What are your movie pet peeves?

Where did the robes go after CoS??????????
I know, that's another problem I have with the movies, too. There are only a few scenes where the students are wearing their robes in Hogwarts after CoS. The rest, the were in muggle clothes.

I know, that's another problem I have with the movies, too. There are only a few scenes where the students are wearing their robes in Hogwarts after CoS. The rest, the were in muggle clothes.

This has never bothered me. You see them wearing uniforms with robes (they can't just wear robes with nothing else, that wouldn't work) in classes, then with their time off they are in normal clothes. Robes cannot be worn just as they are with nothing else on underneath..that wouldn't work.

I have no movie pet peeves. :cool:

My problem with the movies isn't really with the movies themselves but with movies in general. None of the characters, places look the way I've pictured them for so long. Then my mental imagery gets replaced with the movie, and re-reading the books becomes much less fun.

This has never bothered me. You see them wearing uniforms with robes (they can't just wear robes with nothing else, that wouldn't work) in classes, then with their time off they are in normal clothes. Robes cannot be worn just as they are with nothing else on underneath..that wouldn't work.
That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that they are barely seen wearing their school uniforms like they did in the first two movies.

That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that they are barely seen wearing their school uniforms like they did in the first two movies.

Sorry I didn't mean to come across rude. I just meant that it's natural for them to not to want to wear uniforms when they are not required to.

Three general pet peeves, of the top of my head:

1. The lacklustre acting. Daniel Radcliffe is a *horrible* actor, and I suspect he was only selected because he looks like Harry Potter. Watson was OK in the earlier films but overdone it in OoTP (just watch her eyebrows), and Rupert Grint is consistently mediocre. And don't even try to excuse it by saying 'Ahh, well they are just children, you can't expect too much', because Evanna has more acting ability in her pinky finger than Radcliffe does in his entire body, and I can point to many films with decent child actors *cough* Pan's Labyrinth *cough*. Gambon as Dumbledore is also *awful*, although that's due in part to his scripting. I can't see the canon Dumbledore hitting Ron's bad leg in jest, or nearly throttling Harry during the GoF scene.

Apart from Luna, Bellatrix was the only character who was well acted. Helena managed to make 'crazy' 'sexy'.

2. Bonnie Wright is ugly. Sorry, it had to be said. The thought that the main protagonist ends up with an ugly Weasley, while Ron gets Watson/Cave is just messed up beyond belief. Well, it was messed up that Harry got stuck with Ginny in the books, but the fact that Ginny looks the way she does is just beyond the pale.

Let's just hope to God almighty that this is one aspect of the storyline where the HP directors deviate from the books. Let's all pray that Harry ends up with Luna (or better yet, single. Why does every 16 year old need to be shacked up?). If HBP does that, the movie series will be redeemed in my eyes. Bonus points if Ginny Weasley dies an excruciatingly agonising death.

3. Killing the characterisations. Ron is dumbed down even further in the movies (I didn't think that was even possible), Hermione is dolled up in pink, Harry is even more wimpy. Although to be fair, Rowling killed the characterisations of the trio in Books 6 and 7, so how can we expect any better from movie directors?

I actually don't mind Radcliffe's acting nearly as much as I mind Watson's! I really enjoyed her performance in the first two films, but after that she became annoying. It was because Cuaron decided to "let it (the hormones) flow." Erm, no thanks. I think Rupert's acting is pretty good, considering what's been done to the character. I can see him playing many different characters, actually, but seeing that he's given virtually zero lines, we can't really expect much.

As far as Ginny goes, I was always attracted to her because of her personality, not because I had a mental image of a beautiful redhead. I guess I've always imagined her to be very plain, but that's because I like plain girls.

If I had to complain about an appearance, it would be Hermione's. Her hair is perfect and she looks like a preppy but popular girl. She's supposed to be plain! She's (the character) not the most attractive girl, and in fact that was supposed to be why the Yule Ball was so special for her - it was the first time anyone would take notice of her appearance. In the movie, the change is almost nonexistant! She wears pink also, which really seems out of character to me.

I agree about killing the characterizations. If everyone was developed, it wouldn't be so bad, but instead we're left with hero Harry, Hermione - who exists for sole purpose of figuring things out for the rest of our moron characters, and Ron, who really doesn't do anything except complain and whine.

Quote

2. Bonnie Wright is ugly. Sorry, it had to be said. The thought that the main protagonist ends up with an ugly Weasley, while Ron gets Watson/Cave is just messed up beyond belief. Well, it was messed up that Harry got stuck with Ginny in the books, but the fact that Ginny looks the way she does is just beyond the pale.

Let's just hope to God almighty that this is one aspect of the storyline where the HP directors deviate from the books. Let's all pray that Harry ends up with Luna (or better yet, single. Why does every 16 year old need to be shacked up?). If HBP does that, the movie series will be redeemed in my eyes. Bonus points if Ginny Weasley dies an excruciatingly agonising death.

3. Killing the characterisations. Ron is dumbed down even further in the movies (I didn't think that was even possible), Hermione is dolled up in pink, Harry is even more wimpy. Although to be fair, Rowling killed the characterisations of the trio in Books 6 and 7, so how can we expect any better from movie directors

I find your post totally offensive!
Why don't you take your ugly opinions to another forum that appreciates Ginny hate and encourages Harry/Luna nonsense. Most of the posters here don't want to read that kind of material.

Mods, How do I report a post, as I wish to report Nameless_One for rude, inappropriate comments.

Let's not be attacking the actors and actresses physical appearences. You can dislike the performances but slamming them for looks is kind of low.


I disliked the hurried frenzy at the beginning of OOTP... too much cutting from scene to scene. There was no flow for those who have not read to books to follow

Let's not be attacking the actors and actresses physical appearences. You can dislike the performances but slamming them for looks is kind of low.


I'm not slamming *her* as much as I'm slamming the director's choice of cast. The book makes it quite clear that Ginny is a hottie. It's also a gross injustice that the bumbling sidekick gets Watson/Cave (who are both above average in the looks department) , while the hero gets a mediocre looking (dare I say *ugly*) chick? Just imagine if James Bond had seduced the equivalent of Rosie O Donell, while some minor character had been paired off with Rosamund Pike. It would have been a travesty. :no:

I'm not slamming *her* as much as I'm slamming the director's choice of cast. The book makes it quite clear that Ginny is a hottie. It's also a gross injustice that the bumbling sidekick gets Watson/Cave (who are both above average in the looks department) ,
while the hero gets a mediocre looking (dare I say *ugly*) chick? Just imagine if James Bond had seduced the equivalent of Rosie O Donell, while some minor character had been paired off with Rosamund Pike. It would have been a travesty. :no:

These are your opinions, please don't assume that everybody thinks the way you do.

Please kindly refrain from insulting the cast and each other. I understand that we all have different views on what is portrayed well and what is not, as well as our own ideas of beauty, but I must insist we stick to prefacing things with "in my opinion" as well as not being flat-out rude.

Also, if you have a problem, report the post using the handy little "report post" button at the top right of every post. Bickering back and forth helps no one.

I literally winced when she 'bragged' about being possessed by Voldemort in Book 5, as if being stupid enough to trust a talking diary makes you an authority on the Dark Arts.

Maybe she thought it was a chat room? ;)

I disliked the hurried frenzy at the beginning of OOTP... too much cutting from scene to scene. There was no flow for those who have not read to books to follow

The film came across very differently to me. :) I hadn't read the book since summer 2003 and it wasn't a favourite of mine at the time: I'd forgotten practically everything except that Harry yelled a lot, Sirius died and Umbridge was horrible! Therefore, I was almost on the same level as a HP newbie in terms of expectations. ;) I thought the trailer for OotP was terrific and that had made me very keen to see the film.

I loved the opening sequences and found they flowed just fine. :) I liked the film so much that it prompted me to read the book again, and I liked the book a heck of a lot more on second reading!

So, basically, no OotP peeves. :D

I don't understand, what's wrong with wearing pink, and specifically, how does it butcher Hermione's characterization? I'd think the colours of one's clothes would have virtually zero effect to their personality! Am I being gravely dellusional?

It is a common stereotype that wearing pink makes one 'girly'. Hermione in the movies always wears pink, not so much, if at all in the books. That's why some of us think that making Hermione wear pink almost all the time, is an effort to make her seem more "girly".

It is a common stereotype that wearing pink makes one 'girly'. Hermione in the movies always wears pink, not so much, if at all in the books. That's why some of us think that making Hermione wear pink almost all the time, is an effort to make her seem more "girly".

It also doesn't help much that her movie personality seems to reflect this. Actually, her whole character is just off in the films! Not so much the first wo, but the rest of them.

There are only a few scenes where the students are wearing their robes in Hogwarts after CoS. The rest, the were in muggle clothes.

Yeah but the books change on that score too. Check out the illustrations sometime, the Trio and even Draco (!!) wear muggle-like clothes under their robes. Then there's the mention of wizards wearing cravats (like the Malfoys would in the movies) and witches wearing dresses to Fleur and Bill's wedding among other instances of Muggle-inspired wizarding clothing such as the twins' dragonskin suits.

I think JKR realized some wizards would have succumb to the lure of Muggle clothing thanks to the constant influx of Muggleborns to their world. And besides, trousers are far more practical for flying than robes.

It is a common stereotype that wearing pink makes one 'girly'. Hermione in the movies always wears pink, not so much, if at all in the books. That's why some of us think that making Hermione wear pink almost all the time, is an effort to make her seem more "girly".

Funny thing but nearly eveyr female in the books (Pansy, Ginny, Parvati and Umbridge most notably) are associated with the color pink BUT Hermione! The two times she gets dressed up she chooses a light blue dress then a light purple one.

Anyway, onto my peeve, I was watching OOTP again (because I do enjoy it) but was annoyed when they had Neville, Luna, Ginny, Hermione and Ron hiding on the sidelines while Harry duked it out with the Order! That's five characters brutally OOC in one scene! If Harry was going to fight, then they'd all fight!

I don't understand how hard it would have been to either have the other five fight or have the Death Eaters knock the out when they caught them.

I hated the entire battle at the end of OotP! So much was cut out, toned down, and eventually they almost had to sideline some of the characters because they were supposed to be out of action by the time the final battle rolled around anyway.

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


Gambon's Dumbledore. I guess it's because I started out watching the movies with Harris' Dumbledore but Gambon's version is different from what I thought. I also agree about Emma/Hermione's hair that it isn't bushy enough. I just saw it getting flatter and flatter throughout the films. It doesn't bother me while watching the film but when I see promotional pictures online of Dan/Harry's blue eyes it's kind of weird.

Will my favort in GOF With the house elf Winky that would be So funny her depress and the elf house Try to take care of her and some are very annored about her.. I love that part they could add that.. I think So ya I am very depress how they got the whole thing about Harry Potter.

If Gambon acted differently, he would be perfect. Gambon acts so angry and temperamental. Yelling and looking moody. Why??? Surely those who make the movies can see in the books that he is very calm, gentle, never ever raises his voice in a rage?? .. Why did they need to make him an angry man? Did they think it would fit better or something? .. We ought to force their faces into the books so they can see how Dumbledore is supposed to be :grumble::no:

I don't like how Harry has blue eyes. I always look at pictures and I notice the blue eyes and I think noo noo nooo that's wrong. After all, the fact that he has green eyes is so important in the books... stated sooo many times... it is a big part of Harry. I know that Daniel Radcliffe could not look 100% perfect, but surely they could have done something to make his eyes appear green?... Surely they have noticed this too in the books, how Harry's eyes really ought to be green?...


Oh, I just thought... a lot of the time, when I think of movie-Voldemort, I laugh. ......I can't help it lol, in the fourth movie in particular he just did not strike me as scary at all. In fact it seemed more like a joke. Even in the fifth, he just isn't scary... something/somebody as powerful as Voldemort ought to be impressive, and I don't feel that he is. The actor is fine I think, but they just didn't make him look.. well...... cool.

I don't like how Harry has blue eyes. I always look at pictures and I notice the blue eyes and I think noo noo nooo that's wrong. After all, the fact that he has green eyes is so important in the books... stated sooo many times... it is a big part of Harry. I know that Daniel Radcliffe could not look 100% perfect, but surely they could have done something to make his eyes appear green?... Surely they have noticed this too in the books, how Harry's eyes really ought to be green?...


They did originally want to give Harry green eyes, but Daniel Radcliffe couldn't get used to contacts, they can irritate a lot. The eyes don't matter much to me personally though.

okay. disregard my first answer. the title is misleading. my movie pet peeves are way different from the pet peeves i have abt the hp movies specifically. sheesh. anyway. some of the camera angles, the visual perspectives were annoying in several scenes.

regards

I don't like how Harry has blue eyes. I always look at pictures and I notice the blue eyes and I think noo noo nooo that's wrong. After all, the fact that he has green eyes is so important in the books... stated sooo many times... it is a big part of Harry. I know that Daniel Radcliffe could not look 100% perfect, but surely they could have done something to make his eyes appear green?... Surely they have noticed this too in the books, how Harry's eyes really ought to be green?...

No, they just ought to be like his mother's. The specific colour didn't turn out to be of any significance.

I suppose it also helps that they never actually say his eyes are green in the movies (though blue eyes do take on a green tinge if the environment around has one- like in the Chamber of Secrets, for instance. And possibly in the cave in HBP?)

I don't mind so much that Harry's eyes aren't actually green, because it's such a small detail and it can't be helped that Dan's eyes are blue. Remember, the important part isn't that his eyes are green, it's that they're the same shape and color as Lily's. I don't even know what color eyes they gave Lily, though.

So it would have been nice if his eyes were green, but they're not, so oh well. :shrug:

. After all, the fact that he has green eyes is so important in the books...

It turned out to be of no consequence whatsoever.

To be honest, I can't say that I'd ever noticed the green eye thing before. So I suppose no, it doesn't matter to me! But that's why it's a pet peeve- I can see why it would matter, since it was a rather important point in the books- in the symbolic sense.

I do wish we could have seen Winky though...

I just meant that Harry's green eyes were mentioned so many times in the book, it seems strange and wrong to see him with blue. They are a big part of Harry - looking just like his father, with exactly the same hair, but with his mother's bright-green eyes. And his eyes reminding Snape of Lily... Even if Lily had blue eyes in the movies, it would just seem odd.
Maybe I'm taking the eye thing too seriously ....

