To: DollyCali
![](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/18/article-1330842-0BD4D30C000005DC-60_468x496.jpg)
Aren't they all thirty years old now?
2 posted on
11/19/2010 3:28:06 AM PST by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
To: Rummyfan
this thread will soon be toast..
one of the pix has an AP signature even though it WAS NOT on the jpg
3 posted on
11/19/2010 3:32:35 AM PST by
DollyCali
(Don't tell God how big your storm is...Tell the storm how big your God is!)
To: Rummyfan
Emma Watson then:
![](http://news.makemeheal.com/images/emma-watson-young.jpg)
Emma Watson now:
![](http://www.lovelyemmawatson.com/UserFiles/2009/9/3/Emma%20Watson%20-%20From%20nerd%20to%20super%20star.jpg)
6 posted on
11/19/2010 3:38:08 AM PST by
Erik Latranyi
(Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
To: Rummyfan
Actually, they were the right ages when the first movie came out. Emma Watson was born in 1990, Radcliff in 1989 and Grint in 1988.
8 posted on
11/19/2010 3:47:28 AM PST by
netmilsmom
(Happiness is a choice.)
To: Rummyfan
Rupert Grint 22, Daniel Radcliffe 21, Emma Watson 20: all playing 18.
Compared to the Dawson casting an American studio would do, that's not out of line.
20 posted on
11/19/2010 7:21:42 AM PST by
Oztrich Boy
(History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson