What are your movie pet peeves?

In PoA, when Harry/Dan gets all ticked off when he finds out that his godfather Sirius Black was (supposedly) responsible for the murder of his parents. Honestly, that '****** off' sequence really made me wonder if he could blow up at all in OOTP. His shouting and all was somewhat unconvincing. But he pulled it off in OOTP, despite that, when he shouts, "Look at me!" at Dumbledore in OOTP.

I also did not like how in GOF Dumbledore basically almost physically attacked Harry in the beginning when his name came out of the goblet. A little too much, and not very Dumbledore-esque.

1) Harrys eyes. Sometimes they are blue, sometimes green--They need to be green 100% of the time. It isn't that hard to fix.

2) The acting does get better in the newer movies. I would say that Emma Watson irritates me.

3) Cutting important things out, or really, cutting out things that fans would like to see. I understand that they have to cut things for length, but sometimes, they cut the wrong things. (Example: The ending of GoF, not showing Snape and the Dark Mark.)

My movie pet peeves:

The lack of Peeves
The fact that they will not admit that the movies for GoF-DH need to be 3 1/2
hours each to get the information they need in.
For the sake of simplicity they change the rules of the Harry Potter universe, rather than do things the way they are supposed to be done.

eyes being blue

eyes being blue
So long as they're the same colour as the actress who play's adult Lily's eye's, then that's fine. Because it's the fact that they're the same colour as Lily's that's important in the end, rather then the fact that they're green.

No Peeves!
They need to be longer!
They don't have Nearly Headless Nick, except in the first two
Parts they could have fit in, but leave out anyway.

Parts they could have fit in, but leave out anyway.
Out of curiosity, like what parts?

I don’t think Dan makes a great Harry Potter, at least in the most recent movies. I can’t say he is a bad actor because I’ve never seen any of his other works. It’s just not convincing and seems much too exaggerated.

Everything in the muggle world seeming so hip and trendy. Look at Duddley from the first movie to the fifth. I think there was a huge deviation. Look at Hermione’s pink hoodie and her perfectly placed hair. It’s just too real. It doesn’t scream “wondrous magical world.”

The biggest problem for me though, is the lack of flow between the movies. I know it came from having different directors, but perhaps they should have done it differently, perhaps they should have waited to make the movies. Would it have made so much difference if the first movie started filming this year?

The characterization of Hermione and Dumbledore. Would've been wonderful if they kept it true to the books like the first two movies. :sigh:

My movie pet peeves are that they disguard wizarding rule ex. no magic in front of a group of muggles, wearing normal clothes all the time, there are so many more examples throughout the film.

Emma Watsons 'thespic eyebrows'...:nc:

i couldnt imagine a different harry hermione or ron. ron is particularly fantastic. i thought the films 1 and 2 were good. but 3 was excellent. however criticisms i have of film 3 are...
1. no explanation of the maurauders. who and WHY!!
3. HE WAS THEIR FRIEND AND HE BETRAYED THEM!! haha cringe!

you just nailed EVERYTHING there
these are the reasons i hated that movie so much
I can't believe people actually liked it. Harry's scene where he was trying to cry after finding out Sirius betrayed his parents was AWFUL! I haven't stopped making fun of dan radcliffe since
And HOW can anyone leave such a good plotline out? the one with the marauders and actually EXPLAINING everything

PoA:
I was annoyed that they didn't even explain the marauders at all! and the 'crying' (if you could even call it that...) when Harry found out that Sirius was his godfather-realllllly fake and unconvincing!
and I've never thought lupin looked like i always thought...i always think it's really annoying when the character's just don't look right.

GoF:
Dumbledore almost murders Harry 'HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR EFFING NAME IN THE EFFING CUP?!?!?!?'
i thought we had reached the end harrys life 3 books early or something.

OotP:
I think they should have just made the bloody movie longer so we didnt miss out on the good bits. Snape's Worst Memory. Not long enough! Do it justice, do it properly! We didn't see the dept. of mystery's, really. we only saw the pretty prophecies!
How much James did not look like Harry! I wish they had just gotten Dan, taken off the scar and give him hazel eyes!

Other Stuff:
-Harry's eyes. WHY does Harry keep changing his eye colour...it is really important that he has really super green eyes!
-Hermione (Emma's) wooden/over-enthusiastic acting. But I can't imagine
anybody else acting her because I think she looks just like Hermione is meant to. But I think she should stick to BROWN hair, not basically blonde.
-Dumbledore's Anger Management Problem. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to make it look like he killed Harry in the next movie.

GoF:
Dumbledore almost murders Harry 'HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR EFFING NAME IN THE EFFING CUP?!?!?!?'
you're just exaggerating it here. If you watch this video (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PT45wRlTMi0), you can see that he lightly shakes him, and in the original soundtrack, he raises his voice so that he can be heard.

Other Stuff:
-Harry's eyes. WHY does Harry keep changing his eye colour...it is really important that he has really super green eyes!
No it isn't. It's important that he has his mother's eyes, not that they have to be bright green like a becon.

The battle finale was terribly done. It seemed as if the writer/director put as little effort into the adaptation as possible. It should have been much more greatly detailed and portrayed, but the battle was a half-arsed bare-bones affair.

GoF and CoS annoy the heck out of me. They're REALLY bad.

I don't have many pet peeves about the movies, as the series are an adaptation of the books and can't be expected to have everything. Some may not like the long hair in GOF, but personally I like it. Dumbledore has hair down to his waist, and remember Bill in the books has long hair too. It's wizard fashion! :D
However, I am annoyed or slightly annoyed at the following:

1. They have diluted the number of Weasleys: at the end of the day, we have only seen (or have heard mentioned): Arthur, Molly, Ron, Percy, Ginny, Fred and George. Yes it's 7/9, but I believe that Bill and Charlie should have been in there too. The Weasleys aren't the Weasleys without Charlie and Bill. :no:

2. Rupert's ridiculous faces: he goes over the top in nearly every scence where they are supposed to be worried/anxious/other about something. His acting, otherwise, is pretty good.

3. The fireworks scene in OotP: I was so annoyed at that! It looked more the kind of fireworks you see to celebrate New Year at midnight, rather than the awesome Catherine Wheels, cursing fireworks (meaning the ones that kept writing out swear words) and shimmering dragons.

4. Percy's invisible glasses: he is, to me, not Percy without his (in)famous horn-rimmed glasses. But the actor's (who plays him anyway?) acting is great. I think for me, he did capture the character of Percy: for some reason I love his "Excuse me! I'm head BOY!" in PoA.

1. Cheesy lines ("I love magic!")
2. Hermione's eyebrows (they're darker then her hair and it looks weird)
3. Ginny's wardrobe (what is she wearing!?!?! In almost every movie they dress her in things that look like someone threw up on them, escpecially GoF)

I saw OOTP again this weekend, & every time Emma Watson said her lines she acted like she getting ready to cry. Did anyone else notice that?

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.

Now that it's all over, we can see for ourselves that the books have plot holes which could swallow whole continents.


For the sake of simplicity they change the rules of the Harry Potter universe, rather than do things the way they are supposed to be done.

Have you read DH? The author herself cannot stick to the rules she laid down in earlier books. She changes them from page to page.


The biggest problem for me though, is the lack of flow between the movies. I know it came from having different directors, but perhaps they should have done it differently,

Not much flow between the books, despite having the same author!


perhaps they should have waited to make the movies. Would it have made so much difference if the first movie started filming this year?

Ask Rowling. She sold the film rights. The fact that these films that you are bellyaching about have been made is down to her.


GoF:
Dumbledore almost murders Harry 'HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR EFFING NAME IN THE EFFING CUP?!?!?!?'


You know perfectly well that Dumbledore did not say that. Why are you inventing dialogue which we all know is not in the film? What is your purpose?

Dan Radcliffe's leaden acting.
Dan's eyes are not electric green like they should be. But if you didn't read the books you wouldn't know that Harry's eyes are green.
Cutting out important bits that are necessary to the plots.

JKR sold the film rights to the books BUT she kept her rights to the characters so noone can make any Harry Potter stories that are not in the seven books.

IMO the worst thing about the films (and in some respects the books) is the writers need to constantly tell us whats happening with Hermiones vanilla narrative, I know that some younger children may not get it but it still bugs the **** out of me.

haahaa yeah the movie Hermione is a bit overly narrative.
gah. And i wish they would have kept the costuming consistent. I would have preferred it that wizard wore wizards robes. and muggles wore muggle clothes.
I think it bothers me so much because thats what i want to do as a career, costume design. Thats one reason the books will always be better. I can imagine things the right way ;)

shoddy final battle sequences ruin movies.

There are a couple of things. As a whole, i like the films but i think the could have been better. I like David Yates's style and wish he could have done all the films because the style always changes with a new director.

My Pet Peeves are
1.)I don't think Emma Watson is the best person the could have had for Hermione. She's a bit wooden and i don't think they always show how smart Hermione actually is.
2.)They always seem to cut down the first few chapters a lot- in the fourth film, Harry was never shown at the Dursley's.
3.)It never ends how it does in the book.
4.)Molly Weasley-one of my favourite characters-is hardly in the films but they've got Julie Walters playing her. This alao counts for Trelawny and McGonagall.

Can my pet peeve be that Peeves isn't in it?:whistle:

I'm mostly ok with all the movies, even though there is so much missing i still enjoy them, but a couple of things irritate me

POA: that part when Hermione picks up Harry with ONE arm and can aim his body into a hole at the bottom of the whomping willow. That whole scene makes me cringe.

And Emma's Hermione irritates me in the most recent couple of movies - always seems on the verge of tears, over dramatic, doesnt come across as a bookish not many friends type girl that she is in the books. And those damm eyebrows.

They cut some of the most important parts out. I realize that they can't include every little detail or the movie would be 12 hours long (and I'd still watch it :p), but adding a few scenes and tweaking the dialogue a little would keep more of the original plots/sub-plots in without making it much longer

My pet peeve: Why was the DA practicing Levicorpus? I thought Harry never learned it until HBP?

I mostly enjoy the movies. I've accepted that they are different from the books, and so enjoy them as seperate entities. I didn't find much to complain about in OotP except for the ending sequences, for a bit there I actually thought they weren't going to explain the prophecy! And the whole veil scene wasn't as good as it could've been, but it was alright. And I don't have a problem with the acting, I think the acting improves with each movie. It's sometimes painful to go back and watch the old movies when you see how much better they've all gotten.

What bugs me is mostly from movies 3 and 4. The first two and OotP did a much better job of balancing the trio in my opinion. But, especially PoA, my ultimate pet peeve is how they portray Ron. They made him out to be a bumbling idiot and snivelling coward. I don't blame Rupert for this, I blame the writers. On the contrary, I think Rupert does a good job being the Ron they write for him, but it's not the Ron from the books, and that bugs me to no end! I really didn't like PoA because it gave Hermione all the good lines and all the ideas and revelations. She could've just done the time turner sequence herself, Harry was only along for the ride, otherwise they would've had to change the title of the movie. And GoF was better in this regard, but I still didn't think they quite balanced the trio.

I do get annoyed sometimes with Emma Watson, especially in GoF because she always looked like she was going to cry. I didn't notice this as much in OotP, but I only saw it once. Maybe she did it there too, but like I said, I think the trio was better balanced.

Daniel Radcliffe's voice really annoys me.
Gambon is dressed like a hobo, not a headmaster of a school.
Emma Watson tries too hard and alot of her acting seems very fake.
When Dan was crying in PoA, it was so badly done I felt like punching someone.:grumble:
Ron doesn't get enough lines.
I feel as though the directors and 'movie makers' aren't putting enough effort into these movies. Not enough thought and heart is put into it and it feels as though they are just making these movies because they're popular and don't care whether or not they're actually good movies.

Can my pet peeve be that Peeves isn't in it?:whistle:

I know! I found this dissapointing, think about just how much fun that could have been.

What also annoys me are the inconsistent details that change with the director: wardrobes and hairstyles were changed in the third movie, along with DD' general personality.

when the film gets very cheesy. like in the OOTP movie when harry goes on about love . . oh gosh. . i wanted to laugh. i also agree with wumples when he says not enough effort is put into the movie as a whole. i think jkr should be more involved in them. and i hate it when they cut stuff out, some important stuff. i really don't like how they protray harry and dumbledores relationship. they are much closer in the book.

they changed dumbledore way to much. i liked the guy who played him in the first 2 movies way better.

in the books they are always talking about how strange wizards look in muggle clothing but in the movies, everyone is in muggle clothing outside of hogwarts it seems like.
i also didnt like the 5th movie at all, it was the longest book 800 somthin pages but the shortest movie out of all of them.
also most every page of the book builds on somthing that has already been said or will develop into somthing important later on, but in the movies they leave out way to many minor details that become important later on
the 6th and 7th movie will probably be the best because the directors will know all the important stuff since there are no more books coming out and they wont have to guess at what they should put in and leave out.
the first two movies were the best, the director didnt change and it appeared he put way more time and effort into those movies, i also liked dumbledores long hair and beard and long robes way better thant this short haired and bearded dumby

Daniel Radcliffe's voice really annoys me.
Gambon is dressed like a hobo, not a headmaster of a school.
Emma Watson tries too hard and alot of her acting seems very fake.
Ron doesn't get enough lines.


