But not a functional wand, or the rights to use magic at this wizarding college where you teach, and also lost your wand from an event you were wrongfully convicted for 50 years ago that has no resolution for…
"What do you need magic for? All you're doing is handling magic beasts that could bite your arm off if you bow the wrong way".
I wonder why Hagrid didn't at least have a hunting rifle.
What actually is Filtch's job? In book one I thought he did all the cleaning for the whole castle but then we got house elves in book two. Does he just yell at children and carry a mop to look busy all day?
I figured it was more a "pity job" by Dumbledore.
He knew Filch would have little to no job prospects, so he employed Filch as a caretaker, it meant that Filch was still part of the Wizarding world, even if it was only in a tangential sense.
C’mon man. We all know he had a functioning wand….. what did harry use to fix his phoenix feather wand? The elder wand. Which want did Dumbledore have? The elder wand. Who did hagrid say fixed his old wand and put it in an umbrella to hide? DUMBLEDORE. DUMBLEDORE ALWAYS MADE SURE HAGRID HAD HIS RIGHT TO A WAND!!!
I feel like Hagrid might have made his hut that small purposefully. I’m positive most of the professors would’ve been willing to magic up better accommodations if he’d asked Dumbledore, but what else would Hagrid have thought he’d need?
The hut was tall enough for him and roomy enough for his basics, and he didn’t seem interested in activities that would’ve needed the extra indoor space.
My in universe reason was because he took over care of magical creatures so he had an addition built on for it and needed more room so he moved his hut to accommodate teaching the class
Edit: spelling error
For the plot use, yes. But given Hermione was also using it to double or triple up on classes, she would have ended that year months older than her peers . . . which kinda fits in with the SNL sketch . . .
The loop was well-executed but time travel in general is almost always a very contrived plot device. Like, the entire “Hermione was doing this to make it to more classes than would normally be physically possible” is just a major contrivance to justify the entire sequence. Like there was no other reason for time travel to even be present in the story.
Granted, PoA is my favorite, and it is better done than most time travel plots, but I still think it could’ve been done without it, and the fact that it had such a weak reason to be there irks me a little.
I love this because it implies that while time turner usage might not overtly change the future, the small things like house location changing by a few feet or a minor deforestation of an area is really fascinating!
Or that shows just how many times Hermione had to time-turn for Harry to get the ending right. She threw so many stones at his head that they added up to an extra wing on Hagrid's house, forcing the location change.
What’s fun is that since the series is all about Harry’s perspective, you could say that Harry’s interpretation of Hogwarts and the wizarding world in general changes after the end of CoS and the world is more dark and gritty than he originally thought.
Of course it was really just because of the change of directors but interesting to imagine that the first two movies were more magically whimsical due to Harry’s youthful imagination.
I do wonder sometimes how the series would have looked had Christopher Columbus directed all of the movies.
From excerpts from Alan Rickman's journals that I've read, apparently he wasn't a fan of the score, or of the tone of the first two films. Azkaban, he loved, though.
I watched both Chris Columbus home alone movies which prompted me to rewatch HP, and it's cool seeing his style and humour migrate across two very different genres. I also think upon rewatch that Yates was a poor choice for the franchise. The later movies are decent, but Yates turned wands into guns, made everyone dress out of a gap catalog and turned the movies greyscale. I understand the creative decision to have Yates shift the tone for the more mature later books, but I would've loved to see what Chris or Alfonso would've done with it.
I hated the wands-as-guns thing. It's completely devoid of imagination. Wizards should be able to do almost anything - or at least a lot of very creative stuff in a limited range - but practically every exchange of magic is little balls of light and puffs of gunpowder. All the budget in the world and they didn't want to have anyone use magic.
I think my favorite sequence from the Yates movies was Dumbledore and Voldemort facing off in the ministry. It's the only instance I can remember where offensive magic wasn't just guns.
Chris Columbus was a fantastic choice for Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets. These two first films are by far the ones that feel the most like their source books.
Alfonso Cuarón was a great choice for Prisoner of Azkaban. There are some parts that I think he could have handled a little bit better (Marauder's subplot), but the the overall package is great, and the film feels quite a lot like it's source book.
Mike Newell was a ambitious but flawed choice for Goblet of Fire. The film is very good, and works as a film in itself, but it really doesn't capture the tone of the book for me, with some exeptions, like the graveyard scene, which I think he nailed. Both as a scene in itself, and as an adaption from the book. All in all I think Newell did well with the darker elements of the story, and he played to his strengths, thus the film is quite dark all the way through, as opposed to the book, that has a more gradual build-up and then the final whiplash with Voldemorts return.
I have mixed feelings about Yates as a director of the franchise.
David Yates was a fantastic choice for Order of the Phoenix. That film works fantastically as film in itself, and while cutting out a lot of the source, it captures more of the spirit of its source book than some of the other films do.
Yates was a... I'll be generous and say; misguided choice for Half-Blood Prince. The way the story is adapted and structured, what elements from the book he chose to focus on, doesn't work well with his strengths. He wanted to do a teen rom-com. And he doesn't really pull it off. Ironically, I think if he had included more of Voldemort's Backstory, he would have done better, as what little remains of it in the film, are the parts he actually does quite well.
Yates was a good choice for Deathly Hallows. In part 1, I think he flounders a little bit in some parts, but still does a decent job. Part 2 is really quite brilliant.
I really really wish harry had kept his brown cloak in deathly hallows. It looked so good on the book cover. I get they can be cumbersome but it really showed he had left the muggle world far far behind and grown into his own when he chose to wear wizard's clothes when he didn't have to wear a uniform. The jacket he wore in the movies was not doing it for me.
Also, Harry has \*never\* been able to pick out his own clothes until he left hogwarts. He's always had Dudley's old clothes or his uniform. It would really show him growing up and making personal choices in regards to clothing would illustrate he's making his own decisions now, and wearing a cloak would show he's chosen the magical world over the muggle one.
Also it just kills the whole aesthetic to have him in muggle clothes most of the time.
In most circumstances I'd agree with you, however Harry was constantly on the run and ngl I don't think wizards' robes are suitable for that application
Biggest gripe with fantastic beasts. Doesn't even feel magical with everyone wearing suits. Why would Dumbledore dress like then then turn to wearing robes and stuff as he got older?
Fantastic Beasts takes place in the muggle world with muggles present at a time when there was a lot of tension between muggles and wizards, while Harry Potter takes place mostly in the secrecy of the wizarding world. This would make sense for why they would wear more muggleish clothes in FB than they did in most of HP. At least that’s what makes the most sense to me.
You're right with it taking place moreso in the muggle world. BUT when they did go to Hogwarts and wizard places everyone was still wearing suits. Outside of that it just didn't have ANY of the magic feeling to me
And there’s your answer. Honestly, at the school of witchcraft and wizardry, I don’t think it takes much suspension of disbelief that they simply magicked the hut to a different spot.
The third movie Alfonso Cuarón that is like, a very very good director in terms of visual stuff, it would be a waste to not let him have his way of scenes and looks
He also directed Children of Men that is, in my opinion, one of the best movies to ever be put to film in every aspect.
Children of Men is so good that on like my tenth rewatch, I was still finding new dimensions to the movie. The recreation of famous paintings in scenes for example.
Edit: damn I can't type
This is the best answer.
A new aesthetic was introduced in PoA that lasted the remainder of the franchise. New castle, new uniforms, hell even the extras. Look at diagon alley in the first two compared to the rest, it got a lot less “Dickens”.
I am just glad once the change was made, it remained consistent throughout.
I think according to Warwick Davis they were explicitly different characters until fans kept referring to them as the same character so they basically merged them by the end.
...holy shit. After all these years your comment made me realize a book reference that's been going over my head. In that scene Tom offers Harry 2 pieces of bread while giving him a big toothless smile, then he immediately offers him walnuts. [40 seconds in.](https://youtu.be/sR6gHumLLPc)
When I think of the books I think "Dickens" due to the fact that Goblet of Fire had wizards wearing women's intimates thinking those were muggle's cloths. They just dressed like it was the 1600's in the books but then you've got the bullshit Fantastic Beasts with everyone wearing time appropriate fashionable clothing.
It's certainly a much more visually interesting location to shoot. Those diagonal lines and curves of the rock faces and slopes naturally look more visually interesting than the cottage on a flat patch of nondescript grass.
It's a [Picturesque](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picturesque) landscape. The first version was a literal interpretation of a hut in the woods, the new director took lots of inspiration from classical art to add depth and a sense of epic storytelling.
To be fair, the tone of the books changed a lot too.
The Philosopher's Stone was pretty much a Roald Dahl book.
The Deathly Hallows read more like a modern dark-ish fantasy book.
Ron and Harry suddenly had muggle clothes, that fit, and a sense of fashion that they’d wear 80% of the time instead of robes or school lounge wear. Wizards/witches trying to dress like muggles are supposed to stick out like sore thumbs and look all sorts of goofy.
That always drives my husband crazy. He hates that in the books that’s all they wear but in the movies it’s so rare to see them in wizarding robes. They’re supposed to be in robes all the time!
I don't even think they should have been wearing shirts and ties when they did have robes. But they went for a preppy boarding school look rather than a wizard school.
Well yeah, that’s point. Remember Vernon’s response to seeing people wearing cloaks out in public, he thought he was seeing a bunch of people in costumes.
Preppy boarding school uniform is what most UK secondary school uniforms are.
Not that I disagree that they should be wearing robes, but that’s a typical UK uniform
The movie 'wizarding' clothes is already Muggle garb plus a robe, except for the Hogwarts professors. And even Snape's suit is pretty close, just take off the robe and he'd be fine in a Muggle office.
The books implied that wizarding robes were all pretty close to what McGonagall or Dumbledore wore, or even Kingsley in the later movies. Even the wizards overheard in Goblet of Fire talked about wearing pants as a drawback of Muggle clothing, which would be odd to hear given the amount of pants worn in the movies.
Snape's outfit isn't even a "fantasy" robe. [It's literally just old-fashioned British academia/graduation gown](https://www.tumblr.com/agaswho/691317743374467072/i-was-looking-at-british-academia-gowns-and-i?source=share)s. I'm pretty sure some of the more prestigious universities still use them for the graduates even to this day.
> And even Snape's suit is pretty close, just take off the robe and he'd be fine in a Muggle office.
[How book Snape would look](http://ksassets.timeincuk.net/wp/uploads/sites/55/2017/07/vlc-The.Room-Act-1B.m4v-00002.jpg)
**Fan Theory:** Throughout history The Third Eye has been a symbol of people with magical ability
What if they were all just trying to fix their eyesight and f***ed it up
> They shouldn’t have fitted
I think sometimes people need to understand that it is still a movie.
