The biggest issue I have with adaptational attractiveness is when a protagonist is clearly good looking but treated as being ugly by everyone around them.
My uncle told me about a Twilight Zone episode like that. It’s about this alien world where everyone’s ugly accept for this one woman who’s beautiful and all the ugly people think she’s ugly.
yeah, the only counterexample to this I remember from my childhood is the hunchback of Notre Dame, but that was such a horrible horrible book, that I couldn't really take it seriously. So horrible, why would my parents even let me read such things.
To be fair the association comes from human nature itself. Most good looking features are results of good health so are geared towards wanting to reproduce. Therefore we associate good attributes with beautiful people. It’s mostly a technique to make people like/dislike a character without the need for skilled character development, you can see why this is the case in children’s fiction where the writing isn’t always world class.
Emma Watson is so cute that it confused me as a kid why the movie tried to portray her as surprisingly beautiful at the ball. I was like, "She looks the same? Why are people shocked, how did they not know she was pretty?". lol
It was on a par with that moment in Wallace and Gromit, the Wrong Trousers, where the Penguin takes off the rubber glove on his head and Wallace is amazed: "Good grief! It's you!" As if sticking a rubber glove on his head were an effective disguise.
Yeah, they played the bushy unkempt hair thing for the first one or two films and then dropped it as soon as she grew up a little in the third one, to capitalise on those looks.
This was my biggest gripe with the Carrie remake. Chloe Grace Moretz was more beautiful than any of her other classmates so it didn't make sense that she was being bullied. The original actress was pretty too, but she was portrayed in an ugly light. The New Carrie was wearing loads of pretty makeup all the time even if she was supposed to be the awkward ugly high school girl
Hollywood also sometimes make evil, conventionally attractive characters in books ugly in the film adaptation. For example, Cruella de Vil. She was an elegant, young, attractive woman in Dodie Smith’s children’s novel, but Disney made her inelegant, old, and ugly because that’s considered more “evil.”
I think it's because, when you make a villain attractive, that means you're glamorizing or romanticising them? Not all bad people look ugly. In fact, people who look like they do no wrong, take advantage of their own appearance to get what they want
@@ninarances9074 I agree with you, in fact I believe it’s better to make evil characters unattractive unless it’s related to their personality (like a sexy evil temptress) I think this way because so many teens are glorifying villains as iconic or “misunderstood” but they only sympathise with the attractive ones, I’ve never seen anyone portray The Penguin (except in the Tim Burton movie where it’s part of the storyline) or Ursula in a symphathetic manner
One of the reasons I love Invader ZiM is because the main characters are really cute looking, but they are also little jerks. I just live for this combination so much.
@@paemonyes8299 While that may be true, it's partly symptomatic of how teens, and society, perceives and portrays conventionally attractive people as less evil or more sympathetic. Without changing that, without separating attractiveness and morals, I don't think you can solve this problem.
@@siddharthsahu2101 Attractiveness is simply seen as a positive quality. It's a fundamental aspect of human biology. It's quite literally in the name. You might as well eliminate selfishness or murder while you're at it.
The writing of Hermione took away from Ron. Ron turned into an absolute idiot in the movies. He was the one who was raised in the wizarding world, he was the "street smart" one of the group. But, like you said, they gave all his lines to her :/ That has always bothered me.
You're 100% right, but I think it does show how awesome Rupert Grint was in that role. He still managed to be super memorable, even with all his lines stolen. Go watch the the Chamber of Secrets car/train scene, Movie Clips uploaded a version called "Reckless Flying" and just look at his facial expressions. That kid is like 12, and understood physical comedy better than most adults.
in the books, there’s a scene where the slytherin are harassing Hermione about her physical appearance, and use a spell to make her teeth keep growing. when he should have punished the slytherin, snape agrees with them, and says that he can’t see a difference to what her teeth usually look like. this leads hermione to magically alter her appearance to not only counteract the spell, but shrink her teeth further, despite what her dentist parents advised her to do. this scene is not ok the film. i think this not only removes a dimension from hermione, but also from snape; it doesn’t show how cruel he could truly be
In any book worth adapting, everything flows into everything else. You can't make thoughtless changes to make things look "better" onscreen without adjusting other things to compensate.
Hermione was already insecure about her teeth before that incident. It wasn't the cause of her shrinking them to normal size. It was just an opportunity for her to shrink them.
@Philip Arvanitidis It's still considered a defect as far as appearance goes. Leaving out her buck teeth makes Movie Hermione more attractive, hence the trope.
Another thing the movies seem to forget is that Hermione is muggle born making her not as experienced in the Wizarding world, and not knowing certain things . For example when Draco calls her a mud blood in the chamber of secrets, she has no clue what it means. But in the movies she does know what it means, making hermoine explain it to the audience instead of Ron explaining it to her. Poor Ron, the one thing he has over her is basically non-existent in the movies
Because its okay to do that in Hollywood and modern culture. Portraying a boy as being ignorant of things does not carry political backlash like it does when you do that to a girl. No matter how realistic that makes her character, anything more than "superficial" flaws always brings out the protesters which lowers sales. It's not about artistic integrity, it's about fucking $$$.
I know. I absolutely loathed how the movies dumbed Ron down and for the most part made him comedy relief. Quite a few of his best lines or moments were either given to other characters or taken out entirely. He was my favourite character in the books.
A lot of Ron’s lines went to Hermione. Ron was never dumb, he was the one who kept the three grounded. In moments of panic, Hermione sometimes forgot she’s a witch. Ron reminded her.
I think the biggest issue with it, and this could sound really stupid, but it was a curly haired character with blonde hair who was actually legitimately smart and also wasn't the stereotypical "mean girl" (a character who I couldn't relate too and was supposed to be a villain). As a young, curly haired, blonde girl, when I first read this I was so excited. The only other smart blonde female character in media who I could think of was Elle Woods, who was smart no doubt, but was still kind of a ditz. I wasn't like that. I was a book obsessed blonde who was bullied constantly and no one my age ever saw me as pretty. Maybe two people in my grade have ever called me attractive (I'm very pale with insanely curly blonde hair, not over weight by any means but I'm not the skinniest). Annabeth was important to me because smart blondes aren't exactly common, and her and I have really similar personalities and it was just so cool because I still can't think of many examples like her played by naturally blonde actors. Cause, you know, they do exist, and no, blondes don't exactly have dark brown roots and black eyebrows. Anywho, rant over.
I hated that Hermione got the line “fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.” Only Harry and Dumbledor were comfortable saying Voldemort for a long time.
Peggy7899 Alison That’s not a dumb belief? The only dumb belief is fearing that something as inanimate as a name could harm them. It was only because Voldemort was resurrected by the Deathly Hallows did he cast a taboo on his name, leading them to be arrested by the snatchers.
@Maryam Naser What if Voldemort had the taboo going before he got himself exploded? What if the reason most adults refused to say his name was, that it would call him? Then fearing the name would be perfectly reasonable for anyone who was there during his previous terror. Voldemort dieing could have broken the spell, making it safe to say his name, but then he reaplied it.
