PDA

View Full Version : Christopher Lee to be the next Dumbledore?



Darth Sidious
10-29-2002, 07:59 PM
As most of you know, Richard Harris has just passed away... :( He will be fondly remembered by many, including myself. For those of you who like the Happry Potter movies, I heard that Christopher Lee may play Dumbledore! After Harris's death, I had though they should hire him. What do you think? I think he'd be a great Dumbledore, and he would live up to Harris's portrayal of him.

Beast
10-29-2002, 08:03 PM
That's currently a huge rumor, since casting for the 3rd movie hasn't even begun yet. Not to mention that Christopher Lee is not really the Dumbledore type. Frankly if they want someone with a similar look, as well as a quality charecter actor, then they should look no further then Sir Ian McKellan for the role. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Darth Sidious
10-29-2002, 08:05 PM
I have to agree with you there, he just seems to forceful and powerful. I'm a Christopher Lee fan though, I suppose I am showing some partiality to him. But then again, he is an actor, he could make himself more Dumbledore-ish. I guess we'll just see...

Mr. JabbaJohnL
10-29-2002, 08:27 PM
Christopher Lee needs time to work on Episode III in a few years, and not get caught up in Harry Potter.
I, myself, love Harry Potter, the books are my favorites and the movie is my sixth favorite (guess what the first five are :D ). It was sad to hear of Richard's death. Ian McKellan has too big of a nose (kind of . . . :crazed: ). I just remembered that Gandalf died in "Fellowship", so if he plays Albus in "Prisoner of Azkaban," it would not be too strange, because he would not be two bearded wizards at a time. :D

Eternal Padawan
10-29-2002, 08:28 PM
What's with McKellan getting locked into the wizard typecasting? ;)

I think Chritopher Lee could pull off the gentle yet Dumbledore, but I'd be afraid Lee would croak before the rest of the series was finished, then there'd be a stigma attached to the role and NOBODY would want to play Dumbledore. :eek: Rowlings would have to write him out of the books! :eek:

Anyway how about some other nominations?

Ben Kingsley?

Patrick Stewart?

Michael Caine?

Beast
10-29-2002, 08:33 PM
I dunno, Sir Ian McKellan just screams Dumbledore to me for some reason. I know it seems like typecasting, but he does a damn good job playing a wizard. I can't really see anyone else in the role.

A couple people said Sean Connery the other day, but no thank you. No one else pops as distingushed enough for the role to me. Sir Anthony Hopkins is distingushed, but wrong for the part. Hmm, not sure who else would be around the right age that is a good actor. :)

What about Ian McDirmand. He's a pretty good charecter actor, and could always use a new breakout role. Plus he was pretty damn good as more refined and english in Sleepy Hollow. Yeah, that might be a good choice. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Deoxyribonucleic
10-29-2002, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
they should look no further then Sir Ian McKellan for the role. :)


That's who I was thinking about as he has a "kinder" more wizardly face than C. Lee :)

Beast
10-29-2002, 08:55 PM
Hmm, the story of Christopher Lee taking the role may actually turn out to be more then just rumor. His official website is confirming that he is in talks for to take over the role. I still say Sir Ian McKellan would be a better choice, but I'll keep an open mind. I am a huge Christopher Lee fan, ever since his Hammer Horror days. :)

http://christopherleeweb.com/showarticle.php?threadid=3046&postid=17464

http://christopherleeweb.com/index.php?

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

QLD
10-29-2002, 09:05 PM
I still think Christopher Walken would be Box Office GOLD!

Jedi_Master_Guyute
10-29-2002, 10:09 PM
hahahhahahahah Christopher Walken?!?!?!?!?? yeah, get the guy who is ALWAYS the evil character and scares little children to play Dumbledore?!??!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

I don't think Lee is very Dumbledore friendly, he's too, I dunno, evil? You can't take the guy who played Dracula and then throw him into Dumbledore, it just wouldn't float. I'll go with McKellan for now. :D

SithDroid
10-29-2002, 10:29 PM
When I first heard they were making a Harry Potter movie I thought that Ian McKellan would have been perfect for Dumbledore, even before I had seen him in LOTR. I think that possibly the reason he wasn't cast originally was because he was filming the LOTR movies and couldn't find the time.

Christopher Lee would be a good choice. However his voice is so deep that it could be hard for him to pull off the light-hearted Dumbledore. I would also have to worry about Lee's age and health as well. I mean he is 80 years old and 8 years Harris' senior. If he took over the role now and they made the rest of the films then he would be 85-86 by the time the last one is completed. Plus Lee is contractually bound to Star Wars Episode III so finding the time would be extremely hard. So hence another reason to choose the 63 year old McKellan.

Michael Caine would be a good choice as well.

Patrick Stewart, Ben Kingsley, and Sean Connery are all great actors, but I don't think that Dumbledore would be right for any of them.

But I think that the person most fit for the part would have to be the 71 year old Ian Holm. He has all the qualities that Dumbledore possesses. The only thing that he doesn't have going for him is his height, but other than that he would be perfect.

Richard Harris you will truly be missed.

derek
10-29-2002, 10:39 PM
Christopher Lee needs time to work on Episode III in a few years

a few years? how about a few months!!! actually filming for episode 3 will begin next may or june, just over 7 months away!:)


Lee is contractually bound to Star Wars Episode III so finding the time would be extremely hard

just like in episode 2, i bet lee's role in episode 3 will be really small. the whole film takes about 3 months to film, so lee could probably get his work done in a few weeks.

Beast
10-30-2002, 12:20 AM
I don't think you have to worry to much about Christopher Lee dieing anytime soon. Unless he's hit by a bus or somthing. He's in excellent health, and jogs and swims laps daily. So unless it's an act of god that strikes him down, he'll be around for quite a while. He's just one of those crusty ole british people that just won't die. Like the queen mum. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Lord Tenebrous
10-30-2002, 01:22 AM
It won't really matter who fills in for PoA, the child actors are probably only in it until then anyways...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/23/film.potter.reut/index.html


With Rowling's pace, they'll have to recast them anyways. Whoever thought that it was a great idea to film these a year apart, especially with the lack of a series end, should be fired.

Beast
10-30-2002, 01:44 AM
Yeah, the time it takes to do the films is going to mean that they need to recast after the 3rd film. Because they are getting up there in years, and the age differnce becomes easily noticible once you get in your teens. That info has been pretty much known since before the first movie was made. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

2-1B
10-30-2002, 05:04 AM
Wilford Brimley, end of discussion!




We've seen him pull off the bearded look before . . . ;)

good shot jansen
10-30-2002, 07:58 AM
imho, if they need to find another tall distinguished, irish born actor to fill the role, they need to look no further than peter o'toole.

Pendo
10-30-2002, 12:35 PM
I think CL is a fair choice for Dumbleweed, er... Dumbledore. There could have been better choices but I'm happy with CL, he's always been one of my fave actors.

Besides, the real casting question is who's going to play Harry Pothead after Rawcliffe?

PENDO!

El Chuxter
10-30-2002, 01:14 PM
McKlellan and Lee would both be excellent choices, as would a heavily made-up Patrick Stewart. What about the guy who played Hammond in Jurassic Park & the Lost World? (I'm not too good with actors' names, but I think it's Richard Attenborough.) Is he still around, and still acting? If so, he'd be an even better choice.

Brimley, though, I dunno. I can't see the line, "Hermione, just shut up and eat your oatmeal. It's the right thing to do!" showing up in a Harry Potter movie. :crazed:

SithDroid
10-30-2002, 07:06 PM
I don't understand why they want to recast the kids after the 3rd movie, there really is no reason to as long as they keep making one film a year.

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) just turned 13, which is the age that Harry is supposed to be at the beginning of the 3rd book/movie so there should be problem with his age as long as they keep making them a year at a time.

Emma Watson (Hermione) is 12 and a half, she can easily play the part as well.

Ruppert Grint (Ron) is 14 so he is the oldest and will probably age the fastest, but still there is no reason to recast him. Heck if we have a 25 year old actor playing a 15/16 year old Clark Kent on Smallville, then there is no reason to recast him. Plus some kids mature faster than others so it won't really matter.

Beast
10-30-2002, 07:14 PM
They aren't making a movie a year now, the next one starts filming next summer, and doesn't come out until 2004. They are trying to slow down the releases a bit, because getting them out that quickly is to stressful. Plus there are other factors, like how much time a child can work daily. Plus the fact that that the 5th book isn't out yet, and 6 and 7 arn't even in the works yet. So the movies will have to slow down even more so the books can be finished first. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

QLD
10-30-2002, 07:24 PM
Maybe they can get William Shatner.

SithDroid
10-30-2002, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
They aren't making a movie a year now, the next one starts filming next summer, and doesn't come out until 2004. They are trying to slow down the releases a bit, because getting them out that quickly is to stressful. Plus there are other factors, like how much time a child can work daily. Plus the fact that that the 5th book isn't out yet, and 6 and 7 arn't even in the works yet. So the movies will have to slow down even more so the books can be finished first. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

True. But I still don't see why they can't start filming sooner. They obviously have most of the sets done. The fact that the books are not done yet could be a factor, but since the 5th book is coming out soon then it might be possible to stay on a one year track.

Theoretically
1st movie - 2001
2nd movie - 2002
3rd movie - 2003
4th movie - 2004
5th movie - 2005
6th movie - 2006
7th movie - 2007

Rowling could easily have the books done ahead of time. Also why don't they just do what the LOTR did, film more than one movie at once, hence they wouldn't have to worry about the aging of the kids as much. Film the 3rd movie for the 1st part of the shoot, then the 4th movie during the second half of the shoot. Granted movies are filmed out of sequence most of the time, but they could film it chronologically if they had to. Also pickups would be hard to do so they would have to make sure they have every neccessary shot done right, but it IS possible. Plus the fact that it IS a huge movie studio helps. If it was a smaller studio I could understand the stress, but come on now it can't be that hard with thousands of people working on it.

Beast
10-30-2002, 08:08 PM
They can't film more then 1 movie at a time, due to English child labor laws. And they are less restrictive then American child labor laws. They were skirting getting in trouble on the first one, and they were warned to watch themselves before they started filming the second.

Rowlings is also slowing down on writing the books, because she has a life also. After all remember that she made up these stories originally for her own kids. So she has to have some family time also. Plus now we just had a director change, so he has to get up to speed on things.

Remember that unlike LOTR's, Harry Potter has alot of new locations and new secondary charecters showing up in each book. So they have to do casting for those also. Luckily they are getting them out as fast as they are. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

hango fett
10-30-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Eternal Padawan
Rowlings would have to write him out of the books! :eek:


actually, i think dumbledore might die in the last book...she said there are more deaths...i'm guessing dumbledore, hagrid, or ron. the books are getting darker...
h