Daniel Radcliffe, on why Potter is a richer experience than Star Trek or Star Wars

[august]

This was apparently in a clip from the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 dvd extras, where Radcliffe and Rowling talk about various issues. Basically, he says the obvious: they started as books, which became popular based on their merit, and everyone is able to create much of the Potter world in their own minds first, before seeing one set of actors' and film makers' version on screen.


Details and a clip at MTV.com.

[Michael]

He's young. He still has time to learn to avoid these kinds of "my franchise is better than your franchise" spats. Besides, he may one day be a starship captain.

William Shatner, on the other hand, seems NOT to have that most valuable of lessons (leave the logic to the Vulcans).

[GamgeeFest]

Well, it's certainly a richer experience for him! He doesn't have to work another day in his life if he doesn't want to.

All three of these franchises are so vastly different. You just can't compare them.

[Michael]

I read somewhere he had earned something like 47 million British pounds from the Harry Potter saga. Is that about $80 million? I suppose he is set for life but they say wealthy people never feel like they are wealthy enough to be sure they have enough to last them the rest of their lives.

For example, he could spend $4 million on a 1-200 foot yacht (depending on things) and run out of money trying to keep it afloat in about 20 years, according to some estimates.

Not that he might want a 1-200 foot yacht. I'm just sayin.

[august]

Yep I think she's just playing on two definitions of the word "rich," since he used that term rather than, say, "complex."

I think we've seen that he, like so many performers, has a need to perform, money or not. Daniel's Broadway roles are hugely fulfilling, I'm sure, but he could make more actual $$ just by allowing interest and dividends come in from his existing savings.