What are your movie pet peeves?

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.

Regarding the ties- It's a magic school! (as in, a school fo rmagic, though I suppose Hogwarts is magic itself.) Perhaps a prefect took it upon himself to do some wanding and change the colors on the ties as the kids joined the house? That's an easy fix if it really bothers you! lol. I didn't even notice the ties, but there ya go!

Harry's parent's age also bothered me. They were way too old from the very beginning, but they did a slightly better job making them look younger later on. It did seem like they continued to age after they died.

Harry's parent's age also bothered me. They were way too old from the very beginning, but they did a slightly better job making them look younger later on. It did seem like they continued to age after they died.
I think it is an inescapable reality of a film series lasting 10 years that dead characters will show signs of age - if the same actors are used and expensive/time-consuming aging techniques are not employed. The aging of the dead in films and television is prolific, so I have come to accept that aspect of those films/shows.

I do agree that Harry's parents and the other Marauder-aged characters were presented as quite a bit older than described in the books. It is a minor irritation of mine, but for the most part I can look past it because of the similar ages of the actors of that generation. What is more difficult for me to overlook are the, as I see it, irritatingly botched appearances of Sirius and Lupin (and Pettigrew, though to a lesser extent because I appreciate how rat-like they made him. But at times I think it was overdone).

I actually think that Harry's parents, well James mostly, looked older at the beginning of the series then they did later on. Even Lily. It was something about their clothing that was not right. They did start off way too old and like you said the Marauder's generation was in general way too old in the series.

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!

Yeah, a bit. The thing is, though, Harry sees them--even needs them--as parental figures, and he might have trouble doing that if they look like they might be your mates. By the end of DH2, he's pushing 18 and if they didn't age after death, they'd be only a couple of years older. So Sirius would look more like James's dad than James would look like Harry's! Just something that might not be an issue for the books, but would be for the films.

As for the maurader age people being a little older, I think this is spot on an intentional. To me, the series makes it very clear that it takes place in the present day, instead of ten years previous. (The first book is 91, the first movie is 01, and then each subsequent is obviously the next year.) That said, everything in the past happened at the same dates. This is confirmed by the Riddle grave. So I think the kids are all born a decade later than they are in the books, so the parents (and people they went to school with) are ten yeas older. Voldy either had an extra ten years of terrorizing, or had ten extra yeas of nefarious plotting.

But doesn't it say on the grave that James and Lily died in 1981 or whatever year it was? I don't think you are right about that. Also the 90s was not all that different from now except for the internet and cell phones and that is not at all important to HP.

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)
Yea I missed that one. They had that one in the extras once it came out on dvd. The effect was tempered somewhat by the dang green screen though :p :lol:. Still a good scene.

:agree: about not having Kreacher's tale. They probably couldn't include it due to time constraints. There's only so much that they could have included movie wise. If they would have included everything, it would have made for a very long movie :lol:.

Definitely :). I thought they did a very nice job with that.

But doesn't it say on the grave that James and Lily died in 1981 or whatever year it was? I don't think you are right about that. Also the 90s was not all that different from now except for the internet and cell phones and that is not at all important to HP.

No, the death dates are purposefully blurred out. Though there is a date on a newspaper in the first film, which says 2001. The clothing styles (when applicable, (and lets face it, there's a lot more muggle clothing prevalent in the films than the books) are newer styles. Also, there was some sort of radio or something in the Dursley home in one film that wasn't available in the nineties, but was in the year that the movie was set (if the film was set in the 200whatever. But it wasn't the newest model which wasn't available in the year the film was shot. They purposefully made sure it wasn't an anachronism.

4). Dumbledore's pony-tail beard
Oh come now! i love the pony tail beard! He wears it like a boss!

As for the ages of Harry's parents and others the same age, no, that didnt bother me at all. Im just weird that way i guess. I feel it makes sense in the films.

But doesn't it say on the grave that James and Lily died in 1981 or whatever year it was? I don't think you are right about that. Also the 90s was not all that different from now except for the internet and cell phones and that is not at all important to HP.
I couldnt read the death dates. I should check that....I do know that in PS/SS, the little shield with James' name on it for him being a seeker, says 1985 on it i think.

which supports my theory that everything happens in the same time frame except an extra ten years of voldy rule and the kids being born a decade later.

about not having Kreacher's tale. They probably couldn't include it due to time constraints. There's only so much that they could have included movie wise. If they would have included everything, it would have made for a very long movie

Take out the Harry/Hermione dance and there you go!! Time for Kreacher's Tale!

I also hated the way the clouds formed a Grim during the Quiddich game during PoA. I saw that movie before I read the book. I remember being really confused when I found out the Grim was nothing more than an animagus. If it wasn't a sign of bad things to come, why the heck did it form in the clouds? Much later I realized it was just something stupid and extraneous they included in the movie.

I don't remember whether that is true or not about the dates, but i find it completely irrelevant. Even if the marauders are supposed to be 30 instead of 20 they are still way too old looking especially in the first film. It is a pet peeve from the very first time i saw the first film. Does it ruin the films? By no means. It is completely inconsequential, but still a pet peeve.

I don't remember whether that is true or not about the dates, but i find it completely irrelevant. Even if the marauders are supposed to be 30 instead of 20 they are still way too old looking especially in the first film. It is a pet peeve from the very first time i saw the first film. Does it ruin the films? By no means. It is completely inconsequential, but still a pet peeve.

My only thought about why they were portrayed as so much older in the first movie could be that it's not an 'accurate' representation of Harry's parents when they died but a harry/mirror manifestation of the parents Harry longed for and therefore he may have imagined them older than they actually were when they died because he technically didn't know their age.

It still bothers me, though. Plus, though it's been a very long time since I've watched SS and the scene was very dark, I seem to recall Mirror-James wearing a sweater circa 1980's Bill Crosby. Bad costuming. Just bad.

Also, I think they could have found some 30-year-old actors that looked much younger in general (for god's sake, Leo DiCaprio looked like he was 12 years old until just the last couple years, it shocked the bejezes out of me when I learned Johnny Depp was in his mid-forties - thought at most he was mid-thirties, Salma Hayek still looks like she's 25 and she was born in 1966 - casting young-looking people can be done!)

I agree that the costume for James was bad and the hair. I just do in general think 30 year olds don't really look that old. I know 45 year olds that look younger then James look in the mirror.

Now that I've been sorted into Ravenclaw on Pottermore, it annoys me that WB got the Ravenclaw emblem all wrong -- a raven instead of an eagle? Obviously the designer never read the books. Too bad, I won't be buying any Ravenclaw items from WB now.:upset:

I couldnt read the death dates. I should check that....I do know that in PS/SS, the little shield with James' name on it for him being a seeker, says 1985 on it i think.

Well, 1985 would have been sure proof of them having moved the Potter timeline up a decade or so, but as far as I can tell (on my copy, at least), the date for James Potter, seeker, is 1972. We also see R.J.H. King, 1969, and M.G. McGonagall, 1971. (I think the Rowling-interview-based timeline has Professor McGonagall born in the mid-1930s, and even if her birth were advanced a decade or so, would have been too old to play Quidditch as a student in 1971. It must therefore be a niece or nephew--a child of either Robert, Jr., or Malcolm--or else someone unrelated.)

I can't read the Potter tombstone either. I'll see if I can't find a higher-resolution screenshot.

EDIT: This picture (http://phoenixweasley.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dh1-1.jpg) seems to show the birth dates as 1960. The death dates are still indistinct, but the birth dates are as in the books, and if their ages were unchanged, they would have died in 1981.

I know it's been said but, probably the thing that bothered me the most was that Harry and Lily didn't have the same eyes! Since they made such a big deal about "but your eyes, you've got your mother's eyes", they should have at least been the same color! It's not hard to put in colored contacts. Also, Hermione's hair was only frizzy and bushy for like one movie, after that its all sleek and perfectly curled.
Another one that just confuses me is the Harry/Hermione dance in DH1. I mean I actually liked it and thought it was cute, but I feel like they should have just put it in the DVD deleted scenes for us to discover later. It kind of broke up the plot of the movie and confused me.

I'm only going to put pet peeves on this list, not gigantic ones, like the Marauder backstory being left out, or that horrible waitress scene in HBP, or I could go on forever. This list will probably still be a mile long as it is. :lol:

* Lily and James being too old. Whilst I like the casting otherwise, the ages just ruin some of the sadness of their deaths... they were supposed to have had their lives tragically cut short at 21. Them being in their 30's/40's just doesn't have the same impact.

* Narcissa’s skunk hair. Why God why?! It just looks so stupid.

* Freeze frame ending in PoA.

* Hermione’s dress being the wrong colour in GoF. Really bothered me the first time I saw it. I don't mind as much now (and it is a gorgeous dress) but I still wish it had been right. Same thing for the wedding in DH actually. The red dress was nice, but why couldn't they have just made it purple like the book?

* Timing in Time Turner scene is a bit off. It's only noticeable after a ton of viewings but it's really really irritating. Like, when Harry sees himself cast the Patronus, the light fades away enough for him to see himself before he passes out. In the Time Turner bit, you can see Harry pass out several seconds before the light would've faded enough for him to see himself. Geez, it's done with CG, how hard could it possibly have been to fix that? Also, the second time Lupin transforms it takes a huge amount of time less and there is much less time between him transforming and Harry taking off after Sirius, though of course that is completely understandable, as the movie doesn't have enough time to show such a long scene again, but wow it's still annoying.

* I was never bothered by flying Dementors. What I was bothered by, was their attempt to Kiss Harry on the train and during Quidditch. Either that or they weren't trying to Kiss him at the Lake. It was confusing. They should have done the happiness sucking the same way as the blurry face thing like in the movies, and the Kiss the same way as in the books to avoid confusion. Also, Ssirius' soul going back into his body? What even is this?

* Muggle clothes. Particularly on the adults.

* Werewolf looking like a cross between a monkey and a greyhound. Actually, that scene in general. Sirius and Hermione acting like the most abysmal morons on the face of the Earth by trying to talk him out of it? If saying 'nice doggy' to a werewolf worked, it wouldn't be considered such a problem would it? :lol:

* In HBP in the scene just before the Burrow burned down Tonks says that she and Remus need to leave because 'the first night of the cycle is always the worst' or something, which indicates there is a full moon. Why then exactly do two werewolves spend the next 10 minutes running around in the dark without changing?

* I really wish Fudge's bowler hat had been lime green. I know it would've looked odd and out of place in the gloomy scenes he's in, but still, I've always really loved that hat! :lol:

* I was extraordinarily annoyed with how weak they made Fleur appear in the maze. She was running around freaking out over nothing. Dumbledore's line about 'losing yourselves in the maze' was just so so unbearably stupid. There was nothing in the maze except hedges and wind! Either put the creatures and spells that are supposed to be there in, or leave them out, but don't leave them out and then still have ominous, over-dramatic lines about how 'the maze will test you,' 'you could lose yourselves' blah blah blah.

* Viktor's eyes being glazed over when he was Imperiused. You're not supposed to be able to tell when someone's Imperiused. I get that they had to do it to make it clear to non-readers, there really was no other way to do it, but wow it's still annoying. :lol: Same thing with the Polyjuice not changing voices for everyone but Barty Jr.

* WHY. IS. TONKS’. HAIR. BROWN?!?!?!

* Dumbledore's suit not being purple in HBP. I was really looking forward to seeing it *sobs theatrically* And I could swear Rita Skeeter's robes were meant to be pink in her first scene, not green. And Lockhart's are always supposed to be blue or purple or something. Again, how hard could it be to do it right?

* Shaftsbury Avenue instead of Tottenham Court Rd. Again how in the name of all that is holy could it be so difficult to do correctly?