Real talk, book hermione is annoying or inconvenient on several ocasions, making her so perfect in the movies meant taking away the flaws that made her complex and complimenting her personality with all of Ron's good traits, which in turn created a generation of people who truly believe he is undeserving of her or doesnt bring anything to the relationship when he is so essencial to making her happier, braver and bolder
Maria Luísa seriously tho! I’m so sick of people hating and bashing on Ron as if Hermione was some sort of flawless golden girl who could do no wrong (May i point out that she was kinda pretentious and condescending in the books).I lover her but I love Ron too, and I don’t see why everyone insists on putting him down so much just to highlight how much “better” Hermione is or deserves
I love Hermione in the books and the movie but I feel like Ron was screwed over in the movies they could’ve easily made him more true to the books but chose not to for some reason
I never really got the sense that Hermione ever learned anything from Ron that made her grow as a character I actually think she had the least amount of growth in the books
Ron being constantly overshadowed and out-shined by his family and his friends was a constant theme in the books, and by giving his lines, heroism and level head to Hermione the films have done it all over again.
Netflix Adaptation: Hermione and Harry come up to some ginger kid being picked on by Malfloy's trio. After saving the weird ginger kid he becomes the Fight Club-esque 'Where's Waldo' easter egg of the series.
And to Harry. Or giving Harry’s stuff to Hermione. Making Hermione way more badass than she needs to be because she was pretty great by herself is why those movies just irk me. And switching Ron getting up on a BROKEN leg and putting himself between Harry and Sirius to Hermione doing it while Ron sits there with I think a bite? Still hurts like hell but a broken leg would be worse, no? They disrespected Ron so much in those movies. They did not do him justice at all.
As someone with naturally curly hair, I always thought it mildly insulting that the "pretty" curly hair is never bushy or frizzy and always looks more like straight hair that was curled. (Someone actually told me once I should straighten and then curl my hair so it would look better). I always thought Hermione had hair like me, so it was sad when her film adaptation didn't follow through with that after the second movie.
I have curly hair as well and I had been so insecure my entire life. The only time I had been complimented was when I straightened it my hair. It feels horrible to look back and realise what that’s done to my selfesteem. I wish they had more characters who were the pretty one and had curly hair. Not like the usually tamed curls they like to show which you can do with a curling iron, real curls that aren’t the most controlled but still presentable. Curly hair doesn’t have to be unruly and messy like they like to portray all the time.
I have naturally very bushy, curly hair. The amount of times I've been asked by girls with straight hair who use curly irons to make it wavey why I don't straighten it...it's exhausting tbh
I agree. I have incredibly thick and frizzy hair and i'd appreciate more of the "pretty" characters had actually curly or frizzy hair. I feel a lot more fortunate though as people actually really like my natural hair. I'd honestly trade it for anyone elses hair any day since it's a pain to manage.
In India it's apparently a sign of great beauty if women have thick curly hair. My mom and I have straight hair that turns wavy occasionally. All my aunts and cousins on both sides of the family have thick, curly hair. I had a whole phase where I'd try to get my hair curled so that I could feel "pretty". Horribly enough, hair straightening has become a norm now and my cousins keep hurting their hair trying to get "silky, smooth" hair. All of this bullshit made me realize that hair is hair and its stupid to waste all that time worrying about it.
Too spot-on. And unfortunately, the reverse also makes some less savory implications, when characters are shown as plain and flawed, it continues to tie attractiveness with morality and ugliness with evil.
I don’t know any examples of what you’re talking about, but if I had to justify it I’d say it’s because it’s a representation and goodness is attractive while being evil isn’t.
@@feartheghus Disney has done this a lot. In Snow White, the queen turns into an ugly witch just to give Snow the poisoned apple. The queen could have turned into just another beautiful stranger but specifically was ugly.
As an aspiring actress, I can tell you I have sit in the same room next to underwear models, and the casting staff (usually mediocre middle aged men/women) had the galls to say to that people that they were not pretty/hot enough, so... Casting world is crazy
Scarlett I feel is the exception because though she was quiet physically plain she never once realized it. She thought herself the most beautiful woman in existence and because she did she was treated like it. Even now that trait would be difficult to protray on screen, let alone back then. Easier just to cast a beautiful actress.
@@TwelvetreeZ Agreed. Also, I have to wonder what Margaret Mitchell really meant. The rest of the passage goes, "men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were. In her face were too sharply blended the delicate features of her mother, a Coast aristocrat of French descent, and the heavy ones of her florid Irish father. But it was an arresting face, pointed of chin, square of jaw. Her eyes were pale green without a touch of hazel, starred with bristly black lashes and slightly tilted at the ends. Above them, her thick black brows slanted upward, cutting a startling oblique line in her magnolia-white skin." Nowadays, what she describes would be a photographer's dream--a combination of sex appeal and unique features fit for the cover of any magazine. Maybe the real point was to say that she didn't fit the conventional definition of "pretty" for that era, but had a much more interesting look.
@@agap05 You definitely should! It's a good read, although be forewarned that it is in many ways a product of its time, so some parts may strike you as a little cringeworthy.
For Holes: Stanely loses significant weight while he is at camp, ending with a figure similar to Shia LeBouf's. The director didn't want to make an already skinner child actor put on massive weight then have him lose it over a short window for filming. Adaptational Attractiveness is one thing, but I will brush that aside for a director who gives a sh*t about their actors' health.
Ebony O'Brien and then forced him to lose weight for adaptational truism? That’s kind of shitty - like, “oh, you’re a good actor, kid, but you’ll have to drop 15 kilo over the course of the film to get the part-also if we need to re-shoot scenes or want any additional takes we’re fucked! OR you have to gain it back again so we can recreate that look! _Healthy!”_ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Better to use a fat suit (a series of them as Stanley loses weight) on someone the size of end-goal Stanley, like Shia, along with facial prosthetics so the weight loss is recreatable for additional takes as needed.
They can't really just accept the fact that Emma Watson is "too attractive for the role" when they LITERALLY made buck teeth prosthetics for the actor of Neville Longbottom, can they??
@@bethanyb1175 That isn't the only reason she complained about them. They took artistic liberties to make the role more attractive for her, by making her more attractive. They loved her acting, but she hated the role, at first. Same with harry and his contact lenses. Eventually they said 'screw it' and just let the main cast be different than the books. I heard more detail about this on the commentary on one of the DVD sets, if you want to look into it. This is the logic behind allowing the casting of hermione to be black instead. It isn't like they stayed true to the books anyway. However, it does make some lines from the book very confusing, like when hermoine got confused for a weasley.
Making Hermione perfect also severely took away from Ron's character. In the book, he is emotionally very intelligent and has his own way of saving the day. In the movies, all his good moments are given to Hermione and Ron is just a comic relief.
exactly! There's such a nice balance in the books because all 3 of them are incredibly valuable in making things work and they all have their individual strengths that help save them. In the movies it's Hermione and Harry being amazing wizards and they kind of just drag Ron along and he's used for laughs
ObiWan Kenobi I know SO many people who hate Ron - and I’m pretty sure the film adaptation of his character is the main reason they think Ron is dumb/incapable and that Harry and Hermione should have ended up together.
