Movie Ginny wasn't a good representation of her character whatsoever. Bonnie Wright did great with what she was given but book Ginny was something extraordinary
@Marte come on man. Seriously. Ginny is easily one of the best characters in the books, and her development & relationship with Harry was absolutely ruined in the movies
They even left out Hermoine's jinxed letter thing, in the book Marietta has spots or pimples or something for several years because no one could figure out how to get rid of them, the last time it's mentioned is the next book where Harry sees her wearing a balaclava or heavy makeup to disguise them but you could still tell they were there.
@@leonardofarias8843 Colder as in how, all I can think of at the moment is being physically cold and that doesn't make sense, but I think you mean impolite or just not acknowledging she's there.
Basically all of Rons 'good' traits went to Hermione, which is really a shame. This made him into an idiot, while he actually was the only one of the trio with true knowledge about how the magical world is build up, the one who was most 'used' to magic. Hermione f.e. at first didn't even knew what a 'mudblood' was when she was called one. Hermione had book smarts but Ron had the experience of growing up in the magical world. They somehow gave all his knowledgable traits to Hermione and thus made her far too 'perfect' (f.e. glossing largely over the fact that even after her initial introduction, she stayed being a pretty self-righteous person who constantly annoyed people when they didn't accepted her opinion as the most valid one) and made him into a laughing stock.
In the books it made more sense that Ron knew what a Mudblood meant because he is a pure blood wizard and he grew up in the wizarding world all his life. Hermione is muggle-born. She didn't know anything about the wizarding world until she went to Hogwarts.
I know, right? In the books, Harry and Hermione are basically Watson to Ron’s Sherlock ie characters to explain things to so the audience also knows what’s going on!
so true, the movie Ron makes you wonder why Harry was even friends with him. The book makes you understand where his behaviour comes from. And that everyone has bad character traits; Harry and Hermonine too. It makes him way more human and a complete person and not a gimmick.
Well, the filmmakers want to showcase Hermione's intelligence more by having her get the trio out of sticky situations, so they have Ron be weak and whiny. While JK depicts them the other way round, maybe the filmmakers thought this was too stereotypical, as in the boys are both brave while the girl cowers a lot.
Movie: Neville gives Harry the Gillyweed Book: Dobby gives Harry the Gillyweed (he steals it from Snape) After reading books, Dobby is the best creature in this books!
huh maybe that is why Ginny was changed too. Would only make sense to showcase that Harry went for the head strong tough girl instead of a quiet one which made no sense.
NeverMindGaming It's true they can't put EVERYTHING in the movie, but they had enough time to put in the memories. Those were an important part of the book. edit: here is what David Yates said: "In the books, the memories were a very big part of JK Rowling's story. We've actually pared them down in our story, and she was very supportive of that decision. They're such an enjoyable part of reading the Half-Blood Prince. But we've kind of distilled them down to two or three memories to try to keep everything more in the moment. Flashbacks in films are tricky things; they tend to hold up the momentum of the story you're telling." What the hell, Yates! Flashbacks WERE a BIG part of the story!!! You suck as a director!
He actually doesn't if they kept all of them the movie would be three hours and they had a budget they had to leave them they could've kept them in but remember budgets and time
They can't include everything in the movie - even all of the flashbacks. People already complained enough that Half Blood Prince was boring as hell so if they would have included more flashbacks then imagine how much more they would have complained. I thought they did a good enough job of showing what was necessary.
Here is some material for you to make another list: 10. Books:Fenrir Greyback is an established character and threat Movies: Greyback rarely appears. 9. Books: Apparation Lessons/Tests for students Movies: Apparation Lessons/Tests are never seen or mentioned 8. Books: Mundungus is established as a character and given development since OOTP Movies: Mundungus appears in two scenes. 7. Books: Buckbeak belongs to Harry and is renamed "Witherwings" Movies: Buckbeak is never seen again after Prisoner of Azkaban 6. Books: Professor Grubbly-Plank comes in as Hagrid's substitute Movie: Grubbly-Plank is mentioned once and never appears. 5. Books: Colin Creevey dies in the battle of Hogwarts Movie: Colin Creevey never appears in the battle of Hogwarts. 4. Book: Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle confront Harry in the room of requirement, and Crabbe dies. Movie: Crabbe is replaced with Blaise, and Goyle dies instead 3. Book: Barty Crouch Jr. is given a large amount of back story and Voldemort's plan in GOF is explained. Movie: This hardly happens. 2. Book: Ollivander knows nothing about the Deathly Hallows. Movie: Ollivander explains the Deathly Hallows to Harry. 1. Book: The Burrow is never attacked by Death Eaters (Half-Blood Prince) Movie: The Burrow is attacked by Death Eaters. I hope you can make a list out of this. Keep up the great work!
