Harry Potter!!

Perfect Stu · 06-06-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

and the actor for hermione is hot.....(shes 17)

she's FOURTEEN, you pedaphile...shes cute, I'll give you that...and she could very well be hot in a few years, but calling a 14 year old hot is just...wrong

Quote:

the actor for malfoy is different

no it isnt...same as the first two movies

And the movie was great...I really enjoyed it, much better than the first two movies. Better director (makes a world of difference), better story (3rd book was my favourite), better acting. 4 stars.

Ginkasa · 06-06-2004, 01:26 AM

Its not that pedophilic if you're sixteen, which gimpy is (unless his profile...lies...for some...reason). A girl I know was dating a 17 year old when she was 14 (well...she's still dating him... I think... ages are different of course....16 and 19...).

So... Maybe not so wrong...

Very annoying though. Very, very annoying.

*shrugs and walks away*

Typhoid · 06-06-2004, 03:33 AM

Just because your friend did it, that doesnt make it not pedephelia. Its still disgustingly wrong...well to me anyways.

GameMaster · 06-06-2004, 03:10 PM

Ginkasa is wrong. The new Dumbledore replacement needs to act EXACTLY as Richard Harris did. To do otherwise simply ruins the character. It'd be okay if Richard Harris had never been Dumbledore but since he was, the replacements need to follow his interpretation.

Ginkasa · 06-06-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GameMaster

Ginkasa is wrong. The new Dumbledore replacement needs to act EXACTLY as Richard Harris did. To do otherwise simply ruins the character. It'd be okay if Richard Harris had never been Dumbledore but since he was, the replacements need to follow his interpretation.

It ruins the character if one actor tries to perfectly imitate another actor. Acting is like anything else, people do it differently. Faced with the same character, two different actors will always give you two completely different performances. Trying to perform in some way not natural to the actor can ruin his performance. Its better for an actor to portray his own interpretation of the character and perform his best rather than copy someone else and give a mediocre or bad performance.

*shrugs and walks away*

Null · 06-06-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

It ruins the character if one actor tries to perfectly imitate another actor. Acting is like anything else, people do it differently. Faced with the same character, two different actors will always give you two completely different performances. Trying to perform in some way not natural to the actor can ruin his performance. Its better for an actor to portray his own interpretation of the character and perform his best rather than copy someone else and give a mediocre or bad performance.

*shrugs and walks away*

not while taking over for a series that has already been established. In a case like this there is a need to make it so you dont notice the actor change. its not the time for an actor to suddenly do his own thing.

However considering his minor parts it wasnt terribly a big deal.

Vampyr · 06-06-2004, 07:43 PM

I agree with Ginky.

The new dumbledore is going to have to be dumbledore for 5 movies. That's the majority of the HP series, so I think it's fair that he should be able to act like HE wants.

He cant spend 5 films acting like another actor acts.

But yeah, it is a minor part, like Null said. It's a major role, but a minor part, if that makes any sense at all. So it's not a huge deal.