This is Albus Dumbledore, the greatest wizard who ever lived.

However

I'm just here for the "NO!" pasta

Well done

>>86686633
fggeeeeeeet

>>86686633
Faggot.

File: pickle_rick.jpg (40KB, 413x407px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 413x407px

Depends on your definition of greatest.
If you mean by great you mean gay, then yes, he's the greatest wizard who ever lived.

if he was so powerful, why didn't he kill Voldemort?

>>86686633
Richard Harris was the better Dumbledore by a fucking mile. Why did he have to die?

File: 1502670124042.jpg (548KB, 1616x2896px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1616x2896px

you're a a bent(gay homosex) sissy poz in one of the dullest franchises in history. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>86686785
>>86686894
you never disappoint

I really wonder how they're going to pull off a young Dumbledore with Jude Law. Nothing against the actor, it's just going to be weird seeing a younger version of Dumbledore. How old is he in the 1920's anyway?

Reminder that Rowling confirmed that Dumbledore is a top

He's not part of the GoT franchise.

>>86688939
not yet

>>86686826

> Why did he have to die?

booze and women

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLatFxe8

>>86687004

You really think it's always the same guy?

>>86686894
FeelsGoodMan Clap AGAIN FeelsGoodMan Clap

Dis faghot have me gud succ

>>86687142
Think he's around 60-70 then so we might still get the long beard

HARY DIDYUPUTYERNAMEINERGORBITOFFIYAH?