I have to strongly disagree with you on that. Recall that Luna Lovegood casually mentioned that Ron was funny, but could be very unkind, and that it made Harry uncomfortable because he knew it was true. Ron isn't emotionally intelligent. He is very loyal, and often has small insights, but low emotional intelligence is one of his biggest character flaws. Hermione is, in a certain sense, more magically talented, intelligent, and emotionally grounded than Ron or Harry. But Ron and Harry are the ones who really bring out the qualities that make her a Gryffindor. And honestly, Ron IS just kind of going along with it while Harry and Hermione do amazing things, rising to the occasion when it really matters. Feelings of inadequacy are a major part of his character arc.
yes! that's the halo effect: we assume that if someone is very good at a certain thing, they're amazing at everything. it's way more that just movie logic though, it even happens in classic fairytales/legends: Rapunzel is beautiful, the witch locking her in isnt. Sigmund, the dragon slayer, is also portrayed as very handsome in paintings. Odysseus' wife (I forgot her name oops) has many admirers and many proposals in the twenty years that her husband was lost on sea (which points to her as being beautiful as well), yet she turns everyone down. it's been a part of human psyche for as long as we told stories.
I actually think Emma Watson's beauty sort of diminishes Ron's character development too. He realizes he doesn't want just a beautiful girl, he wants someone brave, intelligent and kind and who he has an emotional connection.
I haven't read the books but i just recently watched the movies and i couldn't buy in to their relationship at all. They had no chemistry and Hermione is way out of Ron's league.
@@crazy10bears yeah you should read them. she glows up just before the yule ball in the 4th book and thats when ron realizes how pretty she is. their chemistry is apparent from the first book through all the bickering. but thats my opinion.
@@crazy10bears I know, thats a problem many film-watchers have and I don't blame you. Film-Ron is an outright moron. Dumb and focussed on the appearance of girls and not much more than the funny side-kick without much substance. In the books, however, he is - I have to admit - my favorite character and I think overall the most relatable. He is not as smart as Hermione but arguably the same as Harry. He is a bit lazy - who isn't? He is incredibly brave and always stands up for Harry OR Hermione (many scenes which show that are cut out of the films or simply given to the All-Perfect Hermione. For example in the third one when Snape is mean to Hermione, Ron says: "He's got a point, you know?" thats not right at all. In the books he gets so angry that he gets punished by Snape). Ron's got flaws like a real human has and he has a very relatable and believable character-developement, especially when it comes to him viewing women for more than their looks. Much of the bonding between Hermione and Ron happens off-screen and off-paper, but in the books we know about it. Ron spends way more time alone witch Hermione than Harry does. I always loved their chemistry and relationship and I highly recommend you reading the books. Sorry for the long text though :D
@@TheTororist tbh. I found the Ron/Hermione 'chemistry' in the books to be just as flat and incredulous as in the films... both Harry and Ron are complete arses towards her on multiple occations throughout their school years and in the hunt for horcruxes even when she's bending over backwards to save their collective bacons...
@@SonsOfLorgar They're regularly asses toward each other, too, though, yet remain best friends. And during the hunt, they're all spending nearly every moment together during a very stressful time and it starts to wear on them. I thought Rowling did an excellent job of portraying the relationships of close friends during the different stages of adolescence. As for the chemistry part, though, I mostly agree. I'm glad she avoided the easy cliche of putting Harry and Hermoine together, but putting Ron and Hermione together doesn't read all that much better. It's a small flaw in a great series, though.
Exactly, even his lines. They gave all his good qualities and lines, to Hermione. And took all her flaws. I hated that about the movies. It made romione make no sense at all, whereas in the book they balance each other out.
He was supposed to be be quite smart in a ‘I’m always right but don’t feel like I am’ way but they gave all his amazing, lovable qualities to hermione.
@@slenderfoxx3797 Just like Zukos scar in the last airbender live action movie. Simply stated, that burn scar was put on his face as a dark reminder from his father that he's a disappointment in his eyes (it actually goes deeper, but I don't want this comment to be too long... :D) But in the movie, he just got a light sunburn on the area around his eye. It just hasn't the same implication as a permanent disfigurement (is that the right word? I'm not a native english speaker, so sorry for that. :D), since it's so barely noticeable.
@Bozhena Gahan Exactly! When a character is supposed to be ugly, instead of casting an actor that actually looks like he/she sould look, they usually pick a good looking actor/actress and give them messy hair and crumpled clothes. I noticed they did this with Grantaire in "Les Miserables" and it really bothered me
I think because when you’re younger and less experienced with how to style your hair, it’s the curly haired kids who end up looking less put-together. A girl with naturally straight hair isn’t going to look ugly just because she doesn’t know how to do her hair, because her hair will still look tidy. But a young girl with curly/messy hair doesn’t have the hair care routine down yet, so she looks uglier.
Not only Hermione is adapted in the films to be more attractive physically and in characteristics, I think they completely ruined Ginny Weasly's character. In the books she is stubborn, bossy, smart, the typical little sister of a bunch of brothers. Especially from the 5th book on it becomes apparent what a strong and talented witch she is. However, in the films, especially after the first two, she becomes this quiet, passive girl who is like pretty, moving furniture in the film and eventually becomes Harry's partner. In the books, Harry respects her strength in both magic and Quidditch, two things he is good at as well. They become a strong team based on equal respect for the strength of the other, even before they become a couple. This completely vanished in the films the more the series progressed.
THANK YOU finally someone says it ! Ginny was one of my favorite characters in the book : she was badass, stubborn, bold, a strong female character who always had a smart thing to say that put people back in their place (which would make sense with all the brothers she had to deal with). But I was so disappointed when I saw the movies cause she was just this useless character that never said anything cool and was just there to kiss Harry once in a while, their relationship was so awkward and didn't make sense as it did in the books. Their first kiss is especially awkward in the movie and it comes out of nowhere, in the book it's this really cool moment when they just won quidditch and Harry's so happy to see her that he kisses her in front of everyone (and he can see Ron is okay with it which was a big part of why he didn't do it sooner) that just make so much more sense.. I'll never get over what they did to this character :(
Exactly, they basically erased all the character development of Ginny and therefore their relationship doesn't make sense anymore. Ginny was also my favorite character in the book, so the film adaptation in that regard didn't do it justice. I mean, at the battle of hogwards she keeps of Bellatrix together with Neville, how damn talented was she to do that at 16?! They really didn't do justice to her character :(
also Ginny overcame serious trauma, her childhood and soul was literally stolen by Tom Riddle, and she overcomes it in a blaze of fire. She becomes stronger, kinder, brighter and disillusioned. She defends the people that remind her of her own 11 year old self, vulnerable and easy pickings for cruel people (Neville and Luna).She has a ton of flaws, but she is ultimately the person Harry ends up with because she has also overcome trauma from Voldemort and lets it guide her to being the merciful warrior that Harry is.
To me Hermione's hair was so important because as someone who also has wavy frizzy hair you never see that on screen and in the first movie its so nice to see someone else representing it but then her hair magically tames itself
Well tbh I used to have Hermione hair when I was a kid and then as you said, it "magically tamed itself". Maybe Emma's hair did the same thing? It lost texture and the stylist had less natural volume to work with? Their filming schedule was crazy, working with time-wasting extensions or risking a bad perm could have had major consequences. It may or may not be but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise what was the point of having her hair like that in the sorcerer's stone in the first place?
