As he spoke to a group of rowdy fans at the 92Y series Broadway Talks in Manhattan this week (in case you didn't know, we thought you should hear), Daniel Radcliffe revealed some interesting insights he's had since finishing up the Harry Potter franchise.
And it isn't just that Radcliffe is so over his wand and scar, it's that any actor who put on those trademark glassed was bound to be a huge star:
"Harry Potter was a phenomenon when I was 7-years-old, that's when [the book] came out; it was a phenomenon before I was even remotely attached," Radcliffe explained to MovieLine.
"The reason I say [that anyone who played him would have become famous] is I was speaking to the director of the first Twilight film, and she said she went to a reading of the books Stephenie Meyer was giving 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."
Oh, that Catherine Hardwicke, always stirring up the Twi-pot, whenever she can find a way!
But still, we gotta say, duh, R.Pattz brought Edward to life just as Radcliffe did with Harry.
"I'm sure the reaction would be the same for Harry Potter at a J.K. Rowling reading," Radcliffe went on. "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 and I'm not anything special or big to fuss about."
D.Rad actually denigrated himself further:
"At the moment I think I'm better on stage than I am in film," explained the current star of Broadway's How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.
Then Danny gunned for the topic of fame (always a hot issue):
"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 says of struggling child stars. "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."
Jeez, Dan, what's up your bum about all this stuff? Have to say, in all honesty, you haven't gotten overly scrutinized by the media (and the public) at all to the same degree R.Pattz has, so what's all this eschewing your film talents and flipping the finger to life in the media lane?
Or maybe it's the one who's getting the scrutiny that D.Rad's actually flipping off? He continued:
"If I can do it in the biggest film franchise of all-time in terms of grosses, no one else has any excuses," Radcliffe states bluntly. "I just want the next generation of child actor's to not have to answer all those bloody questions in interviews, 'So, how long do you expect this to last?'"
Danny-boy's just all kinds of pissy, isn't he?
Regardless, who do you think will have a longer career in Hollywood? D.Rad or R.Pattz?