What are your movie pet peeves?

[touchstone]

Sorry, I like the movies. They aren't award winners to be sure, but the kids are adorable (except the twins in the first movie, that was some Bad acting!) and the older actors are wonderful. I did think that GoF skipped alot of scenes that would have been wonderful on the big screen. (The Quidditch game notably.) The screenplays could be a little less lame, but hey, they are writing mainly for children. So, too bad, so sad, adults can't have everything their way.

I decided to watch Sorcerer's Stone again, and I don't find much wrong with it. It's pretty good as a matter of fact. Oh, I don't care for the Quirrel character much, but then, he's not meant to be endearing.

[gualsa]

I try not to compare the films too much to the books so I only have a few..

I think its a shame that so much changes through the films due to different directors being used. Like the stupid hats the pupils were wearing in the first films and Prof Flitwick having a complete upper body transplant etc.

I hate the way Lupin looks. I dont care about his facial hair, but I dont know why they chose to cast him looking like Richard from Keeping up apearances. Its the tired posture and the dreadful cardigans. Its really really hard imagining this character was once a Marauder. He has no spark whatsoever.

The fire scene in POA. Why oh why could Gary not have lent Cuaron his head for just a couple of hours to do that scene?

The whole dragon sequence from GoF. a)The fact that the dragon chases after Harry which was not planned and all just sit there happily waiting for the dragon to return with or without a bulging belly. b)Stupid dragon in the fact that it chases after Harry at all thus leaving its egg completely unprotected and surrounded by many more humans...? c)Scene too long.

Too much make up on Snape in the first film. He looks like a drag queen.

The kids acting in the first films but thats obviously unavoidable. It still gets to me though. (No excuse for David Thewlis appaling performance in PoA though)

Oh I could go on but Im making myself in a bad mood... Think HAPPY thoughts....

[Atreides]

Originally Posted by DaTrio_x3

I mean, the "I'm scared for you" scene with Hermione and Harry wasn't important as the Quidditch World Cup.

Please, please tell me you're kidding.

[FaceofBoe]

Originally Posted by DaTrio_x3

When people know it's going to be a long movie, but they add useless stuff instead of putting in details..

I mean, the "I'm scared for you" scene with Hermione and Harry wasn't important as the Quidditch World Cup.

That scene does a lot - a lot more than the World Cup would have done. It establishes that Harry hasn't been working on the egg, leading into the Cedric scene a moment later; it's a little afterward to the Yule Ball about Hermione and Krum, simultaneously telling us that Harry doesn't fancy Hermione, despite her transformation (he laughs and teases her when she says Krum is "physical"); and it's a good way of reminding us of the danger of the Tournament, after we've had a break from it for a while. It's a linking scene, but it's an important one - it ties together a lot of plot threads, and leads us on from there. I'd say that's good writing on Kloves's part.

[Atreides]

Originally Posted by FaceofBoe

That scene does a lot - a lot more than the World Cup would have done. It establishes that Harry hasn't been working on the egg, leading into the Cedric scene a moment later; it's a little afterward to the Yule Ball about Hermione and Krum, simultaneously telling us that Harry doesn't fancy Hermione, despite her transformation (he laughs and teases her when she says Krum is "physical"); and it's a good way of reminding us of the danger of the Tournament, after we've had a break from it for a while. It's a linking scene, but it's an important one - it ties together a lot of plot threads, and leads us on from there. I'd say that's good writing on Kloves's part.

All of that, and I might also add that most of the audiences hate Quidditch. To include a World Cup would have been overkill and extremely groan-inducing.

People say that Hermione and Harry are being improperly foreshadowed in the movies. Why, then, do they complain when a scene clearly establishes Hermione as the mother-figure, not to mention serves several purposes for the movie, and suggest that it get thrown out for a pointless Quidditch match?

[BurrowGhoul]

Originally Posted by Wimsey

He also is a professor. Speaking as an academic, I can assure you that he looks like a lot of my older colleagues. (Fortunately, getting tenure did not alter my hygiene!)

The Ron/Hermione shipping is pretty heavy in the books, beginning in PoA. JKR herself made note of the closing scene of CoS anticipating the relationship between the two.


The book never says that Lupin does not have a mustache.

Smart money is on this scene being the one including that foreshadowing that JKR has mentioned. JKR has very loudly NOT denied that Lupin also had a thing for Lily, and this scene provided some nice character development for Lily. One of the things that the PoA book does is provide us with a little background on Harry's parents (more James than Lily): this scene did both.


