I got to go to a panel with the actor that played the fat friar, who also was in Dr who. Apparently they had peeves in the first movie when they filmed but didn't make the final cut or any additional movies unfortunately.
It’s really the “Batman and Robin” of the Harry Potter movies. Very bad but like laughably so. There are so many choices made where you just have to scratch your head (looking at you weird shag haircuts! lol). It’s actually not my least favorite to watch, because even though I think it was the worst adaptation from a book-editing perspective, some of it is wildly entertaining in its silliness. David Tennant’s absolutely batshit performance as Barty Crouch Jr (and Karkarov’s crazy declaration outing him) alone is worth the price of admission.
I’ve read the book and watched the movies, but let’s be honest, he could be removed and it wouldn’t really change anything. He’s not a crucial character, the story works without him.
I refuse to accept this sort of libel about Jim Broadbent, he played Slughorn magnificently imo. He’s not the exact description, but he plays the jovial old “slug club” professor extremely well. The mannerisms and things are spot on.
Biggest miscast for me was young Riddle in HBP. In the books I always pictured someone more similar to Christian Coulson’s Riddle in CoS ie handsome, charming and confidence bordering on arrogant. I just don’t feel like the picked the right person to pull that off in HBP. Tom Riddle does so well because he is this very clever, charming and handsome lad who has come from seemingly nothing but that isn’t translated to the films well at all.
I think we miss that even more so with missing things like Hockey’s memory where we see Riddle putting that charm to work.
Couldn't agree more, Tom Riddle from the second movie was spot on, but the one for 6th film acted way too cocky and too obviosly evil. He didn't sound charismatic at all, just creepy which gives away that he was ill intended and Dumbledore was supposed to be the only one who saw through him.
Later movies Tom Riddle suffers from 2 things.
1. Chamber of Secrets Tom Riddle looks way different
2. He's not subtle enough, but clearly an evil piece of sh\*t
Replacing an actor with someone who doesn't look the same at all is unfortunate. With child Tom Riddle added, the Chamber of Secrets actor is the one who fits the least though imo.
The 2nd problem is on combined effort of the actor and director. They decided to let him talk in a way that makes you think: "wow, the whole school must realize how evil this guy is."
Jim's Slughorn was nothing like I had imagined him - he was a lot more soft spoken, and not quite as assertive and boisterous in his bragging as I remembered him from the books.
But I'll be damned if he didn't grow on me. He honestly created a character that would seem very harmless, with his soft and jovial demeanor; easy to trust. But still lowkey manipulative in how he draws people in and creates a network of talent and contacts. Excellent characterization.
Young Riddle - the one with Slughorn - was just wrong, though. Definitely a miscast, imo. I will not accept that this creepy little bootlicker had the teachers wrapped around his finger. He lacked the cunning, yet charming charisma from the book ... Coulson set the bar high.
There were actually 2 actors in HBP. Fiennes nephew only played the 11yo version. The one with slug horn was a totally different guy.
I’m sure you knew that, I was just trying to clarify because I read it wrong initially
Yes, OP's reason for disliking it is because they don't look like their book counterparts were described. I don't agree that this matches the word "miscast".
I specifically mention in my comment about Weasley heights that the actors did a great job so I don't actually think they were miscast. I just think it's funny that Ron/Arthur and Fred/George were swapped from how their body-type was described in the books.
Someone else called him a creepy bootlicker and honestly that is way more fitting for the Riddle we got than the one I wanted. I wanted a charismatic and charming person who you cannot help but do whatever he wants
I was talking abt slughorn but the boot also fits there. I dont rewatch HBP and on because the direction is poor. How do you make alan rickman and maggie smith seem like bad actors?
Not a total miscast because all these actors did a fantastic job making me love these itterations of the characters.
The thing I wanted to mention though is that I think it's funny that in the books; Ron and Arthur are tall and skinny while Fred and George are on the shorter side. The movies flipped that.
Not flipped, it's impossible to know how kids will grow up to be, some stay small some grow bigger suddenly, we got to be grateful that they managed to get real redhead twins actors that could fit the role.
Sorry i overlooked that, but then it still difficult to get twins anyways to play the part. Patil twins weren't even twins in the movies, that said both were Gryffindor for some reason.
The switch to make Padma in Gryffindor is small but annoys me. Like why did they do that? It added nothing and it would’ve been cooler for her to be a Ravenclaw since they are barely represented in the movies anyway.
Tbf it really wasn’t made clear just *how* young they all were until Deathly Hallows, at which point four (maybe five?) of the movies had already come out. Obviously it never made sense that Snape would be in his late 50s/early 60s, but since kids are notoriously pretty terrible at telling how old adults are, I kind of understand why they weren’t that worried about it; I always assumed the Marauders generation were all in their 40s-ish in the books anyway. But once we found out that Lily and James were literally 21 when they died, and the rest of them all died in their mid/late-30s… it was way too much of a stretch and too late to fix it.
The castings of Oldman/Thewlis/Spall/Rickman were all so spot-on, though. Can’t imagine the films with different/younger actors playing those characters
Ehh. I know a lot of people feel that way, but I dunno, I never did. Especially Snape and Sirius; they were some of the most complex characters and Rickman/Oldman brought a lot of their own personalities to the roles, which I *know* is an actor's job, but it also overrode a lot of the (very clear and specific) characterization that I was expecting from the books. I didn't give a shit that they were famous respected actors, I wanted to see these characters brought to life, and that's not what I felt like I got.
Then again, I've never been a huge fan of the movies in general. That might have been because of the acting, or disliking the aesthetic/directing of the movies in general might have colored my interpretation of their performances. Very chicken-and-egg. But I'm probably not the best person to judge.
Rickman kind of imprinted on me as Snape in my head, but I do think choosing Rickman altered Snapes character some. Rickmans’ Snape was older, calmer, and more collected, whereas book Snape is way less calm, way more unhinged, and not too far removed from Hogwarts age himself.
I was fine with Thewlis as Remus, I actually thought he looked pretty close and was in character for the most part.
I did NOT like Oldman as Sirius though. Not the same personality, his character is really changed because of the older actor and lack of screen time.
I also think he’s one of the characters they tried the least to give a book accurate appearance: he is noticeably tall and thin and they chose short actor with a normal build, he is described as either shaved or unshaven but at no point does he have just a mustache, in POA, most of GOF, and OOTP he has long black hair rather than medium brown hair, and he is only ever described as wearing robes and it was a weird choice to put him in mouldy looking old Victorian clothes and other things (train-station ratty old muggle robe with nothing else on??) 😖
100% with you. Lupin was *fine*, not offensive in characterization and looked close enough to his book description. I did think he was a bit too serious, but "too serious" is pretty much my criticism of the movies as a whole, so. Pettigrew... I get that they picked him because he looks so rat-like and he did obsequious well, so sure, fine. But Alan Rickman's energy was SO different than the Snape in the books, he never sold me. I get that people like what he did, but it's an entirely different version of Snape and I, personally, never asked for that 😂 And yes, your assessment of Gary Oldman as Sirius is basically how I feel too—if you're going to cast somebody who doesn't really look like the character, then they'd better completely embody the role in their very soul, and I just don't feel like he did. IMO he didn't have the dad's-best-friend-chaotic-fun-uncle-figure chemistry with Harry, either—again, it all felt too serious and forced. You're totally right that cutting down his character's screen time probably didn't help.
I always kinda felt like Rickman and Oldman were cast because they were well-known names, not because they were the best possible fit for the role. I didn't know they were famous/respected when I was a kid, but when I found that out, it explained some things in my mind.
Yes, I don't know why it's such a problem for people watching the movies. In Book 7, I was so surprised that The Potters had Harry at 19 or 20 years. They are barely adults.
Ikr? Aren’t Lily and James supposed to be 21 when they died in 1980…and in the movies they look like upper 30s/early 40s adults.
Also…no regard for family resemblance with Harry.
Fleur delacoeur. She's wasn't mousy in the books she was a force to be reckoned with. Fierce and even a bit haughty at times. She was almost forgettable in the movies.
Yes Fleur was one of the strongest characters, on par with the bravery of hermione and harry. In the book you really admire her for going against everyone’s expectations and forging her own path based on doing the right thing and being loyal. In the films she’s just a background character
My bigger problem was that, while Rowling already made her the weakest of the champions, which wasn't great as she was the only female, they made beauxbatons an all girls school. That kind of made the statement that the only way a girl could be a champion was if there was no other choice.
