What do you like/dislike about the Harry Potter series (both the book and the film) and what would you want to change?

[CottonBolus]

I personally the first Harry Potter film great. Loved every moment of it, but the subsequent films got worse and worse. I don't agree with casting Daniel Radcliffe as Harry in the film. His acting is quite mediocre; had I been the director, I would have cast Nicholas Hoult as Harry (they are about the same age; poor Nick didn't get the job). Also the actor for Albus Dumbledore died and was replaced, the new guy lacked the "presence" of the first actor had.

As for the book, again, the first few books were great; the last few felt a bit contrived. I disagree with Rowling's decision to pair Hermoine and Ron together; I think Hermonine would have been a better mate for Harry.

What are your opinions?



After I read the first few pages, I was hooked; and couldn't put the book down.

[MoePhoenix7]

Nothing. Perfect books are perfect.

Now the movies on the other hand, yeah I could take or leave Danny Radcliffe too.

*anticipates the reboot in 2014*

[CottonBolus]

Re:"Now the movies on the other hand, yeah I could take or leave Danny Radcliffe too.

*anticipates the reboot in 2014*"
I wonder what the directors saw in Daniel when they cast him. He's so mediocre in almost every respect, mediocre looks, mediocre talent.

[thatgirl]

Book 4 was quite boring.

[CottonBolus]

Re:"Book 4 was quite boring."

You mean Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, it's actually my favorite. It was the most eventful; I loved the tournament and Cedric died which was sad. I found the second last book the most boring, Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix. Nothing really happened in that instalment.

[MoePhoenix7]

Re:"Book 4 was quite boring."

You mean Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, it's actually my favorite. It was the most eventful; I loved the tournament and Cedric died which was sad. I found the second last book the most boring, Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix. Nothing really happened in that instalment.

Order of the Phoenix is actually my favorite out of the seven b/c there was more character development and backstory in that one. I mean Dolores Umbridge is one of the greatest literary villains known to man. I missed her every time she wasn't on the page I was reading. She was such a bitch!

Now the film version of that one sucked. Big time.

[CottonBolus]

Re:"Order of the Phoenix is actually my favorite out of the seven b/c there was more character development and backstory in that one. I mean Dolores Umbridge is one of the greatest literary villains known to man. I missed her every time she wasn't on the page I was reading. She was such a bitch!

Now the film version of that one sucked. Big time."

I remember Dolores Umbridge; I agree, Rowling did a good job with her; it actually made me quite angry the things she'd say and do. What she did to poor Harry with the quill where she basically made him carve his name onto the back of his hand was absolutely cruel.

[gsdx]

Daniel got the job because he looked like the description of Harry as created by Rowling. The fact that Daniel has blue eyes and Harry has green eyes didn't bother Rowling as long as they gave Lily blue eyes as well.

He wasn't really an actor, at least not on that scale. So, for the first movie, he was playing 'Daniel Radcliffe' and not 'Harry Potter'.

I've always wondered how people got into Diagon Alley. If Hagrid had to reach up with his umbrella to tap the bricks, how in hell were 'normal' people supposed to reach them?

[Ram]

The corny names Harry gave this children at the end of the book.

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

jr rowlins miss chance make wot no land do

maybe one day

thankyou

[CottonBolus]

Re:"Daniel got the job because he looked like the description of Harry as created by Rowling. The fact that Daniel has blue eyes and Harry has green eyes didn't bother Rowling as long as they gave Lily blue eyes as well.

He wasn't really an actor, at least not on that scale. So, for the first movie, he was playing 'Daniel Radcliffe' and not 'Harry Potter'.

I've always wondered how people got into Diagon Alley. If Hagrid had to reach up with his umbrella to tap the bricks, how in hell were 'normal' people supposed to reach them?"

So Daniel got in by luck. Wow, lucky man. It's like stumbling on a pot of gold. His career's basically set; he'll never find it hard to find a job, and even if he did, it wouldn't matter since he's earned enough that he wouldn't have to work for the rest of his life.

That's a good question, I didn't notice that until now. I don't think I've seen another person tap those bricks except Hagrid. The directors did a bad job with this detail.

[CottonBolus]

RE:"The corny names Harry gave this children at the end of the book."

They were a mish mash of all the names of the people who died or who were dear to him. This is one of the reason why I didn't like last few books, they were "too contrived", and sort of rigidly cliched. There was none of the wild imagination that Rowling exhibited in her earlier works in her final Harry Potter books.

[gsdx]

That's a good question, I didn't notice that until now. I don't think I've seen another person tap those bricks except Hagrid. The directors did a bad job with this detail.

In the book, there was only 1 brick to tap. In the movie, there were 5.

Oh, and the writers and Alan Rickman were the only people who knew Snape's secret. They kinda had to know. Snape was one of my favourite characters. Alan owned that role.

[GregKII]

Nothing really. Except for the minor discrepancies they couldn't convey from book to movie.

[gsdx]

Also the actor for Albus Dumbledore died and was replaced, the new guy lacked the "presence" of the first actor had.

Michael Gambon, who replaced Richard Harris as Dumbledore, said in an interview on one of the Blu-Ray 'features' that he couldn't possibly replace Richard. He had to make the character his own.

I suppose it's much like all of the Bonds we've seen over the decades. The names are the same, but the characters are different. Same with Dr. Who.

[JP.]

Re:"Now the movies on the other hand, yeah I could take or leave Danny Radcliffe too.

*anticipates the reboot in 2014*"
I wonder what the directors saw in Daniel when they cast him. He's so mediocre in almost every respect, mediocre looks, mediocre talent.

I think he fits my book of beautiful people category but yeah..lack of acting talent.

[CupidBoy]

I tried to read to books, too long. I watched to films, too long.

What do I dislike? TOO LONG! Ain't nobody got time for that.

[Ryuukie]

I thought the last three books in the series were superior to all the others. I can't imagine anyone playing Harry Potter than Daniel Radcliffe. It's like casting Shirley Temple as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, which MGM had wanted to do. And I love the fact that Harry fell in love with Ginny and Hermoine fell in love with Ron.

[gsdx]

And I love the fact that Harry fell in love with Ginny and Hermoine fell in love with Ron.

I do, too, especially with Ron and Hermione. It had been building from the first moment on the train when Hermione told Ron that he had dirt on his nose. They had both been looking for someone to love and found it in each other, and that's why Harry kept his relationship with Hermione as a 'brother/sister' thing. Harry was looking for love in all the wrong people. His kiss with Cho, who he thought was the one he truly loved, was 'wet'. Ginny sort of snuck up on him, and when they finally connected, everyone knew they were meant for each other.

[Thynight]

Books: The style of writing was not at all the type I like.


Movies: GoF was good, but they changed too much. Furthermore, when I watched GoF I knew 'Barty' Crouch Junior was a bad guy. Reading the book for the first time I was really taken aback when it turned out he was in fact bad. I felt they should have played that up in the movies.

[LilBit]

Snape never gets nekkid.

[star-warrior]

I stalled reading book 2. Sadly it lies languishing in the box with the others in the set. Maybe my sprog will like them better than I do. Films, well yeah, it was something to do.

[stacy]

I love both the movies and the books. I have no complaints about them. The other day I did say to someone that I thought Hermione and Harry fit better together, but I understand Rowling's choice to put her and Ron together.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I watch every film any time I see them on my cable channels no matter what chapter or part of the movie it starts in.

Daniel Radcliffe played Harry just fine. I'm so glad Emma Watson got better after Sorcerer's Stone, and Rupert never failed with Ron, not even in the first film.

I'm a fan.

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

jr rowling if a wanna idea fa adult version fit right in world ova

whispa whispa!

tickO!

thankyou

[J-23]

Although everything is clarified by the end of the series, I always thought it was kinda crappy (and dangerous) that Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince sent the message to young children that if they have misgivings about an adult and they voice their concern, nobody will believe them -- they'll just be told to shut up and deal with it.

[ChickenGuy]

I never enjoyed the films because invariably like most adaptions they just CAN'T compare to the books. And I watched each (or the first 5 anyway) of the films immediately after reading the books.

The thing I'd most like to change in the films was their visual depiction of the inside of Hogwarts - it was all too spacious and bright and light and airy with too many windows, too gleaming and new and shiny, etc.

I always imagined the place in my mind to be more like a castle/dungeon with heavy stone walls everywhere and narrow corridors and small winding staircases and old and dusty with dark spaces and very few windows, etc.

[eastofeden]

I would have let Doby live...I hated hated hated when he died.

[braex27]

The stupid epilogue at the end of Book 7 and the filmed version irks me. Ruined the entire ending of the book.

[freefall]

Of course the books. The movie's costumes are bad...I feel I'm watching a group of teenagers and adults cosplaying as modern wizards.

But not all the books are perfect. The fifth book contains too many unnecessary part, whereas the seventh unravels its story way too slow, only to suddenly compress the rest in several compact chapters. Nevertheless, great books.

[gsdx]

I'm so glad Emma Watson got better after Sorcerer's Stone

The thing to remember, though, is that Hermione was plain-looking, buck-toothed, and had lots of hair (like she was in 'Philosopher's Stone'.) Emma was really too pretty for the role. Besides, Harry saw the connection between Hermione and Ron long before they themselves did, and he wouldn't have stepped on Ron's toes for anything. That's why he denied any interest in Ginny. His loyalty to Ron and Hermione outweighed his own happiness.

I always thought it was kinda crappy (and dangerous) that Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince sent the message to young children that if they have misgivings about an adult and they voice their concern, nobody will believe them -- they'll just be told to shut up and deal with it.

But that didn't really happen. Kids aren't stupid. The young readers knew that there were people who never doubted Harry, and they were the people who really cared for his and believed that he was their only salvation - the teachers, Dumbledore, and the few members of Dumbledore's Army (Luna and Neville) who stood by Harry's side no matter what. (Ginny was always there, too, but she had other reasons besides loyalty.) They believed that Harry was the only one who could destroy Voldemort and they did everything they were able to do in order to help him succeed.

Not only were the young readers told who the bad people were (especially Fudge and Umbridge), they were told why. It was very made very clear that they couldn't allow a mere 'child' to undermine their authority.

In the end, those who really mattered never doubted Harry, and the young readers see that friendship is more powerful than even the most powerful evil.

[stacy]

^Like I said, I totally understand why Rowling put Hermione and Ron together. I just think in the movies Emma and Daniel had more chemistry. But like I also said, I have seen them so many times it is hard not to nitpick stuff now. And as far as my comments about Emma in Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's for us dumb Americans) - I know that she is described as kind of prissy about her knowledge of magic and is very against them breaking the rules in the beginning but her acting is atrocious in the film.

Do not get me wrong though, I adore Emma and think that she did an amazing job with Hermione past the whiny bits in the first film. I cannot see anyone else playing those roles and I think the filmmakers did what they had to do to bring the words to the screen. It is not an easy task, which is why so many book to movie adaptations are not worth shit. Only two franchises hold up, the HP series and the Lord of the Rings series. And I'm speaking as a Twilight fan.

[J-23]

But that didn't really happen. Kids aren't stupid. The young readers knew that there were people who never doubted Harry, and they were the people who really cared for his and believed that he was their only salvation - the teachers, Dumbledore, and the few members of Dumbledore's Army (Luna and Neville) who stood by Harry's side no matter what. (Ginny was always there, too, but she had other reasons besides loyalty.) They believed that Harry was the only one who could destroy Voldemort and they did everything they were able to do in order to help him succeed.

Not only were the young readers told who the bad people were (especially Fudge and Umbridge), they were told why. It was very made very clear that they couldn't allow a mere 'child' to undermine their authority.

In the end, those who really mattered never doubted Harry, and the young readers see that friendship is more powerful than even the most powerful evil.

That's why I qualified it with the preface (which you edited out), "Although everything is clarified by the end of the series..."

For two whole novels, young readers were being told that they should never question adults, even when their instincts urge them to. They were being taught that if an adult mistreats or hurts them, they should suffer in silence because there's always some unspoken reason for an authority figure to abuse them. It was a really terrible statement to make in a children's book.

[gsdx]

That's why I qualified it with the preface (which you edited out), "Although everything is clarified by the end of the series..."

I wasn't commenting on that part. I was commenting on everything before that. I don't believe young readers would get the same message. I think they would get the message 'never give up', no matter what adults say or do. You have to remember that they didn't believe Dumbledore, either.

(By the way, when I respond to a post, I edit out everything I'm not commenting on. I hate going through quoted posts and try to figure out which part is being discussed.)

[CottonBolus]

Re:"The thing to remember, though, is that Hermione was plain-looking, buck-toothed, and had lots of hair (like she was in 'Philosopher's Stone'.) Emma was really too pretty for the role. Besides, Harry saw the connection between Hermione and Ron long before they themselves did, and he wouldn't have stepped on Ron's toes for anything. That's why he denied any interest in Ginny. His loyalty to Ron and Hermione outweighed his own happiness."



I was thinking the same thing when I first saw Emma. She's too pretty to fit the description of Hermoine from the book. And imo, she's pretty enough to be in the film mean girls.

[secondmonkey]

I dislike the fact that it's a fucking children's story and adults are always talking/obsessing about it.

[-Callum-]

I would have killed Harry in the end as well as Voldemort. One hand washes the other...love does not, contrary to what Rowling may believe, 'always prevail'.

[gsdx]

I would have killed Harry in the end as well as Voldemort. One hand washes the other...love does not, contrary to what Rowling may believe, 'always prevail'.

It wasn't Harry who killed Voldemort. Harry didn't have the power, and neither did Voldemort. Love protected Harry only until Voldemort destroyed the Horcrux. After that, it was the wands.

Harry won his wand and it changed allegiance. Voldemort thought he was in control of the Elder Wand, but he wasn't. He would never have been able to control it completely.

Besides, Rowling killed off enough very popular characters as it is. Killing Harry would not have been taken very well.

[CupidBoy]

I think the films should be cut down from 16 hours each, to just 2 hours. Also I'd like it if they threw in some musical numbers and perhaps Queen Latifah. Taylor Lautner should walk through each scene shirtless too, IMHO.

[Axxess]

I think book #6 was so boring. Aside from the climax of Snape killing Dumbledore, the book by itself didn't contribute much to the series. It seemed to me like it was just setting things up for the finale in the next book.

I dislike the fact that it's a fucking children's story and adults are always talking/obsessing about it.

Yes! What's worse is when adults cosplay as the child characters.

[blackbeltninja]

I absolutely hated Dobby.

And the 5th film was dull. Everything else... fine.

-d-

[gsdx]

I dislike the fact that it's a fucking children's story and adults are always talking/obsessing about it.

Actually, it was a children's story which 'grew up' with the children reading it.

[-Callum-]

I'd still kill Harry. Voldemort was all talk in the series and no game. Became a little exhausting. I also wouldn't have killed Bellatrix. She was my favourite. Rowling admitted she couldn't please everyone with the ending so I've accepted not being on the happy side. Her book after all is said and done.

[gsdx]

I also wouldn't have killed Bellatrix. She was my favourite.

I think that harkens back to Lily Potter and what a mother will do to protect her children. Through the series, Mrs. Weasley used her magic to care for her family - knitting, cooking, cleaning, etc. When push came to shove, however, her true maternal instinct stepped up to bat. It wasn't really 'good vs evil' between Mrs. Weasley and Bella. It was a mother protecting her daughter from someone who intended to harm her. It was totally unexpected from her and it was one of the best moments in the series. No one other than Mrs. Weasley could have done it, though. After all, she had already lost a son. She wasn't about to lose her only daughter as well. She was the only person who could have done it, and those were the only circumstances. Anyone else and any other circumstances wouldn't have worked and Bella would have been nothing more than a casualty of war. Instead, she was the victim of a mother's wrath.

[moniker]

What I dislike most is the fact that adults are reading books intended for children.

[Scealle]

I quite like the story line when it first started. Its gets a bit odd as it progresses later into the series. I like the visual effects of the films though. Pretty well done and impressed when my lecturer shows us the BTS clips.

[pigface]

He wasn't really an actor, at least not on that scale. So, for the first movie, he was playing 'Daniel Radcliffe' and not 'Harry Potter'.

You didn't get to see "David Copperfield" ?