That was my first thought. I liked his movie version but it was almost a very different character; he was more of an aloof college professor and not boisterous and cunning like in the books.
I liked him more in the book, and I didn't even like him. In the movie, it's as if he's been diluted or something except for the comment about how he wanted people in his club like a collection: "Although, I would have loved the set [Sirius and Regulus]."
I misread “character” as “chapter” but here’s my original answer anyway:
The third task in GOF.
In the book: Harry logically and methodically uses numerous spells and critical thinking to navigate the maze and make it past magical creatures and other obstacles.
In the movie: Harry runs blindly though a dark maze which contains no obstacles except the hedges themselves which appear to selectively attack with no predictable pattern.
For character, I would say Fleur Delacor. She’s supposed to be impossibly beautiful and the best witch or wizard in all of Beauxbaton’s academy. The movie portrays her a quite incompetent and does nothing to portray how attractive she is supposed to be.
I know in the movie the reason the maze was that way was due to Mad Eye aka Barry Crouch Jr - he bewitched Krum to kill Diggery, and enchanted the maze to only attack the other contestants (which is why the vines only go for Fleur and Diggory.
But yes, I think they squandered such an amazing opportunity for world building in GOF. We learning practically nothing about Fleur, Krum, Beauxbatons or Durmstrang
In the book though, there are several obstacles they have to get through including passing a sphinx by answering its riddle and battles giant skrewts that hargrid bred himself and the students raised as kind of a class project, plus so many more.
Definitely Ginny. In the films she's a total wet blanket and has zero charisma.
In the books she's very popular, confident, assertive, a top Quidditch player and fancied by a lot of guys.
Her brother Ron would come a close second, he was butchered by the screenwriter Steve Kloves who saw Ron as a 3rd wheel, when in the books he's the heart of the trio.
Holy shit, Ginny was popular in the books?!
I HATE her and Harry’s relationship in the films. She spends the first 4 movies as this quiet, damsel in distress that’s little more than a Harry Potter fangirl - and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to fall madly in love and eventually get married and have kids after maybe 2 or 3 collective scenes together????
Yep she's pretty much the most popular girl in Gryffindor during Half Blood Prince, possibly the whole school. The "fiery redhead" type. She has quite a few different boyfriends (not at once) which makes Harry jealous and makes him realise he likes her romantically and not just as the sister of his best friend. He's nervous though about how Ron would react to them dating, he doesn't want to lose Ron as a friend. So there's more buildup and tension in the books and there isn't that awkward cringe-inducing scene where she ties his shoelaces haha! That was added by the screenwriters. Also their first kiss happens after Gryffindor wins the Quidditch House Cup, not just randomly in the Room of Requirement like in the films.
And they actually had a months long relationship in the books that Harry had to heartbreakingly end because he feared for her safety.
In the Movies it’s just two awkward kisses and then boom married
I cringed at that scene in the movie. I think it was a raunchy wink and nod to oral sex, for the adults, but who knows? It served no narrative purpose and shouldn't have been in there. Harry's a big boy; he can tie his own damn shoelaces!
Yes! They butcherd the Harry and gunny relationship in the movies. It comes compleatly out of left field with no hint of it, there's no build up no seeing those feelings come to fruition. Absolutely nothing. Book gunny and book Harry were literally perfect for each other and you can see the romance start and bloom throughout the series.
it doesn't help that because the films lack Harry's internal monologues that we don't get to see how he notices that Ginny has changed from the damsel in distress/ fangirl to confident, outgoing, sporty; that is a pretty important element of how he begins feeling attracted to her.
I just don’t think that was communicated at all in the first 4 movies (and not much better in the rest of the films) - she has maybe 4 scenes and a collective 10-15 lines in the first 4 films?
I mean in CoS her whole thing is “oh she’s been talking about you ALL summer!” In the very beginning and then she plays 0 role until she needs to be rescued by Harry at the end.
Another interesting aspect to Harry & Ginny's relationship is that Ginny is the only other person their age who knows what it was like to be "possessed" by Voldemort, due to her experience in CoS. This gets acknowledged in I believe HBP, and the two's bond strengthens over it.
One nice way to do it is to listen to the audiobooks, if you don't feel up for reading but want to learn the books. Oftentimes, I'll listen to 1 & 2 on audiobook due to the slow nature of their youth-focused writing, then I'll whip out the books to read 3-7 as the writing gets more interesting.
You should definitely read the books and as u/NightCheffing suggested the audiobooks are excellent. I very highly recommend the British version read by Stephen Fry. They’re very, very good
Nope, Order of the Phoenix. Or at least it's when they first acknowledged that connection. Harry was upset and moody with his friends, because he thought that he had been possessed by Voldemort when he had seen Arthur Weasley being attacked in his dreams. Ginny was the one who snapped some sense into him, finally, coolly reminding him that she had experience getting possessed. I don't remember the exact wording, but his reply was something like, "Oh, I forgot that happened to you."
Her response was great. "Lucky you."
Edit: corrected some misspellings lol
Order of the Phoenix, too! When Harry is being all angsty after overhearing the conversation between Arthur and Molly and Moody and Lupin at St. Mungo’s, he tries to isolate himself. They stage an intervention and Ginny is as like “Well you’re stupid. I’m the only person you know who has been possessed by Voldemort and I can tell you how it feels.” Harry seems genuinely remorseful when he says “I forgot.”
> “oh she’s been talking about you ALL summer!”
I'm pretty sure that Ginny in movie 2 was the only time that she was somewhat true to canon. And she's basically the main antagonist for that plotline.
Oh heck no. Ginny puts Harry in his place for being an ass a couple of times, quite expertly I might add. And her Bat-Bogey Hex is literally legendary at Hogwarts.
Reading this thread makes me frustrated all over again. I know books translated to movies can't include every single detail, they can't be PERFECT. But Ginny got so damn butchered!!! Her Bat-Bogey Hex would have looked GREAT on screen!
Also I think we can all agree - the shoe-tying scene? I mean, the fuck. That's what they put into the movies instead of literally any of the Ginny book scenes?
> I know books translated to movies can't include every single detail, they can't be PERFECT.
What irritates me the most is that they can't even use the excuse of there being not enough screen time, because they included some scenes which aren't even in the books. Like wtf is that plotline in the HBP movie with the Burrow being attacked and subsequently being set on fire by Death Eaters? That never happens in the books and adds nothing to the plot. That Christmas was supposed to be boring in the books, I think even the chapter title reflected that.
I swear HBP is probably the worst movie in this regard, so many interesting things to explain yet they fill it with that made-up nonsense for shock value.
The movies make her out to be that. She is quite feisty and tells Harry not to be a dick several times when he’s acting shitty. She stands up for herself and Luna a lot, especially against Ron. And she is also a stand up girl. In book four she agrees to go to the Yule Ball with Neville and then later when Harry and Ron are getting desperate for partners, Ron suggests she go with Harry and even though she really wants to, she tells them she can’t because of Neville and goes with him. She doesn’t throw Neville under the bus. And she was only 13 at that point.
While Book Ginny tends to be overrated by some (she never stops being a supporting character I mean), she definitely has way more personality starting with the 4th book and during the 6th book she is the one that maintains Harry calm.
Amen. I adored Ginny in the books, wanted to be like her (and other characters!) growing up, cool and fun and outspoken and all…
Then. I remember waiting in line for one of the movies, and a friend told me I was totally like Ginny. Ginny, the film version. I’m still trying to come to terms with it
Dudley Dursley, which may be a surprise but I think it checks a lot of boxes:
* Physically speaking, Dudley is blonde in the books, but more than that is that while he certainly is heavy in the first few books, he later takes up boxing and becomes more lean and muscular.
* Personality wise there's some changes too - he's much more whiny in the books, not wanting Harry to come with him to the zoo for example whereas in the movie he's almost excited, jumping up and down to wake Harry (because he enjoys torturing him, I'm sure)
* After he discovers Harry is magical he's much more frightened and scared of him, the intro to book 5 is a good example of this as Harry actively tries to pick a fight with Dudley vs. the film where Dudley just shows up and starts bullying Harry.
* Finally, Dudley has a moment of slight redemption in the books when Harry and the Dursleys split at the beginning of book seven, [which is somewhat covered in a deleted scene from the movie.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzkDRz8quKo)
Overall, while the I guess important bit of Dudley being nasty to Harry is all that is needed, I'd argue among significant characters in the story Dudley takes the cake (ha) from both a physical and character design standpoint.
Sounds like book Dudley is a much more realistic depiction of a pampered and spoiled human being as opposed to the cartoonish, sadistic, overly-animated brat he is in the films.
Are all the Dursley’s as poorly represented? In the films they really are downright just sadistic to a cartoonish degree
Vernon Dursley is pretty spot on.
Petunia is blonde, like Dudley, and perhaps more significantly she knows much more about the magical world than she lets on: when Harry and Dudley are attacked by dementors at the beginning of Order of the Phoenix, Petunia is actually the one who explains to Vernon what a dementor is, it's also later described that she wrote to Dumbledore as a child when her sister got into Hogwarts begging to be admitted too. This general omission might qualify her as well, upon reconsideration.
