Inconsistent Aspects of the Movies: Everything Changes When the Director Changes

[JustAnIllusion]

Originally Posted by LoonyMagic

The change in actor, for me, is probably one of my most annoying inconsistencies. I know that Richard Harris' death was unavoidable, but the contrast of Dumbledore from CoS to GoF, for example, is so bad and very noticable - not only because of the change of actor (obviously) but because of the complete change in portrayal.

I agree completely on the change in portrayal. I never expected Gambon to act like Harris... but perhaps a bit more like Dumbledore. In PoA, I liked his quirkiness, but in GoF, the portrayal was almost unidentifiable.

[Steelsheen]

to me, even if they keep everything exactly the same-- sets, actors, costumes, make-up, i could still tell if the helm has changed hands. for some reason i could easily pick up even subtle changes in visual style and movement (like in Superman2, as young as i was, i knew which scenes were done by Donner and which were done by Lester. in all 3 LOTR films, i could tell which were shot by Jackson and which were delegated to someone else).

thats why i'm always for keeping the same director whenever possible, because its actually his vision that we get to see onscreen. i'm not saying that changes are bad-- certainly not. i think Columbus left the HP franchise and turned it over to someone else at a good time. although i thought whoever should've taken over in POA should've been the same man to complete the rest of the series. unfortunately Cuaron did only one film, and honestly his work wasnt all that flawless (the POA ending is the worst so far). i've been wondering what woud've happened if they got Guillermo del Toro early on. he's the only director i can think of that has a wide enough range to children's movies and dark, adult themes.

[GrangerHermione]

Originally Posted by Steelsheen

to me, even if they keep everything exactly the same-- sets, actors, costumes, make-up, i could still tell if the helm has changed hands. for some reason i could easily pick up even subtle changes in visual style and movement (like in Superman2, as young as i was, i knew which scenes were done by Donner and which were done by Lester. in all 3 LOTR films, i could tell which were shot by Jackson and which were delegated to someone else).

I agree. But I wish that the new HP directors had at least tried to keep the sets and actors the same. It really annoys me. The Fat Lady is completely different, and so is Tom the bartender. Everything changed with the director.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by GrangerHermione

I agree. But I wish that the new HP directors had at least tried to keep the sets and actors the same. It really annoys me. The Fat Lady is completely, and so is Tom the bartender. Everything changed with the director.

The cast have other stuff to do besides HP and their not going to work the shooting around the availability of what are in effect glorified extras.

[lyratonks]

The thing that really stinks in the movies is the fact that they only say about a hundred times each book that Harry's eyes are green, but in every single movie we see Daniel Radcliffe's bright blue peepers. Arghhhh!

[_horcruxgirl_]

In my opinion, I really didn't like the way Dumbledore acted in GoF.... It just stinks. He didn't act like Dumbledore at all.
Dumbledore in the fifth one is a little more better although we don't see him very much.

I agree with you lryatonks. Harry's eyes are so obvious. I mean, they're important in DH because of the whole Snape/Lily thing etc. What are they going to do in DH?

[SoulOfRebirth]

What's important is that he has his mother's eyes, not that his eyes are green.

[gipro2003]

Originally Posted by SoulOfRebirth

What's important is that he has his mother's eyes, not that his eyes are green.

Exactly, the connection has to do with him having the same eye's as his mother, not having green eyes. So as long as Lily is portryaed with blue eyes, then there is no problem. Dan did try wearing green contacts but they irritated his eyes to much.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by lyratonks

The thing that really stinks in the movies is the fact that they only say about a hundred times each book that Harry's eyes are green, but in every single movie we see Daniel Radcliffe's bright blue peepers. Arghhhh!

After all these years of argy-bargy, now that we have seen how it all turns out, the colour of Harry's eyes has turned out to be the most fatuous, pointless detail in the entire history of books, since the first piece of papyrus was made.

I cannot believe that anyone can still bring this up without blushing.

[Br1an_Potter]

I hate how they change the location/look of Hagrids hut every two movies.

[wilmer_harry02]

ALAS!!! The original Hogwarts Castle...



All those circles you will see below are the things they've changed throughout the movies...



The keep adding stuff!!!
--Clocktower Courtyard with bridge,
--Courtyard in front of the great hall (sacking of trelawney)
--Owlery (which was never seen in the first 3 movies)
--Dark Tower (Sirius Black escape)
--Pointy towers everywhere
--And what's new!!! The Astronomy tower in Half-Blood Prince
--Oh, and not to mention ...moving Hagrid's Hut from one part of he castle to the other

and they'll keep changing and adding...


So whatta ya think??? I know that the castle changes magically. JK Rowling says so in the first book. Rooms appear and disappear and all. But and Order of the Phoenix mistake they did was in Snape's memory...Its supposed to be more than 20, 30 years ago, and the Clocktower is THERE!!!...