* I liked most of the 'pointless' scenes in PoA like the toad choir, the Fat Lady singing and the animal lollies. But I don't like the "I’ll come back later" maid. It was funny the first time. After that, it's 'why in the hell do you exist?' And I absolutely loathe the Whomping Willow smiting those poor birdies.

* Lucius hitting Draco with his cane in GoF. Hilarious? Yes. But is there any indication that Lucius beats his child in the book? No. No there is not. Whilst he's hardly going to win a Dad of the Year award, he is not that bad. People behaving so vastly out of character really annoys me.

* Lily’s clothes change between PS and DH. In the PS flashback she's wearing a black jumper, in the Prince's Tale she's wearing some kind of hideous blue dress. I would be willing to accept the inconsistancy with the books (she's supposed to be wearing pyjamas, I assume, given the time DH said they were killed at) because there's no way they could've known that when they filmed PS, but why did they have to change it so clumsily in DH? There's hardly any time between showing her getting AK'd in the black jumper, and showing her lying on the ground in the blue dress and it just looks so stupid. And, if they were going to change it, why wasn't it to something consistant with the book?

* Dumbledore hitting Ron’s broken leg. Not funny, horrible characterization.

* Bill’s hair's not long enough and he doesn't have a fang earring.

* Tom in PoA and Mrs. Figg acting like they have mental disablities as some cheap pathetic attempt at humour.

* "I love magic."

* Levicorpus in OotP

* I just hated The Seven Potters Battle. Flying into a Muggle highway. Ugh.

* Similarly, flying next to ship in Order

* Another in the series of 'no more effort to do right:' wrong coloured spells and spells that don't do what they're supposed to. Every spell seems to be colourless and just blast people backwards.In the maze in GoF, Expelliarmus knocked Viktor out and left his wand in his hand. In DH, Stupefy knocked Yaxley backwards, but not out.

* Contradiction about who tortured Neville’s parents. In GoF, Karkaroff says Barty Jr did it, and in OotP Neville says it was Bella. How hard would it be to put in one blasted line to confirm that they did it together? Non readers must be rather confused :lol:

* Bella looks scared of Harry when he tries to Crucio her in OotP. What?

* Molly looks far too scared of Bella during their duel in DH. She was supposed to be furious. Instead she got this look of "I wish I hadn't done that" on her face as soon as they started fighting.

* In the Prince's Tale, Lily should have been Sorted before James and her eyes should be the same colour as Daniel Radcliffe's. Other than the eyes I thought she was a great choice for young Lily.

Don't get me wrong, I love the movies and I'm not a book purist by any means, in fact I think some things were done better in the movies. But some of these mistakes... it's like they went out of their way to do it wrong!

* Lily and James being too old. Whilst I like the casting otherwise, the ages just ruin some of the sadness of their deaths... they were supposed to have had their lives tragically cut short at 21. Them being in their 30's/40's just doesn't have the same impact.

EXACTLY! Plus, people in their thirties generally look like they're in their twenties and don't 'change' as drastically (physically) as like a 15 year old would aging to 25. This comment, plus James' Bill Crosy sweater puts a nail in this coffin for me. (I don't agree with the casting, though, but that's to do with how I picture them from the books)

* Narcissa’s skunk hair. Why God why?! It just looks so stupid.

HA!! Agreed.

* Hermione’s dress being the wrong colour in GoF.

* Muggle clothes. Particularly on the adults.

* I really wish Fudge's bowler hat had been lime green.

* Dumbledore's suit not being purple in HBP.


I don't really mind changing Hermione's dress color, but I thought it was really ugly in the movie and far too girly-girly for my impression of book-Hermione, but that's just me. As for the muggle cloths and the lime green hat, I don't mind these changes either because I think it would be more difficult to for a non-book fan to see Fudge in a serious scene with a completely mood-killing hat on his head or understand the gravity of meeting Tom Riddle when Dumbledore is rockin' a lavender leisure suit (see comments about 70's fashion below). Similar reasoning with the muggle cloths, for non-book fans they'd be wondering why all the dudes are wearing dresses. It did mean we missed out on the "I like a nice, healthy breezy round my privates" line from GOF tho. =^(

My pet peeve in regards to the muggle cloths is why everyone was dressed like the movie was set in the 70's, with the brown and orange sweaters and the corduroy-looking pants on the twins all the time... yuck. The fashion in the 70's went away for a reason.

Come to that, what was up with the 70's-meets-Justin-Beiber hair in GOF? Please, someone take a buzzer to their heads!


* Werewolf looking like a cross between a monkey and a greyhound. Actually, that scene in general. Sirius and Hermione acting like the most abysmal morons on the face of the Earth by trying to talk him out of it? If saying 'nice doggy' to a werewolf worked, it wouldn't be considered such a problem would it? :lol:

TOTALLY AGREE! I get that they wanted sort of a 'new take on a werewolf' rather than just regurgitating Teen Wolf back at us but c'mon, people. It didn't even have hair! It was like Weird Naked Lupin!

* In HBP in the scene just before the Burrow burned down Tonks says that she and Remus need to leave because 'the first night of the cycle is always the worst' or something, which indicates there is a full moon. Why then exactly do two werewolves spend the next 10 minutes running around in the dark without changing?

Or how about, with the start of 'his cycle', why was he out at all if he would change the moment the moon came out?? Had a problem with this in POA, too when he changes only after the moon comes out from behind a cloud. If that's the case (that he only changes under full moon LIGHT) than why didn't he just STAY INSIDE on nights where there was a full moon?? Hmm??

* I was extraordinarily annoyed with how weak they made Fleur appear in the maze. She was running around freaking out over nothing. Dumbledore's line about 'losing yourselves in the maze' was just so so unbearably stupid. There was nothing in the maze except hedges and wind! Either put the creatures and spells that are supposed to be there in, or leave them out, but don't leave them out and then still have ominous, over-dramatic lines about how 'the maze will test you,' 'you could lose yourselves' blah blah blah.

I get that they cut the challenges in the maze for time reasons in the movie but the whole maze sequence sucked. I agree, what's to be scared of in their other than wind. Totally lame sequence in a tournament that is supposed to test their magical ability - there were hardly any spells used!


* I liked most of the 'pointless' scenes in PoA like the toad choir, the Fat Lady singing and the animal lollies. But I don't like the "I’ll come back later" maid. It was funny the first time. After that, it's 'why in the hell do you exist?' And I absolutely loathe the Whomping Willow smiting those poor birdies.

My take on the whomping willow/birdies stuff was an amusing way to show the passage on time, something the later books didn't do very well to me. One day it's like sunny and 70 and everyones out in the courtyards, then next there's two feet of snow on the ground.

* Tom in PoA and Mrs. Figg acting like they have mental disablities as some cheap pathetic attempt at humour.

Tom didn't bother me but Mrs. Figg annoyed the BEEPITY-BEE-BEEP out of me! Mostly to do with how underplayed she was - harry was just about kissed by a dementor and she's not wide-eyed, she's not breathing heavily, she doesn't have any reaction other than her lame delivery of the "good heaven's, and they told me you were intelligent" line. Boo, i say. Boo.

* "I love magic."

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

* I just hated The Seven Potters Battle. Flying into a Muggle highway. Ugh.

* Similarly, flying next to ship in Order

Really liked the sequence in OOTP in that it gave a muggle context to a world we have only seen through 'magical' eyes. Reminded me that this story took place in England and that despite what was going down in the wizarding world the muggle one just kept truckin' along...



FINALLY! The reason I come back to this thread: I thought of another pet peeve of mine:

Hermione introducing Luna.
Yes, Hermione is a know-it-all. Yes, JKR does use her as a good expositionary tool, and yes, Kloves did too. BUT SHE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING. (example: it starts with "d" and ends with "eathly hallows") It made no sense to me that Hermione would know Luna but Ron and Harry wouldn't, and more over, that she would so casually call her Looney. What would have been wrong with Luna introducing herself (everyone ELSE wants to introduce themselves to Harry, why not Luna??) and to have some unlikable no-name character saying "you mean LOONEY lovegood" as a way to introduce her nickname and off-beat character? hated, hated, hated.

PHEW! way more than I meant to post but that's what happens on your lunch break sometimes...

I know it's been said but, probably the thing that bothered me the most was that Harry and Lily didn't have the same eyes! Since they made such a big deal about "but your eyes, you've got your mother's eyes", they should have at least been the same color! It's not hard to put in colored contacts.

Well...it didn't bother me that much...but I think it was said somewhere that Dan is allergic to green contacts. :p Dan actually has blue contacts. However I do agree that they can make them look the same by giving both actors blue contact lenses.

I don't really mind changing Hermione's dress color, but I thought it was really ugly in the movie and far too girly-girly for my impression of book-Hermione, but that's just me.

Yeah, I though it was a bit overly girly, but I suppose they needed it to be so the 'transformation' into prettiness would be more dramatic, since she was always pretty in the movies anyway.

My pet peeve in regards to the muggle cloths is why everyone was dressed like the movie was set in the 70's, with the brown and orange sweaters and the corduroy-looking pants on the twins all the time... yuck. The fashion in the 70's went away for a reason.

I agree with that as well. But I suppose they might have been trying to make them look a bit less Muggle-like by having them not in recent fashions. Because really, it would be harder to see them as wizards if they're wearing the same things as you see everyone on the street with. And you know, I think I did see JK Rowling say something about wizards having a hard time keeping up with Muggle fashions because the change so quickly.


Or how about, with the start of 'his cycle', why was he out at all if he would change the moment the moon came out?? Had a problem with this in POA, too when he changes only after the moon comes out from behind a cloud. If that's the case (that he only changes under full moon LIGHT) than why didn't he just STAY INSIDE on nights where there was a full moon?? Hmm??

Yes exactly. As if you'd actually go over to someone's place for what seemed like not much of a reason on the night you were going to turn into a werewolf. I guess it's just the rule of drama for the latter, but it definitely creates a plot hole.

I get that they cut the challenges in the maze for time reasons in the movie but the whole maze sequence sucked. I agree, what's to be scared of in their other than wind. Totally lame sequence in a tournament that is supposed to test their magical ability - there were hardly any spells used!

Yes! I know they couldn't have everything the book had for time reasons, but there should have been at least one creature or spell. They wasted so much time with that stupid dragon chase, they should have done some thing else in the maze instead.

My take on the whomping willow/birdies stuff was an amusing way to show the passage on time, something the later books didn't do very well to me. One day it's like sunny and 70 and everyones out in the courtyards, then next there's two feet of snow on the ground.


I agree that showing the whomping willow shake the autumn leaves and the snow off was a good way to show the passage of time, but I wish they'd found a way to do spring and summer without birdie homicide. It upset me when I first watched it when I was 11.

Tom didn't bother me but Mrs. Figg annoyed the BEEPITY-BEE-BEEP out of me! Mostly to do with how underplayed she was - harry was just about kissed by a dementor and she's not wide-eyed, she's not breathing heavily, she doesn't have any reaction other than her lame delivery of the "good heaven's, and they told me you were intelligent" line. Boo, i say. Boo.

Yes, I knooooow! It's bad enough we didn't get to see her beat Mundungus up with her bag of cat food, then she's got to act like she doesn't even care that Harry nearly got Kissed by a Dementor. Honestly, they could have just done the scene with a pre existing character, rather than introduce one that just isn't right.

Really liked the sequence in OOTP in that it gave a muggle context to a world we have only seen through 'magical' eyes. Reminded me that this story took place in England and that despite what was going down in the wizarding world the muggle one just kept truckin' along...

I'll agree that's a good way of looking at it that I never thought of before, but it still bugs me that no one seems to care about the statute of secrecy in the movies.