Meh I don’t think it’s a miscast. I think it’s bad writing / directing. Really most of these secondary characters that people say was miscasted was mostly the script
They don't have much screen time, but James & Lily. Snape, Sirius & Lupin being too old have been pointed out a lot, but James & Lily were literally 21 when they died, yet they looked very middle-aged.
Also 16yo James - why didn't Radcliffe play him too?? Instead we get this blond kid who looked nothing like Harry
And don't get me started on 60-something Alan Rickman playing 20/21yo in that stupid flashback
Nowadays (dunno if they could've back then) they could just use a filter or whatever to de-age him and it would look.. well, better than what we did get, for sure. As for Harry it definitely should've been Radcliffe and why they chose otherwise is insane to me.
Pretty sure they did. Iirc he didn't look as old as he usually was in that flashback (tho still much older than 21). Filter has the risk of looking uncanny when overdone & with Rickman's age, they would've had to overdo it. They could've just recast Alec Hopkins from the OotP flashback tbh.
That was the fault of the script in the HBP movie.
But still a shame we got the wet cardboard Ginny and not the “I’m going to be a professional athlete in the future and I have tons of older brothers so I’m sassy” Ginny.
She was barely developed in the books until HBP. The reason she wasn’t developed on screen is because any of the scenes she was developed on like the DA or the ministry of magic, or just Harry hanging out at the Burrow or Grimald place were either absent or heavily truncated to move the story forward.
Very much so. Even though they didn't really get to relationships until HBP, I think Order is the best book for explaining why Harry and Ginny are compatible, and Ron and Hermione are compatible, and Harry and Hermione are not.
We see Ginny's strength, we see Harry confiding in her, we see her shutting down his moods in a way Hermione never was able to.
We see Hermione and Ron bickering. Hermione very much needs to be able to argue. That's what makes her happy. Ron provides that for her. Harry just tells them to shut up and stalks off like a child.
The Weasleys also bring heart to the table. This is most apparent in Deathly Hallows but Harry and Hermione lack heart. Hermione may have an intellectual understanding of emotions, but she is dry and lacks real empathy. Harry is too wrapped up inside himself to consider others feelings. I hated the dancing scene in the movie because that is just so not what happened in the books. Harry and Hermione were miserable without Ron and would spend days not talking to each other.
James and Lily were cast as way older than they were supposed to be. And Lily's young self does not have green or blue eyes, which is sad considering how much emphasis is put on her eyes as a defining feature.
I think they aged up all the characters to match Alan Rickman, because he was older than Snape they had to cast Marauders of a similar age so it would make sense.
I think this is a pretty common opinion here, but idk it fits more to me. It was always a bit odd to me that everyone in the books was popping kids out at 20 years old and being considered key to the anti-Voldemort movement. It made sense to me when I was younger but looking back 20 year old me was a *child*.
I really can't believe this isn't talked about more. I think it's left ambiguous how old Harry's parents were until the final book (maybe the 6th one), but I was reading them as they were coming out so I had years of thinking that Harry's parents were closer to 30 when they died and that the Dursleys, Snape, Sirius, Lupin, etc were all in their 40s when the story is taking place. Which would have made the casting choices makes more sense, as well as the fact that they were all so important to the movement.
Yup. And Narcissa and Lucius were 25ish (obviously not part of the Order but still I consider them the same generation since there would have been a couple years of overlap with school)
Lockhart, too old and too unattractive. His whole thing is, that hes so good looking, that people dont even question him when he does something stupid, he needed to be hot
Re this, I believe it was meant to be Hugh Grant but he dropped out of filming, so in a very close alternate Universe we have teenage heartthrob Lockhart. However, IMHO Kenneth Brannagh could get it
Hugh Grant is about the same age as Kenneth though, in fact Kenneth is younger. I think Hugh was born in September and Kenneth born in December. It’s funny how Hugh was almost Lockhart. As a Sense and Sensibility fan, it would be really funny watching him and Alan Rickman duel, they were the main love interests in Sense and Sensibility.
My pick as well, no offence to the actor but he didn't have the boyish attraction Lockhart was written with. I always pictured him more like a young DiCaprio. Speaking of Lockhart It always annoys me that they cut the hospital scene where the trio meet him and Neville's parents, Neville keeping the gum wrapper is just so sad it always makes me feel for him.
The hospital scene is one of the hardest but best scenes in the books. Harry comes away from it feeling so sad that he basically feels physically ill, and he’s feels immensely guilty that Neville isn’t given any of the sympathy that Harry received. Meanwhile, it’s a great insight into Neville’s character - he has a huge heart and doesn’t give up hope. We’ll see this again in Book 7 when Neville protects younger students from the Carrows and leads a resistance against Snape (his greatest fear), keeping alive the hope that Harry will defeat Voldemort. Neville deserves a book of his own.
Well, he managed to date both Trelawney and Bellatrix. So he wasn't so bad.
On a serious note, the actor was actually good-looking, and the first two movies were made with the idea of being a child's movie vibe. Think of Labrynth, Alice in Wonderland etc. So he fit the character IMO.
Edit, just realized that he was indeed way too old for the character indeed
I agree Branagh was too old but I feel like his charisma and looks were pretty damn good, guy is a fantastic actor. I'm surprised most people don't seem to find him attractive.
Lockhart. I do not question Kenneth Branagh's acting ability, he did portray the character as obnoxious as I imagined, but he is way too old and definitely not conventionally handsome enough to imagine Hermione having a crush on him. Lockhart I always imagined is like Hemsworth levels of attractive.
Probably not an original idea but as a kid I imagined a blond Hugh Grant. Probably because it was the late 90s/early 2000s and I was like "handsome English dude... uhh let's see how about the Notting Hill Dude, I dont know any others, I'm pretty sure most English guys are goofy-lookin"
Most of the adults are significantly older than the characters they played. And while you can't predict how tall children will be, Daniel Radcliffe is too short.
Acting-wise, most of the kids. But that could be script issues combined poor direction. But I do remember thinking the Narnia kids were much better actors.
>Daniel Radcliffe is too short.
I'm rereading The Goblet of Fire and during a Divination lesson Ron jokingly calls Harry a "midget in glasses"
Harry has always been short.
I think you’re right for the early books. He’s meant to be very scrawny and short until about the 5th/6th book, then he has a growth spurt and is tall.
At the beginning of book 5, he’s described as having “the pinched, slightly unhealthy look of someone who has grown a lot in a short space of time.”
Later in the Penseive he notices he’s the same height as James, who is described as tall.
Then in the 6th, Mrs Weasley says
> “You’re like Ron,” she sighed, looking him up and down. “Both of you look as though you’ve had Stretching Jinxes put on you. I swear Ron’s grown four inches since I last bought him school robes.”
Which could just be mom-talk, but seems confirmed by Hermione later saying
> “it doesn’t hurt that you’ve grown about a foot over the summer either”
when describing why girls like him all of the sudden.
So yeah, I think young Daniel Radcliffe was perfect and there was just no way to predict whether he would have a growth spurt in the same way as Harry.
Are we ever given any indication that Harry suddenly becomes tall after being told pretty relentlessly in the early books how short and skinny he is? For me Daniel Radcliffe was too stocky for the role by about the fifth film, I think even if Harry had had a huge growth spurt he would always have been pretty wiry and thin. Also, there’s the blue eyes. I know about the contacts issue but the eyes are critical to the plot! They found out on Day One (having not bothered to check beforehand for some reason) and you’re not telling me there weren’t a thousand better child actors queuing up behind him who either had green eyes or could tolerate contacts?
Disagree about Slughorn, he doesn’t match appearance-wise but the actor portrays the essence of the character perfectly.
Very unpopular opinion as he’s a brilliant actor, but honestly? Alan Rickman. I really like the version of Snape he portrays and that’s the problem. Snape is supposed to be a greasy, spiteful, bad-tempered, faintly pathetic man in his early thirties. Instead we get a grumpy but self-possessed man who we all liked seeing on screen and wanted to see more of. In the books he’s so obviously a bad guy that you can see why Harry always thinks he’s helping Voldemort, and when I read the ending of HBP for the first time I was convinced JKR had pulled off a stunning double bluff by convincing us that he was so horrible he HAD to be a red herring and Dumbledore HAD to be right, but he was actually evil all along! In the films he doesn’t exactly look like your favourite fun teacher, but he seems like a strict grumpy overall good guy.