They should make another list of the changes they made from books to movies. However in number 5 Colin Creevy only appears in COS movie. He is never seen or mentioned in the movie series again. In the books Colin Creevy has a younger brother named Dennis. In GOF Dennis gets sorted into Gryffindor like Colin. Colin seemed to have more devolpment in the books.
Book: Harry uses polyjuice potion and was named Barney during Bill Weasley's wedding. Movie: No Barney Weasley. Harry is just Harry during Bill's wedding.
Harry: So Light a fire! Hermione: Yes - of course - but there’s no wood! Ron: HAVE YOU GONE MAD?! ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?! *Ron didn’t give the idea as mentioned in the video, but he did throw a lot of shades*
Here's another difference: In the books, the Durmstrang Institute has boy students and at least one girl student and the Beauxbatons Academy of Magic has both guy and girl students. In the movies, Durmstrang is an all-boys school and Beauxbatons is an all-girl school.
Ah now I see why. I was first just a movie watcher since I can't afford the books. So when I read at Fandom Wiki that Durmstrang and Beauxbatons are schools for both Wizards and Witches, I was confused because I thought they were exclusive for boys (Durmstrang) and girls (Beauxbatons). Guess it really IS a big deal to read the books.
@@brewerrkjb I am aware of it. The problem is, public libraries here in my country doesn't have Harry Potter. Or maybe I just haven't been into enough libraries to encounter them. I'll try looking so I don't have to buy! 👌
I kinda agree but atm we live in the prime of tv but back when these movies were made tv was not on par with movies with budget and actors and types of story lines
I just reread the first 4 books after many many many years, and I had nearly forgotten all the character development in the books compared to the movies. Especially how Harry and Hermione barely ever beat Ron in Chess. And I basically forgot about the existence of the characters Peeves, Professor Binns, and Winky.
I liked Kreacher after the beginning of the last book, it was a shame that we didn't get to read more about him, I loved his war cry at the end of the series, it's almost as sad as the last 6 chapters of the book.
Peeves was actually cast and filmed for the first movie! The late British actor Rik Mayall was cast as Peeves, which was a brilliant, 'cause he was theeee perfect choice for Peeves. Cut. They cut him completely out of the film. Unbelievable. 😒
@@supersandman86 To make things worse, they deleted the scene because the cast was laughing too hard. SERIOUSLY? That's why they deleted the scene, because the cast was laughing!?!? That's a very stupid reason to delete a scene!
@@elephant35e yeah I recall Rik Mayalls interview about that. He couldn't do his scene in the same room cause he kept making the cast laugh, then they tried to do it without him there and only his voice and that didn't work at all. It was a shame. Having peeves for the 5th movie would have been hilarious seeing as the twins told him to give Umbridge hell.
I saw that movie for the first on HBO and I hated it. They gave us a chopped up abridged version of it. Half Blood Prince is the worst Harry Potter movie.
MissVasques You’re absolutely right. However, I lumped Voldemort’s nonexistent backstory in with my distaste for Half Blood Prince’s focus being on the elements of the story
Dumbledore's and Voldemort's backstory being nonexistent in the film pissed me off. Here is what else pissed me off about the sixth film: 1. In the book, there was a big battle after Snape killed Dumbledore. In the movie, no big battle; just the death eaters walking the halls and Bellatrix destroying stuff. I was REALLY looking forward to this battle, and EXTREMELY disappointed when it wasn't shown! David Yates said he didn't put this scene in because he thought fans wouldn't enjoy the battle in the last movie as much, but I completely disagree. Yates was a terrible director! 2. No Dursleys!! 3. No funeral for Dumbledore! 4. I was disappointed that the Quidditch match where Cormac McLaggen played wasn't shown. That part was funny in the books (Cormac acting like a Quidditch expert and then hitting a bludger at Harry); I would have loved to see that in the movies! 5. Very little talk about the Half-Blood-Prince. People who haven't read the books won't give a crap when Snape says "I'm the half blood prince!". 6. I would have liked to see a Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson with Snape. The film was alright on its own, but it's a BAD book adaptation.
