The Harry potter films.

[sammoss147]

I think the latest film is now really bad and I think the future ones will be too. The problem is that Harry is somehow got to look like he's somelike 2 years younger.

Does everyone else feel the same?

 

[Dozmonic]

Not really. People age at different rates the world over. It often seems that Americans on tv are a good couple of years older than they are, especially on chat shows. Daniel Radcliffe looks young, he's never going to fill out to be a broad shouldered aged bloke walking around with a beard ;-)

 

[afroelf]

What about the fact that Daniel apparently has turned into a chain smoker - Harry Potter and the Riddle of the Smokers Cough

 

[Pyan]

I've seen this argument before - and I'm amazed that the suspension of belief needed to accept magic, Hogwarts in all its glory, thestrals, The Dark Lord, etc, etc, etc, appears to break down over the age of the actors...

 

[PTeppic]

They filmed book 6 this year, when they're all supposed to be 16 going on 17, if my school-ages maths is right. Daniel turned 19 in late July and Rupert turned 20 but Emma's only just 18. It's not a great deal of difference: Tina Heath was 20 when she played the 12 year old Lizzie Dripping, for example, and there are many others (e.g. 1971's "The Railway Children")

 

[The Procrastinator]

Can't say it bothers me in the least. My suspension of disbelief (see Py's post above) is well able to handle minor age discrepancies. I don't think the movies are that bad, either - as long as they're fun, I'm happy.

 

[Boneman]

Okay, I know I'm bumping this thread, and sort-of hijacking it, but........ I recently got a big widescreen TV and have been working my way through the HP films. I've got one major gripe and that's Dumbledore: Richard Harris had gravitas, serenity and style and could shut someone up with a glance. He never once lost his temper and came over as an elder statesman of Wizardry, someone with immense knowledge and wisdom. Michael Gambon comes over as an unwashed hippy, who shouts and rants all the time. He wears the same gown throughout, and it looks like a hospital gown that's not been washed, the stupid way his beard is tied makes me think he belongs as a Greenham Common protestor, and I can't wait for him to be Killed Off!!!!!!! Why, oh why did they choose him?
To quote Terry Wogan: Is it me?

 

[devilsgrin]

blind idiocy is all i can think of Boneman. Michael Gambon was indeed the most abominable choice for Dumbledore imaginable... especially after the flawless performance from our dearly beloved late Sir Richard. MG seems to forget he's in a movie and over-performs every single line and movement as if he were performing on-stage.
Dumbledore would never have "attacked" Harry as MG did in the movie GoF about him putting his name in the Goblet. This is perhaps the most obvious and blatant example of how starkly different RH and MG play Dumbledore, and also a clear sign of how far MG's Dumbledore is from the book original.

 

[The Procrastinator]

If its you, its me as well. That's my only major gripe with the movies - Michael Gambon just doesn't manage the Authoriteh and gravitas etc, as you say Boneman. He's not my Dumbledore and I wish they had cast someone else.

 

[kythe]

I have the same view so far on Michael Gambon's Dumbledore. Even when I read the books I find myself picturing Richard Harris as Dumbledore, both in appearance and behavior.

However, Richard Harris' Dumbledore doesn't seem to be much of a man of action. He came across as a wise and gentle mentor to Harry and the others, but I have trouble projecting him onto the later stories where Dumbledore takes a more active role in the adventures. He almost seemed too docile to be the same Dumbledore who later explores Tom Riddles' cave with Harry. Michael Gambon will be able to handle that with no problem.

 

[Boneman]

Fair point, Kythe...not long to find out if that's so!

 

[Lady of Winterfell]

I have to agree as well, I thought Richard Harris was a much better Dumbledore. When I reread the books, that is how I pictured him. But we'll see what happens in the future Harry Potter movies. I have so far enjoyed all the movies, and am very much looking forward to the next one.

I also have no problem with the age difference betweent he actors and the characters they are playing.

 

[Dozmonic]

I'd watched two or three of the movies and thought that Harris was a great Dumbledore, but then the character of Dumbledore changes as Rowling developed him throughout the books. In the first couple of books his role was that of a benevolent watcher, and he's saying nonsensical words at the banquet on the first day of term. However, he changes as she found more of his backstory and character, and ultimately I think he becomes more of a Gambon. I do think he could shout a little less though, the serenity has been lost.

 

[The Procrastinator]

The perfect Dumbledore would be someone who could project that awesome sense of knowing what's going on - trustworthiness - authority - power - wisdom - compassion - that Richard Harris conveys so wonderfully in the role, with a little more spark and energy, like Dumbledore in the books. I wish Gambon was this, but unfortunately he isn't quite. Bit too hysterical. Such a shame, as so many of the other actors are perfect in the roles. (the kids - Lupin - Snape (born to be Snape) - Bellatrix - Hagrid - the list goes on.)

 

[Lady of Winterfell]

I agree Procrastinator, I think they have done a really great job at casting the roles for the movies. I'm sure thats partially why the movies have been so successful, since casting can make or break a film.

 

[devilsgrin]

emma thompson is also a perfect Trelawney. But of course, Alan Rickman takes the cake as simply the best casting in the film (Maggie Smith is also an exceptional choice for McGonagal).

 

[Boneman]

Michael Gambon apart, I don't think there's been a bad bit of casting, and I get the impression that the actors who appear just once (usually as dark Arts teachers) really enjoy themselves. Look at Kenneth Branagh....

 

[The Procrastinator]

The vast majority of the casting has been absolute pearlers, and I'm sure The Lady is right, its a big part of the reason for the success of the films. Michael Gambon is the only one who really jars for me, but I do have to confess to not completely loving the choice of Gary Oldman for Sirius. Not that I'm really complaining - Mr Oldman does a superb job as always - its just that I always picture Sirius as someone who looks a lot like Johnny Depp when I read the books, so Gary's portrayal hasn't quite "taken" for me.

 

[kythe]

Another excellent cast member is Jason Isaacs as Lucius Malfoy. I actually wish he had played Celeborn in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He looks like someone who could lead an army, something I think was lacking in that character.

I wasn't as impressed by Trelawney, but I picture her more dreamy and her speech more trance-like. I know most of what she said didn't reflect any real talent at predicting the future, but she was a little too hyper to be believeable as someone who fancies herself a medium.

I do believe good casting was probably the greatest strength of the Harry Potter movies, so I don't mean to sound too critical.

 

[The Ace]

The problem with Dumbledore is that the reader is encouraged to see him as a kindly, somewhat dotty, old man. The real suspension of disbelief comes from the other characters' attitude to him, that he was the only one Voldemort was ever truly afraid of. Harris had the potential to fill both roles whereas Gambon can really only master the latter.