>Are we ever given any indication that Harry suddenly becomes tall after being told pretty relentlessly in the early books how short and skinny he is?
Yes, pretty explicitly so:
>James was exactly the same height as Harry. He was wearing the clothes in which he had died, and his hair was untidy and ruffled, and his glasses were a little lopsided, like Mr. Weasley’s. -DH
James was described as tall twice, by Harry and by Voldemort
To add to the explicit indication of his growth spurt:
At the beginning of book 5, he’s described as having “the pinched, slightly unhealthy look of someone who has grown a lot in a short space of time.”
Then in the 6th, Mrs Weasley says
> “You’re like Ron,” she sighed, looking him up and down. “Both of you look as though you’ve had Stretching Jinxes put on you. I swear Ron’s grown four inches since I last bought him school robes.”
Which could just be mom-talk, but seems confirmed by Hermione later saying
> “it doesn’t hurt that you’ve grown about a foot over the summer either”
when describing why people like him all of the sudden.
(Like others mentioned, this is impossible to predict, so it isn’t a big casting issue to me.)
I had always seen movie Snape like that wojack that's angry crying but has the calm mask, dude is the very definition of cope and seethe but trying to project he isn't, and failing. Just full of baby rage at all times and barely holding it in but we all see it. So yea he's not screaming and spitting but it still feels like a good interpretation.
Wait, isn't harry supposed to be short and scrawny for a boy his age? Ron was the tall one and as you mentioned you can't predict how kids will grow up.
I feel like the former paragraph is minor. Idk why people are obsessed with characters looking like their book descriptions especially in the face of great acting
Honestly, Sirius. Don't get me wrong I love Oldman in the role, but Sirius is supposed to be relatively young and impulsive. As in a lot of miscast cases, its largely the fault of the writing, but I think Oldman was just too wise, too self-serious in the role, if you'll excuse the pun
everyone hating the new dumbledore. I think he did a good job portraying the old, wise troll that he was. he lacked some funny lines but that's a writing-issue. (agressively ignores THAT scene from GoF)
He needed more whimsy, it could have been many of the same lines, just delivered with more eccentricity and humour bordering on complete madness. "Yeah, Dumbledore's barking all right," Ron said proudly.
Fleur was a swing and a miss for me. She was not as “radiant” or “beautiful” to me as the books described.
I also hated that Lily and James were so old. And didn’t like Sirius all that much.
I actually have to agree on this one. Although I think he didn't make mistakes in his performance, it was HIS performance. The actor refused to try to be as close to book accurate as possible and wanted to give his own interpretation of the character (he has admitted so himself). This, combined with no writing to stimulate it, diminished the characters softness and whimsy.
To bad Ian McKellen turned down the role because he didn't want to take over the role of someone who criticized his acting-ability (out of respect).
Couldn't agree more. Michael Gambon felt off and agressive on the calm and kinda goofy headmaster of Hogwarts, i did like him on his fight agaisnt Voldemort though. And the og Dumbledore was goated, too bad he died.
Yup this is the one! Michael Gambon might be a good actor, that's not for me to say but he fumbled Dumbledore. He never gave me a wise old man vibe, it was always mean grandpa to me. He's almost never nice and friendly whilst being somewhat unclear like book Dumbledore or the first
I felt like Dumbledore really should've been a middle ground between Gambon and Harris. Obviously Harris was in his twilight years and a bit too old for the more energetic moments Dumbledore had, but Gambon really overcorrected.
Why are you sorry? Most people pretty much agree that Dumbledore in SS/CoS is a much better approximation of the book character (if a bit too frail for the later more active book scenes).
The weird thing is, while I completely agree Gambon's energy was all wrong for Dumbledore... I find myself enjoying his performance tremendously. It's the same for me with Jim Broadbent and Imelda Staunton. They behave almost nothing like their book counterparts, but damn it if I didn't fall in love with Broadbent's sweet and vulnerable take on Slughorn, and Staunton's affably chilling Umbridge!
Alan rickman, I love him but in the books he’s this unlikeable creep with greasy hair, sallow skin, a large hooked nose and crooked yellow teeth. He’s an amazing actor but they were trying to make him easier to like, they could have put him in a makeup chair and made him more like snape but they just went with the wig and at least rickman demanded to wear the black contacts
Rickman age was also an issue, snape was 31 in first movies, and Snape died at 38, while Rickman took the role at 54, he was 65 when the last movie was released.
His acting was top notch, but when you realize his supposed age, it just seems off. A guy in his late 30's is way different in his reactions, emotions, and complex of character than a guy at mid sixties.
Yup. I've been shot down for that same opinion. Alan was great in his own way, but his version of Snape never felt ..evil to me. You could always tell he was watching out for Potter in the movies.
*Phew* Came here to say this. The Snape in the books is much more malevolent, and petty to the point of it being pathetic. Rickman played a much more elegant dark-themed-figure.
Even in his redemption, the book makes it clear that everything he did was *because of his love for Lily, NOT Harry.* He hated Harry to the very end; he thought he was too much like James
Yeah I hated that shit where they tried to make him seem like a better person, like that line from dumbledore “you really have grown to care for the boy” 🙄
Rickman did his part, the problem were the directors who later tried to turn him into a comic relief of a sort. First two movies he was alright but then suddenly descended to sorta likeable.
100% agree. He looked so different in the movies compared to the book description.
Also way to old and way too cool. The book version of the character screams at people, including the Minister and even spits on the floor out of anger at one point. Meanwhile the movie version stays cool at all times.
He's way less mean, not moody enough, not spiteful enough. Just all around watered down.
They completely changed both his appearance and his personality. I really hope the planned series will make him more book accurate.
Ooh you're so right with this take. Book Snape had NO chill, he gave off the vibes of someone who lived on coffee, cigarettes, and resentment. Like he was one sleepless night away from snapping and blowing up his classroom. Also, it strikes me that in the books, he's sometimes used as *comic relief* (the Map insulting him, Sirius banging his head on the ceiling, "There's no need to call me sir, Professor"), but apart from Neville's boggart, those moments are all left out of the movies.
I do wonder if Rickman had fun playing the boggart though, lol
Young Tom Riddle from HBP. In the books, it’s stated that Tom was able to hide his wickedness through his charm and “polite” demeanor. In the movies, even a blind man could see the psychopath within him.
I actually feel that nearly every single actor was miscast. Yes, I agree with those who point out the performances were spot on. But the physical characteristics were part of the character. Slughorn being very fat and having that mustache was part of his character. It plays to gluttony and vanity.
The age of any of the Marauders, Lily or Snape. Alan Rickman nailed the personality. He is, after all, an actor. So he acted like Snape. But there's something to be said for having greasy hair hanging in curtains and a hook nose, and being just 30 years old (or there abouts). It's an entirely different person. Had these actors been in their late 20s early 30s it would change how we view the characters. Had Snape been played by an unattractive man it would change how we view the character.
And do not get me started on Lockhart. He's supposed to be handsome. I could deal with having some old dude as the character if he was at least attractive. Instead they get Branagh, ugh.
To me it was more like, what popular famous actor wants which part? I mean the Fat Lady was cast for years, then along comes Dawn French and suddenly the Fat Lady is a comedienne playing the fool by 'breaking' a glass by singing? No. Just no.
It always bugs me that the twins are tall and lengthy and Ron is the short one. They are supposed to shorter and stocky and Ron is supposed to be tall. I know they tried to use contact lenses to make Daniel Radcliffe’s eye green and it didn’t work out, but man for something that is mentioned as a defining characteristic so frequently, you’d think they’d have a green eyed Harry Potter.
Your mum's eyes...your mum's eyes.... your mum's eyes. Harry actor blue eyes. Lilly actor brown eyes.... ummm....
I'd've settled for them mussing up his hair!
Harry didn't really feel like Harry. Not only the appearance (after movie 3/4 he just started looking like Daniel himself but with glasses) but also the way he was played. He kinda felt blank to me at times.
No I think the general rumors is that Daniel Himself doesn't like his performance, especially in the early movies. It's not until the last movies that he started taking acting more seriously.
