What mistakes in the films can you just not overlook?

[Elyse]

GoF drives me insane because it didn't have any mention of Winky or Dolby and it was just all wrong.

Stuff that wasn't in the movie that should have:
1. Winky
2. Dolby
3. Sphinx in the maze
4. World Cup (though I fully understand why)
The list goes on and on!!!!!

Note: it still was a good movie!

[RoonibWazley]

Winky and Dobby are expensive to make, and their roles are expendable in the story. Therefore, there was no reason to include them in GOF.

[lorna]

If we're just talking movie....I though the edit of the Shrieking Shack in POA was appalling. We reveal Lupin is a werewolf...it came off like he just had a touch of "something" then it was on to some piece of "revealing" plot information. Snape's comment about "walking in the moonlight" made the point better (if you'd read the books) than it was made in the Shack.
And really, if you never read the book, how clear was it that Snape, Lupin, Pettigrew, Black knew had any kind of history beyond, "oh yeh knew each other in school" I knew a lot of people at school, doesn't mean I want to kill them.
So ultimately, while I think POA had a better look to it, overall I more disappointed in that film than the other three.

[k4r6000]

Originally Posted by psycha

That's just a slight alteration. They just gave him flipper hands to suggest that he was deformed like a Penguin. Not a far cry from the character's traditional state. Plus Batman and his villains are different because they are such mythological characters.

The character went from high-society jewel thief/mobster to sewer-dwelling mutant who was raised by penguins and seeks revenge on normal people because of his mistreatment. I'd say that is a pretty big alteration. It would be like turning Hagrid into a leprechaun.

Not to mention the other major changes to the Batman mythos.

Why does Batman kill people?
Why is The Joker the killer of Thomas Wayne?
Why is Catwoman an undead zombie?
Why is Gordon channelling Police Chief Wiggum?
Why is Alfred letting Bruce's girlfriends into the Batcave without his approval?

We have talked alot about HP fans & LOTR fans around here, but it is nothing compared to the pure venom that Batman fans have for Burton. They utterly despise him. There is a reason why most people consider Batman Begins to be the only true representation of the character in live action format. I'm not anti-Burton by any means, but people around here have no idea of the type of filmmaker he is and would absolutely freak with the major changes he would make to Harry Potter.

[folly54]

Originally Posted by lorna

If we're just talking movie....I though the edit of the Shrieking Shack in POA was appalling. We reveal Lupin is a werewolf...it came off like he just had a touch of "something" then it was on to some piece of "revealing" plot information. Snape's comment about "walking in the moonlight" made the point better (if you'd read the books) than it was made in the Shack.
And really, if you never read the book, how clear was it that Snape, Lupin, Pettigrew, Black knew had any kind of history beyond, "oh yeh knew each other in school" I knew a lot of people at school, doesn't mean I want to kill them.
So ultimately, while I think POA had a better look to it, overall I more disappointed in that film than the other three.

This was the most disappointing part of POA for me personally. I hated that the Shrieking Shack was so short and rushed. I hated that the Marauders story was not fully developed. The Marauders and Snape is one of the most interesting aspect of the entire Harry Potter series in my opinion because there's a lot of woven plotlines between them all and Harry. I hated how they portrayed it in POA and I think that's why it's not my favorite of the 4. I just cannot like a movie that would treat the Marauders plot so badly. It just felt like they missed a huge part of POA by doing that.

[psycha]

Originally Posted by k4r6000

It would be like turning Hagrid into a leprechaun.

No it wouldn't. Penguin was still a man who acted and spoke like upper class and looked like a Penguin. All else is minor technicality.

Not to mention the other major changes to the Batman mythos.

The key word is 'mythos'. Unlike all other comic book heroes, Batman has no canon. The sooner fans understand that Batman is a contemporary mythological icon, the better. For their sake.

Either way, comic book heroes can be more freely adapted (as long as the basic premise and main characters are retained) simply because of how bastardised their story telling continuity is. Series like HP and LotR are not bastardised as they are consistently told with definate beginnings and ending by single authors.

