HP Movies: What They Leave Out

[C-Cute]

Well I've seen Harris when he use to be younger. I like to watch old movies. Harry Potter was his last and only movie for our time. his other movies were in the fifty's. But I agree he made the best one.

[adribetty394]

RANDOM COMMENT:
Just watched a Daniel Radcliffe interview and he mentioned being pretty certain that Alan Rickman is aware of Snape's future. him and only him... apart from JK of course.... I think that's really cool

[Madelia]

---

princesspotter wrote:
well of course not! that would be another book!

---

Not necessarily.





I also heard that Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) was told of Hagrid's future... and so he was one of the main reasons I suspected Hagrid of dying in OotP... he said he may not be in all of the movies.

[maggie21]

I think this new directer,David Yates(sp)will be awesome,I've read a few interviews recentely with many different people who have viewed the new movie,all have really liked it.That is very encouraging for me,i'm not that fond of the actor who protrays DD,i feel he could do so much more,i'm hoping the directer,brings this out in him with this next film.In GOF,DD seemed so angry all of the time,i did'nt get that,also,why show Barty Crouch senior in the forest dead,but never explain why.All of the films had great moments though and it's wonderful to have the visual of the people,castle,grounds and various creatures.

[ConnieAnnKirk]

If that's true, that would explain a lot of the subtle clues that I keep thinking I see in his performances in the films. It seems like he'd _have_ to know the story of his character. Thanks!

~ConnieK, "25"

---

adribetty394 wrote:
RANDOM COMMENT:
Just watched a Daniel Radcliffe interview and he mentioned being pretty certain that Alan Rickman is aware of Snape's future. him and only him... apart from JK of course.... I think that's really cool

---

[Jenny20]

I personally think that Peeves will somehow become important in the 7th book . . . in the first and second books, JKR seems to be emphasizing that Peeves isn't pearly and translucent like the other ghosts but rather more solid, and that he isn't a true ghost in the sense of the word. I think that this may become important, because it just strikes me as odd and seems to stand out.

And didn't they leave Peeves out of the movies?

[Madelia]

---

Jenny20 wrote:
I personally think that Peeves will somehow become important in the 7th book . . . in the first and second books, JKR seems to be emphasizing that Peeves isn't pearly and translucent like the other ghosts but rather more solid, and that he isn't a true ghost in the sense of the word. I think that this may become important, because it just strikes me as odd and seems to stand out.

And didn't they leave Peeves out of the movies?

---

They did.

Apparently they were going to leave Kreacher out as well, but JK warned them not to... she also said, "Well, you can, but if you ever going to get around to making a 7th movie, you're going to be all tied up in knots". Or something to that extent.


Also...I was curious about one of the characters for the 5th movie. Cast listings have an actor by the name of Ryan Nelson playing "Slightly Creepy Boy". Supposedly he's in the picture of the DA that has been all over the web. I've been wondering if he's the guy on the far left? If so, I always thought he was kind of good looking...and certainly not creepy! Anyway, what character do you think that is? Considering they haven't given an actual name. It should be someone we know, since he's in the DA.

[Psychee]

---

Madelia wrote:
Also...I was curious about one of the characters for the 5th movie. Cast listings have an actor by the name of Ryan Nelson playing "Slightly Creepy Boy". Supposedly he's in the picture of the DA that has been all over the web. I've been wondering if he's the guy on the far left? If so, I always thought he was kind of good looking...and certainly not creepy! Anyway, what character do you think that is? Considering they haven't given an actual name. It should be someone we know, since he's in the DA.

---

Maybe Zacharias Smith?

[Madelia]

No...Zacharias is on the cast list specifically...his actor is Nick Shrim. He's the one immediately next to the boy on the far left.

[Psychee]

---

Madelia wrote:
No...Zacharias is on the cast list specifically...his actor is Nick Shrim. He's the one immediately next to the boy on the far left.

---

Ok, then why not compare the cast list with the list of the kids in Dumbledore's Army and see who they left out?

You can find the DA list here:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/da.html

[Madelia]

I've been using Wikipedia since most sites are blocked here at work...

But I discovered this:
Michael Corner
It is debated whether or not Corner will appear in the fifth film, though a character shown in a promotional photo for Dumbledore's Army (named as "Slightly Creepy Boy") wears a Ravenclaw outfit, so he may in fact actually be Michael Corner.



I was looking through the members of DA on WP, and there are many more members than there are students in the list of characters for OotP, so I kind of narrowed it down and realized Michael Corner was described as "dark"...which I always perceived as meaning dark skin, but it may have in fact meant something like "brooding" or "mysterious". Who knows.
I'm betting it's Michael though.

[Psychee]

That's the guy who was dating Ginny. Creepy?

It's hard to tell with movies... they could have changed the character somewhat to create a dramatic moment, or created a new throwaway character for a similar reason.

[Madelia]

Very true. Apparently Marietta Edgecomb won't be in the movie... the whole "SNEAK" part will be portrayed by Cho instead... kind of strange, I think.

