What are your movie pet peeves?

Maybe they wouldn't have been too time constrained to fit important things in if they weren't wasting time throwing in dance routines and other unneccessary things.

Why wasn't that necessary? How else do you show the fear and trepidation that some of the students have (including Harry) about the Yule Ball?

Rowling did not call the Yule Ball "The Unexpected Task" without reason. Although it is a C-plot, it was about bravely confronting the unknown. Harry having to ask out a girl and then dance in public (while wishing that he was not dancing in public with another girl) all was part of that bravery theme.

So, it was important to provide a buildup for that.


As for the sideplots, Queen Beruth is right: if the audiences did not remember Polyjuice Potion from CoS, then how can you expect them to remember these sideplots (whichever ones you meant)?

I do not like that there was no explanation of the marouders. Also, the ending to poa was wierd.

Why wasn't that necessary? How else do you show the fear and trepidation that some of the students have (including Harry) about the Yule Ball?

Rowling did not call the Yule Ball "The Unexpected Task" without reason. Although it is a C-plot, it was about bravely confronting the unknown. Harry having to ask out a girl and then dance in public (while wishing that he was not dancing in public with another girl) all was part of that bravery theme.

So, it was important to provide a buildup for that.


As for the sideplots, Queen Beruth is right: if the audiences did not remember Polyjuice Potion from CoS, then how can you expect them to remember these sideplots (whichever ones you meant)?

I agree, I loved the dance lessons. It was comical and showed the characters vulnerability.

I think what bugs me the most is that so much of the detail that makes the books great is left out. Along with about a third of the plot. And, it bugs me that they changed Hermione. Not so much her charater, but the way she looks. She was perfect in the first movie, but then she's been steadily getting less Hermione-ish, in my opinion, at least. I mean, some of it can be attributed to her growing up, I guess, but they've changed her more than that. I know, I know, they have to sell it, but it bugs me that they changed her. Harry and Ron are good, though.

I still picture a scruffier Hermione... I didn't think that in the movie there was much change from regular Hermione to Yule Ball Hermione. Also, nothing at all what I thought dress robes looked like.

Also, the ending to poa was wierd.

...And the ending to CoS wasn't?

Movies made from books are NEVER as good as the books. Nevertheless, seeing the books come to life on screen is awesome!!

...And the ending to CoS wasn't?
IT'S NOT HOGWARTS WITHOUT YOU HAGRID!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOPE NOT WEIRD AT ALL.

Oh wait...did you mean when Hermione and Hagrid walked out into the great hall like they were contestants for "The Bachelor"? THAT WAS NOT WEIRD.....NOPE NOT AT ALL.

Movies made from books are NEVER as good as the books. Nevertheless, seeing the books come to life on screen is awesome!!
Yeah..sometimes they turn out better! i.e. The Godfather

Why is it that people are constantly attacking the endings to CoS and PoA, but no one ever mentions PSS. The glee with which Dumbledore snatches the House Cup away from Slytherin, who never did anything particularly bad the whole movie, and who's head, Snape, was just revealed to have been a good guy all along, makes me really hate him (there was truely some fantasic grammar in that sentance.) I know that it happens in the book, but the way it's played in the movie makes me feel really sorry for Draco, not to mention all the nameless, blameless Slytherins. It leaves a rotten taste in my mouth.

Peeves not being in the movies is a big pet peeve...that was a bad joke....

Other than that, some more of my pet peeves are when Hermione pushes the hair out of her face in a I'm too busy all the time type of look. Don't ask...

It's no Hogwarts without you Hagrid...

Never better...

Some quotes...^^
One that really made me sick was in Prisoner of Azkaban. From the part when they enter the portrait of the Fat Lady singing (trying to be funny) to when the camera zooms out from Gryffindor Tower as we watch Neville, Ron, Hermione, Dean, and Seamus having a pillow fight. The whole scene sucked..

The almost total lack of Ginny. I know she isn't the main character but in PoA an unknown character got more lines than she did.

Neville fainting in herbology... They turned him into this idiotic boy and he's not, which I hope they will get right in OotP!

I agree a bit with Nevil; however, I think that GoF finally got Nevill right, as well as Fred and George... They have always been an issue with me. They were never better captured than in GoF so funny and true to the book.

I think most of my peeves have already been stated, but I'll reiterate anyway.

-Dumbledore is one of, if not the, most powerful wizards in the world. So shouldn't he wear clean clothes, and maybe wash his beard once in a while, and cut his nasty yellow fingernails?

-Starting in PoA, Hermione calling Ron "Ronald" all the time. Like fingers on a chalkboard to me.

-In PoA, who are all the random characters with the lines? The black kid in Divination? The skinny kid at the Shrieking Shack? Shouldn't that have been Dean Thomas and Goyle in those roles? And who is Nigel?

-Percy in CoS, at the Burrow. Percy is always supposed to be perfectly groomed with his smooth hair and wire-rimmed glasses. So what's up with the nighshirt and wild messy hair?

-All the Ron/Hermione shipping. When they didn't hug in CoS? Holding hands in PoA? Puh-lease!

-The wierd faces Ron makes. Why do they need to make him (or Neville) the butt of all jokes?

-All the Mexican aura in PoA. Yes, I'm aware Cuaron is Mexican, but he's making a movie about a BRITISH BOARDING SCHOOL. Maintain your focus!

-What was up with Lupin's whole speech about Lily? I don't remember him mentioning her once in the book. And I agree, lose the mustache.

-In PoA, it was Prof. McGonagall who told Rosmerta about James & Lily being betrayed by Sirius. Huh, the McGonagall in the books would NEVER gossip like that.

-"Show me yours and I'll show you mine." Huh? What was that all about? And why did Dumbledore comply?

hmmm... I know there are more...

Peeves not being in the movies is a big pet peeve...that was a bad joke....


You beat me to the punch line! :grumble: :rotfl:

I think most of my peeves have already been stated, but I'll reiterate anyway.

-Dumbledore is one of, if not the, most powerful wizards in the world. So shouldn't he wear clean clothes, and maybe wash his beard once in a while, and cut his nasty yellow fingernails?

-Starting in PoA, Hermione calling Ron "Ronald" all the time. Like fingers on a chalkboard to me.

-In PoA, who are all the random characters with the lines? The black kid in Divination? The skinny kid at the Shrieking Shack? Shouldn't that have been Dean Thomas and Goyle in those roles? And who is Nigel?

-Percy in CoS, at the Burrow. Percy is always supposed to be perfectly groomed with his smooth hair and wire-rimmed glasses. So what's up with the nighshirt and wild messy hair?

-All the Ron/Hermione shipping. When they didn't hug in CoS? Holding hands in PoA? Puh-lease!

-The wierd faces Ron makes. Why do they need to make him (or Neville) the butt of all jokes?

-All the Mexican aura in PoA. Yes, I'm aware Cuaron is Mexican, but he's making a movie about a BRITISH BOARDING SCHOOL. Maintain your focus!

-What was up with Lupin's whole speech about Lily? I don't remember him mentioning her once in the book. And I agree, lose the mustache.

-In PoA, it was Prof. McGonagall who told Rosmerta about James & Lily being betrayed by Sirius. Huh, the McGonagall in the books would NEVER gossip like that.

-"Show me yours and I'll show you mine." Huh? What was that all about? And why did Dumbledore comply?

hmmm... I know there are more...

I agree with everthything on you're list, especially the black kid in divination. Who was he?

-Dumbledore is one of, if not the, most powerful wizards in the world. So shouldn't he wear clean clothes, and maybe wash his beard once in a while, and cut his nasty yellow fingernails?

He also is a professor. Speaking as an academic, I can assure you that he looks like a lot of my older colleagues. (Fortunately, getting tenure did not alter my hygiene!)


-All the Ron/Hermione shipping. When they didn't hug in CoS? Holding hands in PoA? Puh-lease!

The Ron/Hermione shipping is pretty heavy in the books, beginning in PoA. JKR herself made note of the closing scene of CoS anticipating the relationship between the two.


-What was up with Lupin's whole speech about Lily? I don't remember him mentioning her once in the book. And I agree, lose the mustache.

The book never says that Lupin does not have a mustache.

Smart money is on this scene being the one including that foreshadowing that JKR has mentioned. JKR has very loudly NOT denied that Lupin also had a thing for Lily, and this scene provided some nice character development for Lily. One of the things that the PoA book does is provide us with a little background on Harry's parents (more James than Lily): this scene did both.


-In PoA, it was Prof. McGonagall who told Rosmerta about James & Lily being betrayed by Sirius. Huh, the McGonagall in the books would NEVER gossip like that.

McGonagal was there and party to it. Also, this was not gossip, but history. Besides, why waste Maggie Smith's talents by not using her? Having her and Fudge give the story instead of just Fudge made for better cinema and made some use of an outstanding actress.

When people know it's going to be a long movie, but they add useless stuff instead of putting in details..

I mean, the "I'm scared for you" scene with Hermione and Harry wasn't important as the Quidditch World Cup.

Dumbledore. The new one. Big no-no. I ish sorry if any of you guy are fans but the tie, and hat is really..making me irked...

LIke some other people said, Peeves. They should've put Peeves in. I needed a good laugh.

He also is a professor. Speaking as an academic, I can assure you that he looks like a lot of my older colleagues. (Fortunately, getting tenure did not alter my hygiene!)



Ah, but once you have been Phlogisticated, you will!

BurrowGhoul - i agree with most of your post except for this:
-All the Ron/Hermione shipping. When they didn't hug in CoS? Holding hands in PoA? Puh-lease!

Yeah, well it's called foreshadowing. There's a ton of it in the books. Maybe those exact *moments* weren't in the books, but there were other ones. A lot of them. Are you just a anti Ron/Hermione Shipper or do you not really see it?

Sorry, I like the movies. They aren't award winners to be sure, but the kids are adorable (except the twins in the first movie, that was some Bad acting!) and the older actors are wonderful. I did think that GoF skipped alot of scenes that would have been wonderful on the big screen. (The Quidditch game notably.) The screenplays could be a little less lame, but hey, they are writing mainly for children. So, too bad, so sad, adults can't have everything their way.

I decided to watch Sorcerer's Stone again, and I don't find much wrong with it. It's pretty good as a matter of fact. Oh, I don't care for the Quirrel character much, but then, he's not meant to be endearing.

I try not to compare the films too much to the books so I only have a few..

I think its a shame that so much changes through the films due to different directors being used. Like the stupid hats the pupils were wearing in the first films and Prof Flitwick having a complete upper body transplant etc.

I hate the way Lupin looks. I dont care about his facial hair, but I dont know why they chose to cast him looking like Richard from Keeping up apearances. Its the tired posture and the dreadful cardigans. Its really really hard imagining this character was once a Marauder. He has no spark whatsoever.

The fire scene in POA. Why oh why could Gary not have lent Cuaron his head for just a couple of hours to do that scene?

The whole dragon sequence from GoF. a)The fact that the dragon chases after Harry which was not planned and all just sit there happily waiting for the dragon to return with or without a bulging belly. b)Stupid dragon in the fact that it chases after Harry at all thus leaving its egg completely unprotected and surrounded by many more humans...? c)Scene too long.

Too much make up on Snape in the first film. He looks like a drag queen.

The kids acting in the first films but thats obviously unavoidable. It still gets to me though. (No excuse for David Thewlis appaling performance in PoA though)

Oh I could go on but Im making myself in a bad mood... Think HAPPY thoughts....

I mean, the "I'm scared for you" scene with Hermione and Harry wasn't important as the Quidditch World Cup.
Please, please tell me you're kidding.

When people know it's going to be a long movie, but they add useless stuff instead of putting in details..

I mean, the "I'm scared for you" scene with Hermione and Harry wasn't important as the Quidditch World Cup.


That scene does a lot - a lot more than the World Cup would have done. It establishes that Harry hasn't been working on the egg, leading into the Cedric scene a moment later; it's a little afterward to the Yule Ball about Hermione and Krum, simultaneously telling us that Harry doesn't fancy Hermione, despite her transformation (he laughs and teases her when she says Krum is "physical"); and it's a good way of reminding us of the danger of the Tournament, after we've had a break from it for a while. It's a linking scene, but it's an important one - it ties together a lot of plot threads, and leads us on from there. I'd say that's good writing on Kloves's part.

That scene does a lot - a lot more than the World Cup would have done. It establishes that Harry hasn't been working on the egg, leading into the Cedric scene a moment later; it's a little afterward to the Yule Ball about Hermione and Krum, simultaneously telling us that Harry doesn't fancy Hermione, despite her transformation (he laughs and teases her when she says Krum is "physical"); and it's a good way of reminding us of the danger of the Tournament, after we've had a break from it for a while. It's a linking scene, but it's an important one - it ties together a lot of plot threads, and leads us on from there. I'd say that's good writing on Kloves's part.
All of that, and I might also add that most of the audiences hate Quidditch. To include a World Cup would have been overkill and extremely groan-inducing.

People say that Hermione and Harry are being improperly foreshadowed in the movies. Why, then, do they complain when a scene clearly establishes Hermione as the mother-figure, not to mention serves several purposes for the movie, and suggest that it get thrown out for a pointless Quidditch match?

He also is a professor. Speaking as an academic, I can assure you that he looks like a lot of my older colleagues. (Fortunately, getting tenure did not alter my hygiene!)

The Ron/Hermione shipping is pretty heavy in the books, beginning in PoA. JKR herself made note of the closing scene of CoS anticipating the relationship between the two.


The book never says that Lupin does not have a mustache.

Smart money is on this scene being the one including that foreshadowing that JKR has mentioned. JKR has very loudly NOT denied that Lupin also had a thing for Lily, and this scene provided some nice character development for Lily. One of the things that the PoA book does is provide us with a little background on Harry's parents (more James than Lily): this scene did both.


McGonagal was there and party to it. Also, this was not gossip, but history. Besides, why waste Maggie Smith's talents by not using her? Having her and Fudge give the story instead of just Fudge made for better cinema and made some use of an outstanding actress.

I thought the title of this thread was "What are your pet peeves," not "What did you see in the movies that couldn't be explained?" :cool: Just because there's a possible reason for it doesn't mean I have to like it. :D

I hated the use of flashbacks in the films. In the first movie it was the one of Harry's parents being murdered and it was shown in that tacky RIGID slow motion. The second movie had that silly psychedelic distortion effect on the flashback of Ginny writing on the walls; ugh. And the fourth movie had that icky blur filter for the dream sequences which--were still obviously flashbacks. And although my homie Alfonso didn't use any cheezy flashbacks in his movie, he made up for it (AND THEN SOME) by ending the film with that moronic blurred freeze frame close up of Dan's face; .....

So Mr. Yates, PLEASE! NO flashbacks or experimentation with frame speed. Thank you.

I hated the use of flashbacks in the films. In the first movie it was the one of Harry's parents being murdered and it was shown in that tacky RIGID slow motion. The second movie had that silly psychedelic distortion effect on the flashback of Ginny writing on the walls; ugh. And the fourth movie had that icky blur filter for the dream sequences which--were still obviously flashbacks. And although my homie Alfonso didn't use any cheezy flashbacks in his movie, he made up for it (AND THEN SOME) by ending the film with that moronic blurred freeze frame close up of Dan's face; .....

So Mr. Yates, PLEASE! NO flashbacks or experimentation with frame speed. Thank you.

Completely agreed. The flashbacks always make me feel dizzy and I feel like I want to leave the room (That's one of the reasons I haven't seen PoA start to finish). The fourth wasn't quite so bad but the whole first task thing made me feel so out of it for the rest of the movie the theater still felt like it was swinging with the camera when it moved (have you noticed how much harder it is to lose the dizzy feeling in the dark? sorry).

What bugs me the most in the movies is all the information they leave out. Like in GoF the stuff that was left out was numorous. No Dursleys, Certain Weasleys, and house elves. That is just too much stuff and I haven't even named all the missing information.

Completely agreed. The flashbacks always make me feel dizzy and I feel like I want to leave the room (That's one of the reasons I haven't seen PoA start to finish).
Um...there were no flashbacks in PoA. The closest thing to such was Lily's scream...and I don't really understand how that could make you feel dizzy(though I don't get how flashbacks at all could make you feel dizzy...unless you are running around in a circle while watching the movie)

This may have already been mentioned, (I didn't go through all of the pages of this thread) but one "set" of things about GoF was irritating to me:

The way the Patil twins are BOTH in Gryffindor -- we know that Padma is actually in Ravenclaw. Where is Lavender? She's supposed to be the one pal-ing around with Parvati, not Padma. It's going to be a lot harder to introduce her as Ron's 'squeeze' in HBP because the movies-only audience has never 'met' her. :rolleyes:

The way they had these 'twins' (who aren't even really related to each other ;)) walking around as if glued together at the shoulders (until the Yule Ball, anyway). It was rather annoying to have to go through the whole "Hi, Harry" thing several times -- even though I know that it was set-up for Harry going "...Hey!..." and getting them as dates for him and Ron. :sigh:

This may have already been mentioned, (I didn't go through all of the pages of this thread) but one "set" of things about GoF was irritating to me:

The way the Patil twins are BOTH in Gryffindor -- we know that Padma is actually in Ravenclaw. Why does it matter? They just put them both in the one house to simplify things. It really is a change that doesn't matter.

It's going to be a lot harder to introduce her as Ron's 'squeeze' in HBP because the movies-only audience has never 'met' her. :rolleyes:

The movie audience never met Cho until GoF, and it worked perfectly fine.

I'm assuming your talking about the scene in the DADA class. I thought this was a mistake at first, but it's really not. At the start of the class, the audience views the class through the mirror-like door of the cabinet, which makes everything appear backwards. When the class ends, we go back to viewing the class through the door of the cabiet, so his scar would be backwards. Hope that made sense.

Yea, I know that, but I thought there was one or two scenes near the end where there is no scar.

Why does it matter? They just put them both in the one house to simplify things. It really is a change that doesn't matter.

The movie audience never met Cho until GoF, and it worked perfectly fine.
The title question is about personal pet peeves. Just because it was justified, doesn't mean that it doesn't still irritate me a bit.....:grumble:

Oh I agree about Percy, I think the nightshirt was a bit much. Good call on McGonagal too, since when did she turn into a gossip?

The guy who plays Snape is my Pet Peeve. x-x

thats a bit harsh... but i see your point..... i like how emmas hair is in the mvies (even though it is the opposite of what hermiones hair is supposed to look like) there acting... ya its not all that good but its getting better throughout the movies (personally, the best dan has acted in was CoS.) but the worst for me is when they leave tings out .... like in the third movie they really didnt put in much explaination on the whole story... like how Sirius got out of Azkaban, and how lupin, james, sirius, and wormtail were the bestest of friends.. and them being animagus.... thats what ticks me off..... but other than that... the movies are great!

(personally, the best dan has acted in was CoS.)
:wow: I thought Dan's acting was terrible in CoS, and though he was not great in PoA, he definetly had improved (with the exception of one scene).

and how lupin, james, sirius, and wormtail were the bestest of friends..

That's definetly in the film. Watch again.

It bothers me that not all of the actors have read the books! It's like you are part of a project that other people would kill to be a part of and you don't even research your parts!

Also the time of the movies bothers me! They need to be much longer, GoF has sooo many plot holes, if I hadn't read the book I would have been so lost. They showed Barty's dead body and then never explained what happened to him, it was just a quick image, and then the plot moved back to the triwizard tournament.

However, I am still very excited to see the 5th movie!

It bothers me that not all of the actors have read the books! It's like you are part of a project that other people would kill to be a part of and you don't even research your parts!


As long as the director has read the book, it doesn't matter if the actors have. The actor should work from the script, and the instructions of the director. If they have any questions about motivation, it should be obvious in the script, or the director should know. I doubt very much that actors reading the books would make any difference to performances. Look at it this way - neither Richard Harris nor Michael Gambon read the books. In my opinion, Gambon's performances have been generally better, with more depth and range to them, they have better suited the dramatic medium, and in many ways are closer to canon-Dumbledore than Harris's. The difference is, Gambon was working with better directors, who understood the medium of cinema, and knew what had to be done with Dumbledore in the movies.


Also the time of the movies bothers me! They need to be much longer, GoF has sooo many plot holes, if I hadn't read the book I would have been so lost. They showed Barty's dead body and then never explained what happened to him, it was just a quick image, and then the plot moved back to the triwizard tournament.


That didn't need to be explained, as it was very clear in the editing. We see Crouch have an argument with Moody, who flicks his tongue around. We see Crouch dead in the next scene. Then in the following scene, we see the flashback - and Crouch jr, arguing with his father, flicking his tongue. That's all the explanation you need - by this point, the audience has easily worked out that Moody is Crouch jr in disguise, and has killed his dad.

And the movies certainly do not need to be longer - PS, CoS and GoF are all too long as it is. If CoS was even longer, it would put me to sleep even sooner than it does now! The reason PS and CoS did not make as much money as WB expected, and were not popular with the general audience (the 90% who haven't read the books, and 98% who are not devoted fans), was because they were too long, and included too many irrelevent details and plot twists from the books that did nothing to further the story - eg, Norbert, the Polyjuice Potion (20 minutes in the middle of the film spent ruling out a red herring!). They learned from their mistakes in PoA, and made a good, tightly-plotted film, that told the story from the book in a cinematic way, and actually had no plot holes - fans just think it does because it doesn't explain everything, but it doesn't need to. Watch the film from an outsider's perspective, and there are no plot holes, no gaps in our knowledge that we need to understand the story. It's all very straightforward. Same with GoF. GoF was also criticised a little by the general audience for being too long, but it had a much better pace than PS and CoS, and it didn't drag as much, even with irrelevencies like Rita - which is why most people forgave it.

In the first movie Dan's right eye twiches at the weirdest moments? Has anyone else noticed that?:lol:

I accept that the movies aren't going to be near as good as the books. For the most part, I try to keep the two seperate in my mind...

But the thing that I dislike the most, mainly in GOF (POA just wasn't good... worry) is how choppy the movie is. It feels like they just took random scenes, filmed them, then put them together. All of the important information was just mumbled out by one of the characters.

For example, the Frank and Alice Longbottom and Neville's reaction the the Cruciatus (sp?) curse... that was only BRIEFLY mentioned at the trial.

and tons of other things

I wish they would/could make a movie and not just a sequence of unconnected scenes.

But I am really thinking that OotP is going to be the best yet. We shall see!

The one thing that really used to bother me was how Emma looked so different from what Hermione was supposed to be. She's more beautiful and they haven't made an effort to tone her down a bit. That's why I didn't think that Yule Ball scene made her look any different. She has always been beautiful. I liked her in the 1st part though. She looked really cute :)
I see people being really hard on actors. They aren't all that bad. I, for one, love Alan Rickman & Rupert Grint. Dan & Emma are also pretty good now. The one actor who didn't fit in at all was Michael Gambon. That infamous scene from GoF... What was that about? That was so unlike Dumbledore!

And yes the universal complaint! The time factor. They better make the movies longer.

What bothers me the most, that WB does it only for $$.
They could have put in much more effort for the fans & stayed truer to the books. (Say, 50/50 money/ fans)

Movies 1 & 2 were nice - clearly made for children.
The kids played fine.

Starting at the 3rd one, WB went 100% commercial. Emma became a sex star, Rupert - a complete idiot. Things added to movies at the expence of important subplots. (Don't tell me JKR like it. I'll tell you that somehow she also liked AND included in her book the story of the Maraduers and other fine details which Cuaron didn't find important enough)

Gambon's Dumbledore is not a Dumbledore. They could have casted a better actor for the role or should have developed the charecter approprietly. And dressed him as JKR did.

4th movie is better but has moments that annoy me to no end:
- Beauxbatons seems to be an academy of dance & of how to drive guys mad (just watch how they walk in)
- Ron did not as Fleur to the ball b/c he liked her behind, but b/c she was a veela
- Maxime was a beautiful & elegant woman, not a tastless bum waring who knows what.
- WB barely uses Rupert's talant b/c he is the clown
- Dan's only good scene is when he got back w/ Ceddric's body, the others are average or below average
- Emma's best scenes are where she yells - the owl one and the very best - after the ball. The rest are average or below average
- that noncence w/ dean told Parvati who told Seamus who told who knows what to who knows whom is crazy.
- The scene in the Griffindor common room after the 1st task is completely out of Harry's carachter. JKR's Harry would never do that.
- The whole subplot of Crouches & Moody + the last scene in Moody's office is just jumbled. If I haven't red the bood I would never figure out what happened. And flicking the tongue didn't help.

Ok, I vented!

- The whole subplot of Crouches & Moody + the last scene in Moody's office is just jumbled. If I haven't red the bood I would never figure out what happened. And flicking the tongue didn't help.
And yet the vast majority of the audience had no problem following what was happening.

I think in some cases, having read the book actually makes it harder to understand what was going on. I didn't understand the whole Mr. Crouch/Moody scene the first time I saw the movie, but that was because I though Mr. Crouch was under the Imperius curse, like he was in the book. It wasn't until my second viewing, when I realized that he was never under the Imperius Curse, that the exchange between the two made sense.

I get the movies, but then I feel that at times it is so much harder to follow knowing what happens in the book, because then I catch myself saying, "How could they have left that out of the movie?" Or "How could they have done that instead of what happens in the book?" The movies are awesome and I love them. The books are beyond amazing and I love them as well. I think we have to remember that books and movies are always going to be different and they have never been and will never be exactly like the book. Movies are a beautiful form of art that sometimes you just have to sit back and just take it in. Sometimes I wish that I could erase the books from my mind and just watch the movies without always questioning and judging them. It would be cool to see if I could really follow along with the whole story not knowing the ENTIRE, REAL story that you get when you read the books. I agree that there are certain things in the movies that I wish wouldn't have been left out, but then its a movie and its only allotted so much time that it would be absolutely impossible for everything to be included in the film. We just have to appreciate the films for what they are and be thankful that for many people who have seen the HP movies it hasn't been enough so they turn to the books because they enjoyed the movies so much. People have realized that for the real effect of what the story is and to really appreciate how amazing it is the books are the only thing that do it justice. Thanks Warner Bros. for the Awesome HP MOVIES!!!

Happy Posting! :D

What bothers me the most, that WB does it only for $$.
They could have put in much more effort for the fans & stayed truer to the books. (Say, 50/50 money/ fans)

Movies 1 & 2 were nice - clearly made for children.
The kids played fine.

Starting at the 3rd one, WB went 100% commercial. Emma became a sex star, Rupert - a complete idiot.

I'm going to assume your joking about Emma being a sex star, as if you are not that is one of the biggest exagerations ever. I can see your point though. Pink? What next? I bet she'll only be wearing a bra in Order of the Phoenix.

And Ron was a sidekick idiot in Chamber of Secrets too.

The actor's voices, especially Dan's. I imagine it completely different, I guess I picture it more man-ly. Yes, his voice is low and has matured, but it's just not a Harry voice for me. Actually, most things about Dan bother me.

Movie-Sirius bothers me too, only because I don't think Oldman is a fair representation of Book-Sirius. He's a good actor, just not how I imagined him to look.

In the first movie Dan's right eye twiches at the weirdest moments? Has anyone else noticed that?:lol:

That's weird! When?

Why the heck to they keep on moving and changing Hagrid's hut? In COS, it was just outside the castle on a flat grassy spot right up against the forbidden forest.

In POA, it had changed shape and size, and was all the way down some huge hill, much farther from the castle than the original hut.

???

AND, what's more, I just saw two photos from the set of OOP, where they're building YET ANOTHER Hagrid's hut - somewhere else again!

I wonder what happened to the original one, and why they didn't use it again. I think I liked the first one the best.



In the first movie Dan's right eye twiches at the weirdest moments? Has anyone else noticed that?:lol:

Actually, in the first FEW movies he blinks only one eye at a time. I think it must have been a muscular development thing, because as Dan has aged, he doesn't do it any more. Or only very slightly. I'll have to watch GOF again when it comes out this week to check for it.

I definitely noticed it, though - it was very obvious throughout the whole first movie especially. He would be listening to another character talk, and the camera would focus on his face waiting for a reply, and very slowly just one eye would blink, like some birds do, and then he'd say his lines.

Actually, I thought it was quite cute - a sort of "Harry-ism" that wasn't included in the books. He reminded me of a little blinky owl in those round glasses.

I thought this thread was about what our pet peeves at the movies????

I hate when people are texting during the moive. Can't they wait until after the movie is over??

Or when people are talking on the phone.
Or when lil kids talking louder than the movie.
Or when movie goers are trying to be funny during the movie.

I just like going to the movies and enjoy it!!
Is that asking to much???

- Beauxbatons seems to be an academy of dance & of how to drive guys mad (just watch how they walk in)
- that noncence w/ dean told Parvati who told Seamus who told who knows what to who knows whom is crazy.

:lol: Academy of Dance:lol: perfect description!
I loved that whole little sequence with Ron trying to explain that he was actually the one who told Harry about the dragons. Hilarious!

- Peeves being absent has annoyed me no end:grumble:
- I won't go into it but...HERMIONE'S BLOODY PINK DRESS!!

hermiones hair, and her pink dress.

My main pet peeves are the lack of description of Marauders background in PoA and some of the cheesy lines that have been stuck in there. There's heaps of little things that annoy me too but I won't go into all that.

I thought this thread was about what our pet peeves at the movies????
Nope, I just read the first post, it's definitely our pet peeves of the HP movies. :)

hermiones hair, and her pink dress.
:rolleyes: What bothers me more is how upset people are getting about this.

i agree about the lack of description in PoA.

you know, things that are out of character just kinda annoy me. its not important, but i notice it.

Peeves being absent has annoyed me no end

Totally agree...the first thing I thought about when reading book 5 was the movie and how many less oppertunities for comedy there are ("It unscrews the other way...") I also hate angry Dumbledore.

As for general movie going pet peeves...

Or when lil kids talking louder than the movie.

How about going to the movies later at night and still getting the parents taking their whinny kids and crying babies? And when they don't take them out of the movie when they start crying?

you know, things that are out of character just kinda annoy me. its not important, but i notice it.
Oooh, that bugs me too. Like Hermione's "Is that what my hair looks like from the back?" comment in PoA. Not cool. :no:

Oooh, that bugs me too. Like Hermione's "Is that what my hair looks like from the back?" comment in PoA. Not cool. :no:

yeah! that was so random!

There are only a little bit about movies I find peeve-able.

1) Replacing actors in follow-up movies, to which the new actor is no where near the capabilities of the first. This right here can make or break a film.

2) Book to movie story lines where the film's storyline is no where smiliar to the book and therefore the book shouldn't even have been credited in the first place. This makes me blue.

The trick is - go to see the movies late on a week night when the kids have to be in school the next day. Also - do NOT go opening night/week. Wait a bit, and it's much, MUCH more enjoyable, crowd-wise.

My husband and I usually only go to see movies on Tuesday nights, because the theater is almost always empty. Try it!

Characters I can't recognise :/

Oooh, that bugs me too. Like Hermione's "Is that what my hair looks like from the back?" comment in PoA. Not cool. :no:

Hmm, Am I the only one who doesn't mind that line? I know Hermione is a tomboy blah blah blah, but can't she have a bit of girliness in her? I mean as we saw in Half-Blood Prince, she isn't a black and white character.

The trick is - go to see the movies late on a week night when the kids have to be in school the next day. Also - do NOT go opening night/week. Wait a bit, and it's much, MUCH more enjoyable, crowd-wise.

My husband and I usually only go to see movies on Tuesday nights, because the theater is almost always empty. Try it!



Oh i wouldnt do that! I love to be in the crowd of harry potter fans. When the movie came, everyone was so excited!! You just feel the Harry Potter love =)
But yea, i think we canot say yet if they are bad ore good actors. We need to see them in other movies. It's just like Hilary Duff(DOnt Kill me Fans!) i really liked her in Lizzy mcguire, but now she only plays part like that. Could Hilary play a very very emotinal dramatic pshyco movie!? That makes you a good actor if u can play all sort of things.

Hermione's a tomboy:huh:
I don't mind that line at all.
Just because Hermione doesn't giggle and wear a short skirt doesn't mean that she isn't concerned about her appearance.
GOF(book) showed that she does want to look nice.

Oooh, that bugs me too. Like Hermione's "Is that what my hair looks like from the back?" comment in PoA. Not cool.
Hmm, Am I the only one who doesn't mind that line? I know Hermione is a tomboy blah blah blah, but can't she have a bit of girliness in her? I mean as we saw in Half-Blood Prince, she isn't a black and white character.


I love that line! And it's one of the very few add-ons that I DO like in that movie. ;)

They're all too emo, espescialy Emma Watson as Hermione.

They're all too emo, espescialy Emma Watson as Hermione.

Haha how r they emo!?

My pet peeve is consitancy in prop locations. If the staff is at an angle in scene 1 and in scene 3 it is sticking straight up. It just grinds on me. Because then I have to try and reconcile how it may have ended up straight or it ruins the hole movie by taking me out of the illusion.

I don't like it when they change little things even when it would be so EASY to just keep them like the books...
For example, when Harry gets on the Knight Bus in PoA and Stan asks him his name. How hard would it have been to make him say "Neville!" than "I didn't!" ughhhh.

Why couldn't Ron have said his line in the Shrieking Shack instead of Hermione?!

I know there's more...
Harry's eyes, of course.

And actually, I'm not that picky when it comes to the movies. I love the movies. And I understand how the 'movies will never be the same as the books' and everything. But sometimes there's those minor things that make me want to pull my hair out.

I have one movie pet peeve and no other....

The blasted tendency to end every Harry Potter movie with an excessive amount of cuteness and happiness.

In fact, maybe the peeve should be having the movies be excessive in happiness..

Whatever...But the endings and/or the tone of the films have always been too kid-friendly/positive for my taste.

That would be my only pet peeve...Well, maybe that and all of the negative comments about the trios' acting abilities...

I dont like the negitive comments about the childrens acting either.

Believe it or not, they are doing their best!

The only pet peeve i have about the film is the details they decide to put in, but then not explain in the end.

There are a lot of things that bother me about HP the movies, and I'm sure that there are things that bother you all. So what bothers you the most?

Here are my top 5:

1) The acting, as a whole, sucks. Sorry to all you Dan and Emma lovers, but I really do not think that the two can act. And with their characters being the 2 most important that just makes the whole movie horrible.
2) Everything is wrong. The miniscule details that are everywhere in the book are changed for the movies. I understand that some things have to be changed for adaption purposes, but when you change that much it just bothers me.
3) Most of the books are left out. Sure, there's the time issue, but I go see movies to enjoy them, not to watch the time while I'm in there. Just make them extra long. I'm sure all the HP fans wouldn't object to that.
4) They have changed the characters somewhat from how they are in the book. Just little things that I noticed that really bother me. Emma's hair isn't bushy. Did anyone else notice that at some points in the PoA movie there was no scar on Dan's forehead?
5) Some of the actors, to me, don't fit their characters. Most of them do, but some of them I think would do better in other roles or not there at all.

FINALLY! thank you. someone in this world agrees with me. as a die-hard hp fan, i dont understand how so many fans can like the movies so much. the plots are distorted, the characters are wrong, and the acting is HORRIBLE. i think it is a cheap way for people to get out of reading amazing books.

*and can i add a #6 to your list? the new dumbledore is 100% wrong. is it just me or is he way too angry, and some of the things he says i cant even follow...

Hmm, Am I the only one who doesn't mind that line? I know Hermione is a tomboy blah blah blah, but can't she have a bit of girliness in her? I mean as we saw in Half-Blood Prince, she isn't a black and white character.

No I didn't mind that line either. I thought it was funny. I just don't like it in movies when people overact.

FINALLY! thank you. someone in this world agrees with me. as a die-hard hp fan, i dont understand how so many fans can like the movies so much. the plots are distorted, the characters are wrong, and the acting is HORRIBLE. i think it is a cheap way for people to get out of reading amazing books.
Actually the movies opened me up to reading these amazing books. If I hadn't gotten hooked on SS and CoS and craved to find out what happened next I would have never bothered with the books.

FINALLY! thank you. someone in this world agrees with me. as a die-hard hp fan, i dont understand how so many fans can like the movies so much. the plots are distorted, the characters are wrong, and the acting is HORRIBLE. i think it is a cheap way for people to get out of reading amazing books.



People don't watch films as a way of getting out of reading books, cheap or otherwise. They watch films for entertainment. If they wanted to read the books, they would read the books.

There are a alot of things that bug me about the movies.
1. Too many things are taken out or put in different orders. What happened to Winky? Why did he get the Firebolt at the END of the third movie?
2. Each movie gets darker and darker. Why the heck does Hogwarts look so gloomy all the time?
3. Hogwarts keeps changing. Where did the bridge come from?
4. The new Dumbledore. They could have found a better replacement.
5. Things are incorrectly added. In GoF, Harry sees Crouch Jr. in the field. You have to be kidding me.

Well, funnily enough I read soooo little of these posts, sorry guys, kinda flicker into and out of these forums and rarely type what I want to.

Anywho, for the things I don't really like:
1. The acting of the non core cast members (Mr Crouch anyone? I mean seriously, since when has man from a long line of pure blood british wizards had a French accent? AND he's a British wizards MP pretty much - anywho, he's an appalling actor)
2. Michael Gamblins take on Dumbledore. He seems just a tad psychotic.... Dumbledore's supposed to be always calm and collected and funny, not "didyouputyournameinthegobletoffire? *insert random head explosion here*"
3. Their concern for length of movies - I think someone mentioned this before, but people will go to the movie to enjoy it. As long as they're enjoying the movie throughout, they won't have a care for the time. They'll only look at their watch when they're dead bored. This concern for time seems to also affect the actors rushing their lines instead of taking an extra half second to pause at the right spot to give emphasis on needed words or phrases, missing emotional and important informative points throughout
4. Randomly inserting information solely for the sake of it. Another GoF example is in Moodys' classroom where he gets Neville up to mention the cruciatis curse and says "Professor Sprout tells me you've got an aptitude for Herbology".... and then it just goes back to randomly cursing spiders.... even if he just added the words "lets see if you have a similar talent for defense against the dark arts" it would have been better....
5. Assuming the audience have read the book. GoF again and the lovely no-explanation-at-all explanation of Priori Incantantem
6. Supposedly English characters, and played by English Actors mispronounciating words seemingly so American audiences can feel comfortable. eg: McGonagall and "dance" for some reason caving in like that just annoys me
7. Probably the most important issue, and shows how little the film makers care, or read the books, is everyone's obsession with the words "Lord Voldemort".... you've got Wormtail and other Death Eaters happy to say it when only really a handful should be brave enough too....
8. Also the whinging about the possibilty the main actors are getting too old...THEY'RE FINE! LEAVE THEM ALONE! Their characters are growing older and have to be vastly more mature than anyone their age anyway!

Can't think of anymore off the top of my head, I'll probably just come back and rage some other time. However now for my defense of certain things...

The main three actors are actually very very good, particularly Emma Watson. Sure, she's hot, so she easily has that going for her, however since the first movie she's had the least improvement to do out of any of the child actors. She's always been saying her lines properly and has perfect pronounciation and timing with her words.
Whilst Draco hasn't been seen much Tom Felton also has played his character well since the start, minus the bit where some director decided to plonk Draco in a tree....
The twins, Snape, Hagrid, Harry, and Ron are also well played, though Dan Radcliffe started weirdly he's easily come to grips, even if not yet mastered his challenging role. If any of these characters were replaced it'll be a crime.

As for,
2. Each movie gets darker and darker. Why the heck does Hogwarts look so gloomy all the time?

uh, the books themselves are very dark anyway, and get darker each book so the movies should reflect that. The books started regarding a eleven year old boy finding out about a double homicide by a guy who's not quite dead leaving him completely alone and mistreated, and eventually escalates throughout the series to a full scale wizarding war, with people dying. If you expected something light and fluffy in either books or movies you've probably hit the wrong genre and series.

so, uh, we see why I hardly post now =S

Is it me, or does anybody else find the style of Harry's hair a dissapointment.

I mean, its always described as being very messy and wild. But only rarely is it messy as JKR would describe it. It also makes Harry (dan look every young in my opinion)

But in PS it wasn't- Very flat hair -Very unharry
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/7207/normal09600cu.th.jpg (http://img455.imageshack.us/my.php?image=normal09600cu.jpg)

In COS it was a bit better but it was still mostly flat.
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/7942/normal00069bi.th.jpg (http://img455.imageshack.us/my.php?image=normal00069bi.jpg)

In POA it got better, but sometimes it still wasn't messy like Harry's
http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/3198/normalpoa02421yr.th.jpg (http://img460.imageshack.us/my.php?image=normalpoa02421yr.jpg)

And in GOF, it was pretty much spot on most of the time-
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6251/gofpromo0145qh.th.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gofpromo0145qh.jpg)

Just a thing that bugs me a little.

The pics aren't the best btw. Will try to find better examples

Was it just my imagination, or were all of the HP characters flat and one-dimensional in the movies? Not just a few of them, but nearly ALL of them. I couldn't relate to any of them as the characters that I know and love.

Harry Potter: Well, that goes without saying. Nothing that Dan Radcliffe said or did made me actually believe that he was Harry Potter.

Ron Weasley: Probably the best, yet something not right about him too!

Hermione Granger: Perhaps this character's problems was due to simple miscasting. Emma Watson either overplays or underplays Hermione, but she never hits Herminone's personality spot on. She never even comes close to it.

Albus Dumbledore: Dumbledore is FUNNY! He has a twinkle in his eye! He's not a stupid old man with a weird-looking brown beard (admittedly the beard doesn't have anything to do with the character, but come on!) And why did he go mad when Harry's name came out of the Goblet? In the BOOK, Dumbledore is calm and simply asks Harry if he put his name in the Goblet; then he believes in Harry, just as he has done through the whole series. Listen to me, movie: Dumbledore did not freak out.

Fred and George Weasely: What's the use of even trying anymore? In the book, they're funny. In the movie, they're flat and boring.

Minerva McGonagall: Just didn't work for me.

Draco Malfoy: OVERPLAYED. No hint of complexity at all!

Fleur Delacour: In the book, she is a real person. In the movie, she's just stupid.

Cedric Diggory: Yes, Harry, you were right. He is just a silly pretty boy. In the movie.

Cornelius Fudge: He's supposed to be a pivotal character. With, you know, a personality. Not so bland and unimportant that he barely appears.


Oh, I could go on. And on. But I won't. Whether it's bad acting, bad scripting, bad directing...they're just bad movies, with bad characters at the top of the pile. Hello, movie: in order to enjoy you, we must understand the characters. Thankfully, GOF raised the standard a little. We can only hope the bar will be raised higher with the next movies...but I doubt that we shall never relate to the movie characters as the way we do with the book characters. Maybe it's just because Jo's a genius.

Originally posted by The Legacy
1. The acting of the non core cast members (Mr Crouch anyone? I mean seriously, since when has man from a long line of pure blood british wizards had a French accent? AND he's a British wizards MP pretty much - anywho, he's an appalling actor)

Um, French accent? I think you're seeing something that isn't there. Roger Lloyd Pack is a fine actor, and seemed fine to me.

3. Their concern for length of movies - I think someone mentioned this before, but people will go to the movie to enjoy it. As long as they're enjoying the movie throughout, they won't have a care for the time. They'll only look at their watch when they're dead bored. This concern for time seems to also affect the actors rushing their lines instead of taking an extra half second to pause at the right spot to give emphasis on needed words or phrases, missing emotional and important informative points throughout

The fact is, people get bored quickly. The film needs to stay interesting, and if it were full of Potterverse gobbledegook and pointless scenes, the audience will get bored, like in King Kong. 45 minutes into King Kong, film fans might be saying "Oh, did you see that little joke about Fay Wray! Haha!", but the rest will be thinking why the hell they haven't seen the Giant Ape almost an hour into the film bearing his name.

4. Randomly inserting information solely for the sake of it. Another GoF example is in Moodys' classroom where he gets Neville up to mention the cruciatis curse and says "Professor Sprout tells me you've got an aptitude for Herbology".... and then it just goes back to randomly cursing spiders.... even if he just added the words "lets see if you have a similar talent for defense against the dark arts" it would have been better....

Those occurrences are just throwaway lines to book fans, just like the Department of Mysteries being mentioned twice, they just want to tell book readers they haven't completely destroyed the books.

5. Assuming the audience have read the book. GoF again and the lovely no-explanation-at-all explanation of Priori Incantantem

I suppose this was a little irksome, as we weren't told why the ghosts appeared, but we saw it happen and we saw the consequences of it. If they really want to know the details, ask a book fan, or read the book. Did it really need explaining?

6. Supposedly English characters, and played by English Actors mispronounciating words seemingly so American audiences can feel comfortable. eg: McGonagall and "dance" for some reason caving in like that just annoys me

You mean a Scottish character played by an English actress saying 'dance' in a Scottish accent? I don't think that was so American audiences could feel comfortable somehow.

8. Also the whinging about the possibilty the main actors are getting too old...THEY'RE FINE! LEAVE THEM ALONE! Their characters are growing older and have to be vastly more mature than anyone their age anyway!

I'll agree with that.

#1 Hermione crying. (Yule Ball) TOTALLY out of character. Also extremely annoying.

Hermione's a tomboy :huh:
I don't mind that line at all.
Just because Hermione doesn't giggle and wear a short skirt doesn't mean that she isn't concerned about her appearance.
GOF(book) showed that she does want to look nice.

I was pretty upset during the third movie with Hermione's pink jacket thing and her "is that really what my hair looks like from the back?!" line, but now I actually don't mind these things. I guess I sort of did see her as a tomboy. She's so focused on school that people just assume she's 100% bookworm and doesn't have time for anything else. But it's not entirely true. I dunno. That's just how I see it now.

#1 Hermione crying. (Yule Ball) TOTALLY out of character. Also extremely annoying.
Aw, I actually really liked that scene. :)

Is it me, or does anybody else find the style of Harry's hair a dissapointment.

I mean, its always described as being very messy and wild. But only rarely is it messy as JKR would describe it. It also makes Harry (dan look every young in my opinion)




Yes! This was one of my biggest pet peeves. :grumble: I really couldn't figure out why they opted to make his hair so tidy for the first couple of movies. I mean, of all the simple details they could have sooo easily executed for the screen- this would've been one of the simplest! I thought your pics were great examples, btw.

#1 Hermione crying. (Yule Ball) TOTALLY out of character. Also extremely annoying.

I thought this was such a classic moody, PMS, hormone raging teen grrrl scene- I thought it was perfect. Even the toughest of us girls has a crying jag once in a while that makes everyone in the room exchange looks and shrug. ;0)

Harry's hair! I thoguht it was supposed to be really messy throughout all the movies. it looked really cool in the 3rd and 4th movie though. :)

1. the toung flicking Moody/Crouch Jr. (what was up with that)
2. where were the blast-ended skrewts?
3. winky?
4. the introduction to the room of requiremnt?
5. S.P.E.W.
7. where were the weasleys and sirius?
harry never gave his triwizard tournament winnings to Fred and George
8. and the big thing that gets me is why didnt they explain how Bary Crouch Jr. and his mother switched places in Azkaban when they polyjuiced them selves and whatnot

1. The acting of the non core cast members (Mr Crouch anyone? I mean seriously, since when has man from a long line of pure blood british wizards had a French accent? AND he's a British wizards MP pretty much - anywho, he's an appalling actor)

May I ask where you are from? I assure you that Crouch Snr did not speak with a French accent. I thought the acting was far better than the part warranted.


2. Michael Gamblins take on Dumbledore.

I won't go into this again.


3. Their concern for length of movies - I think someone mentioned this before, but people will go to the movie to enjoy it. As long as they're enjoying the movie throughout, they won't have a care for the time.

This is not true. I spend half my life in meetings. Comfort breaks are necessary within two hours max. People need to use the toilet; they need to move around. Only for epic films will people endure a 3 hour marathon, and HP films are definitely not epic. WB did extensive research after the lukewarm public response to the first two films and found the same complaints being made: too long, too many pointless scenes, too unfocussed.


6. Supposedly English characters, and played by English Actors mispronounciating words seemingly so American audiences can feel comfortable. eg: McGonagall and "dance" for some reason caving in like that just annoys me

We English pride ourselves on our inability to pronounce French. Your specific reference to McGonagall baffles me.


7. Probably the most important issue, and shows how little the film makers care, or read the books, is everyone's obsession with the words "Lord Voldemort".... you've got Wormtail and other Death Eaters happy to say it when only really a handful should be brave enough too....

This is book trivia and irrelevant for the purposes of communicating clearly to film audiences. How else are audiences to understand who Wormtail is talking to? Even showing Babymort would achieve nothing except confusion, as he has never been seen before.

"I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

What was that tripe about, anyway?

I so wish they had included Snape showing his Dark Mark to Fudge (just think of the cinematic potential in cutting to the face of Dumbledore, Snape etc when it becomes clear that Fudge has his head up his own ***). It would have been possible to make that moment very dramatic, after everything Harry has witnessed and gone through.

"I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

What was that tripe about, anyway?

Many HP fans, for all their obsessiveness, don't really understand what is important in the books and what is not. The various conspiracy theories prove this: is Dumbledore kinda evil? is Molly kinda evil? Is Dumbledore Ron? Or Hedwig? And don't forget the gum wrappers folly.

Kloves, for all the abuse he gets from the fans (who invariably want more Quidditch and other trivia), ignores such wacky "theories" and grasps the essentials. His development of Lily in PoA was on the money: not until Books 5 and 6 did the author indicate that Lily's kindness and loveable qualities would be crucial.

The ending of GoF, despite its interminable length and clumsy lines, emphasizes the importance of Voldemort taking Harry's blood. Moody mentions it; Crouch draws attention to it. We are shown the wound and it is compared to the Dark Mark. This is before audiences discover (in Film 5) that Voldemort marked Harry, and well before audiences discover (in Film 6) that Harry's blood is more precious than Dumbledore's.

The CGI in the third film. What was the point of having the Knight bus do all those....weird things. And the birf flying into the whomping willow was pointless except for forshadowing. Also, the werewolf standing on two legs.

1. The change LOADS of things, even minor details being changed really pee me off.
2. Dan's scar keeps moving! Grrrrrrrrrr!
3. Some actors aren't right for the roles, like Remus Lupin and Luna Lovegood.
4. It really annoyed me in PS because Daniel Radcliffe couldn't act to save his life! (Must say he's got an awful lot better though. Go Dan! )
5. Hermione's hair isn't bushy! (Ha, everyone hates this)

3. Some actors aren't right for the roles, like Remus Lupin and Luna Lovegood.


You disagree with Rowling, then?

Some people talk as if they wrote the book.

Well JKR has said that Kloves understands the story very well, wheras she pokes gentle (mostly) fun at the convoluted theories. Only she knows the plot intricacies (although she should have given us most of the clues by now), but the underlying stories (cf, courage and choosing between easy/right in GoF) are straightforward.

The ending of GoF, despite its interminable length and clumsy lines, emphasizes the importance of Voldemort taking Harry's blood. Moody mentions it; Crouch draws attention to it. We are shown the wound and it is compared to the Dark Mark. This is before audiences discover (in Film 5) that Voldemort marked Harry, and well before audiences discover (in Film 6) that Harry's blood is more precious than Dumbledore's.

But he'd already checked out Harry's wound once, why show it to him again? And why have Dumbledore drag Harry over to do it? And why compare it to the Dark Mark at all?

I try not to fuss over the small details in the movies, because they are just that; small. Does it matter if Hermione's dress is pink, or that her hair is not as bushy? Sure, it would be nice to see the little details observed, but I can't see how they spoil the enjoyment of the film. They aren't vital to the story. Also, I'm sure many things are changed for a reason - A blue dress would probably not have stood out against an 'ice-palace' background, and whilst the idea (or part of it) of the ball is to show a transformation of Hermione, it is important she stands out, which she does in many of the overhead shots. And on the GoF extras DVD, Steve Kloves talks about Voldemort's eye colour not being red, so that it would be easier to read - these people have experience and know what they are talking about!

The Harry Potter books are novels, and the movies are adaptations. They are not published as plays, and so do not have to be imitated word for word. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the way they missed out important facts, such are the Marauders information, but, at the end of the day, I suppose the films, like the books, are supposed to be seen as a series, not lots of individual sections, and we still have three to go yet. What is to say that a piece of information that has been missed is not inserted into another movie, where it would seem more relevant?

That being said, if I had to pick one pet peeve, it would be the cheesiness and child like apprach to some scenes, and in some cases, the humour.

Sorry for the long rant; I haven't posted here for a while :lol:

But he'd already checked out Harry's wound once, why show it to him again? And why have Dumbledore drag Harry over to do it? And why compare it to the Dark Mark at all?

If you think the scene works, then it's show, don't tell.

If you think it doesn't work, then it's overkill, heavy-handed, etc.

If you think the scene works, then it's show, don't tell.

If you think it doesn't work, then it's overkill, heavy-handed, etc.