[House_Elf_21]

There is at least one quality in each movie that strikes me as bad or boring, mostly in PoA and GoF:

PoA: The Time-Turner scene, in my mind, wasn't remotely interesting until Harry performs the Patronus Charm. I also think it was important to explain the Fidelius (spelling?) Charm. Harry really didn't have any real concrete reason to believe that Sirius is innocent until Peter fesses up.

GoF:

Where do I start? Hermione's acting (no one sue me!), the huge scene with the dragon that really didn't need to happen; if they had kept it short, like the book, they could have built up other scenes. One thing I must give this movie: the graveyard scene was very well done as far as being close to the book and as far as being a piece of filmography that could stand on its own two feet. But, quite frankly, I like to pretend that this movie never happened.

[DarwinMayflower]

Originally Posted by psycha

No it wouldn't. Penguin was still a man who acted and spoke like upper class and looked like a Penguin. All else is minor technicality.

That doesn't make any sense considering that even in Batman Returns, Penguin is hardly upper class. He eats raw fish and I don't mean sushi. He bit off a person's nose. The only think upper class about him was the way he dressed; his election campaign which is usually reserved for the upper class and his parents. But other than that, he was basically made into an animal.

The key word is 'mythos'. Unlike all other comic book heroes, Batman has no canon. The sooner fans understand that Batman is a contemporary mythological icon, the better. For their sake.

Still there is a canon to be adhered. It is like having Batman with nipples; cracking one liners that were popularized by the TV series which was hardly canon at all and that Batman had done certain things that would have never occured in the Batman movies. I realize that with Batman there is an incredible convuluted history with him. Even worst a character like Powergirl or Supergirl who had about a dozen retcons of their origins between them; only makes adhering to any form of comic canon just impossible.

It goes to show that there is something wrong when people who defend the certain changes of a comic book character is by referring to some obscure moment in Batman's history or blaming it on multiple retcons, timelines or different interpretations of different canons.

But I do have to point out, some of the my favorite comic book movies are one that do have slight differences (or in some cases extreme differences) from the canon. Namely The Hulk and Superman Returns. To me despite have some superficial things out of canon they were incredibly good movies.

Either way, comic book heroes can be more freely adapted (as long as the basic premise and main characters are retained) simply because of how bastardised their story telling continuity is. Series like HP and LotR are not bastardised as they are consistently told with definate beginnings and ending by single authors.

Well that's the thing. How basic of a premise should be kept with comic book characters? With Burton's Batman, it seemed only in costume that some characters maintained their comic book counterpart. Looking at Sam Hamm's original 1988 first draft of Batman); you can see how more accurate Batman was to his source. Then again the draft did still have some of the God awful moments from the end product still intact, but still it seemed far better than what we saw from Burton.

[psycha]

Penguin ACTED like an upper class man and strived to be that even though his condition suggested that he wasn't.

There is no canon for any of the Batman characters including details of origins, characterisaztion and even costumes. Even Batman's costume can be interpreted in a million different colours and subtle alterations and he'll still look like Batman. Put a woman in leather and a whip and she can claim she's Catwoman. Show a punk with a green mohawk, pale skin and red lipstick psychotic grin and he will come across as THE Joker.

The tv shows are just as legit as anything else. There IS no Batman canon. His origin is that his parents were murdered by SOME mobster an then when he grew up he vowed to rid Gotham City of its crime by dressing as a bat. Everything else can be mythoplased any way anyone wants.

That's why Batman has been probably the most successful comic book hero. Because unlike the others, he is a 100% myth than can be told in any way, shape, or form without ever seeming blasphemous. Because fo that, his stories are always refreshing and enjoyable and never bogged down by any heavy continuity changes. Sure, you can't make him a crime fighting drag queen with a chainsaw in a too too dress, but still his world is far more open to free interpretation than any other comic figure.

[crazy_ned]

Originally Posted by SKasparRollins

If you ask me, the problem with the movies is that the directors don't understand how dark the books are supposed to be...and they don't understand their target audience sometimes. They cut out all of the best Dark scenes, and replace them with contrived comedy, I've seen. I understand how hard it is to satisfy readers AND explain to outsiders at the same time, but really.

I'd blame that more on WB than any of the directors. The HP movies are primarily marketed towards children.

Originally Posted by DarwinMayflower

Well that's the thing. How basic of a premise should be kept with comic book characters? With Burton's Batman, it seemed only in costume that some characters maintained their comic book counterpart. Looking at Sam Hamm's original 1988 first draft of Batman); you can see how more accurate Batman was to his source. Then again the draft did still have some of the God awful moments from the end product still intact, but still it seemed far better than what we saw from Burton.

Did you ever see An Evening with Kevin Smith? He has a few things to say about Burton and his understanding of comic book characters.

[DarwinMayflower]

Originally Posted by psycha

Penguin ACTED like an upper class man and strived to be that even though his condition suggested that he wasn't.

But that's the thing at least in the comics he acted that way convincingly. In the movie he had no such motivation. He realized he was an animal and he wanted revenge; he never had any delusions as to where his social status was he knew he was an outcast. The Penguin in the comics had those delusions and actually managed to thrive in high society with nightclubs and such.

In Batman Returns, The Penguin was portrayed by Danny DeVito. Director Tim Burton ,inspired by the film, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari",re-imagined the character not as an eloquent, sophisticated, short and fat man (as had been traditionally done before), but rather as a physically deformed psychopath

It goes to show that Burton didn't channel the Batman Penguin, but instead created one of his own imagination and influences.

There is no canon for any of the Batman characters including details of origins, characterisaztion and even costumes. Even Batman's costume can be interpreted in a million different colours and subtle alterations and he'll still look like Batman. Put a woman in leather and a whip and she can claim she's Catwoman. Show a punk with a green mohawk, pale skin and red lipstick psychotic grin and he will come across as THE Joker.

The difference there is "subtle" alterations. Batman has hardly ever changed in the past few decades. Like you said, subtle varitions such as changing his usual yellow emblem into just a bat symbol on his grey costume. Changing his yellow utility belt to just a brown pocket belt. He's not like Iron Man who actually had over a dozen different Iron Man Armours. Any drastic change from Batman was either as a result of a one-shot, the whole Mecha Batman thing (which was someone else) or just an Elsewords Alt-Universe Batman.

The tv shows are just as legit as anything else. There IS no Batman canon. His origin is that his parents were murdered by SOME mobster an then when he grew up he vowed to rid Gotham City of its crime by dressing as a bat. Everything else can be mythoplased any way anyone wants.

That's why Batman has been probably the most successful comic book hero. Because unlike the others, he is a 100% myth than can be told in any way, shape, or form without ever seeming blasphemous. Because fo that, his stories are always refreshing and enjoyable and never bogged down by any heavy continuity changes. Sure, you can't make him a crime fighting drag queen with a chainsaw in a too too dress, but still his world is far more open to free interpretation than any other comic figure.

It is true that there is no definate canon as to what Batman looks like, or what his life story is. But it goes to show that Batman is not the most openly interpretted comic figure in the industry. Beforementioned Iron Man, Powergirl, and Supergirl. Any number of X-Men changes to rebirths, revivals and re-imaginings of various X-Characters, Thor had a multi year story arc that lead up some incredible interpretations. The only way that Batman was openly interpretted was through the television media of him both Live-action and animated.

All in all, Batman had been the most static character of all probably up until Infnite Crisis and now during One Year Later. So you are right, there is no canon specfically of Batman because of all the interpretations. But it's not about a specific storyline when it comes with comic-book characters; it's about that one storyline comprised from 1000 storylines. It goes to show, when even minor character seemed to have more canon changes than a battleship compared to Batman, he's really most stable and therefore should be easier to adapt than other superheroes.

