The Twelve Worst Mistakes the People Who Make the Harry Potter Movies Happened to Make
The Twelve Worst Mistakes the People Who Make the Harry Potter Movies Happened to Make Whilst Making the Harry Potter Movies
IMHO.
Twelve because it’s a significant number in the HP universe, and I know that because I take my Harry Potter very seriously. And I have a lot of free time, apparently. This is a scarily long exploration of why I need to get out more.
12. The Monsters
I'm mostly complaining about Chamber of Secrets with the snake and the spiders. The spiders aren’t scary. I distinctly recall thinking, “Why are they puppy-sized?” when I first watched it. And if an on-screen spider is making me, someone hopelessly afraid of spiders, think of puppies, you’re doing it wrong.
Shelob isn’t scary either, but she’s better than Aragog, who looks like that thing they passed off as It. Congrats, CoS, your spider looks about as good as the one from a low-budget TV movie which for some reason shares a name with Stephen King’s masterpiece. Also, they keep doing close-ups of Aragog’s face while he’s talking, and let me tell you, if you want your thing-that’s-supposed-to-be-a-twelve-foot-tall-talking-spider to be unintentionally hilarious, you’re doing it right.
The snake has stupid teeth. It would have been better if he had a select few really creepy snake fangs like you see with real snakes.
Also, what’s freakiest and coolest about snakes is how their muscles contract and make them move really really fast, when by all rights something without any legs shouldn’t be able to do that. This snake looks like it’s a piece of string being dragged around on the floor for some giant cat to chase. And it has horns and it roars. WTF.
All other monsters are generally just underwhelming or flat-out non-existent. Personally, I don’t care about the flying Dementors, but if they had just glided like they were supposed to they might have been creepier. What I do care about is the general lack of the other magical creatures. It would have been nice to see the Sphinx in GoF, for example, because the Sphinx was awesome. The movie makers had a license to a whole magical world and they didn't really do all that they could have (and while I understand that movie-making is expensive, they could have just given us glimpses, at least).
11. Hermione's hair
So, so irritating. I have to blame Cuaron for this, even though I like his movie. Each character has a few visual traits that should technically help the audience instantly recognize them when they’re on screen. For Harry, it’s dark hair, glasses, and a scar (am I forgetting something… no… nothing in particular about the colour of the eyes…). Ron is red-haired and freckled. Dumbledore has half-moon spectacles and a long beard.
Hermione has bushy hair. If Hermione doesn’t have bushy hair, then why does Ron have to be a ginger, and why does Harry have to wear glasses? Oh wait, because Hermione’s the girl, so she has to be pretty. Heads-up, Prisoner of Azkaban and following: you’d be hard-pressed to make Emma Watson look anything less than gorgeous, even with Medusa hair. Give Hermione her crazy hair back.
They tried to fix this in Half-Blood Prince, when Hermione brews a potion and her hair does go crazy, but that implies that she works on it every day before she goes out, and Hermione in the books said it takes her way too much time, as in four hours. If Hermione had four hours of spare time every day she’d be IN THE LIBRARY. Fail, movies, FAIL.
Oh and by the way. This is just one of the many things that Starkid does so much better than the movies.
10. The first task
The first task in the book is a good example of what a skilled readerly writer JKR is, as in, she writes to create an effortlessly enjoyable experience for the reader. Up until this point she’s made the readers feel as anxious and miserable as Harry is feeling, but as soon as he gets on his broom everything melts away. It’s the closest you’ll come as a reader to flying yourself. I love to read this part of the book; it’s very well crafted. In the movie we don’t have JKR’s narrator, so it was never going to be as good, but that doesn't mean we needed the melodrama of the dragon task. We didn’t need Harry to be climbing all over the roof of Hogwarts. Unnecessary and boring. Also, Harry pretty much kills the dragon, so he should have had loads of marks taken off. Krum loses marks just for damaging a few of the eggs, but Harry manages to kill the mother dragon. Yeah, he wouldn’t have gotten second place for that.
9. No Quidditch final
Everyone hates this, but I understand why it wasn't in Prisoner of Azkaban. In the books it's a nice relief of the tension, but JKR can easily get us back on track and being upset about Buckbeak and being curious about Sirius Black. If the Quidditch final had been in the movies, it would have been a climax, and then all of the mystery and plot explanation following it would have been really dull.
That said, it was another really awesome moment in the books that potentially could have been kept in - this specific moment from the book stands in for all of those other amazing moments that got chopped for time or pacing or some stupid movie thing.
8. Inconsistencies between movies
If they’re going to change things from the books to the movies, that’s understandable, but not getting things right between movies is without excuse. Some of this is because of a change of actors, especially Dumbledore, and often it’s because the director is different and has a different vision, but sometimes it’s just laziness and stupidity. The most obvious example is Flitwick.
Warwick Davies is great but they screwed up in Philosopher's Stone - so then he just randomly got the Sauruman cast out of him or something. The real meat of this problem shows up in a big way for one of the other numbers, so I'll leave it for now.
7. Character portrayals (little irritating things)
Mainly people's problem with this is Dumbledore, but I really like both actors' portrayals, so I don't mind what they did to that character. I also think the moment where he seizes Harry and shakes him in GoF is necessary to show that Dumbledore is having problems. In the book it's an observation Harry makes in his head, and that would have been dumb in the movies, so kudos for trying, I guess. But I do see why people hate that scene.
Let’s start with Cedric. Cedric is a nice, normal guy, extremely humble, fairly likeable.
WORST CASTING EVAR.
Then there’s Crouch. I think they took Crouch and Bagman and combined them, which was dumb. Crouch as a crazy, emotionless businessman/politician, kind of a wizard Vernon Dursley, would have been a lot more engaging for the audience, not to mention more faithful to the novel. Crouch Jr. is silly. The performance was fine again, but the writing is pretty lazy for this character. I find it hard to believe that no one guessed that he was a Death Eater with that tongue flick and that speaking voice. The Ministry of Magic isn't THAT stupid. If he had been a vulnerable kid screaming for his father to have mercy on him instead of a generally creepy dude it would have been quite a bit more memorable, and it would have been a much more shocking reveal. Then there's Fleur, who apparently lost all of her usefulness when she lost her Veela grandmother. But I can't complain too much about her, because they brought her back for the last movies and I didn’t expect them to, so there you go.
(Enjoy it while you can, Fleur. You are about to be eaten by a shrubbery)
6. Exposition (and lack thereof)
Sometimes characters spout random bursts of exposition as if they have exposition turrets. It's pretty awkward. The worst has to be Tonks, who when she actually has something character-relevant to do is pretty good, but she is usually there to explain that she and Lupin are in a relationship. Show, don't tell, Half-Blood Prince. The exposition is really dull to those of us who know what’s going on, and judging from the amount of explaining we HP fans have to do for those who are less fortunate, it doesn’t help the people who are out of the know AT ALL.
And then there are times when a bit of exposition might have helped, like with the map in Prisoner of Azkaban. “THE MAP NEVER LIES!” How do you know that, Lupin? No? We’re not going to ask this question? Not even a little bit? Okay then.
5. Melodrama
This is funny or irritating or unbearable, depending on the scene and depending on the viewer's mood. Everyone has their favourite moments, like this one:
Luscious sic Malfoy: Well, let us hope, that Mr Potter, will always be around, to save the day.
Harry Freaking Potter: Don’t worry, I will be.
That's probably my favourite. I do like the scene, especially after learning that apparently these lines were improvised by Jason Isaacs and Daniel Radcliffe.
Honourable mention to:
Draco: You think there’s someone here, who’s WORSE, than Albus Dumbledore?
Goyle/Harry: … Harry Potter?
Draco: … Good one, Goyle.
and
Harry: It'll never be Hogwarts without YOU, Hagrid!
Sigh.
Other examples are likely to make me nauseous. Bring them on. (BTW, Jason Isaacs MADE his character. If I were to do a list of things the movies did right, Luscious sic Malfoy would be near the top.)
4. Harry x Ginny
This romance in the book is not very good. Apologies, my most beloved JKR, but it was definitely not my favourite. I confess to disliking Ginny, even though she was one of my favourite characters right up until Half-Blood Prince. Then she reverse-slut-shamed Ron and I was done with her. Ron gets his comeuppance and then some for attempting to slut-shame Ginny, but Ginny never pays for doing the same thing for Ron. Making fun of him for his sexual history (or lack thereof, chuckle. Oh no now I'm doing it, Ginny what have you done to me) is not okay either, guys. And then there's no redeeming moment for her. Whereas Ron will later tell Harry off not for violating his pristine and virginal sister, but for confusing her, Ginny is never seen interacting with Ron in a friendly way after their fight, and I don't see her growing up like Ron does.
