As we all know, the film adaptations of the Harry Potter series are pretty different from the books. Although these changes are a little irritating to die-hard fans, for the most part they're not a huge deal. But according to the talented cartoon artist Robin Tatlow-Lord, some of these differences are easier to spot than others. And I'm not going to lie, I completely agree with her.
There were some physical characteristics that were overlooked, or straight up changed altogether for no apparent reason. The only reason I can think of would be that they maybe wanted to appeal to a wider audience, but who is this "audience" that would be persuaded by Ron's freckles? If we can make Ralph Fiennes look like Voldemort, why the heck can't we make Hermione Granger's hair thick and unmanageable? For a small physical description, it played a large role in the overall story.
While Daniel Radcliffe is seriously close to what I imagined while reading the books, book-Harry was much more dynamic of a character. Of course, this is in part because we were given thousands of pages of explanation (4195 in the U.S. versions) versus ~20 hours of movie. But still, how hard would it have been to make his hair more unruly?
There should have been less of this:
And more of this:
Or even this:
I also realize that it's quite the feat and a gamble in itself to use one cast that spans a decade, especially when using child actors. Really, it's not Daniel Radcliffe's fault he grew the way he did (duh). Quite frankly, I'd love him no matter what.
No freckles. Why? I can take an eyeliner pencil and the *BOOM* freckles. Done. Sure, I can't get wet or wipe my face, but that's a small price to pay. Of the three, I would say that Ron came closest to my mental image while reading the book. Or maybe my ideas of them shifted as the movies started coming out. I can hardly remember!
That's a little better, isn't it? Just look at all that potential face space. What a shame.
Seriously, again with the hair! This always bugged me, probably more than it should have. The only movie where they were even close was Sorcerer's Stone. But somewhere along the way we went from this:
And you can't tell me that's just puberty. I will note that the directors of Half-Blood Prince did make somewhat of a nod to her ideal hair in this scene, but that still doesn't make up for all the lost time we had with Hermione's true hair.
Okay, now the teeth. Who of us book-readers doesn't remember Hermione's many struggles getting ready for the Yule Ball? After Draco hexed her teeth and made them larger, she had Madame Pomfrey shrink them back to an even smaller size than before. I guess even having Muggle dentists as parents has its limitations.
I don't think that anyone could have predicted that Emma Watson would turn into the gorgeous woman she is today based on her ten-year-old self. But just because she ended up being freaking stunning, doesn't mean that they couldn't have downplayed that fact in the books. In the books Hermione wasn't always the apple of every man's eye.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Alan Rickman forever! I can feel that some commenters will go on to say that Professor Snape should have actually looked like this:
But to that I say, "Shhhhhhhhh" because Alan Rickman is awesome.
Do you hear that? That's the sound of hearts breaking all around the world.
As is the case with a number of my articles, these changes are so small they're hardly worth bringing up or dwell on for too long, but it's still worth discussing from time to time. As far as book to film adaptations go, the Harry Potter movies are some of the best. They managed to condense all of J.K. Rowling's work, find the essence of each character, and portray it on screen. Pretty amazing.
I owe upwards of 70% of my life lessons learned as a child to these books. While I might be overprotective of the books at times, the movies turned out incredible, so my minimal amount of anger is short-lived.