What would you change about the films?

[Goddess_Clio]

[Quoted from two posts]

Originally Posted by Sharpturn

It might have been expendable, but it was still information that was good to have. It would explain a lot of the relationships between the Marauders. Why it was so dastardly that Pettigrew betrayed them. Why they picked Pettigrew in the first place to defend them.

...

I still believe that the Marauder's explanation was not there...

It's easy for those of us who have read the books to extrapolate the information, but for those who couldn't be bothered or convinced to read the books, the information about the Marauders isn't as easily accessible.

I didn't read the books until after I saw POA - the film - and I understood everything that was going on. Explaining that the marauders were a gang that ran around the school causing mischief wasn't necessary to audience's understanding that James, Lupin, Sirius and Peter were all friends in school. Lupin stated that he knew James and Lily while in school, at the end it became clear that Lupin and Sirius had been good friends, and in all the Shrieking Shack exposition it's explained that Peter was apart of their group. It all made sense to me. Whether they were "the marauders" or not didn't matter to me as much as understanding that they had been good friends.

As far as Peter's "dastardly" deed of turning on his friends, I thought it was pretty dastardly whether I knew he was in the marauder's gang or not - he was James's friend and had betrayed him and I got that from the film alone. And as far as why James and Lily picked Peter as their secret keeper to begin with it was explained in the exposition at the end of the film just as in the book - Sirius was the original plan and Peter was chosen as SK instead so that Sirius (the obvious choice) could be the decoy.

I understood that all from the movie. Whether the marauders were apart of the film or not didn't matter. Neither did knowing how Fred or George could work the map, as a viewer I just went with it. It's only after the fact (and after I red the books six or seven times) that I began wondering how they had figured it out.

[FleurDeLaPointe]

Originally Posted by peter333

I understand. I am just too obsessed with the HP books. True , in the US movies and sitcoms I see a lot of scenes
where a person calls another person formally when annoyed.
I have no problem with your life experience being similar

However, Harry Potter is not an american sitcom.
It is a
story of its own, taking place in the early nineties, in England, and the books show us clearly,
that
Hermione never calls anyone differently, not even her other boyfriend.

I think you are mistaken to think that calling someone person formally is strictly a US sitcom characteristic. From what I understand the British Sitcom "League of Gentlemen" also exhibited a quality of a similar nature, so really, you're idea that Harry Potter is somehow "better off" not using a trope that is American is not valid.

Actually, she is not the only one in the movies.
There are other people who call him Ronald too.
His mother does this, when
she is angry at him.
I prefer the book version, where Hermione and Ron really like each other and she never puts him down because of stupid reasons like when he did not notice Lupin`s suitcase.

Well you do have to understand, sometimes calling someone by their full name is a term of endearment, not annoyance. Considering how caring and motherly Hermoine is sometimes to Harry and especially Ron, it's not out of line of her to act like his mother by calling him by his full first name.

Also I think I remember countless times where Hermione probably puts down Ron for even less than what you stated.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by FleurDeLaPointe

Well you do have to understand, sometimes calling someone by their full name is a term of endearment, not annoyance. Considering how caring and motherly Hermoine is sometimes to Harry and especially Ron, it's not out of line of her to act like his mother by calling him by his full first name.

I agree with this. I call my best friend by her full first name (Christina) when I'm teasing her, when I give her birthday cards or when I think it would be silly or funny. I would call my ex by his full first name (Stephen) as a term of endearment.

I never meant the full first name in either scenario as a put-down or used it to belittle them and I never thought that Hermione in the films was using it to put Ron down but in a motherly sort of way. I interpreted it as doing what I did with my ex and what a lot of people do with their significant others in refering to them by their full first name. I more thought of it as a clue that she sort of was starting to like Ron as more than a friend in POA.

[Martok]

I'd have Harry do something with the wand he purchased earlier in Philosopher's Stone, other than sticking it into the troll's nose that is. Everyone else is doing magic at some point in the movie. Everyone but Harry.

Cut the Mandrake lesson from Chamber of Secrets. Again we're given way too much information on the plants that isn't needed. Again, there's not really a payoff.
Oh and recast Ginny Weasley before it's too late.

Offer an explaination what the heck happened in the graveyard duel in Goblet of Fire. It feels too much like an deus ex machina.

Resolve the dementor attack in Order of the Phoenix.

The Death Eater attack on the Burrow in Half Blood Prince doesn't make much sense to me. Were they after Harry again? Why wasn't Voldemort with them then? He still does want to kill Harry himself, doesn't he? You could remove that entire scene without any impact on the movie.
And I think they went a little to far with the digital color correction on this film.

