Dumbledore is described in the book as a 150 year old wizard. He has a white long beard and hair and talks calmly, just what Harris got with his performance, whereas Gambon plays him strongly, as if he was much younger the age he has. I could understand doing that if he had began the series but Harris did, so his commitment as an actor would have been to continue with the work Harris did. He didn't, which means he's an AWFUL ACTOR
shareYou're an idiot.
Gambons as much a shakespearian thesp as anyone. Fantastic actor. Watch his other stuff rather than base your opinion on harry fkucing potter
AWESOME ACTOR!!!!
"Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects". Will Rogers (1879-1935)
Actually he is a great actor
Forget Harry potter and look at his body of work
Calling Gambon an awful actor is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard.
shareNot playing a role the way you want to see it played doesn't make someone an awful actor.
Do you understand?
Clearly you forgot than in the books it describes Dumbledore as being very energetic and charasmatic despite his old age. Something that Harris would not have been able to pull off. Which is why Gambon ended up being a great replacement
shareAt the end of the day his part in the Harry Potter films is very inconsequential compared to his large and stellar body of work. But of course such films propel great stage actors into the limelight.
A bit like when Sir John Gielgud passed away and the Hollywood trade papers' headline was 'Arthur's butler dies'...
As soon as I saw the scene with him slamming Harry around I was like "yeah he's a terrible Dumbledore". Not a terrible actor, just a terrible Dumbledore.
share