What are your movie pet peeves?

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

I liked the moving staircases. It just added more magic to the films and more detail. I liked that they added in this little detail from the books, as they could have so easily left it out. :)

I liked the moving staircases. It just added more magic to the films and more detail. I liked that they added in this little detail from the books, as they could have so easily left it out. :)

I liked those too. I also liked the hats, no matter how cliche they are :D One of my biggest peeves is Hermione's hair... I also don't like the school uniform in GoF. The prep school costume was a me-no-likey moment :D

I don't like how they abandoned cloaks and robes in so much of PoA because it muggle-izes the ambience.

All of Ginny's parts are cut out, so the non-book-readers are going to be totally startled in HBP. I don't like the movie Ron-don't get me wrong, I like Rupert- I just think Ron is an even less likeable character on screen, he's like a moody 13 year old girl, but then again, I don't like Ron in the books either. Daniel is kind of too dramatic- this isn't a soap opera. Emma is okay, her hair is off, and she never really calls Ron "Ronald" in the book.
I won't like it if they split DH into two movies- I don't have monery to buy two tickets, let alone patience to wait for another movie. Just make one long one.

Moving staircases?
I thought they were in the books too.
I remember Ron and Harry getting lost in PS/SS.

The thing that bothers me the worst is when students use magic outside of school, but Harry repeatedly gets letters threatening to expel him for it.
Like hermione uses "occulus reparo" in Diagon Alley in CoS. It drives me nuts.
And I dislike the fact that Harry has green eyes, and his green eyes are so important to the plot, but in the movie his eyes arent green. I understand that as long as Lily and Harry share the same eye color its fine, but green is such a powerful color in the series. I hate it.

The thing that bothers me the worst is when students use magic outside of school, but Harry repeatedly gets letters threatening to expel him for it.
Like hermione uses "occulus reparo" in Diagon Alley in CoS. It drives me nuts.
And I dislike the fact that Harry has green eyes, and his green eyes are so important to the plot, but in the movie his eyes arent green. I understand that as long as Lily and Harry share the same eye color its fine, but green is such a powerful color in the series. I hate it.

I definitely agree with both those. The "Occulus Reparo" bugs me to no end, and the eye color is just annoying. I mean, everyone complains about Hermione's dress in GOF being the wrong color, but Harry's eye color is actually a big deal through out the series and most people don't seem to care. It will totally ruin "Look at me."

I hate the new Dumbledore, no quidditch and how Harry didn't saying I think Hermione knows why don't you ask her when Snape was quizzing him in PS/SS

I definitely agree with both those. The "Occulus Reparo" bugs me to no end, and the eye color is just annoying. I mean, everyone complains about Hermione's dress in GOF being the wrong color, but Harry's eye color is actually a big deal through out the series and most people don't seem to care. It will totally ruin "Look at me."

I don't mind about the eye colour. Dan actually tried wearing green coloured contact lenses but they irritated his eyes. As long as it is established that he has his mother's eyes, then that's all that really matters. The actual colour doesn't really come into it.

I don't mind about the eye colour. Dan actually tried wearing green coloured contact lenses but they irritated his eyes. As long as it is established that he has his mother's eyes, then that's all that really matters. The actual colour doesn't really come into it.

To me, the eye color was important. Green is also the color of the blinding flash of light from the AK, and I enjoyed that tiny link. I thought it was interesting that the one thing Harry actually remembers from when his parents were alive is that green flash of light and his eyes are also the same color. It was kind of depressing in a sense, but I enjoyed it. Thats not there in the movies.

I love Daniel Radcliff, but I really wish they would have found an actor with green eyes.

To me, the most completely wrong aspect of the movies is Dumbledore.
The first actor I felt played him brilliantly. The second one ruined it. His accent was horrible, just not Dumbledore-ish. Dumbledore was calming, the actor, whatever his name is, flew around like a bat out of hell, and it drove me crazy. The "HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE" was so wrong it just killed the movie for me. Dumbledore would never have harrassed Harry like that. In the movie, he almost pushed him through the wall. It was just so off. It drives me nuts.

I dont like Ginny either. My apologies because I thought she was supposed to be a pretty girl, but I dont think the actress suits her. And there is little to no connection between Harry and Ginny in the movies. Sure they show them in the same scenes, but they never interact. Ginny is very important to Harrys development as a character, but that girl just shows up in the background. If I never read the books, I would think she would be more compatible with Neville than Harry. In the books, I was positive that she would never date Neville, no matter what shippers said :p:lol: .

The eye thing is important but it really doesn't matter as long as the connection for Harry to his mother is there. Yeah it sucks that his are not green but it's better this way because we would've gone the entire series looking at an obviously fake eye color, even movie contacts are easily discernible.

Gambon was perfect in PoA I thought, especially in that scene where they're in the great hall and the camera is looking up at him with the enchanted ceiling above him. His speeches and mannerisms were perfect, then came GoF and we honestly need to know what Kraft services was slipping into his coffee. He calmed down a but in OoTP but still, wow.

The cloaks is a minor but still important peeve of mine, I can understand that those things have got to be hot as hell so they're allowed to carry them between classes but some of the stuff they where everywhere else is annoying, I could've sworn that one of the girls was wearing Ugg boots when Hermione was delivering Ron's message to Harry in GoF.

And there is little to no connection between Harry and Ginny in the movies. Sure they show them in the same scenes, but they never interact. Ginny is very important to Harrys development as a character, but that girl just shows up in the background.

That's all Ginny really does in the books until HBP though, even though she has an important role in COS we don't see her very often.
If we don't see her as predominately as we should in the HBP movie, then I'll be upset.

I could've sworn that one of the girls was wearing Ugg boots when Hermione was delivering Ron's message to Harry in GoF.

:lol:

That's all Ginny really does in the books until HBP though, even though she has an important role in COS we don't see her very often.
If we don't see her as predominately as we should in the HBP movie, then I'll be upset.



:lol:
Yes, however in the movies her character is downplayed to minimum. Even in CoS there is almost nothing left of her charactarization. No mention of what she had been writing in the diary or how Riddle knew everything about Harry. No attempts by Harry to make conversation with Ginny and to be just nice to her. More Ginny, less Hagrid and the movie would have worked.

I think there has been the right amount of Ginny, enough to know shes there and to get involved in the story

I think we definitely could have seen more Ginny. I realized after watching the first four movies that I barely had any idea what she looked like, she gets so little screen time. As long as we see more of her in HBP, I'll be content.

I think we definitely could have seen more Ginny. I realized after watching the first four movies that I barely had any idea what she looked like, she gets so little screen time. As long as we see more of her in HBP, I'll be content.

I agree. I don't think we even saw her once in the PoA film. She was so different in GoF than from in CoS that for a second, I was like, "Whoa, who's that again?" :lol: I think they have been focusing way too much on the Trio only, and forgetting that there are other, more minor yet still important characters. :)

For me, I hate the way that they introduce new scenes into the film which has no relevance what-so-ever to the plot or story, and the time lost to this could of been used for something important to the plot.

And also, the way they totally miss characters or information out, for example in Prisoner of Azkaban, they didn't mention the animagus' of everyone, and the Marauders Map (My parents didn't have a clue what that was all about and how did Sirius and Remus know about it) and in Goblet of Fire, they missed Ludo Bagman, and Winky out. They very nearly missed Kreacher out too in Order of the Phoenix, but only put him in (without any recognition) when JKRowling demanded that they put him in.

This type of thing annoys me. Grr. And also, the way Emma says more lines than Ron does, and even 'steals' the lines. E.g.: Prisoner of Azkaban: "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too!" This was originally said by Ron in the books, but instead it's said by Hermione. The films have made Ron out to be a wimp, but in the extract mentioned just now, he was to say that line, while standing on his broken leg, showing that even though it's absolutely painful, he wants to stand up to someone he thinks wants to kill Harry.

And, Harry's eyes. I know Dan Radcliffe can't wear contact lenses, but isn't there such thing as computers? Maybes they can digitally alter his eye colour in the films, like they did in Order of the Phoenix when he was possessed. And also Hermione's dress. It's supposed to be BLUE for crying out loud! It kinda gives the impression that Warner Bros. are expecting us to have not read the books, and just saying 'Here you go, have this. It's EXACTLY the same as the books.' Then you find out it's not. Personally, I find it a bit stupid.

There are loads more, but at the moment, I can't remember =[


Jess x

And, Harry's eyes. I know Dan Radcliffe can't wear contact lenses, but isn't there such thing as computers? Maybes they can digitally alter his eye colour in the films, like they did in Order of the Phoenix when he was possessed. And also Hermione's dress. It's supposed to be BLUE for crying out loud! It kinda gives the impression that Warner Bros. are expecting us to have not read the books, and just saying 'Here you go, have this. It's EXACTLY the same as the books.' Then you find out it's not. Personally, I find it a bit stupid.
I'll admit, for the one's above this quote, it could be quite confusing for some people. But the two i've quoted didn't affect the story in any way. The eye colour has apsolutly no relevence within the story. They could be bright yellow for all the story requires. So long as they are the same colour as his mom's, that's all that matters.

As for the dress, if they had gone with the exact colur in the books, and put her against a blue background (you know, from all that ice and such), then she would not have stood out as much as she did. And that was the whole point of the scene.

I really didn't mind all that tiny little stuff, such as Hermione's dress. Lots of people who don't read the books see the movies, and they wouldn't think twice about that. I mean, it's not exactly plot-changing or incredible and stuff. They just thought Emma would look better in pink. :)

I was a little annoyed that they couldn't make Dan's eyes green, but they can't force him to wear contacts if they annoy him that much. I suppose we'll just have to live with it. :shrug:

I also hate the acting (no offense to anyone), Daniel Radcliffe just seems to make Harry look like an angsty guy who kind of just stumbles along and beats the evil-doers because of dumb luck. I also found Emma's crying scene in the Goblet of Fire a little .... drama queen like.

My second pet peeve is when they remove characters or scenes. I hate how there is no Peeves in the movies! He is AWESOME! They also made it Cho who told Umbridge about the Room of Requirement and they skipped so many of my favorite parts that it's not even funny.

I hate tons of more things about the movies but I don't want to rant so I'll stop here.:whistle:

I was a little annoyed that they couldn't make Dan's eyes green, but they can't force him to wear contacts if they annoy him that much. I suppose we'll just have to live with it.

I was annoyed too. I do not want to sound mean, but did he try to keep the contacts in for more than a day?

It does take a bit to get use to contacts. When I first wore them, I was like "I'll probably never wear these" But, I kind of wore them too much because I ended up with severe dry eyes!

They could have easily digitally changed his eye color.
It's going to be hard for this in Deathly Hallows, because the actress that plays Lily is shown with green eyes. They are going to have to do something.

:shrug:

I was annoyed too. I do not want to sound mean, but did he try to keep the contacts in for more than a day?

It does take a bit to get use to contacts. When I first wore them, I was like "I'll probably never wear these" But, I kind of wore them too much because I ended up with severe dry eyes!

They could have easily digitally changed his eye color.
It's going to be hard for this in Deathly Hallows, because the actress that plays Lily is shown with green eyes. They are going to have to do something.

:shrug:

I'm pretty sure that Dan tried for a bit, but having a bad reaction to the contacts he couldn't continue wearing them. No fault of his own and at least he recognised that as Harry he should have green eyes. I don't think it would have been that easy to digitally change his eye colour. Films are literally thousands of pictures put together, and so someone would have to go through every single picture and change the eyes to make them look green and most importantly realistic. I don't think it's worth it. Most people aren't going to be observing Lily's eyes too much (apart from us die hard fans), and as long as it's established that Harry has his mother's eyes (and there have been quite a few references so far in the films), I think it will be fine. :)

ill hate it if they change the kiss scene of Ginny and Harry as it seems they have...ill wait to see,but if they did ,this moment will top them all.

I wanted harry and Ginny´s first kisss to be just like in the book,I´m no purist but this is a momnt that is so awesome in the books i see no reason ot change it,if they included quiddictch and stuff,why change it...Im crossing my fingers for it to be jsut like in the book.

It's not really a pet peeve, but I find it surprising that a random character not in the books suddenly appear, like Nigel, or the random third-year Gryffindor boy (Y'know the one who said "it's like catching smoke with your bare hands" and told Harry about the Grim) in PoA. I understand Nigel's a younger student, but who is that Gryffindor boy anyway?

