The list of things book readers hate about the Harry Potter movies is as long as the list of school supplies for a first-year student at Hogwarts. Although the films were generally well-received, the Harry Potter books inspired an intense fandom, and that’s ensured a certain amount of snobbery when it comes to changes made in the course of adaptation. What Harry Potter purists hate the most about the movies are the innumerable small changes, omissions, and embellishments that seem completely unnecessary to those who feel the original versions are perfect.
There doesn’t seem to be any particular film that draws more ire from Harry Potter purists, with all the movies in the series earning their fair share of criticism. Instead, fans seem to take umbrage (no pun intended) with the consistent differences that writers, directors, and actors chose to make for the sake of adaptation. To a dedicated book reader, these changes stand out like a troll in the dungeon.
Harry Not Repairing His Own Wand When He Has The Elder Wand
A meaningful moment in the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows involves Harry using the Elder Wand to repair his broken original wand. It shows that Harry hasn’t lost touch with who he is, despite the events he’s been through. One Redditer complains that the final film skipped this moment entirely, instead depicting Harry as breaking the Elder Wand in two without so much as a second thought. The movie never explains what ended up happening with Harry’s original wand.Is this an egregious oversight?
Ginny Weasley’s Lack Of Personality
In the books, readers watch Ginny Weasley develop into a strong, smart, and sassy young woman who was every bit Harry’s equal and the perfect romantic interest for him. According to many book fans, including Reddit user potatochops, those qualities don’t show up in the film adaptation of Ginny. Movie Ginny’s personality is seriously lacking, making it a bit of a mystery why Harry falls for her in the first place. The adapted version of Ginny lacks a lot of the agency and independence that the book version displayed.Is this an egregious oversight?
The Omission Of Voldemort’s Past
Although the Harry Potter books focus mainly on the story of their titular hero, the origin of Voldemort, who was once Tom Riddle, is also given plenty of attention. Book Six is devoted in great part to Harry and Dumbledore's journey through Riddle's past via memories. In the books, Harry finds out about the personal history of not just Voldemort, but his immediate family members, too. Reddit user morsmodre92 feels that the omission of all this additional info about Voldemort's past reduces him from how truly well-rounded as an evil villain he is in the books. The films make him less complex antagonist and more standard movie bad guy.Is this an egregious oversight?
The Burning Of The Burrow
Clearly, as a visual medium, film adaptations often feel the need to add action scenes on top of their source material, to keep up the pace of the movie. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince did this in an added scene where the Deatheaters burn down the Burrow, the beloved home of the Weasley clan. This rubbed fans the wrong way. Reddit user WilfredoMaverick felt it was done to add cheap drama. To make it worse, the house was mysteriously rebuilt by the time the next movie came out, making it an especially pointless addition to the Harry Potter film canon.Is this an egregious oversight?