Holes gets a pass, because I remember reading when the movie came out that they did want to portray Stanley accurately (overweight in the beginning and rapidly having lost weight by the end), but they didn't want to put that much of a drastic physical change on the actor. I always thought that was a super acceptable reason, and Shia being cast was not done for aesthetics.
As far as Tyrion goes I am so beyond glad that when they were making him more attractive they didn’t take away the fact that he has dwarfism, I myself have dwarfism and have noticed a change in people’s perceptions from how they perceived me before GoT, people always used to stare and think I was strange and weird because of my disability but now with Game Of Thrones being so famous, I feel the amount of stares I get is lower and people actually have an idea of someone with dwarfism that they can think of that isn’t just a stereotype.
That's a great example for why we need more representation in movies and tv shows for all kinds of people in all kinds of rolls. Lets everyone see that we're not all that different from each other no matter what we look like.
@tylerx2f01 it depends if they say this is Greg he is gay. Or if they have a character who has character development and personality who happens to be gay.
Not gonna lie: when a friend first showed me GoT and told me to watch it I didn't, because I thought "what medieval comedy is this?" when they showed Tyrion. When I later watched it and realised, that Tyrion is my favorite charakter, the realisation of my prejudice hit me hard. But it's like you said: we never had deep and intriguing charakters with dwarfsim and that seems to leave a mark.
Thank you for stressing throughout the video that it's the fault of the studios and the writers, not the actors. Emma Watson and Peter Dinklage in particular as still brilliant in their respective roles.
Emma Watson herself said she hated looking back at the earlier movies and seeing herself with the Hermione hair (which wasn't as bushy as it could have been). She refused to look like canon Hermione from the books, and the studio and producers were all too happy to cater to her to beautify Hermione.
@Sternia Hoenheim are you actually complaining because a character looks prettier in a movie than in a book. Like a can sort of understand if she was uglier although you would still be an idiot for complaining, but her being prettier is not a bad thing at all.
Adaptational adaptness affected Ron's character a lot in my opinion. Just the fact that they made Hermione so much more prettier made people question why she would end up Ron. They both did some shit to each other in the books, but while they kept Ron's negative lines they removed the ones where he defends Hermione, and a lot of times his good lines were given to Emma Watson, making Hermione an all knowing perfect character, which wasn't that way in the books. They were hailing Hermione as an icon to be emulated for all girls, but even icons have flaws, and they made this version of Hermione end up with movie Ron, who was basically the opposite of Book Ron.
At first I only knew the movies and hated ron and Hermione... she was just there, the untouchable Emma Watson. So I never liked the movies very much. But when I got myself to read the books, I noticed all these mistakes and started to love the Harry Potter universe >
Within the same page, Scarlett is also described as having an “arresting face”, “magnolia-white skin”, a tiny waist (seventeen inches) and “breasts well matured for her sixteen years” - not to mention a very charming personality. Ironically you've picked the one book that isn't an example of this video.
I think what it means by that line is that she doesn’t have perfectly delicate facial features, but is still considered very attractive and special in her own way -- her attractiveness is a big part of the book
Harry potter had the classic hollywood treatment: the already special boy becomes a hero, he has the wise sidekick and the dumb sidekick with a ton of luck. It's quite sad because Ron is easily one of the best characters of the series and he is dumbed down in the films.
yeah in the books he is that classic underdog type character that becomes awesome towards the end when he starts to step up and become a boss. In the movie he is just comedic relief
Totally agree. There was no need to reduce him to a mere comic relief character with no depth -_- they even gave some of his lines to Hermione. Also, this results in his love story with Hermione quite.... Inconsistent with hoe the characters were portrayed through SEVEN films. Really a waste of a good character.
The love story does make more sense in the book, because they both seem more like normal human beings with flaws, but that actually compliment each other very well. In the movie it seems like this perfect girl with almost no flaws, falls for the biggest goofball out there. Wich just seems weird. Like those American comedy shows, with overweight dumb guys having a very attractive wife, who also fixes there problems every time.
@@Paul-ng3xn I always had the same feeling about that. It's so clear that the director wanted Harry and Hermione to end up together, not her and Ron. While reading the books I had the feeling that Ron and Hermione had a way closer relationship with each other than Harry and Hermione had, especially in book 5 and 6, in which they spent weeks together without Harry and probably bonded over that time.
I love that scene from "Not Another Teen Movie" where they make the bet to take out the most repulsive thing in school and to make her the prom queen. "What about the hunchback? Way too easy. The hippy albino with bright red eyes? No way. Pfft. Easy. The conjoined twins connected at the head? Piece of cake. No we need someone really repulsive. No, not her. Anyone but her. Not, Jamie Briggs. She's got glasses and a ponytail. There's paint on her overalls." Meanwhile she's obviously beautiful. Lol.
The best part about that scene is the main jock actually still thinks (rightfully) that they're all attractive in their own ways beyond a fickle high school movie judgement.
I think Hermione being so perfect might be one of the reasons Ginny played such a minor role in the films. In the books Ginny is described as though, clever and beautiful. Even the Slytherins admit that she is good looking and desired (I think in the train in book 6). Apparently there was not much "need" for Ginny in the films anymore, because Hermoine took over some of her characteristics (still love Hermoine).
To be fair, Ginny was given so little to do and so little development in the books as well. She changed very little and did most of that growth outside the scope of the trio's story.
@@SpankSandwitch99 True, I remember reading the 6th book for the first time and at the end Harry and ginny decide to pause their relationship and I was like "wait... they were together?! When did that happen???"
Which is a great thing. The last thing the story needed was more characters or more scene time for minor ones. They did the right thing eliminating some characters from the books and making Hermione attractive. You think they shouldn't have given her the job because she is cute? That would be very wrong and discrimination.
So.. not hiring someone because they don't fit the description is discrimination? Discrimination they don't let Hugh Jackman play Sheldon Cooper? Discrimination Dolph Lundgreen can't play the Karate Kid? Discrimination they didn't let Pamela Anderson star in Misery? ua-cam.com/video/3O8J2locx5o/v-deo.html No.. only casting very attractive people for every role because you need eye-candy is discrimination. Watson could have gotten pretty much any role from the obligatory side-chick in transformers to small indie projects. But somewhere a wiery haired, plain, knowitall actress is serving burgers because she didn't get the role. (A job in which Watson would still have made five times that actresses tips..)
@@blaze556922 it's more an issue of removing some of the motivating factors Hermione had. She wasn't hideous, but her crazy hair and 'horse' teeth made her more withdrawn and added struggles that she later overcame thanks to having friends and becoming more confident. She even made a choice after getting bullied by snape about her overgrown (due to draco, I think) teeth, to allow them to be shrank further than what they normally were, giving her a more normal smile from then on, instead of relying on her dentist parents to just use braces
And how she doesn’t know about the tales of Beedle the bard in the books, because they’re children’s stories, so Hermione wouldn’t have grown up with them.
@TwilightRaven well when you think of witch you think of "old hag stirring a pot of stew" and when you think of wizard you think of "cool magic guy!" But grammatically they are the same.