I agree. I don't think we even saw her once in the PoA film. She was so different in GoF than from in CoS that for a second, I was like, "Whoa, who's that again?" :lol: I think they have been focusing way too much on the Trio only, and forgetting that there are other, more minor yet still important characters. :)

Yes, we did see her...she was in the Fat Lady scene. She said "The Fat Lady, she's gone"

And, Harry's eyes. I know Dan Radcliffe can't wear contact lenses, but isn't there such thing as computers? Maybes they can digitally alter his eye colour in the films, like they did in Order of the Phoenix when he was possessed. And also Hermione's dress. It's supposed to be BLUE for crying out loud! It kinda gives the impression that Warner Bros. are expecting us to have not read the books, and just saying 'Here you go, have this. It's EXACTLY the same as the books.' Then you find out it's not. Personally, I find it a bit stupid.

I don't think they expect that at all. I also don't think they placed as much importance on the color of Harry's eyes at the time they started shooting because they didn't know how it would all end. Which brings me to my pet peeve- they didn't wait for the books to be finished before they started shooting. I think they were worried about the furor dying down, but with the release of DH it would have sparked back up again, I'm sure, and then they could have done justice to these books rather than racing around making random cuts and screwing with the little details.

As for Hermione's dress, I think the important part is that she's all dolled up. While we're at it, isn't she supposed to be wearing a robe? ;)

While the changing of who says what is definitely a pet peeve of mine, I hardly think Emma is stealing Ron's lines.

I think that they should have included Winky and Bagman and not left so many important things out. What are they going to do about Dobby for DH? Oh by the way, here he is again four movies later?

What are they going to do about Dobby for DH? Oh by the way, here he is again four movies later?

That's a subject of discussion on the DH Movie thread and the All-Inclusive HBP thread. So far it's the usual "loves Dobby and can't undestand why he was cut :upset::upset::upset:" vs. "don't need him- Kreacher will fit" :D

You should join in!

It's not really a pet peeve, but I find it surprising that a random character not in the books suddenly appear, like Nigel, or the random third-year Gryffindor boy (Y'know the one who said "it's like catching smoke with your bare hands" and told Harry about the Grim) in PoA. I understand Nigel's a younger student, but who is that Gryffindor boy anyway?


I've been watching PoA a lot lately, and I've wondering who he is. It's bugging me a lot. I also dislike them throwing in random characters, I don't see the need for it.

I've been watching PoA a lot lately, and I've wondering who he is. It's bugging me a lot. I also dislike them throwing in random characters, I don't see the need for it.

Yeah! Rather than throw in random people, why didn't they give the line to Seamus or Dean or one of the Patils, who stand around and have little to say anyway! :err:

Yeah! Rather than throw in random people, why didn't they give the line to Seamus or Dean or one of the Patils, who stand around and have little to say anyway! :err:

Agreed. At first I thought the "catching smoke with your bare hands" kid was a new actor portraying Dean. I was pretty confused, and it still bugs me that he isnt an actual HP character. And they could have just as easily made Nigel into Colin, or even Dennis Creevey instead. I think it is pretty unnecessary as well.

As for Hermione's dress, I think the important part is that she's all dolled up. While we're at it, isn't she supposed to be wearing a robe?

That actually really got my goat. What's so wrong with making it look like a magical world, dear costume team? The fact that not even during major events the characters are dressed like wizards is one of my pet peeves. And the uniform rucksacks everyone wears in OotP are just as awful.

That actually really got my goat. What's so wrong with making it look like a magical world, dear costume team? The fact that not even during major events the characters are dressed like wizards is one of my pet peeves. And the uniform rucksacks everyone wears in OotP are just as awful.

That was one of my pet peeves of PoA. It seems to me that for the majority of the movie they are in Muggle clothes rather than robes, or anything even resembleing wizard attire. Agree on the rucksacks as well. My brother actually has one of those bags :)
I think it takes away from the magical feeling of the movie just to put everyone in normal clothes.

That was one of my pet peeves of PoA. It seems to me that for the majority of the movie they are in Muggle clothes rather than robes, or anything even resembleing wizard attire. Agree on the rucksacks as well. My brother actually has one of those bags :)
I think it takes away from the magical feeling of the movie just to put everyone in normal clothes.

Oh that really wound me up, too! They are witches and wizards and most of the time they are meant to be wearing their robes. It would be nice to have these reminders that these people are wizards. It just really irritates me because the books make a point of saying that most people hardly ever wear Muggle attire and in the films they wear it all the time. :grumble:

1. Ok, OOTP was definitely my favorite of the movies, but the Snape's memory scene...was...HORRIBLE. The part that MATTERED wasn't even left in!! I mean, I can still see that working in Deathly Hallows, if they show that memory and then reveal the rest of it during that time, but seriously, it somewhat DEVELOPED Snape's character. His character is so underdeveloped in the movies...it makes me want to go on a avada kedavra spree.
2. The part where Hermione says the infamous emotional range of a teaspoon line...and then the laughter...that was so fake...it ticks me off. Emma in general kind of ticks me off, actually. She seems like a nice enough person, but not at all right for the role of Hermione.
3. Michael Gambon. Enough said.
4. The Neville's parents subplot was so diminished...I understand the reasoning, but it was upsetting anyway. I was really looking forward to that scene.
5. Talking heads.
6. The underdeveloped characters in general. Seriously, in the movies, THERE IS NO DEVELOPEMENT! I know Yates says it'll be more "character driven" in HBP, but I have an feeling that MIGHT mean undermining the more important plot aspect, with Voldemort, Draco, and the horcruxes.

Oh that really wound me up, too! They are witches and wizards and most of the time they are meant to be wearing their robes. It would be nice to have these reminders that these people are wizards. It just really irritates me because the books make a point of saying that most people hardly ever wear Muggle attire and in the films they wear it all the time. :grumble:
I know what you all mean about the Muggle clothes and completely agree. I think it started with Alfonso Cuaron in PoA when he wanted to make the trio more "teen"-ish and relatable to an American audience. It really peeves me though, especially since some of the humor of wizards dressing as Muggles is lost.

As to Hermione's dress, I understand why they changed the color from blue to pink-- it's because red tones show up better on screen in general than other colors because they're warmer and brighter. The color makes Hermione stand out more against the very blue and cold background of the Yule Ball.

What gets me is how pretty they've made Hermione look. When she was "transformed" for the Yule Ball, she looked the same as she did during the school day. Starting after CoS, Hermione's hair has gotten exponentially smaller and less poofy and more wavy and pretty. It's irritating that she's so pretty now when readers are supposed to see her for her inner beauty and Ron looks beyond her exterior... Anyway, that's my major problem.

As to Hermione's dress, I understand why they changed the color from blue to pink-- it's because red tones show up better on screen in general than other colors because they're warmer and brighter. The color makes Hermione stand out more against the very blue and cold background of the Yule Ball.

Of course :p With so many seemingly random changes, that's the one that is most annoying yet makes the most sense. :lol:

Regarding random characters that keep popping up, if Nigel ends up cutting off Nagini's head and saving the day in DH, I. will. hurt. some. one. I really do not understand why they couldn't have just written Colin Creevey back in!

Regarding random characters that keep popping up, if Nigel ends up cutting off Nagini's head and saving the day in DH, I. will. hurt. some. one. I really do not understand why they couldn't have just written Colin Creevey back in!
What does Colin have to do with cutting off Nagini's head? He's dead at that point... though I agree about Nigel. Seriously, why couldn't they just keep the kid around and call him "Colin"? It doesn't make any sense to me.

And then there's the ominous kid who just showed up in PoA and says all of these random lines like, "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." Where did he come from??

And then there's the ominous kid who just showed up in PoA and says all of these random lines like, "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." Where did he come from??

The actor who plays him is called Ekow Quartey, and he is credited as Boy 1.

I'd thought about Seamus or Neville saying the lines that he'd been given, but I can't quite imagine either of them giving them quite the same ominous feeling :lol:

The actor who plays him is called Ekow Quartey, and he is credited as Boy 1.

I'd thought about Seamus or Neville saying the lines that he'd been given, but I can't quite imagine either of them giving them quite the same ominous feeling :lol: That's because it's Dean Thomas' line. ;)

That's because it's Dean Thomas' line. ;)
What? Dean Thomas doesn't say the line about smoke. He and "Boy 1" (or as I call him "super ominous boy") are played by two different people.

I think she means in the book :)

But that line isn't in the book...

Agreed. At first I thought the "catching smoke with your bare hands" kid was a new actor portraying Dean. I was pretty confused, and it still bugs me that he isnt an actual HP character. And they could have just as easily made Nigel into Colin, or even Dennis Creevey instead. I think it is pretty unnecessary as well.

Yeah, I actually paused the Boggort scene to see who replied to Remus. Then, I saw it was the old Dean Thomas so I knew he couldn't have been the kid. I wished they'd give him a name. As for Nigel...I dunno...I really loved that character.

But that line isn't in the book... You're right! I had always thought, when seeing it onscreen, that Dean had answered Prof. Trelawney (not all the smoke junk, but about what a Grim actually is), but he didn't at all. In the book, he just shrugs when Harry looks inquiringly at him. Huh.

I guess I'm bitter because Seamus gets all the good lines, and I love Dean Thomas. And Alfie Enoch. :)

I hate that there are these silly little scenes in between the important ones that take up time that could be used in the actual plot. Like in PoA, there was that part with the bird flying into the tree. I get that the whomping willow is important to the plot, but I think people who be able to remember it from the second movie!

I hate that there are these silly little scenes in between the important ones that take up time that could be used in the actual plot. Like in PoA, there was that part with the bird flying into the tree. I get that the whomping willow is important to the plot, but I think people who be able to remember it from the second movie!

Would you remember a tree that appeared for 2 minutes in a movie you saw two years ago if you weren't a fan? The Willow transitions not only reintroduced the tree without having to tell us about it, they also gave it some personality and they showed the passing of time. They weren't 'silly' IMO, they were good film-making and good adaptation, and alltogether they only lasted a minute or so.

I wish they would stick to the book a little more closely when filiming the scenes. They already leave a lot out, the last thing we need is for the book scenes to change as well.

And then there's the ominous kid who just showed up in PoA and says all of these random lines like, "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." Where did he come from??

that bugged me so much!!!! When i watched POA for the first time i just kept saying: 'Who is he?? Why is he there??'
He had a bigger part, well more lines that Ginny did!!!!!!! :err:

My biggest movie pet peeve is that ghastly line at the end of CoS, "there's no Hogwarts without you, Hagrid" or whatever it was.

Blech!

yeah. that nigel is kinda weirding me out. I try to block him out while I'm watching the movies. I mean, it's alright if they add LITTLE bits that weren't in the books into the movies ( creative writing) but now they're writing in characters? I mean, why give screen time to a character that doesn't even exsist? Why not give screen time to some of the characters that were actually written in the first place? like dobby or colin? I don't understand why adding a new character would be convenient for anybody. I understand that dobby is money but they had kreature and they have to certainly keep him for six and they most definitley need dobby for 7.

My biggest movie pet peeve is that ghastly line at the end of CoS, "there's no Hogwarts without you, Hagrid" or whatever it was.

Blech!

Yep, I think that's one of the worst lines ever.

I know that it's petty, but one of my biggest pet peeves is the 'prettying up' of Hermione.

I know that it's petty, but one of my biggest pet peeves is the 'prettying up' of Hermione.

I don't think that's petty. I do think it's a shame and a missed opportunity. I love that JKR wrote Hermione as really quite plain, with bushy hair and big teeth ... but in the films she has to be prettier, because, well, girls - particularly a leading character - aren't allowed NOT to be pretty on film. :no:

I don't think that's petty. I do think it's a shame and a missed opportunity. I love that JKR wrote Hermione as really quite plain, with bushy hair and big teeth ... but in the films she has to be prettier, because, well, girls - particularly a leading character - aren't allowed NOT to be pretty on film. :no:

All of the Trio are better looking in the films than I imagine them to be, which is fine. But I think it would be wonderful if there was a role model for younger girls who wasn't pretty and blonde with perfect hair. Expecially when Hermione is so wonderfully real in the books.

Probably mainly the clothes and how the school uniform has seemed to change over time, and they don't wear cloaks and hats much at all and also how all the grounds changed from the first 2 movies completely when it came to the third one.

All of the Trio are better looking in the films than I imagine them to be, which is fine.

Ron isn't. :whistle:

*hides from outraged Rupert Grint fans* :p

I think Grint is wonderfully cast as Ron, I hasten to add. :) A likable, affable bloke who is a bit insecure. :)

But I think it would be wonderful if there was a role model for younger girls who wasn't pretty and blonde with perfect hair. Expecially when Hermione is so wonderfully real in the books.