I dont think I mind his eyes as much as his hair. Dan has lately in OotP and HBP worn his hair too neat. So unlike Harry ever did.I know its not relevant to the plot at all. But still, I liked it better when like in POA or Goblet his hair was messy.I know I mind too much about little irrelevant stuff like this, but I simply cant help it.:p

I generally dislike movies made from novels because most of the book will be left out of the film and people who have only seen the film will wonder what was so compelling about the book.

I wish the films would all be reissued on DVD with the deleted scenes inserted where they belong. That would help considerably. The films as they are just touch on the highlights of the plot and leave almost everything that is important to the imagination.

I think the point mrfutterman was trying to illustrate was that it mattered not, after all, that Harry's eyes were green, but that they resembled his mother's eyes. But I also agree, I feel compelled to take a green Sharpie to every promotional film poster I see with Dan sporting blatantly blue eyes. But this is, I suppose, the nature of any intense fan of meticulous details.

Anyways, I believe there are too many things that I could list that particularly bother me about the films. I will attempt to do this anyways.

In what I believe to be chronological order, here reside my contemptuous problems with the film adaptations:

- Harry's eyes; simple detail, simple fix

- the lack of Charlie Weasley in Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone

- Ginny's infatuation with Harry not being represented well at Hogwarts (second year)

- the freaking lack of explanation at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban

- Emma Watson's gradual transformation from a genuinely represented Hermione to a non-frizzy, overemotional and way too hyped-up common teenager

- Pardon, but where is Dobby? Winky? Where is the Quidditch match? Where is Ludo Bagman?

- ...Michael Gambon's abysmal interpretation of Dumbledore [and I mean in Goblet of Fire when it is most prominent; "HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYA?!?!"]

- even more lack of Charlie Weasley; and the even worse lack of Bill Weasley! =(

- the more interesting encounters with the fake Moody (i.e. Snape's office, the taking of the Marauder's Map after that...)

- Who in the world is Nigel and why is he replacing Colin Creevey, whom I love?

- Mr. Crouch! I mean, siriusly, he just turns up dead in the trees! No encounter beforehand!

- the missing pensieve scene with my love Bellatrix, among other interesting characters

- Another big deal: Who the flip ever said Voldemort was a light periwinkle color with round blue eyes and a not-flat face? Eh. Ralph Fiennes is good, but. What a blunder with the visual effects.

- The stupid tongue movements of Barty Crouch Jr. confuse me.

- the lack of the post-graveyard talk with Dumbledore and Sirius

- Rita Skeeter being captured

- opening to Order of the Phoenix with the dementors; Is not the world supposed to appear completely blackened when this occurs?

- whomever portrays Arabella Figg like she has mental problems

- WHERE IS MUNDUNGUS FLETCHER?

- 'Scuse me, I'd like a longer initial stay at Grimmauld Place.

- Emma Watson, as dramatic and breathy as ever, continues to frustrate me in this film.

- WHO HAS STOPPED GIVING RUPERT GRINT LINES?

- Again, the oldest two Weasley brothers are missing.

- Where is Mrs. Black, anyways? P.S. I don't like the tapestry.

- Who the flip put Voldemort in a suit and in a dream at King's Cross? Jeez.

- the not-as-ugly-as-she-could've-been Umbridge

- Minerva McGonagall would never step down to Umbridge, under any circumstances or in any situation. Sirius mistake!

- Sorry, Neville, but no, you didn't find the Room of Requirement dear. Again, the lack of Dobby is lame.

- stupid representation of the Inquisitorial Squad

- Where are the changing Galleons? Where did Marietta Edgecombe go, anyways? Plus, Katie Leung - you have further proved to me that you are a sucky Cho.

- lame kiss scene; could also be classified as just plain bizarre (Use your hands, for goodness' sake.)

- "Give her hell from us, Peeves." <= WHERE ARE YOU FAVORITE LINE?

- Do you think Dumbledore would ever fall over from a spell? Do you really think he would fall over from that? Super fail to you, David Yates/Michael Gambon/perhaps both. Whomever had that streak of terrible innovation needs to leave.

- Ick, the possession scene makes me feel funny emotionally.

- "...That even though we've got a fight ahead of us, we've got one thing that Voldemort doesn't have....Something worth fighting for." Why is the emphasis on 'for' when he says this? Very minor and silly but I think it is a bizarre quote to end with and I think the emphasis on the last word leads everyone to think he's going to add one more word to complete the thought (i.e. "Something worth fighting for...love." HA or whatever he would say.)... =P Just think it's very weird.



Phew. Well, I probably left out some things that still bother me. Most of which, I'm sure, are in Order of the Phoenix. Oh well. I'll think of them later and post them. =)

Just thought of one more: The hourglasses holding respective House gems! I mean, we sort of see them in the background of Sorcerer's Stone, but they're in the Great Hall...They belong in the Entrance Hall, as they are very important! Professors don't just take away house points for the fun of it, you know, you silly directors.

thelostdiadem everything you listed is annoying (though not for me) but not important to the story with the exception (IMO) of the lack of explanation in PoA. Harry's eye colour is not important neither is Winky, Nigel, Charlie etc are all very minor and not important to the story.

But yes the lack of PoA explanation really gets me up too. It would have taken only a couple extra minutes to fix but alas :no:

:lol: :agree:
thelostdiadem -- I agree with ALL that you wrote! They may be unimportant little things, not absolutely vital... but - they are vital to us!! It's those 'little' and 'unimportant' things that seem so annoying! And they aren't little to us, and they're important to us.
There are probably even more, but I don't have the brain-power to think of them off the top of my head :p hmmm I think I'll try think some up...

Yes, they might not be directly important to the big idea of the plotline, but really I'm just a very greedy person when it comes to my HP films. I want all that I imagine to come alive. =) Although, even the well-represented characters hardly resemble the versions in my head... But I still love films in any case.

Yay RocknRollDee for understanding me! =P

soooo many things i dislike about the movies!! here's a few

1.)Gambons Dumbledore!! its like a totally new character....i mean did Aberforth suddenly become headmaster??? ah NO!
2.)why did they change Flitwick from the 3rd movie onwards? no need!!
3.)harry's eyes are green in the 1st movie, yet blue from there on in....
4.)hermione's dress at the yule ball...why make it pink when it clearly says in the book that ist "periwinkle blue"?
5.)the directing in the films...i think Columbus did an average job, from the PoA onwards was dreadful!
6.)....stemming from point 5.....the location of Gryffindor Common Room from PoA onwards....its supposed to be a secret known only to Gryffindors'...but noooo, lets move it to the main stairwell!! oh and change the Fat Lady to an annoying wench who sings!!:lol:
7.)the location of Hagrids Cabin...in the books and the 1st 2 films harry can see it from the gryffindor common room....but now its at the bottom of a small hillside outside the grounds???
8.)who the f*** is Nigel??? why not just make him colin or dennis??? i know i know that would be TOO logical and MUCH MUCH too easy!!
9.)harry doesnt perform one spell during the whole film...he attempts it but fails
10.) Dumbledore doesnt wear grey ALL THE TIME
11.)why give Fudge a bowler hat...if ur not going to make it LIME GREEN!!!??
12.)who was that boy with Malfoy and Crabbe in the 3rd movie at Hogsmede?? was Goyle sick during the filming of that scene??
13.)Hagrid is supposed to be around 11-12 feet tall...not 8ft!!
14.)Lupins werewolf! how riddiculus does that thing look:lol::lol:
15.)Tom the Landlord from the Leaky Caldron is different from movies 1 + 3....why?
16.)Vitor Krum is supposed to be this weird, duck footed, reclusive and shy character...instead Mike Newell made him this kind of cocky, show-off wrestler guy? did he even read the book??
17.)Dementors DON'T FLY!!
18.)The Final Task in GoF was terrible...a hedge that eats u....oh nooo :lol:
19.)why move the Whomping Willow?
20.)In the OoP harry teaches The DA "levicorpus"....what?? thats a spell created by the HbP...

im sure i could think of more if i really thought about it...but thats a start :lol:
any thoughts people??

:lol: I completely forgot about the hungry hedge in GoF. I thought that was just silly. What was the actual point of the hedge swallowing you away? How on earth would anyone find them?

Nigel is very annoying. Well - the character is kind of cute I suppose, but I really liked Colin Creevey and to cut him out of the movies was dreadful - especially when you're going to use another guy called 'Nigel' who has a similar type of personality instead! I thought he could have at least been Dennis. I like to think of 'Nigel' as Dennis.

The mysterious Slytherin with Crabbe and Malfoy in PoA! I forgot about this too! I've never understood that guy - who is he? It should have been Goyle. It's only ever Malfoy Crabbe and Goyle. This guy was so weird.
I can understand why they would add extra characters that aren't in the book into the movies - perhaps to show that there are other students there besides the ones we are told about. But to use these as replacements for book characters is annoying.

I'm really feeling the absence of Charlie and Bill Weasley. They're great characters and the Weasley family is great, we want all of them



I want to think of pet peeves that haven't already been said but, they have! I can't think of any that hasn't been mentioned already.

It also really annoys me how they made Tom the bartender a hunchback that seems to be mentally unstable. What's the point of that?

1.)Gambons Dumbledore!! its like a totally new character....i mean did Aberforth suddenly become headmaster??? ah NO!

The original Dumbledore (Richard Harris) died. I thought Gambon did okay in PoA and it looks like he'll be doing great in HBP.

3.)harry's eyes are green in the 1st movie, yet blue from there on in....

Contacts can be uncomfortable.

4.)hermione's dress at the yule ball...why make it pink when it clearly says in the book that ist "periwinkle blue"?

The movie doesn't have to be exactly like the book, it would detract from originality.

5.)the directing in the films...i think Columbus did an average job, from the PoA onwards was dreadful!

I found PoA and GoF to be pretty good. If somebody does an "average job" people are going to go looking for another director to get a "great job".

8.)who the f*** is Nigel??? why not just make him colin or dennis??? i know i know that would be TOO logical and MUCH MUCH too easy!!

Really, what does the name matter? To me, he looks like he could be Dennis.

11.)why give Fudge a bowler hat...if ur not going to make it LIME GREEN!!!??

Wouldn't it detract from the beauty of the film if it was a grey, dreary day, buckbeak was going to be excecuted, and a man with a lime green hat walked outside? The filmmakers usually alter things for a reason.
And if they didn't give him a hat, you'd ask why not give him one?

12.)who was that boy with Malfoy and Crabbe in the 3rd movie at Hogsmede?? was Goyle sick during the filming of that scene??

It's for an effect to make Malfoy look more popular.

13.)Hagrid is supposed to be around 11-12 feet tall...not 8ft!!

It's difficult to make somebody look artificially tall.

14.)Lupins werewolf! how riddiculus does that thing look:lol::lol:

It's not supposed to be a regular wolf, you know. It's supposed to look withdrawn from the mundane world, abstract almost - an effect it quite easily achieves.

15.)Tom the Landlord from the Leaky Caldron is different from movies 1 + 3....why?

It's to make the film look better. Again, they change the movie for a reason, maybe the director didn't agree with the original Tom?

18.)The Final Task in GoF was terrible...a hedge that eats u....oh nooo :lol:

And wouldn't that be scary? (That's the point of the scene).

19.)why move the Whomping Willow?

Because it was too close to the castle before to suit the purposes of the scene.

Really, why be so hard on the movies? Sure, they may change things a bit, but that's to make a better movie!

Really, why be so hard on the movies? Sure, they may change things a bit, but that's to make a better movie!

That may be true :agree:
But some of us notice the little things and it makes us tut and frown and some of us get into a babble to whoever is closest about how 'it wasn't that way in the book! that is totally ridiculous. who is this person? he shouldn't have said that. it was a different way before!' ...
I often think that another movie series of HP should be made entirely by fans of the book. If you got everybody from this forum, and another fansites, and got them all together to create a new HP movie series, it would be AMAZING :lol::tu::D

That may be true :agree:
But some of us notice the little things and it makes us tut and frown and some of us get into a babble to whoever is closest about how 'it wasn't that way in the book! that is totally ridiculous. who is this person? he shouldn't have said that. it was a different way before!' ...
I often think that another movie series of HP should be made entirely by fans of the book. If you got everybody from this forum, and another fansites, and got them all together to create a new HP movie series, it would be AMAZING :lol::tu::D

Or it'd be rather boring, at least IMHO. It'd be overlong, muddled, convoluted, and confusing.

The movies and the books are two VERY different mediums, and thus my movie pet peeve: sometimes they include too much! Grawp, for example, bothers me. The dragon chase was overlong. I don't see the need for Kreacher in OotP. Oh, and the annoying blue filter during OotP? Eh.

All the same, I adore PoA, GoF is generally amusing, and while I strongly dislike OotP, that's only because I find it slow and boring.

I don't see the need for Kreacher in OotP.I'm guessing lots of non-book fans would be scratching their heads when Kreacher appears in DH and admits to helping steal the locket. He barely had a part in OotP anyways, so what's the harm?

The original Dumbledore (Richard Harris) died. I thought Gambon did okay in PoA and it looks like he'll be doing great in HBP.

Contacts can be uncomfortable.

The movie doesn't have to be exactly like the book, it would detract from originality.

I found PoA and GoF to be pretty good. If somebody does an "average job" people are going to go looking for another director to get a "great job".

Really, what does the name matter? To me, he looks like he could be Dennis.

Wouldn't it detract from the beauty of the film if it was a grey, dreary day, buckbeak was going to be excecuted, and a man with a lime green hat walked outside? The filmmakers usually alter things for a reason.
And if they didn't give him a hat, you'd ask why not give him one?

It's for an effect to make Malfoy look more popular.

It's difficult to make somebody look artificially tall.

It's not supposed to be a regular wolf, you know. It's supposed to look withdrawn from the mundane world, abstract almost - an effect it quite easily achieves.

It's to make the film look better. Again, they change the movie for a reason, maybe the director didn't agree with the original Tom?

And wouldn't that be scary? (That's the point of the scene).

Because it was too close to the castle before to suit the purposes of the scene.

