Showbiz News
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Baby actor paid just £40 to play young Harry Potter in final film
The baby who played a 1-year-old Harry Potter in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was paid just £40.
Toby Papworth's parents were shocked to find out out that their young son had been paid just £40 to play a young Harry Potter, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.
Toby spent one day on set filming his four scenes for the final film, accompanied by his mother, who received an additional £90 for looking after him for the day.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 has earned over $1.2 billion worldwide.
How much do you think the baby who played a young Harry Potter should have been paid? Vote on our poll at www.firstnews.co.uk/polls to tell us what YOU think!
What do you think? Leave a comment below to let us know!
Please note: All comments are moderated before they go live.
Offensive comments will not be published.
Did you like this? Why not give it a Thumbs Up!
Give this article a Thumbs Up! by logging in
to your account or registering here.
12 Comments
You must be logged in to your account to add a comment about this article.
Latest News
Top News
Editor's Choice
MORE NEWS
MEET NORMAN, THE CYCLING DOG!
SAVE OUR BUTTERFLIES WEEK
PEDALLING POOCH BECOMES INTERNET SENSATION
DO TEENAGE BOOKS PROMOTE SWEARING?
FACEBOOK TO CHANGE AGE RULES?
NHS TO OPEN FIRST DANCE INJURY CLINIC
£80 FINE FOR MESSY DOG-WALKERS
BOY RESCUED FROM 270FT DROP
NEW WOODLAND TO BE ESTABLISHED IN DUMBARTON
OLYMPIC TORCHES AUCTIONED ON EBAY
RARE 'RING OF FIRE' SOLAR ECLIPSE IS SEEN ...
EARTHQUAKE HITS ITALY
rockgirl (Age 11) wrote on Thursday, 18 August 2011 @ 12:36
That is just RIDICULOUS!!! After all that money that they got, they only give the child £40!!!
redhorse10 (Age 14) wrote on Friday, 19 August 2011 @ 12:17
It's not ridiculous, the baby didn't even do anything! It just sat there and pretended (or really did!) to sleep! Why should you get paid for that?
greenmango (Age 12) wrote on Saturday, 20 August 2011 @ 09:11
I think he should have got at least £100! All the bigger stars like Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe get millions, so why should the baby miss out?
redhorse10 (Age 14) wrote on Monday, 22 August 2011 @ 16:40
Because the baby didn't do anything!
b2400 (Age 12) wrote on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 @ 09:46
i agree, redhorse10
greenmango (Age 12) wrote on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 @ 14:46
yes, but if you were the baby, wouldn't YOU want a bit more money?!?!
Alohomora (Age 14) wrote on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 @ 20:03
he is so young it is likely he doesn't understand money,also i would be happy later in life if i was him to be in harry potter i would even do it for free!!!! :) xxx
b2400 (Age 12) wrote on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 @ 18:53
exactly
redhorse10 (Age 14) wrote on Thursday, 25 August 2011 @ 11:03
Yeah, he doesn't need the money when he's just done nothing, and I agree with B2400 and Alohomora! :)
looby99 (Age 12) wrote on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 @ 20:59
he should have got a bit more but he didnt do much
Ellie-mo (Age 13) wrote on Friday, 6 January 2012 @ 20:28
i agree with greenmango, i mean, if you were the baby, would you not like a bit more money than £40, if the film earned, like, $1.2 billions, worldwide?? I know i certainly would, even i didnt do anything!
coolcatz14 (Age 11) wrote on Saturday, 10 March 2012 @ 20:22
thats mean%Pr