For those of us who enjoy reading the source material of film adaptations (before or even after) we, or rather I, often pick them apart and compare the film to its counterpart.
Whether that’s a book, fable, myth or even fairytale.
Or we’ve all watched a movie adaption with someone who studied the source material fiercely and they picked it apart, annoying us all throughout.
So what are some nitpicks of your favourite adaptions or least liked adaptions?
What are some gripes you have with film adaptions? In general or specific adaptions, whichever.
Are you the nitpicker of your group? Or do you all tear apart films for inaccuracies together?
Some of mine.
So as an avid fan of the Potter books, yeah I know, but I was a kid when they were released. Anyway, I always hated how the movies portrayed Ron Weasley. In the books, he was the only one of the trio who knew the Wizarding world intimately, since he grew up in a wizarding family. I think the Weasleys are even a “Pureblood family” if I recall the lore correctly. Either way, he would be the one to tell his friends (and by extension the audience) of the lore of Wizarding culture or even just why people reacted a certain way.
In the films they just gave that job to Hermione, despite her being Muggle born and without that insider knowledge. It just turned Ron into an idiot, imo. Love the casting, disliked the execution.
Speaking of wasted potential, the movies turned Ginny Weasley, one of the more interesting feisty characters in the books into bland wonderbread in the films. Really did her dirty.
A nitpick of the films I have is the way they downplayed the reactions everyone has to Voldemort’s name being spoken. Everyone except Harry and Hermione react with abject fear whenever his name is mentioned throughout. The movies just use the name so casually that it loses all punch.
Kind of did the same in The Half Blood Prince adaption. Throughout the book the trio work tirelessly to find out the identity of the owner of the potions book Harry uses to gain an edge in the class, only for it to be revealed dramatically later. The film just shows the book and makes the announcement, expecting people to know the lore behind it. Lost all its punch during the execution, which is a shame
I do think they did Snape a lot better and more consistently than the books though. They downplayed his bullying, which was probably more for time reasons than anything else lol. But he’s supposed to be able to control his emotions expertly, but in front of Harry he explodes multiple times in outbursts of anger in the books. Just didn’t seem to fit with the book lore of Occlumency.
I did like the films of Lord of the Rings, but those nitpicks and gripes would take forever to get through lol
Suffice it to say, wasn’t that impressed with Gimli or Aragorn’s portrayal. But overall I still liked them.
What about you guys? Think my complaints are all nitpicks? Do you like comparing the different mediums?
Discuss as you please
Whether that’s a book, fable, myth or even fairytale.
Or we’ve all watched a movie adaption with someone who studied the source material fiercely and they picked it apart, annoying us all throughout.
So what are some nitpicks of your favourite adaptions or least liked adaptions?
What are some gripes you have with film adaptions? In general or specific adaptions, whichever.
Are you the nitpicker of your group? Or do you all tear apart films for inaccuracies together?
Some of mine.
So as an avid fan of the Potter books, yeah I know, but I was a kid when they were released. Anyway, I always hated how the movies portrayed Ron Weasley. In the books, he was the only one of the trio who knew the Wizarding world intimately, since he grew up in a wizarding family. I think the Weasleys are even a “Pureblood family” if I recall the lore correctly. Either way, he would be the one to tell his friends (and by extension the audience) of the lore of Wizarding culture or even just why people reacted a certain way.
In the films they just gave that job to Hermione, despite her being Muggle born and without that insider knowledge. It just turned Ron into an idiot, imo. Love the casting, disliked the execution.
Speaking of wasted potential, the movies turned Ginny Weasley, one of the more interesting feisty characters in the books into bland wonderbread in the films. Really did her dirty.
A nitpick of the films I have is the way they downplayed the reactions everyone has to Voldemort’s name being spoken. Everyone except Harry and Hermione react with abject fear whenever his name is mentioned throughout. The movies just use the name so casually that it loses all punch.
Kind of did the same in The Half Blood Prince adaption. Throughout the book the trio work tirelessly to find out the identity of the owner of the potions book Harry uses to gain an edge in the class, only for it to be revealed dramatically later. The film just shows the book and makes the announcement, expecting people to know the lore behind it. Lost all its punch during the execution, which is a shame
I do think they did Snape a lot better and more consistently than the books though. They downplayed his bullying, which was probably more for time reasons than anything else lol. But he’s supposed to be able to control his emotions expertly, but in front of Harry he explodes multiple times in outbursts of anger in the books. Just didn’t seem to fit with the book lore of Occlumency.
I did like the films of Lord of the Rings, but those nitpicks and gripes would take forever to get through lol
Suffice it to say, wasn’t that impressed with Gimli or Aragorn’s portrayal. But overall I still liked them.
What about you guys? Think my complaints are all nitpicks? Do you like comparing the different mediums?
Discuss as you please
Last edited:
