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.
The scene where the stuntman appears is when Ron has just declared “check” in the chess scene, and is about to be thrown off his steed by the Queen.
Right before the Queen attacks, we see a close-up of Ron, clearly Rupert Grint.
In the next shot, the Queen attacks.
In the very next shot, as the Queen’s lance hits Ron’s steed, you can clearly see that it’s now not Rupert Grint, it’s a stuntman, dressed in the same clothes.
Here’s a zoomed-in image of the above frame:
Smoke from the steed exploding obscures the face of the stuntman three frames later. Since a movie plays at 24 frames per second, that means the stuntman is on the screen for about 1/6 of a second. That’s why you can’t see him without freeze-framing the DVD.
Just 12 frames later, just a half a second, the very next shot is a closer shot of Ron falling backwards off the steed, and now it’s clearly back to Rupert again.
It’s curious there was a stuntman for this shot, since Rupert clearly shot the scene falling off the steed as well. They obviously shot it multiple times with both the stuntman and Rupert.
Welcome to Beyond Hogwarts!
Beyond Hogwarts is a site primarily about the Wizarding World, including the Harry Potter franchise and Fantastic Beasts but also covers a wide variety of other series including The Lord of the Rings.
You can also find news, editorials, features, list, and reviews for other movies, TV shows, and books!
Our Communities
Thats an interesting point.
I’m thinking they used digital face replacement like they did for the hobbits in Lord of the Rings.
I was thinking that also, but two points make that unlikely:
1. If they digitally replaced Rupert’s face onto the stuntman, why are there 4 frames where the face is not replaced? And…
2. Notice the way there is dust/smoke obscuring Rupert’s face in the last example frame. Wouldn’t it be difficult to do the face replacement and match the dust/smoke in the air?
3. It’s expensive.
Did I say two points?:-)
Also if you notice just after Ron falls to the ground and some debris is flying around, a cut appears on Ron’s face. I have freeze-framed as he’s falling off the horse to the ground, and flying debris cuts his cheek really, but I never did notice the stunt double.
That’s really cool. I never noticed anything at all and I’ve watched that scene a million times.
i never knew that,that stunt man doesn’t look like rupert at all!
Interesting. I think that it was likely shot multiple times also, as many movies scenes are these days. I think it odd and amazing that 4 frames could make such a difference in the final cut. But that’s Hollywood!
My Brother and I were watching that movie (not the whole thing- just parts)frame-by-frame last night and noted that. Quite interesting.
Wow…I never noticed that. You’ve got great eyes! The stuntman doesn’t even look like Ron… I mean Rupert. I meant to say that.
It’s the “stuntman magic”. Stuntmen hardly ever would be taken for a “look-a-like” for the actor they’re standing in for. But as you can see from this example, they don’t need to be.
Oh my god! That’s something I’ve never noticed!(probably because I haven’t watched the filme so many times) Dave, you observe things very well.
Maybe the “stuntman” is the real Ronald Weasley and he Apparated onto the set for a sixth of a second on a dare from Fred and George…
I think that this is a very interesting point, however, I don’t see how this matters to the outcome of the movie. I mean, seriously, who cares? But truthfully, it is interesting.
Yeah, this is sort of a “behind the scenes” kind of bit of trivia. Next time you watch the DVD you can dazzle your friends with it…
Wow, that was really surprising but how actually did the filmmakers let it go on and umm is rupert grint so conscious about falling or getting hurt, anyway it was interesting!
wow, thats really cool i would never have noticed it!
Why on Earth would they even have a stuntman if the also had Rupert do it too? Doesn’t that totally defeat the purpose of a stuntman!
My point exactly…
thats really interesting i never noticed its kind of weird. i agree with the person who said that fred and george dared ron to apparate.
its totally crazy i did not notice that!
Or, they needed someone who could hold onto the horse during the impact of the sword…
Ok so i just watched it. Its Really cool! But why would they need someone to hold onto the horse if the piont of the scene is that Ron FELL OFF the horse?
