Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Harry Potter, #3) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban question


600 views
Who do you think was better the old Dumbledore or the new one?
Andrea Andrea (last edited Sep 22, 2011 05:01PM ) Jul 25, 2011 08:42AM
During the making of the series Harry Potter they had to find a new person to play the part of Dumbledore. Because from the 2nd to the 3rd movie they had different Dumbledore. Because the old one died between the movies. To be honest i like the new one. He seems like more of the Dumbledore from the book. The other seemed a bit to old. But both were good! The first seemed right for a children's movie Dumbledore, but the new one seemed right for the more serious movies for Dumbledore.



Are you kidding me!? Michael Gambon destroyed Dumbledore's character for me. In my opinion, he created a Dumbledore that wasn't nearly as calm and wise as the original. It felt like he was over-acting it for me, and it bothered me immensely. He was never Dumbledore in my eyes. I understand that when making a movie actors must portray their characters as they see fit, but that doesn't stop me from disliking it. I felt Richard Harris did a much better job, even though I'm not sure he could have pulled off the moments when Dumbledore needed to be powerful.


I definitely preferred Michael Gambon. He had more energy and also, I felt, a bit more personality. Also, as somebody mentioned earlier, I can't have ever imagined Richard Harris doing some of the things Dumbledore does in later books, particularly the cave seen in Half Blood Prince.


I thought they both were great. I felt Richard Harris was better for the first two movies, they were more kid friendly, and I thought he fit that role perfectly. For 3-7 I thought Michael Gambon was better just because I felt like for those movies there was a shift from children to young adult and older. If that makes any sense at all, :)


Dumbledore was never gotten right. The new Dumbledore was too energetic and engimatic, the old too slow and creaky. My mind has the perfect picture of Dumbledore and it is indescribable


To be honest? I didn't know they were different people. haha

deleted user I know! I'm looking at all these and all I can think is: There was 2 DUMBLEDORES?!?!
Jul 14, 2014 06:06AM

No one could have replaced Richard Harris as Dumbledore. I nearly cried when I heard that he had passed away because I thought he was the most perfect person for that role. Michael Gambon had huge shoes to fill, and although he filled them well enough, he never became Dumbledore to me.


I to be honest was a little astonished to hear the death of the old Dumbeldore I nearly stopped watching Harry Potter


Richard Harris was a good dumbledore for the first books, but I think that Michael Gambon was good for the last ones. Richard Harris, I think, was too nice to play that dumbledore.


richard harris was more like what i imagined dumbledore to be like. he was a kind sweet old man. but it is a little hard to picture him doing things like the cave scene. they were both pretty good.


Hi nicholas


richard harris all the way.


The first one was great but also the second was great aswell. Their both actors and they both played very great Dumbledore's!


Richard Harris was what I pictured Dumbledore as when I read the books and he was such a great actor he could have pulled of the more intense parts easily. Michael Gambon came off as a mean and uncaring Dumbledore which ruined the character for me in the later movies.

12056382
Sage I agree that Richard Harris could have done the more violent and intense scenes and very well. It would have been easier if he were healthier but they ...more
Jul 13, 2014 10:47PM

I always said Richard Harris was by far the better Dumbledore, Gambon portrayed him as too stern, too cold, the way he yelled Harry Potter at the beginning of Goblet Of Fire ticked me off because in the book it said with worry but in the film he just sounded pi**ed off. But! Having said all that, in the last couple of films I think he was absolutely amazing, I can't fault him in any way & I can't imagine Richard Herris pulling off the sheer strength needed for the likes of the battle in the ministry in Order & the Horcrux cave scene in Half-Blood.


I liked Richard Harris better. he was more calm than the new Dumbledore.


I think that the new Dumbledore is better personally. Just becauese he was easier to understand... I don't know. I guess the old Dumbledore looked more what I pictured him, but he was just hard to understand when he talked.


Gambon didn't even try to portray Dumbledore. He said he didn't read the books so it means he doesn't have the slightest idea the characteristics of Dumbledore.