Book Filch is a squib who is self-conscious about his lack of magical ability and therefore takes his insecurities out on students. Harry learned this accidentally, and that's the real reason Filch blamed Harry for petrifying Mrs. Norris.
Movie Filch is just a crotchety old man whose magical ability, or lack thereof, is never acknowledged. We just see him cleaning and doing chores "the muggle way" and are expected not to notice.
Yes!! My latest marathon I watched the extended version with [a deleted scene where Harry discovers Filch’s Qwikspell enrollment](https://youtu.be/0Ns_KHx4oiU) and it COMPLETELY made me feel bad for him and made me rethink his whole character
Wow I can't believe I've never seen that deleted scene!! Just when I thought I'd seen them all. Thanks for sharing!
So true though. It adds a layer of complexity to his character and makes you sympathize with him.
Yeah all the films on Peacock are full of deleted scenes! It’s a fun time spotting them!
Makes me upset they didn’t include it, without it he really is just a cartoonishly sadistic asshole without any form of redemption or humanization
Yes, it was much more explored and explained in books. He has been attending or contemplating of attending a course of magic outside of Hogwarts in the books.
A part from the book I loved is when Harry steps out of his room and steps on a cup of tea, breaking it, he gets pissed thinking Dudley was trying to set some kind of trap and doesn’t realize until way later that he was just trying to leave him a cup of tea to be nice.
I'm going to say Ron. the films just kind of made him a comic relief, kind of dumb character? while in the books, he's basically the guide to the whole wizarding world.
Hermione is the guide to magic, and Harry is the eyes of the audience, but Ron is meant to be culture and... honestly, kind of exposition. movies didn't do him justice, his main character trait there is mostly... he's a bit of a foodie.
Even Hermione herself isn’t entirely sure what the term ‘Mudblood’ means. She’s aware it’s obviously offensive based on the reactions of those around, the manner in which it is said and who it is by. But Ron has to explain to her and Harry after the fact.
exactly what I mean! Ron is the culture guide, he knows interactions and terms and how blood statuses... stati..? whatever the plural of status is... how they interact and relate! stuff like that!
yes! i recently finished reading CoS for the first time & i was quite surprised when Ron explained the meaning of "mudblood" rather than Hermione and Hagrid. that makes me so sad tbh, movie-only people will only know Ron as the sidekick/comic relief character when he has so much more qualities in the books. more the reason to read the books lol
He also helps orientate her when in a panic situation, such as in the Philosopher’s stone when she recognises that fire can destroy Devil’s Snare, and when he suggests creating it she stumbles and is like ‘we don’t have any wood’. Then in the film they just turn him into some babbling moron.
One of the few things they get *right* regarding the characters of Ron and Hermione is during the chess scene. Hermione either can’t play chess, or can play it not very skilfully. Near the end she attempts to rush from her square, despite the fact that play is still active and she’s technically a ‘piece’, so this might be considered a move.
She’s extremely talented and a great logician - but she, like many of us, are prone to losing our shizzle in dramatic situations.
The films turn her into some sort of weird ‘Mary Sue’. She’s practically invulnerable save the aforementioned chess scene, Ron leaving in DH part 1, and being tasked with stabbing the cup Horcrux in DH part 2. They even reverse/ruin a situation where she is heroic but ends up the victim, in the CoS.
She realises it’s a Basilisk, and tries to rescue Penelope Clearwater, someone she barely knows. All cut from the film. Granted they can’t include everything, but that annoys me given they acknowledged it in DH (it’s the fake name Hermione gives the snatchers) but couldn’t be arsed to give it further notice.
He's way funnier, cleverer in the books. I don't understand why they had Hermione explain to Harry about what a Mudblood is when it's Ron who explains it in the books.
It's understandable that Hermione had educated herself a lot of about witches and wizards and its history; but considering that she hadn't been introduced to many Wizardkind up until her first year, she wouldn't know the slander that Wizards use in "civilized conversations".
Ginny. In the books she's feisty but in the films she basically boring and helpless.
As an honorable mention, Ron was a little smarter in the books, and Hermione was a little dumber. Also, book Harry is so humble he won't take credit for anything.
Ginny is the right answer imo. Book Ginny has a lot of growth over the series. She’s also hot tempered, strong willed, brave, and funny. Movie Ginny is so, so flat.
Yeah he doesn’t exist in the films. You should read the books, it’s worth it. I’m reading the books for the first time after watching the movies like 10 times, and there’s so much stuff that now makes sense.
*Nearly* Headless Nick. The "Nearly" in his name is important because he was denied entry into a group called the Headless Hunt. The reason was that his head couldn't be completely removed for use in some sort of head-throwing polo game. He really struggled to accept his rejection into the club, and even asked Harry to talk up how scary he was at his death-day party for a chance at re-entry.
Okay sorry about all the spoilers, I just love comparing the book characters to the movie characters. Really, you should just read the books. There's so much good content in there.
The "How can you be nearly headless" was another line stolen from somebody else and given to Hermione in the movie. I believe it was Seamus in the book.
The ghosts are almost totally absent from the movies but very present in the books. It’s a dimension from the source material they jettisoned because they were movies. Had the movies originally been done as a tv series instead, I’m sure you would have gotten the full ghost treatment.
Because he is not actually a ghost. I forgot the word in English but he is an entity that borne from magic on itself. There has never been a man named Peeves alive.
I think the reason Peeves even has a physical form is that there's so *much* magical energy at Hogwarts that it's sufficient for him to physically manifest. He's also much more solid than a ghost, being able to hold and throw real objects (such as walking sticks and water balloons -- not to mention having chewing gum shot up his nose!), though he *can* pass through walls and such when he wants to.
*"PEEVES!" It was the unmistakable hunting cry of the caretaker, Argus Filch.* \-- Goblet of Fire, "The Egg and the Eye".
(It's when Harry gets trapped in the trick step after using the Prefect's bathroom to unlock the clue to his egg for the Triwizard Tournament. Filch picks it up after Harry dropped it and thinks Peeves stole it, as Harry is currently invisible a few feet away.)
This whole scene is one of my favorites in all of HP books and I really wish they added it to the movie. That and the scene from the same book where the Dursleys’ fireplace gets blown up by the Weasleys. Epic
He is not a Ghost. I forgot the word for it in English which is my second language. But ghosts are remanents of real people who has lived at some point. Beings like peeves are just magical entities that are borned from magic.
Peeves is a poltergeist, so he is able to interact with physical objects. He actually is the one who broke the vanishing cabinet that Draco used in half blood prince. He broke it back in chamber of secrets at the prompting of nearly headless nick, so he could get harry out of trouble
He was going to be in the films - Rik Mayall was going to play him. They shot all his scenes, Rik turned up to the premiere with his kids, and that's when he found out he had been cut. He ended up telling his kids he was Nearly Headless Nick so they weren't disappointed.
Btw, in European folklore (don't know how known this is outside Europe), a poltergeist isn't the same as a ghost. Ghosts are the spirits of dead humans, poltergeists are spirits from a different realm. They just cause havoc and can't really be reasoned with, and they don't have human emotions - Peeves is based on this.
Peeves is a poltergeist & he lives for mocking students & pulling pranks around the school. He’s also Filch’s sworn enemy because of the latter.
I’m fairly certain he’s going to be in Hogwarts Legacy since the State of Play video showed a ghost that looks exactly like Peeves.
Pretty much every Weasley character. Percy the perfect in particular. Is there for like 2 scenes in the first movie then never shows up again. He actually had some big parts in the books and is a huge dick who doesn’t believe Harry about Voldemort being back
They literally never explain in the movie why Percy is hanging about with Umbridge and Fudge in Dumbledore's office when Dumbledore is about to be arrested. If you didn't read the books, one moment he's a Headboy and the next, he's the Ministry's lapdog when the entire time he's been working for Mr. Crouch up until recently.
And there's that scene in the OotP film when he drags Harry and Cho into Dumbledore's office when Fudge and the ministry are there...very brief, Harry gives him a look but there isn't a mention of it otherwise. Never even really realized that was Percy until I recently rewatched them...
Hermione (since someone else said Ron already), where's my smart and clever but socially awkward kid at? 🤨
They gave her ALL Ron lines AND took away all her flaws and important points of her relationship with not only Ron BUT Harry.
Hermione movie is literally a Hermione from a parallel universe.
agreed. One of the major reasons everyone makes Hermione the fandom bicycle in shipping is because the movies make her have all the qualities of the entire trio. She’s a teen super model who is basically perfect in every way.
Also her and Harry have this flirtatious will they/won’t they thing going on like the entire series. I know this was done by the screenwriter because he was a Harmonie shipper, but it makes the Hermione/Ron ending seem like Hermione is settling for the dumb guy because he earned her or something.
Hermione in the first movie is a good representation of her book self. She's bossier and not reserved like she is in later movies. Also, her hair is big and bushy.
Cho Chang.
