What would you change about the films?

If it were in your control, what would you change about the movies?

This could be a long list, but I'll stick with my biggest gripes.

I would go back and make sure Sirius' story wasn't downplayed. I think the movies made him less important than he seems in the books. We weren't given the chance to become emotionally attached in the movies. Non readers probably weren't all that choked up when he died.

More Snape. He never gets enough screen time. He's my favorite character and is played by the best actor in the entire series. Maybe if the screenwriter and directors realized what an important character he really would end up being, this would have been fixed early on.

Pig. I love that little owl in the books and was looking forward to seeing him on screen. I know he's not remotely important, but it was still a bummer.

I wouldn'd change the first two movies. For film three, I would have more of the back story of the Mauraders. GOF, I would like to add the Quidditch World Cup. We didn't see any of it.. The Weasleys were invited to sit in the Minister of Magic's box along with the Malfoys, but the movie mentioned it was only the Malfoys. I would have changed the ending of movie 5 by having Harry so upset about what happened at the Ministry, when he was throwing stuff in Dumbledore's office.
Movie 6- I wanted to see more of the pensieve scenes and I didn't like the scene with Harry talking to that waitress.

I wouldn't have changed too much, actually. Maybe I would just have:

-Picked another actor to play Dumbledore instead of Michael Gambon. I never did get used to him after the original actor died. :(

-Made GoF and OoTF each an extra hour longer. The movies were alright on their own, but soo much was left out from the books and some of the scenes were far to short, in my opinion.

-Would have changed Voldemort's appearance. I know the books described him as "snake-like", but having no nose just made him look too strange I thought.

I personally wish they would have made him look more along the lines of how he looked in the first film:

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/379/371253-voldemort_in_movie_1_super.jpg


We weren't given the chance to become emotionally attached in the movies. Non readers probably weren't all that choked up when he died.

Yeah, I agree that they should have developed his character a bit more in the films. My brother didn't read any of the books, so I had to explain to him why Harry made such a big deal about his death.

if i could change the films, it would be to change the representation of the character of Ron, who i've always thought has been misinterpreted unfairly in the films.


He became the comedic funny guy, which is ok, but the Directors really downplayed his strengths. He isn't half as cowardly as the films make him out to be. I hated that Ron didn't stick up for Hermione when Snape called her a know-it-all in the POA film and that Hermione nabbed his line of "if you're going to kill Harry you're going to have to kill us too". I also noticed that Ron's line of "he beat you!" that he yells at Voldemort was cut out in the last film, which is really irritating as i know that Rupert yells that line because i watched the b-roll footage!


I would also have changed the whole Ginny/Harry romance in the 6th film so that it wasn't as cringeworthy to watch. If Yates could have just stuck to the book, then it might have been ok.
I would have much rather have wanted to see a scene with Ginny leaning against Harry's legs, telling Ron and Hermione how she had told Romilda Vane that Harry had a hungarian horntail tattooed on his chest (especially as Ron says "i knew Ginny was lying about that tattoo in DH1!!!!), than have Ginny tie up Harry's shoelaces as if he were a six year old boy.

More Snape. He never gets enough screen time. He's my favorite character and is played by the best actor in the entire series. Maybe if the screenwriter and directors realized what an important character he really would end up being, this would have been fixed early on.


I have probably turned into one of the biggest sanpe supporters since DH2(the book) came out!! Although I was moved by the final scenes in the movie, i was still left a little unfulfilled!!! He deserved WAY more action in the movies!!

Movie 6- I wanted to see more of the pensieve scenes and I didn't like the scene with Harry talking to that waitress.

I wanted the scene with the Gaunts too!! To see the other side(or any side for that matter) of Tom Riddle's family would have been cool!

This could be a long list, but I'll stick with my biggest gripes.

I would go back and make sure Sirius' story wasn't downplayed. I think the movies made him less important than he seems in the books. We weren't given the chance to become emotionally attached in the movies. Non readers probably weren't all that choked up when he died.
More Snape. He never gets enough screen time. He's my favorite character and is played by the best actor in the entire series. Maybe if the screenwriter and directors realized what an important character he really would end up being, this would have been fixed early on.

Pig. I love that little owl in the books and was looking forward to seeing him on screen. I know he's not remotely important, but it was still a bummer.

I just have to say i 100% agree with you on that! Movies 1-5 i didnt read the books. So, like you said, when Siris died it was kind of "oh.. okay..". We didnt really learn that much about him. He wasnt really a character i cared about so much. But when i read the 5th book i was sad when he died because we know more about him.

if i could change the films, it would be to change the representation of the character of Ron, who i've always thought has been misinterpreted unfairly in the films.


He became the comedic funny guy, which is ok, but the Directors really downplayed his strengths. He isn't half as cowardly as the films make him out to be. I hated that Ron didn't stick up for Hermione when Snape called her a know-it-all in the POA film and that Hermione nabbed his line of "if you're going to kill Harry you're going to have to kill us too". I also noticed that Ron's line of "he beat you!" that he yells at Voldemort was cut out in the last film, which is really irritating as i know that Rupert yells that line because i watched the b-roll footage!


I would also have changed the whole Ginny/Harry romance in the 6th film so that it wasn't as cringeworthy to watch. If Yates could have just stuck to the book, then it might have been ok.
I would have much rather have wanted to see a scene with Ginny leaning against Harry's legs, telling Ron and Hermione how she had told Romilda Vane that Harry had a hungarian horntail tattooed on his chest (especially as Ron says "i knew Ginny was lying about that tattoo in DH1!!!!), than have Ginny tie up Harry's shoelaces as if he were a six year old boy.

Everything you said.

I would hire a new scriptwriter who wasn't Hermione-obsessed. There would be no line-stealing and scene-hogging from Miss Granger.

Ron would be his canon self, get his lines and scenes back, and there would be real friendship moments between Harry and him post CoS.

The Harry/Ginny relationship would be foreshadowed (especially in OotP). All their scenes together from the book would be added and Ginny be given decent lines. Along with this there would be no Harry/Hermione or Harry/Luna or Harry/Any other girl (Cough Waitress) bonding scenes!

Harry and Ginny would get their book kisses, passionate and loving, not boring pecks!

The Marauders, their map, their identities and Animagus status plus the meaning of Harry's Patronus explained in the end of PoA.

That's what I can think of now. My main changes would be to Ron, Hermione and Ginny's character portrayal post CoS, Harry/Ginny's relationship, and cutting scenes like the Waitress, Harry/Hermione dance and Luna and the Thestrals.

I'd make the first two films shorter! PS/SS is charming, but is just plain boring at times, IMO - plodding.

I'd also like better exposition. I don't gripe about the Marauders backstory being cut, but I'd like clearer exposition about the Horcruxes, for example.

And good exposition in a film isn't lengthy, either. :cool:

[QUOTE=DanaSnape;5806168]


More Snape. He never gets enough screen time. He's my favorite character and is played by the best actor in the entire series. Maybe if the screenwriter and directors realized what an important character he really would end up being, this would have been fixed early on.



So agree, Way the most interesting character!
:(

Different Dumbledore. Michael Gambon wasn't bad, but for me Dumbledore was an older man than Gambon portrayed him to be, and was a quiet, but powerful figure.

Not drop characters from existence. Such as 'Witherwings'.

Not put the Patil twins in the same House. Not that it affects the plot, really, but it's a simple fact. Not that hard to get right.

Kreacher's story and reconciliation with Harry et al was not even mentioned. He is sent to tail Mundungus, and then never seen from again. Didn't even show the angry house elves attacking the shins of the Death Eaters in the final battle.

One change I liked in the movie that wasn't exactly in the book was Dobby's last words. "Such a beautiful place...to be with friends...Dobby is happy to be with his friend(s?)....Harry Potter." In the book, he just says "Harry Potter.", but this was a nice touch.

I wouldn't change the first 2 films. They were very true to the book - a bit boring at times, yes but by far my favourites. I like how the gave Snape enough screentime (particularly in PS) and justice to Ron's Character e.g. the Chess scene. In the other movies he's the funny guy, not very brave.
PoA - I would have made it a point to give the Marauder's story. Best part of the book. The scene in the Shrieking Shack was too rushed.
GoF - not my favourite but nothing in particular I would change. Perhaps if the movie just wasn't so rushed.
OotP - Give Sirius's character more importance, show his fustration at being locked up. I would give SWM proper screentime. Harry and Cho's date. And Harry's grief after Sirius's passing. They just cut too much out of this movie!
HBP - More focus on Riddle's past rather than Won Won. A bit more screen time to Snape.
Deathly Hallows part 1 - This was a good movie. Quite true to the book! I just wished they added Lily's letter. And the graffitti at Godric's Hollow, if they made that scene with some touching music, I would cry!
Deathly Hallows part 2 - More importance to all the deaths. A few scenes of Snape's teenage years with Lily. Would make Snape look like less of a saint (they completely overlooked the fact that Snape was the one who told LV about the prophecy - hence the whole remorse element). All of the scenes after that were disappointing including TPT (although the visit to Godric Hollow addition was beautiful)

And I agree with agilefalcon16! I liked the first Voldemort. The Voldemort in the next movies would just make me laugh.

In a simple sentence. . . I would have kept Chris Columbus as director for all eight of the movies, found a different screen writer than Kloves. I think if it wasn't for Columbus then the whole series might has been ruined. All the other directors were useless i think. Curon got annoying with the bird flying into the Whomping WIllow and getting beat to blue feathers stuff in POA. Mike Newell ruined Voldemort by not giving him snake like eyes and coloring them red! And Yates (although he redeemed himself somewhat) completely ruined the Department of mysteries by only showing the Hall of Prophecies, Basically insulted Dumbledore by excluding his funeral, ruined Fred's Death Scene, And took alot away from the final battle, and King's Cross, didn't give the Prince's Tale all that much for us to understand as well. Like I said he did redeem himself, and I do like most of the movie Pt.1&2. But I think if one director would have made them all they would have turned out more epic, more awesome, and busted more records.

I would have added 'Peeves' the poltergeist! he was such a funny character! Sirius should have been more important, I reckon people that don't read the books didn't even get attached to him as much as we did. Snape should have also been in more scenes in the movies, he was so under rated throughout the whole series. The first film should have been longer. And I would put more Quidditch scenes, and if I could change all Half-Blood Prince I would, that was a terrible movie!

First two: No major changes here that i can think of.

PoA: Marauder backstory added. It wouldnt have taken long to explain this in the film.

GoF: oh the changes...Recast Barty Crouch Jr. Tennant is awesome but not the guy i had in mind. Also get into how he escaped Azkaban and why. I dont even think Winky is necessary but putting her in wouldnt be bad either. The Weasleys coming to get Harry at Number 4. Great comedy moment there. Introduce Bill. Add the scene where Harry and everyone goes to see Sirius in Hogsmeade. Showing the Quidditch World Cup Match please. Also KEEPING the scene where Snape and Karkaroff are talking about the Dark Marks. Dumbledore explaining Priori Incantatem better.

OotP: Showing a bit more of Grimmauld Place plus more Sirius scenes. Showing Molly's boggart would have been powerful. (we dont even need to SEE it, just know whats going on.) A nice lingering shot on the Locket when cleaning the house. Cut the Grawp subplot that goes no where. Put the entirety of Snape's Worst Memory in there. The Brain Room in the Department of Mysteries. Also the Thestral lesson with Hagrid. And one more thing...PORTABLE SWAMP! Also the St Mungos stuff. I loved that...

HBP: Dumbledore coming to get Harry at the Dursleys and discussing Sirius's will. Adding the other Pensieve scenes. (Hepzibah Smith, The Gaunts, and the Voldy trying to get the DADA job) Cutting most of Draco's working on the Cabinet. (i still think that should have been more suspenseful. They killed the suspense totally.) Having Crabbe and Goyle as girls. (lol) Mollywobbles scene. Man i wanted it so bad! Cutting the Burrow Burning completely and replacing it with Scrimgeour coming to see Harry. Adding more emphasis on the Prince's book. Showing Snape teach DADA. Adding the skirmish at Hogwarts. More emphasis on finding out who the Prince really is. Adding Trewlawney talking about the Prophecy. Dumbledore's Funeral. Having Snape say his famous line. (oh god the anger...)

DH1: Hmmmm...You know, i cant think of much except adding Lupin to come visit at Grimmauld place. (argument need not happen but can..) And Potterwatch. EDIT: OH YEAH! Pettigrew's proper death please.

DH2: A little bit more about Dumbledore's backstory. Not much! Just a bit more. Lupin appearing at Shell Cottage. Showing Fred's death. A bit more of Teenage Snape and Lily in TPT. (just for clarity's sake.) Harry repairing his old wand and then breaking the Elder Wand.

Thats all i can think of right now.

This could be a long list, but I'll stick with my biggest gripes.

I would go back and make sure Sirius' story wasn't downplayed. I think the movies made him less important than he seems in the books. We weren't given the chance to become emotionally attached in the movies. Non readers probably weren't all that choked up when he died.

More Snape. He never gets enough screen time. He's my favorite character and is played by the best actor in the entire series. Maybe if the screenwriter and directors realized what an important character he really would end up being, this would have been fixed early on.

Pig. I love that little owl in the books and was looking forward to seeing him on screen. I know he's not remotely important, but it was still a bummer.

This is my biggest moan about the films. They sacrifice the characters stories. I don't know if it was because the screenwriter just couldn't adapt the source material and the director replaced the character arcs with actions shots or not, but they cut out what made the books great. It wasn't as if they did not have good actors who could have conveyed the characters, they did. Rickman would have been great at showing how sadistic Snape could be and then showing how he sank so far into evil. The scenes in which he could have shown the effort it took to drag himself up would have been a real revalation of just how good an actor he is. But what did we get, in GOF all he had to do was push Dan Radcliffe's and Rupert Grint's heads into their books. At least Gary Oldman had one scene in which he shone, but we never did get to see him miserabley drunk while stuck in Grimmauld Place. We never got to see Remus torn between his self loathing and his love for Tonks, Arthur and Molly being embarrassed about 'MollyWobbles' or Bill being the hunk that Fleur fancied enough to leave France for, just so she could be close to him. Harry and Ginny, lets not go there. That was embarrassing. Not as embarassing as the whole Ron, Hermione and Lavander thing but close enough. Just how hard could it have been to make one decent film that stuck somewhat close to the book storyline?
One thing to be grateful for, the entire series has been published, this should make it easier for the remakes to know just what to concentrate on. Maybe they will take a leaf out of William Friedkin when he did 'The Exorcist' and go through the books with a highlighter and say,
' This we have to do, this we don't.'

In a simple sentence. . . I would have kept Chris Columbus as director for all eight of the movies, found a different screen writer than Kloves. I think if it wasn't for Columbus then the whole series might has been ruined. All the other directors were useless i think. Curon got annoying with the bird flying into the Whomping WIllow and getting beat to blue feathers stuff in POA. Mike Newell ruined Voldemort by not giving him snake like eyes and coloring them red! And Yates (although he redeemed himself somewhat) completely ruined the Department of mysteries by only showing the Hall of Prophecies, Basically insulted Dumbledore by excluding his funeral, ruined Fred's Death Scene, And took alot away from the final battle, and King's Cross, didn't give the Prince's Tale all that much for us to understand as well. Like I said he did redeem himself, and I do like most of the movie Pt.1&2. But I think if one director would have made them all they would have turned out more epic, more awesome, and busted more records.

You realize, though, that the last five books were much longer and more difficult to adapt than the first two? Columbus wouldn't be allowed to make 4 hour long films to keep every detail and would have had to cut them down too. Maybe he'd split up the books starting from GoF on? In that case I think they would have flopped. Who knows, maybe if Columbus had stayed, we wouldn't reach 8 films?

You realize, though, that the last five books were much longer and more difficult to adapt than the first two? Columbus wouldn't be allowed to make 4 hour long films to keep every detail and would have had to cut them down too. Maybe he'd split up the books starting from GoF on? In that case I think they would have flopped. Who knows, maybe if Columbus had stayed, we wouldn't reach 8 films?

If Columbus had stayed, I find it doubtful that we'd have reached eight (or seven) films. The drop between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets is evidence enough that his films were highly unpopular. I don't think the series of films would have been completed had Columbus stayed on the whole time.

If Columbus had stayed, I find it doubtful that we'd have reached right (or seven) films. The drop between Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets is evidence enough that his films were highly unpopular. I don't think the series of films would have been completed had Columbus stayed on the whole time.

Yes. Thankfully Cuaron increased the popularity of the series again.

I wouldn't change anything. The movies were very good directed and created.!!?

PS and CoS stand well as they are, IMO, so I wouldn't change anything there.

PoA completely missed the point of the whole story- the Marauders' backstory. It might help Harry to know why his Patronus is a stag and why Sirius and Peter (and James) are Animagi.

GoF completely fails to explain Barty Crouch Jr.'s role. Winky was necessary, but would have helped a lot. Plus, Voldemort's speech is severely shortened and while Fiennes is the perfect Voldemort, that scene felt rushed and wasn't as powerful as it should have been.

OotP should have included Percy's row with Mr. Weasley. I'm actually fine with all of the changes made in this movie and though it was disappointing not seeing Harry destroying all of Dumbledore's possessions, I think everything was pretty well explained.

HBP might have benefited if they had included more of Voldemort's backstory. If they didn't want to do it through the Pensieve, which would involve more casting for what would have been cameo roles, Dumbledore could have just explained it to Harry. It was my favorite part of HBP and the story needs this info. And I wouldn't have burned down the Burrow; that was just a big mistake.

DH1 is pretty close to perfect. I wouldn't change anything there.

DH2- I'd have Harry repair his own wand and bury the Elder Wand in Dumbledore's tomb. I didn't like him snapping the wand because it almost diminished the wand's power.

Overall, I'd have a stronger connection among the trio. From PoA onward it seems like Harry and Hermione are better friends and Ron is always in the background or made to be Harry's "sidekick." They're called "the trio" for a reason- their friendship is a based on a strong bond among all of them.

Harry and Ginny's relationship could have been fleshed out more as well. HBP doesn't make it look like they're in a relationship at all. Ron and Hermione are better portrayed in DH2 in which they seem to progress through a relationship in a few hours.

I would have included more details from the books.

I would have added 'Peeves' the poltergeist! he was such a funny character! Sirius should have been more important, I reckon people that don't read the books didn't even get attached to him as much as we did. Snape should have also been in more scenes in the movies, he was so under rated throughout the whole series. The first film should have been longer. And I would put more Quidditch scenes, and if I could change all Half-Blood Prince I would, that was a terrible movie!

Me too, I love Peeves. I read somewhere that they cast Rik Mayall and shot some scenes with him but Cris Colombus decided it wasn't working and cut him. I was really upset as I think Mayall would have made a great Peeves. I love his songs (Voldy's gone mouldy, so now let's have fun and Looney, loopy Lupin) and every single time I read the part where he calls Dumbledore Professorhead I almost die laughing.

I would have liked to see more of Dobby- esp his tower of hats in OOTP. I think his death seemed a little forced (my hubby hasn't read the books and never got the big fuss) as you never really saw how many times he showed up help Harry when he needed him.

Me too, I love Peeves. I read somewhere that they cast Rik Mayall and shot some scenes with him but Cris Colombus decided it wasn't working and cut him. I was really upset as I think Mayall would have made a great Peeves. I love his songs (Voldy's gone mouldy, so now let's have fun and Looney, loopy Lupin) and every single time I read the part where he calls Dumbledore Professorhead I almost die laughing.

I would have liked to see more of Dobby- esp his tower of hats in OOTP. I think his death seemed a little forced (my hubby hasn't read the books and never got the big fuss) as you never really saw how many times he showed up help Harry when he needed him.

I think one reason they didn't include Peeves is that SS came out a couple years after the first Star Wars prequel and there may have been a concern that Peeves could turn into another Jar Jar.

Only i would make them about 5 hours longer.
Is all, thank you!

I would have added 'Peeves' the poltergeist! he was such a funny character! Sirius should have been more important, I reckon people that don't read the books didn't even get attached to him as much as we did. Snape should have also been in more scenes in the movies, he was so under rated throughout the whole series. The first film should have been longer. And I would put more Quidditch scenes, and if I could change all Half-Blood Prince I would, that was a terrible movie!

Yes, Rik Mayall was meant to paly him. I heard that he never told his children that he was cut from it, and they thought he was Hagrid:wow:

First of all, I would like to say that every film except the first two would have greatly benefited from an extra 20-30 minuets. I really don't understand why WB doesn't want any of the films to exceed 3 hours. The LOTR films were around 3 hours and that's not including the extended editions!

PS/COS - Very faithful to the books but very lacking in the great cinematography that the subsequent films have. But really that's my only complaint.

POA - My second favorite Potter film. Could have explained the marauders story, only a few extra minuets. Also could have explained a bit more about the whole secret keeper concept. Also they could have put the firebolt in earlier... that ending mugshot of Harry flying into the sky is just stupid and by far the worst ending.

GOF - My Least favorite Potter film... by far. My main problem with this one is the comedy. Too much comedy, and none of it is funny! The whole film just feels really... stupid! This film is definitely a massive step back from POA. Alfonso Cauron should have directed it because everything is just too cheesy and annoying.

My next problem with this movie is Michael Gambon's Portrayal of Dumbledore. While I prefer him overall to Harris due to his massive improvement in HBP and DH2 I just can't stand him in this movie. Dumbledore is always supposed to stay calm and in control. In this he actually shouts at Harry which is really out of character.

Next up is what they left out... Dobby really needed to be left in even if it was just one scene because it lessens his importance in DH1. More back story about Barty Crouch/JR would also have been important. Now the most important thing they left out is Fudge not believing Harry and a better delivery of the "Everything's going to change" speech as this really represents a turning point in the series.

OOTP - Ok, I love OOTP but I think that it is a crime to make the longest book of the series into the second shortest. I hate how they show that time has passed by the newspaper articles I think that they could have really fleshed out the story a bit more by including Rita Sceeter, Dobby and showing more of Kreacher. Also Weasley is our king would have been a nice edition but meh.

HPB: I really like HPB because I think it has the perfect balance between character development and story progression. I think that they could have showed more of the Tom Riddle memories just to expand on Voldermort's character and also to explain how Harry finds out about the location of the horcruxes rather than him just dreaming about them.

DH1: Fairly faithful, but Lupin really needed to be developed a bit more. Also Lily's letter would have been nice and maybe an explanation about the mirror.
oh and why didn't Wormtail die?

DH2: More attention could have been directed towards the deaths and also Harry should have fixed his wand with the Elder wand and then snapped it.

That is all :P

I think I would only really make minor changes really. Sometimes the script doesn't always match up to previous films and stuff so I would fix that but there are a few other scenes I would change as well:

I can't really think of anything I'd change in the first two films. They weren't perfect films but they did the books justice I think.

PoA
- I probably would have told 'Eyebrows' Watson to tone it down a bit (goes for GoF and OotP too)
- I'd probably not show the Whomping Willow so much, even if I can understand why it was included.
- Not end with the freeze frame.

GoF:
- Cut out the bit where Karkaroff goes into the Great Hall when the Goblet is there. What was the point of that scene?
- The wand cores were mentioned in PS but I think it would have been good if Dumbledore said that was why Priori Incantatem happened.
- Not have Dumbledore so angry when Harry's name came out of the Goblet.
- Take Harry and Ron to the barbers for a hair cut. :p

OotP
- Make Harry shout if you're going to include Fred and George telling him they heard his dulcet tones and not to bottle up his anger.
- Have Cho cry when she kissed Harry or take that line out altogether.

HBP
- Change the line where Harry told McGonagall that she told him he needed an O in his Potions OWL to 'I thought I had to get an O in my OWL' or something like that.

DH1:
- Cut out the bit where Harry looked at the mirror in Privet Drive and have him pick it up in Grimmauld Place instead. Not strictly book canon but it would make better sense in the context of the films, and he did get it in there in the books.
- I don't think Ron met Dobby in the films so I'd cut out their handshake in Grimmauld Place.
- I don't think it's very clear what's happening when Harry sees into Voldemort's mind at the start so I'd fix that up a wee bit.

DH2:
- Give a plausible explanation of how Snape knew Harry and Hermione where in the Forest of Dean when he left the sword for them.
- Have Harry tell Voldemort he was the master of Elder Wand, although I did like the reveal on the bridge.
- Show Voldemort's rebounding curse a bit better, I don't think its really clear what happened there.
- Better reaction in general to Voldemort's defeat would have been good too.
- Some kind of explanation as to why Harry didn't die. Kings Cross was so disappointing in the film. I'd cut out the bit where Harry called after Dumbledore too. I think by that stage he was too grown up to do that :p.

I think I'd try and handle the horcrux and hallows element a bit better too.
- I liked how Voldemort knew when the Horcruxes were destroyed but would he not have felt the locket or ring and therefore known they were being hunted sooner?
- Harry can hear horcruxes but didn't know about the diary back in CoS or Nagini in Godric's Hollow?
- I'd probably have mentioned the cloak somewhere too, it was pretty much forgotten about despite the name of the film :/

I tried to stop comparing the films to the books, because I just got frustrated (and it's better for my mental health to see them as an addition to the books), but one thing that I really don't get is why the Burrow burned down in HBP. That just made no sense at all.

In HBP, I would take out the scene where Ron's house is burned and add more memories about Voldemort. In OOTP, I would have added more details, developed the characters more, and made it darker. In DH2, I would add some resolution to the deathly hallows plot line (and so much more). In DH1, I would make sure Dobby's voice didn't sound so weird. Finally, I would change the second actor who plays Dumbledore.

PS and CoS stand well as they are, IMO, so I wouldn't change anything there.

PoA completely missed the point of the whole story- the Marauders' backstory. It might help Harry to know why his Patronus is a stag and why Sirius and Peter (and James) are Animagi.

GoF completely fails to explain Barty Crouch Jr.'s role. Winky was necessary, but would have helped a lot. Plus, Voldemort's speech is severely shortened and while Fiennes is the perfect Voldemort, that scene felt rushed and wasn't as powerful as it should have been.

OotP should have included Percy's row with Mr. Weasley. I'm actually fine with all of the changes made in this movie and though it was disappointing not seeing Harry destroying all of Dumbledore's possessions, I think everything was pretty well explained.

HBP might have benefited if they had included more of Voldemort's backstory. If they didn't want to do it through the Pensieve, which would involve more casting for what would have been cameo roles, Dumbledore could have just explained it to Harry. It was my favorite part of HBP and the story needs this info. And I wouldn't have burned down the Burrow; that was just a big mistake.

DH1 is pretty close to perfect. I wouldn't change anything there.

DH2- I'd have Harry repair his own wand and bury the Elder Wand in Dumbledore's tomb. I didn't like him snapping the wand because it almost diminished the wand's power.

Overall, I'd have a stronger connection among the trio. From PoA onward it seems like Harry and Hermione are better friends and Ron is always in the background or made to be Harry's "sidekick." They're called "the trio" for a reason- their friendship is a based on a strong bond among all of them.

Harry and Ginny's relationship could have been fleshed out more as well. HBP doesn't make it look like they're in a relationship at all. Ron and Hermione are better portrayed in DH2 in which they seem to progress through a relationship in a few hours.
Couldn't have explained it better :clap:

General-All Movies
I don't know if anyone mentioned about this before but in movies, everybody -mostly- is wearing muggle clothes. Even in hogwarts! I really do not understand this. Wizards and witches wear robes, i mean- like all the time. Am i wrong?

First of all, I would like to say that every film except the first two would have greatly benefited from an extra 20-30 minuets. I really don't understand why WB doesn't want any of the films to exceed 3 hours. The LOTR films were around 3 hours and that's not including the extended editions!


This was by far my biggest complaint. Every film could have been out of this world if they just added an extra 15-30 minutes. Every single film ended up at best choppy due to it. I am hoping that in another 15 years there will be a remake in complete 3D, and hopefully they will do a better job adapting the books than these did. LOTR did change some minor items, but by and large was quite faithful to the books.

I also was not completely pleased with either Dumbledore and would have not allowed Hermionee/Watson to stray so far from the books physical description of her character.

- As far as directors go, I'd keep Cuaron and Yates, but have used someone other than Columbus and Newell. Perhaps Guillelermo del Toro.
- Considerably shorten the first and especially the second films. Both have plodding pacing.
- I'd have tightened the films by cutting out some extraneous characters. Show Tonks and Lupin wed in DH rather than Bill and Fleur, and have Harry stay with Tonks and Lupin in Shell Cottage (and see baby Teddy). Instead of introducing Katie Bell solely to be attacked, have Cho Chang take the necklace instead.
- Include more of Ron's shining moments (like standing up for Harry in the shrieking shack). Conversely, have Hermione not seem so perfect.
- Have Gambon act in the rest of the movies as he did in HBP.
- DH Pt 1 could have more dramatic weight, with Harry doubting Dumbledore's intentions and being tempted by the hallows.
- The broken mirror shard should have been one of the objects Dumbledore bequeaths to Harry in his will. As it is, it's extremely confusing to non-readers.
- The Tom Riddle background was the most interesting part of the HBP book and should have been included a bit more. Maybe not whole pensieve scenes, but at least a montage of Riddle's time at Hogwarts and hunting horcrux objects. Gaunts could be cut though.
- While DH worked well enough split (making for a very exciting exciting 2nd part), I still suspect it would have made one really epic and coherent 3-hour movie, rather than a movie that's all setup plus a movie that's all climax. It could have worked if you have Harry discover the real locket in the cave, cutting out the Ministry heist.

The whole lack of build up to the Ginny/Harry relationship has to be the main problem for me. I know people have criticised Bonnie Wright but I thought with more scenes in the later films the whole relationship would have seemed a lot more convincing. Personally I liked Bonnie as Ginny, I just felt more time would have benefited it.

The whole Quidditch scene where they first kiss was perfect in the books, I really wish they'd included that story line in HBP.

General-All Movies
I don't know if anyone mentioned about this before but in movies, everybody -mostly- is wearing muggle clothes. Even in hogwarts! I really do not understand this. Wizards and witches wear robes, i mean- like all the time. Am i wrong?

Yeah, that struck me as weird too.
But then again, I never fully understood why wizards/witches seem to have trouble dressing as Muggles (in the books), because underneath their robes, they often seem to be wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

Cut Bill and Fleur and replace their wedding with Remus and Tonks' and also make Shell Cottage theirs too.

Cut Bill and Fleur and replace their wedding with Remus and Tonks' and also make Shell Cottage theirs too.

Wait...what? So, basically, change the story from what was in the book?

Lol, I'd make it exactly like the books, frame-by-frame, line-by-line, if it was possible.

But this:

Overall, I'd have a stronger connection among the trio. From PoA onward it seems like Harry and Hermione are better friends and Ron is always in the background or made to be Harry's "sidekick." They're called "the trio" for a reason- their friendship is a based on a strong bond among all of them.

Harry and Ginny's relationship could have been fleshed out more as well. HBP doesn't make it look like they're in a relationship at all. Ron and Hermione are better portrayed in DH2 in which they seem to progress through a relationship in a few hours.

Totally.

Prisoner of Askaban:
-Include the Marauders' backstory.

Goblet of Fire:
- Extend the third task scene in the Triwizard tournament to make it more exciting and have that real sense of danger that was felt in the book.
- Have Dobby give Harry the gillyweed for the second task instead of Neville.
- A better portrayal of Dumbledore by Michael Gambon and a better explanation of Priori Incantatem.

Order of the Phoenix:
- Show more of the Department of Mysteries.
- Have Harry throw Dumbledore's stuff around like he did in the book to emphasize how angry he was about Sirius' death.
- Have Dobby show Harry the Room of Requirement for the DA meetings.

Half-Blood Prince:
- More emphasis on Voldemort's backstory and less on the romance.
- Take out the beginning scene between Harry and the waitress and instead, include the part where Harry learns that he has inherited Grimmauld place and Kreacher from Sirius.
- Develop the relationship between Harry and Ginny in a better way.
- Cut out the scene where the Burrow is burned down.

Deathly Hallows: Part 1:
- Include Kreacher's Tale and Wormtail's death.

Deathly Hallows: Part 2:
- More explanation on the Deathly Hallows and why Harry survived.
- Include Dumbledore's backstory.
- Leave the part where Neville kills Nagini just like it is in the book.
- Include what Harry tells Voldemort before Voldemort dies and have a better reaction from everyone at Hogwarts once Harry defeats him.
- Have Harry fix his phoenix wand with the Elder Wand.

All in all, I would have added a bit more time to every movie after the first and second movies. Also, I wouldn't make Hermione do or say things that she didn't do or say in the books like for example, in Deathly Hallows: Part 2, she is seen as the one who has the idea of escaping from Gringotts on the dragon when it was really Harry who thought of that. Not to mention the lines that Ron has in the books which are said by Hermione in the movies.

Lol, I'd make it exactly like the books, frame-by-frame, line-by-line, if it was possible.

Same here. Whenever i finish a movie i complain about any change from the book



Goblet of Fire:
- Extend the third task scene in the Triwizard tournament to make it more exciting and have that real sense of danger that was felt in the book.
- Have Dobby give Harry the gillyweed for the second task instead of Neville.
- A better portrayal of Dumbledore by Michael Gambon and a better explanation of Priori Incantatem.



I wish they had included Ludo Bagman. That was a dissapointment to me

I'd have Rupert enunciate his lines more clearly.

The way they did Harry and Ginny's relationship. I think they destroyed it in the movies and some of the scenes were just plain stupid and awkward (Like when she was doing his shoelaces for him in HBP. . Like what the hell !?!) and they messed up all their kissing scenes (I can't believe they changed Harry's birthday kiss in DH. .) and you could totally tell they just rushed the more 'romantic'/coupley scenes. I just felt the whole thing was stupid and it didn't do either of the characters justice.

I might get a different actor to play Seamus, or at least have Devon Murray speak his lines slower and more clearly. Seamus' lines are mostly fantastic, but the first time watching the movies I had a hard time understanding just what Devon was saying!

The way they did Harry and Ginny's relationship. I think they destroyed it in the movies and some of the scenes were just plain stupid and awkward (Like when she was doing his shoelaces for him in HBP. . Like what the hell !?!) and they messed up all their kissing scenes (I can't believe they changed Harry's birthday kiss in DH. .) and you could totally tell they just rushed the more 'romantic'/coupley scenes. I just felt the whole thing was stupid and it didn't do either of the characters justice.

Mhm, I agree. I feel that this drawing exhibits the comparison of both relationships:

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/199/4/0/film_vs__book_by_burdge_bug-d40edko.jpg

The way they did Harry and Ginny's relationship. I think they destroyed it in the movies and some of the scenes were just plain stupid and awkward ..... I just felt the whole thing was stupid and it didn't do either of the characters justice.What the movies did wasn't very good. However, what the books did was even worse: I'd go so far as to state that Harry+Ginny was written pretty awfully. (Part of the reason why people here had such problems with it 6 years ago stemmed from this, although a bigger part was the "Harmonians.") Of course, romance was far and away the weakest aspect of the HP series: one could argue that if Rowling had written that part better, then there would not have been so many Harmonians.

Of course, if I could have changed anything about Prince, then it would have been to make the story like the one in the book: Harry's choices in personal politics. Sexual politics are only one part of personal politics. However, sexual politics do not encompass Harry's enmities with Draco and Snape, or his dealing with different rivals to be his mentor (especially from Scrimgeour, but also Slughorn), and simply the contrasts between Harry & Voldemort. "Dumbledore's Man, through and through" really was the summary line for the story.

I completely agree about Harry and Ginny's relationship. That drawing sums it up pretty well.

What the movies did wasn't very good. However, what the books did was even worse: I'd go so far as to state that Harry+Ginny was written pretty awfully. (Part of the reason why people here had such problems with it 6 years ago stemmed from this, although a bigger part was the "Harmonians.") Of course, romance was far and away the weakest aspect of the HP series: one could argue that if Rowling had written that part better, then there would not have been so many Harmonians.

Of course, if I could have changed anything about Prince, then it would have been to make the story like the one in the book: Harry's choices in personal politics. Sexual politics are only one part of personal politics. However, sexual politics do not encompass Harry's enmities with Draco and Snape, or his dealing with different rivals to be his mentor (especially from Scrimgeour, but also Slughorn), and simply the contrasts between Harry & Voldemort. "Dumbledore's Man, through and through" really was the summary line for the story.

I couldn't agree with this more. As much as I'm not a "fan girl" when it comes to the romance side of these books, I REALLY wish JK would have included more dialogue here. I know it would have added several more pages to the books, but it would have done so much more to build those characters and those relationships. Everything Harry did was so reactionary... it wasn't until HBP that he started being more forceful in his personal politics.

What the movies did wasn't very good. However, what the books did was even worse: I'd go so far as to state that Harry+Ginny was written pretty awfully. (Part of the reason why people here had such problems with it 6 years ago stemmed from this, although a bigger part was the "Harmonians.") Of course, romance was far and away the weakest aspect of the HP series: one could argue that if Rowling had written that part better, then there would not have been so many Harmonians.


Mm...I disagree. Harry/Ginny has always been there...very subtle, but there. I don't think it's developed as well as say, Ron/Hermione, but the issue was that Ginny wasn't a main character as Ron or Hermione thus we don't see as much of her as we would have liked. And yes, romance wasn't an important aspect in HP as much. But it's not like it came out of the blue.

I don't really think that there would be less H/Hr fans. Personally, I think that wouldn't change because Hermione would still be Harry's best friend and fans would still be inclined to put the main male and the main female character together.

The movies are a different story, however. There have been SOME moments where you could possibly see H/G, but a lot of Ginny's lines were taken down, and HBP made the relationship awkward...mostly because Ginny's character wasn't as funny and witty as in the books - which is why Harry was even attracted to her in the first place. It's like the only point of her was to be his love interest - not the girl who makes him laugh and interacts with him on a friendship level as well as a romantic one.

Movie 1 - Have Dumbledore say what he saw in the Mirror of Erised. I think that would have been kind of funny, Lol.

Movie 2 - Not sure.

Movie 3 - Explain the Marauders. I don't think we really figure out who they are exactly, except Wormtail and Padfoot.

Movie 4 - Have Dumbledore be a little calmer.... He wouldn't roar in the Great Hall for Harry Potter, he wouldn't strangle Harry in the trophy room, he wouldn't bark at Moody, he wouldn't act so confused and worried, and he would not bark at the champions to "Gather round. QUICKLY!" I mean, was that really necessary? Also make the ending a little better... less cheesy....

Movie 5 - I would make the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort a bit different. I would have the statues come to life and have Fawkes come and swallow the Killing Curse for Dumbledore. I would also have Voldemort call Bellatrix "Bella". I don't know, but I found that really weird for some reason... Lol. And I would have Harry go berserk in Dumbledore's office, having him break the instruments and such. Oh yes, and Dumbledore would not bark at the students... "Don't you all have studying to do?!?!?!?! [You little retards....]"

Movie 6 - Have Dumbledore go to the Dursleys' instead of picking Harry up at the cafe. I would have loved to see the Dursleys again. I would have more of the memories, particularly the Gaunts and Lord Voldemort's Request. I'm not sure the second one is too, too important, but it would be cool. Also at the as they come out of the cave, I would have Dumbledore say, "I am not worried, Harry. I am with you." They filmed that but deleted it....

Movie 7: Part 1 - Keep in the Dursleys Departing scene (they deleted it). Have the vision of Voldemort going to find Gregorovitch but instead finding the German mother and her two children in his old house, and then killing them. Have Voldemort go to Godric's Hollow and have his flashback to Hallowe'en, 1981. I would have loved to have seen the full scene. Have Grindelwald not tell Voldemort about the Elder Wand, and have Voldemort kill him. Oh yes, and keep in Dean Thomas.

Movie 7: Part 2 - Have the WB logo up in flames. (I'm not sure if that would work well with the Snape opening, but in the last one, it was all rusting and about to break, and now it's all silver and clean and new?) Lengthen Voldemort's anxiety attack: Have him interrogate the goblin and then kill everyone. The Prince's Tale: If they were showing Lily dying, I wish they would have shown James being killed for once.... I think they give Lily way more screentime than James; also, give James glasses in the beginning! King's Cross: Have Dumbledore in purple robes. I think that would look very good with this new Dumbledore, what with his white, untethered beard; and I think Michael Gambon could pull it off. He didn't have be Dumbledore the White! ... Not have Bellatrix explode. Let Harry have the very last line.... I was kind of annoyed that they gave him the last line in every other movie BUT this one. Come on, Albus.... "Ready." ...? D:

Movies 1 and 2: Shorten them.
Movie 3: More Marauders. Otherwise, this movie is perfection! :)
Movie 4: Add Winky and Dobby as well as Hermione's S.P.E.W. Reveal Rita being an Animagus
Movie 5: Add Harry and Cho's date, Harry's interview with Rita, a longer Department of Mysteries battle, as in showing the Time, Thought, and Planet chambers.
Movie 6: Add the House of Gaunt scene, Albus's funeral.
Movie 7 and 8: Pretty good adaption-wise, no complaints there.

I also hate how they handled Harry's character in the last few films. They mostly focused on his angsty, rebellious, and humorous sides to his personality, neglecting to show his softer and compassionate sides, as if those sides were the only things in his personality. It really evident in the last scene in Movie 8 where he snaps the Elder Wand in half and throws it over the bridge, It's like he shows disrespect to the wand's previous owner, Albus.

It really evident in the last scene in Movie 8 where he snaps the Elder Wand in half and throws it over the bridge, It's like he shows disrespect to the wand's previous owner, Albus.

The alternative is that someone else will get their hands on it, which Dumbledore never wanted. Snapping the wand in half is a heroic act and shows that he doesn't seek power.

.... a lot of Ginny's lines were taken down, and HBP made the relationship awkward...mostly because Ginny's character wasn't as funny and witty as in the books - which is why Harry was even attracted to her in the first place...

What was funny or witty about Ginny in the books?

The author's main emphasis on Harry's attraction to Ginny - if memory serves - is her good looks.

I'd make the movies under 2 hours 20 longer, I'0d make each movie last between 2h 30 and 2h 40, in that time there would really be so much you could put in, especially, very especially in DH2 where many things are rushed.

I'd change not all but more or less 70-80% of non-canon things included in the films. Somethings I admit are done because the film is different from the book, and I have generally no probs with changing some sets, but for sure I'd change,add or take away things like:
-Harry snapping elder wand
-Cos and GoF ending: R-E-M-O-V-E
-No dursleys in many films, in particular HBP
-More quidditch
-More serious romance and less "raging hormones" even if I'd keep some because it made HBP very nice and enjoyable
-More voldemort background
-DH-Horcrux battle
-DD backstory
-More Sirius, Ron, Snape, McGonagoll, malfoy, Ginny and twins and very less non canon characters or lines
-Marauders backstory
-Add many, many CANON episodes in GoF: All the crouch story especially
-Longer snape worst memory and prince's tale
-No grawp since it really has nothing to do with the story, put pix instead such a great character which can make humor


the list could get little longer but I think this are the main things.

Keep the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort in DHP2 as it was in the book. I do understand that the way they did it was probably more suited for film than the in-book version, however the latter really packed a strong emotional punch with me which I feel the portrayal they went with lacked.

The main problem I have with things left out of certain films is how it affects the inter-film continuity. For example, Dobby being introduced in CoS and then only appearing again basically for the sake of his fan-service death scene (which I did love). It's always felt to me that each film has been treated as simply an adaptation of that particular book, much like basically a 'highlights show' of the book in question rather than part of a continuing series. This makes it difficult for me to view the films as it's own separate 'series' from the books when continuity and consistency between them is lacking in some ways.

DH2 - I wish that this movie had been longer and included more from the book.

I would like to have seen Harry winning Kreacher's loyalty. They should have evacuated the younger students like they did in the book instead of keeping everyone and shoving the Slytherins off to the basement. Fred's death would have been an intense moment. I wish that the movie had included more of the battle between Bellatrix and Molly. That wasn't as satisfying as it could've been. The final battle between Harry and Voldemort should have been in front of everyone and just a tad closer to the book.

I'd like to have seen the moment after the battle with Harry, Ron and Hermione in the Headmaster's Office, including Harry repairing his holly wand. I'd also like to have seen more of the epilogue, with all of Ron's remarks as they were in the book.

Well to start off, I would keep Hogwarts the same in every movie - using the one in Deathly Hallows Part 2, I think that's the best Hogwarts. I'd also choose different actresses for Ginny, Cho and Narcissa. I'd probably cast Hermione Norris as Narcissa. And I'd call Nigel Dennis Creevey instead. Also I'd completely cut Lupin and Tonk's relationship and Teddy.

Philosopher's Stone/Chamber of Secrets - make them shorter, more visually appealing/stunning, less cheesy and more scary.

Prisoner of Azkaban - Have Lupin explain the Marauders backstory and the significance of Harry's patronus at the end. Make Lupin's werewolf form something similar to the werewolf in Doctor Who or Van Helsing, have the dementors from Order of the Phoenix onwards and generally make the special effects more real (I think they looked really cheap in this film). And not put in an annoying high-pitched wail every time someone moves their wand!

Goblet of Fire - Make it longer, include the Rita Skeeter/Hagrid being a half-giant sub-plot, make the graveyard scene longer, keep the priori incantatem explanation and the scene with Fudge at the end as well as Harry giving Fred and George his Triwizard winnings. And maybe include Bertha Jorkins as well.

Order of the Phoenix - again, make it longer, swap Mrs Figg with Lupin or Arthur (with the excuse that the last patrol was late). Have a love triangle between Ginny/Harry/Cho (for example, make Cho willingly betray the DA, she and Harry have an argument and Ginny consoles him), have a scene where Neville, Ginny and Luna distract Umbridge (while Harry, Ron and Hermione try to get to London through her fireplace) but get caught. Cut out Grawp, make Umbridge confess she sent the dementors either in her office or the forest. Have a longer battle scene between the DA and Death eaters (similar to how it was in the book) and then the Order and Death Eaters too. And last but not least, make Harry see Snape's worst memory in the pensieve in Snape's office, have him see James bully Snape and Snape calling Lily a mudblood and before the film ends (after the scene with Luna), have a scene where Lupin consoles Harry about Sirius's death, James and Lily's relationship and how James and Sirius supported him when they found out he was a werewolf.

Half-Blood Prince - Include both scenes with the Gaunts, have Dumbledore theory that Voldemort used artefacts belonging to Slytherin, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. Cut out the scene with the waitress and include the Dursleys instead. Introduce Bill at the burrow and explain to Harry that he and Fleur met at Gringotts a couple of years ago and are getting married, then have Bill mauled by Greyback during the attack of the burrow scene. Also, I'd make references to the prophecy, definitely keep the "In Noctem" scene in the film, have Ron join Harry and Hermione on the tower (and have some of Hermione's lines) and maybe include Dumbledore's funeral as well.

Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Harry finds the piece of the mirror shard at Grimmauld Place
(he goes into Sirius's room, steps on the shard, picks it up and looks up sees the shadow of a mirror on the wall, then looks down again to see Aberforth's eye in the shard). Also I would make the Malfoy Manor scene less comedic and more intense (with Bellatrix actually kicking Hermione, Ron screaming and cutting Luna and Dobby's stupid lines).

Deathly Hallows Part 2 - As with Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, make it longer. Have a scene at the beginning with Ron and Hermione discussing her torture (with her showing him Bellatrix's hair). Have a scene where Harry discusses Dumbledore's past, secrets and whether he cared for Harry with Ron and Hermione and says that he has the cloak, Voldemort has the elder wand and he doesn't know or care where the stone is. Have Aberforth explain Dumbledore's past accompanied by a flashback, then have Dumbledore explaining his reasons and guilt and asking Harry for forgiveness during King's cross. Have a longer fight during both battles of Hogwarts (showing Dumbledore's army against Snatchers after the covered bridge collapsed, and show Mcgonagall against a giant during the first half and have Neville and Luna get cornered by Death Eaters and saved by Hagrid during the second half). Include Fred's death (only exclude Percy and just let him be with George), include Snape and Lily's argument in the prince's tale, have Bellatrix die like she did in the book, and have a longer fight between Harry and Voldemort - for example Voldemort could chase Harry in smoke form (like in the video game) after their confortation on the stairs, they come to an isolated corridor where Voldemort taunts Harry and Harry retaliates by revealing Snape's true loyalties - I'd also keep the "Why do you live?" scene. Oh and I'd totally cut out Voldemort's awful laugh and hug during Neville's speech and I'd make Harry mend his own wand before snapping the elder wand in half.

not alot, i love all the films, i do have a few minor issues but the one thing i would do would be to give bonnie wright better stage direction, i think she looks the part but when ever shes in a scene she seems to wooden for me and i blame the director not enough direction, she kinda spoils the scene i think Whenever shes in it

I think I'd abandon the attitude of 'movie audiences have the attention span of a goldfish and after 3 lines of dialogue start playing with their I-phones' and add some essential exposition. Particularly with regard to the Marauders' Map, the horcruxes, the hallows and Dumbledore's back story.

I'd also have made Ginny much livelier from OotP onwards, and added a lot more passion or enthusiasm to their 'romance' scenes. They all seemed very flat. And I'd cut the unneccessary additional scenes like the Burrow burning and the waitress at the station and put back some of the helpful or fun scenes like the Pensieve memories and Albus collecting Harry from the Dursleys.

I don't think I could really add anything. One thing that's mentioned is the addition of Peeves. It would have added so much comic relief. I see that Columbus cut him out after filming scenes with this guy, Rik Mayall, didn't go so well. Were they that bad? Anyway, since CC did that, it forced the other directors into not including the character as well. Hindsight's 20/20, but I think Robert Carlyle despite his well-documented disdain for the series would have made a great Peeves. Of course that's from seeing his masterful work as Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon a Time. lol

I would change Hermione calling Ron "Ronald".

WHEN did she EVER do that in the books?


Of course, I would change Ron`s, Dumbledore`s and Harry`s behavior.

I would change Hermione calling Ron "Ronald".

WHEN did she EVER do that in the books?

Quite a few times if I remember correctly.

Quite a few times if I remember correctly.


Well, I hereby beg you to give me quotes. I am pretty sure, book Hermione called Ron "Ronald" only once through the
entire series - in DH, when he came back, after he destroyed the locket.

Other than that, he was always Ron to her.

Well, I hereby beg you to give me quotes. I am pretty sure, book Hermione called Ron "Ronald" only once through the
entire series - in DH, when he came back, after he destroyed the locket.

Other than that, he was always Ron to her.

Maybe I'm getting confused since I've not watched the films or read the books in a while - I did say if I remember correctly. Why does it bother you anyway?

Maybe I'm getting confused since I've not watched the films or read the books in a while - I did say if I remember correctly. Why does it bother you anyway?

Hi!:wave:

I am just kind of a hardrock-honest-to-heart-canon-proof HP fan :)

And that goes for the books primarily.

WHY does it bother me?
Good question.
See, in the books
Ron was always just "Ron" to both Harry and Hermione.
I dislike
the movies
for making him somewhat enstranged, Hermione calling him Ronald.
Notice, how we never hear her in the movies call Harry "Henry", or "Harry James".

It changes their relationship. That is what bothers me. Hermione calling Ron "Ronald" changes their
friendship.
It gives us an impression that she is not close to him, or that she maybe, say, despises him.
While reading the books I got the impression that Hermione was equally close to both Harry and Ron,
and that the boys were maybe a wee bit closer to each other as friends.
Later on,
Ron and Hermione developed some kind of crush,true,but there was no need
to call each other formally.

This bothers me.
Why make it formal?
Why would Hermione call people differently?
Does she call Ginny "Ginevra"? No.

Does she call her boyfriend Viktor some other name? No.
All people in the world call him Viktor and so does she.

So
why do this weird change?
What are the writers trying to prove to us?
It gives me the impression
that Hermione either dislikes Ron or has some weird issues with him.
It is weird since the beginning of the PoA movie.
That was the first time she called him Ronald, while talking about Lupin`s suitcase on the train.
It just
does not fit.

Makes me feel like they are trying to put Ron down even more. As if his stupid scared faces weren`t enough of disgrace to Ron`s character :(
However, the Trio`s relationships are so screwed up in the movies, I should not even waste my time complaining about
a tiny fragment of all that mess :(

So,
if someone suggests that something occures in the books and I do not see the very thing in the books, I will require a proof.
That is all.
Nothing personal.
It is as simple as this. If you wrote that Harry is a hopeless romantic, I would DEFINITELY
ask you to provide qutoes from the books that prove this.
Other example:As I have written on the H/Hr dance subject, it is not how book-Harry and book-Hermione would act,
and
I wrote the very specific examples from the books, where we can read with our own eyes how uncomfortable Harry
always is around dancing.
He is also uncomfortable around crying girls, even a crying Hermione.
So that is all there is to it:
If you think that book-Hermione calls Ron "Ronald", I would like
to see a proof...
Personally , I cannot find any other Ronald scene in the books, except the one in DH, after Ron returned.

...
On other matter:
I would change lots of things as far as the relationships go.
Of course, I would change Albus`s personality in the movies. I would let him act calmly, affectionately, lovingly,
smart,
wise,
cool.

I would change Hermione`s style in the first 4 movies. I mean, come on, if Alyson Hannigan can
pull of both a nerd,
and a hot chick, why cannot Emma Watson?

I would love to see a nerd-like Hermione who changes into a beautiful girl in GoF.
Sadly,
the movies never gave us this.

I would definitely let RON be a brave and smart guy that he is in the books.
I would
also change his friendship with Harry to be more like it is in the books.

Changes I would love to make:

SS:
Seamus rum scene - cut it, or change it.

CoS:
Ron being SCARED of the Howler. This I would change to what it REALLY was in the book.
The Weasleys looking around checking out the Burrow as if they are there for the first time.
Ginny - more screen time, more acting!

PoA:
I would make Ron stop doing stupid scared faces. Make him look brave and give him his brave lines.
Cut Ron`s stupid face after Harry and Hermione returned from the Time Turner adventure.
Cut the whole Albus hitting Ron`s wounded leg scene!
Give Hermione a different outfit during the Time Turner scenes. Like, say, a nerdy sweater or something.
More Marauders backstory.
Sirius should definitely not laugh all the time.

GoF
Hermione should look more nerdy and geeky before she comes to the Ball all beautiful.
Quidditch World Cup - at least a bit of the game should be there.
Harry should not be left alone to see the Dark Mark. He just happened to be the one who saw Crouch Jr. I did not like it.
More Crouch backstory.
More sadness at the end of the movie.
More Harry-Dumbledore connecting and bonding, more wise talk from Sirius in the fire and from Dumbledore. Not just that nonsense.
Snape should NEVER hurt the students physically!!!!! NEVER! Book-Snape never does that.

OotP:
Harry should rage at the end and break stuff in Albus` office.
Cho should not have been the traitor.
Harry-Cho fight should have been there.
Ginny should act more like book-Ginny.
Snape should, again NOT hurt Harry physically! No shoving Harry around! That is something book-Snape just never does.


HBP
More book-like Ginny.
Harry comforting Hermione should be cut.
Cut burning down the Burrow.
More real Albus/Harry scenes!

DH
DUMBLEDORE!...King`s Cross!...
Ron/Hermione kiss should be visible.
Harry should not ask what should he do in the King Cross Scene.
Albus-backstory and more Hallows.
Fred`s death.
More cheering after Harry defeated Voldy for good. Or at least SOME cheering!
Less horrible make-up in the last scene.

Hi!:wave:

I am just kind of a hardrock-honest-to-heart-canon-proof kind of HP fan :)

And that goes for the books primarily.

WHY does it bother me?
Good question.
See, in the books
Ron was always just "Ron" to both Harry and Hermione.
I dislike
the movies
for making him somewhat enstranged, Hermione calling him Ronald.
Notice, how we never hear her in the movies call Harry "Henry", or "Harry James".

It changes their relationship. That is what bothers me. Hermione calling Ron "Ronald" changes their
friendship.
It gives us an impression that she is not close to him, or that she maybe, say, despises him.
While reading the books I got the impression that Hermione was equally close to both Harry and Ron,
and that the boys were maybe a wee bit closer to each other as friends.
Later on,
Ron and Hermione developed some kind of crush,true,but there was no need
to call each other formally.

This bothers me.
Why make it formal?
Why would Hermione call people differently?
Does she call Ginny "Ginevra"? No.
Does she call her boyfriend Viktor some other name? No.
All people in the world call him Viktor and so does she.
So
why do this weird change?
What are the writers trying to prove to us?
It gives me the impression
that Hermione either dislikes Ron or has some weird issues with him.
It is weird since the beginning of the PoA movie.
That was the first time she called him Ronald, while talking about Lupin`s suitcase on the train.
It just
does not fit.

Wow really? That's interesting. Fair enough if that's what you think, each is to their own :). I personally never had a problem with it. In fact to me, Hermione calling Ron formally in the films was just another foreshadowing their relationship. Because in my personal experience, people who are in a relationship (or attracted to each other) call their partner/the person they are attracted to formally when they're trying to prove a point or are annoyed at them etc. In the films Hermione calls Ron "Ronald" when she's either angry at him, or when she's pointing something out to him (like on the train in POA since Lupin's name was obviously on the suitcase - Ron just didn't look) I've seen this happen many times. My mum does it to my dad, she calls him "Phil" during a normal conversation, but when she's angry at him or trying to prove a point she calls him "Philip". So I personally think that the writers are trying another way express Hermione's feeling for Ron by making her call him "Ronald".

Sorry if that's weird, but that's what I think ;)

Yeah i actually think the opposite. Hermione calling Ron, Ronald, is sort of a way to show their closeness because she is the only one that did it. It shows that there relationship is different.

Yeah i actually think the opposite. Hermione calling Ron, Ronald, is sort of a way to show their closeness because she is the only one that did it. It shows that there relationship is different.

yes i have to agree with this

in my personal experience, people who are in a relationship (or attracted to each other) call their partner/the person they are attracted to formally when they're trying to prove a point or are annoyed at them etc. In the films Hermione calls Ron "Ronald" when she's either angry at him, or when she's pointing something out to him (like on the train in POA since Lupin's name was obviously on the suitcase - Ron just didn't look) I've seen this happen many times. My mum does it to my dad, she calls him "Phil" during a normal conversation, but when she's angry at him or trying to prove a point she calls him "Philip". So I personally think that the writers are trying another way express Hermione's feeling for Ron by making her call him "Ronald".

Sorry if that's weird, but that's what I think ;)

I understand. I am just too obsessed with the HP books. True , in the US movies and sitcoms I see a lot of scenes
where a person calls another person formally when annoyed.
I have no problem with your life experience being similar :)

However, Harry Potter is not an american sitcom.
It is a
story of its own, taking place in the early nineties, in England, and the books show us clearly,
that
Hermione never calls anyone differently, not even her other boyfriend.

In PoA it really struck me. I saw such a beautiful friendship while reading the train scene in the book.
The movie, however, offers me a Hermione being all like:
You Ronald, you are so ignorant, you!...

...Oh well.

Yeah i actually think the opposite. Hermione calling Ron, Ronald, is sort of a way to show their closeness because she is the only one that did it. It shows that there relationship is different.

Actually, she is not the only one in the movies.
There are other people who call him Ronald too.
His mother does this, when
she is angry at him.
I prefer the book version, where Hermione and Ron really like each other and she never puts him down because of stupid reasons like when he did not notice Lupin`s suitcase.

:)

Hermione never calls anyone differently, not even her other boyfriend.

I'm sorry - I'm confused. Do you mean Viktor Krum? I don't think there was a longer version of his name. Come to think of it, though, Viktorius kind of fits, but I don't think it's canon.

My guess is that if Harry's first name were actually Henry, Hermione would have called him that when she was annoyed with him. I think one of Hermione's flaws was coming across as a "know-it-all" and the film had her use Ron's full name to show us that part of her personality.

Include the circular room with the spinning walls and add more chambers at the Ministry of Magic in Order of the Phoenix

I'm sorry - I'm confused. Do you mean Viktor Krum? I don't think there was a longer version of his name. Come to think of it, though, Viktorius kind of fits, but I don't think it's canon.

My guess is that if Harry's first name were actually Henry, Hermione would have called him that when she was annoyed with him. I think one of Hermione's flaws was coming across as a "know-it-all" and the film had her use Ron's full name to show us that part of her personality.

Well, except for the fact, that there is NO PART OF HER PERSONALITY in the books that uses his full name.

And sure, it is nice to see her as a know it all in the movies - by why at the expense of Ron?

In Prisoner of Azkaban, the explanation of who Sirius was, and how he and Lupin related to each other and to Harry's life was abysmal. And people who haven't read the books in my family, I have had to explain the maurauder's map to, because they had NO idea how Lupin figured out how to work it.

The Marauder's were important to the third, and they basically skipped them. Seeing as how we meet all of their transfigured sides, and see or at least make reference to their human selves, that should have been explained, even in small detail.

The firebolt should have come when it was supposed to, not at the end.




Also, didn't they mention in the first book that Harry's name was just Harry? That was in Chapter 1, I think, where the Dursley's are using it to judge the Potters for being common?

The firebolt should have come when it was supposed to, not at the end.


This was an excellent adaptational decision.

Had I read the book first, I would have deduced that Sirius was a good guy once it is established that the firebolt is not jinxed: it's blatantly obvious. All other candidates as senders of the firebolt are dismissed by Hermione, who is the author's "voice". It is made very clear that Sirius sent the firebolt, and once it is clear that it is AOK then it follows that his intentions must be good and that Evil!Sirius! is a false trail.

Without that info, film audiences still think that Sirius is a villain until the great revelations of the Shrieking Shack scene (I half expected Lupin to be killed by Sirius, in defence of the kids).

Do Potter fans never read or watch mysteries and crime thrillers?

I disagree with your other points too. Film audiences no more needed an explanation of how Lupin knew about the map than they did about how the twins worked out how to use it.

I disagree with your other points too. Film audiences no more needed an explanation of how Lupin knew about the map than they did about how the twins worked out how to use it.

So you really don't think that by avoiding the explanation of the marauders, (which is avoiding the explanation of how Lupin knew about the map), was avoiding the main point of that story?

For me, POA had two purposes. To explain the past by introducing Sirius and the Marauders. And to put Pettigrew in place for book 4. And they failed in the first one really, because we met all four of the marauders, but it was never explained what they were.

I would have put Peeves in the films, especially that line at the end of DH! :clap:

So you really don't think that by avoiding the explanation of the marauders, (which is avoiding the explanation of how Lupin knew about the map), was avoiding the main point of that story?

For me, POA had two purposes. To explain the past by introducing Sirius and the Marauders. And to put Pettigrew in place for book 4. And they failed in the first one really, because we met all four of the marauders, but it was never explained what they were.

The Marauders are an (expendable) subplot of PoA which is about Harry discovering the truth behind the story he has been told, and acting upon the truth he discovers, and therefore finding a father figure.

Not dissimilar both plotwise and storywise to Great Expectations, which has been filmed very successfully without the various subplots and minor characters.

The Marauders are an (expendable) subplot of PoA which is about Harry discovering the truth behind the story he has been told, and acting upon the truth he discovers, and therefore finding a father figure.

Not dissimilar both plotwise and storywise to Great Expectations, which has been filmed very successfully without the various subplots and minor characters.

It might have been expendable, but it was still information that was good to have. It would explain a lot of the relationships between the Marauders. Why it was so dastardly that Pettigrew betrayed them. Why they picked Pettigrew in the first place to defend them. While it was shown in the movies later in Snape's memories, It would have been nice to expound upon the subplot in order to have a better understanding of how things in the present came to be as they are.

