I miss the old Dumbledore : funny

I've mentioned this before on reddit but I'll go ahead and repost it cause I can. Richard Harris was the absolute shit as an actor and without a doubt looked the part, but in my opinion Michael Gambon DESTROYS Richard Harris's portrayal of Albus Dumbledore. It is most likely due to the rather bland direction of Christopher Columbus, but I've always felt the old Dumbledore came across as an incredibly boring, uninteresting character with no life left in him. Not at all trying to take jabs at the late Richard Harris but all his wheezy dialogue literally made it sound like Dumbledore was on the verge of death at all times. I hated it.

Now when Gambon came on for Prisoner of Azkaban, I was enthralled with his performance. He has charisma and a spark of spunk that actually felt like this old guy used to be/still is a badass wizard and has seen some of the craziest shit in the wizarding world. The way he lifted up his robes when he walked fucking slayed me for some reason.

Respect to Richard Harris...but Michael Gambon straight up owns the role of Albus Dumbledore.

[–]johnylaw 111 points112 points113 points 2 months ago

[–]GrubFisher 6 points7 points8 points 2 months ago

[–]immatellyouwhat 6 points7 points8 points 2 months ago

[–]Homeschooled316 7 points8 points9 points 2 months ago

[–]SwordofGryffindor 12 points13 points14 points 2 months ago

I still like to think that if they stuck more to the books the movies wouldn't have sucked, which they did imo.

The problem with the movies is there's way too much information in the books and there's a lot of intricate plot details that you either explain in detail or don't include at all. They wanted to be loyal to the fans in some regard so they included the base details, but what ended up happening was that it made it look rushed and poorly done. People got to the end of the later movies wondering what the hell is happening.

The fact of the matter is that Harry Potter just doesn't translate well to screen. The only way to do it would be to draw the movies out to an ungodly length of time (3h+ in the later ones) and do the novels justice. The general movie goer wouldn't appreciate it, but lets face it, the general movie goer doesn't really like Harry Potter. They only watch it because it's Harry Potter.

Gambon did a good job. He didn't do the novel Dumbledore justice, but that's because there's just a general mystique surrounding the novel Dumbledore that shines through what he does and only in the small instances that he gets a say in the books. On the screen, these instances just don't come around enough, so a more characteristically observable character needs to be introduced. AND another thing that people forget is that these are professional actors. They want to bring their own take to any character they portray and at the end of the day their goal is to make a good movie, not to copy the books line by line. He still ends up one of your favourites by the end of the 7 movies, so that's all that matters to me as a fan.

I do wish there was a movie implementation that is more true to the novels, but nitpicking every little thing wrong with the movies just makes me look like a crazy and over protective fan.

[–]bandman614 6 points7 points8 points 2 months ago

[–]SwordofGryffindor 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]ewic 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

load more comments (1 reply)

[–]CardboardHeatshield 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago*

You can say the same thing about any book that has been turned into a movie. The closest book-movie conversion that I have seen, personally, was Lord of the Rings. I think Peter Jackson did a fantastic job with it, even though it isn't exactly perfect. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo disappointed me, even the Swedish film, but I could still respect it as a movie. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was SO much better as a book.

Books will always be better because a book lets your own mind fill in the gaps. This was especially true with Fear and Loathing, because so much of the imagery is happening inside the charachters head, so you can really imagine what he was seeing, rather than having it spoon-fed to you.

With that being said, I think that the Harry Potter movies did a really good job of portraying what was in the books. There are limits to a film that dont exist in writing, and you have to accept that if you ever want to enjoy a movie based on a book.

EDIT: I accidentally a director....

[–]deeman18 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago

[–]SirRuto 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]clockworknovak 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]CardboardHeatshield 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]parsifal 14 points15 points16 points 2 months ago

load more comments (1 reply)

[–]skrillex 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]moshbeard 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]parsifal 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]jhphoto 39 points40 points41 points 2 months ago

[–]drimpossible145 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]jhphoto 18 points19 points20 points 2 months ago

[–]drimpossible145 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 months ago

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago

[–]jhphoto 14 points15 points16 points 2 months ago

Because he responds to the kids childish curiosity by being a typical angry asshole abusive father figure. In Goblet of Fire, when Harry's name comes out of the goblet, he turns into a huge dickbag, instead of someone who fears for Harry's safety above all else. He is borderline abusive when he phsyically grabs Harry - that kind of action does not strengthen a bond and demand respect. Gambons Dumbledore was always acting frustrated and angry, when his frustration and any sort of anger were only supposed to be subtle references underneath his wisdom and caring - he shouldn't be throwing his "humanity" in your face. You are always supposed to believe that Dumbledore secretly has things under control, and only later do you get the hints that he doesn't have it as under control as you were lead to believe, (which leads to certain things later). But instead you get someone who you have no confidence in as having things under control because he's to busy being an egotistical dickbag.

[–]MarkHawk 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

load more comments (7 replies)

[–]parsifal -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

[–]ErnestMorrow 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago

[–]parsifal 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]drimpossible145 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]orthag 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]parsifal 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]Overeacting 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

load more comments (2 replies)

[–]Aviator8989 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago

[–]FuckYeahPhotography 11 points12 points13 points 2 months ago

[–]falling_slowly 7 points8 points9 points 2 months ago

[–]Omnix_NerZ 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago

[–]SirDelirium 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]CubemonkeyNYC 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]derpbynature 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]dat_penguin 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

Gambon might have been a more exciting actor to watch on the big screen, but they way he was directed to act was nothing compared to what Dumbledore should have come across as. He was supposed to be this borderline omniscient mentor who could see right through people. He could just tilt his head down and he stare into your very being, over the top of his half-moon spectacles. Besides, Gambon made Dumbledore seem more like a loose cannon than anything, whereas Dumbledore was supposed to be an unwavering deity of a wizard who no one could fuck with. There was no magic (heh) to Gambon's performances. Harris was captivating to watch, because the way he spoke forced you to listen; every action was with the utmost efficiency and purpose. He also trusted Harry, while Gambon seemed to treat Harry like he wasn't extraordinary. But I mean, whatever...