Harris’s Potter role unaffected by illness

Anonymous Coward writes, BBC Story has it that Harris will play in the third Potter movie.

Hmmm. Perhaps our discussions have been in vain. Well, it’s good to hear that Harris isn’t as ill as first reported.

6 replies on “Harris’s Potter role unaffected by illness”

  1. dkichline says:

    2000 year old Dumbledore?
    Maybe I missed it the first time I read the books, but where does it actually give his age?

    • fiziko says:

      Re: 2000 year old Dumbledore?

      Maybe I missed it the first time I read the books, but
      where does it actually give his age?

      If you haven’t read the books, stop reading this comment
      now.

      I don’t think that’s accurate. At least, I don’t think
      he’s that old in the books. I don’t remember a specific
      age, but the flashbacks to the past indicate that
      Voldemort and Hagrid are about the same age, and that
      Harry’s father was also in that age group. Dumbledore was
      a young teacher when they were students, so he’s probably
      no more than 20-30 years older than they are. I have no
      reason to believe that Dumbledore has magically extended
      his age beyond the natural age.

      • Stevis says:

        Re: 2000 year old Dumbledore?
        IIRC, the (natural) lifespans of wizards & witches run til about 150 or so. They live a little longer, but not to Brooksian ages. That may be from outside interviews and not mentioned in the 4 texts so far, but I think it’s pretty consistently listed that way.

      • cabrubak says:

        Re: 2000 year old Dumbledore?

        Maybe I missed it the first time I read the books, but
        where does it actually give his age?

        If you haven’t read the books, stop reading this comment
        now.

        I don’t think that’s accurate. At least, I don’t think
        he’s that old in the books. I don’t remember a specific
        age, but the flashbacks to the past indicate that
        Voldemort and Hagrid are about the same age, and that
        Harry’s father was also in that age group. Dumbledore was
        a young teacher when they were students, so he’s probably
        no more than 20-30 years older than they are. I have no
        reason to believe that Dumbledore has magically extended
        his age beyond the natural age.

        The Second book takes 50 years after Lord Voldemort framed Hagrid for the Chamber of Secrets murder. Riddle was 16 then, which makes 65-72 over the course of the books, and 55 when we murdered Harry’s Parents, which i would assume were a later generation of Hogwart students (by their aparrent age in the movie they look to be about 25-30 when the died, which assuming wizards start families when muggles do and age the same, seems about right).

        When Riddle was a student, Dumbledore was a young teacher. So he’d be at the youngest 19 if there was no special teacher college needed, but I feel more like 30-40, as he was described as younger but not young. So he’s at least 69 in the next movie and quite possible 80-90.

        I didn’t have the book with me, so I used the Spark Notes Study Guide to research this.

        I think Harry’s

    • theangrymob says:

      Re: 2000 year old Dumbledore?

      Maybe I missed it the first time I read the books, but where does it actually give his age?

      I’m not sure, but it can’t be older than Nicolas Flamel, inventor of the Sorcerer’s/Philosopher’s stone. In the movie they state Flammel’s 668 years-old. Dumbledore’s old, but I can’t imagine the character’s more than a century or so old. Anyone with a better memory than mine remember?

Comments are closed.