No wonder Michael Gambon sucked as Dumbledore.

[Remudamom]

He "never felt the need" to read the books. I always wondered why he portrayed Dumbledore so poorly.

[AngieW in Texas]

I can't believe he played the part without ever reading the books. I never liked the way he portrayed Dumbledore either. I wanted the guy who played Gandalf in LOTR to be the new Dumbledore after the first actor died.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

LOL, DH and I mention how much he stank EVERY time we watch the movies!

[kitten18]

Well that explains a lot.:thumbdown:

[Belacqua]

I'll go stand in the corner with everybody else who didn't like his performance. He was downright awful in Goblet of Fire; it's as if he said to himself, "I shall play Dumbledore. And I shall play him DRUNK!"

[Farrar]

Wow. That *does* explain a lot. I don't think I realized everyone disliked his performance as much as I do. Nice to have company.

[LauraGB]

Well that explains a lot.:thumbdown:

 

:iagree:

 

How can a career actor not have read the actual story? :glare:

[Pippen]

I didn't think either of the actors who've played Dumbledore were cast well. Neither came off to me like the Dumbledore of the books.

[orangearrow]

He actually sort of bragged about this fact when he was first cast. It blew my mind! I LOATHE his Dumbledore - it plain makes me sad when he comes on the screen.

 

He's not the only "thespian" who was cast who never bothered to read the books. But, for such an important part, you'd have thought he would have bothered.

[Lady Florida.]

While I don't care much for his Dumbledore, I'm going to jump to his defense. Snape is an important character, yet Alan Rickman never read the books. Voldemort is important, no? Ralph Fiennes didn't read the books.

 

Many actors who play a part of a character in a book don't read the book yet do a good job of portraying the character. I don't think having read a particular book makes an actor better at portraying his or her character. Movies based on books are just that. They aren't the book. The screenplay is not the book.

[BigMamaBird]

I've never read the books and only seen the movies once or twice, so I really don't have a horse in this race, just playing devils advocate:D. But when I was doing high school or community theater, if we were doing a play that had already been "done" in some way, we were encouraged to not look at any of the material other than the script we had been given. I guess the thought was so that we'd give our character something unique from ourselves and not preform by rote, what everyone already "knew."

 

Maybe that's his reason.

[Mynyel]

While I don't care much for his Dumbledore, I'm going to jump to his defense. Snape is an important character, yet Alan Rickman never read the books. Voldemort is important, no? Ralph Fiennes didn't read the books.

 

Many actors who play a part of a character in a book don't read the book yet do a good job of portraying the character. I don't think having read a particular book makes an actor better at portraying his or her character. Movies based on books are just that. They aren't the book. The screenplay is not the book.

 

I agree because in the case of LOTR Elijah Wood played Frodo much different than the Frodo in 0 he books. Viggo did Srider different too. Either way I love the books and the movie. I might mention though I think Sean Astin and Ian McKinnon (sp?) Did great jobs at Sam and Gandalf, well as pertains to book character vs. movie character :)

[Audrey]

I've never read the books and only seen the movies once or twice, so I really don't have a horse in this race, just playing devils advocate:D. But when I was doing high school or community theater, if we were doing a play that had already been "done" in some way, we were encouraged to not look at any of the material other than the script we had been given. I guess the thought was so that we'd give our character something unique from ourselves and not preform by rote, what everyone already "knew."

 

Maybe that's his reason.

 

 

This is accurate. Also, the play or film is inevitably the creative construct of the director, not the playwright/scriptwriter. Directors hate it when their cast tries to take a character in a different direction than the director envisioned. Many directors will tell cast not to read additional material. If directors are involved in casting, they will often screen actors by asking them if they've read the material before, or if they've ever acted that part before. The thing is, though, that you know exactly how to answer that question as soon as it's asked. If they didn't care if you've read it/played it, then they wouldn't have asked in the first place.

 

IMO, the reason Gambon's Dumbledore sucked has little to do with his lack of reading the books and everything to do with his level of interest in playing the part. He's a talented actor, in other roles, but from the beginning he never disguised his disdain at being second-cast for the part (i.e. having been cast to replace Richard Harris). Judging from his other work, he's phoning it in, obviously.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Audrey

[*Inna*]

I'll go stand in the corner with everybody else who didn't like his performance. He was downright awful in Goblet of Fire; it's as if he said to himself, "I shall play Dumbledore. And I shall play him DRUNK!"

:lol: :iagree:

[mcconnellboys]

Uh, wow. How did they let him get away with that? I would think it would be a requirement of getting the job....

