Michael Gambon Puns

I appreciate the Richard Harris appreciation, but Gambon was a still a big part of the series and it was just like a total void when it came to him as a part of the ensemble.

Gambon's a good actor but miscast, I think, and I often think that certain lines would have been better delivered in Harris's style of old, wise wizard rather than rambunctious tone of Gambon's and some scenes are poorer for it. Harris's Dumbledore would have lent greater weight and gravity to the films, I think.

I get why Michael Gambon wasn't in the reunion special if he's not all there, but why was he not mentioned at all? They talked so much about Richard Harris, and not one word about Michael Gambon? It's just weird.

I think Gambon made a better Dumbledore than Harris, he exudes the fierceness that Dumbledore has in the books. Harris seemed too frail, and also too through-and-through sympathetic, Dumbledore isn't Santa Claus. He's supposed to be a little strange and hard to read.

I really liked the reunion, I was a bit afraid that they would fuck it up after the terrible Friends reunion, but the HP one was way better. The Gambon thing is the only thing I didn't like, I just don't get it.

I'm sure they invited everyone right? So perhaps they were just busy with other projects or they're just too old to care (michael gambon and maggie smith at least) lol

I didn't know who was going to appear before I watched so I was hoping to see Dumbledore or Lupin, Tonks, Mad Eye Moody, or Mrs Weasley make an appearance and was kind of disappointed that they didn't show.

It would have been fun to have Kenneth Branagh talk about the way he played Lockhart for example! Or Emma Thompson! Although they had small roles in HP, they made it so much more magical and better!

Not saying he’s a bad dude or anything but come the fuck on, Dumbledore was supposed to be whimsical dammit! And he was supposed to have a twinkle in his eye! Every time I watch these movies it makes me angry

I prefer Richard Harris’s Dumbledore. He’s just like the book Dumbledore with the calm and collected personality and voice and also he always wears his glasses.

And while I like Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore too, he wasn’t entirely fitting, due to several reasons:

• Not always wearing the half-moon glasses
• The well-known “HARRY! DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE?! and also other bits of shouting
• The beard being tied
• Other moments that didn’t match things with book Dumbledore

The only good thing I can think of regarding Gambon’s Dumbledore is that he is more energetic than Harris’s.

I may have missed something glaringly obvious and not in the loop on something, but why was there no coverage of Michael Gambon in the reunion?

A reunion which made me cry like a bitch I might add...

The first two movies, I absolutely loved Dumbledore. I grew up with HP same age yada yada. And even when I read the books now I picture Richard Harris, with his knowing glare, subtle smile and gentle nature. He is just so humble. I do understand they couldn’t possibly replace him after his passing but I feel like Michael Gambon didn’t even watch the first two movies, or maybe didn’t even read the books. He is just SO aggressive in his manner. He’s not nearly as endearing as Dumbledore in the books. Just my opinion, wondered what others thought.

Did anyone else notice that they didn’t discuss at all Michael Gambon’s portrayal as Dumbledore in the reunion? I understand some actors couldn’t make it, but was very surprised by this as they discussed Richard Harris but Dumbledore held more of a key role in the 5th & 6th movies.

I know that many people like Richard Harris more than Michael Gambon, and often are the points right. However, I think that most of mistakes of Michael Gambon is not his fault. Especially the famous "Dumbledore asked calmly". It's clearly mistake of director and screenwriter

And I think we can see that amazingly in PoA. I always find Dumbledore in third movie like his best movie adaption. He was wise, calm, but also could be angry, serious, however still a little bit quirky. In one moment he had amazing speech about light and happines, and in another moment he tapped the Ron foot. Hillarious. Also I think they proved give Dumbledore the most mystic essence in movies, especially in the scene where he was trying to distract minister.

Obviously the quirky traits and his calmness dissapereated in fourht and fifht movie and it's really shame because Michael Gambon could be the best Dumbledore ever. However, he just did not have material for that.