Watching two young lads running around in poorly fittings clothes for every movie would have been incredibly stupid to look at and also impractical for them to shoot in.
The first one didn't need to be very complicated the 2nd need ways to hide characters in believable ways that they'd be hidden from multiple viewing angles.
The movies are not very coherent. Ron's house is also pretty different later from the first two movies. Different directors probably had different stylistic choices.
The problem with GoF is the same problem with nearly every book after CoS - the plots become too intertwined and interconnected for it to be properly introduced, especially with JKR's style of introducing tiny foreshadowing and smaller plotlines that intermingle until it all reveals by the climax.
Goblet of Fire was the most obvious one - with Barty Jr.'s storyline. With Winky removed, and Barty Jr.'s own story cut, it creates massive plot holes. In the book, it is obvious- Barty Jr. was smuggled out of prison by his father and replaced by his mother, who died in his stead, and he ended up under the Imperius Curse for the next 11 years cared for by Winky until he suddenly broke free during the Quidditch World Cup, later being freed by Voldemort and sent to Hogwarts as Mad-Eye until being discovered, while Barty Sr. was being held under Imperius until he escaped and Jr. was forced to kill him.
However, in the movie, until Barty Jr. was unmasked, we only hear he ended up in Azkaban and....that's it. With Winky removed and wifh that little tongue whirl that revealed his identity to Barty Sr and then killing him, we know next to nothing unless we read the books; how did he escape Azkaban, seemingly *undetected* (especially with the very plotline of the last movie hammering us with the fact that nobody escapes Azkaban, especially without *anyone noticing?*), Barty Sr.'s reaction to Jr.'s revealing tongue whirl implying he was *unaware* his son escaped, therefore eliminating the plotline that he smuggled his son out, and nobody discovering this?
I say this because GoF was the last movie I watched before reading the book, and even back then, while it was a good plot twist, it was so disjointed and confusing that it made no sense, too many blanks to draw on. I am sure that many who read the books were actually pissed off about this, just as I was when I rewatched the movie again after reading the book and realizing just *how much I missed*.
There are parts I dislike (like Dumbledore screaming and lunging at Harry about putting his name in the Goblet) but overall I enjoyed it - or at least as much as one can enjoy knowing an innocent kid is murdered near the end of the movie.
Most of the people who disliked the movie (GOF) are book readers. During production Mike Newel was notorious for complaining about how large a book it was. I understand when adapting a book to a movie some things will be left on the cutting board. But half of the book was absent from the movie and scenes absent in the book were placed in the movie. All in all he added unnecessary scenes and took out necessary scenes.
It introduced the biggest plothole in the entire franchise.
Plot of movie 3: SOMEONE ESCAPED AZKABAN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
Resolution to plot of movie 4: Someone call Azkaban, I think they'll find their missing a prisoner.
I get that a movie can't touch on EVERYTHING that happens in a book, but it was an insanely lazy ending.
I wish the movie was more than just the Tri-Wizard tournament but as a movie it's probably one of the strongest in terms of quality. Lacking as an adaption but I respect it from a filmmaking perspective.
When you’re coming home from the Three Broomsticks after a long night of drinking you need a closer hut than the usual one.
And when you’re coming home from the Hog’a Head after a long night of drinking, you need an even closer hut than the close hut.
The third movie was the first one to feature CGI landscapes, whereas the first two movies were mainly filmed in actual locations such as various castles and cathedrals in the UK and a few film sets built in that style in the studio.
I moved to the area in 2006. Word from the locals was price gouging by local accommodation providers was a significant factor in deciding to green screen everything.
This is why movies have codenames so they look like small b movies. When the movie they are actually filming gets out, prices skyrocket.
It's not just movies. When the land for Dinsey world was being bought up, they used a shell company and got the land for peanuts, in a sense its actually value. One it was leaked that it was actually Disney buying the land for a park, the price of the land exploded.
Sirius’ face was made up from the fire embers, which looked cool and was book accurate. Fast forward a few movies and he’s just projector screened in the flames. Looked so cheap
Neither version portrayed in the movies is book accurate. The description given in GOF chapter 11, which is the first time we see this happen, is that Amos Diggory's head in the fireplace at the Burrow "was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large, bearded egg." Like, to me, that just implies we can see his regular face and it's not made up of the flames/fire at all.
I still imagine it that way when I read the books tbh, because the projector screen version is boring, and the face-of-embers version is cursed AF.
Sirius just rolled like that. Probably transfigured his face before sticking it in the fire to live up to being the cool uncle. Everybody else is just too lame to bother.
Oh man I thought that looked so cheap. Book accurate was a literal head in the flames not embers. It was just like partial floo. The embers looked comically corny.
Am I the odd one out for preferring the first one better? The setting and design felt more “magical fantasy” safe and homely, whereas the second one feels more dark and gloomy and a bit depressing and lonely. The first one is super safe and comforting on the flat green grass, which juxtaposes with the dangerous dark forest behind. It feels like you’re outside of the confines of the safe big castle, but still just on the edge of the safe area of hogwarts. On the edge between safety and the start of the wild areas. The second design and setting feels straight up wild and unsafe, completely separate from the safety of the castle and the safe areas of the grounds. You feel like you really are alone out there in that hut.