It might have been expendable, but it was still information that was good to have. It would explain a lot of the relationships between the Marauders. Why it was so dastardly that Pettigrew betrayed them. Why they picked Pettigrew in the first place to defend them. While it was shown in the movies later in Snape's memories, It would have been nice to expound upon the subplot in order to have a better understanding of how things in the present came to be as they are.
Read this

http://hp-essays.livejournal.com/242482.html

And then see if you still believe that the Maurader's explanation was not there.

Read this

http://hp-essays.livejournal.com/242482.html

And then see if you still believe that the Maurader's explanation was not there.

I still believe that the Marauder's explanation was not there. There was a plethora of information about James and his relation to them. But.. what I'm saying is that I would have liked acknowledgement, specifically, that they were the Marauders.

There's a difference between being friends in school, and being in a clique.

It's easy for those of us who have read the books to extrapolate the information, but for those who couldn't be bothered or convinced to read the books, the information about the Marauders isn't as easily accessible. I know the films aren't meant to be a stand alone, that they are an adaptation, and are best watched after reading the books, that's not always the case.

I'm saying I would change it for that purpose alone. Because if I had a dollar for every time I had to explain it. There shouldn't be a need for any explanation, and that's the thing that I've been asked most about. So clearly for those who haven't read the books for whatever reason, it is not being explained to an adequate level. And I would personally change that about the films.

[QUOTE=Sharpturn;5952107]It might have been expendable, but it was still information that was good to have. It would explain a lot of the relationships between the Marauders. Why it was so dastardly that Pettigrew betrayed them. Why they picked Pettigrew in the first place to defend them.

...

I still believe that the Marauder's explanation was not there...

It's easy for those of us who have read the books to extrapolate the information, but for those who couldn't be bothered or convinced to read the books, the information about the Marauders isn't as easily accessible.

I didn't read the books until after I saw POA - the film - and I understood everything that was going on. Explaining that the marauders were a gang that ran around the school causing mischief wasn't necessary to audience's understanding that James, Lupin, Sirius and Peter were all friends in school. Lupin stated that he knew James and Lily while in school, at the end it became clear that Lupin and Sirius had been good friends, and in all the Shrieking Shack exposition it's explained that Peter was apart of their group. It all made sense to me. Whether they were "the marauders" or not didn't matter to me as much as understanding that they had been good friends.

As far as Peter's "dastardly" deed of turning on his friends, I thought it was pretty dastardly whether I knew he was in the marauder's gang or not - he was James's friend and had betrayed him and I got that from the film alone. And as far as why James and Lily picked Peter as their secret keeper to begin with it was explained in the exposition at the end of the film just as in the book - Sirius was the original plan and Peter was chosen as SK instead so that Sirius (the obvious choice) could be the decoy.

I understood that all from the movie. Whether the marauders were apart of the film or not didn't matter. Neither did knowing how Fred or George could work the map, as a viewer I just went with it. It's only after the fact (and after I red the books six or seven times) that I began wondering how they had figured it out.

I understand. I am just too obsessed with the HP books. True , in the US movies and sitcoms I see a lot of scenes
where a person calls another person formally when annoyed.
I have no problem with your life experience being similar :)

However, Harry Potter is not an american sitcom.
It is a
story of its own, taking place in the early nineties, in England, and the books show us clearly,
that
Hermione never calls anyone differently, not even her other boyfriend.
I think you are mistaken to think that calling someone person formally is strictly a US sitcom characteristic. From what I understand the British Sitcom "League of Gentlemen" also exhibited a quality of a similar nature, so really, you're idea that Harry Potter is somehow "better off" not using a trope that is American is not valid.
Actually, she is not the only one in the movies.
There are other people who call him Ronald too.
His mother does this, when
she is angry at him.
I prefer the book version, where Hermione and Ron really like each other and she never puts him down because of stupid reasons like when he did not notice Lupin`s suitcase.

:)
Well you do have to understand, sometimes calling someone by their full name is a term of endearment, not annoyance. Considering how caring and motherly Hermoine is sometimes to Harry and especially Ron, it's not out of line of her to act like his mother by calling him by his full first name.

Also I think I remember countless times where Hermione probably puts down Ron for even less than what you stated.

Well you do have to understand, sometimes calling someone by their full name is a term of endearment, not annoyance. Considering how caring and motherly Hermoine is sometimes to Harry and especially Ron, it's not out of line of her to act like his mother by calling him by his full first name.

I agree with this. I call my best friend by her full first name (Christina) when I'm teasing her, when I give her birthday cards or when I think it would be silly or funny. I would call my ex by his full first name (Stephen) as a term of endearment.

I never meant the full first name in either scenario as a put-down or used it to belittle them and I never thought that Hermione in the films was using it to put Ron down but in a motherly sort of way. I interpreted it as doing what I did with my ex and what a lot of people do with their significant others in refering to them by their full first name. I more thought of it as a clue that she sort of was starting to like Ron as more than a friend in POA.

I'd have Harry do something with the wand he purchased earlier in Philosopher's Stone, other than sticking it into the troll's nose that is. Everyone else is doing magic at some point in the movie. Everyone but Harry.

Cut the Mandrake lesson from Chamber of Secrets. Again we're given way too much information on the plants that isn't needed. Again, there's not really a payoff.
Oh and recast Ginny Weasley before it's too late.

Offer an explaination what the heck happened in the graveyard duel in Goblet of Fire. It feels too much like an deus ex machina.

Resolve the dementor attack in Order of the Phoenix.

The Death Eater attack on the Burrow in Half Blood Prince doesn't make much sense to me. Were they after Harry again? Why wasn't Voldemort with them then? He still does want to kill Harry himself, doesn't he? You could remove that entire scene without any impact on the movie.
And I think they went a little to far with the digital color correction on this film.

Put the deleted scene back in where the trio discusses horcruxes in Deathly Hallows, Part 1.

I think Dumbledore should have had to convince Harry that he's not dead in the King's Cross scene from Hallows, Part 2. Because everything's pointing in the direction that he is. He's in a different place, a dead person is talking to him, his glasses are missing and he wears different clothes. And then he says: "I have to go back, haven't I?" What makes him think that he'll be able to?

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

I would include more of the Marauders' background. Specifically, the full flashback in Snape's Worst Memory and the aftermath of this for Harry, and the Marauders contribution mentioned in PoA.

HBP - I would stick to the book and make Harry/Ginny less of a surprise.

I would also let Ron and Hermione get together the way they did in the book. I think it made it much clearer how Hermione was waiting for Ron to grow up.

I would also portray Sirius differently in OotP. In the book, he is depressed and suffering from alcoholism. In no way does this reflect in the film. Also, he NEVER, EVER calls Harry 'James', no matter how confused Molly thinks he is.

And finally, for some light relief I would add in the scene in HBP where Harry arrives at The Burrow and overhears Arthur refer to Molly as 'Mollywobbles'.

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

I thought it was pretty obvious already. They even had a scene in Prince where Harry explicitely denies that there's something going on with Hermione. The only problem I have with the romances is that I don't buy why Harry falls for Ginny. Part of the problem is that they are stuck with an actress that was initially cast as an extra and not as Harry's love intrest.

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

I agree with the poster above, I think it is just as clear or moreso in the movie that Harry is in love with Ginny and has a more fraternal love for Hermione. Especially in that scene in the empty classroom after Lavender starts snogging Ron. Hermione asks Harry if that's how he feels when he sees Ginny with Dean. To me that pins down the point that Hermione is in love with Ron, and Harry is in love with Ginny quite firmly.

I would also portray Sirius differently in OotP. In the book, he is depressed and suffering from alcoholism. In no way does this reflect in the film.

Depressed, yes. But alcoholic? Where in the book is there any hint that Sirius has an alcohol problem? I only remember him providing drinks for the whole group while they're waiting and worrying about Arthur in St. Mungo's.

Read this

http://hp-essays.livejournal.com/242482.html

And then see if you still believe that the Maurader's explanation was not there.

I had never read this person's essay until just now, yet I have used the same terms/clues to describe who the Mauraders were as he did.

I'd have Harry do something with the wand he purchased earlier in Philosopher's Stone, other than sticking it into the troll's nose that is. Everyone else is doing magic at some point in the movie. Everyone but Harry.

Cut the Mandrake lesson from Chamber of Secrets. Again we're given way too much information on the plants that isn't needed. Again, there's not really a payoff.
Oh and recast Ginny Weasley before it's too late.

Offer an explaination what the heck happened in the graveyard duel in Goblet of Fire. It feels too much like an deus ex machina.

Resolve the dementor attack in Order of the Phoenix.

The Death Eater attack on the Burrow in Half Blood Prince doesn't make much sense to me. Were they after Harry again? Why wasn't Voldemort with them then? He still does want to kill Harry himself, doesn't he? You could remove that entire scene without any impact on the movie.
And I think they went a little to far with the digital color correction on this film.

Put the deleted scene back in where the trio discusses horcruxes in Deathly Hallows, Part 1.

I think Dumbledore should have had to convince Harry that he's not dead in the King's Cross scene from Hallows, Part 2. Because everything's pointing in the direction that he is. He's in a different place, a dead person is talking to him, his glasses are missing and he wears different clothes. And then he says: "I have to go back, haven't I?" What makes him think that he'll be able to?

All good points from a storytelling perspective.

The thing I would change is something simple, but probably troublesome for the actors and crew.

In the first two films, I liked the way the cast+crew actually travelled to sets that looked like Hogwarts. Key examples are The Training Grounds, the corridor outside Moaning Myrtles and that courtyard by Transfiguration (Yes, this was present fleetingly in GoF too.)

I don't like how from OoTp onwards, they use those horrible corridor sets that look clearly made up by a studio team, the one outside the Room of Requirement bugging me a lot. It just doesn't look like a natural castle. I was joyed to see the return of the Gloucester Cathedral corridor in HBP, but again, that wasn't for long.

So the change I'd make would be to have more scenes filmed outside the studios and in different castle like locations.

I definitely agree with the scenery changes. I liked the Gothic styles of the first two movies. I also wondered about the change from the moving staircases, which were specifically mentioned in the books, to those circular things. I guess they just made for better "videography."

I didn't care much for the change from the school uniforms to Muggle clothing. Again, JKR was specific that the witches and wizards wore robes and not Muggle clothes. Most efforts by magical beings not familiar with Muggles to dress in Muggle clothing were hilarious.

One of my major pet peeves has always been the "burning of the Burrow" scene and the chase through the swamp. That was such a needless waste of time, IMO. It did not add to the film, was not in the book, and the time could have been used for something else.

Speaking of peeves, I would have liked to have seen Peeves the Poltergeist in the films. Again, he was in the books and so much a part of Hogwarts that I thought it was a shame he wasn't included. I have read, though, that they weren't even going to include Kreacher until Ms Rowling informed them how much of an important part he played in DH.

More Snape! As a Snape fan, I just think he got really short changed in the films as compared to the amount of page space he gets in the books.

I liked the Gothic styles of the first two movies.

What was "Gothic" about the Columbus films?

I would change the actress which played Lilly Evan in the Deathly Hallows part 2, her eyes disappoint me.

I would change the actress which played Lilly Evan in the Deathly Hallows part 2, her eyes disappoint me.

Or at least make them blue to match Dan's.

Mainly, characterisation. I love the characters as they are in the books, and the movie versions are unrecognisable as the book characters. :sigh:
I like the casting, just not the scripting and characterisation for some of the characters.
In particular, the way the movies have mishandled the trio. The trio are a unit in the books. Harry is the hero, Ron and Hermione are both sidekicks. Movie-version, cliche-fest - Harry and Hermione are the hero and heroine, Ron is shunted into the background, dim-witted comic relief. Hermione actually has flaws in the books, and is much more likeable for not being perfect, and Harry doesn't like fame - "But I am the Chosen One"?? Really? I can't imagine Harry saying that. He said it to a drunken Slughorn to get the memory from him, I doubt he would treat it so lightly, knowing what it cost, over someone fancying him.



The Death Eater attack on the Burrow in Half Blood Prince doesn't make much sense to me. Were they after Harry again? Why wasn't Voldemort with them then? He still does want to kill Harry himself, doesn't he? You could remove that entire scene without any impact on the movie.


I think it was a replacement for all the attacks that were reported and discussed during the year in the book. However, it makes little sense in that the Burrow was there again in DH, and as you say, were they after Harry, was Voldemort with them? If they wanted to show an attack, they could have showed an attack on one of the premises in Hogsmeade during one of the Hogsmeade visits.

I think Dumbledore should have had to convince Harry that he's not dead in the King's Cross scene from Hallows, Part 2. Because everything's pointing in the direction that he is. He's in a different place, a dead person is talking to him, his glasses are missing and he wears different clothes. And then he says: "I have to go back, haven't I?" What makes him think that he'll be able to?

I was wondering that, too. Dumbledore never actually told Harry he wasn't dead, nor did Harry ask about it. Is it included in the extended/deleted scenes on the DVD?


Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

:agree: Less of the idea of playing the trio as some kind of love triangle.


HBP - I would stick to the book and make Harry/Ginny less of a surprise.


They could have included some cute scenes between Harry and Ginny in OotP - like the chocolate in the library incident, or a variation on it. They could have built up chemistry by having them interact more, rather than the cringey way they went about it. Harry gets scenes talking to lots of other characters - added scenes, some of them, and they couldn't have included a scene of him talking to his HBP love interest?


Also, he NEVER, EVER calls Harry 'James', no matter how confused Molly thinks he is.


I agree - I don't know why they had to throw that in.

For me I really think they should have kept one of Molly's greatest moments out of the film... when Molly sees her boggart!
It really shows that "love" and "family" theme that has been displayed in the books. I really wished Molly's character was more two-sided as well so to speak since she didn't really break down anywhere where in the books she broke down when she saw her boggart, when George lost an ear, when Fred died.
But other than that I loved Molly in the films.

hmmmm other things...
I wish they were able to make Ginny grow more as a main character than a side character. I know its not Bonnie's fault but the character wasn't written well in the Film Adaptations.

Oh and Tonks... well now even though I see film Nymphadora in the Books I thought if she looked liked Alice from the Film version of the Twilight Saga with pink hair instead of Brunette she'd look more like Tonks but hey that's just my opinion.

I've thought about this a lot, and I really think Jo's writing style is too dense and multi-layered to have all the major story points conveyed in a series of movies. Even at two-and-a-half hours each, they couldn't fit in a huge amount of important plot points (who the Marauders were, Barty Crouch Jr. getting dementor-kissed, how the Fidelius Charm works, etc.), and while I understand it was important to streamline the story, it was a shame to see all those character-enriching side stories get dumped (Hermione and S.P.E.W., Ron's Quidditch jitters, the relationship between Tonks and Lupin, and so on). It seems minor, but it plays a huge part in endearing the characters to the audience.

So the way I would have done the adaptations would be not as live-action movies, but as seven animated TV miniseries, each one devoted to one book. The nice thing about animation is you aren't bound by the restrictions of live actors - you can age the characters as you need to, and not worry about how long it takes to get it all done. Special effects are less of a hassle - you don't have to spend so much extra time and effort on creating CGI characters like Dobby and Firenze, since you can just draw them instead. And by making each book a multi-part miniseries, you've got a good three or four hours to tell the story, broken up into smaller chunks so it doesn't get monotonous.

Maybe it's just my love of animation, but I'd really love to see the books re-adapted this way someday in the future.

What would I change about the films? A LOT OF THINGS.
From the director, to the lighting in 5, 6, and 7, to plot wholes, lines left out of the books, lines from the books that were included but altered, movie Ginny! blahhh. A lot.
Don't get me wrong though, the movies are still amazing--just not comparable to the books, but we know this already. :P

I don't think I could really add anything. One thing that's mentioned is the addition of Peeves. It would have added so much comic relief. I see that Columbus cut him out after filming scenes with this guy, Rik Mayall, didn't go so well. Were they that bad? Anyway, since CC did that, it forced the other directors into not including the character as well. Hindsight's 20/20, but I think Robert Carlyle despite his well-documented disdain for the series would have made a great Peeves. Of course that's from seeing his masterful work as Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon a Time. lol

I'd love to have had Peeves in the movies, and we know Carlyle does an awesome crazy (BIG OUAT fan here), I think he'd be great as Peeves.

My main criticisms are in movies 3, 4 and 6. I'd say:

POA: MARAUDERS BACK STORY!! WHY did they delete that? It explained everything, the map, scabbers. ETC. Also, LOSE THE SHRUNKEN HEADS!! This isn't Mexico or some place it's England. They drive me insane. Students ARE allowed in Three Broomsticks, it's the main hangout. I loved the book POA, but the movie is my least favourite.
GOF: Crouch's backstory, and Rita Skeeeter reveal. Also calm down, Dumbledore!
OOTP: The Quibbler story (but having cut out Skeeter's story they had to drop that), WHY was Cho the snitch? I didn't like that, it adds more fuel to the haters! I wish Harry amped up the angst. And more Kreacher!
HBP: Cut down the teen romance scenes, and add the Gaunts and Horcrux scenes. No burning down the burrow or flirting with some random waitress. And what was with Harry all I am the chosen one? WAY OOC!

And what did they do to Flitwick? I thought it was supposed to be somewhat older, he looked so strange, like a different character after COS. He looked too young!

1) Higher a better script writer. Steve Kloves probably did his best but the characterizations were way off, even for a book to screen adaptation. He ruined so many great charactes.

2) Recast Harry. Dan just wasn't Harry to me after POA; he was short, he was styled very weird by makeup and costume, his acting was iffy at best... I'd say recast the whole trio but I think Rupert would have done better had his part been improved by a different screen writer and I don't actually have too many complaints about Emma. Most of the student-aged actors were fairly wooden, it's just Dan was the worst since he carried the movies.

3) LOVE Alan Rickman but I would have loved him as Snape even more had he been about... 20 years younger. :shrug: Whayahgunnado? (My new obession is Adrian Brody as Snape :D but I do love Alan in the role)

Please keep the amount of Caps you use to a minimum. It's considered shouting and rude on the internet. If you want to emphasize a word, use bolded text instead. Thanks.

First, I have to say that I am a hardcore fan of the books and hate any sort of changes made to their story. It follows, therefore, that I am no big fan of the movies and have a lot of potential changes the they could have made. Here goes (in no certain order):

1) Ditch Dan as Harry. IMO, his acting was just deadpan and flat. Plus, he's way too short. And his hair from GoF onward just kept going from bad to worse (though, admittedly, that's not his fault.)

2) Either ditch Emma OR keep her, get her make-up back to the one from PS/SS and CoS, give the lines she stole from Ron and Harry back to them, and get her to stop. moving. her. eyebrows.

3) No changes here: Keep Rupert! He's a great actor, had Ron's character down and I'm just upset they didn't make use of the full depth that, IMO, Rupert could have brought to Ron. He was just sidelined and used 90% of the time as a bumbling comic relief character in the movies. :(

4) Alan Rickman's an awesome actor (I love Sense and Sensibility!), but he's just too old for Snape! I would still have supported letting him reprise the role if it hadn't meant aging all his contemporaries (i.e. Sirius, Lupin)
(My new obession is Adrian Brody as Snape but I do love Alan in the role)
It's because of the nose, isn't it? :p

5) Keep Chris Columbus for all seven movies and, even if that's not possible, at least keep Alfonso Cuaron and David Yates away from the series! The latter two's crushes on Emma and David's Harry-Hermione shipping ruined a lot of the movies, IMO.

6) Like Rickman, I think Gary Oldman is a great actor but I think he fell short in the role of Sirius. And it isn't even the fact that he's too old (because that was my only problem with Rickman; he otherwise had Snape spot on for the most part). In PoA, Gary lends a sort of extreme madness and also an extreme sentimentalism to Sirius that just... isn't like Sirius. And then in OoTP, he pulls a 180 (in the wrong direction) and seems too calm. Where's the frustration of being locked up? Where's that note of childishness and immaturity? He should've read the books before taking on the role, IMO.

7) Stop messing up the relationships with your own personal ships, moviemakers! As mentioned above, Yates's HH shipping lead to the infamous (and absolutely unnecessary, IMO) dance scene in DH. TPT was another shipping fiasco, IMO. They filmed it to look as though some sort of unspoken tension was there between Snape and Lily with the result that I've lost count of the number of times I've heard the following question from only-movie fans: "Is Snape Harry's actual dad?" Uh, no? The point of TPT (in the books, at least) was to convey exactly why that couldn't happen!

8) Get new scriptwriters. And, this time, possibly writers who've actually read and understood the real essence and characterizations of the books.

9) Understanding the importance of the past. The past plays an important role in HP. In the movies, however, all flashbacks and back stories (ie. SWM, TPT, Voldy's life story, the Marauder's back story) are glossed over and their connection to Harry's present isn't really pressed upon properly. The flashbacks felt very scrapbook-ish in nature, instead of being solid, deep scenes.

10) Spend less time on the stilted romance scenes in HBP and give that time to the actual point of the story: learning about Voldy's life.

11) Please, please, for heaven's sake, keep Michael Gambon as far away from the role of DD as possible (and, if possible, bring Richard Harris back to life :upset:) Where's that air of serenity? Where's that twinkling of the eyes? Where's that calm understanding? Where's the silver/white beard? Where are the bright robes and wizard's hat? :grumble:

There a lot more but, I'll keep it at this for the moment. :lol:

Mainly, characterisation. I love the characters as they are in the books, and the movie versions are unrecognisable as the book characters. :sigh:
I like the casting, just not the scripting and characterisation for some of the characters.
In particular, the way the movies have mishandled the trio. The trio are a unit in the books. Harry is the hero, Ron and Hermione are both sidekicks. Movie-version, cliche-fest - Harry and Hermione are the hero and heroine, Ron is shunted into the background, dim-witted comic relief. Hermione actually has flaws in the books, and is much more likeable for not being perfect, and Harry doesn't like fame - "But I am the Chosen One"?? Really? I can't imagine Harry saying that.

I actually enjoyed that line, but mostly because of Dan's delivery. I felt like he was going for light sarcasm, which hinted at the clever and funny Book-Harry that's almost completely absent from the movies.

For DH2, I would definitely add the bit from the book where Harry gives Voldemort one more chance of redemption. It paints him in a more heroic light. And I would've emphasized the importance of Lily and Harry's sacrifices, and what happened because of that.

Harry doesn't like fame - "But I am the Chosen One"?? Really? I can't imagine Harry saying that.
I actually enjoyed that line, but mostly because of Dan's delivery. I felt like he was going for light sarcasm, which hinted at the clever and funny Book-Harry that's almost completely absent from the movies.

For DH2, I would definitely add the bit from the book where Harry gives Voldemort one more chance of redemption. It paints him in a more heroic light. And I would've emphasized the importance of Lily and Harry's sacrifices, and what happened because of that.

i too enjoyed that little line as well. i agree that harry doesn't like fame but i get the feeling that as he got older, he became more accepting of the fact that he had to be the hero. although i didn't like how Nevelle all of a sudden comes out of the shadows and kills LV. i don't remember that moment being in the book but i definitely thought harry should have taken the death stroke

1) Higher a better script writer. Steve Kloves probably did his best but the characterizations were way off, even for a book to screen adaptation. He ruined so many great charactes.

What do you think of Michael Goldenberg? In my opinion he did a great job condensing the doorstopper that was book 5 into a 2 hour movie. I guess they brought back Kloves because of his good relationship with Jo Rowling.

BTW, beware of the Rouge Angles Of Satin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSatin). :)

I would have changed the entrances to Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, it felt soo cliched. Beauxbatons and Durmstrang were both co-ed schools and in the movie it was like girly girls and macho men.

What do you think of Michael Goldenberg? In my opinion he did a great job condensing the doorstopper that was book 5 into a 2 hour movie. I guess they brought back Kloves because of his good relationship with Jo Rowling.

OOTP is a mixed bag. Along with having a couple of my favorite visuals (the Dept of Ministries battle, the Dumbeldore v. Voldemort battle and the visuals at the very beginning) I still think the script could have been refined more. OOTP was probably the hardest book to adapt simply because of its length and the fact that it had to be crammed into a two hour film. He did make a good choice in how he went about showing Umbridge's unreasonable application of Educational Decrees - in the book I think there were only three or four Educational Decrees but all the in-between action made those decrees very unjustified for the reader whereas in the film she was laying out twenty, thirty, forty Educational Decrees so the unjustness was visually apparent.

BTW, beware of the Rouge Angles Of Satin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSatin). :)

No one is immyoun frum the occassinol misspelling. :p (My other computer doesn't spell check on the fly like this one does so stuff slips past, in addition to occasionally not proof-reading. I do my best. :shrug:)

Overall, I like OotP as an adaptation, though it does have its stumbling blocks. It's mostly just nitpicky stuff that I don't like, such as the Order and Harry flying low over the river and around boats and stuff when they're supposed to be traveling undercover. Or how Fred and George make their riotous exit in the middle of everyone's O.W.L.s, when in the book they specifically stated that they didn't want their mayhem to disrupt anyone's studying. But out of all the post-Columbus films, I think it did the best job of including all the major important story points and still working as a coherent stand-alone film.

I thought OOTP was an improvement on the previous two movies, I didn't like POA all that much, WAY too much cut out at the end, tacky talking skulls, etc. GOF felt like a connect the dots.

Some of the stuff they cut from the fifth movie had to be cut since it wasn't in the fourth movie.

I'm flexible with movies, I'll forgive some changes, but when important scenes are omitted and scenes not even in the book are added in its place, I get so annoyed. I could have done without the fish analogy from Slughorn, why not have it like in the books where he shooes him out, it showed Slughorn's shame much better.

I would have changed the entrances to Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, it felt soo cliched. Beauxbatons and Durmstrang were both co-ed schools and in the movie it was like girly girls and macho men. Yeah, I agree. I don't remember there being girls at Durmstrang, though, but I definitely remember that there were boys at Beauxbatons.

In POA, I wish they would've included Harry's time in Diagon Alley before he went to school, eating ice cream and admiring the Firebolt. And then in GOF, I think they should've included the part with Harry's situation at the Dursleys' house (Dudley's diet) and when the Weasleys pick up Harry from the Dursleys.

In POA, I wish they would've included Harry's time in Diagon Alley before he went to school, eating ice cream and admiring the Firebolt.

That's something I'd have liked to see too. What really bugged me about the way the movie handled this was how Harry's life didn't seem to be any better at the Leaky Cauldron than it was at Privet Drive. The ride on the Knight Bus is hectic and annoying, Tom the barman drags him around like a rag doll, the food is disgusting (apparently the pea soup is cannibalistic), he nearly gets chomped by his Monster Book of Monsters, etc. Even the building itself is gray and gloomy and uninviting, and he's got a crappy view from his room and there's an elevated train rumbling by.

I think it'd make much more sense to clarify the difference between life on Privet Drive and life in the wizarding world - once Harry settles in at the Leaky Cauldron, he should be surrounded by people who care about him and are willing to help him, in stark contrast to the indifferent and often times abusive Dursleys. That way, the "threat" of Sirius Black feels more genuine, as if there's some real danger within this world that's normally so inviting to Harry. The way Alfonso Cuaron shot it, Black's escape just feels like one more cruddy element to an already cruddy universe.

Yeah, I agree. I don't remember there being girls at Durmstrang, though, but I definitely remember that there were boys at Beauxbatons.

In POA, I wish they would've included Harry's time in Diagon Alley before he went to school, eating ice cream and admiring the Firebolt. And then in GOF, I think they should've included the part with Harry's situation at the Dursleys' house (Dudley's diet) and when the Weasleys pick up Harry from the Dursleys.

I believe in GOF, it said that a Durmstrang boy whispered to a girl next to him when he saw Harry.

I would have liked to have seen the Dursleys in the fourth movie, and the sixth movie. The scene with Dumbledore calling out the Dursleys was great, and would have been far better than flirting with the waitress.

Agree with the previous poster on POA, Cuaron dropped the ball in a big way.

I would have added 'Peeves' the poltergeist! he was such a funny character! Sirius should have been more important, I reckon people that don't read the books didn't even get attached to him as much as we did. Snape should have also been in more scenes in the movies, he was so under rated throughout the whole series. The first film should have been longer. And I would put more Quidditch scenes, and if I could change all Half-Blood Prince I would, that was a terrible movie!

I totally agree. HBP was so upsetting. My sister hasn't read the books (very upset with her, haha) so she didn't understand why every five minutes I would say "that is so wrong!" or " this movie is horrible compared to the book!!" I would re-write that entire movie to be just like the book.

I would also add some character or expand more on them:
-Peeves, -Pidwidgeon (Pig), -Kreacher, and lots more that I can't think of right now!

There are lots of other things, but I just finished piles of homework so I am tired! :)

I would also add some character or expand more on them:
-Peeves, -Pidwidgeon (Pig), -Kreacher, and lots more that I can't think of right now!

I don't have a problem with some of the minor characters being cut like Pigwidgeon (fairly useless in the long run) or Peeves (whose would have added comedy and character to the castle but not much in terms of plot). There just isn't time in movies to include characters like this when the books you're adapting from are as long as GOF or OOTP. (Kreacher was a travesty, though, now that we know how important he was in terms of the plot)

On the other hand, the film makers wasted a lot of time on adding things to the movies that didn't need to be there for story-telling purposes or spent time (we're talking seconds but those seconds add up!) on things that they didn't need to spend time on - like the three seconds they spend panning over the kittens on Umbridge's office walls or spending time showing her preparing her tea... If that's what you're doing with the screen time give me Peeves any day.

On the other hand, the film makers wasted a lot of time on adding things to the movies that didn't need to be there for story-telling purposes or spent time (we're talking seconds but those seconds add up!) on things that they didn't need to spend time on - like the three seconds they spend panning over the kittens on Umbridge's office walls or spending time showing her preparing her tea... If that's what you're doing with the screen time give me Peeves any day.
Exactly, that's what dislike about the films. Alright, you've got no time so you can't add the whole book into the film, but then why're you wasting precious time with unnecessary bits and pieces here and there? In addition to the small things you mentioned, they added whole scenes and characters that took up a lot of time and/or did not make sense according to the plot of the stories. Like, say, the HH dance scene in DH, Slughorn's Lily/goldfish story in HBP, the talking skull things in PoA, the nonsensical messages Ron was trying to send through Hermione to Harry before the first task in GoF culminating in Hermione's "I'm not an owl!" exclamation, the Muggle waitress bit in the beginning of HBP, the Nigel character, the burning of the Burrow, Snape going to Godric's Hollow (and how in the world did that whole scene right before Lily's death end up in Snape's memories?), the cliched entrance of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students in GoF, Harry zipping Ginny up in DH 1... IMO, they could have deleted all these and actually spent the time presenting solid scenes for SWM, Voldy's life memories, TPT, DD's funeral, the Marauder's backstory, the death of the Potters etc.

Exactly, that's what dislike about the films. Alright, you've got no time so you can't add the whole book into the film, but then why're you wasting precious time with unnecessary bits and pieces here and there? In addition to the small things you mentioned, they added whole scenes and characters that took up a lot of time and/or did not make sense according to the plot of the stories. Like, say, the HH dance scene in DH, Slughorn's Lily/goldfish story in HBP, the talking skull things in PoA, the nonsensical messages Ron was trying to send through Hermione to Harry before the first task in GoF culminating in Hermione's "I'm not an owl!" exclamation, the Muggle waitress bit in the beginning of HBP, the Nigel character, the burning of the Burrow, Snape going to Godric's Hollow (and how in the world did that whole scene right before Lily's death end up in Snape's memories?), the cliched entrance of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students in GoF, Harry zipping Ginny up in DH 1... IMO, they could have deleted all these and actually spent the time presenting solid scenes for SWM, Voldy's life memories, TPT, DD's funeral, the Marauder's backstory, the death of the Potters etc.

Some of these things I find annoying but at the same time I understand that there are times when books cannot be translated scene for scene into a movie.

the HH dance scene in DH
Gag me. Aside from hating this scene in general I don't feel like making so shippy was at all necessary. To me it made Harry a huge jerk for appearing to hit on his best friend's girl and there was definitely a better way to show their despair and their desire for some kind of happiness.

Slughorn's Lily/goldfish story in HBP
This made Lily look like a suck up to me.

the talking skull things in PoA
Not even going there because I thought the shrunken heads were cute and clever. :D (I hadn't read the books when I saw POA, POA was what got me to read the books)

the nonsensical messages Ron was trying to send through Hermione to Harry before the first task in GoF culminating in Hermione's "I'm not an owl!" exclamation
I thought this was a weird choice since Hermione submits to passing the messages along in the first place and then blows up about having to deliver them - also not the best acting moment. When all is said and done though, this moment doesn't grate on me as much as some others.

the Muggle waitress bit in the beginning of HBP
Thought this was just plain stupid. There were better ways to begin that movie - and I really missed Dumbledore interacting with the Dursley's! That's like one of my favorite parts about HBP! :(

the Nigel character
This is probably the single most confusing thing about the film makers' choices to me: Why did they have to invent the character of Nigel in the first place when there was a built-in character that they could have simply recast: Collin Creevey! We hadn't seen him since COS so recasting him wouldn't have been that big a deal; he was a relatively minor character to begin with and OOTP takes place three years later so he would have grown up and looked different anyway and it would have made fans happier (IMO) to see Collin, a canon character, brought back since he does make little cameo appearances in the later books.

It's things like this that make me think the film makers didn't use their resources wisely.

the burning of the Burrow
Another bad choice, IMO. If they wanted to change the pacing of the films (which I have heard was the whole reason for adding this scene in) then find a better way to do it; this scene was terrible.

Snape going to Godric's Hollow (and how in the world did that whole scene right before Lily's death end up in Snape's memories?)
Meh, no opinion on this, really.

the cliched entrance of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students in GoF
I thought this was kind of okay, but I agree that I don't like how these schools were shown as girl-only or boy-only.

Harry zipping Ginny up in DH 1
I'll allow some license to the film makers in showing Harry and Ginny's developing relationship, my problem with their scenes in the movies has more to do with the total lack of chemistry between the actors and how awkward every single "romantic" moment between them became. And they weren't awkward in a charming, puppy love kind of way, they were awkward in cringing, look away from the screen kind of ways.

This is probably the single most confusing thing about the film makers' choices to me: Why did they have to invent the character of Nigel in the first place when there was a built-in character that they could have simply recast: Collin Creevey! We hadn't seen him since COS so recasting him wouldn't have been that big a deal; he was a relatively minor character to begin with and OOTP takes place three years later so he would have grown up and looked different anyway and it would have made fans happier (IMO) to see Collin, a canon character, brought back since he does make little cameo appearances in the later books.
Yes, Colin would have fit Nigel's role perfectly. Plus, yes, I would have been happy to see him again (I found him adorably annoying in CoS :lol:).

Thought this was just plain stupid. There were better ways to begin that movie - and I really missed Dumbledore interacting with the Dursley's! That's like one of my favorite parts about HBP!
And the way DD commented about how pretty the waitress was to Harry is just...:eeep:. I cringed every single time DD commented on Harry's growth from a boy into a man in that movie ("You need a shave, my friend"...eeek + look who's talking ;))
As for the deletion of the Dursley scene...I agree. This is the last interaction between DD and the Dursleys. It sort of brings the circle that started the night he left Harry on their doorstep to a nice finish. As of DH, I also love imagining what's going on in Petunia's head during that scene, that being the first time she meets this man who has been affecting her life from a distance since the time she was 13-ish.

Meh, no opinion on this, really.
What really got me about Lily's last words and her death scene being in Snape's memories was the complete disregard for basic logic by the moviemakers. How can something end up in your memories if you were not even present at that place?? It's just plain illogical and an insult to the audience's intelligence, IMO.

I'll allow some license to the film makers in showing Harry and Ginny's developing relationship, my problem with their scenes in the movies has more to do with the total lack of chemistry between the actors and how awkward every single "romantic" moment between them became. And they weren't awkward in a charming, puppy love kind of way, they were awkward in cringing, look away from the screen kind of ways.
Don't even get me started on the lack of chemistry between Dan and Bonnie. I totally get what you mean about the "can't bear to look at the screen it's so cringeworthy" thing. I couldn't look at the screen for most of HBP because of this. Plus, in such a crowded house as the Burrow, who comes all the way down to the kitchen with their dress unzipped? :rolleyes:

Exactly, that's what dislike about the films. Alright, you've got no time so you can't add the whole book into the film, but then why're you wasting precious time with unnecessary bits and pieces here and there? In addition to the small things you mentioned, they added whole scenes and characters that took up a lot of time and/or did not make sense according to the plot of the stories. Like, say, the HH dance scene in DH, Slughorn's Lily/goldfish story in HBP, the talking skull things in PoA, the nonsensical messages Ron was trying to send through Hermione to Harry before the first task in GoF culminating in Hermione's "I'm not an owl!" exclamation, the Muggle waitress bit in the beginning of HBP, the Nigel character, the burning of the Burrow, Snape going to Godric's Hollow (and how in the world did that whole scene right before Lily's death end up in Snape's memories?), the cliched entrance of the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students in GoF, Harry zipping Ginny up in DH 1... IMO, they could have deleted all these and actually spent the time presenting solid scenes for SWM, Voldy's life memories, TPT, DD's funeral, the Marauder's backstory, the death of the Potters etc.

Exactly, like characters like Bem or Nigel, or putting things like the burning of the burrow, the goldfish story, etc, really detract from the story. And takes away time for important scenes. As a result some movies have felt like they lost their depth. GOF and HBP, in particular. GOF seemed like connect the dots, and HBP had way too much emphasis on the teen romances than the real stove like the memories. I would have kept Harry and Ginny's first kiss as it was in the book, it was spontaneous, and it worked. In the movie, it felt so lacklustre.

I also hate how some characters lose their depth. Ginny doesn't have any of the fire that she has in the books. Fleur did not come across at all as being the strong, capable woman she turned out to be. I hated NEville's line about serving panache's at the slug club. He was coming into his own by that time, what an insult

I've always wanted to say this, but not sure if many people feel the same. Richard Harris was amazing. He was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore. I would have replaced Michael Gambon (who is otherwise a brilliant actor) with somebody different. Dumbledore is pretty laid back and relaxed. Michael Gambon portrayed him in such a hyper and flustery way and he speaks way too fast and too loudly. I actually think Alan Rickman could have made a brilliant Dumbledore, cos he has this quiet calm aura about him, (and the perfect nose), even though he might have been a wee bit too young.

I've always wanted to say this, but not sure if many people feel the same. Richard Harris was amazing. He was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore. I would have replaced Michael Gambon (who is otherwise a brilliant actor) with somebody different. Dumbledore is pretty laid back and relaxed. Michael Gambon portrayed him in such a hyper and flustery way and he speaks way too fast and too loudly.
I think a lot of people share that opinion. I know I do. Richard Harris did Dumbledore exactly the way I pictured him to be while reading the books. Michael Gambon gave him a personality transplant. Not to mention hair, beard, and wardrobe transplant.

What would I change about the films, hmmm.
Well I would start with the screenwriter/s, then the directors. How about the production team, yeah, they could go. Some of the actors, I'd try real hard and get young people to play the young parts, you know like Lily, James, Remus, Lupin, Snape, Julie Walters is great but I'd try and get someone in their late 30's not their late fifties. The others should be in their late 20's, in the case of Lily and James they should really be in their very early 20's. I'd keep Evanna Lynch for sure, but I think I'd do a serious overhaul on all the actors and try to get some who can both act and look the part. Then I'd get a special effects team that could read the books and try to replicate in some kind of fashion what the spells in the books should look like on screen. Speaking of on screen I'd try and get a lighting man that remembered to pay the electricity bill so the audience could see what was happening. I'd also hire a supervisor to make sure the new screenwriters read the books and not fan fiction. I'd keep the sets and props, but I'd get a costume designer that could actually design some costumes instead of stopping off at the nearest GAP shop. Yeah, I'd do a complete overhaul. I don't know if I could do better but I could hardly do worse.

I've always wanted to say this, but not sure if many people feel the same. Richard Harris was amazing. He was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore. I would have replaced Michael Gambon (who is otherwise a brilliant actor) with somebody different. Dumbledore is pretty laid back and relaxed. Michael Gambon portrayed him in such a hyper and flustery way and he speaks way too fast and too loudly. I actually think Alan Rickman could have made a brilliant Dumbledore, cos he has this quiet calm aura about him, (and the perfect nose), even though he might have been a wee bit too young.

Oh, I definitely feel the same way. I loved Harris as Dumbledore, he suited the part so well. I love Michael Gambon as an actor. He is brilliant in the role of George V in King's Speech and as Cazran in Doctor who and other roles. As Dumbledore, I never really felt he fit the part. Too abrasive, too stern. He seemed like he yelled a lot and lacked that calm and in control aura of Dumbledore. Not just in "DIDYA PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYER HARRY!!" but in general. I'm not sure who else I'd pick. Ian McKeller is good as Gandalf, but that would be a bit too typecast, and the jokes about Gandalbus were running wild before the second Dumbledore was cast.

I don't think I would change any of it really. I love all the actors, they were chosen well. But I would want to change Snapes death... even if it may be in the book

I've always wanted to say this, but not sure if many people feel the same. Richard Harris was amazing. He was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore. I would have replaced Michael Gambon (who is otherwise a brilliant actor) with somebody different. Dumbledore is pretty laid back and relaxed. Michael Gambon portrayed him in such a hyper and flustery way and he speaks way too fast and too loudly. I actually think Alan Rickman could have made a brilliant Dumbledore, cos he has this quiet calm aura about him, (and the perfect nose), even though he might have been a wee bit too young.

Interesting, I'd never thought of Rickman as Dumbledore. Of course AR would never have been offered the part (instead of Snape) since he only plays bad guys . . .[sarcasm]

I've always wanted to say this, but not sure if many people feel the same. Richard Harris was amazing. He was exactly how I imagined Dumbledore. I would have replaced Michael Gambon (who is otherwise a brilliant actor) with somebody different. Dumbledore is pretty laid back and relaxed. Michael Gambon portrayed him in such a hyper and flustery way and he speaks way too fast and too loudly. I actually think Alan Rickman could have made a brilliant Dumbledore, cos he has this quiet calm aura about him, (and the perfect nose), even though he might have been a wee bit too young.
And more importantly, if Alan Rickman was cast as Dumbledore, who could have possibly played Snape as well as Rickman did?

And more importantly, if Alan Rickman was cast as Dumbledore, who could have possibly played Snape as well as Rickman did?

No one IMO!

Tim Roth did say he would have portrayed Snape entirely differently. I'm not sure I would have liked that Snape nearly as well as AR's!!

Tim Roth might've portrayed Snape closer to the book version, much more unpleasant than Alan Rickman's version.

Hmmm...what about Patrick Stewart as Dumbledore?

Tim Roth might've portrayed Snape closer to the book version, much more unpleasant than Alan Rickman's version.

Hmmm...what about Patrick Stewart as Dumbledore?

Possibly, though that was entirely dependent on Steve Kloves. We definitely wouldn't have had the buttoned up Snape as AR's taken credit for the costume.

I'm having difficulty imagining Patrick Stewart with hair!! :)

Possibly, though that was entirely dependent on Steve Kloves. We definitely wouldn't have had the buttoned up Snape as AR's taken credit for the costume.

I'm having difficulty imagining Patrick Stewart with hair!! :)

That is difficult to picture.....does anyone have photo software? We need to get Richard Harris's Dumbledore hair/beard on Patrick Stewart's face.:lol:

Just go watch "I, Claudius" to get some basic ideas. ;)

Just go watch "I, Claudius" to get some basic ideas. ;)

Oh you beat me to it! IIRC blond, short, and curly. No beard.

Okay, watch "I, Claudius" and the recent "Hamlet" he did with David Tennant and combine both Patricks.

Okay, watch "I, Claudius" and the recent "Hamlet" he did with David Tennant and combine both Patricks.
Need a much longer, fuller beard, and longer hair....

Come on, use some imagination! ;)

Come on, use some imagination! ;)

Since Patrick Stewart started losing his hair at 19, I think that even he has a difficult time imagining himself with long white hair & beard!

Hey, Sean Connery was the first choice for Gandalf so we already have a close enough approximation for turning a (semi) bald guy into a long-haired bearded wizard.

It's hard to say, because I've always seperated the films from the books in a way. I've always been sympathetic that it's so hard to fit everything in. I would have liked the Marauders back story though, in reference to the map and Sirius and Snapes relationship too.
The one thing I was most disappointed about was in The Order of the Pheonix. I really wanted to see Harry in Dumbledores office, shouting and throwing things. That scene was so emotional, it would have been great to see.

It's hard to say, because I've always seperated the films from the books in a way. I've always been sympathetic that it's so hard to fit everything in. I would have liked the Marauders back story though, in reference to the map and Sirius and Snapes relationship too.
The one thing I was most disappointed about was in The Order of the Pheonix. I really wanted to see Harry in Dumbledores office, shouting and throwing things. That scene was so emotional, it would have been great to see.


Visually, I really liked OotP, but palpitation wise, I think it was weakest. Even GoF which was just too huge to adapt well, did better. And a shame, because I think OotP was my favorite book.

It's hard to say, because I've always seperated the films from the books in a way. I've always been sympathetic that it's so hard to fit everything in. I would have liked the Marauders back story though, in reference to the map and Sirius and Snapes relationship too.
The one thing I was most disappointed about was in The Order of the Pheonix. I really wanted to see Harry in Dumbledores office, shouting and throwing things. That scene was so emotional, it would have been great to see.


Visually, I really liked OotP, but adapatation wise, I think it was weakest. Even GoF which was just too huge to adapt well, did better. And a shame, because I think OotP was my favorite book.

1) Shorten the basilisk scene in COS
2) Put the scene with Dumbledore and Fudge arguing at the end into GOF
3) Shorten the dragon scene in GOF

Put in the Sphinx in the maze in GOF as long as it didn't cut any of the Voldemorte returning scenes later in the film.

1) Shorten the basilisk scene in COS
2) Put the scene with Dumbledore and Fudge arguing at the end into GOF
3) Shorten the dragon scene in GOF

Those, and one of the Quidditch games--Draco chasing Harry under the stands--it went on waaaay too long.

I would change up OotP all together. As much as I love this book, the movie just didn't have that something that would hold my interest like the other films did. I was kind of hoping for a Harry meltdown in Dumbledore's office when Sirius died. Also, the DA is an awesome storyline, but I think the film could of used a couple of sub-plots that were in the book to make it more interesting.

Harry and Ginny. It should have been done way differently. I would have kept Harry's and Ginny's first kiss the same in the book, and get them out of the Room of Requirement! The movies never really made me care for Harry and Ginny, probably one of my biggest complaints in this movie series besides OotP.

On the relationships. I wish the HBP would have focused more on learning about Voldemort and Horcruxes than the relationships. Like I would put in a scene with Merope instead of a scene with Ron and Lavender.

Although I loved all eight films if I could change one thing it would probably be having the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort in the Great Hall as it was in the book.

Would have made the MoM battles at the end of OOTP at least five minutes longer than they were so you had a chance to see and really appreciate the awesome effects, would have had them move through the other rooms of the Dept of Mysteries a little so it didn't feel so static and the drama and danger of that scene could be developed more.

Would have recast the trio with the possible except, at times, of Emma. Wasn't a fan of their acting abilities generally.

Would have had Alfonso Curon come back for a second movie, he was the best director in the series for me and did my favorite of all the movies (and the only HP movie I can still actually watch). Loved his interpretation of the HP world and the visual style he brought to the screen.

Would have hired a better script writer/adaptor.

Would have developed Harry and Ginny better. Ties back to the recasting would-have because I also would have cast two actors that had chemistry.

The screenwriter.

Philosopher's Stone - fine as it is. Yes, it's long and slavishly sticks to the book, but this is necessarily establishing a whole new world to the cinema audience. I'd make the link with the other protections around the stone being put in place by the various teachers, and include Snape's potion puzzle.

Chamber of Secrets - shorten the ending, there's a bit too much emphasis on Hagrid rather than Harry. There was a deleted scene with Harry and Hedwig sat on a hill overlooking the school, with Harry questioning who and what he is... I'd put that back in.

Prisoner of Azkaban - I'd put the kids back in their school robes when in school, get rid of those oh-so-annoying screen fades, the interludes with the Whomping Willow don't do anything for me. A bit more exposition in the shrieking shack finale, and that ending... yeuch. I know it's a favourite of many people, but Alfonso Cuarón just didn't do it for me... flameproof cloak on :)

Goblet of Fire - This is where it gets tough, such a long book and so many detailed subplots, I actually think they did a good job of the adaptation here. Dumbledore was way off - he shouldn't be manhandling Harry. The Yule Ball went on a bit too long, I'd cut it after the first dance and drop the whole Jarvis Cocker bit. The maze should have had more of the obstacles from the book. I thought the ending was nailed on, apart from the cheesy last words between Ron and Hermione.

Order of the Phoenix - There is very little that I'd change about this, probably just to extend the exposition in Dumbledore's office at the end, including Harry demolishing the office in his rage. In the book, there's a sense that he's really about to lose it with Dumbledore, and that's absent from the film. I'd have to re-do Grawp completely or drop him, it's a bit of a side-plot that never had a resolution in the later films anyway, and the CGI was just horrible. Oh, and I'd love to see the Weasley's swamp :)

Half Blood Prince - A bit less love potion, a bit more pensieve. I'd like to see the nature of the horcruxes and their relation to Voldemort's past explored more - deducing the identity of the horcruxes as artifacts belonging to the founders. I think this would make a better setup for the final two films. Dumbledore's funeral is the main glaring omission that I'd put back in.

Deathly Hallows, Part I - Not a lot to change here, although I'd teach Runcorn how to walk properly, he looked like an extra from the Thunderbirds - the puppet version. And get Mad-Eye's magical eye off Umbridge's door and give it it's burial.

Deathly Hallows, Part II - Agh, where to start? The battle is fine, the hunt for the Ravenclaw horcrux is fine, the Chamber of Secrets scene is a nice addition. I'd add in the death of Fred Weasley - it's such a shock in the film seeing him dead in the Great Hall that it takes some of the impact from seeing Remus and Tonks dead immediately after. If we already know that Fred has died, that scene can focus on the family's grief, and then we see Remus and Tonks... and that's where the sense of shock comes from. I'd like to see more in the Pensieve, not because I think it's lacking, but because it's such a wonderfully well crafted scene, and I want more! King's Cross needs some more explanation about the Hallows, and the behaviour of Harry's wand against Voldemort (with Lucius' wand) in the escape - they put the behaviour in DH1 and then failed to explain it. The final battle, I'd put back in the Great Hall, and I'd have Harry return to the headmaster's office and repair his own wand with the Elder wand - I don't have a problem with him breaking the Elder Wand after that, but I dislike the idea of him carrying on with Malfoy's.

I would just do all that's in my power to stay as true as I can to the books.
The first, second and seventh films were the most successful in that area in my opinion.
POA was absolutely horrific.

And I would cast a different actor in Dumbledore's role, Gambon's all wrong.

Prisoner of Azkaban - I'd put the kids back in their school robes when in school
That never bothered me, actually. So I assume it bothers you in the later movies when the kids aren't in their uniforms then?

get rid of those oh-so-annoying screen fades,

Never even noticed them.

the interludes with the Whomping Willow don't do anything for me.

I liked those. I thought they were a clever way to recall the Whomping Willow from the previous movie while showing the passage of time and keeping it present in the film so that its importance later in the story didn't come so out of the blue. I hadn't read the books when I saw POA and hardly remembered COS or SS so if the Whomping Willow hadn't been in the films like it was I would have been totally confused about why all of a sudden there was this crazy tree that was attacking Harry and Hermione.

A bit more exposition in the shrieking shack finale

Nuh-uh! There was too much exposition as it is now! To delay action even more would have been cinematic suicide; look at the end of DH the book! So anticlimactic to stand around talking! (Okay, they were circling, but that's even worse! :lol:)

and that ending... yeuch. I know it's a favourite of many people, but Alfonso Cuarón just didn't do it for me... flameproof cloak on :)

.:*~*INCENDIO!!*~*:.

:rotfl:
(Great joke there :D)

AGUAMENTI!

Anyway, each to his own. And if I recall correctly, the kids were back in uniform a lot more in the later films. Even when they're not in official lessons (ie, Dumbledore's Army in the Room of Requirement).

I'm not totally against the muggle clothing, eg in Hogsmeade, just in class. And I don't know why I feel that way, I never had to wear a school uniform, so it's not that. It just doesn't feel like Hogwarts.

I'm sorry if this is a massive post or if it doesn't make sense or if none of this belongs here but I've never posted here before. Anyway, what I would change:

PS and COS: Basically nothing. This was a great introduction to the world.

POA: As much as I love Alfonso Cuaron, I think I would have made it a tiny bit more like the Chris Columbus movies (students wearing robes all the time, the original layout of the grounds-ish, etc.) Also I've always thought Ron's attempted phone call would be a hilarious way to the start the film as opposed to under-age magic. I'd take out the Shrunken Heads, add a tiny bit more exposition to the Shrieking Shack, maybe have the Firebolt to Christmas and then have Harry get it back at the end, and Sirius's attack on the Common Room. Looking back it seems like I hate POA but it's actually by favorite after Deathly Hallows.

GOF: I think Mike Newell did a pretty good job with this one. However, I'd add in the Dursleys in a really bare-bones kind of way (wake up, eat grapefruit, explosion of Weasleys), the Quidditch World Cup gameplay, Ludo Bagman (maybe not his Fred and George storyline, but at least given some of Dumbledore's psycopathic tendancies), the whole Moody/Snape/Filch thing after the prefect's bathroom (which for some reason I always picture happening on the Grand Staircase), and Sirius showing up at the END, which should have been more melancholy.

OOTP: I like the tone of this movie but would have done it differently. I would have started it with Harry writing letters and asking Hedwig to peck at Ron and Hermione until they replyed (which ties into GOF's movie ending oddly enough), then go straight to the Dementors, I'd cut out Vernon and Petunia and have the Advance Guard just show up immediately and have Tonks take Dudley away. Then she could come back with Harry's stuff and comment on his Firebolt to make the audience like her. Also, I'd have the Quidditch Match and Umbridge banning Harry just to make the audience hate her even more. The montage might not even be necessary, just a Divination Class inspection and then the Quidditch Match. I would also have the other rooms in the Department of Mysteries. And I'd probably cut out Grawp and have Hagrid at Hogwarts from the beginning and then keep him and McGonagall being attacked.

HBP: I would put more focus on Voldemort. I'd do the Gaunt flashbacks as part of the Secret Riddle flashbacks in a Prince's Tale-style montage memory (which isn't really how the Pensieve works but it would be better for the film). The Quidditch Tryouts weren't really necessary, and really neither was the whole Felix Felicis episode before After the Burial. They could have a quick Quidditch Practice followed by Ron and Harry running into Ginny and Dean in the corridor to set up Ron and Lavender. I'd change up Lupin's role a bit and have him be in charge of the Aurors at Hogwarts alongside Tonks. They would attack the Death Eaters while they are fleeing the castle at the end. I'd make Fenrir Greyback do more without actually saying anything. For some reason I've always thought he was the Boba Fett of the Harry Potter world. I would also connect the Draco-Voldemort storylines by having Draco needing to kill Dumbledore but also bring in the Death Eaters so that Bellatrix could find and kill Slughorn because Voldemort doesn't want him close to Dumbledore. I have no idea how that would be resolved in a way that doesn't end with Slughorn dead though. I'd also keep the funeral at the end. Oh, and another thing, Voldemort would want Dumbledore dead in this one so he would be free to take over the Ministry.

DH: I LOVE these two movies. However, I would have probably changed them. For example, I would have it be one Lord of the Rings-length film. I would cut out the Dursleys (but shoot their scenes for the Director's Cut) and expand the battle over Little Whinging, like showing Fred's attack, Bellatrix ambushing Tonks, and the death of Moody. I would trim the Burrow-stuff significantly, cutting out Bill and Fleur entirely (let the book purists strike haha), and having ARTHUR deliver the Will (he's tying up their affaris at the Ministry since Voldemort took over at the end of HBP) during Harry's birthday and then the Death Eaters find them (after a tense chase with Kingsley at the Ministry). From there, I'd cut out the Cafe Attack (it always felt like that was unncessecary, especially in the movie). Kreacher would have the real Locket and then Snape would drive the trio out of Grimauld Place (I think Whimsey said this before and I really like it). This way, the Ministry infiltration would not need to be seen. Ron would not leave until they are in Godric's Hollow and then come back immediately during the Nagini scene for a heroic return. If I could, I would try to have the Silver Doe scenes take place in Godric's Hollow as well so that Ron can somehow help Harry and Hermione escape from Nagini and then destroy the locket in one scene. Also (again, purists will want my head), when the trio and Dean and Griphook are brought to Malfoy Manor (or maybe Azkaban), Ron will use the deluminator to help everyone escape, so there would be no need for Dobby. From there, Shell Cottage could be the Order's new headquarters and everyone would hide there. From there, Part 2 would pretty much be the same as normal, but with more scenes away from Harry showing the battle. Most importantly, I would definitely show Fred's death, then cut away to a Star Wars-style montage of people death (including Lupin and Tonks and Hagrid getting captured), and then go back to the trio and Percy in the wreckage. And, I would make the final battle (post Harry-death) more like the book. It seemed more epic in the book than in the movie. That's a criticism for most of the Battle of Hogwarts, not epic-enough. Finally, I would have Slughorn appear in THREE scenes. Scene One, Slughorn telling McGonagall that they will probably all die and her telling him that it is time for Slytherin to show it's loyalties. Scene Two, Slughorn, Pomfrey, and Filch are leading the younger students out of the castle and Slughorn hears the explosions but keeps leaving. Scene Three, Slughorn shows up with hundreds of reinforcements during the final battle and even duels with Voldemort. That's something I've had in my head since I first read the book haha.

Oh, and for all non-John Williams films, I would want Hans Zimmer doing the music.

So that's basically it for changes. Again, I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place.

The scene of possession in Order of the Phoenix, the first kiss between Harry and Ginny in Half-Blood Prince, Neville in Deathly Hallows part 2, but specially… Harry’s hair in Globet of Fire!

Definitely the wedding scene in DH2; just felt rushed. And um Moody? I mean the whole part with the different Harrys felt rushed and Moody being such a strong character was dismissed worse than a third-rate actor. "Oh yeah, Moody died" is kind of how I felt. Poor Moody. And Half-Blood Prince almost felt like Act II of a longer movie.

I'm on the fence about some of this, but in thinking about how I'd handle an adaptation of Deathly Hallows, I'm tempted to pull a Spared By The Adaptation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SparedByTheAdaptation) for a couple of major characters. Yes, it flies in the face of Jo's text, but I'm so strongly attached to some of these guys, is it really so wrong that I'd like to see 'em survive to the very end?

I think Hedwig, Dobby, Fred, and Tonks could all survive the story without any major impact on the plot. I'd especially love to see Dobby leading a platoon of house-elves out of the kitchen, brandishing cooking utensils as weapons. But the big one is Mad-Eye Moody. It's bad enough he dies, but that it happens offscreen just feels so unfitting to such a great Auror. I think he'd be a little tougher than that. After Mundungus Disapparates from the back of his broom during the flight of the Seven Potters, Moody gets singled out by Yaxley, who starts blasting curses at him left and right. But c'mon, this is Mad-Eye Moody we're talking about here - he won't go down without a fight. Yaxley blasts Moody's broom so it starts to nosedive, but Moody blasts Yaxley off his broom in turn. Yaxley flails through the air, losing his wand, and clings to Moody's broom, then punches him in the face, knocking his magical eye out of its socket. As they're plummeting towards earth, Moody stuns Yaxley, throws him over the side, then Disapparates seconds before his disabled broom hits the ground. Of course, when Yaxley comes to, he finds Moody's eye and puts it on Umbridge's office door at the Ministry. The payoff comes later during the Battle of Hogwarts, when Moody finds Yaxley wearing his eye on a chain around his neck - he grabs the chain, punches Yaxley in the face, and plunks his eye back in his socket, which he then uses to spot a Death Eater approaching behind him and blast him without even turning around. :)

Furthermore, I keep envisioning a series of brief montages depicting what's going on in the Battle of Hogwarts while Harry, Ron, and Hermione are running around trying to hunt down the diadem. Maybe it's just my proclivity for comedy, but a lot of these play for laughs as well as action:

- Peeves nailing Death Eaters with a barrage of Dungbombs, then dropping a chandelier on 'em once the smoke clears.
- Death Eaters breaking into the greenhouse, only to be met by a snarl of Devil's Snare and an earmuffed Professor Sprout, who yanks a couple of shrieking baby mandrakes out of their flower pots and knocks the Death Eaters unconscious.
- Fenrir Greyback corners Lavender Brown and Parvati Patil, but Professor Trelawney beans him with a barrage of crystal balls. Once he's good and woozy, Lavender and Parvati nail him with an Impediment Jinx that knocks him out the window.
- Amycus Carrow corners Colin Creevey, puts his wand to his throat, and snarls "Any last words, shorty?" Colin says "Just one...smile!", then snaps a photo of Amycus with his camera. Disoriented by the flashbulb, Amycus stumbles, and Colin stuns him while he's staggering around blinded.
- Scabior breaks down a door, thinking there's students hiding behind it - but it's the door to the Owlery, and a thousand angry owls swoop down from the rafters and start pecking the **** out of him.
- In the Astronomy Tower, Lupin starts to get the worst of it from a Death Eater - and Tonks, normally so clumsy, leaps and bounds to his aid and executes a series of dangerously graceful spells that send the Death Eater plummeting.
- Fred and George levitate an entire box of Nosebleed Nougats and send them flying down the throats of an oncoming rush of Death Eaters, who proceed to bleed themselves dry.

Keep in mind also that my ideal Harry Potter adaptation would be a series of animated films. These are all slightly more gag-oriented sequences that I think lend themselves best to animation. Trying to pull them off in live-action would probably seem too goofy.

What is this? The Expendables? The A-Team? Go on, give Neville a mohican, Luna can be Howling Mad Lovegood, and put them in a big black van with a red stripe, and a guest spot for Arnie Schwarzenegger as Mad-Eye Moody. Dumbledore is clearly Hannibal, loving it when a plan comes together.

War is hell. Death is real, cold, unfeeling and unrelenting. Losing our beloved heroes is heartbreaking, but those feelings are what make us human, and what makes these fights worth fighting. By trivialising these losses, it would disgrace their memories and dishonour their sacrifice.

What is this? The Expendables? The A-Team? Go on, give Neville a mohican, Luna can be Howling Mad Lovegood, and put them in a big black van with a red stripe, and a guest spot for Arnie Schwarzenegger as Mad-Eye Moody. Dumbledore is clearly Hannibal, loving it when a plan comes together.

War is hell. Death is real, cold, unfeeling and unrelenting. Losing our beloved heroes is heartbreaking, but those feelings are what make us human, and what makes these fights worth fighting. By trivialising these losses, it would disgrace their memories and dishonour their sacrifice.

Yeah, I know, it's mostly just me goofing around. But what the hell, it's fun to think about, even if it's not gonna happen.

The scene of possession in Order of the Phoenix

What specifically is that you would change about this scene, I wonder? I only ask as it's one of my defining moments of the series, and I think it's done brilliantly as it is. As you may have spotted from my sig :p

Prisoner of Azkaban - I'd put the kids back in their school robes when in school, get rid of those oh-so-annoying screen fades, the interludes with the Whomping Willow don't do anything for me. A bit more exposition in the shrieking shack finale, and that ending... yeuch. I know it's a favourite of many people, but Alfonso Cuarón just didn't do it for me... flameproof cloak on :)
I'm with you on this - I've never understood why this is so many people's favourite movie! I had a problem with the non-uniform, mostly that Harry would have had to be wearing Dudley's old clothes and he clearly wasn't. I didn't mind the whomping willow, but I hated the scene where Harry found out Sirius had betrayed his father - Dan couldn't act that scene at all and it was so bad it should have been cut IMO!
Goblet of Fire - This is where it gets tough, such a long book and so many detailed subplots, I actually think they did a good job of the adaptation here. Dumbledore was way off - he shouldn't be manhandling Harry. The Yule Ball went on a bit too long, I'd cut it after the first dance and drop the whole Jarvis Cocker bit. The maze should have had more of the obstacles from the book. I thought the ending was nailed on, apart from the cheesy last words between Ron and Hermione.
I agree on Dumbledore - it put me off Michael Gambon for a couple of films - I thought he really hadn't 'got' the character. I suppose the scriptwriter/director was to blame though. And I thought the maze was pathetic - as the last task it should have been tougher than the others; instead it was just a maze.
Half Blood Prince - A bit less love potion, a bit more pensieve. I'd like to see the nature of the horcruxes and their relation to Voldemort's past explored more - deducing the identity of the horcruxes as artifacts belonging to the founders. I think this would make a better setup for the final two films. Dumbledore's funeral is the main glaring omission that I'd put back in.
Oh, how I agree! If the horcruxes had been set up properly in this film, they might have had time to do a bit more with the Hallows in the last films.
Deathly Hallows, Part II - Agh, where to start? The battle is fine, the hunt for the Ravenclaw horcrux is fine, the Chamber of Secrets scene is a nice addition. I'd add in the death of Fred Weasley - it's such a shock in the film seeing him dead in the Great Hall that it takes some of the impact from seeing Remus and Tonks dead immediately after. If we already know that Fred has died, that scene can focus on the family's grief, and then we see Remus and Tonks... and that's where the sense of shock comes from. I'd like to see more in the Pensieve, not because I think it's lacking, but because it's such a wonderfully well crafted scene, and I want more! King's Cross needs some more explanation about the Hallows, and the behaviour of Harry's wand against Voldemort (with Lucius' wand) in the escape - they put the behaviour in DH1 and then failed to explain it. The final battle, I'd put back in the Great Hall, and I'd have Harry return to the headmaster's office and repair his own wand with the Elder wand - I don't have a problem with him breaking the Elder Wand after that, but I dislike the idea of him carrying on with Malfoy's.
Now here I disagree. I thought the battle was poorly done. Mostly explosions and people running. We didn't get to follow any of the people we 'knew' in the battle (apart from Neville) and don't get me started on the final confrontation between Voldy & Harry. In the book it was so tense, with the battling crowd silent and watching as Voldy & Harry faced off, and then the exultation when Voldy died! Where was all that? Instead we had them falling off towers and crawling about for their wands, and Harry won because he was the stronger wizard, not because of the Elder Wand. I just hated it! (Perhaps you'd guessed!)

The thing I would change is something simple, but probably troublesome for the actors and crew.

In the first two films, I liked the way the cast+crew actually travelled to sets that looked like Hogwarts. Key examples are The Training Grounds, the corridor outside Moaning Myrtles and that courtyard by Transfiguration (Yes, this was present fleetingly in GoF too.)

I don't like how from OoTp onwards, they use those horrible corridor sets that look clearly made up by a studio team, the one outside the Room of Requirement bugging me a lot. It just doesn't look like a natural castle. I was joyed to see the return of the Gloucester Cathedral corridor in HBP, but again, that wasn't for long.

So the change I'd make would be to have more scenes filmed outside the studios and in different castle like locations.

=O And I thought it was just me! I completely agree with you. The corridors and sets used in OOTP are just so tacky :grumble: The scene when Umbridge breaks through the wall into the Room of Requirement, the wall looks like yellow cardboard!

Anyway, other things I would change:
PS&COS
Nothing really for these, except make them less ... plodding?
POA
Wouldn't really change a thing. Although, i'm actually someone who never liked the change in robe design :blush: I preferred the plain black with just a badge. OH WAIT, like someone mentioned on a previous page, I would have dearly loved to see the scenes of Harry in Diagon Alley with ice cream and looking at the firebolt.
GOF
I would make this a little slower and pad it out a bit more with explanations from the book. As much as I love it, it was rather fast and missed out a lot. Also I'd slot in the Dursley's scene.
OOTP and HBP
:argh: Everything! I would change everything! David Yates ... why did you ruin my beloved film series? :argh:
-First off. Harry, I'm sorry but I cannot take you seriously with that ridiculously short haircut.
-The music score. Too quiet, bland, blah. Is reasonably nice listening to by itself, but a Harry Potter film needs a beautiful, swooping, majestic score.
-The sets, as mentioned above. The Dursley's house looked like a cardboard cutout, the corridors looked stupid ... I could go on.
-The incredible fast pace with silent, empty, awkward scenes. The hearing felt like it went on for hours ... other scenes were like two seconds long and far too abrupt. Not even going to mention the kissing scene. D=
-The modern setting!!! David Yates, these books are set in the 90s! The millennium bridge wasn't built then!! :(
-Harry and Ginny ... :nc:
-Burrow burning and associated scenes. :argh:
-Waitress scene ... is there anybody who actually liked this? It has to be the worst scene in the history of HP films. Perhaps apart from all the Harry and Ginny scenes. I literally and honestly squirmed, went really hot, bothered and uncomfortable watching them. *vomits* I also hated all Dumbledore's stupid and random comments about Harry needing a shave, are Harry and Hermione together, etc etc. I try to pretend all these never happened.
-Too much focus on the love stories in HBP, not enough on the memories (we get that waitress scene, and lose the Gaunts ).
-No Quidditch in OOTP. Hmm. Longest book, shortest film.


I'll stop there. Sorry if that ^ seems all jumbled up. I could rant about those two horrendous films for eternity.
(on a side note, though, I do prefer HBP over OOTP. It followed the book slightly more and had more rhythm as a film).


I can't really comment on the Deathly Hallows films, as I have only watched them once, in the cinema. I have no desire to see either again (although I probably will at some point, just to refresh my memory). I will admit they had an occasional good scene, for example the Prince's Tale. And I loved Hermione's clothes ...

This is a really minor thing and I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before, but... where are young James' glasses in DH II?

This is a really minor thing and I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before, but... where are young James' glasses in DH II?

Yeah, how were we supposed to know who that kid was?

What specifically is that you would change about this scene, I wonder?


In the book this scene was perfect. I think that in the film this scene has lost its meaning: Harry (in the book) frees himself from Voldemort’s possession with the power of love, it’s a natural thing for him. In the film seems to force himself, he needs to evoke happy memories of his life, seems that he’s doing a patronus charm, or that he has learned occlumency.
In the book Voldemort is devastated, prostrated from this experience, but in the film he’s all right and he talks with Harry calmly. Dumbledore standing there, he watches and he does nothing. Ron and Hermione look at Harry so expressionless, without any emotion. They watch their best friend as seems they were watching a movie ... there was no emotion in this scene. It’s not enough a sad music and a few flashbacks to move me. In the book .... well, everything was perfect and when Harry thinks " And I’ll see Sirius again. . . .” (Order of the Phoenix, chapter 36, “The only one he ever feared”) I cried so much (stupid me!) It was perfect!
But it is my personal opinion :)

Since the movies are separate entities and I never expected/wanted them to be exactly like the books, there's not much I would change. But a couple things I would do, which would just be changes that would add/tweak a scene or two, are:

-In Prisoner of Azkaban, I would have added in a short conversation at the end between Harry and Lupin, where they talk about the Marauders and the creation of the map.
-In Goblet of Fire, I would have kept the Third Task scene more like the book, with the creatures inside the maze.
-In Half-Blood Prince, I would add at least one more of Riddle's memories, like the one with the Gaunts.
-In Deathly Hallows Part 2, I would make more conversation between Harry and Voldemort during the final duel. And I would change the end with the Elder Wand and have Harry fix his wand.

Since the movies are separate entities and I never expected/wanted them to be exactly like the books, there's not much I would change. But a couple things I would do, which would just be changes that would add/tweak a scene or two, are:

-In Prisoner of Azkaban, I would have added in a short conversation at the end between Harry and Lupin, where they talk about the Marauders and the creation of the map.
But the movie works fine without this piece of information. If it had been an actual plot point, then it would have been needed. Otherwise it's just a bit of trivia. And you don't put just trivia into a story just for the sake of it. You. Just. Don't.
-In Goblet of Fire, I would have kept the Third Task scene more like the book, with the creatures inside the maze.
After dragons, merepeople and grinylows it would have been an overdose of creatures, don't you thinK? This isn't Fantastic Beast And Where To Find Them: The Movie.
-In Half-Blood Prince, I would add at least one more of Riddle's memories, like the one with the Gaunts.
Unless there's some payoff for those memories, you don't need them.
-In Deathly Hallows Part 2, I would make more conversation between Harry and Voldemort during the final duel. And I would change the end with the Elder Wand and have Harry fix his wand.
I think it made more sense in the movie that Harry destroyed the elder wand instead of hoping to die undefeated. Dumbledore planned to do the same thing, but it didn't work out in the end, did it? I also like the idea that Harry's using Malfoy's old wand from now on, bringing their rivalyto a close.

So, most (if not all) poster in this thread want to change the movies to be more like the books, because they want to see their favorite scenes from the novels on screen, not because it would the movies better, right?

In Prisoner of Azkaban, I would have added in a short conversation at the end between Harry and Lupin, where they talk about the Marauders and the creation of the map.

But the movie works fine without this piece of information. If it had been an actual plot point, then it would have been needed. Otherwise it's just a bit of trivia. And you don't put just trivia into a story just for the sake of it. You. Just. Don't.

Trivia, no. Backstory? I think you can do that. It would have explained how Lupin knew what the map was; how Sirius recognised Pettigrew as Ron's rat; it would also reinforce the relationship between Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew and James. It would establish Lupin as a recurring character, not just a professor who showed up for one year as DADA teacher and then OMG HE KNOWS SIRIUS LOLWUT?

I'd put the identity of the marauders in, and also explain that James' animagus form was a stag, making sense of Harry's patronus. I'd lose the flying dementors, and allow Harry's stag patronus to charge them down properly. Damn, writing this is reminding me why I dislike Cuarón's interpretation so much.

In Goblet of Fire, I would have kept the Third Task scene more like the book, with the creatures inside the maze.

After dragons, merepeople and grinylows it would have been an overdose of creatures, don't you thinK? This isn't Fantastic Beast And Where To Find Them: The Movie.

Agreed. The focus here was on Harry and Cedric reaching the cup together; they could have made the process more arduous, but the film doesn't need it. What it does need is someone giving Mike Newell a hefty slap for his woefully poor characterisation of Dumbledore.

In Half-Blood Prince, I would add at least one more of Riddle's memories, like the one with the Gaunts.

Unless there's some payoff for those memories, you don't need them.

There's a payoff IF - AND ONLY IF - they were to establish the identity of the horcruxes as relics of the Hogwarts houses, and not just random objects.

As it is, they never identify what the cup actually means, and for the diadem, the clue that leads to it's location also leads to it's link with Ravenclaw. They never established the locket as a relic of Slytherin, and never bothered to establish how Dumbledore located the cave.

If they had done that, and carried it all forward into the Deathly Hallows films, then it would have worked very well, I think.

In Deathly Hallows Part 2, I would make more conversation between Harry and Voldemort during the final duel. And I would change the end with the Elder Wand and have Harry fix his wand.

I think it made more sense in the movie that Harry destroyed the elder wand instead of hoping to die undefeated. Dumbledore planned to do the same thing, but it didn't work out in the end, did it? I also like the idea that Harry's using Malfoy's old wand from now on, bringing their rivalyto a close.

Destroying the wand - how I hated that scene at first. But yes, it does make more sense. However, I'd have seen it used to repair Harry's wand first. That would also mean spending a little time in the earlier movies to establish how much Harry valued his own wand, and they don't really do that in the films.

So, most (if not all) poster in this thread want to change the movies to be more like the books, because they want to see their favorite scenes from the novels on screen, not because it would the movies better, right?

You have a point. If you're going to make changes to make the movies better, then there has to be a point to them; there are already instances of little things being thrown into the movies because they were in the book, and are never adequately explained.

For example, they make it quite clear that Harry's adopted wand acts on it's own to counter Voldemort in the Seven Potters battle, but they never did follow up on it. It's just throwing a bone to the die-hard book fans who know what's going on behind the scenes, and that should also be a big no-no in the films.

Trivia, no. Backstory? I think you can do that. It would have explained how Lupin knew what the map was; how Sirius recognised Pettigrew as Ron's rat; it would also reinforce the relationship between Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew and James. It would establish Lupin as a recurring character, not just a professor who showed up for one year as DADA teacher and then OMG HE KNOWS SIRIUS LOLWUT?

I'd put the identity of the marauders in, and also explain that James' animagus form was a stag, making sense of Harry's patronus. I'd lose the flying dementors, and allow Harry's stag patronus to charge them down properly. Damn, writing this is reminding me why I dislike Cuarón's interpretation so much.
Condensing the backstory of Marauder's Map would have been a tricky thing. The movie's third act is very long as it is. Pausing the drama for long monologue would have only hurt the pacing. The Map is a McGuffin. Audiences are used to this. It's only the fans who are upset about the lack of explaination, even though they know all about it.
JKR worked out backstories for all of her characters. I bet she worked very hard to put as much as she could in the actual books. With Pottermore she finally has an outlet for the rest of them. Movies are even more restricted for this kind of thing (unless you're Quentin Tarantino), because of the three act structure. In my opinon PoA is the only Harry Potter film which satisfactionally resolves everything by the end the movie that has been set up earlier. Yes, even the Map has served it's purpose.

Condensing the backstory of Marauder's Map would have been a tricky thing. The movie's third act is very long as it is. Pausing the drama for long monologue would have only hurt the pacing.

In Order of the Phoenix, Harry refers to Sirius as "Padfoot" - yet it's never explained in the films how Sirius came to be known by that name. It wouldn't have taken much to add the identity of the Marauders to Lupin's farewell chat with Harry when he hands back the map. Maybe he could have delivered the line used by Dumbledore in the books - "Prongs rode again tonight" - that would have added a nice emotional punch to what is feels like a very rushed ending.

In Order of the Phoenix, Harry refers to Sirius as "Padfoot" - yet it's never explained in the films how Sirius came to be known by that name. It wouldn't have taken much to add the identity of the Marauders to Lupin's farewell chat with Harry when he hands back the map. Maybe he could have delivered the line used by Dumbledore in the books - "Prongs rode again tonight" - that would have added a nice emotional punch to what is feels like a very rushed ending.

Even worse is that in GoF, Harry refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail", and due to the lack of explanation in PoA, how on earth did Movie Harry get to know that?:hmm:

Even worse is that in GoF, Harry refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail", and due to the lack of explanation in PoA, how on earth did Movie Harry get to know that?:hmm:

In his dream, he hears Voldemort call him by that name when he tells him to step aside so he can kill the old man.

Even worse is that in GoF, Harry refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail", and due to the lack of explanation in PoA, how on earth did Movie Harry get to know that?:hmm:

You know, I've never really thought of that before! Being someone who has read the books, when you watch the movies you never really find anything wrong when Peter being refered as Wormtail, or Sirius referred to as Padfoot.

It's funny, for the longest time I never noticed the Marauder's backstory being left out because the Marauders were still in the film in a way. I think these little references swayed me to believing that the backstory was in the movie the whole time. :lol:

In his dream, he hears Voldemort call him by that name when he tells him to step aside so he can kill the old man.

I guess that means the conversation between Movie Ron and Movie Harry, who were at the back of the group as they walked to the Portkey, went something like this;:hmm:

"Hey, Ron, Peter Pettigrew was in my dream last night, with Voldemort, who called him 'Wormtail'!"
"But , Harry, Wormtail was one of the names on that Map you got from Fred and George. Does that mean....."
"Moony, Padfoot and Prongs must be Professor Lupin, Sirius and my dad. I wish they would have told us this."

There was certainly no dialogue onscreen that had Harry processing the fact that Peter Pettigrew was the Wormtail of the Marauders' Map.:no:

I guess that means the conversation between Movie Ron and Movie Harry, who were at the back of the group as they walked to the Portkey, went something like this;:hmm:

"Hey, Ron, Peter Pettigrew was in my dream last night, with Voldemort, who called him 'Wormtail'!"
"But , Harry, Wormtail was one of the names on that Map you got from Fred and George. Does that mean....."
"Moony, Padfoot and Prongs must be Professor Lupin, Sirius and my dad. I wish they would have told us this."

There was certainly no dialogue onscreen that had Harry processing the fact that Peter Pettigrew was the Wormtail of the Marauders' Map.:no:

I agree 100%, you're absolutely right. It's a horribly tenuous link, but it does at the very least get the Wormtail name in there in some fashion, unlike Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. This is why I originally said I would include the identity of the Marauders as the map's authors, and not just as trivia, but as relevant backstory that carries forward into the later films.

You can't get everything in the films, I totally get that; by and large, I think they did a pretty good job of cutting out the unnecessary subplots and focusing on the core storyline. However, you do need to get the essentials in, and this was one of the cuts that I felt took too much away from the story. Given that so much of Prisoner of Azkaban felt rushed, I see no reason why this should not have been included.

I guess that means the conversation between Movie Ron and Movie Harry, who were at the back of the group as they walked to the Portkey, went something like this;:hmm:

"Hey, Ron, Peter Pettigrew was in my dream last night, with Voldemort, who called him 'Wormtail'!"
"But , Harry, Wormtail was one of the names on that Map you got from Fred and George. Does that mean....."
"Moony, Padfoot and Prongs must be Professor Lupin, Sirius and my dad. I wish they would have told us this."

There was certainly no dialogue onscreen that had Harry processing the fact that Peter Pettigrew was the Wormtail of the Marauders' Map.:no:

I don't remember for sure, but wasn't it 'Peter Pettigrew' on the map when Harry was in the hallway, right before Prof. Snape caught him?

-eta-
PoA movie

I don't remember for sure, but wasn't it 'Peter Pettigrew' on the map when Harry was in the hallway, right before Prof. Snape caught him?

-eta-
PoA movie

It was Peter Pettigrew.
Harry told Remus who made that comment "The map never lies!"
I would have prefered the Marauders' explanation be included instead of pointless scenes like Hermione swinging on the Whomping willow, making Werewolf calls and wondering what her hair looked like from the back!:hmm:

There are countless scenes in PoA, I would get rid of in favour of not just the Marauders' story but the whole Animagus and Harry's Patronus= James' form.:(

It was Peter Pettigrew.
Harry told Remus who made that comment "The map never lies!"
I would have prefered the Marauders' explanation be included instead of pointless scenes like Hermione swinging on the Whomping willow, making Werewolf calls and wondering what her hair looked like from the back!:hmm:

There are countless scenes in PoA, I would get rid of in favour of not just the Marauders' story but the whole Animagus and Harry's Patronus= James' form.:(

So how does the imagined conversation between Ron and Harry about Wormtail being on the map come about when it was Peter Pettigrew on the map? I'm terribly confused . . . .

So how does the imagined conversation between Ron and Harry about Wormtail being on the map come about when it was Peter Pettigrew on the map? I'm terribly confused . . . .

Wormtail is mentioned as one of the author's of the map. This is in the scene where the Twins give it to Harry.
Later in the movie Harry sees the name Peter Pettigrew on the map. He doesn't see him he just tells Remus about his name being there.
In the movie of PoA there is NEVER a link made between Peter Pettigrew and Wormtail.
Yet in GoF, Harry seems to know Peter is Wormtail and is not surprised that Voldemort refers to him by that name.
I was saying there is no scene acknowledging that Harry has worked out that Peter is Wormtail, so I added a conversation between Harry and Ron as they were walking to the Portkey.

So how does the imagined conversation between Ron and Harry about Wormtail being on the map come about when it was Peter Pettigrew on the map? I'm terribly confused . . . .

The map shows Peter Pettigrew, but the message that Harry is forced to read to Snape is addressed from "Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs".

ETA: Also, what snugglepot said :)

Wormtail is mentioned as one of the author's of the map. This is in the scene where the Twins give it to Harry.
Later in the movie Harry sees the name Peter Pettigrew on the map. He doesn't see him he just tells Remus about his name being there.
In the movie of PoA there is NEVER a link made between Peter Pettigrew and Wormtail.
Yet in GoF, Harry seems to know Peter is Wormtail and is not surprised that Voldemort refers to him by that name.
I was saying there is no scene acknowledging that Harry has worked out that Peter is Wormtail, so I added a conversation between Harry and Ron as they were walking to the Portkey.

OK, now I understand what you're saying. I should re-watch that opening scene of GoF. Nah . . .

I think it's probably a lack of continuity between the two different directors, and possibly poor writing by Kloves. In any case it's one of those little details that get lost and that drive us persnickety fans crazy!

OK, now I understand what you're saying. I should re-watch that opening scene of GoF. Nah . . .

I think it's probably a lack of continuity between the two different directors, and possibly poor writing by Kloves. In any case it's one of those little details that get lost and that drive us persnickety fans crazy!

You said it.
Kloves' writing does at times drive me crazy!:hmm:

I would either remove the entire scene where Harry and Hermione dance in the tent, or choreograph an actual dance that didn't make Dan look absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion, that dance was the kind of thing you'd see 8-year olds doing with each other at a wedding or something. Some of us have seen Dan dance in other things, so we know he's capable - it's just a shame he wasn't given more to work with here.