Fair enough. :)

the scenary changes from movie 1/2 to movie 3/4
though, i MUCH prefer the movie 3/4 scenary to movie 1/2 its 100000000% better IMO
but the womping willow and hagrids hut are completely in differnt spots
but it works better

The dragon scene in GoF. I mean, that was like a half an hour. I least I remember it that way. Those actions sequences are exciting, but to a point. They are good for a book, you can stop reading anytime you like. But not for a movie like HP.

Another thing. I have watched all four with someone who hasn't read the book and they are constantly confused with what is going on. It's as if the director's assume you have read the books which in turn, leaves the movie very choppy. I had to explain all throughout the movie why things were happening and what was going on. Poorly directed films with flashy CG. The acting is very good, I mean, almost every role is a big-time star. Wanting to cash on HP I guess.

The dragon scene in GoF. I mean, that was like a half an hour. I least I remember it that way. Those actions sequences are exciting, but to a point. They are good for a book, you can stop reading anytime you like. But not for a movie like HP.

Another thing. I have watched all four with someone who hasn't read the book and they are constantly confused with what is going on. It's as if the director's assume you have read the books which in turn, leaves the movie very choppy. I had to explain all throughout the movie why things were happening and what was going on. Poorly directed films with flashy CG. The acting is very good, I mean, almost every role is a big-time star. Wanting to cash on HP I guess.


I would have to agree with everything u said...but then again we are biased because of our HP obsession..well at least i am!! haha!

My pet peeves in all movies, not just Harry Potter, are very simple, and very easily remedied. I don't like seeing things that have been done before millions of times, I like seeing things that are original. I don't like seeing things that are long and drawn out (or seem that way) I like seeing things that are tightly packed, neat and tidy, and well thought about for my (and others') viewing pleasure.

That said...

Remedy: Queen_Beruth's mantra, "Show, don't tell!" I'm a firm believer.

Harry Potter movies 1 and 2 just didn't do it for me- way, way too much telling. Movie 3? YES! My very favorite. i just watched it, I could probably pop it in again and catch something new, that's how much "showing" there is, and that's not the only reason I like it. Artistry, photography, etc. I won't go into detail here. Movie 4? Most publicly appealing, made for popularity, made for cinematic success, etc. I think it has the least amount of long-drawn-out-ness, but PoA is still the best film. I could break out specific examples, but they've already all been said, so I'll just go with this.

the castle looks different in different films i reckon....thats wierd!

Too many but my biggest one is when they use parts of the books that aren't important but don't use those that ARE important. Like a certain map.*cough*

When instead of adding scenes from the book, they make up new ones.

Number one for me would be "Movie" Hermione, especially in PoA, and to a lesser extent GoF. She was so uncanon, and her role was increased. She stole lines and scenes from others.
Along with the 'scene stealing" of Hermione comes the ruining of Ron's character and role. In PoA, he is virtually only there for comic relief. His brave line was stolen and all he did was act scared and comment on Hermione's absence.
I also hate my favourite parts of the books being left out or changed. a prime example of that is the explanation of Harry's Patronus and the Marauders map.

Dumbledore's constantly changing beard length in GOF. What the heck? One minute it's waist length, the next it's barely longer than Hagrids, then it's tied in different places, then it's tied tighter. I can understand the lack of continuity with the tie, but how can the length of the actual beard prop keep changing like that?! It's a minor thing, but it annoys me, as does the films insistence in having the twins finish each others sentences all the time. Enough!

How they rush the endings without really tying up loose ends. The movies leave out so much.

Draco(tom) i mean wow....

It drives me crazy that they keep moving Hagrid's hut to different locations. It wouldn't be so bad if JKR had written into the story that, like magical staircases, the Hogwarts grounds and buildings constantly rearrange themselves. But she didn't. So it bugs me.

Also, the scene in PoA where Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus are eating those stupid candies that make them sound like animals was SO painfully stupid. You could tell by the looks on the actors' faces that they thought it was ridiculous, too. Ron's lion imitation scene was so embarrassing it makes me want to look away from the screen every time. Harry got off easy because he didn't have to act like he was an animal - steam just came out of his ears.

It was a scene I could definitely have been happier without!

e.

Also, the scene in PoA where Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus are eating those stupid candies that make them sound like animals was SO painfully stupid. You could tell by the looks on the actors' faces that they thought it was ridiculous, too. Ron's lion imitation scene was so embarrassing it makes me want to look away from the screen every time. Harry got off easy because he didn't have to act like he was an animal - steam just came out of his ears.

It was a scene I could definitely have been happier without!

Well I loved it.

This is what a good director does, instead of having his actors gawk stupidly at some uninteresting special effect and say "WoW" over and over, which was Columbus's idea of conveying magic.

I don't like the HP actors Dan,Rupert,or Emma there to predictiable.

I hate when they change things unnecessarily. Things that do not add to the plot or makes the story better. One example is Nigel. This boy could simply be Dennis. There was no reason to change the character.

it doesn't annoy me as such, but it annoys everyone around me, because I burst out laughing at random intervals when watching. Not for any particular reason, as far as I can fathom, although it may be because there are quite a few uber-cheesy moments.

I totally agree. We were watching CoS in music class (?) and I started laughing for no reason. They try to make the plot very obvious. Like how the camera tilts whenever something mildly dramatic happens. i.e. in study hall when they are talking about the chamber of secrets, it does this weird thing when it zooms in on Ginny the camera tilts and you hear the ominous HP music? WHAT? Let me guess. Who really opens the chamber of secrets? Flitwick? I also burst out laughing for no point, and eventually I'll watch the movies and root for the bad guys. GO basilisk!

Thus far it's been a minor pet peeve. I really wish the makeup folks would remember how they placed the scar on Dan's head, so they won't have the thing moving all over the place.

I suggest they draw an x on his forehead with washable marker. That would seemingly solve all their problems, but will they listen to me? I think not.

I agree with the cap it looks like something sleepy from the 7 dwarfs wore.

I don't like the fact that they cut certain things out of the movies. for example Dudley had a friend with him at the zoo in COS. How about not assuming everyone knows who Frank Bryce is and give a bacground in GOF.
They could have threw in the scene in SS before Harry was left at the doorstep, where uncle Vernon is going to work and sees all sorts of commotion and heres Lily's name being talked about, it would have been a good lead in. Not to mention all the characters they cut out of the movies that have a somewhat important part in the books.

It also drove me nuts that they didn't explain how Barty Crouch Jr. got out of Azkaban and became Moody.

They leave way too much out!!!! I wish we could have seen at least PART of the quidditch world cup match, and the veela too!

okay i havnt read all of these, so i dont know if someone has already said this, and i apologize if someone already has. i like all the actors. Some i think are better than others. But i think that Rupert is very natural and never over acts. That being said, sometimes I think he could do a LITTLE more. Like in POA when Malfoy calls Hermione "mudblood", Rupert just kind of stands there and waits for the next line or waits for the next event. That bugs me bc in the books, Ron goes crazy everytime Malfoy offends Hermione....I know that may be a stupid pet peeve, but i duno, it bugs me haha.

second, it bugs me how Emma clings to Dan ALL THE TIME! has everyone ever noticed that?? shes not just around him, she clings to him in all the scenes! it gives H/Hr shippers hope! haha just kidding...but that bugs me too! :) but like i said, i like them all! :)

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the books & HATE HATE HATE the movies!
Bad acting, idiotic "extra" scenes & missing out some of my fave sections.
Goblet of Fire barely hung together at all in my opinion because of all the sections they missed out - think about it, if you hadn't read the book before you wouldn't have a clue what was going on at all!
they miss out most of the Quidditch World Cup which is one of the best descriptive sections in the book - very annoying!
Despite my moaning, i will no doubt go to see the new one when it's released!!

HP movie pet peeves? A couple. The biggest one must be Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. As far as I see it, Dumbledore has not been present in PoA and GoF. There IS, however, some weird-looking, middleaged dude running around in a grey nightshirt. Dunno what he's doing there, but he's not Dumbledore.

Minor things - Emma Watson overacting in the entire GoF, the cliffhanger-stunts in the first task and the horrible, horrible scene at the ending of PoA where "Dumbledore" constantly hit Ron on his bad leg in the hospital wing. The entire scene is so uncanon - not to mention badly acted - that it makes me cringe everytime.

Also, the scene in PoA where Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus are eating those stupid candies that make them sound like animals was SO painfully stupid. You could tell by the looks on the actors' faces that they thought it was ridiculous, too. Ron's lion imitation scene was so embarrassing it makes me want to look away from the screen every time. Harry got off easy because he didn't have to act like he was an animal - steam just came out of his ears.

It was a scene I could definitely have been happier without!

I agree wholeheartedly! In that wasted few minutes, the could have used the time to explain the Marauders Map a little better! That is my ultimate annoyance about PoA. It would have taken thirty seconds to extend Sirius's line to "The map never lies, we should know, we wrote/created/invented it!"

Also, Emma Watson's portrayal of Hermione doesn't work for me. At all.

1. Leaving out the Marauders storyline.
2. Wrong casting for Sirius.
3. Wrong casting for Lupin. I imagined him to look a lot more approachable. Thewlis just doesn't fit and neither does his mustache.
4. Hermione. Emma kind of looks the part (at least in the first movie before she started changing around her hair), but her acting is just off.
5. I imagined Ron with a much thinner nose, shorter hair, and he should be gangly. Also- freckles!
6. I'm not really sure how to describe what's wrong with Dan, but he's just not... Harry. And the blue eyes really annoy me, because of all the characters Harry's eyes are not only really distinctive but important!
7. Gambon doesn't suit Dumbledore. His acting and overall look kill me.
8. The werewolf Remus was just... pathetic. It looked like some sort of monkey.
9. Hagrid should be much larger than he is in the books. He's twice the height of an average man. I didn't expect the movies to get it right, though.
10. McGonagall has black hair.
11. I hate Draco's new Aaron Carter hairstyle.
12. I hate when Hermione says "That felt good!" or something along those lines after she punches (when she should've slapped) Malfoy.
13. Cedric Diggory was completely different in my mind. He was a lot more handsome.
14. I hated the shrunken heads in the Knight's Bus.

What annoys me most about the movies is useless and usually cheesy additions. They could've used the time to fit in parts from the books that are important!

7. Gambon doesn't suit Dumbledore. His acting and overall look kill me.


I can't see Gambon doing the more calm, Harry & Dumbledore scenes, Dumbledore always seems tranquil, and suchforth, but Gambon isn't he's more sinister, and the "Please sit down Harry, I'm going to tell you everything" scene, seems to me like it's going to be ruined because of Gambon.

Also, the scene in PoA where Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus are eating those stupid candies that make them sound like animals was SO painfully stupid. You could tell by the looks on the actors' faces that they thought it was ridiculous, too. Ron's lion imitation scene was so embarrassing it makes me want to look away from the screen every time. Harry got off easy because he didn't have to act like he was an animal - steam just came out of his ears.
Heaven forbid we actually experience character development in any of the HP films!

I thought what the scene represented was an incredible step forward for the series.

I can't see Gambon doing the more calm, Harry & Dumbledore scenes, Dumbledore always seems tranquil, and suchforth, but Gambon isn't he's more sinister, and the "Please sit down Harry, I'm going to tell you everything" scene, seems to me like it's going to be ruined because of Gambon.
you don't know that yet, because he hasn't actually been made to do a scene like that. And it's not the actors fault. Blame the writer!

When they switch around the characters lines (ex: in CoS, Hermione was the one explaining to Ron and Harry what a mudblood was...) I dont just see why they keep the lines for that character....I also hate it when they take out good parts in the books.

Heaven forbid we actually experience character development in any of the HP films!

I thought what the scene represented was an incredible step forward for the series.

No I agree with Elysia, this scene also makes me cringe and turn away from the screen, I can't stand it!

I also hate it when they take out good parts in the books.
but then, it depends on personal opinion what is good and what isn't

Also, the scene in PoA where Harry, Ron, Neville, and Seamus are eating those stupid candies that make them sound like animals was SO painfully stupid. You could tell by the looks on the actors' faces that they thought it was ridiculous, too. Ron's lion imitation scene was so embarrassing it makes me want to look away from the screen every time. Harry got off easy because he didn't have to act like he was an animal - steam just came out of his ears.

That's one of the few scenes in PoA I actually like! :cool:

1. Leaving out the Marauders storyline.
2. Wrong casting for Sirius
3. Wrong casting for Lupin. I imagined him to look a lot more approachable. Thewlis just doesn't fit and neither does his mustache.
4. Hermione. Emma kind of looks the part (at least in the first movie before she started changing around her hair), but her acting is just off.
5. I imagined Ron with a much thinner nose, shorter hair, and he should be gangly. Also- freckles!
6. I'm not really sure how to describe what's wrong with Dan, but he's just not... Harry. And the blue eyes really annoy me, because of all the characters Harry's eyes are not only really distinctive but important!
7. Gambon doesn't suit Dumbledore. His acting and overall look kill me.
8. The werewolf Remus was just... pathetic. It looked like some sort of monkey.
9. Hagrid should be much larger than he is in the books. He's twice the height of an average man. I didn't expect the movies to get it right, though.
10. McGonagall has black hair.
11. I hate Draco's new Aaron Carter hairstyle.
12. I hate when Hermione says "That felt good!" or something along those lines after she punches (when she should've slapped) Malfoy.
13. Cedric Diggory was completely different in my mind. He was a lot more handsome.
14. I hated the shrunken heads in the Knight's Bus.