[Black_Squall]

Mods are gonna beat us up for getting off topic...

Originally Posted by crazy_ned

I'd blame that more on WB than any of the directors. The HP movies are primarily marketed towards children.

Sadly this is true, children and teens are the targets for these movies which is why they aren't as good a LotR for example. Younger audiences are easier to entertain (look at what they put on MTV these days) and children just like to see magic and fantasy.

[njdog102]

GOF in my opinion. I like the movie and everything, but they cut so much scenes out and changed so much scenes as well. Like when Barty Crouch dies in the movie, it makes sense, but it was done much better in the book. And they should've included when Harry and Dumbledore are arguing with Fudge toward the end of the book, that was a scene that I think definitely should have been in the movie. The people who don't read the books are just going to assume that the ministry hates Harry in OotP, instead of knowing that the ministry refused to believe Voldemort returned which is why the constantly discredit Harry in OotP. I also think it was stupid how Barty Crouch Jr. was kept alive instead of being killed by the dementors.

[miared]

I don´t know really.......it´s just a fact ( for me at least) that the movies never will reach the books magical appeal.

So it´s hard to tell really, for I never even think about the movies while reading the books......but I would say GoF.
The scene with Neville "I´ve killed Harry Potter" just killed it for me.

[Uriel]

POA is my fav book and film. I didn't care for 4. The 4th film moved so fast that it was very hard for me to keep up with it. The book is better for explaining its own part of the story. I didn't care much for the second film either. I still don't know why.

[MissHufflepuff]

Originally Posted by Black_Squall

Ron and Hermione serve as the comedic and serious foil respectively but in the books they are given moments where they are not entirely comedic or serious. Translating that to film requires sacrifices, mainly making Ron 100% comedic foil and Hermione 100% serious foil. If Ron is comedic 95% of the time and then given a few serious moment, those few serious moment would seem out of character for him and vice versa for Hermione. Their characters were changed for clarity and emphasis.

i think making them slightly more realistic would be fine. i don't understand this view that they have to be 100% one personality type. Are there always these sterotypes in films? no, not in good ones.
Besides, ron had serious moments in Gof and Harry had moments of subtle amusement (like he's supposed to)...did this confuse people or make it less enertaining? i think most people preferred that they had personalities and in the queen's sketch that was done...the characters were much more equal and like they're supposed to be - and that was much better!

Originally Posted by DarwinMayflower

I give up. I know better than to waste my time repeating what's already been said. I'm obviously not going to change your mind at all since you'd rather win the arguement than actually listen to another point of view. Everything you said is 100% completely right.

However if you feel the need to consider another person's point of view in the PoA film, you could just search for some of my earlier posts or any other PoA film fan. It'll be easier for me and probably easier for you since there's over years of information and knowledge about it all.

i did listen to your point of view, thank-you, and i don't like being told that i didn't. It doesn't mean i agree with you though - and i don't. i still think the films could have been done with hermione being a little geekier, and some of her brave lines given to ron - so that people would respect him more and show that he has a personality. The fact that he wasn't there at the end shows how he has less time to show off his character, so should have been given better lines at the beginning. surely a film character can be funny and caring?
Surely characters are allowed to change over time, too. what about hermione? the difference in her character between film 2 and 3 is much greater than giving ron few better lines is!!! andthat is my point of view.

[ID824]

I also wish they would get Danny Elfman to score the last movie.

[Black_Squall]

Originally Posted by MissHufflepuff

i think making them slightly more realistic would be fine. i don't understand this view that they have to be 100% one personality type. Are there always these sterotypes in films? no, not in good ones.

Which is why these movies arn't very good.

[MoonPrincess]

PoA!!! They hardly got anything right?? There was NOTHING with Crookshanks in it. What are they going to do if Crookshanks turns out to be important?

[RoonibWazley]

If Crookshanks is important in Book 7, then he will be reintroduced to the story in Movie 7. Audiences won't care how Crookshanks was portrayed in POA, as it will have no effect on the story of Movie 7.