FINALLY! The reason I come back to this thread: I thought of another pet peeve of mine:

Hermione introducing Luna.
Yes, Hermione is a know-it-all. Yes, JKR does use her as a good expositionary tool, and yes, Kloves did too. BUT SHE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING. (example: it starts with "d" and ends with "eathly hallows") It made no sense to me that Hermione would know Luna but Ron and Harry wouldn't, and more over, that she would so casually call her Looney. What would have been wrong with Luna introducing herself (everyone ELSE wants to introduce themselves to Harry, why not Luna??) and to have some unlikable no-name character saying "you mean LOONEY lovegood" as a way to introduce her nickname and off-beat character? hated, hated, hated.


Ah, yes! I didn't like that either. There was no reason Ginny couldn't just introduce her like in the book, or why Luna couldn't just introduce herself.

* I was extraordinarily annoyed with how weak they made Fleur appear in the maze. She was running around freaking out over nothing. Dumbledore's line about 'losing yourselves in the maze' was just so so unbearably stupid. There was nothing in the maze except hedges and wind! Either put the creatures and spells that are supposed to be there in, or leave them out, but don't leave them out and then still have ominous, over-dramatic lines about how 'the maze will test you,' 'you could lose yourselves' blah blah blah.

* Viktor's eyes being glazed over when he was Imperiused. You're not supposed to be able to tell when someone's Imperiused. I get that they had to do it to make it clear to non-readers, there really was no other way to do it, but wow it's still annoying. :lol: Same thing with the Polyjuice not changing voices for everyone but Barty Jr.

I totally agree with you for these two ! I was really disappointed with this movie altogether, but I was mainly looking forward to the maze scene the most and it didn't really happen :sigh: .



* Levicorpus in OotP


This too bothered me, I noticed it right away, they should have kept that one to the book.

Others that have bothered me have been stated before but I will say them again.
-Hermiones eyebrows, I never noticed it until my friend pointed them out to me, then it drove me crazy.
-Most of OoTP bothered me, it seemed like it was all over the place, jumping a lot scene to scene. Same with GoF.
-Not including the back stories or making them very short.

the list is longer, I just cannot think of everything. :)

I never noticed the eyebrows until someone pointed it out to me either. People do that in real life so it really isn't something that should be noticed or that means she is a bad actor. It is just something that people discuss.

I agree with that as well. But I suppose they might have been trying to make them look a bit less Muggle-like by having them not in recent fashions. Because really, it would be harder to see them as wizards if they're wearing the same things as you see everyone on the street with. And you know, I think I did see JK Rowling say something about wizards having a hard time keeping up with Muggle fashions because the change so quickly.

I see what you're saying - point taken. It still bugs me though. =^J


Yes exactly. As if you'd actually go over to someone's place for what seemed like not much of a reason on the night you were going to turn into a werewolf. I guess it's just the rule of drama for the latter, but it definitely creates a plot hole.

How about the going-now-where introduction of greyback in the HBP film? Totally unnecessary, didn't need in there, wouldn't have missed him if he'd been left out - AND since he was in the film they missed an opportunity to have his transform in the burning burrow scene (he was there, wasn't he? it's been a while...) OH OH! AND THEN!! you could have had a Remus/Greyback werewolf fight scene which would have been totally unnecessary but TOTALLY AWESOME!! If Remus was with it enough to know Greyback was a bad guy, that is.

Yes! I know they couldn't have everything the book had for time reasons, but there should have been at least one creature or spell. They wasted so much time with that stupid dragon chase, they should have done some thing else in the maze instead.

ug, don't get me started on the dragon scene... =^P

Yes, I knooooow! It's bad enough we didn't get to see her beat Mundungus up with her bag of cat food, then she's got to act like she doesn't even care that Harry nearly got Kissed by a Dementor. Honestly, they could have just done the scene with a pre existing character, rather than introduce one that just isn't right.

TOTAL AGREEMENT! the reason Mrs. Figg is a revealation in the books is because Harry complains about being babysat by her in the earlier books. She's not even mentioned in the films (is she?) until she arrives with her bad acting at the end of the dementor scene. Again, MISSED OPPORTUNITY! They could have taken this chance to introduce Mundungus Fletcher (in hind sight, I know DH hadn't been released when this movie was being filmed so it wasn't known that MF would be that important) and spun it as him abandoning his duties like he does in the books and still given him the 'they told me you were intelligent' line. would have introduced him earlier for the pay off in DHp1. Again, all in hindsight.

I'll agree that's a good way of looking at it that I never thought of before, but it still bugs me that no one seems to care about the statute of secrecy in the movies.

Yes, that's a little snaffu. But I still like the sequence in the films. =^J

Ah, yes! I didn't like that either. There was no reason Ginny couldn't just introduce her like in the book, or why Luna couldn't just introduce herself.

Again, this goes back to the bad film characterisation thing - Hermione's slip of the tongue here was out of character EVEN FOR FILM-HERMIONE! And there was the missed opportunity to bring Ginny forward and develop her character more strongly....

*sigh* Debating this stuff is fun. =^D

OH! And sorry in advance, this is a pet peeve of the books my mom pointed out to me and now it drives me crazy! At the end of pretty much (very book (every one I can recall off the top of my head) there is a big long exposition scene where stopping the forward motion of the any action that was going on so that one or more characters can *explain things*. I don't often read SS/PS or COS so I'll start with POA: Sirius, Remus and Peter explain everything to H/R/HR in the shack. GOF: LV stops everything to explain to Harry and his DEs... everything. OotP: the DD/H scene where Harry wrecks DD's office. HBP: Snape explaining how he's the HBP. DH: MOST ANNOYING OF ALL! In the final show down, we don't get a wizarding duel between LV/H, we get pages and pages of them TALKING and circling each other like animals ready to attack or whatever... UG!

Sorry for the off topicness, just reached the end of POA in my audiobook and had to vent.

How is it a slip of character for someone to know someones name? I know lots of peoples names that my best friend doesn't.

How is it a slip of character for someone to know someones name? I know lots of peoples names that my best friend doesn't.

It's not a slip of character that Hermione would know Luna's name, I think it's uncharacteristically rude of Hermione to slip up in introducing her as "looney- I mean Luna Lovergood." We're talking about Hermione here, the girl who was taking three times the number of classes as everyone else her third year and who can answer every single question in class correctly. But she has a slip of the tongue introducing Luna? I don't think so.

Which leads me to the pet peeve of Hermione's overuse as an expository tool in the films. Just because she's smart doesn't mean she knows Luna well enough to introduce her to Harry and Ron. Ginny should have introduced her.

And sorry, but I thought of another one: Fake Moody's tongue flick as the give-away to Crouch Sr. who he really is. Wouldn't have had the issue if the tongue flick was included (or if it was than included more overtly) more in the film rather than really the only times you see it - in the courtroom to establish it and then in the moment which gives him away. The first time I saw GOF and the tongue flick happened I was like "what?? So he flicked his tongue? Maybe he had spinach in the teeth?" and then Crouch Sr. overreacts and runs away. I was left so confused as to why a tongue flick had to be the thing that crouch sr. latches on to.

Which leads me to the pet peeve of Hermione's overuse as an expository tool in the films.

How interesting. My pet peeve is the overuse of Hermione as an exposition tool in the books.

How interesting. My pet peeve is the overuse of Hermione as an exposition tool in the books.

=^)

The reason it doesn't bother me so much in the books in there is at least an effort to give exposition to other characters in the books but not in the films. You learn a lot from the teachers in the books. But yes, Hermione is a little overused in both.

How interesting. My pet peeve is the overuse of Hermione as an exposition tool in the books.

In the movies Hermione is given exposition that in the books were given to other characters.

Pet Peeve #1...and one of the reasons why I haven't seen OOTP since its release...was turning Cho into the 'Sneak,' and ratting out the D.A.

Pet Peeve runner-up: While I do count GoF as one of my favorites of the films...it felt that they kept shoe-horning Hermione into every nook and cranny of that film. It seemed every time Harry turned around, she was there!

In the movies Hermione is given exposition that in the books were given to other characters.

Yes, that's why it's a pet peeve of mine. Just let Ron explain about the term 'mudblood' and Ginny introduce Luna and for heaven's sake not dobby but anyone else explain what the room of requirements is. Hermione in the movies drives me crazy! If she knew what the RoR was already than why didn't she suggest it as their meeting place?? HUH, KLOVES??HUH?

I agree that Hermione got a bit too much exposure...spotlighting more of the other characters would've been a nice change.

My movie pet peeves:
Ron making stupid faces and never saying anything smart.
Dumbledore hitting Ron`s wounded leg.
Dumbledore acting disrespectful to people.
Sirius talking nonsense in GoF instead of the brilliant conversations he had with Harry in the book.
In the movie he did NOT give Harry any advice, leave alone support.
:(

I think their acting in the last three films were al right. but not in the first two.

Definitely the portrayal of Ron! The way Ron is portrayed in the movies is not really true to Book Ron, and in a decidedly negative way. It's not Rupert's fault though, I like his acting given the material he is given, it's just the way Ron is written in the movies. In the earlier movies, he's made into a kind of dim buffoon, and then in the latter movies he seems like a bit of a tag-along to Harry and Hermione. Sometimes it seems like he's just standing there awkwardly while they're involved in all the action, which is so unlike Book Ron. I've forgotten which, but I think Hermione even takes some of his lines (she also takes some of Harry's, as far as I can remember, like the idea with the dragon, but that's not as bad because Harry's already the hero anyway; it doesn't take as much away from his character). :sad:

With any book to move in general, I really dislike when they choose a long book. Period. There's too much information in the book that they want to put in ONE movie that they end up making a half-baked movie. It really steams my carrots.

*plooka plooka*

There are some scenes in the movies which really, really make me angry - sometimes I wonder if the movie makers even know the books.

What I really don't like is Sirius' death; in the book, as far as I remember, Bellatrix shocks him and he just falls through that curtain. In the movie, I guess she uses the Death Curse, which wouldn't have been necessary, since Sirius falls throzgh the curtain as well.

And then...in DH part 2, the final battle between Harry&Voldemort...I mean - why did Harry embrache him and then jump down the castle with him?
I understand that, in a movie, it is probably more dramatic if the hero and the antagonist fight each other alone, without a huge crowd surrounding them, but - this whole fight, with the two of them running through the castle and then jumping off that wall -
And then, when we see their faces and they sort of melt together...that's just not right.
Actually, I had to laugh a bit about this, because it just seemed stupid to me.

Another point is Dumbledore; in my opinion, the actor just doesn't fit the role.
He doesn't look as kind as I would have imagined Dumbledore (like the actor in the first two movies, he was, in my opinion, really fitting); if course that's not his fault, but I don't like the fact very much. He reminds me more of my old, grumpy neighbour, who has similar small, dark eyes and isn't a very kind man at all.


But all in all, aside from all the little and big mistakes I dislike, I'm glad that there are movies, and all in all they're okay. Most movies can't keep up with the books they're based on, so I wasn't expecting too much from the beginning.

Definitely the portrayal of Ron! The way Ron is portrayed in the movies is not really true to Book Ron, and in a decidedly negative way. It's not Rupert's fault though, I like his acting given the material he is given, it's just the way Ron is written in the movies. In the earlier movies, he's made into a kind of dim buffoon, and then in the latter movies he seems like a bit of a tag-along to Harry and Hermione. Sometimes it seems like he's just standing there awkwardly while they're involved in all the action, which is so unlike Book Ron. I've forgotten which, but I think Hermione even takes some of his lines (she also takes some of Harry's, as far as I can remember, like the idea with the dragon, but that's not as bad because Harry's already the hero anyway; it doesn't take as much away from his character). :sad:

I completely agree with all of this. I still can't believe Kloves gave Hermione the line "If your going to kill Harry you'll have to kill us to" (or words to that effect). It was Ron's best line in the entire book and they gave it to a character that already had plenty to do in that movie.

I hated the way Hagrid defended Buckbeak in the movie (can't remember if he did it in the book this way). "He's a good Hippogrif- always cleans his feathers."

What does his cleaning his feathers have to do with whether or not he attacked Draco?

I agree with that comment on Hagrid; sometimes he is portrayed a bit too idiotic in my opinion.
I didn't like the fact he always said something like "if I just hadn't said anything" after telling certain pieces of information to Harry, Ron and Hermione.
Although I don't think Hagrid is necessarily the smartest, in the movies you sometimes get the idea he has no brain at all, like in the scence concerning Buckbeak. In my opinion, that's just bad timing for comic relief, if you want to call it like that, because Buckbeak meant a whole lot to Hagrid.

I know this is really insiginificant but I hate the final shot of Deathly Hallows part 2. Harry and Hermione are in the centre whilst Ron is stuck to the side. Finny's more prominent in the shot than Ron is. I don't understand why Yates always sidelined Ron as if he's not important.

I know this is really insiginificant but I hate the final shot of Deathly Hallows part 2. Harry and Hermione are in the centre whilst Ron is stuck to the side. Finny's more prominent in the shot than Ron is. I don't understand why Yates always sidelined Ron as if he's not important.

Probably because Yates and Kloves actually do consider Ron to be unimportant.

I never liked the way Vernon always grinned a nasty grin at Harry or the neighbors in OoTP. I also didn't like how they had Mrs. Figg act so calm. In the book she was very excitable, screaming for Dung and when he should up, she hit with him her bag of cat food.

My movie pet-peeves? The lack of Peeves. (Pun intended)

I'm sorry two say that after the sixth movie, I lost interest in the last two. The first two movies were very good, the fifth wasn't bad. The others were a miss. Especially the third and sixth, which is disappointing, those were my favourite books.

So here are my pet peeves
1. Cutting out important scenes and adding pointless scenes (Burning down the burrow, anyone)

2. Out of character "Want me to open it?" "I am the chosen one!" Ugh, Harry was NEVER like that! "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE!!"
3. I hate the connect the dots feel to some of the movies. GOF and HBP had absoluletly no subplots, and it makes the movie feel disjointed.
4. How the movies treat certain characters. Ron wasn't just a side kick, he was important, kept things light, and was smart in his own way! Also the way Neville was STILL portrayed as klutzy in the sixth book, not a young man coming into his own. Grrr! Ginny was never given any fire, and that's what made Harry like her, and Fleur was almost non existent, she was a very strong and caring character, but in the movie we don't see that. We needed to see more of Bill/Fleur in general.

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

Here are my top 5:

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

I could not agree more whole-heartedly, I've been feeling that towards Dan from the very beginning. I denied his being anything like Harry Potter and got really angry over his obvious lack of acting abilities- but it was long done.

They've made a real mess of things with those movies, didn't they. Probably only Chris Colombus was ever on the right track but there was room for improvement, too. On the whole, I've never enjoyed the movies much but saw them all in cinema, nevertheless...
:/

I hadn't noticed the lack of a scar, if I ever watch PoA again I'll be sure to check that out!

Ok, I’m going to go full-on and list my top ten movie pet peeves. Feel free to read the whole thing…or not. :p

TOP TEN MOVIE PET PEEVES
1. Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore. He always seemed so…agitated and impatient. The Dumbledore of the first two films did a much better job. Plus, I’m not a fan of second Dumbledore’s tied up beard and salt-and-pepper hair color.
2. Hermione suddenly becoming superwoman from PoA onwards at the expense of Ron (and even Harry sometimes) being sidelined.
3. Hermione’s hair – it’s not supposed to look that good!
4. Of course, the eye color fiasco.
5. The way that, starting from PoA, the Hogwarts students increasingly wore Muggle clothes at school. Even Malfoy, product of the ultimate anti-Muggle household, is frequently shown wearing black trousers, a turtleneck and a jacket in the last few films.
6. Young Snape looking so cute, well-cared for, and nice. He’s not supposed to look so…normal. He’s a boy from a crappy household which has caused him to form an unhealthy fixation/love for Lily who’s the brightest thing in his life. So, yes, he’s supposed to have something slightly more…creepy about him.
7. Harry and Ginny’s romance felt very forced in the books themselves. In the movies, it felt like it was being shoved down our throats.
8. Omission of the Dumbledore subplot in DH.
9. The omission of the Marauder subplot. We never even get to know that James’s Animagus was a stag and that’s why Harry’s Patronus is a stag. Which leads me to –
10. The treatment of James Potter’s character and, by extension, the James-Lily-Snape love triangle. As I’ve mentioned in the James/Lily thread, only-movie fans may just as well forget that Harry had a dad. Firstly, movie fans are deprived from the first and most obvious tangible connection Harry had with his father – his Patronus. In PoA, Harry simply keeps producing non-corporeal Patronuses (Patroni?) then, out of the blue, at the end of the movie he sees a white stag appear AFTER his Patronus goes away and that’s it. The end of the stag. Never again do we hear of it. I’m sure only-movie fans would’ve been scratching their heads, wondering where on earth that random stag in PoA came from. Then in OoTP, the SWM scene is filmed such that James comes out of it looking like a cardboard cut-out playground bully and Snape a cardboard cut-out victim. There is SO much more depth and so many undercurrents in that scene, they could have made a wonderful piece out of it. But they did not. Then in TPT of DH, the film makers, in an attempt to redeem Snape, run roughshod over James’s character and his own love for Lily. Moviegoers come out of the cinema feeling that Snape’s love for Lily is the ultimate epic romance. Movie TPT felt…romantic, like there was some unspoken tension between Snape and Lily. When it’s not supposed to be so. In the book, it is continuously emphasized in that chapter that Snape’s love for Lily is very much one-sided and her feelings are gradually softening towards James. In the movie, James becomes the proverbial “other guy” and nothing more. (Speaking of TPT, how on earth did Lily’s last moments with Harry before Voldemort bursts in come into SNAPE’S memories?) And then, of course, in the Resurrection Stone scene, James is again sidelined with Harry doing that hand-holding thing with Lily and Sirius given more spotlight than Harry’s own dad.

*wipes sweat off forehead* There. I feel much better now. :lol:

I hat the over syrupy way people talk about Lily. I like Lily, but it seems a bit overdone. Lupin's sighing over her in the movie, plus saying he knew Harry by his EYES not his scar, making no mention of James, who was one of his best friends? Then the whole fish story seemed a bit silly, why not have Slughorn talk about how bright and vivacious and charming she was without the fish story?
The blue eyed thing with Harry doesn't bug me, after all, Dan Radcliffe is allergic to contacts/ But not having Lily's eyes match?? ARGH SACRILEGE!!

I hat the over syrupy way people talk about Lily. I like Lily, but it seems a bit overdone. Lupin's sighing over her in the movie, plus saying he knew Harry by his EYES not his scar, making no mention of James, who was one of his best friends? Then the whole fish story seemed a bit silly, why not have Slughorn talk about how bright and vivacious and charming she was without the fish story?


Agreed. The whole Lily thing was very over-the-top. As for Lupin recognizing Harry by his eyes: 1) Harry's eyes were closed when Lupin first saw him because he had passed out due to the dementor. 2) When you meet a person, you see their whole face before the details of their eyes register. If Harry looks so much like James that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who knew James can point this out, shouldn't Lupin have recognized Harry for sharing the same face as his best friend before he saw his eyes? In addition to the reasons I posted previously, this is another instance of negligence towards Harry's dad in an effort to glorify Lily (or Snape in TPT). :grumble:

1) Marauders back story. I really missed not having that in the movie.
2) 5th movie. It just seemed like a lot was missing.
3) The way they handled Ginny and Harry!
4) The 6th movie. The romance seemed to be way to central in the movie for my liking. More Tom Riddle back story would have been better!

1. Buckbeak not appearing again after POA.
2. Marauder's Map backstory cut out.

2. Marauder's Map backstory cut out.
There are two things I always feel compelled to say when I read this. I mean, you're well entitled to be bothered by it, but:

First, I'm not entirely sure an elaborate backstory for the map is either necessary or plausible. It's a unique object, and Harry might be curious about it, but given that it functions perfectly well whether the user knows its origin or not, the first question becomes is it necessary to reveal that origin? But then as I said, it is a unique object, the use of which is well outside the rules of Hogwarts, and whose creators are 1. dead, 2. believed dead but hiding as a rat, 3. a werewolf who would prefer not to reveal that he is a werewolf, and 4. an imprisoned or later escaped convict. So then, how much could Harry really hope to learn about it anyway?

But my second observation is that at least in the Prisoner of Azkaban movie, there are some subtle clues about the map. First is Lupin's recognition of the map as something he ought not to let Snape confiscate. Then there is the otherwise inexplicable reality that Lupin knows how to use the map. Finally, there is Sirius's equally inexplicable pronouncement that the map never lies. How else would these two know anything about the map at all, let alone such consequential details as its function and reliability, unless they themselves created it?

I grant that this is not an automatic conclusion for anyone who hasn't read the books, but in general I rather prefer that mystery surround certain things in lieu of lengthy (or expensive) narrative digressions that don't really advance the plot. The map itself advances the plot very effectively on its own, and I'm not sure Harry would, or should, really discover quite so much about it as a lot of readers seem to prefer.

The Sorcerers Stone was on TV last night. I've seen it probably a million times, and the one thing that always kind of bothered me about it was, and this is a little thing, that all the protection for the stone from the book is in the movie except Snape's potions riddle. What's that all about?

The map itself advances the plot very effectively on its own, and I'm not sure Harry would, or should, really discover quite so much about it as a lot of readers seem to prefer.

Perhaps the map CAN be used as a magical object on it's own - although, as you also pointed out, it leaves a lot of open ends in the movie - but it is not the fact that the map's history should be known as much as the fact that the map was a strong connection to Harry's father. PoA is the story in which Harry, for the first time, actually forges a connection with his late father just as DH is the story where he comes to understand his mom properly. The third and seventh novels of the series are important in that aspect. Therefore, leaving out the map's history and, by extension, the whole Marauder's backstory which includes the very poignant and meaningful reason behind Harry's stag Patronus, the movie leaves out a major part of Harry's life. It is also, IMO, pretty unfair because Lily get's her focus in the movie DH whereas James barely gets his recognition as Harry's dad.

Agreed. The whole Lily thing was very over-the-top. As for Lupin recognizing Harry by his eyes: 1) Harry's eyes were closed when Lupin first saw him because he had passed out due to the dementor. 2) When you meet a person, you see their whole face before the details of their eyes register. If Harry looks so much like James that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who knew James can point this out, shouldn't Lupin have recognized Harry for sharing the same face as his best friend before he saw his eyes? In addition to the reasons I posted previously, this is another instance of negligence towards Harry's dad in an effort to glorify Lily (or Snape in TPT). :grumble:

Everyone in the books say "You look just like your dad, but you've got your Mom's eyes." that's almost verbatim. Lupin talked on and on about Lily, hardly anything about James. So it doesn't really make sense when he's all enraged at Wormtail, considering he didn't mention James that much. The ending of POA was so rushed, they could have taken some time to explain the marauders, aside from "We thought he was our friend." They could have at least said about them becoming animagus for Lupin.

The Sorcerers Stone was on TV last night. I've seen it probably a million times, and the one thing that always kind of bothered me about it was, and this is a little thing, that all the protection for the stone from the book is in the movie except Snape's potions riddle. What's that all about?

Maybe they thought it would lessen Snape's role as an adversary, especially if they hadn't read the books?

I hate the made for film characters like Nigel and Ben, they really have no place and dont' add much. Bem doesn't fit since we know the Gryffindor boys, and we could have had Dean or Seamus with those lines, and Nigel should have simply been Dennis Creevey. There are plenty of characers at Hogwarts to bring up, why add new random ones?

There's a few small things, like the way magic is sometimes depicted. The Portkey in GoF is a good example. In the book, it basically just teleports them; in the movie, they spin around in a circle and fly there? What the? Tiny changes that serve no apparent purpose other than confusing the fans; those really get under my skin.

One of the big things that bugs me is how they really stunted Harry's character development. In GoF and OoTP, he's still gawking like a wide-eyed first year at stuff like the inside of the Weasleys' tent or #12 Grimmauld Place appearing. After five years at Hogwarts, you'd think he'd be used to magic. And that scene in HBP where Ginny has to get everyone trying out for Quidditch to shut up 'cause they won't listen to Harry? Wasn't the whole point supposed to be that Harry is maturing and assuming responsibilities? Why's Ginny doing everything for him?

Actually, pretty much all my main gripes come from the way certain characters were stripped back, simplified, or otherwise altered from their text counterparts. Sirius Black's mugshot isn't supposed to be shrieking and deranged. Fleur Delacour isn't supposed to be a cowardly ditz. Albus Dumbledore shouldn't need to scream at his own students. Severus Snape doesn't have to resort to smacking his students upside the head. Why on earth did they feel compelled to futz around with all this stuff?

Oh yeah, and the burning of the Burrow. It serves no purpose, and it's extra maddening when the Weasleys' house is back again in DH with no sign of damage (and DH the book was already out at that point, so you'd think they'd know they'd need to come back there later). I may not know everything about Jo's rules of magic, but I'm pretty sure once something is burned, it's burned - you can't just magic it back to normal. Every time I watch HBP, I always have to skip that scene.

I have SOOOOOOOO many pet peeves with movies, I wouldn't know where to start, so I'll just go with my absolute number one worst.....

Hermione's yule ball dress. The reason this is my most hated pet peeve, is because as much as other things annoy me (things cut out, things added that weren't in books etc) I can always see why they did it to maybe try and save time, make it more dramatic bla bla bla... but the dress! It wouldn't have cost them any extra, or been a hassle to just make it PERIWINKLE BLUE. One small thing and they couldn't even keep that in line with the book!

As you can probably tell I rant about this alot :)

This is the thing: I am flexible about movies, I don't mind changes if they serve a purpose and work within the movie. But to take out scenes just to add a scene that wasn't in the book and doesn't have a purpose? No. Scenes like the attack on the burrow, or the waitress, or the goldfish story and such really didn't do anything. So you take out scenes in the book that actually happen and serve a purpose like the Gaunts or the skirmish at Hogwarts, just to add scenes that just seem to be there for the sake of being there. It drives me nuts :grumble:

Hermione's yule ball dress.
...
It wouldn't have cost them any extra, or been a hassle to just make it PERIWINKLE BLUE. One small thing and they couldn't even keep that in line with the book!

I got the impression it was made as a pink dress to make her appear more feminine since the Hogwarts uniforms are black and grey and fairly masculine.

Periwinkle is a beautiful, feminine color though, and the color issue bugs me too. :)

(the other issue: Emma might not have looked good in periwinkle. :shrug:)

Haha oh I'm sure they had their reasons for a pink dress, but grrrr gets me every time :)

And coppertop I agree, I understand that they can't fit everything into the books, but when you then sit and watch countless minutes of scenes added from nowhere it makes me angry too!

So you don't have time for Dumbledore's funeral yet you can some how work in a random attack on the burrow? Sure. IF you cut out the random scenes, you may have time for important scenes you cut.

HBP is probably the biggest offender for that, no Gaunts, no funeral, no skirmish at Hogwarts. Instead we get an OD of Ron/Hermione/Lavender plus Harry flirting with a waitress, and an attack on the burrow? I feel cheated :grumble:

So you don't have time for Dumbledore's funeral yet you can some how work in a random attack on the burrow? Sure. IF you cut out the random scenes, you may have time for important scenes you cut.

HBP is probably the biggest offender for that, no Gaunts, no funeral, no skirmish at Hogwarts. Instead we get an OD of Ron/Hermione/Lavender plus Harry flirting with a waitress, and an attack on the burrow? I feel cheated :grumble

Harry hiding under the stairs like a dope watching Snape kill Dumbledore? Surely there was some way to show him watching while frozen under his invisibility cloak! He was under his invisibility cloak in PS/SS after all . . . not frozen, but still!

And Hermione not researching the Half-Blood Prince?

I have SOOOOOOOO many pet peeves with movies, I wouldn't know where to start, so I'll just go with my absolute number one worst.....

Hermione's yule ball dress. The reason this is my most hated pet peeve, is because as much as other things annoy me (things cut out, things added that weren't in books etc) I can always see why they did it to maybe try and save time, make it more dramatic bla bla bla... but the dress! It wouldn't have cost them any extra, or been a hassle to just make it PERIWINKLE BLUE. One small thing and they couldn't even keep that in line with the book!

As you can probably tell I rant about this alot :)


I got the impression it was made as a pink dress to make her appear more feminine since the Hogwarts uniforms are black and grey and fairly masculine.

Periwinkle is a beautiful, feminine color though, and the color issue bugs me too. :)

(the other issue: Emma might not have looked good in periwinkle. :shrug:)

I personally think the reason they changed the colour of Hermione was because of the decoration of the Yule Ball ice palace in the Great Hall. Emma is the type of girl who would look gorgeous in anything and periwinkle blue would have suited her perfectly. But if her dress had been that colour, it would've clashed with the colours of the Yule Ball decorations and that feeling of "Whoa! She's turned into a stunning young woman feeling would've been lost a bit. Whereas with the purple dress, the colour stands put spectacularly and all you can see is Hermione and all you can think is "She's beautiful"

This is the thing: I am flexible about movies, I don't mind changes if they serve a purpose and work within the movie. But to take out scenes just to add a scene that wasn't in the book and doesn't have a purpose? No. Scenes like the attack on the burrow, or the waitress, or the goldfish story and such really didn't do anything. So you take out scenes in the book that actually happen and serve a purpose like the Gaunts or the skirmish at Hogwarts, just to add scenes that just seem to be there for the sake of being there. It drives me nuts :grumble:

Ah, but the goldfish did do something! It established an even stronger connection between Lily and Slughorn and gave a bit more insight to Slughorn's guilt about telling Voldemort about the horcruxes.

I missed the Dursleys in HBP and I wish they actually showed Dudley telling Harry he wasn't a waste of space and shaking hands.

I personally think the reason they changed the colour of Hermione was because of the decoration of the Yule Ball ice palace in the Great Hall.
...
if her dress had been that colour, it would've clashed with the colours of the Yule Ball decorations and that feeling of "Whoa! She's turned into a stunning young woman feeling would've been lost a bit. Whereas with the purple dress, the colour stands put spectacularly and all you can see is Hermione and all you can think is "She's beautiful"

This is a pretty good point, though rather than say she'd clash with the decorations I'd say she'd blend in too much since the decorations were generally white/bluish. She would have disappeared.

On the other hand, if she was meant to really stand out I would have liked to see everyone else's outfits a little more subdued or in cooler tones so that the pink dress really popped out and drew your eye. With the costumes that made it into the movie there was a lot of competing color in that scene. Parvati's dress - or was it Padma's?? or was it both??? :D - was bright orange and pinky/purple. Krum's cape and suit were a pretty vibrant red. If Hermione was meant to be sort of the jewel in the crown I would have made Krum's suit darker, the Patil twins outfits less saturated so Hermione's dress drew your eye in the scene more.

It really annoyed me about Voldemort's death, would it have been that hard to make it in the hall, and why the flaky skin?!

AAARGH

This is a pretty good point, though rather than say she'd clash with the decorations I'd say she'd blend in too much since the decorations were generally white/bluish. She would have disappeared.

On the other hand, if she was meant to really stand out I would have liked to see everyone else's outfits a little more subdued or in cooler tones so that the pink dress really popped out and drew your eye. With the costumes that made it into the movie there was a lot of competing color in that scene. Parvati's dress - or was it Padma's?? or was it both??? :D - was bright orange and pinky/purple. Krum's cape and suit were a pretty vibrant red. If Hermione was meant to be sort of the jewel in the crown I would have made Krum's suit darker, the Patil twins outfits less saturated so Hermione's dress drew your eye in the scene more.

To be fair no where in the Yule Ball scene does it say Hermione is the most striking girl there. In fact from memory Harry thought Pavarti, Cho and Fleur looked better than Hermione did.

To be fair no where in the Yule Ball scene does it say Hermione is the most striking girl there. In fact from memory Harry thought Pavarti, Cho and Fleur looked better than Hermione did.
From my memory, I don't recall Harry commenting at all on the others looking better than Hermione. In fact, I only recall Parvati saying to Harry & Ron that they (the guys) looked dashing.

To be fair no where in the Yule Ball scene does it say Hermione is the most striking girl there. In fact from memory Harry thought Pavarti, Cho and Fleur looked better than Hermione did.

My comment isn't based on book canon (if that's what you're refering to when you say "from memory"), it's based on possible reasons the film makers might have had in changing the color of Hermione's dress from a canon color that would "blend in" to a non-canon color that would "stand out".

Based on the colors given to Fluer (a grey-ish off-white) and Cho (a white oriental-looking brocade) I question why the color was changed from periwinkle to pink/purple (it looks pink to me) if the film makers weren't at all concerned about the other dates (Fluer and Cho) who were given colors that "blended in" but were more important to the story than the fourth date (which ever of the twins went with Harry) who stood out just as much as Hermione did - in fact, more than Hermione did, that orange and pink together was pretty hideous. :shrug:

My conclusions are thus:

1) They wanted Hermione to stand out more than she would have in a blue dress (which they didn't do a good job of)

2) Emma didn't look good in periwinkle

3) Periwinkle wasn't a feminine enough color for the transformation of Hermione's character - they wanted to really emphasize the girliness of Hermione in that dress and what better way to do that than make it pink?

I hate the made for film characters like Nigel and Ben, they really have no place and dont' add much. Bem doesn't fit since we know the Gryffindor boys, and we could have had Dean or Seamus with those lines, and Nigel should have simply been Dennis Creevey. There are plenty of characers at Hogwarts to bring up, why add new random ones?

Oh, I detest that so much, too...I've always imagined that "Nigel" is a son of a big fat producer or a casting agent at least..:)

From my memory, I don't recall Harry commenting at all on the others looking better than Hermione. In fact, I only recall Parvati saying to Harry & Ron that they (the guys) looked dashing.

I am just stealing this from someone elses essay but it is very valid

However, Harry gets a second chance to have a first impression of Hermione's appearance, when he fails to recognize her at the Yule Ball in Book Four. He calls her a pretty girl in blue robes (GF359/413). This is, of course, positive, but considering the time (three hours), effort, and magic (Sleekeazy's Potion) Hermione has used to improve her appearance that night, it is a disappointingly tepid reaction. Compare it, for instance, to Harry's reaction that same night to Parvati, who looked very pretty indeed in robes of shocking pink, with her long dark hair braided with gold, and gold bracelets glimmering at her wrists (GF358/412). Or to Padma, who was looking just as pretty as Parvati in robes of bright turquoise and whose dark eyes lingered on Ron's frayed lace (GF359/412). Or to Fleur, who was looking stunning in robes of silver-grey satin (GF359/412). (bold mine)

So Hermione was the least pretty of the pretty girls Harry noticed that night. We don't hear what Harry thought of Cho's appearance, but we can guess from his other thoughts that he felt attracted to her - his first impression of Cho was extremely pretty (PA192/259).


http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-hh-suited.html

Oh, I detest that so much, too...I've always imagined that "Nigel" is a son of a big fat producer or a casting agent at least..:)

That's possible! IIRC (it has been a very long time now) Ben won a contest to appear in the movie.

I am just stealing this from someone elses essay but it is very valid



http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-hh-suited.html

You are quoting the books here, but the thread is about movie pet peeves, not the books. In the movie, there is no indication at all what Harry is noticing about various girls, other than a look at Cho, Harry's serious crush in GOF.

I personally have no problem with Harry noticing/flirting with other girls in the movies. Really, does that change our impression of his teenage character or it doesn't? In my opinion Harry Potter from the books could really do with a bit more flirting and snogging..:)

With all the mysterious happening in the story of HP there is only one thing that bothers me the most; how did Harry fall in love with Genie? Since the first movie was released all I thought it was Hermione. There’s no connection and spark between the two, they merely talk to each other almost on all the books.

With all the mysterious happening in the story of HP there is only one thing that bothers me the most; how did Harry fall in love with Genie? Since the first movie was released all I thought it was Hermione. There’s no connection and spark between the two, they merely talk to each other almost on all the books.

You might try reading the books.

Movie Hermione is not Book Hermione, Movie Ginny is not Book Ginny, and Movie Harry is definately, not Book Harry.

When I first read the books I knew from the moment Ginny stood up to Malfoy and defended Harry, In CoS, that they would end up together.

If you read the books you see the little clues and hints.

Movie Hermione is not Book Hermione, Movie Ginny is not Book Ginny, and Movie Harry is definately, not Book Harry.

This reminds me, I was watching the DH1 Blu-Ray in Maximum Movie Mode last night, and during the dancing scene (which I still can't bring myself to watch again, it's just so embarrassingly out-of-character), David Yates is blithering on about how he put that in as a sort of "will-they-or-won't-they" moment. And I'm just screaming in my head "Of course they won't, you doorknob, it's not something that either of them would ever, ever think about for so much as a second!" It sacrifices Jo's solid character development just for the sake of shipping, and it just ticks me off so much. I'd expect junk like that from fanfiction, not from a professionally-produced film adaptation.

And don't get me started on the complete lack of chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright. I don't know which character Bonnie thought she was playing, but the nervous waifish redhead who goes all jittery when Harry has to help her zip up her dress is not the Ginny Weasley I know.

With all of the mention of Peeves in the books, he should have been in the movies themselves. I love him--he's hilarious. That's what bugs me most of all.

This reminds me, I was watching the DH1 Blu-Ray in Maximum Movie Mode last night, and during the dancing scene (which I still can't bring myself to watch again, it's just so embarrassingly out-of-character), David Yates is blithering on about how he put that in as a sort of "will-they-or-won't-they" moment. And I'm just screaming in my head "Of course they won't, you doorknob, it's not something that either of them would ever, ever think about for so much as a second!" It sacrifices Jo's solid character development just for the sake of shipping, and it just ticks me off so much. I'd expect junk like that from fanfiction, not from a professionally-produced film adaptation.

And don't get me started on the complete lack of chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright. I don't know which character Bonnie thought she was playing, but the nervous waifish redhead who goes all jittery when Harry has to help her zip up her dress is not the Ginny Weasley I know.

Ahhh, makes me so happy I've only seen the DH movies one time each...

I did hear that comment about the dance scene made on an ABC family preview or something like that and I was appalled. Why did that even need to be a question? Even from just watching the movies you see that it's Ron and Hermione all the way. (Okay, there was one kind of shippy moment in POA when Harry and Hermione are sitting on the forest edge but since then it's been R/H!)

This reminds me, I was watching the DH1 Blu-Ray in Maximum Movie Mode last night, and during the dancing scene (which I still can't bring myself to watch again, it's just so embarrassingly out-of-character), David Yates is blithering on about how he put that in as a sort of "will-they-or-won't-they" moment. And I'm just screaming in my head "Of course they won't, you doorknob, it's not something that either of them would ever, ever think about for so much as a second!" It sacrifices Jo's solid character development just for the sake of shipping, and it just ticks me off so much. I'd expect junk like that from fanfiction, not from a professionally-produced film adaptation.

And don't get me started on the complete lack of chemistry between Daniel Radcliffe and Bonnie Wright. I don't know which character Bonnie thought she was playing, but the nervous waifish redhead who goes all jittery when Harry has to help her zip up her dress is not the Ginny Weasley I know.

Exactly!
I hate what the movies have done to Ron's, Hermione's Ginny's and Harry's characters. At times they are almost unrecognisable from their book counterpart.
That dance scene is my most hated of all the scenes in all eight movies. It is TOTALLY out of character, especially, for Harry.:shrug:
The waitress scene in HBP is my second most hated. Harry leaving the protections of Privet Drive to ride around on trains and flirt with waitresses (She wasn't even that attractive)
All of Ginny's major scenes and lines back as far as PoA, have been cut or butchered. I so wanted to see her trembling at the Dementors, turning down Harry as a date to the Yule Ball as she had promised to go with Neville, telling Harry off in OotP for forgetting about her possession, sharing chocolate with Harry in the Library while he confided in her his need to speak with Sirius. All their scenes from HBP (the book), especially, the kiss! What we got instead was so pathetic!:upset:
Don't start me on Hermione! I dislike her character in the books, but she is tolerable at times! I detest with a passion Movie-Hermione starting from PoA!:evil:
No wonder CoS is my favourite movie as Hermione gets petrified!:evil:
You can tell Kloves loves Hermione as he started giving her other characters' lines and scenes (especially, Ron's). It seems as if Kloves wanted H/Hr to happen so he wrote scenes to display this. H/Hr get extra scenes and H/G get theirs cut, or destroyed, to make their relationship less appealing. Even the R/Hr scenes are not as obvious as some of Kloves' H/Hr ones.:no:

Don't start me on Hermione! I dislike her character in the books, but she is tolerable at times! I detest with a passion Movie-Hermione starting from PoA!:evil:
No wonder CoS is my favourite movie as Hermione gets petrified!:evil:


AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's evil! :lol:

I tolerate book Hermione rather well (unless I'm listening to the US audiobooks in which case I wish bodily harm on Jim Dale for giving all the girl characters such horrible voices - they're deeper than the boys' voices!!) but movie Hermione is just something awful.

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's evil! :lol:

I tolerate book Hermione rather well (unless I'm listening to the US audiobooks in which case I wish bodily harm on Jim Dale for giving all the girl characters such horrible voices - they're deeper than the boys' voices!!) but movie Hermione is just something awful.

I actually liked Hermione when I read PS and CoS, but then in PoA (the book) I started disliking her. The way she acted over the Crookshanks and Scabbers affair and telling Minerva about Harry's broomstick. I never liked her again. She annoyed me and by the time I saw PoA (the movie), my hatred of Movie-Hermione set in.
Look at all the movies since PoA, at various Trio shots and scenes. They are often centred around Hermione, NOT Harry, and Ron is nearly always sidelined.:upset:

I am evil, I know! But not having to endure Hermione's annoying presence for part of that movie is one of the reasons I love it. She starts to really steal lines in CoS eg knowing what a "Mudblood" is, "hearing voices is not good," Fear of a name" etc. It's such a relief to me when Hermione is petrified and we are free of her until the final scene!:clap:

No wonder CoS is my favourite movie as Hermione gets petrified!:evil:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:!!!

In all seriousness, though, I completely agree with you about Hermione Emma Watson Granger (that's my nickname for Movie-Hermione :yuhup:). I didn't really dislike Hermione from the books - she's got some great qualities and moments - but she's not one of my favorite characters. It was mainly her I-know-what's-best-for-everyone and I'm-doing-the-logical-or-correct-thing-no-matter-what attitudes that really got on my nerves at times. And then, along came the movies, playing exactly on those very unlikable qualities of hers!

I liked PS/SS and CoS (no, not because she was petrified for most of it :p) where Hermione remained inside "cute little know-it-all" territory but then from PoA onwards...man. Emma Watson's popularity started rising and it came at the cost of Ron (and Harry, sometimes) being sidelined and Hermione stealing lines from them. The most irritating parts in PoA, for me, were 1) When Hermione steals Ron's "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill all three of us!" line (that was such a great moment for Ron in the books and Hermione was actually scared out of her pants at that point) and 2) the way Hermione kept dragging a clueless Harry about and seemed to know just the right thing to do at every single point in the time-turner part (when that wasn't the case in the book). I won't even go into all the other ways in which the movies messed up Hermione.

You can tell Kloves loves Hermione as he started giving her other characters' lines and scenes (especially, Ron's).
The moviemakers' crush on Emma was just nauseating. Most unforgivable of all would be the last shot of the series in DH2, where they zoom in on Harry and Hermione, and Ron was just crammed in at the corner somewhere. :no: It was the last shot of the entire series - they could have given the three of them some equality at least in this one shot!

It seems as if Kloves wanted H/Hr to happen so he wrote scenes to display this. H/Hr get extra scenes and H/G get theirs cut, or destroyed, to make their relationship less appealing. Even the R/Hr scenes are not as obvious as some of Kloves' H/Hr ones. :no:
:sigh: Don't get me started on the crazy movie ships. Harry-Hermione, Lily-Snape, Neville-Luna...I don't understand why the moviemakers couldn't just stick to the facts. As JKR so rightly said, "Not everybody falls in love with everybody else!"

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:!!!

In all seriousness, though, I completely agree with you about Hermione Emma Watson Granger (that's my nickname for Movie-Hermione :yuhup:). I didn't really dislike Hermione from the books - she's got some great qualities and moments - but she's not one of my favorite characters. It was mainly her I-know-what's-best-for-everyone and I'm-doing-the-logical-or-correct-thing-no-matter-what attitudes that really got on my nerves at times. And then, along came the movies, playing exactly on those very unlikable qualities of hers!

I liked PS/SS and CoS (no, not because she was petrified for most of it :p) where Hermione remained inside "cute little know-it-all" territory but then from PoA onwards...man. Emma Watson's popularity started rising and it came at the cost of Ron (and Harry, sometimes) being sidelined and Hermione stealing lines from them. The most irritating parts in PoA, for me, were 1) When Hermione steals Ron's "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill all three of us!" line (that was such a great moment for Ron in the books and Hermione was actually scared out of her pants at that point) and 2) the way Hermione kept dragging a clueless Harry about and seemed to know just the right thing to do at every single point in the time-turner part (when that wasn't the case in the book). I won't even go into all the other ways in which the movies messed up Hermione.


The moviemakers' crush on Emma was just nauseating. Most unforgivable of all would be the last shot of the series in DH2, where they zoom in on Harry and Hermione, and Ron was just crammed in at the corner somewhere. :no: It was the last shot of the entire series - they could have given the three of them some equality at least in this one shot!


:sigh: Don't get me started on the crazy movie ships. Harry-Hermione, Lily-Snape, Neville-Luna...I don't understand why the moviemakers couldn't just stick to the facts. As JKR so rightly said, "Not everybody falls in love with everybody else!"

You and I have similar dislikes.
I detest PoA, the movie, except for a couple of scenes-(NONE involving Emma).
I refuse to watch any of the movie from the part where Ron gets snatched by Sirius in his dog form.
That pathetic "Hermione swinging on the Whomping Willow" scene, the line stealing in the Shrieking Shack, the lack of Animagus and Marauder explanation, Hermione leading Harry around, practically by the throat, in the Time-Turner sequence, the stupid werewolf howling by Emma, Dumbledore hitting Ron's broken leg, the fact that Ron is in Muggle plaster when in CoS Madame P said she can "mend broken bones in a trice", the nasty way Harry and Hermione treat Ron when he's confused by their disappearance then reappearance and that final "freeze frame" of Harry's face!

It depresses me that I can hate so much about a Harry Potter movie!:upset:
I can't help it though! I enjoy the scenes where Aunt Marge gets blown up, Harry's flight on Buckbeak, the Boggart lesson, the Twins giving Harry the map and Harry's talk with Remus on the bridge.
Is it sad to like so little and hate so much of a movie?:shrug:

Is it sad to like so little and hate so much of a movie?:shrug:

Not at all. Prisoner of Azkaban used to be my least favorite film...until I saw Goblet of Fire. After watching that utter waste of celluloid, I have to question not only whether or not Mike Newell read the book, but whether or not he even knows what the Harry Potter series is.

Yes, I hate the humongous characterization problems and all the stupid pointless changes like the talk with Sirius and the Yule Ball and whatnot. But what hocks me off the most is how they totally botched the plot. GoF is probably one of Jo's most intricately constructed stories; there's not a single page wasted in that book. Everything is important in one way or another. And trying to streamline it into a movie is just so inherently difficult. Cut the S.P.E.W. subplot? Well, there goes Winky the house-elf and her involvement with the Crouch family. Cut out Ludo Bagman? There goes any explanation as to how dirt-poor Fred and George get the money to establish Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. Cut out Hagrid's backstory? There goes any explanation of Grawp in the next movie.

But the worst, the absolute worst change made to GoF in my opinion, was the horrendous butchering of Barty Crouch Jr.'s plan to restore Voldemort. That was a truly brilliantly written mystery in the book, one that kept me guessing until the end when I first read it, and the movie just utterly destroyed it. The film provides no explanation as to how Crouch broke out of Azkaban, and turns him from a cunning master of disguise to a deranged shrieking nimrod who nearly blows his cover at least twice.

Then there's the aftermath of the Death Eater attack. If Crouch's aim is to see which Death Eaters are truly loyal to Voldemort by firing the Dark Mark into the sky, why does he wait until hours after they've all left to do it? Diddley-dur-hey! Plus, if he's so devoted to Voldemort, why the hell does he run and hide when he hears Ron and Hermione coming to find Harry? This is the boy he's looking for, and he and his friends are all underage - you'd think a true Death Eater, when he has his quarry cornered and basically defenseless, would just Avada Kedavra their sorry hides, grab Harry, and Disapparate on the spot. (Not that I'd want that to happen, of course, but the way the scene plays out, it just makes Crouch look like a completely ineffectual moron.)

And when he murders his father, he just leaves the body in the woods? Where everyone can find it? (Not to mention, nobody seems to care that a high-ranking Ministry official has died under mysterious circumstances.) And then, at the very end, they just send him back to Azkaban - which means he doesn't get dementor-kissed. And considering this is the plot point on which the entire plot of Order of the Phoenix hinges, you'd think somebody behind the scenes would have caught that, wouldn't you?

It actually makes me angry if I think about it too long. Out of all eight movies, this one really dropped the ball the hardest.

Everything jbwarner86 wrote about GoF and:

Of course, I'm going to bring up the mishandling of Severus Snape (yet again) -----

Book Snape never, ever hit a student! OK he throws a jar of cockroaches at Harry, but that's the NEXT book!! (but not the movie)

That Snape had been a Deatheater is almost a throwaway line in Dumbledore's memories. I completely missed it the first time I saw the movie.

He doesn't show his Dark Mark to Fudge.

Dumbledore doesn't send him off to spy on Voldemort with the distinct possibility of being killed. OTOH, I don't remember Voldemort telling his gathered DEs about the three missing DEs.

And I didn't like PoA either.:angel:

Everything jbwarner86 wrote about GoF and:

Of course, I'm going to bring up the mishandling of Severus Snape (yet again) -----

Book Snape never, ever hit a student! OK he throws a jar of cockroaches at Harry, but that's the NEXT book!! (but not the movie)

That Snape had been a Deatheater is almost a throwaway line in Dumbledore's memories. I completely missed it the first time I saw the movie.

He doesn't show his Dark Mark to Fudge.

Dumbledore doesn't send him off to spy on Voldemort with the distinct possibility of being killed. OTOH, I don't remember Voldemort telling his gathered DEs about the three missing DEs.

And I didn't like PoA either.:angel:

Don't forget Snape supporting Dumbledore putting Harry's life at risk in the tournament and using him as a piece of meat, as bait, something Snape is against according to DH.

Great post, jbwarner86! I agree with all of your points. GOF is quite possibly my least favorite film of the film series.

Don't forget Snape supporting Dumbledore putting Harry's life at risk in the tournament and using him as a piece of meat, as bait, something Snape is against according to DH.

Great post, jbwarner86! I agree with all of your points. GOF is quite possibly my least favorite film of the film series.

I suppose we can give Steve Kloves a pass on the that one since the DH book was way off in the future, otherwise I think he really messed up Snape throughout the movie series.:upset:

I suppose we can give Steve Kloves a pass on the that one since the DH book was way off in the future, otherwise I think he really messed up Snape throughout the movie series.:upset:

And Ginny and Ron and Hermione and Harry and Dumbledore and Sirius and Remus and just about every other character in the whole thing!:upset:

Steve Kloves messed up big time!:evil:

The movies definitely could have shown Snape more nuanced, Alan Rickman is a brilliant actor, I'm sure he'd do great with it. Yes, Snape never hit a student, he was cruel in a verbal way but not physical.

I thought GOF was an improvement on POA, but POA is probably my least favourite movie, and GOF was still a miscue. I really wish they kept Skeeter's animagus story in there! Then they could have done Skeeter's Quibbler story in OOTP.

I saw a clip on Youtube where McGonagall has the Slytherins put in a dungeon. UGH! McGonagall wouldn't do that, she asked the Slytherins to leave. Why change that? Why? To make it more dramatic? To show Slytherins ARE all evil, which JKR herself said they're not.

The movies definitely could have shown Snape more nuanced, Alan Rickman is a brilliant actor, I'm sure he'd do great with it. Yes, Snape never hit a student, he was cruel in a verbal way but not physical.

I thought GOF was an improvement on POA, but POA is probably my least favourite movie, and GOF was still a miscue. I really wish they kept Skeeter's animagus story in there! Then they could have done Skeeter's Quibbler story in OOTP.

I saw a clip on Youtube where McGonagall has the Slytherins put in a dungeon. UGH! McGonagall wouldn't do that, she asked the Slytherins to leave. Why change that? Why? To make it more dramatic? To show Slytherins ARE all evil, which JKR herself said they're not.

I've seen this said a few times on various threads but the Slytherin common room is in the dungeon unfortunately Harry's answer to the snatchers in DH1 was left out. It's also mentioned in one of the earlier books.

I saw a clip on Youtube where McGonagall has the Slytherins put in a dungeon. UGH! McGonagall wouldn't do that, she asked the Slytherins to leave. Why change that? Why? To make it more dramatic? To show Slytherins ARE all evil, which JKR herself said they're not.

At least they had the foresight to cut the scene showing Filch actually locking the Slytherin students in some sort of jail cell (it's on the DH2 Blu-Ray in MMM, and it really must be seen to be believed). It's moments like this that make me question whether the filmmakers really got the books at all.

I hate that Harry and Ron's bromance was neglected by the writers to build up their precious golden duo DanHarry & EmmaHermione.

Where was the scene after Ron destroyed the locket where he and Harry reconciled and hugged? Where was the moment at the end of HBP when Ron told Harry that he and Hermione would go with him?

These guys are bffs for life. Closer than brothers. JK even said that they become Aurors together at the ministry. They're the dream team. Sadly though not in the movies.

Which is doubly sad, considering Rupert is a better actor than Dan or Emma.

That Harry's hair remains so perfect in HP8. Especially in the Great Hall scene where he confronts Snape. It's TOO perfect.

That Harry's hair remains so perfect in HP8. Especially in the Great Hall scene where he confronts Snape. It's TOO perfect.
Well, messy hair is a nightmare for continuity as you need to make it look exactly the same every day of shooting. There are movies where you can tell which shots are pick-ups because of the look of hair of the characters.

Well, messy hair is a nightmare for continuity as you need to make it look exactly the same every day of shooting. There are movies where you can tell which shots are pick-ups because of the look of hair of the characters.

True, true! I loved his messy hair in POA..the neatness of his hair in DH2 just seemed so incongruous and unlikely. It's a very minor peeve indeed. I see some debate here on hair color. I have noticed all my life that people have different definitions of "black" hair. All my life people have told me I have black hair, but I don't, just dark brown. So, people have different takes on it. I've noticed the same thing with the shade people call "Strawberry blonde" I often see what I feel to be just blondes, but somebody else will call them Strawberry blonde. I know Dan has brown hair. Dark, dark brown hair. In the sun you can see more of the lights and browns. When there's more hair, more lights and browns show up.

Which is doubly sad, considering Rupert is a better actor than Dan or Emma.

I don't really feel that Rupert hit his stride until Half-Blood Prince. Whether that's an acting issue or a writing issue, I don't know, but aside from one scene (chess) he's just a gurning comedy sidekick in the first two films. I really *hated* the way he was portrayed at the start of Goblet of Fire, but that's more of an issue with how he was written (yep, I actually blame JKR for that!) but even in Half-Blood Prince, his best scenes are when he's acting the fool. The best we see of Rupert is in Deathly Hallows Part 1.

I found it the other way round with Emma; I think she was at her best in the first three films, and became steadily more annoying from Goblet of Fire onward, and didn't really recover until the Deathly Hallows.

Whilst the other two may have taken the spotlight at certain times, I think Dan carried the series as consistently the better actor of the three, certainly from Goblet of Fire onwards.

This is more an annoyance than a peeve but in DH2 when Harry asks Hermione for a flask for Snapes' tears, she rummages round in the bag instead of saying 'accio flask'. It does echo Harry when he was looking for the Dittany in DH1 but it seems out of character for efficient Hermione even with the raging battle.

Hm, perhaps some of the unnecessary added humor. HBP was not, in my opinion, a very funny book, yet the film has the most gags and silly scenes. Don't get me wrong, I do love a good laugh and HP is good for that in some aspects but when you think of what serious, plot-forwarding, intense scenes could have been in a funny part's PLACE...

Basically most of my peeves come from HBP now that I think about it...the casting of young Tom Riddle in that film will never cease to annoy me. Could they have picked a more "LOOK I'M OBVIOUSLY EVIL AND CREEPY" kid? COS got Tom Riddle right, in my opinion and though they needed a new actor to fit the age group they could have picked someone more in that vein.

I always hated how they made the werewolf look in POA... It's supposed to look like an actual wolf, not some mutant, bald, slimy-looking alien thing that walks on its hind legs...

This is more an annoyance than a peeve but in DH2 when Harry asks Hermione for a flask for Snapes' tears, she rummages round in the bag instead of saying 'accio flask'. It does echo Harry when he was looking for the Dittany in DH1 but it seems out of character for efficient Hermione even with the raging battle.

In the book she conjured a vial! They did seem to minimize the use of magic in DH2; i.e., when they got out of the lake after the dragon escape.

I didn't like how they potrayed Snape's Worst Memory in OotP. I was hoping it would be a lengthier scene.

I think the movies are great (but they're obviously not as good as the books)

I didn't like how they some scenes are completely different from the books- take Harry and Ginny's kissing scene.

Another thing that really got me (and not in a good way) was Snape's tale, and the pensieve all together. I also didn't like when Harry looked into Voldemort's mind either.

The muggle clothes at hogwarts. What's the point of having a school uniform if you don't where it?

To be honest I didn't really like Daniel Radcliffe. He was very good as a child, but in my eyes, he didn't really "grow with the character" like he should have. He was probably my least favorite casting in the movies.

Most of the castings were really good, though. Personally, there were some scenes in the movie that made me more understanding of the books: In deathly hallows part 2, Alan Rickman's speech and the shield were really quite impressive.

My pet peeves:

Harry's summers with the Dursleys not explained. I had to tell people who did not read the books why he couldn't just move in with the Weasleys.

The prophesy not properly explained. They never say why Voldemort wanted it so bad (how he only heard a bit of it from Snape), or how Neville could have been placed in Harry's position.

Dumbledore's past not fully revealed. They build it up and then leave it unattended, making those who have read the book fill in for those who haven't.

Dudley's redemption being omitted (also, Percy, Kreacher and Grindelwald's). I thought it was an important part in the Harry Potter series to show that people can change for the better.

The Burrow being burned in the Half-Blood Prince. It was not in the book, so I didn't see the point, and it wasn't a minor deviation from the book (like Peeves being omitted); the Weasley's house burnt down!

The memories of Tom Riddle being omitted. Personally, I thought that was the whole point of the Half-Blood Prince, educating Harry and preparing him to confront Voldemort by giving him knowledge of why Voldemort was the way he was.

Voldemort feeling his Horcruxes being destroyed. As explained in the books, Voldemort became less human in his attempts to become immortal, and therefore coiuld not feel certain emotions as normal humans could feel.

Voldemort not being defeated in front of everyone. No one seemed bothered to know if and how he had been defeated.

Harry stealing Neville's moment in DH2, and then running away, causing Voldemort to chase him throughout the castle. I felt like it was some weird episode of Tom and Jerry (lol).

Harry not repairing his wand with the Elder Wand. Harry loved his wand.

The first 2 movies were all right but then again there wasn't much they could have butchered in those movies anyway.

PoA - Completely spoiled the animagus and Marauders explanation. That was perhaps the most important part of the book and they screwed that up. And of course Hermione being given the Ron's line in the shrieking shack was ridiculous.

GoF - They skip out most of the last part of the book after Voldemort comes alive and that part essentially laid the groundwork for the next book. They don't show Barty Crouch Jr being kissed by the dementor so if you haven't read the books you're probably wondering what on earth happened to him. Another thing they could've included (not necessary though) was Dumbledore sending Snape to Voldemort and Sirius coming to his office.

OoTP - To be honest this is my least favourite book an the movies were all right. The only complaints would be that Sirius's character does not really come out in the way it does in the books and the Prophecy is not explained properly.

HBP - This probably is the worst movie of the lot. While reading the book for the first time I really looked forward to Harry's next session with Dumbledore because that was the best part and the major part of the book. The directors completely destroyed the memories. In my opinion not one of the memories should've been skipped because without it Harry has no clue what the horcruxes are. The whole Ron-Hermione-Lavender thing was butchered as well. I also thought that the 'hiding the HBP book' scene was done badly and got converted into a romantic scene. Finally I thought they could've shown a bit of the battle inside Hogwarts as well. oh and the Burrow being burnt down served no real purpose as far as I could see.

DH1 - This wasn't that bad actually except for the Dance which makes no sense. What exactly did they hope to achieve with the dance? Harry knows they both like each other, and even if he did like Hermione (which he most definitely doesn't) he would've stepped aside for Ron. Hermione clearly likes Ron and that fact is clearer in the movies than in the books. So Yates explanation of wanting to create a will he won't he scenario makes no sense. Completely out of character for both Harry and Hermione. Also Hermione doesn't look she had been tortured after that scene with Bellatrix. She seems to walk around quite normally, quite unlike someone who had just gone through the Cruciatus curse.

DH2 - One of the things that really disappointed me in this film was that Fred's death was off screen. We are not talking about any character here but of one of the most loved characters in the book and seeing as he died on page in the book it's unforgivable. One of the saddest scenes in the entire series imo is when Percy tries to protect Fred's dead body and his (and Ron's) reaction immediately afterwards. I don't mind admitting it but I was actually sobbing while I read that part of the book. I don't they even mentioned Percy's estrangement with the family in any of the books. The final battle scene between Harry and Voldemort was cringeworthy and very very cheesy. Harry breaking the elder wand was puzzling a well.

Another thing that annoyed me a lot watching the movies was Hermione's characterization. She is portrayed as a sort of flawless person who knows everything there is to know. In the books JKR brings out her flaws as well but that's not at all done in the movies. The way she gets so many lines from different characters is annoying

Hermione explaining what a mudblood is when in the books she dosen't know what it means.

Hermione explaining what a parselmouth is when it's Ron who does that in the books


Hermione introducing Luna in OoTP (as Loony initially) when it's Ginny who does that in the book.

It's Harry's idea to climb the dragons in DH but again it's Hermione who suggests that in the movies.

There might be other cases but these are the ones of the top of my head.

Another thing that annoyed me a lot watching the movies was Hermione's characterization. She is portrayed as a sort of flawless person who knows everything there is to know. In the books JKR brings out her flaws as well but that's not at all done in the movies. The way she gets so many lines from different characters is annoying

Hermione explaining what a mudblood is when in the books she dosen't know what it means.

Hermione explaining what a parselmouth is when it's Ron who does that in the books


Hermione introducing Luna in OoTP (as Loony initially) when it's Ginny who does that in the book.

It's Harry's idea to climb the dragons in DH but again it's Hermione who suggests that in the movies.

There might be other cases but these are the ones of the top of my head.

I agree. Hermione was a know-it-all, but she didn't know everything. Her knowing Luna didn't make sense as Luna was a year below, so they wouldn't have had any classes together. This could have been screen time given to Ginny, who seriously needed more in the films. I was really surprised Hermione didn't know how to destroy Horcruxes in the Deathly Hallows films. She actually did know in the book.

I agree. Hermione was a know-it-all, but she didn't know everything. Her knowing Luna didn't make sense as Luna was a year below, so they wouldn't have had any classes together. This could have been screen time given to Ginny, who seriously needed more in the films. I was really surprised Hermione didn't know how to destroy Horcruxes in the Deathly Hallows films. She actually did know in the book.

When I read the essay on Mugglenet by HPBoy about how Warner Bros just didn't do a good job on the films, I agreed with every word he said. I should have posted on the site saying how much I agreed but I wasn't quite sure how to go about it. I really like his essays, I loved the one about Snape, I agreed with that one as well.
The Academia broadcasts are really good.

Another thing that annoyed me a lot watching the movies was Hermione's characterization. She is portrayed as a sort of flawless person who knows everything there is to know. In the books JKR brings out her flaws as well but that's not at all done in the movies. The way she gets so many lines from different characters is annoying

That bothers me immensely as well. Hermione had some flaws in the books, in the movies, she was one complete MarySue. Part of this was, as you mention, giving her lines from other characters even things she had no way of knowing, and when the actual character was right there in the scene, too. One of the most annoying of all is giving her Ron's line from PoA "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill all of us". Where the movie turned Ron into a blithering idiot in that scene. The destruction of the trio is one thing that I really hate about the movies. I absolutely love the interactions between the trio in the books. They really are a unit. However, in the movies, it's clearly a Harry-Hermione team with Ron tagging along. (Makes me love the scene JKR put in the DH book with the locket spewing forth a load of stuff that seems to fit movie-Ron, not book-Ron. And it's a nice dig at all the Ron-bashing which comes from the movies.)

To be honest, I felt that characterisation was a big problem with the movies.

This has probably already been said but my biggest gripe witht the movies is the lack of information in movies after the first 2, espeacially in the endings . I didnt start reading the books until after I saw POA and that was because my brother was trying to explain things that were not explained in the movie. I think coming out of PS and COS you know everything you need to know but when you get to POA there is a lot of stuff you dont like who are the marauders which leads to more info about the map, snape and so on. Although the movie is a bit of a fan favourite it one of my least liked of the series I would of much preferred less shots of the whomping willow and more info, saying that I still watch it from time to time as I love Harry and Lupins time together.

Onto GOF which I think does a reasonable job of conveying most of the info but still misses some parts which set up the rest of the series, there was some info left out of the graveyard scene but I felt it was still ok but the part with barty jr and dumbledore as well as the hospital wing with sirius and snape and sending hagrid off on his mission which I love from the book were omitted.

OOTP not much to say here as they did a good job considering it may have been the hardest to make with the size of the book, BUT THE ENDING!!!!! The amounts of times that I have read the ending of that book with Harry and Dumbledore in his office getting "everthing" explained and Harry's emotions exploding with Sirius's death to then the movie just have nothing, I couldn't believe it. Also mention of the Patronuses to set up for snapes in DH2 would have ben nice.

HBP it was always going to be hard with going back looking at the memories with pacing and everything but would it really have hurt to show the gaunts memory to show where Voldemort came from??? Also the part at the end with Harry calling Snape a coward and his resonse to that was great in the book but left out and then their is the funeral no show which I think could have really been an emotional scene for everyone and set the tone and consequences of what had happened and what was needed after.

DH1 I dont have much to say here overall I think it did what it needed to do but i really think they needed to have wormtail die and explain in a bit more detail about how ron got back and as I noted above include info about patronuses, and maybe some more relisations about the hallows like harry owning the cloak and son on to set up for part 2.

DH2 they were always going to make it epic which in my book was fine but they needed to have a bit more dialogue with Dumbledore in Kings Cross as well as more dialogue with Voldemort at the end in the duel, as much as I like how the final duel in the book is in the great hall with everyone watching that didnt bother me as much as not having all the back and forth between Harry and Voldemort. I also really with they had Harry fix his wand at the end, I dont care that he broke the elder wand but he could have fixed his first, it speaks to his character.

There we go apologise if this has been said before but I felt like expressing my opinion on the topic.

That bothers me immensely as well. Hermione had some flaws in the books, in the movies, she was one complete MarySue. Part of this was, as you mention, giving her lines from other characters even things she had no way of knowing, and when the actual character was right there in the scene, too. One of the most annoying of all is giving her Ron's line from PoA "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill all of us". Where the movie turned Ron into a blithering idiot in that scene. The destruction of the trio is one thing that I really hate about the movies. I absolutely love the interactions between the trio in the books. They really are a unit. However, in the movies, it's clearly a Harry-Hermione team with Ron tagging along. (Makes me love the scene JKR put in the DH book with the locket spewing forth a load of stuff that seems to fit movie-Ron, not book-Ron. And it's a nice dig at all the Ron-bashing which comes from the movies.)

To be honest, I felt that characterization was a big problem with the movies.

Exactly. Hermione's characterization as the perfect character in turn affected the other two of the trio. Calling Ron even a sidekick is probably a overstatement as far as the movies are concerned because not only Hermione but even Harry is given some of his better moments (eg- the Felix Felicis idea). Then you have the fact that if you haven't actually read the book you'd think Ron practically cheated on Hermione in HBP. Even Harry is often showcased as ridiculously dumb in certain cases. In the books Harry figures out himself that he must talk to the ghost of Ravenclaw but in the movies it's Luna who helps him out. Now personally I don't mind it too much as Luna is one of my favourite characters but it does make Harry a lot more dimwitted than he actually is in the books.

It's not just Hermione though. Alan Rickman plays Snape perfectly a lot of the times but there are times I felt he was too soft. Michael Gambon was completely the opposite and was a bit too rough in his work as Dumbledore.

P.S I know it's a pet peeves thread but one thing I did love about DH2 was the scene between Harry and Helena Ravenclaw. Really intense from the actress who played her.