Yeah I really loved those moments it showed that the wizarding world is still new to her and there will always be a difference between muggleborns and wizards born into wizarding families. They grew up in different cultures. Ron went his whole life surrounded by magic so in stressful times thats his go to move. Hermione is logical and raised by muggles so when told to start a fire her go to is to say there's no wood cause its not natural to her at least at the start
Everybody had to be made less smart to make room for Hermione's towering intellect. I think it's a bit of flanderization as well. In the books Hermione's studiousness made perfect sense. She was muggle born, so she actually appreciated the magic. If you went to magic school you would probably try to learn everything you could about it too. Most kids like Ron just didn't give a f*** because magic school was just ordinary boring school for them. She was bright, but not necessarily a genius. Well-prepared, say. In stark contrast to her peers. (*edit: for comparison, tom riddle was the same way, except he definitely was a genius, inventing his own spells and stuff) In the movies she's brain-o the magnificent. She comes up with every solution, solves every problem and leaves the rest of the cast a stuttering, fumbling mess. Another reason for this is probably because of all the exposition they had to cram in to make a 1000 page book work in a 3 hour run time. So they just had Hermione explain everything, do everything and fix everything real quick.
I think the most notable difference between book Hermione and her movie counterpart is her lack of emotional intelligence in the books, she is book smart but doesn’t really get others feelings and even acts cruel to other students on several occasions
Thats interesting, cause i love Harry Potter and i always thought Hermione was a very emotionally intelligent character. In the sense that, when Harry and Ron wanted to punch Malfoy (which was a lot of times lol), she was always like “Harry, no! We’ll get in trouble! Its not worth it”, and on the 1st book (i think?) Neville was sad because he felt too shy to be in Gryffinfor, Hermione was offering him emotional support. I feel like she always searched to do what she thought was the right thing and tried to be understanding for others. I really like her character for that reason
Yeah! I actually didn’t really like movie Hermione, because I felt like she was the perfect character, and they stripped her off all the flaws that made her Hermione. In the books, she was an insufferable nerd, that always tried to do the “correct thing”, even if it wasn’t the good choice or it affected others. She also liked to brag and sometimes was extremely insensitive to others, to the point that at the first book no one wanted to be her friend, because she was annoying to the other kids. (Which disappeared with time because guess what? Character development!) But even then, she was also a *kid* , and was sensitive when feeling alone or when someone attacked her where it hurt; her intelligence. Remember when Snape made her cry and Ron stood up for her. It made her cry because what she saw as the biggest figure, a teacher, had told her that she was stupid. Remember that her boggart was McGonagall telling her that she had to go back home, because her notes were all bad. Point is, the beautiful thing about Hermione wasn’t that; “she is pretty and reads books and is Harry’s friend!” The beautiful thing about Hermione was that she was human, she did mistakes and bragged and sometimes was even mean or annoying, but still did what she thought was best for everyone. She also put effort into everything, which wasn’t really shown in the movies, and was really a perfectionist. She was just a girl that did everything right because she was scared to be a disappointment and, when something happened that wasn’t planned, she acted scared and didn’t know what to do. That’s HUMAN, that’s beautiful! Movie Hermione May have been a beautiful perfect girl... but Book Hermione was a role model, and showed that mistakes are normal, because we all have them and can learn from them. Book Hermione is awesome :)
@@thewindgamer2607 also she advised Ginny about Harry and she was right. I do agree though that Hermione sucks at taking her own advice when it comes to her emotions. She punched Malfoy and sent birds after Ron just cause he chose someone else to date. That's very aggressive and childish but tbh, I relate to it. Flawed characters are obviously more relatable.
1 Cast an attractive actor/actress 2 But the character is supposed to be insecure 3 "wE'll juSt MaKE tHem sAy thEy aRe uGly, pRobLem sOlveD" 4 ?????? 5 Profit
Exactly, attractive people can definitely be insecure and self-hating just like everyone else, but none of these movies ever actually have a main character that’s ugly??? Everyone goes through struggles, but movies always focus on extremely beautiful people and aren’t even faithful to the books they are based off whilst doing so
A huge part of what made Book Tyrion WAS the fact that everyone thought him not just 'unattractive,' but actually repulsive; every other POV character who encounters him comments on it at least once in the book, many secondary characters comment/insult him about it, and Tyrion frequently speculates on it being the motive of just about everyone around him for distrusting and mistreating him. It's why he behaves as he does throughout the story - as you pointed out, his moral compass in the books is nowhere near as true as it is in the HBO series. He does some downright shitty things, and not always in 'self defence' or because he's 'driven to it.'
Yes, like taking Benjen's furs. Also WoW Tyrion wants to join Daenerys & do a genocide in Westeros. "They would not love me living so let them dread me dead" 2 bad we will never read it
I couldn't agree more with this comment. What I loved in the book was that all 3 had flaws which made them really believable and relatable. They completely changed that in the movies except for the poor Ron. The poor guy was 10 times worst.
RIGHT?! Harry's actually my favorite character, and that's entirely because of his sassyness. None of that sassyness was really shown in the movies. They actually gave Hermione a couple of his amazing scenes too.
Hell yeah! Such a cool guy in the books, but in the movies he is a goddamn stupid dork. Not funny at all, talking bullshit and always got this stupid expression on his face. It worked out in the first two movies as they still were kids then, but after that his acting got really weird and they shot some really weird scenes with him. Oh and Bill Weasley got screwed over as well
I was kind of sad about how Hermione outshines Ron so much in the movies. It made them getting together seem a little more different than it did in the books... In the books, they were more balanced with intelligence and I felt like they complimented each other a little better.
It frustrates me too, more because it makes Ron such a useless character, in the books he doesnt do a massive amount, but thoughout the movies he does even less as she takes alot of his best moments
JK Rowling admitted after book 7 that having hermione end up with ron was a literary mistake made for selfish reasons. That that's not how it would have happened / should have been written. As far as I know, it's the only regret JK Rowling has of the 7 books she wrote. “I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment,” she says. “That’s how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron.” Predicting her fans’ responses, she added, “I know, I’m sorry. I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I’m absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility.
@@rhueoflandorin guess I disagree I think they were good together, but in a unreal sort of way, it's a work of fiction and the relationships should be treated like that because in reality the chances that basically everyone ended up married to someone they dated in highschool are astronomical
Super agree about Hermoine! As a kid, the detail that bothered me most was that movie Hermoine didn't have frizzy hair (which they could have easily fixed.) The reason being that it's so often described in the book, like how she had to work so hard to straighten it for the Yule Ball. I also remember the first time I saw the Yule scene and being excited for the Hermoine reveal, and then just being like "oh....she looks the same"
I just want to point out that from the the third film onward the directors allowed the actors/actresses to have their hair cut/styled how the actors/actresses preferred their hair to be
Yes, and it also makes Sansa look more foolish and callous for not wanting anything to do with him. I don't even mean romantically, I mean just as a human being. If he was this hideous drunk pawing at her, we'd understand why she was so disgusted by him. But in the show he is so kind and handsome, she comes off as not only an asshole but also a simpleton for not seeking whatever advantage there would be in an alliance with Tyrion.
I remember reading Stephen King's book, Carrie. I remember her being described as overweight and a bit stupid, but in the movies (the original and the remake), she was portrayed as a very attractive, skinny girl. I always wondered why they chose to do that.
