'Harry Potter' Star Was Paid Just $65 For His Role In 'The Deathly Hallows Part II!' Can You Believe That?

Wed, August 17, 2011 7:00pm EST by 1 Comment

The final Harry Potter movie has already made more than a billion dollars at the box office — but its youngest star is feeling shortchanged by producers.

Toby Papworth‘s mom was thrilled when her 20-month-old son was selected to play Baby Harry Potter in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II — and she’s convinced he deserves more than $65 for his starring performance!
“I couldn’t believe my eyes when I got the check,” Ashley Papworth tells The Sun newspaper.

Neither Ashley or Toby knew if his scene would be included in the movie, until they spotted him in the trailer!

In Toby’s scene, Baby Harry clashes with baddie Lord Voldemort, a confrontation that leaves the little wizard with his famous lightning bolt scar!

Since the little actor featured so prominently in the movie, Ashley feels her baby son deserves more money! And we agree!

The 26-year-old adds, “On one hand I was over the moon, because his scene is quite a major one. But on the other, the filmmakers didn’t even send me a ticket.”

“Considering he was a named part, it seemed a bit mean. That said, we had a great day.”

What do you think, HollyMoms?  Should Toby get a bigger check? or Should teh Papworth’s be grateful they get to see their baby on the big screen?

– Ian Garland

Get more Harry Potter here:

  1. Emma Watson & Daniel Radcliffe Shouldn’t Jump Into New Roles Opposite From ‘Harry Potter,’ Says Career Strategist!
  2. Robert Pattinson, Emma Watson & More — Who’s Your Favorite ‘Harry Potter’ Actor?
  3. ‘Harry Potter’ Star Daniel Radcliffe Calls R-Patz A ‘Sex Symbol!’

Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment

Mike Bork

Posted at 7:53 PM on August 17, 2011  

Maybe he got paid what he was worth taking into consideration his previous experience and talents. Animals aren’t actors and I guess neither are babys. If someone works for a company they don’t expect to get a % of gross earnings unless it is in their contract. Wake the up. Slow news day. On the other hand they should sue then they can make sure all future baby parts are cgi. Send a request to Rowlings and ask for a tip, maybe a % of book earnings.

Share this comment at Share with Twitter