Harry Potter Movies

MCRG

Active member
What do you like or dislike about the Harry Potter Movies? What scenes did they get wrong? Do you prefer them over the books? Do they feel like a fanfiction to you? Here you can post your opinions on the movies.
 

RavenPaw

Active member
I'm ok with the movies, they sorta sound like a fan fic tbh. I prefer the books over the movies. More detail in the books.
 

MCRG

Active member
That scene where Hermione protects Harry from Sirius in POA when it was Ron in the books, or "HARRY! DID YAH PUT YER NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIYAH!?!?!?" when in the books Dumbledore asked calmly, and couldn't they just use CGI on Daniel's eyes? Harry's eyes are supposed to be green, and the snake Harry talked to was a boa constructor but if you look closely at the label it says Burmese Python.
Screenshot (98).png
They also skipped most of the sorting ceremony and Harry is supposed to see his entire family in The Mirror of Erised but he only see's his parents and Hermione isn't even supposed to know what the term mudblood means.

Credit to https://www.insider.com/what-harry-potter-films-did-wrong-from-the-books because that's where I got most of these.
 

PH71

Active member
I think there's a lot of small changes they made of certain scenes cut, thrown in or whatever which are small bug bears, but my top 5 quibbles with the movies would probably be:

1. They don't handle the Weasley family very well at all for the most part. Ron is dumbed down and often comic relief, with some scenes downright character bashing. I actually think that movie Ron's portrayal is part of the reason why Ron-bashing become such a mainstream HP fandom thing. Ginny is handled terribly, in terms of book to movie, out of every character in the entire series she is possibly the one who gets the worst treatment. I don't really think it was Bonnie Wright's fault per se, more just bad writing or limited screen-time. Charlie doesn't feature in the movies at all and is completely cut other than the odd reference and a small picture in the newspaper. Bill was completely cut too, until JK Rowling wrote Deathly Hallows and they pretty much couldn't not include him, given his wedding and Shell Cottage were two events/bits of the book that rendered it near impossible not to cast him. Percy's entire redemption arc was completely cut from the story. I feel like Fred's death could've hit a lot harder if they'd had the Percy redemption arc, with us even seeing Fred's death actually happen as well.

2. I don't think they handled the Lupin/Tonks plot-line in the last few movies very well at all. They both have extremely limited screen-time and their relationship is kind of glossed over and doesn't have much time to breathe. We never even meet Andromeda or Ted Tonks and they completely cut out Lupin and Harry's fall-out, which was one of the better scenes from Deathly Hallows. It ultimately kind of means that when they die unless you're a hardcore book reader it's sort of a "oh right, yeah, those background characters were a thing" moment to casual film watchers, instead of the devastating moment it should have been. Teddy is then completely cut from the Epilogue, not really sure why as he was cast, although I'm guessing they just thought given how little mention they'd given to the Tonks/Lupin plot nobody would even know or care who he was anyway.

3. Peter Pettigrew doesn't even die. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that Peter choking himself to death would have meant the rating went up a notch, which obviously they don't want, but how hard was it to give him an on screen death? Doesn't the chandelier fall down or something in the next scene when they're upstairs in the Manor? Just have the chandelier fall and crush him to death (without the audience seeing any gore or whatever) and you've at least killed him off. Or the metal hand makes his wand back-fire and kill him? I don't know, emiting him from having an on-screen death was completely bizarre.

4. This is a controversial one and I do actually prefer Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape in the Movies than book Snape, but I think that's part of the problem. The movies play up Snape as a much more sympathetic/"nicer" character than he is in the books, which again, I feel is part of the reason why Snape being such a liked character in the fandom kind of came from. There's a few things here and there which the movies add in to make Snape a nicer character, one of the main things that springs to mind is when he forms a protective barrier around Harry, Ron and Hermione against Werewolf Lupin, but I think the bigger problem is what the movies choose to leave out. They leave out his angry megalomaniac rant at the end of POA when Sirius escapes which is really very nasty. They leave out some other nasty things he does, but I think also in some movies they try and portray his bullying of the students as kind of comic relief, having Ron agree with him bullying Hermione for being smart etc. Another big omission is they completely leave out the bit in his memories where Dumbledore asks him why he doesn't ask Voldemort to spare Lily and just kill Harry, and Snape says he says, after which Dumbledore says he disgusts him. This moment is a pretty big omission and again, paints Snape in a nicer tone than the character actually is. I only really noticed this on a recent re-read of the series and there were many moments where I sort of remembered how much of an ass-hole book Snape actually is.