Yes, I agree. :cool:

Did someone mention Rupert Grint...? :love: *Daydreams*

Ron isn't. :whistle:

*hides from outraged Rupert Grint fans* :p

:wow:

*Is overly offended*

I do agree that Hermione would be a better role model if she wasn't completely gorgeous, and seemingly perfect in every way (appearance-wise). I think someone much more plain would have been better suited, and I think that it's sad that they felt the need to cast someone so gorgeous, and it does annoy me. Having said that, I do not think you can penalise someone because they are good looking. We have to trust that the casting directors believed that she was the best candidate to play Hermione. :)

:wow:

*Is overly offended*

Sorry. :D

I do agree that Hermione would be a better role model if she wasn't completely gorgeous, and seemingly perfect in every way (appearance-wise). I think someone much more plain would have been better suited, and I think that it's sad that they felt the need to cast someone so gorgeous, and it does annoy me. Having said that, I do not think you can penalise someone because they are good looking.

Indeed not. :) And Emma really is very pretty. :cool:

I do agree that Hermione would be a better role model if she wasn't completely gorgeous, and seemingly perfect in every way (appearance-wise). I think someone much more plain would have been better suited, and I think that it's sad that they felt the need to cast someone so gorgeous, and it does annoy me. Having said that, I do not think you can penalise someone because they are good looking.

It doesn't bother me that the actors are attractive, what bothers me is that whoever controls these things decided that Film Hermione needed to be much more glamorous than Book Hermione. Emma doesn't need to be made to look unnattractive (like they did with poor Matt Lewis) but they could make her look decidedly more average.

Ron isn't.

*hides from outraged Rupert Grint fans*

*Pelts with empty chocolate wrappers*

what bothers me is that whoever controls these things decided that Film Hermione needed to be much more glamorous than Book Hermione.

In the first movie is when Emma looked the most like her book character. The bushy hair was done excellently, and she was done up rather plainly compared to the rest of the films, where you can start to notice makeup being added and her hair being curled rather elegantly instead of frizzed everywhere like in SS. Also, in the GoF movie at the ball scene, Hermione looks much like herself, whereas in the book she is supposed to be beautifully unrecognizable. That part kind of irmked e in a sense because that is the one and only rare occasion where we are supposed to see Hermione's beautiful side.

In the first movie is when Emma looked the most like her book character. The bushy hair was done excellently, and she was done up rather plainly compared to the rest of the films, where you can start to notice makeup being added and her hair being curled rather elegantly instead of frizzed everywhere like in SS. Also, in the GoF movie at the ball scene, Hermione looks much like herself, whereas in the book she is supposed to be beautifully unrecognizable. That part kind of irmked e in a sense because that is the one and only rare occasion where we are supposed to see Hermione's beautiful side.

I agree. In the interviews for gof they were talking about this unveiling moment for hermione but in reality I didn't see much difference. Emma is very pretty and seeing her in a dress and heels was like, "well now you look even more pretty" (which is what dan said in an interview I believe:p) I don't mind her being pretty after gof in the movies cause she supposedly changes her appearance slightly anyway with her teeth and stuff. But her big "unveiling" moment in gof isn't as big as what I hoped it would've been.

My biggest issue is the awkward compression of books into movies.

This is most evident in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire. Somebody tries to get too much book into too little time. Vital transitions and explanatory dialogue is lost. The end result is a film that's long enough to be cumbrous, but is still choppy and nonsensical to somebody who hasn't read the book.

I don't like Order of the Pheonix because longest book was made into the shortest movie, but at least it was abridged smoothly enough that it can stand on its own.

I just noticed Dumbledore calling Voldemort "The Dark Lord" in OOTP, and it bugged me a lot.
Dumbledore is not an undercover Death Eater. Jeez.

I agree. In the interviews for gof they were talking about this unveiling moment for hermione but in reality I didn't see much difference. Emma is very pretty and seeing her in a dress and heels was like, "well now you look even more pretty" (which is what dan said in an interview I believe:p) I don't mind her being pretty after gof in the movies cause she supposedly changes her appearance slightly anyway with her teeth and stuff. But her big "unveiling" moment in gof isn't as big as what I hoped it would've been.

I agree she got too pretty too early. Not as dramatic as I hoped

The inconsistencies! Ugh, there are so many of them!
And how they'll cut out loads of awesome scenes and then add their own stupid ones about ballroom dancing etc.
All the stupid jokes that they use over and over again (ex: angry/rebel hermione)
How there's always one really corny line in every movie (ex: Harry- I love magic!)

There's lots of things.




Why do they cut out the really important stuff?
Grah Steve Kloves.

i hate gambon as dumbledore. i really do. i know this will be a debate until the end of time, but he is so out of character it isn't even funny. when he first stepped in, i was willing to give him a chance, but in GoF i was completely shocked when he started shouting at harry, because in the book it is COMPLETELY different. the whole reason i like dumbledore is because he is so wise beyond his years that he doesn't get angry very easily, and we he does you know something bad is about to happen. at first i thought that it could have been the director's fault, but then i read the interview in which gambon says that he basically plays as himself and fits the character around him. news flash: that's not called acting.

i didn't like it in POA when hermione had everything calm, cool, and together, because in the book it just isn't like that. the acting was pretty bad in the first three films as well [esp. 3, i think], but it has gotten better in the last two.

hate gambon as dumbledore. i really do. i know this will be a debate until the end of time, but he is so out of character it isn't even funny. when he first stepped in, i was willing to give him a chance, but in GoF i was completely shocked when he started shouting at harry, because in the book it is COMPLETELY different. the whole reason i like dumbledore is because he is so wise beyond his years that he doesn't get angry very easily, and we he does you know something bad is about to happen. at first i thought that it could have been the director's fault, but then i read the interview in which gambon says that he basically plays as himself and fits the character around him. news flash: that's not called acting.

I totally agree he is too angry and argessive.

I actually like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris was good for the first two movies, but they needed somebody with a bit more fire to play Dumbledore in the later movies. I agree that the scene with the Goblet of Fire was pretty bad, but that's more of a writing and directing issue than an acting issue IMO. Maybe that was Gambon's interpretation of that scene, but Mike Newell is ultimately responsible for the finished product, so your blame belongs with him.

I actually like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Richard Harris was good for the first two movies, but they needed somebody with a bit more fire to play Dumbledore in the later movies.

But Dumbledore is the same in every book, he just doesn't have fire in him

Reminder: This thread is about movie pet peeves. You can state them here, you don't have to justify your peeves. If you are interested in discussing Dumbledore in the films, please have a look at The Best Albus Dumbledore v.2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113912) :)

I know it's stupid, but one of my main pet peeves is Hermione's perfect hair. It's probably due to the fact that I've always had a problem with bushy brown hair myself and here was a character with the same problem! Unfortunately the producers didn't think it was sexy enough... or something... I have trouble picturing Emma as Hermione anyway.

POA was definitely my least favorite movie, mostly because none of the characters felt like the ones i'd read in the book. Hermione lifting Harry up by one arm, Harry's horrible fake crying, screaming and cowering Ron... I dunno, just didn't sit well with me.

So I guess I don't really care what changes they make to the plot, I just want the characters to give me the same feel they gave me in the book. I just want to see Ron, Harry, and Hermione on the screen! Not some other characters with similar hair colours...

I know it's stupid, but one of my main pet peeves is Hermione's perfect hair. It's probably due to the fact that I've always had a problem with bushy brown hair myself and here was a character with the same problem! Unfortunately the producers didn't think it was sexy enough... or something... I have trouble picturing Emma as Hermione anyway.

Well, that kind of annoyed me too. Hermione has never had perfect hair. She's too busy with homework and books, and I don't think she's a girl who cares too much about that kind of thing. Sure, it makes Emma look prettier and nicer with her lovely hair, but it doesn't stay true to the character of Hermione. It's the smallest thing ever, but it did used to really irritate me. PS hairstyle was totally the best :D

During the first few movies, Emma had bushy hair, but the last few it's straighter. But it's OK to me. Anyway, she shows heaps of GIRL POWER as Hermione :D !

My biggest pet peeve is in the portrayal of the trio in the films. Harry doesn't bother me, as he sticks pretty closely to Canon!Harry. What bothers me is Hermione and Ron. In PoA and GoF, we get GirlPower!Hermione who is nothing like Canon Hermione. She isn't on Harry's side in GoF, she is overly emotional for no reason, gets to make witty jokes, and all around annoys the snot out of me. So while we have GirlPower!Hermione, we are left with Wimpering!Ron, which is simply not Canon at all. He wimpers and is afraid of everything. He's not nearly as funny as he is in the books, and his sense of humor is lost.

I was overjoyed in OotP when we finally got our balanced trio back. Hermione was still a little over emotional and Ron was still a little wimpy, but they were balanced. Ron and Hermione had little banters, Ron had better jokes, Hermione was less perfect. :clap: Thank you Yates. I only hope they continue with this balanced trio in the next three films.

I actually don't have any pet peeves, well none that I can think of anyways. Oh I got one. A lot of simple stuff that was in the books was not in the movies. I know a lot of it was really simple stuff, but I would have liked to see Harry try and do crucio on Bellatrix. Pluss they didn't include the brains that Ron touches in the fith movie and Hermione didn't get stupifid or whatever it was that made her petrified.

A lot of simple stuff that was in the books was not in the movies. I know a lot of it was really simple stuff, but I would have liked to see Harry try and do crucio on Bellatrix. Pluss they didn't include the brains that Ron touches in the fith movie and Hermione didn't get stupifid or whatever it was that made her petrified.


I know some people miss out on seeing their favourite small incidents/one-liners etc. in the films, but the thing is some things need to be cut and I for one, don't mind not seeing little things like the brains getting Ron, the different rooms in the Dept of Mysteries, post-Quidditch parties, they're fun in the books, but too many of them in the films would weigh them down.

I'm not sure whether this was brought up before, but I'm always bothered by Moody's fake leg. It bugs me as it's clearly metal and almost robotic-it's not the same not hearing 'step CLUNK step CLUNK step CLUNK' due to Moody's wooden leg.
Also I highly doubt that the Wizarding World had the technology to make a metallic fake leg like in the GoF film. Wood yes. Metal no.
The eye bothered me at first (strap and all) but I got used to it. Still creeps me out a wee bit though, specially the shot of it still rolling around on the floor after it pops out of fake!Moody's socket.

I agree with others who are annoyed that Hermione looks pretty in the films. Hermione isn't like that at all - she's a plain girl with a great amount of intelligence and a huge capacity to love. She was never concerned with materalistic things, and it upsets me that they make her look like that in the film. (Don't even get me started on that line in PoA. :grumble:) But then I also know the sad truth: the actors and actresses have to look pretty. The world is so judgmental as it is, and having a plain actor or actress won't sell. :sigh:

What annoys me most is the way they characterize Ron, though. They go to extremes with him instead of having him act the way he is supposed to act. He is not daft or stupid at all, and they make him look like that. I hate how they do this to Ron. :upset:

:relax:

The acting is quite bad in all the movies. However, in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the acting was ok. Emma Watson is an ok actor, Daniel Radcliffe on the other hand... :no: Even though.... I love him. No offense to Daniel or anything.

The movies annoy me so much. So much is not included. Like the fact that Harry's hair is supposed to be uncontrollably messy and grows at an accelerated rate, so he can't cut it. Those small, missing, details really bug me.

The OTTP annoyed me the most. It was stuffed up because they cut so much out of it. Harry Potter in the first scene was a coward, unlike in the books where he was a smart *** to his cousin. He seems braver and more daring in the books than in the movies.

Christie.

:relax:
The OTTP annoyed me the most. It was stuffed up because they cut so much out of it. Harry Potter in the first scene was a coward, unlike in the books where he was a smart *** to his cousin. He seems braver and more daring in the books than in the movies.

Christie.

Yeah, no doubt about OotP being rushed, but now you can understand why it was a great decision to split DH:tu:

My biggest pet peeve is the acting in the two crying scenes for HP (PoA/GoF). I didn't think the acting was particularly good and I think it could have been done much better. Sure, Dan Radcliffe may not be the world's most experienced actor, but I feel he could've done a much better job.

What does Colin have to do with cutting off Nagini's head? He's dead at that point... though I agree about Nigel. Seriously, why couldn't they just keep the kid around and call him "Colin"? It doesn't make any sense to me.I have a lot of pet peeves in the movies but this one irritates me an inordinate amount. It would have been sooooooo easy to name the kid Colin or better Dennis since we don't know much about Dennis and they could make him do whatever without a camera. Urgh!!! I'm annoyed again just thinking about this random Nigel.

And then there's the ominous kid who just showed up in PoA and says all of these random lines like, "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." Where did he come from??That boy was my sister's favourite character in POA. LOL. She repeated "Like catching smoke, like catching smoke with your bare hands." for weeks. :lol: ~so dramatic~

Cheers :tu:

I have a lot of pet peeves in the movies but this one irritates me an inordinate amount. It would have been sooooooo easy to name the kid Colin or better Dennis since we don't know much about Dennis and they could make him do whatever without a camera. Urgh!!! I'm annoyed again just thinking about this random Nigel.


I actually love the character of Nigel, but I do agree that it's rather strange that he wasn't named Colin or Dennis. It might have something to do with the name Nigel being considered pretty geeky, but then again the character hasn't been made out to be like that so it's a mystery to me.

I actually love the character of Nigel, but I do agree that it's rather strange that he wasn't named Colin or Dennis. It might have something to do with the name Nigel being considered pretty geeky, but then again the character hasn't been made out to be like that so it's a mystery to me.
I never really wondered about who Nigel is. But now that I think about, I agree that's it's strange that they didn't just make him be Dennis or Collin Creevey. After all, I don't recall seeing Dennis in the films. :hmm: If they had made Nigel be Dennis I think it would'e been better, but it's not a movie pet peeve of mine because he's a cute little kid and I like his character. :)


And then there's the ominous kid who just showed up in PoA and says all of these random lines like, "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." Where did he come from??

:lol: I agree that it was random. PoA has a lot of things like that in it, such as those scenes where we get to see a random bird flying around. :lol: But I had always thought that the kid who said that was Dean Thomas. :hmm: I guess it never said who it was, but just assumed that it was him because he was African Gryffindor boy and the only one that I can think of in the books is Dean. :shrug:

I have many but the one in my mind right now is concerning spells. In OOTP, Levicorpus. I think I dont need to go into a rant about that one lol. I wish WB would stay more canon base with spells.

Also, deletation of important scenes- explain it all scenes. I agree that they must delete things like characters and subplots (for the most part, disappointing but barable). But things like DD not talking to harry (and the prophecy things) at the end of 5. The prophecies being changed or shortend also annoy me.

Also, deletation of important scenes- explain it all scenes. I agree that they must delete things like characters and subplots (for the most part, disappointing but barable). But things like DD not talking to harry (and the prophecy things) at the end of 5. The prophecies being changed or shortend also annoy me.

I hate the absence of the prophecy scene so much. Honestly, why not include that, which is incredibly relevant to the plot of the whole series, instead of that five minute long scene with Filch trying to break into the RoR? I found that scene completely useless. :no:

I hate the absence of the prophecy scene so much. Honestly, why not include that, which is incredibly relevant to the plot of the whole series, instead of that five minute long scene with Filch trying to break into the RoR? I found that scene completely useless. :no:

I agree! The RoR scene went on for 9 and a half minutes I think. The DD discussion would have only taken them about 5 min.! They dont seem to understand whats important.

Also, deletation of important scenes- explain it all scenes.
Definitely. In PoA, they never even explain about the Marauders! And that got a lot of people who hadn't read the books confused. :no: That was too important to be deleted IMO.

And I agree about the prophecy scene, too.

I hate that Harry can't actually cry in PoA, it sounds like someones choking him. :)

Mine is when they skip important parts in the movies. I dislike that. For example: I SS\PS they never explained why Harry named Hedwig Hedwig. Stuff like thats confusing for people who only watch the movies.

One of my pet peeves is Sirius' death scene in OotP. In the book, I was pretty sure it wasn't an AK curse ol' Bellatrix threw at the guy, yet it happens in the movie. However, he doesn't die immediately (unlike Cedric?!), but just stands there agape, looks at Harry blankly and just gets sucked into the Force...er, Veil. ;) I was expecting far more from that-something far more heart-wrenching. Instead of "SIRIUS! NO!" rather I thought "Oh...he's gone I guess." I liked the veil's self-waving though, only I saw it as completely black and almost silky.

What's that 'werewolf' in PoA? If Fenrir Greyback ends up looking like that, I won't be happy. :no: I was thinking "What the..." when I saw that thing.

I absolutely hate the end of CoS, and nowadays I just stop after the "Dobby is free" scene.

I do not like the Fat Lady in PoA-very Over The Top.

Definitely. In PoA, they never even explain about the Marauders! And that got a lot of people who hadn't read the books confused. :no: That was too important to be deleted IMO.

And I agree about the prophecy scene, too.

Yes, i agree that they shouldn't have deleted the marauder scene in POA.

I also feel that the entire OOTP movie was really disappointing. I loved the book and it was really sad to see that they just rushed through the film. :no:

Older students in SS and COS wore school robes so the same should apply in all the movies. I dont think they should try to make them hip or "emo"

**** should not be added for comedic purposes since theres enough to work with as is.

The guy I thought would be perfect for Shacklebolt would have been the guy(cant think of his name) that was in The Green Mile,Armageddon,and a few other movies.

The movies actually ruin the books for me and I hate it. Whenever I see one of the movies I find it hard to go back and reread which I love to do.

Changing things around, like in OotP, the Ministry of Magic was changed around - the statues that is. THAT annoyed me!

In PoA they never explained why Harry's patronus is a stag. They said it was because of James, but they never said that he was a stag animagus which would have explained it. Thank goodness for the books though.

Older students in SS and COS wore school robes so the same should apply in all the movies. I dont think they should try to make them hip or "emo"

The guy I thought would be perfect for Shacklebolt would have been the guy(cant think of his name) that was in The Green Mile,Armageddon,and a few other movies.



First point, yeah I think dispensing with the uniforms was annoying, although I see why it was odne to make the characters and their appearance seem more relevant to audiences than robes. Could have been kept to just for Hogsmeade visits though. That reminds me, what was the logic behind changing their clothes in Order? When Harry has the vision of Sirius being tortured he's in uniform, as they've just been sitting an exam. However, as they discuss what to do/flee the castle, the six are all wearing normal clothes. Because the first thing you do when someone you care about is in danger is change your clothes.:rolleyes:

I think you're talking about Michael Clarke Duncan. (plus he was also in Daredevil, I think) Trouble there is he's an American actor. I was thinking somebody along the lines of a British version of Wesley Snipes OR Samuel L Jackson, a truly cool character, I had envisioned Kingsley in a leather jacket, seeing as they were dispensing with robes throughout the series.

Peeves is one of my favorite characters in the books, and it bothered me how he wasn't in the movies.

It also bothered me how the movies actually don't focus on Snape as much as the books do. Not only because he's my fav character in the series, but because he's an important character in the story. OOTP bearly even showed him at all, he was there for a few scenes, and that was it.

I tend to get REALLY nitpicky about things:
Ex.
OotP:
-Harry and Dudley did NOT encounter the dementors in a tunnel

Peeves being cut :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, but seriously now, there was A LOT of pet peeves with OotP:

- Umbridge blasting down the door
- Quidditch being cut
- The Golden Statues not be summoned by DD in the Ministry
- Not one spell being fired by the Death Eaters against the DA

I could go on and on, but that would take forever

Now general movie pet peeves:

- Flitwick being demoted to Choir Master?
- Hermione not portrayed correctly and given other's lines
- Ron not portrayed correctly and lines taken from him
- They NEVER seem to include any of JKR's HUMOUR
- Hogwarts CHANGING after for PoA

again, this would take forever if I continued, so I'll leave it at that! :p

Peeves being cut :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, but seriously now, there was A LOT of pet peeves with OotP:

- Umbridge blasting down the door
- Quidditch being cut
- The Golden Statues not be summoned by DD in the Ministry
- Not one spell being fired by the Death Eaters against the DA

I could go on and on, but that would take forever

Now general movie pet peeves:

- Flitwick being demoted to Choir Master?
- Hermione not portrayed correctly and given other's lines
- Ron not portrayed correctly and lines taken from him
- They NEVER seem to include any of JKR's HUMOUR
- Hogwarts CHANGING after for PoA

again, this would take forever if I continued, so I'll leave it at that! :p
Wow!! You seriously don't like the movies, that stinks. I don't know why everyone's making a big deal about OotP. I actually didn't have any problems with it(other than the fact that Sirius dies, but I had the problem with that in the book too). They're the movies. They're not going to be exactly alike the movies. The writers and the director do want to put some of their own ideas into the movies too. Just because they're diffrent doesn't mean that you have to put them down. Sorry not trying to be rude.

In SS/PS, the fact that Lily and James both look like they're thirty five to forty years old, in the Mirror of Erised. They were twenty one when they died. Seriously, why couldn't they have just picked two random people out of the crowd to stand their, smile and wave? :no: That annoys me every time I see it...

In SS/PS, the fact that Lily and James both look like they're thirty five to forty years old, in the Mirror of Erised. They were twenty one when they died. Seriously, why couldn't they have just picked two random people out of the crowd to stand their, smile and wave? :no: That annoys me every time I see it...
While I agree with you on this one, I wonder if they didn't pick older people to play the Potters because they would change less as the years went by, and so they could be used in subsequent movies too? That's my best guess.

While I agree with you on this one, I wonder if they didn't pick older people to play the Potters because they would change less as the years went by, and so they could be used in subsequent movies too? That's my best guess.

The only other movie where they would appear at the age where they died is in DH, during the flashback at Bathilda's house, and when they come out of the Resurrection Stone. Of course they didn't know about that when SS/PS was released, so I'm not sure why. I don't think age was a problem, though- they can get the Trio at 18 to look like they're 15. ;)

Wow!! You seriously don't like the movies, that stinks. I don't know why everyone's making a big deal about OotP. I actually didn't have any problems with it(other than the fact that Sirius dies, but I had the problem with that in the book too). They're the movies. They're not going to be exactly alike the movies. The writers and the director do want to put some of their own ideas into the movies too. Just because they're diffrent doesn't mean that you have to put them down. Sorry not trying to be rude.

NO, you've got me WRONG, I LIKE the movies.

I think all of them were GOOD/GREAT but they weren't FANTASTIC and they all had a lot more POTENTIAL.

I just don't think they will ever compare to the Books. btw, OOTP was my FAVORITE BOOK so I was VERY CRITICAL!!!

Now maybe they will surprise me and pull off a LOTR caliber movie for HBP or DH.

It's funny for me, the LOTR movies are SO MUCH BETTER than the BOOKS, because the Books drag and have too much lengthy detail and description

I'm waiting for one of the HP movies to WIN AN OSCAR, and thusfar that hasn't happened, even though EVERY Movie had the POTENTIAL

NO, you've got me WRONG, I LIKE the movies.

I think all of them were GOOD/GREAT but they weren't FANTASTIC and they all had a lot more POTENTIAL.

I just don't think they will ever compare to the Books. btw, OOTP was my FAVORITE BOOK so I was VERY CRITICAL!!!

Now maybe they will surprise me and pull off a LOTR caliber movie for HBP or DH.

It's funny for me, the LOTR movies are SO MUCH BETTER than the BOOKS, because the Books drag and have too much lengthy detail and description

I'm waiting for one of the HP movies to WIN AN OSCAR, and thusfar that hasn't happened, even though EVERY Movie had the POTENTIAL
Sorry it just sounded like you didn't like the movies. Didn't mean to be rude at all. Once again, sorry.

Sorry it just sounded like you didn't like the movies. Didn't mean to be rude at all. Once again, sorry.

Oh, no worries, you weren't being rude.

I guess I did sound a bit like I HATED them :lol:

I did go back and read through and I thought, yeah that does really send the wrong message :p

1)I hate the way Ron is pictured in the movies: he's not a coward. But I love Rupert Grint as Ron.
2)I don't like the first task in GoF. Harry is not supposed to be chased by the dragon. It's much too long.
3)The graveyard in GoF is awful, and the scene with Voldemort a bit ridiculous.

In OotP they left a lot of small bits, that I personally thought were important. It really annoyed me because I was waiting for some of these things. For example:

In the book, Harry was banned from quidditch along with Fred and George.

The occlumency lessons were shown quite badly in the movie, so that should have been shown better.

In the book, Harry did not hear the prophecy, but in the movie he did.

Luna bugged me a lot, she looked so ditsy in the movie. (no offense to the actress playing her) But the character didnt suit Luna. She was supposed to have big dreamy eyes.

I was looking forward to see the diversion that Hermione and Ginny made so Harry could sneak into Umbridge's office.

There are quite a few more, but I cant remember them at the moment, but these are basically the ones that bugged me the most.

I really wanted to see snapes worst memory in more detail, and Harry talking to Sirius and Lupin about it in the fire.
Also Peeves being taken out!

My movie pet peeves? Well, for starters, that they leave so much stuff out. And also the characters that they leave out. I really would've liked to see Bill by now! Or at least see Dobby a little more often like we should. :no:

I also hate the way some of the characters look (though of course this is fully my own opinion). Take Trelawny, Sirius, and Ginny, for instance. (Though I will admit I like the trio and most of the teachers.)