McGonagal was there and party to it. Also, this was not gossip, but history. Besides, why waste Maggie Smith's talents by not using her? Having her and Fudge give the story instead of just Fudge made for better cinema and made some use of an outstanding actress.

I thought the title of this thread was "What are your pet peeves," not "What did you see in the movies that couldn't be explained?" Just because there's a possible reason for it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[psycha]

I hated the use of flashbacks in the films. In the first movie it was the one of Harry's parents being murdered and it was shown in that tacky RIGID slow motion. The second movie had that silly psychedelic distortion effect on the flashback of Ginny writing on the walls; ugh. And the fourth movie had that icky blur filter for the dream sequences which--were still obviously flashbacks. And although my homie Alfonso didn't use any cheezy flashbacks in his movie, he made up for it (AND THEN SOME) by ending the film with that moronic blurred freeze frame close up of Dan's face; .....

So Mr. Yates, PLEASE! NO flashbacks or experimentation with frame speed. Thank you.

[AchelRay]

Originally Posted by psycha

I hated the use of flashbacks in the films. In the first movie it was the one of Harry's parents being murdered and it was shown in that tacky RIGID slow motion. The second movie had that silly psychedelic distortion effect on the flashback of Ginny writing on the walls; ugh. And the fourth movie had that icky blur filter for the dream sequences which--were still obviously flashbacks. And although my homie Alfonso didn't use any cheezy flashbacks in his movie, he made up for it (AND THEN SOME) by ending the film with that moronic blurred freeze frame close up of Dan's face; .....

So Mr. Yates, PLEASE! NO flashbacks or experimentation with frame speed. Thank you.

Completely agreed. The flashbacks always make me feel dizzy and I feel like I want to leave the room (That's one of the reasons I haven't seen PoA start to finish). The fourth wasn't quite so bad but the whole first task thing made me feel so out of it for the rest of the movie the theater still felt like it was swinging with the camera when it moved (have you noticed how much harder it is to lose the dizzy feeling in the dark? sorry).

[DALeader]

What bugs me the most in the movies is all the information they leave out. Like in GoF the stuff that was left out was numorous. No Dursleys, Certain Weasleys, and house elves. That is just too much stuff and I haven't even named all the missing information.

[Blizzard]

Originally Posted by AchelRay

Completely agreed. The flashbacks always make me feel dizzy and I feel like I want to leave the room (That's one of the reasons I haven't seen PoA start to finish).

Um...there were no flashbacks in PoA. The closest thing to such was Lily's scream...and I don't really understand how that could make you feel dizzy(though I don't get how flashbacks at all could make you feel dizzy...unless you are running around in a circle while watching the movie)

[piky]

This may have already been mentioned, (I didn't go through all of the pages of this thread) but one "set" of things about GoF was irritating to me:

The way the Patil twins are BOTH in Gryffindor -- we know that Padma is actually in Ravenclaw. Where is Lavender? She's supposed to be the one pal-ing around with Parvati, not Padma. It's going to be a lot harder to introduce her as Ron's 'squeeze' in HBP because the movies-only audience has never 'met' her.

The way they had these 'twins' (who aren't even really related to each other ) walking around as if glued together at the shoulders (until the Yule Ball, anyway). It was rather annoying to have to go through the whole "Hi, Harry" thing several times -- even though I know that it was set-up for Harry going "...Hey!..." and getting them as dates for him and Ron.

[Blizzard]

Originally Posted by piky

This may have already been mentioned, (I didn't go through all of the pages of this thread) but one "set" of things about GoF was irritating to me:

The way the Patil twins are BOTH in Gryffindor -- we know that Padma is actually in Ravenclaw.

Why does it matter? They just put them both in the one house to simplify things. It really is a change that doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by piky

It's going to be a lot harder to introduce her as Ron's 'squeeze' in HBP because the movies-only audience has never 'met' her.

The movie audience never met Cho until GoF, and it worked perfectly fine.

[saz]

Originally Posted by Phoebe

I'm assuming your talking about the scene in the DADA class. I thought this was a mistake at first, but it's really not. At the start of the class, the audience views the class through the mirror-like door of the cabinet, which makes everything appear backwards. When the class ends, we go back to viewing the class through the door of the cabiet, so his scar would be backwards. Hope that made sense.