5. Voldemort/Bellatrix death scenes. For some reason they had the stylistic choice of making Voldemort evaporate and Bellatrix sort of smash into lots of little pieces. I've got no idea why they wasted so much CGI money on these two deaths, when both of them laying on the ground dead is much cheaper to film and would have humanised both of the characters a lot more. Sometimes less is far far more, and their deaths was one of these times.
 

dew_drops

Member
Wo
I think there's a lot of small changes they made of certain scenes cut, thrown in or whatever which are small bug bears, but my top 5 quibbles with the movies would probably be:

1. They don't handle the Weasley family very well at all for the most part. Ron is dumbed down and often comic relief, with some scenes downright character bashing. I actually think that movie Ron's portrayal is part of the reason why Ron-bashing become such a mainstream HP fandom thing. Ginny is handled terribly, in terms of book to movie, out of every character in the entire series she is possibly the one who gets the worst treatment. I don't really think it was Bonnie Wright's fault per se, more just bad writing or limited screen-time. Charlie doesn't feature in the movies at all and is completely cut other than the odd reference and a small picture in the newspaper. Bill was completely cut too, until JK Rowling wrote Deathly Hallows and they pretty much couldn't not include him, given his wedding and Shell Cottage were two events/bits of the book that rendered it near impossible not to cast him. Percy's entire redemption arc was completely cut from the story. I feel like Fred's death could've hit a lot harder if they'd had the Percy redemption arc, with us even seeing Fred's death actually happen as well.

2. I don't think they handled the Lupin/Tonks plot-line in the last few movies very well at all. They both have extremely limited screen-time and their relationship is kind of glossed over and doesn't have much time to breathe. We never even meet Andromeda or Ted Tonks and they completely cut out Lupin and Harry's fall-out, which was one of the better scenes from Deathly Hallows. It ultimately kind of means that when they die unless you're a hardcore book reader it's sort of a "oh right, yeah, those background characters were a thing" moment to casual film watchers, instead of the devastating moment it should have been. Teddy is then completely cut from the Epilogue, not really sure why as he was cast, although I'm guessing they just thought given how little mention they'd given to the Tonks/Lupin plot nobody would even know or care who he was anyway.

3. Peter Pettigrew doesn't even die. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that Peter choking himself to death would have meant the rating went up a notch, which obviously they don't want, but how hard was it to give him an on screen death? Doesn't the chandelier fall down or something in the next scene when they're upstairs in the Manor? Just have the chandelier fall and crush him to death (without the audience seeing any gore or whatever) and you've at least killed him off. Or the metal hand makes his wand back-fire and kill him? I don't know, emiting him from having an on-screen death was completely bizarre.

4. This is a controversial one and I do actually prefer Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape in the Movies than book Snape, but I think that's part of the problem. The movies play up Snape as a much more sympathetic/"nicer" character than he is in the books, which again, I feel is part of the reason why Snape being such a liked character in the fandom kind of came from. There's a few things here and there which the movies add in to make Snape a nicer character, one of the main things that springs to mind is when he forms a protective barrier around Harry, Ron and Hermione against Werewolf Lupin, but I think the bigger problem is what the movies choose to leave out. They leave out his angry megalomaniac rant at the end of POA when Sirius escapes which is really very nasty. They leave out some other nasty things he does, but I think also in some movies they try and portray his bullying of the students as kind of comic relief, having Ron agree with him bullying Hermione for being smart etc. Another big omission is they completely leave out the bit in his memories where Dumbledore asks him why he doesn't ask Voldemort to spare Lily and just kill Harry, and Snape says he says, after which Dumbledore says he disgusts him. This moment is a pretty big omission and again, paints Snape in a nicer tone than the character actually is. I only really noticed this on a recent re-read of the series and there were many moments where I sort of remembered how much of an ass-hole book Snape actually is.

5. Voldemort/Bellatrix death scenes. For some reason they had the stylistic choice of making Voldemort evaporate and Bellatrix sort of smash into lots of little pieces. I've got no idea why they wasted so much CGI money on these two deaths, when both of them laying on the ground dead is much cheaper to film and would have humanised both of the characters a lot more. Sometimes less is far far more, and their deaths was one of these times.
Woowww...this was pretty deep, but REALLY accurate. And yes, I DID read the whole thing
Number one, I totally agree. They didn’t include the semi-crucial characters more

number two, their deaths were really mistreated. I didn’t feel as much as remorse as I did in the books, and they should have been able to make it more feel-y cause we can SEE it.

three, true... Peter could have died or maybe they could have showed a scene later that showed Bellatrix or Lucius like ‘omg Wormtail died!’

four, Snape was really...wrong? Alan Rickman (RIP) could have portrayed him perfectly,but they cut outcertain scenes that mad people LOVE Snape in the end when he died. Sure, it was a good deed, but he ha done WAY worse, and would have kept doing it if it weren’t for Lily. Are we saying, that it’s is also HALF Snape’s fault that the Dark Lord chose Harry? Maybe.

five, . I understand Voldemort, cause he wasn’t human, but Bellatrix? They portrayed her as a sort of she-devil (death wise, we all know she was at heart and mind) and they made her crumble. And it couldn’t be the spell either, since it was MOLLY Weasley who did it. Not some super Dark wizard..
 

Tiffany1567

Member
In general, I don't mind when movies change from books, but I do mind when it feels like different characters, a lot of the main student cast outside of Tom/Draco, Evanna/Luna, and Matthew/Neville felt very OOC, and I didn't feel like they really playing the characters.
 
Top