To begin, I suppose an explanation of this article's contents is in order. I have noticed, in seeing the films and then later re-reading the novels, that there are some character discrepancies. From humor to appearance, the characters in the films are, on occasion, very different from their bron material. And it is in my humble opinion that the most important thing for a story to succeed is for there to be proper characterization. So, I hope I do not bore u too badly in this look at character discrepancies in the Harry Potter series. I will only look at one thing per character to make this fairly short. Harry Potter
It is probably best to begin with our main character. For starters, there are some things that cannot be helped. Who knew that Daniel Radcliffe was going to be little taller than Frodo while Harry had grown fairly tall in later books? What does it matter that his hair is brown and fairly neat and not the mop of black originally envisioned? Who cares that his eyes are not green, at least they are described as appearing as Lily's, so that is really all that needs to be done in that department. What is really important is his characterization. As a literary character, Harry has got to be the funniest guy in these boeken for me. His self-depreciating and very dark sense of humor is perfect for someone in his situation. He makes light of everything in this way. So where is this sense of humor in the film? Dan, while playing Harry well, is not gegeven anything to reveal this important piece of characterization. Without it, Harry is just a bland hero who has his adventures. The funniest we see Harry is when he is drugged up on Felix, but when sober, I cannot remember a single truly funny thing zei door the character. I think there is something wrong with that. Ron Weasley
Poor Ron. Always left out of everything in these films. Once Columbus left the director's seat, Ron has been effectively pushed into a corner, a sideline character compared to Harry and Hermione. I will get into why once Hermione's turn comes around. Rupert Grint is a very good actor, and has grown well into the role. Like Dan Radcliffe, who cares that Rupert is not the beanpole Ron is zei to be, of that there is not a freckle to be found on his face? He is very much the Ron that has been present in the books. It is welcome volgende to a boring Harry and an over-glorified Hermione (more on that below). As I stated before, the only problem I have with Ron is that he is almost a background character when he should be in the forefront with Harry and Hermione. And I have a theory as to why this happens, which Hermione's section will discuss. Hermione Granger
Oh, the goddess that is the film version of Hermione... I say again that her appearence matters little here. Emma Watson is lovely while Hermione is described as a very homely girl until the later boeken where she grows into herself. I mean, she has buck teeth until the fourth book, and hair that seems as though it was styled with a fork and a toaster. But it does not matter. Her character was torn apart in these films. Gone is the Hermione who can critically think a situation through and in comes the Hermione that randomly seems intelligent. There are quite a few occasions in watching these films where I think that there is little to no indication of Hermione's intellectual capacity. She will spout off information that even the Hermione of the boeken never knew, and that makes her seem intelligent. It takes meer than that. But I zei that there would be a theory as to why Hermione was so revered and Ron pushed to the side so often. Well here it is: Screenwriter Steve Kloves has a literary hard-on for Hermione. I do not mean that he is attracted to her in that sort of way, but he loves the character so much that he gives her meer screen time and better lines door putting Ron off to the side of not in a scene at all, and then giving his best lines to her. No offense to him, but he has turned Ron into almost a purely comic relief character as of Half-Blood Prince. Ginny Weasley
This one annoys me, since, while reading the later boeken in the series, Ginny was a very compelling character. The problem is, the films have stagnated her. Her shy persona seen through Harry's eyes in the boeken (due to the fact we only see Ginny from Harry's perspective and she was always nervous around him) has translated to the real Ginny on screen. Where is the confident young woman revealed when she gives up on Harry and moves on? She was the female version of Harry in many ways in the books. They were both outspoken, athletic, passionate about whatever they got into, not to mention they are the only two people alive to ever have been possessed door Voldemort so that made a pretty strong connection from the off. Bonnie Wright's Ginny is quiet, fairly passive, and forgettable, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the Ginny readers had finally discovered was hidden under the surface.
In the interests of keeping everyone awake, sane, and interested, I will end this here for now. If I get the chance, I may go one and do some meer characters, but I thought that these four would be good for now. If u have any possibilities in mind, I wouldn't say no to hearing them. And also, I appreciate constructive criticism, but I die a little bit insode whenever someone is outright mean. u do not want to be the reason for me dying, do you? I didn't think so. So, I will take my leave now and might come back to this later. Tootles.