The Energon Pub

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_ ... rry_potter

I have not read any of the books, but that is hilarious, especially when they mention the reaction from the audience.

Huh. Kind of funny, when you consider that Ian McKellen (Gandalf!) is gay.

Shadowman wrote:Huh. Kind of funny, when you consider that Ian McKellen (Gandalf!) is gay.

....Ian McKellen had no part in the Harry Potter series....

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Huh. Kind of funny, when you consider that Ian McKellen (Gandalf!) is gay.

....Ian McKellen had no part in the Harry Potter series....

He was in LOTR, not Harry Potter.

Deadpool. wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Huh. Kind of funny, when you consider that Ian McKellen (Gandalf!) is gay.

....Ian McKellen had no part in the Harry Potter series....

He was in LOTR, not Harry Potter.

Since the first Dumbledore actor died, he took over his role!

Dead Metal wrote:

Deadpool. wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Huh. Kind of funny, when you consider that Ian McKellen (Gandalf!) is gay.

....Ian McKellen had no part in the Harry Potter series....

He was in LOTR, not Harry Potter.

Since the first Dumbledore actor died, he took over his role!

*BUZZ* I'm sorry, that's incorrect. Tell him and Shadowman what they've won Bob! "Weelll Johnny, nothing! But we will give them the correct answer!"

Exactamundo!

The correct answer is:

Dumbledore was played by Richard Harris (who died) and then Michael Gambon. Sir Ian McKellan had nothing to do with role.

Thanks for playing, no you don't get the home game either!

I think you all missed his point.


He's not saying Ian McKellan had something to do with Harry Potter. He's saying that another, just as popular, fantasy story, which is not villified, has a gay guy as a main character.


At least I think that's what he's saying.

I rofl'ed. Can't wait to spoil this to the Potter-heads in my class. WHat I don't follow is why would a mostly minor character be given such an in-depth analysis?

Keep in mind I havn't read the books or watchted the movies since the 3rd one.

LOLz, no wonder he was always kind and condescending to Harry. gay love...

Cowboy Bebop wrote:WHat I don't follow is why would a mostly minor character be given such an in-depth analysis?

Well Dumbledore is far from a minor character, but as you said you haven't gone past the 3rd book/movie.

The last book goes into a lot of detail about Dumbledore's past, and the stuff about him and Grindelwald now makes much more sense.

Dark Zarak wrote:I think you all missed his point.

He's not saying Ian McKellan had something to do with Harry Potter. He's saying that another, just as popular, fantasy story, which is not villified, has a gay guy as a main character.

At least I think that's what he's saying.

That's the way I see it, yeah.

Dark Zarak wrote:I think you all missed his point.


He's not saying Ian McKellan had something to do with Harry Potter. He's saying that another, just as popular, fantasy story, which is not villified, has a gay guy as a main character.


At least I think that's what he's saying.

You know how Gandalf and Dumbledore are extremely similar characters, right?

Shadowman wrote:You know how Gandalf and Dumbledore are extremely similar characters, right?

Are you trying to say that Harry Potter is derivative? How dare you!

God Magnus wrote:

Shadowman wrote:You know how Gandalf and Dumbledore are extremely similar characters, right?

Are you trying to say that Harry Potter is derivative? How dare you!

Lies ans slander! J.K.Roleypoley is the original creator of magic, boarding schools and boys with glasses!

My spidey sense tells me there is gonna be a massive influx of slash as a result of this

Fender Bender wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

I have not read any of the books, but that is hilarious, especially when they mention the reaction from the audience.

I don't get it, the audience was surprised that Dumbledore was gay... so what?

Nobody mentioned in the article has expressed a problem with it at the time the article went to html/print/screen.

It's almost like you've started a thread just to try to denigrate the position of people who dislike homosexuality as being ignorant.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Fender Bender wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

I have not read any of the books, but that is hilarious, especially when they mention the reaction from the audience.

I don't get it, the audience was surprised that Dumbledore was gay... so what?

Nobody mentioned in the article has expressed a problem with it at the time the article went to html/print/screen.

It's almost like you've started a thread just to try to denigrate the position of people who dislike homosexuality as being ignorant.

It's almost like YOU'RE promoting homophobia.

EDIT: To clarify, who would defend homophobia without actually BEING homophobic?

Shadowman wrote:

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Fender Bender wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

I have not read any of the books, but that is hilarious, especially when they mention the reaction from the audience.

I don't get it, the audience was surprised that Dumbledore was gay... so what?

Nobody mentioned in the article has expressed a problem with it at the time the article went to html/print/screen.

It's almost like you've started a thread just to try to denigrate the position of people who dislike homosexuality as being ignorant.

It's almost like YOU'RE promoting homophobia.

EDIT: To clarify, who would defend homophobia without actually BEING homophobic?

Disliking homosexuality doesn't equate to a fear or hatred of the above.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Fender Bender wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

I have not read any of the books, but that is hilarious, especially when they mention the reaction from the audience.

I don't get it, the audience was surprised that Dumbledore was gay... so what?

Nobody mentioned in the article has expressed a problem with it at the time the article went to html/print/screen.

It's almost like you've started a thread just to try to denigrate the position of people who dislike homosexuality as being ignorant.

It's almost like YOU'RE promoting homophobia.

EDIT: To clarify, who would defend homophobia without actually BEING homophobic?

Disliking homosexuality doesn't equate to a fear or hatred of the above.

I had to use a thesaurus for this next point: Dislike is just a synonym for hate, albeit milder in nature.

Shadowman wrote:I had to use a thesaurus for this next point: Dislike is just a synonym for hate, albeit milder in nature.

Therein lies the difference. Dislike sits just this side of neutrality, whereas hatred is an extreme.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I had to use a thesaurus for this next point: Dislike is just a synonym for hate, albeit milder in nature.

Therein lies the difference. Dislike sits just this side of neutrality, whereas hatred is an extreme.

Hate is hate. I can't make it much more obvious than that.

Shadowman wrote:

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I had to use a thesaurus for this next point: Dislike is just a synonym for hate, albeit milder in nature.

Therein lies the difference. Dislike sits just this side of neutrality, whereas hatred is an extreme.

Hate is hate. I can't make it much more obvious than that.

Dislike is not hate. What's your point?

The ignorant jab was in reference to people "preaching" of the evils of witchcraft and wizardry. The one's who can't see past that this is just a fictional story and take it too seriously. Traditionally, the same people that have problems with this, also have problems with homosexuals.

That is what I was getting at.

lol. i was gonna comment but then i figured it would prolly be a flame or homo bash so i guess i just wont say anything.

marksman7328 wrote:lol. i was gonna comment but then i figured it would prolly be a flame or homo bash so i guess i just wont say anything.

actually, you did comment. Thanks for the P.O.V.