What are your movie pet peeves?

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:

Me too.


I am also very disappointed that they actually had Dumbledore say that the Horcruxes could be common item. Because Dumbledore knew and showed Harry in the books that they would NOT be just any old item, but instead they would be a trophy of some sort.

The butchering of the H/G romance is my biggest annoyance, and I am hoping they manage to fix their screw up in the DH movies. And I am also hoping that they don't make the R/Hr kiss and relationship such a disaster as well.

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.

Yeah. My husband hasn't read the books. He's seen the movies and asked me stuff about the books, but he's one who really hates spoilers so he prefers not to talk too much about the book until after he's seen the corresponding movie. He knows the basics of what's going to happen - even without discussing it with me, other people who've read the books talk about it and he's heard things - but he doesn't know the details. He said it came across as very odd to him because they did the awkward, not very comfortable with girls yet thing in GOF with the Yule Ball, and then the awkward kiss with his relationship with Cho in OOTP - along with them breaking up. He was expecting something more along the lines of what we got with the book for HBP so he was surprised at Harry's behavior and the "I'm gay and trying to hide it" vibe is what he got.

What's ironic is that my father got a similar vibe from that - and he's one of those super, ultra-conservative types who doesn't believe that anyone is "really" gay. :lol: But his take on it was that no heterosexual 16 year old boy would just stand there like a statue with no reaction whatsoever if a pretty girl he was attracted to kissed him.

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:

Yeah - that makes things very confusing for people who haven't read the books on multiple levels. They failed to make it clear that Harry was falling in love with Ginny and not even the slightest bit romantically interested in any other girl. With all the "bonding" they did for Harry and Luna in the film for OOTP, they made it appear that she was going to be the romantic interest for Harry. They add to that in HBP with Luna being the one to rescue him on the train as well as the one he asks to Slughorn's Christmas party without having him make it clear that he was only asking her as a friend. Making it appear that he only sees girls as objects for him to play around with just makes it all worse, IMO. I think - among those who haven't read the books - a lot of them will either end up with the impression that he's gay like my husband and father did or they will think that he actually does like Luna and trying to use those other girls to make her jealous or something. It just was not well done at all.

From the Harry/Hermione: their friendship thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5478681#post5478681), I got on the subject of movie portrayals of the characters.

One of my big pet peeves is how the movies flatten the characters turning them into two-dimensional caricatures of the characters in the books. I know why it's necessary - limited time - but it is still annoying.

I disagree with Hermione being flat-out shrill or brittle, too.

I'm thinking specifically of "Language, Ronald!" and all variations of.

In the books, Hermione never chides Ron for his language - the only time that comes close is when Ron says something about Professor Snape in PoA and that's more because he said something rude about a teacher. Otherwise, she takes his more colorful use of language in stride and even uses some of her own. But movie!Hermione does take issue because movie!Hermione is an uptight prude.

And book!Hermione, not being as unbearably pretentious as movie!Hermione, does not address him as "Ronald". She only does this once (while swearing at him when he returns in DH). Otherwise, it's just "Ron". Luna is the one who calls him "Ronald" (and that's because she's quirky like that).

Rather than have Hermione rail on about important things like elf rights - even if she does it in an obnoxious manner - they have her act as a mini!Petunia clutching her pearls over bad language and the like.

How else was Luna in the books? She always seemed serene and dreamy to me.

In OOTP we see Luna get angry, she "flounces" away from Hermione and says things to her "coldly" when Hermione disparages her beliefs. Luna shows that she has a temper and such remarks do hurt her.

In the movie Luna only has one mode - serene and dreamy. She is given no other depth of character but that.

And no, I don't think that they make Ron dumb. That's just my opinion, though.

In the book version of POA, it's he who stands up for Harry on a broken leg - in the movie, his leg is only hurt and even then he can't be bothered to protect Harry. In the book, he tells Sirius they'll have to kill him first, in the movie that's Hermione. In the book version of HBP, he tells Harry that they'll be with him no matter what, in the movie, Hermione gets a line similar to that and Ron says nothing, does nothing but is punted off to the background while the super-duo of Harry and Hermione make plans.

Ron is often pushed to the side in the movies and rendered useless.

I disagree about Dumbledore being angry, too. *Especially* during Films 3 and 6 (in which Gambon redeemed himself by giving a brilliant portrayal, IMO). I also loved his performance in Movie 5. He nailed the office scene before departing in front of the stunned Ministry officials.

I love Gambon and I understand why they write Dumbledore the way they do but he is much more abrupt, temperamental, and downright humorless when compared to book!Dumbledore. He also yells twice which is more than we're ever told Dumbledore did.

Alan Rickman's Snape oozes so much malice that I don't think "losing his cool" is necessary.

It's not about malice just like my issue with Luna's portrayal isn't about her coming off as "sweet", my issue is accuracy. Snape is not a cool cucumber - he is so irate in the book version of POA, CAPSLOCKING before Harry made it cool - that Fudge calls him unbalanced. In the books he raises his voice, screaming at Harry, in the movies he'll just sneer more.

And the reason all this bothers me is fanfic tends to favor movie characterization over the characterization shown in the books so all these characters who were given much more nuance by JKR are turned into stereotypes by the movies and again by fanfic. It's a shame.

Ten thumbs-up, Birdi. Every single point you brought up echos my own problems with the character you were talking about. Hermione, Luna, Ron, Snape... all of it. Couldn't agree more. Keep up the good work! :)

From the Harry/Hermione: their friendship thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5478681#post5478681), I got on the subject of movie portrayals of the characters.

One of my big pet peeves is how the movies flatten the characters turning them into two-dimensional caricatures of the characters in the books. I know why it's necessary - limited time - but it is still annoying.



I'm thinking specifically of "Language, Ronald!" and all variations of.

In the books, Hermione never chides Ron for his language - the only time that comes close is when Ron says something about Professor Snape in PoA and that's more because he said something rude about a teacher. Otherwise, she takes his more colorful use of language in stride and even uses some of her own. But movie!Hermione does take issue because movie!Hermione is an uptight prude.

And book!Hermione, not being as unbearably pretentious as movie!Hermione, does not address him as "Ronald". She only does this once (while swearing at him when he returns in DH). Otherwise, it's just "Ron". Luna is the one who calls him "Ronald" (and that's because she's quirky like that).

Rather than have Hermione rail on about important things like elf rights - even if she does it in an obnoxious manner - they have her act as a mini!Petunia clutching her pearls over bad language and the like.



In OOTP we see Luna get angry, she "flounces" away from Hermione and says things to her "coldly" when Hermione disparages her beliefs. Luna shows that she has a temper and such remarks do hurt her.

In the movie Luna only has one mode - serene and dreamy. She is given no other depth of character but that.



In the book version of POA, it's he who stands up for Harry on a broken leg - in the movie, his leg is only hurt and even then he can't be bothered to protect Harry. In the book, he tells Sirius they'll have to kill him first, in the movie that's Hermione. In the book version of HBP, he tells Harry that they'll be with him no matter what, in the movie, Hermione gets a line similar to that and Ron says nothing, does nothing but is punted off to the background while the super-duo of Harry and Hermione make plans.

Ron is often pushed to the side in the movies and rendered useless.



I love Gambon and I understand why they write Dumbledore the way they do but he is much more abrupt, temperamental, and downright humorless when compared to book!Dumbledore. He also yells twice which is more than we're ever told Dumbledore did.



It's not about malice just like my issue with Luna's portrayal isn't about her coming off as "sweet", my issue is accuracy. Snape is not a cool cucumber - he is so irate in the book version of POA, CAPSLOCKING before Harry made it cool - that Fudge calls him unbalanced. In the books he raises his voice, screaming at Harry, in the movies he'll just sneer more.

And the reason all this bothers me is fanfic tends to favor movie characterization over the characterization shown in the books so all these characters who were given much more nuance by JKR are turned into stereotypes by the movies and again by fanfic. It's a shame.

Agrees with you and likes to add they tear the books apart by leaving out essential characters and adding things that did not happen or forggetting key points in movies

I have a simple peeve about the films. They leave out way too much of the books. My husband and I were talking the other night and we came to the conclusion that films are mainly made for people who don't read books.

The only film I ever saw that followed the book almost word for word entirely was Rosemary's Baby and then they changed the ending because in the book she took the baby and jumped out the window to her and its death, while in the film she did not.

When you read a book and enjoy it immensely it is a disappointment not to see the things you expect and to have so much changed in the film.

I have a simple peeve about the films. They leave out way too much of the books. My husband and I were talking the other night and we came to the conclusion that films are mainly made for people who don't read books.

The only film I ever saw that followed the book almost word for word entirely was Rosemary's Baby and then they changed the ending because in the book she took the baby and jumped out the window to her and its death, while in the film she did not.

When you read a book and enjoy it immensely it is a disappointment not to see the things you expect and to have so much changed in the film.

True and with some of the last films made from books it happens more and more.

My worst pet peeve is how obsessed Lavender Brown is with ron that really got to me and also how much the skip from the book when they make the movie and the parts they skip are the really good parts in the book

Ron is dumbed down and Hermione glorified (basically).

My pet peve would be cutting out some of the most important parts of the books. For example in HBP they cut out every memory about the Gaunts so we have no idea how he got the ring or wat significance the locket is (unless we've read the books lol) but they put in the whole scene where Bella destroys the Burrow. I understand that the scene showed how no one was safe at that point in time but i feel the history behint the locket and ring would have been more important.

Well I have a lot of the same concerns as birdi. I think mostly people in the movie are too nice. I want to see Snape make nasty comments about Harry's father more often. I liked that he always found an excuse to dis the brave little Gryffindor. And I always imagine him smiling when he said these comments, which made them seem even meaner.

Also, in the books, I often find myself wanting to punch Harry in the face for being an arrogant, self-righteous little twit. But in the movies they cut out scenes when he acts this way. For instance in HBP book when Snape confronts Harry about what he did to Malfoy, instead of feeling sorry for almost killing someone, he is more concerned with being disrespectful toward Snape. And even later with hermione he has too much pride to admit he was an idiot for using strange spells. That makes me HATE Harry, but it also makes him more interesting.

And again I loved the scene in HBP when Ginny fussed at Ron about her dating too many guys, especially when she brought up auntie Muriel. That would have been great in the film AND it would have added some life to Ginny.

i'm going to bed

I found it rather annoying and also puzzling when Harry wasn't punished for severely injuring Malfoy in the Girls Bathroom. :hmm:

I found it rather annoying and also puzzling when Harry wasn't punished for severely injuring Malfoy in the Girls Bathroom. :hmm:

Yes I found that puzzling too. In the book that was the reason why he had to hide the potions book which gave him the first glimpse at the Lost Diadem...DH is gonna have to do some explaining fortht one.

I found it rather annoying and also puzzling when Harry wasn't punished for severely injuring Malfoy in the Girls Bathroom. :hmm:

Yes, I really thought they dropped the ball on that. In the book, it's an amazing interaction between Harry and Snape. Snape is confronted with the consequences of writing the spell. Harry is confronted with the consequences of using it. I often wonder how the scene would have played out if Harry had actually been truthful about where he learned "such Dark Magic."

1) Harry's eyes are GREEN not blue.
2) How old Remus and Sirius look.
3) Harry being let off for cutting up Malfoy.
4) The whole plot being about romance and not the HBP
5) The way Ginny acts like a board.
6) Putting in parts that make no sense when they should of put something relevant from the book.
7) Not having a big battle at Hogwarts.
8) Dumbledore acting nothing like Dumbledore from the book.
9) Ron seems like some dumb sidekick.
10) The lack of Dobby...:sad:

Yes, I really thought they dropped the ball on that. In the book, it's an amazing interaction between Harry and Snape. Snape is confronted with the consequences of writing the spell. Harry is confronted with the consequences of using it. I often wonder how the scene would have played out if Harry had actually been truthful about where he learned "such Dark Magic."

Yeh, I was really expecting Snape to berate Harry or at least punish him in someway. Then to see Hermiones disappointment in him for using Dark Magic. :shrug:

Yes I found that puzzling too. In the book that was the reason why he had to hide the potions book which gave him the first glimpse at the Lost Diadem...DH is gonna have to do some explaining fortht one.

That's when I thought that we would get a good view of the Diadem, so that in DH they could do some sort of flash back to HBP. Instead they had the awful ''Harry and Ginny Kiss scene'' which I hated. This was another chance to show the Diadem clearly, but again they failed to do this :grumble:.

The fact that in the HBP the Weasley's house was burnt down leaving me to think what they will do for the wedding in the DH movie..the fact that they never even touched on the gnome throwing in COS... the fact that Ludo Bagman was never even introduced in Goblet...the fact that Fenrir Greyback didnt even talk in HBP....there was no fight scene in HBP... no Phlegm in HBP..... i have so many....

The fact that in the HBP the Weasley's house was burnt down leaving me to think what they will do for the wedding in the DH movie..the fact that they never even touched on the gnome throwing in COS... the fact that Ludo Bagman was never even introduced in Goblet...the fact that Fenrir Greyback didnt even talk in HBP....there was no fight scene in HBP... no Phlegm in HBP..... i have so many....

They obviously rebuild the Burrow, they have magic for goodness sake! Gnome throwing isn't a very important thing; its got nothing at all to do with the plot. I agree, it's a disappointment not to have Ludo, but in the end it's not really a big difference. The important thing is tht we at least see Fenrir, and he only talks in the Battle (in the book), and they obviously left out the fighting scene because, if they were to do two fighting scenes in Hogwarts, then there can't be a really big difference, and it's be like watching the same thing over again. && I agree, Phlegm should have been there =P

I found it rather annoying and also puzzling when Harry wasn't punished for severely injuring Malfoy in the Girls Bathroom. :hmm:
I agree completely. That whole sequence and the kiss following were just awkward.