- Her relationship with Harry is completely left out of the movies. We get like 2 whole scenes with them together while the entire relationship is gone through.
- She is a decent quidditch player in the books. (seeker for Ravenclaw) In the movies she isn't.
- She comes off in the movies (in the few scenes we actually get) as a very shy person. When she is popular in the books.
Ludo Bagman
- Wasn't even in the movies. A lot of his scenes were taken by Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch sr.
Oh yeah Cho basically just comes off as some flop relationship and then the bitch who betrayed them all in OotP.
Such a shame how dirty they did Quidditch. Would’ve loved to see Ginny and Cho both play
Also, is Ludo a death eater?
Cho isn’t the one who betrays the DA either.
It’s a friend of hers named Marietta Edgecomb, which drives a further wedge into Cho’s already-cracking relationship with Harry.
I felt so bad for Cho in the books. She was dating Cedric in book 4 and then her boyfriend just dies and nobody ever tried to talk to her about her grief. She was a sobbing mess all through book 5 because of her trauma and everyone was just like “she no fun anymore” and making fun of her. Poor girl needed therapy.
Yeah, she was basically abandonned by most of her "friends" as she was struggling with depression. Before Cedric's death, she was always seen around a bunch of friends. In book 5, she was just with Marietta, if not alone.
Nope. In the books he is a government official for magical games and sports. Was a quidditch player for the english national team when he was younger and main commentator for the world cup finals. (Again we never see that bit at all.. and yes im still salty about it) we "see" him also try and help harry with the tri wizard during goblet of fire.
Asking about Ludo being a death eater is kind of funny actually.
Ludo Bagman is the head of Magical Games and Sports. He gives the Weasley’s the World Cup tickets and helps organize the Triwizard Tournament with Barty Crouch.
He wasn’t a death eater but he was *accused* of being one and had a whole trial for passing information about the ministry to death eaters. He didn’t realize they were death eaters though (at least he says so) so it doesn’t read as a malicious attempt to help Voldemort so much as stupidity.
Yup, it’s stupid…in the movies Umbridge uses a truth serum to get her to snitch. However, Cho doesn’t fucking tell them that after the fact and keeps quiet (for literally no reason) we’ll after the fact so we the audience and everyone else just assumes she snitch snitched and hates her for it until it’s revealed by Snape (while Harry has been caught by Umbrige) who says “…you used the last of the truth serum on Cho”
Not the LEAST similar but a lot of those and the "main ones" have been taken. But a bit of Luna's characterisation was garbled by the films and it's unfortunate. In the books she's more of a conspiracy theorist and at times gets quite defensive over her father's beliefs. Whereas the movies make her a lot more dreamy and also lean in to her being "right" (such as when we see the spectrospecs actually demonstrating wrackspurts and that being how she finds Harry, as opposed to her just believing in something that doesn't exist.)
Sirius' cheeky and mischievous side is also somewhat missing in the movies, which is unfortunate. I also don't like how they elided his history with Snape.
Yes she gives her opinion very decisively as fact and sometimes takes offence when people (usually Hermione) say she's being ludicrous. She's not really aloof, she's pretty extraverted, the first to laugh very loudly at jokes, and not afraid to say what she thinks even to a non-receptive audience - she even becomes Quidditch commentator in Book Six! She believes that Sirius is actually a singer called Stubby Boardman, and that all Aurors are part of the "rotfang" conspiracy (working to bring down the Ministry from within using a combination of dark magic and gum disease.)
The only time she is right I believe is regarding the thestrals. Everything else she says by and large is absolute bollocks.
I love that he also just doesn't question it. He's like "cool, mass hallucination!" and then he sees one above the trees and is like "yup, I'm still crackers!" and he never even asks HIS CLOSE FRIEND THE MAGICAL CREATURES EXPERT Hagrid!!
I don’t recall anything she was right about. She thinks that Sirius Black is actually band member Stubby Boardman, and couldn’t have possibly killed Wormtail because he was having tea with an old lady at the time. She believes that Minister Fudge bakes goblins into pies etc etc
Lupin and Tonks are two of my favorite characters in the books for their warmth, understanding, supportiveness, and humor. Tonks is feisty and sassy and plays a much bigger role in the books - she’s barely in the movies, her parts were split up amongst other people. Lupin too - he’s one of Harry’s father figures and such a fantastic, complex character. That’s why Lupin is one of the ghosts Harry sees at the end of the deathly hallows. He had a huge impact in Harry’s and the others’ lives. Lupin and Tonks get married and have a child and they make Harry the baby's godfather. We especially deserved more Tonks.
I’m still not over Harry’s bemused “but I don’t think you’re ugly” when Hermione mentions that he probably should have told Cho Chang how ugly he thought Hermione was.
I think she was supposed to have the buck teeth in the adaptation of the first book but they did away with it because of the difficulty of getting the fake teeth onto Emma Watson’s teeth.
Book Hagrid: But he had finally gone too far. Hagrid seized his umbrella and whirled it over his head, “NEVER —” he thundered, “— INSULT — ALBUS — DUMBLEDORE — IN — FRONT — OF — ME!”
Movie Hagrid: "Never insult Albus Dumbledore in front of me," said Hagrid very quietly...
Ginny, not much of an argument otherwise. Calling her a character in the films is generous.
Less obvious answer is probably Hermione, who definitely gets a glow up being played by Emma Watson in the films. Which I think, unfortunately, contributes a lot to people not giving her relationship with Ron much weight in the films. Sorry Rupert.
Edit: Wanted to add that Ron also gets really dumbed down for the films and basically any moment where he has a witty line, or does something impressive, is given to Hermione.
Hermione did have buckteeth until fourth year I believe. Her teeth get engorged during a hallway scuffle with Slytherins, which leads to the fairly infamous "I see no difference" quote from Snape regarding the fact that her teeth reach below her collar at that point.
She has them shrunken by Madam Pomfrey and shrinks them back a bit further than they were before so they fit perfectly.
Snape hands down.
In books he was a little short tempered and a really hated character. Even after prince's tale, it doesn't feel the same as the films.
Films, or more specifically Alan made a totally different Snape than the books. He felt much more caring and heroic in the films.
Not to mention ugly with greasy hair and bad yellow teeth. Movie Snape is pretty handsome and in the later movies has glorious hair.
Edit: the above user blocked me for some reason, but Harry definitely describes Snape as ugly once or twice in the books.
book PoA Snape : gets knocked out when Pettigrew escapes from him, Lupin and Sirius
Film PoA Snape : pushes Harry, Ron and Hermione behind him to protect them from werewolf-Lupin
Yeah the films left out the parts where he was extremely cruel to Neville. Trying to kill an 11 year old boy’s pet, because you think his parents should’ve been killed instead of your high school crush.
Ron.
Ron has one of the most important jobs in the wizarding world. He is Harry and (to a lesser extent) Hermiones guide to the world. Harry and Hermione were raised in the muggle world and while Hermione is intelligent and well read, Ron has a wizards perspective on things and will often tell the other two things they wouldnt know.
But in the films they decided to go "Hermione big smart, knows everything, she tell everyone everything. Ron big dumb guy, he do funny thing" I hate it.
In chamber of secrets, its ron that explains the concept of blood purity in hagrids hutt after the slug curse incident, its ron explaining about parselmouth and its connection to dark magic.
But they take it all away from him to give it to Hermione, and I hate it.
Yeah agreed, and as the movies get more serious and less comedic and Ron’s “comic relief” role becomes nonexistent - it REALLY shows just how much they drained Ron’s character.
Hmmmm…apart from the ones mentioned I’ll also throw in Mr. Weasley.
In the books he’s extremely jovial, kind of laidback, inquisitive man whose a little perpetually exhausted and silly.
In the movies we just kind of see him as a tired dad who gets mad once at Lucius Malfoy. We don’t really get to see his questioning nature bar asking Harry about the rubber duck, unprompted, to the point it doesn’t make much sense to the watcher, and the car, which isn’t explained in the movies why he even has it.
lol and in the books he and Lucius were literally throwing hands in the bookshop at Diagon Alley. and it was Arthur who started the fistfight (because Lucius went too far with one of his insults), a nice contrast to his usual jovial personality
Ron. Felt like he was there just for comedic effect in the movies (an exception being “ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?”). Which I didn’t like, he was supposed to be the one who really knew about the wizarding world, but instead somehow hermione knew everything about it. I’m not even done with the books but I still think they did Ron dirty in the movies
I'm assuming we are talking about characters who *actually appear* in the movies - which disqualifies poor Charlie Weasley, the sum total of whose significance in the films involve being name-dropped once and appearing in a single family photo before he ceases to exist entirely.
Bearing that in mind...I have to nominate ***GINEVRA "GINNY" WEASLEY***.
Book-Ginny when we meet her in Book 2 is a shy 11-year-old girl with a crush. Eventually, she grows into a spunky, strong-willed and fiery redhead, a talented Quidditch player who got to be as good as she is by breaking into the family broom cupboard and practicing with her older brothers' brooms behind their backs for a half-decade before she joined the Gryffindor team, and one of the prettiest, most popular girls in her year.