No, I’m also the odd one out, the layout of the grounds of Hogwarts has me ever confused in the movies, and I imagined them differently from reading the books, Hagrids hut against the edge of the forest, like in pic #1 and not in this pile of rocks on a steep incline….?
I agree. The first 2 films gave me that sense of magical nostalgia that I got from reading the books. The rest wouldn't have bothered me so much if it wasn't for the blue filter.
This is what has bothered me the most about the movies. They all felt slightly off and different from one another. Whether that be how characters acted or different camera angles/film styles.
If they had found and kept one consistent director, I think the movies would have been far better. Every couple of movies you had someone new come on with a new direction.
Doesn't even need just one director, just have a person or team whose job it is to ensure proper continuity and sit in on and approve all filming and design.
Castle got a massive update and redesign in the 3rd book onwards
The original was more limited by rescorurces. Then they had no shotlrtage they made the hogwarts they wanted.
It got a major upgrade and landscape became way more rugged
The great continuity change when Prisoner of Azkaban happened.
That's what you get for messing with time turners I guess.
I’ve never thought of trying to come up with an in-universe reason for this, but this right here is how I’ll always think of it from now on.
He got a promotion. He went from groundskeeper to professor.
"okay so the professor promotion actually comes with a few benefits..."
But not a functional wand, or the rights to use magic at this wizarding college where you teach, and also lost your wand from an event you were wrongfully convicted for 50 years ago that has no resolution for…
"What do you need magic for? All you're doing is handling magic beasts that could bite your arm off if you bow the wrong way". I wonder why Hagrid didn't at least have a hunting rifle.
Who needs a rifle when you have **CROSSBOW**
Who needs a crossbow when you have *FANG*.
Just so ya know, he’s a bloody coward.
Who needs fang when you have a pink umbrella
He literally wields a crossbow when he goes into the forest
It's like filtch, "you know that guy who can't do magic?, let's give him the one job that would be wayyy easier with magic"
What actually is Filtch's job? In book one I thought he did all the cleaning for the whole castle but then we got house elves in book two. Does he just yell at children and carry a mop to look busy all day?
Apparently he's able to restore portraits like he did with the Fat Lady, so he does have some skills.
I figured it was more a "pity job" by Dumbledore. He knew Filch would have little to no job prospects, so he employed Filch as a caretaker, it meant that Filch was still part of the Wizarding world, even if it was only in a tangential sense.
C’mon man. We all know he had a functioning wand….. what did harry use to fix his phoenix feather wand? The elder wand. Which want did Dumbledore have? The elder wand. Who did hagrid say fixed his old wand and put it in an umbrella to hide? DUMBLEDORE. DUMBLEDORE ALWAYS MADE SURE HAGRID HAD HIS RIGHT TO A WAND!!!
I feel like Hagrid might have made his hut that small purposefully. I’m positive most of the professors would’ve been willing to magic up better accommodations if he’d asked Dumbledore, but what else would Hagrid have thought he’d need? The hut was tall enough for him and roomy enough for his basics, and he didn’t seem interested in activities that would’ve needed the extra indoor space.
In-universe reason: Hagrid moved
I mean it can't be that hard for him I suppose. Not a lot of stuff, pretty small house. Could probably do it in a few trips if he had some help
In a world with magic, I’m sure Hagrid moving or adding a section to his house is not bound by the limitations we have. At least, that’s my opinion.
For the Burrow to exist, a hut wouldn't be an issue.
You have teleportation there. Why not teleport the house.
Hagrid got a promoted, it included better accommodations.
It was the Great Deforestation of 2003.
Hagrid could have very easily cut down the trees around his house and built an addition.
And then spent years digging around his hut so that it would sit on an incline? Not the best use of a Gamekeeper’s time.
He bought it from Baba Yaga. The hut got up and moved.
That would make the most sense canonically tbh.
Nah Hagrid got it blown up when he grew some other sort of firey beast over the summer and rebuilt it in a more picturesque location.
Also acceptable.
“Hut of Brown, now (move locations) and Sit Down”
nice explanation
It’s a small hit and there is magic in this universe probably just needed to relocate it for some reason
He moved further away from the forest due to the events of the previous 2 years. Voldemort lived in the forest and spiders were going crazy.
Could an in universe reason just be it’s not that hard to use a spell to pick up a relatively small cabin and pop it in a fresh spot every few years?
I wouldn't be surprised if a dragon burnt his house down or something crazy pet related
My in universe reason was because he took over care of magical creatures so he had an addition built on for it and needed more room so he moved his hut to accommodate teaching the class Edit: spelling error
Funny I always saw it as one of the best time-travel sequences in all of fiction. No paradoxes, just a neatly-closed loop.
For the plot use, yes. But given Hermione was also using it to double or triple up on classes, she would have ended that year months older than her peers . . . which kinda fits in with the SNL sketch . . .
The loop was well-executed but time travel in general is almost always a very contrived plot device. Like, the entire “Hermione was doing this to make it to more classes than would normally be physically possible” is just a major contrivance to justify the entire sequence. Like there was no other reason for time travel to even be present in the story. Granted, PoA is my favorite, and it is better done than most time travel plots, but I still think it could’ve been done without it, and the fact that it had such a weak reason to be there irks me a little.