Yea, I know that, but I thought there was one or two scenes near the end where there is no scar.

[piky]

Originally Posted by Blizzard

Why does it matter? They just put them both in the one house to simplify things. It really is a change that doesn't matter.

The movie audience never met Cho until GoF, and it worked perfectly fine.

The title question is about personal pet peeves. Just because it was justified, doesn't mean that it doesn't still irritate me a bit.....

[Tonks]

Oh I agree about Percy, I think the nightshirt was a bit much. Good call on McGonagal too, since when did she turn into a gossip?

[fashion_heiress]

The guy who plays Snape is my Pet Peeve. x-x

[potter101]

thats a bit harsh... but i see your point..... i like how emmas hair is in the mvies (even though it is the opposite of what hermiones hair is supposed to look like) there acting... ya its not all that good but its getting better throughout the movies (personally, the best dan has acted in was CoS.) but the worst for me is when they leave tings out .... like in the third movie they really didnt put in much explaination on the whole story... like how Sirius got out of Azkaban, and how lupin, james, sirius, and wormtail were the bestest of friends.. and them being animagus.... thats what ticks me off..... but other than that... the movies are great!

[Blizzard]

Originally Posted by potter101

(personally, the best dan has acted in was CoS.)

I thought Dan's acting was terrible in CoS, and though he was not great in PoA, he definetly had improved (with the exception of one scene).

Originally Posted by potter101

and how lupin, james, sirius, and wormtail were the bestest of friends..

That's definetly in the film. Watch again.

[harryrox425]

It bothers me that not all of the actors have read the books! It's like you are part of a project that other people would kill to be a part of and you don't even research your parts!

Also the time of the movies bothers me! They need to be much longer, GoF has sooo many plot holes, if I hadn't read the book I would have been so lost. They showed Barty's dead body and then never explained what happened to him, it was just a quick image, and then the plot moved back to the triwizard tournament.

However, I am still very excited to see the 5th movie!

[FaceofBoe]

Originally Posted by harryrox425

It bothers me that not all of the actors have read the books! It's like you are part of a project that other people would kill to be a part of and you don't even research your parts!

As long as the director has read the book, it doesn't matter if the actors have. The actor should work from the script, and the instructions of the director. If they have any questions about motivation, it should be obvious in the script, or the director should know. I doubt very much that actors reading the books would make any difference to performances. Look at it this way - neither Richard Harris nor Michael Gambon read the books. In my opinion, Gambon's performances have been generally better, with more depth and range to them, they have better suited the dramatic medium, and in many ways are closer to canon-Dumbledore than Harris's. The difference is, Gambon was working with better directors, who understood the medium of cinema, and knew what had to be done with Dumbledore in the movies.

Originally Posted by harryrox425

Also the time of the movies bothers me! They need to be much longer, GoF has sooo many plot holes, if I hadn't read the book I would have been so lost. They showed Barty's dead body and then never explained what happened to him, it was just a quick image, and then the plot moved back to the triwizard tournament.

That didn't need to be explained, as it was very clear in the editing. We see Crouch have an argument with Moody, who flicks his tongue around. We see Crouch dead in the next scene. Then in the following scene, we see the flashback - and Crouch jr, arguing with his father, flicking his tongue. That's all the explanation you need - by this point, the audience has easily worked out that Moody is Crouch jr in disguise, and has killed his dad.

And the movies certainly do not need to be longer - PS, CoS and GoF are all too long as it is. If CoS was even longer, it would put me to sleep even sooner than it does now! The reason PS and CoS did not make as much money as WB expected, and were not popular with the general audience (the 90% who haven't read the books, and 98% who are not devoted fans), was because they were too long, and included too many irrelevent details and plot twists from the books that did nothing to further the story - eg, Norbert, the Polyjuice Potion (20 minutes in the middle of the film spent ruling out a red herring!). They learned from their mistakes in PoA, and made a good, tightly-plotted film, that told the story from the book in a cinematic way, and actually had no plot holes - fans just think it does because it doesn't explain everything, but it doesn't need to. Watch the film from an outsider's perspective, and there are no plot holes, no gaps in our knowledge that we need to understand the story. It's all very straightforward. Same with GoF. GoF was also criticised a little by the general audience for being too long, but it had a much better pace than PS and CoS, and it didn't drag as much, even with irrelevencies like Rita - which is why most people forgave it.