Not only attractive and skinny, but very smart too. She was most definitely not the slow, bumbling, "stupid" girl portrayed in the novel - described as resembling a "fat, stupid cow grazing in a field while staring blankly", as the book describes her. The novel was AMAZING btw. One of the best fictional horror stories I've ever read. And one of the most tragic and sad stories I've ever read.
They should get a Netflix adaption and cast Shannon Purser (Barb from Stranger Things) to play her. Or an actual fat teenage girl. It needs a proper adaption regardless of how iconic the 70s film is.
Her being overweight & unattractive was also a main point- she was uncomfortable in her own skin & in the end she saw herself as being excessively bullied which led to the ending of the book. They essentially removed all of the deeper meaning & reasoning when they made her attractive because now it doesn’t make sense
This also lead to a lot of people believing that Ron didn't deserved Hermione or Harry should have ended up with Hermione Because they have not read the books and by seeing only movies that automatically make them to think that Hermione is like a flawless perfect girl who doesn't need anyone(many people have even told me that she could have defeated voldemort 🤦🏻♀️) But in reality i.e in books she is shown as a relatable character with her own flaws and quirks
That's exactly why I don't ship movie Ron and Hermione. The book relationship is more interesting because they were two kids who wasn't attracted to each other and learned to fall in love. In the movie, if I were Ron of course I would have a crush in Hermione immediately like duuuuuuhhhh.
I read the books... still ahve multiple copies of it till now and still re-read it again and again and prefer it over the movies and I still do not ship Ron and Hermione. But to be fair I also do not see Hermione and Harry together. I just think that maybe they should have met other people to date or Hermione could have focus on her career first until she met the one. I see her as just a close friend to both Harry and Ron.
Voldemort could been defeated with a sniper rifle in numerous scenes (given that they have no protective spells against that - ex Dobby died from a thrown simple blade). And even if there were some magical spells, there would also be magical bullets. Also…. No. All of the main characters were weak as hell, and won out of sheer plot convenience/luck/crutches.
Green Mills is that even a question? Fuck yes I've seen The Sopranos and Tony Soprano is the spitting image of Michael Angelo's David. Fight me. But srsly, there are plenty of attractive characters in that show. Also, most of the key characters in that show are basically villains, and I think villains are *generally* portrayed as unattractive on TV as a reflection of ugliness of their soul or whatever. So I guess I was exaggerating a bit, but I still think what I said is true in general.
Especially women. Male actors are more handsome than average, but you still have your Danny De Vitos and many superstars are normal looking guys like Tom Hanks. Actresses are nearly all beautiful, there are few exceptions.
Hermione's physical imperfections aren't just a matter of a single scene, though. A lot of young girls (including me) identified with her as an "ugly" protagonist who was not physically attractive. It is a poweful message for girls, who mostly grow up being told that beauty is their most important asset. Movie!Hermione takes it all away (and come on, they could have least tried to keep her hair bushy. They did, for one moment, in HBP) and repeats the constant narrative of beautiful girls being treated as ugly even though they're clearly not.
@our old account I do agree that the world hates on pretty girls in specific ways (i.e. oversexualization), but the fact remains that women are taught that their most important feature is their beauty, and that they have to put a lot of effort into it. Hermione didn't, and that made her important.
@our old account Beautiful girls ABSOLUTELY get special treatment. I don't know what world you live in where they don't. Can they experience bad things too? Of course, but to say they don't ever get special treatment is so utterly untrue.
I mean, to be fair.. Beauty is probably the second or third most important thing in anyone's life after necessities for survival. Pretty people get treated better, end of story. Doing things to make yourself more attractive such as losing weight(or gaining it, depending on the person), keeping clean, etc is vital for anyone. That's just reality, we are "programmed" to prefer traits that seem like they will aid our offspring and increase our bloodlines chances of survival. Theirs a reason most people view anorexic people as unattractive, it's because its unhealthy. It's the same with overweight people, if it increases your likelihood of death then it's a negative trait in most peoples minds. This isn't always the case of course, it's a mixture of nature and nurture(as is most things) but theirs a reason that most people can agree on when someone is beautiful.
@our old account Okay, so. 1. I said nothing about ass kissing, where are you getting this from? All I said is that attractive people are often treated better than unattractive people because we naturally treat people we are attracted to as potential mates. 2. "But an ugly, but kept together and strong-willed person will always be treated better than a person that is pretty but with a weak character" Tell that to twitch streamers who just show a bit of cleavage and do little else. They get paid just for sitting around and being pretty, and are often terrible people. Just because people are disliked doesn't mean they don't get treated better.
@our old account The only point I'm trying to make is that "pretty people" often have it easier in more things than "average" people do. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, only that it happens and that it's only harmful to yourself if you neglect the basic things you can do to make yourself more attractive.
Yesss I loved what that scene did for Krum. I thought that must have been really great for hermione to have someone who everyone is after be interested in her when nobody else has been before. And then awful when she dresses up and everyone gives her a completely different kind of attention that she’s not had before.
Yeah, I don’t think it did much for Krum in the movies. As someone who hasn’t read through all the books, I don’t think it comes across as well. To some degree, we assume that Krum likes her basically because she’s pretty-same way with Cormac. With Krum, they don’t make it obvious that he likes her brains. They barely have any on-screen conversations and she only ever says he likes to watch her study-which (as she said) was annoying and comes off creepy. Then with Cormac, I don’t think there was ever a specific reason said for why he’s interested in her, so again, we just assume it’s because she’s pretty and bags a lot of dudes. *_Especially_* considering her reactions to all these advances. She always seems thoroughly unimpressed and almost annoyed. In my opinion, the movies didn’t make Krum seem more endearing for liking Hermione, it just let us know he’s not a total shallow jerk. It was confusing to see all these people acting as if those guys were totally out of Hermione’s league.
@@misterwinkybluff What's funny is that in the book, Cormac isn't even into Hermione. Hermione just asks him to the Slug Club Christmas party because she got angry at Ron for something or other and wanted to make him jealous. Cormac probably agreed because of the exclusiveness of the Slug Club, not because he was attracted to Hermione in particular.
@@emersonandrews7308 but Cormac was already a part of the Slug Club, so he didn't have anything to gain in that sense. I guess he agreed coz he wanted a date to take along.
i think a big issue with hermione's personality in the movies is how they tried very hard to turn her into a "girlboss" but she just ended up becoming a woman with no flaws... a "strong female character" taken way too literally
They literally robbed Ron's dialogues when he explained the rules of wizard world to Harry and Hermione, and gave it to Hermione. They literally made Ron an idiot to fit the Hollywood trend of cool protagonist, smart sidekick and dumb sidekick. But that's not all, they also robbed Ron from his bravery and loyalty, guess who was given the Ron's bravery and loyalty, of course Hermione. I liked Hermione in books because she had a lot of flaws that she managed to overcome, just like Ron and Harry, but in movies it's just like you wrote. Hermione is perfect, Ron is not loyal, stupid, coward who seems to be only comic relief. But someone else in book got Hermione treatment too, guess who? It was of course Snape. In movies he is "misunderstood loner who was bullied in school, who sacrificed himself for his love", but Snape from books I know is much different. In books Snape wasn't a victim of bullying, he did it too. He had friends that practised black magic and hated the muggles. Bullied them, they were his team, it was like James team vs Snape team, not James team vs lone Snape how it was captured in movies. He was cruel to every student that wasn't in Slitherin, especially Harry. He pretended to not see the bad doings of Slitherin students, but was merciless towards other houses. He was sadistic teacher nobody likes.