Oh, and I have a new pet peeve, characters not getting introduced!!!
If you notice, in HBP the ONLY thing Lavender is called is "Lav". Ron says it a grand total of 2 times, which one is hardly audible. The only time we see Greyback's name is for 2 seconds on a wanted poster. If you were not looking properly, you would have missed it. The Carrows too, they were not even aknowledge.
I don't think Dean's name was ever said until OotP. Pansy's name has never been said either. Things like that really tick me off.

Oh, and I have a new pet peeve, characters not getting introduced!!!
If you notice, in HBP the ONLY thing Lavender is called is "Lav". Ron says it a grand total of 2 times, which one is hardly audible. The only time we see Greyback's name is for 2 seconds on a wanted poster. If you were not looking properly, you would have missed it. The Carrows too, they were not even aknowledge.
I don't think Dean's name was ever said until OotP. Pansy's name has never been said either. Things like that really tick me off.

I completely agree, proper character introduction is a huge flaw throughout the films. Most people only know Seamus for the fact that every movie something seems to blow up or explode on his face.
The failure to even mention Greyback's name in HBP is ridiculous, especially as they made him into Bella's 'sidekick'. :grumble:

Many of the 'Potter-Film Buffs' will argue that these characters (Dean, Pansy, Seamus, Carrows ...etc) have no real purpose in the over all plot of the movies, and they would be correct. Why then did the film-makers create their own character in OOTP, when there were ample characters that could have filled the void of the infamous 'Nigel'?? It baffles me completely to be honest :hmm:.

With any book to movie adaptation that I can't stand, is the adding of things that weren't in the books, and taking out of important events or characters, and giving different characters their lines.

Or what's been done before, is the films making Ron look somewhat dim and giving Hermione some of his smarter lines. As well as giving Hermione some of Harry's lines.

My biggest problem though is when certain parts of books were "kept out" of the film because of supposed time constraints yet different things, that never happened in the book in the first place, are added for "dramatic effect".

The burning of the burrow in HBP was a big one. Yet they take out something as important as showing us the rest of the horcrux's, the rest of the memories, the elder wand, and Harry placing the Tiara on the statue.

With any book to movie adaptation that I can't stand, is the adding of things that weren't in the books, and taking out of important events or characters, and giving different characters their lines.

Or what's been done before, is the films making Ron look somewhat dim and giving Hermione some of his smarter lines. As well as giving Hermione some of Harry's lines.

My biggest problem though is when certain parts of books were "kept out" of the film because of supposed time constraints yet different things, that never happened in the book in the first place, are added for "dramatic effect".

The burning of the burrow in HBP was a big one. Yet they take out something as important as showing us the rest of the horcrux's, the rest of the memories, the elder wand, and Harry placing the Tiara on the statue.

I completely agree Ruru :tu:.
The Burning of The Burrow was a COMPLETELY unnecessary scene in HBP. It achieved nothing!! This time should have been used to show more memories, particularly the memories related to the Gaunts. :grumble:

Reall, the entire HBP let me down in a way...

To me, this was a very good film but missed out some crucial points. I think we needed to see the Gaunts, and they should have some how incorperated the Locket into it, so that they are not left with no clue on what it looks like in DH.

It also annoys me how much Ron seems to be left out of the movies now. I know most of HBP he's with Lavender, but they still cut out some of his most important lines. Hermione always seems to end up with them... They also make him out to be a lot dumber than he is. Frustrates me to no end.

I couldn't agree more Ruru, they leave out some of the most imporant plot lines in the story and yet have time to add in useless things such as The Burrow being attacked and, in DH, this dance scene Harry and Hermione are meant to have...

I just don't understand.

It annoys me that Hermione calls Ron "Ronald". I don't think she ever calls him Ronald in the books, why should she call him by his proper name in the movies? Is it supposed to be some sort of I-secretly-fancy-you-so-I'll-sound-grown-up-around-you? This has confused ever since they started it in POA

The way Lupin & Tonks are suddenly a couple in HBP without any explanation. You don't even know they are a couple, really. The only reference to it is when Tonks calls Lupin "sweetheart" before the Burrow gets burnt down ( or does Lupin say it to Tonks? I forget)

And, as others have mentioned, why include the Burrow being burnt down, which adds nothing to the plot IMO, but cut out 5 minutes of dialogue of Dumbledore explaining what he thinks the Horcruxes are? So we can go into DH knowing what the trio are looking for, rather than any old objects

It annoys me that Hermione calls Ron "Ronald". I don't think she ever calls him Ronald in the books, why should she call him by his proper name in the movies? Is it supposed to be some sort of I-secretly-fancy-you-so-I'll-sound-grown-up-around-you? This has confused ever since they started it in POA
But "Ronald" is his proper name, isn't it? I can't understand that people have a problem with that, while they're perfectly fine with Ron saying "bloody hell" all the time, which he doesn't do in the books either.

The way Lupin & Tonks are suddenly a couple in HBP without any explanation. You don't even know they are a couple, really. The only reference to it is when Tonks calls Lupin "sweetheart" before the Burrow gets burnt down ( or does Lupin say it to Tonks? I forget)
There's only so much time for love stories in this movie. Many people complained that it was too much already. Since the Lupin/Tonks romance happened basically while we weren't looking in the book anyway, I don't consider it a great loss.

And, as others have mentioned, why include the Burrow being burnt down, which adds nothing to the plot IMO, but cut out 5 minutes of dialogue of Dumbledore explaining what he thinks the Horcruxes are? So we can go into DH knowing what the trio are looking for, rather than any old objects
I don't like the Burrow Attack either, but the speculation about what the horcruxes might be would've been a waste of time IMHO. It's not until the second part of DH when the finally find one of those unknown horcruxes, by which time the audience would have forgotten all about that scene.

Im pretty sure ron does say bloddy hell few times in the book or is that when Jo writes that Ron said a bad word or like a word best not repeated

But "Ronald" is his proper name, isn't it? I can't understand that people have a problem with that, while they're perfectly fine with Ron saying "bloody hell" all the time, which he doesn't do in the books either.

Yes, but close friends don't normally call each other by their proper names (unless the friend in question prefers to be called by his/her proper name). It makes their relationship seem oddly formal, even distant, and it makes Hermione seem somewhat pretentious. Maybe they were going for the latter there?

But "Ronald" is his proper name, isn't it? I can't understand that people have a problem with that, while they're perfectly fine with Ron saying "bloody hell" all the time, which he doesn't do in the books either.
I just don't understand why she calls him Ronald when no one in the book does, it seems odd why she would call him by his proper name when he prefers Ron and they're friends. Ron is known to swear in the books, JK just skims over it, and obviously he can't swear in the films because they're family films. "bloody hell" is just a watered down version to show that side of his personality

There's only so much time for love stories in this movie. Many people complained that it was too much already. Since the Lupin/Tonks romance happened basically while we weren't looking in the book anyway, I don't consider it a great loss.
I felt that it was thrown in for no reason, unless they're planning to make it Lupin & Tonk's wedding in DH instead of Bill & Fleur :shrug:

I don't like the Burrow Attack either, but the speculation about what the horcruxes might be would've been a waste of time IMHO. It's not until the second part of DH when the finally find one of those unknown horcruxes, by which time the audience would have forgotten all about that scene.
But wouldn't a bit of speculation be better than the trio suddenly knowing what all the horcruxes are? IMO leaving out what they could be seems to cause some problems for the DH script, but i'm not steve kloves :yuhup:

I just don't understand why she calls him Ronald when no one in the book does, it seems odd why she would call him by his proper name when he prefers Ron and they're friends.

I don't recall the circumstances of her calling him Ronald, but might she have been peeved with him? That's when one usually calls a friend by their full name. It's a definite signal that you are truly annoyed.

I don't recall the circumstances of her calling him Ronald, but might she have been peeved with him? That's when one usually calls a friend by their full name. It's a definite signal that you are truly annoyed.

i haven't watched the films in a while, but i remember her calling him Ronald all the time. it annoys me that they're friends and it sounds really formal calling him Ronald, even if she is annoyed at him :shrug: JMO

i haven't watched the films in a while, but i remember her calling him Ronald all the time. it annoys me that they're friends and it sounds really formal calling him Ronald, even if she is annoyed at him :shrug: JMO

I really didn't think it happened that often, and I don't feel inclined to watch the movies just to find out. :lol:

From what I remember, Hermione only calls Ron by his proper name when she is irritated with him - which, to be fair, may be quite often. :lol: It's been a little while since I've watched all the movies, so I could be wrong...

My movie pet peeves are when a gaggle of giggling youth sitting within a few feet of me keep talking and texting throughout the whole movie!

Otherwise, I find humor in small moments and tidbits that differ from the books to the movie. I look for such parts and do a small personal compare/contrast moment to myself and think, "hmm."

I like the way Hermione calls Ron "Ronald" in the movies. My old HS friends call me "Chris" but my wife uses my whole name "Christian" because she says she likes it better than the short version...

I just don't understand why she calls him Ronald when no one in the book does, it seems odd why she would call him by his proper name when he prefers Ron and they're friends. Ron is known to swear in the books, JK just skims over it, and obviously he can't swear in the films because they're family films. "bloody hell" is just a watered down version to show that side of his personality
I don't have a problem with Movie!Ron having a catchphrase either. I was just trying to make an analogy. I just wanted to point out that many people's attitude towards adaptation is basically They Changed It Now It Sucks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks)

I felt that it was thrown in for no reason, unless they're planning to make it Lupin & Tonk's wedding in DH instead of Bill & Fleur :shrug:
You don't need to worry about that. It'll be Bill & Fleur's wedding. But Harry becomes a godfather in DH, that's probably why they hinted that Lupin & Tonks are a couple.

But wouldn't a bit of speculation be better than the trio suddenly knowing what all the horcruxes are? IMO leaving out what they could be seems to cause some problems for the DH script, but i'm not steve kloves :yuhup:
They don't need to know what the horcruxes are. They'll probably discover the important information down the road.

^LOL Yeah. (They Changed It Now It Sucks) Ive seen a lot of that kind thing tossed about in HP forums.

The thing that bothered me the most was the Order of the Phoenix movie. They left out so very much. I think they should have kept the part where Harry is vindicated by Skeeter's interview. Oh well.

HBP movie was interesting for me. This one was my favorite book out of all of them. Leaving out some of the horcrux stuff was ok since they had alot of time constraints. They should have mentioned some of the other ones via dialogue though. How are we to know about Nagini and the Cup? Or the Diadem? I dont think the romance parts are an issue since all of that was in the book. The Burrow scene was a huge Big Lipped Alligator Moment. It was totally unnecessary. When i saw that in the theater i nearly shouted "what???" My boyfriend was like "what is it?" "err...nothing.." My biggest beef about the HBP movie was the following:
Snape wasnt in it enough. There was no real speculation about who the Half Blood Prince was. No real reveal there. Snape just says "oi, im the half blood prince!" and leaves it at that. No real involvement about how Harry identifies with the HBP. Also the biggest beef of them all, Snape was cheated out of his line! HIS LINE! "DO NOT CALL ME COWARD!" I was so angry at the lack of that line! I was actually imagining Alan Rickman seething when he couldnt scream that. There was ample time for that line to be delivered too! RAGE! Also Bellatrix was in it too much.

All in all, I like the movies and I respect the diference between the book and movies but when they change things that could easily have been the same as they were in the books it makes me so mad! Like cutting out Dobby in GoF, they didn't want to use the money, I understand or the Harry/Ginny kiss changing because they didn't show Harry having detention or the final Quidditch match, I understand why those things were changed. But like Hermione always having Ron's lines, Rupert/Ron were right there so why not have him say his lines like in the book? Or Hermione's hair? I know they try to let the actors have sort of their own style and stuff but I can make my hair (well actaully it's sort of already like Hermione's hair, which is probably why it bothers me so much, but if my hair weren't) look like Hermione's is described in the book for spending $50 at the store for a can of hair spray, brown hair dye, and a curling iron and since I'm pretty sure Emma's actually a natrual brunette we can take $15 off!

Those things can easily be changed to stay truer to the books.


Those are really my only complaints about the movies other than the HHR moments they often add, but I don't think it'd be a good idea for me to go into that. I don't really mind when they change important stuff as long as they have someway of including it and of making it up in future films.

All in all, I like the movies and I respect the diference between the book and movies but when they change things that could easily have been the same as they were in the books it makes me so mad! Like cutting out Dobby in GoF, they didn't want to use the money, I understand or the Harry/Ginny kiss changing because they didn't show Harry having detention or the final Quidditch match, I understand why those things were changed. But like Hermione always having Ron's lines, Rupert/Ron were right there so why not have him say his lines like in the book? Or Hermione's hair? I know they try to let the actors have sort of their own style and stuff but I can make my hair (well actaully it's sort of already like Hermione's hair, which is probably why it bothers me so much, but if my hair weren't) look like Hermione's is described in the book for spending $50 at the store for a can of hair spray, brown hair dye, and a curling iron and since I'm pretty sure Emma's actually a natrual brunette we can take $15 off!



I was annoyed with the Harry/Ginny kissing scene...they could easily have done it more according to the book...Otherwise I totally agree with you, all those things you said were on my mind when I saw this tread.

There are still other things that annoy me in the movies. Has anybody else noticed the flying death eaters? or the dementors aren't they supposed to glide forward not fly? And in HBP, why was the burrow on fire? it just didn't make sense to me...

I was annoyed with the Harry/Ginny kissing scene...they could easily have done it more according to the book...Otherwise I totally agree with you, all those things you said were on my mind when I saw this tread.

There are still other things that annoy me in the movies. Has anybody else noticed the flying death eaters? or the dementors aren't they supposed to glide forward not fly? And in HBP, why was the burrow on fire? it just didn't make sense to me...

