What are your movie pet peeves?

[acciowinter]

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

[Pecilla]

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

[salazarssister]

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

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

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

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

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

[ILuvDarkMarks]

Originally Posted by salazarssister

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

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

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

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

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

[Samuel5]

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

[Slartibartfast]

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

[serenitysky]

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

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

[willfitz]

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

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

[MinervasCat]

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

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

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

[Snapes_Girl]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

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

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

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

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Snapes_Girl

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

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

[Snapes_Girl]

Originally Posted by Wab

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

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

[GingerCat1]

Originally Posted by Snapes_Girl

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

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

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

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by Snapes_Girl

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

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

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

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

[Snapes_Girl]

Originally Posted by MerryLore

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

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

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

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

[NoobTwinz5]

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

[AMAC]

Originally Posted by salazarssister

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

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

[Inigo Imago]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

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

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

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

I agree with everything you've said here. My biggest pet peeve with the movies came down to the choice of where to make the cuts. In most cases, it felt like a lesser scene was included in place of a pivotal piece of information. In OotP, HBP, and now DH:1, it seems as though the focus has been on romance and action instead of on the true theme of the books (the importance of allowing choices to shape who we become).

[RavenclawCO99]

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

[serenitysky]

Originally Posted by RavenclawCO99

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

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

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

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