VehiclesFashionRecipesBlogsHuntTravelsSportFunHandmadeITEducation
Mini-Games
x

x
zakruti.com » Humor, fun and entertainment » Looper
Here's Why These Harry Potter Actors Got Replaced

Here's Why These Harry Potter Actors Got Replaced

FBTwitterReddit

video description

Rating: 4.0; Vote: 1
Here's Why These Harry Potter Actors Got Replaced BlackHayateTheThird: So everyone complaining about Harris insulting McKellen's acting and bringing up McKellen's most iconic acting role as Gandalf is forgetting an important detail- Harris died in 2002, and was not only busy filming Harry Potter but dealing with declining health. He never got to see his old acting friend's depth of his character acting due to his death. It could be this comment that McKellen gave even more to one of his most in-depth and iconic character portrayals of all time.
Plus, the British in general are big into ragging on each other. It's a bit of British culture to insult each other like that. McKellen wouldn't call Harris an old friend if he wasn't.

Date: 2020-07-14

Comments and reviews: 9


I feel like the way that Richard Harris stopped after the second movie and Michael Gambon took over worked perfectly in hindsight. Harris created a gentle and whimsical Dumbledore which worked perfectly for the innocence of the first two movies. I really cant imagine Gambon in these movies. However, I cant imagine Harris in the other movies because they get considerably more dark and Gambons portrayal works so much better. The fact that there were two dumbledores doesnt take away from the character, but just adds to the idea of innocence turning to darkness as the time goes on.
reply

Even if the two actors hadn't butted heads at some insignificant point, I don't think Ian McKellen would have been right for the part. He's a good actor and all, but Dumbledore was a much softer character than what I've seen from a lot of his roles. Richard Harris was an AMAZING Dumbledore, he was absolutely perfect and as a child, I think his death was the first ever actor I'd cried over. They were two very different actors, both awe-inspiring but still very different.
reply

with respect to Michael Gambon's acting I'm among those who think that Sir Richard Harris is the better Dumbledore, other actor who could've pulled the schtick well would be Sir Ian Mckellen (and since Dumbledore has been established to be gay) and of course the late great Sir Richard Attenborough, and also perhaps Sir John Gielgud
reply

With the obvious exception of dumbledore, the only one that really stood out was the absence of Vincent.
I'm still amazed how accurate the films stuck to the source material. There is a few minor differences but nothing that changed the entire story for better or more commonly, worse.

reply

Unpopular opinion here but I prefer Michael gambon as dumbledore. he gave Dumbledore a fierce side to him when he wanted. i think also Stephen fry would have been a great replacement. also I'm kinda of shocked Richard called Ian passionless when it comes to acting
reply

Michel gamben
he
he broke Dumbledore
he played as a man with far more anger behind his eyes
not the calmness and knowing look of Richard
the look of a truily ancient wizard, ready to invite a boy he saved 13 years ago, to learn in his great halls

reply

Why do people dislike Michael Gambon's performance so much? Geeze people. With some of the things Dumbledore did in the story, I can't see Sir Richard Harris, respectively, doing some of those scenes due to age and mobility.
reply

Perhaps you should make sure that you employ proof readers for your scripts. Richard Harris was a two time Oscar NOMINEE, not winner as you stated. His nominations were for The Sporting Life [1963] & The Field [1990]
reply

I hate when actors comment on other actors tbh. Sir Ian McKellen did nothing to Richard Harris so why can't they both do the jobs they get and get their money. McKellen is definitely not passionless as well.
reply
Add a review, comment






Other channel videos