You know, that flat headwear he has. I don't know if I like.

Many would argue Richard Harris perfectly embodied the Dumbledore we imagined in the books, and I can't agree more. After his unfortunate death, Michael Gambon was tapped to take his place for the remaining installments. Gambon's first outing in this new role, Prisoner of Azkaban, was met with neither criticism nor acclaim.

It wasn't until Goblet of Fire, and the infamous "DID YOU PUT YA NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYAH" scene, that fans began to feel Gambon wasn't a perfect choice. However, this single moment, which seemed to epitomize how horrible a casting choice the filmmakers had made, isn't as much a condemnation of Gambon as some would think.

I mean, think about it. There are two options for how this scene played out: 1) The script was faithful to the book, and had Gambon's Dumbledore say calmly "Harry, did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire?" and Gambon simply took artistic license to spice the scene up for the younger generation, or 2) The scene was written exactly how Gambon acted it.

Obviously, option 2 if far more likely. The screenwriters are most likely to blame for this out of character portrayal, trying to create drama and suspense for the purposes of the movie adaptation. This is by no means uncommon for book to film adaptations, and at times is a necessity of the huge differences between both mediums.

However, the choice by some Harry Potter fans to single this out as the most glaring issue with Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore are not being realistic. This is almost certainly not an issue with Gambon's acting, and more an issue with the writing team for the film. One could argue that an actor who'd actually read the books (not Gambon) would've read the script and said "What? No. Are you insane?", but that's neither here nor there. If Harris had been given the script that Gambon was almost certainly given, he'd most likely have spoken the dialogue in much the same way, after his own fashion.

I personally enjoy Gambon's portrayal up to and immediately after the uncharacteristic shouting in GoF, although I like many others can't help but think Harris could've done a more book-accurate job. I mean, what perfect casting. We get what we got though, and Gambon's most notorious "Gambonism" can't be laid at his feet as an actor, I can almost guarantee it.

If Hermione were to look at this situation logically, she'd come to the same conclusion I have. It is certainly possible that Gambon went out of his way to turn Dumbledore into an agg

I know you probably think I'm crazy when you read the title of this post, but hear me out. I'm not saying he was the ideal choice for the role, after all he was way out of character in a lot of scenes, especially that infamous Goblet of Fire scene. But there are a few scenes where I thought he played a convincing Dumbledore, this includes all of his scenes in Half Blood Prince, as well as Snape's memories, when he was giving Harry and Hermione advice before they went back in time, when him and Harry were chatting in his office after Sirius's death, and even one scene in Goblet of Fire (the movie he gets the most hate for), when he was chatting with Harry in the dormitory after Cedric's death. What do you guys think?

I know Gambon is one of the less loved actors in the movies and the meme "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE" has become all he is known for but I like him as Dumbledore. He takes a film or two to properly grasp the character but by Order of Phoenix I think he was really good.

Richard Harris was good in his own way. Gambon may lack the elegance of Harris but brought two new things. One, his Dumbledore actually appeared to be the most powerful wizard in the country. You could imagine by looking at him that he would be a dangerous person to mess around.

Second, his Dumbledore is cunning and street-smart which makes him appear a more grey character. His Dumbledore may have a questionable past than what appears during the time of the main story.

I am a fan of Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore especially movie 5 onwards.

Hate me all you want(actually, don't, they're movies afterall) but having read most of the books and seen all the movies plenty of times, I am probably one of the very few people. who prefer the movie version, and even "worse", Gambon instead of Harris. Let me try to explain why, and please forgive any mistakes I may make since it's been a while and my memory can be a bit rusty.

First of all, for the movies vs books, for one of the most powerful wizards of all time, book Dumbledore was a bit goofy and the cocky person than wouldn't be so wise to keep his words less than his actions, with the biggest example, in OotP bragging of how he could easily escape azkaban if he wanted to but it would be a "waste of time", brilliantly kept to "you seem to be under the illusion that I will... what was the phrase.. come quietly". More words than enough, his escape did the rest.

