What are your movie pet peeves?

WildFloo162 · #**1201** September 30th, 2011, 5:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Williwaw

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!

*decarus* · #**1202** September 30th, 2011, 6:13 pm

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.

*MrSleepyHead* · #**1203** September 30th, 2011, 6:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by decarus

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).

*decarus* · #**1204** September 30th, 2011, 7:02 pm

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.

*BrianTung* · #**1205** September 30th, 2011, 7:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

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.

WildFloo162 · #**1206** September 30th, 2011, 8:12 pm

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.

*decarus* · #**1207** September 30th, 2011, 9:01 pm

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.

*Fawkesfan1* · #**1208** September 30th, 2011, 9:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LisaA

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

. Still a good scene.

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

.

Definitely

. I thought they did a very nice job with that.

WildFloo162 · #**1209** October 1st, 2011, 12:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by decarus

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.

*Slartibartfast* · #**1210** October 1st, 2011, 3:19 am

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

WildFloo162 · #**1211** October 1st, 2011, 5:38 pm

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.

LisaA · #**1212** October 1st, 2011, 8:21 pm

Quote:

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.

*decarus* · #**1213** October 1st, 2011, 8:48 pm

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.

Goddess_Clio · #**1214** October 4th, 2011, 7:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by decarus

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!)

*decarus* · #**1215** October 4th, 2011, 7:30 pm

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.

*snapes_witch* · #**1216** October 4th, 2011, 10:08 pm

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.

*BrianTung* · #**1217** October 4th, 2011, 10:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

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 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.

phoenix45 · #**1218** October 4th, 2011, 11:33 pm

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.

magentastorm · #**1219** October 5th, 2011, 4:31 am

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.

* 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?

* 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!

* 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.

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

* 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!

Goddess_Clio · #**1220** October 6th, 2011, 8:36 pm

Quote: