I was crushed that Sir Richard Harris couldn't play Dumbledore any longer. I feel he emulated the slightly childish, little bit crazy personality of Dumbledore rather well. I never quite got over the wretched ferocity of Gambon when he played the thief in The Cook The Thief His Wife and Her Lover. He still kinda scares me.Cagliostro wrote:I really like Richard Harris, as I think he did the kindly old fella side of Dumbledore well, but I think Gambon fits the role a bit better. He was a bit of a shock at first, but he's become more the role in my opinion.
HP: OotP Movie
Moderator: Menolly
-
bloodguard bob
- Bloodguard
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:24 pm
- Location: A chair by the river.
"...and if you do not listen, then to hell with you."
I love Richard Harris, however, Gambon, to me, IS Dumbledore.
His occassional spry outbursts are exactly how I imagine him. And, taking into consideration your Cookthiefwifelover comment (and how apt it is), I am amazed that I can feel the twinkle in Gambon's eye at certain points... just what I want from D...
His occassional spry outbursts are exactly how I imagine him. And, taking into consideration your Cookthiefwifelover comment (and how apt it is), I am amazed that I can feel the twinkle in Gambon's eye at certain points... just what I want from D...
~...with a floating smile and a light blue sponge...~
-
bloodguard bob
- Bloodguard
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:24 pm
- Location: A chair by the river.
Been a bit busy the last few days and also baught a great book on the history of spices. I've stopped half way through PoA. Will pick it up again today. Three of Seven tomorrow.Menolly wrote:How is the books reading coming along, oh One of Seven?
"...and if you do not listen, then to hell with you."
-
Sunbaneglasses
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2460
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:39 am
- Location: Jasper Alabama
I remember looking at my wife during one of "the angry Dumbledore" moments in GoF and saying "what in the hell? that's not how Dumbledore is supposed to act". In fact, it sort of tainted the whole movie for me.sindatur wrote:On Dumbledore, I certainly have respect for Richard Harris, and he would've made a perfect "slowing down" Dumbledore for HBP, but, honestly, I think the actor was too feeble for the early Dumbledore. I hope the Director has Gambon slow down and make Dumbledore less spry in HBP, but, I think his portrayal was basically correct for Movies 3-5 (other than the angry GoF moments, which I see more as creative license to show more clearly the ratcheting tension in that book)
I agree it didn't ring true to the books, but, how else do you portray the ratcheting tension on the screen with so little screen time for each little thing?
I Never Fail To Be Astounded By The Things We Do For Promises - Ronnie James Dio (All The Fools Sailed Away)
Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain
Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?
Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain
Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?
Oh definitely. See, I believe Sir Richard, did a great job capturing the spirit of Dumbledore, but, he was too feeble, IMHO for the Dumbledore of books 1 and 2 (perhaps because he chose to portray Dumbledore in that manner, or perhaps because the actor was really that feeble). I believe that portrayal would be perfect for Dumbledore of HBP, and I have said myself, I hope Gambon (and Yates) chooses to have Dumbledore acting more feeble and run down in HBPUsivius wrote:I LOVE GAMBON!!!!
However I agree with Card's assesment of him slowing down a little in HBP after his blackened hand incident which again teached D some humility...
-
Dragonlily
- Lord
- Posts: 4186
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 4:39 pm
- Location: Aparanta
- Contact:
In the early books Rowling specifically describes Dumbledore as feeble. Harris could also do that endearing zaniness that Gambon hasn't learned to produce. Gambon has always been a substitute for me, but I've learned to live with him. I mean, Harris died. What can you do about it?
I read the OS Card review of the OotP movie, and I can't believe how opposite his view is to mine. I pretty much despair of the remaining films, unless Yates learns from the negative reviews and puts the heart back into the movies. (If he knows how.)
The reason the books suddenly jumped in size is that Rowling realized readers would eat up as much Harry Potter as she chose to give them. Yet Yates cut out the soul of the movie to squeeze it down to the shortest movie we've seen yet.
Yates is an action director. Soo much more than action is needed in Harry Potter. The series is about people. The fireworks are the decoration, not the story. We don't need to jump from intensity to intensity in madcap fashion. We need some slow times so the people have time to be the people we love.
Which is where Luna comes in. She got the benefit of what quality time there was. She is my favorite part of the movie. Another thing, the Weasley twins should have owned parts of this OotP. Instead of being constant guerilla warriors, they just got one big fireworks scene.
And surely the producers have made enough money by now that Yates can invest in some scene lighting!
I have been thinking that I will wait until I can buy this movie secondhand, so as not to give any money to the producers. I have to have it because I'm a completist, but buying it would send the misleading message that I think it's ok. However, now I hear there's a "director's cut" with some of the deleted scenes. Not that I would trust Yates to make a director's cut, but someone has to put that missing stuff back in. I might buy that new.
I read the OS Card review of the OotP movie, and I can't believe how opposite his view is to mine. I pretty much despair of the remaining films, unless Yates learns from the negative reviews and puts the heart back into the movies. (If he knows how.)
The reason the books suddenly jumped in size is that Rowling realized readers would eat up as much Harry Potter as she chose to give them. Yet Yates cut out the soul of the movie to squeeze it down to the shortest movie we've seen yet.
Yates is an action director. Soo much more than action is needed in Harry Potter. The series is about people. The fireworks are the decoration, not the story. We don't need to jump from intensity to intensity in madcap fashion. We need some slow times so the people have time to be the people we love.
Which is where Luna comes in. She got the benefit of what quality time there was. She is my favorite part of the movie. Another thing, the Weasley twins should have owned parts of this OotP. Instead of being constant guerilla warriors, they just got one big fireworks scene.
And surely the producers have made enough money by now that Yates can invest in some scene lighting!
I have been thinking that I will wait until I can buy this movie secondhand, so as not to give any money to the producers. I have to have it because I'm a completist, but buying it would send the misleading message that I think it's ok. However, now I hear there's a "director's cut" with some of the deleted scenes. Not that I would trust Yates to make a director's cut, but someone has to put that missing stuff back in. I might buy that new.
"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -- Roger Penrose
Are you sure Dumbledore is described as feeble in books 1 and 2? It's been a long time since I've read them, but, I was pretty certain it wasn't until GoF that Dumbledore starts slowing down.Dragonlily wrote:In the early books Rowling specifically describes Dumbledore as feeble. Harris could also do that endearing zaniness that Gambon hasn't learned to produce. Gambon has always been a substitute for me, but I've learned to live with him. I mean, Harris died. What can you do about it?
I read the OS Card review of the OotP movie, and I can't believe how opposite his view is to mine. I pretty much despair of the remaining films, unless Yates learns from the negative reviews and puts the heart back into the movies. (If he knows how.)
The reason the books suddenly jumped in size is that Rowling realized readers would eat up as much Harry Potter as she chose to give them. Yet Yates cut out the soul of the movie to squeeze it down to the shortest movie we've seen yet.
Yates is an action director. Soo much more than action is needed in Harry Potter. The series is about people. The fireworks are the decoration, not the story. We don't need to jump from intensity to intensity in madcap fashion. We need some slow times so the people have time to be the people we love.
Which is where Luna comes in. She got the benefit of what quality time there was. She is my favorite part of the movie. Another thing, the Weasley twins should have owned parts of this OotP. Instead of being constant guerilla warriors, they just got one big fireworks scene.
And surely the producers have made enough money by now that Yates can invest in some scene lighting!
I have been thinking that I will wait until I can buy this movie secondhand, so as not to give any money to the producers. I have to have it because I'm a completist, but buying it would send the misleading message that I think it's ok. However, now I hear there's a "director's cut" with some of the deleted scenes. Not that I would trust Yates to make a director's cut, but someone has to put that missing stuff back in. I might buy that new.
The lighting, I believe is deliberate to showcase the darker tone of the movie since PoA. The first two were bright and cheery to show Harry's innocence, then Cauron toned down the colors and the lighting and the perfectness of everything, and moved the small feats of magic to the background, again to show Harry's eyes as seeing things more as they are. I agree the movies are too short, but, I'm not sure the Directors have much to say about the run time. I definitely would love for GoF and forward to have been filmed as 3 1/2 hour movies to be released in their entirety on DVD, if the theaters demanded the 2 1/2 hour versions.