Yes Yes Yes! Oh sorry and Yes! I agree with all them.

Plus:

Dobby being left out.
The diminishing Weasley family.
The missing out of points that make it confusing for non-readers in that film and future ones.
McGonagall not being such a presence as the books make her.
The general wardrobe/make up of the cast- in many cases the books have plenty of information to form the correct image for the character. Why can't someone read them and take heed.

yeah i liked the old Dumbledore better. he seemed wiser than the other. but my pet peeve was in the movie CoS. The griffindor sword looked like something i could get at the dollar store. I expected something a little more creative and impressive looking.

The missing out of points that make it confusing for non-readers in that film and future ones.
And you would know about how non-book fans feel, do you? My mum and dad haven't read the books in ages, and yet, they didn't feel the need to ask me who the Mauderers were, or ask how Lupin know how use the map in PoA. And they would have if they were confused.

E.M.M.A

I'm sure any of the other actress's they auditioned could have done better. It just bothers me that an actress with so little technical skill gets paid so much.

And you would know about how non-book fans feel, do you? My mum and dad haven't read the books in ages, and yet, they didn't feel the need to ask me who the Mauderers were, or ask how Lupin know how use the map in PoA. And they would have if they were confused.

Just because your parents weren't confused or understood things fine, that does not mean others felt the same way. Two of my friends don't read the books and they have absolutely no idea what happened in the last three movies. The lack of explanations and cuts from the movies do make things confusing for a good majority of people who don't read the books.

And Tarrine said 'non-readers', not 'non-book fans'. There is a difference between the two.

Just because your parents weren't confused or understood things fine, that does not mean others felt the same way. Two of my friends don't read the books and they have absolutely no idea what happened in the last three movies. The lack of explanations and cuts from the movies do make things confusing for a good majority of people who don't read the books.
The movies are hardly difficult to understand, and are made exactly for people who haven't read the books before, which is the point of them.

I was really disappointed that they didn't have Rita Skeeter in OOTP. I mean, she gives Harry that controversial interview, and the audience becomes a little more familiar with the Quibbler.

jammi567 - I didn't say non-book fans. You mentioned your parents haven't read the books in ages; meanwhile I was referring to people who have only read the first book, if any. After seeing the last three films with people who fit the latter, I would say that sometimes the films are confusing for people who don't read Harry Potter as I had to explain something to them after each one.


I realise the films are made so the non-readers can enjoy it just as much as those who do read HP; the cuts probably don't even bother them as they don't know what is missing, it just seems like something is muddled. I've just noticed that often I'm left sitting next to a baffled friend.

Anywhere the movie strays from the books I get annoyed. I'm one who likes directors who stick to the details. My biggest pet peeves are Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore (eek) & the Fat Lady portrait. She was perfect in the first films, than POA moved her & changed her. All in all though I think the movies were very well done, though I haven't seen OotP yet.

- Peeves (of course)
- Ever since the PoA movie, they have been implying that Hermione is ALWAYS a rebel, but she's not.
- They have also been giving the impression that Ron is some sort of coward. Yes, he does get a bit scared and whiny when in the presence of flesh-hungry acromantulas, but I can't see why anyone wouldn't. He is, generally, a brave person. I mean, he's in Gryff., isn't he?
- Michael Gambon really annoys me. He doesn't portray the calm and kind old man that I read about in the books well at all.
- The Quidditch World Cup. 'Nuff said.
- After I watched OotP, I thought that, had I not read the books, I wouldn't have understood any of it. They did a poor job of explaining what was going on. And if it is so that they did that because they are aiming for the Harry Potter fans only, then why not make a longer movie (as many Potter fans want)?

in the gof when dumbldore acts like he has anger management problems. Dumbldore is a nice guy people!

- Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, as we all agree. When I think of DD I think of an old man with a long beard, and very calm. Michael Gambon is like DD if he was an angry old man who just wants to kill someone. Plus his voice is so deep.
- Dobby. They cut Dobby! ***? Dobby deserves to continue, what will they do in DH, then? Will they skip MM entirely? They left him in COS, but I want to see Dobby with all those hats! :)
- Peeves & the Ghosts. I don't think we've seen the traditional ghosts (Nick, the Baron etc.) since COS, except for Myrtle. And of course, Peeves is missing.
-

Too short imo

I'm peeved that they didn't have Nearly-Headless Nick in OotP. :grumble:

-I like Dan R. as Harry; he was an adorable little kid, turned into a cute young man and I think he portrays Harry's 'goodness' very well. But, important line delivery... umm, eh. >.< Kinda stilted, but I feel he's getting better.

-Emma... Emma, Emma, Emma... *sigh* terrible. I have a hard time watching her from PoA onward, she's so bloody DESPERATE to say her lines all the time. I cringe inwardly. I cringe outwardly. She was fabulous in the first 2, but I don't like her screechy style these days, she needs a valium.

-Rupert Grint IS a good actor, it's the script they give him that makes him so whiney/ cowardly... He's an... ugly/cute sort of fellow, I feel that out of the trio he'll go on to do the most versatile stuff.

-Dumbledore - Michael G's portrayal of DD has grown on me some, but I admit he's not quite right for the part. However, we seem to be stuck with him, so reaching a level of acceptance was neccassary. (For me.) And I TOTES HATED that scene in PoA where he was talking about 'dreams' (Somebuddy else mentioned that too! *hi-5*) gads, that was stupid.

-I don't like that they show so little of Draco! :D MORE Draco!

-I really disliked PoA's director so very much... I read an interview where he was talking about maybe coming back for the 6th movie and I clenched my jaw so hard I about cracked a tooth! Ixnay on A.C. for HPB. I just really miss the warm, flowing story-telling from the first two movies, C.C. did a really good job of that at least.

- AND....... I HATE that Harry's eyes are blue, NOT green... Q_Q Ever hear of contact lenses maybe??? Dan - anybody???

Dan Radcliffe is allergic to contact lenses.

Oy, the movies... canon fans will always have more things to say, myself included. We're just loyal, and we don't want the books seen in a bad light? :lol:

But mine would be... hold on, I have a small book. (Just kidding.)

* The lack of green eyes. I understand he's allergic, but they do have extensive amounts of special effects. They can color his eyes in.
* No Peeves. I was so hoping he would make a miraculous appearance in OotP to chase Umbridge down.
* Their werewolf in PoA. I have seen many a better werewolf in other movies. It made me feel so bad for Remus and his wussy wolf form.
* The spell that hit Sirius before he fell through the veil. NOT a stunning spell. I definitely didn't need the fact that Sirius was dead to be rubbed in by seeing a spell that didn't occur in the book. :grumble:
* Thewlis' mustache. Enough said.

Hermione's dress in GOF. They really push the pink too much, and it's a bit OC, in the book it was a pretty periwinkle blue, and I think it would have been more fitting just to stay canon that once.
And that they stopped giving her bushy hair.
And the dumbing down of Ron, though some people would say this is a matter of opinion.

Ear, ear, brittanyks!

Yes, but Thewlis was too flabby in OotP. :(

-I like Dan R. as Harry; he was an adorable little kid, turned into a cute young man and I think he portrays Harry's 'goodness' very well. But, important line delivery... umm, eh. >.< Kinda stilted, but I feel he's getting better.

-Emma... Emma, Emma, Emma... *sigh* terrible. I have a hard time watching her from PoA onward, she's so bloody DESPERATE to say her lines all the time. I cringe inwardly. I cringe outwardly. She was fabulous in the first 2, but I don't like her screechy style these days, she needs a valium.

-Rupert Grint IS a good actor, it's the script they give him that makes him so whiney/ cowardly... He's an... ugly/cute sort of fellow, I feel that out of the trio he'll go on to do the most versatile stuff.




I did also get the feeling after this last movie that perhaps they are trying too hard. That being said I still enjoyed it and my biggest pet peeve is that there is too much book to fit into a movie, even if it is 2 1/2 hours long.

Yes, but Thewlis was too flabby in OotP. :(


Yes he was!
Remus is a werewolf. Undercover, I'd assume, even in OotP. If anything, he should be looking as far from spoiled as possible. As well as roughed up and scruffy.

Well, maybe in HBP he'll be a little less... fluffy, to be nice. We can hope. I will be. I adore Remus, and flabbiness just won't do.

they changed dumbledore way to much. i liked the guy who played him in the first 2 movies way better.

in the books they are always talking about how strange wizards look in muggle clothing but in the movies, everyone is in muggle clothing outside of hogwarts it seems like.
i also didnt like the 5th movie at all, it was the longest book 800 somthin pages but the shortest movie out of all of them.
also most every page of the book builds on somthing that has already been said or will develop into somthing important later on, but in the movies they leave out way to many minor details that become important later on
the 6th and 7th movie will probably be the best because the directors will know all the important stuff since there are no more books coming out and they wont have to guess at what they should put in and leave out.
the first two movies were the best, the director didnt change and it appeared he put way more time and effort into those movies, i also liked dumbledores long hair and beard and long robes way better thant this short haired and bearded dumby

The man who played Dumbledore in the first few died, that is why he seems like a different person.

Here are four things that really annoyed me:
1) POA, when Hermione is about to beat up Draco and Ron says, "Hermione, no!. He's not worth it." WHAT:hmm::grumble::nc: Stupid sceenwriters, the real Ron would never, ever say anything like that! Ron was the one with the most temper and would always be the first to blow.

2) Again POA, Lupin's talk with Harry about Lily. What the hell was that? I thought that was just odd.

3) GOF, Voldemort's return to power. Such a letdown, it was so quick. Nothing was really explained, and I didn't like the way Ralph Fiennes played Voldemort. He seemed just erratic, while the Voldemort in my head is cold and calculating...but he improved in OOTP.

3) OOTP, the prophecy scene. They cut out so much detail, it made it seem insignificant but it is so important.

I saw OOTP again this weekend, & every time Emma Watson said her lines she acted like she getting ready to cry. Did anyone else notice that?A lot of people have noticed this.

Emma Watsons acting. She constantly looks as though she's on the verge of a nervous break down, especially in the beginning scenes in the latest one. She's annoying. And has annoying mouth movements.

Grawp. WHAT THE HELL? That thing's meant to be ugly. Not cute.

Sirius's death. Was fit for something like..The Lion King. Maybe. Maybe something even more childish.

Voldemorts muscles. Muscles. MUSCLES. Honestly.

Harrys eyes. Why don't they use color changing contacts? Hello? Important plot line!

The change of actors for Dumbledore is acceptable, but the change of costume and makeup is just stupid.

"Is that really what my hair looks like from behind" Needed? No. Harry Potter isn't some cheerleader chick flick. And they put that line in the movie thats beginning to touch on the darker themes.

Peeves and Binns being missing. Oh and the fact they've ignored Dobby...bit crappy for the later films, is it not?
Wheres nearly headless Nick been? And Mrs Norris? We've seen Filch..but nai his cat.

Emma Watsons acting. She constantly looks as though she's on the verge of a nervous break down, especially in the beginning scenes in the latest one. She's annoying. And has annoying mouth movements.

Grawp. WHAT THE HELL? That thing's meant to be ugly. Not cute.

Sirius's death. Was fit for something like..The Lion King. Maybe. Maybe something even more childish.

Voldemorts muscles. Muscles. MUSCLES. Honestly.

Harrys eyes. Why don't they use color changing contacts? Hello? Important plot line!

The change of actors for Dumbledore is acceptable, but the change of costume and makeup is just stupid.

"Is that really what my hair looks like from behind" Needed? No. Harry Potter isn't some cheerleader chick flick. And they put that line in the movie thats beginning to touch on the darker themes.

Peeves and Binns being missing. Oh and the fact they've ignored Dobby...bit crappy for the later films, is it not?
Wheres nearly headless Nick been? And Mrs Norris? We've seen Filch..but nai his cat.

Emma Watson's acting is really bad. Bless her, cause she seems like a sweet girl, but in the Unforgivable Curses scene I almost screamed, COME ON!" out loud in the theater- that was so un-Hermone.

And I didn't mind Michael Gambdon either, but what is up with that hat? And his nails really creeped me out in POA.

Emma Watson is awful, and Dan Radcliffe used to be as well; thankfully, he's improved immeasurably in OotP. :D

Ya, I thought he was awesome in OOTP, but I think he's been doing pretty good since POA

Emma Watsons acting. She constantly looks as though she's on the verge of a nervous break down, especially in the beginning scenes in the latest one. She's annoying. And has annoying mouth movements.

Grawp. WHAT THE HELL? That thing's meant to be ugly. Not cute.

Sirius's death. Was fit for something like..The Lion King. Maybe. Maybe something even more childish.

Voldemorts muscles. Muscles. MUSCLES. Honestly.

Harrys eyes. Why don't they use color changing contacts? Hello? Important plot line!

The change of actors for Dumbledore is acceptable, but the change of costume and makeup is just stupid.

"Is that really what my hair looks like from behind" Needed? No. Harry Potter isn't some cheerleader chick flick. And they put that line in the movie thats beginning to touch on the darker themes.

Peeves and Binns being missing. Oh and the fact they've ignored Dobby...bit crappy for the later films, is it not?
Wheres nearly headless Nick been? And Mrs Norris? We've seen Filch..but nai his cat.