Actually hermione is one of the few characters where I wouldn’t say that this is the case. Seriously, she has flaws, she isn’t the strongest of the bunch and she doesn’t always get everything right. Apart from that she could have been killed dozens of times without the others. She is book smart just like the movies just with a bit more courage. Something the stole from Ron apparently
Literally every single "strong HP woman" Ginny is written in this girl boss way and she is written as a strong women while everyone brushes her flaws aside in the movies and books. I think she's like able but they could have added emotion to her, crying and feeling sadness shouldn't be seen weak it's human emotion, no one should bottle it up.
@@God_abandoned_us_all Ron plays chess better, flies the broom better and knows more about dragons and Bidle's tales than Hermione in the movies. He also protects her in every fight they step into.
What about Brienne of Tarth? She's supposed to be ugly as sin, and it's an important part of her character. She's ugly and huge, and no one wants to give her the time of day, so she becomes a warrior and acts like a knight, and although this only makes things worse for her socially, it at least gives her a sense of purpose so she can look past the insults. That's why when she starts to get close to Jaime, it's such a big deal - his sister is beautiful on the outside but ugly inwardly, while Brienne is ugly outwardly but is a kind, good and honorable person, and Jaime learns that he actually prefers those traits.
It must have been hard to find an actress who is tall enough and also has a stocky enough build to play Brienne. I honestly can't find an example of a better actress for the role.
Honestly, whoever they cast as Brienne, most people would say she's too beautiful to be her. Gwendoline is pretty but they made her unattractive in the show, not ugly, but not as beautiful as Gwen usually is. I think she is great. If they found someone as ugly as sin to play her you still wouldn't admit she is ugly because you don't wanna be an asshole.
The actress is a good cast for the role but they should have done something with her teeth. When I read the book I pictured her as having those terribly crooked teeth and in the show they are perfectly straight. They could have done something in the makeup department to give her the messed up grill from the book. It would have been a nice touch in my opinion.
I also can’t stand how they portrayed Victor Krum in the film, he was meant to be gangly and awkward and not at all attractive, the girls at Hogwarts found him attractive because of his celebrity status.
nah it was alright, the thing with Victor is that his defining trait is that he is hounded because of his fame and the women who are chasing him care nothing for him and are perfectly willing to impede his success in their attempts to manipulate him, by bothering him in the library and borrowing books he needs. making him attractive as well makes it more emphasized that the women attempting to woo him aren't necessarily doing him any favors, making him unattractive might establish that he would be settling for Hermione or has hang ups that would limit him from romantic endeavors. him seeking out hermione is because he respects her intelligence and thinks shes attractive as opposed to the attractive women who surrounds that he doesn't respect. him being more attractive makes him less relatable but doesn't detract from his character arcs and does add nuance to his already present one. his appearance is also used as a foil to Fleur and Cedric. Athletically brawny / stunningly beautiful/charmingly wholesome, respectively
Brilliant video. As a woman with a badly scarred face, it hurts like hell to see characters I could relate to on the page be completely 'cleansed' of their physical imperfections once an adaptation hits Hollywood. It's hilarious, nonsensical, and frankly upsetting. When the self-proclaimed 'hideous, monstrous, unloveable' phantom of the opera looks like he has mild sunburn...how the hell am I, or anyone on this earth with a genuine physical flaw, supposed to feel?
There is a book series called “Mortal Engines” which follows the adventures of a clumsy dickhead and a vengeful girl with a scarred face. Recently there was a movie adaptation of Mortal Engines which probably sucked. The girls face in the books was horrifically scarred so much so that she hid her face with a dirty rag, in the movie she’s played by a pretty actress with a teensy weensy scar on her cheek. Aside from that the book is pretty much steam-punk Harry Potter (Don’t quote me on that, my opinion is wrong). Maybe give it a look if you’re into books. This was a weird recommendation, goodbye.
Hermione wasn't whitewashed, watch Rowling talk about how Emma Watson was chosen for a more accurate understanding on how this actually plays out. A lot of the time the choice is not a conscious one, and in the film making industry pragmatism is a vital skill to have!
It's quite sad, indeed. Despite the vast majority of people everywhere are not "universally attractive", mass culture doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. They push the idea that the hero is good-looking and unattractive person is a villain or a comic relief sidekick, they divide and conquer. Luckily, there is still enough people who are not blindly following the screen mass culture and do see things for what they are. Wish you to meet more of those. Also, people write and read great books. And if you haven't read J R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, please do. He has a great depth of understanding of the human nature and masterfully explores all the themes, not the last of them being the one of looks and inner beauty or lack thereof with great many characters. All of which is totally lost in the series.
@@sokiel6663 However you are the person that is defining good looking and bad looking, you are labeling, assuming and placing judgement. The actors that play these "unattractive" characters not only do so on their on free will but are chosen very often BY THE AUTHOR ( see J.K Rowling as an example). Just because the character in a film doesn't live up to YOUR expectation doesn't mean that everyone is following a "mass screen culture". The simple fact of the matter is that you can't just cast anyone you want, there are important things involved such as who applies, who fits the character's role best, who the author thinks is the best. You cannot just simply picture a book character and expect them to look exactly like YOU imagined. That's not only sch an ignorant view but also such a 2D perspective.
That is honestly another way of how adaptational attractiveness was in progress with Snape's character. Like Tyrion, Snape became a fan favorite amongst a good portion of fans when it was revealed of his noble sacrifice and intentions. The movie adaptation didn't quite portray Snape's character as bad as it should have been in the books. They minimized most of Snape's bad character traits as more of being comedic and less bullying towards the students he was clearly harassing. The movies also depicted him to be sympathized with by showing him to bullied, lonely, and harassed in his past years. They did this to set up Snape's true intentions which led us to sympathize with him and feel guilty for how we felt about him prior. The problem with the movie set up is that the audience turned completely against Lily and James Potter. They viewed James as a complete evil asshole and they criticized Lily for daring to betray her friend by marrying his "harasser" but this couldn't be further from the truth. James and Snape never liked each other from day 1 and they would try to hex one another each chance they got, Snape also had his own clique of friends of which they would all practice the dark arts. Lily was never fond of Snape's friends dwindling with dark arts but he would always defend them to a point that he defended the actions of racism towards a muggle-born caused by one his "friends". This further and further split them apart and the icing on the top was him calling her a "Mudblood" when she was simply defending him as she always had. Lily only began to fancy James when he straightened his act out and grew up. He stopped the pointless rivalry with Snape and humbled himself by becoming a better person. Snape never did, which why is their friendship never mended. The movie adaptation of Snape failed to deliver his complexity minimizing his bad character traits for mere shock value as a result caused the bashing of Lily and James Potter.
THANK YOU I'm so tired of peopled efending Snape when they've either only watched the movie or read the book with the movie in mind. Snape was not and never will be a good person. And he definitely should not be sympathised with. They did this with cursed child too where they portrayed him and being good all long. Bullshit.