Good point…
Maybe they stuck that in so we could see it:d
Hey thats really cool i would have never noticed that even though i’ve seen the movie a billion times.
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 will notice the difference!
cheers!
Woah…I’m blind..thats my favorite part of the movie..and I never noticed..WOAH!
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.
why were the doubles needed?
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.
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.
ether way….both the stuntman and rupert are hot:-P
well all i can say is that i am stunned at your discovery
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 skilled 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:-(
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 death. 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 dieing
Jay, you’re putting way to much thought into it. You can’t pick apart the movies for clues like you can the books.
Jay–
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.
I agree with Ashley and Amy about the older Ron thing. Anyway, why WOULD an older Ron come back to do the falling-off-the-horse thing? It would take too long for the older Ron to come back in time, explain to Ron why he’s there (which is…?), get Ron off the horse, hide Ron, get on the horse, fall down, get Ron back on the horse and go front in time.
It’s pointless to do that unless the older Ron wanted to stop his memory of pain or something. And something else: Can people go FRONT in time with time turners? (I know it’s not on the subject but it popped into my head!)
Good for noticing Dave! Now I know why I have glasses although it’s probably because I read the small print of the Harry Potter books too close!
A large number of scenes were shot using body doubles (as is the case with most movies)…one of the reasons for this is the child work load agreement, meaning that children under sixteen can only do so much work on a film, so they get a double in who is over 16. Lots of the long shots are also body doubles…I am assuming that the six frames that are used here are body double Ron, probably shot during a camera rehearsal (where the doubles are always used).
And how do I know this? I was Draco’s body double on the first film!
Thank you, Si! That confirms pretty much what I said earlier on this thread. Nice to hear it from a professional.
Oh, yeah! I didn’t notice that before, I though it was Rupert Grint doing that stunt himself.
Wow. Kind of a pointless stunt replacement. The guy isn’t even doing anything dangerous. I assumed the Harry Potter cast wasn’t a bunch of prettyboys and girls, but now my faith in that is shaken. I mean, come on. An actor should be prepared to get jerked around a LITTLE bit.
George: I agree, but that knight he was sitting on was pretty high up, that’s a potentially dangerous fall. It’s also possible it wasn’t done for safety, perhaps a small reshoot was necessary and Rupert wasn’t available.
How’s Fred, by the way?
That’s interesting. I didn’t noticed earlier though i saw it many times. Nice catch.
In an interview it was stated that the 3 kids couldnt due many of the stunts do to legal matters. They do a few stunts in the upcoming ootp movie though.
sharp eyes. i didn’t even notice that!
maybe rupert wasn’t able to perform this scene so well, that columbus decided to get a double for him? the trio was still very young at this time, and very new to the business. perhaps not that good with stunts yet…
I think we also need to remember that when sorcerer’s stone was filmed Rupert was only 11 or 12….not considered old enough to do stunts of that caliber so a stuntman had to be used because it was considered too dangerous for a child his age.
There are things throughout all of the movies that clearly demonstrate that multiple takes are required for many different scenes and then they are spliced together for the final product. For example, the next time you watch the third movie, notice the strings on Harry’s sweatshirt in the scenes where he is talking to Snape about the Marauders Map and then later in Lupin’s classroom. In the fourth movie, watch the blanket that Hermoine uses to wrap around Harry’s shoulders after he comes out of the Black Lake. Personally, I just hate it when I notice these things — it takes away the “magic”!
To whoever said that the stuntman is the “Ron of the future”, Half Blood Prince hadn’t even been written, so nobody had any way to know that Dumbledore was going to “die”. How do they put a clue about something that they don’t even know will happen? They just needed a stuntman.
Si: In what parts of the first HP movie did Draco need a double? Where can we see you in the movie?
I agree with Patti from Bellevue. I tend to notice these things, not just in HP movies, but in other movies as well. It does take away from the magic.