Amph Diagon Alley: The Official Harry Potter Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Kessel Runner, Jul 26, 2001.

  1. soitscometothis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2003
    star 5
    Darth Vader likes this.
  2. Slowpokeking Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2012
    star 4
    Is Gambon's Dumbledore really that bad?
  3. Force Smuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
  4. Legolas Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 6
    He looked grumpy all the time while Richard Harris's Dumbledore looked calm
  5. Slowpokeking Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2012
    star 4
    They should have let Ian McKellen to play Dumbledore after Harris(sadly) passed away.
  6. Legolas Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 6
    I thought so too
  7. Mar17swgirl Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 26, 2000
    star 7
    Anyone who thinks Voldemort's death in the film was good doesn't understand the point of Voldemort's death in the book.
  8. Slowpokeking Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2012
    star 4
    He can't die, he's also Hades.

    [IMG]
    Last edited by Slowpokeking, Mar 29, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  9. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    or they simply accept that the films and the books are very different on many levels, and can be enjoyed for their own merit's and criticized for their own faults.
    NYCitygurl and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  10. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    No. That's an easy way out. Tom's character in the books is the same as his character in the films. The characters who witness his death and who fell victim to his crimes and ego are the same in the films as they are in the books. Thus, his death should be preserved. His body, a simple human corpse, needs to be seen. His gigantic ego needs to be made humble by the very act he'd spent his life trying to avoid. It is butchered in the films because they couldn't resist a special effect. A special effect at the expense of the character (and the consequences of that character's actions) they'd spent eight bloody films establishing. How very contemporary. To say the two mediums are different, and use that as a catch-all explanation for the problems inherent to the films is very, very lazy.

    And yes, Gambon is THAT bad.
    Force Smuggler likes this.
  11. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    eh, but every time a piece of his soul dies there's a similar special effect. in the film universe his death is consistent with what we've seen before. to people who have only seen the films, to have him simply die would have been odd. that was what i was getting at, though i agree that it was handled better in the book.
    Last edited by tom, Mar 29, 2013
  12. Slowpokeking Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2012
    star 4
    I heard Ian refused to play Dumbledore, why?
  13. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    I don't see how the special effect is a required line of consistency. Or even a desirable one. The films replicated his character faithfully, so IMO remaining true to that is more important that some incredibly shallow visual consistency - which I don't think applies anyway since this was his end, not a stop along the way. Heck, it's not as if film audience would wonder why he didn't disintegrate - even having seen similar phenomenon following the destruction of each Horcrux (although if I'm honest I can't remember how the film handled those). What I feel a film audience would appreciate, is the sight of his dead body. Finally humble before his enemies.
    Last edited by Everton, Mar 29, 2013
  14. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    but we're talking about is a visual deviation, not a change to his character. is being disintegrated less humbling than being a corpse? i guess, sure. is it a change worth getting upset over? i wouldn't think a fan of peter jackson's hobbit would think so.

    :p
  15. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    Oooo, cheap shot. :p I'd say it's a huge change. Not to his character, but to the way he is seen by others. Which is such an important cog in Tom's psyche. The visual deviation made by the films, in my opinion, utterly undermines that and how Rowling chose to deliver the final (and most telling) blow to her antagonist. You build a character, see the book's finale undermine it so brilliantly, but decide to lose all that in favour of a special effect. It may not annoy others, but it annoys the crap out of me.

    EDIT: Being seen as a helpless, lifeless corpse by those you have tried to laud it over all your life is certainly more humiliating / humbling. Disintegration robs his enemies of that sight. Tom would've preferred to go out that way, I am sure. Which is why it sucks.
    Last edited by Everton, Mar 29, 2013
    Rew likes this.
  16. Diggy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2013
    star 5
    Note to self; don't disagree with mar, Everton will nag you to death.

    On Voldermorts death. Previous fx don't matter. They were destroying part of his soul, that was it. This time it's the last piece of soul, but additionally the body in which the soul exists. The body should remain. There isn't a need for visual consistency, because that only applies to the casual audience who don't really care anyway, because they're casual.
    Everton likes this.
  17. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    Most of what Ignant said. :p
  18. Diggy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2013
    star 5
  19. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    i don't necessarily disagree with any of that. it's just that the change didn't really bother me. i think it's kind of weird that people don't think the final triumph is adequate unless there's a humiliated voldemort body that can be lorded over. i think maybe people are placing too much significance on that passage. i get the "ultimately he was just a guy" point, but actually he kind of wasn't.
    Last edited by tom, Mar 29, 2013
  20. Diggy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2013
    star 5
    It doesn't bother me. But I think it's an unnecessary change.

    I don't think the books are great, but the films are worse. I am annoyed S.P.E.W. was left out, though.
  21. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    i feel pretty much the exact same way. i thought the books were ok, and the films were enjoyable if slightly less ok. i can't imagine ever reading or watching them again though.
    Diggy likes this.
  22. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper and Rumor Naysayer

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Petrificus Totalus + Reducio. Reducio seems to be a knack with Mom and daughter...
  23. Diggy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2013
    star 5
    I don't care, but Molly calling Belatrix a bitch was ace.
  24. Legolas Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 6
    Because he probably doesn't to play another wizard and people would only know him for as Gandalf

    @Jedi Merkurian It's Reducto
    Last edited by Darth Vader, Mar 29, 2013
  25. Rew Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2008
    star 4
    And just to add on to what Everton's said, Voldemort's boggart was his own lifeless corpse. The books showed us his deepest, ultimate fear becoming reality. The movie forewent this grand culmination for a lackluster 3D effect instead.
    Everton likes this.