I’ve read all the books, seen all the movies (except for Deathly Hallows Part 1), and have learned more about the series online. However, I am not like many other Harry Potter fans for this reason: I like the movies more than the books. Why? Here are two reasons (feel free to disagree with me):
1: I find the characters and situations to be more believable in the movies than the books. There are so many instances where I was glad something from the books that I didn’t find credible were either cut out of the films or changed into being more believable, with the exceptions of bigger concepts, like no one reporting the Dursleys to social services or how owls know how to deliver letters to the right people. Here are a couple of examples of scenes I was glad were cut out of the movies:
-In Prisoner of Azkaban, there is one scene where Harry, Ron, and Hermione are at Hagrid’s hut. At first Hagrid thanks them, but then he suddenly explodes at them (“WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU’RE DOING, EH?”-written by J.K. Rowling). Unless Hagrid has some mysterious mood-swing disorder (which I’m sure he doesn’t), there is no way he would erupt out of anger from calmness. It just doesn’t feel believable.
-In Order of the Phoenix, when Harry punches Draco, he not only gets detention from McGonnagall, but Umbridge adds a life-long ban from Quiddich because of that. But I don’t think any instructor, even someone as horrible as Umbridge, would hand out such a severe punishment for an offense not harsh enough for that. Harry would have been banned from Quiddich for life if he were a professional Quiddich player and did something much worse over and over again. But for punching another student, he would have been, at most banned from the Hogwarts Quiddich team for the rest of his fifth year, maybe until after he graduated.
And here are a couple examples I was happy that the movie makers changed:
-In the Sorcerer’s Stone When Hagrid first meets Harry after ten years, he says something about tea (I don’t remember off the top of my head), but it didn’t sound natural. In the film, he actually apologized, and I liked that more.
-In the Goblet of Fire, when the champions are being selected, there were some unnecessary reactions. One was how some Beaubaxton students cried from not being selected. And the other was Ron shouting, “No!” when Cedric was selected the Hogwarts champion. I get that the movies need to cut out a lot of content (I’m also aware the Book 4 was originally going to be two movies, like Book 7), but I still liked this better than in the book.
2. I like how the characters are better at controlling their emotions in the films than in the novels.
-While everyone says Book Ginny is better than movie Ginny is better, I can see the reasons why… except in Book 1. Ginny was too immature for her age. If I had been old enough to read Sorcerer’s Stone before Chamber of Secrets had been released, I would have thought Ginny was 5 or 6 at most. No way would I have thought she was 10. I’m glad the movie makers matured her.
-In the Order of the Phoenix book, Sirius was not as friendly as in the movie. He had bad tempers, which didn’t really happen in the film. That was why I found movie Sirius more likable than book Sirius.
That being said…
-This may be the opposite that everyone complains about. In the Goblet of Fire book, after Harry is selected champion, Dumbledore asks calmly, “Did you put you name in the goblet of fire?” While in the movie, it’s aggressively. I laugh at that, because I thought the way it was done in the film was fine. Even though I discovered that it wasn’t like Dumbledore to talk like that, I still find it humorous.
And now here are some unanswered questions that have been wandering in my mind?
- What would have happened if someone reported the Dursleys to social services and the social services people took Harry away and placed him in foster care?
I find it hard to believe, even for a child who grew up in the 80’s, that nobody had been horrified by how the Dursleys have treated Harry and have done anything about it. Did the neighbors not ever have visitors who were new to Privet Drive? Or new residents moving there? I get that this is fiction. I also know that the wizarding world forces Harry to stay with his blood-relatives for protection, even though they treat him horribly. But I still find it odd that no outsider had been shocked and reported the Dursleys. I’m pretty sure in real life, long before Harry turned 11, somebody would have reported the Dursleys to Britain’s child protective services equivalent, and by the second chapter on Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry would have already been living in foster care for a while, with more responsible and legitimate foster parents. Maybe they would have been strict and/or overprotective with lots of unfair rules (maybe they would’ve been against the idea of Harry going off to Hogwarts), but they wouldn’t have been nearly as bad as the Dursleys.
2. What would the magical world have done if someone had reported the Dursleys to social services and Harry was taken away and placed in a foster home (and Harry wasn’t involved in any of those decisions)?
This will probably never be answered. But I still wonder what the ministry of magic would have done. Would they have been able to move the protection to the foster home? Would they have asked social services to take Harry back to the Dursleys? Would they have done nothing? Who knows?
That’s really it. Regardless of all these things, I still enjoy the series and learning more about it.