Everything you've said is 100 % correct. I'm so annoyed with Harry's eyes. They are GREEN. This is very IMPORTANT.

And Voldemort's muscles! I know what you mean! It's retarded! You mean the part in his battle with Dumbledore when he lifts up his arms? Yeah I really don't like that.

I know that this may sound silly, but one of the things that bothered me the most about the Order of the Phoenix movie was that Hermione and Ron kept wearing almost matching striped shirts. It drove me crazy.

Still I think the movies are to choppy and inconsistent I mean we can fill in the gaps because we have read the books and now what REALLY happens, but think about other people, thay have to be like what is going on!? And they get very wrong plot details like who said what and such....I will still never be happy with them until they perfectly match the books...haha

I would have preferred a lot more of the chaos being caused during Umbridge's regime in OOTP to have been included. The swamp, the nifflers and Peeves (Who's been cut out of all of them :( ).

"It unscrews the other way." <--- If only!

Everything you've said is 100 % correct. I'm so annoyed with Harry's eyes. They are GREEN. This is very IMPORTANT.

The fact that they are green isn't important; but, as long as they are the same as Lily's, there's no problem.

One thing that particuarly annoys me is that the actors always seemed to be "placed." They don't walk naturally into the scene. It makes the whole thing seem like some kind of high school play.

*cough* let's think... um... oh yeah.

DUMBLEDORE

($#%@$#$%!!)

Emma Watson, I've never liked her.
She ALWAYS has some serious eye-brow spasms whenever she says her lines, it gets wicked annoying.

I just want to point out that Dan's acting has gotten a ton better since COS. His performance in OOTP was really good. Unfortunately I can't say the same about Emma Watson. Her's has changed, but it's still not as convincing as Dan's. I hated the punch in 3, it was horrible. Didn't even look real.

Harry's Eyes
Tonk's Hair Length
Harry's scar, I always imagined it to be more centered on his head.

Major Pet Peeve : Emma Watson doesn't know how to act! when she says her lines I feel like "huh? why is she saying that, it's so ouut of place". THen i read the screenplays on imdb and those lines actually make sense, she juust doesn't know what she's doing. I don't know why the producers,directors or even jk rowling for heaven's sake don't do something about it :/

The overall atmosphere of the the movies annoy me too. 3 had this loose "anything goes" air, 1 and 2 were tense and dull, and four was so tense it made me cringe.

Lack of focus on Ron: Just doesn't like the fact that many Ron's dialogues were passed to others. This made him so insignificant, or rather significantly weaker as compared to the other two. The trio each has their plus and minus points but I think Harry and Hermione were given more chances to shine.

Emma Watson: Actually, I quite like her... but in GOF, i really cringed at her acting. It's funny how I never remember her eyebrows movements until I rewatched GOF recently. I don't recall the movements being that bad in Ootp though...

Dumbledore in GOF: The way he questioned Harry on the submission of name? Mental.

Oh, and some mentioned about Lupin's werewolf form. Totally agree. WHAT WAS THAT?! It's hilarious!

In almost all movies, I notice an extra doing something daft that annoys me, like looking straight into the camera.
I'm sure I'd be a terrible extra/actor, but they annoy me anyway.

In Goblet of fire, this stands out the most to me (not completely the extra's fault though, the director or someone could've noticed it).
When Dumbledore gets Harry's name from the Goblet - the first time he reads out his name, EVERYONE else in the great hall turn round to look right at where Harry was sitting (as if every single person would know where he sat anyway!), and there's Dumbledore in the middle of the hall turning round and round going, "Harry Potter? HARRY POTTER?!"

No wonder people have a hard time accepting the new Dumbledore when they also make him look daft like this!

Emma Watson is awful, and Dan Radcliffe used to be as well; thankfully, he's improved immeasurably in OotP.

I don't agree with you. All I see on this forums is people 'bashing' Emma Watson. C'mon give her a break! She's doing the best she can! She's the best actress for the role, and they wouldn't be able to find another one as good as her. Just deal with it, k? I'm, actually a fan of Emma's acting (Especially in the first 3 films.. she was great..) Now shes gone a bit downhill, but shes still good. But everyones gone downhill... I like the way she overreacts sometimes. I think its the way Hermione would be. I know she couldn't act much in GoF, but none of them could!

Also, your comment about Daniel. I disagree completely. When Daniel talks, it makes me cringe when he speaks, and especially when he shouts... C'mon, look at the first 3 movies, and then look at Order of the Phoenix. Not improving! I'd say he's getting worse, I dislike his acting now, but I used to love it. I thought you got better as you got older..

I've got a lot of pet peeves about the movie. Hah.

About Emma, well, she's doing her best but she was quite good during the first 3 films. She was kind of holding back during the fourth film, I don't know whatever happened to her. But she's the best one for the role, I believe. Maybe she needs to do a bit of acting workshop or something.

Rupert's actually good. You'd believe that he actually embodies Ron Weasley, but he needs more lines.

Daniel's actually getting better. I think, he just needs a bit of dialogue training. He sometimes ends up eating his words.

Peeves should've been in the fifth film. And the Fred and George pranks! That was important (well, at least for me. :D)

Harry's eyes should've been GREEN. They are GREEN. Even if it's consistent with the Lily of the movie, they should've changed it given the fact that it's important for the last 2 movies. Oh, and the scene where Harry finds out about James' jinxing Snape just because should've included Lily, but I don't remember seeing her.

The OOtP movie missed out the mirror Sirius gave Harry. WHY?! It SHOULD'VE been included.

And as well as the Quidditch part where Ron became part of the team. Oh well.

I don't agree with you. All I see on this forums is people 'bashing' Emma Watson. C'mon give her a break! She's doing the best she can! She's the best actress for the role, and they wouldn't be able to find another one as good as her. Just deal with it, k? I'm, actually a fan of Emma's acting (Especially in the first 3 films.. she was great..) Now shes gone a bit downhill, but shes still good. But everyones gone downhill... I like the way she overreacts sometimes. I think its the way Hermione would be. I know she couldn't act much in GoF, but none of them could!

Also, your comment about Daniel. I disagree completely. When Daniel talks, it makes me cringe when he speaks, and especially when he shouts... C'mon, look at the first 3 movies, and then look at Order of the Phoenix. Not improving! I'd say he's getting worse, I dislike his acting now, but I used to love it. I thought you got better as you got older..

i agree with you about emma there, but i have to say i disagree about dan. i know it is your opinion, but my opinion is that he is great! he really is perfect for the role and his acting is definately improving. as for the shouting thing, maybe he can't shout. i know some people who have really soft voices and can't shout at all. he can't be greatat everythign he does. i really like how he puts across his lines, and his facial expressions are great. :D

Yeah, I do like Daniel's acting, but I don't like him as much as I used to. But I still like him, don't get me wrong. But I know they can't get another Actor as good as Daniel to play Harry, and if they did, the movies would go downhill (Dumbledore in GoF for instance.. Dumbledore is not some jerk, hes actually nice..) But the GoF was a rubbish movie in my eyes. Rons line "P off" was delivered like 5 minutes after the actual arguement. Didnt like the line much anyway.

Daniels never really been my favourite of the trio, its always been Emma, and Im fed up of people 'bashing' her. Its just like 'Give her a break'. What will happen if they find a new Hermione? What will they do then? Kill themselves?! :grumble:

Edit - Sorry about my outburst, but.. would you like it if someone kept 'bashing' your acting? I'm sure I wouldn't! What if Emma came on this forum for a nosey-round, and saw a majority of you critisizing her! You wouldn't like it, and I'm sure she wouldn't! Yeah, suure, it's ok to put stuff like:

"Emma's a great actress, don't get me wrong, but she needs to improve in some areas.."

But to put something like:

"Emma's awful!"

That's just horrible! Because she's not awful at all.

My biggest pet peeve has got to be the "new" Dumbledore. Michael Gambon is just far too angry to be the twinkly-eyed, calm-in-the-face-of-danger headmaster we've all grown to love. I wanted to throw things at the theater during the scenes following Harry's name coming out of the goblet..."HARRY POTTER!! DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET? DID YOU? WELL??"

The real Dumbledore lost control of himself once in his life, that was under the influence of a basin-full of poison...

It has to be the part in OotP where umbridge simply curses/hexes the wall to the room of requirements open.

that should've never happened, i liked the book version with the snitch jinx much better.

Honestly, I really only have 1 little pet peeve. The whole Dobby being missing. All of the other stuff people have been mentioning is all well and good, but not entirely important to the plotline of the movie (READ: not the book plotline) I suppose the future director of DH can fix anything in previous movies. I hope it is Yates for the last 2. When you actually think of all of the stuff he had to contend with, he did an Oscar-worthy job on OotP.

everyone not impressed with the job in all of the movies should read Eragon, then watch the movie. They totally messed that movie up...

I have two pet peeves about the movies:

Mrs.Weasley: "there's only one place we can get all of this... Diagon Alley."

Hermione: "does my hair really look like that from the back?"

Ugh.

I don't agree with you. All I see on this forums is people 'bashing' Emma Watson. C'mon give her a break! She's doing the best she can! She's the best actress for the role, and they wouldn't be able to find another one as good as her. Just deal with it, k? I'm, actually a fan of Emma's acting (Especially in the first 3 films.. she was great..) Now shes gone a bit downhill, but shes still good. But everyones gone downhill... I like the way she overreacts sometimes. I think its the way Hermione would be. I know she couldn't act much in GoF, but none of them could!

Also, your comment about Daniel. I disagree completely. When Daniel talks, it makes me cringe when he speaks, and especially when he shouts... C'mon, look at the first 3 movies, and then look at Order of the Phoenix. Not improving! I'd say he's getting worse, I dislike his acting now, but I used to love it. I thought you got better as you got older..

I respect your opinion ofcourse, but is she really the best actress for the role? She's very cute, but there are lots of cute girls that can actually act...

1) Really really cheesy dialogue that dums it down and makes it more childish and less adult
2) the characterisation of some - and how they seem to be sterotyped to fit the typical e movie image. Aso the focus on some characters over others - e.g. hermioen over ron, often in non-canon ways
3) This may sound weird, but i don't like when they have a new monster or magical spell or something and in hte earlier movies especially - they really emphasise it with cheesy music..it jsut goes back to the cheese factor
4) Acting - in some places

when iw as younger i HATED how much they missed out. Now...I try to see realistically and want a good movie which still does the book soem justice in that people enjoy it! lol!

I respect your opinion ofcourse, but is she really the best actress for the role? She's very cute, but there are lots of cute girls that can actually act...

I think she was the best actress for te role of Hermione Granger in film 1.
Things have changed though....I do think it's mean to bash her so muc hthough. If anything, it's the directors and screenwriters who make her who she is, directing her

I think she was the best actress for te role of Hermione Granger in film 1.
Things have changed though....I do think it's mean to bash her so muc hthough. If anything, it's the directors and screenwriters who make her who she is, directing her

I'm not trying to bash her :/, I hope it doesn't come off that way. I am being honest though, she's my major movie pet peeve, not because I have something personal against her but simply because the fact that she can't act annoys me out of my mind. I don't think that the director or screenwriter are responsible for her acting. I've read the script, and Hermione's lines are plausible and make sense, it's just she doesn't know what she's doing when she's saying them. Is the director responsible? To some extent, but the director is there to create the image of the movie, not teach her how to act.

Actually, come to think of it, my biggest movie pet peeve is when they cut off a huge chunk of the book, change it a bit and try to make it work when it absolutely does not. Like in GoF, I have no idea how Neville ended up giving the gillyweed to Harry or why the sphinx completely disappeared and both Harry and Cedric just ended up racing each other to the cup.

have no idea how Neville ended up giving the gillyweed to Harry
I can't answer your second question, but i can answer your first. Neville knows Harry, and he can probally guess that Harry is in need of help. And yet, in the books, he does apsolutly nothing, despite the fact that Moody had given him a book on water plants. In this instance, the movie definatly improved on what Jo wrote. I mean, she sets up the situation, but doesn't use it!

I'm not trying to bash her :/, I hope it doesn't come off that way. I am being honest though, she's my major movie pet peeve, not because I have something personal against her but simply because the fact that she can't act annoys me out of my mind. I don't think that the director or screenwriter are responsible for her acting. I've read the script, and Hermione's lines are plausible and make sense, it's just she doesn't know what she's doing when she's saying them. Is the director responsible? To some extent, but the director is there to create the image of the movie, not teach her how to act.

oh i wasn't necessarily aiming it at you - just in general! and you know, i completley agree! i really dislike how she is portrayed in the movies, it drives me mad! Lol! well, at least it used to, i was quite mean at one time...i think i've sort of accepted it now. still don't like it though! i hate everyone thinking that's hermione granger! i jsut feel bad becuase everyone goes on about it lal hte time - nad i agree, her acting doesn't help - but she can't really help it, i still liked her in PS where i think directing and how she was encouraged to act worked. she's given a lot more room in the later ones...and i almost feel bad for her, there's os much pressure on her (and some peopel actually HATE her.....) it can't be too easy for her.
nowadays, although hermioen still drives me crazy in the films, i often concentrate more on them making ron ron! (another major pet peeve! lol!)