In my opinion, the opening to that movie is stronger without it and allows better flow. Plus the movie was already 3 hours long, something had to be cut out, and a handshake isn’t that super important.
I completely agree. Other things could have been cut. But that scene shows a major shift in Dudley's attitude and is huge because of what it would really mean to Harry. It shows that at least one blood relative doesn't hate him or think he's worthless after all. It could be a step towards them actually having a relationship in the future. As short as that scene is, it would totally be worth having it in.
In the book Petunia almost says something but doesn't then turns around about halfway to the car then gets in and leaves, it seems Vernon was the only one who didn't seem to change that much.
I know that you can't include all of the great scenes from the books in the movie adaptations, but there is one scene that I really would have loved to have seen in The Goblet of Fire. That's the scene where the Weasleys visit the Dursleys. That encounter was so hilarious in the book I so wish that had been included in the movie.
One thing that pissed me off books vs movies that was not covered in either video is how glossed over and fast Sirius Black's death was...it was very well written and emotional...in the movie he fell back through the veil and that was that
There are some scenes I wish were included in the movies; in HBP when Harry tell Snape "there's no need to call me sir, professor" And in DH when the Corrow death eater spits at professor McGonagall and Harry uses crucio for that!!!!! And in OOTP when McGonagall asked Harry if he yelled at umbridge , called her a liar and so on and he answers yes she says "have a biscuit,potter" 😂
I actually didn't mind Ron being a screaming baby in the Devil's Snare scene. He showed his cleverness and courage in the chess game, so leaving the Devil's Snare to Hermione kind of makes up for the fact they omitted the Potions challenge.
@@threecats8219, the line, "Why can't it be follow the butterflies?" cements him as being the near coward who only reluctantly endures difficulty throughout the movie. As much as I hated Ron in the novels, and yes I liked him not at all, I never would have given him the label of coward. Sadly the movies seem to continually reinforce this trait all the way toward the final movie. He is also borderline useless in the movies.
Here is a major one you missed. Book: Dumbledore asks harry if he put his name in the goblet of fire calmly. Movie: Dumbledore rushes to harry and grabs his shoulders I'm actually shocked you still haven't included that one.
Order of the Phoenix: (1) Mrs. Figg in the book came across much sharper and had more backbone than her portrayal in the film. That was annoying. (2) Did we get to see much/any of the O.W.L. examiners in the film? I just wanted to see Madam Marchbanks shut down Umbridge over Dumbledore. 😂 Half-Blood Prince: (1) The Other Minister. It might not have played as well on screen, but I thoroughly enjoyed that chapter! (2) All the Pensieve journeys into Voldemort's back-story!!!
In the Book, Ginny is pretty freaking awesome, but in the movie, she's just weird and boring. Her character was really messed up in the movie and made her character very unlikable.
BooDotBoo it’s almost as if she never advanced past her awkwardness being around Harry (character wise). In the books Hermione helps her be more herself, but in the movies it’s as if nothing changes and she’s always awkward
Harry Potter the Goblet of Fire Book: Dumbledore asks calmly: “Did you put your name into the goblet of Fire, Harry?” Movie: He asks the same thing to Harry but angrily and not calmly.
Here's one you've missed in both videos: Book: Hermione and Harry enter a room of potions before harry faces the mirror and voldemort, Movie: No potions room.
there's also a room with knocked out troll in the book, which harry and hermione guess was taken out by snape. who they had assumed was after the philosopher's stone. and since it was knocked out already, they didn't have to anything but walk through to the next room.
I actually don't mind that scene being taken out of the movie. It was interesting in the books, but in the movie we would have just seen Hermione standing and thinking for a minute, which wouldn't have been very interesting.
