What the Harry Potter Movies Got Wrong About Dumbledore - Books vs Films
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- My thoughts on why the film version of Dumbledore was poorly represented, and why his characterisation was better in the original Harry Potter books.
Like the video or want to support the channel? Why not buy me a coffee?
buymeacoffee.c... - Фільми й анімація
The movies didn't adapt Harry himself well. Movie Harry is the perfect hero, infinitely kind, innocent and so stupid that he can't understand anything if Hermione doesn't explain it to him. Meanwhile, Book Harry is intelligent, reckless, sarcastic, sassy, liar, and is capable of doing bad things if he needs to.
Yeah very true, the whole trio were ruined in the movies tbh. One thing I really like about how JK Rowling likes characters is she gives all of them realistic flaws, which as you said the movies totally do away with. Also yeah I really miss how sassy Harry is in the books.
I mean, they did keep some of the "capable of doing bad things" like the attempted Cruciatus Curses on Bellatrix and Snape in OotP and HBP respectively and the Imperious Curse during the Gringotts break-in.
Edit: As for sass, I've probably forgotten quite a few moments in the movies, but of the ones I remember, there's "You tell those spiders, Ron," "But I am the Chosen One," and of course, "No need to call me 'Sir,' Professor."
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt How was Hermione ruined? Being too perfect?
@@Lordmewtwo151 yeah exactly. All her flaws and nuances were removed.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Exactly 😢 ! Harry was so much better in book's. It named Harry Potter for a reason.
He was kind , smart , sassy , funny , brave , selfless. Dude always had best comebacks, hands down !
Movie Harry is basically... Whatever Hermione says him to do . I know many people like her but Movie Hermione was unbearable for me because movie makers gave traits of Harry & Ron to her and made her Girl Boss , which made people think she is great & Ron and Harry are dumb .
Yeah, that's the whole reason "Dumbledore said calmly" has been a meme for so long.
Lol I have to say I absolutely love this meme.
I love the subtle detail of showing Richard Harris when referencing the book and Michael Gambon when referencing the films. Even the brief time we got with Harris, I felt that all three points were a non-issue. That man exuded control, and when he yelled “Silence” when the students were panicking, you really felt power radiating from him.
Thanks! Good spot I was hoping someone would notice! Yeah he was much better, the portrayal really dipped with Gambon.
Harris read the books to prepare for the role whereas Gambon only listened to the audiobooks. I've always assumed that was one of the key differences in their portrayals, Harris' being truer to the source material and Gambon's being something like a parody.
@@zackstrong8034 Yeah that would definitely make a big difference - it's nice when actors genuinely care about being faithful to the source material.
@@zackstrong8034 I feel like listening to the audiobooks is still prety good. I feel like both were true to the source materialss but Gambon had to be more serious at times.
Honestly, if Richard Harris had lived long enough to finish the series, I think we would have gotten a perfect portrayal of Dumbledore. Whenever I look at Harris in the first 2 movies, he IS the Dumbledore from the books. He looked the part, acted the part and sounded the part. I can't think of a more perfect casting choice because Harris tended to be soft spoken but radiated a quiet strength, so on the few occasions where he raised his voice, you shut up and listened.
I love the moment where Dumbledore very politely said "I beg your pardon?" to Lucius Malfoy. Harris delivered it with a quiet coldness. He wasn't being hostile but he conveyed a subtle sense of power, so I could sense that he was capable of blasting Malfoy through the door with a casual flick of his wand if he wanted to. While Malfoy was TRYING to be threatening when he snarled "How dare you", Dumbledore just naturally was by being perfectly calm.
They could have made him more like a good Tywin Lannister: commands the room simply by entering.
Great analogy man, Tywin is a great example of how a character can have such a strong presence in a scene.
The only characters that the movies did justice were Umbridge and Skeeter
Yeah Umbridge was great. I also thought Gilderoy Lockhart was the perfect casting.
How many years in a row was he Witch Weekly’s sexiest man?
Unfortunately, Michael Gambon made the decision to not read the books because he did not want to have any preconceived notions about Dumbledore. It's honestly just a really weird decision by the actor. The fact that he just wanted to create his own Dumbledore rather than portray the Dumbledore from the pages is just beyond me.
Ya, like, as an actor, why would you NOT want preconceived notions about what your character is like?
Very weird decision! I don't understand writers and actors who choose to adapt a piece of media but then decide to ignore the source material and do their own thing. I think adaptations should always be respectful of the original vision of the author.
While odd, the fault is still with the Producers, Directors...literally everyone who hired and has the power to override him.
@@Swearengen1980 it's with all of them.
Comic book adaptations have the same problems. I don’t understand the disrespect to the source material.
"HARRY, DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME INTO THE GOBLET OF FIRE" Dumbledore asked calmly. Half of Dumbledore's sense of power and authority came from him speaking calmly. He was constantly raising his voice in Goblet which is against his nature. The books are Always better than the film. You get more nuance and detail.
Yeah I try and recommend to anyone who's just seen the movie adaptation of something to go back and read the original material.
Yeah, I think it's the pitfall of trying to cram a whole book into roughly 2 hours
@@chrisdiokno5600 Yeah true, apparently they're making a TV adaptation next so it'll be interesting to see how that goes.
The films fail to show how terrifying Dumbledore truly is, how what separates him from world domination is his just not wanting it.
Completely agree.
Dumbledore's power was beautifully portrayed in the books through other characters. Whenever something happened, people believed that he'd show up and fix it. His mere presence meant that everything would be alright. That's why his death is so heartbreaking in the books and so meh in the movies.
Well said! Dumbledore's presence is so reassuring and comforting in the books. His death really leaves such a huge hole, I love the moment with Ron and Harry after the doe Patronus where Ron is kind of hoping he might still be alive, and Harry understands completely his yearning.