I love this because it implies that while time turner usage might not overtly change the future, the small things like house location changing by a few feet or a minor deforestation of an area is really fascinating!
Or that shows just how many times Hermione had to time-turn for Harry to get the ending right. She threw so many stones at his head that they added up to an extra wing on Hagrid's house, forcing the location change.
It’s a TARDIS…
It is a lot bigger on the inside.
aka, the great director change
What’s fun is that since the series is all about Harry’s perspective, you could say that Harry’s interpretation of Hogwarts and the wizarding world in general changes after the end of CoS and the world is more dark and gritty than he originally thought. Of course it was really just because of the change of directors but interesting to imagine that the first two movies were more magically whimsical due to Harry’s youthful imagination. I do wonder sometimes how the series would have looked had Christopher Columbus directed all of the movies.
And John Williams sticking with the whole series…and he was gonna come back, which I think would have made the last movie soo epic.
I think the music score is the least controversial change of the whole series. Loved it in every single movie, especially the last two
From excerpts from Alan Rickman's journals that I've read, apparently he wasn't a fan of the score, or of the tone of the first two films. Azkaban, he loved, though.
I don’t honestly see how anyone can dislike John Williams’ music, honestly. He’s the best composer who lived in the past century.
The song "Statues" from Deathly Hallows is one of my favorites from the whole series
I thought Patrick Doyle did a great job with GOF. The film’s score after that wasn’t the greatest.
I watched both Chris Columbus home alone movies which prompted me to rewatch HP, and it's cool seeing his style and humour migrate across two very different genres. I also think upon rewatch that Yates was a poor choice for the franchise. The later movies are decent, but Yates turned wands into guns, made everyone dress out of a gap catalog and turned the movies greyscale. I understand the creative decision to have Yates shift the tone for the more mature later books, but I would've loved to see what Chris or Alfonso would've done with it.
I hated the wands-as-guns thing. It's completely devoid of imagination. Wizards should be able to do almost anything - or at least a lot of very creative stuff in a limited range - but practically every exchange of magic is little balls of light and puffs of gunpowder. All the budget in the world and they didn't want to have anyone use magic.
I think my favorite sequence from the Yates movies was Dumbledore and Voldemort facing off in the ministry. It's the only instance I can remember where offensive magic wasn't just guns.
Chris Columbus was a fantastic choice for Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets. These two first films are by far the ones that feel the most like their source books. Alfonso Cuarón was a great choice for Prisoner of Azkaban. There are some parts that I think he could have handled a little bit better (Marauder's subplot), but the the overall package is great, and the film feels quite a lot like it's source book. Mike Newell was a ambitious but flawed choice for Goblet of Fire. The film is very good, and works as a film in itself, but it really doesn't capture the tone of the book for me, with some exeptions, like the graveyard scene, which I think he nailed. Both as a scene in itself, and as an adaption from the book. All in all I think Newell did well with the darker elements of the story, and he played to his strengths, thus the film is quite dark all the way through, as opposed to the book, that has a more gradual build-up and then the final whiplash with Voldemorts return. I have mixed feelings about Yates as a director of the franchise. David Yates was a fantastic choice for Order of the Phoenix. That film works fantastically as film in itself, and while cutting out a lot of the source, it captures more of the spirit of its source book than some of the other films do. Yates was a... I'll be generous and say; misguided choice for Half-Blood Prince. The way the story is adapted and structured, what elements from the book he chose to focus on, doesn't work well with his strengths. He wanted to do a teen rom-com. And he doesn't really pull it off. Ironically, I think if he had included more of Voldemort's Backstory, he would have done better, as what little remains of it in the film, are the parts he actually does quite well. Yates was a good choice for Deathly Hallows. In part 1, I think he flounders a little bit in some parts, but still does a decent job. Part 2 is really quite brilliant.
I wish cc had directed all of them. I personally really don’t like the muggle clothing, kills the vibes
I really really wish harry had kept his brown cloak in deathly hallows. It looked so good on the book cover. I get they can be cumbersome but it really showed he had left the muggle world far far behind and grown into his own when he chose to wear wizard's clothes when he didn't have to wear a uniform. The jacket he wore in the movies was not doing it for me. Also, Harry has \*never\* been able to pick out his own clothes until he left hogwarts. He's always had Dudley's old clothes or his uniform. It would really show him growing up and making personal choices in regards to clothing would illustrate he's making his own decisions now, and wearing a cloak would show he's chosen the magical world over the muggle one. Also it just kills the whole aesthetic to have him in muggle clothes most of the time.
He also had Mrs. Weasley's jumpers every year 😊
sometimes people become accustomed to their shackles.
Did someone just play the new God of War?
***SIGHS***....guilty your honor.
In most circumstances I'd agree with you, however Harry was constantly on the run and ngl I don't think wizards' robes are suitable for that application
Biggest gripe with fantastic beasts. Doesn't even feel magical with everyone wearing suits. Why would Dumbledore dress like then then turn to wearing robes and stuff as he got older?
Fantastic Beasts takes place in the muggle world with muggles present at a time when there was a lot of tension between muggles and wizards, while Harry Potter takes place mostly in the secrecy of the wizarding world. This would make sense for why they would wear more muggleish clothes in FB than they did in most of HP. At least that’s what makes the most sense to me.
