What would you change about the films?

[ID824]

Originally Posted by Peakes

I seem to recall one of the DVD or Blu-ray extras mentioning that they had to re-film that scene with Dan and Emma dancing badly (well, more cheesy), as the first time round they were too good!

After all, Harry was hardly the king of the dance floor in Goblet of Fire, was he?

He wasn't, but it was honestly hard for me to watch, and for me, really killed that portion of the movie. Maybe they could have fixed it by having Harry step really hard on Hermione's feet at the beginning and having her cast some kind of charm on him to make him dance well? Or just shown them from the waist up? That scene hurt my eyes.

[Divvie]

By and large I thought the films just were some franchise fluff and didn't pay too much attention to them. But one thing I would have changed would be Snape's final words. The book got it better with "Look at me" - infusing various levels of meaning into his words compared to the rather lame "You got your mother's eyes" ...

[Peakes]

Originally Posted by Divvie

By and large I thought the films just were some franchise fluff and didn't pay too much attention to them. But one thing I would have changed would be Snape's final words. The book got it better with "Look at me" - infusing various levels of meaning into his words compared to the rather lame "You got your mother's eyes" ...

Strange you mention that, as it was one of the moments I picked in a thread about what the films did better than the books!

And the more I think about it, the more I like it. Picture this, if you will. After Snape's death, Harry returns to the castle and witnesses the carnage, sees the bodies of Fred, Tonks and Lupin.

Now, in the book, JKR describes in depth the impact that has on Harry, how escaping into someone else's memory - even Snape's - would be a blessed relief from the grief, guilt and desperation he is feeling.

The Prince's Tale He turned away and ran up the marble staircase. Lupin, Tonks ... he yearned not to feel ... he wished he could rip out his heart, his innards, everything that was screaming inside him.

How do you show such feelings on a screen? We who have read the book can read the extra meaning into Harry's eyes, but no matter how good the actor, all you actually see on screen is a stunned and distraught young man looking around the room, not wanting to meet anyone's eyes. It's still a powerful scene, but you can only read so much into it on screen.

So... why does Harry even consider wanting to see what Snape has left? That extra line in the film opens the door to the idea that not all is as it seems, that Harry, who must despise Snape more than ever at that point, should actually have a reason to look at those memories.

This is another aspect of film adaptation; not everything that works in the book will work on a screen, and it's not just about time and attention span and cutting subplots; it's about making certain plot devices happen in a consistent manner with what's been seen in the film. Did they get it right every time? Of course not, over the course of 10 years and 8 films, there are holes. I happen to think they got this one right though.

Far more annoying for me, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the key culprit, are scenes that could have worked as well on screen as they were in the book, and were changed for no good reason - for example, I didn't like Neville's speech. That scene could have been so much better with a burning hat, the Sword of Gryffindor and Nagini's head flying through the air as Harry reveals himself to be alive. Instead we get a CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle and another chance to show Ron as a bungling oaf by dropping a basilisk fang. Maybe the vision of a burning Neville in the courtyard was felt to be too scary for the younger end of the target audience...?

[Divvie]

First off, I agree with you on Neville's speech.

I still feel different about what you describe below, probably because I feel that the rationale just works the opposite way:

Originally Posted by Peakes

How do you show such feelings on a screen? We who have read the book can read the extra meaning into Harry's eyes, but no matter how good the actor, all you actually see on screen is a stunned and distraught young man looking around the room, not wanting to meet anyone's eyes. It's still a powerful scene, but you can only read so much into it on screen.

So... why does Harry even consider wanting to see what Snape has left?

On the one side, Snape says so much more by requesting Harry to look at him: one part is literal ("look at who I am and what I am giving to you - the memories"), another part is implied ("look at the message I am conveying to you") and the last part is transcendental ("see the "real me")).
On the other side, Harry gets to hear from Snape that he had his mother's eyes. Do'h - like he hadn't been told that like a million times before. Why would it matter coming from Snape?

I still feel that the original message was much more an incentive to really "look" at Snape and Snape's story (and beyond his predjudice) than a sentimental (imo) reference that he has heard from so many people before.

The beauty of Snape's last words in the book (and believe me, I am less than happy with the way JKR resolved Snape's story arc) was their various levels of meaning. From cinematographic point, it would have worked just as well as the book canon; changing it was just dumbing it down for sentimental romantic drivel.
As this is not uncommon for Hollywood blockbusters, I am not surprised - I just find it unnecessary and diminishing without any major value add as far as I am concerned

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Divvie

As this is not uncommon for Hollywood blockbusters, I am not surprised - I just find it unnecessary and diminishing without any major value add as far as I am concerned

Its values...

