Beyond Hogwarts

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Spot The Stuntman

by David Haber

There's a scene in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone where you can clearly see a stuntman double in the place of Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley. But, the stuntman is only in the movie for four frames, so it's literally impossible to see him unless you freeze-frame the DVD.

> Read the full article

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6   >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 3)

Well, there's another instance where you can clearly make out a body double for 'Hermione' in the 3rd movie. It happens when the trio runs around hogwarts before Bugbeak's execution. When you see them running frm behind, you can see that the girl is much bigger and well built than the regular Hermione. Watch the scene and you notice the difference!

Posted by no0r from mumbai on November 27, 2006 07:12 AM

Woah...I'm blind..thats my favorite part of the movie..and I never noticed..WOAH!

Posted by Jekku from Someplace Usa on December 7, 2006 6:11 PM

Something all of you missed is that it is also the double when Ron hits the floor (zoom in on the face), so here's my theory: they filmed the exploding horse with the double (you don't want a young actor around pyrotechnics), patched in a quick shot of Rupert falling backwards to keep us conviced he's really there (it's a different angle, so smoke and flying debris are easy to add--he probably only fell a foot or so), then the double was used for the long shot of Ron flying backwards off the toppling steed and landing hard on the floor (after he hits he pulls into a tucked position, and then they cut Rupert in again). I caught it at full speed and went back frame by frame to check.

Posted by Marilyn from Michigan on December 23, 2006 09:15 AM

why were the doubles needed?

Posted by caitlyn from ma on December 24, 2006 12:14 PM

In big Hollywood movies, doubles are almost always used instead of the main actor when they have to do something that might be dangerous. If the main actor gets hurt doing something, it could hold up the entire shoot, costing millions of dollars.

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on December 24, 2006 12:20 PM

As an independent film maker I have a simple answer for why the double was used. Rupert was not available when that shot was filmed. The scene is a series of many shots taken at different times. They did not have Rupert on the horse, shoot, replace him with double, shoot and then put him back on. It is possible that the frames with the double were actually done as a pickup. If so, it would be much cheaper to grab someone working on the set, put him in the clothes and film him, than it would be to get hold of Rupert's agent, fly him to the studio and pay him to do that shot. Four frames just isn't worth that much expense.

Posted by Michael Brinkley from Oceanside CA on December 28, 2006 4:36 PM

ether way....both the stuntman and rupert are hot:-P

Posted by jo from toronto on January 8, 2007 4:54 PM

well all i can say is that i am stunned at your discovery

Posted by sarab from bangalore on January 10, 2007 07:07 AM

What you also have to remember that even when Daniel, Rupert and Emma were on set, because they were so young there was a very tight limit on the amount of time they could actually be used. They also had to keep up with their school work, be given breaks etc. Using stuntwo/men and doubles is pretty common anyway even with adult actors. Doing stunts is a very highly sed profession. The people who do stunts are very, very highly trained which makes it a LOT safer for everyone. Really knowing how to fall makes a big difference. I believe Elizabeth Taylor had back problems due to falls she took when filming National Velvet. Which I can relate to having fallen off a few horses myself! And I never looked as good on a horse as Miss Taylor:-(

Posted by Elizabeth from Australia on January 12, 2007 06:30 AM

I was reading the post about Ron Apparating onto the statue when he's older. I thought it was nonsense, but that got me thinking. Maybe it's s spoiler involving Dumbledore's . Maybe, there is a spell that allows one to relive certain events. This could be used to explain the older stuntman, who is actually playing the part of the Ron from the future. This way, Harry could go back and try and stop Dumbledore from ing

Posted by Jay from Calgary, Canada on January 29, 2007 2:45 PM

Jay, you're putting way to much thought into it. You can't pick apart the movies for clues like you can the books.

Posted by Amy from P. Kentucky on February 27, 2007 6:36 PM

I think Amy is right. The director in the movies does what he thinks is best for the best movie he can make (and be paid for). So what I think happened was the older stuntman looked the most like Ron and was the best actor who showed up.
And anyway, if you "relive certain events" then your basically saying you are going back in a memory, which you cannot change. Every time Harrys been in a memory he goes thru things and no one acknowledges that he is there, because when the memory happened he wasnt there.
so basically you can mend the present and plan for the future, but you cannot change the past.

Posted by Ashley from Missouri on February 28, 2007 2:42 PM

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6   >  >>

Featured Discussions | The Septology | Harry's World | Harry Potter Movies | Dumbeldore Is Not Dead | FAQ is not affiliated with or approved by
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury, Warner Bros., or J.K. Rowling
Original Content Copyright © 2006-2010 David Haber, All Rights Reserved