Do you think Steve Kloves did a good job? [Archive]

StaceysChain

September 2nd, 2011, 5:34 am

Yes I do think he did a very good job. I personally think Michael Goldenberg was better and I would've loved to see what he could've done with the other films, but I think Kloves got better and better with each film. Don't forget he might've written really excellent lines and scenes but they were cut out for whatever reason. There are some parts that he really could've improved on (Ron for example) but overall, I think he did a good job adapting Rowling's complex world on screen. Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 were utterly fantastic.

Wow! I'm actually surprised that alot of people's movie-only friends get confused. Most of my family and friends only watch the movies and they're totally fine. My mother for example correctly guessed that Harry was a horcrux and figured out the Elder Wand plot because she recognised it in Dumbledore's grave and remembered the whole ordeal with Draco. In fact, now that I think about it the only things she got confused by was the prophecy and what happened between Snape and Lily.

The first two scripts are utterly lazy. Kloves did little more than photocopy the novel and highlight the lines of dialogue, which the actors recited as line readings. Result: pedestrian stuff, undramatic and again, lazy.

Yes I agree. Although part of me thinks that's due to Columbus's influence, since he wanted to keep as faithful to the first two books as possible.

No Michael Goldenberg actually wrote the script but Kloves was in it as well: you can easily see their is Kloves' traces: Ron is always a background character there.

I disagree entirely. I think Michael Goldenberg kept more true to Ron's character (in fact, most of the characters to some extent) than Kloves. What about that scene were Ron supports Harry in the common room in front of the whole house? What about that scene were Ron congratulates Harry on doing a great job with the DA? And there's a deleted scene where Ron asks if Harry's ok after Sirius's death. Regardless Kloves really improved on Ron's character in the Deathly Hallows films.

He didn't give enough credit to certain characters/relationships (not only romantic relationships here...for example, Harry/Dumbledore in HBP. But he also seemed to ship H/Hr.)

I completely disagree. I think the Harry/Dumbledore relationship in Half-Blood Prince was written beautifully by Kloves and was brought to life on screen by Radcliffe and Gambon. If people really think Kloves ships Harry/Hermione, then I think they should go watch Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows Part 1 all over again and watch closely. There are tons of scenes that clearly say Ron/Hermione not Harry/Hermione. In POA, where Harry first meets Buckbeak, Hermione grabs Ron's arm and they look at each other awkardly. There's another scene where Hermione innocently suggests they get closer to the shrieking shack and Ron gets the wrong idea for a moment. Even Rowling herself got kinda scared because Kloves was unknowingly foreshadowing their get-together in Deathly Hallows which wasn't even out yet! Not to mention scenes like Ron's jealously and his and Hermione's argument in Goblet of Fire, Hermione's jealously and confiding in Harry about it, Ron speaking Hermione's name in his sleep and she holds his hand in Half-Blood Prince and Hermione crying when Ron leaves and the "tiny ball of light" scene in Deathly Hallows Part 1. I could go on and on but it's best if I leave it at that. And people think Kloves ships Harry/Hermione just because Hermione is his favourite character and of one little dance that wasn't even in the script to begin with? *shakes head*

I think I went off-topic there, but I had to say it.

rogue_bludger

September 2nd, 2011, 7:45 am

Yes I do think he did a very good job. I personally think Michael Goldberg was better and I would've loved to see what he could've done with the other films, but I think Kloves got better and better with each film. Don't forget he might've written really excellent lines and scenes but they were cut out for whatever reason. There are some parts that he really could've improved on (Ron for example) but overall, I think he did a good job adapting Rowling's complex world on screen. Deathly Hallows Parts 1 and 2 were utterly fantastic.

Wow! I'm actually surprised that alot of people's movie-only friends get confused. Most of my family and friends only watch the movies and they're totally fine. My mother for example correctly guessed that Harry was a horcrux and figured out the Elder Wand plot because she recognuse it in Dumbledore's grave. In fact, now that I think about it the only things she got confused by was the prophecy and what happened between Snape and Lily.

Yes I agree.

I disagree entirely. I think Michael Goldenberg kept more true to Ron's character (in fact, most of the characters to some extent) than Kloves. What about that scene were Ron supports Harry in the common room in front of the whole house? What about that scene were Ron congratulates Harry on doing a grrat job with the DA? And there's a deleted scene where Ron asks if Harry's ok after Sirius's death. Regardless Kloves really improved on Ron's character in the Deathly Hallows films.

I completely disagree. I think the Harry/Dumbledore relationship in Half-Blood Prince was written beautifully by Kloves and was brought to life on screen by Radcliffe and Gambon. If people really think Kloves ships Harry/Hermione, then I think they should go watch Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows Part 1 all over again and watch closely. There are tons of scenes that clearly say Ron/Hermione not Harry/Hermione. In POA, where Harry first meets Buckbeak, Hermione grabs Ron's arm and they look at each other awkardly. There's another scene where Hermione innocently suggests they get closer to the shrieking shack and Ron gets the wrong idea for a moment. Even Rowling herself got kinda scared because Kloves was unknowingly foreshadowing their get-together in Deathly Hallows which wasn't even out yet! Not to mention scenes like Ron's jeaously and his and Hermione's argument in Goblet of Fire, Hermione's jeaously in confiding in Harry about it, Ron speaking Hermione's name in his sleep and she holds his hand in Half-Blood Prince and Hermione crying when Ron leaves and the "tiny ball of light" scene in Deathly Hallows Part 1. I could go on and on but it's best if I leave it at that. And people think Kloves ships Harry/Hermione just because that Hermione is his favourite character and of one little dance? *shakes head*

I think I went off-topic there, but I had to say it.
AMEN. I agree with every word, beautifully said.

Slartibartfast

September 2nd, 2011, 7:55 am

Order of the Phoenix was written by Michael Goldenberg.
That explains a lot. That movie, while good, was really confusing. I followed the others just fine. Even GoF! And i didnt read the books until after OotP film came out. GoF, while obviously missing lots, was still pretty easy to follow and to understand the key plots. OotP felt more disjointed.

Overall, i think Mr. Kloves did fine. Its difficult to adapt anything let alone a series like Harry Potter. Im not exactly the purist type, so i can hang with deviation from things. I think the DH movies were his best!

jallen

September 4th, 2011, 1:57 pm

Steve Kloves was an amazing screenwriter. It's the directors who messed things up, by cutting loads of the script out and leaving you to infer what happened in those scenes.

The first two films made loads of sense, but were boring - that was Columbus's influence. As another poster mentioned, he wanted to keep as true to the books as possible, and did.

The next film was brilliantly written, and the Marauder's storyline was cut out by Cuaron, not Kloves.

Goblet of Fire was fairly well written, except the Barty Crouch storyline, which I'm convinced must have existed in some more significant format before Newell chopped it up, giving the film a disjointed feel.

Order of the Phoenix can't be blamed on Kloves, but Goldenberg's writing was emotional and surely made sense before Yates cut down his three-hour film into just over two hours.

Half-Blood Prince had amazing screenwriting. It holds together well as a film, and it's one of the only films with no major plot holes.

Deathly Hallows makes very little sense to non-book readers, but if you examine the original script, a lot of those things are explained but were cut out so as to make the movie less boring.

Lotoc_Sabbath

September 4th, 2011, 3:39 pm

Half-Blood Prince had amazing screenwriting. It holds together well as a film, and it's one of the only films with no major plot holes.

Deathly Hallows makes very little sense to non-book readers, but if you examine the original script, a lot of those things are explained but were cut out so as to make the movie less boring.

Agreed. This is very much what I think.
I really loved Kloves' work only in HBP, I know that some of Voldemort's past was missed but that really was the only big thing he cut, maybe making in a bit more longer would have been good, and actually it is the only film in which Ron really seems Ron I must say. The humorism was so balanced and great.

mollypotter

September 5th, 2011, 3:02 am

Just a reminder -- OotP can't be blamed on Kloves; that was Michael Goldenberg's fiasco.

Oh yeah! Thanks for the reminder!
And while there are a lot of things I didn't like, me and e eryone here are major potter heads. We will NEVER be satisfied. It was very much a thankless job. I know lots of silly people that never bothered to read the books and loved the movies because of that.

snapes_witch

September 6th, 2011, 12:13 am

Agreed. This is very much what I think.
I really loved Kloves' work only in HBP, I know that some of Voldemort's past was missed but that really was the only big thing he cut, maybe making in a bit more longer would have been good, and actually it is the only film in which Ron really seems Ron I must say. The humorism was so balanced and great.

Kloves said in an interview that he wrote all the HBP Riddle flashback scenes, but Yates chose not to use them.

Wimsey

September 7th, 2011, 3:03 am

Kloves said in an interview that he wrote all the HBP Riddle flashback scenes, but Yates chose not to use them.I think that this summarizes the fundamental problem with this discussion, and one that Jallen hits a couple of posts back: unless we have the scripts in hand, it is really tough to separate what Kloves did from what the director did. Scripts for some of the films are (or were) online, and they illustrate this nicely. The Chamber script was much more adapted than the final product: Columbus altered adaptations back to what was in the book. Conversely, the Prisoner script was less adapted than the final product: Cuaron altered some parts that were closer to the book to (in his opinion and mine, in comparison) better tell the story cinematically.

One of the most obvious differences that I remember is that the Chamber script was (like the book) presented so that the film would be from Harry's point of view. The way the book does this simply cannot be done cinematically unless you resort to having Harry narrate his thoughts. So, this failure was Columbus', not Kloves. Columbus also re-inserted a lot of things into the first two films that were nice narrative backdrop in the book, but irrelevant distractions in a film. So, again, we cannot blame Kloves for those.

I never have seen the scripts for Prince, but Snapes_witch brings up another example that Yates verified elsewhere. Kloves' script included the lessons about Voldemort and also included Scrimgeour. In other words, it included the ingredients for telling Rowling's story about Harry's choices in personal politics. Yates dropped all of that and instead told a story about teenage sexual politics, which is just one aspect of personal politics. So, this is a case where we might complain (with justification) that the movie told a different story than the book did, but this was the director's decision, not the scriptwriter's.

If I get a chance, I'll see if I can dig out those old URLs. It's possible that other scripts also are available: I suspect that Prisoner was the last I looked at in part because the other films were not out yet, which means that those URLs might very well be defunct!

merrymarge

September 7th, 2011, 5:58 am

I think everyone did the best they good given the stories they had to work with. I don't think it was easy writing a screen adaptation nor was it easy to direct it. But I like the films overall. there was just some things that were left out I wish wasn't left out.

Warlock27

September 16th, 2011, 7:45 am

No, I hated what he did to the characters. Because of him I can't love the movies.

There's no equality with the trio because he writes them with the Hollywood mindset of hero, heroine, sidekick. And that's what I hate.

Wimsey

September 18th, 2011, 8:21 pm

There's no equality with the trio because he writes them with the Hollywood mindset of hero, heroine, sidekick. And that's what I hate.Then you must hate what Rowling wrote, which is hero and two sidekicks. There certainly was no equality among the characters there: Harry was the protagonist, with Ron and Hermione both supporting characters, and with Hermione being vastly more useful than Ron. Indeed, a question 4.5 years ago was: how would Ron be useful in the last book? The question about Hermione was, which of the many uses Hermione has would be important?

At any rate, didn't Rowling herself say that the reason why she immediately hit it off with Kloves was that his favorite character was Hermione? She, herself, did much more with Hermione than she did with Ron, so you cannot fault Kloves, Yates, etc., for doing the same.

(Of course, there were several threads on this site devoted to Hermione being so badly out-of-character throughout Half-Blood Prince: so, perhaps Rowling didn't know Hermione very well, either! :p)

rosieechan

September 18th, 2011, 10:24 pm

Then you must hate what Rowling wrote, which is hero and two sidekicks. There certainly was no equality among the characters there: Harry was the protagonist, with Ron and Hermione both supporting characters, and with Hermione being vastly more useful than Ron. Indeed, a question 4.5 years ago was: how would Ron be useful in the last book? The question about Hermione was, which of the many uses Hermione has would be important?

At any rate, didn't Rowling herself say that the reason why she immediately hit it off with Kloves was that his favorite character was Hermione? She, herself, did much more with Hermione than she did with Ron, so you cannot fault Kloves, Yates, etc., for doing the same.

(Of course, there were several threads on this site devoted to Hermione being so badly out-of-character throughout Half-Blood Prince: so, perhaps Rowling didn't know Hermione very well, either! :p)

Like Hermione is more useful in terms of knowledge and ideas, Ron is more useful than Hermione to Harry in terms of understanding what it is like to be Harry's best friend. :P And by that, I don't mean that Hermione is any less of a friend, but that Harry is more comfortable around Ron than Hermione - and the scenes in GoF and DH without Ron proves that. In GoF, he even said that having Hermione as a best friend meant more trips to the library and a lot less laughter.

You are correct; Hermione and Ron are both Harry's sidekicks. But Hermione and Ron are also equally important to Harry.

And Kloves, being biased because Hermione is his favorite character, doesn't quite show the bromance that Harry and Ron have. I'm not saying that he ships H/Hr or anything (although that could be a possibility), but I personally think that Hermione gets way more screentime and better lines and therefore seems more prominent to the viewers than in the book where she and Ron both get equal importance.

I disagree. JK Rowling made Ron just as much of a character as she did with Hermione. In fact, out of all the characters, I would say Ron is the most human of them all - his friendly, light hearted personality mixed with his flaws of jealousy and stubbornness makes him a realistic character. JK Rowling said that she put herself in Harry and Hermione, while Ron is based off her best friend. The fact that she "hit off" because Kloves' favorite character was Hermione doesn't prove that Hermione was more important at all - Kloves' favorite could have been Harry or Ron and she might have said the same.

Also, how the heck could readers know more about the character than the actual author? That makes absolutely no sense. Hermione's personality did not change drastically at all in HBP - though this is going to go off topic...

Wimsey

September 19th, 2011, 1:13 am

Also, how the heck could readers know more about the character than the actual author? That makes absolutely no sense. Hermione's personality did not change drastically at all in HBP - though this is going to go off topic...That was part of my point: there have always been fans who think that they understand the characters better than anybody else, including the author. I agree that it is absurd: but that is also human nature. (I think that the "Hermione was out of character," "Dumbledore was out of character," "Harry was out of character" threads can still be found in the books section if you care to go back and look; they do provide a history of how hardcore fans reacted back in 2005 and even 2003 to things Rowling did that hardcore fans did not anticipate.)

As for Hermione and Ron being equally important, well, that is very subjective. However, Hermione always was much more important than Ron for advancing both plots and themes, which happen to be things that films do well. One could argue that Ron did more for developing Harry's character. We would have to agree to differ on that, but I certainly would agree that this is where Ron was most important in the stories, especially after Chamber. However, this rarely was material that would have worked on screen.

What that means is that of the "cinematic" material that Rowling presented, Rowling shafted Ron relative to Hermione. Now, could Kloves have done more to balance this? Possibly: but not without fundamentally altering Ron by making him much more able in magic, general knowledge and wit than he was in the books.

(Again, when we put together the "101 Questions to be Answered in Hallows" "test" 5 years ago, one of our struggles was to even come up with options for how Ron could be important; we had no problem at all coming up with options for how Hermione could be.)

rosieechan

September 19th, 2011, 4:12 am

^ Oh, lol okay, now I see that you weren't actually agreeing with whoever said they knew more than the author. xD It IS absurd. o_o'

Yes, of course Hermione is important for advancing the plot. Because that's what her character was written as. She's supposed to be clever and help Harry to move on with the show.

What that means is that of the "cinematic" material that Rowling presented, Rowling shafted Ron relative to Hermione. Now, could Kloves have done more to balance this? Possibly: but not without fundamentally altering Ron by making him much more able in magic, general knowledge and wit than he was in the books.

He wouldn't have to do anything more to Ron to make him balance with Hermione. He could have left out scenes where Hermione acted like she knew everything or when Hermione is there to comfort Harry, but Ron almost never is. Hermione isn't there to give Harry all the answers; that's Dumbledore's job. Not every little thing is answered by Hermione (or Dumbledore, for that matter) either - other characters step in to help Harry throughout the books. All Kloves needed to do was look at the characters objectively. And I'm not just talking about advancing the plot, either.

When you read the books, you get the sense that Harry loves both Ron and Hermione equally, Ron having the position of his loyal best mate who he can understand the most while Hermione having the position of his nurturing friend who supports him. When you watch the movies, Hermione seems to take the place of Ron as Harry's best mate and is still the nurturing friend, while Ron seems to be deemed as that jealous, silly sidekick. IMO, that is why the books made Ron and Hermione seem more equal and not the movies. Even my friends who have only watched the movies agree that they make it seem as if Hermione is more important to Harry than Ron is.

Not hating on Kloves or anything; his screenwriting is great. It's just his Hermione love is taken a bit too far.

TheScribbler

September 20th, 2011, 4:25 pm

Lotoc_Sabbath

September 20th, 2011, 5:19 pm

It's odd, because some movies he did brilliantly, for the most part (DH1&2, HBP, PS). He adapted the books excellently in these ones, and kept them at the right levels of 'darkness'. He trimmed what needed to be trimmed, and, especially with DH, kept the best bits of the book fully intact.

However, in GoF and CoS, his dialogue was particularly atrocious. The story came out clunky and confusing and far too lengthy. At the end of both, Voldemort/Tom was given a lengthy speech about his plans for conquering the world that works in the books, not so much the films. It just makes me cringe. Worst of all, Ron is made to look like a pathetic, temperamental idiot, whereas Hermione is made to look like a saint. Ugh.

I agree 100% with you on nearly all your points except for one: the DH script. I think part one was done very well except for some humorism here and there that shouldn't have been in, but I think part 2 as a script wasn't as good as HBP or DH1: he cut some crucial things (or maybe it was done by the director) yet it is the film in which Ron seems the most ignored, he made very arguable choices and some small points were horrible (Harry snapping the wand) yet don't get me wrong I still think it is great.

decarus

September 20th, 2011, 6:44 pm

Lotoc_Sabbath

September 20th, 2011, 6:54 pm

I agree. I think the script for DH2 was just awful. It was unintelligible at times and boring the rest. I can not think of a single bit of interesting dialogue in the entire film. The entire film was just off, in my opinion.

Well not like this, I think you are exaggerating, there were some very nice parts and the canon parts were very well done. I think the prince's tale and all the forest part/king's cross were great. I think the bad parts were the parts where ron seemed an idiot or he was just left aside (i.e. Harry walking to the forest).

rogue_bludger

September 20th, 2011, 8:46 pm

I agree. I think the script for DH2 was just awful. It was unintelligible at times and boring the rest. I can not think of a single bit of interesting dialogue in the entire film. The entire film was just off, in my opinion.

fair enough i respect your opinion but i think thats a bit over the top, to say not one bit of interesting dialouge the entire film is a bit exaggerated and i cannot understand were you get that from

TheScribbler

September 20th, 2011, 10:30 pm

I agree 100% with you on nearly all your points except for one: the DH script. I think part one was done very well except for some humorism here and there that shouldn't have been in, but I think part 2 as a script wasn't as good as HBP or DH1: he cut some crucial things (or maybe it was done by the director) yet it is the film in which Ron seems the most ignored, he made very arguable choices and some small points were horrible (Harry snapping the wand) yet don't get me wrong I still think it is great.

While I concur that Ron was ignored, at least he didn't appear a bumbling coward. He got a few heroic moments, right? (On a different note, I hate the way Harry hugs Hermione on his way to the Forest, and only glances at Ron... but that might be just Yates' fault.)
And I've said this before, but I like when Harry snapped the wand. *shrug*

decarus

September 20th, 2011, 11:20 pm

fair enough i respect your opinion but i think thats a bit over the top, to say not one bit of interesting dialouge the entire film is a bit exaggerated and i cannot understand were you get that from

What dialogue did you really like in the film? I mean there was dialogue that was okay and some that sort of had potential but was edited so poorly that it wasn't what it should have been. Then there was just bad dialogue which i thought there was a lot of especially in places where it really needed to be great.

rogue_bludger

September 21st, 2011, 3:01 pm

What dialogue did you really like in the film? I mean there was dialogue that was okay and some that sort of had potential but was edited so poorly that it wasn't what it should have been. Then there was just bad dialogue which i thought there was a lot of especially in places where it really needed to be great.

To be honest i dont think there was anything wrong with the dialouge in the film it wasnt fantastic but were it needed to be good (i dont think interesting is the right word to use) it succeed in my opinion, like the scenes in shell cottage with harry and griphook and harry and olivander the dialouge was fine, also the princes tale, the scene with the grey lady, the forest again scene, kings cross and the scene with Neville and voldemort near the end, the dialouge in all was good especially in the princes tale it was brilliant, but also the dialouge in this film was never the main focus it was about the action for me, everything was set up for the action in the previous films, but in the scenes were the dialouge was important it was very good imo. Does any one else agree with me, or is it just me?

MrSleepyHead

September 21st, 2011, 3:53 pm

There's no equality with the trio because he writes them with the Hollywood mindset of hero, heroine, sidekick. And that's what I hate.
Then you must hate what Rowling wrote, which is hero and two sidekicks.
I agree with Warlock27. From this, there does seem to exist this base difference between Kloves and Rowling. Kloves appeared to write a hero, heroine, and sidekick, as Warlock27 said. Rowling wrote a hero and two sidekicks (as Wimsey said). To me, these are two completely different dynamics, and I can certainly empathize with Warlock27 for being dissatisfied by Kloves in this regard.

As I see it, the Hermione in the films was much more of her own heroine than a sidekick. Her ability, beliefs, and intentions were highlighted only slightly secondarily in comparison to Harry. Meanwhile, Ron appeared to be ignored half the time and fulfilled the classic "sidekick" role. My interpretation of JKR's writing is that there is the solitary hero who we follow, and his supporting friends, Ron and Hermione. Hermione may be utilized more commonly for her intelligence and ability, but I think the emotional involvement in Hermione and Ron is relatively equal - in the books. In Kloves' scripts, however, I see Hermione as a much more emphasized character - not only in ability and intelligence, but as a well-rounded character. As I see it, Hermione received the long end of the stick, and Ron the short end in the scripts. Because of Hermione's utility from a cinematic standpoint, her overall character and her emotional importance to Harry was concentrated on - often at the expense of Ron. In the books, Ron feels insignificant because he is constantly in the shadow of his brothers and Harry. But his companion in Harry's shadow is Hermione. I think the films, on the other hand, take Hermione out of that shadow and into her own mini-spotlight, leaving Ron alone, skulking, in Harry's shadow.
He wouldn't have to do anything more to Ron to make him balance with Hermione. He could have left out scenes where Hermione acted like she knew everything or when Hermione is there to comfort Harry, but Ron almost never is. Hermione isn't there to give Harry all the answers; that's Dumbledore's job. Not every little thing is answered by Hermione (or Dumbledore, for that matter) either - other characters step in to help Harry throughout the books. All Kloves needed to do was look at the characters objectively. And I'm not just talking about advancing the plot, either.
I agree with this completely. Too often in the films, I think Hermione is given the ideas or actions rather than use the person in the books. I understand, from a cinematic perspective, the need to use the more prominent characters to drive the plot. But by giving Hermione even more intelligence, ability, and problem-solving skills in the films, she outshines Ron even more. At the same time, Ron is left in stagnance most of the time; rather than boost his ability the same fraction as Hermione's was, he is left at the same level as in the books, which makes him appear much less significant in the films, in my opinion.

The inequality with which Kloves dealt with Hermione and Ron and their importance to the plot, Harry, and their own personal development is my chief complaint with the scriptwriting. I see it as a betrayal of Hermione's and Ron's characters, the trio's dynamic, and the story as a whole. It is one aspect of the scripts I cannot overlook, and I think it is so prominent in my mind because I do not think it was necessary. As a whole, though, I was satisfied with Kloves' interpretation (though, needless to say, with unmentioned dissatisfaction!), and I think he is often unfairly judged because of what directors and the other filmmakers may have altered of his original vision.

BrianTung

September 21st, 2011, 6:02 pm

decarus

September 21st, 2011, 6:37 pm

To be honest i dont think there was anything wrong with the dialouge in the film it wasnt fantastic but were it needed to be good (i dont think interesting is the right word to use) it succeed in my opinion, like the scenes in shell cottage with harry and griphook and harry and olivander the dialouge was fine, also the princes tale, the scene with the grey lady, the forest again scene, kings cross and the scene with Neville and voldemort near the end, the dialouge in all was good especially in the princes tale it was brilliant, but also the dialouge in this film was never the main focus it was about the action for me, everything was set up for the action in the previous films, but in the scenes were the dialouge was important it was very good imo. Does any one else agree with me, or is it just me?

Interesting is the word i would use because i find language interesting. But good is fine. I agree that the best was Griphook and Harry. That was interesting dialogue. Harry and Ollivander i would just say was okay. I didn't like the scene with the Grey Lady. I didn't like the forest again. There was some okay dialogue with young Lily in the Prince's Tale. King's Cross was just awful in my opinion. I thought that Neville's speech had potential, but they totally missed the mark by hacking the scene to bits. I would say Draco's dialogue was interesting in the Room of Hidden Things. Though in general, i thought there was very little dialogue in this film and what there was was not good.

The action could not be the focus for me because i feel like it was pretty much non existent. I mean the courtyard apocalypse was nice. The thing is it lasted 3 minutes.

In my experience, people who say they can't think of even a single instance in which something was good (consider that there are probably three or four hundred scenes scattered throughout the eight films) are typically determined not to like it. That may or may not be true in decarus's case. But, whether it is or not, I've also found that others tend to take it less seriously than an opinion that is at least a bit more measured.

I actually am the opposite. I really wanted to like this film. And until this one i have liked them all. Even though i don't think they are anything like masterful films i have really liked the films so far for the most part. And i really thought i would like this one. I really did. Even knowing all the changes ahead of time i still thought there will be some great dialogue, at Kings Cross, in the great hall, between Voldemort and Neville, between Ron and Hermione, between the trio, i thought there would be some nice moments, because i think generally that there have been in all of the films so really nice moments.

If i really thought about it i bet i could pick some really nice moments that i absolutely love in each of the films so far. But for some reason, and i don't really know what happened, i just think DH2 didn't have those moments.

BrianTung

September 21st, 2011, 6:47 pm

I actually am the opposite. I really wanted to like this film. And until this one i have liked them all. Even though i don't think they are anything like masterful films i have really liked the films so far for the most part. And i really thought i would like this one. I really did. Even knowing all the changes ahead of time i still thought there will be some great dialogue, at Kings Cross, in the great hall, between Voldemort and Neville, between Ron and Hermione, between the trio, i thought there would be some nice moments, because i think generally that there have been in all of the films so really nice moments.

If i really thought about it i bet i could pick some really nice moments that i absolutely love in each of the films so far. But for some reason, and i don't really know what happened, i just think DH2 didn't have those moments.

Sorry, decarus, I think I have you confused with somebody else--someone who, as far as they said they could remember, did not like any moment in any of the films.

decarus

September 21st, 2011, 6:56 pm

Sorry, decarus, I think I have you confused with somebody else--someone who, as far as they said they could remember, did not like any moment in any of the films.

No worries. I get people confused as well. I think there are some absolutely wonderful moments in the other films. There were just so many issues with this one for me. And i so wanted to like it and i just didn't.

Wimsey

September 21st, 2011, 7:24 pm

I agree with Warlock27. From this, there does seem to exist this base difference between Kloves and Rowling. Kloves appeared to write a hero, heroine, and sidekick, as Warlock27 said. Rowling wrote a hero and two sidekicks (as Wimsey said). ..... As I see it, the Hermione in the films was much more of her own heroine than a sidekick. Her ability, beliefs, and intentions were highlighted only slightly secondarily in comparison to Harry. Kloves also wrote them as Hero/Protagonist & Two Sidekicks. He never elevated Hermione to the level of heroine or protagonist. By sticking to the books, that meant that Hermione's abilities were highlighted much better than Ron's were. However, a big issue of debate prior to Book 7 was, what abilities did Ron even offer Harry? Hermione had arithmency, runes, an encyclopedic knowledge of the wizarding world, whereas Ron had chess skills that we hadn't seen displayed in years.

As for beliefs and intentions, Kloves wisely cut that. For Rowling, a big part of Hermione's character development was her evolution to first animal rights activist (Buckbeak) and then to human rights activist (SPEW). Those were nice, and anybody who read those books and was subsequently surprised to learn that Rowling was an Amnesty International supporter was being a bit obtuse! However, Hermione's activism never furthered story or plot, and thus it never even made the scripts. Had Kloves' scripts really been "The Apotheosis of Hermione Granger" then he should have taken advantage of that.
Hermione may be utilized more commonly for her intelligence and ability, but I think the emotional involvement in Hermione and Ron is relatively equal - in the books.But, again, even if this is true (and I dispute it), then it is not equally distributed among cinematically feasible details. Hermione is who's knowledge and actions further's plots. It was easy to include them because they were cinematic as well as literary. Ron simply does not do things that further the stories or plots. Indeed, Rowling used him far too often as a "thick" foil: he's slow to catch on to Scabbers, he is slow to catch on to the implausibility of Harry entering himself in the Triwizard Tourney, he clings to irrational stereotypes about giants, werewolves, etc., he's a basketcase before Quidditch games, he's a positive Neandertal regarding his sister, and then, to top it off, he walks out on Harry & Hermione in the midst of the Horcrux hunt. Indeed, I sometimes do not blame the fans who were convinced that "Ron Is Evil!" :D (Seriously, I realize that these were fans who thought that Hermione should fall for Harry, but, still, they had some points!)
But his companion in Harry's shadow is Hermione. I think the films, on the other hand, take Hermione out of that shadow and into her own mini-spotlight, leaving Ron alone, skulking, in Harry's shadow.This was not true in the books. Hermione never identified herself as "Harry Potter's stupid Friend." She was known as the smartest witch in her year (both kindly and cruelly). She was known as a busybody know-it-all. She had the people-skills of a prison guard, but she was (from her introduction onwards) intent on blazing her own trail.

Indeed, if anything, then the films greatly downplayed Ron's huge insecurities. This probably was for the better, as he often comes across looking bad in the books, and it would have been tough for it to work on screen. (Kloves sort of salvaged this with Goblet, with Ron's convoluted scheme to warn Harry about the dragons: it was good for a laugh and redemption, and it was in the script rather than something that Newell added.)
The inequality with which Kloves dealt with Hermione and Ron and their importance to the plot, Harry, and their own personal development is my chief complaint with the scriptwriting.Again, the same is true in the book. Calling Hermione and Ron equal to the plot or equal in character development in the books is like saying that Ringo and Paul were equal in the Beatles. (Well, OK: Ringo and George: but you get the idea!) Rowling used Hermione much, much more often than she used Ron. This dynamic that you suggest simply was not in the books in the first place.

I thought the dialogue was generally all right. To be honest, I didn't generally think the dialogue in the books was all that great. Nothing wrong with it, but I felt (and feel) that Rowling's greatest skill was in creating an overall story arc over the course of seven books. Her dialogue was reasonably good, and her exposition fell below that (especially in the beginning--she got better as she wrote for a progressively older audience).This certainly is true. However, dialog on screen also faces the additional hurdle: what the director and actor do with it. In the right hands, any line can come across OK. For example, how many people could have gotten away with "Not idly do the leaves of Lorien fall"? Jackson earned his director nomination for that alone, and Viggo should have gotten one! In contrast, there actually were some decent lines in the Star Wars prequels: but in Lucas' direction, they seemed almost comical!

The bigger problem with dialogue is that movies should show, not tell. Yes, you need talking: but whenever possible, it should accompany something being shown. Of course, the source material sometimes offers limitations. In that case, it is really up to the director and producer. I'd hold the Gray Lady scene up as exemplary here: they transformed what actually was a useless scene in the book to one that advanced the plot and was just a little creepy and chilling to watch. (The score really helped, too, although one can consider that part of production.)

snugglepot

September 21st, 2011, 9:56 pm

I agree with Warlock27. From this, there does seem to exist this base difference between Kloves and Rowling. Kloves appeared to write a hero, heroine, and sidekick, as Warlock27 said. Rowling wrote a hero and two sidekicks (as Wimsey said). To me, these are two completely different dynamics, and I can certainly empathize with Warlock27 for being dissatisfied by Kloves in this regard.

As I see it, the Hermione in the films was much more of her own heroine than a sidekick. Her ability, beliefs, and intentions were highlighted only slightly secondarily in comparison to Harry. Meanwhile, Ron appeared to be ignored half the time and fulfilled the classic "sidekick" role. My interpretation of JKR's writing is that there is the solitary hero who we follow, and his supporting friends, Ron and Hermione. Hermione may be utilized more commonly for her intelligence and ability, but I think the emotional involvement in Hermione and Ron is relatively equal - in the books. In Kloves' scripts, however, I see Hermione as a much more emphasized character - not only in ability and intelligence, but as a well-rounded character. As I see it, Hermione received the long end of the stick, and Ron the short end in the scripts. Because of Hermione's utility from a cinematic standpoint, her overall character and her emotional importance to Harry was concentrated on - often at the expense of Ron. In the books, Ron feels insignificant because he is constantly in the shadow of his brothers and Harry. But his companion in Harry's shadow is Hermione. I think the films, on the other hand, take Hermione out of that shadow and into her own mini-spotlight, leaving Ron alone, skulking, in Harry's shadow.

I agree with this completely. Too often in the films, I think Hermione is given the ideas or actions rather than use the person in the books. I understand, from a cinematic perspective, the need to use the more prominent characters to drive the plot. But by giving Hermione even more intelligence, ability, and problem-solving skills in the films, she outshines Ron even more. At the same time, Ron is left in stagnance most of the time; rather than boost his ability the same fraction as Hermione's was, he is left at the same level as in the books, which makes him appear much less significant in the films, in my opinion.

The inequality with which Kloves dealt with Hermione and Ron and their importance to the plot, Harry, and their own personal development is my chief complaint with the scriptwriting. I see it as a betrayal of Hermione's and Ron's characters, the trio's dynamic, and the story as a whole. It is one aspect of the scripts I cannot overlook, and I think it is so prominent in my mind because I do not think it was necessary. As a whole, though, I was satisfied with Kloves' interpretation (though, needless to say, with unmentioned dissatisfaction!), and I think he is often unfairly judged because of what directors and the other filmmakers may have altered of his original vision.

Well analysed.

I agree with everything you said except for "As a whole though, I was satisfied..."
I was satisfied with PS and DH2. CoS, though I love it, has the seeds of "Hermione-Favouritism" germinating through the script. Thank goodness she was petrified and we were spared her presence for part of the film.

I can never forgive Kloves for this blatant favouring of Hermione over Ron, making Ron into a Cowardly clown,for adding so many H/Hr scenes (The Champions' Tent and Bridge in GoF, the Dance in DH1) and ruining Harry and Ginny's relationship (Changing their first kiss, cutting almost all their canon scenes).

yorkiedoodle

September 23rd, 2011, 8:36 pm

I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on the scripts, but i was looking at the HBP sheet music the other day and I was surprised to see that Steve Kloves had written the words to In Nocturne.

In this particular instance I think he did a great job!

JamesPotter17

September 27th, 2011, 6:17 pm

In Noctem is a very good song( I put that whole cd on my Zune because of that song). But IMO, I do believe he could have been more true to most of the movie's! IMO(again) I think he took out some stuff that should have been included, and left some stuff that could have been left out. I also think there is some stuff he added that really didn't have to be there, but did turn out to be a great add in the end.

darklordspal

September 29th, 2011, 3:49 am

Kloves also wrote them as Hero/Protagonist & Two Sidekicks. He never elevated Hermione to the level of heroine or protagonist. By sticking to the books, that meant that Hermione's abilities were highlighted much better than Ron's were. However, a big issue of debate prior to Book 7 was, what abilities did Ron even offer Harry? Hermione had arithmency, runes, an encyclopedic knowledge of the wizarding world, whereas Ron had chess skills that we hadn't seen displayed in years.

Oh boy, where do I start?

As is often the case Wimsey wishes to measure Ron by what he can do and not by who he is. Ron is Harry's best friend. He represents love and acceptance by the wizarding world. He is the anchor in a real and allegorical sense to the plight of the average people Harry (and Hermione) are trying to save from Voldemort's tyranny.

In my mind JKR's series is about the love Harry finds around him and how he is dependent on it to get him through the ordeals he has to face. This was not presented as strongly in the movies as it is in the books, IMHO. And Ron is a major part of this equation that makes, in the books, the trio a balanced and nuanced force against evil.

IMHO, the movies treat Ron somewhat the way the Malfoys treat the Weasleys... with a slightly sneering, patronizing amusement. The character had so much potential but they threw it away. In some ways I feel they underestimated their audience. :sigh:

A person's value isn't based just on their I.Q.

Edit: Also, I think you will find Ron is the source of Harry's knowledge of the culture (values and morals) of the wizarding world while Hermione is the the source of it's "technology" (spells and arithmancy).

As for beliefs and intentions, Kloves wisely cut that. For Rowling, a big part of Hermione's character development was her evolution to first animal rights activist (Buckbeak) and then to human rights activist (SPEW). Those were nice, and anybody who read those books and was subsequently surprised to learn that Rowling was an Amnesty International supporter was being a bit obtuse! However, Hermione's activism never furthered story or plot, and thus it never even made the scripts. Had Kloves' scripts really been "The Apotheosis of Hermione Granger" then he should have taken advantage of that.

I've often said that POA should have been renamed "Hermione Granger and the Prisoner of Azkhaban". IMHO it was very, very Hermione-centric. Completely over the top. I think alot of that had to do with Cuaron, though.

But, again, even if this is true (and I dispute it), then it is not equally distributed among cinematically feasible details. Hermione is who's knowledge and actions further's plots. It was easy to include them because they were cinematic as well as literary. Ron simply does not do things that further the stories or plots. Indeed, Rowling used him far too often as a "thick" foil: he's slow to catch on to Scabbers, he is slow to catch on to the implausibility of Harry entering himself in the Triwizard Tourney, he clings to irrational stereotypes about giants, werewolves, etc., he's a basketcase before Quidditch games, he's a positive Neandertal regarding his sister, and then, to top it off, he walks out on Harry & Hermione in the midst of the Horcrux hunt. Indeed, I sometimes do not blame the fans who were convinced that "Ron Is Evil!" :D (Seriously, I realize that these were fans who thought that Hermione should fall for Harry, but, still, they had some points!)

JKR uses Ron not as a thick foil but as comic relief. There is a difference. Harry and Hermione also have their moments where their own biases cloud their judgement in the books.

And Ron's concern for Ginny (unsophisticated as it may be) means he is a Neandethal? Yikes! He may not be a Beau Brummel but I think he has the makings of a true gentleman.

This was not true in the books. Hermione never identified herself as "Harry Potter's stupid Friend." She was known as the smartest witch in her year (both kindly and cruelly). She was known as a busybody know-it-all. She had the people-skills of a prison guard, but she was (from her introduction onwards) intent on blazing her own trail.

And how does the idea of "blazing her own trail" add to the story arc? Sounds like there is an implication that she is on her own separate quest. I don't see this nor do I think JKR wanted to imply that.

Indeed, if anything, then the films greatly downplayed Ron's huge insecurities. This probably was for the better, as he often comes across looking bad in the books, and it would have been tough for it to work on screen.

And I feel the movies downplayed Hermione's insecurities and faults. Giving Hermione alot of Ron's more heroic lines ("You'll have to kill us ,too") and physially moving Ron to the back during some of Harry's most important emotional development (the crying scene in POA and the closing scene in HBP) makes it clear in my mind that the filmmakers were making a conscious effort not to just strengthen the Harry and Hermione relationship, but to marginalize Ron up until DH1 and DH2, where they finally let Ron develop into a real 3-dimensional character (no pun intended :eyebrows: ).

(Kloves sort of salvaged this with Goblet, with Ron's convoluted scheme to warn Harry about the dragons: it was good for a laugh and redemption, and it was in the script rather than something that Newell added.)
Again, the same is true in the book. Calling Hermione and Ron equal to the plot or equal in character development in the books is like saying that Ringo and Paul were equal in the Beatles. (Well, OK: Ringo and George: but you get the idea!)

I get the idea, I just strongly disagree with it. :argh: You don't measure a friendship by someone's resume'. Could the Beatles have held together long enough to finish Sgt. Pepper without Ringo and George balancing the overlarge egos of John and Paul? Maybe not, IMHO. :)

Rowling used Hermione much, much more often than she used Ron. This dynamic that you suggest simply was not in the books in the first place.

I agree that JKR basically made Hermione the action hero of the series in DH. She even left Harry out in the cold to some degree while he was infatuated with searching the Hallows instead of the Horcruxi (sp?). I sorta get the feeling JKR let her ego get the better of her by the time she wrote DH when it came to the trio so that you have threads here at Mugglenet debateing whether Hermione was the real hero of the series instead of Harry. That tells me JKR had let the balance that had made the Trio the Trio in the first 6 books unravel.

This certainly is true. However, dialog on screen also faces the additional hurdle: what the director and actor do with it. In the right hands, any line can come across OK. For example, how many people could have gotten away with "Not idly do the leaves of Lorien fall"? Jackson earned his director nomination for that alone, and Viggo should have gotten one! In contrast, there actually were some decent lines in the Star Wars prequels: but in Lucas' direction, they seemed almost comical!

The bigger problem with dialogue is that movies should show, not tell. Yes, you need talking: but whenever possible, it should accompany something being shown. Of course, the source material sometimes offers limitations. In that case, it is really up to the director and producer. I'd hold the Gray Lady scene up as exemplary here: they transformed what actually was a useless scene in the book to one that advanced the plot and was just a little creepy and chilling to watch. (The score really helped, too, although one can consider that part of production.)

IMHO the Gray Lady scene was put in simply to take advantage of 3D and actually slowed down the plot. The same could be said of the floating pensive, the scene where Voldomort has "tentacles" flowing out of his robes and Voldemort's final death where he floats away in tiny motes of sparkling dust. All were simply made to impress the audience with the 3D effect, but really didn't add to the story. In fact, I feel the way Voldemort death is portrayed really undermines what JKR was trying to say about those who want to cheat death. But I blame that on Newell, not Kloves.

You mention that movies need visuals to help tell the story, and I agree. That is why I don't understand why Newell had all three of his leads so under-act their parts in DH2. Except for Hermone's crying when Harry gets ready to leave for the Forest the Trio leave you wondering what they are thinking or feeling. Dan is subtle almost to the point of catalypsy in some places. I usually don't like over-acting, but I felt like there was some under-acting in this movie.

Now, I liked DH1 and DH2. They were good movies. But I also agree with many posters on this thread that Kloves and Newell were more interested in developing the sexual politics of the Trio and H\Hr than portraying a trio of friends on a dangerous quest. This was incredibly short sighted and wasteful of true dramatic potential, IMHO.

Wab

September 29th, 2011, 4:05 am

And how does the idea of "blazing her own trail" add to the story arc?

By not buckling under to peer pressure and remaining a girly swot, Hermione was able to be a continuing source of information for Harry. Had Harry been forced to rely on his and Ron's knowledge he wouldn't have got past the Devil's Snare in PS.

darklordspal

September 29th, 2011, 4:47 am

By not buckling under to peer pressure and remaining a girly swot, Hermione was able to be a continuing source of information for Harry. Had Harry been forced to rely on his and Ron's knowledge he wouldn't have got past the Devil's Snare in PS.

But how does developing a secondary hero storyline add to Harry's story? Doesn't that sort of make Hermione a competitor with Harry for title of Hero or main protaganist? Do you think this is what JKR was doing? I agree this may be part of what Kloves was trying to do...

P.S. I edited my post above to mention that I think Ron is the source of Harry's knowledge of the culture of the wizarding world while Hermione is the source for the technology.

P.S.S. You can still be smart and not be a swot. JKR may have been that way when she was young but I've known a few very, very intelligent ppl who were not "socially challenged". :lol:

I'm not saying that Hermione isn't a great character or a good friend. But what Wimsey seems to be saying is that basically Ron has no real function or importance in JKR's story arc while I submit he is really absolutely as neccessary as Hermione and that Kloves (and the producers) basically ignored this until DH1 and 2.

In the end this created a false competition between Ron and Hermione (and to some degree Harry and Hermione) that was not in the books and IMHO made the movies less powerful than what they could have been.

snapes_witch

September 29th, 2011, 4:52 am

Pulling on my nitpicker's cap (handknit by yours truly w/o magic), the director of the last four movies (including DH1 & 2) was David Yates. Mike Newell can only be held responsible for GoF.

darklordspal

September 29th, 2011, 4:56 am

Pulling on my nitpicker's cap (handknit by yours truly w/o magic), the director of the last four movies (including DH1 & 2) was David Yates. Mike Newell can only be held responsible for GoF.

Oops, sorry. Old man in need of sleep...:sigh:

Wab

September 29th, 2011, 8:43 am

But how does developing a secondary hero storyline add to Harry's story?

It isn't a secondary hero storyline, it's necessary exposition of how someone who enters the magic world rapidly becomes a remarkable witch.

It is necessary to Harry's story because Hermione is the brains of the operations. She is also a more reliable friend than Ron as she never shuts him out or deserts him as Ron did at different times to both Harry and Hermione.

Doesn't that sort of make Hermione a competitor with Harry for title of Hero or main protaganist?

No.

Do you think this is what JKR was doing?

Yes, it has often been noted that Hermione's aggressive swottishness was in part a device to quickly introduce concepts of the technology, history and culture of the magic world.

Pearl_Took

September 29th, 2011, 11:51 am

In my mind JKR's series is about the love Harry finds around him and how he is dependent on it to get him through the ordeals he has to face. This was not presented as strongly in the movies as it is in the books, IMHO. And Ron is a major part of this equation that makes, in the books, the trio a balanced and nuanced force against evil.

Ron, to me, is an 'everyman' character. He is Mr Normal. Mr Average. Mr Standard British Bloke. His averageness acts like a reassuring anchor for Harry, who needs a large dose of normality to help keep him balanced. IMO, JKR could have substituted Dean Thomas for Ron (except that Dean is less volatile and also as potentially interesting as Harry, so that might have disturbed the balance. ;) )

Edit: Also, I think you will find Ron is the source of Harry's knowledge of the culture (values and morals) of the wizarding world while Hermione is the the source of it's "technology" (spells and arithmancy).

I think Hermione is more than that. She has a very strong moral centre (which is not to deny that her behaviour can be less than admirable on occasion). Ron represents normal, happy wizarding family life ... a vision of what Harry's world could have been, perhaps, had James and Lily not died.

I agree that JKR basically made Hermione the action hero of the series in DH. She even left Harry out in the cold to some degree while he was infatuated with searching the Hallows instead of the Horcruxi (sp?).

I don't see Hermione as the action hero of DH. HP is not a feminist series, although arguably Hermione is actually one of its most 'feminist' characters. Oh, there is no denying that without her intellect and capability, both Harry and Ron would be stuffed. :D I was very amused that Kloves acknowledged that, in his script for DH1. :lol: But the emotional centre of DH is Harry, as it is in all the books. Hermione plays second fiddle to Harry's emotional and spiritual quest, as she always does. Just think of how JKR virtually ignores Hermione's post-torture trauma after Malfoy Manor. The text spends no time at all on what Hermione might have suffered, physically or emotionally ... nope, never mind that, it's straight on with Harry''s Horcrux Hunt.

Hermione does supply Harry with great emotional support in DH. She also, IMO, channels the sympathy we feel for Harry. Well, that was my experience of reading DH, anyway.

I sorta get the feeling JKR let her ego get the better of her by the time she wrote DH when it came to the trio so that you have threads here at Mugglenet debateing whether Hermione was the real hero of the series instead of Harry. That tells me JKR had let the balance that had made the Trio the Trio in the first 6 books unravel.

I don't agree. :) Breaking the Trio up, temporarily, served to heighten the tension in DH.

Also, Hermione is pretty much JKR's strongest concession to feminism. :cool: (Kind of refreshing, since JKR is often seen as a very conservative author.)

Hermione is JKR's self-insert. Her 'Mary Sue'. She gets away with it because Hermione is such a well-written, believable character. (I've known quite a few Hermiones myself. :lol: Hermione also represents, for me personally, the more self-righteous side of my character. :whistle: ) But I can't help but love that our boy hero has two best friends, one of whom is a highly resourceful and capable woman. :tu:

After all, I'd have been pretty annoyed with JKR if it was Ron who had stuck by Harry and Hermione the one who ran out on them. :huh: As it was, Ron's issues of insecurity and jealousy, plus the vital point that the Horcrux was messing majorly with his mind, made this a perfectly believable plot move.

But I need to get back to Kloves ...

IMHO the Gray Lady scene was put in simply to take advantage of 3D and actually slowed down the plot.

The Grey Lady was the best ghost in the entire film series. She was beautiful, melancholy, eerie and not a little scary. I thought she was better than her canon counterpart, to be honest. :whistle:

Now, I liked DH1 and DH2. They were good movies. But I also agree with many posters on this thread that Kloves and Newell were more interested in developing the sexual politics of the Trio and H\Hr than portraying a trio of friends on a dangerous quest. This was incredibly short sighted and wasteful of true dramatic potential, IMHO.

I dunno, the movies got across perfectly fine the point that the Trio were great friends. As for heightening the sexual politics, that is pretty inevitable when there are three hormonal teenagers on the run. :whistle:

GingerCat1

September 29th, 2011, 12:05 pm

I dunno, the movies got across perfectly fine the point that the Trio were great friends. As for heightening the sexual politics, that is pretty inevitable when there are three hormonal teenagers on the run. :whistle:

My problem is that Kloves made Harry's and Hermione's relationship ambiguous and they not only added scenes that caused more confusion about Harry's and Hermione's relationship and then removed the scene where any potential relationship is shut down completely where Harry says that he views Hermione like a sister and that he think she feels the same way.

Its like Kloves wanted the audience thinking that Harry and Hermione could have been a couple and did in fact have secret romantic/sexual feelings for one another.

decarus

September 29th, 2011, 12:53 pm

I do not consider Hermione socially awkward at all. I do think that the way her and Ron are written in the films does cause a different kind of antagonism then in the books. In the films it is almost as if she considers Ron an idiot. They also imply in the films that something could have happened between Harry and Hermione which is different then the books.

I actually don't consider them pretending that something could have happened between Harry and Hermione as a terrible adaption. I definitely consider it a change and given my choice i probably could have done without it. But the three scenes where it was heavily implied in DH1 were really not that bad in my opinion. I think it is much worse that the films make Ron come off as a bit of an idiot.

Goddess_Clio

September 29th, 2011, 4:12 pm

IMHO the Gray Lady scene was put in simply to take advantage of 3D and actually slowed down the plot. The same could be said of the floating pensive, the scene where Voldomort has "tentacles" flowing out of his robes and Voldemort's final death where he floats away in tiny motes of sparkling dust. All were simply made to impress the audience with the 3D effect, but really didn't add to the story. In fact, I feel the way Voldemort death is portrayed really undermines what JKR was trying to say about those who want to cheat death. But I blame that on Newell, not Kloves.

I didn't see DHp2 in 3D and I didn't think the Grey Lady scene or Voldemort's death were out of place at all. The film carried on without missing a beat to me. (I'm not a fan of the 3D technology anyway, I think it's hyped up and a marketing ploy to drain consumers of their money and increase box office sales and opening weekend totals - they should go off numbers of tickets sold, not how much was made then we'd get a fair comparison of movie openings since prices have been jacked up like 500% in the last 30-40 years - but that's another rant...)

My own humble view of the films in that, for what they ended up being they were decent. I think way too much vital information was left out, focus, especially in HBP, was not kept on Harry's journey and a lot was lost in translation from book to film. A lot of this has to do, to me, with the fact that they began filming before the producers knew where the story was going so - though they did receive guidance from JKR - they let vital details fall by the wayside.

Personally - though it will never happen - I'd like to see the movies remade now that the script writers know what all is important. EXCELLENT book to screen movies have been made (BBC's Pride and Prejudice w/ Colin Firth, LOTRs though the stories were dramatically altered - for the better IMO, I like the films better than the books) but they all had the advantage of KNOWING THE END OF THEIR STORIES.

Lotoc_Sabbath

September 29th, 2011, 4:59 pm

My own humble view of the films in that, for what they ended up being they were decent. I think way too much vital information was left out, focus, especially in HBP, was not kept on Harry's journey and a lot was lost in translation from book to film. A lot of this has to do, to me, with the fact that they began filming before the producers knew where the story was going so - though they did receive guidance from JKR - they let vital details fall by the wayside.

What HBP the worse script? Really do you think it like that? I think it is actually the best and it is condidered a very good script in general. Except for a pair of memories, that Kloves had actually written but Yates decided to keep out, I think it is perfect, nothing else of very important is left out, scenes work perfectly imo, Harry's obsession with Malfoy and the book really emerges making really similar to the book, all of the main themes are put very nicely and as a film I just think it is great. Ok yeah they could have made it 10-15 minutes longer and could have got the burning burrow scene out of the way but really except for those two what is there of wrong, try watching the deleted scenes too, if there was an extended version I think it would be simply perfect. The humorism inserted in there is well-working too since in the book there is lots too. Actually I personally belive it isn't enough since there should be more Hermione Ron fights and obvioulsy more Harry/Ginny, even though I think that some non-canon scenes make it good. Lastly, yeah, Dumdldore's funeral but the ending was great too imo.

To sum it up the only complaints I can think of are:
-Missing 2-3 memories
-Burrow burning scene
-Harry/Ginny
-DD Funeral
[-Quidditch??]

Try getting a list of the other films it would be at least the double longer, I think that Kloves best job was in HBP and maybe DH1.

WildFloo162

September 29th, 2011, 6:21 pm

The films are fantastic and wonderfully written. Mediocre directing places some at the end f the pack. (the first two, and the fourth.) and wonky editing keeps one from being as great as it should have been (five.) But man oh man, Kloves killed it on all but one of the flicks. Most of my friends don't read Potter and love the movies, and have no problems following along to the plot. Sure they don't know some thing (much about the Marauders etc.) but they have no trouble understanding what's going on. Colombus wanted everything in the first two movies, and they suffered for it. Cuaron wanted his movie to be about Harry, and told Kloves to lose the rest. The other films follow this lead, and they're much tighter and cleaner. If you want the books, read the books.