Ron/Lavendar got the Harry/Ginny kiss and it made much more sense to me. Harry/Ginny weren't at the same "affectionate" state as they were in the book (as Ginny hasn't been properly developed in the previous films). It would've been awkward if they kept the kiss the same because Non-book readers are just now beginning to realize that Harry has feelings for her and vice versa.

The dementors flying never bugged me... fly, glide, as long as they're off the air it just makes me shrug. They're actually a bit more frightening in flight and the OOTP attack wouldn't have been as effective without that change.

The Burrow burning down, which I can see why it would upset book fans, was just to show that NO WHERE is safe. Rather than showing all the deaths in the newspapers this gives a physical implication of this idea. Also the movie needed a bit more action because it's more dialogue/character driven. I know a number of non-book readers who loved the scene.

Harry's eyes.

I've read somewhere that Daniel Radcliffe can't wear contacts because of irritation or something (I haven't verified this myself) but with all of the technology we have today, they couldn't make his eyes green?
I was nine when the first movie came out and they very first thing I thought when I saw Dan was "Harry's eyes are not green. Why are they blue?" I had already read the book multiple times and the first description of Harry (other than the lightening shaped scar) is "Harry had a thin face, knobbly knees, black hair, and bright green eyes." (PS/SS pg. 20)
How many times is this mentioned in the books? Enough that it is the only book to movie change that actually ****** me off. haha


While I get very annoyed when important plot points are left out and silly moments are added in.. I can handle it. The movies will never compare to the books, of course not. but they are fun and a way to bring the story to life. It gives me a way to see the magic in a couple of hours. The directors/screenwriters/actors do the best they can with a series so incredible it can't be pulled out of our imaginations.

Harry's eyes.

I've read somewhere that Daniel Radcliffe can't wear contacts because of irritation or something (I haven't verified this myself) but with all of the technology we have today, they couldn't make his eyes green?
I was nine when the first movie came out and they very first thing I thought when I saw Dan was "Harry's eyes are not green. Why are they blue?" I had already read the book multiple times and the first description of Harry (other than the lightening shaped scar) is "Harry had a thin face, knobbly knees, black hair, and bright green eyes." (PS/SS pg. 20)
How many times is this mentioned in the books? Enough that it is the only book to movie change that actually ****** me off. haha


While I get very annoyed when important plot points are left out and silly moments are added in.. I can handle it. The movies will never compare to the books, of course not. but they are fun and a way to bring the story to life. It gives me a way to see the magic in a couple of hours. The directors/screenwriters/actors do the best they can with a series so incredible it can't be pulled out of our imaginations.

It only matters that Harry's eyes are the same color as his mother, and so far that hasn't even been important in the movies. I don't recall that Slughorn gave up the correct memory because of Harry's eye color as he did in the book, and we've yet to learn whether Snape says "Look at me" as he dies. Those two occurrences turned out to be the only times Lily's eye color was important to the plot.

I REALLY hated the fact that in the end of the 6th movie, after Dumbledore died, that the entire battle just stops and everyone raises their wands. I mean, It's a battle for heavens sake! If someone dies in war does everyone just stop to pay homage to the deceased, and then everything is okay? NO! It doesn't convey the state of chaos that everything is in if just by raising your wand you can stop the battle! Also, they didn't show Dumbledore's funeral! Instead, they just showed Ron, Harry, and Hermione on the top of the owlery! To any normal HP fan, this might have annoyed them a bit, but I am not a normal fan (let's face it, if you're on this site, you are not ordinary). I've read the series 20 times, and I'm only 13, so this bugged me so much that I couldn't take it, and I actually stormed out of the theatre, utterly confusing my friends who have never read the series and didn't realise that anything was wrong. They just thought I was crazy...

I REALLY hated the fact that in the end of the 6th movie, after Dumbledore died, that the entire battle just stops and everyone raises their wands. I mean, It's a battle for heavens sake!

Um, how can there be a battle still on when all the bad guys have already left the grounds? :huh:

It only matters that Harry's eyes are the same color as his mother, and so far that hasn't even been important in the movies. I don't recall that Slughorn gave up the correct memory because of Harry's eye color as he did in the book, and we've yet to learn whether Snape says "Look at me" as he dies. Those two occurrences turned out to be the only times Lily's eye color was important to the plot.


The importance of Lily's eye color isn't what bothered me. Simply that Harry was described as having green eyes and it was an expectation that I had of him. Just like all the Weasley's are described as having red hair. It has no importance to the plot whatsoever, but if Ron had come on screen with brown hair, people would probably have been annoyed because red hair is a Weasley characteristic. Or if they changed the shape of Harry's scar to something other than a lightening bolt... Sure, the plot isn't affected, but it bothers me nonetheless.

I REALLY hated the fact that in the end of the 6th movie, after Dumbledore died, that the entire battle just stops and everyone raises their wands. I mean, It's a battle for heavens sake! If someone dies in war does everyone just stop to pay homage to the deceased, and then everything is okay? NO! It doesn't convey the state of chaos that everything is in if just by raising your wand you can stop the battle! Also, they didn't show Dumbledore's funeral! Instead, they just showed Ron, Harry, and Hermione on the top of the owlery! To any normal HP fan, this might have annoyed them a bit, but I am not a normal fan (let's face it, if you're on this site, you are not ordinary). I've read the series 20 times, and I'm only 13, so this bugged me so much that I couldn't take it, and I actually stormed out of the theatre, utterly confusing my friends who have never read the series and didn't realise that anything was wrong. They just thought I was crazy...


There really was no battle. They decided to leave it out because they thought it would be too repetitive to Deathly Hallows.

About the eyes: in the novels, Avada Kedavra is green, as are Harry's eyes. In Half-Blood Prince and I'm guessing Deathly Hallows as well, Avada Kedavra is changed to blue to match Dan's eye color.

I liked the part of everyone holding up their wands after Dumbledore dies. That was so touching. I didn't like the waitress scene at the beginnning of HBP nor did I like the Burrow burning down.

1- Chris Columbus' direction in the first movie which I thought was clunky and very "Hollywood"

2- The habit of characters in the first two movies to say the name of a character when they entered a room

For example...in COS when Professor McGonagall and Professor Dumbledore entered the room, Harry said "Professor McGonagall!......Professor Dumbledore!"

Yes Harry, they are, and we know!

3-The fact that the enforced title change JK Rowling was pressured into with the book "The Philosopher's Stone" carried over into the movie as well.

4- The way Michael Gambon choose to portray Dumbledore after Richard Harris' serene performance, which is disappointing because I respect Gambon very much as an actor.

5-The special effect of the ghosts swooping down into the Great Hall in TPS, which was awful and badly done.

6- The awkward way they dubbed the line "...before the stairs move again" into TPS

7- Vernon Dursley having weird crossed eyes in POA. Why does he have them? They look ridiculous as crossed eyes in movies usually do. I don't recall his eyes ever being like that before or since.

8- The absolutely baffling decision to exclude or minimise all the flashback scenes from TDH revolving around Voldemort, Merope, Tom Riddle, Ogden, Marvolo and Merope.

9- The decision to replace Genevieve Gaunt as Pansy Parkinson

10- Lavender Brown being played by a black actress...AND....a white actress. What was the point? Why not just cast another black actress? Or why not just cast a white actress to begin with?

11- Marcus Flint having such awful teeth.

12- The way they portrayed Umbridge's "hem hem" habit. I was expecting something like a girlish clearing of a throat, but they went in a bizarre other direction and she sounded like a dolphin or something similar

13- Lupin's erm.....wolf form. Is that supposed to be a wolf? It looked more like a greyhound.


That'll do.

^ Lavender was a black actress at first?

Lavender Brown has been played by three actresses.

Kathleen Cauley (who is black) in COS (non-speaking role)

Jennifer Smith (who is also black) in POA (another non-speaking role)

Jessie Cave (who is white) in HBP (larger speaking role)


According to the HP Wiki

How odd. I understand her role didnt speak in those movies, but do we see her at all? I dont recall.

HPB, the kissing scene between Harry and Ginny, ***? And all the romance between them wasn't necessary.

3-The fact that the enforced title change JK Rowling was pressured into with the book "The Philosopher's Stone" carried over into the movie as well
I believe thats only in the US. I saw a poster for the film and it said Philosopher's Stone somewhere and i remarked how rare that is. I believe that poster to be imported.

Never really knew that about Lavender because you dont get a real introduction to her character until the HBP film.

For what it's worth I'm pretty sure Lavender is of European descent in the novels.

About the eyes: in the novels, Avada Kedavra is green, as are Harry's eyes. In Half-Blood Prince and I'm guessing Deathly Hallows as well, Avada Kedavra is changed to blue to match Dan's eye color.

Perhaps AK and Harry's eyes both being green is merely a coincidence. Remember Mark Evans?

Perhaps AK and Harry's eyes both being green is merely a coincidence. Remember Mark Evans?

I don't think so.

Gryffindor, Voldemort's eyes, and Expelliarmus are all red.
Slytherin, Harry's eyes, and Avada Kedavra are all green.

It's a back-and-forth game of parallels.

My biggest pet peeve is that Dobby only appears in the movie once! And when he does he seems like a nuisance to Harry not a friend.


Thanks to AldeberanBlack for the spell check :)

My biggest pet peeve is that Dobby only appears in the movie once! And when he does he seems like a nuicesnsee (spell check any one? my computer cant recognize the word lol) to Harry not a friend.

Nuisance

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


I believe the acting has improved over the years, especially on Dan's part. I think the fact that he got the part of Harry Potter was a complete fluke, however, he's proven he can indeed act in the later movies. The thing that bothers me about Emma is that she acts mostly through the movement of her eyebrows. It was really distracting, particularly in OOtP. C'mon, Hermione, lighten up a bit.

This is what really makes me cringe throughout the films:
-When Lupin puts on the record player during their first lesson with boggarts in PoA. I think it's super cheesy.
-Malfoy's face AND hair in SS and CoS
-Dan's line delivery throughout most of SS and CoS. He has some geniune moments of authenticity in those films, but mostly it's forced and painful-sounding.
-Pretty much all of GoF. When Dumbledore's hand is trembling while he touches the Goblet during the selection ceremony, when Malfoy is sitting in the tree, taunting Potter (can't really explain why this irks me, it just does), the entrance of the Beauxbaton and Durmstrang students, the pace at which the film moved, the general suckiness of the adaptation. I will admit, it's probably one of the most fun Potter movies to watch.
-OOtP and HBP needed MUCH more Luna, for sure.

I agree with you,, but you don't have to be so hard on the actors cause they're doing the best they can.. And once you get used to them, They're not that bad at acting..

I agree with this. The problem is should they have gotten newer and better actors every movie? I much rather them stick with the same actors and when you start people acting that young, you do not know how they will blossom as an actor or actress.

They have gotten plenty better IMO so it doesn;t matter to me.

My biggest gripe about the movies was in one movie and that was HBP. I think they really missed the mark on what to include and not include in this movie. there was tons of back story parts and the invasion of hogwarts should have been done bigger and better and they could have cut out stuff like Ron and lavender.

These are suppose to be very dark times but it didn't potray that in the movie, at least not enough anyways.

One of my biggest peves about the movies is the layout of Hogwarts. Why cant the entrance hall open directly onto the grounds like in the books? I must admit that the new bridge in Deathly Hallows is an improvement but I would have prefered the books version. Other than that I hate the whole second half of PoA which totally killed the movie and made no sense.

RE: the "Philosopher's Stone" name. I know it was only changed for the US, but I felt that they should have used the proper title for the film, in line with the rest of the world.


That aside, I find Emma Watson's eyebrows to be rather distracting. It's pedantic, I know, but it's a slight peeve.

I hate the fact that they left out the scene where Kreature has the locket/real horcrux in OOtP, considering it's a major plot point in DH, and a motivation for thr trio to return to Grimmuald pl.

That, and the fact that they totally created the scene of the attack on the Burrow in movie HBP!!! Grrrr

I think they should give Snape a bigger role! :tu:

I think they should give Snape a bigger role! :tu:

Amen.

I believe the acting has improved over the years, especially on Dan's part. I think the fact that he got the part of Harry Potter was a complete fluke, however, he's proven he can indeed act in the later movies. The thing that bothers me about Emma is that she acts mostly through the movement of her eyebrows. It was really distracting, particularly in OOtP. C'mon, Hermione, lighten up a bit.

This is what really makes me cringe throughout the films:
-Malfoy's face AND hair in SS and CoS

Why did this make you cringe? In the first two films Tom matched the novels' description of Draco absolutely perfectly. He's very close to how I imagine the character.

Dan's acting in the Deathly Hallows trailer has made me very enthusiastic about the final two films. He has grown immensely and I feel we need to give him credit for that.

Why did this make you cringe? In the first two films Tom matched the novels' description of Draco absolutely perfectly. He's very close to how I imagine the character.


I don't know, he just looked so goofy during some serious moments in those films, especially when he smirked or tried to look scornful. I supposed it's not totally cringeworthy, but I found it distracting and sometimes silly. Besides these few moments, I think Tom Felton did an excellent job in SS and CoS, considering his age. His acting was definitely better than that of the trio.

He's older than the trio too, I think that's something you have to consider. Anyway, I felt that the "goofiness" you refer to was somewhat intended. This is an eleven year old character who thinks he rules the school. It is silly and I believe that might be the point. Harry's not intimidated by him and we as the audience aren't supposed to be either.

I hate the fact that they left out the scene where Kreature has the locket/real horcrux in OOtP, considering it's a major plot point in DH, and a motivation for thr trio to return to Grimmuald pl.



The locket is only mentioned in passing in OoTP, and the seventh book wasn't out at the time. You couldn't have expected them to include that.

Anyway, I felt that the "goofiness" you refer to was somewhat intended. This is an eleven year old character who thinks he rules the school. It is silly and I believe that might be the point. Harry's not intimidated by him and we as the audience aren't supposed to be either.

