Not sure if serious.

 

Yeah... America does it so well. Not to mention we also have a Hollywood Industrial Machine that would of take these three kids and chewed them up and spit them out, so that for years and years after the HP-movies were done, they would continue to give us the lulz of child-star syndrome.

We do it so well in America.

 

Oh please, not this shit again. The kids provide a service, the kids are generally better paid for that service than most of the people who have worked their entire life. No one "chewed them up and spit them out". Plenty of child actors have been successful, at the end of the day it boils down to the same thing it always does: personality and parenting. If you have a shitty dose of one you will be fucked up, but that has nothing to do with the studios. It's simply what happens when kids get independent too early, and haven't been taught decency. Hell, I could argue that this isn't even limited to child stars. Give people a fuckton of money and enablers and some of them will crack.

People crying exploitation just piss me off. Sure, if you're talking about producers providing people with drugs so they can do a better performance or something I'm with you. But getting paid scandalous amounts of money is now exploitation? Please.

Here's the only criteria for salaries the studios care about:
"How much money will I lose if I change the face of Harry Potter and have to hire a new kid whose parents will know that they have us by the balls?" If the amount is lower than, or close to whatever Radcliffe asked for, he gets it.

 

How has this thread gone for 3 pages based on that op... lol

 

I know right?

Dumbledore wasn't the face of Harry Potter but I still remember that it rocked me when I saw his replacement. So he could be substituted in for an example.

I was looking for a pay comparison for Richard Harris and Michael Gambon to see if Michael had the studio -by the balls- to act as the new Dumbledore. I found very little information but Gambon himself mentioned that he was acting in three plays cause HP didn't pay enough.

Compared to Richard Harris who was supposedly offered "a substantial salary" but was holding out to see if he could get a share in the profits.

Would be interesting to try and compare which actors seemed to fit into there role better for having read the Harry Potter books to those who didn't. An easy comparison would of been Dumbledore but neither of the actors read the books. Unsure who else is supposed to of read them.

Oddly enough Richard Harris didn't want to be associated with the Harry Potter movies but I feel that he captured the spirit of Dumbledore perfectly.

 

My personal viewpoint on Richard Harris vs Michael Gambon is this;

Richard Harris personified the grandfatherly character that Dumbledore put forth, caring quite a bit more for his students (and Harry, obviously) than he did for anything else.

Michael Gambon, on the other hand, showcased the power that Dumbledore had. The Ministry atrium fight comes to mind, as does the scene in HBP in the Horcrux cave where he's whipping that fire dragon around like it's nothing. I'm of the opinion that the dragon was either Fiend Fyre or was just there for effects. Leaning towards the latter, but the former would be incredibly cool.

 

I was actually imagining how the old Dumbledore would of taken on Voldemort in the ministry. I think the change from the calm Dumbledore we had seen to a fierce powerful Dumbledore would of been more dramatic.

Also, that fight always rubbed me the wrong way. Voldemort seems to have the upper hand in most of the fight in the movies (Even forcing Dumbledore to the ground). Where in the books I had the impression that he was easily countering Voldemort and almost playing with him.

Was there a dragon in the flames? I don't recall that. Though I do recall there being flames in the water in the movie. Giving some validity to it being some kind of strong fire but I don't consider the movies to be resource for information in the books.

Dumbledore using Dark magic? I think its more impressive that he was able to create a flame that could be seen as Fiendfyre. That scene was pretty good though.

 

I think they were trying to show how powerful Voldemort is, but they went too far with it and made Dumbledore look weak in comparison. In the books, I felt like it was relatively an even match though Dumbledore probably was winning.

No, but one of the main characteristics of Fiendfyre is that it takes the shape of serpents, dragons, and other magical creatures. I could've sworn I saw a serpent or a dragon or soemthing, but it's been a while since I actually sat down and watched HBP.

I don't recall Fiendfyre ever being categorized as Dark magic. The only evidence that we have that supports that is Hermione commenting on it being too powerful for them to control in DH, and Crabbe using it in that same chapter.

Crabbe using it doesn't lend much credence to it being Dark magic, considering that this is Crabbe we're talking about.

Also, there are plenty of Light spells that are incredibly powerful. The Patronus charm, for instance, is the only thing that works against Dementors. What's stopping Fiendfyre from being Light, besides the name?

 

A simple definition of Dark spells is anything that causes harm.

I think Crabbe using it does lend credence to it being dark since he wanted to harm Harry Potter. Him being a moron doesn't matter. Usually people name something for its attributes. I don't seen it being called Fluffy Bunny.

Its been a while since I watched any of the Hp movies. I will watch HBP sometime tomorrow and let you know if there is a dragon in the flames.