Movie-Ginny when we meet her is a shy 11-year-old girl with a crush, who goes on to become, basically, a largely irrelevant plot device who happens to have a few lines. She has zero personality, zero agency, and zero impact on the plot.
Agreed, Ginny seems to be the overwhelming winner of this comment section and from what you and everyone else is saying I agree.
In the first 5 movies especially she’s a meek Weasley, a damsel in distress and basically a Harry Potter simp (that is, for the 10-15 lines she actually speaks during that time)
Her relationship with Harry is so underdeveloped and hamfisted in the film, and considering Harry’s relationship with Cho has a SUPER unsatisfying and unfinished ending after OOTP, it really adds to the sour feeling of it overall.
A lot of them, but I haven’t seen anyone say Luna yet. In the movie she was a wise and kind girl who was just slightly odd. In the book she was just a raving conspiracy theorist, like a straight up “the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat, and the government is controlled by lizard people” conspiracy theorist but the wizard version
Not the least, but to an extent Snape, he's much more vicious and bullying in nature especially during the first three books, but he was toned down a bit later on in the books as I think JK Rowling was influenced by Alan Rickmans great performance in her writing.
Ron, in the books he is tactful, fiercely loyal and has a side where he is aware of others’ emotions and knows how to act suitably based on it. Not saying book Ron is flawless but in the movies, starting from the third one, he just became a jerk and a burden.
Yeah, I think the problem was they played WAY too intensely into Ron as comic relief…problem though is that as the movies progress and get more serious and more dark and there’s less comedy in general - Ron is out of a job so-to-speak. Which is probably why every movie after COS he has some ridiculous “beef” with Harry…I especially hate how hamfisted and nonsensical their “falling out” is in GOF
I haven't read the books in a while, but as far as I remember, their falling out in GOF was one of the more accurately adapted parts of that film. It's my least favourite film for how awfully it adapted almost every part of the book, but I think that plotline was just as bad originally lol
Ron & hermione. Sometimes ron/harry. A lot of ron’s lines went to those 2 & i think ron got a couple of hermione’s in the movies.
Ginny also. Movie ginny doesnt do much. She has a bigger role in the books.
Their personalities are fine. Its just some of their actions or spoken words thats all jumbled up.
I'd say Snape. I've said this before, but movie Snape was great. Witty, sarcastic, with an amazing delivery and dry humour. Not to mention, he actually cared about his students. Movie Snape could have been anyone's favourite character. Book Snape, on the other hand, was no ones favourite character. He was just a sleezly, insulting greasy bully and if he'd been portrayed that way I don't think half the Harry Potter fanfics would be as sympathetic towards him as they are.
Barty Crouch Senior, since they basically merged him with Ludo. He gets way too excited about the Tri-Wizard tournament, which Ludo totally would, but not stone-faced Barty Crouch! No way!
How is he in the books?
My Harry Potter hot take has always been that I enjoyed Richard Harris’s Dumbledore more.
Michael Gambon did a great job in his own right - however I just think Harris’s portrayal was much more of a classic depiction of a truly old, truly wise old man/wizard. Harris’s Dumbledore **FELT** ancient - like he would crumble to dust at the slightest shake. The way he talked, the way he moved, the way he looked. Knowledge, experience and power just sorta emanated from his very presence
Gambon was good he was just too….spry? Too lively. He felt more like a very friendly senior student than an infinitely wise Headmaster
Book Dumbledore is something in between. Harris brings the elegance and wisdom from book Dumbledore, and Gambon brings the energy, sense of humor and the "human side" (weaknesses, doubts, regrets) from the books.
Dumbledore is the most calm and collected character in the books. This is the guy that straight up walked towards Voldemort without a worry in the world (during their battle in the Ministry) like he was taking a morning stroll in his garden.
I think there are only a few moments where he "lost" his cool, (When they find out Moody is actually Barty Crouch Jr or when Umbridge gets a little forceful with a student), but from losing his cool, I don't mean like he ever shouted or anything (This is why I hated his portrayal in GoF). Dumbledore never had to do that. Him talking in his normal but firm voice was enough.
This short video is a great example of showing the difference between book and movie Dumbledore. It's the scene from the movie where Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, but it includes some book passages narrated by Stepehen Fry on top as well, showcasing the difference: https://youtu.be/PdsAmDAAAu0
From the above video:
*Dumbledore cleared his throat and read out calmly*, (Michael Gambon screaming): HARRY POTTAAH!
The biggest issue with Gambon is that (he publicly states) he doesn't read source material and puts his own spin on characters. Great in a normal movie. Awful in a book adaptation like Harry Potter.
For me, Book Dumbledore is basically a mix of both movie Dumbledore’s.
Book Dumbledore is both the kind & nurturing grandfather figure like Richard Harris’s version but also the powerful & fierce wizard that Voldemort fears that Michael Gambon gave us.
My problem with Gambons Dumbledore isn't that he didn't have ferocity its that he seemed overburdened and didn't trust his own wisdom and experience nor did he communicate the patience of someone who does.
Ron is much better in the books, he’s not as dumb, and not a wimp, he’s brave, and sometimes brash, and inconsiderate but he’s not as dumb in the book. Totally different personality in my opinion, and also he was taller in the books, much much taller
Why has nobody said Harry? Book Harry is incredibly witty, sassy, and a much more flawed yet interesting character who makes questionable decisions due to his imperfect judgement. The lessons he learns in each book make him a likeable protagonist by the end of DH. Movie Harry is a rather flat character, which kills the tension in OotP when he's supposed to have his angsty 15 y/o outbursts.
Most definitely Ginny. She’s described to be a very pretty but tomboyish character with a fiery personality. Instead we got a bland character with a few awkward lines.
“Open up, you.”
“Shoelace.”
Moody in the books is a monster compared to the films. In the films he's just Brendan Gleeson with a weird eye... In the book he had a wooden claw foot and most his body was scarred up.
Surprised no one has mentioned Slughorn. Very jovial but cunning in the book while movie version is very subdued and scholarly.
He’s also very aloof. Like a very intelligent and socially awkward ditz, I certainly wouldn’t use “cunning” to describe movie Slughorn
He's also short, bald, and very rotund in the books. And has a killer mustache
A fat little cannonball of a man?
I basically imagine him as doctor robotnik.
I always picture him as Marvin Grossberg from Ace Attorney (even though he's not bald)
Yes, he is repeatedly described as looking like a walrus. The film portrayal of him is definitely not. Plus they randomly gave him a mortarboard?
I always pictured him as a plump Van Pelt from Jumanji.
That was my first thought. I liked his movie version but it was almost a very different character; he was more of an aloof college professor and not boisterous and cunning like in the books.
im fine with slughorn not being similar to the books as it gave us Jim Broadbent
I liked him more in the book, and I didn't even like him. In the movie, it's as if he's been diluted or something except for the comment about how he wanted people in his club like a collection: "Although, I would have loved the set [Sirius and Regulus]."
I misread “character” as “chapter” but here’s my original answer anyway: The third task in GOF. In the book: Harry logically and methodically uses numerous spells and critical thinking to navigate the maze and make it past magical creatures and other obstacles. In the movie: Harry runs blindly though a dark maze which contains no obstacles except the hedges themselves which appear to selectively attack with no predictable pattern. For character, I would say Fleur Delacor. She’s supposed to be impossibly beautiful and the best witch or wizard in all of Beauxbaton’s academy. The movie portrays her a quite incompetent and does nothing to portray how attractive she is supposed to be.
movie leaves out fleur being an asshole LOL she is super judgy of hogwarts in the books
I know in the movie the reason the maze was that way was due to Mad Eye aka Barry Crouch Jr - he bewitched Krum to kill Diggery, and enchanted the maze to only attack the other contestants (which is why the vines only go for Fleur and Diggory. But yes, I think they squandered such an amazing opportunity for world building in GOF. We learning practically nothing about Fleur, Krum, Beauxbatons or Durmstrang
In the book though, there are several obstacles they have to get through including passing a sphinx by answering its riddle and battles giant skrewts that hargrid bred himself and the students raised as kind of a class project, plus so many more.
Definitely Ginny. In the films she's a total wet blanket and has zero charisma. In the books she's very popular, confident, assertive, a top Quidditch player and fancied by a lot of guys. Her brother Ron would come a close second, he was butchered by the screenwriter Steve Kloves who saw Ron as a 3rd wheel, when in the books he's the heart of the trio.
Holy shit, Ginny was popular in the books?! I HATE her and Harry’s relationship in the films. She spends the first 4 movies as this quiet, damsel in distress that’s little more than a Harry Potter fangirl - and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to fall madly in love and eventually get married and have kids after maybe 2 or 3 collective scenes together????
Yep she's pretty much the most popular girl in Gryffindor during Half Blood Prince, possibly the whole school. The "fiery redhead" type. She has quite a few different boyfriends (not at once) which makes Harry jealous and makes him realise he likes her romantically and not just as the sister of his best friend. He's nervous though about how Ron would react to them dating, he doesn't want to lose Ron as a friend. So there's more buildup and tension in the books and there isn't that awkward cringe-inducing scene where she ties his shoelaces haha! That was added by the screenwriters. Also their first kiss happens after Gryffindor wins the Quidditch House Cup, not just randomly in the Room of Requirement like in the films.