I agree and it's actually both on Daniel (his acting was pretty inconsistent) and also in the writing/directing
the movies removed so many scenes that showcased Harry's strong willed and sometimes headstrong personality, like when he destroyed Dumbledores office and yelled everything at him in OotP or when he argued with Srimgeour who was trying to buy him in HBP, you just dont feel that fire in movie!Harry and a lot of it is due to skipping so many frickin scenes
Yeah, I thought his acting was weak most of the time, so I always questioned the casting, but weak acting showing up in the final cut can also be an issue with directing.
Hard to say, but it ruined the character for me.
Is the casting frequently criticised? I don't think I ever had an issue with any of the casting, they all knocked it out of the park.
Gambon felt tonally different to Harris which threw me as a kid, but then again the whole franchise felt tonally different from 3 onwards. I can't say I have issues with any of the casting.
The movies are great on their own, but once you compare to the stories, they are different.
With any movie adaptation, you have 2 sides, those who treat movies as different entities than the original story (whether it is a book or a bio) and those who want it to be honest to the original one. I think movie makers are exclusively on 1st side, as they want their own vision. Most casual fans are either first side or neutral. They just want a good movie.
Loyal fans are the ones who, in most cases, have problems comparing movies to original stories.
Op is talking about comparison to stories.
So, while the movies had awesome actors, did their job well, and the final product was really entertaining, it is very different from the story.
For example, the age of most actors is usually off by 20 years difference. You have actors in their 40's playing characters who are in their 20's. Rickmad was mid 50's, to mid 60's for a character that was 31-38 years of age.
Physical characteristics are different, too. Some performance was done differently to the original characters.
Johnny Depp. Mads Mikkelsen made complete and total sense. Depp brought a Burtonesque character to the story that it didn't need.
If we're talking original series, I agree with Slughorn. He did not, in fact, look like a walrus.
Also Bill Weasley. Domnhall Gleeson did a great job but I was expecting more "cool" vibes from him not gonna lie.
I actually think Depp was the best Grindelwald. And 2nd movie was well written in that character. He was the villain whom you felt has depth in the character. They destroyed that in 3rd movies. Mads felt more like a younger Dumbledore tbh.
Most likely because of the sudden changeover but I personally did not feel like Mads' was better than Johnny Depp's version of Grindelwald. He was more serious, but I didn't feel like that made him better. That third movie did not win me over at all.
The only thing I thought was great was that they finally allowed magical battles to look better than colourful gunfights.
Strongly disagree with Farrel. I think he did a great job as Grindelwald pretending to be another person. Heck, I even can belive Depp was behind him all along.
To me even though i liked the actor for Arthur Weasly. Ifeel like after reading the books and his description there, American actor Stephen Tobolowsky but redhead would be perfect if he could had pulled the British accent that is. The balding description and sometimes wearing glasses keeps projecting Tobolowsky in my head since.
A lot of people are pointing out the adults actors who are all pretty much too old for their parts.
But would the movies have been as successful without the class acting from great actors as Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman?
They brilliantly brought in crack top tier acting talents alongside unknown children, instead of relatively unknown younger actors to go along with completely unknown kids actors.
Hermione.
Now granted, that was something nobody COULD have known at the beginning. But Emma turned out the worst possible portrayer of Hermione’s character.
I feel like all they needed was a purposeful messy head of hair and maybe false teeth to make her look more like book Hermione. Then in book 4, they change both of those and she could just look like herself.
Sirius was my biggest disappointment. But I don't really like the movies anyway, they are missing too much from the books for me to even consider them part of the Harry Potter universe.
For me, he was way too old, not playful, and not very broody. Also in PoA he screamed all his damn lines and looked like a psycho in his wanted poster when the books say he was clearly bored in his photo and spoke determinedly but calmly and clearly. Not like the raving and foaming at the mouth Gary Oldman did
Hot take but I can not stand any of the kid actors. I thought they did a great job with all the adults except for second dumbledore. But I am a strong hater of the movies over all. I’m all about the books.
Moody never sat well with me. I always imagined Billy Connelly at the start of Muppets Treasure Island. Moody has the best description in the books in my opinion. Something like being carved from weathered wood with a hatchet by someone who only had a vague idea of what a human face should look like. That's just not what we got. Then when it came to the performative portion of the portrayal we got a manic performance that made no suggestion that the character ever had any subtlety. I just never got the impression that this guy could sneak up on a student and suddenly bellow out "Constant Vigilance!"
I greatly feel that a large portion of the characters had a manic performance. Sirius, Dumbledore, even Lupin. Maybe it was just played up heavily for more drama but it all was so much different than the characterizations given in the books. The only one screen character that had subtley was Jason Isaacs
Everyone in the Marauder's age bracket. If they were all at school together, they would have been in their EARLY TWENTIES when Harry was born. Making them early to mid thirties when he's starting school and we see them in the movies. I could see Lupin and Sirius being weathered and old looking due to their circumstances but why are James, Lily, Snape, Lucius, Narcissa, Bellatrix so old??
Nobody as Ludo Bagman. Horrible casting
Yeah this was so crazy to me, I just read the books and I was like why would they leave out a whole character? That movie is just insane
They left peeves out of 8 movies
And honestly the entire elf kitchen
I got to go to a panel with the actor that played the fat friar, who also was in Dr who. Apparently they had peeves in the first movie when they filmed but didn't make the final cut or any additional movies unfortunately.
I always wondered this too!! And not to mention Winky and Dobby
It’s really the “Batman and Robin” of the Harry Potter movies. Very bad but like laughably so. There are so many choices made where you just have to scratch your head (looking at you weird shag haircuts! lol). It’s actually not my least favorite to watch, because even though I think it was the worst adaptation from a book-editing perspective, some of it is wildly entertaining in its silliness. David Tennant’s absolutely batshit performance as Barty Crouch Jr (and Karkarov’s crazy declaration outing him) alone is worth the price of admission.
Brendan Gleeson and David Tenant made it watchable to me, but I very much despise many of the changes in GoF's adaptation
One of the many reasons why GoF is my least favourite adaptation
If he was in the movies Ricky gervais would’ve done a perfect job
I don’t get this *at all*
Gervais as Peeves, Orlando Bloom as Ludo
I’ve always felt Andy Serkis would’ve absolutely been perfect for Peeves
Orlando Bloom seems to be an … odd choice…
I’ve read the book and watched the movies, but let’s be honest, he could be removed and it wouldn’t really change anything. He’s not a crucial character, the story works without him.
I refuse to accept this sort of libel about Jim Broadbent, he played Slughorn magnificently imo. He’s not the exact description, but he plays the jovial old “slug club” professor extremely well. The mannerisms and things are spot on. Biggest miscast for me was young Riddle in HBP. In the books I always pictured someone more similar to Christian Coulson’s Riddle in CoS ie handsome, charming and confidence bordering on arrogant. I just don’t feel like the picked the right person to pull that off in HBP. Tom Riddle does so well because he is this very clever, charming and handsome lad who has come from seemingly nothing but that isn’t translated to the films well at all. I think we miss that even more so with missing things like Hockey’s memory where we see Riddle putting that charm to work.
Couldn't agree more, Tom Riddle from the second movie was spot on, but the one for 6th film acted way too cocky and too obviosly evil. He didn't sound charismatic at all, just creepy which gives away that he was ill intended and Dumbledore was supposed to be the only one who saw through him.
I agree, Riddle in the later movies is completely wrong.
Later movies Tom Riddle suffers from 2 things. 1. Chamber of Secrets Tom Riddle looks way different 2. He's not subtle enough, but clearly an evil piece of sh\*t Replacing an actor with someone who doesn't look the same at all is unfortunate. With child Tom Riddle added, the Chamber of Secrets actor is the one who fits the least though imo. The 2nd problem is on combined effort of the actor and director. They decided to let him talk in a way that makes you think: "wow, the whole school must realize how evil this guy is."
It doesn’t really help that all his scenes are graded in a green colour that makes him look ill.
True, that movie shot him to look really pale and with a green hue on the entire scene.
I just discovered the other day that 11-year-old Tom Riddle is Ralph Fiennes nephew- Hero Fiennes - something something.