Oh, and when they don't wear their robes. This is Hogwarts, for goodness's sake! Not a public high school!

I could go on. But I won't. *Sigh* Well now that I am successfully in a rage about the movies, I can only hope for better in HBP (and DH had BETTER be good!!):grumble:

Something that has always bugged me about the movies is the strong sense of it all being the "children's movie." Not like they make the movie aimed for kids (which they do, but that's not what I'm talking about), but that they center the whole movie around the kids. All of the main characters who are adults have incrediblt small parts, such as Dumbledore, Snape, and Sirius. Harry of course has a huge part but it is his movie. Ron and Hermione are given way too big of a role IMO. Both of them really aren't that important to the book's plot, yet they are made to be more important than everyone but Harry during the movie. Even Voldemort is given as tiny of a role as possible, while he should be the second biggest character. The Harry Potter books are not centered around these children, there are many prominent adult characters who don't recieve nearly enough attention on screen. I'm a bit of an HP movie purist. :yuhup:

Yes me to! They started off with a ver childish moviein the first two especially! I wish it was like the books.. no age that it's made for :)

I also obviously hate how much is cut out,
Some of the actors,
and also the way that if you just read the books you'll ahve a certain POV and if you just wathc movies you have a totally differennt POV

The way that Daniel moves his mouth at the end of the first one can get a bit annoying. But I can let that go because he was young.

However, Miss Watson, yes I'm looking at you..you have no excuse for the eyebrows!

Pet peeves, pet peeves, pet peeves....let me see.

I don't really have any for the first 2 movies because they stayed truest to the books, sure they cut out a few things, but all in all you "got" the message. With that said...my peeves for the next 3 movies:

POA:
1) The cutting out of the Mauraders and the signficance of they Harry's patronus is a stag.
2) The fact that they used a CGI dog - instead of a real dog...could have used an Irish Wolfhound....they look kinda mean.
3) The fact that Gryffindor house moved....it used to be down a hallway - now it's at the top of the main staircase???

GOF:
1) The cutting of SPEW...though I understand why it was cut....I just don't like that they cut it.
2) They didn't play up the argument as well as they could have between Harry and Ron (especially when Malfoy curses Hermione outside Potions class).
3) They start the movie with Harry already at the Burrow and getting ready to go to the QWC and not at # 4 Privet Drive. I wanted to see the Weasleys meet the Dursleys and Fred & George's "joke" on Dudley.
4) The lack of Mad-Eye Moody and his teaching. We only see the one class with him and that's it....should've been more.
5) The Dragon scene was too long and the maze and graveyard was not long enough. In the maze, the creatures were missing as was the Sphynx which I really wanted to see.

OOTP:
1) Ron and Hermione being named prefects and Harry's reaction
2) Seamus's acting could have been better when he confronted Harry
3) Umbridge's banning of Harry, Fred, and George
4) Cho being named the snitch instead of Marietta and the fact that Hermione had cursed the parchment wasn't shown either
5) Ginny looking like she is still pining for Harry - even though by that movie she is going out with Michael Corner.
6) I did not like the way they did the Occlumency lessons
7) Snape's Worst Memory becomes a snippet
8) Harry and company's apparant ease of finding the prophecy
9) Harry giving up the prophecy - which he CLEARLY DOES NOT DO in the book
10) The fight the DA has with the DE's and that Harry is basically the last man standing.
11) The temper tantrum of Harry's is completely missing and I think needed especially after watching Sirius be killed by Bellatriz
12) The explanation of Dumbledore and the viewing of the prophecy and what it means to Harry.

As you can see I have more peeves with OOTP that any other movie and that's not even the complete list...don't get me wrong I like the movies, but I was rather disappointed with how they made OOTP. It seemed to go too fast and not a whole heck of a lot was explained. I spent the next couple hours explaining things to my parents that were missing from the books and why it was important for the remainder of the series.

i really like the movies but again it is annoying how much is cut and i really think its stupid how they are never wearing robes. i really like the trio even though i see them differently when i read the books. I think dans acting got sooooooooooo much better and it would really make me mad if my friends actually cared what happens because id have to explain but really they dont give a dang and my step bro wouldnt understand the plot if it was explained properly

so i really dont care to much but it would be cool to see more little stuff in them

Well, where do I start??

1. Dobby - absolutely terrible... i can't watch CoS because of him
2. Dark Forest instead of Forbidden Forest... WHY CHANGE THE NAME??
3. Black Lake instead of Great Lake... ditto
4. Daniel's yelling scenes... seem really forced
5. Hermione's pink dress at the Yule Ball... periwinkle blue would have been SO much nicer on Emma
6. Dumbing down Victor Krum... he wasn't dumb!!
7. Apparating in OotP... seemed very unlike what I imagined
8. The stupid spider chase in CoS... pointless and unterrifying, a tension-breaker rather than maker
9. Dumbledore going on all the time... in the books Dd was really succinct and to the point
10. Lack of variety with spells... Expelliarmus DISARMS ppl! Rictusempra is a TICKLING spell!!
11. How much is left out that is incredibly important to it all making sense
12. Harry has blue eyes... c'mon, how cheap are coloured contacts! the eye colour was so important
13. Random silly un-HP lines... "Bubble juice?"... what the blazes is bubble juice?
14. Hermione is too pretty... there could have been a bigger contrast at the Yule Ball
15. Fleur is not a Veela... although she was played well i must admit
16. The Maze... why change it? cos they didnt want to spend the money on sphinxs etc... but at least have some variety!!
17. Not even a mention of house-elf rights... leaving out a BIG message there
18. No Cho break-up... this could have been a hilarious moment in the movies... cringing at harry's lack of tact
19. No Lily in Snape's Worst Memory... this will NOT help in future films! And harry isn't disappointed with his father, but this is a big difference between James and Harry
20. Boring Dept. of Mysteries... the time room and the spinning entrance would have been amazing... not too expensive either!
21. No Peeves... grrr.
22. They just don't have the spirit of Harry Potter (probably because of all of the above).

and I may soon have to add:
23. Slughorn isn't fat and doesn't have a walrus moustache... but the actor might pull it off so well i don't notice.

That said, there are a few things I like about the movies:

1. The new Hogwarts... I like it, more magical than the original one... a bit wilder and less predictable
2. Hagrid... They should ask JK for casting tips always :D
3. In the Great Lake (apart from the grindylow thing)... but i'm biased towards creepy green underwater scenes :)
4. Buckbeak... nicely done
5. Dementors... made sure they didn't look like Ringwraiths, while still being very spooky
6. Lupin... David Thewlis... good casting
7. McGonagall and Snape... ditto
8. Malfoy... I always think he does a good job in his role
9. Lockhart... made me want to jump through the screen and throttle him... but because he was portrayed well (unlike others)
10. The scene with Frank Bryce... best intro since PS/SS
11. Umbridge... maybe the casting wasn't so bad after all... well for the adults anyway.
12. The Yule Ball (aside from Hermione's dress)... quite funny

Apart from that, not much at all, although I think Lavender looks how I imagined her. How come they got the images of Lavender, the Patil twins, Draco etc right but not Harry and Hermione??

My biggest pet peeve about the HP movies are Daniel in the "angry scenes"... I'm sorry, but that is some of the most forced acting I've ever seen. I also don't like how Hogwarts changed after PoA, the way that Dobby is portrayed, and Dumbledore's random speeches.

Too much stuff left out. What's even more annoying is that a lot of the stuff they leave out are IMPORTANT to the plot.

The end.

My main pet peeve is that the Death Eaters NEVER fired any spells towards the kids in the DoM. I mean, I know they weren't supposed to harm Harry, but couldn't they have shot spells at the others so as to appear more threatening?

Ive got a few main pet peeves

1. In OotP, I hate the Filch scenes (eating a sandwich and staring the wall/putting up the decrees) this just seems un-filch like and completely destroys the way the character was portrayed in PS/SS and CoS
2. In GoF, when they had filch running - see above post
3. In PoA, they had the students in muggle clothes throughout the film, which makes absolutely no sense, considering most wizards can't dress in muggle clothing
4. In GoF, the way they left out Winky and the Quidditch match itself.
5. As mentioned before, the way Harry's eyes are blue
6. Snapes memory, is just terrible in my opinion
7. The GoF Dumbledore freakout

I'll edit this msg when i have more time, the list goes on and on.

Don't get me wrong, from one perspective the films are great, but from a big HP fan, critiquing the film, they could have been much, much better

My biggest pet peeves for the movies was replacing characters to do other character scenes such as leaving out Neville in the forbidden forest in the SS, or using Neville to give Harry the gillyweed in GoF. I love Neville, I really do, but put him where he's sappose to be. And bring back Dobby!!!

1-How Hermione doesn't have bushy hair. Seriously-it takes away from the whole series. In a way, that was an important point.
2-The random things that JUST DON'T HAPPEN. Like the whole Flitwick thing in OotP. Like, did that happen. Would that happen.
3-The things that wouldn't be said in the books, just to add humor. Yeah, don't like it very much.
Any more ideas?

Barty crouch seniors voice, it just irriates me. lol
Rons hair in GoF.

Just little things lol

My biggest pet peeve in OotP is when Harry hands Lucius the prophecy. I HATE that part because it is so unnecessary! I honestly hate when movies add scenes that they don't need to, in order to create more drama or whatever.

My biggest pet peeve in OotP is when Harry hands Lucius the prophecy. I HATE that part because it is so unnecessary! I honestly hate when movies add scenes that they don't need to, in order to create more drama or whatever.

Isn't that the point of a dramatisation? To alter or expand the source material to make it engaging on screen?

Isn't that the point of a dramatisation? To alter or expand the source material to make it engaging on screen?

Yeah but why would they do that? It would have been cooler for Harry to do some cool bit of magic to Lucius and he bursts back or something. By doing what he did, he looks like a noble coward I think, BUT HE'S NOT. I don't know. I didn't like how they added that bit of stuff.

Isn't that the point of a dramatisation? To alter or expand the source material to make it engaging on screen?

What I meant was I thought the books were dramatic enough. I hated that they added in that part when the scene in the book was way better. I was really disappointed in the whole fight scene with the Death Eaters. I guess it just bugs me that alot of people don't read the books, so they watch the movies and think that is what happened. I understand having to cut some parts, but I hate that they add, what to me seems, scenes that don't do the characters justice.

How does it not do the characters justice? Think about Harry's position: give this ball to Malfoy, a ball which he does not know much about, or HIS FRIENDS WILL DIE? In fact it's quite a noble thing for Harry to do.

As Malfoy says, "Don't you want to know why the Dark Lord wanted to kill you etc" - this is Harry's hope of finding out about his past. But he gives that up. For his friends. A very noble thing to do, and in character.

When Umbridge breaks through the wall into the RoR during OotP. She can't do that! Seriously, how hard would it be for them to use one of those extras as Marietta Edgecombe, and them all say a few more lines about how she betrayed them? Plus, it would have made the whole story about why Cho and Harry broke up much more believable. That whole thing was a mess IMO.

Because why introduce another character, when you can, more easily, give their role to an already established one? It did leave the Harry/Cho romance open ended, but then the book version wasn't much better. It ended pretty much straight after it began, its only aim was to bring about Harry's first kiss, so I'm not too bothered about it. It did fine for its purpose.

How does it not do the characters justice?

I was actually talking about the whole fight scene on that one. It seemed to me to make them look a tad less able than they really were in the book. However, that fight scene in the book was my favorite part so I probably wouldn't be happy with it unless it was pretty close to the book.

Who less able? The DA? Or Death Eaters? If you're talking about the DA, then they are children, they're obviously not to going to be at the same level at fully accomplished wizards.

If you mean the DEs, then I too thought it could have been more brutal; the extended battle as seen in the script would have been more satisfying.

(all IMO)

-most definatly hermione, everything about her is wrong.
-ron has such a small part
-overexagerate everything (example: 1st task GOF)
-draco has such a small part, they better have more of him in HBP because the whole movie involves him sneaking around and stuff
-they change characters, like flitwick and lee jordan, that really bugs me
-and basically they don't stay true to the books
-oh, and voldy's eyes arn't red, i think he'd be scarier with red eyes, like he's supossed to be in the book.

Who less able? The DA? Or Death Eaters? If you're talking about the DA, then they are children, they're obviously not to going to be at the same level at fully accomplished wizards.

I was talking about both. In the book, I think the kids did a better job defending themselves and throwing out some pretty cool spells, dodging and all that.

I don't know, it is a variety of things that bug me about that scene, in fact, I don't really like the whole ministry thing until the Order got there, and after that I liked it whole lot better.