It was kinda of an odd decision in the movie bc we do hear about Quirrell and Snape protecting the stone but we never actually see what they did in the movie.
Yeah Harry gives them the money from his tournament win. They should have included that, they didn't say in the movies it was for a cash prize though it was winning something else I believe.
You didnt even mention how much they changed the Goblet of Fire Book they left out alot of stuff like Purebloods not know how to act muggles at the campsite before the World Cup. How the 2 other schools got there. About Hagrid being Half Giant. And the Maze had NO animals or traps to bypass. They totally changed it so the maze moved and attacked people.
Yeah, it was like at that point they were all like... “Whoops! Guess we used up all our budget already. Time to pull some bullshit out of our ass! It was weird how they were all like in the movie how people tend to mad in the maze but they still end up mentioning that Krum was under the Imperious Curse. Like, even the movie can’t even keep track of its bullshit!
The movies don’t show the battle of the astronomy tower which is like my fav chapters in all the books. Plus Tonks and lupins complex relationship, and the scene in the hospital wing when tonks is yelling at him get me every time
The sixth movie didn’t show anything from the book. They literally took one of the darkest Harry Potter books and made it PG. And this, is why the series desperately needs to be made into a TV series that closely follows the books and maybe put in a bit extra. Like scenes we never one hundred percent see in the books. Personally, I would like the series to have a slightly more grim feel to it.
The Harry and Ginny romance was nearly as awkward and rushed in the books as it was in the movies. There was no sign of him being interested in her at all until the sixth book and movie. The only advantage that the book had was that it spent some time in Harry's mind being jealous of Ginny's boyfriend after he and Ron walked in on the two of them making out. But up until that point, I can't remember it being even hinted at, except for one single mention of Harry smelling something in potions class that reminded him of something sweet smelling that he couldn't quite identify only for it to be revealed later that the smell was Ginny.
I just reread the first 4 books (5 is on the way). Ginny has been into Harry since book 1, and especially in book 2 the crush she had on Harry is the reason Tom Riddle even learned of the significance of Harry Potter in his life. Harry, on the other hand, didn't care about Ginny other than her being part of his surrogate family. And starting from book 3 Harry had a huge crush on Cho, so he didn't care about other girls at all.
@@Hacker-pt3wm I disagree completely, the romance is on and off between them through the whole series even up to last book where he leaves to find the hallows, breaks the relationship as he expects he may never come back. The books also include a whole ark of Harry trying to justify his feelings about her although she is his best friends sister and how it may affect his relationship with Ron. I dont usually keyboard warrior HP like this 😂😂
I wish Percy’s character arc had been in the film because there’s that wonderful moment where he writes to Ron telling him not to be friendly with Harry anymore, and Ron responds by tearing up the letter and calling Percy “the world’s biggest git!” It’s a wonderful moment of unwavering loyalty on Ron’s part!
Books vs. Movies Ron > Goofy Hermoine > Marry Sue Teenage Boiiiii (since Goblet/Order) < Polished Harry Potter for the Children audience Snape > Sometimes mean but nothing compared to the book Buzz buzz I'm a Bumblebee > DID YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THA GOBLET OF FIAH? Neville = Neville but with less screentime Malfoy that arrogant, bullying pile of > Ayy lmao nice jokes sometimes kiddo And the list goes on and on Conclusion: Books > Movies
What about the Quidditch World Cup? Its barely shown at all in The Goblet of Fire movie. But it goes into great detail in the books and is even relevant to the plot. It explains how Harry lost his wand (although that isnt explained until later by Barty Crouch Junior) and how it was involved in the summoning of the Dark Mark
Idk if I’m remembering this incorrectly, but wasn’t the whole Lupin/Tonks relationship+Teddy’s existence+Harry being made his godfather not in the movies???
I think there is a brief nod to it when Tonks tries to mention that she's pregnant, and they're both shown together at the end of the Battle of Hogwarts, but other than that, it's basically omitted.
Just as Deathly Hallows got two films due to the length of the book, Half Blood Prince required it as well. We can all understand small omissions of minor plots from the movies like how much trouble Neville got into for dropping his list of passwords in Prisoner of Azkaban. However, MAJOR plot points were left out HBP that had me royally upset. Because of this, I ended up skipping both DH movies and just sticking with the books.
