Underused Characters in Order of the Phoenix

I know there a several discussion regarding the Order of the Phoenix film (but this normally covers what people did not like to be cut, the actors performances and what people enjoyed about the film) and a discussion regarding underused characters (which normally covers characters that have been underused in the full series).

More greatest criticism of Pheonix was it had a lot of characters that were underused, i.e they had a couple of lines of dialogue, or were in many scenes but used mainly as an extra such as trelawney and lupin. Now phoenix was a good film, and all I want to discuss is which characters were underused in this film.

IMO the most underused characters in OoTP were those in the Order itself, namely Lupin, Tonks, Kingsley etc. They weren't given nearly enough prominence and were barely used at all. Whilst I understand not everything can be included into the film,the underuse of these characters disappointed me. Why include them if they weren't going to contribute to the plot? My dad has been to see every film but has never read the books so I use him as an example for an outsider's viewpoint. After we came out of the cinema he still had no idea what the Order of the Phoenix was and insisted he had no idea who Tonks or Kingsley were until I explained it. In saying all that though I still enjoyed the film. :D

The order is terribly underused, and Pheonix's greatest flaw is that they have alot of interesting characters that become merely eye candy. There are alot of scenes where characters are present in scenes but have no contribution in those scenes. Kingsly is a good example, Mcgonnagal is another who just stands there looking worried, and lupin is another. I'm with you, what is the point of having the character in the film if they do not have them contribute with the plot.
Yates did a brilliant job with his potrayal of Umbridge and Fudge that they pretty much took centre stage in the film, and the other characters merely compliment or challenge them.

The only character I thought was slighly underused in the film was McGonagall. Since Dumbledore is more distant in this film and she normally is second in rank after him, this should give more opportunities for scenes where she is given added importance.

I have no problem with characters seeming like extras or with including characters that do not show a full character development/contributing significantly to the plot. Extras or secondary characters also have a function in a film. Many of the Order members in OoTP are important only as members of the Order, not as independent characters. This goes for Kingsley, Mad-Eye and Tonks. Lupin is a borderline case, but I was happy with the parts he got and I don't really see how he could be integrated more closely in the film - most of the time he's too far from where the action is.

One could cut all the characters that were not really crucial to the emotional part of the story, but then there wouldn't be any Order at all and the teenagers of Dumbledore's army wouldn't have had anyone to save them.

In my opinion it was much more noticeable how many characters that actually had something significant to do or showed an interesting emotional development. These were mostly teenagers, because Dumbledore's army was the core resistance to the Ministry's attempt to interfere at Hogwarts.

1. Tonks
2. Lupin
3. Kingsley
4. Mad-Eye

IMO they could have easily fit in when Tonks helps Harry pack, or the visit to St. Mungo's. Maybe even the scene when she, Lupin, and Mad-Eye (or was Kingsley there too? But whoever was there...) talk to the Dursley's after Harry gets off the Hogwarts Express.

Peeves. I would have loved to have seen him in all of the movies, but, especially after the twins left him in charge of mischief when they dropped out of school.

Every character was underused in OotP with the exception of Voldemort, Umbridge, and obviously, Harry. Ron was probably the most underused of them all if you're comparing to the book; I expect Umbridge had twice as many lines as him. Aside from the three characters I mentioned above, nearly every other character was like a stand-in.

Jack5555 wrote: "IMO they could have easily fit in when Tonks helps Harry pack"

Well, they could easily have done this, but how does it contribute to the story? Does it make Tonks a more interesting or significant character?

Jallen wrote: "Every character was underused in OotP with the exception of Voldemort, Umbridge, and obviously, Harry. Ron was probably the most underused of them all if you're comparing to the book"

I disagree completely, but out of curiosity: What kind of scenes did you miss with Ron? How would you have used him in the film to make him contribute more to the story?

I disagree completely, but out of curiosity: What kind of scenes did you miss with Ron? How would you have used him in the film to make him contribute more to the story?

Ron's entire Quidditch story was cut. While it might not contribute to the story a lot it would have given the audience a better understanding of who Ron is as well as what his insecurities are.

Ron's entire Quidditch story was cut. While it might not contribute to the story a lot it would have given the audience a better understanding of who Ron is as well as what his insecurities are.

Thanks for being concrete:) Ron's insecurities does give ample opportunities for some nice character work. From my point of view what is important to explore is not so much the fact that he is insecure, but why he's feeling so insecure. Since George & Fred are used quite a lot in this film and they often tend to use every opportunity to aggravate Ron's insecurity, I think I would have used dialogue and interaction between the twins and Ron and perhaps have it affect the Dumbledore army scenes.

That being said I do think the film does a great job of showing Ron's friendship with Harry and how good he is at supporting him.

Jallen wrote: "Every character was underused in OotP with the exception of Voldemort, Umbridge, and obviously, Harry. Ron was probably the most underused of them all if you're comparing to the book"

I disagree completely, but out of curiosity: What kind of scenes did you miss with Ron? How would you have used him in the film to make him contribute more to the story?

While Ron was actually in most of the scenes, his involvement in them was truly minimal. During the entire OotP film, he only has about 6 or 7 lines, nearly all of which are just for comic relief. There was no character development on Ron's part in these films, just jokes, which made no contribution at all to his character.

While Ron was actually in most of the scenes, his involvement in them was truly minimal. During the entire OotP film, he only has about 6 or 7 lines, nearly all of which are just for comic relief. There was no character development on Ron's part in these films, just jokes, which made no contribution at all to his character.

I'm still not really sure what you want to include to make more contribution to Ron's character or make better use of him in the film. What kind of material are you looking for? Would it be something along the lines that GingerCat1 mentioned above?

Let's remember to keep things friendly, everyone, as well as on topic. ^_^

I'm still not really sure what you want to include to make more contribution to Ron's character or make better use of him in the film. What kind of material are you looking for? Would it be something along the lines that GingerCat1 mentioned above?

Not completely... Maybe it's just me, but I think Ron's character was very underdeveloped in OotP. Nearly all of his lines were comic relief, and those that weren't, weren't very effective. For example, "I guess I'll just leave you to your thoughts, then" was some decent character development, but it was short and over with in the film. He only has a few lines; and it isn't really established that he's Harry's best friend. I'm not sure if anyone else sees it this way, but I just don't entirely think his character was handled as well as it could have been.

I agree that Ron is underused in this film, unlike the other films, I cannot really recall any key moments for his character in this film. Sometime I forget he is there in this film. The only moment I remember is the "emotional range of teaspoon line", which was more an emma watson moment than Rupert Grint.

Regarding McGonagall, you are right, in all the books she has a rather larger, and accessible character, more so than Dumbledore, who is rather aloof in all the books. Thats part of humour of the book, when Harry has something important to tell Dumbledore he ends up having to explain things to Mcgonagall because Dumbledore is not around but she simply dismisses it.

Its easier to excuse the order,and perhaps molly and Arthur Weasly, because thier moments are prior to Hogwarts, therefore they can only be in the film prior to arriving at Hogwarts and that normally is the first 30 mins of the film, the next two hours is set in Hogwarts, therefore it is alot easier to give the teaching staff bigger roles.

Order of Pheonix kind of deprived us of key characters, giving us only tastes of the brilliant acting of Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman. It also took abit of the seriousness away from Umbridge, because she rarely met any resistance from the staff in the film, that her rise to power is not as serious as it should have been.

Not completely... Maybe it's just me, but I think Ron's character was very underdeveloped in OotP. Nearly all of his lines were comic relief, and those that weren't, weren't very effective. For example, "I guess I'll just leave you to your thoughts, then" was some decent character development, but it was short and over with in the film. He only has a few lines; and it isn't really established that he's Harry's best friend. I'm not sure if anyone else sees it this way, but I just don't entirely think his character was handled as well as it could have been.

You're certainly not the only one who thinks Ron is underdeveloped. Since I joined this forum the disappointment of many fans with the treatment of Ron's character has been one of the most frequently voiced criticisms I've seen about any character in the films (except comments about the appearance of the actors).

I'm a bit puzzled that so many point to Ron when I actually cannot remember that he did have any defining character moments in the novel OoTP. Why not complain about the underdevelopment of Percy instead, a person who actually took a stand which estranged him totally from his family?

It also seems to me that many fans judge the development of a character by the number of cool and striking lines that they get in the film. The scene with the comment about Ron having "the emotional range of a teaspoon" is a scene which I felt belonged to Harry, Ron & Hermione together, a scene speaking about their friendship, but also about the different understanding of emotional complexity between Harry/Ron & Hermione. I didn't feel that the scene exclusively belonged to Hermione because she said the line. Just to give an example.

When I commented on the "emotional range of a teaspoon" moment I did not intend for it taken as a defence for character devolopment. I meant to give it as an example of one of the few moments in the film that Ron was in that I can remember, which is very poor as an evaulation of the development of Ron. His bravery and friendship to Harry is always overshadowed by comic relief, and Hermoine bickering at him.

" The emotional range of a teaspoon" is a comic relief moment, and another example of Hermoine getting one over on Ron. Then again, Hermoine does not really undergo much changes in character either, both Ron and Hermoine demonstrate the same friendship and commitment to Harry in the Philospher's Stone by risking their lives with Harry to stop Voldemort as they will do in the Deathly Hallows.

Harry, which the films do get right, is very well developed, and I actually think Pheonix handled this the best, and what saves Harry in his moment of dilemma is the consistency of his friends. Ron and Hermoine are very consistent characters, they have moments where they are challenged, Ron for instance and his argument with Harry in Goblet of Fire, and Hermoine and her relationship with Krum, are instance where their characters have little moments to differ and mature, but fundamentally in Order they have to be consistant for Harry's sake, because in Pheonix it is Harry who is having a period of self question, where he is not sure who he is.

Peeves. I would have loved to have seen him in all of the movies, but, especially after the twins left him in charge of mischief when they dropped out of school.
Agreed :agree:. I would have loved to have seen him more as well. Along with the Order.

Underwood wrote "When I commented on the "emotional range of a teaspoon" moment I did not intend for it taken as a defence for character devolopment. I meant to give it as an example of one of the few moments in the film that Ron was in that I can remember, which is very poor as an evaulation of the development of Ron. His bravery and friendship to Harry is always overshadowed by comic relief, and Hermoine bickering at him."

I did not think you intended it to be taken as a defence for character development either. I used the comment to give an example of how I feel that some fans tend to over-simplify how they evaluate a scene and a character. When people talk about "Hermione getting one over on Ron" it seems to me that the scenes in the film are judged as a competition between Hermione and Ron about who gets the most memorable lines.

Underwood wrote "Hermoine does not really undergo much changes in character either, both Ron and Hermoine demonstrate the same friendship and commitment to Harry in the Philospher's Stone by risking their lives with Harry to stop Voldemort as they will do in the Deathly Hallows".

IMO there's a big difference between 1) risking their life by going on a mission inside the castle where no one else is involved and 2) supporting Harry by opposing many fellow students, opposing the ministry of magic itself in a situation when Harry is getting a lot of bad press in the media and is being labelled as a liar.

But again I would ask: Is there any major character moments for Ron in the novel OoTP which you feel are forgotten? GingerCat1 has mentioned a concrete example of something she missed about the portrayal of Ron, parts that were cut. What about you?

And yes, I agree that Harry is much more developed than the other two of the trio in OoTP. From my point of view this is just a reflection of the focus of the novel.

I think Fred and George were probably the most underused characters in the movies. All of there scenes are cut from the film, and the one they kept in the film was not nearly funny or emotional as what it is in the book. The expansion of their characters could have added a lot to the films.

Yes i agree with that and i also think JKR biggest mistake was killing George!

I agree with what most people are saying - there wasn't enough of the Order in there. Especially Kingsley and Tonks since they were being introduced for the first time.

I felt Tonks was under used and her character wasn't developed at all. I doubt anyone will mourn much when her death comes because we haven't been invested in her character through the movies. But I love the movie and I felt the pacing was great so it's hard to say where I would insert her more. And like others, I feel that Ron was basically just a background character in this movie. As long as that's not the case in DH I'm ok with it!

The common and major criticism of Order of the Phoenix from all the professional critics was they did not use the adult characters often enough. Which is a tragedy in my eyes, I love the Harry Potter films because they have an excellent balance between talented young actors and excellent adult actors. Now my favourite character in the series is McGonagall, and I believe Phoenix ridiculously underused Maggie Smith. However, I was very impressed by the young actors in this one, they were all amazing, but it failed to get the balance right. Warner Brother pays these brilliant adults actors, and I do believe they generally look hard to get the right adult actors to play these characters, but they then underuse them, only Umbridge and Dumbledore had decent screen time.

I was disappointed when I first watched phoenix, mainly because my favourite character was terribly underused, but everyone has a favourite character that is underused in one film or another and Im sure it affects how you view that film, even minutely. Phoenix has grown on me alot, it is unique and it definately feels different from all the other films, and I believe it is better because of that, my only disappointment is that many of the delightful adult casts have two line cameos in this film, and this film alone.

I don't think the adults complained about how much or how little screen time they had. I think the fact that they appeared in a major box office production was enough for them.

I felt Tonks was under used and her character wasn't developed at all. I doubt anyone will mourn much when her death comes because we haven't been invested in her character through the movies. But I love the movie and I felt the pacing was great so it's hard to say where I would insert her more.

I agree with all of this :) she's a brilliant character in the books but I don't think she was introduced well enough, only book readers really know who she is and what her role is. I suppose at the time they didn't know what would happen in Deathly Hallows to include her so as to make her death significant but she could have been established a little better as a movie character, it doesn't even seem like Harry knows her. And I feel the same about the rest of the Order too really, seeing as that's the title of the film :p

Yes i agree with that and i also think JKR biggest mistake was killing George!

Fred.

Kreacher...I'm very curious to see how they explain his presence in Grimmauld Place in DH1.

Remus Lupin. He didn't even appear when they rescued Harry, and in the battle, his battle with Lucius was given to Sirius.

Tonks and Lupin were both largely ignored in the films after OotP. I'm hoping that we really get to see more of their story in DH:P2, primarily because of Teddy, but I don't know how much devoted screen time they will be getting.

I think a lot of these complaints could be remedied if they put back in the 45 minutes of scenes that they cut from the film.

Sirius... I wanted to see more of him... and snape... I wanted the two to occupy more time together in the screen. They have such an amazing dynamic, perhaps the most complicated and adverse one in the series (they are actually quite similar in ways) but I don't think it quite translated onto the screen...

Sirius... I wanted to see more of him... and snape... I wanted the two to occupy more time together in the screen. They have such an amazing dynamic, perhaps the most complicated and adverse one in the series (they are actually quite similar in ways) but I don't think it quite translated onto the screen...

I agree :agree: I loved the scene in the book where Sirius and Snape have a stand off in Grimauld Place, with Harry trying to stop Sirius attacking Snape. Then Mr Weasley coming in made me laugh. :rotfl:I wish that scene had been shown in the film.

Tonks was underused i think. In the book she had a much bigger part. However in the movie she had about 3 or 4 lines give or take. I haven't read the 5th book in a while but i remember that she was training Harry to be an Auror, but in the movie they don't even mention that!!! (at least not that i remember...)

In the movies I think everyone apart from the main three were underused. Just not enough time to fit them in.

Tonks was disappointing especially though. Also Kingsley Shacklebolt is nothing like I pictured him.

All of the Order was terribly underused, particularly Tonks and Lupin. This is especially upsetting given their future relationship.

Kreacher, I feel, is underused as well. I know they had planned to cut him altogether, but then JKR intervened and said they'd be sorry, but his role was a "blink and you'll miss it" role. Even though he becomes important for DH, I don't think they captured his significance in the OotP plot well enough.

Fred and George. Their epic departure was simply not epic enough- and this was pretty much their only scene in the movie. There was no mention of their plans to start a joke shop and while it's not important, I missed their dance with Ginny "He got off! He got off! He got off!" :lol:

I thought the most underused characters were the Order. The movie was named for the Order, and I thought it odd that it was mostly ignored and the focus was almost entirely on Umbridge.

Tonks! She is so awesome in the books, but in the movies her poor character is under used. The girl who plays her looks like a good actor but its not bad the screenwriters didn't develop her character in the movies.

I agree with everyone who says Tonks and Lupin. I wasn't even moved by their final scene in the great hall. If I had never read the books, I wouldn't even know that I was supposed to find their deaths especially crushing.

I didn't really like Kingsley in the books, but in the movies he seems pretty cool. Yeah his characters wasn't really developed but when ever he appeared on screen I found him interesting in OoTP, DH1, and DH2