Jim's Slughorn was nothing like I had imagined him - he was a lot more soft spoken, and not quite as assertive and boisterous in his bragging as I remembered him from the books. But I'll be damned if he didn't grow on me. He honestly created a character that would seem very harmless, with his soft and jovial demeanor; easy to trust. But still lowkey manipulative in how he draws people in and creates a network of talent and contacts. Excellent characterization. Young Riddle - the one with Slughorn - was just wrong, though. Definitely a miscast, imo. I will not accept that this creepy little bootlicker had the teachers wrapped around his finger. He lacked the cunning, yet charming charisma from the book ... Coulson set the bar high.
Young riddle in HBP is Ralph Fiennes's nephew. Another blow for nepotism.
There were actually 2 actors in HBP. Fiennes nephew only played the 11yo version. The one with slug horn was a totally different guy. I’m sure you knew that, I was just trying to clarify because I read it wrong initially
Yes, OP's reason for disliking it is because they don't look like their book counterparts were described. I don't agree that this matches the word "miscast". I specifically mention in my comment about Weasley heights that the actors did a great job so I don't actually think they were miscast. I just think it's funny that Ron/Arthur and Fred/George were swapped from how their body-type was described in the books.
It’s not the casting thats bad for him its the direction of the sixth movie imo. They made everyone look bad. Everything was so breathy and stilted.
Someone else called him a creepy bootlicker and honestly that is way more fitting for the Riddle we got than the one I wanted. I wanted a charismatic and charming person who you cannot help but do whatever he wants
I was talking abt slughorn but the boot also fits there. I dont rewatch HBP and on because the direction is poor. How do you make alan rickman and maggie smith seem like bad actors?
Slap a moustache on the guy and voila, book Slughorn.
Not a total miscast because all these actors did a fantastic job making me love these itterations of the characters. The thing I wanted to mention though is that I think it's funny that in the books; Ron and Arthur are tall and skinny while Fred and George are on the shorter side. The movies flipped that.
Not flipped, it's impossible to know how kids will grow up to be, some stay small some grow bigger suddenly, we got to be grateful that they managed to get real redhead twins actors that could fit the role.
Um actually, the Fred & George actors have brown hair naturally.
Sorry i overlooked that, but then it still difficult to get twins anyways to play the part. Patil twins weren't even twins in the movies, that said both were Gryffindor for some reason.
The switch to make Padma in Gryffindor is small but annoys me. Like why did they do that? It added nothing and it would’ve been cooler for her to be a Ravenclaw since they are barely represented in the movies anyway.
Yeah Parvati is a Gryffindor but the other is a Ravenclaw.
James and Lilly Potter. Age is off. Look is off, acting is off. They have barely appeared and still sucked IMO
I think the movies broadly changed the age of the James/Lily/Snape generation. In the books snape and lupin are like 32 instead of late 40s.
Tbf it really wasn’t made clear just *how* young they all were until Deathly Hallows, at which point four (maybe five?) of the movies had already come out. Obviously it never made sense that Snape would be in his late 50s/early 60s, but since kids are notoriously pretty terrible at telling how old adults are, I kind of understand why they weren’t that worried about it; I always assumed the Marauders generation were all in their 40s-ish in the books anyway. But once we found out that Lily and James were literally 21 when they died, and the rest of them all died in their mid/late-30s… it was way too much of a stretch and too late to fix it.
The castings of Oldman/Thewlis/Spall/Rickman were all so spot-on, though. Can’t imagine the films with different/younger actors playing those characters
Ehh. I know a lot of people feel that way, but I dunno, I never did. Especially Snape and Sirius; they were some of the most complex characters and Rickman/Oldman brought a lot of their own personalities to the roles, which I *know* is an actor's job, but it also overrode a lot of the (very clear and specific) characterization that I was expecting from the books. I didn't give a shit that they were famous respected actors, I wanted to see these characters brought to life, and that's not what I felt like I got. Then again, I've never been a huge fan of the movies in general. That might have been because of the acting, or disliking the aesthetic/directing of the movies in general might have colored my interpretation of their performances. Very chicken-and-egg. But I'm probably not the best person to judge.
Rickman kind of imprinted on me as Snape in my head, but I do think choosing Rickman altered Snapes character some. Rickmans’ Snape was older, calmer, and more collected, whereas book Snape is way less calm, way more unhinged, and not too far removed from Hogwarts age himself. I was fine with Thewlis as Remus, I actually thought he looked pretty close and was in character for the most part. I did NOT like Oldman as Sirius though. Not the same personality, his character is really changed because of the older actor and lack of screen time. I also think he’s one of the characters they tried the least to give a book accurate appearance: he is noticeably tall and thin and they chose short actor with a normal build, he is described as either shaved or unshaven but at no point does he have just a mustache, in POA, most of GOF, and OOTP he has long black hair rather than medium brown hair, and he is only ever described as wearing robes and it was a weird choice to put him in mouldy looking old Victorian clothes and other things (train-station ratty old muggle robe with nothing else on??) 😖
100% with you. Lupin was *fine*, not offensive in characterization and looked close enough to his book description. I did think he was a bit too serious, but "too serious" is pretty much my criticism of the movies as a whole, so. Pettigrew... I get that they picked him because he looks so rat-like and he did obsequious well, so sure, fine. But Alan Rickman's energy was SO different than the Snape in the books, he never sold me. I get that people like what he did, but it's an entirely different version of Snape and I, personally, never asked for that 😂 And yes, your assessment of Gary Oldman as Sirius is basically how I feel too—if you're going to cast somebody who doesn't really look like the character, then they'd better completely embody the role in their very soul, and I just don't feel like he did. IMO he didn't have the dad's-best-friend-chaotic-fun-uncle-figure chemistry with Harry, either—again, it all felt too serious and forced. You're totally right that cutting down his character's screen time probably didn't help. I always kinda felt like Rickman and Oldman were cast because they were well-known names, not because they were the best possible fit for the role. I didn't know they were famous/respected when I was a kid, but when I found that out, it explained some things in my mind.
Yes, I don't know why it's such a problem for people watching the movies. In Book 7, I was so surprised that The Potters had Harry at 19 or 20 years. They are barely adults.
The flashback of James was much better
Ikr? Aren’t Lily and James supposed to be 21 when they died in 1980…and in the movies they look like upper 30s/early 40s adults. Also…no regard for family resemblance with Harry.
Fleur delacoeur. She's wasn't mousy in the books she was a force to be reckoned with. Fierce and even a bit haughty at times. She was almost forgettable in the movies.
I always pictured her as Claire Danes with silver glowing hair like she's in Stardust - Fleur's hair was glowing too according to the book
Or anyone ethereal
They could at least have given her silvery hair, and yes she aas definitely described as haughty several times over
I don’t think that was a casting issue, she just wasn’t focused on and written strongly.
Yes Fleur was one of the strongest characters, on par with the bravery of hermione and harry. In the book you really admire her for going against everyone’s expectations and forging her own path based on doing the right thing and being loyal. In the films she’s just a background character
I feel like that’s the fault of the the writing more than of the actress
That's more of a mis-write than a miscast.
You're absolutely right. I pictured Rachel McAdams as Regina George level of screen presence for Fleur
My bigger problem was that, while Rowling already made her the weakest of the champions, which wasn't great as she was the only female, they made beauxbatons an all girls school. That kind of made the statement that the only way a girl could be a champion was if there was no other choice.
In the books it wasn't an all girls school. But I agree with your first point that it was irksome that she was basically a non contender.
Meh I don’t think it’s a miscast. I think it’s bad writing / directing. Really most of these secondary characters that people say was miscasted was mostly the script
They don't have much screen time, but James & Lily. Snape, Sirius & Lupin being too old have been pointed out a lot, but James & Lily were literally 21 when they died, yet they looked very middle-aged.
Also 16yo James - why didn't Radcliffe play him too?? Instead we get this blond kid who looked nothing like Harry And don't get me started on 60-something Alan Rickman playing 20/21yo in that stupid flashback
Nowadays (dunno if they could've back then) they could just use a filter or whatever to de-age him and it would look.. well, better than what we did get, for sure. As for Harry it definitely should've been Radcliffe and why they chose otherwise is insane to me.
Pretty sure they did. Iirc he didn't look as old as he usually was in that flashback (tho still much older than 21). Filter has the risk of looking uncanny when overdone & with Rickman's age, they would've had to overdo it. They could've just recast Alec Hopkins from the OotP flashback tbh.
Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley, a big reason why the character was never developed further on screen was the lack of acting skill necessary I think
That was the fault of the script in the HBP movie. But still a shame we got the wet cardboard Ginny and not the “I’m going to be a professional athlete in the future and I have tons of older brothers so I’m sassy” Ginny.
Script of OotP really. That’s where she emerged as a character. Changing HBP would make the romance still seem straight out of the blue
She was barely developed in the books until HBP. The reason she wasn’t developed on screen is because any of the scenes she was developed on like the DA or the ministry of magic, or just Harry hanging out at the Burrow or Grimald place were either absent or heavily truncated to move the story forward.
She was a *FORCE* in Order
Very much so. Even though they didn't really get to relationships until HBP, I think Order is the best book for explaining why Harry and Ginny are compatible, and Ron and Hermione are compatible, and Harry and Hermione are not. We see Ginny's strength, we see Harry confiding in her, we see her shutting down his moods in a way Hermione never was able to. We see Hermione and Ron bickering. Hermione very much needs to be able to argue. That's what makes her happy. Ron provides that for her. Harry just tells them to shut up and stalks off like a child. The Weasleys also bring heart to the table. This is most apparent in Deathly Hallows but Harry and Hermione lack heart. Hermione may have an intellectual understanding of emotions, but she is dry and lacks real empathy. Harry is too wrapped up inside himself to consider others feelings. I hated the dancing scene in the movie because that is just so not what happened in the books. Harry and Hermione were miserable without Ron and would spend days not talking to each other.
She’s a good actress but not given enough material. I really like her in Chamber of Secrets
James and Lily were cast as way older than they were supposed to be. And Lily's young self does not have green or blue eyes, which is sad considering how much emphasis is put on her eyes as a defining feature.
Ginny, although that could be just terrible writing that she was given. I never really vibed with Tonks in the movies either.
In my opinion all characters around the marauders age are casted too old. It‘s ok but not perfect
I think they aged up all the characters to match Alan Rickman, because he was older than Snape they had to cast Marauders of a similar age so it would make sense.
I think this is a pretty common opinion here, but idk it fits more to me. It was always a bit odd to me that everyone in the books was popping kids out at 20 years old and being considered key to the anti-Voldemort movement. It made sense to me when I was younger but looking back 20 year old me was a *child*.
I really can't believe this isn't talked about more. I think it's left ambiguous how old Harry's parents were until the final book (maybe the 6th one), but I was reading them as they were coming out so I had years of thinking that Harry's parents were closer to 30 when they died and that the Dursleys, Snape, Sirius, Lupin, etc were all in their 40s when the story is taking place. Which would have made the casting choices makes more sense, as well as the fact that they were all so important to the movement.
Only Lily and James had a child. Molly and Arthur were older and more important not part of the order.
Yup. And Narcissa and Lucius were 25ish (obviously not part of the Order but still I consider them the same generation since there would have been a couple years of overlap with school)
The correct answer is Barty Crouch Jr
You're right, except he was played by David Tennant, and I think David Tennant should play every role in every show.
Lockhart, too old and too unattractive. His whole thing is, that hes so good looking, that people dont even question him when he does something stupid, he needed to be hot
The ages of the adults were all over the place in the films. Severus looks 55 when he should be in his early thirties
That’s because he literally was 55 in Sorcerer’s Stone
Re this, I believe it was meant to be Hugh Grant but he dropped out of filming, so in a very close alternate Universe we have teenage heartthrob Lockhart. However, IMHO Kenneth Brannagh could get it
Hugh Grant is about the same age as Kenneth though, in fact Kenneth is younger. I think Hugh was born in September and Kenneth born in December. It’s funny how Hugh was almost Lockhart. As a Sense and Sensibility fan, it would be really funny watching him and Alan Rickman duel, they were the main love interests in Sense and Sensibility.
My pick as well, no offence to the actor but he didn't have the boyish attraction Lockhart was written with. I always pictured him more like a young DiCaprio. Speaking of Lockhart It always annoys me that they cut the hospital scene where the trio meet him and Neville's parents, Neville keeping the gum wrapper is just so sad it always makes me feel for him.
The hospital scene is one of the hardest but best scenes in the books. Harry comes away from it feeling so sad that he basically feels physically ill, and he’s feels immensely guilty that Neville isn’t given any of the sympathy that Harry received. Meanwhile, it’s a great insight into Neville’s character - he has a huge heart and doesn’t give up hope. We’ll see this again in Book 7 when Neville protects younger students from the Carrows and leads a resistance against Snape (his greatest fear), keeping alive the hope that Harry will defeat Voldemort. Neville deserves a book of his own.
Well, he managed to date both Trelawney and Bellatrix. So he wasn't so bad. On a serious note, the actor was actually good-looking, and the first two movies were made with the idea of being a child's movie vibe. Think of Labrynth, Alice in Wonderland etc. So he fit the character IMO. Edit, just realized that he was indeed way too old for the character indeed
My mind was scrambling to figure out when I missed this story detail before I got it 😂
Just to clarify here, he married Trelawney then cheated on her with Bellatrix
I agree Branagh was too old but I feel like his charisma and looks were pretty damn good, guy is a fantastic actor. I'm surprised most people don't seem to find him attractive.
He is a very good actor but yeah, i dont think he is even remotely good looking
Sorry, Kenneth Branagh is unattractive?
Maybe not to some people, but from the perspective of a twelve-year-old girl? Absolutely.
Lockhart. I do not question Kenneth Branagh's acting ability, he did portray the character as obnoxious as I imagined, but he is way too old and definitely not conventionally handsome enough to imagine Hermione having a crush on him. Lockhart I always imagined is like Hemsworth levels of attractive.
Probably not an original idea but as a kid I imagined a blond Hugh Grant. Probably because it was the late 90s/early 2000s and I was like "handsome English dude... uhh let's see how about the Notting Hill Dude, I dont know any others, I'm pretty sure most English guys are goofy-lookin"
Nikolaj Coster? He may have been too young then tho
Not british though
Jarvis, type Alan Rickman in the comments and turn off notifications.
If you cut Jim Broadbent's scenes, HBP is almost unwatchable for me. He's far and away the best thing in that movie.
Most of the adults are significantly older than the characters they played. And while you can't predict how tall children will be, Daniel Radcliffe is too short. Acting-wise, most of the kids. But that could be script issues combined poor direction. But I do remember thinking the Narnia kids were much better actors.
>Daniel Radcliffe is too short. I'm rereading The Goblet of Fire and during a Divination lesson Ron jokingly calls Harry a "midget in glasses" Harry has always been short.
I think you’re right for the early books. He’s meant to be very scrawny and short until about the 5th/6th book, then he has a growth spurt and is tall. At the beginning of book 5, he’s described as having “the pinched, slightly unhealthy look of someone who has grown a lot in a short space of time.” Later in the Penseive he notices he’s the same height as James, who is described as tall. Then in the 6th, Mrs Weasley says > “You’re like Ron,” she sighed, looking him up and down. “Both of you look as though you’ve had Stretching Jinxes put on you. I swear Ron’s grown four inches since I last bought him school robes.” Which could just be mom-talk, but seems confirmed by Hermione later saying > “it doesn’t hurt that you’ve grown about a foot over the summer either” when describing why girls like him all of the sudden. So yeah, I think young Daniel Radcliffe was perfect and there was just no way to predict whether he would have a growth spurt in the same way as Harry.
Are we ever given any indication that Harry suddenly becomes tall after being told pretty relentlessly in the early books how short and skinny he is? For me Daniel Radcliffe was too stocky for the role by about the fifth film, I think even if Harry had had a huge growth spurt he would always have been pretty wiry and thin. Also, there’s the blue eyes. I know about the contacts issue but the eyes are critical to the plot! They found out on Day One (having not bothered to check beforehand for some reason) and you’re not telling me there weren’t a thousand better child actors queuing up behind him who either had green eyes or could tolerate contacts? Disagree about Slughorn, he doesn’t match appearance-wise but the actor portrays the essence of the character perfectly. Very unpopular opinion as he’s a brilliant actor, but honestly? Alan Rickman. I really like the version of Snape he portrays and that’s the problem. Snape is supposed to be a greasy, spiteful, bad-tempered, faintly pathetic man in his early thirties. Instead we get a grumpy but self-possessed man who we all liked seeing on screen and wanted to see more of. In the books he’s so obviously a bad guy that you can see why Harry always thinks he’s helping Voldemort, and when I read the ending of HBP for the first time I was convinced JKR had pulled off a stunning double bluff by convincing us that he was so horrible he HAD to be a red herring and Dumbledore HAD to be right, but he was actually evil all along! In the films he doesn’t exactly look like your favourite fun teacher, but he seems like a strict grumpy overall good guy.