Book: prophecies could only be touched by the person/people involved, as anyone else would be driven insane (like Broderick Bode); this was the very reason why Harry was lured into the Ministry of Magic by Voldemort and also explained why neither Neville nor Harry suffered any consequences after touching it (it could refer to either of them). In the film Lucius Malfoy can be seen touching the prophecy and nothing happens to him, thus making Voldemort's plan very flawed, since if they were able to touch it there was no need to lure Harry. Moreover, if he could have picked it up himself he would have had a bigger advantage if he had heard what it said without Harry's knowing. That's a big plothole.
Movie: only shows the prophecy orb room and veil room in department of mysteries Book: the department has at least 4 other rooms and had a massive section in the book of the group splitting up and being hunted by deatheaters
The Department of Mysteries in the movies was so disappointing. I’m sure it would have been a lot more interesting if they were running through a bunch a weird labyrthine rooms like in the books. Remember the Brain Room?!
Dobby was shafted even worse than Kreacher was. Aside from his necessary roles in CoS and DH1, Dobby was completely cut from his roles in the OotP and HBP movies. Then again, they wanted to cut Kreacher completely in OotP, but Rowling warned them otherwise.
They completely cut Kreachers development of betraying Sirius and cut the story with Regulus and Voldemort, took Winky out of the story, cut Dobby's ark
Well actually, the Half Blood Prince admission by Snape proves that he was a genius in potions, knew many spells that he likely made at school and even knew more effective ways to do things while at Hogwarts. It wasn’t useless to find out that it was Snape, it was an easy way to see what it meant.
The one that bothers me the most is how Sirius dies. In the book he is knocked into the veil, and he dies as a result. Harry doesn't understand and freaks out trying to go pull him back through, but is stopped so he doesn't also die. In the film he is killed by Bellatrix with the avada kedavra curse, killing him and then his spirit moves through the veil. Also the books are generally darker than the movies... and there are so many more differences
Book: Voldemort died in the Great Hall, in front of a lot of people. Movie: The final duel happened in the Courtyard, in front of no one. Book: Harry met Draco in the Madam Malkin's Robes for Different Occasions, when both of them were buying their school dress robes. Movie: Harry first met Draco in front of the Great Hall, just before Minerva McGonagall takes them inside the Great Hall.
Also, left out Neville's parents in St. Mungo. (Neville's mother giving him the candy wrapper was cute n sad).. Arthur weasley and the twins coming thru the fireplace at the Dursleys and destroying their living room... Dumbledore visiting the Dursleys.. Tonks finding Harry on the train when Draco paralyzed him and put his invisibility cloak over him so he would be left n sent back to London...not Luna finding him... Dobby giving Harry the gillweed, not Neville...and also, more Dobby in general bc Dobby had alot of parts in the books.. Also, the part in the movie 5 where Harry potter listens to the prophecy is bull. In the BOOK, he ends up dropping it n it comes out with the prophecy but Harry couldn't hear it...later on in the book, Dumbledore tells Harry what the prophecy said. There are SOOOOO many more things left out! These are ones on top of my head.
3:38 that's actually something I noticed that puzzles me. Doesn't the locket count as a form of clothing? Doesn't that mean Harry unintentionally freed Kreacher?
You are wrong at the end of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone when Quirrel desentegrates. theres a shade that runs through harry that makes him faint. That was Voldemort
Also something Jo pointed out herself, Hermione was supposed to be not ugly but unattractive and nerdy. In the goblet of fire, the scene where she was dressed up for the ball on the top of the stairs was supposed to be a butterfly out of the cocoon moment. But it rang hollow because Hermione was already beautiful.
I'm reading my Niece my old Harry Potter books from when they were first released! I wrote my name on them when I was 10 years old! Crazy to think after all this time I'm reading them to her. The magic of Harry Potter will never die.
I’ll argue against #4, I saw the movies first and to me that was still a big mystery and a huge reveal. I do agree with everything else, #2 especially!