All of the main trio are more likable in the films. Seriously, Ron and Harry can be annoying as heck in the books, with Hermione only a little less so. I think the films do a great job of showing Harry and Ron's friendship even without spending as much time on it as the books can. The scripts and the actors do a great job showcasing a true, deep friendship. Dialogue, looks between the two, etc.

No way do the films attempt to portray Hermione and Harry into each other romantically. You'll only see that if you'e determined to. If any relationship suffers in the films it's Harry and Ginny. I never really see why they would end up married.

Also, someone spoke of some scenes (tendril robe, Voldy death) as being shot to look impressive in 3d. Well, they didn't know the film would be in 3d when they shot it, so...

Anyways, I love the films almost as much as i love the books. I don't think there's any problems with any of the scripts, and the only problems with someone the movies I have fall into the Directors hands. I also think people need to realize plot holes are not the same thing as leaving things out. I can only think of a couple plot holes (all of them minor) while someone said the movies were filled with them.

Rhaenys

September 29th, 2011, 7:15 pm

Most of my friends don't read Potter and love the movies, and have no problems following along to the plot. Sure they don't know some thing (much about the Marauders etc.) but they have no trouble understanding what's going on. Colombus wanted everything in the first two movies, and they suffered for it. Cuaron wanted his movie to be about Harry, and told Kloves to lose the rest. The other films follow this lead, and they're much tighter and cleaner. If you want the books, read the books.

...

All of the main trio are more likable in the films. Seriously, Ron and Harry can be annoying as heck in the books, with Hermione only a little less so. I think the films do a great job of showing Harry and Ron's friendship even without spending as much time on it as the books can.
Also, someone spoke of some scenes (tendril robe, Voldy death) as being shot to look impressive in 3d. Well, they didn't know the film would be in 3d when they shot it, so...

I have to disagree on some points with you...
I don't agree that when you only watch movies you have no trouble understanding what's going on.
In few first movies, no, I think. Yes, many things happen, but everything is pretty clear and explained.

However I've recently watched Deathly Hallows, both parts, a loooong time after reading books - that I forgot some details (I've reread all the books later after, in last 2 months.) And no - many things are confusing. I remember asking myself - "where the hell did that broken mirror come", for example. After watching Deatly Hallows, first part, I remember I've been really consfused in many things.
Then I've reread the book again, and a lot was explained.

So - there's much stuff missing, especially in latest movies - and no, they are not clear. I'm pretty sure, because I have no trouble understanding any books or movies usually, but I did watch Deathly hallowes receltny - from a really close perspective as someone who didn't read books, at it was such a loing time (since Deatly Hallows were released). I even had some minor advantage, as I did read the books - but no, so many things were rushed and confusing.
While in a few first movies, that I've also watched years after reading the books, everything was pretty clear. :)

...

This again really depends on personal taste - but I've find Hermione really annoying - booh in books and movies.
In movies at first it was because of her lines, but later (Goblet of Fire and later movies), even because Iof the actress.

JamesPotter17

September 29th, 2011, 7:17 pm

It is better to keep as much of the book in the movie as u can though because that is where the movie is being made from

Goddess_Clio

September 29th, 2011, 11:48 pm

Cuaron wanted his movie to be about Harry, and told Kloves to lose the rest. The other films follow this lead, and they're much tighter and cleaner. If you want the books, read the books.

I agree that the movies should have been focused on Harry's story and that the stories in the films did improve because of this, but I still feel like HBP suffered because of the focus of the film -> the love triangles rather than Dumbledore grooming Harry and teaching him how to understand Voldemort which is KEY to how Harry defeats him in the books.

And yes, I also agree that if you want the books, read the books. But frankly there have been better book to screen adaptations that did pear down superfluous stories to just the main character(s) (I'm talking LOTRs which lost a TON of material but cinematically works very well - PJ didn't try to 'please everybody' like it seems Kloves did)

What HBP the worse script? Really do you think it like that? I think it is actually the best and it is condidered a very good script in general. Except for a pair of memories, that Kloves had actually written but Yates decided to keep out, I think it is perfect, nothing else of very important is left out.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed HBP the movie (answered the 13-year-old girl in me's wishes to see Ron and Hermione squabble but the 26-year-old girl in me's desire that they can work it out and get together already!) I just don't think Harry is where he needs to be by the end of the movie like he is in the books. (Have you read the article on MN.com about the differences between book harry and movie harry? excellent article!) His maturity level is way too low, his leadership skills are virtually non-existant and he figgin' just stands there and watches Dumbledore die where in the books he has to be physically/magically restrained.

In the overall arc of the movies I think the gravity of Harry's situation shouldn't have taken a back seat like it did to the teenage drama. Okay, maybe it's in the passenger seat, not the back seat, but it's not the one driving the movie so i'm not a huge fan. =^/

I think the major issue with all of the films up to DHp1 was that they didn't know how the book, and therefore the movie, was going to end. Had they had all the facts they could have written cleaner scripts, tighter stories and the films would have been better for it.

Rhaenys

September 30th, 2011, 1:57 am

I think the major issue with all of the films up to DHp1 was that they didn't know how the book, and therefore the movie, was going to end. Had they had all the facts they could have written cleaner scripts, tighter stories and the films would have been better for it.

I agree with that.
But didn't Rowling give any hints to them?
It doesn't really seem that way. If they''ve knew the ending, they could have focused more on things that are important and that are developed more in last books, and ignore a few things that were not that much important.

Btw, could you please give a link to that article on MN.com about the differences between book harry and movie harry?

WildFloo162

September 30th, 2011, 5:17 am

It is better to keep as much of the book in the movie as u can though because that is where the movie is being made from

No screenwriter will ever agree with that statement. It is best to capture the feel and spirit of whatever work you are adapting to film. Not to be a slave to the material.

I love HBP. One of the strongest films IMO. I love it, love it, love it. Beautiful to look at, and I love the romance stuff. It's nice to see the kids being kids and falling in and out of "love". It brought a sense of normalcy before the big push of the final two movies.

Also, I'm not sure why the one person used the mirror as evidence of the movies being confusing. They explain it was Sirius' in the second part itself. I get that there's more to it in the book, but you can just assume Harry got it from either Sirius himself or the house before Filch stole it. It really doesn't matter. It's not confusing by any means. As I said, I wasn't simply speaking my opinion on that matter, NONE of my friends who have seen the movies but haven't read the books (most of them) had no problems following the plot. Wanting something to be in the movies that isn't in the books doesn't mean that without it the films are hard to follow, it means film viewers aren't getting as much background info. Most of (if not all) of that info is superfluous.

The Harry Potter flicks are kind of amazing when you really think about it, in that they turned out as great as they did. It was no easy feat for anyone involved.

Rhaenys

September 30th, 2011, 6:23 am

No screenwriter will ever agree with that statement. It is best to capture the feel and spirit of whatever work you are adapting to film. Not to be a slave to the material.

I love HBP. One of the strongest films IMO. I love it, love it, love it. Beautiful to look at, and I love the romance stuff. It's nice to see the kids being kids and falling in and out of "love". It brought a sense of normalcy before the big push of the final two movies.

Also, I'm not sure why the one person used the mirror as evidence of the movies being confusing. They explain it was Sirius' in the second part itself. I get that there's more to it in the book, but you can just assume Harry got it from either Sirius himself or the house before Filch stole it. It really doesn't matter. It's not confusing by any means. As I said, I wasn't simply speaking my opinion on that matter, NONE of my friends who have seen the movies but haven't read the books (most of them) had no problems following the plot. Wanting something to be in the movies that isn't in the books doesn't mean that without it the films are hard to follow, it means film viewers aren't getting as much background info. Most of (if not all) of that info is superfluous.

The Harry Potter flicks are kind of amazing when you really think about it, in that they turned out as great as they did. It was no easy feat for anyone involved.

I mentioned the glass, it was only one example - I forgot the others. I would have to rewatch Deathly Hallows to remember...
About the mirror - even if they explain it in the second part, you still watch the first part of Deathly hallows without an explanation - and that's one movie, a whole. It should stand better itself - but it doesn't.
I didn't mean that you can't understand the basic plot of movie - but there are stuff left unexplained, that are important, at least that's how I saw it. And you cant' say it doesn't matter as the glass becomes really important in the movie. I did manage to follow the plot, of course. But if you think when watching a movie (and I do) you really ask yourself where does it come from suddenly. And some other things that aren't really explained.
If you look at the thread " What do you have to explain to your friends and family who only see the movies?" in this forums, you can see that there are things left unexplained. (No, I didn't think that Snape was Harry's dad. :D Just kidding a bit.)

I don't think that everything from the books should be in the movies.
I even do like most of the Harry Potter movies, and it's hard for me to tell which ones are my favorite.
But I do think there are some flaws in last movies, expecially Deathly Hallows, part one, and I think that movie and script could have been done better. Nevertheless, I still like it.

I agree that Harry Potter movies turned out amazing and that it wasn't easy for anyone involved - that doesn't mean they couldn't have been better.

snapes_witch

September 30th, 2011, 7:08 am

Of course it's an unimportant detail, but my sister wondered why Snape was the Half-Blood Prince . . . If it was explained in the movie, we missed it. :eyebrows:

BrianTung

September 30th, 2011, 7:16 am

Of course it's an unimportant detail, but my sister wondered why Snape was the Half-Blood Prince . . . If it was explained in the movie, we missed it. :eyebrows:

Why he was called the Half-Blood Prince? No, that was never explained in the films. Of course, the search for the Prince's identity gets very short shrift in the film; all I can remember is a comment or two from Hermione as the trio are walking to The Three Broomsticks. (I don't go back as far as Slughorn, but I can remember when it was Two Broomsticks, nevertheless.)

decarus

September 30th, 2011, 1:00 pm

I think the biggest issue with the mirror is explaining what it is. I mean Harry carries around a shard of glass throughout the first film and they never even say what it is for. That it is a two way mirror and i don't think it is at all obvious what Harry is looking at in it. It also seems extremely random that Harry just has the mirror out of nowhere. It is badly done.

WildFloo162

September 30th, 2011, 1:15 pm

I guess we just won't agree on the mirror lol. I don't see a problem with how they did it. Of course, it would maybe have helped if JK had told them to be sure to include it in the fifth flick, but I really don't see how anyone can be that confused by what it's used for. They show someone looking through it multiple times, Harry yells for help near the end of PART 1 (I emphasize part 1 because it's the first pat of a two party story. There is obviously going to be some things paid off in the second half that you don't know in the first, much like Kill Bill part 1 and 2. ) It's a moot point to me really. It's just a mirror and a shard used to keep an eye on Harry. If you can't get that watching the flicks I don't know what else they could have really done.

decarus

September 30th, 2011, 1:27 pm

A bizarre shot of someones eye does not explain that it is a two way mirror in my opinion. If i hadn't seen screencaps of Aberforth's eye in the mirror before i saw the film i would not have known what he was looking at. And they only show him looking back once i think at the beginning. They should have had Harry have a conversation about what the mirror is with someone. Clearly what they should have done is introduce the mirror earlier on in the series, but what they did was not an explanation at all in my opinion. And i don't really think they needed to explain that it was from Sirius just explain what it is so everyone isn't thinking why is Harry looking into that piece of glass.

WildFloo162

September 30th, 2011, 2:29 pm

My friend who only watched the movie leaned over during the first one and whispered "I wonder who's keeping an eye on him." I really don't think they need to dumb things down. Granted my friend isn't everyone in the world, but if he understood it right away I'm sure the majority of people did. As someone noted earlier, the first rule of thumb your taught when you begin to get into screenwriting is you show not tell. Don't use dialogue for something you can show. Harry sitting an talking to someone about the mirror would have been considered bad writing. Alas, this is the last thing I'll say on the subject, since we're just going to be talking in circles! lol.

NightStrike91

September 30th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Most of my non-reading friends like the movies and don't ever ask me about anything. However, I have to correct some misinterpretations sometimes, but it just amuses me to show my HP-nerdyness. And my friends have never said a bad thing about the movies. Why is that? I have a theory. I have maybe 2 friends who actually have read the series as a whole and my impression is that it actually is the readers that have the most complaints. And we sure have the rights to! No, but I think us readers should try to see the movies as non-readers, who in my experience seem to really enjoy them as they are.

So the movies can't be all that bad as we think if my theory is right, as those muggles seem to enjoy them. We know the books offer so much more and therefor we get frustrated when we don't have the same feeling for the movies.

I still think the movies could've been better but which movies could not? I believe movies are for a short while entertainment and are easier to let go off than books. This I believe because, except for the Harry Potter movies, I hardly ever have an unresistable urge to watch a movie which I do have for reading books (the Harry Potter books for the latest years xD).

Steve Kloves did a splendid job, seeing as people have appreciated all the movies somewhat to the same extent, and to make 8 movies during 10 years and having every movie so successful is brilliant. Now half of the credit should go to Jo Rowling of course but nevertheless, it isn't an easy job to maintain the quality needed for audiences to come back year, after year, after year.

Goddess_Clio

October 1st, 2011, 10:30 pm

I agree with that.
But didn't Rowling give any hints to them?
It doesn't really seem that way. If they''ve knew the ending, they could have focused more on things that are important and that are developed more in last books, and ignore a few things that were not that much important.

Btw, could you please give a link to that article on MN.com about the differences between book harry and movie harry?

Yes, JKR did supposedly tell them things that would be important later on, most notably in pulling Rickman aside and 'telling him something about his character' but I only remember hearing this about the earlier movies.

The article on MN.com is called "Half Baked Price/Half Baked Harry by Lady Lupin. I can't get a direct link to the article that will work so just search the name above and it will come up or at least a link to it.

decarus

October 1st, 2011, 10:58 pm

Though some of the information wasn't great that JKR gave them. Like keeping Kreacher. I mean really they could have cut Kreacher completely and had them learn another way about the locket.

Wab

October 2nd, 2011, 2:20 am

Steve Kloves did a splendid job, seeing as people have appreciated all the movies somewhat to the same extent, and to make 8 movies during 10 years and having every movie so successful is brilliant.

Minor quibble but Kloves only wrote seven scripts. OotP was penned by Michael Goldenberg.

Lotoc_Sabbath

October 2nd, 2011, 7:59 am

Though some of the information wasn't great that JKR gave them. Like keeping Kreacher. I mean really they could have cut Kreacher completely and had them learn another way about the locket.

Actually if they didn't another way there would have been a major disappointment in the book fans. And this is the big issue with Kloves: he never decided who to target with the scripts: book fans or normal people. This is way there are various problems with the understanding in the stories in films: he inserted bits and pieces to make the book fans happy but never really added the final bit to make them completely happy and that is why people who didn't read the books find it hard to follow some parts whicha re disconnected with the film plots.

NightStrike91

October 2nd, 2011, 12:36 pm

Minor quibble but Kloves only wrote seven scripts. OotP was penned by Michael Goldenberg.
And IMO that just strengthens the fact that Kloves job was brilliant.:)

Alastor

October 4th, 2011, 6:24 am

Okay folks. Time to start keeping this thread on topic. If you want to discuss all the HP films, go here: A series completed: Analysis of all eight movies in one (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=128548)

A few off topic posts about film 5 have been deleted.

GingerCat1

October 4th, 2011, 8:26 am

I am still annoyed that the Ron/Hermione canon dance was cut but a new Harry/Hermione dance (one that wasn't in the books) was added.

WildFloo162

October 4th, 2011, 1:50 pm

The Harry Hermione dance is easily my favorite scene in any of the films. It is so hauntingly beautiful, and really drives home the whole Harry and Hermione are great friends, but the love her and Ron share is unparalleled. Kloves did an awesome job with that scene.

JamesPotter17

October 4th, 2011, 2:24 pm

Lotoc_Sabbath

October 4th, 2011, 6:52 pm

I do agree with that. It is like Harry finding her after Lavender kissing Ron, and him sitting down and talking with her and their little conversation about Harry and Ginny's relationship. It shows that they are very close, and that they can act like that around each other, but it ends there, there is no sensual link between them.
I think in both of these areas Kloves did a great job defining the line between friendship and love.

The Harry Hermione dance is easily my favorite scene in any of the films. It is so hauntingly beautiful, and really drives home the whole Harry and Hermione are great friends, but the love her and Ron share is unparalleled. Kloves did an awesome job with that scene.

I agree with the both of you. I find that the Harry/Hermione dance and the Harry and Hermione scene after Ron's kissing, especially, are awesome scens and I'd have liked them in the boooks too, Kloves really did an awesome job making them because they protray a Harry and Hermione like real freinds nothing about school, voldemort, was or horcuxes in the middle, fans usually don't realise how few of those moments are there in the book and those two scenes were one of the best things kloves did for the saga. If you add the music in the HBP's scene I always get on the verge of tears.

By the way if you see this on the paralell of all of the other Kloves works you can easly say "no". We just get more and more material in which Ron's seems just an idiot and is completely left by, you can easily tell Kloves is a H/Hr shipper and that they seem just the hero and heroine who would die for each other. If book fans didn't tell non-readers that Ron and Hermione in the end would get toghether all of the poeple would have said Harry and Hermione were bound to get toghther.

Goddess_Clio

October 4th, 2011, 7:09 pm

I agree with the both of you. I find that the Harry/Hermione dance and the Harry and Hermione scene after Ron's kissing, especially, are awesome scens and I'd have liked them in the boooks too, Kloves really did an awesome job making them because they protray a Harry and Hermione like real freinds nothing about school, voldemort, was or horcuxes in the middle, fans usually don't realise how few of those moments are there in the book and those two scenes were one of the best things kloves did for the saga. If you add the music in the HBP's scene I always get on the verge of tears.

By the way if you see this on the paralell of all of the other Kloves works you can easly say "no". We just get more and more material in which Ron's seems just an idiot and is completely left by, you can easily tell Kloves is a H/Hr shipper and that they seem just the hero and heroine who would die for each other. If book fans didn't tell non-readers that Ron and Hermione in the end would get toghether all of the poeple would have said Harry and Hermione were bound to get toghther.

I couldn't agree LESS! I really kind of despised the h/hr dance - it was awkward, dan was pretty creepy at the very beginning of it (he needed to smile or something) and thought that harry comforting hermione could have been portrayed in a less shippy way, especially since I felt for the last couple hours of film (including the end of HBP) that they were setting up the R/Hr thing so this just confused me. Especially the director's comment to the actors that he wanted the audience to think they were going to kiss at the end of the dance.