I would either remove the entire scene where Harry and Hermione dance in the tent, or choreograph an actual dance that didn't make Dan look absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion, that dance was the kind of thing you'd see 8-year olds doing with each other at a wedding or something. Some of us have seen Dan dance in other things, so we know he's capable - it's just a shame he wasn't given more to work with here.

I seem to recall one of the DVD or Blu-ray extras mentioning that they had to re-film that scene with Dan and Emma dancing badly (well, more cheesy), as the first time round they were too good!

After all, Harry was hardly the king of the dance floor in Goblet of Fire, was he?

I seem to recall one of the DVD or Blu-ray extras mentioning that they had to re-film that scene with Dan and Emma dancing badly (well, more cheesy), as the first time round they were too good!

After all, Harry was hardly the king of the dance floor in Goblet of Fire, was he?

He wasn't, but it was honestly hard for me to watch, and for me, really killed that portion of the movie. Maybe they could have fixed it by having Harry step really hard on Hermione's feet at the beginning and having her cast some kind of charm on him to make him dance well? Or just shown them from the waist up? That scene hurt my eyes. :shrug:

By and large I thought the films just were some franchise fluff and didn't pay too much attention to them. But one thing I would have changed would be Snape's final words. The book got it better with "Look at me" - infusing various levels of meaning into his words compared to the rather lame "You got your mother's eyes" ...

By and large I thought the films just were some franchise fluff and didn't pay too much attention to them. But one thing I would have changed would be Snape's final words. The book got it better with "Look at me" - infusing various levels of meaning into his words compared to the rather lame "You got your mother's eyes" ...

Strange you mention that, as it was one of the moments I picked in a thread about what the films did better than the books!

And the more I think about it, the more I like it. Picture this, if you will. After Snape's death, Harry returns to the castle and witnesses the carnage, sees the bodies of Fred, Tonks and Lupin.

Now, in the book, JKR describes in depth the impact that has on Harry, how escaping into someone else's memory - even Snape's - would be a blessed relief from the grief, guilt and desperation he is feeling.

He turned away and ran up the marble staircase. Lupin, Tonks ... he yearned not to feel ... he wished he could rip out his heart, his innards, everything that was screaming inside him.
How do you show such feelings on a screen? We who have read the book can read the extra meaning into Harry's eyes, but no matter how good the actor, all you actually see on screen is a stunned and distraught young man looking around the room, not wanting to meet anyone's eyes. It's still a powerful scene, but you can only read so much into it on screen.

So... why does Harry even consider wanting to see what Snape has left? That extra line in the film opens the door to the idea that not all is as it seems, that Harry, who must despise Snape more than ever at that point, should actually have a reason to look at those memories.

This is another aspect of film adaptation; not everything that works in the book will work on a screen, and it's not just about time and attention span and cutting subplots; it's about making certain plot devices happen in a consistent manner with what's been seen in the film. Did they get it right every time? Of course not, over the course of 10 years and 8 films, there are holes. I happen to think they got this one right though.

Far more annoying for me, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the key culprit, are scenes that could have worked as well on screen as they were in the book, and were changed for no good reason - for example, I didn't like Neville's speech. That scene could have been so much better with a burning hat, the Sword of Gryffindor and Nagini's head flying through the air as Harry reveals himself to be alive. Instead we get a CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle and another chance to show Ron as a bungling oaf by dropping a basilisk fang. Maybe the vision of a burning Neville in the courtyard was felt to be too scary for the younger end of the target audience...?

First off, I agree with you on Neville's speech.

I still feel different about what you describe below, probably because I feel that the rationale just works the opposite way:


How do you show such feelings on a screen? We who have read the book can read the extra meaning into Harry's eyes, but no matter how good the actor, all you actually see on screen is a stunned and distraught young man looking around the room, not wanting to meet anyone's eyes. It's still a powerful scene, but you can only read so much into it on screen.

So... why does Harry even consider wanting to see what Snape has left?
On the one side, Snape says so much more by requesting Harry to look at him: one part is literal ("look at who I am and what I am giving to you - the memories"), another part is implied ("look at the message I am conveying to you") and the last part is transcendental ("see the "real me")).
On the other side, Harry gets to hear from Snape that he had his mother's eyes. Do'h - like he hadn't been told that like a million times before. Why would it matter coming from Snape?

I still feel that the original message was much more an incentive to really "look" at Snape and Snape's story (and beyond his predjudice) than a sentimental (imo) reference that he has heard from so many people before.

The beauty of Snape's last words in the book (and believe me, I am less than happy with the way JKR resolved Snape's story arc) was their various levels of meaning. From cinematographic point, it would have worked just as well as the book canon; changing it was just dumbing it down for sentimental romantic drivel.
As this is not uncommon for Hollywood blockbusters, I am not surprised - I just find it unnecessary and diminishing without any major value add as far as I am concerned :cool:

As this is not uncommon for Hollywood blockbusters, I am not surprised - I just find it unnecessary and diminishing without any major value add as far as I am concerned :cool:

Its values...

1: Shock value. It makes it clear that Snape loved Lily and it makes you question whether he is Harry's father.

2: ...which in turn gives Harry character motivation for looking into the memories. Snape revealing his "secret" furthermore makes him seem trustworthy for Harry.


Far more annoying for me, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the key culprit, are scenes that could have worked as well on screen as they were in the book, and were changed for no good reason - for example, I didn't like Neville's speech. That scene could have been so much better with a burning hat, the Sword of Gryffindor and Nagini's head flying through the air as Harry reveals himself to be alive. Instead we get a CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle and another chance to show Ron as a bungling oaf by dropping a basilisk fang. Maybe the vision of a burning Neville in the courtyard was felt to be too scary for the younger end of the target audience...?

In the book the scene was about racisism -- a theme that the film didn't deal or even touch on unlike Deathly Hallows: 1. However, throughout the film there was a lot of focus on the importance of not ceasing, which is why I don't find it odd that they decided to change the content of Neville's speech to hammer home that point.

Far more annoying for me, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the key culprit, are scenes that could have worked as well on screen as they were in the book, and were changed for no good reason - for example, I didn't like Neville's speech. That scene could have been so much better with a burning hat, the Sword of Gryffindor and Nagini's head flying through the air as Harry reveals himself to be alive. Instead we get a CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle and another chance to show Ron as a bungling oaf by dropping a basilisk fang. Maybe the vision of a burning Neville in the courtyard was felt to be too scary for the younger end of the target audience...?

That was my main gripe with DH II. Normally I am supportive of the changes the films make, but that, among with others *cough waitress scene in HBP cough* I felt was a step too far and in the wrong direction. The original scenes would have been fine. I so badly wanted to see Neville with his burning hat, then slicing off Nagini's head with the sword. I wanted to see Harry and Voldemort circling each other and discussing everything. It could have been so epic, so suspenseful, but they changed it. Sigh.

Its values...

1: Shock value. It makes it clear that Snape loved Lily and it makes you question whether he is Harry's father.

2: ...which in turn gives Harry character motivation for looking into the memories. Snape revealing his "secret" furthermore makes him seem trustworthy for Harry.

1. Personally, I find this puts too much focus on Lily and not enough on Snape; and at no stage ever was is feasible to question whether Snape is Harry's father. That Harry is James' spitting image was well established repeatedly so no reference to Lily's eyes makes it any different.

2. Understanding that Snape was obviously relaying a message with his memories was motivation enough imo.

That was my main gripe with DH II. Normally I am supportive of the changes the films make, but that, among with others *cough waitress scene in HBP cough* I felt was a step too far and in the wrong direction. The original scenes would have been fine. I so badly wanted to see Neville with his burning hat, then slicing off Nagini's head with the sword. I wanted to see Harry and Voldemort circling each other and discussing everything. It could have been so epic, so suspenseful, but they changed it. Sigh.

Absolutely! I much prefer a dialogue heavy scene than an action one and the final fight between Harry & Voldemort was just...weird in many ways. Still not a fan of the whole connecting-and-flying bit, seemed like a waste of screen time. The scene in the book was one of the most tense and interesting passages in the series, in my opinion, and it's a shame we didn't get to see it on screen.

1. Personally, I find this puts too much focus on Lily and not enough on Snape; and at no stage ever was is feasible to question whether Snape is Harry's father. That Harry is James' spitting image was well established repeatedly so no reference to Lily's eyes makes it any different.

2. Understanding that Snape was obviously relaying a message with his memories was motivation enough imo.

1. That's true, it was a misleading hint, but one that would pique Harry's, as well the audience's, interest. Even Dumbledore hinted about some "conspiracy" in The King's Cross limbo scene. You may not like it. I didn't particularly like those lines from Dumbledore, but audiences generally like to ponder, "what if...?"

As for putting focus on Lily, isn't that in tone with the novel and consistent with the rest of the series where she has been a symbol of love and sacrifice? Her presence and what she represents was subtly incorporated into the film, specifically through the music, without overshadowing the plot and the other characters.

2. Is it? Would you really follow your dying enemy's instructions in a war when you know that you have no time to waste? It could be a trap or just a waste of time. The person must give you some motivation to make you follow his orders. In the book we could read Harry's thoughts and thus understand his motivation, but unless the filmmakers were to utilize voice-over, they needed to add something else that makes the audience understand what motivates Harry: A revealing line making Harry regard Snape as trustworthy --> curiosity about what message he wanted to convey to him.

Still not a fan of the whole connecting-and-flying bit, seemed like a waste of screen time.

I found it interesting on a psychological level and also in the context of the film series. Yates certainly ended this the way he started it.

I'll reference one of my own posts: http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5954542&postcount=592

And one from StaceysChain:
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5954789&postcount=594

I so badly wanted to see Neville with his burning hat, then slicing off Nagini's head with the sword.

It could certainly be a great scene visually, but thematically it wouldn't fit in with the rest of the film as Voldemort's pureblood obsession wasn't touched on earlier in DH: part 2. Neville slicing off Nagini's head was delayed until the very end to maintain more suspense.

1. ... As for putting focus on Lily, isn't that in tone with the novel and consistent with the rest of the series where she has been a symbol of love and sacrifice? Her presence and what she represents was subtly incorporated into the film, specifically through the music, without overshadowing the plot and the other characters.

2. Is it? Would you really follow your dying enemy's instructions in a war when you know that you have no time to waste? It could be a trap or just a waste of time. The person needs to give you some motivation to follow his orders. In the book we could read Harry's thoughts and thus understand his motivations, but unless the filmmakers were to utilize voice-over they needed to add something else that would make the audience understand what motivates Harry: A revealing line.

Fair point.
I suppose this might actually explain my additional dislike for the movie resolution because I wasn't too happy with the love angle in the book, already.

As for the second point, if one wanted to emphasise Snape's request, an intense "please, it's important" or so might have worked, as well. So I suspect you are right that they used a reasoning along the first point ...
:sigh: (they could really do with a "vomit" smilie here on the site).

I found it interesting on a psychological level and also in the context of the film series. Yates certainly ended this the way he started it.

I'll reference one of my own posts: http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5954542&postcount=592

And one from StaceysChain:
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5954789&postcount=594

Oh no, I totally get the symbolism. And you're right it is a throwback to OoTP but I still don't think it was necessary. The idea that the two are connected has been in place since film one and has even more of a presence in the books that I don't the audience needed that type of fight to "get it".

Absolutely! I much prefer a dialogue heavy scene than an action one and the final fight between Harry & Voldemort was just...weird in many ways. Still not a fan of the whole connecting-and-flying bit, seemed like a waste of screen time. The scene in the book was one of the most tense and interesting passages in the series, in my opinion, and it's a shame we didn't get to see it on screen.

And Voldemort never found out that Snape hadn't been his man from the time Voldie killed Lily.:grumble:

Oh no, I totally get the symbolism. And you're right it is a throwback to OoTP but I still don't think it was necessary. The idea that the two are connected has been in place since film one and has even more of a presence in the books that I don't the audience needed that type of fight to "get it".

In that line of thought we should also question the necessity of Harry's "speech" to Voldemort in the book considering we knew most of what he told Voldemort; that Snape was on Dumbledore's side, that he sacrificed himself to save the others, that he knows what will happen to Voldemort if he doesn't try for remorse (represented symbolically through the Voldemort fetus at King's Cross) etc. You get my point: That verbal exchange was no less repetitive than emphasizing the idea that Harry and Voldemort are connected.

That being said, I don't find it unnecessary even though it is repetitive. Since I applaude the film version for emphasizing an idea that has indeed been in place since film one it would be rather hypocritical of me to criticize JKR's version for being repetitive. It goes without saying that this type of logic ought to apply the other way around as well...

The verbal exchange in the book, despite being mostly repetitive, served its purpose as a suspense-building moment with Harry humiliating Tom and having the upper hand in the confrontation. Yates visualized that aspect of the book scene concerning Harry's superiority by having Harry throw himself and Voldemort off the cliff. Why did he do that? Firstly he was obviously cornered which goes to show that the moment was also necessary in terms of plot development to some degree. Yes, strictly speaking you could have skipped the entire chasing-around-the castle-and-flying-around-it bit and just have them shoot their final spells at once if all you care about is "getting to the point", but considering it was the culmination of an eight movie series...I'd say it was quite necessary in that light. Moreover, adding the "CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle", as Peakes put it, was partially done for the purpose of variation; you had a lot of wand battling between them, psychical beating from Voldemort and now a psychological battle with the "CGI-dominated tour of the castle". In that sense it was not repetitive.

Secondly, Harry wanted to scare Voldemort. What does his enemy fear the most? That's right: Death. After all the pain Harry has endured because of Voldemort, after all his personal loss...he was just too tempted not to give Voldemort a taste of his own medicine. At the end of OotP Voldemort possessed him and left as the weakest one. Here the situation is turned upside down: It is Harry, knowing Voldemort's weakness of not withstanding contact with "love" and his fear of death, who takes the initiative to the inner battle here. After their faces merge into one smiling face which I assume is Harry's grin, they split up as if to demonstrate visually that their connection is broken. Only one can live...

Which brings me to my next point: Culmination. You see, everything not strictly important to the plot is not automatically unnecessary. Culmimating the relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist in such a long-running series is, I would say, necessary in terms of character development. Seeing the dynamic of that relationship change from Voldemort chasing a scared Harry around from the beginning of the series to Harry facing him face to face and jumping fearlessly with him into the abyss to give him a taste of his own medicine is an interesting development that I am glad Yates put in there. Seeing the superior, confident and powerful Voldemort as he was portrayed as at the beginning of Deathly Hallows: Part 1 being reduced to a scared, desperate and pathetic human being helplessly fighting for his own life as opposed to fighting for world dominance was quite a strong contrast. In the book this change of superiority was covered through their verbal exchange, which goes to show that Yates most certainly understood the deeper essence behind the words and found an interesting way to communicate that visually.

When you make movies of a series of books it unfortunately is necessary to leave a lot of (minor) things out of the movie adaptions, so in that light I don't have that much of a problem with the decision to change some things here and there. But what I have a problem with is cutting really important parts, adding stuff that doesn't really make the movie better or even make the tone of the story a bit different and changing major parts of the story or characters.

In random order things that are different in the movies (some already mentioned by others before me in this thread):

-The scene where they burned down The Burrow. Just an excuse for another action scene and a bit of drama.
-The little dance of the Beauxbatons when they were introduced.
-Harry flirting with that waitress.
-Not that important, but it would have been nice to see some of the storyline of Percy alienating from his family. His appearance is a bit different too. Bill Weasley is described as a handsome guy in the books, but you can't say that about him in the movies.
-Michael Gambon really suprised me with a good performance in The Half-Blood prince, but I didn't like him as Dumbledore for the rest of the movies. In The Goblet of Fire he hit rock-bottom with a cranky and even a bit hysterical interpretation of what is a humorous and calm character. Quite the opposite. I didn't like his voice either.
-They way they did Dumbledores death was disappointing. I liked the use of slowmotion, but they let out that kind of freezing spell, making Harry look a bit of a coward, and it even felt a bit rushed. Would have liked to see his funeral as well.
-The Knight Bus scene with the talking head was a bit childish.
-That song they played during the dance in Goblet of Fire.
-It's just cringeworthy when Harry jumps of the cliff with Voldemort. Not only the idea of it, but the way it was done with Harry screaming "together". Actually, the whole final fight with Voldemort didn't make any sense. Pure as a duelist Harry never was a match for Voldemort. What made him stronger, better, than Voldemort, is how he hated to use violence and never used it without reason, always using stunning spells where Voldemort used killing curses all the time. Harry defeated Voldemort with words and love, that's the beauty of it.
-It's a huge mistake to let out the flashbacks with Tom Riddle in the Half-Blood Prince. His background is what makes him different than just a random bad guy who is evil just for the sake of it. The book emphasizes how Harry and Tom Riddle both had a sad childhood as orphans before Hogwarts came in their lifes. Harry chose the part of the good, Tom Riddle the path of the evil. I think you can even say the whole story is about that, about it isn't how you are born what counts, but the choices that you make.
-Snape's Worst Memory is an important scene. Lily should have been in it.
-It would have been interesting to see some of the more dark backstory of Dumbledore. Though I have to say it isn't a big deal to cut it.
-In the movies Ron is a dumbed down sidekick.
-The movies definitely became darker just as the books did, but they still were a bit childish to keep it as much "for the whole family" as they could. You can see that in the way some of the actors played. Helena Bonham Carter's performance during the scene with Voldemort and the Death Eaters around the table talking about the idea of having children with muggles (I think) is maybe one of the best examples.
-The romance between Harry and Ginny never worked as it did in the books. Bonnie Wright lacks charisma, maybe even acting skills, and she doesn't have a click with Daniel Radcliffe. But all of this doesn't even matter when they don't develop the character in the movies. She never became that strong and independent character "worthy of Harry".
-No characters stealing lines from each other.
-No changing of Hogwarts, costumes, and stuff like that.
-It isn't Radcliffe's fault, but when he got past his puberty he got a bit of a weird body build. At least for the character he played. I found it a bit distracting. They maybe could have fixed this with smart camera direction. His hair became too short too. Harry's hair has to be a bit of messed up and longish.
-Basically, The Half-Blood Prince was quite bad. It felt too much as a superficial teen movie about love. Take the subject of love more serious, with a more dark approach. I liked the scene with Harry and Hermione when she cries and he says "it feels like this".
-Maybe more could have been done with the Hallows vs. Horcruxes thing. I liked the symbolism in the books.

The whole "Bill is the handsome Weasley" thing wouldn't really have worked in the movies anyways, because Rupert and the Phelps are already handsome guys themselves so there was no real way to gauge Bill's handsomeness.

Yes, you have a point there. It's a bit of a result of the more or less general habit in movies to cast attractive people. Emma Watson as Hermione is the perfect example.

- There's one major thing I'd change: Hermione being less Mary Sue and stealing Ron's lines. I'd probably insert the whole S.P.E.W as well and let her be more bossy. Cause that's the way Hermione is, and what makes me love her so much. In consequence, the reason R/Herm kiss is because Ron brings up the house-elves aaand Harry is with them.
- I wanted to see more of the uncertain yet brave Ron, instead of this cowardly, comical frightened boy with his high yelps of fear. In DH2 this improved a lot though.
- More of Tonks, Lupin, Percy and Kreacher.
- GOF. Apart from the graveyard scene that movie was disastrous. I don't know why exactly,but it was. The introductions and uniforms of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, Hermione shouting at Ron and Harry as if she was their mother, the WCQuidditch that didn't even take place... there were things I did like, but it's certainly my least fave HP movie by far.
- Get another actress for Ginny, one who did have chemistry with Dan. I'm sorry Bonnie. And let them make out passionately, whether or not after winning the Quidditch Cup.
- The burning of the Burrow, it was pointless.
- And of course the final battle between Voldemort and Harry. It should've taken place in the Great Hall, instead of the blurry flying around thing'.
- I would've made Voldy more scarier. In GoF he was scary. (Very good job) but ever since HBP (I think) he became.. comical. His NYEAAAH, his little dances, awkward hugs, funny laughs..

The first 3 movies were very good, then it went hugely downhill with GoF and OotP, and then it got better again. There were some very nice adds, but also some completely pointless ones. Some incredibly clever screenwriting and some horrendous. Overall, I enjoyed the movies, some casts were brilliant (Snape, McGonagall...) but I knew beforehand it could never match the books which is why I enjoyed the franchise so much.

Oh, and I didn't mind the dancing scene between Harry and Hermione, it was awkward, but sweet. I think it was Harry's attempt to cheer her up after Ron had left.

Honestly I think the films would have been FANTASTIC if they'd been done in CGI. Pixar or DreamWorks or whoever. To me they just seemed well suited for it.

I really, really dislike the 'new' Hogwarts in DH2! And the final battle in this 'new' Hogwarts!

Honestly I think the films would have been FANTASTIC if they'd been done in CGI. Pixar or DreamWorks or whoever. To me they just seemed well suited for it.

That would have been really cool! But to some fans it might seem too 'kidish' especially once the later movies came out. Personally, I wouldn't mind it at all.

Somethings that I would change:
I would extend the SWM scene so it was longer, like in the book.
I would make Mad Eye's eye look like a real eye (not the weird strap-thing, mechanical eye that they used).
I would've made the ending to PoA be less sudden.
Since I really, really liked the animation they used to explain the Tale of the Three Brothers in DH1, I would definitely use more of those animation-scenes to explain other stories (like the history of the Chamber of Secrets or something).