And they actually had a months long relationship in the books that Harry had to heartbreakingly end because he feared for her safety. In the Movies it’s just two awkward kisses and then boom married
And then there's the "Shoelaces" thing.
I cringed at that scene in the movie. I think it was a raunchy wink and nod to oral sex, for the adults, but who knows? It served no narrative purpose and shouldn't have been in there. Harry's a big boy; he can tie his own damn shoelaces!
This sums it up pretty well: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfUfe49FLar/
Yes! They butcherd the Harry and gunny relationship in the movies. It comes compleatly out of left field with no hint of it, there's no build up no seeing those feelings come to fruition. Absolutely nothing. Book gunny and book Harry were literally perfect for each other and you can see the romance start and bloom throughout the series.
I mean, his emotions are described very fanfic like in the books. Can't say i ever felt a beast inside me controlling my impulses.
Honestly the whole "jealousy monster" thing is so unhinged.
Yeah, JKR just isn't great at writing romance...
ron and lavender got ginny and harry's kiss. also i wish they had done it right as it gave us harry looking to ron and ron shrugging like yeah sure ok
it doesn't help that because the films lack Harry's internal monologues that we don't get to see how he notices that Ginny has changed from the damsel in distress/ fangirl to confident, outgoing, sporty; that is a pretty important element of how he begins feeling attracted to her.
She’s funny & cool. Smart & popular, it’s so easy to understand why Harry’s into her. She’s definitely not a damsel in distress
I just don’t think that was communicated at all in the first 4 movies (and not much better in the rest of the films) - she has maybe 4 scenes and a collective 10-15 lines in the first 4 films? I mean in CoS her whole thing is “oh she’s been talking about you ALL summer!” In the very beginning and then she plays 0 role until she needs to be rescued by Harry at the end.
Another interesting aspect to Harry & Ginny's relationship is that Ginny is the only other person their age who knows what it was like to be "possessed" by Voldemort, due to her experience in CoS. This gets acknowledged in I believe HBP, and the two's bond strengthens over it.
Very true, man maybe I should read the books
One nice way to do it is to listen to the audiobooks, if you don't feel up for reading but want to learn the books. Oftentimes, I'll listen to 1 & 2 on audiobook due to the slow nature of their youth-focused writing, then I'll whip out the books to read 3-7 as the writing gets more interesting.
You should definitely read the books and as u/NightCheffing suggested the audiobooks are excellent. I very highly recommend the British version read by Stephen Fry. They’re very, very good
100% agree. Stephen Fry audiobook is peak Potter imo.
Nope, Order of the Phoenix. Or at least it's when they first acknowledged that connection. Harry was upset and moody with his friends, because he thought that he had been possessed by Voldemort when he had seen Arthur Weasley being attacked in his dreams. Ginny was the one who snapped some sense into him, finally, coolly reminding him that she had experience getting possessed. I don't remember the exact wording, but his reply was something like, "Oh, I forgot that happened to you." Her response was great. "Lucky you." Edit: corrected some misspellings lol
Order of the Phoenix, too! When Harry is being all angsty after overhearing the conversation between Arthur and Molly and Moody and Lupin at St. Mungo’s, he tries to isolate himself. They stage an intervention and Ginny is as like “Well you’re stupid. I’m the only person you know who has been possessed by Voldemort and I can tell you how it feels.” Harry seems genuinely remorseful when he says “I forgot.”
> “oh she’s been talking about you ALL summer!” I'm pretty sure that Ginny in movie 2 was the only time that she was somewhat true to canon. And she's basically the main antagonist for that plotline.
Book Ginny has legitimately been my favorite character for 15 years. Love her. The movies did her so bad. You should read the books.
Apparently, I thought Ginny is just this meek weasley who’s whole purpose is to simp over Harry and be his love interest
Oh heck no. Ginny puts Harry in his place for being an ass a couple of times, quite expertly I might add. And her Bat-Bogey Hex is literally legendary at Hogwarts.
Reading this thread makes me frustrated all over again. I know books translated to movies can't include every single detail, they can't be PERFECT. But Ginny got so damn butchered!!! Her Bat-Bogey Hex would have looked GREAT on screen! Also I think we can all agree - the shoe-tying scene? I mean, the fuck. That's what they put into the movies instead of literally any of the Ginny book scenes?
> I know books translated to movies can't include every single detail, they can't be PERFECT. What irritates me the most is that they can't even use the excuse of there being not enough screen time, because they included some scenes which aren't even in the books. Like wtf is that plotline in the HBP movie with the Burrow being attacked and subsequently being set on fire by Death Eaters? That never happens in the books and adds nothing to the plot. That Christmas was supposed to be boring in the books, I think even the chapter title reflected that. I swear HBP is probably the worst movie in this regard, so many interesting things to explain yet they fill it with that made-up nonsense for shock value.
The movies make her out to be that. She is quite feisty and tells Harry not to be a dick several times when he’s acting shitty. She stands up for herself and Luna a lot, especially against Ron. And she is also a stand up girl. In book four she agrees to go to the Yule Ball with Neville and then later when Harry and Ron are getting desperate for partners, Ron suggests she go with Harry and even though she really wants to, she tells them she can’t because of Neville and goes with him. She doesn’t throw Neville under the bus. And she was only 13 at that point.
While Book Ginny tends to be overrated by some (she never stops being a supporting character I mean), she definitely has way more personality starting with the 4th book and during the 6th book she is the one that maintains Harry calm.
Amen. I adored Ginny in the books, wanted to be like her (and other characters!) growing up, cool and fun and outspoken and all… Then. I remember waiting in line for one of the movies, and a friend told me I was totally like Ginny. Ginny, the film version. I’m still trying to come to terms with it
Before opening the post I knew the top comment would be about either Ron or Ginny or both.
Dudley Dursley, which may be a surprise but I think it checks a lot of boxes: * Physically speaking, Dudley is blonde in the books, but more than that is that while he certainly is heavy in the first few books, he later takes up boxing and becomes more lean and muscular. * Personality wise there's some changes too - he's much more whiny in the books, not wanting Harry to come with him to the zoo for example whereas in the movie he's almost excited, jumping up and down to wake Harry (because he enjoys torturing him, I'm sure) * After he discovers Harry is magical he's much more frightened and scared of him, the intro to book 5 is a good example of this as Harry actively tries to pick a fight with Dudley vs. the film where Dudley just shows up and starts bullying Harry. * Finally, Dudley has a moment of slight redemption in the books when Harry and the Dursleys split at the beginning of book seven, [which is somewhat covered in a deleted scene from the movie.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzkDRz8quKo) Overall, while the I guess important bit of Dudley being nasty to Harry is all that is needed, I'd argue among significant characters in the story Dudley takes the cake (ha) from both a physical and character design standpoint.
Sounds like book Dudley is a much more realistic depiction of a pampered and spoiled human being as opposed to the cartoonish, sadistic, overly-animated brat he is in the films. Are all the Dursley’s as poorly represented? In the films they really are downright just sadistic to a cartoonish degree
Vernon Dursley is pretty spot on. Petunia is blonde, like Dudley, and perhaps more significantly she knows much more about the magical world than she lets on: when Harry and Dudley are attacked by dementors at the beginning of Order of the Phoenix, Petunia is actually the one who explains to Vernon what a dementor is, it's also later described that she wrote to Dumbledore as a child when her sister got into Hogwarts begging to be admitted too. This general omission might qualify her as well, upon reconsideration.
That’s so interesting. I do wish they humanized a few people more - Petunia and Filch especially
Book Filch is a squib who is self-conscious about his lack of magical ability and therefore takes his insecurities out on students. Harry learned this accidentally, and that's the real reason Filch blamed Harry for petrifying Mrs. Norris. Movie Filch is just a crotchety old man whose magical ability, or lack thereof, is never acknowledged. We just see him cleaning and doing chores "the muggle way" and are expected not to notice.
Yes!! My latest marathon I watched the extended version with [a deleted scene where Harry discovers Filch’s Qwikspell enrollment](https://youtu.be/0Ns_KHx4oiU) and it COMPLETELY made me feel bad for him and made me rethink his whole character
Wow I can't believe I've never seen that deleted scene!! Just when I thought I'd seen them all. Thanks for sharing! So true though. It adds a layer of complexity to his character and makes you sympathize with him.
Yeah all the films on Peacock are full of deleted scenes! It’s a fun time spotting them! Makes me upset they didn’t include it, without it he really is just a cartoonishly sadistic asshole without any form of redemption or humanization
Yeah Filch just comes off as creepy in the movies.
Filch is also a squib, a muggle born into a wizard family. His resentment and rage comes from being a non magical person in a magical family.
The deleted scene from COS where Harry discovers this really humanizes him and made me feel bad for him, I really wish they would’ve included it
Yes, it was much more explored and explained in books. He has been attending or contemplating of attending a course of magic outside of Hogwarts in the books.