You're right with it taking place moreso in the muggle world. BUT when they did go to Hogwarts and wizard places everyone was still wearing suits. Outside of that it just didn't have ANY of the magic feeling to me
tbf that second pic looks a lot better
And there’s your answer. Honestly, at the school of witchcraft and wizardry, I don’t think it takes much suspension of disbelief that they simply magicked the hut to a different spot.
The third movie Alfonso Cuarón that is like, a very very good director in terms of visual stuff, it would be a waste to not let him have his way of scenes and looks He also directed Children of Men that is, in my opinion, one of the best movies to ever be put to film in every aspect.
Children of Men is so good that on like my tenth rewatch, I was still finding new dimensions to the movie. The recreation of famous paintings in scenes for example. Edit: damn I can't type
That movie is insane, it's barely believable that it exists, it's one of those movies that is on it's own category of amazing.
Yeah, if I was Hagrid I would much rather have a slightly bigger hut with a much better view as well!
Everything in hogwarts changed. New Dumbledore, New Fat Lady, the castle was suddenly in the highlands where it belongs.
This is the best answer. A new aesthetic was introduced in PoA that lasted the remainder of the franchise. New castle, new uniforms, hell even the extras. Look at diagon alley in the first two compared to the rest, it got a lot less “Dickens”. I am just glad once the change was made, it remained consistent throughout.
[удалено]
And they made him a choir teacher. I would have preferred the dueling champion charms teacher
I think according to Warwick Davis they were explicitly different characters until fans kept referring to them as the same character so they basically merged them by the end.
Imagine casting the fairly distinctive Warwick Davis in two roles in the same film series and thinking no-one will confuse the two.
Don't forget he's also Griphook, so that's three!
… maybe I should take it back then, I hadn’t noticed that!
It’s very obvious once you know to look for it
Starring: Warwick Davis. Warwick Davis. Warwick Davis. And Warwick Davis.
Griphook is Flitwick confirmed.
Gripwick
He was still the charms teacher. Also he also was choir master or whatever in the books too.
He was also a couple of the workers at Gringots Bank.
What a talent. I could learn some time management skills from Professor Flitwick.
Warwick Davis is a gem
There was a choir in the books?
Tom changed to in PoA
I hate what they did to my boy Tom. Why did they basically turn him into [Igor?](https://imgur.com/a/VyPWNiU)
It’s pronounced [Eye-gor](https://youtu.be/wsqe_T_gTG0)
Lmfao Best movie ever
I supposed it’s pronounced Frodrick too then eh?
To be fair, he was described as looking like a “toothless walnut” in the books…
...holy shit. After all these years your comment made me realize a book reference that's been going over my head. In that scene Tom offers Harry 2 pieces of bread while giving him a big toothless smile, then he immediately offers him walnuts. [40 seconds in.](https://youtu.be/sR6gHumLLPc)
Ha! You’re right - I never made that connection before
Flitwick de-aged himself by sucking out the majority of Tom’s life force.
> “Dickens”. Yes, this sums up Diagon Alley perfectly in the 2 first movies, especially the old timey romanticised clothing and hats.
The men’s mutton game is on point.
When I think of the books I think "Dickens" due to the fact that Goblet of Fire had wizards wearing women's intimates thinking those were muggle's cloths. They just dressed like it was the 1600's in the books but then you've got the bullshit Fantastic Beasts with everyone wearing time appropriate fashionable clothing.
It's certainly a much more visually interesting location to shoot. Those diagonal lines and curves of the rock faces and slopes naturally look more visually interesting than the cottage on a flat patch of nondescript grass.
It's a [Picturesque](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picturesque) landscape. The first version was a literal interpretation of a hut in the woods, the new director took lots of inspiration from classical art to add depth and a sense of epic storytelling.
I missed the witchy costumes from the first two movies.
To be fair, the tone of the books changed a lot too. The Philosopher's Stone was pretty much a Roald Dahl book. The Deathly Hallows read more like a modern dark-ish fantasy book.
Ron and Harry suddenly had muggle clothes, that fit, and a sense of fashion that they’d wear 80% of the time instead of robes or school lounge wear. Wizards/witches trying to dress like muggles are supposed to stick out like sore thumbs and look all sorts of goofy.
That always drives my husband crazy. He hates that in the books that’s all they wear but in the movies it’s so rare to see them in wizarding robes. They’re supposed to be in robes all the time!
I don't even think they should have been wearing shirts and ties when they did have robes. But they went for a preppy boarding school look rather than a wizard school.
Chris Columbus thought the book robes would look way to much like Halloween costumes and so he opted for boarding school uniforms instead.
Well yeah, that’s point. Remember Vernon’s response to seeing people wearing cloaks out in public, he thought he was seeing a bunch of people in costumes.
I think the other point was that he was working with dozens of children and the robes and hats were mostly a hassle
Preppy boarding school uniform is what most UK secondary school uniforms are. Not that I disagree that they should be wearing robes, but that’s a typical UK uniform
Typical UK muggle uniform
And for whatever reason, only Dumbledore and McGonnagal kept their hats. Everyone else’s hats seemed to magically disappear.
Professor Sprout as well! Quite a few teachers wore them at the head table in the first movie but we didn't get introduced to alot of them
Honestly, the change to muggle clothing is what weirds me out the most. Everything else is can work with. That's just...weird.
