Of course, all of these different castings would have had a minor impact on the series compared to having a different Harry at its core. Daniel Radcliffe has stated he thinks he's "not very good" at acting, but as Harry Potter he was pretty damn great; like his co-stars Rupert Grint and Emma Watson he matured with the character and successfully pulled off some of the more complex, emotional scenes. Of course we don't know quite what effect a different lead actor would have had, although we doubt it would be any massive improvement. Before Radcliffe was cast, the role was offered to Liam Aiken, but then immediately retracted. Why? Had director Christopher Columbus, who had worked with Aiken on Stepmom, acted out of turn? Or had Aiken done something to unearn him the role? Nope; Aiken wasn't British. As we've already seen, Rowling forbade any non-Brits from starring in the series, so Aiken was clearly unsuitable. While we have no idea how his Harry would compare to Radcliffe's, having an American Potter would certainly have had a negative effect on the totally British series as a whole. Aiken hasn't been that prolific in the years since missing out on Potter, with his most recognised roles coming in The Road To Perdition and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events over a decade ago. Which other actors were almost cast in Harry Potter? Would any have been better than who ended up in the films? Let us know in the comments below.