Really, why be so hard on the movies? Sure, they may change things a bit, but that's to make a better movie!

the fact is Dumbledore didnt dress like that, so why make him?

they never used contacts lenses in the original film, they changed it digitally, if they did it once they should have been consistant!

why change something unneccesarily when it gives u the details in the book??

thats my point after films 1 and 2 the movies have got worse, especially PoA, Afonso C. is the worst thing to happen to the Films

if the name doesnt matter, why did they change it? to make the film "original"????

the lime green bowler is one of the main characteristics of Fudge and should have been included! simple!

it doesn't make him look more popular, it makes u think.."Where is Goyle"??

its been done before

i know he's not supposed to be a "regular wolf", he's supposed to be a WEREWOLF! hence he looks stupid!

Even if he didnt like the original Tom, he could have made him similar! Instead of making him this silly looking Humpback?

how can a hedge eat you?...in the books they are supposed to be tested on all they're knowledge, skill and wit....all that tests is your fitness!

then move the scene, and dont remodel the landscape!

Really, why be so hard on the movies? Sure, they may change things a bit, but that's to make a better movie![/QUOTE]

im only hard on the films because i love the books, and i dont understand the changing of minor details! i understand the flight up the Thames past the Parliment Buildings because that creates excitment! however changing Colins name to Nigel, or the colour of Hermione's dress is pointless as these details are provided in the book! its not as these films are being made up from scratch....they are being made from books! and should be loyal to what the original author wrote!........plus these are my pet peeves:):)

I personally want the movies to be exactly like the book. But that is my personal preferance, and I respect opposite opinions :)

If I were to write a best-selling novel though (as is my dream, sigh) I wouldn't really like it to be made into a movie and they jumble things around differently. But that may be because the idea that I've decided to work on, is very personal. Hmmmmm.

mactheknife
they never used contacts lenses in the original film, they changed it digitally, if they did it once they should have been consistant!

Pretty sure they never bothered with Harry's eyes... Colour isn't important anyway.

Even if he didnt like the original Tom, he could have made him similar! Instead of making him this silly looking Humpback?

Only superfans are going to notice. It's not a big deal anyway.

thats my point after films 1 and 2 the movies have got worse, especially PoA, Afonso C. is the worst thing to happen to the Films

That I agree with :tu:

why change something unneccesarily when it gives u the details in the book??

Maybe Emma looks better in pink than in blue? There could be dozens of reasons.

if the name doesnt matter, why did they change it? to make the film "original"????

Just a guess but if they called him Denis fandom would probably be more upset because while he serves a similar purpose, the fact of the matter is that he's not Denis.

OK, my number one pet peeve is the CGI character of Dobby in the CoS film.


And that's probably about it. :relax:

I personally want the movies to be exactly like the book. But that is my personal preferance, and I respect opposite opinions :)

If I were to write a best-selling novel though (as is my dream, sigh) I wouldn't really like it to be made into a movie and they jumble things around differently. But that may be because the idea that I've decided to work on, is very personal. Hmmmmm.

Well, if you do write your novel, and it is successful, then don't sell the film rights! :D

Rowling sold the film rights, and although posters here have the right not to like the adaptations, the film-makers had the right to do exactly what they wanted with those film rights.

The pity is that they have been so timid in their choices.

OK, my number one pet peeve is the CGI character of Dobby in the CoS film.

I thought the CGI was good but the voice actor, not so good.

I had sort of imagined Dobby differently. Like a potato on legs... :D

But it didn't bother me so much once I adjusted! :lol:! I think the image we see now is good, but I agree with Hysteria that for me, the voice isn't perfect.

I love the voice of Dobby! It really adds to the insanity factor. The hysterical squaks...
To the person who's been arguing with me here (mactheknife): They change stuff for a reason. I don't understand why you hate Hermione's dress so much - The colour of the dress is a visual effect which they have complete liberty to change. As Hysteria pointed out, there could be thousands of reasons for changing it to pink - Emma might look better in pink than in blue. That's more than just a minor detail.
I think everybody seems to be labouring under the impression that the movies must be exactly like the books. They don't - movies are completely different media types than books, they have limits books don't.

They don't - movies are completely different media types than books, they have limits books don't.

And books - novels - have very specific limits in the tools the storyteller uses (basically: words) while a film-maker has many more tools at his/her disposal, e.g. pacing, editing, camerawork, costumes, CGI, music, sounds, use of locations, the skills of the actors.....

Well, if you do write your novel, and it is successful, then don't sell the film rights! :D

Rowling sold the film rights, and although posters here have the right not to like the adaptations, the film-makers had the right to do exactly what they wanted with those film rights.

The pity is that they have been so timid in their choices.

I don't think they're timid in they're choices, they know what they're trying to do: make money. My whole thing was not that the movies had to be exactly like the books (the first task in GoF would've been visually disappointing exactly as is) but that there needs to be a line for the film makers. Don't give me the "we're trying to remain close to the source material" garbage when you're obviously not. I'd rather they have the guts to say "We're adapting it and there will be changes." Rowling doesn't really help either when they make a big deal over the keeping of Kreacher and he turns out to be nothing more than a quick, confusing, CGI character.

Total agreement on the film rights thing, everyone who writes and has picture their stuff on the big screen has had to have though about bad adaptions, even if it's a good adaption the movie will leave something to be desired because there will always be some kind of complaint about what was changed and the reasoning like overly long scenes, expensive scenes, confusing side characters.

Pretty sure they never bothered with Harry's eyes... Colour isn't important anyway.

the eye colour thing wouldnt have bothered me if they didnt do it in the first one to behonest


Only superfans are going to notice. It's not a big deal anyway.

im a superfan:D :lol:and i disagree, i think the only people who wouldnt notice that Tom has been changed, are the ones who haven't read the books


That I agree with :tu:

glad you agree with me :D:D


Maybe Emma looks better in pink than in blue? There could be dozens of reasons.

emma could look good in any colour to be honest, just dont see the point of changing it:no:


Just a guess but if they called him Denis fandom would probably be more upset because while he serves a similar purpose, the fact of the matter is that he's not Denis

yes but there was nobody called Nigel in the DA, should have been called Colin!

maybe im just a Perfectionist :cool:

I'm guessing lots of non-book fans would be scratching their heads when Kreacher appears in DH and admits to helping steal the locket. He barely had a part in OotP anyways, so what's the harm?

Well, I think that the movies should stand alone. Thus, Kreacher will have to be reintroduced in DH, and all he did was confuse the audience in OotP; they'd be scratching their heads, wondering what his purpose was in that film, and... by the end, they'd realize that he had none.

Well, I think that the movies should stand alone. Thus, Kreacher will have to be reintroduced in DH, and all he did was confuse the audience in OotP; they'd be scratching their heads, wondering what his purpose was in that film, and... by the end, they'd realize that he had none.

Yeah, you are absolutely right, IMO. They really should have included Kreacher's role in OOTP.

But I'm just happy he was there 'at all' so the audience has some visual recollection of this character.

Yeah, you are absolutely right, IMO. They really should have included Kreacher's role in OOTP.

But I'm just happy he was there 'at all' so the audience has some visual recollection of this character.

I agree. It's good that he was there so that there is at least some foundation for his character, but it would have been a lot better if they'd included him betraying Sirius.

PS - To be honest, not much annoys me about the first movie. There are some minor things that I would like to have been more accurate to the book, such as: Hagrid being the correct height or the fact that Prof. Snape's way of protecting the stone was left out. On a personal note, I wish Dudley's line ''Where's the cannon'' was included in the film.:lol:
CoS - Again not much annoys about this film except for more minor things. If they were going to give Fudge a bowler hat, why did they not make it lime green. Aragog's children should have been bigger also, as they were able to pick up Harry, Ron and Fang and carry them to Aragog.
PoA - Where do I start?...Firstly, why the hell did the design crew change the layout of the castle and grounds? Where did the big hillside come from, and did Hagrid literally lift his house down the hill?:lol: They also moved the Whomping Willow!
Gryffindor Common room is not on the main staircase!
Who is the kid who replaces Goyle in Hogsmeade.
Harry does not find out who the Maurauders are.
The Fat Lady was changed to an annoying, singing vicar:lol:
Lupins werewolf looks baldy and silly.
Sirius' dog should have been bigger.
Dementors do not fly! They glide!
The tea leaves in Trelawney's class...Ron sees a wonky cross and the sun...HOW?... It's convenient that thay fall in that exact 'dog' shape.:lol:
Lupin's boggart should not have had clouds around it... he's not afraid of clouds:lol:(And Parvati's should have been a mummy, not a Jack-in-a-Box)
Tom the Leaky Cauldron Landlord was made into a humpback.
They also changed the look of Flitwick.
And finally... I really don't like the look of Gambon's Dumbledore... His beard was grey and shortish, instead of white and long. He always wore grey instead of the colourful clothes that Rowling describes in the book. This annoyed me the most as he is my favourite character.
Oh... and I nearly forgot the atrocious ending. WHOOSH:lol: What A Joke!
GoF - Dumbledore trying to shake Harry to death when his name came out of the Goblet...Not very Dumbledoreish.
David Tenant and his tongue.
Moody's eyestrap.
I was really disappointed with the Third Task... A hedge that eats you... The champions are meant to be tested on their knowledge of spells and skills... not how fast they can run:lol:

GoF - Dumbledore trying to shake Harry to death when his name came out of the Goblet...Not very Dumbledoreish.
I was really disappointed with the Third Task...Gah, I couldn't stand that :lol:. Dumbledore does not act that way -- they made him look crazy and it drove me up a wall.

And I too was very disappointed with the third task and the maze in general. I was expecting a more physically based one and didn't get it. I was hoping to see at least the Sphinx or something.

Cheesy lines. ("There's no Hogwarts without you, Hagrid!"; "We have something he doesn't - each other", etc.) I hate them. And I think the books do a good job of avoiding them on the whole, while they seem quite prevalent in the films.

Cheesy lines. ("There's no Hogwarts without you, Hagrid!"; "We have something he doesn't - each other", etc.) I hate them. And I think the books do a good job of avoiding them on the whole, while they seem quite prevalent in the films.


I agree with you there... No need for them at all:tu:

PS - To be honest, not much annoys me about the first movie. There are some minor things that I would like to have been more accurate to the book, such as: Hagrid being the correct height or the fact that Prof. Snape's way of protecting the stone was left out. On a personal note, I wish Dudley's line ''Where's the cannon'' was included in the film.:lol:

Why does Hagrid's height make much of a difference? He's a half giant; the movies never made it clear how big half giants should be. Nevertheless, I think if used digitalization here, it'd look unrealistic, and personally I think Hagrid is more relatable with the size on screen. I didn't even think about him being too small until people here starting complaining about it :).

The end was long enough as it was, with all the challenges Harry had to go through. Cutting the potion was smart; they kept Hermione's line about Harry being brave, which was all that really mattered of that part.

PoA - Where do I start?...Firstly, why the hell did the design crew change the layout of the castle and grounds? Where did the big hillside come from, and did Hagrid literally lift his house down the hill?:lol: They also moved the Whomping Willow!

Maybe moving it made the movie more visually interesting; in this case, moving locations actually helped tell the story better, and set the mood. Not changing it does nothing to help the movie. I didn't mind this.

Who is the kid who replaces Goyle in Hogsmeade.

I didn't notice :lol:. Maybe Goyle was sick that day.

Harry does not find out who the Maurauders are.
The Fat Lady was changed to an annoying, singing vicar:lol:
Lupins werewolf looks baldy and silly.
Sirius' dog should have been bigger.

Personally, I like Sirius' dog. The book also never states exactly how big it is, so I think the movie was pretty canon in that aspect.

GoF - Dumbledore trying to shake Harry to death when his name came out of the Goblet...Not very Dumbledoreish.

I'll agree in this case. Not because it's not necessarily like the book, but because it doesn't do anything to help the movie. It didn't express concern, as I believe Newell wanted it to; it expressed anger, or severe confusion, and that goes against Dumbledore's characterization. It didn't make sense, IMO.

Moody's eyestrap.

How else can it stay on? ;)

Hello, everyone. :)
I think it is time to remind you all of the purpose of this thread:
There are a lot of things that bother me about HP the movies, and I'm sure that there are things that bother you all. So what bothers you the most?

This means I would like to see less critical dissection of each other's posts in here. Pet peeves are formed on opinion, and as such are neither right, nor wrong, nor are they in any way shape or form fact. No one opinion is better than any other and if you'd like to ask someone why they feel a certain way if they have not already explained, please feel free to do so but understand that no one has an obligation in this type of thread to defend their opinions. No more nitpicking posts and dissecting them, please.

Thank you!

Hello, everyone. :)
I think it is time to remind you all of the purpose of this thread:


This means I would like to see less critical dissection of each other's posts in here. Pet peeves are formed on opinion, and as such are neither right, nor wrong, nor are they in any way shape or form fact. No one opinion is better than any other and if you'd like to ask someone why they feel a certain way if they have not already explained, please feel free to do so but understand that no one has an obligation in this type of thread to defend their opinions. No more nitpicking posts and dissecting them, please.

Thank you!

Sorry! :rockon:

Personally, my pet peeves are that the film makers cannot seem to make up their minds. In OotP especially, I felt that the movies will include just enough to appease the fans, but not enough to make it worthwhile. Many, many things could've been cut, and the movie might've been more entertaining. For me, I really didn't enjoy the book very much. It's my least favorite, because it's so weighty; it's actually the only one that I skip whole chapters in.

The movie might've been short, but that's because they include so many subplots and only keep the bare minimum of those subplots. For example, they put in Kreacher. I didn't see the need; further, if they were going to include him, why didn't they use him? He had no purpose! The audiences won't remember him come time for DH, or even HBP, and we'll have to reintroduce him anyway. Hence, let's cut him or actually give him purpose... or, better yet, give him multiple characters' purpose and get rid of the extensive amounts of tertiary people with one liners.

The people to come save Harry? I think that Lupin should've been included and actually given a line.

Grawp and Snape's Worst Memory are similar. Grawp, IMO, had no place in the movie, and personally I think the giant subplot should've been cut completely (that's a HUGE pet peeve of mine, because I find the whole thing boring and unnecessary to most of the important main plots in the book). Snape's Worst Memory had no lingering effect on Harry, and if it was going to be chopped that thin, why not cut it? James' behavior toward Snape didn't seem to hold any weight when it came to Harry... Harry didn't really seem too worried at all. I think it would've been better out.

So I guess those are my biggest annoyances: including too much instead of just including what needs to be there to support the story or theme. If we just included what needed to be there, we could flesh out those plots and create some depth and intrigue. Rather, we waste time including everything and bog down the real meaning behind the whole thing.

In accordance with mexicant's request I'm going to try and just offer a different opion rather than 'argue' :p hopefully I succeed in doing so and don't come across as being nit-picky.

jallen
I love the voice of Dobby! It really adds to the insanity factor
I just thought it was a bit over-done.

mactheknife
the eye colour thing wouldnt have bothered me if they didnt do it in the first one to behonest

The only time I ever saw Harry having green eyes in PS is on the back of the dvd cover.

im a superfan and i disagree, i think the only people who wouldnt notice that Tom has been changed, are the ones who haven't read the books
I consider myself a pretty big fan (started reading the books age 9, seen all the movies dozens of time, been on CoS over 4 years) and I didn't notice :shrug: even if I did I don't think I'd care. But if they really wanted continuity then yes they should have kept him the same.

emma could look good in any colour to be honest, just dont see the point of changing it

But the thing is, how do you know that? Maybe they gave her a blue dress originally and then decided it didn't look good on her but the pink one did. Maybe pink really does look better on Emma, or maybe the film makers are lazy and didn't notice that her dress was blue in the book. We'll probably never know.

yes but there was nobody called Nigel in the DA, should have been called Colin!

Ah but that's lose/lose because then we'd be here discussing how they got Colin's character all wrong etc. As fans we'll never be 100% satisfied.

GoF - Dumbledore trying to shake Harry to death when his name came out of the Goblet...Not very Dumbledoreish......David Tenant and his tongue.

that annoyed the life out of me!! lol...and Tenant and his tongue thing? :grumble:

But the thing is, how do you know that? Maybe they gave her a blue dress originally and then decided it didn't look good on her but the pink one did. Maybe pink really does look better on Emma, or maybe the film makers are lazy and didn't notice that her dress was blue in the book. We'll probably never know.


Imo, a blue dress would have clashed horribly with the color of the Yule Bell set! I don't think it matters at the end of the day what colour Hermione wears. She has worn pink once in the books and It doesn't make Hermione more girly then she is meant to be. Hermione was never that black and white anyway.

Personally, I like Sirius' dog. The book also never states exactly how big it is, so I think the movie was pretty canon in that aspect.


Well the book does actually say the dog is bear-sized which suggests that it should be bigger than it actually is in the movie... I mean, how is a normal sized dog meant to help Prongs to keep a werewolf in check.

The dog should have been bear-sized, Hagrid should have been twice as tall as a man. At least Grawp was kind of the right size, I think. 20 feet, right?

Well the book does actually say the dog is bear-sized which suggests that it should be bigger than it actually is in the movie... I mean, how is a normal sized dog meant to help Prongs to keep a werewolf in check.

Well, I've read POA at least four times and I didn't remember this, so obviously it didn't matter that much, IMO ;). How will he keep the werewolf in check? Mad jumping skillz, and/or pure willpower!

If I had to pick pet peeves about POA... the "is that what my hair looks like from the back?" and "HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!" lines.

Getting his Firebolt at the end of the movie and the subsequent ending still makes me wretch even more then the end of the second movie.

Back on the subject of animal sizes, though, how big are werewolves supposed to be?

Getting his Firebolt at the end of the movie and the subsequent ending still makes me wretch even more then the end of the second movie.

Back on the subject of animal sizes, though, how big are werewolves supposed to be?

I don't think there's a set rule on how big werewolves are... if they were real, we could measure, but unfortunately I doubt we'll be able to find one :lol:. Honestly, I don't think it matters much; the CGI was a little weak on the werewolf, but it wasn't bad (IMHO) by any means.

Well, I've read POA at least four times and I didn't remember this
it definitely mentions "bear-sized" when describing Sirius' dog in PoA book! Although i think what BigWings is trying to say is that he would have liked the dog to be abit bigger than it was in the film! :hmm: (i wouldnt have minded that either although it doesnt bother me as much as other things in the film)

"HE WAS THEIR FRIEND!"
i also greatly disliked this line :grumble:

it definitely mentions "bear-sized" when describing Sirius' dog in PoA book! Although i think what BigWings is trying to say is that he would have liked the dog to be abit bigger than it was in the film! :hmm: (i wouldnt have minded that either although it doesnt bother me as much as other things in the film).

Oh, I'm not denying that the books said he was bear-sized! I know they did. I was just saying that I didn't remember until you brought it up. And since I consider myself a super Potter fan and I didn't even remember, I honestly don't think that the size mattered too much to the story. Thus, it is not my pet peeve.

The dog should have been bear-sized, Hagrid should have been twice as tall as a man. At least Grawp was kind of the right size, I think. 20 feet, right?
Hagrid says Grawp is small for a giant - only sixteen feet tall!

I agree, though, that Hagrid's size is slightly irritating. Yes, he looked gigantic in SS/PS and CoS, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione were eleven and twelve (and thirteen, but that is beside the point), but after this his description of being twice as tall as a normal man in the book was not seen on screen. I am glad PoA and following films maintained consistency with the first two, but I do wish Hagrid was a little taller. Madame Maxime was about a head taller than Hagrid in GoF, and Grawp simply dwarfed him in OotP (considering only around a five foot height difference should have been between them [Hagrid being twice as tall an average man]). Although I doubt it irritated many non-book fans, I find the scenes with Hagrid next to Madame Maxime and Grawp fairly aggravating - that is all I can concentrate on when I watch them!

As for Sirius' Animagus size, I was slightly bothered by it, since it did not seem very realistic that such a dog could keep werewolf Lupin in check. Indeed, this is proven, as the werewolf clearly overcomes Sirius in PoA. However, I was adequately satisfied with the substitution of Sirius' dog form appearing scruffy and sinister enough that I am not terribly annoyed by this contradiction of canon.

Once again, this thread is not for debating. It is not for picking apart each other's posts and telling each other, "My opinion is better than yours and here is why..."

This thread is for listing your pets peeves with the movies. Feel free to agree with each other. Feel free to ask each other for clarification. But if you keep it up with the whole insisting-your-point-of-view-is-better-while-not-necessarily-using-those-words thing I will start handing out mandatory week-long "vacations" from this forum.

I think my biggest pet peeve was that they ditched John Williams after PoA. That's probably the one thing that has bothered me more than any other.

Sorry mexicant :)

Originally Posted by SoulOfRebirth
I think my biggest pet peeve was that they ditched John Williams after PoA
this bothered me quite alot aswell! i felt the original music composed had its own 'magical' feel...and meshed with the films perfectly:tu:::)

Getting his Firebolt at the end of the movie and the subsequent ending still makes me wretch even more then the end of the second movie.

I disliked that immensely as well. I felt the Quidditch Cup was a huge part in setting emotions within the third book and they just cut it. Just because you want a darker movie doesn't mean you have to cut all happiness and humour from it.

And I wanted that scene with the Dursley's fireplace, it would have been hilarious in the fourth movie, even my friend, a fan of the fourth movie, is in agreement.

i agree with you that they would have been good scenes to watch, however i also understand the reason for cutting them:)

The one thing that really bothers me in all of the movies is the acing on Dumbledore's behalf.

I'm not trying to bash the actor who play's Dumbledore (his name escapes me) and every actor is entitled to their own portrayal of a character, but to me it just seems that Dumbledor seems so... weak in the movies.

Take HBP for example, when Harry gets the memory from Slughorn and Harry and Dumbledore watch it together. When they're done Dumbledore sinks down onto the floor. What is that?

I just felt that the scene where he drinks the poison to get to the locket should have been shocking. Dumbledore in pain? Dumbledore crying? People should have been talking about how amazing it was to see Dumbledore so defenseless but instead that's the way he's been portrayed in every movie.

My biggest pet peeves is still Harry's eye color. Mainly because I heard Dan Radcliff hates contacts and I guess it would get annoying, but I wear them they're not that bad. (I still love him). What are they going to do in the final scene with Snape when he has to stare in Radcliffs baby-blue-not-at-all-Lily-Potters eyes? :P

Also, the lines can be so cheesy sometimes, like someone said. There is one line in Order of the Phoenix when Ron turns to Hermione when they're escaping the school and says "Who are you and what have you done with Hermione Granger?" Was that in the book?

And it really really really bothers me that they changed Harry and Ginny's first kiss.

Oh, AND in the Half Blood Prince I kept having Lord of the Ring flashbacks with Dumbledore and the fire in the end scene... it was weird, but that's probably just me. :)

But, overall I like the movies, they make me happy.

i have been meaning to start a thread like this for ages! :D

anyway, business. ummm... i would love to see the Dursleys more. when they are in the movie, they don't get that much time, and they weren't in GoF and HBP at all. that annoyed me, because i really wanted to see Dudley's tongue get really long and i wanted to see glasses of mead hit them on the heads. :lol: but seriously, they are rather important IMO. that's my biggest peeve.

1.Changing key scenes like the H/G kiss
2.Changing character's appearances, Hermione's not so bushy hair, Narcissa's wierd dark hair on top thing, and of course HARRY'S EYES, I fail to understand why it was impossible to give him green eyes.
3.No explanation of the Marauders
4.HE WAS THEIR FRIEND

HE WAS THEIR FRIEND

four little words that annoyed the hell out of every hardcore fan to ever watch PoA. :lol:

Hagrid says Grawp is small for a giant - only sixteen feet tall!

I agree, though, that Hagrid's size is slightly irritating. Yes, he looked gigantic in SS/PS and CoS, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione were eleven and twelve (and thirteen, but that is beside the point), but after this his description of being twice as tall as a normal man in the book was not seen on screen. I am glad PoA and following films maintained consistency with the first two, but I do wish Hagrid was a little taller. Madame Maxime was about a head taller than Hagrid in GoF, and Grawp simply dwarfed him in OotP (considering only around a five foot height difference should have been between them [Hagrid being twice as tall an average man]). Although I doubt it irritated many non-book fans, I find the scenes with Hagrid next to Madame Maxime and Grawp fairly aggravating - that is all I can concentrate on when I watch them!

As for Sirius' Animagus size, I was slightly bothered by it, since it did not seem very realistic that such a dog could keep werewolf Lupin in check. Indeed, this is proven, as the werewolf clearly overcomes Sirius in PoA. However, I was adequately satisfied with the substitution of Sirius' dog form appearing scruffy and sinister enough that I am not terribly annoyed by this contradiction of canon.

Good point, but I always figured Sirius couldn't handle Lupin in POA because he was on his own. In the past, he had James who would turn into a stag. The dog and stag together would be able to keep the werewolf in line. It's a symbol of the loss of Prongs and how it affected the Marauders, IMO.

Though, I agree with you, esp. on Hagrid. The films seemed to have humanized him too much. He even acts way more human, civilized and intelligent than in the books. In the books, he's this towering, physically intimidating, wild half-giant. The wonderful thing about Hagrid was how it was supposed to be a pleasant surprise to find out how friendly and sweet he is. In the films, he's just a generic nice mentor guy, IMO. There are moments in the books where Hagrid lets loose and many characters comment on how shockingly frightening and terrifying he is.

My biggest pet peeves is still Harry's eye color. Mainly because I heard Dan Radcliff hates contacts and I guess it would get annoying, but I wear them they're not that bad. (I still love him). What are they going to do in the final scene with Snape when he has to stare in Radcliffs baby-blue-not-at-all-Lily-Potters eyes? :P


Yeah, it bothers me too, not only because they're not green, but because I wear contacts and I can't even feel them. Even the first time I ever put them in, I didn't feel anything and the only time I do feel something is when there's hair or dust or something on the lens. But you can easily fix that... Seems like Dan didn't really try too hard to get used to them.

I am definitely going to agree on that^ Harry having very blue eyes is annoying. I as well wonder about the "look at me" scene. Although I do have to admit that they looked a tad bit more green in the 6th movie. Another thing is all of Harry's movie kisses. Cho's was wierd and akward and the H/G one made me irritated that it was not like the book at all. Other such things were bad too such as people's appearances....coughnarcissacough

Oh and one other thing. Lily not being in Snape's Worst memory!!!! Sooooo annoying!

Yeah, it bothers me too, not only because they're not green, but because I wear contacts and I can't even feel them. Even the first time I ever put them in, I didn't feel anything and the only time I do feel something is when there's hair or dust or something on the lens. But you can easily fix that... Seems like Dan didn't really try too hard to get used to them.

I think that's a little unfair. People react differently to different things. He was only a child, too.


Take HBP for example, when Harry gets the memory from Slughorn and Harry and Dumbledore watch it together. When they're done Dumbledore sinks down onto the floor. What is that?

He's just had his suspicions confirmed that Voldemort has split his soul into seven parts and will therefore be almost impossible to kill.

Why should it matter what colour Harry's eyes are, it's not the colour which is significant, but the fact that they're like his mother's. So as long as Lily's are also blue, it's fine.

I think that's a little unfair. People react differently to different things. He was only a child, too.


I guess I was unfair, but it seems like the general consensus (from all the people I know who wear contacts, optometrists, online advice - not that they're always right) is that you only feel them when they're dirty or dry, especially when they're soft lenses (and most are these days).

Anyway, I guess Yoana's right that it shouldn't matter in the movie if his eyes are blue, but it just bothers me that they pick and choose the features they want the characters to have (i.e. Hermione having brown hair, but being perfectly styled as opposed to the bushiness in the books).

Why should it matter what colour Harry's eyes are, it's not the colour which is significant, but the fact that they're like his mother's. So as long as Lily's are also blue, it's fine.

I guess I was unfair, but it seems like the general consensus (from all the people I know who wear contacts, optometrists, online advice - not that they're always right) is that you only feel them when they're dirty or dry, especially when they're soft lenses (and most are these days).

Anyway, I guess Yoana's right that it shouldn't matter in the movie if his eyes are blue


I agree with Yoana, that as long as Harry's eyes are the same as his mother's, it has no effect on the theme/symbolism which the eye colour has within the story. :)

Sometimes, it's just down to how sensitive the person's eye is, using contacts can make their eyes very itchy, or sore, or bloodshot. I know someone where this happened only after a couple of hours of wearing them. It might be down to how their skin reacts to the contact lense material.