-
Dragonlily
- Lord
- Posts: 4186
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2003 4:39 pm
- Location: Aparanta
- Contact:
Yes, I specifically noticed the word "feeble" being used several times to describe him, when I reread books 1 & 2 a few weeks ago.
I know the darkness was deliberate, but I think it went beyond the line of easy viewing. Older eyes have trouble with a dark screen.
I know the darkness was deliberate, but I think it went beyond the line of easy viewing. Older eyes have trouble with a dark screen.
"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -- Roger Penrose
My fave HP film has been and continues to be Prisoner of Azkaban while my least favorite was Goblet of Fire.
Order of the Phoenix was good. The new characters (Luna, Umbridge, Bellatrix) were very well-cast. The plot was there in all its essentials--especially the flow of Harry's life, along with the characters closest to him, i.e. Dumbledore's Army and the Order itself. More, the film "felt" right in a way GOF did not. The background had something of the richness that the first three films had. My fave was the look Harry and Tonks shared in the flight over London, echoed by one between Harry and Luna from the back of Thestrals.
My favorite bits: The unrelenting awfulness of Umbridge. Luna (they found the perfect actress IMO). The Order itself, which came across as a genuinely powerful group (their entrance at the Ministry was GREAT!) Neville. For the first time I think Gambon totally claimed the role of Dumbledore.
My complaints: The flick could use another ten or fifteen minutes to flesh some things out. I wish there was more about Ron and Hermione's arc. And the film got just a little preachy, which Rowling's book very rarely are.
Order of the Phoenix was good. The new characters (Luna, Umbridge, Bellatrix) were very well-cast. The plot was there in all its essentials--especially the flow of Harry's life, along with the characters closest to him, i.e. Dumbledore's Army and the Order itself. More, the film "felt" right in a way GOF did not. The background had something of the richness that the first three films had. My fave was the look Harry and Tonks shared in the flight over London, echoed by one between Harry and Luna from the back of Thestrals.
My favorite bits: The unrelenting awfulness of Umbridge. Luna (they found the perfect actress IMO). The Order itself, which came across as a genuinely powerful group (their entrance at the Ministry was GREAT!) Neville. For the first time I think Gambon totally claimed the role of Dumbledore.
My complaints: The flick could use another ten or fifteen minutes to flesh some things out. I wish there was more about Ron and Hermione's arc. And the film got just a little preachy, which Rowling's book very rarely are.
"O let my name be in the Book of Love!
It be there, I care not of the other great book Above.
Strike it out! Or, write it in anew. But
Let my name be in the Book of Love!" --Omar Khayam
It be there, I care not of the other great book Above.
Strike it out! Or, write it in anew. But
Let my name be in the Book of Love!" --Omar Khayam
-
Seafoam Understone
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 673
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:59 pm
- Location: Tennessee
Well that's been my beef about how the films have been handled. They KNEW that the films would be going to DVD soon after they're pulled from the theaters so why couldn't they make expansion versions of the films like Jackson did with the Lord Of The Rings! It would definitely help make the translation more .... meatier... and likewise wouldn't hurt the actors any either.Zahir wrote:My fave HP film has been and continues to be Prisoner of Azkaban while my least favorite was Goblet of Fire.
Order of the Phoenix was good. The new characters (Luna, Umbridge, Bellatrix) were very well-cast. The plot was there in all its essentials--especially the flow of Harry's life, along with the characters closest to him, i.e. Dumbledore's Army and the Order itself. More, the film "felt" right in a way GOF did not. The background had something of the richness that the first three films had. My fave was the look Harry and Tonks shared in the flight over London, echoed by one between Harry and Luna from the back of Thestrals.
My favorite bits: The unrelenting awfulness of Umbridge. Luna (they found the perfect actress IMO). The Order itself, which came across as a genuinely powerful group (their entrance at the Ministry was GREAT!) Neville. For the first time I think Gambon totally claimed the role of Dumbledore.
My complaints: The flick could use another ten or fifteen minutes to flesh some things out. I wish there was more about Ron and Hermione's arc. And the film got just a little preachy, which Rowling's book very rarely are.