Improving the movie series

[Julia]

So Potter fans, if you could improve the Potter movies by adding details from the books or removing details from the movies, what would you add or remove?

[Adwitiya]

Oh, there are just so many of these. Firstly, the third movie missed out so much on the plot. The whole backstory of the Marauders and the Marauder's map. Then Crookshank's role in the plot is completely missed. If you just watch the movies, you'd never understand why Sirius is referred to as Padfoot, or Pettigrew as Wormtail. It's just annoying. But I think the worst miss was the Gaunt backstory in Half Blood Prince. The whole Tom Riddle and Merope Gaunt story is missed and it was so crucial to Voldemort's character.

[Michael]

There was a lot of backstory in "The Half-Blood Prince" that was just interesting which was left out of the movie: the Gaunt family and their interaction with the town (which actually explains Voldemort's hidey-hole in the fourth movie); Voldemort's interaction with the other kids he's with before Hogwarts; and, though not really that important to the story, his play for the position of Defense Against the Dark Arts.
The thing that bugs me the most however is the lack of explanation in "The Goblet of Fire" as to how Bart Crouch, Jr. got out of Azkaban (and leaving you wondering how on earth there are no Demontors floating around looking for him, after the massive manhunt for Sirius in the third film).

[Ji]

I have to agree that they left out a lot of backstory in "Half-Blood Prince" that they missed out on. It would've given somewhat more context about Voldemort and how he became to those that aren't going to read the books.

[Rae]

Yeah, I just though he kind of lived and died a jerk in the movies, but in the books it gives more explanation about his background. He's still a jerk, obviously. I don't remember if the Ministry of Magic was described as dark in the books, but I really hated the black tile on everything. It made the place seem evil and suffocating.

[Lena]

I honestly think the series is too detailed to be a movie. A TV series would have more time to add all the missing detail that the movies misses out. It would also help with character development. To get more detail into the movies they would have been very long with intermissions lol

[Abbie]

Rae wrote: "Yeah, I just though he kind of lived and died a jerk in the movies, but in the books it gives more explanation about his background. He's still a jerk, obviously. I don't remember if the Ministry o..." Totally, I hate how the ministry turn out to be mixing with the Death Eaters; can anyone explain to me what happens to Umbridge?? They never had her being given justice punishment in the movies, same with Draco or Lucius. Like, whaaaat?! :)

[Gráinne]

I think they totally SCREWED UP Ginny's character in the movies! In the books, she's a bad-ass who is always making people laugh and coming up with clever ideas. In the movies, she's just this really bland and awkward character. Sidenote:AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO IS ANNOYED THEY LEFT OUT PEEVES?????

[Abbie]

Gráinne wrote: "I think they totally SCREWED UP Ginny's character in the movies! In the books, she's a bad-ass who is always making people laugh and coming up with clever ideas. In the movies, she's just this real..."
Yeah I so agree....Peeves is like THE BEST, and Ginny just seems so timid in the movie :( I love how they portray Ron, Harry and Hermione, tho - just how I *aaaaahhhhs with delight*

[Gráinne]

Adwitiya wrote: "Oh, there are just so many of these. Firstly, the third movie missed out so much on the plot. The whole backstory of the Marauders and the Marauder's map."
YES! TOTALLY AGREE! For people who hadn't read the book, they would have absolutely NO IDEA what was going on in the movie of the prisoner of Azkaban!

[Gráinne]

Lena wrote: "I honestly think the series is too detailed to be a movie. A TV series would have more time to add all the missing details that the movies misses out on. It would also help with character development."
I had never thought of that, but now that I hear the idea, it actually makes a lot of sense. The movies missed out on a lot of plot, and I think that a TV series would work way better, and have time to add some extra details and maybe even some cool effects.

[Joséphine]

Gráinne wrote: "I think they totally SCREWED UP Ginny's character in the movies! In the books, she's a bad-ass who is always making people laugh and coming up with clever ideas. In the movies, she's just this real..."