Mine would be sometimes it feels like Ron gets left a bit at the side-lines. Particulary when his lines are given to Hermione, like when his providing information or when showing bravery and loyality like in the Shrieking Shack scene.

You knowm I really like that Hermione doesn't have a bushy hair. She would have looked like hell.
And I don't give a damn that Harry has blue eyes and not green

I
He's just had his suspicions confirmed that Voldemort has split his soul into seven parts and will therefore be almost impossible to kill.

Oh, I mean I get it. But I just don't see Dumbledore as a sink-to-the-floor-in-despair kind of character. :)

-Ron being a comedic side-kick
-"I love magic"
-Shouting Dumbledore in GoF
-Ginny being so quiet in HBP, I just really don't like how shes portrayed in the newer movies, she was fine as the shy fan-girl but now that shes at the forefront I don't see her as Ginny

-I really hate when they give lines to a different character than the one that was in the book.
-doing a scene that's in the book but making a different than it was, one of my biggest that I hated was the way DD was killed
-Harry/Ginny relationship

PS-Dan really can't act at this point. Most of his lines come off as cheesy.

COS-Lucius Malfoy's hair.

POA-To many. I really hate the ending.

GOF-The fact that I'm not sure if I hadn't read the book the plot would make sense.

OOTP-"Nice one James!"- Those should not have been Sirius's last words. It makes hime seem like an idiot. And he didn't even duel Bellatrix.

Oh, too many to count! Here's just a few, though.

Hmm....Grawp. I really, really hate Grawp. In the books his was a horribly intimidating savage, and in the films he was just this big baby. *boing, boing!* And of course, Hermione's reaction to him was all wrong. Which brings me to....

...Emma Watson! I really, really can't stand her acting!! And she looks completely wrong for the part; every time her face comes on screen, I cringe. :p Really, the entirety of GoF and OoTP is one big pet peeve for me; I feel like they just messed everything up. And of course, all of the cheesy lines that JKR would have died before writing but that they just had to put into the films. What else..?

-The omission of the World Cup scene and and almost the whole book leading up to it.....
-The random girl Harry asks out at the beginning of HBP......
-The changing of nearly everyone's hair/eye color.....
-NO BILL AND CHARLIE!!!!
-The end of HBP being gone, especially the Lupin/Tonks scene.....
-Lupin, Tonks ("Dont. Call me. NYMPHADORA"), Moody, Dumbledore, Molly, Sirius, Cedric, and almost all of the other supporting characters being completely mis-cast.....
-The flying dementors....what was with that?!
-No Marauder background. At all. (MWPP are never explained, and yet Lupin and Sirius still know all about the map.)
-Snape's Worst Memory scene. No comment.
-Draco not being introduced until right before the sorting.
-The horrendous special effects in SS and CoS....
-Priori Incantatem never being explained.
-No Winky and hardly any Dobby....
-No Crouch Jr. Backstory.
-Moody's strapped-on eye....

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. :p

I don't have any objections...I have seen several books that were turned into films and none of them are ever 100 percent the same. And I am not sure they can be the same. Not everyone will view the books the same way. There's always going to be someone else who interprets it a little bit differently.
For the most part, I am so focused on the movie that I don't notice Harry's scar moved or his eyes were different or that Hermione's hair was not bushy enough. Some of you have great memories for that kind of thing or maybe I just have not read the books as many times as you have. But I just enjoy the movie for what it is. The general feeling of the book is there, the same themes of the importance of family and friends, good versus evil- those all seem to be intact in my opinion. If it was so drastically different, like if Harry used AK on someone, then I would complain. Yes it is annoying when they leave out scenes which I enjoyed in the books, or details, like the marauders, which are essential to the story. But they could have done a worse job of translating them to film. It's not like, in my opinion, that they have so drastically changed the story that it could never be the same as the ending to book seven. I don't have a problem with the acting though I understand some people do. Overall, I think they are doing a good job and as long as JKR has no major objections to the things they added or changed, then it's fine.

One thing that irked me was the absence of the World Cup final - the match itself, I mean. We have the spectacular scenes of the stadium and the opening showcase things from Bulgaria and Ireland, but no match? A big letdown.

Also, the backstory of Crouch Jr. was one of the things that really made me love Goblet of Fire. As with many of the things I loved about the books, that was also excised.

-Moody's strapped-on eye....


Oh I forgot about that! That really makes me cringe every time I see it.

-Moody's strapped-on eye....

How would you have shown his magic eye? I imagine CGIing Moody's eye in every scene would be pretty expensive. They only had to CGI Voldemort's face in one scene.

I have a few dislikes or "pet peeves" in regards to the movies. They have always been minor things though, in general the movies are translated well.
-Hermione screaming "yes, yes!" in GoF after harry returns for his golden egg on broom.
-Harry's "I'm going to kill him(heavy breathing)" refering to sirus in hogsmeade, PoA.

I personally view the movies and the books as two completley different forms of Harry Potter entertainment. The movies have changes to the book, music, great visualizations, action sequences and a well done visual representaion of the book. The books have inner thought of harry, tons of great description, tons of detail, more character/story complexity and development.

The movies are meant to appeal to the non-reader, not just the hardcore fans. In order to do that they couldn't realistically be 4 hours a piece to cram in everything exactly as it is in the book, most movie goers wouldn't be willing to sit through that like me or others here would. I enjoy them both a lot either way therefore I can't really be to disappointed with what we have gotten so far and will get with DH. Can only enjoy new HP anything for so much longer anyways...

The inconsistency from one movie to the next is unbelievable...

Why did the railings around the Astronomy Tower disappear when Dumbledore died? In all previous shots we were shown a big railing around the edge, but when Dumbledore gets hit he falls straight off as the railings have disappeared.

Hermione's eyebrows, and Voldemort's backstory in HBP being cut

Hermione's eyebrows, and Voldemort's backstory in HBP being cut

Hermione's eyebrows? What could possibly be wrong with her eyebrows?

Or are you talking about how Emma Watson over-emphasizes her emotions by overusing her eyebrows? Like, how the eyebrows move up and down with every syllable? I don't really find that too annoying, but we could do without it.

Or are you talking about how Emma Watson over-emphasizes her emotions by overusing her eyebrows? Like, how the eyebrows move up and down with every syllable?

Yep, that's it!

My biggest pet peave...

Quidditch...Extremely stupid sport/game.
What's the point of all the chasers/beaters/keeper, if all you have to do is catch the snitch.
I'm risking getting bludgered or falling to my death playing the game. But I can only score 10 points at a time, and the little guy streaking around looking for the snitch can get 150 and end the game just like that...

Man, stupid stupid game.

^ Isn't that more a book peeve rather than a movie one? They copied it straight from JKR's words.

Hermione's eyebrows? What could possibly be wrong with her eyebrows?

Or are you talking about how Emma Watson over-emphasizes her emotions by overusing her eyebrows? Like, how the eyebrows move up and down with every syllable? I don't really find that too annoying, but we could do without it.


Haha yeah she opens her mouth so wide to pronounce every syllable. Its especially clear when she's telling Ron how to do the Wingardium Leviosa charm. And then the eyebrows just bring it all together lol.

What's the point of all the chasers/beaters/keeper, if all you have to do is catch the snitch.
In the world cup final Krum caught the snitch but his team still lost

The exclusion of tiny details; one-liners, facial expressions, noises, flash visuals, all of it adds the ever-important element of foreshadowing to the books, and really helps everything flow and make the story fall into place. The attention to minuscule detail is what makes the series a wonderfully thought-out modern day epic, and I think it could have been conveyed on film alot better than it has.

I don't really like Emma Watson's acting. That's my only pet peeve..

Adding unnecessary scenes :no: HBP, burning Burrow, I'm looking at you.
And not adding the Quidditch World Cup scene in GoF.

They leave out most of the book.
Harry does not have green eyes. That would have been easy to fix.

Daniel Radcliffe had trouble with green contacts, didn't he? Like, he couldn't get them in? That's why he doesn't have green eyes in the films, or at least that's what I read somewhere

They leave out most of the book.

No. They don't.


Harry does not have green eyes. That would have been easy to fix.

We've been through this dozens of times. Dan was allergic to contact lenses. One expects an adult, professional actor to suffer for his/her art, but not mere kids and not for mere entertainment.

Besides, the colour of Harry's eyes turned out to be of no importance whatsoever.

I personally view the movies and the books as two completley different forms of Harry Potter entertainment. The movies have changes to the book, music, great visualizations, action sequences and a well done visual representaion of the book. The books have inner thought of harry, tons of great description, tons of detail, more character/story complexity and development.

The movies are meant to appeal to the non-reader, not just the hardcore fans. In order to do that they couldn't realistically be 4 hours a piece to cram in everything exactly as it is in the book, most movie goers wouldn't be willing to sit through that like me or others here would. I enjoy them both a lot either way therefore I can't really be to disappointed with what we have gotten so far and will get with DH. Can only enjoy new HP anything for so much longer anyways...

I do that do. The movies suffer when compared to the books but are more enjoyable to me if viewed as separate.

Adding unnecessary scenes :no: HBP, burning Burrow, I'm looking at you.
And not adding the Quidditch World Cup scene in GoF.

Adding things like 'the burning of The Burrow', are some of the most annoying things about the movies! :grumble:

Adding things like 'the burning of The Burrow', are some of the most annoying things about the movies! :grumble:

Yes! And now that the Burrow has been burned, it sets the stage for inconsistencies in DH.

My main pet peeve is the neglect of Tonks. In the movies, she seems to exist solely as a complement to Lupin, and many of her lines are dodgy in terms of characterization. And where is her bubblegum pink hair? NOWHERE. :grumble:

Among others already mentioned, a very small pet peeve of mine is the Patil twins both being in Gryffindor.

My main pet peeves are the absence of the Marauders back story and the Quidditch World Cup Final (I was really looking forward to that).

Among others already mentioned, a very small pet peeve of mine is the Patil twins both being in Gryffindor.

My main pet peeves are the absence of the Marauders back story and the Quidditch World Cup Final (I was really looking forward to that).

Agreed. Padma was supposed to be in Ravenclaw. Also, they were portrayed in a synchronized fashion, while in the books they had discrete identities.

I hate how in the movies, dumbledore is made out to be so rude. For instance, in the fourth movie, he runs over, practically slams harry into a wall, then grabs his shoulders & talks so fast that I think some spit lands on harry's face.

When, in the fifth book, he practically threatened to kill Umbridge, because she put her hands on a students shoulders in the exact way I mentioned above.

Also, in the HBP movie, as I'm sure you all know, he asks Harry about "Miss Granger".
:grumble:

Among others already mentioned, a very small pet peeve of mine is the Patil twins both being in Gryffindor.

I know that's a small thing, but I totally agree! Every time I see them both wearing Gryffie robes I get all angry. But that is minor compared to my other pet-peeves...

Besides, the colour of Harry's eyes turned out to be of no importance whatsoever.

Harry's eye color was definitely important in the end if you ask me. I understand that Dan couldn't do the contacts, but it's still a pet peeve. Although it does look like his eyes got greener(if that's possible) in the 6th movie. I noticed that they sometimes actually looked green in that movie. Am I the only one who noticed??

I dislike the fact OOTP is the longest book, and yet it was the shortest movie.

I think the movie is great... they just could've done a little more considering the size of the actual book.

No I don't mean put everything in there.

When OOTP came into theaters, I was VERY excited to see Snape's pensive memory. (i'm obsessed) and I was very disappointed it wasn't in there. :(

Well enough of my rants.

Yes i quite agree:

#1 Emma is the defintion of perfect (On somebody's siggy)

#2 It's weird that the Patil twins are in Gryffindore. Aren't they in ravenclaw?

#3 I don't like that Tonks in the 6th movie doesn't have her cool hair (that actually brightens the mood), that changes color.

Did we see ONCE Tonks hair change color?

I still have to watch the movie again.

Thanks

~spook~

Oh another thing that bugs me is in the 6th movie Tonks and Lupin are apparently dating already. Gosh I hate that! Even though I don't really like their relashionship to begin with, that was supposed to be the whole reason why Tonks had that brown, ugly hair. She was deppressed about not dating Lupin. :grumble:

I mentioned this before but I will say it again. This might be my second biggest pet-peeve (behind Harry's eyes). Why isn't Lily in the Snape's Worst Memory scene?? I loove that chapter in the book and it shows so much, but in the movie the scene is pointless. They don't even make Harry angry at all over it, which leads to no H/G library scene. They better redo that scene in the DH movie during Prince's Tale. If they don't I will be angry...

Last thing. I HATE the H/G kiss in the movie!! Why couldn't they have done it like the book?? H/G is more important than R/La in my opinion. If I had never read the books and then saw the kiss, I would probably think it's just another Cho type relashionship. Harry and Ginny didn't even have any kind of relashionship after the kiss. Plus they were still together at the end of the movie! What's up with all that??? Their whole relashionship in the 6th movie annoyed me soooo badly!! They better make up for it with the DH birthday kiss.

Oh another thing that bugs me is in the 6th movie Tonks and Lupin are apparently dating already. Gosh I hate that! Even though I don't really like their relashionship to begin with, that was supposed to be the whole reason why Tonks had that brown, ugly hair. She was deppressed about not dating Lupin. :grumble:

I mentioned this before but I will say it again. This might be my second biggest pet-peeve (behind Harry's eyes). Why isn't Lily in the Snape's Worst Memory scene?? I loove that chapter in the book and it shows so much, but in the movie the scene is pointless. They don't even make Harry angry at all over it, which leads to no H/G library scene. They better redo that scene in the DH movie during Prince's Tale. If they don't I will be angry...

So will I.

I know they only had a set amout of time to make the OOTP movie.. but come on man! It's like required for Snape! (Or best charecter in the whole wide world, if you look through my eyes. :p )

Okay I aparently havent' read the books enough, or I need to re-read them.

When did Tonks and Lupin start dating..?

:)

~spook~

My pet peeve?

A distict lack of Peeves.

#2 It's weird that the Patil twins are in Gryffindore. Aren't they in ravenclaw?


Padma is in Ravenclaw and Parvati is in Gryffindor

My pet peeve?