1: Shock value. It makes it clear that Snape loved Lily and it makes you question whether he is Harry's father.

2: ...which in turn gives Harry character motivation for looking into the memories. Snape revealing his "secret" furthermore makes him seem trustworthy for Harry.

Originally Posted by Peakes

Far more annoying for me, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the key culprit, are scenes that could have worked as well on screen as they were in the book, and were changed for no good reason - for example, I didn't like Neville's speech. That scene could have been so much better with a burning hat, the Sword of Gryffindor and Nagini's head flying through the air as Harry reveals himself to be alive. Instead we get a CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle and another chance to show Ron as a bungling oaf by dropping a basilisk fang. Maybe the vision of a burning Neville in the courtyard was felt to be too scary for the younger end of the target audience...?

In the book the scene was about racisism -- a theme that the film didn't deal or even touch on unlike Deathly Hallows: 1. However, throughout the film there was a lot of focus on the importance of not ceasing, which is why I don't find it odd that they decided to change the content of Neville's speech to hammer home that point.

[owlycherries]

Originally Posted by Peakes

Far more annoying for me, and Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the key culprit, are scenes that could have worked as well on screen as they were in the book, and were changed for no good reason - for example, I didn't like Neville's speech. That scene could have been so much better with a burning hat, the Sword of Gryffindor and Nagini's head flying through the air as Harry reveals himself to be alive. Instead we get a CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle and another chance to show Ron as a bungling oaf by dropping a basilisk fang. Maybe the vision of a burning Neville in the courtyard was felt to be too scary for the younger end of the target audience...?

That was my main gripe with DH II. Normally I am supportive of the changes the films make, but that, among with others *cough waitress scene in HBP cough* I felt was a step too far and in the wrong direction. The original scenes would have been fine. I so badly wanted to see Neville with his burning hat, then slicing off Nagini's head with the sword. I wanted to see Harry and Voldemort circling each other and discussing everything. It could have been so epic, so suspenseful, but they changed it. Sigh.

[Divvie]

Originally Posted by Noldus

Its values...

1: Shock value. It makes it clear that Snape loved Lily and it makes you question whether he is Harry's father.

2: ...which in turn gives Harry character motivation for looking into the memories. Snape revealing his "secret" furthermore makes him seem trustworthy for Harry.

1. Personally, I find this puts too much focus on Lily and not enough on Snape; and at no stage ever was is feasible to question whether Snape is Harry's father. That Harry is James' spitting image was well established repeatedly so no reference to Lily's eyes makes it any different.

2. Understanding that Snape was obviously relaying a message with his memories was motivation enough imo.

[Kings_Cross]

Originally Posted by owlycherries

That was my main gripe with DH II. Normally I am supportive of the changes the films make, but that, among with others *cough waitress scene in HBP cough* I felt was a step too far and in the wrong direction. The original scenes would have been fine. I so badly wanted to see Neville with his burning hat, then slicing off Nagini's head with the sword. I wanted to see Harry and Voldemort circling each other and discussing everything. It could have been so epic, so suspenseful, but they changed it. Sigh.

Absolutely! I much prefer a dialogue heavy scene than an action one and the final fight between Harry & Voldemort was just...weird in many ways. Still not a fan of the whole connecting-and-flying bit, seemed like a waste of screen time. The scene in the book was one of the most tense and interesting passages in the series, in my opinion, and it's a shame we didn't get to see it on screen.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Divvie

1. Personally, I find this puts too much focus on Lily and not enough on Snape; and at no stage ever was is feasible to question whether Snape is Harry's father. That Harry is James' spitting image was well established repeatedly so no reference to Lily's eyes makes it any different.

2. Understanding that Snape was obviously relaying a message with his memories was motivation enough imo.

1. That's true, it was a misleading hint, but one that would pique Harry's, as well the audience's, interest. Even Dumbledore hinted about some "conspiracy" in The King's Cross limbo scene. You may not like it. I didn't particularly like those lines from Dumbledore, but audiences generally like to ponder, "what if...?"

As for putting focus on Lily, isn't that in tone with the novel and consistent with the rest of the series where she has been a symbol of love and sacrifice? Her presence and what she represents was subtly incorporated into the film, specifically through the music, without overshadowing the plot and the other characters.

2. Is it? Would you really follow your dying enemy's instructions in a war when you know that you have no time to waste? It could be a trap or just a waste of time. The person must give you some motivation to make you follow his orders. In the book we could read Harry's thoughts and thus understand his motivation, but unless the filmmakers were to utilize voice-over, they needed to add something else that makes the audience understand what motivates Harry: A revealing line making Harry regard Snape as trustworthy --> curiosity about what message he wanted to convey to him.

Originally Posted by Kings_Cross

Still not a fan of the whole connecting-and-flying bit, seemed like a waste of screen time.

I found it interesting on a psychological level and also in the context of the film series. Yates certainly ended this the way he started it.

I'll reference one of my own posts: http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=592

And one from StaceysChain:
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=594

Originally Posted by owlycherries

I so badly wanted to see Neville with his burning hat, then slicing off Nagini's head with the sword.

It could certainly be a great scene visually, but thematically it wouldn't fit in with the rest of the film as Voldemort's pureblood obsession wasn't touched on earlier in DH: part 2. Neville slicing off Nagini's head was delayed until the very end to maintain more suspense.

[Divvie]

Originally Posted by Noldus

1. ... As for putting focus on Lily, isn't that in tone with the novel and consistent with the rest of the series where she has been a symbol of love and sacrifice? Her presence and what she represents was subtly incorporated into the film, specifically through the music, without overshadowing the plot and the other characters.

2. Is it? Would you really follow your dying enemy's instructions in a war when you know that you have no time to waste? It could be a trap or just a waste of time. The person needs to give you some motivation to follow his orders. In the book we could read Harry's thoughts and thus understand his motivations, but unless the filmmakers were to utilize voice-over they needed to add something else that would make the audience understand what motivates Harry: A revealing line.

Fair point.
I suppose this might actually explain my additional dislike for the movie resolution because I wasn't too happy with the love angle in the book, already.

As for the second point, if one wanted to emphasise Snape's request, an intense "please, it's important" or so might have worked, as well. So I suspect you are right that they used a reasoning along the first point ...
(they could really do with a "vomit" smilie here on the site).

[Kings_Cross]

Originally Posted by Noldus

I found it interesting on a psychological level and also in the context of the film series. Yates certainly ended this the way he started it.

I'll reference one of my own posts: http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=592

And one from StaceysChain:
http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=594

Oh no, I totally get the symbolism. And you're right it is a throwback to OoTP but I still don't think it was necessary. The idea that the two are connected has been in place since film one and has even more of a presence in the books that I don't the audience needed that type of fight to "get it".

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by Kings_Cross

Absolutely! I much prefer a dialogue heavy scene than an action one and the final fight between Harry & Voldemort was just...weird in many ways. Still not a fan of the whole connecting-and-flying bit, seemed like a waste of screen time. The scene in the book was one of the most tense and interesting passages in the series, in my opinion, and it's a shame we didn't get to see it on screen.

And Voldemort never found out that Snape hadn't been his man from the time Voldie killed Lily.

[Noldus]

Originally Posted by Kings_Cross

Oh no, I totally get the symbolism. And you're right it is a throwback to OoTP but I still don't think it was necessary. The idea that the two are connected has been in place since film one and has even more of a presence in the books that I don't the audience needed that type of fight to "get it".

In that line of thought we should also question the necessity of Harry's "speech" to Voldemort in the book considering we knew most of what he told Voldemort; that Snape was on Dumbledore's side, that he sacrificed himself to save the others, that he knows what will happen to Voldemort if he doesn't try for remorse (represented symbolically through the Voldemort fetus at King's Cross) etc. You get my point: That verbal exchange was no less repetitive than emphasizing the idea that Harry and Voldemort are connected.

That being said, I don't find it unnecessary even though it is repetitive. Since I applaude the film version for emphasizing an idea that has indeed been in place since film one it would be rather hypocritical of me to criticize JKR's version for being repetitive. It goes without saying that this type of logic ought to apply the other way around as well...

The verbal exchange in the book, despite being mostly repetitive, served its purpose as a suspense-building moment with Harry humiliating Tom and having the upper hand in the confrontation. Yates visualized that aspect of the book scene concerning Harry's superiority by having Harry throw himself and Voldemort off the cliff. Why did he do that? Firstly he was obviously cornered which goes to show that the moment was also necessary in terms of plot development to some degree. Yes, strictly speaking you could have skipped the entire chasing-around-the castle-and-flying-around-it bit and just have them shoot their final spells at once if all you care about is "getting to the point", but considering it was the culmination of an eight movie series...I'd say it was quite necessary in that light. Moreover, adding the "CGI-dominated guided tour of the castle", as Peakes put it, was partially done for the purpose of variation; you had a lot of wand battling between them, psychical beating from Voldemort and now a psychological battle with the "CGI-dominated tour of the castle". In that sense it was not repetitive.

Secondly, Harry wanted to scare Voldemort. What does his enemy fear the most? That's right: Death. After all the pain Harry has endured because of Voldemort, after all his personal loss...he was just too tempted not to give Voldemort a taste of his own medicine. At the end of OotP Voldemort possessed him and left as the weakest one. Here the situation is turned upside down: It is Harry, knowing Voldemort's weakness of not withstanding contact with "love" and his fear of death, who takes the initiative to the inner battle here. After their faces merge into one smiling face which I assume is Harry's grin, they split up as if to demonstrate visually that their connection is broken. Only one can live...

Which brings me to my next point: Culmination. You see, everything not strictly important to the plot is not automatically unnecessary. Culmimating the relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist in such a long-running series is, I would say, necessary in terms of character development. Seeing the dynamic of that relationship change from Voldemort chasing a scared Harry around from the beginning of the series to Harry facing him face to face and jumping fearlessly with him into the abyss to give him a taste of his own medicine is an interesting development that I am glad Yates put in there. Seeing the superior, confident and powerful Voldemort as he was portrayed as at the beginning of Deathly Hallows: Part 1 being reduced to a scared, desperate and pathetic human being helplessly fighting for his own life as opposed to fighting for world dominance was quite a strong contrast. In the book this change of superiority was covered through their verbal exchange, which goes to show that Yates most certainly understood the deeper essence behind the words and found an interesting way to communicate that visually.

[Thomas83]

When you make movies of a series of books it unfortunately is necessary to leave a lot of (minor) things out of the movie adaptions, so in that light I don't have that much of a problem with the decision to change some things here and there. But what I have a problem with is cutting really important parts, adding stuff that doesn't really make the movie better or even make the tone of the story a bit different and changing major parts of the story or characters.

In random order things that are different in the movies (some already mentioned by others before me in this thread):

-The scene where they burned down The Burrow. Just an excuse for another action scene and a bit of drama.
-The little dance of the Beauxbatons when they were introduced.
-Harry flirting with that waitress.
-Not that important, but it would have been nice to see some of the storyline of Percy alienating from his family. His appearance is a bit different too. Bill Weasley is described as a handsome guy in the books, but you can't say that about him in the movies.
-Michael Gambon really suprised me with a good performance in The Half-Blood prince, but I didn't like him as Dumbledore for the rest of the movies. In The Goblet of Fire he hit rock-bottom with a cranky and even a bit hysterical interpretation of what is a humorous and calm character. Quite the opposite. I didn't like his voice either.
-They way they did Dumbledores death was disappointing. I liked the use of slowmotion, but they let out that kind of freezing spell, making Harry look a bit of a coward, and it even felt a bit rushed. Would have liked to see his funeral as well.
-The Knight Bus scene with the talking head was a bit childish.
-That song they played during the dance in Goblet of Fire.
-It's just cringeworthy when Harry jumps of the cliff with Voldemort. Not only the idea of it, but the way it was done with Harry screaming "together". Actually, the whole final fight with Voldemort didn't make any sense. Pure as a duelist Harry never was a match for Voldemort. What made him stronger, better, than Voldemort, is how he hated to use violence and never used it without reason, always using stunning spells where Voldemort used killing curses all the time. Harry defeated Voldemort with words and love, that's the beauty of it.
-It's a huge mistake to let out the flashbacks with Tom Riddle in the Half-Blood Prince. His background is what makes him different than just a random bad guy who is evil just for the sake of it. The book emphasizes how Harry and Tom Riddle both had a sad childhood as orphans before Hogwarts came in their lifes. Harry chose the part of the good, Tom Riddle the path of the evil. I think you can even say the whole story is about that, about it isn't how you are born what counts, but the choices that you make.
-Snape's Worst Memory is an important scene. Lily should have been in it.
-It would have been interesting to see some of the more dark backstory of Dumbledore. Though I have to say it isn't a big deal to cut it.
-In the movies Ron is a dumbed down sidekick.
-The movies definitely became darker just as the books did, but they still were a bit childish to keep it as much "for the whole family" as they could. You can see that in the way some of the actors played. Helena Bonham Carter's performance during the scene with Voldemort and the Death Eaters around the table talking about the idea of having children with muggles (I think) is maybe one of the best examples.
-The romance between Harry and Ginny never worked as it did in the books. Bonnie Wright lacks charisma, maybe even acting skills, and she doesn't have a click with Daniel Radcliffe. But all of this doesn't even matter when they don't develop the character in the movies. She never became that strong and independent character "worthy of Harry".
-No characters stealing lines from each other.
-No changing of Hogwarts, costumes, and stuff like that.
-It isn't Radcliffe's fault, but when he got past his puberty he got a bit of a weird body build. At least for the character he played. I found it a bit distracting. They maybe could have fixed this with smart camera direction. His hair became too short too. Harry's hair has to be a bit of messed up and longish.
-Basically, The Half-Blood Prince was quite bad. It felt too much as a superficial teen movie about love. Take the subject of love more serious, with a more dark approach. I liked the scene with Harry and Hermione when she cries and he says "it feels like this".
-Maybe more could have been done with the Hallows vs. Horcruxes thing. I liked the symbolism in the books.