In fact, some RU-vidr did a theory on the prophecy and PROBABLY suggested that it's more about Neville than Harry. It sounds like a Film Theorist's work. It's been awhile since I saw a theory about Harry Potter.
I almost missed movies 5-9 because I couldn’t stand how much was different in the Goblet of Fire. That movie to me could make several of it’s own top 10 differences lists.
I am not a "major" Harry Potter fan (i enjoy it but I'm not obsessed or the type to go opening day), I haven't seen these movies in years, and I'm not even that much of an emotional person. But that Dudley scene legitimately made me cry so hard I had to stop the video.
Having magical moving staircases sounds cool and all but what if you are in a rush to use the magical toilet and the stairs change direction, huh ?? Haha!!
*Books:* Harry Potter meets Rufus Scimgeour for the first time at the Burrows on Christmas in the sixth book. *Movies:* Harry Potter and the Weasleys fights Bellatrix Lestrange, Fenrir Greyback and some Death Eaters at the Burrows on Christmas (and the Burrows is destroyed).
I think the most egregious IMO is omitting the back stories of Snape, Dumbledore, AND Voldemort. The way that Voldemort is almost humanized and mode out to be one that should be pitied. Learning that he was the product of a love potion was so interesting and explained the whole "power of Love thing" that protects Harry.
The appearance of Alastor Moody was entirely different in the films. There was no Peeves in the films. And, as far as I'm concerned, the film version of "Prisoner of Azkaban" entirely bollix'd up a lot of major plot points, such as being clear on the exact history of the Marauders' Map, the "reveal" between Sirius and Lupin in the Shrieking Shack (done so sloppily that no one who hadn't read the book could possibly have understood what was going on), that wonderful, touching moment when Harry's Patronus approached him and Harry realized it was Prongs, and Sirius's final line to Harry, "You are truly your father's son!" -- yet another important and emotionally moving moment that didn't make the cut.
Omitted book details: 1) Snape gives harry Saturday detention after he used sectumsempra on malfoy 2) At the entrance of the chamber of secrets(myrtle's bathroom) Harry mentions that he needs to see(or imagine) a snake in front of him to speak parseltongue and takes several tries to get it right 3) If my memory serves me right, in "order of Phoenix", Harry literally yells at ron and Hermione at the grimmauld place instead of just a "I could have helped". 4) Harry's OWL scores were in the book, not in the movie. Even Ron's(more OWLs than Fred and george combined) and Hermione's OWL scores(10 outstandings, 1 exceeds expectation) are mentioned
Ron was literally turned to a side character in the movie. All this qualities were stripped off. I really loved how protective Ron was of his frds and family. He not only defended Hermione and Harry but he would almost always get into physical fights with Malfoy for insulting his parents. His loyalty and bravery is never shown. He could get jealous at times but he would never abandon his frds. The biggest example of this was in third book where he stood on his freaking broken leg to defend Harry. Plus, the thing that bugs the hell out of me was how all the wizarding world knowledge was always explained by Hermione who was literally born and bought up in muggle world. In book it was Ron who used to explain all wizarding stuff to Hermione and Harry which makes sense considering he was the only one among them who was born and bought up in Wizarding world. The most stupidest I feel about this is in COS movie, where the whole mudnlood thing was explained by Hermoine. She started crying and looking so offended as if all her life she was bullied and harassed for being called Mudblood!! In book it was Ron who explained it and it was him, Angelina, Fred and George were the one who were outraged at Malfoy saying it. Hermione did not even know what it means, let alone be offended!
Book: Snape, Draco and other Death Eater member (Bellatrix was not there) was about to escape Hogwarts, passing by Hagrid's house, whose house was on fire, as Hagrid was desperate to try to rescue his hound, Fang. Movie: Snape, Draco, and Bellatrix was about to escape Hogwarts, and Bellatrix set Hagrid's house on fire. BTW, I haven't seen all the movies much but I've read all the books.
The biggest omissions and blunders in the movies are...1. Harry and Ginny's relationship and kiss after quidditch in the Griffydor common room. 2. I was so looking forward to the battle between the Deatheaters and the DA at the end of the Half-Blood Prince! And 3. The way Neville kills Nagini is soooooo much better in the book!
