Discussion in 'Community' started by Deputy Rick Grimes, Dec 31, 2012.
I think Dumbledore should have been Danny DeVito.
I would have the troll toll song stuck in my head whenever dumbles is alone with harry.
I think Dumbledore should have been played by Danny Devito's Always Sunny character.
Richard Harris did. It was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore to be in the books.
Maybe in the first few books, but not as we learn more about Dumbledore's flaws, especially in books 5 & 7.
IIRC, three actors who were considered for Dumbledore after Harris’ passing were Ian McKellan, Peter O’Toole, and Christopher Lee. All three had issues for various reasons with having a multi-year commitment. Additionally, O’Toole said no out of respect for his recently-deceased friend; McKellan said “no moar wizzerdz plz, kthxbai.”
Christopher Lee would’ve been superlative as the Dumbledore that scared the holy crap out of Voldemort, I’ll give you that But the closest I’ve ever seen him get to “kindly” was as the somewhat remorseful Wilbur Wonka (Willy’s dad, the dentist) in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
“It was a mistake for you to come here tonight, Tom”
Thanks. Now it will be stuck in my head all day.
I would have liked some of the possible-Gandalfs. Not necessarily Connery, but Tom Baker would have been fun.
Fun Fact, according to notstarring.com
Turned down the role of Snape to work with Tim Burton on Planet of the Apes.
Can somebody “meme” this for me?
I would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
It's the only time I've ever said "Thank God for Burton's Planet of the Apes."
It's made doubly hilarious when you see what Roth is doing in POTA, which is to say, rampant god-awfulness that makes Michael Clarke Duncan look like Roddy McDowall.
Agreed. If he had been younger I think he would have been the perfect Dumbledore through the entire series.
That didn't change how I had pictured him to be.
I like Tim Roth, but he sounded like he had a prune shoved down his throat in POTA.
Good. I simply can not imagine anyone other that Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.
Much like the presidential election I'm glad to see the voters getting it right here.
I never said it wasn't important. What are you smoking? I've studied PoA closely, and compared it page-by-page to Rowling's text (the film inspired me to start reading the books; I started with Book #3). The Marauders are a fun running sub-plot/flashback in the books. The movies, which have to delete a lot of material to fit into blockbuster adventure films, are about Harry Potter. Any sub-plot or minor character that does not directly impact him, his origin or his mission, is at risk of deletion. That said, as I wrote in my post that elicited your response, we do learn about James and his three various friends, in PoA and in later films, covering a good portion of what Rowling wrote about them. The authorship of the Map can be deduced if we're paying attention to all the stuff the movies do show us about the foursome.
The Marauders are related to Harry's origin. How are they not? What's that quote? "He looks like James but has Lily's eyes. The fact that James' animagus form was Harry's Patronus and that all 4 Marauders were seen again again on the grounds for the first time in 12 years was one of the most important parts of the book. POA is when we got all that info in the book and some continuity between the book and the movie is important. If its in a later movie it ruins the impact for me. Besides the reveal of who the Marauders were and the map need to be told Yes time is a concern but like I said that Shrunken head could have been cut out. As a book to movie adaptation how is info like that not important? Something like SPEW could be cut but not the Marauder's back story.
The extent that they are is shown in the films. The Map has nothing to do with it.
Then you should be pleased, since all of that happened in the film, too.
No it doesn't.
You mean, instead of quick insert shots of a shrunken head laughing during the Night Bus sequence, probably amounting to less than a minute of screentime, someone might have said "Oh by the way, we four made that map" and BAM! instantly the film is brilliant? Your reasoning fails to convince me.
Yes it does. Harry knows next to nothing of his Parents so the map should be included. The reveal of the map was a major reveal in the book to me. Without that, its just a piece of parchment. Why should we care about it? It was one of the crowning achievements of the Marauders and the movie doesn't mention it.
The Shrunken Head was in the movie for longer than a minute. The Shrunken head wasn't even in the book! Something not in the book has precedence over one of the most vital things learned about his own parents or object from his parents? Note that the only thing up to this point that he has from his parents is the Invisibility Cloak. Yes it would have made me make like the movie better.
I agree with
@Force Smuggler I saw POA with someone who hadn't read the books, and she spent half the movie asking me what was happening. They could have taken the time to add a little more of that info.
I much preferred the last three movies to the earlier ones.
I bet that that was annoying Yeah I know its harder to get everything into the movie especially the longer the book but some background info like that is needed. I wouldn't want to be someone who jumped in at HBP. I need to see the movies again but don't really care for HBP. DH parts 1 and 2 were great though
It wasn't so much annoying that she was asking as it was annoying that she had to because the movie left some stuff out.