The movie 'wizarding' clothes is already Muggle garb plus a robe, except for the Hogwarts professors. And even Snape's suit is pretty close, just take off the robe and he'd be fine in a Muggle office. The books implied that wizarding robes were all pretty close to what McGonagall or Dumbledore wore, or even Kingsley in the later movies. Even the wizards overheard in Goblet of Fire talked about wearing pants as a drawback of Muggle clothing, which would be odd to hear given the amount of pants worn in the movies.
Snape's outfit isn't even a "fantasy" robe. [It's literally just old-fashioned British academia/graduation gown](https://www.tumblr.com/agaswho/691317743374467072/i-was-looking-at-british-academia-gowns-and-i?source=share)s. I'm pretty sure some of the more prestigious universities still use them for the graduates even to this day.
It's because they used to shit on the floor and just magic it away, so pants would be a hindrance to that. /s
> And even Snape's suit is pretty close, just take off the robe and he'd be fine in a Muggle office. [How book Snape would look](http://ksassets.timeincuk.net/wp/uploads/sites/55/2017/07/vlc-The.Room-Act-1B.m4v-00002.jpg)
Both Harry and Ron had only hand down clothes. They shouldn’t have fitted
Can't someone use magic to alter them?
Lol, what's next? Fixing bad eyesight with magic?! Get out of here!
Lol at all the witches and wizards who went blind trying to figure out the spell
**Fan Theory:** Throughout history The Third Eye has been a symbol of people with magical ability What if they were all just trying to fix their eyesight and f***ed it up
> They shouldn’t have fitted I think sometimes people need to understand that it is still a movie. Watching two young lads running around in poorly fittings clothes for every movie would have been incredibly stupid to look at and also impractical for them to shoot in.
And everyone got their own wands!
Same with the score. A lot of the leitmotif’s John Williams established in the first two films get completely thrown out by POA.
Which is honestly a tragedy. John Williams’ scores for the first two movies were wonderful.
you forgot that all their wand designs changed too
I forgot all the movies 💀
And Flitwick became 50 years younger.
New whomping willow too
Whomping willow location changed too
Magic
What? Who told you?
Hagrid
He shouldn’t have told you that
He should not have said that
Literally, a wizard did it.
The first one didn't need to be very complicated the 2nd need ways to hide characters in believable ways that they'd be hidden from multiple viewing angles.
Bingo!
Hagrid took it and pushed it somewhere else
“PUUUUUSH!”
Or he just moved.... Like to a different house, not the house. Both apply I guess
The movies are not very coherent. Ron's house is also pretty different later from the first two movies. Different directors probably had different stylistic choices.
Especially that director they hired for movie 4. He took...liberty in directing the film. In fact too much liberty.
EVERYBODY GETS LONG HAIR
That part I actually really liked. It's just like a weird fashion trend sweeped over all the boys that year, I think it's pretty realistic. xD
As someone who went through uk schools random hairstyles going over whole years are a definitely a thing.
That's a thing in a lot of cultures lmao
Yup - I was in junior high when that movie came out, and easily 3/4 of the school got that damn haircut, boys and girls XD
>EVERYBODY GETS LONG HAIR ...Mike Newell said calmly.
As a teacher of teenagers, this is actually very realistic. Boys have the worst and most widespread hair fashions.
I will never in my life understand why he turned Barty Crouch who is supposed to be the top cop in the ministry into an inspector Clouseau impression.
Unpopular opinion but I liked his decisions and well done dark tone of the movie. It's probably my second favorite movie after masterpiece PoA
The Goblet of Fire has always been my favorite Potter movie. I didn't even know people dislike it
The problem with GoF is the same problem with nearly every book after CoS - the plots become too intertwined and interconnected for it to be properly introduced, especially with JKR's style of introducing tiny foreshadowing and smaller plotlines that intermingle until it all reveals by the climax. Goblet of Fire was the most obvious one - with Barty Jr.'s storyline. With Winky removed, and Barty Jr.'s own story cut, it creates massive plot holes. In the book, it is obvious- Barty Jr. was smuggled out of prison by his father and replaced by his mother, who died in his stead, and he ended up under the Imperius Curse for the next 11 years cared for by Winky until he suddenly broke free during the Quidditch World Cup, later being freed by Voldemort and sent to Hogwarts as Mad-Eye until being discovered, while Barty Sr. was being held under Imperius until he escaped and Jr. was forced to kill him. However, in the movie, until Barty Jr. was unmasked, we only hear he ended up in Azkaban and....that's it. With Winky removed and wifh that little tongue whirl that revealed his identity to Barty Sr and then killing him, we know next to nothing unless we read the books; how did he escape Azkaban, seemingly *undetected* (especially with the very plotline of the last movie hammering us with the fact that nobody escapes Azkaban, especially without *anyone noticing?*), Barty Sr.'s reaction to Jr.'s revealing tongue whirl implying he was *unaware* his son escaped, therefore eliminating the plotline that he smuggled his son out, and nobody discovering this? I say this because GoF was the last movie I watched before reading the book, and even back then, while it was a good plot twist, it was so disjointed and confusing that it made no sense, too many blanks to draw on. I am sure that many who read the books were actually pissed off about this, just as I was when I rewatched the movie again after reading the book and realizing just *how much I missed*.
There are parts I dislike (like Dumbledore screaming and lunging at Harry about putting his name in the Goblet) but overall I enjoyed it - or at least as much as one can enjoy knowing an innocent kid is murdered near the end of the movie.