I think the BIGGEST change from the book is the scene with Grindlewald. In the books he doesn’t give Voldemort any knowledge of where the elder wand is and taunts him. It shows he actually did feel remorse for what he did and is sacrificing himself in order to side with Dumbledore. In the movie he basically tells Voldemort everything and smiles knowing Voldemort is gonna go defile Dumbledores tomb. I bet they wish they kept it the same as the book now considering the Fantastic Beasts movies..it shows that Grindlewald actually has a full character arc. That he was truly about the greater good or at least what HE thought at the time to be the greater good and not a vicious selfish killer like Voldemort and at the end he learned his lesson and respected Dumbledore.
Actually there are some bigger ones. In the books the whole wand thing is explained a lot better, so the elder wand power going from Dumbledore to Malfoy to Harry makes sense, but in the movies it's difficult to follow and mentioned anecdotally. Another thing not explained is the patronus; like they said, there's almost no mention that Harry's dad was a stag animagus (to handle Lupin when he was a werewolf), whereas in the books it was a huge plot point and that's why Harry's patronus is a stag. But in the movies you barely even see that Harry's patronus is ever a full-fledged stag (just very briefly in the third movie, far away, you see some antlers among a blob of light). So when Snape's doe patronus comes along it makes no sense (the doe is supposed to be the stag's wife, hence Harry's mother). And biggest of all, Snape abused Harry a lot, and always criticized him. In the movie he's just a goofy, over-strict teacher who is otherwise likable. Tho tbh I liked movie Snape better. JKR harped too much on abusive behavior, and Harry's responses were not those of an abused child and not realistic. Maybe there were a few more, been a while. Oh, also, as someone else mentioned, they never explain who is Moony, wormtail, padfoot and prongs from the marauder's map, which ties into explaining that Harry's dad was a stag animagus, why Sirius is a dog animagus, why Pettigrew was Ron's rat, and how they all devised all that to hang out with Lupin (Moony) during his werewolf cycle. Mojo briefly mentions the animagus thing but there's a lot more to it.
You forgot to mention in the 6th movie: The Weasley's house doesn't burn in the book. In the 6th book, it goes more into Voldemort's background whereas the movie has less time to go over that.
i don't get it when people say that the prophecy could be about neville, when u look at the whole prophecy as whole it tells you who it is. that is how prophecy's work the prophecy doesn't start until the dark lord marks him as his own.
In the movie they made Remus Lupin a Wolfman not a werewolf like in the books. In the books Hermoine explains the difference between a werewolf and a wolf. In the movie they really look nothing alike.
Personally, I don't know why they even bothered to include Skeeter in the GoF movie, since they dropped that Animagus subplot and then cut her role with Harry's interview in OotP. If they're going to leave all that stuff out, I'd rather see Skeeter cut entirely in favor of Ludo Bagman being included instead.
I was quite disappointed with the OotP movie omitting Rita Skeeter, considering that it was her interview with Harry for The Quibbler that made more students, including Seamus Finnigan start to believe Harry's claim that Voldemort was back. In the movie, Seamus, seemingly out of nowhere, just tells Harry that he believes him, all of a sudden.
Also, I loved how in the books, when Harry was still with his relatives, and an owl would show up, Vernon would yell "OWLS!". That cracked me up so much.
You know what always gets omitted from these lists but is pretty significant? That it was Umbridge, NOT Voldemort, who sent the Dementors after Harry in Order of the Phoenix. This was a huge point because it showed how far some will go to shut Harry up rather than accept that Voldemort was back.
omitting scenes don't count as differences because there in not proof that they didn't happen in the movie universe, in fact some times there is evidence to the contrary... You know what I'm saying? that there is evidence that these omitted scenes did happen in the movie universe.
No Peeves, no winky, no ludos bagman, dobby only in 2 of the movies instead of 5, movie 3 completely scrambled (if you read the book, Harry gets the firebolt at christmas and the whole scene where he and ron don't talk to Hermione for telling McGonagall about the broom), Hogwarts kitchen not explored, the spew club Hermione created to help with elven enslavement (and the funny bit by Ron when they were talking about goblins and to organise spug),etc. I know they couldn't fit it all in the movies but still.