[ShadowSonic]

The whole "Bill is the handsome Weasley" thing wouldn't really have worked in the movies anyways, because Rupert and the Phelps are already handsome guys themselves so there was no real way to gauge Bill's handsomeness.

[Thomas83]

Yes, you have a point there. It's a bit of a result of the more or less general habit in movies to cast attractive people. Emma Watson as Hermione is the perfect example.

[Blue_Pikachu]

- There's one major thing I'd change: Hermione being less Mary Sue and stealing Ron's lines. I'd probably insert the whole S.P.E.W as well and let her be more bossy. Cause that's the way Hermione is, and what makes me love her so much. In consequence, the reason R/Herm kiss is because Ron brings up the house-elves aaand Harry is with them.
- I wanted to see more of the uncertain yet brave Ron, instead of this cowardly, comical frightened boy with his high yelps of fear. In DH2 this improved a lot though.
- More of Tonks, Lupin, Percy and Kreacher.
- GOF. Apart from the graveyard scene that movie was disastrous. I don't know why exactly,but it was. The introductions and uniforms of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, Hermione shouting at Ron and Harry as if she was their mother, the WCQuidditch that didn't even take place... there were things I did like, but it's certainly my least fave HP movie by far.
- Get another actress for Ginny, one who did have chemistry with Dan. I'm sorry Bonnie. And let them make out passionately, whether or not after winning the Quidditch Cup.
- The burning of the Burrow, it was pointless.
- And of course the final battle between Voldemort and Harry. It should've taken place in the Great Hall, instead of the blurry flying around thing'.
- I would've made Voldy more scarier. In GoF he was scary. (Very good job) but ever since HBP (I think) he became.. comical. His NYEAAAH, his little dances, awkward hugs, funny laughs..

The first 3 movies were very good, then it went hugely downhill with GoF and OotP, and then it got better again. There were some very nice adds, but also some completely pointless ones. Some incredibly clever screenwriting and some horrendous. Overall, I enjoyed the movies, some casts were brilliant (Snape, McGonagall...) but I knew beforehand it could never match the books which is why I enjoyed the franchise so much.

Oh, and I didn't mind the dancing scene between Harry and Hermione, it was awkward, but sweet. I think it was Harry's attempt to cheer her up after Ron had left.

[CheddarTrek]

Honestly I think the films would have been FANTASTIC if they'd been done in CGI. Pixar or DreamWorks or whoever. To me they just seemed well suited for it.

[snapes_witch]

I really, really dislike the 'new' Hogwarts in DH2! And the final battle in this 'new' Hogwarts!

[asdfasdf17]

Originally Posted by CheddarTrek

Honestly I think the films would have been FANTASTIC if they'd been done in CGI. Pixar or DreamWorks or whoever. To me they just seemed well suited for it.

That would have been really cool! But to some fans it might seem too 'kidish' especially once the later movies came out. Personally, I wouldn't mind it at all.

Somethings that I would change:
I would extend the SWM scene so it was longer, like in the book.
I would make Mad Eye's eye look like a real eye (not the weird strap-thing, mechanical eye that they used).
I would've made the ending to PoA be less sudden.
Since I really, really liked the animation they used to explain the Tale of the Three Brothers in DH1, I would definitely use more of those animation-scenes to explain other stories (like the history of the Chamber of Secrets or something).