[Melinda in VT]

I agree because in the case of LOTR Elijah Wood played Frodo much different than the Frodo in 0 he books. Viggo did Srider different too. Either way I love the books and the movie. I might mention though I think Sean Astin and Ian McKinnon (sp?) Did great jobs at Sam and Gandalf, well as pertains to book character vs. movie character :)

 

I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you are making here.

 

I agree that the screenplay and the book are very different things, and an actor can do a great job meeting the director's vision for one without having read the other.

 

However, from what I've read, Peter Jackson strongly encouraged the cast to read the books on the set of LOTR. I'm pretty sure that both Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortenson read the books.

 

I'm happy to be corrected if I've misremembered.

[Shawna in Texas]

I quite like Gambon's Dumbledore.

 

:leaving:

[aggieamy]

I'll go stand in the corner with everybody else who didn't like his performance. He was downright awful in Goblet of Fire; it's as if he said to himself, "I shall play Dumbledore. And I shall play him DRUNK!"

 

:iagree:. And that is the funniest thing I've read all day!

[MyBlueLobsters]

Well that explains a lot.:thumbdown:

 

:iagree: Boo.

[Remudamom]

LOTR cast all carried the books around with them. But that aside I still think Gambon sucks, I liked Harris. Dumbledore never would have run at Harry and grabbed him, then questioned his integrity like the Dumbledore in GoF. Whoever was responsible for that screwed up.

[Crimson Wife]

IMO, the reason Gambon's Dumbledore sucked has little to do with his lack of reading the books and everything to do with his level of interest in playing the part. He's a talented actor, in other roles, but from the beginning he never disguised his disdain at being second-cast for the part (i.e. having been cast to replace Richard Harris). Judging from his other work, he's phoning it in, obviously.

 

This is what I've always believed. He got his nose bent out of shape at not being the first choice to play the role and gave it as little of his effort as possible not to get fired. After the first p*** poor performance he gave, I don't know why they kept bringing him back in the subsequent films rather than recasting.

[sparrow]

I quite like Gambon's Dumbledore.

 

:leaving:

 

 

Me, too.

 

:leaving:

[Farrar]

While I don't care much for his Dumbledore, I'm going to jump to his defense. Snape is an important character, yet Alan Rickman never read the books. Voldemort is important, no? Ralph Fiennes didn't read the books.

 

Many actors who play a part of a character in a book don't read the book yet do a good job of portraying the character. I don't think having read a particular book makes an actor better at portraying his or her character. Movies based on books are just that. They aren't the book. The screenplay is not the book.

 

Good point. And I totally agree that the books and the movies aren't the same and that books and movies often need different things - tweaks in plot, in character, etc. in order to hang together well. And Rickman's Snape is just... perfect. But I guess there has to be some connection... there has to be some take on the role. I always feel like Gambon's Dumbledore is just sort of walking through the movies relying on his costume instead of any real characterization. I didn't really like Richard Harris's Dumbledore either, but I felt like he, at least, had some perspective on the role. The way Gambon plays him strikes me as he thinks he's "just in some rubbish children's film" or something like that. As a PP said, it's as if he's drunk while acting.

[redsquirrel]

It doesn't surprise me that they didn't read the books. It doesn't bother me either. It is the screenplay and the director that calls the shots, not the author or the book.

 

However, JKR did make sure to sit down with Alan Rickman and give him a heads up on the story to make sure he knew how to play the part. She didn't give him a lot of info but enough. He needed to know how close to the wire to play it.

 

While we are complaining... I really didn't like Rickman cast as Snape. Snape is a young man, not even 40, in the books. Whip thin and intense. Rickman is 65ish and looks it. He gets puffier with every film. Maybe he would have done a better job as Dumbledore. :tongue_smilie:

[sparrow]

While we are complaining... I really didn't like Rickman cast as Snape. Snape is a young man, not even 40, in the books. Whip thin and intense. Rickman is 65ish and looks it. He gets puffier with every film. Maybe he would have done a better job as Dumbledore. :tongue_smilie:

 

And now we're lamenting Alan Rickman as Snape? :svengo:

 

I shall not darken the doorstep of this thread again......:lol:

[JFSinIL]

I quite like Gambon's Dumbledore.

 

:leaving:

 

Me too - I prefer him to Harris.

 

But then again, I have him on dvd as the second StoryTeller (the Henson myth/fairy tale series) and already LOVED hi voice from that before I saw him in HP. To me, Gambon could read the phone book and I'd love it!

 

(Hey - now I am imagining Rickman reading the phonebook....:D)

[elizabeth]

It doesn't surprise me that they didn't read the books. It doesn't bother me either. It is the screenplay and the director that calls the shots, not the author or the book.

 

However, JKR did make sure to sit down with Alan Rickman and give him a heads up on the story to make sure he knew how to play the part. She didn't give him a lot of info but enough. He needed to know how close to the wire to play it.