A distict lack of Peeves.


You're right. Where the devil is Peeves? Also, as someone mentioned earlier, the distinct lack of Marauders backstory (Fred and George stealing the Marauder's Map from Filch's desk reminded me...and also, come to think of it, there is no Peeves-Filch rivalry).

In GoF, it was supposed to be Dobby that gives Harry the Gillyweed instead of Neville. In my opinion, this somewhat undermines Dobby's devotion to Harry and diminishes his character.

Besides the obvious lack of Peeves insinuated in your title, I would say my biggest pet peeve with the films would be that they are not the books :lol:

I wish they had gone the extra mile and made super-dork extended editions like was done with LotR. However, I can understand they had no clue the books/movies would be as big as they are now when the first film was made. This just means that they should make a DH: Extended Edition! :P

-JR

Well, Slitting the movies is sort of like the extended edition.

When did Tonks and Lupin start dating..?

Well they actually start dating at the very very end of HBP or beginning of DH. BUt they make them date throughout the 6th movie...

My biggest pet peeve is that Dumbeldore seems so much more mean in the movies like when he full out tackel's harry for having his name in the goblet of fire. another one is when they post up the movies they skip good scenes like in HALF BLOOD PRINCE they missed the teacher fight scene

In GoF, it was supposed to be Dobby that gives Harry the Gillyweed instead of Neville. In my opinion, this somewhat undermines Dobby's devotion to Harry and diminishes his character.

I agree with this. and grumble alot when watching GoF
Also in the GoF the fact that the left out the mascot scene in the quiddich world cup, i think it would of added more character to that scene

OoTP the scene with dumbeldore dueling LV was too "lord of the ringsy" and just made Dumbeldore look like Gandalf :grumble:
when Voldermort possessed Harry it felt over done and cleshay

No. They don't.



We've been through this dozens of times. Dan was allergic to contact lenses. One expects an adult, professional actor to suffer for his/her art, but not mere kids and not for mere entertainment.

Besides, the colour of Harry's eyes turned out to be of no importance whatsoever.


If they actually include the scene where Snape wants Harry to look at him, then that moment will sort of be ruined to accurate book-to-movie enthusiasts. But since it's just...a simple look, no one's actually moving their head in an abstract manner (Unless they make the scene so it's sort of zoomed out, and Harry would have his back facing the camera), It'll just be about wether or not someone's just going to edit his eyes to look green.

um isn't making neville finding the room of requirement and giving harry the gillyweed kinda making him about as useful as a house elf and therefore making it less dramatic for dobby's death for non-book readers?

Harry's eye color was definitely important in the end if you ask me.

Well I am asking you. :D How on earth was it important.

Well I am asking you. :D How on earth was it important.

I will answer for Bella. Basically, the only feature that Harry inherited from his mother Lily was the emerald green eyes. Harry, perhaps resembled his mother a lot in terms of behaviour but that is the only physical resemblance that he inherits and can be considered to be crucial to the plot.

That Harry has his "mother's eyes" is a key plot point: it was mentioned several times in PoA (film) and the gun was fired in HBP when Slughorn helped Harry because he was reminded of Lily. It will doubtless be fired again in DH2 during the final encounter between Harry and Snape (which I sincerely hope the film-makers dramatize: Rowling sold her readers short there).

The colour of Lily's eyes, or Harry's eyes is of no importance whatsoever.

Well, Slitting the movies is sort of like the extended edition.

I don't get it...

-JR

I will answer for Bella. Basically, the only feature that Harry inherited from his mother Lily was the emerald green eyes. Harry, perhaps resembled his mother a lot in terms of behaviour but that is the only physical resemblance that he inherits and can be considered to be crucial to the plot.

Not to mention the fact that Harry having Lily's eyes reminded Snape of Lily. Snape loving Lily was a key thing, it's the reason he was good all along. He sees Lily for the last time by looking into Harry's eyes. All he lived for and all he did was for her. It made for a plot twist and it's only mentioned like a million times throughout the series that Harry has Lily's eyes. So that's my pet-peeve.

Padma is in Ravenclaw and Parvati is in Gryffindor

Haha, I wasn't really sure. Thanks. :)

Another one is that in HBP, Tonks wasn't the one to find Harry, Luna was.

That bugged me. :gumble:

~spook~

Haha, I wasn't really sure. Thanks. :)

Another one is that in HBP, Tonks wasn't the one to find Harry, Luna was.

That bugged me. :gumble:

~spook~

Gah! that bugged me too. In my opinion, there's far too little Luna and Neville in HBP.

Gah! that bugged me too. In my opinion, there's far too little Luna and Neville in HBP.

There totally is.

Neville and Luna are awesome.

Luna is so much like me, she's out of the oridinary, very talented, wise/ itelligent.

And Neville, he's like me, very clumsy, (Well he WAS)

I love those too.

And yes there wasn't enough of them!

I certainly hope we see Neville slicing that evil snakes head off. :)

~spook~

Characters who have drinking issues that just go on and no one gets into a recovery program. Winky is very ill, and everyone knows it, but no one seems to ask her if she'd like to stop drinking..:sigh:

There totally is.

Neville and Luna are awesome.

Luna is so much like me, she's out of the oridinary, very talented, wise/ itelligent.

And Neville, he's like me, very clumsy, (Well he WAS)

I love those too.

And yes there wasn't enough of them!

I certainly hope we see Neville slicing that evil snakes head off. :)

~spook~

I've also always loved Luna and Neville, so maybe I'm biased, but I will be extraordinarily disappointed if they neglect those two in DH!

My pet peeve was that there is no Peeves! Wahhhh!

Winky is very ill, and everyone knows it, but no one seems to ask her if she'd like to stop drinking.

I think the British wizarding world has a very old-school, pre-1950's attitude towards emotional and mental problems. Look at how the Longbottoms are basically warehoused at St. Mungo's and how no one suggests counseling for Ginny after the diary or Harry after what happened to him in GoF.

My pet peeve was that there is no Peeves! Wahhhh!

Oh yes so true

There was alot more of peeves in the books and worked well. If they leve him out of the fight scene in DH im going to be rather anoied

Oh yes so true

There was alot more of peeves in the books and worked well. If they leve him out of the fight scene in DH im going to be rather anoied
I don't think they can pull off introducing Peeves as a new character all the way at the end of the story in DH; And seeing as he wasn't in any of the other movies at all, they probably won't. :grumble:

I don't think they can pull off introducing Peeves as a new character all the way at the end of the story in DH; And seeing as he wasn't in any of the other movies at all, they probably won't. :grumble:

That is true :grumble:

But how can they justify leaving out the comedy of Peeves in that final battle. Its almost blasphemy :grumble:

lots of things in the movies annoy me...particularly in the HBP movie where they left out soooooo much but thought that they could just add in new scenes (like the fighting at the burrow) to make it ok....and i just don't think the actor that plays the teen voldy is right in HBP either, he's nothing like the 1 from the COS film at least...and i also don't like how hermione's hair is only bushy in the first 2 movies....
there's LOTS of little things from the books that i think they should've added in the movie (like how they couldn't just say the full prophecy in OOTP, i mean it really would've taken them only a little bit longer, its not a particularly long prophecy....) but i could really just go on and on about my little pet peeves and that wouldn't be good
oh yeah and speaking of pet peeves they left out Peeves that was disappointing in the first movie and they never brought him in later....

It is extremely annoying that Harry has blue eyes!

I agree! It would be such an easy thing to fix.

Well, I have a lot of peeves about the individual movies.... but an overarching one for me is how little continuity there is between the films. I guess that's the price you pay for having multiple directors, but it bugs me so bad! For instance, Dumbledore's penseive; in GoF, it was a huge Grecian-pillar-like construction built into a magical recess in the wall. In HBP, it was a minimalist silver basin floating in midair. Two shots, and neither are what was described in the book. It's just little things like that that tend to get to me. :)

It is extremely annoying that Harry has blue eyes!

Ironically, Ron has green eyes in the films. What a reversal. :lol:

Another pet peeve of mine is the severe reduction in Ron's lines and giving Hermione many of them. Sometimes, I feel like the filmmakers are hard-core H/Hr shippers who neglected to read any of Deathly Hallows. Plus, that tearful moment after the canary attack is out of character for Harry - he's emotionally inept; he would not know what to say to Hermione, and in the book, he keeps his distance.

Well, I have a lot of peeves about the individual movies.... but an overarching one for me is how little continuity there is between the films. I guess that's the price you pay for having multiple directors, but it bugs me so bad! For instance, Dumbledore's penseive; in GoF, it was a huge Grecian-pillar-like construction built into a magical recess in the wall. In HBP, it was a minimalist silver basin floating in midair. Two shots, and neither are what was described in the book. It's just little things like that that tend to get to me. :)

It was sitting on the pillar in GoF but it must have been able to be lifted as Snape was using it in OotP in his office.

Another thing was the owl on the reading stand in the Great Hall, its wings had never spread open in any of the other films and I would have liked that every time Dumbledore gave his speech.

It was sitting on the pillar in GoF but it must have been able to be lifted as Snape was using it in OotP in his office.

Oh, is that it? Either way, I don't think it's going to help people whole haven't read the books, especially since in GoF Harry was physically in the memories just as he was in the books, and in HBP they were more dreamlike and the viewer is not actually present in them. Anyway, I just wish there was more continuity on the whole.

Oh, is that it? Either way, I don't think it's going to help people whole haven't read the books, especially since in GoF Harry was physically in the memories just as he was in the books, and in HBP they were more dreamlike and the viewer is not actually present in them. Anyway, I just wish there was more continuity on the whole.

I'd never thought of that but you are right, the experiences were quite different. I''ll have to to back to the HBP book to see if that's how it was written. I'll have to look up Snape's worst memory in OotP as I can't remember if Harry was physically near James either.

I'd never thought of that but you are right, the experiences were quite different. I''ll have to to back to the HBP book to see if that's how it was written. I'll have to look up Snape's worst memory in OotP as I can't remember if Harry was physically near James either.

This inconsistently actually can be explained away by realizing that, in GOF, Harry entered the pensieve without Dumbledore's permission or guidance/instruction, so he fell all the way in, when really you're just supposed to view it as it's viewed in HBP.

The dream-like foggy effect of the HBP memories can be attributed to those memories being considerably older than the memory we view in GOF. Memories fade in time.

I'd never thought of that but you are right, the experiences were quite different. I''ll have to to back to the HBP book to see if that's how it was written. I'll have to look up Snape's worst memory in OotP as I can't remember if Harry was physically near James either.

Yes, the memories were the same all the way through the books. In GoF, obviously, that got a great deal of attention, as it took Harry a long time to figure out why the people in the memory couldn't see him; in the end, he had to liken it to his experience with to Riddle's diary in order to figure out what was going on. In OoTP, Harry showed up in the Great Hall as the fifth years were taking their exams, and then followed Snape and the Marauders down towards the lake. It was the same thing in HBP, with Harry and Dumbledore following the young Dumbledore through London and into the orphanage; Harry even cheekily commenting about Dumbledore's past choice of clothes. In the Princes Tale, Harry is there with the first years as they are being sorted. There are many more examples, but it is quite definite to me that the viewer is always present in the memories.


The dream-like foggy effect of the HBP memories can be attributed to those memories being considerably older than the memory we view in GOF. Memories fade in time.

Is there any canon proof of this? The only example I can remember of a memory being less than pristine is the one that Slughorn had attempted to change; it mentioned the fact that it seemed to have "congealed" in the bottle and had that odd cloudy effect when Harry and Dumbledore entered it; however, that is quickly revealed to be due to Slughorn's tampering, and not to the age of the memory.

My movie pet peeve (haha Peeves) is when they leave important things out and/or changed things! Like in GoF. They leaft out SO much! Like S.P.E.W, and most of the Quidditch World Cup, and Winky the house elf. They also changed the part with the gillyweed. DOBBY was supposed it to Harry, not Neville.

My movie pet peeve (haha Peeves) is when they leave important things out and/or changed things! Like in GoF. They leaft out SO much! Like S.P.E.W, and most of the Quidditch World Cup, and Winky the house elf. They also changed the part with the gillyweed. DOBBY was supposed it to Harry, not Neville.

I understand your irritation with things like this from the movies. However I believe that the decision to change things from the book (like Neville giving Harry the Gillyweed instead of Dobby) was the right thing to do IMHO. If you start to include every little detail from the books, then you are going to enlongate the movie to such an extent that the majority of viewers would get bored and not watch the entire film. But I do understand what you mean :) :tu:.

The things that annoy me most in the movies is the almost complete lack of inconsistency throughout the series. This ranges from scenary/set changes, characters behaviour and also changing small set 'props', like the Pensieve. I just don't see the need to change these things so dramatically :grumble:.

What I remember fussing most over was when POA was just being filmed and little Mr. Cuaron decided to have the cast wearing muggle clothes 60% of the time. I understand uniform might not be mandatory on weekends and such but he was really stretching it. OH, and it wasn't even consistent with the timeline! Weren't they supposed to be in 1993? The pants style seemed pretty current to me.


Oh, just surfaced! My number ONE peeve is that they CHANGED RAVENCLAW'S HOUSE COLORS. It's blue and BRONZE, not silver! Thanks to that alteration, finding accurate cosplay is more difficult. Even Alivans offers scarves in the wrong scheme :sigh:

It hasn't been stated when the action takes place in the films. As an example, the Millenium Bridge which was destroyed by the death eaters in the film, wasn't built when the six book was published. That may explain the fashionable clothes in POA ;)

I believe the timeline inconsistency started with POA (the flat-screen TV's in the beginning, etc), and we've had to retcon the timeline in the films as different from the books, ever since.

two things that bother me very much in goblet of fire is

1) Why would crouch junior just be there, as karkaroff grasses him up. Obviously in the books it was much different, but that was just confusing.

2) When crouch jr is caught, dumbledore says something like, "contact azkaban, i'm sure they would find that there missing a prisoner". So they we're just supposed to not notice after the sirius black fiasco.

I was just watching PoA, on the whole probably my favorite film in the series, or at least, the one I dislike least. ;) Anyway, if you pop in the DVD and look at Harry's scar at the end of the Boggart lesson, and at the beginning when he's looking at the moving playground, you'll notice that it is on completely different sides of his head. In fact, there's a slight difference in the placement of the scar in every single scene! Did the makeup people seriously not remember from day to day where they put his scar last time?? Just another continuity error that really gets to me.