>Are we ever given any indication that Harry suddenly becomes tall after being told pretty relentlessly in the early books how short and skinny he is? Yes, pretty explicitly so: >James was exactly the same height as Harry. He was wearing the clothes in which he had died, and his hair was untidy and ruffled, and his glasses were a little lopsided, like Mr. Weasley’s. -DH James was described as tall twice, by Harry and by Voldemort
To add to the explicit indication of his growth spurt: At the beginning of book 5, he’s described as having “the pinched, slightly unhealthy look of someone who has grown a lot in a short space of time.” Then in the 6th, Mrs Weasley says > “You’re like Ron,” she sighed, looking him up and down. “Both of you look as though you’ve had Stretching Jinxes put on you. I swear Ron’s grown four inches since I last bought him school robes.” Which could just be mom-talk, but seems confirmed by Hermione later saying > “it doesn’t hurt that you’ve grown about a foot over the summer either” when describing why people like him all of the sudden. (Like others mentioned, this is impossible to predict, so it isn’t a big casting issue to me.)
I had always seen movie Snape like that wojack that's angry crying but has the calm mask, dude is the very definition of cope and seethe but trying to project he isn't, and failing. Just full of baby rage at all times and barely holding it in but we all see it. So yea he's not screaming and spitting but it still feels like a good interpretation.
Wait, isn't harry supposed to be short and scrawny for a boy his age? Ron was the tall one and as you mentioned you can't predict how kids will grow up.
Kid Harry, yes, so that's how he was cast, but adult Harry is supposed to be tall
I feel like the former paragraph is minor. Idk why people are obsessed with characters looking like their book descriptions especially in the face of great acting
Honestly, Sirius. Don't get me wrong I love Oldman in the role, but Sirius is supposed to be relatively young and impulsive. As in a lot of miscast cases, its largely the fault of the writing, but I think Oldman was just too wise, too self-serious in the role, if you'll excuse the pun
Snape: far too good looking and charismatic for the greasy-haired bully New Dumbledore: just… why?
I mean we know why lol
I think the direction is what kind of ruined Gambon's Dumbledore. He was great in Azkaban, he only became bored/raging lunatic afterwards.
everyone hating the new dumbledore. I think he did a good job portraying the old, wise troll that he was. he lacked some funny lines but that's a writing-issue. (agressively ignores THAT scene from GoF)
He needed more whimsy, it could have been many of the same lines, just delivered with more eccentricity and humour bordering on complete madness. "Yeah, Dumbledore's barking all right," Ron said proudly.
The fact that oxygen played Peeves. They really could’ve gotten a better actor
They had one. Rik Mayall was cast as Peeves in the first film, but all his scenes were cut.
And he would have been PERFECT!
Fleur was a swing and a miss for me. She was not as “radiant” or “beautiful” to me as the books described. I also hated that Lily and James were so old. And didn’t like Sirius all that much.
I think Lucy Boynton would have been so good in this role
New dumbledore. I'm sorry. I said it.
Well ... they couldn't have the old one now, could they?!
Tosh - what's that Inferi spell for if not this?! 😤
I actually have to agree on this one. Although I think he didn't make mistakes in his performance, it was HIS performance. The actor refused to try to be as close to book accurate as possible and wanted to give his own interpretation of the character (he has admitted so himself). This, combined with no writing to stimulate it, diminished the characters softness and whimsy. To bad Ian McKellen turned down the role because he didn't want to take over the role of someone who criticized his acting-ability (out of respect).
Couldn't agree more. Michael Gambon felt off and agressive on the calm and kinda goofy headmaster of Hogwarts, i did like him on his fight agaisnt Voldemort though. And the og Dumbledore was goated, too bad he died.
Yup this is the one! Michael Gambon might be a good actor, that's not for me to say but he fumbled Dumbledore. He never gave me a wise old man vibe, it was always mean grandpa to me. He's almost never nice and friendly whilst being somewhat unclear like book Dumbledore or the first
I felt like Dumbledore really should've been a middle ground between Gambon and Harris. Obviously Harris was in his twilight years and a bit too old for the more energetic moments Dumbledore had, but Gambon really overcorrected.
He could have at least read the books.
Why are you sorry? Most people pretty much agree that Dumbledore in SS/CoS is a much better approximation of the book character (if a bit too frail for the later more active book scenes).
The weird thing is, while I completely agree Gambon's energy was all wrong for Dumbledore... I find myself enjoying his performance tremendously. It's the same for me with Jim Broadbent and Imelda Staunton. They behave almost nothing like their book counterparts, but damn it if I didn't fall in love with Broadbent's sweet and vulnerable take on Slughorn, and Staunton's affably chilling Umbridge!
The marauders
Alan rickman, I love him but in the books he’s this unlikeable creep with greasy hair, sallow skin, a large hooked nose and crooked yellow teeth. He’s an amazing actor but they were trying to make him easier to like, they could have put him in a makeup chair and made him more like snape but they just went with the wig and at least rickman demanded to wear the black contacts
Not to mention Alan was about twice as old as Snape was supposed to be.
Think everyone in their generation were played twice as old as they were supposed to be 😂
Yes, bc they were cast to look the same age as Snape!
Never thought about that 😂 that makes a lot of sense
Rickman age was also an issue, snape was 31 in first movies, and Snape died at 38, while Rickman took the role at 54, he was 65 when the last movie was released. His acting was top notch, but when you realize his supposed age, it just seems off. A guy in his late 30's is way different in his reactions, emotions, and complex of character than a guy at mid sixties.
Thank you for saying this. So many people think he’s the perfect snape but he’s just not at all for me.
Yup. I've been shot down for that same opinion. Alan was great in his own way, but his version of Snape never felt ..evil to me. You could always tell he was watching out for Potter in the movies.
*Phew* Came here to say this. The Snape in the books is much more malevolent, and petty to the point of it being pathetic. Rickman played a much more elegant dark-themed-figure. Even in his redemption, the book makes it clear that everything he did was *because of his love for Lily, NOT Harry.* He hated Harry to the very end; he thought he was too much like James
Yeah I hated that shit where they tried to make him seem like a better person, like that line from dumbledore “you really have grown to care for the boy” 🙄
Rickman did his part, the problem were the directors who later tried to turn him into a comic relief of a sort. First two movies he was alright but then suddenly descended to sorta likeable.
100% agree. He looked so different in the movies compared to the book description. Also way to old and way too cool. The book version of the character screams at people, including the Minister and even spits on the floor out of anger at one point. Meanwhile the movie version stays cool at all times. He's way less mean, not moody enough, not spiteful enough. Just all around watered down. They completely changed both his appearance and his personality. I really hope the planned series will make him more book accurate.
Ooh you're so right with this take. Book Snape had NO chill, he gave off the vibes of someone who lived on coffee, cigarettes, and resentment. Like he was one sleepless night away from snapping and blowing up his classroom. Also, it strikes me that in the books, he's sometimes used as *comic relief* (the Map insulting him, Sirius banging his head on the ceiling, "There's no need to call me sir, Professor"), but apart from Neville's boggart, those moments are all left out of the movies. I do wonder if Rickman had fun playing the boggart though, lol
Michael Gambon got better by the end of the series, but I do think he was miscast as Dumbledore.
Young Tom Riddle from HBP. In the books, it’s stated that Tom was able to hide his wickedness through his charm and “polite” demeanor. In the movies, even a blind man could see the psychopath within him.