Personally, I would have liked the R/Hr relationship to develop more like the books where they kind of both thought that maybe they liked each other but they were both repressing a lot. Understand why it was streamlined, though.

I did like the H/Hr moment after she discovers the kiss, that felt more genuinely like a friend comforting another friend.

HOWEVER!! I did REALLY enjoy the scene where Ron and Harry are testing the blackthorn wand and he makes the candle turn into the jet of fire. Amusing way of showing how the wand works for Harry but he doesn't quite have its allegience.

WildFloo162

October 5th, 2011, 4:29 am

snapes_witch

October 5th, 2011, 8:58 am

Hes

October 5th, 2011, 9:43 am

Just a note, if you want to discuss the dance scene between Harry and Hermione please go to Romantic moments & that scene in Deathly Hallows (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=126594)

Goddess_Clio

October 5th, 2011, 4:53 pm

Ron and Hermione are obviously into each other as early as flick 3. I don't think their relationship was streamlined at all. Harry is always the odd man out in that trio. And enough with this shipper talk. Kloves isn't a shipper. He's a writer adapting from source. He isn't some fanboy obsessed with failed theories!

I meant streamlined in the sense that in the last movies they were more or less 'understandably' coming together as a couple rather than in the books where there's still a lot of sexual tension between them.

For example, the R/Hr kiss; in the book it's spur of the moment, born of Ron's comment about making sure the house elves have a chance to flee Hogwarts before the battle begins. It's impulsive and emotional. In the movie they, like, stand there, turn to each other and kiss. There's not really any exchange before, not so much as a look between them that says "we could have just been killed!" which spurs their kiss. It was anticlimactic to me.

Personally, in the films, I would have liked a lot more flirty glances or longing looks than I got. The R/Hr growing-romance was a little underplayed for me. Just an opinion.

But, yes, let's get back on topic, there are other threads for talk of this nature.

I kind of think this thread should be called "did steve kloves and the directors do a good job" because a lot of my critiques of the films have to do with directorial choices in addition to script adaptation ones.

FurryDice

October 5th, 2011, 5:17 pm

I didn't like a lot of the characterisation.

I think Kloves did poorly on the characterisation and interplay between the trio, especially when it came to Ron. Far too often, the movies made it seem like a Harry/Hermione duo, and Ron as the useless sidekick. In particular, the end of HBP, where Ron sits in the background sulkily, while Harry and Hermione discuss the future, and in PoA, when Ron is reduced to a whimpering idiot instead of the brave young man who stood on a broken leg to defend a friend.

It was after that (PoA) I stopped taking the films seriously in relation to characterisation. They're just not the characters I love from the books, and I would have liked to have seen Dan, Rupert and Emma given the chance to take on the characters closer to the way they are in the books.

The scripts don't allow Hermione any flaws or mistakes, and take from Ron's best moments. And as for Harry - "But I am the Chosen One" was a real facepalm moment for me. Along with "Who wants me to open it?!"

snugglepot

October 5th, 2011, 8:25 pm

FurryDice

October 5th, 2011, 8:42 pm

I agree with every word you wrote, but want to add that he ruined Ginny's characterisation, as well!
He cut almost all her scenes and/or lines and in their place put some absolutely stupid ones. The tying Harry's shoelace or that horrible "Open up you" when feeding him.
How hard would it have been to have Ginny say something like;
"Are you hungry Harry? Want to try one of these cakes I made?"

Good point - the movies could and IMO, should have given some better development to Harry and Ginny's relationship. Some sweet, rather than forced and weird-feeling moments between Harry and Ginny. And that shoelace scene was cringy, IMO.

WildFloo162

October 6th, 2011, 12:05 am

Heres the thing about film though, where in a novel you can read thoughts, have feelings described to you, etc. a film relies on nothing but dialogue and the actors body language. A character will never be as fully realized in film the way they can be in writing. That's the main reason books are always better then their film adaptations. Film are great and as much as I read, I love films like nothing else in the world. (well except my son... but you know.) Films can be powerful pieces of work, that inspire lives and change our views. But it's a film as a whole. It's a mix of all the parts. A novel an open you into a (fake) persons head and create characters that you can love and identify with and understand more than a film ever can. That said, I think the films do a great job of characterization. Where you see Ron as sulking, I see an adolescent male whose friend has just went through a horrible ordeal and lost someone close to him, which of course, would make most adolescent males uncomfortable. Luckily, there's a girl around, who is much better at that kind of comforting thing. Same thing with the beautiful scene of Hermione hugging Harry goodbye right before he goes to the forest to accept his fate. The look between Ron and Harry conveys more than a hug could have ever. To me at least.

GingerCat1

October 6th, 2011, 3:43 am

I agree with every word you wrote, but want to add that he ruined Ginny's characterisation, as well!
He cut almost all her scenes and/or lines and in their place put some absolutely stupid ones. The tying Harry's shoelace or that horrible "Open up you" when feeding him.
How hard would it have been to have Ginny say something like;
"Are you hungry Harry? Want to try one of these cakes I made?"

I always worried (even in the books) that Harry had a bit of a oedipus complex going on with Ginny and the shoe lace scene certainly didn't help the matter.

bellatrix93

October 6th, 2011, 6:40 am

Heres the thing about film though, where in a novel you can read thoughts, have feelings described to you, etc. a film relies on nothing but dialogue and the actors body language.

Totally agree. But even with dialogue and body language, I felt that the films completely failed to capture Ginny's character. When in the (later) books Ginny is portrayed as an open and quite a brave person (whether fans agree with/like this or not), in the films she is more of a meek, shy and introverted person; body language, dialogue and all. They did not include any of the moments that would have made her the same person she is in the books, in my opinion. The only attempt that was made, was her Shut up in the Quiddutch training,and for me it seemed out of character and unnatural for the character they were building in the four previous films.

JamesPotter17

October 6th, 2011, 2:39 pm

Good point - the movies could and IMO, should have given some better development to Harry and Ginny's relationship. Some sweet, rather than forced and weird-feeling moments between Harry and Ginny. And that shoelace scene was cringy, IMO. This I totally agree with! I was and am all for Harry and Ginny. It upset me when they took his and Ginny's kiss and gave it to Ron and Lavender. They had no real use for that much of a change. That is like saying "Oh this is a series about Harry Potter, it's about his best mate Ron"! The way the book portrayed Ron and Lavenders relationship, would have been fine for film(even in an adaption). You can tell that JKR was intermingling both relationships between H/G and HR/R in HBP. But she was still putting more emphasis on H/G because it was Harry's relationship. That is why the dialogue between him and Ginny at the end of HBP was so important. How they changed it in HBP kinda made it look like Ginny was giving up on Harry again like she had in the previous books. And the kiss in the RoR basically made it look like they just had some feelings for each other, and that she wanted to kiss him. No like a kiss between Boyfriend and Girlfriend that one sees when one or both are going into dangerous situations.

Heres the thing about film though, where in a novel you can read thoughts, have feelings described to you, etc. a film relies on nothing but dialogue and the actors body language. A character will never be as fully realized in film the way they can be in writing. That's the main reason books are always better then their film adaptations. Film are great and as much as I read, I love films like nothing else in the world. (well except my son... but you know.) Films can be powerful pieces of work, that inspire lives and change our views. But it's a film as a whole. It's a mix of all the parts. A novel an open you into a (fake) persons head and create characters that you can love and identify with and understand more than a film ever can. That said, I think the films do a great job of characterization. Where you see Ron as sulking, I see an adolescent male whose friend has just went through a horrible ordeal and lost someone close to him, which of course, would make most adolescent males uncomfortable. Luckily, there's a girl around, who is much better at that kind of comforting thing. Same thing with the beautiful scene of Hermione hugging Harry goodbye right before he goes to the forest to accept his fate. The look between Ron and Harry conveys more than a hug could have ever. To me at least. Again i agree with this! You can't put everything a books has in it. But still some of the changes that they made to dialogue(IMO) were hugely unnecessary. And some stuff they added in took the trio drastically out of character! i have already addressed some of the dialogue they took out. But for OotP where Harry and Dumbledore are talking after the Department of Mysteries, they took alot out of the series and that point! And that was nothing but dialogue between Harry and Dumbledore There Dumbledore explains the prophecy( and it also links back to where in PoA Dumbledore states that Trewlaney has had 2 real prophecies). This take out Dumbledore explaining how even he can make mistakes. It takes a lot away from Dumbledore's character.
As for Hermione Hugging Harry before he goes to the forest. Honestly why did they have to change that? In the series Both Ron and Hermione were always against some of the stuff that Harry felt he had to do. Add this in to him basically walking to his death and believe he won't come back, neither of them would have let him do it, because neither of them would have understood why he had to do it. Hermione (being the brainiac she has been) would have tried to find another way to disembodied the horcrux. And Ron well would have most likely more understood why Harry had to do it.
This is where I say they took them out of character! Even if Harry would have explained why he had to do it, they still would have fought as hard as they could to keep him from going. yes this added dialogue, but it was unnecessary and it added stuff that didn't need to be added. Yes the final movie is a smash hit, I honestly did enjoy, but taking that much control on it and taking the trio so out of character isn't acceptable. JKR wrote everything as she did, because it played and important part in the series or the book. So that basically means she(as she should) would know exactly why she put that there, she made it blinding obvious in the book!

Totally agree. But even with dialogue and body language, I felt that the films completely failed to capture Ginny's character. When in the (later) books Ginny is portrayed as an open and quite a brave person (whether fans agree with/like this or not), in the films she is more of a meek, shy and introverted person; body language, dialogue and all. They did not include any of the moments that would have made her the same person she is in the books, in my opinion. The only attempt that was made, was her Shut up in the Quiddutch training,and for me it seemed out of character and unnatural for the character they were building in the four previous films. Agreed! All I would say is that I can see why they did that, since Ginny had always been shy around Harry. But in the later books she did become more brave. So again this is them drastically taking a character and changing them for no reason. In words you could say she was meek( meaning striving for a commiment greater than oneself, not weak) because like Harry and the rest of her family, she was willing to go through pain and agony( and even death if need be) for the greater good. That was a big trait between the Weasley Clan( still even in Percy) that they always strove to do what was best and what was right.
Making Ginny seem shy, and kinda sneaky(best way I can think of putting it) would be Ginny in her first couple of years at Hogwarts. After year 4 and on, she was really a strong, brave and courageous young lady.

WildFloo162

October 6th, 2011, 2:55 pm

Ginny doesn't bother me in the films because to me she's such a non entity to me in the books as well. If anything, neither of the universes ever convince me that Harry and Ginny will marry when older. Ron and Hermione? yes to both the novels and the films. I buy their relationship. But Harry marrying his second girlfriend he dated in school? I don't know man... lol.

As for the OoTP stuff at the end being mostly cut, I get it. It's disappointing as a fan of the books for it to be cut, but you have to think that no filmmaker is keen to have a ten minute nothing but dialogue scene with two people sitting there. As a couple of people have said the first rule of screenwriting is show it, don't tell it. The less dialogue the better in a film (that sounds weird, but it's true!). A long dialogue heavy scene is a tough sell, (you do see them sometimes, sure.) especially in a children's movie. You have to remember, kids are still the target audience for Potter in any form. Sure both the movies and the books matured as they went on, but they still have to be mindful that seven year olds are going to be in the audience. seven year olds want to see magic stuff and some fighting. They don't want to see some old dude and Harry talk for a hour. *shrug*

Also, as for the hug (and lack thereof) being uncharacteristic, I guess you could say it would be for the book Hermione and Ron, (although I don't know if I would.) but I don't think in anyway is it uncharacteristic for film Hermione and Ron. They're different characters and their characterization is very on par throughout the films, even if there are some differences between them and the novels. Again, the films aren't and can't be the novels. You have to accept each as their own universe. Your never going to get an adaptation in another medium that is exactly what it was in another. lol. I like this thread. It's fun!

JamesPotter17

October 6th, 2011, 3:03 pm

I agree with you(including about it being fun)! But as always I'm a purist(not a much as at one time).
And in OotP I never really imagined Harry as sitting down and talking, I imagined him as pacing, while he screamed. Also he broke some of Dumbledore's things, and in the book I didn't seem most of them being near a sitting place. Even in the way they made his office in the movie's, he would have to be up and about to at least break one thing in Dumbledore office.
Also it wanted just be them sitting, it would also be(IMO) Dumbledore repairing his things(using reparo which is magic). And also I think how cool he was would have caught the attention of 7 year olds, and how he never shouted.
But that is just me!

Wab

October 6th, 2011, 3:21 pm

GingerCat1

October 6th, 2011, 3:42 pm

Plus the book reinforced the old Wizard prejudice with none of the major characters marrying or even having significant relationships with Muggles.

Ron is pureblood and Hermione is muggle born which is essentially the same as a white man marrying a black woman 70 years ago. Now it means nothing but back then it was a huge deal.

Wab

October 6th, 2011, 4:09 pm

Ron is pureblood and Hermione is muggle born which is essentially the same as a white man marrying a black woman 70 years ago. Now it means nothing but back then it was a huge deal.

Actually, no. Even in the early books the only wizards who obsess over the nature of blood are a small minority of fanatics.

Most take the sanguine view that if they didn't marry Muggles, they would die out.

But the point remains, not one of the major characters has a relationship with a Muggle reinforcing the prejudices which the books supposedly criticise.

NightStrike91

October 6th, 2011, 4:47 pm

I think WildFloo162 said something clever about the "out of character" issue. I do agree many characters seem out of character if you compare it to the books, but I think Kloves managed to keep a pretty good consistency on this matter through the film series.

As I stated in an earlier post, I think the films on there own make for some very good ones but if we keep on comparing the films with the amazing books there will of course be dissappointment.
Actually, no. Even in the early books the only wizards who obsess over the nature of blood are a small minority of fanatics.

Most take the sanguine view that if they didn't marry Muggles, they would die out.

But the point remains, not one of the major characters has a relationship with a Muggle reinforcing the prejudices which the books supposedly criticise.
I understand your point but ,IMO, Harry obviously didn't have any muggle friends and I'm under the impression Ron and Harry were Hermione's first real friends and that she didn't have alot muggle ones. And Harry and Hermione did spend all except the summer months at Hogwarts. Now when would Harry or Hermione, or Ron for that matter, have had time and chance to get into a relationship with muggles?

Additionally, even though most wizards and witches didn't have a problem with muggles, surely muggles would have trouble accepting wizards and witches. There are very few examples in the series (if any) of a muggle marrying a wizard/witch. The "mudblood" most of the times come from muggleborns.

No it makes no sense to me that just for the cause of stating an example have them, after 7 years together, end up with random muggles. If you do not mean to change the whole series and bring in muggles from the beginning, then I apologize.

Wab

October 6th, 2011, 5:58 pm

Goddess_Clio

October 6th, 2011, 7:39 pm

Harry and Ginny weren't important in the grand scheme of things. But I didn't buy any of the final partnerships. Ron and Hermione made sense in the context of the books and films but I don't believe that Hermione would have married anyone (let alone Ron, I just don't think it would have been enduring) in her twenties.

Plus the book reinforced the old Wizard prejudice with none of the major characters marrying or even having significant relationships with Muggles.

I agree with you here - I don't think Hermione would have run off and gotten married so young, even if she was as madly in love with Ron as we are meant to believe. But that's just an opinion. I think they were all married too young.

I also agree with an earlier poster about the awkward moments between H/G in the films - the shoe tying scene (ick), the "harry, come zip up my dress" moment (puh-lease, Kloves.), the "wanna try my cakes" moment when Harry is at the burrow... eek, ick and yikes! Although, the christmas at the burrow moment could have been improved by setting the scene in a more party atmosphere rather than off alone in the sitting room and making Ron a little more aware of what was going on rather than blandly offering harry another pie and then dopily munching it himself.

The most successful H/G moment wasn't even an exchange between them, it was Ginny's reaction to Hermione's comment to harry that Cho couldn't keep her eyes off him in the Hog's Head.

I also agree with earlier posters that Kloves' characterisations were off. They were the best in the first two films, where the films most closely followed the movies, but I think after that Kloves could have done a little more research/character study from the books. Even if he didn't get it spot on in movie three by movie four and on, with the books that had been released to that date, he should have had the characters honed in and tracking the books a little better.

I don't have a problem with him making changes to some scenes, I mostly question what he chose to add which changed the characterisations like Hermione introducing Luna in the film - just because she's a know-it-all doesn't mean she's a know-everybody. What would have been the problem with them getting into the carriage and Luna introducing herself? Maybe someone in the carriage could have s******ed "You mean Looney Lovegood" as a way of introducing how she was ridiculed.

WildFloo162

October 6th, 2011, 8:20 pm

Ron is very aware of what he's doing when he sits between Harry and his sister.

FurryDice

October 6th, 2011, 10:00 pm

Where you see Ron as sulking, I see an adolescent male whose friend has just went through a horrible ordeal and lost someone close to him, which of course, would make most adolescent males uncomfortable.

But what would be wrong with making it a scene for the trio as a united front, and not another Harry/Hermione moment? IMO, there are far too many scenes in the movies where Ron is irrelevant and it's more of a Harry/Hermione team. This meant that I was delighted but shocked to see the scene in DH Part 1 where Ron is the one who stops Harry from leaving.

After year 4 and on, she was really a strong, brave and courageous young lady.

Even in GoF, she was ready with a comeback when Harry and Ron were laughing about her going to the ball with Neville.

I think WildFloo162 said something clever about the "out of character" issue. I do agree many characters seem out of character if you compare it to the books, but I think Kloves managed to keep a pretty good consistency on this matter through the film series.

The kind of consistency though is what I dislike - I don't like the dumbing down of Ron, I don't like Hermione being so boringly perfect, I don't like Harry being such an attention-seeker in the movies. They're not the characters I love in the books, and that's just speaking about the trio, for starters.

Although, the christmas at the burrow moment could have been improved by setting the scene in a more party atmosphere rather than off alone in the sitting room and making Ron a little more aware of what was going on rather than blandly offering harry another pie and then dopily munching it himself.

Fits with the dumbing down of Ron for the movies. :sigh: It seems like in the movies, Ron does nothing but eat and miss the point.

I don't have a problem with him making changes to some scenes, I mostly question what he chose to add which changed the characterisations like Hermione introducing Luna in the film - just because she's a know-it-all doesn't mean she's a know-everybody.

