right in this, or any other, private website, members are guests and all content is at the owners discretion.

I'd strongly agree that photos of, and references to, children have no place in this site.

cheers

Dillon

 

[Wrey]

I must agree with those against the posting of such pictures on this site. I enjoy the privilage of discussing and viewing adult content with other adults. If I were looking for other than that, I'm sure NAMBLA has a website that would suit. << Cringe! Ugh! Yuck! >>

 

[montroyal88]

Also, the script calls for Daniel to be not only nude but 'somewhat aroused' in one of the scenes. There is no doubt that the play and therefore the scene has artistic merit, but I respect the decision of the moderator to censor the photos (even the tamer ones) until Daniel is 18.

I had to wait till I was 18 to participate, so should Daniel . I can't wait to see his magic wand though.

I would love to see a wildly erotic production of that play. If I were better at memorizing lines in high school, maybe I could star in it .

 

[HotBulge]

Aside from the relative merits (or indiscretion) of posting 17 year old Radcliffe's nude photos from Equus, I wonder if Radcliffe, his parents, and his agents just went too far to avoid future type-casting as "Harry Potter". I wouldn't have any problems with his nudity if the Harry Potter film series were over, but there are still 2 films yet to be made. Heck, Virginia Rowling's 7th book hasn't even been published yet, so the movie could take a year beyond the official publication of the book. We must anticipate another 2 or 3 years to series the completion of the full series on the screen. If I were a parent or an adolescent who grew up on Harry Potter, I would find it jarring to think of Radcliffe as a sexualized entity in one context and then a teen-aged wizard in the next. Once you've chosen to "break" into the adult world, you shouldn't really turn back. Perhaps new actors should be cast for Harry, Ron, and Hermione in the 6th and 7th films: they all look a little mature for their roles anyway.

Radcliffe could have taken a serious role without having to appear nude at the age of 17. Matt Broderick was "Ferris Beuller" for at least 10 years after his '80s film; Neil Patrick was "Doogie Howser" for at least 10 years after the show aired in '92; Elijiah Woods is still "Frodo" and won't be otherwise for a few more years. Radcliffe could have tried his hand at Shakespeare, for example, to diversify his acting -- perhaps as Prince Hamlet. If Shakespeare is too bourgeious, how about some flick a la "Mrs. Robinson" or a science fiction film.

 

[mnrocko]

I would assume he is trying to create a new image for himself so he is not always know as Harry Potter. He has been in the industry for awhile now and as far as I can make out everyone refers to him as "that little H Potter kid".
After he does this play he will quite likely invent a new image of himself. One I might add, that will get him laid far more then his old one! Not that sex is the basis for this move but which image would you rather have in the public eye??

 

[D_alex8]

Aside from the relative merits (or indiscretion) of posting 17 year old Radcliffe's nude photos from Equus, I wonder if Radcliffe, his parents, and his agents just went too far to avoid future type-casting as "Harry Potter". I wouldn't have any problems with his nudity if the Harry Potter film series were over, but there are still 2 films yet to be made. Heck, Virginia Rowling's 7th book hasn't even been published yet, so the movie could take a year beyond the official publication of the book. We must anticipate another 2 or 3 years to series the completion of the full series on the screen. If I were a parent or an adolescent who grew up on Harry Potter, I would find it jarring to think of Radcliffe as a sexualized entity in one context and then a teen-aged wizard in the next. Once you've chosen to "break" into the adult world, you shouldn't really turn back. Perhaps new actors should be cast for Harry, Ron, and Hermione in the 6th and 7th films: they all look a little mature for their roles anyway.

Radcliffe could have taken a serious role without having to appear nude at the age of 17. Matt Broderick was "Ferris Beuller" for at least 10 years after his '80s film; Neil Patrick was "Doogie Howser" for at least 10 years after the show aired in '92; Elijiah Woods is still "Frodo" and won't be otherwise for a few more years. Radcliffe could have tried his hand at Shakespeare, for example, to diversify his acting -- perhaps as Prince Hamlet. If Shakespeare is too bourgeious, how about some flick a la "Mrs. Robinson" or a science fiction film.

I agree with your points entirely; it does seem like an overly drastic attempt at 'reinventing himself' in order to 'escape' from being the 'Harry Potter kid'...

I dunno who Virginia Rowling is, though... although according to google, she was a campaign contributor for George W Bush, so she's not at the top of my list of people I want to get to know. The author of the Harry Potter books, meanwhile, is J.K. Rowling. :wink:

 

[swordfishME]

Aside from the relative merits (or indiscretion) of posting 17 year old Radcliffe's nude photos from Equus, I wonder if Radcliffe, his parents, and his agents just went too far to avoid future type-casting as "Harry Potter". I wouldn't have any problems with his nudity if the Harry Potter film series were over, but there are still 2 films yet to be made. Heck, Virginia Rowling's 7th book hasn't even been published yet, so the movie could take a year beyond the official publication of the book. We must anticipate another 2 or 3 years to series the completion of the full series on the screen. If I were a parent or an adolescent who grew up on Harry Potter, I would find it jarring to think of Radcliffe as a sexualized entity in one context and then a teen-aged wizard in the next. Once you've chosen to "break" into the adult world, you shouldn't really turn back. Perhaps new actors should be cast for Harry, Ron, and Hermione in the 6th and 7th films: they all look a little mature for their roles anyway.