Put the deleted scene back in where the trio discusses horcruxes in Deathly Hallows, Part 1.

I think Dumbledore should have had to convince Harry that he's not dead in the King's Cross scene from Hallows, Part 2. Because everything's pointing in the direction that he is. He's in a different place, a dead person is talking to him, his glasses are missing and he wears different clothes. And then he says: "I have to go back, haven't I?" What makes him think that he'll be able to?

[MissGryffindor]

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

I would include more of the Marauders' background. Specifically, the full flashback in Snape's Worst Memory and the aftermath of this for Harry, and the Marauders contribution mentioned in PoA.

HBP - I would stick to the book and make Harry/Ginny less of a surprise.

I would also let Ron and Hermione get together the way they did in the book. I think it made it much clearer how Hermione was waiting for Ron to grow up.

I would also portray Sirius differently in OotP. In the book, he is depressed and suffering from alcoholism. In no way does this reflect in the film. Also, he NEVER, EVER calls Harry 'James', no matter how confused Molly thinks he is.

And finally, for some light relief I would add in the scene in HBP where Harry arrives at The Burrow and overhears Arthur refer to Molly as 'Mollywobbles'.

[Martok]

Originally Posted by MissGryffindor

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

I thought it was pretty obvious already. They even had a scene in Prince where Harry explicitely denies that there's something going on with Hermione. The only problem I have with the romances is that I don't buy why Harry falls for Ginny. Part of the problem is that they are stuck with an actress that was initially cast as an extra and not as Harry's love intrest.

[LyraLovegood]

Originally Posted by MissGryffindor

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

I agree with the poster above, I think it is just as clear or moreso in the movie that Harry is in love with Ginny and has a more fraternal love for Hermione. Especially in that scene in the empty classroom after Lavender starts snogging Ron. Hermione asks Harry if that's how he feels when he sees Ginny with Dean. To me that pins down the point that Hermione is in love with Ron, and Harry is in love with Ginny quite firmly.

Originally Posted by MissGryffindor

I would also portray Sirius differently in OotP. In the book, he is depressed and suffering from alcoholism. In no way does this reflect in the film.

Depressed, yes. But alcoholic? Where in the book is there any hint that Sirius has an alcohol problem? I only remember him providing drinks for the whole group while they're waiting and worrying about Arthur in St. Mungo's.

[Pensieve_Seeker]

Originally Posted by FleurDeLaPointe

Read this

http://hp-essays.livejournal.com/242482.html

And then see if you still believe that the Maurader's explanation was not there.

I had never read this person's essay until just now, yet I have used the same terms/clues to describe who the Mauraders were as he did.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Martok

I'd have Harry do something with the wand he purchased earlier in Philosopher's Stone, other than sticking it into the troll's nose that is. Everyone else is doing magic at some point in the movie. Everyone but Harry.

Cut the Mandrake lesson from Chamber of Secrets. Again we're given way too much information on the plants that isn't needed. Again, there's not really a payoff.
Oh and recast Ginny Weasley before it's too late.

Offer an explaination what the heck happened in the graveyard duel in Goblet of Fire. It feels too much like an deus ex machina.

Resolve the dementor attack in Order of the Phoenix.

The Death Eater attack on the Burrow in Half Blood Prince doesn't make much sense to me. Were they after Harry again? Why wasn't Voldemort with them then? He still does want to kill Harry himself, doesn't he? You could remove that entire scene without any impact on the movie.
And I think they went a little to far with the digital color correction on this film.

Put the deleted scene back in where the trio discusses horcruxes in Deathly Hallows, Part 1.

I think Dumbledore should have had to convince Harry that he's not dead in the King's Cross scene from Hallows, Part 2. Because everything's pointing in the direction that he is. He's in a different place, a dead person is talking to him, his glasses are missing and he wears different clothes. And then he says: "I have to go back, haven't I?" What makes him think that he'll be able to?

All good points from a storytelling perspective.

[GillyweedFan]

The thing I would change is something simple, but probably troublesome for the actors and crew.

In the first two films, I liked the way the cast+crew actually travelled to sets that looked like Hogwarts. Key examples are The Training Grounds, the corridor outside Moaning Myrtles and that courtyard by Transfiguration (Yes, this was present fleetingly in GoF too.)