Worst portrayal of Dumbledore was in Goblet of Fire. However, me personally, I despise the movie's ministry duel. In the book, Dumbledore owned Voldemort, taunting him and duel him while restraining Bellatrix and protecting Harry. He also only fought to stall Voldemort while Tom wanted to kill him so badly. Man, would it be awesome to see the shield, and the moving golden statues. What a waste. The blueprint is already there, why the need to change the scene and make it appears like Dumbledore's losing. So frustrating
Yeah agreed, the ministry fight is the best fight and demonstration of magic in the entire series. Such a shame they changed it.
Lmao Dumbledore bias
I read that chapter many times.
He doesnt own anyone
First off he let the statues protect Harry,he put a spell on them at the start and he could focus on Voldemort.
Belletrix is fodder to these two.
Voldemort was also trying to kill Harry not just Dumbledore.
The official artwork has Dumbledore making an intense facial reaction while Voldemort calmly blocks his spell.
Stories dont work well if the good guy is much stronger,you are supporting a BAD idea
Dumbledore threw a fire whip at Voldemort and Voldemort just transmuted it into a snape.
Aka he matched Dumbledore
Yes Harry did say Dumbledore looked very calm but he also said "THEY looked like they were just having a regular discussion"
THEY,both of them,Dumbledore AND Voldemort
The point was that Voldemort is terrified of death while Dumbledore is NOT.
The movie version was great,thats how powerful the villian should be.
While Voldemort did leave the duel its still a fact that Dumbledore failed to contain him in the molten glass ball,Voldemort eventually was able to aperate out of it,which also requires him to atleast match Dumbledore.
Dumbledore is greater sure but magic power has many aspects to it,its not as simple as people think.
Voldemort doesnt fail due to his lack of power,he is always implied to be the most talented ever,he fails due to character
Also the movies are confirmed to sub/secondary canon.
Aka the parts that can happen.
So Voldemort pushing back Dumbledore with NYAAAAAAAHHHH is canon
People fail to see beneath the surface,like Harry who is a child but Dumbledore seems to not agree with him.
Its like how peoole believe that in The Promise comics Azula was much stronger than Zuko in fire even though they were dead even in fire power and she had to kick him in the stomach to break the stalemate.
Superficial understanding at its finest
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptIt was good but i would have wanted a combination of book fight and novel fight
@@newhybrid101 The Golden statues coming to life, coupled with Voldemort's initial confusion, and his quick realization, where he then says "Dumbledore!" always gave me chills, but there are some awesome parts of the movie fight as well. One of the worst parts of the duel, however, is Dumbledore's entrance. So lame compared to his introduction in the books
@@newhybrid101 "The official artwork has Dumbledore making an intense facial reaction while Voldemort calmly blocks his spell."
Since when are artworks an official source for anything? Especially since artworks are different for every book edition, yet alone the different translations.
And no, if you read the book (and the book is just text ffs), Dumbledore clearly has the upper hand, especially since he focuses on Harry and Bellatrix at the same time too. And why wouldn't he? He beat Grindelwald and the height of his power too, despite him having the elder wand (even tho it's possible that Grindelwald wasn't its true master). Dumbledore never struggles at any point in his duel with Voldemort.
This also dosen't make Voldemort any less of a threat since it's established later that only Harry can defeat Voldemort. At the same time, Hagrid tells Harry already in Book 1 that Voldemort was afraid of Dumbledore, so you are basically sitting here an claim that you know the characters and their power better, than their in-universe counterparts.
I wouldn't even say that Dumbledore has more "magic power" than Voldemort, but he has far more knowledge of magic, is more controlled and knows his enemy better than vice versa. It's the whole theme of this saga that Voldemort causes his own downfall (and always was destined to do so) due to his ignorance and fear of death.
If you think that makes Voldemort "weak", you completely missed the point of "Harry Potter".
I felt Richard Harris nailed the book Dumbledore and if only we had him and Chris Columbus for all the movies. Michael Gambon was horrible as Dumbledore and was to self important to even study for the role by reading the books. When you are playing a character that already exists you better have a preconceived notion about it and taken some time to study and learn the character. But it all goes back to bad directing and bad writing
Completely agree with you, there's always been a weird trend of actors and directors disregarding the source material when making an adaptation and I think it's a bit disrespectful to the original author.
If only someone else had been cast for Dumbledore after Richard Harris died. Plus get a director who really cared about the books. Incidentally one of the few things the fantastic beasts films got right. Casting Jude Law as a younger Albus Dumbledore.
I disagree, he honestly nailed Dumbledore's calm and serious sides when he needed to. You can learn about the character and reading the book helps but tbh that isn't entirely necessary to really play the character well. Eh...the directing and writing wasn't that bad, at least not with Dumbledore.
The way Dumbledore showed up in the Department of Mysteries leaps off the page for me. Neville, with his nose broken, realizes first, and yells "Dubbledore!" And Harry looks up, and sees him, with his face described as "white and furious." Despise the memes borne from the fourth movie regarding the "Gobletofiyah!", the reason why it's so important for Dumbledore to show calmness is this. So, when he IS angry, you KNOW that something is seriously wrong.
Now, sure, people can defend the Goblet of fire scene where he shakes Harry like a madman, saying that situation itself should lend to the belief he is angry BECAUSE something is wrong, and that's fair, you CAN make that argument... if he wasn't like this for the next several scenes and the movie after (he's... relatively benign in 6). When he's like this all the time, then it stops being "the exceptional situation" and becomes the new normal. From Movie 4 onwards, Dumbledore is angry, confused, and upset.
Yeah agreed, Dumbledore is always so calm and nice towards Harry, it's almost a shock to see him in action. I LOVE how Neville and Harry react when Dumbledore arrives at the Ministry.
That scene is awesome in the books. Dumbledore, framed in the doorway, wand in his hand, and ready to kick some Death Eater ass. As soon as he showed up, everybody knew it was over. Beating the shit out of the Death Eaters was just a formality.
I also love that J.K. emphasized how powerful Bellatrix was. She had absolutely no chance against Dumbledore but Bellatrix was fully aware that it. She's mad but she's not stupid. However, she obliterated Kingsley, who was previously fighting 2 Death Eaters at once, with barely any effort, then deflected one of Dumbledore's Elder Wand boosted spells as she fled.
@@tomnorton4277 Dumbledore and Voldemort are just in a league of their own, and I love it. We rarely see Dumbledore truly demonstrate his power but every time he does it's amazing.
Great video! Another scene in the Order of the Phoenix that is done so much better in the book is the bit where Trelawney is sacked by Umbridge, but Dumbledore lets her stay and brings in Firenze as her replacement. This is a very satisfying moment in the book, but in the film there’s no Firenze, and the way Dumbledore talks is different too. He sounds utterly miserable and defeated whereas in the book he talks in a very pleasant, polite voice, thus asserting his authority and making it a victory moment.
Thank you! Great catch and memory, I honestly forgot about this scene but you're completely right, it's another good example.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt thank you😇😇 nothing against Michael Gambon, the man’s a wonderful actor, but his portrayal of Dumbledore can be a bit too serious for my liking. Dumbledore is supposed to be mysterious, wise and a bit mischievous too, in my opinion.
Yeah, the mark was missed with movie Dumbledore starting with Prisoner of Azkaban. I know it’s been said many times, but I’ll say it again… Richard Harris WAS like how Dumbledore actually was in the books. He had it down to precisely how he speaks.
Michael Gambon was not book Dumbledore, though… I’ll admit he was fine in the few action scenes and the scene of him drinking that despair potion. In particular the worst of him was in the Goblet of Fire, where he flat out YELLS at Harry after his name came out of the goblet, the exact opposite of how he acted in the book. Every time I read that part in the book, I ALWAYS read it with Harris’ voice. This was a symptom of the largest issue to me, which was that he came off as rather grumpy, which he never does in the books.
Honestly I felt Jude Law’s portrayal of Dumbledore was closer to book Dumbledore than Gambon.
But the biggest feat that was missed with film Dumbledore? Seeing him DEFEAT Dawlish, Shacklebolt, Umbridge, and Fudge before escaping arrest. That scene was awesome in the book, complete with badass lines like “You seem to be labouring under the delusion that I’m going to, what is the phrase “come quietly?” I’m afraid I will not come quietly at all, Cornelius. I have absolutely no intention of going to Azkaban. I could break out, of course, but what a waste of time, and frankly, I can think of a whole host of things I would rather be doing.”
Another good video. You should ones for Harry, Hermione, and especially Ron, he was screwed up the most in the films of those three.
I really liked Richard Harris, such a shame he wasn't able to portray Dumbledore all throughout the series. I haven't seen either of the Fantastic Beasts movies but Jude Law is a brilliant actor so I feel he would be able to portray Dumbledore well.
Completely agree! I almost included that scene in this video actually but I didn't want to make it too long - the movie version of that scene is just a whiff and it almost feels like Fawkes does the work.
I'd definitely like to do videos about the golden trio, I have a couple of other topics I may do first but I'll definitely revisit them.
Thats why theres directors, if they didnt correct him, you cant blame him for simply doing his job
Eh....Michael Gambon was book Dumbledore tbh, he nailed Dumbledore being calm at times (and a single meme'd to death scene won't change that) and he also nailed Dumbledore's serious side better then Richard Harris tbh which is pretty important to get right in the later films especially. I mean...he usually isn't grump but when he's angry he uually has good reason to be.
I dunno....both were at very different times in Dumbledore's life.
Ok yeah that scene is cool...although Dumbledore usuually doesn't say stuff like that or seem like he's trying to be a badass like that.
Eh....I dunno I feel like it was mainly Ron who he screwed up really.
Exactly. Having Dumbledore constantly yelling and screaming in the GOF movie takes away from the impact of the scene at the end when he bursts in to stun Barty Crouch Jr. It's in that moment that Harry first comes to understand why people said Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort ever feared,
@@Bryan198026 Nah that made sense, if there was any scene where Dumbledore would be pissed and angry it would be that scene.
I think the depiction by Richard Harris in the early films was more in line with the book version of Dumbledore. It is the Michael Gambon depiction that draws the most scrutiny. Another famous and often quoted scene is when Harry is being questioned about his name coming out of the Goblet of Fire. In the book Dumbledore is said to ask the question softly, but in the film Gambon's Dumbledore essentially yells the question while charging aggressively towards Harry.
Whether the screenplay and on set direction called for the change in that scene (and others) or if it was an acting choice by Gambon is not something that I know, but I do know that oftentimes adapting a literary work to the screen requires significant changes to make the film more entertaining.
Perhaps Dumbeldore's "soft power" was a concept that the filmmakers didn't feel would translate well to the screen. Having Dumbledore seem so in control that he looked bored might have been a negative for the films.
In the end differences like this are why I'm glad that both the books and the films exist as those of us who have read the books and seen the films get to experience things both ways (and hopefully enjoy them both ways as well).
Yeah I agree with everyone who says that Richard Harris was much better. The scene in the GoF really deserves it's meme status, I almost included it in this video but I feel like everyone already knows about that one. Apparently they changed directors partway through so that may explain the change in direction.
Finally, someone brings up "Dumbledore asked calmly" in a non-joking manor.
By diminishing Dumbledore’s power it also lessened the impact of his death. When I read the books I knew/guessed he was going to die at some point (hero’s journey and all that) but the impact was still terrifying. Watching the movie didn’t have that effect. He just hadn’t felt like that much of a protector or shield between Harry and Voldemort.
Great point! I agree - in the books his death was a monumental scene. I was a lot younger at the time, but I must admit I didn't expect him to die.
When Michael Gambon died i watch tributes of him. And I noticed something about his acting. Like Alan Rickman he had his own acting style what they learned from (I assume) theater.. (both more master of 1-2 tricks they use).
in the roles he played I noticed there is always a contrast between scenes or in the same scene. 1 scene he yells and acts surprised and is not in control, being surprised undermines autority figures like Dumbledore , a scene later he is soft spoken and a granpda who is feeble, Then he would call Voldermort tom without giving a shit, and after the duel he is on his knees helpless trying to aid harry to kick volgermort out of his body. This keeps attention on him but also it keeps the movie interessting. Michael Gamdon defently knew how to make a scene interessting.
im totally getting why people criticize him for not wanting to read the books. He is just stubborn and want to portay a character with what works for him. It sucks movie adaptation of this dumbledore didnt worked out but some changes in the movie adaptation were better then the bookversion or it worked out very well. Book snape would have made harry potter a 16+ movie. Movie snape works way better for the story. He was stil a inmature A.. for hating on harry because he now dead father bullied him in school. But there was more nuance in the movie. (Book snape wanted nevil to kills his pet frog with a poition he needed to make in class. Im still not over it.). Even after that his memories i didnt care. Voldermort and Nagine did hogwarts a favour.
I also liked movie sirius black more then book sirius. Movie Sirius was a mature father figure Harry def needed. I would call book sirious if wanted to make bad life choices like bully book snape again.
I can definitely see how you liked them better. But my thought on it, especially about Snape and especially Sirius’ changes go against one of the major themes of HP. The theme of being flawed. The movie cookie cutters this into a fantasy.
In this way, Sirius has ALWAYS been that mature father figure, but as you know in real life, most older folks are actually the same. Filled with bitterness and immaturity. It’s HOW they approach the important moments that define them. That’s why I liked Books serious better, because he was realistically flawed. Regardless, we can agree to disagree.
There are many reasons why goblet of fire is my absolute least favourite movie, and dumbledore's portrayal is one of them.
...You said calmly.
Gandalf wasn't played by Micheal Gambon. Micheal Gambon played Dumbledore. An Ian McKellen played Gandalf.
Richard Harris was portrayed as if Dumbledore just walked out of the book and offered you a lemon drop. Michael Gambon wasn’t bad per se as his portrayal worked really well in Prisoner of Azkaban and when the Half Blood Prince followed the books (the ring of fire stands out. I can’t imagine Richard Harris making that scene as intense as it was with Gambon) I feel like Richard’s son Jared Harris (the guy who played Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes and General Grant in Lincoln) would’ve been a suitable replacement just because of the perception Harry has of him as being old but “giving off great energy”
Yeah as much as I like Richard Harris, I do wonder if he'd be able to portray the energy needed for Dumbledore in the more action scenes. It's a shame we never got to find out.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Richard Harris would of nailed this scene as well as the duel in movie 5. He was 10 years older than Gambon but, it would look even more realistic having someone that old, calmly take on voldemort and make it look convincing.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptI always liked the more cloud cuckoolander air Gambon gave in Half-Blood Prince because it sort of emphasizes Dumbledore’s quirky nature. But I still stand by my assessment that Jared Harris would have been able to convey the aspects of Dumbledore that were there in the books. I mean, Jude Law’s portrayal is kind of a nice nod to Richard Harris and you kind of see the whimsical nature of Hogwarts’ most eccentric headmaster in the younger portrayal.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt "Yeah as much as I like Richard Harris, I do wonder if he'd be able to portray the energy needed for Dumbledore in the more action scenes. "
But i think thats the point, because in the movies it takes a while until even Harry himself witnesses the true power and aura of Dumbledore - the first time when they caught Barty Crouch Jr.
Having this calm, soft spoken character suddenly go into full combat mode is supposed to be a shock and a huge contrast, and its never because Dumbledore suddenly is doing Master Yoda gymnastics, its all just his aura. And even if Richard Harris didn't have the physical energy, it wouldn't matter, a good director could still achieve that with ambiance (sound, music, camera angles etc). Even in the books Dumbledore never gets "energetic", even in his duel with Voldemort in Book 5 he remains calm.
I really don't get why people were worried about Richard Harris when even book Dumbledore never went full John Wick. If anything, Richard Harris' acting style suited this even more.
From the very start of the series it is established that Dumbledore is an incredibly talented and powerful wizard. He invented the deluminator that he used to put out all the lights on the Dursleys' street. No such thing existed before he came up with it. His trap with the Mirror of Erised is also what made the stone impossible for Voldemort to retrieve, again something he came up with entirely on his own. There's also a quote that I take directly from the first chapter from the first book.
Dumbledore: Voldemort had powers I will never have.
McGonagall: Only because you're too noble to use them.
This implies that Dumbledore is just as if not more dangerous than Voldemort himself. He just chooses to not use that power to do evil deeds like Voldemort does. This is not once shown in the movies in any way shape or form. The only scene that even comes close to showing Dumbledore's power IMO is the cave scene in HBP with the fire storm but even that doesn't do his true potential justice. There is not a single spell Dumbledore does not know and this is what makes him so terrifying to the Death Eaters and Voldemort. They know he's capable of things they've never seen before.