I strongly agree with you on all of this!

[Joséphine]

Lena wrote: "I honestly think the series is too detailed to be a movie. A TV series would have more time to add all the missing detail that the movies misses out. It would also help with character development. ..."

I was in a facebook group a couple of years ago that was devoted to making this happen!

[Liz]

Julia wrote: "So Potter fans, if you could improve the Potter movies by adding details from the books or removing details from the movies, what would you add or remove?"

Merlin's balls, where to start....

Dye jobs

Danniel Ratcliff and Emma Watson are fantastic as Harry and Hermione. But I see no reason not to dye their hair the right colors, and give Daniel emerald green contacts. (I'm sure there were good reasons they didn't, but I assume those reasons don't exist in this hypothetical universe.)

Let the already perfect actors play their damn characters!

Kenneth Branagh was BORN to play Gildroy Lockhart. Watch his Shakespeare comedies, and you'll see what I mean. So WTF went wrong in "Harry Potter?" Some director, for some reason, had Branagh tone down his flamboyant character-acting, turning Lockhart into a dull, drawling twat.

And Natalia Tenna hosts a behind-the-scenes segment on the "Order of the Phoenix" DVD, where she proves she can play the bubbly Tonks damn well. Again, who instructed her to instead play a sour Goth?

Keep the aesthetic of the early movies

The first two movies were a *bit* more Halloween-ish than I pictured when reading the books, but the look they had worked fine enough. But then Emo stuff was in, and everything had to get all dark and wet and angsty. Blech.

DITCH GAMBON!

A Santa from the mall would be a more acceptable Dumbledore.

Make them all miniseries

Or better yet, make the whole thing an HBO style series

If you *had* to go the traditional movie route, and split the last into two movies...

...why not just call Part II "The Battle For Hogwarts?" This "Part I" and "Part II" just sounds lazy.

I'll update this post as I think of more.

[Amanda Artist Cat]

There are so many little details they'd left out, but I won't complain about those.
I think if they casted Dumbledore differently, I would have loved them a lot more!! They first Dumbledore is a bit too much like Santa Claus and left out the powerful part of him.
The second Dumbledore is too shrewd and lost his benevolence and the quirky funny side of the Headmaster☹️!

[Genevieve]

Adding more in-depth personality to characters like Ginny and Tonks, who in the movies are just side characters.

[Gráinne]

Amanda (Artist Cat) wrote: "The first Dumbledore is a bit too much like Santa Claus and left out the powerful part of him.
The second Dumbledore is too shrewd and lost his benevolence and the quirky funny side of the Headmaster!"

I COMPLETELY agree with this. Although there were a lot of things I didn't really like about the movies, the way they portrayed Dumbledore was one of my biggest problems. In the books Dumbledore is quirky and funny, while also maintaining an air of authority and calmness. In the movies, I think both Dumbledores didn't quite have that Dumbledore-ness about them. The first one wasn't authoritative enough, and it seems like the writers of the movies realised this, so they went in the complete opposite direction with the second one. This time, however, they made him uptight and scary, and didn't seem to realise that part of what makes Dumbledore great is his quirky personality and overall calmness throughout almost any situation. I think maybe if they had combined both versions of Dumbledore that we see in the movies, then they might have hit that Dumbledore sweet-spot.

[Mareena]

***WARNING: SPOILERS***

Here's my thing- S.P.E.W. The organization showed Hermione's empathy and her connection to the muggle world- where they didn't have slaves like these. I heard in an interview once, that it was the fourth movie that separated the books and the movies. They began a legacy of their own in the fourth movie- and separated from the books.

Back to my original point, you learn a lot about the wizarding world through S.P.E.W. and how elves interact with wizards and such. Dobby shows up a lot because of S.P.E.W. which was missing from the movies as well (and I think a lot of us book-nerd-readers missed him, and without Dobby being there as often, his death was not as impactful). You learn deeper into Hermione's character of activism and helping the oppressed in the books, and this aspect of her character was missing entirely from the movies.