I understand that some sort of silliness was supposed to be present in his demeanor, because young Draco was a somewhat cunning, yet clumsy, bully, which is an awkward combination. I think Felton did a pretty great job of potraying that, but I also feel that it was exagerrated sometimes. Child actors, no matter what amount of experience they may have, might take their lines or their facial expressions, etc., over the top because maybe they're still honing their skills. Now, having never been a child actor, I'm not sure if that's really the case, but it's just an idea. That's all I'm sayin', Dude. :)

It really, really bugs me that many of the wizards - such as Mr. Weasley in CoS and Slughorn in HBP - refer to various things in the world as if they don't know of it. This even happens in the books and to me it's a bit far-fetched. I do realize that - at least in the first two books/movies - this was done to include a child-friendly goofiness to the movies, but still.

Examples : in CoS (movie) - Mr Weasley asks Harry what the function of a rubber duck is
in HBP (movie) - Slughorn asks Hermoine if being a dentist is a dangerous profession, this one stands out most, because of course wizards would need to have oral hygiene, no?
in GOF (book, i think) - Ron screams into the telephone asking if Harry can go to the quiddich cup. I mean this one is a bit excusable, but wouldn't wizards know what a phone is and how to use it?

It really, really bugs me that many of the wizards - such as Mr. Weasley in CoS and Slughorn in HBP - refer to various things in the world as if they don't know of it. This even happens in the books and to me it's a bit far-fetched. I do realize that - at least in the first two books/movies - this was done to include a child-friendly goofiness to the movies, but still.

Examples : in CoS (movie) - Mr Weasley asks Harry what the function of a rubber duck is
in HBP (movie) - Slughorn asks Hermoine if being a dentist is a dangerous profession, this one stands out most, because of course wizards would need to have oral hygiene, no?
in GOF (book, i think) - Ron screams into the telephone asking if Harry can go to the quiddich cup. I mean this one is a bit excusable, but wouldn't wizards know what a phone is and how to use it?

I think Mr. Weasley was just exceptionally curious about the Muggle world because his job revolved aroung Muggle-Wizard relations. Maybe he saw it as his duty to have a complete understanding of their world and the objects in it. And I think wizards probably have some minty, anti-cavity elixir for all of their oral hygienic needs, so maybe Slughorn was just trying to politely converse with Hermione. Or maybe he was geniunely curious, who knows. As for Ron, maybe younger wizards have no real need to concern themselves with the matter of learning how to operate a machine Muggles use for communication. I found that part in GoF really funny, so I'm glad he was ignorant. :)

In other news...I like your signature pic. "Ayyyyye!"

I agree with theboywholived regarding wizards having a poor understanding of Muggle objects. She explained it really well.:)

I understand that some sort of silliness was supposed to be present in his demeanor, because young Draco was a somewhat cunning, yet clumsy, bully, which is an awkward combination. I think Felton did a pretty great job of potraying that, but I also feel that it was exagerrated sometimes. Child actors, no matter what amount of experience they may have, might take their lines or their facial expressions, etc., over the top because maybe they're still honing their skills. Now, having never been a child actor, I'm not sure if that's really the case, but it's just an idea. That's all I'm sayin', Dude. :)

I get you and can definitely see where you're coming from. There is one line in I think SS that I've always felt Tom overdid, although at the moment I can't quite remember what it is.

I think Mr. Weasley was just exceptionally curious about the Muggle world because his job revolved aroung Muggle-Wizard relations. Maybe he saw it as his duty to have a complete understanding of their world and the objects in it. And I think wizards probably have some minty, anti-cavity elixir for all of their oral hygienic needs, so maybe Slughorn was just trying to politely converse with Hermione. Or maybe he was geniunely curious, who knows. As for Ron, maybe younger wizards have no real need to concern themselves with the matter of learning how to operate a machine Muggles use for communication. I found that part in GoF really funny, so I'm glad he was ignorant. :)

In other news...I like your signature pic. "Ayyyyye!"

That's all very plausible, but I just feel that the average reader won't go that in depth to figure out why each character is saying what they're saying you know? Either way, it's a minor gripe, and hasn't affected how much I adore the series.

And awesome! A fellow Spaced lover!

Hermione's hair and the lack of Winky. Both lacking aspects that detract from my enjoyment of the movies.

I mean seriously... her hair isn't bushy enough at all.

more house elves

They should explain the story more. A people who hasn't read the books and goes to the cinema understand nothing. They just skip big parts of the story!

One of my biggest pet peeves is how they have taken it upon themselves to change the effect of many of the spells to knocking people off their feet backwards. In the movies, expelliarmus and stupefy both have the same effect of blowing the victim backwards, where expelliarmus should just disarm and stupefy should just put them into a sort of coma. I'm not sure it helps the movie; I have always felt that all of the different little spells add to the magic.

One of my biggest pet peeves is how they have taken it upon themselves to change the effect of many of the spells to knocking people off their feet backwards. In the movies, expelliarmus and stupefy both have the same effect of blowing the victim backwards, where expelliarmus should just disarm and stupefy should just put them into a sort of coma. I'm not sure it helps the movie; I have always felt that all of the different little spells add to the magic.


Very true. I remember in PoA when they're all in the shrieking shack, Expelliarmus is used multiple times, once it harmlessly knocks a wand out of someones hand, then Harry uses it on Snape and it blows him away.

What really bugs me the most is the added scenes in the movies that weren't in the books. There weren't a ton of those in the earlier movies, but I really hated that they added the burning-of-the-Burrow thing in HBP. Personally, I didn't see a point in it, and it just makes the movie bring the book to life less. When I watch the HP movies, I like to see the book come to life in them. The added scenes just put a damper on that.

The Burrow burning gave Molly a further reason to hate Bella. If trying to kill her children wasn't enough, Bella also destroyed Molly's home. It was a good addition IMO.

The burning of the Burrow I felt was a good addition. In the book the trio is constantly reading headlines of people being murdered, families being torn apart, etc. The Burrow burning was a visual representation of all those instances tied into one occurrence that put things in striking perspective.

The burning of the Burrow I felt was a good addition. In the book the trio is constantly reading headlines of people being murdered, families being torn apart, etc. The Burrow burning was a visual representation of all those instances tied into one occurrence that put things in striking perspective.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. It made things easier to imagine, to understand, when we see a scene that wraps all the emotions together. If the trio were just shown as reading the Daily Prophet or something during the movie, it wouldn't have had that much of an effect, don't you think? It was thoughtful of them to add it in IMO.

The burning of the Burrow I felt was a good addition. In the book the trio is constantly reading headlines of people being murdered, families being torn apart, etc. The Burrow burning was a visual representation of all those instances tied into one occurrence that put things in striking perspective.

Agreed! The only thing that bugged me about it wasn't the scene itself, just the fact that it was pretty much glossed over throughout the rest of the film.

The problem with the Burrow scene is that it was a deliberate substitute for the canonical battle at the end of HBP. It was assumed that a battle in HBP would diminish the final battle in DH2. Actually the HBP battle was more like a skirmish than the full scale battle in DH2 so I never understood the problem.

the absolute worst thing was the burning of the burrow. i have complained about that to so many people...just...why would they do that??? where are they gonna have the wedding???? ugh >:( i can easily find and point out mistakes in every movie. that ones just the worst....ugh

where are they gonna have the wedding????
That's what reparo is for. :relax:

That's what reparo is for. :relax:

but...its not really broken...its burnt i suppose there is some spell to fix it...

but...its not really broken...its burnt i suppose there is some spell to fix it...

I'm sure that if we Muggles can rebuild a house, those magic folks will manage something. :lol: Not that I don't agree that it was a stupid thing to do.

yeah i never thought about them reparing it...but i wonder if they will repare it or if they will have the wedding in a whole different place. or if they willl have the wedding at all. nah they have to have the wedding

The constant changing of the aesthetics of each area. Many key areas look different from film to film and it's rather irritating.

Danny boy's delivery of certain lines throughout most of the films has been especially cringe-worthy. Mainly the ones like 'I have friends' etc. where they're so overloaded with cheese it's unreal.

That's what reparo is for. :relax:

but...its not really broken...its burnt i suppose there is some spell to fix it...

I can't help but wonder why with all the witches/wizards present that no one thought of "aquamenti". After all Harry & Hagrid we able to put out Hagrid's house fire (in the book). I know the Weasley's house was bigger, but there were more wizards/witches were present too. :hmm:

the absolute worst thing was the burning of the burrow. i have complained about that to so many people...just...why would they do that??? where are they gonna have the wedding???? ugh >:( i can easily find and point out mistakes in every movie. that ones just the worst....ugh

Just because something's different from the book doesn't mean it's a mistake. You can say you didn't like it or you disagree with the addition, but that doesn't mean it's a "mistake". The wedding has also been confirmed to be in DH if that helps you at all, there have been set reports and you can also see Bill and Fleur dancing in a tent surrounding by onlookers in the Half-Blood Prince DVD Deathly Hallows promo. If Hogwarts was able to be rebuilt after the second war, I'm sure a burned down house is not a problem.

Just because something's different from the book doesn't mean it's a mistake. You can say you didn't like it or you disagree with the addition, but that doesn't mean it's a "mistake". The wedding has also been confirmed to be in DH if that helps you at all, there have been set reports and you can also see Bill and Fleur dancing in a tent surrounding by onlookers in the Half-Blood Prince DVD Deathly Hallows promo. If Hogwarts was able to be rebuilt after the second war, I'm sure a burned down house is not a problem.

well i think it was a mistake putting it in there. its ok to put little things into the movie that didnt happen in the book but if your gonna base a movie off a book there shouldnt be major additions...that whole scene angered me...

The fact that it's a movie based on a book is the entire point. Would you rather the filmmakers not have added the Burrow scene and the effects of Voldemort's terror be lost in the film? That is exactly what would have happened. In the book we get this sense of tragedy through the Daily Prophet. When I go see a film I don't want to read a newspaper on screen. It's boring.

The burning of the Burrow I felt was a good addition. In the book the trio is constantly reading headlines of people being murdered, families being torn apart, etc. The Burrow burning was a visual representation of all those instances tied into one occurrence that put things in striking perspective.

I completely agree Ruru :tu:.
The Burning of The Burrow was a COMPLETELY unnecessary scene in HBP. It achieved nothing!! This time should have been used to show more memories, particularly the memories related to the Gaunts. :grumble:

What upset me about The Burrow burning was the fact that it meant Bellatrix knew they were all there? I mean, the whole point of Harry being there during Christmas was that it had some of the best protection around, it just really didnt make sense, or it that just me :err:?

x

What upset me about The Burrow burning was the fact that it meant Bellatrix knew they were all there? I mean, the whole point of Harry being there during Christmas was that it had some of the best protection around, it just really didnt make sense, or it that just me :err:?

x

yeah i agree. he was supposed to be safe yet he couldve been killed (or more likely captured and taken to voldemort) right then and there.

also when the burrow is burning they just sit there and watch it. shouldnt they have done something to stop it so theres less damage they have to fix??

yeah i agree. he was supposed to be safe yet he couldve been killed (or more likely captured and taken to voldemort) right then and there.

also when the burrow is burning they just sit there and watch it. shouldnt they have done something to stop it so theres less damage they have to fix??

You could see Arthur and Lupin I believe it was trying to control the flames before Ginny ran out to Harry. It seemed like a special type of magic in the same field as Fiendfyre perhaps.

By the time the conflict had ended it was already too late. The damage had been done and they were caught in the emotion of it all. Watch Julie Walters' face during the end of this scene. It's heartbreaking.

You could see Arthur and Lupin I believe it was trying to control the flames before Ginny ran out to Harry. It seemed like a special type of magic in the same field as Fiendfyre perhaps.

By the time the conflict had ended it was already too late. The damage had been done and they were caught in the emotion of it all. Watch Julie Walters' face during the end of this scene. It's heartbreaking.

Yea, I totally accept the fact that they didnt do anything right away, Bellatrix was taught by Voldemort, so I'm sure her powers are vast enough to create something more destrutive than basic fire, I just wish she didnt just stroll up to the place like nothings wrong with that :P

Another Pet Hate I had was how in the Goblet of Fire, it was Neville who helped Harry with the Gillyweed, and not Dobby, it doesnt explain how they managed to get a hold of it so quickly or anything.
Dobby plays a major part in the last book and I feel the films just give him a sort of cameo appearance and a bit of a joke, when actually if it wasnt for him, book 7 would have had a much nastier ending?!

I have to agree that the burning of the Burrow was a waste of time and film. It added nothing, it explained, nothing, everyone went back to school as though nothing had happened, and it was never mentioned again....period. So, what was the point?

They could have used that time (as well as time from the cafe scene with Harry and the waitress and Bellatrix cavorting through the Great Hall destroying the crockery) for Dumbledore's funeral at the end, and the Phoenix song. Those, to me, were two of the most moving parts of the book. The funeral also set up the fact that Dumbledore's wand was entombed with him. Voldemort blows up the tomb to get to it in DH. Or, are they going to leave that out? Probably. Waaaay too scary.

Another useless scene was Ginny's "search" for Harry when she found Hedwig and the luggage in the Burrow kitchen. Why couldn't he have just knocked on the door and have her hug him then? Why did they have to do a "Waltons" with everyone chiming in that if Harry were at the Burrow, they'd know it? How lame.

I was so looking forward to the scene when Dumbledore picked Harry up at the Dursley's. I love that scene in the book, and wanted to see how they would manage it on screen. Must have been too difficult for them.

We haven't seen Dobby since CoS, yet he has a huge part in DH. Wonder how they are going to explain where/how Harry finds him after all those years.

I get a bit tired of Hermoine shouting out answers in both the books and the movies. I love Hermoine, don't get me wrong, but, she's just so overzealous.

The lack of Snape since PoA. His part has been reduced to a walk on now and then. Also the change in Professor Flitwick. Is the choir instructor Flitwick or not? Harry only calls him "Professor" we he meets him at the gate in HBP.