All fantastic points. Harry also says this to Voldemort at the end of Deathly Hallows - that it wasn't that Dumbledore didn't dare to use the same spells, but that he was "a better man, a better wizard".
First two movies: Santa Claus.
Movie three and onwards: an asshole.
The chapter at the ministry is literally calledThe Only One He Ever Feared! In the movies the only time he came across like that was with Harry after his name was called in the Goblet of Fire (which was unnecessary)!
Haha poor Harry had to deal with a lot of anger from movie Dumbledore.
I think the part the movie royally screwed up was the fact that in the books Dumbledore dogwalked Voldemort during that entire duel. The movies never really captured that idea that Dumbledore was the only one Voldemort ever feared.
@@wilji1090I think if sir Michael Gambon had read the books or even seen sir Richard Harrison's portrayal in the previous films, he could've nailed it!! There's a time & a place to adapt a character & it's not when portraying a pivotal character that is written in a specific way!
@@daniellewylie6187 Yeah, criminal when taking over a role of a character already portrayed well by an actor in two previous films, not to wish to have continuity.
Like it's become a meme at this point. The scene when Harry's name comes out of the goblet of fire. Dumbledore Just grabs him and start snarling, like an animal comparing to how calm he was in the book. Because he already knows Harry didn't do it And even if Harry had he still would have maintained his calm composure, as always
That scene deserves it's meme status lol. I was going to include it in this video, but I figured everyone already knows about that one and rightfully laughs at it.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Was it the director's fault or the actor? Because there's rumors that the actor didn't read the book to get into character
I feel like it's kinda overused honestly, like honestly Michael Gambon's Dumbledore is usually not that bad and is usually pretty good, like his scene with Draco for example in Half Blood Prince was one of Dumbledore's best scenes really.
The problem is that in the books too, Dumbledore has missed the fact that the real Moody never arrived in Hogwarts. And magical abilities aside, he must have had clues... he knew Moody much better than Crouch Jr... he would have known what was out of character. And "I knew and I followed"... he was a long time arriving and - but for luck - could have been too late. It could be argued that the movies have a truer impression of Dumbledore's true abilities than the books. In book one, he literally had Voldemort possessing a teacher all year and didn't notice. Even the centaur knew Voldemort was in the forest feeding off unicorns.
Good points! I think with the earlier books I give some allowance considering they are much more kids books and she wrote them in a way to allow Harry to have adventures. But I do think in the Goblet of Fire Barty Crouch is inhumanly good at acting to the point where he may as well be the real Moody.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt I think I might be being a bit too lenient with a book I like but I quite enjoyed just how competent Barty Jr was. He first serves as a poisoned chalice as Moody, bending the rules and providing new insights for Harry. Then we find out he was working against us all along which inverts all the blessings we thought we'd received.
I think having him lose his cool when the plan falls apart works both for his otherwise unreasonable well-put-together character and narratively.
Dumbledore knew about Quirrell, the books even tell us as much and Hermione was almost angry when Harry explained it to her that Dumbledore probably felt that Harry had "the right" to confront Voldemort and established the entire thing to make it happen so that Harry´s journey would be easier that way.
Dumbledore was in perfect control of the situation in book 1.
@@matiasluukkanen7718 Controversial. I remember there was some speculation about a test from Dumbledore, but I don't think you're going to be able to show me where the book says that. Remember that Dumbledore had left the building leaving McGonagall in charge. Dumbledore says it was just chance that brought him back.
@@matiasluukkanen7718 it goes even deeper than that, we find out in book 5 that Dumbledore knows about the prophesy, which states "one shall die by the hand of the other" implying that Dumbledore cannot stop Voldemort, only Harry has a chance, which might be why he takes a more hands off approach in book 1.
I was very impressed how Dumbledore was able to manipulate Snape for the greater good. The man saw bigger picture and didn’t have misgivings about sacrificing a man who brought most of his misfortune on himself.
Yeah the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape is really interesting - another thing lost in the movies! I love the scene in the books where Snape approaches Dumbledore for the first time, when Harry is seeing his memories.
I don´t know if Snape was sacrificed in any sense. Dumbledore gave him comfy life, salary and chance to be adored by students, prestige of being a teacher, escape from criminal past and punishment, etc. Without Dumbledore Snape would rot in Azkaban however repentant he might otherwise be.
Dumbledore never planned to Snape to die and only planned for his own death. If his plan went on correctly, then Snape would survive everything. After all, Snape needed to be alive to give those memories to Harry.
But Voldemort, obsessed with Elder Wand, had other plans. Harry even acknowledges to Dumbledore that his plan with Snape failed.
@@matiasluukkanen7718 I think I’m being misunderstood. I agree with everything you said. What I mean is that Dumbledore sent Snape on dangerous missions knowing that Snape might die. He wasn’t surprised or too remorseful about it, it was a snag in the plan. But it was a possibility Dumbledore was certainly aware of.
@@matiasluukkanen7718 Yeah that's all very true - good points about Snape!
Tbf i think in the movies it really depends on who was doing the screenplay.
Because Dumbledore in Prisoner of Azkaban is the best we got. He's consistently wise and has some great lines.
When Harry and Hermione go on their time turner journey Dumbledore saves them multiple times through distractions and he seems to be ahead of even Hermione with the time travel idea.
When he suggests the idea there is a twinkle in his eye. And he is never concerned with Serious Black since he seems to know that Serious is innocent, whilst others don't.
When Harry gets hit by dementors during Quidditch we get a great POV shot where Dumbledore raises his arm and saves Harry's life. But this scene is limited by the fact that we are told by Hermione how furious Dumbledore was rather than be shown his anger.
But that is just in the 3rd film. For most of the films Dumbledore is not written very well.
