Harry Potter Movie Problems


  • Ask
  • +
  • Submit
  • |
  • Plot
  • Characters
  • Worldbuilding
  • Fanstuff
  • Spinoffs
  • Q & A
  • |
  • About
  • +
  • That’s… unfortunate.

    I don't know who else to ask, so I'm asking YOU bc you are the closest thing to a HP expert I know. Any opinions on the new amateur movie 'Voldemort - Origins of the Heir'? And on the whole 'Heir of Gryffindor' thing that the POV character seems to be rocking?? Bc I... don't actually KNOW how I'm feeling? The only thing I am 100% behind is their visual for young Voldemort and the movies REALLY missed out when they didn't give him red eyes. Other than that, I have NO idea how to feel abt this.

    Asked by


    Okay, correction. I am also EXTREMELY down with whatever they do abt Hepzibah Smith and Hokey, and NOT so much down with the ACTUAL actor they chose for Tom… He’s too… severe(?) I think? I can’t see him charming people, he just looks really scary all the time. And I am rly preoccupied by this, sry for spamming you!             

    Okay, so first off “you are the closest thing to a HP expert I know” is basically the most flattering thing anyone has ever said to me? Never apologize for asking me things about Harry Potter. ❤

    Also I’d like to just ~state for the record that I love the existence of any and all fanworks, no matter how terrible they are. Like… cosplays and art and fanfilms may look like utter shit but STILL SOMEONE DID THAT, THEY MADE THAT, THEY LOVED IT ENOUGH TO PUT IN THAT EFFORT, like. seriously, bravo! So… the fact that they’re making this is pretty great.

    If we were judging VOH (VOotH? VOOTH??) on quality itself though, two things stand out right away to me. The first is that the video footage itself is so beautifully shot that I thought it was a professional film at first - the camera work and the color and lighting was all really, really nice. The effects look way better than I’d expect from an amateur production - the CGI for Hokey was obviously a bit iffy but STILL, for not coming from a major studio? Like, again, bravo.

    The second is that, wow, the words ‘Mary Sue’ immediately sprung to mind? >.>; Not Mary Sue like any powerful female character gets called, ie Rey or Furiosa, but like… ‘my first fanfic at age thirteen is about how I’m Gryffindor’s Heir’ type of Mary Sue. It’s a bit disappointing that a fanfilm with seemingly such great production value is veering off what we know to be canon and adding such a random cliche.

    Oh! That’s the other thing that stood out to me. The ‘English’ accent doing the narrating was really bad, right? That wasn’t just me? I’d rather they had gone for an out-of-place American (or whatever) accent than a dodgy British one. >.>;

    I’m curious about where it will go, though. The filmmakers apparently said, “We wondered, ‘What made Tom Riddle become Voldemort? What happened in those years, and what really went down at Hogwarts when he came back?” Which is… interesting, because I feel like we basically do already know all of the important stuff? IDK. I do like the idea that it could fill in a lot of the holes that the HBP movie left out, though.

    Honestly, I’m interested to see what happens, but I’m not personally into villain stories at all. Like… Voldemort was a bad person, fuck him, I don’t want more of him on my screen? It would be nice to have a fan film that I can watch without second-hand embarrassment, though (have you seen the Snape one or the Marauder one that’s been in the making for like five years now?), so here’s hoping. >.>;;

    TL;DR - ???????


    Hogwarts School Uniform


    The other day I read a series of posts on the Hogwarts uniform and how book!uniform differs from movie!uniform, which is more canonical and whether there’s been/there should be some retconning to unify the books, films and illustrations from different sources. Since wizarding fashion is one of my favourite subjects (particularly since the word “corsets” was mentioned in HBP), I thought I had to write a post about it. So here it goes.

    On tradition and unmuggleness

    As much as I like the movie uniforms, the way I see it, they’re irreconcilable with those described in the books, which, both because they’re from the book and because that’s how I see them in my head, I consider canonical. Most people point out as proof of this that in a couple of occasions we are told more or less directly that the basic (I’ll talk more about this later) uniform does not bear any house indicator (see the Penelope Clearwater and Crabbe-and-Goyle’d Ron-and-Harry Cases, both in CoS). This is true. However, what I see as a bigger issue is the fact that the movie!uniform is basically a muggle school uniform with robes instead of a blazer, which, considering how often we see wizards struggling with muggle clothing, doesn’t really add up. And given that school uniforms tend to be on the conservative side of fashion, it would make much more sense to have the Hogwarts uniform resemble traditional wizarding attire.

    On openings and trouserslessness

    The movie robes are completely open at the front save for one (PoA-onwards) or two (PS-CoS) little clasps, which would take next to no time to do up and undo, so the movie robes would be put on and off like a bathrobe or a coat. However, most (if not all) of the times we see Harry changing into his school robes he’s described as pulling them over his head. To me that implies that the front is not open all the way down, that maybe there’s just a small opening with a few buttons, like a polo shirt. Either that or the robes are open all the way down but fastening and unfastening them is so tedious that students simply never do them up or undo them all the way. In a pre-zipper world, a front opening like that would most probably mean a metric tonne of little buttons, at least (look up some old-timey portraits, particularly of women’s fashion. They took their buttons seriously). No one has time to fiddle with that many buttons, so it would be easier to undo a few of the top ones and pull the robes over your head.


    Personally, I think the left-hand version fits the description of “plain black work robes” better. And yes, there’s no indication anywhere in the books that the sleeves are flared or gathered at the top, but they look more wizardy this way, so. 

    For an even more undeniable piece of evidence that supports the idea of having a closed front, look no further than Snape’s worst memory in OotP. When he gets levicorpused by James, we see his underwear. He’s not wearing trousers. Wh. Why is he not wearing trousers??? Because there’s no risk of accidental exposure of one’s undergarments when there isn’t a massive opening on the front of one’s robes, that’s why. Also, if for some sinister reason he had not been wearing trousers under open-fronted robes, everybody would’ve been able to see his pants already and it wouldn’t have been “funny” when James revealed them.

    Moreover, it seems that trousers, even though they are worn in the wizarding world, are neither required nor part of traditional wizarding attire. See the old man at the Quidditch World Cup. Trousers have been adopted to some extent, but they are not considered wizarding clothing per se, but rather a garment borrowed from muggles. So if we go back to the idea that uniforms tend to be conservative, the Hogwarts uniform would have probably been designed to be worn with no clothes underneath other than underwear.

    On hats gone with the wind and cloaks

    Hats. “One plain pointed hat (black) for day wear.” Day wear. In the films (PS, basically), hats seem to only be worn on special occasions. And I can understand that; On set they’re probably a huge inconvenience as they like to fall off and have to be touched up constantly and may cover something/someone important. Still, canonically, a pointed black hat for day wear is part of the Hogwarts uniform.

    Now, do not quote me on this, but I am positive that in one of the books there is a description of a windy day where students grab the brims of their hats so that they don’t get blown off. That’s the one and only time in the whole series (that I can remember) where the uniform hats are said to be brimmed. It makes sense, though, as traditional witch hats do have a brim. Modest brims seem adequate for uniforms. (I do think it is strange to make students wear hats indoors, but oh well.)

    (Edit:  ‘ “Maybe I’ll skive off Divination,” he said glumly as they stood again in the courtyard after lunch, the wind whipping at the hems of robes and brims of hats.’ - OotP, chapter 17)

    Then there’s the winter cloaks. Again, plain and black, this time with silver clasps. No crest, no house colours. And there’s also the protective dragonskin gloves, which seem to be used both as protective gloves for Potions/Care of Magical Creatures/Herbology and as regular winter gloves.


    On house pride (or the lack thereof)

    So far we have established that the uniform consists basically of plain black garments: a set of black robes (closed front), a black cloak, a black hat. Hence, by default, there is no way to tell what house a student belongs to just by their attire. Or is there? Here’s where the “basic uniform” I mentioned  before comes into play.

    It is true that the robes, hats and cloaks are plain black when bought. And yet, there are many points in the story when Harry seems to simply know what house some students belong to, even when he clearly doesn’t know them. We get constant references to “a gorup of first year Ravenclaws” or “a Hufflepuff girl”, and since the story is told from Harry’s point of view rather than an omniscient narrator’s, there must be a way for Harry to tell apart people from different houses without knowing them personally. So how can we reconcile the ideas that some people’s house is recognisable at first sight while other people’s isn’t? It’s quite simple: CUSTOMISATION.

    Bagdes, scarves, appliques, ribbons, hat ornaments, buttons, socks, belts, and a long etc, to show your house pride. Just as we can get jumpers and hoodies and caps and whatnot with the name and colours of our uni or specific college, kids in the wizarding world are probably able to buy (and make) house merchandise. These items would be available at Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade, and parents would send them to their children once they’ve been sorted or the kids themselves would be able to get them via owl order.


    Some students may only wear a small badge on their chest. Others a scarf+turtleneck undershirt+bandana+animal-shaped hat bauble combo. I love to imagine some kids wearing ridiculously tacky things, like red-and-gold neck ruffles or bee-striped boots. And those kids who are not as inclined to show off their house? They can just wear their basic black uniform.  

    (Source: )



    Colin 👏 Farrell 👏 deserves 👏 better 👏 than 👏 being 👏 the👏 victim 👏 of 👏 a 👏 god 👏 awful 👏 bait 👏 and 👏 switch 👏



    This really bothers me about the Harry Potter flashback scenes. When Voldemort tries to kill Harry he’s sitting on the floor, but when Snape finds Lily he’s in the crib. What, did Voldemort think “Ah, this kid probably shouldn’t die on the floor. Better put him in the crib in case I fail. Safety first!” Or did the curse just launch him off the floor into the crib like a basketball?? Or did baby Harry look at his dead mom on the floor and say “Nah I gotta gtf away from this” and levitate himself into the crib? 


    His Mother’s Eyes







    When it comes to the Harry Potter movies, certain complaints might seem trivial when compared to issues like worldbuilding fail or character assassination, but there’s a lot of reasons for fans to froth and vent over superficial change.

    • Harry Potter, the books repeatedly assure us, has eyes the color of a fresh-pickled toad. This is mentioned with a frequency compara ble to the human birth rate.
    • Harry has his mother’s eyes. This is also mentioned approximately nine trillion times and is important to the plot.
    • In Deathly Hallows Part 2, there is literally a shot that fades from Lily’s eyes to Harry’s. Not only are neither of them green, but they are also not even the same color as each other.
    • You have your mother’s eyes, Harry. Except for the color. And the shape.“ - Ancient Proverb
    • As defenders will reference repeatedly, Daniel Radcliffe had an allergic reaction to his contact lenses. That’s so sad. It’s a shame CGI had not been invented yet.
    • Seriously, not even for the close-ups?
    • Was he also allergic to black hair-dye?
    • Book!Harry’s hair was as neat as a ruffled chicken. Messy hair is unusual; it’s rude; it’s an embarrassment at Aunt Petunia’s garden parties; it looks a bit out of the ordin ary. Yet movie!Harry has either applied liberal amounts of Sleekeazy hair potion, or is blessed by photoshoot-ready genes. 
    • With tragic hilarity, it can be noted that Daniel Radcliffe has since appeared in other roles with much more Harry-like hair.
    • James Potter’s hair in the woefully inadequate Pensive scene was parted and combed flat. James Potter does not part and comb his hair. James Potter ruffles it, because he loves people knowing he plays quidditch, loves attention, thinks he looks cool, is a bit rakish (or wants to be), and eschews the rule-following respectability inherent in being well-groomed. It is vital character-building for someone with such a lack of screen time.
    • Worse, Hermione’s hair - bushy and the symbol of a girl who didn’t fall easily into the standards of beauty or uphold those standards as important - was styled and silky.
    • Never mind the importance of big hair as connected to the p ossibility of the character being of mixed ethnicity or a WoC.
    • Never mind that girls across the world - girls with frizzy locks and unusual looks and a love of books - sat down to read about this big-haired genius and identified with her, loved her, and saw themselves in her because bushy hair was now Hermione hair.
    • Why, oh why, was her Yule Ball gown pink, not periwinkle blue?
    • Ginny, on the other hand, did like pink. It would have been nice to see that preference on-screen.
    • (Or any hint of personality. At all.)
    • Wizards wear robes. Wizards wear robes so often that when trying to wear Muggle clothes, they don nightdresses and ponchos. Wizards do not wear school uniforms. Wizards have a long-standing ignorance of all things Muggle. The movies lost out on the chance to create an entire history and culture of fashion.
    • Historically and in modern times, both genders in cultures around the world have worn robes. There is nothing weird about it.
    • Professor Lupin’s mustache is an affront to humanity.
    • If facial hair is not specifically described in the text there is no need to just include hairy lip abominations willy-nilly.
    • The greatest mystery of the hair and wardrobe department is how they managed to make a vibrant personality like Natalia Tena - playing a character like Tonks - look boring.
    • And then there’s Sirius Black.
    • *disclaimer* Yes. Gary Oldman is a very good actor.
    • Sirius was cheerful and good-looking before twelve years of imprisonment and torture, and he was skeletal and depressed after. His aristocratic handsomeness was a product of his backstory and a factor in his characterization. The contrast of his post-Azkaban self was part of his story’s tragedy.
    • The man was an insolently good-looking rebel who hated his blue-blood background, rode a motorcycle, wore Mugg le t-shirts, had his last chance to develop fashion sense at age 22, and in OotP wore robes. What part of that says ‘Edwardian gentleman in olive velvet pinstriped suit’?
    • Bill’s scars were barely visible. Good to know werewolf attacks aren’t a big deal.
    • Narcissa Malfoy’s hair was violently reminiscent of Pepe Le Pew.
    • No one needs that.
    • Voldemort would have been terrifying with red eyes. These were absent for fear of being ‘distracting,’ but consider this:
    • No.
    • PS: For a masterclass in letting voice and gesture supplant eye and facial expression, see Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta.
    • Where to even start with Professor Flitwick?
    • Most of these things would have been so damn easy to fix. Fans make these changes every day, self-taught in gifsets slapped together with illegally downloaded amateur software during their spare time between cl asses, just for kicks.
    • Maybe the filmmakers thought wild hair and bright eyes and big scars and punk clothing and men in long robes were all not quite normal enough for them.
    • Maybe they didn’t think these details were important.
    • Maybe they didn’t care.
    • The greatest mystery of the hair and wardrobe department is how they managed to make a vibrant personality like Natalia Tena - playing a character like Tonks - look boring.

    It was the little things in Harry Potter that made all the difference. It was the little things that made the story resonate with the world, it was the smallest of details so casually written by JKR that made millions fall in love with even the most minor of characters and story arcs. And it was these little things that the movies so carelessly ignored.

    Going to reblog the shit out of this on a weekly if not daily basis because YES PLEASE

    Smokin Darryl Hanah Having Making Love Onto Live Television

    Playful casting girl Sasha Hall is a barely legal chick Fat chick and a red dildo Coeds keep partying during spring break after bars close

    Twinks male cute haircuts and naked people fucking images Hung Bushwa Versus Broad in the beam Cock - Charlie Huntswoman Gather up give Vexillum warn Mansion

    Sexy slender camgirl has her fingers and a dildo delivering

    First she gets pussy cum on touching then cum on
    Indebted man lets nasty mate to bang his exgf for cash
    Tory And Alektra Are The Perfect Threesome Duo Her everyday exercises made smth unbelievable with her super sexy pert ass This hotty can seduce everyone in her tight leggings

    This is how I feel about the films of The Hobbit.

    One thing that throws me about movieTonks tho is that when she’s showing off her metamorphmagus skills, she turns her nose into a bird beak??? But??? Is that a thing? I was so thrown, because I thought that that ability was simply to change one’s appearance, not their damn species? I know I’m the book Ginny asks her to demonstrate the nose that looks ‘like a pig’s snout’, but from Harry’s point of view she just looks like Dudley, so I always took that to mean that it just looked piggish. So is this a thing or what????


    Happy 20 Years of Harry Potter!


    List of people who should have played Grindelwald


    -Colin Farell
    - the guy who played him in deathly hallows
    - a mop
    - tom hiddleson
    - daniel Radcliffe in a blonde wig
    - tom Felton
    - matt smith
    - David Tennant
    - the kid from home alone
    - a snake
    - a shadow from a subway sub
    - Judy Dench
    - the ghost of Shakespeare
    - me in a blonde wig

    I have a confession about Narcissa Malfoy: while I enjoyed Helen McCrory's performance as Narcissa and her design was really beautiful on its own, I still would've liked seeing Cissy as she was described in the books with her long, blonde (only) hair and blue eyes. I know they tried giving McCrory a blonde wig after seeing her wear one in set photos but I guess it didn't suit her but still. I got the idea of British actress Zöe Lucker portraying her, she has the 'look', if that makes sense?

    Asked by


    Fun fact: Helen really WANTED the look from t he books, but the costume department wanted to go for a harsher, more 1950-s-esque look. And she was in a play where she had the long blonde hair, so it’s not that the style wouldn’t look good on her, they just had a different idea of what they wanted her look to be like in the movie.


    (v ia )

    Yes, indeed!

    The skunk hair was ridiculous and very un-’snobby Pureblood.’ I have always imagined her a bit like Lena Headey’s Cersei, or Natalie Dormer’s Moriarty, but I certainly see where you’re coming from.

    Omg, that’s wild!  I need to see photos!

    Helen McCrory with blonde hair.

    Lena Headey as Cersei. Classic ‘dung under nose’ expression.

    Natalie Dormer as Moriarty.

    Zoe Lucker.

    Cate Blanchett or someone similar would make a good Narcissa, too.

    As would either of these ladies, but then I’d cast Lucy Lawless as anyone.



    i really want to remake the harry potter movies and fix all the mistakes like give harry his mothers eyes (and don’t even give me the dan rad had an allergic reaction excuse if they can do a cgi 3 headed dog they can make his eyes green) and give ginny a personality with more chemistry with harry than a wet fish and not forgive snape because i think they romanticised snape way too much and make he rmione and harry and neville and pretty much everyone who is not described as white PoC and dean/seamus would be canon and everyone would be queer and i would make hermione’s dress fucking blue 

    < Newer1415161718Older >