MovieChat Forums > Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars (2010) Discussion > Harriet played by a 16 year old?

Harriet played by a 16 year old?


Now that's just wrong. Michelle Trachtenberg was 11 when the first one came out.

MrSyntax- "If I was a funeral director, I'd be a necrophile for sure!"

reply

oh i lied. jennifer stone will be 17 by next year. sheesh.

MrSyntax- "If I was a funeral director, I'd be a necrophile for sure!"

reply

[deleted]

They've aged it up obviously to make it a teen thing - but I think it JUST DOESN'T WORK! Part of the appeal of Harriet was that she was so young.

The trailer for this just looks appalling, I was sceptical when I first heard about it and try to give everything a change but this is just dreadful and I bet will ruin Harriet for a lot of people if they think that's what it's about. Shame because I quite liked Jennifer Stone in other roles.

reply

[deleted]

LOL you crack me up. You are all over this with negative comments. You care enough to post at least five times on the topic. Hey, but that is what a forum is all about. You must be an extemely "quick study" to be able to discern all about everything after seeing approximately 1:30 second trailer.

reply

Right, because the trailer was totally wrong, she's not really 16 and there's no pop star storyline? LOL

Yeah trailers can be sometimes misleading ("Bridge to Terabithia" looked awful but it turned out to be a great adaptation) but some things you can tell are most likely going to be terrible. And nothing wrong with posting that.

reply

Yeah, that wasn't a very good part.

reply

I'm guessing the original stars either didn't know about this "sequel" or didn't want any part of it! I don't know but I'm going with the second reason as this doesn't measure to the book nor the original movie!






"I have no memories I'm prepared to share with you."- Peter O'Toole

reply

Isn't this Disney and the original was Nikelodeon? Completely different I think, they probably just bought the rights to the story and updated it, I don't think it's intended to be a sequel even though the character is older. With the original cast all being well into their 20s and the target character/audience range for this clearly mid-teens, I don't think anybody would have wanted the original cast back. But yeah it does look awful.

reply

[deleted]

They supposedly updated it, but I am so sick of these "pop star" storylines. It was okay when Disney thought of "Hannah" but now they have "Sonny" and now this. No more famous people, please! The shows are supposed to appeal to ordinary kids. I miss the shows I watched growing up in the 90s. And I don't think this "Harriet" is going to be anywhere near as good as the 1996 version I saw when I was 8-9. :(


-------------------------
Fanning World: http://www.fanningworld.com/

reply

It seems like a sequel. Of course it has a different plot being it's a different movie. Although, it's not following where 'Harriet the spy' left off; it's pertaining to 'Harriet the spy' and dealing with the some of the same characters.


But, on another note I wish there was a sequel with the original cast.






"I have no memories I'm prepared to share with you."- Peter O'Toole

reply

>"Although, it's not following where 'Harriet the spy' left off; it's pertaining to 'Harriet the spy' and dealing with the some of the same characters."

Yes...I'd say that's why it's not a sequel.

I did like the original cast but sequels rarely seem to be as good. Did you read the ones to the books? I quite liked "Sport" but remember being not too keen on "The Long Secret" (if I ever finished it). They were in libraries when I was young but seem hard to find now.

reply

I'm guessing the original stars either didn't know about this "sequel" or didn't want any part of it! I don't know but I'm going with the second reason as this doesn't measure to the book nor the original movie!


Um, it's NOT a sequel. It's a remake. The firsrt 5 mintues I knew for sure it was a remake, it had pretty much the same beginning, i.e, Harriet not wanting the other food item, and stating she ONLY wants a tomato sandwich, and she'll eat nothing but tomato sandwiches in the morning.

Secondly, the original cast CAN'T come back to play their sequal counterparts to the original. They are almost 30! And the setting is in a school. Despite popular belief, Looks DO matter in acting! No matter how good a person can ACT, a 30 year old would never be play to play a believable 15 year old.

Well there was "JACK" but the storyline called for an older man to play him, and he was SUPPOSED to look like an old man.

reply

Michelle Trachtenberg (the actress who played the original Harriet) is 25 (going on 26), not 30. She's only a few month older than me, and trust me 25 is miles away from 30. There are plenty of 20somethings playing high school characters (albeit not all convincingly). In fact, the "kids" of High School Musical fame? All in their 20s.

reply

incase you didnt know, like what the last Poster said, michelle is only 25 or 26 and she is playing georgina sparks on gossip girl, a teenager. there are LOTS of movies where People older then that play 16 year olds so its not that big of a strech. Rachel Mcadams on mean girls for example was 26 in that movie and she was playing a 16 year old. Amanda Seyfried was 24 on jenifers body, Macaulay Culkin 24 in Saved! so older actors playing teens isnt that unheard of, infact directors prefer them older because they can work more hours legally.

Religion Brings Out The Very Worst In People,Clearly Shows Their Ignorance & Intolerance

reply

And I don't think this "Harriet" is going to be anywhere near as good as the 1996 version I saw when I was 8-9. :(


Maybe. But you're also never gonna watch the current "Harriet" through the eyes of an 8-9 year old :(

reply