In the first 2 films he's too docile and grandfatherly, to the point where there's nothing about him that says he could ever scare Voldermort or be this powerful wizard. In 4 he seems oblivious most of the time. In 5 he seems out of his depth against the Ministry and even against Voldermort he's just average. In six he's the only guy who's actually trying to progress the plot in any way.
His brief appearances in 8 are great though.
But his performance in the 3rd film is great.
The biggest problem with movie dumbledore was that they absolutely picked the worst actor for the second one after the first sadly died. This guy simply didn't had the calm leading traits needed for the character he played. I fully understand they needed an other actor fast, that doesn't mean you have to hold on to him for the next movies when he obvious fails the job.
Completely agree. It was very sad in more ways than one that Richard Harris, the first actor, passed away.
I had to accept the fact a long time ago that the movies are their own thing, they belong to their own universe and must be viewed as separate from books. They got so many things wrong, much of which were conscious choices. I understand film is a different medium than print and things need to be depicted differently to have the correct effect and to be entertaining, but they could have done some things a little better. Michael Gambon’s refusal to the read the books still annoys me to this day. But if we don’t hold them up to masterpieces that are the books, the movies are mostly pretty good. Can’t wait for the series!!
That's a good way to look at it - and likewise I'm excited to see what HBO can do with the new show!
I remember when I was young I was talking to my uncle about adaptations and why they can’t get it accurately to the source material. My uncle just said don’t read the books. Movies (and shows) are always gonna be different anyways and it is always gonna cut parts out and people will be mad anyways.
There is one thing I don't quite understand. How did you manage to make a 12-13 minute video explaining why the movies failed Dumbledore and never once even briefly mention the iconic meme?
Seems like we don’t really need a reminder, the scars run too deep 😂
Haha - I did almost include it but I know everyone already knows about and makes fun of that scene so I decided to leave it out!
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Fair.
You’re so right on both characters. The only way they knew to make Dumbledore look scary to Harry in GOF was to make him all aggressive & rattled… where in the book he had this angelic force emanating like heat… & it’s like the only way these (even highly skilled actors) knew to portray these were thru aggressive movements …. I think it says alot about Rowling’s writing & perhaps the only way to make a Harry Potter film is either animated or CGI.. EXCEPT the 1st one was about right for what they had to do for kids & screen. Maybe all of it was too much for a real movie… Voldemort is SCARY in the books.. the graveyard scene in GOF is GOTHIC, HORROR, CHILLING & traumatic & also powerful.. they totally ruined it .. I think u could make movies actually but not for kids. A lot of really crazy stuff was going on.. but I will say some of Voldemort’s magic was very physical & blood magic too. Creating the rudimentary body; making Horcruxes .. kidnapping & torturing Bertha Jorkins to death mentally & physically (if they pulled a fetus out of her which I think Wormtail raped her & when the pregnancy begins in 3 weeks; they took the fetus & engourged it to make a body for Voldemort.. then nourished it by milking Nagini’s venom … very dark magic that even Rowling said she can’t say & it made her editor nearly vomit
Great points man. To be honest everytime I re-read the series I appreciate JK Rowling more as a writer, she's great at character writing in my opinion. And yeah the Harry Potter books really delve into some seriously dark stuff. To be honest I've never really read another series quite like it (considering everything together).
And yet by doing that they ruined the impact of the scene where Dumbledore burst into the office to stun Barty Crouch Jr. and save Harry. It was in that moment that Harry understood why people said Dumbledore was the only one VOldemort was ever afraid of. It was the first time we as readers saw Dumbledore truly angry, even though both Hermione and Lupin mentioned how angry he was when the Dementors came onto the Quidditch pitch.
I recently reread all books and forgot so much because I've seen the movies after I read them. And I agree with all your points (as well as your Voldemort video). I hope the HBO series will be more book accurate.
Thanks! I do like to return to the books from time to time.
DIDYAPUTYANAMEINDAGOBLETOFIRE must be the biggest character assassination of Dumbledore in all movies. But I'm not surprised - GoF is by far the worst movie adaptation (imo).
Haha, the moment is so bad that it's kind of come around to me enjoying it. It fully deserves its meme status, I was going to include it in this video but I thought it was so obvious there wasn't much point.
Just curious if you could do a video on Snape.
Hey man I'd definitely like to! I have a couple of other topics I want to explore as well (non-HP related) but I'd like to do more videos on Snape and the golden trio.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt understandable
The movies never do the books justice. I’ve always thought but if you’re doing another video for stories I vote for Eragon also known as the inheritance series’s
Yeah the only decent adaptations I can think of off the top of my head are LOTR (although I know some fans disagree) and Fight Club. Thanks for the suggestion though! Funnily enough I was thinking about Eragon the other day, the only thing is it's been a while so I'd have to reread it and watch the movie, but if I have time I definitely will.
Richard Harris portrayal of Dumbledore was great. He was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore to be and look.
Michael Gambon was okay in Prisoner Of Azkaban. But something happened to Dumbledore's character in the fourth one. Well the director didn't even read the books. So that's not helping either. But he was the one who decided make Dumbledore all shouty and confused instead calm and top of things.
It's such a great shame the og actor for Dumbledore passed before the films could be finished. HE was perfect. The replacement 😬
I know! It's very sad, poor guy.
Thoroughly enjoyed this video. I am currently rereading the books for the first time in about 20+ years and there are so many things that are left out or misrepresented in the movies.
Thank you! Completely agree - I end up revisiting the books every now and then as a comfort read.
That's why I always said that Gambon got Dumbledore right in the HbP movie, his choice of acting in a more soft and almost tired character give the wise and mature tone that been missing in the previous movies.