Secondly, I saw a great attempt by Rowling to "ruin" his "reputation" by giving him a very bad youth that got his sister killed and was almost a narcissist leading Harry to his death all these years, his "master plan", but I never saw any of those traits on him beyond a caring father figure who tried to keep Harry protected all the time. Movie wise, we hardly got any material about Dumbledore's "master plan", but the last movie, and still barely.

Last but not least, for Harris vs Gambon, I believe the latter was great for the role, simply because I cannot imagine a sweet old man being the "badass antihero" he was in his youth, going against the greatest dadk wizards ever, and I could never imagined Harris delivering lines like "It was foolish of you to come here tonight, Tom". Gambon has his badass side, and it was needed for many moments, and he also had his sweet sides(like his portrayal in HBP), and certain parts were better portrayed in the movie in my humble opinion. For instance, Fred and George trying to "hack" into the Triwizard Tournament where your life gets in danger being considered "funny" by Dumbledore and shrugged off was totally off for me.

Long story short, and this is just my opinion, both the books and the movies are amazing, but to some extend I prefer both the movies and Gambon. Rowling turned the story darker later on, so I felt we needed Gambon more than Harris.

P.S. In the books, Harry is dueling Draco Malfoy, gets knocked back, gets laughed at, gets back on his feet and.... tickles him? Definitely movie version..

No, I'm not defending the infamous "DID U PUT YO NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYAH" scene. But if you look at the other movies then I think it's clear he gets a lot of hate for something that wasn't really his fault.

After all, it's not like the script for Goblet of Fire had Dumbledore say it calmly, and Gambon just decided to go Rambo and put his own artistic spin on it. And I believe that his performance as Dumbledore in the other movies is completely acceptable. Richard Harris may have been the perfect casting, but given real-life events someone needed to take over the role.

I personally believe that Gambon's portrayal gives a certain authority to Dumbledore that I can't really imagine Harris being capable of, while also being able to highlight Dumbledore's eccentric side. And if Goblet of Fire's Dumbledore had been more in line with the rest of Gambon's portrayals of the character, I think fans would consider him a suitable replacement for Richard Harris.

I think the fans' disappointment with Gambon is mostly based on his performance in GOF, and his performance can be almost entirely blamed on those in charge of that film. It is clear to me that the script was written for him to be a more aggressive and bombastic character, and Gambon himself would've had very little input on that.

I know a lot of people will knock him for not having read the books, and use that to blame him for his meager performance. But I would be surprised if even half the cast of Harry Potter had read the books before playing their roles, and the casting for these movies was quite superb in most places. The Gambondore that we hate from the films (mostly GOF) is entirely the fault of the director and screenwriter, and not of Michael Gambon. In my opinion, Michael Gambon was a superb choice to take up the mantle from Richard Harris after his untimely passing, and it is the fault of the GOF production crew that his performance did not meet the expectations of fans.

I could be completely wrong, of course, but to my knowledge many who hate Gambon in GOF will admit he got better with subsequent films, while entirely disregarding the fact that nobody really complained when Gambon took over for Harris in Prisoner Of Azkaban.

I know I might be in the extreme minority on this, but I personally feel that Michael Gambon was a better Dumbledore than Richard Harris (may he Rest In Peace).

Barring that scene in GoF where Gambon roughly took Harry by the collar, I feel that Gambon brought way more energy and strength to his portrayal of Dumbledore.

Even as a kid, when I read the books, I envisioned Dumbledore to be, of course old, but also spritely, energetic, powerful, and even a little mischievous/funny.

I was rather disappointed in the first two movies when I saw Richard Harris’ portrayal of Dumbledore. He really appeared so soft spoken and frail. I wasn’t convinced that he could be the most powerful wizard alive.

When Gambon came on board in the third film, that’s when I felt that this guy could be the only wizard that Voldemort feared.

Anyone know why these 4 weren’t in the reunion special?