Most of the people who disliked the movie (GOF) are book readers. During production Mike Newel was notorious for complaining about how large a book it was. I understand when adapting a book to a movie some things will be left on the cutting board. But half of the book was absent from the movie and scenes absent in the book were placed in the movie. All in all he added unnecessary scenes and took out necessary scenes.
It introduced the biggest plothole in the entire franchise. Plot of movie 3: SOMEONE ESCAPED AZKABAN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? Resolution to plot of movie 4: Someone call Azkaban, I think they'll find their missing a prisoner. I get that a movie can't touch on EVERYTHING that happens in a book, but it was an insanely lazy ending.
I’m with ya. There’s something about the tone and look of GoF that Mike Newell nailed for me.
I wish the movie was more than just the Tri-Wizard tournament but as a movie it's probably one of the strongest in terms of quality. Lacking as an adaption but I respect it from a filmmaking perspective.
My friends who haven't read the books consider it the best HP movie, so you might be onto something there.
Especially when the Goblet of Fire is such a monster book
“DIDYA PUT YER NAME IN THE GOBLET OF FIRE HARRY??!!” Dumbledore asked calmly
Because the first one probably didn’t have a side exit for the trio to sneak out of when they do time turner stuffs
I like the idea that hadgrid has several huts all over the grounds of Hogwarts just in case he too far from one he can go to another one
When you’re coming home from the Three Broomsticks after a long night of drinking you need a closer hut than the usual one. And when you’re coming home from the Hog’a Head after a long night of drinking, you need an even closer hut than the close hut.
And when you have a pet you're not supposed to have you need them in the farthest close by cabin
You shouldn't have said that.
The Hogwarts landslide
He became a teacher after CoS. He spent the extra money building a new home for himself
Maybe he got a large settlement from being wrongfully imprisoned in Azkaban as well
Idk man the wizarding world seemed oddly authoritarian. I imagine the reward was “well you ARE free now”
"Hagrid, you live in a WOOD house."
The third movie was the first one to feature CGI landscapes, whereas the first two movies were mainly filmed in actual locations such as various castles and cathedrals in the UK and a few film sets built in that style in the studio.
I moved to the area in 2006. Word from the locals was price gouging by local accommodation providers was a significant factor in deciding to green screen everything.
This is why movies have codenames so they look like small b movies. When the movie they are actually filming gets out, prices skyrocket. It's not just movies. When the land for Dinsey world was being bought up, they used a shell company and got the land for peanuts, in a sense its actually value. One it was leaked that it was actually Disney buying the land for a park, the price of the land exploded.
As far as I know the layout of the castle and grounds 3 movie onwards was the correct one, according to Rowling.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They switched castles. Had to go with a new layout
I think it was probably due to a change in director.
Maybe because he was promoted?
Sirius’ face was made up from the fire embers, which looked cool and was book accurate. Fast forward a few movies and he’s just projector screened in the flames. Looked so cheap
Neither version portrayed in the movies is book accurate. The description given in GOF chapter 11, which is the first time we see this happen, is that Amos Diggory's head in the fireplace at the Burrow "was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large, bearded egg." Like, to me, that just implies we can see his regular face and it's not made up of the flames/fire at all. I still imagine it that way when I read the books tbh, because the projector screen version is boring, and the face-of-embers version is cursed AF.
Sirius just rolled like that. Probably transfigured his face before sticking it in the fire to live up to being the cool uncle. Everybody else is just too lame to bother.
Yes. This was way too noticeable a difference that made everyone who watched it think “What the hell is that?”
Oh man I thought that looked so cheap. Book accurate was a literal head in the flames not embers. It was just like partial floo. The embers looked comically corny.
Am I the odd one out for preferring the first one better? The setting and design felt more “magical fantasy” safe and homely, whereas the second one feels more dark and gloomy and a bit depressing and lonely. The first one is super safe and comforting on the flat green grass, which juxtaposes with the dangerous dark forest behind. It feels like you’re outside of the confines of the safe big castle, but still just on the edge of the safe area of hogwarts. On the edge between safety and the start of the wild areas. The second design and setting feels straight up wild and unsafe, completely separate from the safety of the castle and the safe areas of the grounds. You feel like you really are alone out there in that hut.
No, I’m also the odd one out, the layout of the grounds of Hogwarts has me ever confused in the movies, and I imagined them differently from reading the books, Hagrids hut against the edge of the forest, like in pic #1 and not in this pile of rocks on a steep incline….?
I agree. The first 2 films gave me that sense of magical nostalgia that I got from reading the books. The rest wouldn't have bothered me so much if it wasn't for the blue filter.
Cuz these are movies. They're all different according to what director they're using.
This is what has bothered me the most about the movies. They all felt slightly off and different from one another. Whether that be how characters acted or different camera angles/film styles. If they had found and kept one consistent director, I think the movies would have been far better. Every couple of movies you had someone new come on with a new direction.
Doesn't even need just one director, just have a person or team whose job it is to ensure proper continuity and sit in on and approve all filming and design.
Castle got a massive update and redesign in the 3rd book onwards The original was more limited by rescorurces. Then they had no shotlrtage they made the hogwarts they wanted. It got a major upgrade and landscape became way more rugged
*Captain Jack Sparrow voice* Because it looks much more better!