 

Where do people get the idea that they were a UK production? The cast?

 

Because it was?

A quick Wiki search shows me that the Producer for the movies was David Heyman, the founder of Heyday Films (a British Film production company), which owns the rights to the Harry Potter series.

So... British producer? British producing company?

Sounds like a UK production to me. Maybe you are being snippy with terms, but I think the point is clear.

 

US money, US distribution, US rights.

This was WB's production, through and through, and all Exec decisions were made by them. Scott Free films, you'll find, aren't British productions either, despite fulfilling all the criteria you mentioned. Nor are Syncopy's.

Loathe as I am to shit on the validity of your quick wiki search by imparting industry facts, treating the modern Harry Potter brand as anything less than a Hollywood franchise is ridiculous.

In other news, WB today launched the Harry Potter studio set tours.

 

Remind me where that definition was in canon, because I certainly don't remember dark magic ever being even vaguely defined. As far as I know, any definition of what dark magic is must be complete fanon, because Rowling never went in depth about it.

Though I thought fiendyfire and other dark magic was something the Death Eaters were teaching Crabbe/Goyle etc. in class? Or am I completely off base here?

 

Cursed Fire sounds like dark magic to me.

 

@ Issola / Redshell

When it comes to the powerfully magical fights in the books, I think we need to remember that our narrator is Harry.

He wouldn't have any idea who was winning in a fight of that level. He wouldn't know the difficulty of the spells being cast or the true effects of the spells, let alone anything more tactical or strategic.

But we can think about it enough to understand it, somewhat. One true strike from any spell of Voldemort's would have killed Dumbledore. That's just how Voldemort plays it when he's against someone who he doesn't underestimate (or who isn't needed in later books by the author...). When Dumbledore was forced to use Fawkes, his get out of jail free card, I'd say he went from being in a tie to potentially losing it.

But remember, Dumbledore never expected to defeat Tom. A fight like that was always in Voldemort's favor, in Dumbledore's mind, because he could die but Voldemort couldn't. Dumbledore wanted to stall until the Ministry got there, and he succeeded in that.

So, in the big picture, Dumbledore certainly won that duel. Judging simple combat abilities...? Voldemort probably won, as Dumbledore had to use Fawkes.

 

I actually have the oppsite view. Harris, while grandfatherly in the two movies before he died, was a truly awesome actor and, let's face it, he just looked like a tough old bird. Gambon, while perfectly fine as Dumbledore, never gave me the impression his rendition was a badass in sheep's clothing.

In fact, the frantic mannerisms he used in GoF gave the impression Dumbledore was channeling Uncle Vernon and just shy of a breakdown complete with flying spittle.

^This, except that it's "would've," and after the umpteenth time of correcting someone on this, I'm forced to wonder what kind of schools you guys went to if you can read that in a sentence without your eye twitching. So what do that mean when you can keep typing it over and over and over?

I did not get the impression that Dumbledore was playing with Voldemort in the Atrium, though IIRC he's walking towards LV calmly and nonchalantly, with his wand down. Harry (again, IIRC) wants to shout for him to be wary. To me, that shows that Dumbledore is still pretty confident, though I could also argue that this is always Dumbledore's modus operandi, and/or that he was purposefully putting himself in greater danger in order to keep Voldemort's attention on himself rather than Harry.

Exactly, and that is part of my point from above. Dumbledore wanted all of LV's attention, because Harry is not only hopelessly outclassed should he decide to try "helping," he's also in such shock from Sirius' death that he probably couldn't run away if he tried.

I see what you're saying, but I imagine Dumbledore used Fawkes because (1) it's a seriously cool and unexpected move and a great thing to read about in the scene, and (2) Rowling felt like dropping the awesome in there.

If Fawkes were never written into the books, I suppose Rowling would've (NOT "would of") had Dumbledore avoid LV's Killing Curse some other way.

And you're right in that D'dore never expected to "win," seeing as LV himself seems surprised that he isn't going for the kill (and yes, that is addressed with D'dore's comment on fates worse than death), merely to keep LV there until Fudge and the Aurors arrived.

BUT - I've often wondered whether Dumbledore would have tried to kill Voldemort even if he didn't already know/suspect about the Horcruxes.

I mean, he didn't kill Grindelwald, who was arguably responsible for Arianna's death and Albus' strained relationship with Aberforth. Sure, there were a LOT of extenuating circumstances with Grindelwald, but Albus chose mercy and imprisonment, presumably hoping that Gellert would find remorse and some measure of redemption.

