Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban question

Old one

I think they are the two sides of Dumbledore.
Harris was the enlightened, kind one with the twinkle in his eyes.
Gambon was the tough, determined man that took on Grindlewald and Voldemort.

Gotta admit (please don't hate me) but I thought the movie dialogue was way better than the book.

I think we can safely say that if Richard Harris had lived, he would never have been replaced and we would not be having this discussion. But, the situation being what it was, Michael Gambon was a fine choice in moving forward. I'll admit to being a bit put-off at first--new Dumbledore's energetic style vs old Dumbledore's calm and steady style was unnerving in HP3, but I muddled through, because--what choice did I have? Not watching? Never! In the end, I grew to love the new Dumbledore.

I'm deep into a re-read of HP at the moment, so I feel especially passionate about this question!

I read just this morning, actually, that Michael Gambon, Sir Harris's replacement, didn't feel that he would benefit at all from reading the original Harry Potter books, so he never did read them. To my knowledge (and this trivia can be found on IMDb) he never read even one book, which just irks me. I'm not sure how Rowling herself felt about this choice (though I'm sure she approved of Gambon in a general sense) but if I were in her position, I would find this a bit disrespectful. At the end of the day of course, he did things as he saw fit, but when the majority of the cast members HAVE read the original source material (and enjoyed it, at that) - What does that tell you?

As Book Dumbledore so wisely tells Harry in the second book..."It is not our abilities that make us who we are, Harry, but the choices we make."* Gambon most likely felt his acting ability was perfectly on-par, and therefore made the choice to skip the books, but still...

*Please note that I'm paraphrasing. :)

Anyway, Gambon's curious choices aside, I do find that Harris's performance is better, compared to Gambon. As others have said, Harris just had that special vibe - something I didn't ever feel from Gambon's portrayal. Plus, the height difference between the two actors gets me every time. I know that's not anyone's fault, I just find it annoying that Gambon's Dumbledore is so much shorter.

I preferred the first Dumbledore but sadly he's no longer with us so someone else had to be cast.
I hate it when actors are changed in a series.

Richard Harris all the way! I liked Michael Gambon well enough, and he grew on me over time, but Richard Harris nailed it. No one could have done it better than him. I'd say he does pull off the aura of power Dumbledore is supposed to have, which he shows a bit of when he shouts "SILENCE" in the first movie. Dumbledore is supposed to be calm and collected, which Michael Gambon is not, as he shows in scenes like in "The Goblet of Fire" when he questions Harry about putting his name in - he practically manhandles the poor kid! That is so not Dumbledore. (If it had been me to recast, I may have gone with Julian Glover {now Grand Maester Pycelle in "Game of Thrones"}).

I think the older one is better than the new one

Hi nicholas

I felt like both were great at being Dumbledore, but I'm going to pick the new Dumbledore. I suppose part of my reason is that I got to know the new Dumbledore for longer.

dunno..the old one i guess coz Michael Gambon looks too aggressive espl. in the 4th movie.
Besides dumbledore is kind of very old..

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.

Huh, I've been wondering about that myself. I don't really know. I thought Richard was in many ways the perfect Dumbledore to me. He seemed kind, and had that twinkle in the eye, and also seemed odd enough. One of the things I like so much about Dumbledore is his oddities. Like his favourite words or just his use of words. That side of Dumbledore was better impersonated through Harris I think. But Dumbledore also had that terrifying and powerful side, as shown especially in the 4th, 5th, and 6th books. And that side I found was better portrayed through Gambon. I find Michael Gambon too serious sometimes to be my idea of Dumbledore, and Harris was just too fragile.
If they could be combined we would have the perfect Dumbledore in my opinion :)

they were both good but I like Gambon better....he just had that air around him of the great leader and auror as Dumbledore was sposed to have which I dont rkn Harris pulled off.... Gambon, although he didnt like the character played it well and was polite, had good humour and was the essence of wat dumbledore is.... he is the best dumbledore.... i did really like Harris, but Gambon is better...