I quite liked the chase aspect; also as if the DEs are playing with them. "Did you really think children stood a chance against us?" Seemed as if they knew it was inevitable there was no way out for the children, they were just savouring the moment. That's how I look at it.

I quite liked the chase aspect; also as if the DEs are playing with them.

That is essentially what I am saying, I liked the chase alot and I feel the movie didn't do it justice, only because I thought it was extremely well written in the book.

If I hadn't read the book I think I would have liked the scene more. Or if I had seen the movie first, I probably would have liked the scene better.

i was watching GOF last night and thought of some more.
-quidditch world cup: they show this amazing stadium and all this opening, then never show any of the game, what the heck??? i wanted to see some playing, especially with that awesome stadium.
-also, not sure what movie it was in, possibly POA? but when harry, ron, and the other boys were in their dorms and eating that candy that made them act like idiots (IMO) it was just really stupid and not funny at all, it actually made me cringe when ron took the lion one and puffed out his chest and stuff, it was just ughhhhhh! :p

Well I have a lot of pet peeves from the movies and I'm not going to go into detail here. But there is one thing that I really hate. WHERE IS PEEVES??? One of my favorite characters is peeves and he's nowhere to be found. =[

Sadly Peeves adds nothing to the story. A cameo would've been nice, but he really has no purpose in the series as a whole.

My pet peeves and nits to pick:

-So much is left out (I know, time restrictions on the movies) when stupid things are added (Nevil fainting in herbology, and others)

- I don’t get the feeling that Mr. Gambon really did his homework to get into the Dumbledore character (i.e. Freakout scene in GoF, and others)

-Hermione’s un-bushy hair, and Harry’s un-messy hair

-Harry handing Lucious the prophecy (just wrong)

-The extended dragon/harry flight scene in GoF (didn’t happen that way, the actual book version would have been way cooler!)

-The graveyard scene in GoF, especially the part where wormtail cuts Harry. Harry could have let go of the reaper and punched old wormy right in the nose, he wasn’t bound up at all.

-OOtP how the RoR was broken… (you can’t get in by busting walls..)

-OOtP how the DEs could fly (they aren’t that powerful)

However, my biggest pet peeve is that the movies have been spaced out, in real time, way too long. The kids age way too much between any two. I understand not starting number 2 until you were sure the first was a success, but they should have shot 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 much sooner. We’ll have 30 year olds trying to play 17 year old kids. :(

I do like the movies though, but I have to take them as individual and unique entities from the books.

WHERE IS PEEVES??? One of my favorite characters is peeves and he's nowhere to be found.

I completely and totally agree! Peeves is by far my favorite character and I hate that they left him out :upset:

-OOtP how the RoR was broken… (you can’t get in by busting walls..)

-OOtP how the DEs could fly (they aren’t that powerful)

However, my biggest pet peeve is that the movies have been spaced out, in real time, way too long. The kids age way too much between any two. I understand not starting number 2 until you were sure the first was a success, but they should have shot 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 much sooner. We’ll have 30 year olds trying to play 17 year old kids. :(
I agree with you on some of those, especially the top two above. Adding the weird apparating/flying thing wasn't necessary and was just extra CGI to make the fight look cool. I don't think the movie would have been any less interesting without it.

But I've never really understood the complaint people have with the kids ages. They've filmed almost one movie a year since the very beginning. For HBP he was 18 during filming, playing a 16 year old. Child stars are regularly several years older than their characters. And I don't think any of them look particularly old, Dan is even rather short so it works really well IMO.

One of my main ones is when Hermione calls Ron, "Ronald". Yes that is his actual name but she rarely calls him Ronald in the books. Its not a big deal but I really don't like it at all.

Or at the graveyard scene there are like 5 death eaters. Whats up with that?! Cant they at least have 10 or so?

http://www.homeofthenutty.com/movies/screencaps/displayimage.php?album=12&pos=3351

Bit more than 5, I would say

One of my main ones is when Hermione calls Ron, "Ronald". Yes that is his actual name but she rarely calls him Ronald in the books. Its not a big deal but I really don't like it at all.



I hate how she calls him Ronald! That is definately a pet peeve!

One of my main ones is when Hermione calls Ron, "Ronald". Yes that is his actual name but she rarely calls him Ronald in the books. Its not a big deal but I really don't like it at all.I don't like much about Hermione's character in the movies. She always calls Ron "Ronald," and she knows everything, which she really doesn't. She's very smart but not a real know-it-all. And Ron doesn't have to act all dumb and goofy all the time.

And she's too pretty. I know people have said this before, but Emma's just too pretty as Hermione. Also, Harry. He just... bugs me. He's all stuck-up and not how I pictured him to act or look like. I mean, I know he's not supposed to be Pippy Longstocking or anything, but he's actually funny in the books (albeit in a dry way).

Also, Kloves. God, GoF was a nice movie, but it was a rather terrible script.

http://www.homeofthenutty.com/movies/screencaps/displayimage.php?album=12&pos=3351

Bit more than 5, I would say
Well just watch the scene again. There are at tops 6 death eaters with Voldemort. They couldn't add at least half a dozen more random people under hoods? It looked really silly to me when Voldemort ended up having so few supporters.

It drives me crazy in OotP how in all the scenes that Luna and Cho are in together, they make it look like they are friends.

It drives me crazy in OotP how in all the scenes that Luna and Cho are in together, they make it look like they are friends.

Agreed! I noticed this too. Luna doesn't have any friends in OotP really. She later becomes friends with Ginny, Neville and the trio but thats after the DoM. She wasn't involved in the group of girls giggling together when Hermione stupefied Ron in the DA which is good but she is always around Cho and it annoyed me kind of.

Agreed! I noticed this too. Luna doesn't have any friends in OotP really. She later becomes friends with Ginny, Neville and the trio but thats after the DoM. She wasn't involved in the group of girls giggling together when Hermione stupefied Ron in the DA which is good but she is always around Cho and it annoyed me kind of.
They never talked, so that made it good, and another pet peeve:

CHO IS A YEAR AHEAD OF HARRY! HERMIONE, WHY WOULD SHE BE WORRIED ABOUT OWLS?!?!

What makes me mad is that they don't follow the storyline. Like Hello people follow the books PLEASEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :love: :grumble: :relax: :gryff: :gryff:

I know this is really petty (but isn't that kind of what a pet peeve is?) but one thing that really irks me is the Hogwarts uniforms, as depicted in the films. They look like normal 'muggle' school uniforms. White shirt, black trousers and a grey jumper. Not only that, but when the students (particularly Harry and Ron) are shown in their uniforms they aren't even smartly presented. Shirt hanging out, top buttons undone, ties half undone etc...
[/RANT]

I really hate how Ron is portrayed. They make him just look like someone who is funny to laugh at with no intelligence or depth at all. :rolleyes: And, even worse, they give his great lines to Hermione! As much as I love Hermione, it isn't fair to Ron's character. He has a lot more to him than jokes, IMO. Rupert is the most talented actor out of the three, yet he is often unrecognized by the critics because of the role they give him. They better play up his character a lot more, especially by the time DH rolls around.

My pet movie peeve is when they change things to make everybody act illogical when there was a perfectly reasonable way of doing things in the book. The most annoying instance of this for me occurs in PoA during the entire werewolf transformation episode. I cringe every time I watch it. LOL. Here is what I don't personally like (the following is my opinion only):

1) Sirius has known that Lupin is a werewolf for close to two decades (if not longer). He grew up in the wizarding world and knows that turning into a werewolf is not a choice. That there is nothing that Lupin can do to stop from turning into a werewolf (though, he might have caught on that the newly invented potion will at least help out a bit). Given this, why does Sirius run to Lupin and start spouting new age nonsense about how "This heart is where you truly live! This heart! Here! This flesh is only flesh!" How is that supposed to help? One of Lupin's greatest fears is killing somebody or turning them into a werewolf. Wouldn't Sirius's time be better spent tossing the kids or Lupin into the tunnel and turning on the tree? Salvage what one can from the incident?

2) Hermione is supposed to be "the smartest witch of her generation" and she's the one who apparently knows the most about werewolves. When Ron recommends that they run, she waves her hand to stop them and then tries to communicate with Prof Lupin. Shouldn't she know that isn't going to work? She's the one who said that werewolves only respond to the call of their own kind (and don't get me started on how she's able to do a note perfect rendition of a werewolf call on her first attempt. They must have a language lab with audio tapes in the Hogwart library).

3) When Harry takes off after Sirius, what do Hermione and Snape do? Ron can't exactly run (despite his earlier idea of running), so I'll give him a pass. Couldn't Snape have grabbed somebody's wand and done something with it? Did he just wait for a few minutes before following? Long enough for a dementor attack to occur? I don't see why he would. This just doesn't seem consistent with the man who just threw himself in front of a werewolf to protect the kids.

I think that the actions of Sirius, Hermione and Snape seem inconsistent with their movie and book characters in this scene. I think that the scene in the book is much better written. Sirius immediately tells Harry to run, then transforms into a dog and drags the werewolf away from the others. Harry doesn't run because Ron is tied to a werewolf and a DE. Snape can't help because he's knocked out. Both Harry and Hermione run to help Sirius but are overwhelmed by the dementors. Everybody seems to act in a reasonable and consistent manner (in my opinion).

I HATED the way they did Snape's wost memory. So I guess it's when they change the plot a bit and cut things out. I mean, where was Lily coming to defend Snape?!! grr. :no:

And the fact that Hermione does not look like Hermione, she has neat and tidy hair. :hmm: So that's when they change the way the characters are supposed to be! :(

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

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


I feel the same way. It's upseting to watch these movies hoping to see a great book come to life and you get a bloody mess. Also I do not like Michael Gambon as Dumbledore. Sorry to all his fans. But Dumbledore would never grab harry and yell in his face like he did in GOF.

Others have said most of these already, but here are my movie pet peeves:

- Ron's character is totally dumbed down. There's much more to him in the books, but for the movies they just made him into a whimpering dope who is always wrong about everything.

- Hermione's character is exaggerated in the other direction. In the books, she's incredibly smart and almost always right....but she has flaws too. In the movies, she has no flaws and is absolutely right about everything.

(an example of the above two is how in PoA in the Shrieking Shack, it was Ron that bravely told Sirius that he's have to kill all of them if he wanted to kill Harry. In the movie, they of course gave that line to Hermione and had Ron stick to his usual whimpering. :rolleyes:)

- GoF and, even more so, OOTP skimmed thru the story so fast that it makes me wonder if people who saw the movies only can even figure out what the heck is going on. I know they have a time restraint, but IMO they could make the movies just a little longer to make the story more comprehensible.

- Adding to the last point: no extended version and very little in the way of useful deleted scenes from the last 2 movies. If they wanted to keep the movie short for the masses, why not add some more meat for the real fans to view on DVD?

- Dumbledore's character is too gruff in the movies. In GoF, he THROTTLES Harry after the Goblet spits out his name! Incredibly out of character. That scene was so bad it was laughable.

- The whole Cho "betrayal" thing in OOTP was pretty lame. In the books, it made sense that Harry was angry at her for sticking up for her friend who consciously ratted them out. In the movie, they broke up because...why was it again?....because she was given Veritaserum and forced to rat them out beyond her control? Huh? So, um, Harry stayed mad at her once he found out it was totally not her fault? Also, Why would the only give Veritaserum to her and not to everyone else? Makes absolutely no sense.

- They dumped Colin Creevey's character and then in GoF and/or OOTP added a nearly identical character named "Nigel". Huh? What was the point of that? Who is going to die at the end of DH now? "Nigel"?

This is more of a suggestion than a complaint I guess, but I always thought that the HP movies would have worked better if they were not completely focused on the Trio and actually incorporated more of the side characters and their stories throughout the movie like they did in the first two. Yes, I do not like the first two movies as mentioned many times but one of the things I did kinda like about them though was that all the secondary characters added something interesting and different to the story, plus gave us a needed break from the Trio. Makes me wonder now if HP would have been better suited as a Tv show on HBO or of the like, so that all the characters had a chance to shine.

i dont like how they cut out alot of the good andd funny stuff in the movies.
the first two movies were a bit more closer to the movies, but too childish.
then the movies went away from the books, with fewer lines from the books.

There are many tiny things I dislike about the films, and many tiny things that I adore. And the rest I just accept and move on with it!! :lol:

I love the actors in several parts, and I dislike them in others. I'm not a huge Dan Radcliffe fan, nor do I adore Emma Watson. I do like Rupert Grint, I genuinely think he's fairly perfect for his role, and I love his character development over the films! I love Alan Rickman and Michael Gambon as Snape and Dumbledore respectively. I see no issue with either, and I think they really do add depth and quality to their roles, irrespective of how small their involvement in a particular scene. Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort is excellent.

I love the costumes. I think the uniform is great and the teachers outfits are great, particularly Fudge in Prisoner of Azkaban and Dumbledore in Philosopher's Stone. I do, however, dislike Gambon's costumes. I just don't think they fit his character or his colourful personality.

I love the sets. The Quidditch pitch is great, and the sets for Goblet of Fire with the Tournament Tasks were excellently done. I love Dumbledore's office, it's exactly as I saw it. And I really, really really loved the Yule Ball scenes, particularly the points about Neville. However, I dislike the Room of Requirement. It just... Wasn't what I imagined it to be...

I loved the animal depictions. Love the owls, the postal service, Trevor the toad's scenes in the first film, but I hated the fact that Trevor was then cut out of the rest... I loved Buckbeak the Hippogriff and the Thestrals were amazing. I would have liked more of the Care of Magical Creatures Classes though, I think there were loads of really great things in those calsses, but none of them are brought to our attention enough.

I think Hagrid is sorely missed and left out of the movies hugely, and it's one of the biggest flaws in the films. He's one of my favourite characters. As was Sirius Black, and I don't think enough time was given over to his character development either..

The Quidditch scenes are amongst my favourites, but they never really became central, which they should... I loved the Quidditch part of the Quidditch world cup. But I hated the aftermath scenes, I don't think they were human enough.

I don't like the depiction of the Death Eaters. I did like them in the beginning of Goblet of Fire after the World Cup, but in the later films I don't like much about them. I liked the seriously dangerous looking hats and masks they had originally, and though I like the new masks and being able to take them off with the wands is excellent. Equally, I wasn't too gone on the depiction of the Dementors. I think they were too Lord of the Ringsish.

Oh! And I love the Burrow! I think it's excellent!
Am I getting ranty here?
Sorry. :lol:

I hate that they didn't really do justice to how Harry was in the book after Sirius died. His big shout at Dumbledore and everyone being there for him at kings cross.

I don't have any. Why? Because to me, the movies and the books are seperate entities. They are similiar in many ways, but there must be a line drwn between them. I love each for what they are, until I start comparing them.

Although I gotta admit, the lack of Ginny, and there being no Charlie and Bill kind of bugs me.


Both good points.

However, my peeves are:
Crookshanks played a major role in PoA, and this was completely written out.

As others have mentioned, an explanation of who the Marauders were, their connection to the map, and the importance of Harry's patronus being a stag should have been included somewhere, if just to clarify it's importance to Harry.

Dumbledore's character was "recreated" in PoA, rather than continued. It was almost as though there was a new headmaster. While I understand that actors like to shape their characters, this character had already been established, and, IMO, should have been carried on as he started out.

:err:

I hate that they didn't really do justice to how Harry was in the book after Sirius died. His big shout at Dumbledore and everyone being there for him at kings cross.I hated that too. Harry's emotions were all terrible for me in OotP. Throughout the whole book he is supposed to be moody, angry and especially so when Sirius dies. Instead he's just sort of subdued about it. I hate, hate, hate that. The scene in Dumbledore's office after wards was my favorite one from the book, but in the movie it's just terrible IMO.

I do agree that Harry's anger would have been a great display of progress and development. I hate to keep saying development, but there you have it. I loved the angry moments involved in the book and I wished the broadened progress had taken place in the more general sense, but I suppose it just wasn't to be. It does annoy me quite a lot though. It means that we don't see Harry in his most complex and aggravated moments, which I think is really important.

I hate saying this (but I simply must!:lol:), but I think the challenge of seeing Dan Radcliffe tackle scenes with such huge emotion would be a great thing. It would really force him into the character, and I think that sometimes that challenge creates something great.

I find movie Hermione incredibly un-likable. In the books, Hermione is smart, but flawed. In the movies she's little miss perfect. Half of the lines they've given to her weren't originally hers, and they've changed her personality a lot.

Also, Harry in the movies seems really cocky to me. In the books he's so humble and grounded, but movie Harry seems to like all the attention he gets at times. I think the biggest example of what I mean is in GoF with the egg "Who wants me to open it?" *students cheer and Harry grins* "Want me to open it?" *more cheers*. Waaay too cocky for Harry

Oh, I can add to my extensive list the lack of back story for Neville to make his character more substantial. If we'd actually seen Bellatrix in the courtroom and seen her lack of remorse, as well as seen Frank and Alice in the ward, the characters of both Neville and Bellatrix would have received a huge boost. What, five minutes of film time? And they already had the actors for Neville's parents, so it wasn't like they had to do extra casting or anything. Grr.

Oh, I can add to my extensive list the lack of back story for Neville to make his character more substantial. If we'd actually seen Bellatrix in the courtroom and seen her lack of remorse, as well as seen Frank and Alice in the ward, the characters of both Neville and Bellatrix would have received a huge boost. What, five minutes of film time? And they already had the actors for Neville's parents, so it wasn't like they had to do extra casting or anything. Grr.

It's all true. None of that development is ever shown, and I actually think it's really important for book seven. Otherwise, it just looks like he became Bolshy for no reason. It has to be a deep seated thing that causes him to fully be Gryffindor's ensign in the war. I just think they missed it completely, I agree with you.

And, mac_attack, I agree with you too. I dislike Hermione in the films. I don't like the know it all attitude, I think it's too over the top. I always think that it's Hermione's steadfast loyalty to the Order and her knowledge that makes her likeable. I liked her when she was bookish, not so much when she's just plain bossy. It seems that her character has been interpreted badly. At least, from my point of view. or maybe it's just an incomplete assessment. She seems very unlikeable, which is rare in a leading lady.

If I had to choose another one, I think I'd pick the romance between Hagrid and Olympe as being a bit... Silly and more meant for comic relief, which I think was a poor thought at the time. I liked the idea that Hagrid had found someone, but the entire relationship seemed destined to be a farce.

If I had to choose another one, I think I'd pick the romance between Hagrid and Olympe as being a bit... Silly and more meant for comic relief, which I think was a poor thought at the time. I liked the idea that Hagrid had found someone, but the entire relationship seemed destined to be a farce.

Yeah, farcical comedy was one of the reasons I groaned when I first heard Newell was directing GoF. If he'd directed one of the earlier ones, he may have got away with it (not PoA, though, there weren't many laughs in that). He did a nice job of the scary bits though, just too many jokes, and if I could possibly say it, a little too British?

Yeah, farcical comedy was one of the reasons I groaned when I first heard Newell was directing GoF. If he'd directed one of the earlier ones, he may have got away with it (not PoA, though, there weren't many laughs in that). He did a nice job of the scary bits though, just too many jokes, and if I could possibly say it, a little too British?

Don't worry, though I'm Irish I actually do know what you mean. There's a British humour that is really fantastic, and I do mean that-(the humour in Harry Potter certainly does appeal to me in the general sense)- but I see why, across the water it becomes less deft. I think that it has something to do with the droll sarcasm that comes across, but that's my father talking, so I'll not press that point, because I can't be sure! He might be making it up! American comedy and British comedy are totally different though, I've noticed this even when I watch sitcoms from both.

I think the films need a bit of humour, but the farcical elements were somewhat silly, and I think they took a bit from the overall "shadowy" tone of the film in general. I think Prisoner of Azkaban is my favourite film because it's genuinely funny in parts, but also shows the serious undertones that the story requires.

Well I'm Australian and I usually love British comedy, but more the Blackadder type rather than Four Weddings and a Funeral. Never much of a fan of rom-coms I suppose but I think black humour would have worked better than silly bits like Neville's "I've killed Harry Potter". Takes credibility away. The last thing you need in a fantasy is trying-to-be-funny movie references, it just makes it less plausible, and the whole point of fantasy film is suspension of belief.

Well I'm Australian and I usually love British comedy, but more the Blackadder type rather than Four Weddings and a Funeral. Never much of a fan of rom-coms I suppose but I think black humour would have worked better than silly bits like Neville's "I've killed Harry Potter". Takes credibility away. The last thing you need in a fantasy is trying-to-be-funny movie references, it just makes it less plausible, and the whole point of fantasy film is suspension of belief.

On a side note, that is one of my movie pet peeves. Trying to break through that fourth wall, as I always thought Neville's character was meant to do with that moment, irritated me. Very funny line, but was it supposed to be an outside reference? I wasn't sure why it fitted there or how. Now, don't get me wrong. I heard people all over the city saying it over the following few days, so it was very funny, but I couldn't help feeling irked.

Yes, I am easily irked!

I do think Black humour would work much better in the Potter films. I think the pantomime element fails to entertain in the movies because it's thrown out the window with any attempt at drama, as it should be. I suppose my point would be, choose one or the other. Black humour and drama together, or a more light-hearted approach to the entire thing, which I don't think would work. It peeves me that that choice doesn't seem ready to be made.

I really hate how Ron is portrayed. They make him just look like someone who is funny to laugh at with no intelligence or depth at all. :rolleyes: And, even worse, they give his great lines to Hermione! As much as I love Hermione, it isn't fair to Ron's character. He has a lot more to him than jokes, IMO.

Amen. :agree: I watched CoS last night, and I was just barely holding back from gritting my teeth in the forest scene. I'm sorry, but in these movies, especially CoS, they have him acting like a downright coward. :grumble:

I find movie Hermione incredibly un-likable. In the books, Hermione is smart, but flawed. In the movies she's little miss perfect. Half of the lines they've given to her weren't originally hers, and they've changed her personality a lot.

Also, Harry in the movies seems really cocky to me. In the books he's so humble and grounded, but movie Harry seems to like all the attention he gets at times. I think the biggest example of what I mean is in GoF with the egg "Who wants me to open it?" *students cheer and Harry grins* "Want me to open it?" *more cheers*. Waaay too cocky for Harry

I agree about Hermione as well. :agree: She's turned into a Mary-Sue really. It seems with Hollywood, the heroine always has to be sexy, always say the right thing, and know everything.

In that GoF scene, I always cringe too. I think he gets pretty cocky in the post-Quidditch match scene too when he joins in with the twins' teasing of Ron about his love for Krum.

Oh the whole, I do like the films. But yes, there are things that annoy me.

Like the lack of Dobby. He is such an important figure in Harry's life, and he needs to be there!

The lack of mention who made the Mauraders Map.

They make Hermione seem extra annoying

Ron doesnt get his owl.

Why does Harry wear a suit jacket at the end of OotP?

Cho being made the 'snitch'

'Maxim Bombarda' - That is actually impossible. Does my head in.

Why on earth do they play the terrible Ordinary Boys songs in the Griffindor common room? Firstly, its set in the 90's. Secondly, I am pretty sure that not one of the students at Hogwarts would listen to it! Let alone bring a copy into school!

I dont like that they didnt show Ron's family coming to support Harry at the Triwizard.

Theres too many students! And who is that dude who goes on about Black being like smoke? WHO IS HE!!!?? He was really irritiating me!

Where's Colin Creevey? Dennis Creevey? And who on earth is Nigel? Did I miss something?

Where was Quidditch in OotP?

And why did everyone get an Umbridge special detention? Thats not in the book is it? Or did I miss that part?

Thats all I can think of for now... But Im sure there is more...
I do love the films though. Its just little details that annoy me.

And also, in OotP, Umbridge actually breaking (literally and figuratively) into the RoR. I don't know, but for some reason it bugged me. The movie just made it too easy for the RoR to be found. I mean Neville just had to stroll past innocently, and it appeared!

Theres too many students! And who is that dude who goes on about Black being like smoke? WHO IS HE!!!?? He was really irritiating me!

Wow! I completely agree. When I first saw PoA I was like, who is this guy? Is he supposed to be a different Gryffindor in Harry's year? Yet, we have no prior knowledge about him? I do like when the say "Whats the Grin?" "Not the Grin you idiot, the Grim". They could've easily given that explaining the grim to someone else. And then he's in again talking about Sirius Black. I really don't see the significance of the line and why they couldn't use someone we're already familiar with.

Wow! I completely agree. When I first saw PoA I was like, who is this guy? Is he supposed to be a different Gryffindor in Harry's year? Yet, we have no prior knowledge about him? I do like when the say "Whats the Grin?" "Not the Grin you idiot, the Grim". They could've easily given that explaining the grim to someone else. And then he's in again talking about Sirius Black. I really don't see the significance of the line and why they couldn't use someone we're already familiar with.


I watched it on Halloween, and it was driving me insane. For someone who isnt even in the book, he has way too many lines. Dean Thomas bearly says anything, and some random gets to have a nice lengthly chat!

Another thing that irritates me is why are the Patil twins both in Gryfindor? It drives me crazy!!

And... In OotP Umbridge puts far too much sugar in her tea - then, she doesnt even stir it properly! When she gets to the near bottom of that cup, its going to be like syrup! If she stirred it enough, she'd probably find that she didnt need 28 spoonfuls.

Well, the thing that really bothers me is that the movies does not show alot of what is written in the books. Also, there are quite a few inaccuracies in the movies. Important parts are being left out.:err:

Well, the thing that really bothers me is that the movies does not show alot of what is written in the books. Also, there are quite a few inaccuracies in the movies. Important parts are being left out.:err:

* SPOILERS * (HBP Movie)

I tottally agree.
I am most dissapointed in the upcoming movie HBP. I have been watching both the new and old trailers and reading statements from WanerBrothers and people asociated with the making of the movie and cannot believe how much of the book they have missed out and how much they have added.
I mean whats with burning down the Burrow? The Burrow plays an important role in the beginning of Deathly Hallows and now it's gone? Does this mean that they will now also remove Bill and Fleurs wedding? And, if so, where will Dobby take Harry and the other when they escape from Malfoy Mannor?
Changing one thing in the movie can cause a chain reaction like the one I have just stated.

I have also been wondering how they are going to figure out what happened to Voldemorts horcrux locket? Maybe the trio will just ask Kreacher about it because he was around when Regulus was.. but then again they may cut Kreacher out all together because since CoS Dobby hasn't been seen in a movie, Winky was completly removed in GoF and Kreacher had one small scene in OotP. So how will that work out? Will Dobby even save the trio (and others) from the Manor?
There has also never been much emphasis on eye colour in the movies. How are people who haven't read the books going to understand that the eye that Harry see's in the mirror is Aberforth's and that Harry is getting it confused with Albus'? Also because Harry doesnt have 'Lilly's eyes in the movies (ergggh, there not green?) how are they going to explain Snape always being reminded of her when he looks at him?:shrug:

I always knew the movies were going to be different from the books but people loved the books first so wouldn't you think they'd follow them more throughly? I dunno.. I still love the books though :)

I think the overall lack of dialogue is what drives me crazy. It's like they pay the actors by the word. OotP is particularly dialogue free. I like the quietness of it, but then there could just be much more casual conversation to make it feel like you are watching the characters live out the school year.

Jo has such great banter between characters, but you just don't get that in the movies.

[
I mean whats with burning down the Burrow? The Burrow plays an important role in the beginning of Deathly Hallows and now it's gone? Does this mean that they will now also remove Bill and Fleurs wedding? And, if so, where will Dobby take Harry and the other when they escape from Malfoy Mannor?
Changing one thing in the movie can cause a chain reaction like the one I have just stated.



What? They cant burn down the burrow! What is that about? What will it achieve? Thats is stupid. Thats made me even more angry than I am about the film being put back!

What? They cant burn down the burrow! What is that about? What will it achieve? Thats is stupid. Thats made me even more angry than I am about the film being put back!

And it will also make the Burrow look unsafe as well; and when DH rolls around, people will be wondering "why did they stay there when it was so dangerous?"

I think the overall lack of dialogue is what drives me crazy. It's like they pay the actors by the word. OotP is particularly dialogue free. I like the quietness of it, but then there could just be much more casual conversation to make it feel like you are watching the characters live out the school year.

Jo has such great banter between characters, but you just don't get that in the movies.

I agree. My biggest one, though, is when WB says "We're going to make some cuts," and then they cut out all the fun backstory (Dobby/Winky in GoF, for example), and leave in stuff that really doesn't matter a whole bunch.

That's why I was personally all for splitting GoF, because I was afraid the cuts like Dobby/Winky would happen...

Neville fainting in Herbology in CoS. Isn't Herbology supposed to be his favourite subject? :rolleyes: I don't think I recall him doing that in CoS...hold on...

*gets book, flips through it*

Yeah, there's not even a mention of Neville in that class. Oh well, just bugs me as it goes against his enthusiasm for Herbology. :shrug:

And it will also make the Burrow look unsafe as well; and when DH rolls around, people will be wondering "why did they stay there when it was so dangerous?"

So, are the Weasleys like gonna re-build it? In time for Deathly Hallows? Where will they live? That is the worst idea I have ever heard! When is it meant to be burnt down? At Christmas? Before the start of term? Arent they the only times they are there?

Neville fainting in Herbology in CoS. Isn't Herbology supposed to be his favourite subject? :rolleyes: I don't think I recall him doing that in CoS...hold on...

*gets book, flips through it*

Yeah, there's not even a mention of Neville in that class. Oh well, just bugs me as it goes against his enthusiasm for Herbology. :shrug:

It does make him look a tad pathetic, and Neville, of all the students in that class would be the last person to have 'neglected his ear muffs' or faint at the sight of a screaming plant! But I guess it was added for the 'comedic factor'. It would have been alot funnier if it was Crabbe or Goyle.

Another one of my 'pet peeves' is that James, Lily, Lupin and Sirius appear to so much older than they are. In PS, James and Lily look like they are in their late 30's. When they died when they were 21. So, Sirius would have been around 33, but he looks so much older, same with Remus. It really does my head in!

It does make him look a tad pathetic, and Neville, of all the students in that class would be the last person to have 'neglected his ear muffs' or faint at the sight of a screaming plant! But I guess it was added for the 'comedic factor'. It would have been alot funnier if it was Crabbe or Goyle.

:agree: And he becomes a Herbology professor after the series are over...and I'm sure he would've had to handle Mandrakes at least once during that particular career!

Dumbledore's hat, I really, really hate the new head master's hat.

yeah, i have to say, haha, it's a bit odd isn't it, even for him? :p:lol::err:

Another one of my 'pet peeves' is that James, Lily, Lupin and Sirius appear to so much older than they are. In PS, James and Lily look like they are in their late 30's. When they died when they were 21. So, Sirius would have been around 33, but he looks so much older, same with Remus. It really does my head in!

This part doesn't bother me that much, because I think it's supposed to show how hard their life has been. Living in Azkaban, and as a werewolf, would both be a hard life that I imagine would age them more than normal.

I'll just list my peeves from OOtP, because I just watched the DVD:

- Fred and George leaving school in the middle of OWLS. It was out of character, because they would never mess up something so important for the rest of their classmates.

- Harry giving Lucius the prophecy. I know he wanted to save his friends, but did he really think the DEs would just let them all go after getting the prophecy? He gave away his only leverage.

What actually bothers me is that after the first movie, Harry's eyes are BLUE. Dan Rad got sick of the contacts that were stinging so they left his eyes their natural color. Also I was like "Why is the scar on the side of his forehead?" And the lack of Quidditch after the first two movies annoyed me...

What actually bothers me is that after the first movie, Harry's eyes are BLUE.

Er, well, they're blue in the first movie too!

What actually bothers me is that after the first movie, Harry's eyes are BLUE. Dan Rad got sick of the contacts that were stinging so they left his eyes their natural color. .

As already stated, Harry's eyes are always blue in the films. What does the colour matter?

Even if the greenness of Harry's eyes was significant (which it is not): that is no reason to make a child suffer. Adult actors should suffer for their art - gladly, one hopes. Children, however, should not.

Trivial, I know. But it always irks me:

My one movie pet peeve: Hermione and pink.

Why on earth is Emma almost always in pink? Is it supposed to make her all 'girly'? Because in the books, I just dont remember Hermione wearing pink much. And besides, they made the beautiful 'periwinkle blue' Yule Ball gown in GoF to boring 'pink'. Again, the pink monster strikes.

It isn't that big a problem. But I wish they'd stop making her wear pink almost all the time.

Where's Peeves? Where's the Bloody Baron? Where's the Headless Hunt? I think the Headless Hunt and the Bloody Baron were mentioned at least once in the film, but where are they? I would have loved to see Peeves in the movie. Peeves is an awesome character. He adds comedy to Harry Potter and I just love him! Hey, Peevesie! You've got an admirer! :lol: :eyebrows:

I'm currently re-reading CoS and I've noticed that a lot of Ron's lines that were in the book were given to Hermione in the movies. In the books, Ron is pretty intelligent, but in the movies they make him seem so dim-witted and a lot more scared than he is in the books.

Trivial, I know. But it always irks me:

My one movie pet peeve: Hermione and pink.

Why on earth is Emma almost always in pink? Is it supposed to make her all 'girly'? Because in the books, I just dont remember Hermione wearing pink much. And besides, they made the beautiful 'periwinkle blue' Yule Ball gown in GoF to boring 'pink'. Again, the pink monster strikes.

It isn't that big a problem. But I wish they'd stop making her wear pink almost all the time.

i agree. they girl her up way too much. didn't she say, "is that what my hair looks like from behind?" what is that? and of course there was that poster where they made certain parts of her bigger. i guess the movie has to be visually pleasing, but come on.

Even if the greenness of Harry's eyes was significant (which it is not)

The color of Harry's eyes IS actually extremely significant. It ties Snape to his memory of Lily (especially at the end of DH when Snape takes one last look into Harry's eyes for this exact purpose), for whom Snape left Voldemort to spy for Dumbledore. While this may not be essential to the plot, I feel it is definitely crucial for understanding Snape.

The color of Harry's eyes IS actually extremely significant. It ties Snape to his memory of Lily (especially at the end of DH when Snape takes one last look into Harry's eyes for this exact purpose), for whom Snape left Voldemort to spy for Dumbledore. While this may not be essential to the plot, I feel it is definitely crucial for understanding Snape.

The colour of Harry's eyes is not important; the fact that Harry's eyes are just like his mother's is important. It doesn't matter if they are green or blue or brown. What matters is that they are like Lily's. (Nowhere in the movies is it mentioned that Lily had green eyes.)

The color of Harry's eyes IS actually extremely significant. It ties Snape to his memory of Lily (especially at the end of DH when Snape takes one last look into Harry's eyes for this exact purpose), for whom Snape left Voldemort to spy for Dumbledore. While this may not be essential to the plot, I feel it is definitely crucial for understanding Snape.

His eye colour matters, but not what colour. As long as the eye co lour is the same between them, why should it matter?

Ah the number of times we've had this discussion. Never in the books does it say that the colour of Harry's eye is important short of them being the same as Lily's.

The thing that doesn't annoy me but... makes me wonder is why the uniforms change so often? How can parents afford to keep up with that!?

The color of Harry's eyes IS actually extremely significant. It ties Snape to his memory of Lily (especially at the end of DH when Snape takes one last look into Harry's eyes for this exact purpose), for whom Snape left Voldemort to spy for Dumbledore. While this may not be essential to the plot, I feel it is definitely crucial for understanding Snape.

As already stated, the colour of Harry's eyes is of no importance whatsoever.

I'm currently re-reading CoS and I've noticed that a lot of Ron's lines that were in the book were given to Hermione in the movies. In the books, Ron is pretty intelligent, but in the movies they make him seem so dim-witted and a lot more scared than he is in the books.

That annoys the daylights out of me when I see the films. I don't mind cuts, but messing with characterisation is a major peeve. In particular the dumbing down of Ron and the girly Super-Hermione of the movies.
Although, having said that, cuts are annoying when additional stuff is put in - e.g. the dragon chase in GoF. That time could have been spent on character, or, for the excitement factor, adding a bit more zing to the maze or spending more time on the graveyard scene - or the aftermath.

The colour of Harry's eyes is not important; the fact that Harry's eyes are just like his mother's is important. It doesn't matter if they are green or blue or brown. What matters is that they are like Lily's. (Nowhere in the movies is it mentioned that Lily had green eyes.)

I agree, 100%. Harry's eye colour doesn't matter, as long as it's clear that they are the same as Lily's eyes.

There is another way around contacts - they can CGI in eye color, they sometimes do it in zombie movies, to give them a more "glazed" whited out look. (They did it in Shaun of the Dead, to be exact- it was actually a combination of contacts and CGI).
It's not a big deal or anything, but it would've been nice to see Harry on screen with the green eyes he's supposed to have as per the books. Green eyes are much less common than blue or brown, it would give him a unique, almost mystical look. Then again, half the time you can't see his eyes that well anyway (due to reflections from the glasses and so forth) so it probably wasn't worth the hassle and cost.

(If Harry had his mother's eyes, why'd he need glasses like his Dad? :p I'll have to go back to high school genetics and find out if different genes affect eye color and traits like myopia.)

For the most part though, I don't have too many beefs with the movies - being a different medium, many things have to be altered to better suit the screen. But not everything.
For example, why'd they make Tom, of the Leaky Cauldron, a weird, subservient, bald hunchback in PoA? I preferred the PS/SS version of him, which worked just fine.

Where did the robes go after CoS??????????