And suppose Dumbledore HAD landed a Killing Curse on Tom, it's not as if it would have no effect, right? Voldemort would presumably be "killed" in that he (his spirit) would be ejected from the new body. And while that would certainly make convincing Fudge that "he's really back" difficult (again? still?), it would also have the added bonus of giving time for Dumbledore and Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes while Voldemort is (1) a disembodied spirit with few followers outside prison and (2) not killing anyone, especially Harry.

Now I know that Rowling was never going to write Dumbledore tossing around Killing Curses, but I do wonder: Would Dumbledore have tried to kill Tom if there'd been no indication of Horcruxes or Tom's ability to come back a second time - believeing Tom to be beyond redemption, or would Albus have tried capturing and imprisoning Voldemort in the hopes that, over time, Tom might see the error of his ways, etc.

I'm not sure which I'd prefer, but I lean toward Dumbledore actually killing Voldemort if he'd thought it would work. For one, I got the impression that as bad as Grindelwald was, Voldemort was supposed to be worse - not only because of the Horcruxes and what's required to make one (let alone six more), but because Voldemort's ideals were all about himself and his trying to escape who he was and where he came from, unlike Grindelwald. While Grindelwald (as far as we saw, which admittedly isn't much) sought power and twisted the ideals he and Albus dreamt of, I felt that he was fairly sincere in the beginning, if very misguided.

There's also the fact that Dumbledore, having lost so much, had come to care very much for Harry, and I cannot imagine him not trying to put and end to a person whose entire life has become centered around killing Harry, assuming again that D'dore had no reason to think Voldemort could survive death "again."

You know what I'd like to see as a challenge or mini-contest? This:

Re-write the Atrium battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, with Dumbledore going for the kill, intent on putting down what he's come to accept is a rabid dog. Voldemort is beyond redemption, Albus has no reason to believe Voldemort is in any way immortal, and the Dumbledore has had enough. The gloves are off, and the Headmaster is playing for keeps.

Extra points if Dumbledore's final straw is finding Harry dead in front of the fountain upon his arrival in the Atrium. I'll start!

----------

"Avada Kedavra!"

He arrived in a flash of fire and a burst of song, in time to see the young man bathed in a harsh green light. The slight body slide sideways to the floor as the hands fell away from that famous and hateful scar. The sound it made against that polished floor - a sound Albus knew, a sound that echoed across the century since last he'd heard it, the sound of innocence cut down.

For that endless instant, he was no longer Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster, Mugwump, teacher, mentor. He was Albus Dumbledore, prodigy, orphan, idealist, dreamer - and he was cradling the unblemished but still dead figure of a doomed girl, his tears falling freely onto a face he loved and had resented. He had failed her.

He had failed again, and this time Harry was the price. His chest ached, and somewhere inside, the cords of his restraint, already stretched thin with worry, parted. He felt them unravel, and as he looked at those green eyes now glassy and lifeless, his desire - his resolve - shifted focus.

Voldemort turned, a skeleton covered in white parchment stretched tight by a leering, triumphant smile which only grew wider upon seeing his old Headmaster. "Welcome, Dumbledore, but I fear you are too late!"

Cackling laughter rang out as Bellatrix stood from her hiding place on the opposite side of the fountain, and Dumbledore's fingers itched against the smooth grain of his wand. He allowed his gaze to linger another moment on the boy lying on the floor. So much death, so much heartache, and yet Harry had been a lighthouse of hope and courage and, yes, love.

Did that boy not deserve justice? Had he not earned it, that his death not be in vain? Dumbledore tore his eyes from Harry's body to the corpse standing over it. Yes, he decided, Harry would be avenged.

"It is time now, Tom, that you reap what you have sown. It is time you understand what it is to lose everything, and why it is you have always, always feared me."

 

Stop giving me more story ideas I don't have enough writing time as it is!

On a related note, I think Dumbledore could pretty easily have killed Voldemort, if he'd wanted to. It's like the argument that Harry could never beat Voldemort in a straight up duel even if he had studied and trained his ass off, because Voldemort's got about sixty years experience on him. Well, Dumbledore's got about sixty years on Voldemort, and has been utterly awesome at pretty much everything for his entire life.

 

Sure, having more years of experience gives you an edge over a novice, but there is a point of gaining it when it starts to matter very little if you have twenty years or fifty years of it.

 

Maybe. I'm not saying that Voldemort was a magical slouch in any area, but I've always had the impression that after Hogwarts he focused mainly on the Dark Arts as they would be of more use to him, whereas Dumbledore clearly put his mind to a whole host of things. Voldemort, to my mind, has a more in depth knowledge of specific branches of magic, while Dumbledore probably has a broader knowledge of magic as a whole - but because of his age, he can still have achieved depth of knowledge as well.