I preferred Richard Harris to be honest, although I wonder how he'd have handled the more active scenes.
Two things, really:
1) I think Goblet of Fire is really overstated when it comes to Gambon's portrayal. Yes, granted, it is not accurate. However, he acted perfectly well for Prisoner of Azkaban and Half-Blood Prince. In terms of GoF, in general the movie was poorly adapted and directed, and nearly every portrayal was poor including Voldemort. Many will hyperfocus on that one scene in one movie rather than summarise his entire tenure.
2) Harris has the benefit of both retroactive nostalgia, and taking part in the earlier films. Dumbledore was little more than a speaking role. Don't get me wrong, he nails that part as per the book description. However, I'm not certain Harris would have handled later events at his age. I don't see within him the fury that the dementors entered the school grounds, or any physical presence for magical combat. If he had been younger, then perhaps so, however at that age he was clearly only taking on certain speaking roles, bit like Gladiator too
I would be in favour of a remake. Not because of Dumbledore, but because other characters like Ron and Harry himself got butchered pretty badly. Even Snape is, oddly, made much more sympathetic in the books. By contrast, Dumbledore is one of the more accurate ones.
"Dumbledore said calmly"
Is probably the biggest movie meme which shows the distinction from the book, lol.
(I said this before checking if you talked about it)
Hahah yeah I love how memed this scene is, I was going to include it in this video but I thought it was so obvious anyway.
Keep the good stuff going, myths and legends analysis helps a lot of people in many aspects (including education and development)
Thanks man I'll do my best. Let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like as well!
It would be archetypal analysis of some foundamental characters (such as the four founders, the main heroes and villains) I am sure there is good learning potential from a literature scholar point of view..
I wondered if you will make a video essay about Book Snape vs Movie Snape 'cause i wanna see that too.
The same about Ron, Hermione and Ginny 'cause they were also done dirty in the films.
Snape is definitely on my list! I wish I had more time to work on videos but annoyingly I have to fit it in around work. But it's definitely on my list and I'll try and get to it soon.
I agree with everything you said in the video. In fact, I don’t think you mentioned that Dumbledore knew the imposter was Barty Crouch Jr. even before he discovered the polyjuice potion. He tells McGonagall to go to the kitchens and bring Winky to the room which shows that he knew the real identity of Moody.
In some ways, I loved Gambon’s portrayal of him, especially in the Half Blood Prince. That was the movie where I felt he was most closely aligned with the book descriptions of him. But I agree that his aggressiveness in the two previous movies was frustrating and out of character. I do think that he looked exactly like I pictured Dumbledore in my head though so I’ll give credit for that. And I think he did really well in the cave scene when he casts the fire spell.
That's a great spot I actually missed that from the books!
Surprised you didn't go over the fight itself that also highlights Dumbledore's abilities blocking several avadas with different statues and Fawkes.
To be honest I didn't want to make the video too long, but I may revisit stuff like this in the future!
If Richard Harris was 20 years younger he would have been no less than absolutely perfect. I would've loved watching him dual Voldemort
Very sad that he passed away!
Michael Gambon was only good in the Prisoner of Azkaban movie. He felt very close to Book Dumbledore and Richard Harris' portrait.
Though, even there, we had an unnsesesary joke of Dumbledore hitting Ron's broken leg in the Hospital Wing, just for the movie to make fun of Ron - Dumbedore won't do that!
Very good essay as well.
I'd love to see you talk more about the other characters, like Harry, Ron and Hermione.
Snape would be an interesting take. Given that J.K. Rowling gave Alan Rickman information about the character from the very start. Of course, it still all heavily depended on what scripts he was given - and movie 6 was the only one not written by Steve Cloves, from what I remember - and the directors of course.
I'd also be interested in you critisizing other aspects of the movies, other than characters.
I forgot about him hitting Ron's leg, yeah there's lots of instances of cheesy, forced humour throughout the whole movie series.
Thanks very much glad you liked this one too! Yeah I'm kind of thinking what to do next re: Harry Potter. I actually liked Alan Rickman as Snape even though it's very different to the book Snape.
There'll be a second part to Cursed Child coming out this week, then I'll see what I do next.
I agree with another comment, I’d like to know what you think of Snape’s portrayal.
I was planning on doing it in the future, but since a few people seem quite interested in the topic I may do it sooner!
Very well-thought out video! I am in complete agreement with you. Overall, I do love the films, but to me, the most disappointing change made from book to film is Dumbledore as a character. It is clear that Richard Harris and Chris Colombus understood Dumbledore perfectly and essentially had the character walk off the page and onto the screen. If I must nitpick, I could argue that Harris's Dumbledore could have had a few more "whimsical Dumbledore" moments, but what we got was near perfect (in terms of book accuracy).
Whilst I respect Michael Gambon (may he rest in peace) as an actor, I've always thought he was horribly miscast as Dumbledore. It is plain as day that he simply did not understand the character. To me, he is Dumbledore in name only, with none of the personality or even appearance. On that, I really cannot fathom as to why Cuaron decided to dress Gambon the way he did in PoA. The overlong, garish fingernails, the straggly, wiry grey hair - the beard tie. Not only is it as un-Dumbledorish as possible, its completely jarring after seeing Harris in his elegant, beautiful robes, clean silvery-white hair and free-flowing beard. Changing his appearance that drastically instantly changes the character, in this case. You immediately get an impression of an old man who's letting himself go, or of an old warlock, not the serene, wise God-like figure Dumbledore is meant to be. Then there's Fawkes, the majestic mythical bird that acts as Dumbledore's animal familiar. There is a deep connection there that we never fully learn of, we don't even know how Dumbledore and Fawkes met. They just seem to be inextricably tied to one another. A regally-adorned Dumbledore suits a creature as mysterious and graceful as a phoenix. Seeing Gambon in his dull robes standing next to him in OotP just does not work.
Dumbledore is the one character that seems almost superhuman in his wisdom, it's a shame we only get to see him this way for the first two films.
All really great points! Yeah Gambon came across as even more diminished and out of place in the role when comparing him to Harris. I don't know why they changed directors partway through? I guess it's not completely uncommon with long-running franchises.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Thanks! Yes, I suppose it's the nature of the beast. They often change hands. Please keep up the great content!! Your Voldemort video was really good too.
@@E45F678 Thank you - I'll try my best!
I wish the actual video scenes were used for this video. It’s hard to imagine or remember exactly those scenes
Yeah unfortunately as I've just started out on UA-cam recently I wasn't confident at this point putting clips into the videos. My newer videos have clips now, and hopefully I can keep improving.
The biggest problem with movie dumbledore was that they absolutely picked the worst actor for the second one after the first sadly died.
Yeah very sad all around.
Its one of the things that comes with turning books into movies, you have high expectations but wont meet them all. Books are always better, but they did the best they could with what was given
Christopher Lee would have been the perfect Dumbledore. In fact, Dumbledore has quite a few more parallels to Saruman than he does to Gandalf.
Christopher Lee has great presence. Although to me he'll always be Saruman.
Don’t forget the wizardgamot purposely didn’t inform dumbledore about the trial
Lore of What the Harry Potter Movies Got Wrong About Dumbledore - Books vs Films momentum 100
Dude, great video. But I have to say your microphone levels are way too hot and you’re clipping constantly. Record at lower levels and then apply compression to smooth out the peaks and *then* raise the gain to a comfortable loudness. It’ll sound much smoother and fuller this way without that “tearing” sound.
Hey man, thanks for both the compliment and the tips. That's really helpful, my microphone has been a constant struggle so far, I've been trying to improve it. I'll try what you said and hopefully that'll fix the last few problems!
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptI do audio editing, including for UA-camrs. With the quality of your content here, I would be more than happy to give you a hand with this. Just let me know and I’ll reach out to you. (Just to be clear, there’s no charge involved here.)
That'd be amazing if you can I'd be really grateful. I've been trying to muddle along myself but with mixed results. I'd love for you to reach out and thanks again if you can.
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt email sent!
Albus 'Gandalf' Dumbledore. ❤ weilder of the flame 🔥
Two great characters!
Michael Gambon did not play Gandalf.. Gandalf was played by Ian McKellen
Beautifully explained 🎉... U got a New subscriber from this video.
Thankyou for this ❤ . Hope you continue this series with other characters starting with ... Harry himself > Ron > Ginny > Neville > Hermione !
Thank you much appreciated! I have a couple of other topics I may do first but I'll definitely look to do a video on each of the trio in the future!
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Thankyou 💫✨ !
New HP series coming. Now I ask you all. What they gonna do, make positive changes by being more faithful to the books, do better than the old movies and even fix some of the bad writing that comes directly from the books, or change things no one wants or care fors like characters sexuality or ethnicity and make plots based off only that? I bet in the second one
I suspect probably the latter, and I'm not too hopeful to be honest. But you never know, fingers crossed.
Yeah, I'm not really expecting much from the TV show.
@@bethanyjohnson8001 I'll probably at least watch the first few episodes, but I'm ready to be disappointed.
I mean sometimes Dr Strange and Zatanna who seem to be above HP magic also know how to fight hand to hand
The portrayal of magic in DC is very different though, I feel, compared to Harry Potter.
How many of these background images are AI?
This video puts into words so much that i felt about the movie dumbledore. Great video
Thanks very much!
I'm... disappointed.
Your video was very good and I agree with your points, so don't take this the wrong way. By changing Dumbledore as the movies did, the end of 'The Half-Blood Prince' looses much of its weight and gravitas. That was the first time the readers saw Dumbledore out of control and emotional. It was an incredible shock. In the movies? He was emotional since 'The Goblet of Fire.'
Just wanted to mention my take-away.
Thanks for sharing your point of view, to be fair it sounds like we're in agreement?
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2pt Oh! Absolutely!
I like this odea that it feels wrong for a powerful wizard to have to physically fight.
It felt wrong when Yoda did it in Clone Wars and it feels wrong here as well.
Yeah I really strongly feel that, and I feel like this is the way powerful wizards are portrayed in the books. It was just lost in translation for the movies.
Great point about Yoda. I think George Lucas didn't understand his own characters that well to be honest when he made the prequels.
Richard Harris nailed it
Yeah he was great.
4th movie truly diminishes both Dumbledore and Voldemort
Dumbledore especially was awful in the Goblet of Fire movie.
Well the movies also ruined Hermione,Ron,Ginny and Grindelwald like where most of the lines from Hermione in the movies are actually Ron’s and remember I said about the Misconception of Norman Osborn?
Yeah definitely, and I remember you asking about it! I'm planning on reading through it soon from the link you shared with me before
@@MediaRetrospective-sb2ptgood because the other thing with Grindelwald is the casting of him and that I watched this video on Brian Seeker
The only character who was 100% done well in the movies was luna lovegood because the character was heavily inspired by the actor in real life
Some were Ron's but most? That seems kinda like a exaggeration really.
Michael Gambon is a great actor but a terrible dumbledore
Fully agreed.
Nice video
Thank you!
I knew this would turn into basically a Gambon shitting session. Day late, dollar short. HP channels have been covering this for years.
Wow more than one UA-camr makes a video on the same sort of topic? You are right that is totally unheard of. How dare someone make a video that is similar to videos made by a handful of the billions of users on this site. Should be illegal.