Oh, and they misspell "Moony" on the map. Annoyingness!!! :P

I believe the timeline inconsistency started with POA (the flat-screen TV's in the beginning, etc), and we've had to retcon the timeline in the films as different from the books, ever since.
You're wrong. Uncle Vernon's cars are an indicator that the timeline has always been different from the books. In the very first scene of Philosopher's Stone, you can see his car parked in front of his house. It's a Vauxhall Cavalier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Vectra), which came on the market in 1988. When they drive to the zoo, Vernon's car is a later model, which was in production in the years 1995-2002.


Oh, and they misspell "Moony" on the map. Annoyingness!!! :P
That was deliberate. It's an homage to Karl Mooney, a visual effects guy who worked on the movie.

That was deliberate. It's an homage to Karl Mooney, a visual effects guy who worked on the movie.

That's interesting, I didn't know that.

Anyway, the thing that most annoyed me about the films was that Alan Rickman always acts the same way in every single scene. He's great as Snape: The Mean, Snarky Teacher, but it annoys me a lot when he stays exactly the same for the more emotional Snape scenes. The scenes where Snape loses his composure, just a little-- I love them in the books, but in the films, the emotion is cut out, and Snape is just his same snarky self.
The biggest example of this was in HBP, when Harry was pursuing Snape out of the castle after the tower scene. In the books, Harry calls Snape a coward, and Snape blows up. I was so excited to see Snape yelling at Harry in the movie, but it never happened. Rickman was just his same, scathing teacher self. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting Rickman. I just wanted to see Snape lose control, it was so exciting in the books. Aargh!

My movie pet peeves:

Harry's scar changing places and sometimes not being there! Hermione getting many of Ron's lines. Durselys not appearing much. Harry's hair being too neat (but I understand Dan had to cut his hair for a movie prior to filming OOTP).

Here are some more I just thought of, although some may be repeats.

- Dudley wasn't blonde.
- Harry's eyes weren't green.
- Lupin wasn't very scarred.
- Hardly any sight of Pansy Parkinson.
- No Professor Binns.
- No Peeves.
- No Winky.
- No House Elves in the Kitchens.
- No Death Day Party.
- No Nifflers.
- No Blast-Ended Skrewts.

I have a lot more but I will add them when I remember.

Oh, just surfaced! My number ONE peeve is that they CHANGED RAVENCLAW'S HOUSE COLORS. It's blue and BRONZE, not silver! Thanks to that alteration, finding accurate cosplay is more difficult. Even Alivans offers scarves in the wrong scheme :sigh:

Agh! I almost forgot about that one! It completely irritated me too. The silver is both on Ravenclaw and Slytherin ties and scarves. When I was younger I usually felt I was a Ravenclaw, so I wanted some merchandise associated with it but didn't want the blue and silver because it wasn't the description in the book.

I used to think that maybe it was just because the bronze would look too similar to the gold in the Gryffindor scarves but after thinking about it for a while it didnt seem right because,
#1 Bronze is more brownish than the yellow gold in the Gryffindor uniform, so they could have used a copper color.
#2 If they were worried about two houses sharing a similar color, why did Ravenclaw and Slytherin both have silver?

I just can't figure out a reason for it. What gives? :shrug:

I used to think that maybe it was just because the bronze would look too similar to the gold in the Gryffindor scarves but after thinking about it for a while it didnt seem right because,
#1 Bronze is more brownish than the yellow gold in the Gryffindor uniform, so they could have used a copper color.
#2 If they were worried about two houses sharing a similar color, why did Ravenclaw and Slytherin both have silver?

I just can't figure out a reason for it. What gives? :shrug:

Gryffindor is the House which is focused upon the most in the series, so it makes sense for their colours to stand-out amongst the others. It matters less if Ravenclaw and Slytherin look similar.

My overall pet peeve with the movies is that, instead of trying to maintain a sense of continuity, as the books did, they were "based on" the books and each new director changed the plot, dialogue, and characters to suit themselves. I can understand they might have wanted to make each film a stand-alone movie. But, they knew they were going to do all seven books, so, why not try to maintain at least the look of the castle and grounds, the house colors, the recurring characters, etc?

My overall pet peeve with the movies is that, instead of trying to maintain a sense of continuity, as the books did, they were "based on" the books and each new director changed the plot, dialogue, and characters to suit themselves. I can understand they might have wanted to make each film a stand-alone movie. But, they knew they were going to do all seven books, so, why not try to maintain at least the look of the castle and grounds, the house colors, the recurring characters, etc?

Excellent point Minerva!! There are far too many inconsistencies throughout the movies.

The movie's are very disappointing in my opinion...

-Where is Peeves?
-Why did they change such things as the scenary and the penieve?
-Aren't Harry's eyes meant to be green?
-Gambon's Dumbledore seems to where grey robes rather than colours such as red and purple.
-Why do they all grow their hair for GoF?
-Dobby and Kreacher needed to be in it more IMO.

I'll post more when I think of them:)

-Aren't Harry's eyes meant to be green?

I read somewhere that they tried to give Dan green contacts, but his eyes reacted badly to them.

The whole theme about prejudice and discrimination is basically gone from the movies. That really sucks, IMO.

-Gambon's Dumbledore seems to where grey robes rather than colours such as red and purple.
This is something that really bugs me about the movies aswell. Dumbledore is my favourite character in the books, and I really loved the fact that he wore bright, colourful and cool looking wizard robes. Harris' robes in the first 2 movies somewhat reflect the Dumbledore from the books, Gambons on the other hand do not. He is constantly wearing what looks to be like Gandalf The Greys robes, and not at all 'Dumbledore-ish' robes. I'm not blaming Gambon on this by any means, it's just something that really bothers me when watching the movies :shrug:.

I really dislike how there's so little continuity between the films. I suppose it's unavoidable when one has so many different directors working on one series, but I feel like something is lost in every movie because there's not a continuous vision carrying them all though- rather, every director is left to fix the mistakes and personal changes of the previous director as best he can, and the result, when you look at the series as a whole, can be rather dismal. :no:

I read somewhere that they tried to give Dan green contacts, but his eyes reacted badly to them.

The whole theme about prejudice and discrimination is basically gone from the movies. That really sucks, IMO.

It doesn't matter what color Harry's eyes are as long as everyone knows they're just like his mother's so dying Snape can look at Harry and say 'Look at me'. Anyone want to wager on whether that line will even make it in DH 2?

It doesn't matter what color Harry's eyes are as long as everyone knows they're just like his mother's so dying Snape can look at Harry and say 'Look at me'. Anyone want to wager on whether that line will even make it in DH 2?

I agree. I was just responding to BigWings.

Like I said, the part that annoys me most is the erasure of the prejudice theme. :no:

I agree. I was just responding to BigWings.

Like I said, the part that annoys me most is the erasure of the prejudice theme. :no:

Perhaps they did not get that it was about prejudice which is a shame.Sometimes when a message is brought too subtlely it goes right over some people's head.

The movie's are very disappointing in my opinion...

-Where is Peeves?
-Why did they change such things as the scenary and the penieve?
-Aren't Harry's eyes meant to be green?
-Gambon's Dumbledore seems to where grey robes rather than colours such as red and purple.
-Why do they all grow their hair for GoF?
-Dobby and Kreacher needed to be in it more IMO.

I'll post more when I think of them:)

In full agreement with you.Dobby and Kreacher are not minor characters so should be in it more.And having Peeves there to lighten the mood every now and then woul have been better.And i do miss the ghosts.The conversation between Harry and Nick in OoPh is very important and they left it out.After that movie i decided to ignore them from now on and just stay with the books.

I hate, hate, HATE it when they come up with out-of-character lines or attitudes, such as Dumbledore shaking Harry in GoF. Character development (in those characters that are fully developed) is subtle and rich, and I hate it when a single silly line ruins it all.

I think that the best movie is the first one. It is the only Harry-Potter-ish movie, all the others SUCK!

[Ok, maybe CoS and PoA aren't THAT bad, but GoF, OotP and HBP are awful...]

Originally Posted by BigWings
The movie's are very disappointing in my opinion...

-Where is Peeves?
-Why did they change such things as the scenary and the penieve?
-Aren't Harry's eyes meant to be green?
-Gambon's Dumbledore seems to where grey robes rather than colours such as red and purple.
-Why do they all grow their hair for GoF?
-Dobby and Kreacher needed to be in it more IMO.

:agree:

Well, it's extremely hard to make a movie exactly like a book, especially since everyone has their different ways of viewing the characters and even the mood of a scene sometimes. I actually think that the Harry Potter movies have been done quite well. The first movie was almost perfect, I just wish Peeves was there. The only thing I really have a problem with was that everyone grew out their hair in GoF, and I really didn't like the opening scene in HBP when Harry asked that girl out and they're talking about how the Prophet it really wierd. It just bothered me because it seemed very out of character for Harry to do that and then go right to Ginny later on. And, I didn't really have a problem with the scene where the Burrow gets burned down, I thought it was interesting... it's just that it was really random to have put that in the movie.

Otherwise, I don't really have a problem with the movies. They sort of help me hold on to my love for Harry Potter because I like to wait a little while before I read the books again and I try to forget some things on purpose so I can re-live the whole thing (it's more fun that way). The fact that the movies don't include every single scene from the book is sort of a good thing for me at least.

It doesn't matter what color Harry's eyes are as long as everyone knows they're just like his mother's so dying Snape can look at Harry and say 'Look at me'. Anyone want to wager on whether that line will even make it in DH 2?

You make a very good point. Harry's eye-colour isn't one of the major things that I get annoyed about when watching the films. It's just that I would prefer them to be green. I can understand that Daniel Radcliffe was not comfortable wearing contact lenses:).

I really didn't like the opening scene in HBP when Harry asked that girl out and they're talking about how the Prophet it really wierd.
Me too!! :agree: Not only should Harry be staying at the Dursleys for protection from his mothers magic, that girl/waitress in the subway alot older than a 16 year old Harry. Even though Dan was a 19/20 year old playing a 16yo, that girl looked alot older than 20 :shrug:. It was just weird IMO.

And, I didn't really have a problem with the scene where the Burrow gets burned down, I thought it was interesting... it's just that it was really random to have put that in the movie.
I really had a problem with this in the movie. Apart from showing Harry and Ginny being interested in eachother, it achieved absolutely nothing. There are countless other ways to display their mutual attraction.
Why would Bella and Fenrir attack the Burrow, and not kill anyone?? All they did was set it on fire, and run into the conveniently placed massive corn field and giggle.
This also leads me to believe that Bill and Phlegms wedding will either not be in DH1, or be held at a different location. Saying that, they could repair all the damage magically?? :lol:

I really didn't like the opening scene in HBP when Harry asked that girl out and they're talking about how the Prophet it really wierd. It just bothered me because it seemed very out of character for Harry to do that and then go right to Ginny later on.

Yes, that scene bugs me on so many levels. First of all, Harry is supposed to be apathetic with grief for Sirius at the beginning of HBP; the book specifically states that he had spent most of that summer lying on his bed, doing nothing- and yet the movie would have us believe that he spent the months at the Dursleys "being reckless....riding around on trains", and flirting with random waitresses. :grumble: Also, considering that he was in rather an awkward stage between breaking up with Cho and noticing Ginny for the first time, I can't see him asking out a Muggle girl who's name he (presumably) doesn't even know. And, on top of all that, what was he doing reading the Daily Prophet in front of a bunch of Muggles in a Muggle cafe? The girl herself evidences the fact that people were noticing it- surely that breaks the International Standard of Secrecy in some capacity; I would bet a good deal that there's a clause somewhere in there about using/having obviously magical objects in front of Muggles. And I also hate how, after going against everything we know of his character and asking the girl out, he doesn't have any compunction about standing her up. "Oh, I'll go back tomorrow... make some excuse." "You won't be going back to Little Whinging, Harry." And then all he worries about is what's going to happen to his luggage. The girl doesn't have any feelings, I suppose. You wouldn't catch JK writing something like that. :grumble: (Especially since, with the way the movie plays it, it's about twenty-five minutes after asking the girl out and abandoning her that he's eying Ginny sitting in her window. I think that this whole sequence comes closer to objectifying women than anything else in the books/films. Can you tell it makes me mad? :lol: )

Yes, that scene bugs me on so many levels. First of all, Harry is supposed to be apathetic with grief for Sirius at the beginning of HBP; the book specifically states that he had spent most of that summer lying on his bed, doing nothing- and yet the movie would have us believe that he spent the months at the Dursleys "being reckless....riding around on trains", and flirting with random waitresses. :grumble: Also, considering that he was in rather an awkward stage between breaking up with Cho and noticing Ginny for the first time, I can't see him asking out a Muggle girl who's name he (presumably) doesn't even know. And, on top of all that, what was he doing reading the Daily Prophet in front of a bunch of Muggles in a Muggle cafe? The girl herself evidences the fact that people were noticing it- surely that breaks the International Standard of Secrecy in some capacity; I would bet a good deal that there's a clause somewhere in there about using/having obviously magical objects in front of Muggles. And I also hate how, after going against everything we know of his character and asking the girl out, he doesn't have any compunction about standing her up. "Oh, I'll go back tomorrow... make some excuse." "You won't be going back to Little Whinging, Harry." And then all he worries about is what's going to happen to his luggage. The girl doesn't have any feelings, I suppose. You wouldn't catch JK writing something like that. :grumble: (Especially since, with the way the movie plays it, it's about twenty-five minutes after asking the girl out and abandoning her that he's eying Ginny sitting in her window. I think that this whole sequence comes closer to objectifying women than anything else in the books/films. Can you tell it makes me mad? :lol: )

I'm right there with you on that. I hated that scene in HBP. It added nothing to the story whatsoever and made Harry look like a real jerk - especially with the library scene later on where he was so excited at the prospect of using his status as "the Chosen One" to get girls. It doesn't fit with the opening for the movie showing him right after Sirius died either. One minute, he looks exhausted and is grieving - and then he's shown in a cafe flirting with some random girl like Sirius was never part of his life. Then he's eyeing Ginny on the right and Romilda on the left and apparently plotting how best to use his status as "The Chosen One" to maximize his dating potential to go out with as many girls as possible. I can't figure out what they were trying to accomplish with all that because "playa" Harry was nothing more than an annoying jerk who made me want to hit him with something a lot heavier than a newspaper.

