What are your movie pet peeves?

[Alfine]

I agree with that comment on Hagrid; sometimes he is portrayed a bit too idiotic in my opinion.
I didn't like the fact he always said something like "if I just hadn't said anything" after telling certain pieces of information to Harry, Ron and Hermione.
Although I don't think Hagrid is necessarily the smartest, in the movies you sometimes get the idea he has no brain at all, like in the scence concerning Buckbeak. In my opinion, that's just bad timing for comic relief, if you want to call it like that, because Buckbeak meant a whole lot to Hagrid.

[potter_gleek]

I know this is really insiginificant but I hate the final shot of Deathly Hallows part 2. Harry and Hermione are in the centre whilst Ron is stuck to the side. Finny's more prominent in the shot than Ron is. I don't understand why Yates always sidelined Ron as if he's not important.

[GingerCat1]

Originally Posted by potter_gleek

I know this is really insiginificant but I hate the final shot of Deathly Hallows part 2. Harry and Hermione are in the centre whilst Ron is stuck to the side. Finny's more prominent in the shot than Ron is. I don't understand why Yates always sidelined Ron as if he's not important.

Probably because Yates and Kloves actually do consider Ron to be unimportant.

[merrymarge]

I never liked the way Vernon always grinned a nasty grin at Harry or the neighbors in OoTP. I also didn't like how they had Mrs. Figg act so calm. In the book she was very excitable, screaming for Dung and when he should up, she hit with him her bag of cat food.

[Basilisk37]

My movie pet-peeves? The lack of Peeves. (Pun intended)

[coppertop1]

I'm sorry two say that after the sixth movie, I lost interest in the last two. The first two movies were very good, the fifth wasn't bad. The others were a miss. Especially the third and sixth, which is disappointing, those were my favourite books.

So here are my pet peeves
1. Cutting out important scenes and adding pointless scenes (Burning down the burrow, anyone)

2. Out of character "Want me to open it?" "I am the chosen one!" Ugh, Harry was NEVER like that! "DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE!!"
3. I hate the connect the dots feel to some of the movies. GOF and HBP had absoluletly no subplots, and it makes the movie feel disjointed.
4. How the movies treat certain characters. Ron wasn't just a side kick, he was important, kept things light, and was smart in his own way! Also the way Neville was STILL portrayed as klutzy in the sixth book, not a young man coming into his own. Grrr! Ginny was never given any fire, and that's what made Harry like her, and Fleur was almost non existent, she was a very strong and caring character, but in the movie we don't see that. We needed to see more of Bill/Fleur in general.

[ginevraweasly]

Originally Posted by mixedgurltuja27

There are a lot of things that bother me about HP the movies, and I'm sure that there are things that bother you all. So what bothers you the most?

Here are my top 5:

1) The acting, as a whole, sucks. Sorry to all you Dan and Emma lovers, but I really do not think that the two can act. And with their characters being the 2 most important that just makes the whole movie horrible.
2) Everything is wrong. The miniscule details that are everywhere in the book are changed for the movies. I understand that some things have to be changed for adaption purposes, but when you change that much it just bothers me...
4) They have changed the characters somewhat from how they are in the book. Just little things that I noticed that really bother me. Emma's hair isn't bushy. Did anyone else notice that at some points in the PoA movie there was no scar on Dan's forehead?
5) Some of the actors, to me, don't fit their characters. Most of them do, but some of them I think would do better in other roles or not there at all.

I could not agree more whole-heartedly, I've been feeling that towards Dan from the very beginning. I denied his being anything like Harry Potter and got really angry over his obvious lack of acting abilities- but it was long done.

They've made a real mess of things with those movies, didn't they. Probably only Chris Colombus was ever on the right track but there was room for improvement, too. On the whole, I've never enjoyed the movies much but saw them all in cinema, nevertheless...
:/

[snapes_witch]

I hadn't noticed the lack of a scar, if I ever watch PoA again I'll be sure to check that out!

[StarryVeil]

Ok, I’m going to go full-on and list my top ten movie pet peeves. Feel free to read the whole thing…or not.

