So I haven't seen this so I can't be 100% sure this is the case, but is Daniel Radcliffe supposed to be playing a young Jon Hamm?? They're being awfully charitable to Daniel Radcliffe.
I got a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.
Charity doesn't come into it - it was deliberately done. The events where the young doctor is played by Radcliffe are memories of the older doctor played by Hamm and the height difference emphasises how he sees himself in the present in relation to his younger self - more experienced, wiser in the ways of the world, less indimidated. He remembers his younger self as a lesser man in every sense of the word and the height difference is a device to point out this and also adds to the visual impact of the comedic aspects of the story.
shareI can see that. So far it seems to work but him interacting
with his older self is very odd.
I think the OP is implying Daniel can't compete with Jon Hamm's physical appearance, so casting Daniel as a younger version of Jon is being charitable.
shareI read the OP and got the feeling it refers to Radcliffe's acting prowess. I know it's been a long time, but I hope the OP comes back and clarifies what exactly is being compared between the two.
shareI think either one would be entirely ludicrous.
Daniel Radcliffe is an incredible young actor, and although he's FAR too young for the likes of me, he's finally starting to get mature enough to have a sex symbol following. When he's playing a more confident character, it shines through even more.
"Jack go to the liquor store and findeth the Jack of Daniels so that ye may be sh*tfaced!"