Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince--SPOILERS!!!

[KitFisto]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

So I just saw "Order of the Phoenix" again ,(it's still the only one I've seen) and I really don't understand why I keep hearing people on here say that the guy that plays Dumbledore is a bad actor. What gives?

He's "bad" as Dumbledore. Richard Harris played DD in the first 2 films and played the character perfectly.

 

[wofford29]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

He's "bad" as Dumbledore. Richard Harris played DD in the first 2 films and played the character perfectly.

What makes him bad?

 

[pixletwin]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

That first Dumbledore had a much more... I dunno... ethereal and wizzened-wise air. Michael Gamdon is good as Dumbledore but he lacks... something.... as Dumbledore.

That being said, I think his acting is fine.

 

[KitFisto]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

What makes him bad?

The fact that IMO ( and many people's opinions ) he does not play the character well at all when put against the books. Richard Harris was like DD jumping out of the book and on screen. Gambon's take on the character isn't really close to the way the character is in the books. The fit of his acting style to the actual character in the books is a bad "fit" if that makes more sense.

 

[wofford29]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

So it has nothing to do with his acting per se, it's about how he's playing the character?

 

[KitFisto]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

So it has nothing to do with his acting per se, it's about how he's playing the character?

Yeah....At least that's how I and I know many others think. He's not a bad actor, but he's a bad fit for this character.

 

[The Mike]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Richard Harris had a sage, Gandalf type quality to Dumbledore. He felt regal and powerful on screen. While Gambon is fine, he doesn't have the same presence that Harris had, he seems less powerful and less forceful even as DD gets mad.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I think it's that he's just not playing the character in the books, almost all the choices he makes seem wrong - and it does seem like he's not putting much effort into it.

He has been quoted as saying he doesn't bother to read the books and just let's the director give him everything about the character.

 

[Jen]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I think it's that he's just not playing the character in the books, almost all the choices he makes seem wrong - and it does seem like he's not putting much effort into it.

He has been quoted as saying he doesn't bother to read the books and just let's the director give him everything about the character.

Well that there is the problem. The books should be required reading for anyone playing a role, imo.

 

[Agent0028]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I agree that he should read the books to know more about the character. Yet at the same time it would seem even more important that the director read the books and direct the actor to be like the character. It seems that if the director has a good grasp on the character that he could pass it on to the actor.

The thing I like about this version of Dumbledore versus the first one is that the first one seemed to much like a ripoff of Merlin. He also seemed a little too old and frail, I have a hard time seeing that Dumbledore doing some of the stuff he does in later books.

 

[Havok]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I think Richard Harris played Dumbledore better than Gambon does, but I like what they both brought/bring to the character. I also think that Gambon should read the books too, and maybe it would improve his interpretation of the character. Like Agent said though, I too have a hard time seeing Richard Harris' version of Dumbledore doing some of the more physical stuff. Also it seems like Gambon's Dumbledore has less of a connection with Harry. All in all though I'm happy with his performance, like I said it's his own take on the character.

 

[IronFingaz]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I wish they had gone with Peter O'Toole instead.

 

[Havok]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

How about Ian McKellen?

 

[Giant Chicken]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I miss Richard Harris very much. He definatley potrayed Dumboldore as the security blanket that the book made him out to be. I hated Gambon at first because he seemed like Harry's crazy uncle or something. He has slowley gotten better over the 4th and 5th films and I very much enjoyed his fight scene in the last film.

 

[Sachiel]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

In the 4th movie I was expecting him to fall down and start foaming at the mouth.

 

[Entropy]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Funny, I liked Gambon in PoA and have progressively disliked him more in each film.

 

[Darth Caedus]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I miss Richard Harris very much. He definatley potrayed Dumboldore as the security blanket that the book made him out to be. I hated Gambon at first because he seemed like Harry's crazy uncle or something. He has slowley gotten better over the 4th and 5th films and I very much enjoyed his fight scene in the last film.

Gambon sure brings the eccentric part of Dumbledore to life, but he has ZERO of his compassion, empathy, and gentleness that I got from him throughout the books.

Harris had the perfect mannerisms, voice, benevolence, and gentleness that brought the character to life. Too bad Gambon didn't study Harris' performance beforehand. I know he would want to put his own spin on the character, but he should have stayed with what Harris pulled off.

 

[Agent0028]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I do have a hard time seeing the current Dumbledore do the scene at the end of Sorcerer's Stone where he has the every flavor bean and its earwax.

Anyone know why she changed the title from Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone for the American edition?

 

[pixletwin]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Because sorcerer sounds more exciting than philosopher. One conjures up images of magic and mystery while the other conjures up images of carigan sweaters and cluttered university offices.

 

[Darth Caedus]

Re: Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Because sorcerer sounds more exciting than philosopher. One conjures up images of magic and mystery while the other conjures up images of carigan sweaters and cluttered university offices.

Here's one explanation

This was a marketing decision made by author Rowling and Scholastic, the publishing house that released the novel in the United States. The decision to change Philosopher to Sorcerer was made because, in the U.S., a philosopher connotes a scholar of philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. Philosopher does not typically connote an alchemist or magician, and magic is essential to the Harry Potter books. Consequently, the publisher suggested using another word with a more magical connotation, and Rowling suggested Sorcerer. Rowling gives this explanation: "Arthur Levine, my American editor, and I decided that words should be altered only where we felt they would be incomprehensible, even in context, to an American reader... The title change was Arthur's idea initially, because he felt that the British title gave a misleading idea of the subject matter. In England, we discussed several alternative titles and Sorcerer's Stone was my idea."