Yeah, because Peter Jackson was sooooooooooo completely faithful to the Lord of the Rings.

Emma could have no lines in a scene and people would still focus in on her. She doesn't fade into the background, even when she was eleven. Rupert these last few movies has developed as strong a presence onscreen. There are closeup shots of him in DH Pt1 that are compelling and you wonder what his thoughts are.

Finally the two meet... awww. i wanna meet Jo too!!!

JK Rowling rocks!

We'll agree to disagree then. Because having Ron struggle to get to his feet when injured to stand up to a man he thinks is dangerous to say "If you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too," is not impossible, and it reveals so much about Ron's character and loyalty to Harry. And as for the Mudblood part...the slugs are gross either way. Ron discusses it between bouts of slugs...easily done in films, particularly when Rupert is a great actor.

Anyway, I think that the first two (with the minor exception) were fantastically done, and I enjoyed OotP (not written by Kloves, incidentally) and HBP. And DH1 is my favorite of the franchise so far, especially as Ron is fully canon again, which was fantastic. Kloves got it absolutely right in this last one. :) I respect the guy. But PoA and GoF are sore spots for me...especially as Hermione became the "second in command" while Ron stood their for comic relief. As Harry himself says in GoF, the book, "Hermione was great, but she wasn't the same as Ron." I just feel like Kloves has never fully shown that through the script.

And that's just it - Rupert Grint is a fantastic actor. In my opinion, he's the best of the three, and he's been able to flex that better in the last two because the script allowed him to do so. I thought he was the highlight of DH1, Emma coming in close behind. But in those 3rd and 4th films, Rupert's talent and Ron's true character were not given the opportunity to shine.

(I hear jumping on the dragon's back will be Hermione's idea in this last one. And let's face it, that's completely out of character as she was terrified in the books. But whatever.)

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Like I said, I respect Kloves for what he's done in these films. It's not an easy task. But he's lost me along the way a few times. And the maddening thing, for me, is to learn that JKR allowed it, possibly encouraged it; it kind of bums me out.

Shannon :hello:

When JKR first met Steve Kloves, the films obviously weren't made! The fact that he favoured Hermione even then, must have made it look as if he would protect the underdog, which Hermione probably was in terms of likeability at that time.

In the first film, Ron was the most attractive and best acted member of the Trio by far. The rumour is that WB were worried he'd 'outshine' Harry to the detriment of the future films - sadly, none of them had seen Star Wars and how Luke and Han were totally different, so appealed to different people and made the films have an even wider audience. They fell into the sad old trap where they diminished certain characters to build up others - instead of just developing all the characters naturally and letting people make up their own minds. The films made a lot of money, but lots of films have done better - they settled for average products and bucket loads of cash instead of excellent products and vast bucket loads of cash!

So Emmione Sue was born, whose endless studying of weighty academic text books meant that she knew more about day to day life in a completely new world, then someone who'd been bought up in it. Not to mention that breakdown of the filthiest swearwords and their definitions she apparently found in that old Charms book...

Scripts are vital to the success of a film and this has kept the HP films' achievements far too modest in comparison to how much is spent on them. Other departments work their socks off, (apart from the painfully uninspired costume department) but can't overcome the weak storytelling. This is unforgiveable for films based on Harry Potter books. The old 'books are different to films' won't work, either. Yes, lots of things have to be dropped to transfer to a different medium, but a coherent main plot isn't one of them.

I tried to introduce a non-believer to Harry Potter through the Azkaban film. This is his basic reaction. He laughed as Hermione picked up Harry with one hand and through him into the Shrieking Shack - is she a magical creature in disguise, he wanted to know. That upper body strength makes no sense - why didn't she use her wand? Why does Harry think that light across the lake was his dad, if he's dead? That light was a patronus? Why does it look like an animal, unlike the others we saw? Wait, Harry's dad could turn into an animal? Why didn't they mention that when Lupin was saying how much he fancied Harry's mum? Isn't it convenient that Lupin could suddenly realise how to make the map work, just in time to see Peter's name? If he'd read the book instead, none of these questions would have come up - apart from Hermione the super strong gymnast! I had no defence - he was no fan, whining because his favourite part wasn't there. The things missing meant the main plot made no sense.