I can't answer your second question, but i can answer your first. Neville knows Harry, and he can probally guess that Harry is in need of help. And yet, in the books, he does apsolutly nothing, despite the fact that Moody had given him a book on water plants. In this instance, the movie definatly improved on what Jo wrote. I mean, she sets up the situation, but doesn't use it!

I don't thnk it improved on the situation, but the movies still made a good alternative (if it had been hermione i would have been SO annoyed...probbaly considered it and all! lol!) and it was a way of making up harry and neville's relationship when they had to miss other bits out of the book

oh i wasn't necessarily aiming it at you - just in general! and you know, i completley agree! i really dislike how she is portrayed in the movies, it drives me mad! Lol! well, at least it used to, i was quite mean at one time...i think i've sort of accepted it now. still don't like it though! i hate everyone thinking that's hermione granger! i jsut feel bad becuase everyone goes on about it lal hte time - nad i agree, her acting doesn't help - but she can't really help it, i still liked her in PS where i think directing and how she was encouraged to act worked. she's given a lot more room in the later ones...and i almost feel bad for her, there's os much pressure on her (and some peopel actually HATE her.....) it can't be too easy for her.
nowadays, although hermioen still drives me crazy in the films, i often concentrate more on them making ron ron! (another major pet peeve! lol!)


Yes I agree :). Also I think one reason she was better in P/SS is because she was younger, and when you're younger acting is sort of second nature, since kids always play.

Yes I agree :). Also I think one reason she was better in P/SS is because she was younger, and when you're younger acting is sort of second nature, since kids always play.

Maybe, yeah! :) and i suppose they knew no different and that they could stretch it! plus not being famous etc. she probably didn't sit there thinking ooh, i want to still come across as pretty etc. becuase i'm sure she must have those kind of things going through her head when she's acting "what are people thinking of me!" knowing people love and hate her for what she does.

plus not being famous etc. she probably didn't sit there thinking ooh, i want to still come across as pretty etc. becuase i'm sure she must have those kind of things going through her head when she's acting "what are people thinking of me!" knowing people love and hate her for what she does.
If she did, then she wouldn't be concentrating on what she's actually doing, and the director (if they have any sense) would make the actors do that scene again, and again, and again until they get it the way the director wants it.

According to Parvati, giant evil looking jack-in-the-boxes are funny.

Michael Gambon's performance in the Goblet of Fire. Did you know he thinks he doesn't have to read the books? He claims he doesn't need to be Dumbledore, he claims he can simply be himself! He states all his characters are extensions of his own personality. As if he can simply change the character to his own whim while everyone is flat out telling directors their characters would never do that or say that. If he had read the books he would have realized it was wrong to manhandle Harry.

Maybe he read the books before OotP. He gets so much better here.

1) Really really cheesy dialogue that dums it down and makes it more childish and less adult


I only have one problem with this statement. These are children's movies. Every one of them are PG Rated. Some of the dialogue is kinda "cheesy", I agree, but some of the things kids say may be viewed by some older people as "cheesy". Unless, that person has children of their own. As a parent, I am personally glad they keep the movies rather childish. My 4 year old loves the movies, and he repeats some of the same "cheesy" dialogue a ton of people post and complain about.

What really annoyes me is not so much the Cutting but the Adding thinks that were not in the books:
1. Neville fainting in Herbology (CoS). Please, scriptwriters READ ALL THE BOOKS before putting stupid suposed-to-be-funny-scenes in the movies
2. DD added quotes in PoA. What is all that dreams (great hall) and happyness (opening evening) stuff about, he is not like that?
3. The fat lady singing (PoA) WHY?

Leaving this kind of things out, they COULD have found the time to add the "unsignificant" fact that the marauders were James, Sirius, Lupin, Peter and that James was a stag animagus.

Oh, and of course, Ron beeing such a whiner. I won't say more, I believe there are threads about that already.


umm im pretty sure he did faint in the book...i think i remember Sprout saying "Their crys wont kill you, just knock you out" or something along those lines...im too lazy to go check now :D

According to Parvati, giant evil looking jack-in-the-boxes are funny.

Michael Gambon's performance in the Goblet of Fire. Did you know he thinks he doesn't have to read the books? He claims he doesn't need to be Dumbledore, he claims he can simply be himself! He states all his characters are extensions of his own personality. As if he can simply change the character to his own whim while everyone is flat out telling directors their characters would never do that or say that. If he had read the books he would have realized it was wrong to manhandle Harry.

Maybe he read the books before OotP. He gets so much better here.

I suspected that about Gambon, that he was just playing himself. Where did you read it?

everyone not impressed with the job in all of the movies should read Eragon, then watch the movie. They totally messed that movie up...

they so did.

the directers have really americanised the films and they missed out loads of important stuff and they then explain nothing

like gof, my mum saw the film without reading the book and hadn't the faintest idea what was happening. it's like the films are just a brief overview of the books

According to Parvati, giant evil looking jack-in-the-boxes are funny.

Michael Gambon's performance in the Goblet of Fire. Did you know he thinks he doesn't have to read the books? He claims he doesn't need to be Dumbledore, he claims he can simply be himself! He states all his characters are extensions of his own personality. As if he can simply change the character to his own whim while everyone is flat out telling directors their characters would never do that or say that. If he had read the books he would have realized it was wrong to manhandle Harry.

Maybe he read the books before OotP. He gets so much better here.

Well if he said htat *** ni defeinitely agree!

but we can't hate gambon for attacking harry if that's what newell TOLD him to do...

I only have one problem with this statement. These are children's movies. Every one of them are PG Rated. Some of the dialogue is kinda "cheesy", I agree, but some of the things kids say may be viewed by some older people as "cheesy". Unless, that person has children of their own. As a parent, I am personally glad they keep the movies rather childish. My 4 year old loves the movies, and he repeats some of the same "cheesy" dialogue a ton of people post and complain about.

Yes, but what's that got to do with how they're supposed to be? As a 17 year old, I don't enjoy the chessy dialogue! the books aren't cheesy and are still able to be successful. Although your 4 year-old may love it, the films aren't aimed at 4 year olds anymore...as neither are the books! would you let your 4 year-old read DH?
If so, then your child is different to most...and you can't really say that all hte movies should be made more chidlish so your little boy can enjoy them.
Most fans are 12 or over - which is the rating for the film in most countries

I suspected that about Gambon, that he was just playing himself. Where did you read it?

http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/filmmaking.asp?ID=209

"Well, I don’t have to play anyone really. I just stick on a beard and play me, so it’s no great feat. I never ease into a role – every part I play is just a variant of my own personality. I’m not really a character actor at all."

:td::grumble:

http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/filmmaking.asp?ID=209

"Well, I don’t have to play anyone really. I just stick on a beard and play me, so it’s no great feat. I never ease into a role – every part I play is just a variant of my own personality. I’m not really a character actor at all."

:td::grumble:

I highly doubt he was being serious. He is legendary for lying in interviews simply to amuse himself. Although if he wasn't kidding, Dan Radcliffe did say on the GOF DVD that Gambon was most like his character...

His film work is built around the fact that he IS a character actor. I don't think someone who is knighted for his services to acting simply 'plays himself'. That's not acting. Anything he does that is questionable is because of the director telling him how he wants a scene played.

[QUOTE=genKi;4724495]Lack of focus on Ron: Just doesn't like the fact that many Ron's dialogues were passed to others. This made him so insignificant, or rather significantly weaker as compared to the other two. The trio each has their plus and minus points but I think Harry and Hermione were given more chances to shine. QUOTE]

I agree completely! The trio is EXTREMELY important, every single character brings something special to the mix. And I don't understand why Ron's been put in the background, he's Harry's best friend and I think Rupert can carry scenes better than Emma.

I highly doubt he was being serious. He is legendary for lying in interviews simply to amuse himself. Although if he wasn't kidding, Dan Radcliffe did say on the GOF DVD that Gambon was most like his character...

His film work is built around the fact that he IS a character actor. I don't think someone who is knighted for his services to acting simply 'plays himself'. That's not acting. Anything he does that is questionable is because of the director telling him how he wants a scene played.John Wayne made quite a successful career of it. ;)

I agree with those who have said that of recent times, Emma Watson has started to do an awful lot of chest heaving, lip quivering and over dramatising even the most incidental lines. I guess that's my pet peeve. (And it's a real pity, as she was awesome in PS/SS!)

I agree with those who have said that of recent times, Emma Watson has started to do an awful lot of chest heaving, lip quivering and over dramatising even the most incidental lines. I guess that's my pet peeve. (And it's a real pity, as she was awesome in PS/SS!)

O dear Snapelicious (love the name by the way), but you can't forget about the most noticable thing: her constant eyebrow spasms when she says her lines.

O dear Snapelicious (love the name by the way), but you can't forget about the most noticable thing: her constant eyebrow spasms when she says her lines.

I never really noticed that int he first three movies, it was when i watched the fourth one my eyes kept travelling to her eyebrows :lol: now when i watch the other three, i am constantly watching her eyebrows!!! it is really irritating :lol: hilarious, but a bit overreacting.

O dear Snapelicious (love the name by the way), but you can't forget about the most noticable thing: her constant eyebrow spasms when she says her lines.

OMG that is the most annoying thing in the world, it drives me mad!!!
I also hate the way they change small details for no particular reason, i could understand if it had an effect on the plot of the film but for example changing the colour of Hermiones dress in GOF to pink, just why? What was the point?

I don't like it when they put in unimportant scenes that don't even occur in the book instead of putting in crucial scenes that actually are in the book!

But my BIGGEST pet peeve is that the stair cases DO NOT REALLY MOVE. I hate it when people tell me I'm wrong about that. No where in ANY of the books does it mention moving stair cases! ARGHH.

I don't like it when they put in unimportant scenes that don't even occur in the book instead of putting in crucial scenes that actually are in the book!

But my BIGGEST pet peeve is that the stair cases DO NOT REALLY MOVE. I hate it when people tell me I'm wrong about that. No where in ANY of the books does it mention moving stair cases! ARGHH.
In book 1 Harry suspects that everything is moving around because he isn't familiar with the castle yet. He doesn't actually see them moving. However, the moving staircases in the films are there because the trio had to get accidentally to the forbidden corridor on the 3rd floor to the room with Fluffy in it. I don't like them much because it looks too mechanical, not magical enough. The other thing is, the entire sequence from Hermione showing the Quiddich trophy to Harry and Ron until her famous line, "Now, I'm going to bed, before any of you come up with another clever idea to get us killed, or worse expelled!", is just a mess. Firstly, whose idea was it to go to the trophy room in the first place? Secondly, when Hermione approached Harry and Ron on the grounds, it's broad daylight with students everywhere around. When they return to Gryffindor tower, the common room is empty and Hermione wants to go to bed. So, it has to be late. What have they been doing all this time? This was just a clumsy way to cut out "The Midnight Duel".

But my BIGGEST pet peeve is that the stair cases DO NOT REALLY MOVE. I hate it when people tell me I'm wrong about that. No where in ANY of the books does it mention moving stair cases! ARGHH.
The book does say about the staircases "...some that led somewhere different on a Friday," (p 131 US version), and also says "it all seemed to move around a lot" on the next page, so that's probably where they got the idea.

The book does say about the staircases "...some that led somwhere different on a Friday," (p 131 US version), and also says "it all seemed to move around a lot" on the next page, so that's probably where they got that idea.

yeah, i remember reading that somewhere in the books. We are given the impression that the staircases move, not necessarily all the time though.

3. The fat lady singing (PoA) WHY?:lol: LOL ... I have to (guiltily) admit that I love that bit ... mainly because I love Dawn French. She just has to stand there and I'm in hysterics.

My pet peeve is the scripting ... it's been getting much better, true, but it still lapses into wooden and frankly unbelievable dialogue at points. While the seasoned pros can pull it off for the most part, the kids really lack the presence...

For the most part, I think the acting tends to be solid. There are times, however, where it noticeably slips and can, IMO, ruin a scene. One of my favorite parts of GoF is the Yule Ball and the argument that results from it. Unfortunately, I was somewhat underwhelmed with the performances in that scene which kind of ruined it.

When the movies seem rushed. The Shrieking Shack scene in PoA for example. Seemed like they were rushing through their lines to get out of that building. It didn't feel natural at all.

i think it would be better if:
a) the actors could act
b) dumbledore could look -yes just LOOK- a bit of the wise old wizard i ahd pictured
c)if he could chuck the hat
and d) if the makers would actually READ the the books. i would gladly lend them my books!!

I wouldn't lend them my books. They may change them to include stupid shrunken heads and other such rubbish. besides, i would die.

[Staff edit]

Could you actually give us some examples as to why you think Dan and Emma can't act?

Yeah that's a very good point.

The movement of the DE's on OOTP, with the black vapor swooshing around. Incredibly unlike the book, cheesy, and it ruined what was left of the Ministry of Magic scenes for me.

The movement of the DE's on OOTP, with the black vapor swooshing around. Incredibly unlike the book, cheesy, and it ruined what was left of the Ministry of Magic scenes for me.

Really? I know it wasn't in the book, but I thought the mixture of black and white was a really arresting image. What actually bothered me about the DE's was in GOF at the World Cup. They're wearing these ridiculous pointed hats and marching and chanting-it's like they were trying to make the DE's into the KKK, which was just weird and obvious to me. What can I say? I'm just a big GOF movie hater.

When people cast spells that look or have a totally different effect than in the books.

I'm not like terribly picky of the script or the actors (for my part I think they are doing great and that the trio have grown into their roles very well) however, my only major pet peeve of any movie when I watch it was what in the world were they thinking when they had practically ALL the guys grown their hair a little longer for GOF, please, someone had to have a pair of scissors on that set it makes them all look goofy to me, except that I think Rupert can pull it off and they've tended to keep him with a little bit shaggier hair I've noticed.

I like the movies. The only thing I would change if I could - I don't understand why they're all wearing 'muggle' clothes so very often. I'd have robes, robes, and more robes if I could.

(in that vein - it made me laugh how in OotP Harry has that vision of Sirius in grave danger. In that moment, he, Hermione and Ron wear their school robes. In the next scene though, when rushing through the school and talking what they can do, they're all in their leisure muggle clothes again, as if they had dashed into their rooms to change before considering what they do about Sirius :D)

I honestly feel that the scriptwriter really doesn't "know" the characters well enough to write the screenplay. All of Ron's lines are given to Hermione, and we all know that Jo is very deliberate about who says what, and what they say in the first place.

I totally agree with everyone about Emma's eyebrow spasms. It just looks stupid.

Was it just me, or did it seem like she was just reciting her lines in bits of OotP, instead of actually acting?

As Fleur du mal said, the muggle clothing gets annoying after awhile. They're in school, so they should wear uniform. Understandable if they get to wear muggle clothing at the weekends - even though they always wore robes at school.

Also all the small changes, like in OotP for example, like how Neville couldn't see Thestrals, how Harry found out what they were, how Levicorpus was introduced too early, how stupefy doesn't knock people out, how Cho became the snitch etcetc

Its gotta be in GOF with the dragon.

whats all that about, flying over the school, ripping half the roofs down :no:

i was sat there tutting away to myself when watching that!!

I honestly feel that the scriptwriter really doesn't "know" the characters well enough to write the screenplay. All of Ron's lines are given to Hermione, and we all know that Jo is very deliberate about who says what, and what they say in the first place.

I totally agree with everyone about Emma's eyebrow spasms. It just looks stupid.

Was it just me, or did it seem like she was just reciting her lines in bits of OotP, instead of actually acting?


No. It wasn't just you.

I know a director has to, but it really annoys me when people cut things out of the book.

I know a director has to, but it really annoys me when people cut things out of the book.

I second that -- when a director goes and does that, especially if it's an important part of the storyline itself -- it can tend to make a movie somewhat convoluted.

I second that -- when a director goes and does that, especially if it's an important part of the storyline itself -- it can tend to make a movie somewhat convoluted.

I know! Can you say "Winky?" :no:

Something that's bothered me a little every time a new film comes out is they really don't do much magic. It doesn't effect the story or the quality of the movie, but we rarely ever see the main three characters do any magic. Once we get to DH, the amount of magic they do will be overwhelming.

Oh, and this is really stupid, but it bothers me that throughout the course of a year, their hair never changes at all.

Alright, so I haven't actually seen OotP movie yet, it comes out on dvd here in 4 days so i'll definately be getting it as soon as I can, but i've seen thousands of pictures from it enough to know how it looks without sound :D

The thing I remember particulary though is seeing a picture of the young marauders. Correct me if i'm wrong but James's hair wasn't black at all, it was some kind of brown light-blondish sort of do.

And both the Potter boys hairs have suddenly stopped being messy now. Harry's is all.. well.. neat. I really don't like that.

The complete non-canon nature of the movies as well, but i'm sure that peeves off everyone here.

Maybe we should all do a petition to WB to make us the new script writers for the next movies xD
They'd all be MUCH better then.

when there's a scene and an actor is really bombing his/her line, and the rest of the cast just tries to play it off, and it really ruins everything

It bothers me that important sub-plots are cut from the movie, but unnecessary lines or scenes are added, like GoF not having SPEW, but they just HAD to shoot Dan saying, "I love magic." SPEW isn't extremely important to the actually plot in the books, but it does have a purpose later on. :eyebrows:
And in Prisoner of Azkaban, I don't remember anyone saying that Sirius, Remus, James, and Peter were the Marauders. Was that just me who didn't catch that? All we heard was that they were friends with each other, but we don't actually know that they're the Marauders. (Maybe I need to pay more attention...)

muggle clothes! growl

the absence of peeves

harry's eyes

voldemort's eyes

the loss of the magical feeling of harry potter in translation between books ad movies :( at least for me...there's definit something missing

-Many of the characterizations are skewed: Harry is emotional, affectionate, and cheesy; Hermione is petty, girly, and perfect; Ron is cowardly, squeaky, and shoved in the background; Ginny is invisible, shy, and meek; Sirius is delusional, insane, and affectionate; Malfoy is a cry-baby, clueless, and dumb; Snape is comical, good-looking, and physical with his students; Viktor is arrogant, shallow, and handsome; Dumbledore is tempermental, violent, and scary; James is balding, old, and unattractive....the list goes on and on.

-Unnesscessary scenes are added while canon moment are sacrificed. They could have taken the made-up conversation between Harry and Remus out in favor of informing the audience who the Marauders were, which actually pertains to the story at hand and would have made the moment between Harry and his stag patronus a special one. Additionally, it is not canon that Lily was "there" for Remus at a time when James and Sirius were not; why did they add that in?

-Line-Stealing. "If you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill us to!" was written clearly as Ron's line, but it was given to Hermione, who is far too glorified in the movies, IMO.

-Overly cheesy writing. I don't think I have to get into the grimy details on this one;)

-LilyPod

Its not really a peeve of mine, but I found it interesting that in OoTP, everyone seems like they've said their lines after running a marathon.... Hermione when Harry gets to headquarters, Mrs. Weasley when she guides Harry the right way, at the beginning when Harry gets mad when in his room on Privet Drive. Since its not live, they could have re-done the scenes with the actors actually slowing down and not rushing. My opinion anyway.

I also agree with those who think that Ron's lines shouldn't be given away. If its Harry or Hermione who get the line, I don't mind as much, but when non-characters get his lines, or other characters lines, it annoys me (i.e; the black kid in POA who explains what the Grimm is in Divination- Who the heck is he?)

About Thewlis' moustache...have you seen what he looks like WITHOUT it? Better that he keeps it, IMO.

Something that's bothered me a little every time a new film comes out is they really don't do much magic. It doesn't effect the story or the quality of the movie, but we rarely ever see the main three characters do any magic. Once we get to DH, the amount of magic they do will be overwhelming.

Oh, and this is really stupid, but it bothers me that throughout the course of a year, their hair never changes at all.

about the hair thing, it bothers me that it changes so much over the summer and not at all during the year. It reminds me of SS, when Harry got all his hair cut off except his bangs and they grew out overnight. :lol:

Unnesscessary scenes are added while canon moment are sacrificed. They could have taken the made-up conversation between Harry and Remus out in favor of informing the audience who the Marauders were, which actually pertains to the story at hand and would have made the moment between Harry and his stag patronus a special one. Additionally, it is not canon that Lily was "there" for Remus at a time when James and Sirius were not; why did they add that in?



I absolutely agree with that one. I felt especially annoyed with this in GoF, when about half of the movie was spent on the Yule Ball. They added an entire scene about their dates that wasn't even in the books, and took out pretty much everything: the Crouchs' history, Bertha Jorkins, Bagman... why can't they just stick to the plot? Why even show that little scene before the World Cup if you're not even going to show the match? Either keep both or none, honestly.

Another thing that really annoys me is the fact that Dan's hair in OotP was perfectly combed. It's clearly stated in the book that he has very unkempt black hair. I liked it much, much better in GoF and before. Also: why make up this random little kis named Nigel? Why not just have, Dennis Creevey, maybe? That was really ticking me off. And wasn't Krum supposed to have long hair?

The movies really disappoint me but for some reason I can't pinpoint why.

I think it lacks.... something.

I think it misses the energy and feel of the book.

I think too many good sub-plots are cut and too many important things are cut too... I would have loved to have seen Harry raging in Dumbledore's office smashing everything and screaming, then being told about the prophecy. I mean, that's how it is in the book, and, surely, it would have looked great on screen. But no, they do this silly voice in the MoM ....
And why?
Because they're rushing it.
The fifth movie felt hugely hurried. Like they're just trying to squeeze it all in. But that causes it to lack quality.
I think the movies should have been better thought out. Well, the fifth one should have. They should have attempted to slow things down a bit. They should have included the interesting bits from the book like Dumbledore's office and the other rooms in the DoM. If you have to make it three hours, why not? A brilliant quality film like Lord of the Rings should have been a bigger priority than running time, no? ... They care too much about running time.

Ginny starts to really come out of herself in the fifth book. (I believe, haven't read it in a while so I could be getting confused with the sixth one? I'm sure I'm not though.) And this is hugely important considering the next one! Where was Ginny's firey confident character in the film? She was still quiet in the movie... she made a great spell that surprised everyone, and that's it. Ginny's better than that.

This is a silly one, but Harry's hair bothers me in the fourth movie. :lol: Cut it!
Oh, also, Harry's hair never seems to be messy in the films. His hair is meant to naturally just stick up all over the place. His hair is always so neat and tidy in the films. How boring and unlike Harry!

The first two were enormously cheesy and extremely kiddie. (although, I have to admit, I see the first two books as being quite child-only......)

:grumble::p

1. They have stereotyped every character. Ron's the sidekick, and anything that is explained (and they leave ALOT out) is Hermione. Honestly, go back, and there are maybe ten lines Hermione says that doesn't explain something in a class, or telling that Harry's dad was a seeker (read the books!).
2. The lack of robes in the third movie. I dont' care how 'dark' you think it is, keep the wizards looking like they are wizards.
3. Dudley turning into a gangster. Enough said.
4. The patronous charm just being a light that kind of pushes the dementor away. Read all the words in PoA!!!
5. Making the Ron/Hermione so obvious. You have to admit there was some ambiguity in the first few books that Hermoine could like Harry, but in the movies they made it all Ron/Hermione.
6. Adding in Educational Decrees that make no sense.
7. Adding shrunken heads with Jamaican accents...unless i missed a chapter after I read PoA about 40 times, they do not appear in the books. EVER!

Its not really a peeve of mine, but I found it interesting that in OoTP, everyone seems like they've said their lines after running a marathon.... Hermione when Harry gets to headquarters, Mrs. Weasley when she guides Harry the right way, at the beginning when Harry gets mad when in his room on Privet Drive. Since its not live, they could have re-done the scenes with the actors actually slowing down and not rushing. My opinion anyway.

I also agree with those who think that Ron's lines shouldn't be given away. If its Harry or Hermione who get the line, I don't mind as much, but when non-characters get his lines, or other characters lines, it annoys me (i.e; the black kid in POA who explains what the Grimm is in Divination- Who the heck is he?)

i agree completely but that kid just might be some random character.
And it does bother me that Ron keeps geting pushed into the background
I say Ron needs more lines.

- set changes from movie to movie(most noticable between movie 2 and 3)
- minor inconsistencies(such as changing patronus effects)
- dwelling too much on not so important things while trimming important things down too much or not including them(see Umbrige and her education decrees, it takes up like half the movie, and the lack of prophecy explanation)


the movies really are great, i think the main issue is that they started making them far too early...they shouldve at LEAST waited until book 6 was out... if not 7
i understand things need to be cut, but IMO they are cutting the wrong things
the other things that DRIVES ME NUTS is set changes- there is nothing like a good obvious set change to raise my blood pressure
its not nocticable really between movies 1 & 2, or in 3, 4 & 5 because the set changes are so minor, but when they COMPLETELY change sets ( ie POA) i get angry(despite the POA set being the best set in the movies)

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

Are you kidding? He is phenomenal!

The Dark Lord's pretty blue eyes!!!! *screams* That...oh, I was seriously depressed after seeing GOF for the first time, and that's not normal for me at all. And him spinning and dancing around like a ballerina in the Graveyard scene!! *shudders* I think it was because of Mike Newell, personally, because IMO he was much better in OotP. Better, not good, though. And, his eyes are still the "pretty blues" as a lot of people say. It's absolutely HORRIBLE!!!

Besides that...there's a lot. Michael Gambon, I hate him. He is not like book-Dumbledore at all. And, Emma Watson, she's really terrible too.

I did not like the changes from book to movie. Dobby for example gives the gillyweed to Harry and in the movies it's Neville. Small things like that irk me a bit.

good points

The biggest would be how fast and choppy the movies have gotten...they are cutting out way too much good stuff from the books that would help things flow smoother especially in OotP.

I agree too with what others above have said about the actors speaking way too fast. Some people from other countries have a little trouble keeping up with them.

Also a pet peeve for a lot of movies (not just HP movies), is the music being played so loud it totally drowns out the actor's lines.

The fact that the school uniforms changed really irked me, even though the later ones are better IMO.

- No Dobby in GoF nor OOTP which is really going to present a problem come time for DH and the rescue from Malfoy Manor
- No mention of Kreacher hiding objects nor Dung stealing them in OOTP

I agree with whoever said that the movies are getting choppier and choppier. I sometimes wonder if they remember that not everyone has read the books. It seems they spend tons of time on little plot points that aren't as important and then skim over the big stuff like they're thinking, "oh they've read it, they know what's going on."

With each movie, I have to explain the entire plot to my dad afterwards. It seriously took nearly half an hour of me just explaining the main parts of book 5 for him to understand certain parts of the movie. He's not a fan of reading, and if he does read it's usually something educational...or about computers. :p
Each time I have to explain something more so he can understand the plot better, he asks, "Well why didn't they put that in the movie?? That would've made more sense!"

I hate that they take Ron's lines away. In the books Harry, Ron, and Hermione are equal...Harry and Ron are the best friends. In the movie, Harry and Hermione are super!Harry and Super!Hermione and Ron is the annoying whiny sidekick, often used for comic relief (and only comic relief). :grumble: It's especially annoying when I feel that Rupert is much more natural at acting his part than the other two...it would be frustrating to me, if I were him, to watch my character's lines get handed off to other people and not get to act the part fully. Ron's character deserves to at least be able to keep his own lines!

Emma's eyebrows continue to amaze me with their range of motion.

I hate it when sets change from one movie to the next.

I don't like it when they make changes from the books that don't need to be there...for instance, in the books the girls dormitory stairs will turn into a slide if a boy goes up them (I didn't dream that up, right!?)...but in the 1st movie, the boys walk Hermione right up to her room. They could have easily moved the scene from her door to the bottom of the dormitory stairs and they could've gone their separate ways from there. Little changes like that, that could easily be kept the same as the books, annoy me!

I don't like it when they make changes from the books that don't need to be there...for instance, in the books the girls dormitory stairs will turn into a slide if a boy goes up them (I didn't dream that up, right!?)...but in the 1st movie, the boys walk Hermione right up to her room. They could have easily moved the scene from her door to the bottom of the dormitory stairs and they could've gone their separate ways from there. Little changes like that, that could easily be kept the same as the books, annoy me!

It was onlyfound out about the stairs in 5 or 6 which wasn't out when 1 was made.

They should have waited for DH to come out! (Though I would never have become a fan till then)

I love these complaining threads :D :lol:

One thing that really annoys me - still! - are Emma Watson's eyebrows!! Grr...they just can't keep still for longer than two seconds. She overacts all the time IMO.

Another thing is that they never give Rupert enough screen time or lines. That really annoys me. Emma and Dan always have more lines and sometimes Ron's lines are given to Hermione. Rupert is such a good actor (and my favourite of the trio) and I want him to get more time :)

I agree with whoever said that the movies are getting choppier and choppier. I sometimes wonder if they remember that not everyone has read the books. It seems they spend tons of time on little plot points that aren't as important and then skim over the big stuff like they're thinking, "oh they've read it, they know what's going on."

With each movie, I have to explain the entire plot to my dad afterwards. It seriously took nearly half an hour of me just explaining the main parts of book 5 for him to understand certain parts of the movie. He's not a fan of reading, and if he does read it's usually something educational...or about computers. :p
Each time I have to explain something more so he can understand the plot better, he asks, "Well why didn't they put that in the movie?? That would've made more sense!"

I hate that they take Ron's lines away. In the books Harry, Ron, and Hermione are equal...Harry and Ron are the best friends. In the movie, Harry and Hermione are super!Harry and Super!Hermione and Ron is the annoying whiny sidekick, often used for comic relief (and only comic relief). :grumble: It's especially annoying when I feel that Rupert is much more natural at acting his part than the other two...it would be frustrating to me, if I were him, to watch my character's lines get handed off to other people and not get to act the part fully. Ron's character deserves to at least be able to keep his own lines!

Emma's eyebrows continue to amaze me with their range of motion.

I hate it when sets change from one movie to the next.

I don't like it when they make changes from the books that don't need to be there...for instance, in the books the girls dormitory stairs will turn into a slide if a boy goes up them (I didn't dream that up, right!?)...but in the 1st movie, the boys walk Hermione right up to her room. They could have easily moved the scene from her door to the bottom of the dormitory stairs and they could've gone their separate ways from there. Little changes like that, that could easily be kept the same as the books, annoy me!

I definitely agree with all of that! If some things need to be cut, why don't they cut them completely? The choppy little snippits of random plots that don't get developed annoy me. Snape's Worst Memory, in the movies, annoys me as well. What's the point of having it if nobody can figure out WTH just happened? I'd already read the books, and that scene still made me dizzy!

Ron's character has been skewed and underdeveloped. He's just the jealous friend, or the underpriviledged and jealous friend, or the one afraid of spiders. His bravery never really gets played, and his courageous lines are given to the Emma Watson and her amazing-hyperextending-eyebrows.

Gambon, too, has no "everything is as casual and calm as a teaparty" aspect about his characterization. Has he pulled off quirky? Barely, in POA. Has he pulled off Dumbledore? Not in the slightest.

- Dumbledore. I just hate Michael Gambon's portrayal of him, though I think he did a better job at the end of OotP. GoF was terrible.... And they just make Dumbledore look bad, he's always wearing the same hideous gray thing and what is up with the beard tie, I mean really....

-Voldemort's eyes. Would it really have killed them to make them look red?

- The lack of emotion/overexaggeration of emotion. Okay, they had some good scenes in OotP with Harry flipping out right when Sirius died. But then after that, he's just picking at his shirt? And then when Harry learned that Sirius "betrayed" his parents and he shouted, "HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!" It's not balanced.

- The amount of scenes that have nothing to do with the plot and the lack of scenes that did effect the plot. Sorry this scene was cut for time, but instead we're going to film a bird flying around the castle grounds.

The Dark Lord's pretty blue eyes!!!! *screams* That...oh, I was seriously depressed after seeing GOF for the first time, and that's not normal for me at all. And him spinning and dancing around like a ballerina in the Graveyard scene!! *shudders* I think it was because of Mike Newell, personally, because IMO he was much better in OotP. Better, not good, though. And, his eyes are still the "pretty blues" as a lot of people say. It's absolutely HORRIBLE!!!

Besides that...there's a lot. Michael Gambon, I hate him. He is not like book-Dumbledore at all. And, Emma Watson, she's really terrible too.

I read/watched something and the director said he changed his eyes because it would be hard to portray the madness/scary side of Voldemort which also means you wouldn't be able to see the slits/snake eyes that he has and I agree the red eyes wouldnt give you that feeling

Its on the special features on the GOF DVD under creating voldemort something like that I don't think I gave a good explantion but hopefully that makes sense.

-Hermione's personality. I don't know what it is exactly, but it's just off. Not the same as in the books. There's less energy, less, I don't know, empathy from me.

-Dumbledore's makeover in POA. It's bad enough they changed his personality, did they have to make him look like a dirty old hippie instead of a wise wizard?

-The Marauder's are like 10 or 20 years too old.

-Lucius Malfoy's wand/cane. What's up with that?

-The acting in the first scene of OotP. Atrocious.

-The condensed prophecy that doesn't even have what I think is the most important line: "Either must die at the hands of the other."

-The uniforms look like real world ones with cloaks on top.

-Movie Krum is nothing like book Krum

-Beating us over the head with some things, and then completely ignoring explanations for others

-Why did Luna, Neville, and Ginny get captures along with the trio in the movie?

-Making Cho the traitor and then revealing it was done under Veritaserum.

-Ginny have little to no screen time, not even is CoS or OotP.

-Sirius appearing as ashes in GoF.

-The Dementors new look in OotP.

-Giving Ron's lines to Hermione

-Seamus and the rum in SS/PS.

-No Tonks at the end of OotP.

-The film not explaining what priori incantatum was

-The film not explaining that Bellatrix Lestrange and Barty Crouch Jr tortured the Longbottoms together, thus making an apparent contradiction between films.

-Bellatrix looks afraid when Harry is going to crucio her.

-Moving Hagrid's hut.

-The awful applause in CoS

-The awful crying in POA

- Lily&James are supose to be 21- not see as late 30s!

-Marauders are far too old.

-As is Snape (sorry Snapey fans, just voicing me opinion -ducks-)

-Gambon looks as if he's had surgery done. He looks emotionless half the time. He doesn't deliver lines well and comes across as far too 'butch' for my liking. "I'll just stand here and attempt to scowl for five minutes at Voldemort"

-Hermoine was brilliant in films 1&2 but get to 3 and it went all down hill.. Emma just doesn't get Hermoine right for me. Too sort of... I don't know, 'too intense' at parts that really shouldn't be. It's all jumbled up preformance wise. Her expression is just- urgh. Her nostrils flare, her forehead looks that of a 90 year old and her finely plucked eyebrows move like catipillars on caffine. Okay... i'm way too over critical...

-Harry's blue eyes, but we can't expect a poor boy to wear contacts and it's no reason for him not to play the part considering green eyes are the rarest eye colour you can get. Just a little thing that bugs me.

-Why only one scene with the grey lady?! Why?!! Why... ;_; Yes.. I know the answer but I love her so.

-why on earth weren't we able to see the Lily/Snape scene? Even on DVD?!

-Hagrid's spotty cups in the 5th film. What in Merlin's beard?! They look incredibly out of place and if I recall correctly there are only 2 set out. o_O

-Hermoine, AGAIN. Breath between the sentences please. "HARRYYOUHAVETOCOMETHERESBEENAN- *flops over from lack of oxygen*

-What happened to the bullying Draco gang? Draco seems to have been vanishing bit by bit in each book. How can we expect Harry to hate this git if we see hardly anything of him?

-Black Tapestry family tree. Why on earth are all the tapestry pictures in medieval form and Bella isn't? Fake comes to mind...

-Ron. What happened? He's sort of been shoved out of the picture for a while and Hermoine's been in more. Grint is brilliant. We need more of him and not just for lifting the mood a little with an occasional joke.

-Weasley twins. o_o what did you do to your beautiful hair? I know it's the 90s look and all...

-Harry, what did you do to your beautiful hair?

-Fang?

-Luna. I love her dearly but what's with the scene involving converse? I had no idea Wizarding families enjoyed buying into muggle brands, esspecially designer.

-A whole film named after the order of the phoneix and we hardly see anything of them.

-Grawp... I was dissapointed. The trio didn't go to visit him once in the film, poor soul.

And I think i've had enough ranting though I shall be back...

-Lucius Malfoy's wand/cane. What's up with that?

Oh, I love his little wand case :lol:

I was annoyed at the miniscule amount of time that Draco had in OotP. I know many non-fans probably wouldn't remember him that much from one movie to the next, but I still feel that they could have given him a wee bit more time as he plays quite a crucial role in HBP.

The bit that REALLY annoyed me is in Ootp when Harry arrives at Grimmauld place and Hermione hugs him. I just think that Emma, Rupert and Dan's acting is abismal then (sorry)

Whoo, it's good to be back and posting again!

The bit that REALLY annoyed me is in Ootp when Harry arrives at Grimmauld place and Hermione hugs him. I just think that Emma, Rupert and Dan's acting is abismal then (sorry)

Really? Why? I thought that scene was pretty well done myself. It followed the boo well (something that doesn't usually happen), and Emma really used the proper emotions that Hermione was showing during that scene in the book.

Stuff that really annoys me: Cutting out all the mini plot lines, such us S.P.E.W, the Crouches, Marauders' Map, etc. Michael Gambon. I won't say too much about him here. :no: All the annoying scenes where Harry gets all emo really have no place in the movie as well. Another big one: Emma Watson is way too pretty to play Hermione. It took Ron four years to notice that she was a girl, but he sure noticed right away in the films. Hermione was supposed to be the nerdy, knd of ugly girl that no one likes too much. Emma's Hermione is smart (not genius), very pretty, and based on those DA scenes in OotP, pretty popular. No offense to her, of course, but her role hasn't carried out the Hermione of the books very well.

i have two main problems......
1) where are ruperts lines?????? given to Hermione thats what....Grrr Rupert is such a great actor, give him his lines back!!!!!!!! it just bugs me how Harry and Hermione are the main talkers constantly..okay..Harry understandable....its about him..but can;t they equal out Ron and Hermione's lines??? Ron is seen as comic relief in the films...he's harry's best friend for heavens sake!!!!1
2) Emma as Hermione. films one and two perfect..but now....she's very pretty, but i think Hermione isn't supposed to be stunningly pretty. And she's meant to be really smart, what happened to talking like a dictionary in the first two films???? also emma when she over reacts...she does it too many times....in the wrong places....and the eyebrows!!!!! omg...it is just so annoying....i don't think emma is the right hermione anymore....she's okay and i wouldn't change her now...you can;t really but please i can't watch her eyebrows anylonger.....

I hate how Ron is usually portrayed in the movies. They make him seem stupid and clueless all the time. So, Ron isn't the most skillful or intelligent one out of the trio, but he isn't like Crabbe and Goyle! I wish they could show Ron's loyalty and heart more throughout the movies.

Hermione, as much as I love the character, dissatisfies me in the movies. She gets all the lines from other characters in the movies. I wish they could give the characters that actually said those lines in the books the lines instead. Those lines are meant to show the person's character, and I am upset that Hermione gets them all instead of others. It would show depth to the other characters, such as Ron.

***Movie 5 Spoilers!*** (You've been warned!)

Okay, the third movie, really bugged me. It came out the day after my 10th birthday. So, my sister took me to see the movie (I was very excited about that) for my birthday. I had just finished reading the third book for the 1st time (I'm a younger reader, I guess. I'm in the young teens, so I started reading the books when I was a nine-year-old third grader). Anyway...I was looking foward to being able to compare the book to the movie, as my older sister had for movies 1 and 2. When they left out thw whole "I'm moody, and my best friends where padfoot and prongs..." I went insane. I was like, "Hello? They totally messed themselves up for the 5th movie ("He's got Padfoot in the place where it's hidden!")!" I was a deepley upset 10 year old.
I also don't really like how in the fourth movie, the scene with the Weasley's and the Dursley's chimney wasn't filmed. That would have been so funny to see! But, alas, no.

***Here come the movie 5 Spoilers!***



Even though the 5th movie was my favorite movie, I hated how Cho Chang was the one who told Umbridge about The DA. And she only told because of the Venetrisium! That wasn't in the book! And what was with Filch looking at the Room of Requirment door? That definately didn't happen in the book! I also hated how Malfoy had a total of about 3 lines.

However, I do like the movies. I like them just as much as I love critizing them (that's a joke!)! Although, if we wanted the Harry Potter movies to be perfect, we, as fans, would have to film them, and write the script, and pick the actors, make the props, ect. And personally, I don't have the money, time, or talent to make the movie. I also don't know how to make a movie, so I'm sure that could be a problem... Ha ha.

The dumbing down of Ron in the movies and giving his lines to Hermione, off the top of my head, the explanation of the term "Mudblood" and the "If you want to kill Harry..." Ron is portrayed as a joke in the movies, nothing against Rupert Grint, he's a good actor, but his lines and scenes portray him as an idiot, he's not a Gryffindor version of Goyle scriptwriters.
Oh yes, and the completely superfluous dragon-chase in Goblet of Fire, when you consider how many of the actual plot/character development aspects could have used that time in the movie.

I hate how Ron is usually portrayed in the movies. They make him seem stupid and clueless all the time. So, Ron isn't the most skillful or intelligent one out of the trio, but he isn't like Crabbe and Goyle! I wish they could show Ron's loyalty and heart more throughout the movies.

Hermione, as much as I love the character, dissatisfies me in the movies. She gets all the lines from other characters in the movies. I wish they could give the characters that actually said those lines in the books the lines instead. Those lines are meant to show the person's character, and I am upset that Hermione gets them all instead of others. It would show depth to the other characters, such as Ron.

I completely agree :agree:. The dumbing down of Ron infuriates me so much. Sure, Ron has a funny and childish side to him, but he's also loyal, brave and a great friend to Harry. I think in OotP they touched on the latter aspects, but they didn't develop them as much as I would have liked. Also, Hermione getting everyone's lines is so annoying! Let some others, like Ron, have a chance to say something for once.

Another pet peeve of mine is Hermione's constant use of "Ronald". She only says it a couple of times in the books, to my recollection, and that's only when she's really annoyed at him. Why do they feel the need to make her say Ronald? A completely random pet peeve, but it just really irritates me.

Another pet peeve of mine is Hermione's constant use of "Ronald". She only says it a couple of times in the books, to my recollection, and that's only when she's really annoyed at him. Why do they feel the need to make her say Ronald? A completely random pet peeve, but it just really irritates me.

Just... grates... on... me... :lol:

Another pet peeve of mine is Hermione's constant use of "Ronald". She only says it a couple of times in the books, to my recollection, and that's only when she's really annoyed at him. Why do they feel the need to make her say Ronald? A completely random pet peeve, but it just really irritates me.

Ooh! Me too! I've been meaning to post that on this thread for ages.

Another pet peeve of mine is Hermione's constant use of "Ronald". She only says it a couple of times in the books, to my recollection, and that's only when she's really annoyed at him. Why do they feel the need to make her say Ronald? A completely random pet peeve, but it just really irritates me.

As far as I can remember, Hermione has never called Ron, "Ronald" in the books. Not even once. It is really grating to hear it in the films.

Like many others have already said, the portrayal of Ron, and Hermione's stealing of lines are my two biggest complaints.

The first movie was the closest to Ron in the books IMO. There was an improvement in the fifth, but that moment where Hermione sounding so shocked says, "Ron that was clever!" and he responds with "It happens"? Ick. Ron has his moments of immaturity in the books, yes, but he's not Grawp for goodness sake! As for Ron's sense of humour, we're supposed to laugh with him, not at him (except maybe during the Lavender episode).

As for Hermione getting other characters' lines, I wouldn't mind if it somehow saved time or if they couldn't have a character in a particular scene. However, so far, Hermione's stolen lines seem pointless. Why should she get any of Ron's lines when Ron is in the scene? What difference would it make if he said his own lines? Would it have somehow taken any extra time to have had Ginny introduce Luna? I can understand switching lines when there's a valid reason, but not when it's so pointless.

3 words:

Ron
Draco
Dursleys

Another pet peeve of mine is Hermione's constant use of "Ronald". She only says it a couple of times in the books, to my recollection, and that's only when she's really annoyed at him. Why do they feel the need to make her say Ronald? A completely random pet peeve, but it just really irritates me.

Now that you mention it, yes, that is infuriating. Hermione never calls Ron "Ronald", correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only time she does is in Deathly Hallows when he returns and then she is angrier with him than she has ever been before, and more disappointed and let-down. Cuts due to movie time constraints are understandable, some can be more disappointing than others but this is something that could easily have stayed as it is in the books, with Hermione calling him "Ron".

All of the problems listed above are very annoying, I agree.
What really got me was the fourth movie. Nothing was explained. I ended up very grateful that I had read the book.
- Amazing special effects - check
- Good camerawork - check
- Explanation for how Harry got to the Weasleys' house and why - nonexistant
- Explanation for where the heck everybody was going at the beginning (the Quidditch World Cup) - nonexistant
- Explanation for why/how Sirius's head gets into the fire - nonexistant (Also on that note, in the movie, Harry has never seen that before. Why is he so unsurprised by Sirius's head in the fire?)

- Explanation for how Harry got to the Weasleys' house and why - nonexistant
- Explanation for where the heck everybody was going at the beginning (the Quidditch World Cup) - nonexistant
- Explanation for why/how Sirius's head gets into the fire - nonexistant (Also on that note, in the movie, Harry has never seen that before. Why is he so unsurprised by Sirius's head in the fire?)

yeah... I know.... that bothered me too, but only just a little... I was much more bothered with Gambon's portrayal of DD (too angry!!!) and Emma (Wasn't Hermione a little bit too hysteric and yelling in this movie???)
I was really bothered with POA for
- not telling the story of the four marauders, how they became animagus
- introducing the firebolt in the last scene...
- harry's patronus
- eh... I got the impression that the dementors were the most evil thing in the movie, that black was not as dangerous as he was in the book....

yeah... I know.... that bothered me too, but only just a little... I was much more bothered with Gambon's portrayal of DD (too angry!!!) and Emma (Wasn't Hermione a little bit too hysteric and yelling in this movie???)
I was really bothered with POA for
- not telling the story of the four marauders, how they became animagus
- introducing the firebolt in the last scene...
- harry's patronus
- eh... I got the impression that the dementors were the most evil thing in the movie, that black was not as dangerous as he was in the book....
I can't recall Emma Watson's performance in GoF quite too clearly right now, so I won't comment.
On the other hand, it is heartily agreed that Gambon plays too much of an angry, loud old man rather than the quiet, serene, and smiling Dumbledore from the books and first movies. It does seem, however, that he calmed his performance down a bit for OotP.

Edit:
I don't mind the omittance of some of the subplots so much - the movie would take all day if they kept them all in! However, I do think the time used for added moments that seemed unneccessary (e.g. when Harry is chased all over the Hogwarts grounds by the dragon) could have been used for one or two small subplots (e.g. Dobby and Winky or the Marauders) or used for keeping in more of the subplots that they did put in the movie.

Now that you mention it, yes, that is infuriating. Hermione never calls Ron "Ronald", correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only time she does is in Deathly Hallows when he returns and then she is angrier with him than she has ever been before, and more disappointed and let-down. Cuts due to movie time constraints are understandable, some can be more disappointing than others but this is something that could easily have stayed as it is in the books, with Hermione calling him "Ron".

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. She furiously calls him "Ronald Weasley" in that scene. Though, the movies started the "Ronald" thing long before DH. I agree it doesn't make sense that they would mess with something like that for no apparent reason, when the only time Hermione's referred to him that way is once in the entire series, in the final book and in an exceptionally emotional scene. Yes, it's a small issue, but it's very irritating, when keeping it as in the books would have cost the movies nothing.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that. She furiously calls him "Ronald Weasley" in that scene. Though, the movies started the "Ronald" thing long before DH. I agree it doesn't make sense that they would mess with something like that for no apparent reason, when the only time Hermione's referred to him that way is once in the entire series, in the final book and in an exceptionally emotional scene. Yes, it's a small issue, but it's very irritating, when keeping it as in the books would have cost the movies nothing.Perhaps the idea was that Hermione is obsessed with being proper in her own special way, so she'd call Ron by his long name instead of his nickname. Just a theory. I agree, the change does seem pointless, though.

I really don't like the moving staircases. They are mentioned nowhere in the books but are in every single movie. Moving staircases seems like a very impractical thing anyway. How would you ever know if you were getting to where you wanted?

Ron became 'Ronald' in the PoA movie. *Shudder*

Ron became 'Ronald' in the PoA movie. *Shudder*

I know! I hate that.

My other movie pet peeves are:

-The new Dumbledore is WAY too aggressive. He half-strangles Harry in GoF and says, "Did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire?" And in OotP: "Don't you all have studying to do?"

-The new Dumbledore has a funky hat, no glasses, weird rings, and a ponytail in his beard.

( FYI: A lot of my Dumbledore stuff came from my post in "The Best Albus Dumbledore" thread in case you go to that thread later and feel like you're having Deja Vu).

-Emma does weird stuff with her eyebrows all the time.

That's all! :D

Ugh. The movies drive me absolutely nuts. They could be so much better, but the filmmakers are more concerned with special effects and making bazillions of dollars instead of being true to the story.
I agree with many of you: they should have waited until HBP AT LEAST to start making the movies. The little subplots that got cut out can probably never be brought back out to explain things, and that's really sad considering that the little subplots are usually some of the most interesting things in the books.
It seems to me that the scriptwriters only skimmed through the books before they wrote the script; the parts that should have been amazing aren't even there, or if they are, they aren't done well. The characters don't have a chance to really express themselves and the actors aren't able to use that to their advantage in order to help develop their characters (i.e. Ron's being pushed into the shadows/Hermione's line-stealing).
I kind of wish somebody from the production crew, or the directors, or the scriptwriters, or even the actors, would read threads like this. Making changes to some of the things we've complained about might help them make more money.
That is what most of them care about anyway, right?

Something that really annoys me is the picture that Harry looks at in the beginning of CoS. It's a moving picture of him, Ron, and Hermione and meant to be from their First Year but it's obviously been taken well into the filming of CoS.

The dumbing down of Ron in the movies and giving his lines to Hermione, off the top of my head, the explanation of the term "Mudblood" and the "If you want to kill Harry..." Ron is portrayed as a joke in the movies, nothing against Rupert Grint, he's a good actor, but his lines and scenes portray him as an idiot, he's not a Gryffindor version of Goyle scriptwriters.

Exactly. Ron is one of my favorite characters, and he's generally portrayed as clueless. Why does Emma get his lines? There's no doubt that Rupert could deliver them better. Now he's going to snog with Lavender and the entire base of movie fans will think he's even more shallow than they already do...

Oh yes, and the completely superfluous dragon-chase in Goblet of Fire, when you consider how many of the actual plot/character development aspects could have used that time in the movie.

When I saw that, I was shocked. Everybody always says, "things must be cut, et cetera, et cetera..." But why do they extend pointless things? Harry should fight the dragon, and we're done. Rather, we waste countless seconds (which turn to lengthy minutes) and dollars on this superfluous run around. We should've saved the money and bought a Dobby with it :grumble:

As far as I can remember, Hermione has never called Ron, "Ronald" in the books. Not even once. It is really grating to hear it in the films.

I think she said it once, when she was really, really mad at him. Something about Scabbers and Crookshanks, I think, but i'm too lazy to go and look it up.

It still annoys me that she uses it all the time in the movie. Geeze; I know she's supposed to be a bit of a know-it-all, but is this the only way you can keep that aspect of hers? They cut some of her more clever tendencies and stick "Ronald"s in there to make up for it. It tweaks me to no end.

As for Hermione getting other characters' lines, I wouldn't mind if it somehow saved time or if they couldn't have a character in a particular scene. However, so far, Hermione's stolen lines seem pointless. Why should she get any of Ron's lines when Ron is in the scene? What difference would it make if he said his own lines? Would it have somehow taken any extra time to have had Ginny introduce Luna? I can understand switching lines when there's a valid reason, but not when it's so pointless.

I think it really could've developed Ginny's character a teensy bit more if she could've introduced Luna. It's obvious, especially later on, that Luna is a bit different and picked on by kids; But if Ginny knows her and is good enough friends enough with her to introduce her to Harry, then it proves that Ginny is good person.

I'd say my biggest movie pet peeve is when something important is left out and in its place is something less important, or something that I believe just doesn't need to be there. I do know that some things need to be cut out for length, but it makes me a bit upset when an important scene is cut out only to have something nonessential take its place later on or instead.

All of the problems listed above are very annoying, I agree.
What really got me was the fourth movie. Nothing was explained. I ended up very grateful that I had read the book.

Now that I think of it... I'll just list the fourth movie as one of my biggest pet peeves.

On the other hand, it is heartily agreed that Gambon plays too much of an angry, loud old man rather than the quiet, serene, and smiling Dumbledore from the books and first movies. It does seem, however, that he calmed his performance down a bit for OotP.

I cannot stand Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore, especially in GoF. In OotP, he calmed a bit, but we still get, "DON'T YOU ALL HAVE STUDYING TO DO?!". He seemed very cold and distant in OotP, and not just at the times he was supposed to be. I don't like his gruff and gritty portrayal of Dumbledore "losing control", which virtually never happens.

I really don't like the moving staircases. They are mentioned nowhere in the books but are in every single movie. Moving staircases seems like a very impractical thing anyway. How would you ever know if you were getting to where you wanted?

Weren't the moving staircases in the books? I thought they were in the first, at least. So were the cute little black, wizarding hats that they cut :D

Okay here's my major pet peeves!!

1) Dumbledore, Gambon is nothing like the book!dumbledore. What's up with his gross long dirty fingernails????

2) Emma, while I absolutely adore her as a person (she's beautiful, funny, and seems like a really nice girl) is just not . . . my Hermione. Sorry, i guess no one could really fill her shoes now that i come to think about it.

3) Ron . . . Rupert is awesome as Ron . . . especially in the first two movies. While movies 3 and 4 he's made out as a coward. And it seemed like all his good lines went to Hermione. Grrrr. I saw improvement in movie 5 though.

4)Of course I watch them because they are HP . . . but stepping back and looking at them as if I had never read the books . . . it seems as though they are just really awful movies. Poor acting. I just don't think this story translates well to screen. Do to the complex plots.

The one thing I LOVE about the films though is the art direction. I love how quidditch, Diagon Alley, the Burrow, Grimwald Place and of course Hogwarts looks . . . its all just stunning. Not a big fan of how the Ministry of Magic looked . . . or how Hagrid's Hut keeps changing every movie lol . . . I liked how it looked in Movie 1.

And I miss Peeves . . . wish he coulda made it into the movies.

1) Dumbledore, Gambon is nothing like the book!dumbledore. What's up with his gross long dirty fingernails????

I agree that his overall look is not how I perceived Dumbledore to look at all :). As for the nails, I mean, come on, this is Dumbledore - he's probably thinking about ways to defeat Horcruxes, so I'm sure cleaning his fingernails might not be top of his agenda. :)

2) Emma, while I absolutely adore her as a person (she's beautiful, funny, and seems like a really nice girl) is just not . . . my Hermione. Sorry, i guess no one could really fill her shoes now that i come to think about it.

:agree: She's a really nice girl and, gosh she's gorgeous! But she just isn't my Hermione and is absolutely nothing like my imagined Hermione. I know that she can act (especially after Ballet Shoes) but she just isn't playing Hermione right, IMO.

3) Ron . . . Rupert is awesome as Ron . . . especially in the first two movies. While movies 3 and 4 he's made out as a coward. And it seemed like all his good lines went to Hermione. Grrrr. I saw improvement in movie 5 though.

Rupert really is great as Ron :) I think he needs to be given more of a chance to show the real Ron, like you said, Ron isn't a coward like he's made out to be. OotP was an improvement, but I still want more. And don't even get me started on Ron's lines being given to Ron...:grumble:

4)Of course I watch them because they are HP . . . but stepping back and looking at them as if I had never read the books . . . it seems as though they are just really awful movies. Poor acting. I just don't think this story translates well to screen. Do to the complex plots.

I wouldn't be that harsh, but I agree that it can be very confusing for people who have never even picked up a Harry Potter book before. I wouldn't say they were awful, just very confusing and slightly boring, for the average movie goer. And I definitely wouldn't agree with the poor acting comment. There is a great cast full of well-known and well respected actors and even the younger actors have improved so much since they began.

I wouldn't be that harsh, but I agree that it can be very confusing for people who have never even picked up a Harry Potter book before.

A lot of my friends don't like them so much because they're so confusing to the non-book reader! Merlin, things move so fast... Sometimes I think that if they cut some things and added some things left on the editting room floor, things would be better. But I'm no expert, and I imagine that the job is hard. They'd probably do a lot better if they'd check out these forums every again.

And I definitely wouldn't agree with the poor acting comment. There is a great cast full of well-known and well respected actors and even the younger actors have improved so much since they began.

I agree... A good majority of the actors are excellent, and the youngsters keep getting better. Emma and Michael Gambon annoy me, but with such fantastic portrayals of Ron and Draco, Snape, Myrtle, Luna, Bellatrix, Voldemort, Fudge, Umbridge, Fred and George... and just countless others, how could anybody say that the acting is bad? :)

My biggest pet peeve is that they can't seem to the get movies right. Movies 3 and 4 were the best but I'm still waiting for the movie that blows my mind. The final battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort is an example but movie 5 was the worst so far.

I used to care about accuracy but now, I just want them to make a good movie. The story seem messy and full of plot holes.

Weren't the moving staircases in the books? I thought they were in the first, at least. So were the cute little black, wizarding hats that they cut :D

No, I don't think the moving staircases are in the books. If I recall, there was only trick steps that you have to hop over.

I guess my biggest pet peeve (besides what I already mentioned in my previous post) is how the new director changed everything. He changed the fat lady, he changed the Flitwick (same actor, different look), and he made the Dumbledore all weird. Oh, and in PoA isn't there a couple of weird scenes with some rapid flute-playing and a bird? What's the point of that?

One more thing: it might be just me, but the Kinglsley Shacklebolt in OotP IS NOT how I imagined him to be when I read the books. I was expecting someone like Samuel Jackson (he plays Mace Windew in Star Wars). With the shiny bald head, and the hoop earring, and the deep, slow voice . . .
The Shacklebolt just wasn't cool enough.

One more thing: it might be just me, but the Kinglsley Shacklebolt in OotP IS NOT how I imagined him to be when I read the books. I was expecting someone like Samuel Jackson (he plays Mace Windew in Star Wars). With the shiny bald head, and the hoop earring, and the deep, slow voice . . .
The Shacklebolt just wasn't cool enough.

The Shacklebolt... :lol: That's brilliant.

I didn't like the design of him either, honestly. I always had a Mace Windew (is that how it's spelled?) in my head too. I didn't mind him too much after getting used to him, but I still didn't think he fit the "head of the Auror department" mold.

I read/watched something and the director said he changed his eyes because it would be hard to portray the madness/scary side of Voldemort which also means you wouldn't be able to see the slits/snake eyes that he has and I agree the red eyes wouldnt give you that feeling

Its on the special features on the GOF DVD under creating voldemort something like that I don't think I gave a good explantion but hopefully that makes sense.

I had heard early on that it was also because Fiennes has INCREDIBLY expressive eyes. In my opinion he also has incredibly *terrifying* eyes -- watch Schindler's List if you don't believe me. I had nightmares about those eyes after seeing that the first time, clear and seemingly honest, but catlike in intensity and cruelty. Cover those up with contacts or rework them with computers and that's all lost.

But the directors then went and didn't *use* his eyes. You just never get that fierce stare out of him, so the fact that they're not red is all that stands out, not that he could knock you out of your seat if he just happened to glare at you.

So I guess wasting good actors is my pet peeve ;)

Edit: OK, wait, I remember my biggest pet peeve. That blasted line of Harry's while he's twitching on the floor at the end of OotP, the bit about never knowing love. Well hit ever'body over the head w' a brick, whydoncha? Think we could have been less subtle?

I had heard early on that it was also because Fiennes has INCREDIBLY expressive eyes. In my opinion he also has incredibly *terrifying* eyes -- watch Schindler's List if you don't believe me. I had nightmares about those eyes after seeing that the first time, clear and seemingly honest, but catlike in intensity and cruelty. Cover those up with contacts or rework them with computers and that's all lost.

I agree for the most part, but like you said:

But the directors then went and didn't *use* his eyes. You just never get that fierce stare out of him, so the fact that they're not red is all that stands out, not that he could knock you out of your seat if he just happened to glare at you.

:agree: Exactly.

Edit: OK, wait, I remember my biggest pet peeve. That blasted line of Harry's while he's twitching on the floor at the end of OotP, the bit about never knowing love. Well hit ever'body over the head w' a brick, whydoncha? Think we could have been less subtle?

You should see our "Why is that Line the Worst?" forum. We discussed that line awhile back ago, in all of its cheesy glory! Gahh, I couldn't stand it either.

Heheh, I just found that thread shortly before reading your reply. I'm glad I'm not the only person who found it corny :)

Heheh, I just found that thread shortly before reading your reply. I'm glad I'm not the only person who found it corny :)
Nope, you are not. I think it's cheesey, too. I cringe every time I watch that part.

I honestly think that the actors are doing the best they can and they're doing well, too! Why don't you try getting up there for more than twelve hours a day doing the same scene over and over again for seven films!!!

The only annoying part in any of the movies was in Chamber of Secrets. I see the significance in Moaning Myrtle but she just annoys me so much...

One more thing: it might be just me, but the Kinglsley Shacklebolt in OotP IS NOT how I imagined him to be when I read the books. I was expecting someone like Samuel Jackson (he plays Mace Windew in Star Wars). With the shiny bald head, and the hoop earring, and the deep, slow voice . . .
The Shacklebolt just wasn't cool enough.

You are not alone and I would like to say thank you, thank you, thank you!

Kingsley Shacklebolt will always look like Mace Windu in my mind... ALWAYS!

You are not alone and I would like to say thank you, thank you, thank you!

Kingsley Shacklebolt will always look like Mace Windu in my mind... ALWAYS!

I never really thought of him before, but now I think of him as Mace Windu, it makes total sense! That would have been great. It's a shame Samuel. L. Jackson is American.

Xxx

Well, a Jedi as an Auror isn't such a bad choice I'd say (they both have flowy robes too!)- pity Samuel L. Jackson is American..
It really bothers me when gratuitious 'girl power' moments are introduced at the expense of Ron. I realise this isn't the fault of Emma or Rupert but it's still annoying. At least OotP toned it down a wee bit- there's just that DA blasting.

I honestly think that the actors are doing the best they can and they're doing well, too! Why don't you try getting up there for more than twelve hours a day doing the same scene over and over again for seven films!!!

Maybe I will! Unfortunately, I'm not British, and I'm stuck in the Hoosier country. But seeing as I love to act, I don't see the problem in going there for 12 hours and perfecting a scene. If they truly love to act, they probably don't mind it either.

And though you think they are doing their best, I think that some could be so much better if they knew how to access their potential. Emma Watson was, IMHO, so much better in SS/PS than in any of the movies following it. She's trying so hard, which kills the performance... I think that's one of my biggest pet peeves, as well as the screenwriter's lack of concern when he gives her all of everybody else's lines...

The only annoying part in any of the movies was in Chamber of Secrets. I see the significance in Moaning Myrtle but she just annoys me so much...

No way! Really? She was one of my favorite parts about the whole movie. She's hilarious, and the actress who portrayed her was, IMHO, absolutely perfect. Her voice, especially, is so right for the part.

And yes, kind of very significant. She's pretty much the final clue to the entire puzzle of the Chamber of Secrets :D

My biggest movie pet peeve is when they make sequels with different people playing the character. I can't stand that. If they can't get all the same people, then it shouldn't be made. Originally, the trio were only signed for the first four movies. Luckily, they are doing all of them now. If the actor would have changed, I would have stopped watching the movies, unless by some strange cosmic thing they were better.

I really don't like the moving staircases. They are mentioned nowhere in the books but are in every single movie. Moving staircases seems like a very impractical thing anyway. How would you ever know if you were getting to where you wanted?

I thought they did introduce moving staircases in PS/SS.

I agree, amongst other pet peeves, the moving staircases really bugged me. I dont think they were mentioned anywhere in the books either.

I agree, amongst other pet peeves, the moving staircases really bugged me. I dont think they were mentioned anywhere in the books either.

I don't think that we see the staircases move that much in the books but JK has said this:

'I haven't drawn [a flawplan of Hogwarts], because it would be difficult for the most skilled architect to draw, owing to the fact that the staircases and the rooms keep moving'

I don't think that we see the staircases move that much in the books but JK has said this:

'I haven't drawn [a flawplan of Hogwarts], because it would be difficult for the most skilled architect to draw, owing to the fact that the staircases and the rooms keep moving'
It also says in PS/SS "THere were a hundred and forty-two staircases at Hogwarts: wide, sweeping ones; narrow, rickety ones; some that led somewhere different on a Friday; some with a vanishing step halfway up that you had to remember to jump."

The leading somewhere different implies that they move.

Well I guess that proved me wrong :)

I still think they make to0 big of a deal of it in the movies. or at least in PS/SS