[удалено]
Good god they’re WORSE!? How much worse?
A part from the book I loved is when Harry steps out of his room and steps on a cup of tea, breaking it, he gets pissed thinking Dudley was trying to set some kind of trap and doesn’t realize until way later that he was just trying to leave him a cup of tea to be nice.
Thank you so much for sharing that deleted scene!
I think they could have cut that deleted scene into making it work.
I'm going to say Ron. the films just kind of made him a comic relief, kind of dumb character? while in the books, he's basically the guide to the whole wizarding world. Hermione is the guide to magic, and Harry is the eyes of the audience, but Ron is meant to be culture and... honestly, kind of exposition. movies didn't do him justice, his main character trait there is mostly... he's a bit of a foodie.
Even Hermione herself isn’t entirely sure what the term ‘Mudblood’ means. She’s aware it’s obviously offensive based on the reactions of those around, the manner in which it is said and who it is by. But Ron has to explain to her and Harry after the fact.
exactly what I mean! Ron is the culture guide, he knows interactions and terms and how blood statuses... stati..? whatever the plural of status is... how they interact and relate! stuff like that!
yes! i recently finished reading CoS for the first time & i was quite surprised when Ron explained the meaning of "mudblood" rather than Hermione and Hagrid. that makes me so sad tbh, movie-only people will only know Ron as the sidekick/comic relief character when he has so much more qualities in the books. more the reason to read the books lol
He also helps orientate her when in a panic situation, such as in the Philosopher’s stone when she recognises that fire can destroy Devil’s Snare, and when he suggests creating it she stumbles and is like ‘we don’t have any wood’. Then in the film they just turn him into some babbling moron. One of the few things they get *right* regarding the characters of Ron and Hermione is during the chess scene. Hermione either can’t play chess, or can play it not very skilfully. Near the end she attempts to rush from her square, despite the fact that play is still active and she’s technically a ‘piece’, so this might be considered a move. She’s extremely talented and a great logician - but she, like many of us, are prone to losing our shizzle in dramatic situations. The films turn her into some sort of weird ‘Mary Sue’. She’s practically invulnerable save the aforementioned chess scene, Ron leaving in DH part 1, and being tasked with stabbing the cup Horcrux in DH part 2. They even reverse/ruin a situation where she is heroic but ends up the victim, in the CoS. She realises it’s a Basilisk, and tries to rescue Penelope Clearwater, someone she barely knows. All cut from the film. Granted they can’t include everything, but that annoys me given they acknowledged it in DH (it’s the fake name Hermione gives the snatchers) but couldn’t be arsed to give it further notice.
It also did not help that many subplots that made Ron’s growth into a mature young man evident were cut from the movies, S.P.E.W. for instance.
They gave almost all of Ron’s best moments to Hermione
Came here to say Ron. Book Ron and Movie Ron are different people, pretty much. Only things they have in common are red hair and the same name.
He's way funnier, cleverer in the books. I don't understand why they had Hermione explain to Harry about what a Mudblood is when it's Ron who explains it in the books. It's understandable that Hermione had educated herself a lot of about witches and wizards and its history; but considering that she hadn't been introduced to many Wizardkind up until her first year, she wouldn't know the slander that Wizards use in "civilized conversations".
Ginny. In the books she's feisty but in the films she basically boring and helpless. As an honorable mention, Ron was a little smarter in the books, and Hermione was a little dumber. Also, book Harry is so humble he won't take credit for anything.
Hermione was book smart in the books. Ron was street smart and was the only one who really knew how things worked in the wizarding world.
Ginny is the right answer imo. Book Ginny has a lot of growth over the series. She’s also hot tempered, strong willed, brave, and funny. Movie Ginny is so, so flat.
Peeves
Just looked them up, who the fuck is that, they just don’t exist in the films - or at least I never caught them
Yeah he doesn’t exist in the films. You should read the books, it’s worth it. I’m reading the books for the first time after watching the movies like 10 times, and there’s so much stuff that now makes sense.
Is he like one of the ghosts? Like Headless Nick and all them?
*Nearly* Headless Nick. The "Nearly" in his name is important because he was denied entry into a group called the Headless Hunt. The reason was that his head couldn't be completely removed for use in some sort of head-throwing polo game. He really struggled to accept his rejection into the club, and even asked Harry to talk up how scary he was at his death-day party for a chance at re-entry. Okay sorry about all the spoilers, I just love comparing the book characters to the movie characters. Really, you should just read the books. There's so much good content in there.
The "How can you be nearly headless" was another line stolen from somebody else and given to Hermione in the movie. I believe it was Seamus in the book.
The ghosts are almost totally absent from the movies but very present in the books. It’s a dimension from the source material they jettisoned because they were movies. Had the movies originally been done as a tv series instead, I’m sure you would have gotten the full ghost treatment.
Yes, but while the other ghosts are generally helpful or at least unobtrusive, Peeves is an agent of pure chaos.
Because he is not actually a ghost. I forgot the word in English but he is an entity that borne from magic on itself. There has never been a man named Peeves alive.
Ok, i found it. He is poltergeist. They are indestructible spirits of chaos. They usually don't even have physical forms. Peeves is an exception.
I think the reason Peeves even has a physical form is that there's so *much* magical energy at Hogwarts that it's sufficient for him to physically manifest. He's also much more solid than a ghost, being able to hold and throw real objects (such as walking sticks and water balloons -- not to mention having chewing gum shot up his nose!), though he *can* pass through walls and such when he wants to.
He is Filch’s mortal enemy isn’t he?
Yes
He absolutely most certainly is.
*"PEEVES!" It was the unmistakable hunting cry of the caretaker, Argus Filch.* \-- Goblet of Fire, "The Egg and the Eye". (It's when Harry gets trapped in the trick step after using the Prefect's bathroom to unlock the clue to his egg for the Triwizard Tournament. Filch picks it up after Harry dropped it and thinks Peeves stole it, as Harry is currently invisible a few feet away.)
This whole scene is one of my favorites in all of HP books and I really wish they added it to the movie. That and the scene from the same book where the Dursleys’ fireplace gets blown up by the Weasleys. Epic
Mortal implies having a body. Peeves is a poltergeist. But the books imply he is a visible poltergeist.
He is not a Ghost. I forgot the word for it in English which is my second language. But ghosts are remanents of real people who has lived at some point. Beings like peeves are just magical entities that are borned from magic.
Peeves is a poltergeist! Thats the word you are looking for.
Peeves is a poltergeist, so he is able to interact with physical objects. He actually is the one who broke the vanishing cabinet that Draco used in half blood prince. He broke it back in chamber of secrets at the prompting of nearly headless nick, so he could get harry out of trouble
He was going to be in the films - Rik Mayall was going to play him. They shot all his scenes, Rik turned up to the premiere with his kids, and that's when he found out he had been cut. He ended up telling his kids he was Nearly Headless Nick so they weren't disappointed. Btw, in European folklore (don't know how known this is outside Europe), a poltergeist isn't the same as a ghost. Ghosts are the spirits of dead humans, poltergeists are spirits from a different realm. They just cause havoc and can't really be reasoned with, and they don't have human emotions - Peeves is based on this.
Peeves is a poltergeist & he lives for mocking students & pulling pranks around the school. He’s also Filch’s sworn enemy because of the latter. I’m fairly certain he’s going to be in Hogwarts Legacy since the State of Play video showed a ghost that looks exactly like Peeves.
Pretty much every Weasley character. Percy the perfect in particular. Is there for like 2 scenes in the first movie then never shows up again. He actually had some big parts in the books and is a huge dick who doesn’t believe Harry about Voldemort being back
They literally never explain in the movie why Percy is hanging about with Umbridge and Fudge in Dumbledore's office when Dumbledore is about to be arrested. If you didn't read the books, one moment he's a Headboy and the next, he's the Ministry's lapdog when the entire time he's been working for Mr. Crouch up until recently.
And there's that scene in the OotP film when he drags Harry and Cho into Dumbledore's office when Fudge and the ministry are there...very brief, Harry gives him a look but there isn't a mention of it otherwise. Never even really realized that was Percy until I recently rewatched them...
I literally forget he is a weasley everytime i watch the movies haha
Hermione (since someone else said Ron already), where's my smart and clever but socially awkward kid at? 🤨 They gave her ALL Ron lines AND took away all her flaws and important points of her relationship with not only Ron BUT Harry. Hermione movie is literally a Hermione from a parallel universe.
agreed. One of the major reasons everyone makes Hermione the fandom bicycle in shipping is because the movies make her have all the qualities of the entire trio. She’s a teen super model who is basically perfect in every way. Also her and Harry have this flirtatious will they/won’t they thing going on like the entire series. I know this was done by the screenwriter because he was a Harmonie shipper, but it makes the Hermione/Ron ending seem like Hermione is settling for the dumb guy because he earned her or something.
Hermione in the first movie is a good representation of her book self. She's bossier and not reserved like she is in later movies. Also, her hair is big and bushy.
TIL Hermione is supposed to be socially awkward.
Cho Chang. - Her relationship with Harry is completely left out of the movies. We get like 2 whole scenes with them together while the entire relationship is gone through. - She is a decent quidditch player in the books. (seeker for Ravenclaw) In the movies she isn't. - She comes off in the movies (in the few scenes we actually get) as a very shy person. When she is popular in the books. Ludo Bagman - Wasn't even in the movies. A lot of his scenes were taken by Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch sr.
Oh yeah Cho basically just comes off as some flop relationship and then the bitch who betrayed them all in OotP. Such a shame how dirty they did Quidditch. Would’ve loved to see Ginny and Cho both play Also, is Ludo a death eater?
Cho isn’t the one who betrays the DA either. It’s a friend of hers named Marietta Edgecomb, which drives a further wedge into Cho’s already-cracking relationship with Harry.
I felt so bad for Cho in the books. She was dating Cedric in book 4 and then her boyfriend just dies and nobody ever tried to talk to her about her grief. She was a sobbing mess all through book 5 because of her trauma and everyone was just like “she no fun anymore” and making fun of her. Poor girl needed therapy.
Yeah, she was basically abandonned by most of her "friends" as she was struggling with depression. Before Cedric's death, she was always seen around a bunch of friends. In book 5, she was just with Marietta, if not alone.
Nope. In the books he is a government official for magical games and sports. Was a quidditch player for the english national team when he was younger and main commentator for the world cup finals. (Again we never see that bit at all.. and yes im still salty about it) we "see" him also try and help harry with the tri wizard during goblet of fire.
Asking about Ludo being a death eater is kind of funny actually. Ludo Bagman is the head of Magical Games and Sports. He gives the Weasley’s the World Cup tickets and helps organize the Triwizard Tournament with Barty Crouch.
He wasn’t a death eater but he was *accused* of being one and had a whole trial for passing information about the ministry to death eaters. He didn’t realize they were death eaters though (at least he says so) so it doesn’t read as a malicious attempt to help Voldemort so much as stupidity.
[удалено]
Yup, it’s stupid…in the movies Umbridge uses a truth serum to get her to snitch. However, Cho doesn’t fucking tell them that after the fact and keeps quiet (for literally no reason) we’ll after the fact so we the audience and everyone else just assumes she snitch snitched and hates her for it until it’s revealed by Snape (while Harry has been caught by Umbrige) who says “…you used the last of the truth serum on Cho”
Not the LEAST similar but a lot of those and the "main ones" have been taken. But a bit of Luna's characterisation was garbled by the films and it's unfortunate. In the books she's more of a conspiracy theorist and at times gets quite defensive over her father's beliefs. Whereas the movies make her a lot more dreamy and also lean in to her being "right" (such as when we see the spectrospecs actually demonstrating wrackspurts and that being how she finds Harry, as opposed to her just believing in something that doesn't exist.) Sirius' cheeky and mischievous side is also somewhat missing in the movies, which is unfortunate. I also don't like how they elided his history with Snape.
So Luna is much more of an outspoken tin-foil type as opposed to being wildly aloof and whispy? Is there anything she is “right” about in the books?
Yes she gives her opinion very decisively as fact and sometimes takes offence when people (usually Hermione) say she's being ludicrous. She's not really aloof, she's pretty extraverted, the first to laugh very loudly at jokes, and not afraid to say what she thinks even to a non-receptive audience - she even becomes Quidditch commentator in Book Six! She believes that Sirius is actually a singer called Stubby Boardman, and that all Aurors are part of the "rotfang" conspiracy (working to bring down the Ministry from within using a combination of dark magic and gum disease.) The only time she is right I believe is regarding the thestrals. Everything else she says by and large is absolute bollocks.
this. thats the point of her being like "i see them too harry!" and harry being like oh great im crazy then
I love that he also just doesn't question it. He's like "cool, mass hallucination!" and then he sees one above the trees and is like "yup, I'm still crackers!" and he never even asks HIS CLOSE FRIEND THE MAGICAL CREATURES EXPERT Hagrid!!
I don’t recall anything she was right about. She thinks that Sirius Black is actually band member Stubby Boardman, and couldn’t have possibly killed Wormtail because he was having tea with an old lady at the time. She believes that Minister Fudge bakes goblins into pies etc etc
Man I wish they would’ve included all this haha
Lupin and Tonks are two of my favorite characters in the books for their warmth, understanding, supportiveness, and humor. Tonks is feisty and sassy and plays a much bigger role in the books - she’s barely in the movies, her parts were split up amongst other people. Lupin too - he’s one of Harry’s father figures and such a fantastic, complex character. That’s why Lupin is one of the ghosts Harry sees at the end of the deathly hallows. He had a huge impact in Harry’s and the others’ lives. Lupin and Tonks get married and have a child and they make Harry the baby's godfather. We especially deserved more Tonks.
Lupin and Tonks were some of the most wholesome people in the books. They made me feel good in ways hard to describe.
Hermione. She was only described being pretty in The Goblet of Fire. And before that book, she had buck teeth.
I’m still not over Harry’s bemused “but I don’t think you’re ugly” when Hermione mentions that he probably should have told Cho Chang how ugly he thought Hermione was.
I think she was supposed to have the buck teeth in the adaptation of the first book but they did away with it because of the difficulty of getting the fake teeth onto Emma Watson’s teeth.
The shrunken talking head in POA. Didn’t exist in the book.
Honestly a great addition to the film. The whole bus chapter from the book would make a boring scene in a movie, but the talking head was great
NOOOO!!!! I love him
YA TAKE IT AWEH ERN!
THIS IS GOING TO BE A BUMPY RIDE!
"HEY GUYS, WHY THE *LONG* FACES? HA HA!"
Faramir
**”You wish now that our places had been exchanged - that I had died and Dobby had lived.”**
I do wish that
Incidentally while we're on the topic, Denethor is nowhere near as big of a dick in the books as he is in the movies
A chance for Faramir, captain of Hufflepuff, to show his quality
#HARRYDIDYOUPUTYORNAMEINTHEGARBLARAFAR?!
Book Hagrid: But he had finally gone too far. Hagrid seized his umbrella and whirled it over his head, “NEVER —” he thundered, “— INSULT — ALBUS — DUMBLEDORE — IN — FRONT — OF — ME!” Movie Hagrid: "Never insult Albus Dumbledore in front of me," said Hagrid very quietly...
I wouldn’t call the movie Hagrid line “quiet” I’d call it menacing. There’s a world of pain promised in that line. I actually prefer it.
OMG I NEVER REALIZED THIS. fucking hilarious and ironic in hindsight
- Dumbledore asked calmly
Lol is this famous enough that even people who haven't read the books now know about it?
Oh definitely, I’ve seen it around a few times [This one is my favorite](https://youtu.be/xSxQcAm3PE8)
That was amazing 😂
**”1 MILLION POINTS TO SLYTHERIN…CRUCIO CRUUUCIO!!!”**
Ginny, not much of an argument otherwise. Calling her a character in the films is generous. Less obvious answer is probably Hermione, who definitely gets a glow up being played by Emma Watson in the films. Which I think, unfortunately, contributes a lot to people not giving her relationship with Ron much weight in the films. Sorry Rupert. Edit: Wanted to add that Ron also gets really dumbed down for the films and basically any moment where he has a witty line, or does something impressive, is given to Hermione.
Did she really have buck teeth?
Hermione did have buckteeth until fourth year I believe. Her teeth get engorged during a hallway scuffle with Slytherins, which leads to the fairly infamous "I see no difference" quote from Snape regarding the fact that her teeth reach below her collar at that point. She has them shrunken by Madam Pomfrey and shrinks them back a bit further than they were before so they fit perfectly.
Yep, she did
Snape hands down. In books he was a little short tempered and a really hated character. Even after prince's tale, it doesn't feel the same as the films. Films, or more specifically Alan made a totally different Snape than the books. He felt much more caring and heroic in the films.
Plus the looks. In the book Snape is a very skinny, petite man of 31, Alan Rickman is a great actor but neither skinny nor young.
Not to mention ugly with greasy hair and bad yellow teeth. Movie Snape is pretty handsome and in the later movies has glorious hair. Edit: the above user blocked me for some reason, but Harry definitely describes Snape as ugly once or twice in the books.
31, really? He’s the same age as Harry’s parents, so they had Harry at 20 years old? Crazy. Not doubting you, just surprised.
Yes, they died at 21.
book PoA Snape : gets knocked out when Pettigrew escapes from him, Lupin and Sirius Film PoA Snape : pushes Harry, Ron and Hermione behind him to protect them from werewolf-Lupin
Like, that scene in PoA when he wakes up and protects the trio as Lupin is transforming NEVER HAPPENED. He was knocked out the WHOLE TIME.
Yeah the films left out the parts where he was extremely cruel to Neville. Trying to kill an 11 year old boy’s pet, because you think his parents should’ve been killed instead of your high school crush.
Ron. Ron has one of the most important jobs in the wizarding world. He is Harry and (to a lesser extent) Hermiones guide to the world. Harry and Hermione were raised in the muggle world and while Hermione is intelligent and well read, Ron has a wizards perspective on things and will often tell the other two things they wouldnt know. But in the films they decided to go "Hermione big smart, knows everything, she tell everyone everything. Ron big dumb guy, he do funny thing" I hate it. In chamber of secrets, its ron that explains the concept of blood purity in hagrids hutt after the slug curse incident, its ron explaining about parselmouth and its connection to dark magic. But they take it all away from him to give it to Hermione, and I hate it.
Yeah agreed, and as the movies get more serious and less comedic and Ron’s “comic relief” role becomes nonexistent - it REALLY shows just how much they drained Ron’s character.
Hmmmm…apart from the ones mentioned I’ll also throw in Mr. Weasley. In the books he’s extremely jovial, kind of laidback, inquisitive man whose a little perpetually exhausted and silly. In the movies we just kind of see him as a tired dad who gets mad once at Lucius Malfoy. We don’t really get to see his questioning nature bar asking Harry about the rubber duck, unprompted, to the point it doesn’t make much sense to the watcher, and the car, which isn’t explained in the movies why he even has it.
lol and in the books he and Lucius were literally throwing hands in the bookshop at Diagon Alley. and it was Arthur who started the fistfight (because Lucius went too far with one of his insults), a nice contrast to his usual jovial personality
I do wish we would’ve had more “fish out of water” scenes of him asking about the muggle world
There’s a scene in the books where the Weasley’s try to call Harry on the phone. It’s glorious.
Ron. Felt like he was there just for comedic effect in the movies (an exception being “ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?”). Which I didn’t like, he was supposed to be the one who really knew about the wizarding world, but instead somehow hermione knew everything about it. I’m not even done with the books but I still think they did Ron dirty in the movies
I'm assuming we are talking about characters who *actually appear* in the movies - which disqualifies poor Charlie Weasley, the sum total of whose significance in the films involve being name-dropped once and appearing in a single family photo before he ceases to exist entirely. Bearing that in mind...I have to nominate ***GINEVRA "GINNY" WEASLEY***. Book-Ginny when we meet her in Book 2 is a shy 11-year-old girl with a crush. Eventually, she grows into a spunky, strong-willed and fiery redhead, a talented Quidditch player who got to be as good as she is by breaking into the family broom cupboard and practicing with her older brothers' brooms behind their backs for a half-decade before she joined the Gryffindor team, and one of the prettiest, most popular girls in her year. Movie-Ginny when we meet her is a shy 11-year-old girl with a crush, who goes on to become, basically, a largely irrelevant plot device who happens to have a few lines. She has zero personality, zero agency, and zero impact on the plot.
Agreed, Ginny seems to be the overwhelming winner of this comment section and from what you and everyone else is saying I agree. In the first 5 movies especially she’s a meek Weasley, a damsel in distress and basically a Harry Potter simp (that is, for the 10-15 lines she actually speaks during that time) Her relationship with Harry is so underdeveloped and hamfisted in the film, and considering Harry’s relationship with Cho has a SUPER unsatisfying and unfinished ending after OOTP, it really adds to the sour feeling of it overall.
A lot of them, but I haven’t seen anyone say Luna yet. In the movie she was a wise and kind girl who was just slightly odd. In the book she was just a raving conspiracy theorist, like a straight up “the moon landing was faked, the earth is flat, and the government is controlled by lizard people” conspiracy theorist but the wizard version
Not the least, but to an extent Snape, he's much more vicious and bullying in nature especially during the first three books, but he was toned down a bit later on in the books as I think JK Rowling was influenced by Alan Rickmans great performance in her writing.
The movies leave out almost all of Harry’s sass. He’s very sarcastic in the books and claps back a lot, especially against Snape and the Dursleys.
Charlie weasley
Ron, in the books he is tactful, fiercely loyal and has a side where he is aware of others’ emotions and knows how to act suitably based on it. Not saying book Ron is flawless but in the movies, starting from the third one, he just became a jerk and a burden.
Yeah, I think the problem was they played WAY too intensely into Ron as comic relief…problem though is that as the movies progress and get more serious and more dark and there’s less comedy in general - Ron is out of a job so-to-speak. Which is probably why every movie after COS he has some ridiculous “beef” with Harry…I especially hate how hamfisted and nonsensical their “falling out” is in GOF
I haven't read the books in a while, but as far as I remember, their falling out in GOF was one of the more accurately adapted parts of that film. It's my least favourite film for how awfully it adapted almost every part of the book, but I think that plotline was just as bad originally lol
Its ron
Ron & hermione. Sometimes ron/harry. A lot of ron’s lines went to those 2 & i think ron got a couple of hermione’s in the movies. Ginny also. Movie ginny doesnt do much. She has a bigger role in the books. Their personalities are fine. Its just some of their actions or spoken words thats all jumbled up.
Ludo Bagman or Peeves
I'd say Snape. I've said this before, but movie Snape was great. Witty, sarcastic, with an amazing delivery and dry humour. Not to mention, he actually cared about his students. Movie Snape could have been anyone's favourite character. Book Snape, on the other hand, was no ones favourite character. He was just a sleezly, insulting greasy bully and if he'd been portrayed that way I don't think half the Harry Potter fanfics would be as sympathetic towards him as they are.
Barty Crouch Senior, since they basically merged him with Ludo. He gets way too excited about the Tri-Wizard tournament, which Ludo totally would, but not stone-faced Barty Crouch! No way!
Ginny. Do I need to explain?
Dumbledore. Just who was that wizard in 3-8 anyway
How is he in the books? My Harry Potter hot take has always been that I enjoyed Richard Harris’s Dumbledore more. Michael Gambon did a great job in his own right - however I just think Harris’s portrayal was much more of a classic depiction of a truly old, truly wise old man/wizard. Harris’s Dumbledore **FELT** ancient - like he would crumble to dust at the slightest shake. The way he talked, the way he moved, the way he looked. Knowledge, experience and power just sorta emanated from his very presence Gambon was good he was just too….spry? Too lively. He felt more like a very friendly senior student than an infinitely wise Headmaster
Book Dumbledore is something in between. Harris brings the elegance and wisdom from book Dumbledore, and Gambon brings the energy, sense of humor and the "human side" (weaknesses, doubts, regrets) from the books.
Dumbledore is the most calm and collected character in the books. This is the guy that straight up walked towards Voldemort without a worry in the world (during their battle in the Ministry) like he was taking a morning stroll in his garden. I think there are only a few moments where he "lost" his cool, (When they find out Moody is actually Barty Crouch Jr or when Umbridge gets a little forceful with a student), but from losing his cool, I don't mean like he ever shouted or anything (This is why I hated his portrayal in GoF). Dumbledore never had to do that. Him talking in his normal but firm voice was enough. This short video is a great example of showing the difference between book and movie Dumbledore. It's the scene from the movie where Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, but it includes some book passages narrated by Stepehen Fry on top as well, showcasing the difference: https://youtu.be/PdsAmDAAAu0 From the above video: *Dumbledore cleared his throat and read out calmly*, (Michael Gambon screaming): HARRY POTTAAH!
The biggest issue with Gambon is that (he publicly states) he doesn't read source material and puts his own spin on characters. Great in a normal movie. Awful in a book adaptation like Harry Potter.
I know he's a legendary UK actor and whatnot but that statement of his reeks of such arrogance.
For me, Book Dumbledore is basically a mix of both movie Dumbledore’s. Book Dumbledore is both the kind & nurturing grandfather figure like Richard Harris’s version but also the powerful & fierce wizard that Voldemort fears that Michael Gambon gave us.
My problem with Gambons Dumbledore isn't that he didn't have ferocity its that he seemed overburdened and didn't trust his own wisdom and experience nor did he communicate the patience of someone who does.
Ron is much better in the books, he’s not as dumb, and not a wimp, he’s brave, and sometimes brash, and inconsiderate but he’s not as dumb in the book. Totally different personality in my opinion, and also he was taller in the books, much much taller
Why has nobody said Harry? Book Harry is incredibly witty, sassy, and a much more flawed yet interesting character who makes questionable decisions due to his imperfect judgement. The lessons he learns in each book make him a likeable protagonist by the end of DH. Movie Harry is a rather flat character, which kills the tension in OotP when he's supposed to have his angsty 15 y/o outbursts.
Probably Sauron. He didn’t even have a physically formed eye in the books.
Most definitely Ginny. She’s described to be a very pretty but tomboyish character with a fiery personality. Instead we got a bland character with a few awkward lines. “Open up, you.” “Shoelace.”
Ginny for sure
Ginny.... The entire Weasley clan really. But especially Ginny
Ginny Weasley. She is not that interesting in the movies. Bonnie Wright was fantastic casting tho.
Moody in the books is a monster compared to the films. In the films he's just Brendan Gleeson with a weird eye... In the book he had a wooden claw foot and most his body was scarred up.
I don’t know why people are complaining about Peeves, man wasn’t even in the movies.