I agree with the person who mentioned the constant changes in key locations and how they're laid out. I realize they can't be 100% each time. But, the change in Hogwarts from SS/PS to PoA, then on and on, has been almost from one film to another. Even the Gryffindor Common Room has changed. The only place that seems the same is the boys' dormitory where Harry, Ron and the rest are. They've done away with the moving staircases and gone to spiral staircases. Guess they're easier...or, maybe they think the shots are more dramatic looking down. Whatever.

Quote, "They could have used that time (as well as time from the cafe scene with Harry and the waitress and Bellatrix cavorting through the Great Hall destroying the crockery) for Dumbledore's funeral at the end, and the Phoenix song. Those, to me, were two of the most moving parts of the book. The funeral also set up the fact that Dumbledore's wand was entombed with him. Voldemort blows up the tomb to get to it in DH. Or, are they going to leave that out? Probably. Waaaay too scary."

In the trailer for the film, there is a still where Voldemort is standing on a white tomb enclosed in a field, holding the Elder wand into the air, wether we actually see him take it off Dumbledore, I dont know, but I think what they are going to show pretty much explains it.

Thanks also for backing up my point about Dobby, to me, it seems film Dobby is just a little bit of comedy, when surely they realised how J.K put him in the books and kept reminding the audience about him for a reason?

Quote, "They could have used that time (as well as time from the cafe scene with Harry and the waitress and Bellatrix cavorting through the Great Hall destroying the crockery) for Dumbledore's funeral at the end, and the Phoenix song. Those, to me, were two of the most moving parts of the book. The funeral also set up the fact that Dumbledore's wand was entombed with him. Voldemort blows up the tomb to get to it in DH. Or, are they going to leave that out? Probably. Waaaay too scary."

In the trailer for the film, there is a still where Voldemort is standing on a white tomb enclosed in a field, holding the Elder wand into the air, wether we actually see him take it off Dumbledore, I dont know, but I think what they are going to show pretty much explains it.

Thanks also for backing up my point about Dobby, to me, it seems film Dobby is just a little bit of comedy, when surely they realised how J.K put him in the books and kept reminding the audience about him for a reason?


That's probably how they're going to handle it. I guess they'll explain that the wand was put in the tomb with Dumbledore somehow.

Yes, I agree. Dobby, Winky, Kreacher, and Hokey, IMO, are put in there as examples of what happens when magic or non-magic people mistreat "lesser" beings. They were there for specific lessons in each of their cases, especially Dobby. I think it was a terrible loss to drop Dobby from the films the way they did. I just wonder how they're going to reintroduce him.

Does anybody have any reasonable explanation as for why they thought that the Room of Requirements had to be changed? It irks me that they felt the need to change it, as if the continuity between films wasn't hard enough to follow...

I guess that, as a book purist, all of my pet peeves follow the constant theme of pointless, unnecessary, and often detrimental changes from the books.

in order of the pheonix dobby was the one who showed him the room of requirement...but who was it in the movie? i forget but i know it was dobby. because making an animated elf tell him instead of a human being is too hard that they cant even get it right...

also in half blood prince they didnt have dobby and kreacher trail malfoy did they? i thoroughly enjoyed that part because it made dobby seem noble and not just a lesser being. i also like when they gain kreachers trust in deathly hallows. it makes me smile. if they dont have it i will be angry....

I agree i hate the a continuity problems from film to film. I know a lot of that exists because there are different directors and the book series hadn't been finished when the earlier films had been released.

The thing is that is one of the interesting things about the books. That they discuss the cabinet that the death eaters come through in HBP in an earlier book. That they show Harry hiding it and discuss throwing that quidditch player in it. The locket in OotP. Dobby popping in and at. Though i don't really think Dobby is all that important of a character, but is a connection.

Also the lack of continuity with the sets is sort of ridiculous at times.

Does anybody have any reasonable explanation as for why they thought that the Room of Requirements had to be changed? It irks me that they felt the need to change it, as if the continuity between films wasn't hard enough to follow...

I guess that, as a book purist, all of my pet peeves follow the constant theme of pointless, unnecessary, and often detrimental changes from the books.

Well, the Room of Requirement does change in look and size according to the user's needs. Fred and George mentioned it becoming a broom closet.

in order of the pheonix dobby was the one who showed him the room of requirement...but who was it in the movie? i forget but i know it was dobby. because making an animated elf tell him instead of a human being is too hard that they cant even get it right...


Neville was the one who did it. And it actually is harder since Dobby costs a lot to CGI, and it's way more work to put in the film.

also in half blood prince they didnt have dobby and kreacher trail malfoy did they? i thoroughly enjoyed that part because it made dobby seem noble and not just a lesser being. i also like when they gain kreachers trust in deathly hallows. it makes me smile. if they dont have it i will be angry....

They kept him in Order of the Phoenix for the exact reason that Jo said they would probably regret it if they did.

Well, the Room of Requirement does change in look and size according to the user's needs. Fred and George mentioned it becoming a broom closet.



Neville was the one who did it. And it actually is harder since Dobby costs a lot to CGI, and it's way more work to put in the film.


well yeah i know it costs alot but it wouldve been nice if they got it right..

They kept him in Order of the Phoenix for the exact reason that Jo said they would probably regret it if they did.

idc if this makes me seem dumb but...that made no sense in my brain. care to elaborate?:hmm:

Jo told the creaters of OoTP to leave Kreacher in the movie because otherwise they will regret it. Which means he will be in DH and a pretty prominent role, im assuming. Had they taken him out of OoTP it would have been more work to introduce him, etc.

That they show Harry hiding it There is a deleted scene in the CoS movie where it shows Harry going into that Vanishing Cabinet when the Malfoys go into Borgin and Burkes. That whole scene is in the film's deleted scenes. Its also shown in ABC Family's versions of the movies. I know its a somewhat weak excuse but it is present in the films. Of course only the die hards would know of it. :/ Discontinuity is rather common in book-to-movie adaptions of a series. Atleast minor discontinuity. The only thing they REALLY needed to do in the film series was a bit more Dobby.

Also the whole Checkov's Gun trope Rowling pulls quite a bit of, is gonna be really hard to work with when spanning this many films with different directors. They are trying their best.

There is a deleted scene in the CoS movie where it shows Harry going into that Vanishing Cabinet when the Malfoys go into Borgin and Burkes. That whole scene is in the film's deleted scenes. Its also shown in ABC Family's versions of the movies. I know its a somewhat weak excuse but it is present in the films. Of course only the die hards would know of it. :/ Discontinuity is rather common in book-to-movie adaptions of a series. Atleast minor discontinuity. The only thing they REALLY needed to do in the film series was a bit more Dobby.

Also the whole Checkov's Gun trope Rowling pulls quite a bit of, is gonna be really hard to work with when spanning this many films with different directors. They are trying their best.

I am aware that there is a deleted scene. I have seen it. The lack of continuity is that it is not the same cabinet and of course the scene is cut so i am not sure if it counts. It would have been more interesting though if it had been the same cabinet.

It isn't the lack of continuity between the books and the films that i dislike. It is the lack of continuity between one film and the next. I realize that a lot of it has to do with there being different directors, but it still annoys me.

Jo told the creaters of OoTP to leave Kreacher in the movie because otherwise they will regret it. Which means he will be in DH and a pretty prominent role, im assuming. Had they taken him out of OoTP it would have been more work to introduce him, etc.

oh i get it. well thats good that theyre putting him into it. just wish they gave more credit to dobby.

Here is a big rant from me that i am sure many will disagree with

One problem with the movie adaptions of the books that i have always had is the changes in Ron's character. He is a lot more afraid in the movies than he is in the books and a lot of his good moments have been taken away or at least changed. I sometimes feel that the makers of the movies solely want Ron there so he can be the but of a lot of jokes. Here are just some examples where Ron has been made to look worse in the movies than he was in the books

- In PS Ron thought of using the Wingardium Leviosa on the troll all on his own but in the movie he required Hermione to remind him. Also in the scene Hermione panicked quite badly (which is understandable) but this was not shown in the movie.

- In PS both Harry and Ron got stuck in the Devil's Snare but neither panicked as Hermione figured out how to free them. In the movie it was only Ron who got stuck in the Devil's Snare and Ron panicked a lot.

- In COS (possibly PoA but i can't remember exactly) Ron yells at Snape for insulting Hermione but in the movie Ron says something like "He's got a point".

- In CoS in the Aragog scene in the book while Ron is terrified he still goes into the forest and doesn't complain about it either. In the movie Ron spends most of the time complaining in a very high pitched voice that he wanted to go back. In the book Ron didn't say anything like that as he wanted to help Hermione and was willing to face his greatest fear in order to do that.

- After the Shrieking Shack in the movie Ron spends several minutes going on about how his leg is going to have to be removed but in the book Ron didn't complain about his broken leg.

- In PoA the Shrieking Shack scene was completely destroyed. In the book even with a broken leg Ron stood up and says "If you want to kill Harry you'll have to kill us too" and in the same scene he fought with Sirius (with a broken leg) and stunned Snape as well. It really was a brave scene for Ron. In the movie however Ron spends the entire scene in the corner seemingly too scared to even move. The writers even gave Ron's best line to Hermione.

- In OotP (movie) Ron's entire Quidditch story is cut (including him winning the cup).

- In OotP (movie) Ron is again used as joke when he tells Hermione that he will go easy on her and then she beats him in a duel.

- In OotP the Grawp scene showed Ron (who wasn't even in the scene) showing his scared face for almost the entire scene while Hermione was shown as reasonably confident after she told Grawp "NO". In the book Hermione was scared for the entire scene and not for one second did she relax around Grawp.

- In HBP (movie) Ron almost seems uninterested when Hermione asks him to Slughorn's party but in the books even though he tried to hide it even Harry could tell Ron was excited.

- In HBP (movie) Ron seems to actually want Hermione to date McLaggen as he tells Hermione that McLaggen fancies her.

- In HBP (movie) they cut the scene with Ginny so from a movie perspective it looks like Ron just started snogging Lavender for absolutely no reason.

- In HBP (movie) at the end when Hermione tells Harry that she and Ron will go with him in search of the horcruxes for some reason Ron is sitting far away while Harry and Hermione have a moment together.

- In HBP (movie) Ron seems to actually want Hermione to date McLaggen as he tells Hermione that McLaggen fancies her.
In this scene, I feel like it's pretty obvious he's telling her this to see what kind of reaction he gets out of her. Testing the waters, seeing if she shows any interest in McLaggan.

- In HBP (movie) they cut the scene with Ginny so from a movie perspective it looks like Ron just started snogging Lavender for absolutely no reason.
Well, he's a teenage boy, and a girl is showing interest in him. It's not so far fetched to think he might want to kiss her! I don't think it's odd or out of place at all.

- In HBP (movie) at the end when Hermione tells Harry that she and Ron will go with him in search of the horocruxes for some reason Ron is sitting far away while Harry and Hermione have a moment together.

Agreed--this is just plain weird. I'm always wondering if Ron can even hear what they are saying! :rotfl:

GingerCat, I actually do agree with you here. I really hate how they take away a lot from Ron and change his character traits in a way. Yes, he plays the comic relief often in the books, but by no means is he weak or a coward.

- In OotP (movie) Ron's entire Quidditch story is cut (including him winning the cup).
I can understand why they cut Quidditch, but I was looking forward to hearing "Weasley Is Our King!"

- In HBP (movie) they cut the scene with Ginny so from a movie perspective it looks like Ron just started snogging Lavender for absolutely no reason.
My only quip with this scene is that non-readers may wonder why Lavender. Sure, she says "hi" to him from the beginning of the movie, but without Ginny's scene it seems weird that he would start snogging Lavender when it's clear that he has a crush on Hermione.

-In HBP (movie) at the end when Hermione tells Harry that she and Ron will go with him in search of the horocruxes for some reason Ron is sitting far away while Harry and Hermione have a moment together.
Probably my biggest pet peeve of HBP. They way it stands, it seems like Ron is not going on their journey to hunt horcruxes or something. It's been the trio from SS/PS and that's the way it should end. This doesn't sit well with me at all!

One of my biggest movie pet peeves is PoA. Just the whole movie. They completely left out the Marauder's story, which is one of my favorites in the series! They made Sirius seem like a maniac and the Shrieking Shack scene was waaaaaaaay too rushed and didn't feel clear to me. I could go on and on, but I'll spare all of you of my antics ;)

i just looked at the first ever post on this topic and it dates back to 2005!!!

how time flies eh?

anyway, pet peeves...

i don't really have any per se, apart from in some areas he acting's a bit dodgy with the trio. but then, i can't really argue about that cos they were kids at the time and were still finding their feet. dan, emma and rupert were fantastic in DH1 and have been ever since the 5th film.

i hated that dumbledore changed to being irish. to me, as a kid that just felt really wrong, as in one film you had an english dumbedore, and then the next he's speaking with an irish accent. basic continuity error or what?

i didn't like how hermione and ron were more or less shoved to the side in films 5 and 6. it was all about harry - harry this, harry that - and yes, i know that the books are written from harry's pov nd that harry's the most important character, but in the books his friends always played a more prominent part than theu do in the films.

i really didn't like how lucius tried to kill harry in COS. i mean, come on, he was in hogwarts, he was bound to get caught!!

wasn't a fan about ron's depiction of ron in POA. i don't think alfonso did his research properly. ron acted like such a coward in that film, whimpering when harry was pretending to be a ghost, shrieking when sirius bit his leg.
just becasue ron is not as reckless as harry, that doesn't make him weak.

and i didn't like how ron was all but forgotten in the HBP ending in the astronomy tower. it's supposed to be 'the trio', not 'harry and hermione'.

for me it was the script, I want the person saying something in the book to say it in the movie, also placement of certain people doing things that others are doing in the books, not good in my book. They also make a lot of assumsions about how people find out about things, this distracts from the movies as well. I will look forward to gettting the extended dvds to see if they put things back in where they belong.