Yeah, I don't know why they called him "creepy". Someone must have randomly looked at the picture and said, "I wonder who that slightly creepy boy is?" And so he was named.
I just have a feeling with the fact that they're going to be adding more "romantic" parts in the movies they would include Michael to show Ginny's growing popularity with the boys, and then later Dean, of course...and with her growing popularity comes Harry's growing jealousy. Even while he's dating Cho in the beginning you just know he's jealous. I think that will be something they'd include. People seem to like the subliminal romance things. Haha.

[Half-Blood_Can…]

That doesn't even make sense! why would cho tell on the DA?
"Oh Harry, i just might be in love with you....so i went and told on your whole club getting everyone in trouble. Think we can make it work?"
"how dare you!! .."

i can't even finish the conversation between them because it just doesn't make sense!!! i'm sorry but that just really angers me..when they blatently change the scenes in the book in the most awkward way. why couldn't they just have some randomn kid in the DA be the sneek? ARGH!

---

Madelia wrote:
Very true. Apparently Marietta Edgecomb won't be in the movie... the whole "SNEAK" part will be portrayed by Cho instead... kind of strange, I think.

[adribetty394]

I have this annoying feeling that they are going to majorly foreshadow remus/tonks in this movie... anyone feel the same way????

[Madelia]

---

adribetty394 wrote:
I have this annoying feeling that they are going to majorly foreshadow remus/tonks in this movie... anyone feel the same way????

---

Yeah, I'm kinda worried about that. I love both characters by themselves...but I don't really like them together. I don't know why.

[midnite_writer]

HPRocksMySocks wrote:I hate it when my firends think they know Harry Potter when all they have seen is the movies. In GoF, they leave out all of the Winky and Dobby stuff. Also, in the movie they have Neville get the Gillyweed for Harry, when in the book, Dobby did. The movies just make me sooooooooo mad!!! Why can't people just read the books, then they will realize what they have been missing, and how wicked awesome it is!!
------------------------------------------

I know what you mean. I love the third book!!! (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azakaban.)But I hate the movie. To me they just left out so much of the book. For example the conversation Sirius had with Harry explaining what happened with his parents and Petigrew, the persession when everyone was coming out of the Whomping Willow cave, and so much more.

As far as my friends go, many of them do expect to know everything about Harry Potter because they just watch the movies. ( am not saying that in order to be a true blue Harry Potter fan you must read the books, nor am saying that if you just watch the movies you know nothing. I am just saying that the books hold so much more to be discovered. )

[JenniG0812]

I often find myself expaining to my husband exactly what is missing from the movies, of how the broom from PoA came in the middle of the book and not at the end. He gets really mad, but it moved him to read the books. Then welaugh together about the fact that something that takes an hour to read takes about five minutes to play out in the movie. It also gets me how they left out so much about the makers of the mauraders map. If I had never ead the books, I would have been so confused.

[JenniG0812]

---

kam4 wrote:
What are you all going on about? So what if they leave things out of the movies.
You all agree that the books are better anyway. And JKR does work very closely
with the screenwriters to make sure that things that advance the story are not
left out of the movies. Don't you enjoy knowing more that those that just watch
the movies?

For all of those unfortunate souls that cannot read (and don't read even though they
can is the same as can't read!) well, they'll never change and they'll always
miss out on large bits of life because they can't read. Leave them be. Enjoy
all of US instead of complaining about THEM. These message boards should have
the respect of time for us - not wasted time on them. Life is so much more
interesting with Harry (yea, I'm totally Pottered!) we hardly have the time to
spend it moaning about the others that simply don't and won't get it.

I'm really interested in how they'll resolve things in movies 5,6 and 7 having left
so much out in the previous ones. Sometimes, I like the way they've done something
in the movie - like Neville giving Harry the gillyweed - since it's Neville that
is so good in herbology - it made sense that he'd be the one to give it to Harry.

There's a lot of things that actually turned out okay in the movie. Didn't anyone
like anything about the movies? If so, which parts - that were totally different
in the books - did make sense to you?

---

Oh yeah! I love the movies too. The movies make me mad, but I still love them. Only in the movies can they add crky little moves that would not have the same effect in a book. One of my favs is when Lupin flicks his wand to get rid of his full moon boggart, he has his hands held in this really odd form. Odd but it makes me laugh every time

[JenniG0812]

br>As to why Winky and Dobby were left out of the last film, I can only guess that they weren't crucial to the plot of that particular movie. Since Dobby had been introduced earlier, house elves can be re-introduced when they play a pivotal role.

I can't recall the name of the magazine where I saw the article about what is in/out of OOP (doctor's waiting room, had too short of a time to wait). Has anyone else read anything about it?


I don't remember the name of the mag. either, but they said that: there was no quiditch, no Mrs. Weasley's boggart, and I think they said no dobby or winky again. That seems to be all I can remeber for now.