What annoys me most about the movies is useless and usually cheesy additions. They could've used the time to fit in parts from the books that are important!

Ugh. You mostly summed up the lesser details that annoy me.

OF COURSE Harry's eyes are important. The blue ones bug the heck out of me!
I would have liked for Sirius/Remus/Snape to be younger, after all they are only 36...
THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN MOONY/WORMTAIL/PADFOOT/PRONGS. And in the book, Dumbledore makes this really sweet comment [that makes me cry everytime I read it]
It was something like, "Prongs rode again tonight, Harry"
I don't know if this is any reassurance, but the Werewolf was meant to be some Spanish one... but that doesn't help that it looks so...weird...
When Harry 'cries' after learning Sirius is his godfather...ugh. I shudder at the thought.
Oh, and when Harry gets caught by Snape, and M/W/P/P say "large nose...." when they had these hilarious comments in the book!!

I absolutely HATE it when Harry's scar ends up on the wrong side of his face! Or when it's not even there at all...ugh. But you have to except them for what they are. The fact that I hate them won't stop me from seeing it opening night. I really hope Order of the Pheonix is good...it's my favorite book...

I just want to say now, Cuaron wanted to make Prisoner of Azkaban 'his own film' you just can't do that with a series like Harry Potter...

I agree with some that the biggest disappointment for me was not having the Marauders storyline in PoA. I know that there will be some who will say that the people who only watch the movies and not read the books aren't going to care if the Marauders storyline is there or not. That really isn't the point, what if they do decide to read the books after watching the movies, they're going to find that things have either been changed, dropped or different chracters saying other characters lines.

The only thing that bugs me per se about movies is when a screenwriter changes something in the movie from the book for what seems no other reason, but to be different.

1. Leaving out the Marauders storyline.
2. Wrong casting for Sirius.
3. Wrong casting for Lupin. I imagined him to look a lot more approachable. Thewlis just doesn't fit and neither does his mustache.
4. Hermione. Emma kind of looks the part (at least in the first movie before she started changing around her hair), but her acting is just off.
5. I imagined Ron with a much thinner nose, shorter hair, and he should be gangly. Also- freckles!
6. I'm not really sure how to describe what's wrong with Dan, but he's just not... Harry. And the blue eyes really annoy me, because of all the characters Harry's eyes are not only really distinctive but important!
7. Gambon doesn't suit Dumbledore. His acting and overall look kill me.
8. The werewolf Remus was just... pathetic. It looked like some sort of monkey.
9. Hagrid should be much larger than he is in the books. He's twice the height of an average man. I didn't expect the movies to get it right, though.
10. McGonagall has black hair.
11. I hate Draco's new Aaron Carter hairstyle.
12. I hate when Hermione says "That felt good!" or something along those lines after she punches (when she should've slapped) Malfoy.
13. Cedric Diggory was completely different in my mind. He was a lot more handsome.
14. I hated the shrunken heads in the Knight's Bus.

What annoys me most about the movies is useless and usually cheesy additions. They could've used the time to fit in parts from the books that are important!
that's just being picky. i mean, seriously: "McGonagall has black hair". That's going to ruin the movie for you that she has a different hair colour?

That thing they had Barty Crouch Jr doing with his tongue.

I see how it was probably supposed to be a hint about his character, and be all snake-like, but it just made him seem silly; and it seemed to underestimate the audience's intelligence.

that's just being picky. i mean, seriously: "McGonagall has black hair". That's going to ruin the movie for you that she has a different hair colour?
I can be as picky as I want. And no McGonagall having black hair doesn't matter that much, but it does annoy me, because of the movies I can't imagine her with black hair anymore. I hate when the movies alter my own character images. I guess that's more of my own problem, but whatever. It says movie pet peeves. They can be as "small" or unimportant as I want them to be.

I cringed when I first saw GoF there were so many sub-plots (the main ones being the Rita Skeeter and Crouch/Bagman sub-plots) cut out it made the film not as good as I expected it to be. apart from that I'm not keen on Sir Richard Harris' replacement as Dumbledore (Michael Gambon comes across as a bit harsh and insensitive in my opnion)

Although there are so many, two come to mind the most for me.

1. Peeves absence.

2. No scene in the beginning of GoF when the twins left the Ton-Tongue
toffee for Dudley to find. I was really looking forward to that scene as I
thought it was hilarious in the book.

Why they made Azkaban at all, as it was so bad! The fat Lady was horrible and should not have been there!
Don't like Dumbledore's new look, what was wrong with the old one?
Why they changed the location of Hagrid's hut, I'll never know! I wonder if the actors are being paid 'danger money' for dashing down those rough steps to get to the CoMC classes? I'd have fallen down, I'm so awkward!
And last, why was it cut so short, all the vital information about the Marauders was cut, and most of all, how Black knew Wormtail was at Hogwarts!

I hate the actor changes. I mean, Richard Harris & Gambon was understandable because of the death and all. But the fat lady changes actors in POA, or it seems like it. And then Flitwick goes from short and bearded with a pointy hat in S/PS & COS... but in POA & GOF, he's got glasses and short black hair, without the green robes. Also, the castle... I mean... I like the clock idea, but it changes Hogwarts from S/PS and COS.

I agree with everything that has been said:
1) Dumbledore's new Hat - and the new Dumbledore in every way.
2) Actors who don't fit the part
3) Bad acting. Not to mention any names or anything...although I'll admit most of the adult acting is top class.
4) POA in particular here:
a) Own clothes - what is wrong with their uniform, and did anyone notice the fact that it meant they were all wearing fashions ten years ahead of their time?
b) When they were wearing their uniform, hermione was wearing a fitted, un-tucked shirt, top button undone, short tie not done up properly...like any common school-girl, not a goody-two-shoes! Oh, and the Time Turner could be plainly seen!!!
c) Dawn French...Fat Lady...singing...eugh!!!
d) The crazy choir with fat toads, at the great feast???
e) The werewolf...er...wolf? Gollum? Dobby??
f) Lack of explanations
g) waste of time on Pettigrew the Rat scuttling round a very un-Hogwarts like corridor.
h) OK, I'm just trying to do the whole alphabet now.
5) Missing out of important characters (Ludo Bagman, Winky, Peeves, Prof. Binns...)
6) Changing of actors playing big parts - obviously Dumbledore was inevitable. But Flitwick? If he'd started off with tidy black hair which had gone crazy and grey, we could have passed it off as sudden ageing, but the other way - why?
7) Hermione's appearance - hair: was bushy in PS, tidily wavy in CoS, carefully coifed in PoA, Stunningly arranged in GoF. Teeth: always perfect. General apearance: hermione is NOT supposed to be some sort of super-model with double-jointed eyebrows (see my post on "Emma Watson as Hermione")
8) Changing sets - Hagrid's cabin, hogwarts in general
9) The Dementors - THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO FLY!!!
10) The "grim" at the quidditch match is meant to be in the stands not the clouds.
11) The guy who gets electricuted on his broom in the thunderstorm during the quidditch match in PoA - scientifically incorrect: He was not touching the ground so the electricity would not be able to go through him, and if it did, he'd be dead!

Rant over :lol:

:relax: OK, I realize that I'm one of few people that can sit through Gone with the Wind with only the intermission for a break, and that if every detail of the books were in the movies they would give GWTW a run for it's money but I'd like for them to follow the storyline of the books a bit more ...
- In SS Harry was supposed to meed Draco in the Robes shop not at Hogwarts
- In GOF, it was Dobby who gave Harry the Gillyweed, not Neville
- In GOF where Hermionie taught Harry the summoning charm & took his broom to the first Tri-wizard Challange
-In GOF, Hermionie's PINK dress... wasn't it BLUE in the book

I love both the books and the movies, I loved how the movies allowed you to See Quiditch and helped your imagination merge with reality.

- It did really bother me in POA that the Hogwarts landscape seemed to have changed but I am just chalking some of these changes up to the fact that Hogwarts is an enchanted place where things happen without reason (think the room of requirement in OOTP)

I would have liked to have seen them include the scene in GOF where Hermionie's teeth grew or where she had Rita Skeeter in a jar when returning from Hogwarts at end of term.

I would have liked to see them expand into alot more visualization of the discription of Diagon Alley and Hogsmede, it will be facinating to see how they will show things such as Sirius Black's family home, Fire whisky, extendable ears & Fred & George's fireworks in the halls in OOTP.

Overall, I am happy with how the movies have been done and I like how they are allowing us to visually see how the characters develop into adults, but I would like to see longer movies with much more detail that is related to the events in the books. To all involved in the creation of this series, thank you for helping bring our imaginations to life.

1) The acting, as a whole, sucks. Sorry to all you Dan and Emma lovers, but I really do not think that the two can act. And with their characters being the 2 most important that just makes the whole movie horrible.

5) Some of the actors, to me, don't fit their characters. Most of them do, but some of them I think would do better in other roles or not there at all.

These two are the main ones for me as well. Sometimes the acting doesn't match the level of emotion that is needed in a particular scene, in my honest opinion. I'm not criticizing the actors, I'm just saying that with more and better direction and more identification with the scene/character, the acting could improve.

As for the actors, I agree. There are some actors who really don't match the characters they portray. I know we can't expect perfection, but make-up can be magical when applied correctly. ;)

There are a lot of little things in the movies that are annoying to me, most of which have been pointed out. The acting is okay, but occasionally it's just so bad it affects how I feel about movie as a whole. I don't like movie all Ron that much either.

I think most of the little changes and minor details left out are not a big deal. The movies don't exactly have to match the books precisely. However, while PoA was my favorite, I was disappointed with the lack of explanation of the Marauders.

My biggest gripe is adjusting or omitting interesting parts of the story to condense it down. Like since Dobby and Winky were completely eliminated from GoF, or the Gynosphinx in the Labrynth was axed.

I also don't like the total omittion of Peeves the Poltergeist. He is the life of the party.

Finally, what makes my skin crawl the most is ever changing layout of the school. The way they did it in the first movie was exactly how I envisioned it. I never pictured it on a high sloping hill. About the only part of Hogwarts that has not seemed to change much is The Great Hall.

The only things I dont like about the movies is that they leave ALOT of the important (and not so important) details that are in the books. The 4th movie bothered me the most (even though I still watch it all the time) because I think they spent WAY too much time on the Tri-Wizard Tournament and not enough time on everything else that was going on the GoF. Other than that, I think the acting overall is good and I still love the movies.

I -- Really -- Hate -- That -- Bird. Couldn't they have omitted all of the bird scenes in PoA and added about 5 minutes of, say, the Marauders?

I hate the fact that they all seem to lean toward Harry and Hermione as a couple (minus #2, I think it was good there). I hope OOTP is better, but it should right? I mean, I think HBP came out before they started filming...I can't remember...

Stupid lines, scenes and moments. :grumble: I want my hp movies to be witty, smart, well-made and spellbounding. Is that too much to ask. :sigh:

There are a lot of things that bother me about HP the movies, and I'm sure that there are things that bother you all. So what bothers you the most?

Here are my top 5:

1) The acting, as a whole, sucks. Sorry to all you Dan and Emma lovers, but I really do not think that the two can act. And with their characters being the 2 most important that just makes the whole movie horrible.
2) Everything is wrong. The miniscule details that are everywhere in the book are changed for the movies. I understand that some things have to be changed for adaption purposes, but when you change that much it just bothers me.
3) Most of the books are left out. Sure, there's the time issue, but I go see movies to enjoy them, not to watch the time while I'm in there. Just make them extra long. I'm sure all the HP fans wouldn't object to that.
4) They have changed the characters somewhat from how they are in the book. Just little things that I noticed that really bother me. Emma's hair isn't bushy. Did anyone else notice that at some points in the PoA movie there was no scar on Dan's forehead?
5) Some of the actors, to me, don't fit their characters. Most of them do, but some of them I think would do better in other roles or not there at all.


I agree with the acting thing thay are bad but they do get better as the films go along.
in the GOF i didnt like it when harry goes into the chamber behind the G hall and dumbledore comes in and slams him against the wall and asks him if he put his name in the goblet. to me that just isnt dumbledore!!
also i dont think they got hermoine right she is to emotional in GOF.

The things that bugged me about the HP movies are:

1) Emma Watson as Hermione. No, no, no, no, no!! Her acting is not up to par for such epic movies (yes, THEY ARE SOOOO EPIC!!), and HER HAIR IS NOT BUSHY!!

2) I hate the way they cut so much stuff out and change things up! It happened alot in POA and GOF.

3) Dan and emotional scenes... eesh. Not good at all. Hopefully he will be better in OOTP.

4) I can't stand it when they take Ron's lines and give them to Harry or Hermione. And how they have turned him into such a scaredy-cat.

Ack. What about the fact that the scar seems to be giving off air whenever "Harry get's mad" and the fact that it's sometimes not there, or in the wrong place.
I miss the Marauders!
Dan's emotional scene in PoA. Oh...god.
Hermione getting way too...pretty. Anyone seen that new OotP pic?
Ron, constantly being used for Comic relief.
Same with Draco.
Sirius not being introduced to everyone at the end of Goblet of Fire...
Number Twelve Grimmauld Place anyone?
Recently, I discovered, I hate Dumbledore's hat. Just chuck it, man...

another thing that bugs me is how posh emma and dan talk and the big words they use. i think rupert is spot on tho!!

victor krum is already annoying me and i havnt seen the film yet! in the book he's not that well built is he? i thought he was supposed to be tall, thin, big nose and look rather depressing. but in the movie he appears to be built/strong and angry all the time.
also isnt cedric's hair is supposed to be dark? but i guess we can forgive that.

i agree, crouch jr hair was supposed to be straw colour as well, and from the first two movies dudley is ment to have think blonde hair.