Here is JK Rowling the world: "I really enjoyed writing the Ron/Lavender business, and the reason that was enjoyable was Ron up to this point has been quite immature compared to the other two and he kind of needed to make himself worthy of Hermione. Now, that didn't mean necessarily physical experience but he had to grow up emotionally and now he's taken a big step up. Because he's had this meaningless physical experience - let's face it, his emotions were never deeply engaged with lavender - and he's realized that that is ultimately not what he wants, which takes him a huge emotional step forward."
- from the interview after HBP with Melissa and Emerson
But Jo, why you no do the same for Ginny?
For more on the subject, I quote Lovely_Slytheriness's post: "We're consistently bashed over the head with how amazingly incredibly she supposedly is. Other characters inform us that she's smart, hot, athletic, funny, wonderful, tough, not weepy, able to cure cancer, etc. However, the only thing that I'm able to infer from her negligible amount of 'on-screen' interactions with Harry is that she's a good kisser."
To add to that, all Ginny seems to do during Deathly Hallows is whine and cry. I get that she's upset when her family tell her that she has to stay in the Room of Requirement instead of joining them for the super-dangerous fight, but if you ask me throwing a temper tantrum is a pretty immature thing to do right at the moment when a lot of the people around her (including her brother) are going to die. And before you say, "Oh, but she's only sixteen!" Let me quote Harry: "I'm fifteen!" Oh I love Harry. Screw Sirius's logic, it is possible to be a decent person at a young age. And what about earlier? I distinctly remember the part where she chews out Hermione for ragging on Harry after his escapades with the Half-Blood Prince and Draco in a bathroom (ooer). And Harry deserves to be ragged on at this point. "Oh Hermione don't pretend that you know anything about Quidditch, you'll just embarrass yourself." DO NOT WANT.
ANYWAY. Ginny is certainly not my favourite character, but I'm not a Weasley-basher, and the movies shouldn't be either ("shouldn't be" being the key phrase here). They had a chance to improve on book Ginny, and they failed miserably. They took Ginny from having no personality other than being whiny and cruel to having even less than no personality. Lots of people blame Bonnie Wright, but I'm pretty sure it was the writing. Wright kind of reminds me of a quirky, quieter, female Rupert Grint. They should have done something with that. They could have given her a few jokes, or worked with her shy quirkiness. They didn't. They just make a lot of sex jokes. In the most recent one we see her entire exposed back. It’s like the movie thinks we’re stupid: “See? This is Harry’s girlfriend, because her dress is undone.” “Yes, thank you, movie, I know, I’ve read the books, please give the poor girl a line that doesn't SUCK and maybe I’ll take your ‘romance’ a little more seriously.”
3. Dobby
INFURIATING. Chamber of Secrets strikes again. In this movie, the filmmakers probably thought, “Oh no, our puppy spiders and ridiculous snake are going to frighten the toddlers that parents stupidly brought to see this movie. We need some comic relief, and we need it now!” So they took Dobby and turned him into a clown. He's jumping on the bed when we first see him, and his self-abuse is played for harmless laughs. Yes, it was morbidly funny in the books, but “morbidly” is the key word here. This isn't slapstick comedy, this is a character who has been compelled after generations of systematic exploitation to self-mutilate when he speaks one not very nice word aloud about his “masters”. Also, their attempts to make it funny didn’t even work. They should have stuck more close-up shots of Aragog in there instead. Dobby became annoying, so they chopped him out of almost every other movie he was supposed to be in, though they did bring him back and tried to make amends in the seventh movie. Don’t worry, Dobby, you’re in a better place now, they can't mercilessly sacrifice your character and political commentary any more.
2. The Magic
Inexcusable. Harry Potter's charm (gah, unintentional pun) is the fantastical universe in which it is set. The magic is therefore important. The filmmakers did not seem to understand this. I wrote earlier of inconsistencies between movies, and here's where it happens in the worst way.
Harry and Malfoy duel in Chamber of Secrets, which is one of those silly melodramatic scenes we all love and hate. They shout things like, “Rictusempra!” and “Tarantallegra!” Both spells do the same thing, apparently, which is making the victim fly backwards and fall. Weird, considering in the book “rictusempra” was the tickling hex, and “tarantallegra” made Harry’s legs do an uncontrollable quickstep. Who here thinks that would have been a hell of a lot more entertaining if done properly?
Then there's the polyjuice potion. When the movie thinks we're stupid, those under the enchantment keep their original voices. Really? How useless that is, considering the whole point of polyjuice potion is to disguise yourself as someone else. If you were a woman turning into a man and vice-versa you might have trouble. If Alan Rickman's Snape ever tried using polyjuice potion he'd have big problems, considering his very distinctive voice. Oh, but wait. In Goblet of Fire, Barty-Crouch Jr. very successfully imitates Mad-Eye's voice. Oh, right, because it wasn’t supposed to be super obvious that he was using polyjuice potion, so that rule didn't apply to him.
But the worst has to be without a doubt “Expelliarmus.” This spell is quite important to HP; it is his signature move, after all. In Chamber of Secrets Snape uses it against Lockhart and it *GASP* does exactly what “tarantallegra” and “rictusempra” do. But Lockhart still has his wand in his hand. It's especially priceless that the characters keep referring to it as the “disarming charm” when clearly it hasn't disarmed anyone. Indeed, it’s hard to blame Dumbledore for not hiring Snape as DADA Professor when he can't even disarm Lockhart. Lockhart, for God's sake. Oh, but wait, in PoA Snape manages to successfully disarm Harry. He must have been practising all summer.
1. Ron & Hermione
Not just their relationship. The real root of the problem is that they failed at both characters separately, so their interactions inevitably didn't work properly. Hermione I've touched on; the hair is just the beginning, but it represents what they did to her. She was supposed to be flawed, but they stuck her on that horrific pedestal and turned her into the world's most perfect, most bland, most heroineish heroine. I suspect that deep down, the filmmakers are supporters of Grangerverse. If you've been reading this in sheer horror that I put so much thought into such things, I can assure you that it only gets worse from this point on. There are some crazy people who think that Hermione is God himself in human, fictional form. She is so brilliant, so perfect, that she is actually, without JKR's knowledge, the main character. As in, when JKR named all of the books after HP and made him the protagonist she simply wasn't thinking straight. These people are also very often people who despise Ron, which reinforces my suspicions about the filmmakers. Anyway, Hermione takes Ron's lines here:
“Hearing voices in your head that don’t belong to you is a bad sign, Harry. Even in the Wizarding World.”
Odd. That line would suit Ron much better since he's the only one in the trio who grew up in said Wizarding World. Again here:
“Mudblood's a really foul name for someone who is muggle-born.”
Hermione didn't know that in the book, but Ron of course would have, since it's a deep-seated Wizarding prejudice. Hermione would not have been exposed to it so much that she'd know after ten months at Hogwarts, but in the movie she takes much offence to the term being used, as if she’s been called “Mudblood” her whole life. I'm indeed surprised that Hermione didn't perform the slug hex on Malfoy herself, but the filmmakers probably didn't want to miss a chance to make Ron look stupid.
Hermione takes a line from Dumbledore himself:
“Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.”
Wisdom it took her a mere five years to actually put into practice. In the books, that is. No, wait, in the movies too, because she says “Voldemort” for the first time only in Order of the Phoenix just like she did in the book, even though she spouts this piece of insight in Chamber of Secrets. Which are you, Hermione, the pot or the kettle?
But the worst has to be this one:
Hermione you cannot have that line. YOU CANNOT.
Anyway, that's Hermione. They assassinated all that was likeable and three-dimensional about her. I miss her being really bossy and know-it-allish.
And Ron. Take everything they exaggerated about Hermione being awesome, turn it to flaws, and give it to Ron. Ron is supposed to be a really likable character. He's supposed to be like the reader's best friend because he's Harry's best friend. He's charismatic and the natural leader of the trio. He is as talented as Harry except for Harry's exceptional talent at Quidditch and at DADA. The movies turned him into a bumbling comic relief character who eats too much. Lavender Brown was funny in the movies, but in the book she was only ever annoying because she was too clingy. In the movies she's borderline psychotic. It looks like the movies are positing the theory that if a girl actually likes Ron she must be nuts. Ron does have flaws: mainly he's a bit mean sometimes, and he's overly self-conscious. Neither of these actual flaws show up much in the movies, but they do show up a lot more than his strengths.
I don't think that it was the actors' fault. Both Watson and Grint did decent jobs in the first movie. After that, their characters got assassinated, and they were stuck doing whatever was in the stupid script. If this was because it was just easier to turn both characters into clichés, fine. But somehow I think it was on purpose, because deep down the filmmakers were Harmony shippers and they were crushed that JKR sank that horrendous ship. I think that it might have been really easy to make this stupid mistake because Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson have a fun chemistry - but they could have used that for scenes from the actual books rather than changing the entire dynamic of the trio just to work with that chemistry between real people.
All right I'm done. I think I'll go read the books or watch A Very Potter Musical again, that'll make me feel better.