I don't like how from OoTp onwards, they use those horrible corridor sets that look clearly made up by a studio team, the one outside the Room of Requirement bugging me a lot. It just doesn't look like a natural castle. I was joyed to see the return of the Gloucester Cathedral corridor in HBP, but again, that wasn't for long.

So the change I'd make would be to have more scenes filmed outside the studios and in different castle like locations.

[MinervasCat]

I definitely agree with the scenery changes. I liked the Gothic styles of the first two movies. I also wondered about the change from the moving staircases, which were specifically mentioned in the books, to those circular things. I guess they just made for better "videography."

I didn't care much for the change from the school uniforms to Muggle clothing. Again, JKR was specific that the witches and wizards wore robes and not Muggle clothes. Most efforts by magical beings not familiar with Muggles to dress in Muggle clothing were hilarious.

One of my major pet peeves has always been the "burning of the Burrow" scene and the chase through the swamp. That was such a needless waste of time, IMO. It did not add to the film, was not in the book, and the time could have been used for something else.

Speaking of peeves, I would have liked to have seen Peeves the Poltergeist in the films. Again, he was in the books and so much a part of Hogwarts that I thought it was a shame he wasn't included. I have read, though, that they weren't even going to include Kreacher until Ms Rowling informed them how much of an important part he played in DH.

More Snape! As a Snape fan, I just think he got really short changed in the films as compared to the amount of page space he gets in the books.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by MinervasCat

I liked the Gothic styles of the first two movies.

What was "Gothic" about the Columbus films?

[TrueRavenclaw]

I would change the actress which played Lilly Evan in the Deathly Hallows part 2, her eyes disappoint me.

[leah49]

Originally Posted by TrueRavenclaw

I would change the actress which played Lilly Evan in the Deathly Hallows part 2, her eyes disappoint me.

Or at least make them blue to match Dan's.

[FurryDice]

Mainly, characterisation. I love the characters as they are in the books, and the movie versions are unrecognisable as the book characters.
I like the casting, just not the scripting and characterisation for some of the characters.
In particular, the way the movies have mishandled the trio. The trio are a unit in the books. Harry is the hero, Ron and Hermione are both sidekicks. Movie-version, cliche-fest - Harry and Hermione are the hero and heroine, Ron is shunted into the background, dim-witted comic relief. Hermione actually has flaws in the books, and is much more likeable for not being perfect, and Harry doesn't like fame - "But I am the Chosen One"?? Really? I can't imagine Harry saying that. He said it to a drunken Slughorn to get the memory from him, I doubt he would treat it so lightly, knowing what it cost, over someone fancying him.

Originally Posted by Martok

The Death Eater attack on the Burrow in Half Blood Prince doesn't make much sense to me. Were they after Harry again? Why wasn't Voldemort with them then? He still does want to kill Harry himself, doesn't he? You could remove that entire scene without any impact on the movie.

I think it was a replacement for all the attacks that were reported and discussed during the year in the book. However, it makes little sense in that the Burrow was there again in DH, and as you say, were they after Harry, was Voldemort with them? If they wanted to show an attack, they could have showed an attack on one of the premises in Hogsmeade during one of the Hogsmeade visits.

I think Dumbledore should have had to convince Harry that he's not dead in the King's Cross scene from Hallows, Part 2. Because everything's pointing in the direction that he is. He's in a different place, a dead person is talking to him, his glasses are missing and he wears different clothes. And then he says: "I have to go back, haven't I?" What makes him think that he'll be able to?

I was wondering that, too. Dumbledore never actually told Harry he wasn't dead, nor did Harry ask about it. Is it included in the extended/deleted scenes on the DVD?

Originally Posted by MissGryffindor

Generally, make it obvious from OotP/HBP onwards that it is Ginny and NOT Hermione that Harry is in love with, because that is the main area in which the books and films are out of sync.

Less of the idea of playing the trio as some kind of love triangle.

HBP - I would stick to the book and make Harry/Ginny less of a surprise.

They could have included some cute scenes between Harry and Ginny in OotP - like the chocolate in the library incident, or a variation on it. They could have built up chemistry by having them interact more, rather than the cringey way they went about it. Harry gets scenes talking to lots of other characters - added scenes, some of them, and they couldn't have included a scene of him talking to his HBP love interest?

Also, he NEVER, EVER calls Harry 'James', no matter how confused Molly thinks he is.

I agree - I don't know why they had to throw that in.