Dumbledore is soft, wise and caring. Richard Harris will always be Dumbledore for me. Aside from he portrayed him well, he has this "Twinkle in his eyes" which how Dumbledore was described. It is pretty much synonymous to Dumbledore for me.

I did not see a hint of Dumbledore in Gambon. Not one bit.

And I beg to differ, Harris can play well the Dumbledore in the latter books. Dumbledore is wise and sure of what to do but never aggressive nor impulsive.


I like both actors for differing reasons, Richard Harris was good as Dumbledore, I agree with Patricia, that the new Dumbledore had to be a different one whereby affecting us differently. Michael Gambon is quite a talented actor in his own right. Richard Harris was the nice grandfatherly type.


deleted member Jul 25, 2011 12:14PM   0 votes
(? old and new dumbledore?)


yet I haven't seen movies 6-7 yet.


I think a combination of the two would have been the perfect Dumbledore. Richard Harris had the more wise old man and the slight silliness Dumbledore did, but Michael Gambon has more of the powerful wizard and leader aura.


Richard Harris was by far the best. He had a kind of twinkly gravitas befitting a wizard. Although I like Gambon as an actor, I don't think he had the charisma for the role.


John (last edited Aug 02, 2011 04:47PM ) Aug 02, 2011 10:57AM   0 votes
Agreed with all Richard Harris devotees. In the books, Dumbledore was unfailingly polite, whimsical and charming. Gambon was not these things. Harris was. Plus, Gambon said he disliked Dumbledore's character, which is sad.

Be sure to check out my book, Bloodwood, in which best friends Max and Lydia travel to the cold, dark north in search of a missing girl and hidden vampire town.

Bloodwood  The Chronicles of Max Mayhem by John Rykken

http://www.amazon.com/Bloodwood-Chron...


Thought Richard Harris was superb. Michael Gambon is a great actor but I am stuck with the image of "The Singing Detective" whenever I see him.


Definitely Micheal Gambon. I never thought Richard Harris can pull off Dumbledore's character. Maybe he did well in the first two movies but he never could've pulled off half the acts in the rest of the movie. And he always seemed...slow. I think both actors have a bit of Dumbledore's character in the them. For example, Micheal seems to lack the sense of humour and the craziness Dumbledore is known for, he struck me as more serious. But that side of Dumbledore is definitely more needed than the humour. So what Im saying is if put together in some way Micheal and Richard would both make a perfect Dumbledore, but overall, I would deffinitely pick Micheal as he could pull off scenes that Richard could never have pulled off.


when i was younger i always liked richard harris more, but now my opinion has changed. only michael gambon could pull off the scene in the cave in HBP, i really can't picture richard harris whipping out his wand and conjuring up fire.

however, i also felt both portrayals failed to bring out certain idiosyncrasies of book-dumbledore, i.e. his unceasing politeness and good humor.


Actually I preferred Michael Gambon. Richard Harris seemed a bit too frail for Dumbledore, who, in spite of his age, always seemed to be very energetic in the books. But that's just my opinion.


I think that the first Dumbledore was better because his voice just sounded more Dumbledore-ish. Also, the second Dumbledore didn't balance Dumbledore's being mad at Harry very well because he made it actually like he hated Harry sometimes, which the old Dumbledore balanced way better. I feel like the essence of Dumbledore was expressed way better and more eloquently by the first.


Both Dumbledore's are so nice and I don't know that the old one was just in two movies and the new one is in all of them so fo course my vote is going to be the new one because I don't know the old one well enogh as the new one. But that's just my opinion.


Unfortunately, I can't get over Michael Gambon's extremely OOC moments, especially in the Goblet of Fire. It was obvious that he had no concept of the character's personality. I read a quote in an interview where he said something like "I don't play the characters, I play different parts of myself."

Well sorry, but no one wants to see you. Please be an actor.

Ironically, if you watch off-screen footage of him, he acts more like Dumbledore in real life than he does in the movies! It's a shame because if he'd read the books or even tried to grasp the character, he might have chosen the correct part of himself to play.