When Harry is in the hospital wing in PoA after the Quidditch match where he falls off his broom, Fred or George say that Harry fell "over 100 feet". He falls way more than 100 feet! (also I didn't know people measured height in feet in Britain)

When Harry is in the hospital wing in PoA after the Quidditch match where he falls off his broom, Fred or George say that Harry fell "over 100 feet". He falls way more than 100 feet! (also I didn't know people measured height in feet in Britain)

People measure heights in feet everywhere. Never have I heard anyone say "he fell over 100 meters!" unless they're speaking mathematically.

I think that while the metric system is the new, "scientific" way of measurement, people still tend to use the imperial system because people are more familiar with it.

One thing that's always confused me is why it's so bright in the hospital wing even though it's the dead of night, right before Harry and Hermione's time traveling excursion.

People measure heights in feet everywhere. Never have I heard anyone say "he fell over 100 meters!" unless they're speaking mathematically.

I think that while the metric system is the new, "scientific" way of measurement, people still tend to use the imperial system because people are more familiar with it.

One thing that's always confused me is why it's so bright in the hospital wing even though it's the dead of night, right before Harry and Hermione's time traveling excursion.

On that note, Harry and Hermione get down the tower super fast! (then again this is super fast Hermione from PS who makes it all the way to Snape at the Quidditch match in record time)

Thanks for the metric clarification. You'd think having lived outside of the U.S for a while I'd know that.

i hated that dumbledore changed to being irish. to me, as a kid that just felt really wrong, as in one film you had an english dumbedore, and then the next he's speaking with an irish accent. basic continuity error or what?

Richard Harris is Irish. Not English.

I agree with you Magicath, that scene where Dan was crying about Sirius, I am sorry to say, made me cringe.
Also, it really annoys me that throughout the series Neville seems to have taken Dobby's place, he gives Harry the gillyweed and he shows Harry the room of requirement, after CoS they basically forget about poor Dobby! (Apart from DH part 1).
And there is nothing at all about Kreacher betraying Sirius which is a main part of the film!!!
In the first few films the trio arn't that good at acting and Emma is really too pretty to be Hermione (who is supposed to be buck-toothed and bushy haired)

It always bothered me that Dobby disappeared after COS. There was no reason to trash him and what Neville does in his place does nothing to develop Neville's character. It's lame.

I guess that in Hollywood, they treat house elves just as badly as they do in the wizarding world!

In this scene, I feel like it's pretty obvious he's telling her this to see what kind of reaction he gets out of her. Testing the waters, seeing if she shows any interest in McLaggan.

-
Well, he's a teenage boy, and a girl is showing interest in him. It's not so far fetched to think he might want to kiss her! I don't think it's odd or out of place at all.


Agreed--this is just plain weird. I'm always wondering if Ron can even hear what they are saying! :rotfl:

oh please. they're all three of them alone on the astronomy tower. rubbish.

My only quip with this scene is that non-readers may wonder why Lavender. Sure, she says "hi" to him from the beginning of the movie, but without Ginny's scene it seems weird that he would start snogging Lavender when it's clear that he has a crush on Hermione.


boys do stupid things all the time.

And there is nothing at all about Kreacher betraying Sirius which is a main part of the film!!!

Excellent point. That whole scene was cut from the movie except for the bits that come immediately before and after it (I think, right?) It's probably because CGI is expensive and since they didn't want to have Kreacher in the movie in the first place, but I think the betrayal is pretty important. It sets up for his redemption in DH1.

Something that sort of annoyed me was after CoS the film makers completely ditched Hermione's bushy hair. Emma couldn't wear the prosthetic teeth for some reason so the least the film makers should have done is keep her bushy hair as that is such a important part of Hermione's physical appearance. It would be like them suddenly changing Ron's hair colour to brown in PoA for no reason.

I would say the one thing that really bothers me about the movies, and keeps me from loving them, rather than really liking them at best, is how they execute what should be emotional scenes. I can't pretend to know the reasoning behind it, but I've noticed that a number of scenes which are serious or emotional in the books somehow lose their steam in their translation to the screen, either because they add inappropriate (read: ill-fitting and unnecessary) humour to the said scenes (such as Ron's "These girls, they're gonna murder me, Harry!" half a second after he is poisoned in HBP, or Dobby's lines in the Malfoy Manor in DH Part 1), or the lines are not delivered with any emotion in the voice or fitting facial expressions (for example, the line in question is mumbled by the actor speaking it, or said in a more lighthearted tone than its supposed to be, etc.). So, for example, I'll be watching an HP film for the first time and thinking "Oh, this scene is coming up, I hope I don't cry too much" and instead I just end up thinking "Meh" (example: everyone holding up their lit wands after Dumbledore's death, instead of the chaos/disbelief and emotion that actually followed such a dramatic event). It's not the case with every serious scene in the films of course, as, for example, Harry's reaction to Sirius' death in the OOTP film really got to me.

Another pet peeve is probably Hermione being turned into a bit of a Mary Sue character in the films, and Ron's character being, for the most part, reduced to comic relief. Also, how most of the films make it seem like Hermione is a better friend to Harry than Ron (that scene at the end of HBP when Ron is practically excluded from what was supposed to be a trio scene about Ron and Hermione insisting that Harry was not going it alone was really irritating). However, Deathly Hallows Part 1 did a lot to fix these problems in my opinion, and it's one of the reasons it's my favourite HP film so far.

There's no Peeves!!...I think they could have inserted him somewhere if they took pains to film the ghosts fluttering all around the Great hall

Also, in HP5(the film) the scene where the Weasley twins take off from school...that was so lamely potrayed.It could have been way better done and again there should have been Peeves saluting to them! :(

The acting doesn't really bother me, i think they're all decent actors. I admit some of Daniels scene's are a bit iffy. The only thing that does bother me is how much they missed out of the book, to a certain extent the movies don't make sence for people who haven't read the books. It annoys me all the questions I get off friends.

There's no Peeves... (lol, Peeves... pet-peeves, get it? Okay.) I think I'd just find it annoying if he was there. But he helps in some few storylines, so he should've been in the movie.

And some of the storylines change, or aren't released strongly when they cut important scenes or even lines in the movie that were important on telling the story in the book.
Like the discussion of Sirius, Lupin, and Snape in the Shrieking Shack, it seemed rash, they could've talked more. If it wasn't for the book, I would say Harry was crazy for doing what he did to Snape right away.

One of my biggest peves about the movies is the layout of Hogwarts. Why cant the entrance hall open directly onto the grounds like in the books? I must admit that the new bridge in Deathly Hallows is an improvement but I would have prefered the books version. Other than that I hate the whole second half of PoA which totally killed the movie and made no sense.



Where can one see side by side/or overlays of the changes in castle...I love the changes...I think it much better, but I get confused at times.

There's no Peeves... (lol, Peeves... pet-peeves, get it? Okay.)

:D Yeah just noticed.

The fact that Dobby is only in 2 movies, when he should be in so many more.
The fact they didn't include Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party.

I can't remember if it's in the film or not, but one of my favourite scenes ever is the one right at the end of GoF when Harry gives his prize money to Fred and George. I'm pretty sure they missed that one out.

And also how in DH Part 1, they didn't show how Kreacher eventually ended up as being fairly loyal to the trio, cooking meals for them every night and so on... It's small and insignificant really, but I thought it was just a nice bit of the book and it really made me change my mind about Kreacher. Whereas my friends who haven't read the books claim him to be 'evil'. In some ways, I guess he is... But primarily I think he's loyal.

And more detail about the Quidditch World Cup would've been nice... Where was Winky?!

I noticed in Prisoner of Azkaban and the movies after it... they kept on wearing Muggle clothing, what is up with that? They look stylish or normal, I wish the Weasleys and the other students or families in the Wizarding World wore it a bit out of style or ridiculously... since they're not that used to Muggle fashion. Even their uniforms turned a bit "Muggle-ish", I wish they sticked to the pointed hats like the one in the Sorcerer's Stone.

And they tend to brush off half-breeds or non-humans who make a big deal in the storyline...

I have only one serious pet peeve when it comes to the movies and that is the coffee shop scene at the beginning of HBP. There was absolutely no reason for this change. The scene from the book with Dumbledore and the Dursley's was funny and actually contributed to the story whereas the coffee shop scene did nothing for the story and portrayed Harry completely out of character.
I have always been able to overlook the movie's other faults but this is the thing that really gets under my skin. I just think we really missed out on a great scene which was swapped for a rather silly one.

Does anybody have any reasonable explanation as for why they thought that the Room of Requirements had to be changed? It irks me that they felt the need to change it, as if the continuity between films wasn't hard enough to follow...

It's inherent in the nature that the room of requirement changes to meet the needs of the person who needs it.

I have only one serious pet peeve when it comes to the movies and that is the coffee shop scene at the beginning of HBP. There was absolutely no reason for this change. The scene from the book with Dumbledore and the Dursley's was funny and actually contributed to the story whereas the coffee shop scene did nothing for the story and portrayed Harry completely out of character.
I have always been able to overlook the movie's other faults but this is the thing that really gets under my skin. I just think we really missed out on a great scene which was swapped for a rather silly one.

I agree- it totally doesn't make sense at all. With Voldermort back & even the Ministry realized it, why would Harry be riding around on various trains in the greater London area? This is the movie where they show DE attacking the Millieum Bridge in the Muggle world.

In the book PS, Hagrid leaves Harry at Paditon Station after shopping at Diagon Alley but Surbiton Station is on an entirely different line (Waterloo line), both of which serve Surrey. I remember from my summer term at Kingston Uni, where Surbiton was my home station, it took changing a couple trains just to get to Paditon Station.

Not much really just some of the plot points. It's just better two treat the books and movies as two completely different things.

My biggest pet peeve is Emma acting in POA through HBP. She moves her eyerbrows too much, she over acts and they ditch her bushy hair!

Also the some certain scenes seem rushed and they cut some many imporant parts from the books :(

I really hate how they gloss over Ron so much in the 6th movie. That last scene where they are talking annoys me SO MUCH. Harry and Hermione are talking about next year and not coming to Hogwarts, and they gave Hermione all of Ron's lines from the book, while you can see Ron slightly in the shot, but not with them until the very end. It just bothers me EVERY time I watch that movie. Though, admittedly, that's not too often, I really didn't like that one, they changed WAY too much.

Seriously, the Burrow being attacked at Christmas?!

I HATED when they let the DE burn down the Burrow in the 6th movie D:
that was simply overdone and annoying. I hated it. As if they forcefully wanted to add more action. BOO.

and then how different Harry, Ron and Hermione are described in the book. siince I saw the movies first I don't care THAT much but it always annoys me when I read the books now.

The Knight Bus scene. I find it so long and unnecessary. It is among my least favorite scenes in the entire series. It's probably up there with the waitress scene in HBP, but since it is so much longer (and the humor so annoying) it ranks as my #1 pet peeve.

I also don't like how much romantic stuff they chose to include in the HBP. It seems too overdone as if they think the audience grew up and now also wants to see some love parts. With the love potion and poisining Ron. I don't know but I think it was unnecessary. I get that we needed Harry to bond with Slughorn but it was still a little boring.

Everything that I thought was annoying has already been said but I know this is not a big deal to most but the interaction between Arthur and Lucius in CoS was just wrong. Lucius has just insulted Arthur's family and all Arthur does in the movie is puff his cheeks and look like an idiot. The Arthur in the book is very royal to his family and would not just stand there and do nothing. Completely out of character.

My main problem is when they add dialogue or parts in which are out of character for a character.

The whole Hermionie calling Ron "Ronald" thing really annoys me because that is not what Hermionie is like. Its really patronising and annoying. She is also overly bossy in the movies. I remember at the beginning of the GOF movie she was shouting at Ron and Harry to get up in a really patronsing and Aunt Petunia tone...that got on my nerves.

There are a few things in the movies which are out of character for Harry. Particularly the "who wants me to open it?" scene in GOF

The added scene in HBP the attack on the burrow didn't annoy me hugely because I accept that movies are different to books and maybe the movie did need a bit action in the middle. HOWEVER the fact that Mrs Weasey (and Mr Weasley? was he there?) just stood there and watched Harry run after Bellatrix was out of character. I'm pretty sure these characters would have ran after Harry and Ginny.

Snape hitting Ron and Harry over the head with books? Maybe that isn't quite as bad as the others but it was still stupid.

My main problem is when they add dialogue or parts in which are out of character for a character.

The whole Hermionie calling Ron "Ronald" thing really annoys me because that is not what Hermionie is like. Its really patronising and annoying. She is also overly bossy in the movies. I remember at the beginning of the GOF movie she was shouting at Ron and Harry to get up in a really patronsing and Aunt Petunia tone...that got on my nerves.

Snape hitting Ron and Harry over the head with books? Maybe that isn't quite as bad as the others but it was still stupid.

Hermione acting as the "owl" between Harry and Ron was so out of character for her. Her tactic in the book was to talk to each of them separately and she always respected each boy's feelings regarding the other. I definitely agree with you that Hermione is portrayed as patronizing and annoying in the movies; this is just one of the many examples throughout!

As for Snape hitting Harry and Ron over the head- I could actually see him doing that. Unlikely, maybe, but I wouldn't put it past him.

Grindelwald tells Voldemort where he could find the wand in the movie something which does not happen in the book. The movie completely changed Grindelwald's character. It might be something minor but it was something I liked about Grindelwald's character; his small change of heart towards the end and realization of his mistakes.

^I believe that was done for the sake of clarity for the (non-reading) audience. Thats why i dismissed it totally.

Oh, there are so many...
Things like leaving Winky out of GoF, Weasley is our King (and all other Quidditch) in OOtP, all of Voldemort's memories out of HBP, Potterwatch, Wormtail's death, and Luna's room (I know it's really not important to the plot, but I'd have loved to see the mural or her friends).

It also bothers me how Hermione is portrayed as much bossier and overly emotional than she is in the books (the Yule Ball scene comes to mind), and I don't like Michael Gambon's portrayal of Dumbledore. He is much less gentle and unflappable as Dumbledore in the books.

I've noticed recently that I'm not a real fan of the wands in the movies. They are quite thick compared to how I imagined them, and I find that the customized handles which some characters have are quite odd.

I don't think it is a real condemnation of the film-makers, it just is a minor irritation for me.

My biggest pet peeve is, while I understand that they cannot follow the books word for word, the "artistic license" that the film makers take is way more than I feel is necessary. The books are fantastic and, to change major parts of them is, to me, an insult the author and a disservice to the fans.

And, I wish they'd have treated them more like the LotR films and less like children's fairy tales. Fantasy can be protrayed and can include children as main characters without being "children's movies."

A popular movie several years ago was "Stand By Me." There were maybe two or three adults in the whole movie. But, it wasn't a children's movie and wasn't treated as such. I think that people can suspend belief enough to believe in magic and, had the HP series been taken seriously by the producers it would have been taken seriously by the public the same way the books have. Unfortunately, many people I've talked to, after seeing the movies, don't want ot read the books because they feel their too childish. What a shame.

My biggest pet peeve is, while I understand that they cannot follow the books word for word, the "artistic license" that the film makers take is way more than I feel is necessary. The books are fantastic and, to change major parts of them is, to me, an insult the author and a disservice to the fans.

And, I wish they'd have treated them more like the LotR films and less like children's fairy tales.


I totally agree with you. My husband and I were commenting on how Peter Jackson stayed true to the characters in the books with the LotR movies. Peter Jackson is a big fan of the Tolkien's masterpiece and actually read the books and the direction of the movies displayed that well. I don't know if many of the HP directors could say the same thing. In my opinion, the first two movies were excellent, but as the books progressed, the subject matter became more serious. I think they tried too hard to keep them PG, but in doing so, severely altered the integrity of the plots and acting, which can be quite disappointing to the thousands of fans who read the books numerous times.

I totally agree with you. My husband and I were commenting on how Peter Jackson stayed true to the books with the LotR movies.

Millions of fans would disagree. Jackson played very fast and loose with the text.

Millions of fans would disagree. Jackson played very fast and loose with the text.

Oops, I left out a key word in my original post. I meant to say "stay true to the characters of the books." I was trying to make a comparison of how some of the HP movies characters deviated from how they were portrayed in the books (example: Gambon's portrayal of DD). I thought PJ did a better job in directing the movies. :-)

Oops, I left out a key word in my original post. I meant to say "stay true to the characters of the books." I was trying to make a comparison of how some of the HP movies characters deviated from how they were portrayed in the books (example: Gambon's portrayal of DD). I thought PJ did a better job in directing the movies. :-)

Agreed. I don't mind chances in the plot between the books and movies as i understand it isn't always possible to be 100% true to the plot but i do think they should have made a greater effort to make sure that the movie characters had the same personality as the book characters.

Movie Harry, Ron and Hermione are quite different to book Harry, Ron and Hermione and i just think this is lazy writing as it is possible to keep the characters in character while in turn still modifying the book into movie form.

I totally agree with you. My husband and I were commenting on how Peter Jackson stayed true to the characters in the books with the LotR movies. Peter Jackson is a big fan of the Tolkien's masterpiece and actually read the books and the direction of the movies displayed that well. I don't know if many of the HP directors could say the same thing. In my opinion, the first two movies were excellent, but as the books progressed, the subject matter became more serious.

I agree. I wish they'd gotten Jackson for HP, or even kept Chris Columbus.

I watched the movies before reading the books, and after the 3rd movie, I had to have an interpreter, because the storyline made no sense to me. Now, after having read the books, I watch the movies for scenes and not plot.

I wish they'd stop adding scenes which have no real relevance (like the Battle at the Burrow in HBP) and stick to filming really potentially good book scenes, such as when Dumbledore and Harry see the Dark Mark over Hogwarts, Dumbledore's reaction, flying back, Dumbledore pleading with Draco, etc. Those could have been movie gold.

I agree. I wish they'd gotten Jackson for HP, or even kept Chris Columbus.

I watched the movies before reading the books, and after the 3rd movie, I had to have an interpreter, because the storyline made no sense to me. Now, after having read the books, I watch the movies for scenes and not plot.

I wish they'd stop adding scenes which have no real relevance (like the Battle at the Burrow in HBP) and stick to filming really potentially good book scenes, such as when Dumbledore and Harry see the Dark Mark over Hogwarts, Dumbledore's reaction, flying back, Dumbledore pleading with Draco, etc. Those could have been movie gold.

I thought Chris Columbus did a great job with the first two films. My husband was fine in following the plot lines in those movies. However, with the subsequent films, he needed me to fill in the holes since I had read the books and he didn't. Btw, I also agree that the Battle at the Burrow scene in HBP was totally unnecessary. I had read somewhere that it was to add much-needed action to the movie. In my opinion, there was plenty of action to be shown when the DEs got into Hogwarts and the fights between Order Members, DAs, and DEs ensued, along with DD and Harry's arrival. Also, the scene between Snape and Harry was way too somber for me. What would it have hurt to have kept that raw emotion in that scene?

So, how do you feel about continuity errors? Honestly, I hate them. For example... we all know Lily Potter was wearing a blue sweater when she died in Philosopher's Stone... but what if there was a flashback in DH Part 2, and she's wearing a bright red shirt with a smiley face and has her hair up in a tight bun? Yeah, that's a continuity error, and I cannot stand them. But what do you think? Do you like them? And are there any in the series-books or movies-that you can't stand?

The added scene in HBP the attack on the burrow didn't annoy me hugely because I accept that movies are different to books and maybe the movie did need a bit action in the middle. HOWEVER the fact that Mrs Weasey (and Mr Weasley? was he there?) just stood there and watched Harry run after Bellatrix was out of character. I'm pretty sure these characters would have ran after Harry and Ginny.


I HATE that scene! Doesnt make sense at all, as if they would have left the burrow that open to attack. Also if Harry was left that unprotected surely Voldemort would have just walked in, slaughtered the rest and took Harry. In the book every building Harry officially stayed in during the holidays was given every protection Dumbledore himself and the ministry could give. I also dont accept that he was protected because of the order members, they were no match for Voldemort had he and a crew of DE turned up, unless Dumbedore was present the building would have so much more protection.

My biggest pet peeve is, while I understand that they cannot follow the books word for word, the "artistic license" that the film makers take is way more than I feel is necessary. The books are fantastic and, to change major parts of them is, to me, an insult the author and a disservice to the fans.

And, I wish they'd have treated them more like the LotR films and less like children's fairy tales. Fantasy can be protrayed and can include children as main characters without being "children's movies."

A popular movie several years ago was "Stand By Me." There were maybe two or three adults in the whole movie. But, it wasn't a children's movie and wasn't treated as such. I think that people can suspend belief enough to believe in magic and, had the HP series been taken seriously by the producers it would have been taken seriously by the public the same way the books have. Unfortunately, many people I've talked to, after seeing the movies, don't want ot read the books because they feel their too childish. What a shame.
I agree with everything you've said here. My biggest pet peeve with the movies came down to the choice of where to make the cuts. In most cases, it felt like a lesser scene was included in place of a pivotal piece of information. In OotP, HBP, and now DH:1, it seems as though the focus has been on romance and action instead of on the true theme of the books (the importance of allowing choices to shape who we become).

I hated all the little things that got changed for no apparent reason, especially in DH pt. 1. In the book, Harry, Ron, and Hermione Disapparate from the wedding to Tottenham Court Road. In the movie, it's a different road that I don't know how to spell. The pamphlets that the witches and wizards are making outside of Umbridge's office - in the book it says "Mudbloods and the Dangers They Pose to a Peaceful Pureblood Society" and in the movie it's "... a Perfect Pureblood Society". If these details are as small and insignificant as you would be inclined to think, why change them at all? Why not just leave them they way JKR intended them to be? I know, I know, I'm nitpicking. I can't help it. These little changes had no point and it bugs me.
Things that aren't properly explained for people who didn't read the books are a pet peeve of mine too. Again, in DH pt. 1, if you didn't read the books, you'd have no idea why Harry is carrying around a broken bit of mirror. You'd also not understand why Kreacher has to obey him all of a sudden.
Okay. I'm off my soapbox now.

If these details are as small and insignificant as you would be inclined to think, why change them at all? Why not just leave them they way JKR intended them to be?

I have uttered these exact words soooo many times. I have no idea why they need to change these things when it would takes the same amount of effort (or less, even) to do it like the books. There are some things I can understand, like not wanting to dye an actor's hair, or substituting Neville for Dobby (which I assume they did because it's more money/effort to do all of the CGI for Dobby), although they still bother me. But there's just no point in changing some of the little things that they change!

Things that aren't properly explained for people who didn't read the books are a pet peeve of mine too. Again, in DH pt. 1, if you didn't read the books, you'd have no idea why Harry is carrying around a broken bit of mirror. You'd also not understand why Kreacher has to obey him all of a sudden.

I just rewatched some of the movies and noticed things like the mirror. I feel like people who only see the movies must think Harry Potter is so stupid. There are so many discontinuities and things that don't really make sense. You don't even notice them if you know the books well, but if you don't know the full story it would take a lot more explanation than they give in the movie for the plot to make sense.

Hermione's eyebrow acting :grumble:

I just rewatched some of the movies and noticed things like the mirror. I feel like people who only see the movies must think Harry Potter is so stupid. There are so many discontinuities and things that don't really make sense. You don't even notice them if you know the books well, but if you don't know the full story it would take a lot more explanation than they give in the movie for the plot to make sense.

For me, that is the worst thing about the movie series! It's not about cutting stuff out, that I dont mind. It's necessary because the movies can't be too long. But dont cut out stuff that is needed to explain the plot and make it understandable....

Most of my friends who havent read the books like HP but dont understand what the series is actually meant to be about and see it as a series of flashy movies. I know that's needed in Hollywood but it is possible to make flashy blockbusters that remain true to the story it's based on and make sense.

They cut too much out. It robs of the movie of depth.

I totally agree with you. My husband and I were commenting on how Peter Jackson stayed true to the characters in the books with the LotR movies.

He didn't.

What bathers me most is it seems like they cut out sceens that are important, and then they add seens that are not needed.

Changing the location of the Burrow!!

I love the scene in CoS when we first see the Burrow. It looks just like I pictured it. I dont understand the change in setting to the middle of a marsh. I absolutely hate it. I miss the chickens and pigs and the look from the 2nd one.

The changing of sets is a major annoyance of mine, I understand each director wanted to bring their own touch and try to learn from their predeccesors mistakes but was it really neccesary to change the sets so much that the series lost its flow and continuity.

1. The boys' "mop" phase in GoF
2. Hermione's lack of bushy hair from PoA onward. I believe this was done for appeal since Emma is the really the main and only girl leading the films
3. Lack of Maurauders explanation
4. In SS, Dumbledore never said that Snape hates Harry so much because James saved Snape's life (so he is in James' debt). I thought this was important.

However, I will never be completely happy with the movies compared to the books. But books and movies are two different things. There are plenty of parts from the movies that I love both as separate entities and representations of the book. But the books will always be first.

He didn't.


Arwen.:rolleyes:

My biggest peeve is about the movies from PoA onward. For some reason, the movies seem to have a greenish bluish tint to them. To me, this changed a lot, and I don't think for the better. It just made Hogwarts seem like an unhappy place... and that's just not true. Sure, the series had started to become a little darker and more mature at that point, but Hogwarts seemed to be the constant source of happiness throughout all of the books. I loved how Hogwarts looked in the first 2 movies...

Besides that, it would be extending/adding scenes in movies which are either useless or not even in the books. I didn't need to see Harry trying to deal with his Monster Book for 10 minutes or the Burrow being attacked. These minutes would have been better used elsewhere.

I still love the movies, but they could have been improved.

Besides that, it would be extending/adding scenes in movies which are either useless or not even in the books. I didn't need to see Harry trying to deal with his Monster Book for 10 minutes or the Burrow being attacked. These minutes would have been better used elsewhere.

Harry's fight with the Monster Book is completely pointless and bothers me to no end. Especially when they could have used that time to explain the Marauders!

After watching GoF today, I have come to the conclusion that my biggest pet peeve is that the lack of explanation. For example, at the end of GoF, Dumbledore mentions "Priori Incantatem," but doesn't explain what that means. Or on the way to the Quidditch World Cup, one of the twins just mentions that the boot is a Portkey, but we are left to infer what exactly a Portkey does. Without explanation of who the Marauders are in PoA, movie-goers don't know who Wormtail is in the opening scene of GoF (a question I'm often asked). Or in DH2, all of a sudden Lupin has a son. I'm not nitpicking- these details are just part of good storytelling, IMO.

It always bothers me how in the movies Ron is completely pushed aside as a bumbling, idiot sidekick. I hate that word, sidekick. He's supposed to be Harry's best friend and companion! Not some annoying guy that hangs around him and Hermione, saying "bloody hell".
I wish he'd gotten a similar treatment to Samwise Gamgee in LOTR. A bit clumsy, yes, but fierce in his own way.

I think my main pet peeves with the movies is that they don't quite know whether they are visual companions to the books, or stories in their own right.

I'm not a book purist, but I am a stickler for consistency - so I wish the films were either simply made for books fans, with no more substance than to indulge die-hards and be a nice visual for the books OR that they stuck to the main feel, story of the book and changed other bits and pieces to better adapt to film.

As they stand, they are neither here nor there. They don't provide enough explanation to be classic films in their own right, but they add in stuff that isn't in the book and doesn't add to the film story arc that disgruntles a lot of book fans. I wouldn't care so much about changes in the films if the films stood on their own without the books but as it is, they rely heavily at times on people having read the books to understand what is going on.

Another thing, that has probably been mentioned many times, is the mirror. I don't really care so much that they left out Sirius giving Harry the mirror, however, what bothers me is how they handled it after discovering the significance, when there was such an easy fix all along!

This was the idea of someone on another board, so I won't take credit, but they came up with the idea that it would have been better to, instead of having Harry suddenly have this shard of mirror in Privet Drive at the start of DH1, have him find this piece of mirror when they are poking around Grimmauld Place a little while after that in the same film. Although this would have been different from the books, at least there would have been an explanation at all, rather than nothing. This would have fit perfectly as well given that the shard that Harry has appears to be broken out of the one that Aberforth has (rather than working as they originally do in the books.)

Like I said, while this would have been different to the books, at least there would have been a satisfying explanation within the films, rather than this piece of mirror showing up out of nowhere. It's such an easy fix to the situation that since I read it, it annoys me to no end that they didn't go with this!

From Lupin on, the movies tended to focus too much on whomever was the DADA professor that year, often at the expense of the rest of the plot.

In the movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix should have been renamed Harry Potter and the Reign of the Pink Umbridge.

It bothers me when they leave out things that I consider important, even if it might just be little things (F.ex: the most important part of Snape's worst memory, real explanation as to who the Mauraders were, when Sirius gave Harry the mirror, how Barty Croutch Jr escaped from Azkaban...).

Especially when they don't bother putting things like this in, and instead add extra romance and "humor" just to make the movies more fun or what. Especially noticeable in HBP, but also in OOTP.

Changing the location of the Burrow!!

I love the scene in CoS when we first see the Burrow. It looks just like I pictured it. I dont understand the change in setting to the middle of a marsh. I absolutely hate it. I miss the chickens and pigs and the look from the 2nd one.

:nod: And I'm not a big fan of the burning burrow in movie 6 (HBP), either. But I definitely agree--I loved how it looked in the 2nd movie as well.

Also, even though this doesn't really affect my watching the films very much, what bothers me is sometimes the twins are dressed identically right down to the last button, sometimes (there's times when they're not dressed identically like in OotP with the famous fireworks scene, and when they're comforting that little boy in the hall). I somehow don't really see Fred and George Weasley dressing completely identically, but then again that's probably more my interpretation of the books than anything. :hmm: Still, I'm not keen on the identical clothes thing.

I'll just comment on the movie I saw most recently - in Goblet of Fire, when Harry and Cedric first arrive at the graveyard, they get a chance to take in their surroundings and Harry yells at Cedric to grab the port key... but neither of them move toward the port key, they both just kind of chill there till Wormtail finally emerges... this makes no sense. They didn't get a chance to react in the book, Cedric got Avada Kedavra'd before Harry and Cedric knew what was coming.

Also, on the Hogwarts Express, Harry addresses a letter to escaped convict Sirius as "Sirius Black." It just irked me since they went to such lengths in the book to keep the identity of the recipient secret for each letter.

Also, on the Hogwarts Express, Harry addresses a letter to escaped convict Sirius as "Sirius Black." It just irked me since they went to such lengths in the book to keep the identity of the recipient secret for each letter.

This was probably to jog the memory of the audience - especially as PoA didn't really delve into the Marauders back-story at all and a lot of people wouldn't have picked up on who 'Padfoot' was.

I'll be forever peeved that Lucius Malfoy has swishier hair than I do.

Biggest peeve is leaving out major plot points from the book, but still alluding to them in some form. I know it's done for 'ease of story-telling', but comes off as confusing sometimes. If you haven't read the books, you'll miss some major plot points, I feel.

Biggest peeve is leaving out major plot points from the book, but still alluding to them in some form. I know it's done for 'ease of story-telling', but comes off as confusing sometimes. If you haven't read the books, you'll miss some major plot points, I feel.

That summed up OotP for my hubby. It was a good thing that I read the book because I had to explain parts of it to him.

I totally agree with you. My husband and I were commenting on how Peter Jackson stayed true to the characters in the books with the LotR movies. Peter Jackson is a big fan of the Tolkien's masterpiece and actually read the books and the direction of the movies displayed that well. I don't know if many of the HP directors could say the same thing. In my opinion, the first two movies were excellent, but as the books progressed, the subject matter became more serious. I think they tried too hard to keep them PG, but in doing so, severely altered the integrity of the plots and acting, which can be quite disappointing to the thousands of fans who read the books numerous times.

I greatly enjoyed Peter Jackson's LotR, but the deviations he made from canon, including some major changes to key characterisations, far exceed anything in the Harry Potter films. The changes in the HP films are very minor, IMO! They mainly take the form of omissions, e.g. leaving out the Marauders backstory. There are no major distortions of characters. Dumbledore sometimes gets a bit cross. Hermione is prettier than her canon self. Ginny is meeker. But they are all very recognisably JKR's characters, and none of this begins to compare with some of the major deviations to key characterisations in Peter Jackson's films. It's a very popular fandom meme, that the LotR films are more faithful than the HP ones, but -- in my opinion, of course -- it's a myth. :)

However: the exposition for non-Tolkien people was very well done.

And that is my peeve with the HP films ... not that they aren't faithful enough (they are extremely faithful), but that the exposition for non-fans is non-existent.

I'm a stickler for detail, so my list would be way too long ... having said that ... would have been so difficult to make Harry's eyes green?????

Only as difficult as it would've been to have young Lily's eyes the same colour as Harry's.

I have some.. not many.. for the HP movies.

1. Lots of characters say that Harry has his mother's eyes.. Harry has blue eyes, young lily has brown eyes, adult lily has greenish-brown..

2. teenage james potter has brown eyes, adult james potter has blue eyes... so really... harry has his father's eyes..

Harry not having green eyes really bugs me. Also Hermione not having bushy hair and having dirty/darkish blonde hair in PoA through DH2 is really annoying.

Maybe I'm just picky, lol.

I'm a stickler for detail, so my list would be way too long ... having said that ... would have been so difficult to make Harry's eyes green?????

I've heard that early on they did try to give Daniel green-colored contact lenses, but the lens irritated his eyes, so eventually the idea was dropped.


Only as difficult as it would've been to have young Lily's eyes the same colour as Harry's.

Yeah, I agree. They definitely dropped the ball on that one; especially since Snape told Harry that he had his mother's eyes not 10 minutes before that scene.

I don't mind Daniel Radcliffe having blue eyes, the point is that he has Lily's. If all the iterations of her had blue eyes, which none do, I would have no problem whatsoever.

I greatly enjoyed Peter Jackson's LotR, but the deviations he made from canon, including some major changes to key characterisations, far exceed anything in the Harry Potter films. The changes in the HP films are very minor, IMO! They mainly take the form of omissions, e.g. leaving out the Marauders backstory. There are no major distortions of characters. Dumbledore sometimes gets a bit cross. Hermione is prettier than her canon self. Ginny is meeker. But they are all very recognisably JKR's characters, and none of this begins to compare with some of the major deviations to key characterisations in Peter Jackson's films. It's a very popular fandom meme, that the LotR films are more faithful than the HP ones, but -- in my opinion, of course -- it's a myth. :)

However: the exposition for non-Tolkien people was very well done.

And that is my peeve with the HP films ... not that they aren't faithful enough (they are extremely faithful), but that the exposition for non-fans is non-existent.

I know!! I remember going "I dont remember Arwen being a superheroine!" I mean, yeah i know its been like 20 or so years since i read those books but yeesh! I remember that much! I also remember Gimli not being comedy....? You are absolutely right in the fact that the only thing HP is got against it is that there are omissions and a bit of Continuity Lockout for non-readers.

From Lupin on, the movies tended to focus too much on whomever was the DADA professor that year, often at the expense of the rest of the plot.
Actually, this being MISSING from HBP bothered me pretty bad and its not just because its Snape. :yuhup: Sure, i would have loved more Snape scenes, but the fact we never SEE HIM TEACHING DADA AT ALL in that film irked me. Its like, dude! Hes wanted that job for what seems like millenia and we dont get to see him teach it? I call foul!

Only as difficult as it would've been to have young Lily's eyes the same colour as Harry's.

Apparently she did wear blue contacts, but for some reason her eyes still ended up looking brown. I think they should try to change it for the DVD release but that might just be wishful thinking on my part, it would be awesome but I doubt they'll actually bother.

My pet peeves:

1). Wrong eye colors
2). Wrong hair colors
3). Ginny in HBP
4). Dumbledore's pony-tail beard

Apparently she did wear blue contacts, but for some reason her eyes still ended up looking brown.

Yes, the young Snape actor confirmed this in an interview.

Wrong eye color(Harry and Lily), Hermione's hair texture, Dumbledore's hair/beard length and color, Hermione when she calls Ron as "Ronald", the Dementors that fly->aren't they supposed to glide on the ground? Ron and Harry's hair-length in GOF (way too long)

I have always liked it when Hermione calls Ron, Ronald. I think that is because it is my dad's name and my mother used to do that to him. It just seemed real to me.

Wrong eye color(Harry and Lily), Hermione's hair texture, Dumbledore's hair/beard length and color, Hermione when she calls Ron as "Ronald", the Dementors that fly->aren't they supposed to glide on the ground? Ron and Harry's hair-length in GOF (way too long)

I was completely in love with Dan and Rupert's hair back then! :love: :rotfl:
But it does look strangely out of place compared to the other movies.

I'm with you on the Dementor thing though. That really bugged me. I think I'd imagined them much more like "Death" is often portrayed in art/movies. Tall figures, although maybe not that as skinny as "Death", with a long black cape and a hood that covers their face.
Dementors should be gliding, maybe slightly hovering, but definitely not flying.

The biggest things for me are:
1.Neville fainting in Herbology and then making him out to be GoF when he was good at it all the way through (making a mockery of him 'tisk tisk')
2.The new Dumbledore seems to get angry too easily and seems angry all of the time when he was never angry in the books except when his students were abused in some (such as being 'man-handled').
3.In GoF Ron is made out to be the bad person in the fight betwen him and Harry but in the book J.K manages to put it across that we should feel sorry for both of them, using Hermione as her voice... This is something else in the book Hermione is J.K's 'voice' at time and puts across her ideas but in the film she is just portrayed as a know-it-all who is just there as Harry's sidekick!
But I still love watching them :D

sorry if these were already mentioned in the previous 60 pages:

Winky not being in the GoF movie at all

DH not having the Dudley handshake, Wormtail strangling himself with the silver hand, and, most importantly, not having any part of Kreacher's Tale.

I thought DH did an excellent job with The Prince's Tale (so glad, I would have been so disappointed had the movie flubbed that like they did in OOtP)

I have always liked it when Hermione calls Ron, Ronald. I think that is because it is my dad's name and my mother used to do that to him. It just seemed real to me.
I agree. I think it's very much in character too.

I'm actually quite okay with small, physical details that are not spot on. But something I just can't stand is how, in DH pt 2, Bellatrix's and Voldemort's bodies just dissolves into thin air. The victory scene in general should have stayed more true to the book. Harry all alone defeating Voldemort, no applauding and cheering. Just...argh!

I loved the last movie, so if the victory scene would have been more book-like I would have treasured the movie as the best movie of all time (kind of...).

There are a few things throughout the movies that have the power to irk me, but three of the main things I find difficult to overlook are...

As so many have mentioned before me, Lily and Harry's unmatched eye colour.

Hermione's eyebrows throughout the entire saga...someone needed to tame those hyperactive beasties.

And the VERY noticeable mistake that occurs during Lily's sorting ceremony in The Prince's Tale - Deathly Hallows Part 2 sequence. After being sorted into Gryffindor Lily promptly seats herself down at the appropriate house table between two other first year boys, James and Sirius (as shown a little further into the TPT sequence), who happen to be wearing Gryffindor ties instead of the requisite Hogwarts ties that the first years don during their Hogwarts arrival, house sorting and indeed during the feast. Unless it was a preemptive assumption on James and Sirius' part that they would be sorted into Gryffindor and brought along house ties in preparation?...Highly unlikely.

My pet peeves:
1. Lack of Peeves (lol)
2. Lack of Regulus (five seconds in HBP? Really? At least give him his proper flashback scene.)
3. The lack of Pettigrew's death
4. Lack of Teddy Lupin
5. Ginny. In general. She was great in the books but she was so boring in the movies.

My pet peeves:
4). Dumbledore's pony-tail beard

HA!!! Never gave it a second thought but I will now!!! =^D

The eye color thing never bothered me but I like blue eyes more than green and had only a passing though in DHp2 that Lily's eyes didn't match harry's

MINE:

1) Harry's hair in all movies but the third where it was IMO just the right length and just the right shagginess for Harry (GoF was abissmal! no real opinion on the first two movies tho, cute little kid hair)

2) Hermione's reaction to Ron's return in DHp1 - too melodramatic, I wanted her to open-palm slap him not shove him lightly with closed fists, and I wanted her to tackle Harry to get her wand from him not hold out her hand and ask politely... I mean, c'mon! She was ****** with him!

3) the general lack of genuine interaction between the young actors, they all seem to stand around gawping at each other until they have a line to say. People who've known each other for seven years have a more natural physical interaction than they portrayed and they've known each other longer than that because of the breaks in filming!

4) Ginny. In all ways.

5) the way Hermione says harry's name: "Har-reeeeeee!!" - oh wait, that's a pet peeve from the Jim Dale narrated audiobooks =^J (Come to that tho, what's up with Ginny's ultra-deep man voice, Jim??)

6) the lack of Snape's utter cruelty to Harry - very present in the books, virturally non-existant in the films

7) Harry's parent's age - they look like in they're in their forties! Did their ghosts keep aging after they died? they were like 21 when they were killed, not 41!

I'm sure I can think of more but I'll stop there...