[tru0001]

For me I really think they should have kept one of Molly's greatest moments out of the film... when Molly sees her boggart!
It really shows that "love" and "family" theme that has been displayed in the books. I really wished Molly's character was more two-sided as well so to speak since she didn't really break down anywhere where in the books she broke down when she saw her boggart, when George lost an ear, when Fred died.
But other than that I loved Molly in the films.

hmmmm other things...
I wish they were able to make Ginny grow more as a main character than a side character. I know its not Bonnie's fault but the character wasn't written well in the Film Adaptations.

Oh and Tonks... well now even though I see film Nymphadora in the Books I thought if she looked liked Alice from the Film version of the Twilight Saga with pink hair instead of Brunette she'd look more like Tonks but hey that's just my opinion.

[jbwarner86]

I've thought about this a lot, and I really think Jo's writing style is too dense and multi-layered to have all the major story points conveyed in a series of movies. Even at two-and-a-half hours each, they couldn't fit in a huge amount of important plot points (who the Marauders were, Barty Crouch Jr. getting dementor-kissed, how the Fidelius Charm works, etc.), and while I understand it was important to streamline the story, it was a shame to see all those character-enriching side stories get dumped (Hermione and S.P.E.W., Ron's Quidditch jitters, the relationship between Tonks and Lupin, and so on). It seems minor, but it plays a huge part in endearing the characters to the audience.

So the way I would have done the adaptations would be not as live-action movies, but as seven animated TV miniseries, each one devoted to one book. The nice thing about animation is you aren't bound by the restrictions of live actors - you can age the characters as you need to, and not worry about how long it takes to get it all done. Special effects are less of a hassle - you don't have to spend so much extra time and effort on creating CGI characters like Dobby and Firenze, since you can just draw them instead. And by making each book a multi-part miniseries, you've got a good three or four hours to tell the story, broken up into smaller chunks so it doesn't get monotonous.

Maybe it's just my love of animation, but I'd really love to see the books re-adapted this way someday in the future.

[PoFoSho]

What would I change about the films? A LOT OF THINGS.
From the director, to the lighting in 5, 6, and 7, to plot wholes, lines left out of the books, lines from the books that were included but altered, movie Ginny! blahhh. A lot.
Don't get me wrong though, the movies are still amazing--just not comparable to the books, but we know this already. :P

[coppertop1]

Originally Posted by Hagrid442

I don't think I could really add anything. One thing that's mentioned is the addition of Peeves. It would have added so much comic relief. I see that Columbus cut him out after filming scenes with this guy, Rik Mayall, didn't go so well. Were they that bad? Anyway, since CC did that, it forced the other directors into not including the character as well. Hindsight's 20/20, but I think Robert Carlyle despite his well-documented disdain for the series would have made a great Peeves. Of course that's from seeing his masterful work as Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon a Time. lol

I'd love to have had Peeves in the movies, and we know Carlyle does an awesome crazy (BIG OUAT fan here), I think he'd be great as Peeves.

My main criticisms are in movies 3, 4 and 6. I'd say:

POA: MARAUDERS BACK STORY!! WHY did they delete that? It explained everything, the map, scabbers. ETC. Also, LOSE THE SHRUNKEN HEADS!! This isn't Mexico or some place it's England. They drive me insane. Students ARE allowed in Three Broomsticks, it's the main hangout. I loved the book POA, but the movie is my least favourite.
GOF: Crouch's backstory, and Rita Skeeeter reveal. Also calm down, Dumbledore!
OOTP: The Quibbler story (but having cut out Skeeter's story they had to drop that), WHY was Cho the snitch? I didn't like that, it adds more fuel to the haters! I wish Harry amped up the angst. And more Kreacher!
HBP: Cut down the teen romance scenes, and add the Gaunts and Horcrux scenes. No burning down the burrow or flirting with some random waitress. And what was with Harry all I am the chosen one? WAY OOC!

And what did they do to Flitwick? I thought it was supposed to be somewhat older, he looked so strange, like a different character after COS. He looked too young!

[Goddess_Clio]

1) Higher a better script writer. Steve Kloves probably did his best but the characterizations were way off, even for a book to screen adaptation. He ruined so many great charactes.

2) Recast Harry. Dan just wasn't Harry to me after POA; he was short, he was styled very weird by makeup and costume, his acting was iffy at best... I'd say recast the whole trio but I think Rupert would have done better had his part been improved by a different screen writer and I don't actually have too many complaints about Emma. Most of the student-aged actors were fairly wooden, it's just Dan was the worst since he carried the movies.

3) LOVE Alan Rickman but I would have loved him as Snape even more had he been about... 20 years younger. Whayahgunnado? (My new obession is Adrian Brody as Snape but I do love Alan in the role)