...poor castle...poor people...they'll keep getting lost

[gertiekeddle]

Originally Posted by wilmer_harry02

I know that the castle changes magically. JK Rowling says so in the first book.

Actually what JK describes in the books is not so much determination for how the movie makers create the films. I don't think they did to show that the castle changes (JK never said it does so in this extend anyway), but simply because the makers changed.

I had, however, loved to get the same setting with every movie, too, but assume that's close to impossible if one wants to put in true and honest effort for an own good movie he works on. Different workers so created a different setting, but it's in my opinion not related to any canon we know from the books.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by wilmer_harry02

and they'll keep changing and adding...

Why shouldn't they?

[LilCubanita67]

Originally Posted by _horcruxgirl_

In my opinion, I really didn't like the way Dumbledore acted in GoF.... It just stinks. He didn't act like Dumbledore at all.
Dumbledore in the fifth one is a little more better although we don't see him very much.

I agree, in my opinion Gambon's Dumbledore in GOF seemed a little inconsistent compared with Dumbledore in the other movies. It may have been due to the director wanting to go in a different direction or try something different for Dumbledore in that movie. Online it says, "Mike Newell's approach focused more on humour and character development."

[Electricfeel]

I only really noticed the castle and the grounds changing in PoA (all changed for the better, imo). Since then they have only really added things to the existing castle which I haven't found that irritating continuity wise.

[Hysteria]

_horcruxgirl_
I agree with you lryatonks. Harry's eyes are so obvious. I mean, they're important in DH because of the whole Snape/Lily thing etc. What are they going to do in DH?

Make Lily's eyes blue. Fixed.

[PureBloodGirl]

Originally Posted by Headless_Nick

(I apologize in advance if I missed a thread on this topic.)

Is it just me, or do the scenery, set, and even some of the characters change completely in appearance every time there is a switch in direction? Okay, so I exaggerate a little, but let's look at some examples:
1) Flitwick goes from fluffily white-haired with fluffy sideburns to mustachioed with slick, black hair and no sideburns.
2) Every few movies, the lake seems to change in size and shape, as well as in the percentage of Hogwarts grounds it takes up.
3) All (or simply many of) the outdoor areas of Hogwarts that the main trio (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) seemed to frequent in the first two movies have either changed or dissappeared. E.g. A birdbath that the trio seems to enjoy circling in, I believe, Chamber of Secrets (though it might be Pilosopher's Stone) is never seen again.

Any comments, additions, corrections? Am I right, or totally delusional?

I've noticed this as well and it does annoy me. I love to watch movies, especially movie adaptions of books, but if the movie isn't accurate or if they get something wrong it really bugs me, but I know that it shouldn't because it isn't the actual book. Anyways, all of these little changes that we see in the movies are small, but they do stick out to the keen eye. Us die-hard Harry Potter fans obviously have those keen eyes to be able to pick out every detail and every flaw and every change in the movies. Other than these three things that you pointed out, Headless_Nick, I cannot think of anything else that was changed when the directors changed. Except maybe Hagrid's hut being moved sometimes. I might have imagined it or just think it's different because I saw it from a different angle or something, but Hagrid's hut seems to be moved somewhere else in almost every movie. Has anyone noticed this?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by PureBloodGirl

Hagrid's hut seems to be moved somewhere else in almost every movie. Has anyone noticed this?

I am pretty sure that they changed the location after the first movie on JK's advice. This makes sense, as the Prisoner of Azkaban would not have worked very well in its old location.

I'm not sure if it ever changed again.

[Electricfeel]

Yeah, in the first two films it was right next to the castle. It all seemed like it was on just a flat lawn, so I'm glad they put it when it was in PoA onwards.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by wilmer_harry02

The keep adding stuff!!!
--Clocktower Courtyard with bridge,
--Courtyard in front of the great hall (sacking of trelawney)
--Owlery (which was never seen in the first 3 movies)
--Dark Tower (Sirius Black escape)
--Pointy towers everywhere
--And what's new!!! The Astronomy tower in Half-Blood Prince
--Oh, and not to mention ...moving Hagrid's Hut from one part of he castle to the other

and they'll keep changing and adding...

But these are all tiny details that only the most hardcore fans would notice.

All of this stuff goes right over my head -- I am far too engaged with the story itself on screen to notice.

Originally Posted by Electricfeel

Yeah, in the first two films it was right next to the castle. It all seemed like it was on just a flat lawn, so I'm glad they put it when it was in PoA onwards.

Yes, I wasn't keen on that 'flat lawn' effect in the first two films at all.

I much preferred the locations in PoA.