What would you change about the films?

[Verena]

Originally Posted by Peakes

What specifically is that you would change about this scene, I wonder?

In the book this scene was perfect. I think that in the film this scene has lost its meaning: Harry (in the book) frees himself from Voldemort’s possession with the power of love, it’s a natural thing for him. In the film seems to force himself, he needs to evoke happy memories of his life, seems that he’s doing a patronus charm, or that he has learned occlumency.
In the book Voldemort is devastated, prostrated from this experience, but in the film he’s all right and he talks with Harry calmly. Dumbledore standing there, he watches and he does nothing. Ron and Hermione look at Harry so expressionless, without any emotion. They watch their best friend as seems they were watching a movie ... there was no emotion in this scene. It’s not enough a sad music and a few flashbacks to move me. In the book .... well, everything was perfect and when Harry thinks " And I’ll see Sirius again. . . .” (Order of the Phoenix, chapter 36, “The only one he ever feared”) I cried so much (stupid me!) It was perfect!
But it is my personal opinion

[PotterFan417]

Since the movies are separate entities and I never expected/wanted them to be exactly like the books, there's not much I would change. But a couple things I would do, which would just be changes that would add/tweak a scene or two, are:

-In Prisoner of Azkaban, I would have added in a short conversation at the end between Harry and Lupin, where they talk about the Marauders and the creation of the map.
-In Goblet of Fire, I would have kept the Third Task scene more like the book, with the creatures inside the maze.
-In Half-Blood Prince, I would add at least one more of Riddle's memories, like the one with the Gaunts.
-In Deathly Hallows Part 2, I would make more conversation between Harry and Voldemort during the final duel. And I would change the end with the Elder Wand and have Harry fix his wand.

[Martok]

Originally Posted by PotterFan417

Since the movies are separate entities and I never expected/wanted them to be exactly like the books, there's not much I would change. But a couple things I would do, which would just be changes that would add/tweak a scene or two, are:

-In Prisoner of Azkaban, I would have added in a short conversation at the end between Harry and Lupin, where they talk about the Marauders and the creation of the map.

But the movie works fine without this piece of information. If it had been an actual plot point, then it would have been needed. Otherwise it's just a bit of trivia. And you don't put just trivia into a story just for the sake of it. You. Just. Don't.

Originally Posted by PotterFan417

-In Goblet of Fire, I would have kept the Third Task scene more like the book, with the creatures inside the maze.

After dragons, merepeople and grinylows it would have been an overdose of creatures, don't you thinK? This isn't Fantastic Beast And Where To Find Them: The Movie.

Originally Posted by PotterFan417

-In Half-Blood Prince, I would add at least one more of Riddle's memories, like the one with the Gaunts.

Unless there's some payoff for those memories, you don't need them.

Originally Posted by PotterFan417

-In Deathly Hallows Part 2, I would make more conversation between Harry and Voldemort during the final duel. And I would change the end with the Elder Wand and have Harry fix his wand.

I think it made more sense in the movie that Harry destroyed the elder wand instead of hoping to die undefeated. Dumbledore planned to do the same thing, but it didn't work out in the end, did it? I also like the idea that Harry's using Malfoy's old wand from now on, bringing their rivalyto a close.

So, most (if not all) poster in this thread want to change the movies to be more like the books, because they want to see their favorite scenes from the novels on screen, not because it would the movies better, right?

[Peakes]

Originally Posted by Martok

But the movie works fine without this piece of information. If it had been an actual plot point, then it would have been needed. Otherwise it's just a bit of trivia. And you don't put just trivia into a story just for the sake of it. You. Just. Don't.

Trivia, no. Backstory? I think you can do that. It would have explained how Lupin knew what the map was; how Sirius recognised Pettigrew as Ron's rat; it would also reinforce the relationship between Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew and James. It would establish Lupin as a recurring character, not just a professor who showed up for one year as DADA teacher and then OMG HE KNOWS SIRIUS LOLWUT?

I'd put the identity of the marauders in, and also explain that James' animagus form was a stag, making sense of Harry's patronus. I'd lose the flying dementors, and allow Harry's stag patronus to charge them down properly. Damn, writing this is reminding me why I dislike Cuarón's interpretation so much.

Originally Posted by Martok

After dragons, merepeople and grinylows it would have been an overdose of creatures, don't you thinK? This isn't Fantastic Beast And Where To Find Them: The Movie.

Agreed. The focus here was on Harry and Cedric reaching the cup together; they could have made the process more arduous, but the film doesn't need it. What it does need is someone giving Mike Newell a hefty slap for his woefully poor characterisation of Dumbledore.

Originally Posted by Martok

Unless there's some payoff for those memories, you don't need them.

There's a payoff IF - AND ONLY IF - they were to establish the identity of the horcruxes as relics of the Hogwarts houses, and not just random objects.

As it is, they never identify what the cup actually means, and for the diadem, the clue that leads to it's location also leads to it's link with Ravenclaw. They never established the locket as a relic of Slytherin, and never bothered to establish how Dumbledore located the cave.

If they had done that, and carried it all forward into the Deathly Hallows films, then it would have worked very well, I think.

Originally Posted by Martok

I think it made more sense in the movie that Harry destroyed the elder wand instead of hoping to die undefeated. Dumbledore planned to do the same thing, but it didn't work out in the end, did it? I also like the idea that Harry's using Malfoy's old wand from now on, bringing their rivalyto a close.

Destroying the wand - how I hated that scene at first. But yes, it does make more sense. However, I'd have seen it used to repair Harry's wand first. That would also mean spending a little time in the earlier movies to establish how much Harry valued his own wand, and they don't really do that in the films.

Originally Posted by Martok

So, most (if not all) poster in this thread want to change the movies to be more like the books, because they want to see their favorite scenes from the novels on screen, not because it would the movies better, right?

You have a point. If you're going to make changes to make the movies better, then there has to be a point to them; there are already instances of little things being thrown into the movies because they were in the book, and are never adequately explained.

For example, they make it quite clear that Harry's adopted wand acts on it's own to counter Voldemort in the Seven Potters battle, but they never did follow up on it. It's just throwing a bone to the die-hard book fans who know what's going on behind the scenes, and that should also be a big no-no in the films.

[Martok]

Originally Posted by Peakes

Trivia, no. Backstory? I think you can do that. It would have explained how Lupin knew what the map was; how Sirius recognised Pettigrew as Ron's rat; it would also reinforce the relationship between Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew and James. It would establish Lupin as a recurring character, not just a professor who showed up for one year as DADA teacher and then OMG HE KNOWS SIRIUS LOLWUT?

I'd put the identity of the marauders in, and also explain that James' animagus form was a stag, making sense of Harry's patronus. I'd lose the flying dementors, and allow Harry's stag patronus to charge them down properly. Damn, writing this is reminding me why I dislike Cuarón's interpretation so much.

Condensing the backstory of Marauder's Map would have been a tricky thing. The movie's third act is very long as it is. Pausing the drama for long monologue would have only hurt the pacing. The Map is a McGuffin. Audiences are used to this. It's only the fans who are upset about the lack of explaination, even though they know all about it.
JKR worked out backstories for all of her characters. I bet she worked very hard to put as much as she could in the actual books. With Pottermore she finally has an outlet for the rest of them. Movies are even more restricted for this kind of thing (unless you're Quentin Tarantino), because of the three act structure. In my opinon PoA is the only Harry Potter film which satisfactionally resolves everything by the end the movie that has been set up earlier. Yes, even the Map has served it's purpose.

[Peakes]

Originally Posted by Martok

Condensing the backstory of Marauder's Map would have been a tricky thing. The movie's third act is very long as it is. Pausing the drama for long monologue would have only hurt the pacing.

In Order of the Phoenix, Harry refers to Sirius as "Padfoot" - yet it's never explained in the films how Sirius came to be known by that name. It wouldn't have taken much to add the identity of the Marauders to Lupin's farewell chat with Harry when he hands back the map. Maybe he could have delivered the line used by Dumbledore in the books - "Prongs rode again tonight" - that would have added a nice emotional punch to what is feels like a very rushed ending.

[snugglepot]

Originally Posted by Peakes

In Order of the Phoenix, Harry refers to Sirius as "Padfoot" - yet it's never explained in the films how Sirius came to be known by that name. It wouldn't have taken much to add the identity of the Marauders to Lupin's farewell chat with Harry when he hands back the map. Maybe he could have delivered the line used by Dumbledore in the books - "Prongs rode again tonight" - that would have added a nice emotional punch to what is feels like a very rushed ending.

Even worse is that in GoF, Harry refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail", and due to the lack of explanation in PoA, how on earth did Movie Harry get to know that?

[Peakes]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

Even worse is that in GoF, Harry refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail", and due to the lack of explanation in PoA, how on earth did Movie Harry get to know that?

In his dream, he hears Voldemort call him by that name when he tells him to step aside so he can kill the old man.

[RikuStark]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

Even worse is that in GoF, Harry refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail", and due to the lack of explanation in PoA, how on earth did Movie Harry get to know that?

You know, I've never really thought of that before! Being someone who has read the books, when you watch the movies you never really find anything wrong when Peter being refered as Wormtail, or Sirius referred to as Padfoot.

It's funny, for the longest time I never noticed the Marauder's backstory being left out because the Marauders were still in the film in a way. I think these little references swayed me to believing that the backstory was in the movie the whole time.

[snugglepot]

Originally Posted by Peakes

In his dream, he hears Voldemort call him by that name when he tells him to step aside so he can kill the old man.

I guess that means the conversation between Movie Ron and Movie Harry, who were at the back of the group as they walked to the Portkey, went something like this;

"Hey, Ron, Peter Pettigrew was in my dream last night, with Voldemort, who called him 'Wormtail'!"
"But , Harry, Wormtail was one of the names on that Map you got from Fred and George. Does that mean....."
"Moony, Padfoot and Prongs must be Professor Lupin, Sirius and my dad. I wish they would have told us this."

There was certainly no dialogue onscreen that had Harry processing the fact that Peter Pettigrew was the Wormtail of the Marauders' Map.

[Peakes]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

I guess that means the conversation between Movie Ron and Movie Harry, who were at the back of the group as they walked to the Portkey, went something like this;

"Hey, Ron, Peter Pettigrew was in my dream last night, with Voldemort, who called him 'Wormtail'!"
"But , Harry, Wormtail was one of the names on that Map you got from Fred and George. Does that mean....."
"Moony, Padfoot and Prongs must be Professor Lupin, Sirius and my dad. I wish they would have told us this."

There was certainly no dialogue onscreen that had Harry processing the fact that Peter Pettigrew was the Wormtail of the Marauders' Map.

I agree 100%, you're absolutely right. It's a horribly tenuous link, but it does at the very least get the Wormtail name in there in some fashion, unlike Moony, Padfoot and Prongs. This is why I originally said I would include the identity of the Marauders as the map's authors, and not just as trivia, but as relevant backstory that carries forward into the later films.

You can't get everything in the films, I totally get that; by and large, I think they did a pretty good job of cutting out the unnecessary subplots and focusing on the core storyline. However, you do need to get the essentials in, and this was one of the cuts that I felt took too much away from the story. Given that so much of Prisoner of Azkaban felt rushed, I see no reason why this should not have been included.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

I guess that means the conversation between Movie Ron and Movie Harry, who were at the back of the group as they walked to the Portkey, went something like this;

"Hey, Ron, Peter Pettigrew was in my dream last night, with Voldemort, who called him 'Wormtail'!"
"But , Harry, Wormtail was one of the names on that Map you got from Fred and George. Does that mean....."
"Moony, Padfoot and Prongs must be Professor Lupin, Sirius and my dad. I wish they would have told us this."

There was certainly no dialogue onscreen that had Harry processing the fact that Peter Pettigrew was the Wormtail of the Marauders' Map.

I don't remember for sure, but wasn't it 'Peter Pettigrew' on the map when Harry was in the hallway, right before Prof. Snape caught him?

-eta-
PoA movie

[snugglepot]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

I don't remember for sure, but wasn't it 'Peter Pettigrew' on the map when Harry was in the hallway, right before Prof. Snape caught him?

-eta-
PoA movie

It was Peter Pettigrew.
Harry told Remus who made that comment "The map never lies!"
I would have prefered the Marauders' explanation be included instead of pointless scenes like Hermione swinging on the Whomping willow, making Werewolf calls and wondering what her hair looked like from the back!

There are countless scenes in PoA, I would get rid of in favour of not just the Marauders' story but the whole Animagus and Harry's Patronus= James' form.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

It was Peter Pettigrew.
Harry told Remus who made that comment "The map never lies!"
I would have prefered the Marauders' explanation be included instead of pointless scenes like Hermione swinging on the Whomping willow, making Werewolf calls and wondering what her hair looked like from the back!

There are countless scenes in PoA, I would get rid of in favour of not just the Marauders' story but the whole Animagus and Harry's Patronus= James' form.

So how does the imagined conversation between Ron and Harry about Wormtail being on the map come about when it was Peter Pettigrew on the map? I'm terribly confused . . . .

[snugglepot]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

So how does the imagined conversation between Ron and Harry about Wormtail being on the map come about when it was Peter Pettigrew on the map? I'm terribly confused . . . .

Wormtail is mentioned as one of the author's of the map. This is in the scene where the Twins give it to Harry.
Later in the movie Harry sees the name Peter Pettigrew on the map. He doesn't see him he just tells Remus about his name being there.
In the movie of PoA there is NEVER a link made between Peter Pettigrew and Wormtail.
Yet in GoF, Harry seems to know Peter is Wormtail and is not surprised that Voldemort refers to him by that name.
I was saying there is no scene acknowledging that Harry has worked out that Peter is Wormtail, so I added a conversation between Harry and Ron as they were walking to the Portkey.

[lucky charms]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

So how does the imagined conversation between Ron and Harry about Wormtail being on the map come about when it was Peter Pettigrew on the map? I'm terribly confused . . . .

The map shows Peter Pettigrew, but the message that Harry is forced to read to Snape is addressed from "Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs".

ETA: Also, what snugglepot said

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

Wormtail is mentioned as one of the author's of the map. This is in the scene where the Twins give it to Harry.
Later in the movie Harry sees the name Peter Pettigrew on the map. He doesn't see him he just tells Remus about his name being there.
In the movie of PoA there is NEVER a link made between Peter Pettigrew and Wormtail.
Yet in GoF, Harry seems to know Peter is Wormtail and is not surprised that Voldemort refers to him by that name.
I was saying there is no scene acknowledging that Harry has worked out that Peter is Wormtail, so I added a conversation between Harry and Ron as they were walking to the Portkey.

OK, now I understand what you're saying. I should re-watch that opening scene of GoF. Nah . . .

I think it's probably a lack of continuity between the two different directors, and possibly poor writing by Kloves. In any case it's one of those little details that get lost and that drive us persnickety fans crazy!

[snugglepot]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

OK, now I understand what you're saying. I should re-watch that opening scene of GoF. Nah . . .

I think it's probably a lack of continuity between the two different directors, and possibly poor writing by Kloves. In any case it's one of those little details that get lost and that drive us persnickety fans crazy!

You said it.
Kloves' writing does at times drive me crazy!

[ID824]

I would either remove the entire scene where Harry and Hermione dance in the tent, or choreograph an actual dance that didn't make Dan look absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion, that dance was the kind of thing you'd see 8-year olds doing with each other at a wedding or something. Some of us have seen Dan dance in other things, so we know he's capable - it's just a shame he wasn't given more to work with here.

[Peakes]

Originally Posted by ID824

I would either remove the entire scene where Harry and Hermione dance in the tent, or choreograph an actual dance that didn't make Dan look absolutely ridiculous. In my opinion, that dance was the kind of thing you'd see 8-year olds doing with each other at a wedding or something. Some of us have seen Dan dance in other things, so we know he's capable - it's just a shame he wasn't given more to work with here.

I seem to recall one of the DVD or Blu-ray extras mentioning that they had to re-film that scene with Dan and Emma dancing badly (well, more cheesy), as the first time round they were too good!

After all, Harry was hardly the king of the dance floor in Goblet of Fire, was he?