The whole bit about him risking his life by riding around on trains was really bad as well. Harry could be reckless at times, but never without reason. Harry would take such a risk if he thought someone was in danger and was trying to save them because - for him - it was worth the risk to save someone. But he would never be so reckless and take such risks for no reason at all.

For me, it was even more disappointing coming after OOTP because there was such a huge improvement in the characterization for the OOTP film - as well as in GOF, which Kloves did the screenplay for as well. So it's not like Kloves and Yates don't understand the characters - they've both shown that they do. So I really don't understand why they would utterly destroy Harry's characterization in HBP. What purpose could that possibly serve?

I'm right there with you on that. I hated that scene in HBP. It added nothing to the story whatsoever and made Harry look like a real jerk - especially with the library scene later on where he was so excited at the prospect of using his status as "the Chosen One" to get girls. It doesn't fit with the opening for the movie showing him right after Sirius died either. One minute, he looks exhausted and is grieving - and then he's shown in a cafe flirting with some random girl like Sirius was never part of his life. Then he's eyeing Ginny on the right and Romilda on the left and apparently plotting how best to use his status as "The Chosen One" to maximize his dating potential to go out with as many girls as possible. I can't figure out what they were trying to accomplish with all that because "playa" Harry was nothing more than an annoying jerk who made me want to hit him with something a lot heavier than a newspaper.

The whole bit about him risking his life by riding around on trains was really bad as well. Harry could be reckless at times, but never without reason. Harry would take such a risk if he thought someone was in danger and was trying to save them because - for him - it was worth the risk to save someone. But he would never be so reckless and take such risks for no reason at all.

For me, it was even more disappointing coming after OOTP because there was such a huge improvement in the characterization for the OOTP film - as well as in GOF, which Kloves did the screenplay for as well. So it's not like Kloves and Yates don't understand the characters - they've both shown that they do. So I really don't understand why they would utterly destroy Harry's characterization in HBP. What purpose could that possibly serve?

Yes, I agree. Harry's character was completely butchered in the first twenty to thirty minutes of the film- but something I think was ignored to an even greater extent was JK's consistent respect for her female characters. JK would never, I repeat, never, have introduced a female "character" for Harry to have a flirtatious scene with and then abandon without so much as a moment of regret. I can't help suspecting that if Harry had treated a fellow student at Hogwarts with similar contempt in the film, lots of people would have been hurt and offended by it, and an apology from the filmmakers would have been forthcoming- however, since the girl is "only" a Muggle waitress, not even in the books, nameless, she's barely human and the filmmakers didn't consider her in need of respect or attention. I admit it offended me- especially since they have her in a fairly revealing outfit, and make it plain that Harry only asked her out because of her physical attractions- Dumbledore's forthcoming suggestive comment about Harry's missing out on a "wondrous night" makes the situation worse, if possible. Especially since she completely disappears from the film after that one scene; Harry never contacts, mentions, or even thinks about her again. On the whole, the entire thing was pointless, unnecessary, and offensive; especially looked at in the context of the later problems the story creates with Harry's attitude towards Ginny and Romilda. A big :no: to Kloves and Yates on this.

Yes, I agree. Harry's character was completely butchered in the first twenty to thirty minutes of the film- but something I think was ignored to an even greater extent was JK's consistent respect for her female characters. JK would never, I repeat, never, have introduced a female "character" for Harry to have a flirtatious scene with and then abandon without so much as a moment of regret. I can't help suspecting that if Harry had treated a fellow student at Hogwarts with similar contempt in the film, lots of people would have been hurt and offended by it, and an apology from the filmmakers would have been forthcoming- however, since the girl is "only" a Muggle waitress, not even in the books, nameless, she's barely human and the filmmakers didn't consider her in need of respect or attention. I admit it offended me- especially since they have her in a fairly revealing outfit, and make it plain that Harry only asked her out because of her physical attractions- Dumbledore's forthcoming suggestive comment about Harry's missing out on a "wondrous night" makes the situation worse, if possible. Especially since she completely disappears from the film after that one scene; Harry never contacts, mentions, or even thinks about her again. On the whole, the entire thing was pointless, unnecessary, and offensive; especially looked at in the context of the later problems the story creates with Harry's attitude towards Ginny and Romilda. A big :no: to Kloves and Yates on this.

Oh definitely. It is very demeaning because it makes it appear that Harry is only looking at girls as objects to amuse himself with. Dumbledore's suggestive comment about Harry missing out on a "wondrous night" is disturbing on another level because Harry is only 16 years old there and it comes across as though Dumbledore is advocating such behavior and even encouraging Harry to behave promiscuously at such a young age. Harry's later behavior regarding Romilda and Ginny only adds to that because he basically objectifies them as well. He knows nothing about Romilda and has never even spoken to her, but he's all excited about the prospect of using his status as "The Chosen One" to get her. He has all those bizarre, awkward scenes with Ginny where he initially gives the impression that he likes her, but when she makes a move, he completely rejects her and has no reaction to her kissing him at all - he just stands there like a statue. So it comes across as though he was just playing her as well and then decided he wasn't interested. Tossing in that scene at the end with Hermione telling Harry that he likes Ginny doesn't help because it's not Harry showing his feelings for Ginny - it's Hermione telling him how he should feel and what he should do.

I really do not understand what they were thinking with all of that or what purpose they were trying to achieve because the only thing they accomplished was making Harry look like a chauvinistic jerk who objectifies women, IMO.

Oh definitely. It is very demeaning because it makes it appear that Harry is only looking at girls as objects to amuse himself with. Dumbledore's suggestive comment about Harry missing out on a "wondrous night" is disturbing on another level because Harry is only 16 years old there and it comes across as though Dumbledore is advocating such behavior and even encouraging Harry to behave promiscuously at such a young age. Harry's later behavior regarding Romilda and Ginny only adds to that because he basically objectifies them as well. He knows nothing about Romilda and has never even spoken to her, but he's all excited about the prospect of using his status as "The Chosen One" to get her. He has all those bizarre, awkward scenes with Ginny where he initially gives the impression that he likes her, but when she makes a move, he completely rejects her and has no reaction to her kissing him at all - he just stands there like a statue. So it comes across as though he was just playing her as well and then decided he wasn't interested. Tossing in that scene at the end with Hermione telling Harry that he likes Ginny doesn't help because it's not Harry showing his feelings for Ginny - it's Hermione telling him how he should feel and what he should do.

I really do not understand what they were thinking with all of that or what purpose they were trying to achieve because the only thing they accomplished was making Harry look like a chauvinistic jerk who objectifies women, IMO.

Yes, I agree. I think they did both Harry and Ginny's characters a great disservice with the way they portrayed them all the way though Half-blood Prince. The only build-up we have for their romance are a few awkward "almost kisses" (which, in turn, should have been built up to if they had to be there, and not been used as build-up), along with a bunch of similar things: the pie, the shoelace- "romantic" moments which were, I think, supposed to come across as adorable, but only make Harry and Ginny look like morons. And all this leading up to that awful, anticlimactic kiss which, as you stated, made both of them look like they didn't even care. Ginny's relationship with Dean was mostly skated over, and appeared to bother and upset Ron rather than Harry when it was referred to. In the book Harry was supposed to have been watching Ginny longingly but secretly all year, but was too wary of her feelings and of his relationship with Ron to say anything to her. She didn't appear to reciprocate or be aware of his feelings, and it was only obliquely implied that Hermione might know something.

However, in the movie Dean wasn't an issue, Hermione knew everything from the beginning, and Ginny and Harry seemed vaguely interested in each other throughout, although neither of them appeared to care all that much. There was no build-up, because there was nothing to build up to. Ginny never broke up with Dean because her relationship with him didn't matter in the first place. Harry and Ginny's feelings for each other didn't seem any different at the end than they were at the beginning. However, in the book, there was all this hidden love and attraction on both sides, growing and building, and culminating in that huge, impulsive kiss in front of the entire House, taking everyone by surprise and completely changing everything about their relationship. Friends one minute and committed boyfriend and girlfriend the next. However, in the movie, they had a vague crush on each other at the beginning that no one seemed to notice, and it just dawdled along, then they kissed, then they had a vague crush on each other that was just like it was a year ago, expect that everyone knew they were together. And all the while Ginny's making out in the corner with some random guy who's never really been introduced, and Harry's flirting with pretty waitresses and preppy Gryffindors. Really, it seems to me that Ron and Lavender's shallow, superficial, and utterly stupid "relationship" got all the attention and screen-time and discussion that Harry and Ginny's romance should have had. :no: And you're completely right in your assessment of Dumbledore's comment; that, and his inquiry about Harry's "activities outside the classroom" with Hermione make him come across as more of a perverted old man than as a wide, caring father figure. If there's one thing JK's Dumbledore would never, ever, ever, ever do, it's make a suggestive comment- especially to a sixteen year old boy he cares for as a son. However, that's what Gambon's Dumbledore does. I honestly don't understand how all of the people involved in the movie could lose their grip on the characters like this!

Yes, I agree. I think they did both Harry and Ginny's characters a great disservice with the way they portrayed them all the way though Half-blood Prince. The only build-up we have for their romance are a few awkward "almost kisses" (which, in turn, should have been built up to if they had to be there, and not been used as build-up), along with a bunch of similar things: the pie, the shoelace- "romantic" moments which were, I think, supposed to come across as adorable, but only make Harry and Ginny look like morons. And all this leading up to that awful, anticlimactic kiss which, as you stated, maked both of them look like they didn't even care. Ginny's relationship with Dean was mostly skated over, and appeared to bother and upset Ron rather than Harry when it was referred to. In the book Harry was supposed to have been watching Ginny longingly but secretly all year, but was too wary of her feelings and of his relationship with Ron to say anything to her. She didn't appear to reciprocate or be aware of his feelings, and it was only obliquely implied that Hermione might know something.

However, in the movie Dean wasn't an issue, Hermione knew everything from the beginning, and Ginny and Harry seemed vaguely interested in each other throughout, although neither of them appeared to care all that much. There was no build-up, because there was nothing to build up to. Ginny never broke up with Dean because her relationship with him didn't matter in the first place. Harry and Ginny's feelings for each other didn't seem any different at the end than they were at the beginning. However, in the book, there was all this hidden love and attraction on both sides, growing and building, and culminating in that huge, impulsive kiss in front of the entire House, taking everyone by surprise and completely changing everything about their relationship. Friends one minute and committed boyfriend and girlfriend the next. However, in the movie, they had a vague crush on each other at the beginning that no one seemed to notice, and it just dawdled along, then they kissed, then they had a vague crush on each other that was just like it was a year ago, expect that everyone knew they were together. And all the while Ginny's making out in the corner with some random guy who's never really been introduced, and Harry's flirting with pretty waitresses and preppy Gryffindors. Really, it seems to me that Ron and Lavender's shallow, superficial, and utterly stupid "relationship" got all the attention and screen-time and discussion that Harry and Ginny's romance should have had. :no: And you're completely right in your assessment of Dumbledore's comment; that, and his inquiry about Harry's "activities outside the classroom" with Hermione make him come across as more of a perverted old man than as a wide, caring father figure. If there's one thing JK's Dumbledore would never, ever, ever, ever do, it's make a suggestive comment- especially to a sixteen year old boy he cares for as a son. However, that's what Gambon's Dumbledore does. I honestly don't understand how all of the people involved in the movie could lose their grip on the characters like this!

I liked how they handled Ron and Lavender for the most part - though I do agree that the kiss scene they used for Ron and Lavender should have been used for Harry and Ginny instead. I agree with you about everything else. They really screwed up with Harry and Ginny's entire relationship. In the book we had this really sweet, natural build up with Harry spending more time with Ginny at the Burrow over the summer and having those moments where he reacted negatively to Ginny spending time with Dean and didn't really understand why. His reaction to seeing Ginny kiss Dean was the moment he realized that his feelings had changed and that was so well done - I can't believe they didn't use that for the film. The struggle he goes through because he's worried about how Ron would react and ultimately deciding that he was going to go for it and hope Ron understood - it was just so much better in how it was presented in the book. The film makes it appear that Harry doesn't even like Ginny all that much - let alone feel any attraction for her.

After that horrible kiss scene - when Harry was just standing there like a useless lump with his eyes closed - my husband nudged me and whispered "I thought you said Dumbledore was the one who was gay?" He hasn't read the books so the way they handled Harry's character's behavior towards women in general and his rejection of Ginny left my husband with the impression that Harry was gay and trying to hide that by acting all macho about girls.

The whole HBP. But really how the potrayed the characters. I mean Dumbledore is supposed to be the all knowing man and in the movie he is always worrying, and just not how he is in the book. All regal an all.

Don't get me started on the way they handled Harry and Ginny, and Ron and Hermione's love affairs.

After that horrible kiss scene - when Harry was just standing there like a useless lump with his eyes closed - my husband nudged me and whispered "I thought you said Dumbledore was the one who was gay?" He hasn't read the books so the way they handled Harry's character's behavior towards women in general and his rejection of Ginny left my husband with the impression that Harry was gay and trying to hide that by acting all macho about girls.

Ha ha ha! I admit this makes me chuckle evilly, but it makes sense when you think about it. In the books there's absolutely no doubt about Harry's attraction to girls, and so I doubt a jaded Potter fan would notice something in the films which might make him appear gay- but with the way they did it, I can definitely see that occurring to a non-reader.
And... I thought of one more thing that enhanced the Flirty!Harry image they wound up with in the film- Luna. In the book, Harry makes completely sure that Luna knows they're just friends when he asks her to Slughorn's party, and she confirms it... knowing Luna, I doubt anything romantic would have crossed her mind. However, there is no such exchange in the films, and with the way the whole thing was done I can see a non-reader viewing Luna as just another girl on Harry's line. So as opposed to the somewhat socially inept Harry from the books who never looks at any girl except Ginny in a romantic light, here he is the films with Romilda, Ginny, the waitress, and Luna all apparently floating along in his wake, although he never displays any real, loving romantic interest in any of them. *sigh* I'm really, really disappointed with the filmmakers on this... :no: