Is it just me, or does it seem like some of the movies put Hermione and Harry together?

[Brix Dominic]

Or in the Deathly Hallows Part 1. Though I didn't really notice it until now. I don't give it any meaning, though. I liked Hermione and Harry's friendship without pushing further into romance. For me it's saying that two people with opposite gender don't have to be romantically involved just to show how much they really care for each other.

[Jeni]

Like Brix, I felt the movies were trying to show that friendship can be true and filled with love without being romantic. It was Hermione's growing time-evaluating her love for Ron and her "sibling" love for Harry. They are both only children and I really felt like they found a sister/brother in each other.

[Nathan]

Since they were making the films at the same time Rowling was still writing the books, it could be that they thought Hermoine and Harry might actually wind up together.

[Matilda]

I think they did a bit.. until JK revealed who was intended for them both. And that was when Ginny appeared again - she kind of went a bit quiet for a while there, other than her blushing and her near death experience, of course. But yeah I think they wanted to show that you can have best friends, and of course needed to show Ron's jealousy...

[inga]

I think I read somewhere that the director/screenwriter didn't like Ron much, or rather, liked Hermione better with Harry instead, so he put some scenes in the movie to satisfy his shipping preferences.

[Italia8989]

It's not just you. In the books, J.K. could specify indirectly that Harry and Hermione were just friends. However, in the movies, it seems to lean towards Harry and Hermione. They could just deeply care for each other in a platonic way, but sometimes it seems like they might have some feelings for each other. It is almost as if Ron's jealousy about Harry and Hermione is more realistic in the movies, and he is just paranoid like a regular teenager in the books. That's just my take on things.

[Anna]

I noticed as well. Could it perhaps have had something to do with the rumour that Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson dated at one point?

[Peter]

Nathan wrote: "Since they were making the films at the same time Rowling was still writing the books, it could be that they thought Hermoine and Harry might actually wind up together."

It was almost certain that Ginny was meant for Harry as of Platform 9-3/4 in PS, and it was absolutely unmistakeable as of CoS. Both these books were written before the first film was made. Cloves was a sufficiently alert reader to have picked up the clues. Even if he hadn't, Rowling was sufficiently involved with the films to prevent outright misinterpretation.

Anyway, Cloves he (together with Cuarón) made it quite clear in PoA that it was going to be Hermione/Ron. How do people not notice these things?

[Anna]

Yes! Completely agree. When Harry started liking Cho, it never did sit right with me. I thought to myself, "What about Ginny?" I love them together, the same as I do Ron and Hermione. :)

[Peter]

Harry needed to have a girl friend before he settled down with Ginny. Otherwise they would have been on unequal footing for the rest of their lives (i.e., if he'd never even snogged another girl, while Ginny had had a string of other boy friends, not so good; the way things worked out, they both had some kind of previous romantic experience).

Ginny, of course, needed to go out with other boys while waiting for Harry to actually sit up and take notice of her.

Notice that both Hermione and Ron also had a fling or two before settling down with each other.

Isn't that the way it mostly turns out? How many people actually settle down with their (only) school sweetheart? I'm not denying that that happens once in a while, and it's actually quite sweet when it does, but it would seem to be the exception not the rule.

[Sparrowlicious]

I feel like everytime this sort of thing comes up that a lot of people are brainwashed into the belief that a girl and a boy can't be close friends with each other.

Don't forget that in the case of the Harry Potter movies the author had a lot of things to say. That's also why we didn't get Dumbledore babbling about a young girl he liked because Rowling reminded the people responsible that Dumbledore is gay.
Usually, authors don't get anything to say. Just look at all the horrible adaption of the Earthsea books. Even the Ghibli adaption didn't have anything to do with the spirit of the books.

[Jonnathan]

It is just you, the movies puts together Hermione and Ron since the third movie.

[Saxonjus]

I never thought of Harry & Hermoine as a couple! A friendship only one that would go beyond School! I was surprised about Ginny & Harry pairing up never really thought Harry would have fallen for Ron's younger sister! I did have high hopes for Luna! Im glad she & Neville drifted towards each other!!! Now a turn up for the book would have been Draco & Hermoine!!!!

[lex]

Seems pretty clear to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJuilN...

[[deleted user]]

they were secretly shipping em

[Joel]

I think the director of the movies has openly said that he doesn't like Ginny (please correct me if I'm wrong) and he would've preferred Harry/Hermione, I think he cut out most of the Harry/Ginny development scenes due to personal preference. However I really don't get people who say there were clues to Harry/Ginny in PS and CoS. Ginny running after the train? well she stated that she really wanted to go to Hogwarts and her last brother was on the train, it would've been the first year she spent without any of her siblings at all and, like any young child saying goodbye to a loved one, wanted to go with him. And as for CoS, I'm pretty sure Harry doesn't know Ginny opened the Chamber until he saw her down there, he was a 12 year old kid who probably thought his best friend's sister was just killed in front of him, I think if it was Hermione at that point he would have straight up broken down in fear for her safety.

[Peter]

@Joel: The first point for understanding Rowling is to recognize that she is deliberately using archetypes throughout the series. Although there is no direct evidence that she referred directly to Joseph Campbell's seminal work on archetypes, she is clearly aware of and makes use of most, if not all, of the archetypes described in Hero with a Thousand Faces. If you're not familiar with this background, you're likely to miss important clues set throughout the HP series. Read the original or, at the very least, the Wikipedia summary article. Otherwise, no, you're not going to "get it." End of story.

Regarding CoS and Ginny's future significance for Harry: the entire book is an example of the Damsel in Distress archetype. It's as simple as that. Knight-in-shining-armor saves Damesel-in-distress. Knight will eventually hook up with damsel. This archetype occurs in literally, literally, thousands of stories and has been around as long as the human race. It was clear when reading the book that Rowling wasn't going to set up a classic archetype and then let it fall flat on its face.

As for SS: what's set up here, first and foremost, is Ron/Hermione when the latter barges into the train compartment. She does a typical Hermione thing of talking without taking a breath, maligns Ron's magical abilities, leaves, and then what happens? Ron is still thinking about her. Yes, he's thinking like an eleven-year-old ("Hope she's not sorted into the same House I am.") But he's at least thinking about her! Harry's mind is already a thousand miles away, thinking about something else. As far as he's concerned, the last fifteen minutes could have never happened. Sorry, that's not how you set up a nascent partnering with Harry, it's how you set up R/H. And there are more hints and clues as the book goes on, you just need to see them.

The deal is, once you've got it straight that it's going to be Ron/Hermione (which is, in the end, what happens), what's left for Harry? Either it's going to be Ginny (the only other eligible female in the first book, really), or it's going to have to be someone who isn't introduced until a later book. But in a children's/YA series, the romantic situations are going to be set up in the first book of the series. So we're at QED already.

But wait. What if you miss all that and somehow believed at the end of SS that it was going to be HH, did you ever ask yourself "What's going to happen to Ron"? What? Is Rowling going to have Ron hook up with his kid sister?? This is a kid's book, not Shades of Gray. So Ron's just going to be left to ride into the sunset all by himself??? No, no, no… neither of these is the way children's/youth literature works. There simply are combinations that work in this format and combinations that don't work. The combination hero-with-best-friend's-sister and hero's-best-friend-with-girl-cohort-in-adventures is a winning number. Read other series and you'll see it again and again. Why would Rowling set all this up and then just drop it?

If you missed all that, well, you missed it. But before you dismiss what I've written, recall who was married to whom 19 years later. The clues were there from the beginning (just as the clues to so many other things were). If you read the cards right, you knew which way the wind was blowing. If you misread the cards, well, then you were going to head in the wrong direction.

[inga]

Peter wrote: "@Joel: The first point for understanding Rowling is to recognize that she is deliberately using archetypes throughout the series. Although there is no direct evidence that she referred directly to ..."

The things is, though, this discussion isn't about the book-verse, it is about the movie-verse, and how people noticed the movies tended to kind of put Harry and Hermione in romantic situations. (E.g. Hermione barges into the tent to hug Harry in GoF; or their slow dancing in DH I).

We are all well aware of the clues and implications dropped and displayed in the books, but the OP specifically mentioned the movies. So, I take it you didn't read the whole thread. Or, if you missed all that, well, you missed it.

[Anna]

Peter wrote: "@Joel: The first point for understanding Rowling is to recognize that she is deliberately using archetypes throughout the series. Although there is no direct evidence that she referred directly to ..."

Great analysis of their relationships. It was laid out from the beginning.

[Joel]

Peter wrote: "@Joel: The first point for understanding Rowling is to recognize that she is deliberately using archetypes throughout the series. Although there is no direct evidence that she referred directly to ..."

You raise a good number of valid points, however as inga stated this thread is about movie verse and most of the H/G development scenes were cut out as part of the director's personal preference. The damsel-in-distress archetype in CoS could also be applied to the Troll scene in the first book, while true that Hermione is probably more mature than Ginny was at 11, you can't just dismiss that interaction, and I know that Ron was also present and ultimately the one to deal with the Troll, but he was the reason she was in that bathroom during the announcement. Also I really doubt you can justify an offhand comment like "I hope she's not in my house" as thinking of her at all, and if it is then its derogatory, his opinion of her was very negative.

Also Ron being left with no-one? I'm sorry but Hogwarts is a lot larger than the 10-11 students Rowling focuses on, hell Lavender Brown is a better fit for Ron, just as air-headed and fickle.

As for the whole "lead female getting with male support" and "lead male getting with male support's sister" that is a combination that I personally dislike with a passion, because it ends up feeling as if the lead male is the spare in the relationship, if the series was primarily about Ron then maybe I would support R/H but it really, really bugs me that it's Harry who falls to the Pair-the-Spares trope. Hell there's an entire magical world out there with countless random women for Ron, if Luna can get with Rolf Scamander (a character with no backstory) over Neville (an established and loved character), then why couldn't Ron be paired with any regular Jane? Luna was a far more interesting character in my opinion and if she could be pushed off with some random guy why can't Ron? But again this is all my personal opinion and I understand that it is likely I missed some of the more subtle developments.

[Peter]

I grokked that the OP asked about the films. But the books are canon. In case of doubt or conflict, books trump.

If you want to take the films as a canon unto themselves, then that's your poison. But then wouldn't IMDB be the more appropriate forum? On Goodreads I expect people have actually read the books and to refer to them.

[Anna]

The movies changed many things, especially mood and tone which could lead to many misconceptions and much confusion. *shrug*

[Peter]

For that matter, the key clues I mentioned above were also all there in the films. On top of that, the lovely scene in PoA at Hagrid's first class, where Ron and Hermione take hands, then look at each in complete mutual embarrassment. They're only 13, neither is ready to hold hands with anyone, let alone recognize there is some kind of chemistry developing between them. How can anyone overlook that?

Then there's a scene in OotP. I need some help here on placing it exactly, but I think it was after the initial meeting of the DA in Hogsmead. In any case, Ginny sees Harry with Cho (or possibly it was just after Hermione pointed out that Cho's been keeping her eyes glued to Harry)… and we get a cut to the expression on Ginny's face and get her pain at seeing Harry interested in someone else. It's been bad enough that he's not really noticed her, but for most of the time he's just not been interested in anyone at all. Now he's interested in a girl, and it's not Ginny and that hurts. And this is Ginny the girl wonder who decides who she wants to date and then the guy asks her out. (OK, this aspect of Ginny didn't really make it into the films, but then neither did Peeves. A lot gets left out of films. Like Eliza said.)

I think there was plenty in the films signalling where things were going; there were also a few red herrings. And I'll be the first to admit that I watched the films having read the books many times--there may well be things that people who only saw the films picked up on that I missed. But, at the end of the day, people tend to see what they want to see.

[Peter]

Joel wrote: "Hogwarts is a lot larger than the 10-11 students Rowling..."

Sorry, I'm going on longer than I ought.

You're right that Hogwarts is larger then a dozen or so. But for a Coming-of-Age story (which is yet another theme of the whole series), part of the tale is following what eventually grow into romantic involvements for the main characters, starting from age 11. If Rowling had intended someone like Lavender for Ron, don't you think she would have introduced the character in Book 1? (Beyond a fleeting mention of her name [only] at the Sorting.) Oh, and I gotta disagree about "good match": I think Lavender would have been awful for Ron in the long term. Yeah, they had a lot of hormones hopping for a short while, but anything more than that? Sure, Hermione and Ron are opposites. What was that line about opposites and attraction?

(Also, maybe I shouldn't go there, but there are the real-life inspirations for Hermione and Ron…)

[Joel]

Peter wrote: "Joel wrote: "Hogwarts is a lot larger than the 10-11 students Rowling..."

Sorry, I'm going on longer than I ought.

You're right that Hogwarts is larger then a dozen or so. But for a Coming-of-Age..."

ok yeah again you raise good points, i guess i forget it's a children's book series when all is said and done, and the Lavender/Ron comment was me being especially negative towards Ron because I can't like his character personally, he doesn't appeal at all to me. But this is starting to get off topic now so let me just finish by saying there has to be a limit to the whole opposites attract line, a relationship needs a positive foundation to work on.