I agree. It sucks that the first actor died but, im not saying i dislike the second Dumbledore.. i just like the was the first one embodied the Dumbledore from the books.
Personally, I never really liked Dumbledore, but I do have a few things to say about this.
First, we only saw two movies with the first Dumbledore, and not only did the actors change, but the producers did too. We probably would have complained about Dumbledore the same because its not just the actors.
Secondly, Personally i enjoy the second Dumbledore more, because he seemed more in character to the sneaky, secretive, ploting man (I would have used another word) we find out he is in the end of the story.
But that's just my opinion.
I think I enjoyed the Gambon better than Harris. Gambon was little more lively, and I'm sure because of his age, Harris was a bit slower. Book Dumbledore was quicker, wittier, and everyone knew he was a powerful wizard, but no one knew how powerful he was. Gambon did that very well. I agree some changes in the characters, plots, and dialogue were not represented well- especially the infamous Dumbledore scene in the Goblet of Fire. But anyway, the books are always better than the movies.
I think people should tone down the judging cause I mean it's really really lucky that they even had all the books made into such a successful movie, I mean yes it was sad the first actor died, but at least the movie went on!
Richard Harris portrayed Dumbledore to a "T". He was perfect in showing that everything he did had a precise reason behind it.
Michael Gambon is the reason I haven't seen all the movies, his interpretation of Dumbledore is horrendous. He made Dumbledore seem erratic and emotionally reactive. It made him out to be a child rather than a powerful wizard.
First, we only saw two movies with the first Dumbledore, and not only did the actors change, but the producers did too. We probably would have complained about Dumbledore the same because its not just the actors.
Secondly, Personally i enjoy the second Dumbledore more, because he seemed more in character to the sneaky, secretive, ploting man (I would have used another word) we find out he is in the end of the story.
But that's just my opinion.
Michael Gambon is the reason I haven't seen all the movies, his interpretation of Dumbledore is horrendous. He made Dumbledore seem erratic and emotionally reactive. It made him out to be a child rather than a powerful wizard.