The directing,editing and especially studio interference have as much to do with this as the persistently ordinary scripting. Heyman was the one consistent character, but it's the money that talks. JKR was still writing the novels - regardless of her contract details, if she'd been openly critical, WB would have jumped to her tune. She was apparently happy with the way things turned out, but I'm not obliged to be. The 'Jo's happy, so we should be' argument doesn't work on me, as I'm a grown up who can make up my own mind!

I think the characterisation failed amongst the children in the films - the bland hero, unrealistically capable Sue and one-note comic relief cypher. Attempts have been made in the later films to change this, only because of plot requirements, but these films made actively dislike Hermione as I'm not a tween and don't care about wish fulfillment. I know what I think and no-one's going to tell me these films aren't an opportunity missed. I can't even bank on remakes either. They'll still need money from a big studio and the same mistakes will probably be repeated. Sigh.

Are you serious?! Harry was adorable in those first couple films, and frankly, Rupert was kind of a funny looking little kid (not my words - someone else's, but I agree). He had the perfect face for making all those comedic looks - that's why they did it. I also don't think he's the "best" actor of the three - they all have their strengths and weaknesses - and it does depend on the character. Harry, for example, is on the screen most of the time. He has to do a lot of subtle acting throughout and is often introspective, so you just don't notice it. And really, in that first movie, you couldn't take your eyes off of him he was so cute (and I mean in a "cute little kid" way).

Big JKR fan :-) Not such a big SK fan :-(

That's very interesting.

All I'm saying is I think the story is important in the Harry Potter movies. It is important with the plot, character development, etc. I suppose they should be making it a movie first, book adaptation second, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I know that the writing of a character is influenced by the actor, but what about Rupert's acting made Steve Kloves shove him in the background in the ending scene of Half-Blood Prince? Dan and Emma made the scene great, but would it have hurt anything to give Rupert one line? I mean, Ron had some in the book. The last movie was a real improvement, I just think that in some of the other movies he really didn't do Ron's character justice.

I melted when I read this :loved: So adorable!! :D

I know it's hard to accept for a lot of fans because you always wonder who is responsible for some of the horrid changes but the person to blame isn't really Kloves. Kloves really does have good intentions and the script is safer in his hands than anyone else's because he has such a strong connection with Jo. Even though there are times I get angry with him and his changes, you have to remember not everything he writes gets translated onscreen properly. That's the key word. I remember how upset and angry I was when HBP came out; I was frustrated that Ginny's character was so bland and boring, nothing like her fiery self in the books. I blamed Kloves all the way. However, when WB released the script for the Oscars last year, I was shocked to see how Kloves had written the lines, and how badly they'd been translated on screen by the actors/directors. When I was simply reading the script, I heard the voices of the characters from the book, presenting their lines like their canon-selves would. When I imagined the actors, however, the same lines lost their edge because the actors didn't perform them like the characters.

When OotP came out, it was horribly done (and the worst HP movie to date in my opinion) because Kloves wasn't doing the writing. Michael Goldenberg wrote the screenplay and we all saw the consequences of that. He did a good job I suppose but he didn't have that relationship with Jo, which is where I believe the film went wrong. I think if there's anyone to blame for the crappy translation of the story, it's Yates overall. That's the pattern that I've found with the films. Since he's been directing, the films have gone downhill in my opinion. His directing as been improving for each film, (HBP was loads better than OotP because Kloves was back again) but it's nothing compared to the first four films. Before we all jump on Kloves, we should really think of what a hard job he has. He has this huge fanbase to please, yet at the same time he's got to write a decent screenplay in order for the movie to have good reviews and give him credibity as a writer.

Though I will admit, he does have a thing for Hermione which in turn has hurt Ron's character, and ultimitely taken away from reasoning behind the Ron/Hermione relationship. <_<

I think Ron lovers have said enough. WB have to agree that they did not do justice with Ron in movies.
I am okay with Ron in PoA and GoF, but he was seriously laid back in OotP. And I blame yates for this along with Kloves.

Just because Daniel Radcliffe is too hot it does not mean that Harry should get the girl. I don't know why people always come up with looks and forget the chemistry between characters. But hey I'm no Dan hater, I really do like him, I think Hes amazing, but it really hurts me when I see HP franchise full of H/Hr shippers.

To me Ronald Bilious Weasley is the best one of the trio and Ron and Hermione are made for each other. Jo knew the best thats why she put them together. And Kloves gotta understand this.

I think people are way too hard on Steve Kloves when it comes to the characters. People, Steve Kloves is just the writer and does NOT have the final word when it comes to how the characters come across. He is not there on set every single day! When the chips are down and the cameras are rolling, it's up to the directors and the actors to interpret the script the way that it is intended. And reading over Steve Kloves's scripts, I DO NOT feel that this was always the case.

For example, Steve Kloves wrote "DUMBLEDORE: Harry, did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire?", but on the actual day of shooting, Mike Newell and Michael Gambon decided to have it go "DUMBLEDORE: HARRYDIDJAPUTYERNAMEINTHEGOBADAFIYAH!!!!!!". And it was also not Steve Kloves's call to have Dumbledore body-check Harry into the cabinet, that's a director decision. Or how about a more obscure one? In POA, in Hogsmeade, Steve Kloves wrote "RON: Shut your mouth, Malfoy!", but Alfonso Cuaron and Rupert Grint decided to have Ron look down and whimper when he said the line, afraid to actually stand up to Malfoy! There are LOTS and LOTS of ways to interpret a line, and Jo only reads the scripts, she's not there every single day on set with the directors either. So if she thought the scripts were good and faithful, then they were good and faithful, and it's the directors and actors who have been having the characters deliver lines in ways that they absolutely wouldn't. Think about every moment with the characters you hate in the films. Is it the actual content of what they're doing or saying that's the problem, or is it the WAY that they're doing it or saying it? Even the dreaded Harry/Hermione dance scene could have been a sweet moment, but Dan's performance and David Yates's direction made it seem like Harry was creeping on Hermione, not simply trying to cheer her up! I can actually only think of time in the whole movie series where a character said a line that in no way could ever be read in a way that the character would actually say it: when Dumbledore looks at the students and says accusingly "Don't you all have studying to do?". Who wrote that? Not Steve Kloves.

I think overall his scripts have left a lot to be desired. I know there is director influence in there as well, but I really don't think Kloves did a good job in bringing out a lot of things about HP

No, I agree, his scripts are not the greatest. I think that a lot of his storytelling in the scripts is very muddled and confusing, and that he doesn't bring out a lot of the great themes from the books as well as he could. But those are my big script problems, and they are not the things that I always hear Kloves getting bashed over and over again for. If there is one thing that I think the scripts got well, it's the characterizations, and it's the ACTING and DIRECTING that has not always lived up to that. The thing is that I always hated Kloves because of the characters, but I realized that each time I revised the movie's characters in my own head, I found over and over that I was actually always imagining them still saying the same words from the movie, but just in a completely different way.

I don't agree with some of the adaptations the production, especially Mr Yates made him do, but he's a brilliant play writer, and a very smart guy.

I love the way JK Rowling writes! I get a warm, tingly feeling every time I read something she's written. She's amazing!

Hermione has always been my favorite character! I love her!

yes, he doesn't have to say it. i already knew from the look of the movie. they should have titled it Hermione Granger & the Deathly Hallows. or maybe he's in-love with emma :). can't tell

although i have seen a lot of R/Hr, i would have to agree with you on that part.

@AcrazedHPfan, i do agree 100% on that.

i don't complain with the POA because mostly that's what in the book. it's 95% from the book. I love what they did with POA. (he had done it without any bias on that one, why can't he do it with the rest of the movies?)

and yes, mostly ron's line were stolen

what made me so angry about is they made ron being on the third-wheel (in terms of friendship)

Thank you! My point exactly. That line in GoF always bothered me, even after all these years because it completely ruined the whole point of Dumbledore's character.

Same with the dance scene. They got it past Jo by telling her it was about friendship and if you read the script only and knew their character backgrouds, then you'd believe it was about friendship only. However, as I recall, when they had the ABC family previews last month, they had a video on the dance where Yates talked about how for a second Harry lusted after Hermione and had feelings for her. No words were said in that scene so it was free to interpretation whatever which way for the film makers, which they seized upon for another Harry/Hermione moment. It's all about delivery. The writing isn't always the case and that's why I feel as if we need to lay off of Kloves and give him some slack. After all, he wrote the first two films and most fans rarely ever had a problem with it. In my opinion, those films were perfect.

Nice..

I am genuinely curious: Can you give some specific examples of lines that Kloves wrote for the character of Ginny in HBP that would have demonstrated Ginny's fiery side if the "actor" had not delivered those lines "badly"? I ask because it is my impression the Bonnie Wright has actually done a really good job with the paltry lines and scenes that Kloves and Yates have given her. I mean, consider this: Harry and Ginny are supposed to be the loves of each others' lives -- "soul mates" according to JKR -- and yet Kloves has not given them a single line in which the couple expresses their feelings for each other or talks with each other about their relationship. It's kind of hard to demonstrate chemistry when you are given literally zero lines with which to express your feelings. Harry does have one scene in HBP in which he talks about what he is feeling for Ginny but that scene is with . . . wait for it . . . Hermione. And there is that one scene at the end there where he talks about snogging Ginny, but, oh yeah, that scene is with . . . Hermione. If there is one thing that Kloves and Yates can't get enough of, it's Hermione.

Yes, I'm totally serious. I'd never judge a child by his looks - I'm not so shallow. I certainly don't think looks are anything but a pleasant extra - they're certainly no substitute for a good performance. I meant Ron's was the more attractive character by far. Harry can be quite wry in the books, but that doesn't come across in the films. Remember, when I said Ron was the best actor, I was talking about the first film (though I still think he is the best of a very modestly talented trio.)

In the first film (indeed all of them, imo) Dan frequently doesn't act unless he's actually speaking. He seems a really great person in real life, but I do watch him very carefully and he still often doesn't react if he's not directly involved - we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I hear he's very good on stage, but am not interested in seeing him there. I can only judge him by Harry Potter. Apparently he and Emma had an 'understanding' during filming of the third film, which did come across. However, by Phoenix, any screen chemistry was history, and the Horcrux kiss, as with Cho and Ginny,was hardly convincing. (Emma did try, I admit!) In their little dance, it didn't come across as either platonic or romantic. The way he was looking at her was quite creepy and off putting.

Also, just because Rupert can make funny faces, doesn't mean he should constantly do so. This wasn't a Nativity play starring and directed by a bunch of 10 year olds. The scriptwriter/Director should have tried to create well rounded three dimensional characters out of all of them. They had proof of Rupert's ability, yet made some uncreative decisions.

Back on topic, I agree we can't be sure how many of Ron, Harry and even Dumbledore's stolen lines were given to Hermione by Kloves or by Directors etc. Some of them have to be the script, because there was nothing about Emma's acting that justified her part being enlarged to that extent while on set. The films changed Hermione from a developed character who was accademically brilliant and clung to that to hide her insecurities about other things, to a typical fan fiction Sue. Her character suffered as much as Ron's, despite her getting extra attention. However some people think number of lines is more important then developing a genuine character. In later films, in order to fit into the plot, both characters are all over the place. The filmmakers may not have originally known how the story would end, but surely that was more reason to try to be as true to what was in the book? Also, Kloves did know more than most about what would happen, so why did the scripts not reflect that knowledge of characters and events?

I said in my first post that the film makers/financiers have to share the blame. Even a good script can be sabotaged by them. However, no matter how well the lines are (or aren't) delivered, these aren't good scripts. The humour is usually cheesy and unlike the source material, the dialogue is average, no matter who's delivering them and it's a shame.

Always great to hear more off Jo.

I always really liked Kloves, and I think he'd done a really good job on the Harry Potter adaptations! It was after I watched OotP, that I fully appreciated Kloves' adaptations of the Harry Potter movies because I was very dissapointed with the movie at the time it first came out. (Yes, I think that Goldenberg had done a bad job adapting the movie, although it might not be his fault entirely, he is a good writer after all.) And I'm really glad to know that Jo got along with him really well.

I agree with Yasmin up there about how the movies had gone downhill after Yates started directing. It's absolutely not Kloves' fault how some of the scenes turned out to be. I really loved the first four movies which were the best in my opinion.