Ack. What about the fact that the scar seems to be giving off air whenever "Harry get's mad" and the fact that it's sometimes not there, or in the wrong place

And the color of his eyes...

emma's acting, dan's acting, other people getting credit for ron's lines...but most of all is how draco is comic relief!! he is going to be a death eater for crying out loud!! if someone hasn't read the books, they're going to be shocked that the guy who was no threat at all in the last 5 movies and mainly used for a laugh is suddenly this bad guy!! you have to lead up to it, not just throw it in there and hope it works out!! argh!!

I absoloutly hated, HATED, the dragon scene in GOF. I hated how the dragon was tied up and almost killed Harry when it was chasing him. The point of that scene in the book is to show how great Harry is at flying, how naturally he takes to it. ANd the movie made Harry look like a first year! That was my biggest annoyance in GOF.

Hmm...here's a few.

Some of hermione's lines - like how she gets rons, harry's etc.
Most of Ron's lines
Hermione's fashioable clothes GoF
No giant-talk GoF
DD shaking harry
No hogsmeade, lessons, marauders map GoF
we've only ONCE seen a potion lesson - and that was jsut them writing in PS!
no mention of cedric being a hufflepuff
cho just no being in PoA, adn no oliver quidditch stuff
it took an age for them to notice the twins
And that's all i can think of for now

emma's acting, dan's acting, other people getting credit for ron's lines...but most of all is how draco is comic relief!! he is going to be a death eater for crying out loud!! if someone hasn't read the books, they're going to be shocked that the guy who was no threat at all in the last 5 movies and mainly used for a laugh is suddenly this bad guy!! you have to lead up to it, not just throw it in there and hope it works out!! argh!!

oh i think it'll work! he's pretty nasty - and wether people take it seriously or not, you can see that. ANd from what i've heard, his moments in OOTP are limited but effective.....

besides, isn't that all part of the shock, like in the book and like snape? You know he's bad but not that bad...and then you realise.....

i think he's one of the few the films havn't totally messed up.

Dumbledore's constantly changing beard length in GOF. What the heck? One minute it's waist length, the next it's barely longer than Hagrids, then it's tied in different places, then it's tied tighter. I can understand the lack of continuity with the tie, but how can the length of the actual beard prop keep changing like that?! It's a minor thing, but it annoys me, as does the films insistence in having the twins finish each others sentences all the time. Enough!

hehe! that's oen thing i HAVEN'T Noticed!

Well I loved it.

This is what a good director does, instead of having his actors gawk stupidly at some uninteresting special effect and say "WoW" over and over, which was Columbus's idea of conveying magic.

i agree! I thought it was so good! it really gave us an insight - and wasn;t dhessy AT ALL!

And hte endings...POA had sucha cheesy screenshot, and the whole 'remember to write' thing really annoyed me at the end of GoF.
Sometiems i jsut sit there thinking....."WHAT? say something decent!!

i kind of wish there was a way they could've done hp as like a tv show or something. because tv shows get like 20-24 episodes a season...they could've made each book last a season or something. i know its not feasible and some 'episodes' could end up being really boring, but it would definitely be longer, so it could follow the book more closely and also focus on character development. i know it wouldn't work, but i'd still rather have that than a 2 1/2 hour movie that leaves out my favorite parts of the book and totally skimps on the characters besides harry.

okay i havnt read all of these, so i dont know if someone has already said this, and i apologize if someone already has. i like all the actors. Some i think are better than others. But i think that Rupert is very natural and never over acts. That being said, sometimes I think he could do a LITTLE more. Like in POA when Malfoy calls Hermione "mudblood", Rupert just kind of stands there and waits for the next line or waits for the next event. That bugs me bc in the books, Ron goes crazy everytime Malfoy offends Hermione....I know that may be a stupid pet peeve, but i duno, it bugs me haha.

second, it bugs me how Emma clings to Dan ALL THE TIME! has everyone ever noticed that?? shes not just around him, she clings to him in all the scenes! it gives H/Hr shippers hope! haha just kidding...but that bugs me too! :) but like i said, i like them all! :)

i agree - ron's so misunderstood, but i can't blame rupert for that. especially when in CoS he tried to curse him for it!

also hermioen being too perfect in PoA - and yes, i HATE the clinging! it makes her seem like harry's equal - and therefore should-be girlfriend! and it doesn;t do the harry ron friendship much good!

CoS was just too cheesy in general. Everything from the loud music and chessy lines, to the ending...bleh!

Erm..i think some peopel are going a bit too far!
I mean..like DD's beard, harry's hair, a certain line or the way someone smiles or the fact the wherewolf lupin stood on two legs....most peopel don;t even slightly notice this!
i think um, we shoudl let them off a bit! it msut be really hard to know what to put in yet be a great filmmaker etc. too.
besides...i like a bit of difference, for originality. surely our lives don;t evolve aroudn thye filsm being EXACTLY like the books?
how about..pretty close and a good film with the right feel?

NEVILLE! I was waiting fo rthe bit about his parents..and then it was mentioned in a secodn in the pensieve...i don;t think i even heard it properly the first time. and snape being a death eater - it was washed over in seconds!

and sirius, and the lack of remus in movie 5 app. :(
i've always wished there was more focus on the background stuff like lessons and moments of character development instead of jsut the 3 main characters and the plot. my fav bits are almost always sidelined stuff.

Why is it that people are constantly attacking the endings to CoS and PoA, but no one ever mentions PSS. The glee with which Dumbledore snatches the House Cup away from Slytherin, who never did anything particularly bad the whole movie, and who's head, Snape, was just revealed to have been a good guy all along, makes me really hate him (there was truely some fantasic grammar in that sentance.) I know that it happens in the book, but the way it's played in the movie makes me feel really sorry for Draco, not to mention all the nameless, blameless Slytherins. It leaves a rotten taste in my mouth.

oh i still thought it ended ok - at least compared to the others! lol!
It was a happy yet kind of sad note. He was leaving the magical world behind...... and the film didn't drag on NEARLY as much as CoS. the train lkeaving..aw..i kind of liked it! nad ro nand hermione went in a good way too.

ONe more thing: am i the onyl one who think the whole thing feels too...modern? Not only do i wish they;d link more, but i think POA was the only one where i thought hte setting was close to the early 1990s than 10 years later.
Everything seemed quite modernised. hmmm.

but most of all is how draco is comic relief!! he is going to be a death eater for crying out loud!! if someone hasn't read the books, they're going to be shocked that the guy who was no threat at all in the last 5 movies and mainly used for a laugh is suddenly this bad guy!! you have to lead up to it, not just throw it in there and hope it works out!! argh!!
but to be fair to them, they hardly knew that he was going to be a DE in the first three movies, and by the time HBP had come out, all of the filming for GoF had already been done. So to blame them for not making Draco more 'evil' is totally unfair to the different directors, writer and producers.

but to be fair to them, they hardly knew that he was going to be a DE in the first three movies, and by the time HBP had come out, all of the filming for GoF had already been done. So to blame them for not making Draco more 'evil' is totally unfair to the different directors, writer and producers.
thats true...maybe jkr should have hinted to them that he's more than just a schoolyard bully or something. i think draco's going to be such a big deal in the last couple movies, hbp anyway, that tom felton should be getting a little more screentime and some darker dialogue. thats just my opinion, though...:D

The only thing that really bugs me is the acting. I don't think Dan and Emma are all that good and I think Michael Gambon is a horrible Dumbledore. :no:

It's obviously good enough for the directors, so i don't see what you're complaining about.

Just because one person likes something hardly means EVERYONE is going to like it, too. That's just plain common sense. Only a sheep would take someone else's opinion without even questioning it. :no:

Might I also point out that you entered a thread titled "What are your movie pet peeves?" which should have told you that you'd find people complaining about things they dislike and complaining about the actors themselves is NOT off limits.

I guess my main frustration is that the characters aren't being played the way they are in the book.

I can understand that the story needs to be adjusted in order for it to fit and flow, but if any of these actors had actually read the books (and director etc., etc., ) then they'd know that DD was meant to be loving towards Harry - not angry...and Hermione would certainly not come across as angry and bossy towards Harry and Ron, well not in the way she was in GOF. She spends a lot of her time telling Ron off, and when she sends them to bed after the ball...well!!!

There are a lot of things that bother me about HP the movies, and I'm sure that there are things that bother you all. So what bothers you the most?

Here are my top 5:

1) The acting, as a whole, sucks. Sorry to all you Dan and Emma lovers, but I really do not think that the two can act. And with their characters being the 2 most important that just makes the whole movie horrible.
2) Everything is wrong. The miniscule details that are everywhere in the book are changed for the movies. I understand that some things have to be changed for adaption purposes, but when you change that much it just bothers me.
3) Most of the books are left out. Sure, there's the time issue, but I go see movies to enjoy them, not to watch the time while I'm in there. Just make them extra long. I'm sure all the HP fans wouldn't object to that.
4) They have changed the characters somewhat from how they are in the book. Just little things that I noticed that really bother me. Emma's hair isn't bushy. Did anyone else notice that at some points in the PoA movie there was no scar on Dan's forehead?
5) Some of the actors, to me, don't fit their characters. Most of them do, but some of them I think would do better in other roles or not there at all.

Dahling, you really have to learn to form an opinion :lol:

I'll add:

Dumbledore being generally overemotional really bothered me. The yelling and shaking people bit really threw me and took me out of the movie.

The way all of Ron's lines went to Hermione in the first few movies. It's like the producers worked extra hard to ensure Hermione would be a role model and forgot that Ron is funny and smart as well. It's like... reverse sex discrimination or something. Harry's a boy and Ron's a boy so Hermione has to be stronger/braver/snippier/cuter, etc. But in the books she's just... Hermione. And frankly that's good enough for me!

That's about it. I know there's so much more to be annoyed about, but frankly I'm just happy they are making these movies in the first place. Even when they cut stuff out that I like I still enjoy seeing it all up on screen :D

Gambon is a horrid Dumbledore, he is nothing like the book Dumbledore.
In PoA I hate the most that they gave Ron only that one stupid line. "have you seen her" "when did she get here". Horrible that he wasn't given at least one good line. It made his character look one dimensional and useless to the story.
The twins lack of dialog in one and two is sad, hopefully they will continue to have a greater presence in the last three movies.

I'd have to say... The acting.
None of the Trio are that great, in my opinion. I personally know people the same age who can act better than they can, and they (the people I know ) are not even professionals.

Then, of course, there's the fact that they leave out entire, hugely important scenes, and put in annoying, pointless ones. (*cough* The Parting of the Ways *cough*).

And the way the castle and grounds change around every year.

And, most of all, the fact that the director did not even bother to read the entire available series. That, to me, just screams, "I couldn't care less about this movie"

Yeah, I'm quite disappointed with these movies, as you may be able to tell.

Two words...Michael Gambon. Screaming Dumbledore doesn't really fit with "my" Dumbledore. The fact that they leave whole plot lines out...*cough* S.P.E.W, They switch people's lines around so they end up being said by someone random, and the fact that the directors swith around so much. So far, the directors have seemed to not be huge fans of the books. The Harry Potter movies need a Peter Jackson of Harry Potter badly.

If we get a Peter Jackson of Harry Potter......... I will literally faint.... but yeah I dont like the screaming Dumbledore either I always envisioned him as a quiet, thoughtful, person who displayed his power when he needed to in a fashion that was so... i dont know.... hysterical?

Snape hitting Ron and Harry in GoF and I notice he does it in OotP. Er, WHY? He's abusing them, I swear it shouldn't be alowed, haha!

If we get a Peter Jackson of Harry Potter......... I will literally faint.... but yeah I dont like the screaming Dumbledore either I always envisioned him as a quiet, thoughtful, person who displayed his power when he needed to in a fashion that was so... i dont know.... hysterical?
Gambon did portray Dumbledore like that, in both PoA, and GoF, except for that one scene. It's just that Gambon speaks a bit more loudly, so that the audience can hear what he's saying.

Well, arent we a negative Nancy!

I never go into the movies hoping that nothing changed, because it always does. You ahve to lower your expectations as the original book lover and just go to enjoy the rollercoaster that is Harry Potter.

Stop being so negative and enjoy yourself. Geese!

Well, arent we a negative Nancy!

I never go into the movies hoping that nothing changed, because it always does. You ahve to lower your expectations as the original book lover and just go to enjoy the rollercoaster that is Harry Potter.

Stop being so negative and enjoy yourself. Geese!

This is the thread for movie pet peeves. ;) I think most of the posters enjoy the films but there are always things one doesn't like and this is the place to write them down. :yuhup:

Stop being so negative and enjoy yourself. Geese!



It's a pet peeves kinda thread, ie negative, there are positive threads around here somewhere if you prefer :p


Anyway, as usual my pet peeve is the almost lack of the other trio, Ginny, Luna and Neville. :(

Dan doesn't look like Harry at all the me. My Harry is much skinnier, has a thin face and looks different. Although Dan has some good scenes, I get frustrated watching the films.