Richard Harris was better, and he had that twinkly-eye thing going on. Soft-spoken, gentle, polite, but firm and forceful when needed.


Richard Harris was the perfect Dumbledore and Gambon just seemed too energetic and angry.


As if Michael Gambon was better! He didn't even read the books! Richard Harris was the perfect Dumbledore; he was calm, gentle and wise, he was just brilliant! Michael Gambon was way to aggressive, thought that could have been a result of the directing and producing of the third movie onwards. Chris Colombus directed the first two movies brilliantly and Richard Harris was fantastic.


I agree there. he was really great. The only time he disappointed me was in HBP. I thought the acting took a dive.


Laura (last edited Oct 13, 2011 03:48AM ) Oct 13, 2011 03:47AM   0 votes
I think I would have prefered Richard Harris to have carried on playing Dumbledore - and not just because he had the twinkle in his eye!

Michael Gambon's quite often came across as uncharacteristically angry, rough and out of control some times. The bit that really annoyed me was when Harry's name was pulled from the pot - and he grabbed him and shook him.. since when did Dumbledore ever react like that - and then you get the scene where he quoted some ridiculous line when they were all sleeping in the hall which seemed silly and out of place. Was this the director though or the actors decision to play it out like that?

I always got the impression that the character was a bit "all knowing" and took everything calmly and carefully - and it wasnt until the fight scenes that you saw just how powerful and quick he could be. I'm sure Richard Harris could have pulled that off.


richard harris...best dumbledore


deleted member Jul 28, 2011 12:59PM   0 votes
Michael Gambon is a fantastic actor, and plays Dumbledore well. Aside from a couple of moments when he came across as uncharacteristically angry or rough, I have no complaints about him. However, Richard Harris's Dumbledore stepped right off the page and onto the screen.


Richard Harris really is the best Dumbledore. He nailed it when he acted as him. It's just pretty sad that he passed away .. T_T. although i have to admit, i kinda love Michael Gambon's voice as Dumbledore.


Oh, I think they were both fine. Yes, Richard Harris was slightly better (so sad with HBP), but whatever.


Richard Harris seemed to have that twinkle in his eyes like in the books that Michael Gambon didn't.


everything about the first dumbledore was nicer, including his beard.


Cheyenne (last edited Nov 27, 2011 03:48PM ) Nov 27, 2011 03:44PM   0 votes
I liked the old Dumbledore better, but both are great. And Dumbledore is just awesome all around! :D


Yeh .Me too.times seeing him I felt like being with a great person who has a better life experience indeed he was the greatest wizard of all time until those who remain don't forget him.


I like him he is OK. but I like the old one better


I really liked both of them! I do wish that Richard Harris would've been able to be Dumledore in the rest of the movies ;( I was really shocked when I heard he died....


I really liked both of them! I do wish that Richard Harris would've been able to be Dumledore in the rest of the movies ;( I was really shocked when I heard he died....


both were good, but i preferred the first one. michael gambon was way to serious. dumbledore is supposed to be calm and funny in the face of disaster, that is the point!


I liked the second one better because I feel the second one portrayed the character as dumbledor better. He was louder rather than quiet-(old one)


One word:
HARRYDIDJAPUTYERNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIRE?


Richard Harris was definitely the best. He was the perfect Dumbledore. He had the voice, decorum, love, sometimes silliness and brilliance that Dumbledore possesses. Michael Gambon completely ruined the character of Dumbledore. He was too angry and shouty and had absolutely no decorum. He seemed too indifferent not just towards Harry, but everyone and everything. Gambon himself said that he never read the books and didn't like the character of Dumbledore and did what he wanted with him. He says he basically played himself. "A little Irish, a little scary. That’s what I’m like in real life." Pathetic. Explains the weirdo accent of Dumbledore that destroyed everything in the movies. (I recommend reading the Hero Complex article about Gambon.)


« previous 1
back to top

all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (other topics)
Bloodwood (other topics)