Radcliffe could have taken a serious role without having to appear nude at the age of 17. Matt Broderick was "Ferris Beuller" for at least 10 years after his '80s film; Neil Patrick was "Doogie Howser" for at least 10 years after the show aired in '92; Elijiah Woods is still "Frodo" and won't be otherwise for a few more years. Radcliffe could have tried his hand at Shakespeare, for example, to diversify his acting -- perhaps as Prince Hamlet. If Shakespeare is too bourgeious, how about some flick a la "Mrs. Robinson" or a science fiction film.

As a country the United Kingdom is not shy about nudity. Most respectable actors and actresses have taken their clothes off in respectable productions and no one thinks the worse of them.

Having said that, I agree that this is a drastic step for this young actor to take. I can certainly understand not wanting to be typecast as Harry Potter; but as he is apperently far from being done with that role: he should have respected his fan base, instead he has chosen to be objectified to create another image for himself. Only time will tell if this works or not, maybe there are two more films to be made but he wants to be done with the role now.

 

[Ryeguy]

Anyone consider the fact that Equus is supposed to be one of the best, yet toughest, plays to do? Maybe he wanted to take a role on that was very challenging, both in terms of becoming a better actor and changing his image a little. Image isn't really his problem right now, anyway - it's the fact that no one thinks he can act. I think him doing Equus is more about showing the world he can act, or at least learn, so when he's finally done with the Potter series he'll actually be offered good jobs - not flimsy roles based on his name recognition.

I don't think people should be so prudish. Who cares if he does it? It's not like he's not old enough to make decisions for himself - he's 17, not 7. I highly doubt this will factor into the Harry Potter franchise at all - if anything, it may add a little respectability if Daniel Radcliffe can actually succeed at Equus. (Though, I think he'll be terrible there as well... because he couldn't act if his life depended on it.)

 

[HotBulge]

My mistake. For some strange reason, I was thinking of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe" in an unrelated reference to Elizabeth Taylor

I agree with your points entirely; it does seem like an overly drastic attempt at 'reinventing himself' in order to 'escape' from being the 'Harry Potter kid'...

I dunno who Virginia Rowling is, though... although according to google, she was a campaign contributor for George W Bush, so she's not at the top of my list of people I want to get to know. The author of the Harry Potter books, meanwhile, is J.K. Rowling. :wink:

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Someone's comment about the pictures at news.aol.com:

"The play ... features Radcliffe fully nude on stage. Hopefully by then somebody will tell him about Nair."

wtf? He's barely got more hair on his body than Keanu Reeves. I am self conscious about the hair on my own body but come on..


P.S. he looks good in these pictures. What is wrong with people that they are uncomfortable ever letting anybody grow up?

 

[viewfromthetop1]

Someone's comment about the pictures at news.aol.com:

"The play ... features Radcliffe fully nude on stage. Hopefully by then somebody will tell him about Nair."

wtf? He's barely got more hair on his body than Keanu Reeves. I am self conscious about the hair on my own body but come on..


P.S. he looks good in these pictures. What is wrong with people that they are uncomfortable ever letting anybody grow up?

I'm okay with someone trimming when it's out of control but not a huge fan of taking it all off. Let a man be a man.

 

[jordanj]

Whilst I appreciate that the pics were removed from this site etc. I was just thinking about all the guys and girls sat in the audience trying to get snaps with their camphones. You *know* there's gonna be some soon. In fact, given the fact that he is famous, someone will be photoshopping a cock and legs onto one of those Equus pictures as we speak

Anyone said 'Hairy Potter' yet? I couldn't be bothered to check the rest of the thread.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Elijiah Woods is still "Frodo" and won't be otherwise for a few more years.

This is all absolutely ridiculous. These people are all actors. It's their job to play different parts and assume different roles. If their audience can't seperate them from their roles that's a problem with the audience. The actor's perogative should be to do what's best for their own career, not protect whatever stupid love you happen to have for the Harry Potter characters/book that cannot be reconciled with the actor who plays Harry doing anything else.

As for Elijah Wood... he was a psychopathic dagger-nailed whore-eating cannibal in Sin City very shortly after he was Frodo. How do those two fit together? Elijah is a great and versatile actor and I for one am very thankful that he hasn't been completely typecast as a dimunitive hairy-footed boyscout.