TOP TEN MOVIE PET PEEVES

1. Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore. He always seemed so…agitated and impatient. The Dumbledore of the first two films did a much better job. Plus, I’m not a fan of second Dumbledore’s tied up beard and salt-and-pepper hair color.
2. Hermione suddenly becoming superwoman from PoA onwards at the expense of Ron (and even Harry sometimes) being sidelined.
3. Hermione’s hair – it’s not supposed to look that good!
4. Of course, the eye color fiasco.
5. The way that, starting from PoA, the Hogwarts students increasingly wore Muggle clothes at school. Even Malfoy, product of the ultimate anti-Muggle household, is frequently shown wearing black trousers, a turtleneck and a jacket in the last few films.
6. Young Snape looking so cute, well-cared for, and nice. He’s not supposed to look so…normal. He’s a boy from a crappy household which has caused him to form an unhealthy fixation/love for Lily who’s the brightest thing in his life. So, yes, he’s supposed to have something slightly more…creepy about him.
7. Harry and Ginny’s romance felt very forced in the books themselves. In the movies, it felt like it was being shoved down our throats.
8. Omission of the Dumbledore subplot in DH.
9. The omission of the Marauder subplot. We never even get to know that James’s Animagus was a stag and that’s why Harry’s Patronus is a stag. Which leads me to –
10. The treatment of James Potter’s character and, by extension, the James-Lily-Snape love triangle. As I’ve mentioned in the James/Lily thread, only-movie fans may just as well forget that Harry had a dad. Firstly, movie fans are deprived from the first and most obvious tangible connection Harry had with his father – his Patronus. In PoA, Harry simply keeps producing non-corporeal Patronuses (Patroni?) then, out of the blue, at the end of the movie he sees a white stag appear AFTER his Patronus goes away and that’s it. The end of the stag. Never again do we hear of it. I’m sure only-movie fans would’ve been scratching their heads, wondering where on earth that random stag in PoA came from. Then in OoTP, the SWM scene is filmed such that James comes out of it looking like a cardboard cut-out playground bully and Snape a cardboard cut-out victim. There is SO much more depth and so many undercurrents in that scene, they could have made a wonderful piece out of it. But they did not. Then in TPT of DH, the film makers, in an attempt to redeem Snape, run roughshod over James’s character and his own love for Lily. Moviegoers come out of the cinema feeling that Snape’s love for Lily is the ultimate epic romance. Movie TPT felt…romantic, like there was some unspoken tension between Snape and Lily. When it’s not supposed to be so. In the book, it is continuously emphasized in that chapter that Snape’s love for Lily is very much one-sided and her feelings are gradually softening towards James. In the movie, James becomes the proverbial “other guy” and nothing more. (Speaking of TPT, how on earth did Lily’s last moments with Harry before Voldemort bursts in come into SNAPE’S memories?) And then, of course, in the Resurrection Stone scene, James is again sidelined with Harry doing that hand-holding thing with Lily and Sirius given more spotlight than Harry’s own dad.

*wipes sweat off forehead* There. I feel much better now.

[coppertop1]

I hat the over syrupy way people talk about Lily. I like Lily, but it seems a bit overdone. Lupin's sighing over her in the movie, plus saying he knew Harry by his EYES not his scar, making no mention of James, who was one of his best friends? Then the whole fish story seemed a bit silly, why not have Slughorn talk about how bright and vivacious and charming she was without the fish story?
The blue eyed thing with Harry doesn't bug me, after all, Dan Radcliffe is allergic to contacts/ But not having Lily's eyes match?? ARGH SACRILEGE!!

[StarryVeil]

Originally Posted by coppertop1

I hat the over syrupy way people talk about Lily. I like Lily, but it seems a bit overdone. Lupin's sighing over her in the movie, plus saying he knew Harry by his EYES not his scar, making no mention of James, who was one of his best friends? Then the whole fish story seemed a bit silly, why not have Slughorn talk about how bright and vivacious and charming she was without the fish story?

Agreed. The whole Lily thing was very over-the-top. As for Lupin recognizing Harry by his eyes: 1) Harry's eyes were closed when Lupin first saw him because he had passed out due to the dementor. 2) When you meet a person, you see their whole face before the details of their eyes register. If Harry looks so much like James that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who knew James can point this out, shouldn't Lupin have recognized Harry for sharing the same face as his best friend before he saw his eyes? In addition to the reasons I posted previously, this is another instance of negligence towards Harry's dad in an effort to glorify Lily (or Snape in TPT).

[RikuStark]

1) Marauders back story. I really missed not having that in the movie.
2) 5th movie. It just seemed like a lot was missing.
3) The way they handled Ginny and Harry!
4) The 6th movie. The romance seemed to be way to central in the movie for my liking. More Tom Riddle back story would have been better!

[Scales]

1. Buckbeak not appearing again after POA.
2. Marauder's Map backstory cut out.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Scales

2. Marauder's Map backstory cut out.

There are two things I always feel compelled to say when I read this. I mean, you're well entitled to be bothered by it, but:

First, I'm not entirely sure an elaborate backstory for the map is either necessary or plausible. It's a unique object, and Harry might be curious about it, but given that it functions perfectly well whether the user knows its origin or not, the first question becomes is it necessary to reveal that origin? But then as I said, it is a unique object, the use of which is well outside the rules of Hogwarts, and whose creators are 1. dead, 2. believed dead but hiding as a rat, 3. a werewolf who would prefer not to reveal that he is a werewolf, and 4. an imprisoned or later escaped convict. So then, how much could Harry really hope to learn about it anyway?

But my second observation is that at least in the Prisoner of Azkaban movie, there are some subtle clues about the map. First is Lupin's recognition of the map as something he ought not to let Snape confiscate. Then there is the otherwise inexplicable reality that Lupin knows how to use the map. Finally, there is Sirius's equally inexplicable pronouncement that the map never lies. How else would these two know anything about the map at all, let alone such consequential details as its function and reliability, unless they themselves created it?

I grant that this is not an automatic conclusion for anyone who hasn't read the books, but in general I rather prefer that mystery surround certain things in lieu of lengthy (or expensive) narrative digressions that don't really advance the plot. The map itself advances the plot very effectively on its own, and I'm not sure Harry would, or should, really discover quite so much about it as a lot of readers seem to prefer.

[Animagus86]

The Sorcerers Stone was on TV last night. I've seen it probably a million times, and the one thing that always kind of bothered me about it was, and this is a little thing, that all the protection for the stone from the book is in the movie except Snape's potions riddle. What's that all about?

[StarryVeil]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

The map itself advances the plot very effectively on its own, and I'm not sure Harry would, or should, really discover quite so much about it as a lot of readers seem to prefer.

Perhaps the map CAN be used as a magical object on it's own - although, as you also pointed out, it leaves a lot of open ends in the movie - but it is not the fact that the map's history should be known as much as the fact that the map was a strong connection to Harry's father. PoA is the story in which Harry, for the first time, actually forges a connection with his late father just as DH is the story where he comes to understand his mom properly. The third and seventh novels of the series are important in that aspect. Therefore, leaving out the map's history and, by extension, the whole Marauder's backstory which includes the very poignant and meaningful reason behind Harry's stag Patronus, the movie leaves out a major part of Harry's life. It is also, IMO, pretty unfair because Lily get's her focus in the movie DH whereas James barely gets his recognition as Harry's dad.

[coppertop1]

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

Agreed. The whole Lily thing was very over-the-top. As for Lupin recognizing Harry by his eyes: 1) Harry's eyes were closed when Lupin first saw him because he had passed out due to the dementor. 2) When you meet a person, you see their whole face before the details of their eyes register. If Harry looks so much like James that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who knew James can point this out, shouldn't Lupin have recognized Harry for sharing the same face as his best friend before he saw his eyes? In addition to the reasons I posted previously, this is another instance of negligence towards Harry's dad in an effort to glorify Lily (or Snape in TPT).

Everyone in the books say "You look just like your dad, but you've got your Mom's eyes." that's almost verbatim. Lupin talked on and on about Lily, hardly anything about James. So it doesn't really make sense when he's all enraged at Wormtail, considering he didn't mention James that much. The ending of POA was so rushed, they could have taken some time to explain the marauders, aside from "We thought he was our friend." They could have at least said about them becoming animagus for Lupin.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Animagus86

The Sorcerers Stone was on TV last night. I've seen it probably a million times, and the one thing that always kind of bothered me about it was, and this is a little thing, that all the protection for the stone from the book is in the movie except Snape's potions riddle. What's that all about?

Maybe they thought it would lessen Snape's role as an adversary, especially if they hadn't read the books?

[coppertop1]

I hate the made for film characters like Nigel and Ben, they really have no place and dont' add much. Bem doesn't fit since we know the Gryffindor boys, and we could have had Dean or Seamus with those lines, and Nigel should have simply been Dennis Creevey. There are plenty of characers at Hogwarts to bring up, why add new random ones?

[jbwarner86]

There's a few small things, like the way magic is sometimes depicted. The Portkey in GoF is a good example. In the book, it basically just teleports them; in the movie, they spin around in a circle and fly there? What the? Tiny changes that serve no apparent purpose other than confusing the fans; those really get under my skin.

One of the big things that bugs me is how they really stunted Harry's character development. In GoF and OoTP, he's still gawking like a wide-eyed first year at stuff like the inside of the Weasleys' tent or #12 Grimmauld Place appearing. After five years at Hogwarts, you'd think he'd be used to magic. And that scene in HBP where Ginny has to get everyone trying out for Quidditch to shut up 'cause they won't listen to Harry? Wasn't the whole point supposed to be that Harry is maturing and assuming responsibilities? Why's Ginny doing everything for him?

Actually, pretty much all my main gripes come from the way certain characters were stripped back, simplified, or otherwise altered from their text counterparts. Sirius Black's mugshot isn't supposed to be shrieking and deranged. Fleur Delacour isn't supposed to be a cowardly ditz. Albus Dumbledore shouldn't need to scream at his own students. Severus Snape doesn't have to resort to smacking his students upside the head. Why on earth did they feel compelled to futz around with all this stuff?

Oh yeah, and the burning of the Burrow. It serves no purpose, and it's extra maddening when the Weasleys' house is back again in DH with no sign of damage (and DH the book was already out at that point, so you'd think they'd know they'd need to come back there later). I may not know everything about Jo's rules of magic, but I'm pretty sure once something is burned, it's burned - you can't just magic it back to normal. Every time I watch HBP, I always have to skip that scene.