That's how I see it, too. I completely understand that some scenes have to be changed or dropped for the screen. I have much more of a problem with the characterisation being changed. The characterisation works beautifully in the books, where the trio are an actual trio.

KalpsGriffindor

October 7th, 2011, 5:25 am

Goddess_Clio

October 7th, 2011, 3:38 pm

I personally think Steve Kloves didn't do justice to the book. It is obvious and even JKR agrees that movies can't give life to the book as a whole as it is restricted by time. Still I think he could have done better on Deathly Hallows.Esp I didn't like the climax very much.The fight between Voldermont and Harry was made very artificial. Also Neville was portrayed in a different way. He was like a emerging hero in the final part of the book. But the movie gave him a cinematic version.

I'm not going to really comment on the DHp2 ending as i've only seen the film once in theaters opening weekend, so it's been a while. I will say, though, that I wasn't that impressed with the climax of the book. I wanted something more dramatic than "and they circled like wolves in the night, endlessly circling like tigers ready to strike" or however it was written. But that's not really a comment for this thread.

Ron is very aware of what he's doing when he sits between Harry and his sister.

I disagree. He looks gormless in the film. If they had intended for him to be aware I would have hoped for a knowing look or a less dopy look on his face or something.

Fits with the dumbing down of Ron for the movies. It seems like in the movies, Ron does nothing but eat and miss the point.

Yes, I agree, though too bad for Rupert - he was done a disservice in the films. Everyone was talking about how in DHp1 that he finally gets his moment to shine but I thought it was too little too late - because of his lack of involvement as a character in the rest of the films that this moment didn't resonate the way it did in the books.

darklordspal

October 8th, 2011, 3:48 am

I'm thinking in terms of the 19 years between the finale and the epilogue. For me it's impossible to think that the trio especially Hermione had nothing to do with the Muggle world (actually it's a problem I have with the entire series).

In the epilogue Ron is learning to drive and taking a muggle driving test. I think that is JKR's hint that there is some mixing between wizard and muggle culture that may have not happened before.

Also, I seem to remember JKR saying that muggle technology doesn't work in the wizarding world and visa versa, otherwise why couldn't someone just put a bullet in Voldemort? :shrug: The radio that Ron listens to apparently can't be picked up in the muggle world otherwise there would have been tanks, planes, and artillery defending Hogwarts. :eyebrows: So that is another reason why wizards and muggle have problems developing relationships.

Back to the subject of Kloves and the movie's interpetation of Harry Potter...

I really like Hermione. She is a great character and readers can learn alot from her. She is smart, confident, caring and develops into a really strong and interesting character. But...

I feel she is the least developed of JKR's main characters. I say this b/c she doesn't go throught the same trials other characters do. Almost all of the characters have some terrible tragedy or mistake that has a profound effect on them. Dumbledore has the death of his sister, Snape the death of Lilly, or Neville's parents and Luna's mother dying before her eyes in a magical accident.

With Harry its when he leads his friends into the DOM and Sirius dies and with Ron it is when he faces his own failures and weaknesses when he destroys the locket. Hermione doesn't go through that kind of catharsis in the books, IMHO.

And in the movies it is even more pronounced. She's like a young version of Dumbledore. JKR says Hermione is a borderline genius. If that is how JKR sees her alter-ego in the stories then I stand by my opinion her ego may have gotten the best of her by DH. And I think Kloves may have played up to that (commonly called kissing up to the boss :lol: ). But that is just my speculation.

The only time Hermione is really shaken in the movies is when her heart is broken by Ron\Lavender in HBP. But in the books she is stoic and vindictive, not the sobbing mess in the movies. Honestly, I would have prefered them showing Hermione giving Ron the cold shoulder but instead Kloves chose to make her into a victim. Something I don't see in the books and something a person like Hermione would not have tolerated. She does not see herself as a victim...ever. IMHO. :)

And of course I think Kloves turned the trio into Harry\Hermione with a sidekick. This started with POA and continued on until DH where you finally see Ron making a strong impression, such as when he stops Harry from leaving the Burrow and when he disarms the wizard chasing them in the MOM or gets praise from Tonks. But most of the time in POA, OoTP and HBP he is generally whinny and clueless; something I don't see in the books and makes the trio unbalanced and the movies less effective and powerful than they could have been IMHO.

Wab

October 8th, 2011, 6:06 am

Also, I seem to remember JKR saying that muggle technology doesn't work in the wizarding world and visa versa, otherwise why couldn't someone just put a bullet in Voldemort?

Only electricity and then only electrical appliances as the Tube functions perfectly well with wizards aboard and the lights in Kings Cross station apparently work perfectly well when crowds of magical folk walking across the concourse. Other forms of Muggle technology from photography to internal combustion engines work fine for wizards.

darklordspal

October 8th, 2011, 5:06 pm

Only electricity and then only electrical appliances as the Tube functions perfectly well with wizards aboard and the lights in Kings Cross station apparently work perfectly well when crowds of magical folk walking across the concourse. Other forms of Muggle technology from photography to internal combustion engines work fine for wizards.

I agree that the prohibition of muggle tech from the wizarding world is very hard to understand or support logically. Someone with a .50 caliber machine gun would have made short work of the Deatheaters and giants in the Battle of Hogwarts. :lol:

But this JKR's world and she makes the rules.

IMO the wizarding world is simply an allegorical extension of the real world in which JKR makes observations and comments about how we should and should not live our lives.

Wab

October 8th, 2011, 8:41 pm

But this JKR's world and she makes the rules.

The sign of a good writer is that they obey the rules of the world which they create. JKR often fails the internal logic test.

KalpsGriffindor

October 9th, 2011, 7:18 am

Lotoc_Sabbath

October 9th, 2011, 8:57 am

The sign of a good writer is that they obey the rules of the world which they create. JKR often fails the internal logic test.

I must disagree: in the HP series we have very few plot holes in relation to all the other series of literature. JKR studied her books in every detail in my opinion and you can see that since it took her 17 years to write them all, I'm sorry really but JKR always stays in the rules she created for the wizarding world, really I can't see where she went out. Obviously she made two or three mistakes indeed but they aren't anywhere near the functional to the story/plot and they don't even bother you if you don't go searching for them.

CastlePhoenix

October 9th, 2011, 2:23 pm

But to jump back to the topic I must say I really won't agree with Kloves version of harry/hermoine because it was never like that in the book. They were always friends.

And they were friends in Kloves' version as well. So I guess I'd have to agree with both versions.

Lotoc_Sabbath

October 9th, 2011, 3:07 pm

And they were friends in Kloves' version as well. So I guess I'd have to agree with both versions.

I partially agree with KalpsGriffindor, not about the fact that they were always friends because they had some bickering too but I agree on the fact that their friendship wasn't perfectly portraied. Stop a moment and lets analayze the whole thing a moment. Firstly we need to start by saying that Hermione isn't the real 100% Hermione of the book and just from that you can see their relationship in the films suffers from it. Then look at it through the whole saga, in general and compare the books to films, I really notice some distortion in the films, don't get me wrong because I find that how Kloves wrote it was very very good though different to the book, in the books the freindship with Hermione is much more "strict" imo, if you think of it we have very few moments of their true relationship when they aren't talking about Voldemort, Horcruxes, War or School buinsness, moments when we see them as real friends standing up for each other or talking about their own buiness with each other (ie: talking about Cho, Harry comforting Hermione after R/L kiss). Kloves uses in 80% only these moments to make their freindship seem much more 'adorable' and likable by people who would often get annoyed by Hermione's behaviour in situations like the Firebolt buisness in PoA.

Goddess_Clio

October 10th, 2011, 10:52 pm

I really like Hermione. She is a great character and readers can learn alot from her. She is smart, confident, caring and develops into a really strong and interesting character. But...

I feel she is the least developed of JKR's main characters. I say this b/c she doesn't go throught the same trials other characters do. Almost all of the characters have some terrible tragedy or mistake that has a profound effect on them. Dumbledore has the death of his sister, Snape the death of Lilly, or Neville's parents and Luna's mother dying before her eyes in a magical accident.

With Harry its when he leads his friends into the DOM and Sirius dies and with Ron it is when he faces his own failures and weaknesses when he destroys the locket. Hermione doesn't go through that kind of catharsis in the books, IMHO.

And in the movies it is even more pronounced. She's like a young version of Dumbledore. JKR says Hermione is a borderline genius. If that is how JKR sees her alter-ego in the stories then I stand by my opinion her ego may have gotten the best of her by DH. And I think Kloves may have played up to that (commonly called kissing up to the boss :lol: ). But that is just my speculation.

The only time Hermione is really shaken in the movies is when her heart is broken by Ron\Lavender in HBP. But in the books she is stoic and vindictive, not the sobbing mess in the movies. Honestly, I would have prefered them showing Hermione giving Ron the cold shoulder but instead Kloves chose to make her into a victim. Something I don't see in the books and something a person like Hermione would not have tolerated. She does not see herself as a victim...ever. IMHO. :)

And of course I think Kloves turned the trio into Harry\Hermione with a sidekick. This started with POA and continued on until DH where you finally see Ron making a strong impression, such as when he stops Harry from leaving the Burrow and when he disarms the wizard chasing them in the MOM or gets praise from Tonks. But most of the time in POA, OoTP and HBP he is generally whinny and clueless; something I don't see in the books and makes the trio unbalanced and the movies less effective and powerful than they could have been IMHO.

Wow, never thought of it that way but so true! Even her moment with the horcrux (hufflepuff's cup) was handled in an off-handed one-liner whereas Ron's was given a full description... whoa. mind blown.

I agree that Hermione's character undergoes the smallest transformation throughout the series, or at least is the most internal of the transformations. Whereas Ron goes from the 'unwanted' sixth son to a mature(ish, lol) and confident leader and Neville goes from an insecure and cowardly boy to a strong, daring individual leading a revolution, Hermione begins the series as a bookish girl with no friends to... a bookish girl with friends. Okay, cheap shot, but kind of true if you boil it down. Her journey seems more like a development of her people skills.

I think, also, that Hermione was given the role of the overemotional girl in the films because she was the only girl (in the trio) and it was kind of a cheap gimmick to coax emotion out of the audience. I don't think book-Hermione would have gone to pieces like movie-Hermione did, as evidenced by the cold-shoulder of Ron. Hermione is ruled by her head; it came down to the bad characterizations in the movies.

JamesPotter17

October 11th, 2011, 2:29 pm

Wow, never thought of it that way but so true! Even her moment with the horcrux (hufflepuff's cup) was handled in an off-handed one-liner whereas Ron's was given a full description... whoa. mind blown.

I agree that Hermione's character undergoes the smallest transformation throughout the series, or at least is the most internal of the transformations. Whereas Ron goes from the 'unwanted' sixth son to a mature(ish, lol) and confident leader and Neville goes from an insecure and cowardly boy to a strong, daring individual leading a revolution, Hermione begins the series as a bookish girl with no friends to... a bookish girl with friends. Okay, cheap shot, but kind of true if you boil it down. Her journey seems more like a development of her people skills.

I think, also, that Hermione was given the role of the overemotional girl in the films because she was the only girl (in the trio) and it was kind of a cheap gimmick to coax emotion out of the audience. I don't think book-Hermione would have gone to pieces like movie-Hermione did, as evidenced by the cold-shoulder of Ron. Hermione is ruled by her head; it came down to the bad characterizations in the movies.
I agree with this as well. Hermione wouldn't have become a sobbing mess after Ron/Lavender scene, Yes she sent the birds after him, but after that she merely began to just blow him off, as did his own sister. So I get that point.
What I guess I never saw was the Harry/Hermione with a sidekick side of it. The only time I really see it where it seems to be that Ron is clueless and it is Harry and Hermione is before he leaves, and him and Harry are going at it. Other than that I never saw it where it seemed to be him just tagging along and being the normal Ron, jumping into brilliance when he needs to or going into super saver mode and helping to save the day.

Arcus

October 11th, 2011, 6:04 pm

I agree with you here - I don't think Hermione would have run off and gotten married so young, even if she was as madly in love with Ron as we are meant to believe. But that's just an opinion. I think they were all married too young.

I believe the choice to marry them off young was designed to mirror the relationship that Harry's parents had. The children were, for similar reasons, very much like the trio during their first time at Hogwarts. I would agree that it may have all been a bit too neat. But the vast majority of Harry Potter fans wanted that kind of closure I think.

JamesPotter17

October 11th, 2011, 6:13 pm

mrfutterman

October 11th, 2011, 6:57 pm

I think, also, that Hermione was given the role of the overemotional girl in the films because she was the only girl (in the trio) and it was kind of a cheap gimmick to coax emotion out of the audience.

I wish I had a fiver for every time Hermione is depicted with eyes brimming with tears.... in the books.

Goddess_Clio

October 11th, 2011, 7:48 pm

I wish I had a fiver for every time Hermione is depicted with eyes brimming with tears.... in the books.

Point taken. =^J

I still wish, tho, that Movie-Hermione was a more rounded character whose first reaction isn't always to start crying. Book-Hermione seems, to me, to have a larger range of reactions.

There is something to be said for reigning it in, putting on a brave face. I've heard it said several times (I think once even by chris columbus about COS) that you don't want to applaude at the end of your own movie for fear of the audience not having the same reaction. Just like seeing someone trying to keep from crying can often spur a more emotional response from someone that watch that person bawling their eyes out. Lots of examples out there, just can't think of any this second.

rosieechan

October 11th, 2011, 9:22 pm

I partially agree with KalpsGriffindor, not about the fact that they were always friends because they had some bickering too but I agree on the fact that their friendship wasn't perfectly portraied. Stop a moment and lets analayze the whole thing a moment. Firstly we need to start by saying that Hermione isn't the real 100% Hermione of the book and just from that you can see their relationship in the films suffers from it. Then look at it through the whole saga, in general and compare the books to films, I really notice some distortion in the films, don't get me wrong because I find that how Kloves wrote it was very very good though different to the book, in the books the freindship with Hermione is much more "strict" imo, if you think of it we have very few moments of their true relationship when they aren't talking about Voldemort, Horcruxes, War or School buinsness, moments when we see them as real friends standing up for each other or talking about their own buiness with each other (ie: talking about Cho, Harry comforting Hermione after R/L kiss). Kloves uses in 80% only these moments to make their freindship seem much more 'adorable' and likable by people who would often get annoyed by Hermione's behaviour in situations like the Firebolt buisness in PoA.

Completely agree!

I can never understand where people are coming from when they say that Harry and Hermione's relationship in the movies was like in the books. No...I disagree, it really wasn't. It left out too much of the conflicts in their friendship and it made Harry and Hermione seem way more nice and sensitive to each other. That's probably why people get the idea that it's more HHr in the movies - because first of all, Dan and Emma have a lot of chemistry on screen. And secondly, their friendship was implied much more adorable and cute and aww they would have been great together. At least, that's the feeling I get when I watch the movies. The book friendship definitely is not like the movie friendship. When I'm reading Harry and Hermione's interactions in the books, about 80% of it is them stubbornly arguing with each other. In the movies, almost ALL of it is Harry and Hermione comforting or playfully bantering with each other. No stubborn issues there.

darklordspal

October 12th, 2011, 3:44 pm

I believe that they would have gotten married at a young age. That is kinda the rage these days. Also just because, as with their parents, although Voldemort was dead, their still would have been that lingering dread, which causes so many people to do crazy things. I also think that after what they had gone through, Meaning Harry/Ginny Ron/Hermione, that they would look at marriage as nothing new, they had already had their struggles, Ginny at school while Harry is on the run and the basically at the top of the hit list for the entire Wizarding world. Hermione and Ron are with him, Ron being splinched and then running out. They had basically gone through so much together it was kinda inevitable that they would not put a ring on each others fingers.
IMO of course

My wife of 31 years and I were married when we were 21 years old. Marrying young does work for some (at least I consider that young nowadays). :D

And I agree that there are bonds forged between the Trio. You see life-long friendships between those who have shared truama, like combat. Its a bond few others can understand. They've seen you at your best and your worst and accept you in spite of that b\c they understand.

Goddess_Clio

October 12th, 2011, 4:39 pm

And I agree that there are bonds forged between the Trio. You see life-long friendships between those who have shared truama, like combat. Its a bond few others can understand. They've seen you at your best and your worst and accept you in spite of that b\c they understand.

True that they do have a bond that is beyond normal friendship but from what we know about Harry and Ginny, especially, makes me wonder about them be married comparatively quickly. In the epilogue their middle child is 11 and have one older and one younger. Say the older kid is entering his third year, which means he's 13-14 so Harry and Ginny were married for up to four or five years if they were married immediately after the end of the books. At that point, they have spent a grand total of 'a few weeks' together romantically. If they weren't married right away, becasue, let's face it, harry would have had a pretty busy time after the death of Voldemort (being such a publicly known figure AND the chosen one AND the person who killed Voldy) they may not have gotten to spend too much time together.

After a year together they might have discovered that they just didn't work together (obviously they did because they were married 19 years after the fact) - I dated one of my best friends for about a year before we realized that we didn't work together as a couple and it wasn't because we didn't love each other or care for each other, there just wasn't that sustained romantic chemistry after the first couple months. It happens. And I wonder at Harry and Ginny getting married based on their few weeks together at Hogwarts and the hectic time together after the fall of Voldemort and whether they really had much 'normal' time together to see if they could make it work AFTER the initial infatuation stage of relationships (their time together at Hogwarts was tainted by the 'infatuation' stage - those exciting first weeks or months together - and their time after the fall of Voldemort would have been emotionally charged and really public - it might have taken a year for that to all calm down)

Just my opinion, obvioulsy they worked together as a couple or they wouldn't have been married in the epilogue.

I believe that they would have gotten married at a young age. That is kinda the rage these days.

I don't know if you could say getting married young is the rage 'these days'. People at all points in time get married at all different ages. My own impression is that more people seem to be waiting until thier mid-thirites to get married and start families. Kudos to those who DO get married young and can make it work because that's hard to do!

Hes

October 12th, 2011, 4:43 pm

Right we are once again moving away from Steve Kloves's job as writer and are discussing the relationships of the characters. This isn't the thread for that kind discussion.

darklordspal

October 13th, 2011, 12:18 am

What I guess I never saw was the Harry/Hermione with a sidekick side of it. The only time I really see it where it seems to be that Ron is clueless and it is Harry and Hermione is before he leaves, and him and Harry are going at it. Other than that I never saw it where it seemed to be him just tagging along and being the normal Ron, jumping into brilliance when he needs to or going into super saver mode and helping to save the day.

When I saw the movies I would often cringe at how Kloves would take Ron's lines or actions and give them to Hermione in POA, OoTP, and HBP. Taking Ron's line of "You'll have to kill us all" in POA or where in HBP Ron is the one who loses his temper over Umbridge's torture of Harry out of the books and giving those to Hermione or when Ron stays back when Hermione comforts Harry in the movies such as the "crying scene" in POA or the end of HBP while Ron hangs back while Harry and Hermione talk about destroying the Horcruxes(sp?).

I think this was a clear effort to downplay Ron's character (and Grint's acting?), IMHO.

I remember an interview where Grint says he is alot like Ron but not quite as scared or cowardly. So I think he realized what was going on as well.

Alucinor99

October 13th, 2011, 12:53 am

When I saw the movies I would often cringe at how Kloves would take Ron's lines or actions and give them to Hermione in POA, OoTP, and HBP. Taking Ron's line of "You'll have to kill us all" in POA or where in HBP Ron is the one who loses his temper over Umbridge's torture of Harry out of the books and giving those to Hermione or when Ron stays back when Hermione comforts Harry in the movies such as the "crying scene" in POA or the end of HBP while Ron hangs back while Harry and Hermione talk about destroying the Horcruxes(sp?).

I think this was a clear effort to downplay Ron's character (and Grint's acting?), IMHO.

I remember an interview where Grint says he is alot like Ron but not quite as scared or cowardly. So I think he realized what was going on as well.

This is there from the start though - in the book PS, vs film PS during the devil's snare part - it is Hermione who figures out how to beat it in both versions, but with help from both Harry and Hermione. It's Hermione who loses her cool in this scene, not Ron. And Ron gets a line 'lucky Harry doesn't lose his cool in a crisis(in the book it's Harry who tells Hermione to light a fire)' whereas in the film Ron says 'Lucky we didn't panick' after panicking.

I suppose this is off topic though...

GingerCat1

October 13th, 2011, 1:08 am

This is there from the start though - in the book PS, vs film PS during the devil's snare part - it is Hermione who figures out how to beat it in both versions, but with help from both Harry and Hermione. It's Hermione who loses her cool in this scene, not Ron. And Ron gets a line 'lucky Harry doesn't lose his cool in a crisis(in the book it's Harry who tells Hermione to light a fire)' whereas in the film Ron says 'Lucky we didn't panick' after panicking.

I suppose this is off topic though...

Its not off topic as it is another example of Ron's character being downplayed or made to look worse than he was in the books and in turn making either Harry or Hermione look better.

In CoS for instance Ron was the one to describe what a mudblood was and how stupid the term was but in the movie his lines were either given to Hermione or Hagrid. Then there is the big one where Ron and Harry go into the forbidden forest looking for the spiders. In the book yes Ron was scared but he strengthened his resolve and went in anyway because he wanted to help Hermione. In the movie as soon as Ron entered the forest he practically started crying and telling Harry he wanted to go back seemingly not caring that what they could find out could help Hermione. The whole sequence just made Ron look more cowardly and less caring of Hermione than he was portrayed in the book.

JamesPotter17

October 13th, 2011, 5:14 pm

Its not off topic as it is another example of Ron's character being downplayed or made to look worse than he was in the books and in turn making either Harry or Hermione look better.

In CoS for instance Ron was the one to describe what a mudblood was and how stupid the term was but in the movie his lines were either given to Hermione or Hagrid. Then there is the big one where Ron and Harry go into the forbidden forest looking for the spiders. In the book yes Ron was scared but he strengthened his resolve and went in anyway because he wanted to help Hermione. In the movie as soon as Ron entered the forest he practically started crying and telling Harry he wanted to go back seemingly not caring that what they could find out could help Hermione. The whole sequence just made Ron look more cowardly and less caring of Hermione than he was portrayed in the book.
I agree with this, Throughout the movies Ron's( and others) lines were taken and given to either Hermione or other characters. Throughout the books he basically becomes braver and braver. He finally has the strength to overcome the Locket and chop the crude out of it! In the movie's they make him look like the friend who can't do anything. Yes he stood up to Seamus in the Movie, but they didn't make him a prefect which was part of what made him move brave and helpful in OotP(may have put that wrong). The trio were basically always about the same and equal in what they did. Harry was the leader and so he was the bravest and went off of his gut instinct, yes it got them in trouble, but it also saved them on more than one occasion. Hermione was the book smart and intelligent one, that would solve all the big problems and find stuff from the past that would help them. She knew the most magic and so she could cover them with it when they needed extra protection magically. And Ron was and brave and took certain sacrifices and chances. That was just in his nature.

darklordspal

October 13th, 2011, 6:47 pm

I agree with this, Throughout the movies Ron's( and others) lines were taken and given to either Hermione or other characters. Throughout the books he basically becomes braver and braver. He finally has the strength to overcome the Locket and chop the crude out of it! In the movie's they make him look like the friend who can't do anything. Yes he stood up to Seamus in the Movie, but they didn't make him a prefect which was part of what made him move brave and helpful in OotP(may have put that wrong). The trio were basically always about the same and equal in what they did. Harry was the leader and so he was the bravest and went off of his gut instinct, yes it got them in trouble, but it also saved them on more than one occasion. Hermione was the book smart and intelligent one, that would solve all the big problems and find stuff from the past that would help them. She knew the most magic and so she could cover them with it when they needed extra protection magically. And Ron was and brave and took certain sacrifices and chances. That was just in his nature.

My Gosh, I never realized they had cut the school Prefect bit from OoTP until you just posted this! :yuhup: I must be getting old.

I realize they had alot to cover in the movies, but couldn't they have implied Ron could be a responsible person just once in a while? :grumble:

JamesPotter17

October 13th, 2011, 9:22 pm

My Gosh, I never realized they had cut the school Prefect bit from OoTP until you just posted this! :yuhup: I must be getting old.

I realize they had alot to cover in the movies, but couldn't they have implied Ron could be a responsible person just once in a while? :grumble: Yea they cut both of them(Ron and Hermione) being prefects, So that meant they would have had to cut that part from when Harry is questinoing Dumbledore after the MoM. Cause here he ask him why he didn't make him a prefect, and Dumbledore basically said he already had so much on his shoulders with being balck listed by Fudge, and having everyone turn against him that Voldemort couldn't have come back. And he said that is why he chose to make Ron and Hermione prefects to give him the protection he needed.

Wimsey

October 14th, 2011, 12:17 am

Yea they cut both of them(Ron and Hermione) being prefectsTrue, but as that was never relevant to the stories or the plots, so, why keep it? Putting stuff in a script (adapted or otherwise) that is irrelevant to story or plot is bad script writing. (It also had nothing to do with buying Harry extra protection: Dumbledore's reasoning was simply that Harry had enough on his plate without the added duties of prefecture.)

As for Ron getting "braver and braver" throughout the series (whatever one might mean by "brave"), that simply never happened. Ron was never exactly a coward (well, OK: the entire Lav-Lav thing was pretty cowardly!), but he was always quite insecure: and he was just as insecure in Prince as he was in Stone. Even in Hallows, what gets him to destroy the Locket is not valiant bravery so much as jealous rage: it's the sight of Harry and Hermione lewdly kissing after taunting Ron about his inadequacies (all of which were borne from Ron's insecurities).

So, again, this is faulting Kloves for sticking with the source material instead of what one wishes that the source material had been. If Rowling had wanted Ron to be this valiant #2, then she would have made him one, and not the guy who was revenge-dating Lavender Brown, acting like a Neandertal towards his sister, requiring placebo steroids before Quidditch, or never asking out Hermione as late as the 6th book. By making Ron just clueless instead of spiteful in Prince, Kloves actually made Ron look a bit better than Rowling did, actually!

Wab

October 14th, 2011, 12:40 am

BrianTung

October 14th, 2011, 12:43 am

And the book further demeans Ron as he didn't get the prefecture on his own merits but because DD decided the worthy recipient had enough to deal with.

Hey, he's still second best! :)

I do tend to think that book Ron has a bit more to do than film Ron. But by and large, I think Kloves did a very good job on a tough assignment. I like all the films, though they all have moments when I'd rather look away. My favorite is probably DH1.

GingerCat1

October 14th, 2011, 1:06 am

darklordspal

October 14th, 2011, 4:39 am

True, but as that was never relevant to the stories or the plots, so, why keep it? Putting stuff in a script (adapted or otherwise) that is irrelevant to story or plot is bad script writing. (It also had nothing to do with buying Harry extra protection: Dumbledore's reasoning was simply that Harry had enough on his plate without the added duties of prefecture.)

I agree with your interpetation that Dumbledore was trying to lessen the pressure on Harry in the books.

I don't agree that building up Hermione at the expense of Ron is relevant. That is simply bias. Just as I have a bias against Klove's apparent desire to make Ron appear less important then I believe he is to the true point of JKR's entire story arc. It smacks of...well...snobbery, IMHO. As I've said in the past it strikes me like how the Malfoys enjoyed making fun of those of "lower status".

I agree that alot of Ron's problems are self-inflicted, but that is true of almost all the other main characters in JKR's world (except for Hermione I would argue). But I've already mentioned how Hermione being JKR's alter-ego may have affected her judgement concerning that, IMHO. :lol:

As for Ron getting "braver and braver" throughout the series (whatever one might mean by "brave"), that simply never happened. Ron was never exactly a coward (well, OK: the entire Lav-Lav thing was pretty cowardly!), but he was always quite insecure: and he was just as insecure in Prince as he was in Stone. Even in Hallows, what gets him to destroy the Locket is not valiant bravery so much as jealous rage: it's the sight of Harry and Hermione lewdly kissing after taunting Ron about his inadequacies (all of which were borne from Ron's insecurities).

In the book the H\Hr kiss isn't implied as lewd so I assume you are talking about the movie in that instance. Also in the books Ron isn't portrayed as the coward we see in the movies. I really think Kloves and the directors saw this as amusing or entertaining. I see it as being really condescending toward Ron's character and undercutting his importance.

Ron is truly brave in PS and to a lesser degree in COS. After that his character takes a downward slope until DH.

And I really don't agree that Ron's one big personal success in DH, destroying the Locket, is really just "jealous rage". That really seems to be stretching to find flaws in Ron's character, IMHO. :err:

So, again, this is faulting Kloves for sticking with the source material instead of what one wishes that the source material had been. If Rowling had wanted Ron to be this valiant #2, then she would have made him one, and not the guy who was revenge-dating Lavender Brown, acting like a Neandertal towards his sister, requiring placebo steroids before Quidditch, or never asking out Hermione as late as the 6th book. By making Ron just clueless instead of spiteful in Prince, Kloves actually made Ron look a bit better than Rowling did, actually!

I interpete the source material differently than you and Ron's importance to it and the story arc in total.

I don't want to turn this into a competition to see who was worse, Ron or Hermione; but Hermione (in the books) is no bearer of sweetness and light. I think calling Ron a Neanderthal would be equivalent to calling Hermione a nag, which is unfair to both characters IMHO. They both have their ways of showing they care about others. They are both "overly pushy" in their own ways.

In the books neither of them were above "revenge-dating" or trying to make the other jealous. And Hermione has her moments of what I would consider ammoral failings or hypocrisy. She's only human, after all...:lol:

I think Kloves may have forgotten that. He seems to have quite a crush on Hermione, IMHO. :lol:

Wab

October 14th, 2011, 6:00 am

He was insecure but there is a big difference between being insecure about your own abilities and being a coward. Ron was never described as being more scared in any given situation than either Harry or Hermione

Oh yes he was. Particularly when confronted with a spider of any size.

GingerCat1

October 14th, 2011, 7:18 am

Oh yes he was. Particularly when confronted with a spider of any size.

Thats different and you know it. I was talking about life threatening situations like when they got stuck in Devils Snare, when they were in the Dept of Mysteries, when they were attacked in the cafe and all the other dangerous situations they were in.

Wab

October 14th, 2011, 7:24 am

It's not different. Ron was frightened of spiders and it was particularly evident when Aragog sicced his brood on Harry and Ron. Or doesn't that count as life-threatening?

jcsites

October 14th, 2011, 7:31 am

^ This. I completely agree with everything you said.
I hate the fact that Ron is diminished in the movies. And I know Kloves is a big fan of Hermione and all, but seriously?

I agree with you too. Why did Ron was diminished in the movie?

GingerCat1

October 14th, 2011, 8:12 am

It's not different. Ron was frightened of spiders and it was particularly evident when Aragog sicced his brood on Harry and Ron. Or doesn't that count as life-threatening?

Yes and in the book Ron sucked it up and went anyway because he wanted to help Hermione. In the movie Ron spent the entire time close to tears and asked Harry several times if they could go back. Book Ron was a lot braver than movie Ron was as movie Ron didn't seem particularly interested in saving Hermione and was much more keen on saving himself.

Book Ron showed true courage that day as it takes a lot of courage to take on your ultimate fears like that.

darklordspal

October 14th, 2011, 3:23 pm

I agree that Hermione's character undergoes the smallest transformation throughout the series, or at least is the most internal of the transformations. Whereas Ron goes from the 'unwanted' sixth son to a mature(ish, lol) and confident leader and Neville goes from an insecure and cowardly boy to a strong, daring individual leading a revolution, Hermione begins the series as a bookish girl with no friends to... a bookish girl with friends. Okay, cheap shot, but kind of true if you boil it down. Her journey seems more like a development of her people skills.

I think, also, that Hermione was given the role of the overemotional girl in the films because she was the only girl (in the trio) and it was kind of a cheap gimmick to coax emotion out of the audience. I don't think book-Hermione would have gone to pieces like movie-Hermione did, as evidenced by the cold-shoulder of Ron. Hermione is ruled by her head; it came down to the bad characterizations in the movies.

Completely agree...:agree:

FurryDice

October 14th, 2011, 5:15 pm

[ The book friendship definitely is not like the movie friendship. When I'm reading Harry and Hermione's interactions in the books, about 80% of it is them stubbornly arguing with each other. In the movies, almost ALL of it is Harry and Hermione comforting or playfully bantering with each other. No stubborn issues there.

I agree. IMO, the movies prioritised making Harry and Hermione's friendship more playful and relaxed than it actually was. I think this was done at the expense of the trio's relationship, Harry and Ron's friendship, and Ron and Hermione's relationship.

When I saw the movies I would often cringe at how Kloves would take Ron's lines or actions and give them to Hermione in POA, OoTP, and HBP. Taking Ron's line of "You'll have to kill us all" in POA or where in HBP Ron is the one who loses his temper over Umbridge's torture of Harry out of the books and giving those to Hermione or when Ron stays back when Hermione comforts Harry in the movies such as the "crying scene" in POA or the end of HBP while Ron hangs back while Harry and Hermione talk about destroying the Horcruxes(sp?).

Me too! It really put me off the movies. One of my favourite things about the books is the trio as a unit - each of them are essential to the trio - each of them brings something. In the movies, Ron is pretty much written as a hanger-on. The scene in DH1 where Ron persuades Harry to stay was something I never expected to see from Kloves.

In CoS for instance Ron was the one to describe what a mudblood was and how stupid the term was but in the movie his lines were either given to Hermione or Hagrid.

Another example of Ron's lines being given to Hermione. The movies diminish the trio as a unit, IMO. It actually made much more sense for Ron to explain this - it was a cultural thing, rather than something Hermione would find explained in a textbook - just as the Beedle the Bard tales were something Hermione wouldn't come across, because she wouldn't be looking for wizarding fairy tales.

I don't agree that building up Hermione at the expense of Ron is relevant. That is simply bias. Just as I have a bias against Klove's apparent desire to make Ron appear less important then I believe he is to the true point of JKR's entire story arc. It smacks of...well...snobbery, IMHO. As I've said in the past it strikes me like how the Malfoys enjoyed making fun of those of "lower status".

I think you make a valid point - I think there is a certain snobbery or bias to the movie-versions - almost going against the message of the books that choices are more important than abilities, that what a person grows to become is more important than what they are born.

Ron is truly brave in PS and to a lesser degree in COS. After that his character takes a downward slope until DH.

Movies or books? Because I thought one of Ron's bravest moments was in PoA, telling a man he believed to be a crazed murderer that he would have to kill all three of them to get to Harry.

In the books neither of them were above "revenge-dating" or trying to make the other jealous. And Hermione has her moments of what I would consider ammoral failings or hypocrisy. She's only human, after all...:lol:

I agree. The books show both Ron and Hermione making mistakes in their relationship. Kloves' version has Hermione as the wronged one, making no mistakes herself.

Yes and in the book Ron sucked it up and went anyway because he wanted to help Hermione. In the movie Ron spent the entire time close to tears and asked Harry several times if they could go back. Book Ron was a lot braver than movie Ron was as movie Ron didn't seem particularly interested in saving Hermione and was much more keen on saving himself.

I agree - there's a big difference, there. Book Ron was motivated to face his fears head-on, for Hermione's sake, whereas Movie-Ron was portrayed as helpless and reluctant.

Wab

October 14th, 2011, 5:39 pm

I don't agree that building up Hermione at the expense of Ron is relevant. That is simply bias. Just as I have a bias against Klove's apparent desire to make Ron appear less important then I believe he is to the true point of JKR's entire story arc. It smacks of...well...snobbery, IMHO. As I've said in the past it strikes me like how the Malfoys enjoyed making fun of those of "lower status".

It was, I suspect, because (despite what fangirls think) Rupert Grint (particularly in the first films) clearly lacked the screen presence of Dan and Emma so it was natural that they were given more screen time.

A similar thing was noticeable in early films when the adult characters had more time on screen than in the book because the kids didn't have the shops to carry the film.

There was also the not insignificant fact that he was not a good interview subject. Dan and Emma were better at selling the films off screen and so it made sense to give them a greater presence on screen.

GingerCat1

October 14th, 2011, 6:01 pm

It was, I suspect, because (despite what fangirls think) Rupert Grint (particularly in the first films) clearly lacked the screen presence of Dan and Emma so it was natural that they were given more screen time.

A similar thing was noticeable in early films when the adult characters had more time on screen than in the book because the kids didn't have the shops to carry the film.

There was also the not insignificant fact that he was not a good interview subject. Dan and Emma were better at selling the films off screen and so it made sense to give them a greater presence on screen.

Rupert was clearly the best actor of the trio and he could have portrayed book Ron easily if he was given the opportunity.

darklordspal

October 14th, 2011, 6:22 pm

Rupert was clearly the best actor of the trio and he could have portrayed book Ron easily if he was given the opportunity.

I agree with your opinion of Grint's acting. But there are many who see things as WAB does. I think some of that may have to do with how the director told Rupert to portray Ron, not b\c of a lack of talent on Rupert's part. In fact, I recall couple of articles here at Mugglenet over the years where the other actors in the series say Grint has the most natural talent for acting. I believe Thewlis (Lupin) said so as well as Matthews (Neville) reporting that he and Daniel Radcliffe felt Rupert had the best chance to develop into a really memorable actor.

While it is a matter of personal taste concerning who is the better actor of the trio, I have always felt Rupert was the more "natural" actor of the three.

I found Daniels acting in the first few movies a little "twitchy", like he wasn't sure what to do with himself; and Emma acted like she was trying to force the audience like her. By HBP most of that had disappeared. :)

Me too! It really put me off the movies. One of my favourite things about the books is the trio as a unit - each of them are essential to the trio - each of them brings something. In the movies, Ron is pretty much written as a hanger-on. The scene in DH1 where Ron persuades Harry to stay was something I never expected to see from Kloves.

:agree:

Another example of Ron's lines being given to Hermione. The movies diminish the trio as a unit, IMO. It actually made much more sense for Ron to explain this - it was a cultural thing, rather than something Hermione would find explained in a textbook - just as the Beedle the Bard tales were something Hermione wouldn't come across, because she wouldn't be looking for wizarding fairy tales.

:agree:

I think there is a certain snobbery or bias to the movie-versions - almost going against the message of the books that choices are more important than abilities, that what a person grows to become is more important than what they are born.

I strongly agree with this last one. That's why I feel they underestimated their audience.

Movies or books? Because I thought one of Ron's bravest moments was in PoA, telling a man he believed to be a crazed murderer that he would have to kill all three of them to get to Harry.

Movies.

One of my least favorite scenes in HBP is when Hermione is picked up by Grawp and Ron smacks Grawp's leg with a limb. For some reason they have Ron whimpering as he runs forward to protect Hermione. What's with that?

And if you compare Book-Hermione to Movie-Hermione, it's my opinion book-Hermione would have been screaming her head off if Grawp had picked her up rather than turning him into a trained dog with just a few stern words like they did in the movie. :shrug: :)

acciowinter

October 17th, 2011, 12:40 pm

you mean besides the fact that Kloves apparently hates Ron?

Ugh it just bothers me how he gives all the lines to Hermione (I do love Hermione don't get me wrong but just no) so Ron is just a stupid side kick in the movie always sitting dumbstruck in the background (see final scene of HBP for proof). As a huge Ron fan I just think he hasn't been done justice in the movie which I mainly blame on Kloves.

JamesPotter17

October 20th, 2011, 6:05 pm

avpmdracofan

October 21st, 2011, 1:19 am

Relationships aside, I was really disappointed with the third movie. He left out some major things (like who the marauders were), and he added in a lot of really unnecessary things (like the werewolf chase scene that wasn't in the book and takes up a good portion of the movie).

Also, some of the lines just didn't seem right, like when Hermione says, "Is that really what my hair looks like from the back?" and then Harry has to get her back on task. That's totally out of character; Hermione doesn't say stuff like that.

Wab

October 21st, 2011, 7:32 am

MasterOfDeath

October 21st, 2011, 9:03 am

In the end, who the Maruaders were is pretty much immaterial. The map is what matters.

What wasn't rectified was the big flaw from the book: Just how did the twin's (not the sharpest knives in the drawer) figure out the way to open the map?

The twins weren't the sharpest knives in the draw, really? They were brilliant and inventive and very powerful wizards who even got Hermione admiring their magic!

You interact with the map, the map talks to you. I could easily imagine the twins getting on with the personalities of the marauders embedded in the map, being cheeky with them and eventually discovering the secret. They probably would have "earned" the marauder's respect and the map would have revealed it's secrets to them.

GingerCat1

October 21st, 2011, 10:06 am

In the end, who the Maruaders were is pretty much immaterial. The map is what matters.

What wasn't rectified was the big flaw from the book: Just how did the twin's (not the sharpest knives in the drawer) figure out the way to open the map?

Another example of a person not understanding that getting low test scores doesn't mean that a person is stupid.

MasterOfDeath

October 21st, 2011, 10:10 am

Another example of a person not understanding that getting low test scores doesn't mean that a person is stupid.

Ron says in the first book that even though the twins are pranksters and rebels, everyone found them really funny and they got really good marks.

It's just by the time of their OWL year, they lost interest in academics. It wasn't a matter of intelligence but a matter of having other ambitions and dreams.

GingerCat1

October 21st, 2011, 11:17 am

Ron says in the first book that even though the twins are pranksters and rebels, everyone found them really funny and they got really good marks.

It's just by the time of their OWL year, they lost interest in academics. It wasn't a matter of intelligence but a matter of having other ambitions and dreams.

That is just one example. Another is Ron who because he had such low self confidence didn't believe he could get good test scores so he didn't bother trying.

There are many reasons why smart people can get bad test scores at to me it seems obvious that all the Weasley's were well above average when it came to raw intelligence.

Hes

October 21st, 2011, 11:33 am

peter333

October 26th, 2011, 10:16 pm

I think we once again are losing the topic here. Intelligence versus grades of the characters and plotholes aren't on topic. Steve Kloves and his scripts are the topic. And can we not make assumptions about others? Thanks.

Hi.
:wave:

I would like to add my 5 cents. I do not care that much about the directors and Kloves leaving out stuff. Sometimes even adding something is neccessary - like thoughts in Harry`s head must be said aloud.

Unfortunately I have a hard time forgiving Kloves what he did to the characters I love.

First of all:
Dumbledore. Yes. Dumbledore. I am sorry, but I love this guy. He is amazing, brilliant, genius, he is smart, he is a good guy, he is the smartest guy, not only is he the omniscient old dude, he is also cool, he duels like nobody does,
he respects EVERYBODY, he treats the weakest and the strongest, the most humble and most stuck up all the same, he treats us all like equals, he loves everybody,
he respects
everybody.
He is cool!
Book-Dumbledore, that is.
What happened to the Dumbledore in the movies?
First of all Dumbledore hardly explains anything to Harry in the King Cross scene.
Secondly, he did not really open up to Harry, he did not apologize to Harry, he did not cry - he did NOTHING whatsoever that made the scene BRILLIANT in the books. No explanation, no emotion, no CONNECTING with Harry. Just weird mumbling. The scene was not emotional at all. Whereas Rickman could make even the non-readers care, I did not care one bit about the Harry or the Dumbledore in King`s Cross. Sorry.
Third - and most unnerving - Dumbledore leaving just like that.
WHAT was up with that?
Why would ever a brilliant, always polite, always respectful, wise old wizard like Dumbledore just get up in the middle of the conversation and just walk away, smiling like a - well, smiling pretty creepy - and leave Harry calling after him?
Isn`t that - oh, I don`t know - rude?
Is that what we call manners?
This is something that bothers me every time when I think about DH 2 the movie.

Of course the whole script misses the point here - as Harry shouts out "What should I do?" Harry
is supposed to understand everything at that point. The movie makes him look like he does not really
know what to do - actually, he even admits that he does not know what to do :)

I am not done on Dumbledore just yet.
PoA.
Okay, in some ways PoA movie was fun. I enjoyed it, watched it more than once, definitely.
In other ways, however, it just trashed my favourite characters:

Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Sirius.
Hagrid was ok, and Snape did not get enough screen time.
Alan Rickman, actually, looked like he is the only one taking their role in this movie seriously.
The scene in the book
where Lupin and Sirius meet for the first time after 13 years is - brilliant! In the books, that is.
So full of suspense. So touching. So gripping! So climatic and shocking and sad!

In the movie - well, the whole audience in the theater was laughing. Gary Oldman (Sirius) was laughing. Lupin was smiling.
The kids sitting next to me were laughing. My classmates were laughing.
I was laughing.
The
guy who collects the tickets in the movies was laughing standing next to the entrance door.
Poor Rickman - the only serious guy in a world that laughs. :)

Well, that was not it. Harry and Hermione looked scared, yet determined during the action sequences.
They
looked both scared and brave while meeting Sirius, or
escaping the werewolf.

Ron, however, looked like he is not even sane. Everytime I see and hear him say the "Harry, he is the dog , he is an animagus" line,
I want to smack

the director,
or Kloves,
or Rupert Grint,
or J.K.Rowling,
or at least myself. Sorry for the strong words. But seriously.
The director and JKR for allowing this to happen,
Rupert for not pulling a normal face,
Kloves for writing the movie without the "Ron looks scared, in pain, yet smart and brave" line,
and myself for watching that moment again over and over. :(
Rupert points his finger and looks like a ....well like a ... whatever. :(

Let us look at the werewolf transformation scene - Hermione and Harry are supporting Ron so that he can stand on his feet.
Hermione, again, looks worried - yet somehow brave.
Harry looks scared, yet somehow brave. They both look like thinking of ways to get out of the situation.
Ron - looks like a - what is the nice word for that face? A doofas?
Rupert is not a bad actor.
He actually can make a decent scared yet brave face. So why, why,
why doesn`t he?

I forgave him in CoS. I mean, fine, spiders are his worst fear. But why did he turn into a complete coward in PoA?
Remeber SS? The chess scene? Right before Ron was struck down as a Knight, he look so very scared, yet so very brave! No stupid face there.

Back to CoS just for a sec:

Ron was almost fine in CoS movie. Almost. Except for the Howler scene. Excuse me - wasn`t he supposed to look embarrassed?
The book-Ron was embarrassed, not scared. Why on Earth would a wizarding kid look scared just because of a Howler?
In the book it was supposed to be an akwkard situation. It was not a life threatening spidery situation.
That kind of ruins the CoS movie for me.
Plus,
yeah, the scene where the Weasleys arrive in the Burrow with Harry. I can understand Harry looking around, seeing the place for the very first time.
But
why did they do the very same thing? Why didn`t they act like they are home? Just drop into an armchair and put your legs on the table or something!
Why did they look around like it is the first time they see the place?

Ok, enough with CoS...

Back to PoA.
(Oh, wait, Snape, protecting the kids with his own body! :) Getting cut, Hermione looking at him worryingly - so cool , so cute....- :) ok, moving on.)

Sum up : Ok, Sirius is being possesed with laughter.
Ron still looks like a wimp to me :(

Then - oh yeah.
The hospital scene.
Hermione says that Sirius is innocent. Ron says that Scabbers did it and then he rambles about how Scabbers used to belong to Percy and then Percy got an owl.
Is that supposed to be funny? How is Ron forgetting what is important funny?
In the book he was unconscious, true, but is this book-Ron`s way of thinking? Rumbling on about Scabbers when human live is at stake?
And then the worst part:

My beloved Dumbledore and Ron.
Dumbledore.
The one, who cares for all, respects everybody, understands people.
The one, who gave Ron the Delluminator.
Dumbledore, who knew, who understood Harry so well!
Dumbledore, who was so kind to the youngest muggleborns and to Fudge and to Umbridge and even to Voldemort.
This Dumbledore hits Ron`s wounded leg like 3 times and does not even notice he did something wrong?!!!!!

There are so many things wrong with that scene. Like:

1.) Hermione - why doesn`t she tell Albus to stop? She always steps in, when someone is being hurt(at least in the books she does). She steps up even to the higher authorities (the Winky interrogation proves this). She always bothers to protect Ron when someone teases him. Or at least, she acts supportive and comforting towards Ron.
Book-Hermione, that is.
Hermione in the PoA movie does not even care, that an old crazy man is hurting Ron`s already wounded leg!...
She does not even notice! She and Harry and Albus make it look like they matter and Ron does not. :(
Like Ron is some kind
of Disney animal sidekick, while Hermione is the Disney princess.

2.)Ron - how does he react to this? Does he look in pain? Sad? Shocked? Angry? Hurt?

No. He makes a stupid face. Again. His pain is - funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

3.)Dumbledore - would this ever happen to him? We all know Dumbledore`s mistakes were grand, just as his brilliant mind. He seldom commits an error.Though, when he does, it is a huge one.
He says so himself
In the OotP book.
He is so great that his mistakes, too are enormous and scary. He does not make small embarrassing mistakes like hitting accidentally a wounded child in the hospital.
What was up with that?
That is something Neville or Hagrid would do! NOT DUMBLEDORE.
I was
so offended I hate that scene ever since. It is so not funny to me.Sorry. I hate it.

People usually complain about Dumbledore being out of character in GoF, or later.
Well,
to me, it all started with his stupid, childish, ignorant disregarding of Ron`s hurting leg. And it all ended
in disregarding Harry at King`s Cross in the last movie and walking away rudely in the middle of the conversiation.
I am sorry if I ofended anyone. But the little things - those are the things which define how great a character is.

Just a few words left:
Harry and Hermione.
Harry looks like he doesn`t know what to do while being back in Time. Hermione takes the lead.
The book tells exact opposite - it was Harry who took the lead. I could forgive this change of pace, but not the beginning of the werewolf chase.
Harry: "Great, he is coming after us!"
Hermione: "Yeah, I did not think about that!" Turns, runs, Harry stares after her for a split second like he is too dumb to realize he should run,
then she yells: "Run!" and then, FINALLY, he runs.
What is up with that?
Most of the time it is like Harry does not really care or know what is going on.

And yeah - Hermione saying Ron`s lines in CoS and in PoA - You will have to kill us too...
Hermione
asking about how her hair looks like from the back...
Oh well.

I hate it, when someone destroys my favourite characters.
As
for Ron being useless in the movies and very useful and cool in the books - I agree, great injustice has been done to his character.

The last one:
Hermione , to me , is a bookish nerd, lovable, yet weird, up until GoF, where she is transformed
to a beautiful girl in a dress robe.
I imagine her like
a nerd that nobody looks at, but once she talks, everybody listens. In GoF, suddenly , everybody is shocked, that she
can look attractive, too. That is the book-Hermione.

However, the movie Hermione is this superpretty girl, who never
fights with Harry. Completely different girl :(

That is all for now.

Not enough respect was payed to the characters during making the movies. Oh well.

Have a nice day :)

Warlock27

November 5th, 2011, 9:16 am

I'll put it this way. I would enjoy the movies a whole lot more if they were about JK's actual trio, instead of Steve Kloves's golden duo and their ginger friend who follows them around.

I mean, I don't expect the movies to be exact replicas of the books, but how hard would it have been to stay true to the characters and their relationships? But no, Steve Kloves just wasn't objective enough to give the trio equality. It was always Harry and Hermione who got the focus, and Ron always got shafted.

And then there's the vilification of James Potter, while making Snape look like he wasn't at fault at all.

Lotoc_Sabbath

November 13th, 2011, 10:48 am

He was given a rear seat too Harry and Hermione, which he had his own talents that lent to the Trio( example he was the only of the trio that had been read the Tales of Beadle the Bard.) His pure blood is what made him an integral part of the trio. I mean all blood types are represented in trio. Harry(Half-blood) Ron(Pure-Blood) Hermione(Muggle-born). He was able to give and provide information that some pure-blood families would know about.

Indeed I think you centered the problem. All those parts in which Ron should have been the big guy were given to Hermione and made Ron look stupid and ignorant whist there were so many things that Ron did know and Hermione didn't. That's the issue. And Harry too seems out of his boundries: he isn't as ignorant as he should be about the wizarding world.

darklordspal

November 13th, 2011, 10:42 pm

peter333

November 20th, 2011, 6:16 pm

Something else that I'm disappointed in with Kloves besides how he treats the trio and the relationships is that he seems to fall into the old biases and attitudes that JKR seems to be arguing against in the HP series.

Having McGonnagall order all the Sytherins to the dungeons without giving them the chance to prove themselves was really over the top. She should have at least said something about how they have to make a choice.

Another is where he has Ron make light of the death of the Goblin in Gringott's vaults. Kloves just seemed to assume that since he was a Goblin then he deserved his terrible fate when in my opinion as an audience member I saw him as just doing his job.
It was was stereotypical casting and characterization that really disappoints me.

Agree completely.
The Slytherins being kept hostage? The one thing Harry explicitly says Dumbledore would not have done?
At least
the deleted scene, where Filch keeps them behind bars and they escape was not in the movie.:(

And I could not agree more on the Goblin scene.
Pretty sick message to the audience.

And again, it comes down to the CHARACTERS: The goblin dies innocently and the Trio does not even bother to save him? Come on, Harry saved Malfoy, spared Pettigrew,
Ron helped Harry to save Malfoy,
Ron did not abandon Lockhart in CoS,
how could they possibly not care, even joke about innocent Goblin dying because of them?

There are tons of examples for this in all the movies.
We do not see Kreacher change after he is being accepted and loved.
We do not ever see the Trio accept Neville and encourage him.
We do not see Harry step up to Rita Skeeter saying that it is OK for Hagrid to be a half-giant.
We never see Harry telling Luna and Neville they are cool at the beginning of HBP.

Furthemore, some of the messages are distorted in the movies.
I was pretty sick in GoF from Sirius and Dumbledore repeating stuff like
"Keep your friends close, Harry....You have got friends here, Harry..."

Sorry, but the books are not that cheesy.
Nobody ever talks aloud about friendship and how Harry should honor it.
Plus, the whole Sirius-in-the-fire scene.
I love this scene in the book. It explains a lot, Sirius is being very informative and he also lets Harry talk about how alone and frustrated Harry feels!

However, in the GoF movie, Sirius does NOTHING useful at all. He does not try to give Harry advice on the dragons. He does not explain Karkaroff or Berta. He
just says things like "...yeees..yeeess...very suspicious...oohh..keep your friends close Harry..."
That is pretty much the only advice Harry got from him and even that one was delivered cheesy.

:wave:

That is about it...
P.S.:
To me, Kloves does not only ruin the Trio, he also changes other characters (DUMBLEDORE) and mixes them up.
Like givng Dumbledores lines and actions that would fit Neville or Hagrid.