I just wish that the Quidditch was handled A LOT better in the films. Because of the shoddy treatment it got in PS and then COS it got dropped in POA and now ALL subsequent films because they made it so boring to watch that NO ONE wants it in anymore. If they actually DID SOMETHING with this air born sport that looked cool in the books but came out as 'eh' in the first two movies, then maybe the masses would be shouting MORE QUIDDITCH !! Instead of the now universal QUIDDITCH, OH HELL NO !

I just do'nt understand why the people that make the movies decide to invent a character when there is so much to work with. Jo has said that she fleshed out like 40 characters before she even started writing (Emmerson and Melissa Interview). Why dont they pick some of the people we see in the books, not just some random fat black guy that takes up the spot light.

I definately don't like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore, and I don't think that the movies are that great. I mean, they are good movies, but not if you've read the book. They are so different!

i like the movies fair enough ,i dont like some of the additional things they add,like those heads in PoA and Madame Maxime eating bus off hagrids beard but the rest i m a ok with them.

I don't like how they "Delete" stuff, and then add stupid stuff like New characters, new scense, and stuff like that. Also, I don't like how they never wore there clothes in POA like they did in PS and COS. It just seemed weird, going from being all formal, to wearing muggle clothing.

3. The fat lady singing (PoA) WHY? I actually thought it was cute and funny.

I'm not a huge Michael Gammon fan. He makes Dumbledore seem too aloof and Business like. He's NOT the Grandfatherly type the novel or Harris Dumbledore was. Okay, I know he can't be like Richard Harris was for fear of criticism, but he's too aloof to me.
As for the pet peeves question, well I'm disapointed that we never see any of those AWESOME hospital wing scenes! In POA Snape totally looses it in the hospital wing. But especially in GOF, we all know the hospital wing scene isn't there. I've always thought that the reformation of the order in the hospital wing was one of the most powerful sequences in the series. I'm also very very disapointed that the grudge between the Marauders and Snape is never brought up. Its a very important point to keep in mind when following the whole story line.
My BIGGEST Pet Peeves are the Professor Snape scenes they cut out. I LOVE that they add scenes such as when he saves the Trio from Lupin's Werewolf and when he puts his hand on Dumbledore's shoulder, smacks Harry and Ron in the Head, and the Yule Dance scene in GOF. I would have LOVED to have seen how they interpreted the scene where the Wailing Egg wakes Snape, Slughorn and Filch.

The thing which was my Pet Peeve was the post-graveyard scene in GOF. The way Dan portrayed this scene made Harry seem more like a spoiled Brat having a temper tantrum than a traumatized Teenager. It also screemed "over acting" on his behalf. I so wanted Dumbledore to slap him and say "For the love of God, Harry, control yourself" to stop him. By the time Amos Diggory comes and starts wailing "my boy, my boy", it was almost too late to save the scene. The only thing to save it was the ab-libbed Snape coming up and putting his hand on Dumbledore's shoulder. THAT got me. If they didn't add that, then IMHO, the scene would have been ruined. They also ruined the Graveyard scene--which was much scarier in the book--Voldemort was so creepy I couldn't sleep after reading it. Also the part where Harry sees James and Lily's Spirits was messed up. In the book he says "Mom? Dad?" and James nods and Lily says something like "Hi Sweetheart" or something like that. I remember reading it and getting tears in my eyes. In the movie, Lily doesn't have that "My Baby" emotion you got when reading the book. Okay, I know the scene is focused on Harry fighting Voldemort, and I realize they had to get Harry the hell out of there, but there was no emotional connection between Harry and Lily that you got in the book.
The "Mirror" scene in PS was so beautifully done. You could feel Harry reaching for his Parents' hands and that emotional connection between them--there wasn't here.

pretty much the whole thing of GoF. i was so mad at them !>:< the movie sucked, it rushed evrythin and cut out a lot. the 1st 2 were kinda boring. the only HP movie i liked was PoA.

I'm not a huge Michael Gammon fan. He makes Dumbledore seem too aloof and Business like. He's NOT the Grandfatherly type the novel or Harris Dumbledore was. Okay, I know he can't be like Richard Harris was for fear of criticism, but he's too aloof to me.

Well, that and he hadn't read the books before he began this little project. Gambon's portrayal unnerved me. I don't need him to be just like Harris, just a little less... dramatic.

The thing which was my Pet Peeve was the post-graveyard scene in GOF. The way Dan portrayed this scene made Harry seem more like a spoiled Brat having a temper tantrum than a traumatized Teenager. It also screemed "over acting" on his behalf. I so wanted Dumbledore to slap him and say "For the love of God, Harry, control yourself" to stop him.

And that would fit Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore to a "T" :lol:

It's obviously good enough for the directors, so i don't see what you're complaining about.

They're on this thread too? Oh no! :eeep:

A lot of things may have been good enough for them, but as stated, this is a "pet peeves" thread, not a "this is why they did it this way" thread. And it can't have worked too well or we wouldn't be griping about it :lol:

Geese!

Sorry? :huh: (squelches urge to HONK!)

I hate how many liberties they have taken with the timeline and other little details throughout the movies.
Also, I don't like the new Dumbledore. He is DEFINATELY not the Dumbledore from the books.
I blame Alfonso Curon.
That retarded shrunken head on the knight bus REALLY annoyed me. BOOOO!! There was no point to that.
I really don't like Emma's acting, either. Dan and Rupert are good, but Emma...ugh. And sometimes it seems like the adult actors aren't putting all of their effort into it. They're just like "Yeah, whatever."
I actually have a lot more issues with the movies, but those are the main ones. The one I have the most issues with is Prisoner of Azkaban because so many liberties were taken with the little details etc. If you're going to make a book into a movie, especially one with such a huge fan base as Harry Potter, you might want to at least TRY to get things right.

i hate that they're always in jeans and t-shirts!! i know that harry and hermione would be used to that since they grew up with muggle clothes, but it really keeps the whole "magic" aspect in there if they are wearing wizard clothes, like the cloaks. the singing fat lady, the annoying shrunken head. the fact that the annoying shrinken head was in the interviews section.

My biggest pet peeve: This little thing that's supposed to exist between movies in the same series known as CONTINUITY--or rather, the lack of it. I don't care that they changed directors, there is no reason to change the layout of Hogwarts, insert all those shots of those stupid clocks, and what REALLY got me mad was WTH did Cuaron do to Flitwick? Flitwick looked great in the first two movies, and was totally ruined in PoA. WHY couldn't he have left well enough alone?

I haven't seen the GoF movie, and I'm dreading how that was mucked up.

DD in GoF bothered me. Actually on second thought after reading the book the whole movie mad me mad hehe. Though it is always nice to see Harry Potter portrayed on the big screen. Another thing is that they didn't put Peeves in any of the movies. They should use him as a comic relief rather then having Snape do it half the time.

Turning Ron into a loser and Hermione into a super!grrlpower pink ranger. Movie 3 is the worst offender.

i hate that they're always in jeans and t-shirts!! i know that harry and hermione would be used to that since they grew up with muggle clothes, but it really keeps the whole "magic" aspect in there if they are wearing wizard clothes, like the cloaks.
I know i'm not supposed to say this, as it's breaking the rules of the thread (:rolleyes:), but if you were in a boarding school, and you had no lessions, would you want to wear cloaks in the spring and summer, as they're meant to be used in the winter to keep you warm.

This one has bugged me since the very first time I saw CoS, and continues to annoy me, 3,000 views later. Tom Riddle, down in the Chamber, tells Harry that a "silly little girl" had her hands on the diary. Harry glances at Riddle. Two seconds later, Riddle says something to the effect of, "Yes. You figured the whole thing out! It was Ginny who had the diary, wrote in it, called the basilisk, ordered it to attack people, wrote the messages in blood and opened the chamber of secrets"...

Right. He figured all that out in the space of the blink of an eye and communicated that to the Memory of Tom Riddle.

And the whole time, he just lets the guy --who is not even alive at this point -- keep his wand. Doesn't even make an effort to get it back. "Give me my wand, Tom." That's about as much effort as Harry ever puts into it.

It annoys me how the idea of the changing staircases in Hogwarts was interpreted in the SS movie. All it said was a flight of stairs would take you to one part of the castle on one day, then somewhere else on another. You never actually see it happen, and that to me is more magical and mysterious. The movie turned that into literal mechanically revolving staircases, and then it used that to get the trio to Fluffy.

I felt kind of the same way about Moody's eye, too. With the noise it made and the MoodyVision camera, it seemed less like a magical eye and more like some cyborg implant.

In general it always annoys me when a scene that could have actually helped the story make more sense (like the hospital scene in CoS) is cut or left out, while an entirely new or embellished action scene (like the Anglia being chased by the Hogwarts Express) takes up a lot of screentime.

It annoys me how the idea of the changing staircases in Hogwarts was interpreted in the SS movie. All it said was a flight of stairs would take you to one part of the castle on one day, then somewhere else on another. You never actually see it happen, and that to me is more magical and mysterious. The movie turned that into literal mechanically revolving staircases, and then it used that to get the trio to Fluffy.
I hate that too. In fact, i hate most things about the Columbas movies, one of which is so obvious to the majority of people here that it isn't even worth mentioning.

I was really bothered by the way they had Dumbledore yelling and shaking Harry in GoF and the way Snape hit them. Both are just so out of character doing those things!

My hubby can't stand how Tom the bartender turned into a humpback in PoA and how they made Flitch a bumbling idiot in GoF.

I hate that too. In fact, i hate most things about the Columbas movies, one of which is so obvious to the majority of people here that it isn't even worth mentioning.

What is that obvious thing? I can think of a couple... but I'd like to know which one it is!

My movie pet peeves... Well, I can't stand the over-acting that all of the Trio constantly do (Especially Dan and Emma).
- I hate Dumbledore in GoF (I don't mind him in PoA, though) for the reasons that everyone has already mentioned.
- It really bothers me that they cut out Peeves.
- The continuity issue. The set wasn't perfect in PS/SS, but it didn't have to be changed that much!!! It's supposed to be the same castle, for goodness sake! And the grounds have been changed around way too much too. (For the record, I like the set the best in PoA, which also happens to be my favorite movie)

What is that obvious thing? I can think of a couple... but I'd like to know which one it is!
Qudditch! I hate it because of the fact that it's included, and for the lengh of time it was to show such a short piece of relevent action happening in it.

1. That the Patil twin is in Gryffindor and not Ravenclaw
2. We haven't seen Peeves yet...at least I can't remember him
3. We haven't seen Narcissa
4. They aren't longer (okay so I would sit and watch every scene from the book unflold from my eyes...so what!! ha ha ha ha)
5. No explanation of the Maraders map...this really bugged me
6. The parts of the Burrow cut in GOF
7. No Bill and Charlie yet
I can probably think of more but this is it for now...
I really do like the movies though, I LOVE the trio and Ron is one of my favs. I love the whole Weasley fam too!

3. We haven't seen Narcissa
Give it a chance. Actually wait until she has a proper role in HBP (maybe) before you complain about cutting her out.

The movies (all of them) are about 50 times as sexist as the books. It really, really, really bothers me. GRR.
The dialogue is not the best--new screenwriters are desperately needed. Despite this fact, the acting is okay, although the ends of the movies tend to be very cute and fluffy and corny and Michael Gambon simply cannot pull off a good Dumbledore. He just doesn't have the same aura as Richard Harris or Ian McKellen or Peter O'Toole (both of whom should have been considered, by the way).
They tend to cut out important bits. I was really, really mad about how in GoF they cut the "parting of the ways" scene (see Chapter 36 in the book) because, aside from being my favorite scene, it really leads into all the trouble with the Ministry.

I personally like Rupert Grint, i think he's doing a fine job.
the only one that really bugs me is emma watson, she portrays Hermionie in a completly different way than she was meant to be.

-she's too "pretty"
-no bushy hair!
-way to girly and dramatic
just kinda annoying

Well, POA, like many of you have said, it was crazy how they left out the whole explination of the Map. Otherwise I think, the first two films did justice to their respective book, followed by GoF and OotP. But, like other people have said, the movies don't do the books justice. Anyway the acting is decent, Emma i think takes it a little to far, she just needs to tone it down slightly. Anyway i enjoy watching the movies.

I think in most parts the movies are ok as far as acting and such goes the only major issue I have is that the movies have plot holes that only readers of the book will not notice, its really annoying when they skip over important stuff especially if it foreshadows events that will occur in the next installment.

Dumbledore - either one. Everyone keeps going on about Harris but to me it looked like he was trying to hard and it looked fake, overdone. Gambon's Dumbledore seems to have anger management issues and I could go on and on about him... And Ithought Harris was bad *sigh*

Sirius and Lupin: Their mustaches! Why oh why did they have to have horrible mustaches? Don't even get me started on the way they look (including Hermione and Gambon's Dumbledore)

That Hermione always gets everyone's lines and Ron is reduced to a side character. And she almost had blonde hair in OotP! Hermione is also way to dramatic. I really like Rupert as Ron. Even though is doesn't look like him, his portrayal of Ron is spot on!

Voldemort! Seriously, this is the person everyone fears to call by name?

No Peeves!

Fawkes in CoS looked less like a phoenix and more like a Dodo bird!
Why are Dudley and Petunia brown haired?

The fact that there is no consistency. Can't blame them though, can I? What will all the different directors and music directors you can't expect things to flow well.

Why are the movies so wrong? I am sure the Lord of the Rings fans don't love the movies but at least they are better movie versions. The movies can't be as great as the books, but Harry Potter movies are really incomparable to the books!