 

While we are complaining... I really didn't like Rickman cast as Snape. Snape is a young man, not even 40, in the books. Whip thin and intense. Rickman is 65ish and looks it. He gets puffier with every film. Maybe he would have done a better job as Dumbledore. :tongue_smilie:

 

Oh my ....Rickman does not look 65 and my super secret boyfriend does not get puffier with every film, he is merely careworn and lonely.:lol: I loooove Alan Rickman with every cell in my own older fatter body.

[Saille]

I'll go stand in the corner with everybody else who didn't like his performance. He was downright awful in Goblet of Fire; it's as if he said to himself, "I shall play Dumbledore. And I shall play him DRUNK!"

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[redsquirrel]

To clarify, I have nothing against Rickman per se. He happens to have a major role in one of my fave movies of all time, "Love Actually."

 

I just though there were other actors better suited to the role. That said, Snape has always been my very favorite character and I feel fairly proprietary toward him.

 

Hmm.. I am thinking he would have made a great Dumbledore. He would have brought power, and a bit of flash to the part. Not drunk!Dumbldore :lol:

[Veritaserum]

While I don't care much for his Dumbledore, I'm going to jump to his defense. Snape is an important character, yet Alan Rickman never read the books. Voldemort is important, no? Ralph Fiennes didn't read the books.

 

Many actors who play a part of a character in a book don't read the book yet do a good job of portraying the character. I don't think having read a particular book makes an actor better at portraying his or her character. Movies based on books are just that. They aren't the book. The screenplay is not the book.

 

But Rowling told Alan Rickman Snape's story.

 

I would have loved Ian McKellan as Dumbledore!

[orangearrow]

RE: Ian McKellan as Dumbledore. I remember reading years ago several articles and interviews. Apparently McKellan and Harris (the original Dumbledore) weren't the best of friends, to put it lightly. McKellan crowed quite frequently about the fact that he'd "scored" the role of the superior wizard. After Harris's death, McKellan was asked if he'd take over the role and he scoffed at it, asking why he'd want to play such a sub-par wizard when he'd already been given the role of the master? lol

 

While I don't care much for his Dumbledore, I'm going to jump to his defense. Snape is an important character, yet Alan Rickman never read the books. Voldemort is important, no? Ralph Fiennes didn't read the books.

 

Many actors who play a part of a character in a book don't read the book yet do a good job of portraying the character. I don't think having read a particular book makes an actor better at portraying his or her character. Movies based on books are just that. They aren't the book. The screenplay is not the book.

 

True, but the other two characters were given information about their characters that they took seriously. They became their characters, whether they read the book or not.

 

 

Gambon seems to think the part is beneath him and doesn't respect the screenwriter and/or director enough to take their directions to heart. He plays the role as HE wants to play the role & everyone surrounding him seems too intimidated to tell him otherwise. And his ideas are all wronnnnngggg!!! :lol: Dumbledore never, ever, ever would've put Harry in a choke hold, and that should've been true for both book-dumbledore and movie-dumbledore, lol!

Edited December 29, 2010 by orangearrow

[Lady Florida.]

 

(Hey - now I am imagining Rickman reading the phonebook....:D)

 

I would buy that audiobook. :lol:

[Lizzie in Ma]

While I don't care much for his Dumbledore, I'm going to jump to his defense. Snape is an important character, yet Alan Rickman never read the books. Voldemort is important, no? Ralph Fiennes didn't read the books.

 

Many actors who play a part of a character in a book don't read the book yet do a good job of portraying the character. I don't think having read a particular book makes an actor better at portraying his or her character. Movies based on books are just that. They aren't the book. The screenplay is not the book.

 

Alan Rickman, however, was the only cast member to have personal coaching as to his character's motivations by JK Rowling. I think he played Snape enormously well.

For me, Richard Harris WAS Dumbledore. I can't abide Michael Gambon.

[Lady Florida.]

I can't abide Michael Gambon.

 

Neither can I. But I don't think it's because he hasn't read the books.

[Kirch]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought he seriously misinterpreted Dumbledore, whatever the cause. All through the last few movies I couldn't help thinking, "Dumbledore would never have done that/said that/acted that way!" He often came across as angry, tetchy (like when he storms off after asking McGonagall to take Trelawney back into the castle and barks at the students, "Don't you all have studying to do?"), and like the situation (whatever the situation happens to be) is almost out of control. In the books, Dumbledore is much more unflappable, more in control, the comforting steady rock who will always have the answer and tell it to you (when the time is right) with a ready wit.

[Impish]

If he was ticked about being 2nd choice, why'd he bother at all?