I love Daniel Radcliffe, but his recent observation that Robert Pattinson has a fan base "a lot more sexually aggressive" than his own is a bit like pointing out Voldemort is a bad guy: Uh, yeah. We knew that already.
Of course we're more sexually aggressive ... Edward Cullen is a cinematic sex symbol, Harry Potter is not! Sure, Radcliffe has grown into a perfectly handsome young man, but when we first met him, he was a cute kid with busted glasses. When audiences were first introduced to RPattz -- for most of us, ironically, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire -- he was already that Unbelievably Hot Guy. Cedric Diggory's death scene can still bring a tear to my eye.
Then came Twilight, which forever sealed Pattinson's fate as an object of our desire. Unlike Radcliffe, we never saw RPattz going through that awkward voice-cracking phase or running in terror from a troll. No, we just saw Edward Cullen glide on to the scene with the confidence of a man who has centuries of experience being ridiculously good-looking. (And should he ever encounter a troll, you know Edward would kick its ass.)
It seems like it's tougher for male child actors to transition to screen stud than it is for child actresses to cross the baby-to-babe line (Drew Barrymore, Natalie Portman). I don't know why there's a gender divide on this issue, exactly, but I suspect Radcliffe will overcome that hurdle sooner rather than later. After all, his shirtless scenes in Equus on Broadway did cause quite a stir.
As for me, however, I don't expect to be swapping out my Team Edward t-shirt for a Gryffindor robe in the near or distant future.
Why do you think RPattz is hotter than Potter?
Image via YouTube