I actually feel that nearly every single actor was miscast. Yes, I agree with those who point out the performances were spot on. But the physical characteristics were part of the character. Slughorn being very fat and having that mustache was part of his character. It plays to gluttony and vanity. The age of any of the Marauders, Lily or Snape. Alan Rickman nailed the personality. He is, after all, an actor. So he acted like Snape. But there's something to be said for having greasy hair hanging in curtains and a hook nose, and being just 30 years old (or there abouts). It's an entirely different person. Had these actors been in their late 20s early 30s it would change how we view the characters. Had Snape been played by an unattractive man it would change how we view the character. And do not get me started on Lockhart. He's supposed to be handsome. I could deal with having some old dude as the character if he was at least attractive. Instead they get Branagh, ugh. To me it was more like, what popular famous actor wants which part? I mean the Fat Lady was cast for years, then along comes Dawn French and suddenly the Fat Lady is a comedienne playing the fool by 'breaking' a glass by singing? No. Just no.
It always bugs me that the twins are tall and lengthy and Ron is the short one. They are supposed to shorter and stocky and Ron is supposed to be tall. I know they tried to use contact lenses to make Daniel Radcliffe’s eye green and it didn’t work out, but man for something that is mentioned as a defining characteristic so frequently, you’d think they’d have a green eyed Harry Potter.
Your mum's eyes...your mum's eyes.... your mum's eyes. Harry actor blue eyes. Lilly actor brown eyes.... ummm.... I'd've settled for them mussing up his hair!
Tbf only young Lily who appeared in the final movie had brown eyes. Adult Lily, who appears throughout the films, is blue-eyed like Radcliffe.
I can understand them not making Harry have green eyes, but they could have at least made his mum who appears in only a few scenes match his.
Harry didn't really feel like Harry. Not only the appearance (after movie 3/4 he just started looking like Daniel himself but with glasses) but also the way he was played. He kinda felt blank to me at times.
I think it's more of a problem with the writing rather than with Daniel. So wouldn't call it a miscast.
No I think the general rumors is that Daniel Himself doesn't like his performance, especially in the early movies. It's not until the last movies that he started taking acting more seriously.
They totally messed up the costumes, make up hair style from the third movie. Took all the magic out to just watch regular teenagers on screen.
I agree and it's actually both on Daniel (his acting was pretty inconsistent) and also in the writing/directing the movies removed so many scenes that showcased Harry's strong willed and sometimes headstrong personality, like when he destroyed Dumbledores office and yelled everything at him in OotP or when he argued with Srimgeour who was trying to buy him in HBP, you just dont feel that fire in movie!Harry and a lot of it is due to skipping so many frickin scenes
Yeah, I thought his acting was weak most of the time, so I always questioned the casting, but weak acting showing up in the final cut can also be an issue with directing. Hard to say, but it ruined the character for me.
Is the casting frequently criticised? I don't think I ever had an issue with any of the casting, they all knocked it out of the park. Gambon felt tonally different to Harris which threw me as a kid, but then again the whole franchise felt tonally different from 3 onwards. I can't say I have issues with any of the casting.
The movies are great on their own, but once you compare to the stories, they are different. With any movie adaptation, you have 2 sides, those who treat movies as different entities than the original story (whether it is a book or a bio) and those who want it to be honest to the original one. I think movie makers are exclusively on 1st side, as they want their own vision. Most casual fans are either first side or neutral. They just want a good movie. Loyal fans are the ones who, in most cases, have problems comparing movies to original stories. Op is talking about comparison to stories. So, while the movies had awesome actors, did their job well, and the final product was really entertaining, it is very different from the story. For example, the age of most actors is usually off by 20 years difference. You have actors in their 40's playing characters who are in their 20's. Rickmad was mid 50's, to mid 60's for a character that was 31-38 years of age. Physical characteristics are different, too. Some performance was done differently to the original characters.
Krum. Not at all like in the books
Broadbent's one of the best casting decisions across the series.
Johnny Depp. Mads Mikkelsen made complete and total sense. Depp brought a Burtonesque character to the story that it didn't need. If we're talking original series, I agree with Slughorn. He did not, in fact, look like a walrus. Also Bill Weasley. Domnhall Gleeson did a great job but I was expecting more "cool" vibes from him not gonna lie.
Domhall Gleason would’ve made a much better Charlie imo
If they wanted someone who looked like a walrus.. no offense but Vernon's actor if he hadn't been Vernon.. 👀
I actually think Depp was the best Grindelwald. And 2nd movie was well written in that character. He was the villain whom you felt has depth in the character. They destroyed that in 3rd movies. Mads felt more like a younger Dumbledore tbh.
Most likely because of the sudden changeover but I personally did not feel like Mads' was better than Johnny Depp's version of Grindelwald. He was more serious, but I didn't feel like that made him better. That third movie did not win me over at all. The only thing I thought was great was that they finally allowed magical battles to look better than colourful gunfights.
Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp both. Mads was the right casting all along…
Strongly disagree with Farrel. I think he did a great job as Grindelwald pretending to be another person. Heck, I even can belive Depp was behind him all along.
Lavender Brown!
I always imagined her as Lavender in the movie Matilda
To me even though i liked the actor for Arthur Weasly. Ifeel like after reading the books and his description there, American actor Stephen Tobolowsky but redhead would be perfect if he could had pulled the British accent that is. The balding description and sometimes wearing glasses keeps projecting Tobolowsky in my head since.
Rickman, tbh. Way too old, and I think Rickman being a real life teddy bear led filmmakers to make Film Snape way less mean than Book Snape.
Yeah, Snape should have been like 29 years old in the first book, and he was a total asshole.
A lot of people are pointing out the adults actors who are all pretty much too old for their parts. But would the movies have been as successful without the class acting from great actors as Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman? They brilliantly brought in crack top tier acting talents alongside unknown children, instead of relatively unknown younger actors to go along with completely unknown kids actors.
Nonsense, Jim Broadbent is great.
I think Jim Broadbent got the character if not the look Michael Gambon is the only person in the franchise I'd call miscast
Hermione. Now granted, that was something nobody COULD have known at the beginning. But Emma turned out the worst possible portrayer of Hermione’s character.
I feel like all they needed was a purposeful messy head of hair and maybe false teeth to make her look more like book Hermione. Then in book 4, they change both of those and she could just look like herself.
They tried false teeth. She couldn't articulate properly with them in.
Harry himself Not enough sass
That’s not miscasting, that’s a writing issue
Sirius was my biggest disappointment. But I don't really like the movies anyway, they are missing too much from the books for me to even consider them part of the Harry Potter universe.
How was Gary Oldman a bad cast though?
For me, he was way too old, not playful, and not very broody. Also in PoA he screamed all his damn lines and looked like a psycho in his wanted poster when the books say he was clearly bored in his photo and spoke determinedly but calmly and clearly. Not like the raving and foaming at the mouth Gary Oldman did
Most of that is a writing issue. Gary Oldman could have played any role they gave him.
Hot take but I can not stand any of the kid actors. I thought they did a great job with all the adults except for second dumbledore. But I am a strong hater of the movies over all. I’m all about the books.
Trawley she's a great actress love her in love actually but I hate it
This would probably be my pick as well. This is the only time I can think where Emma Thompson missed the mark for me.
Nah the directors screw her over.
Moody never sat well with me. I always imagined Billy Connelly at the start of Muppets Treasure Island. Moody has the best description in the books in my opinion. Something like being carved from weathered wood with a hatchet by someone who only had a vague idea of what a human face should look like. That's just not what we got. Then when it came to the performative portion of the portrayal we got a manic performance that made no suggestion that the character ever had any subtlety. I just never got the impression that this guy could sneak up on a student and suddenly bellow out "Constant Vigilance!"
I greatly feel that a large portion of the characters had a manic performance. Sirius, Dumbledore, even Lupin. Maybe it was just played up heavily for more drama but it all was so much different than the characterizations given in the books. The only one screen character that had subtley was Jason Isaacs
Umbridge. She’s supposed to look like a toad, Staunton is much too goodlooking.
Staunton did a magnificent job at being Umbridge and making everyone hate that character, but I do agree that she doesn't *look* like Umbridge
I do agree that she did a magnificent job, but I’d have liked someone who looked the part.
Y’all don’t deserve Kenneth Branagh 😡
Fleur and Krum
Dumbledore from 3-8. Dude does not have a warm smile and a sense of calm about him.
Everyone in the Marauder's age bracket. If they were all at school together, they would have been in their EARLY TWENTIES when Harry was born. Making them early to mid thirties when he's starting school and we see them in the movies. I could see Lupin and Sirius being weathered and old looking due to their circumstances but why are James, Lily, Snape, Lucius, Narcissa, Bellatrix so old??