I love the character Severus Snape. Not because he is portrayed as only slightly obnoxious in the movies, but actually because he is a bad person, who turnes out to do something good in the end. Proving my own look on that really GOOD and nice people can do stupid and even evil things sometimes, but also that EVIL and bad people are capable of doing something good sometimes. I LOVE the way Alan Rickman played him, but that is because he was a truly fantastic actor. Not because how they toned down his character in the movies.
I partly disagree. Having likable characters is good, and Snape and Tyrion in particular are very popular, therefore successful. It is certainly true that Snape's changes affect James' and therefore Lily's likability negatively, which is debatably important to Harry's character, but for the most part they are dead and less relevant, what's important is how Harry views them. Movie Snape may not be true to his original incarnation, but I believe he also interesting, and Harry's distaste for him coming off as more unreasonable is good because it highlights some of the flaws of Harry that are harder to see in the movies. Tyrion I'll admit would've fit the themes and mood of Game of Thrones better with his moral ambiguity and flaws, but I do think viewers enjoyed rooting for him and may have had a harder time doing so if they found him creepy, but maybe I'm putting too little faith in viewers in assuming they need a hero to latch onto.
My biggest problem with Snape not being portrayed as he was in the books is mostly that in the movies it is less surprising that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That the movie set his and James relationship up to look like one sided bullying was also a little rough, though they did some of the same stuff in the books until it was explained better. To the movies defense his character must have been a little hard to show since most of his character was shown of in very short slice of life segments in the book (like most of the other teachers) rather than in scenes central to the story. It's one of those things which are hard to keep in a film but maybe would have been easier to keep if it was a tv-series instead...
Depends on what you consider perfect. For example, the "whitewashed" Tyrion from the show is still not perfect. He makes mistakes which makes him less perfect in a way.
I actually like perfect characters if their perfections lead to other character's growth. For example a character who doesn't make mistakes can be a good secondary character to have a main character feel inadequate next to.
Great video. That has always bugged me about the movie adaptation. They took away all of Hermione's flaws to make her more "likeable" and made Ron unlikeable by giving her his lines.
People overestimate Hermione. She is incredibly smart and very good at situations where she has time to come up with a plan. She tends to fail or flame out in high stress situations, where Harry and Ron are more likely to keep their cool. See her indecisiveness in the face of Devil's Snare, falling for the boggart in Prisoner, being once of the first students down at the Ministry in Order, etc. Ron tends to fare a little better, see same Devil's Snare scene, coming face to face with Aragog (he goes white but does not panic), his behavior in the Chamber of Secrets, standing up to Sirius in Prisoner, and his performance against the Death Eaters in the beginning of Hallows. This is not to say that Hermione is cowardly or incompetent, but she is fairly high strung in the books and doesn't handle surprises as well as the other two do. Movie Hermione doesn't have that humanizing factor. Worse, enough of Ron's good moments are transferred to her as to be a drain on him. The books have a power trio of Ego (Harry), Superego (Hermione), and Id (Ron). The movies have a power duo and their friend. It's a shame.
Awesome comparison of ego, superego, and id. Never really thought of that but it caused me to do a little reading and they do seem to fit those roles somewhat, as far as how their little group operates.
Movie hermione feels more like a person with the acting than reading book hermione sorry but its the truth and the same with harry and ron who come across as more personable than how they actually are written in the books. Everyone here is so stupid it's unreal
@@fringmange7040 why you calling me stupid? And how does book Hermione not feel like a person? She's a perfectionist, maybe you just don't relate to some of their personalities.
@@fringmange7040 Could that be because you can see her? Seeing a person makes them more relatable, simply because you can see their face which contributes greatly to communication, understanding, and empathy. And you cannot deny that film Hermione assumes parts of book Ron's role.
*laughs aswell in The Maze Runner* Seriously, the 2nd and 3rd movie looked like it should be its own not an adaptation. If you dont compare it, its actually good. If you compare it- it makes you wanna throw the books into the screen and scream “OML DID THEY EVEN READ!”
You are right. Percy Jackson's adaptation was... bad. However it was a bloody masterpiece, compared to the adaptation of Eragon. (Artemis Fowl was also kinda raped by Disney...)
Yeah, i hated how movie Hermione takes away from ron. In the films he is pretty much only there for comic relief. Ron is supposed to be the voice of experience in the wizarding world but she even takes that away from him (for instance Ron explaining the term mudblood and Hermione having never heard of it).
I agree, I don't really mind Emma being pretty that much, the biggest problem is that Ron is comic relief ONLY. He's so stupid and useless in the films.
Kyle Pask Sure, I never thought that she wasn’t pretty. She just had big teeth and bushy hair. Other than that it could just be the boys being a bit silly and not noticing her.
Yes, that moment was super weird. Hermione, what are you doing knowing the swearwords of the Wizarding world? I don't think you'd find that in a textbook. Even more weird is that she was called a Mudblood, and naturally Ron was the one who reacted but then she was explaining his actions to Hagrid and Harry. Could you let the guy stand up for his friends on his own, please?
While I agree overall, I think the change in Chamber of Secrets to Hermione knowing about the term Mudblood and being thus offended was a good one. It makes the whole situation more relatable, makes Ron standing up for her more impressive, and makes her being hurt more endearing than her just being oblivious to it. This was her second year at Hogwarts; you're telling me you actually believe that she could go an entire year without ever hearing the wizarding world's version of "the N word" in a school where one House is predominantly racist or the children of racists? A black kid who was homeschooled may have never heard the "N" word, but upon going to public school he'd be sure to hear it sooner or later. That said, yes I agree that Hermione was too perfect in the films, but films play up characters' traits to fit them in certain roles that cinema more often than not deems necessary. Harry is the everyman and the hero; Ron is the lovable rogue and the loyal partner; Hermione is the brain and the beautiful one. It makes sense that given a scenario in which one character needs to solve a problem through knowledge or wit that the deed be carried out by "the brainy one" instead of the loyal partner. Ron, in the film, still got to prove his wits in the Chess game, but in doing so he was more fulfilling his role as the loyal partner. Each member of the Trio had to solve a riddle/overcome an obstacle for them to continue: Hermione with Devil's Snare, Harry with the flying keys, and Ron with the chess game. From a story-telling point of view, it makes perfect sense.
I think one big downside to this phenomenon is it perpetuates the idea that unattractive people aren't as valuable as attractive people. For example, Hermione is an fantastic character with plenty of attributes, and if she were plain or ugly, more people would recognise that ugly people have lots to offer. It would show, especially with a female character, that there is so much more to a person than their outward appearance, and would give unattractive girls a character to relate to and recognise their own qualities beyond attractiveness.
It's the same for all of us. In Game of Thrones Brienne of Tarth is described as being ugly brutish and ungraceful. Even though I'm a guy I related to her greatly. The stories of men who pretended to like her echo the girls who pretended to like me only to later laugh and mock at me. I'm brutish, ugly, fat, and dumb and seeing these characters who ignore it to rise above their station is a beautiful story to me.
Emily you are absolutely correct, as confirmed by the three replies here. Hollywood, TV and MSM perpetuates the myth that you have to look a certain way to be successful. That not fitting the current social norm for attractiveness makes you as a person of lower worth. Adaptational attractiveness removes positive role models from our screens which is bad for everyone. It makes unattractive people feel worse about themselves and leads to others feeling superior and that they have a right to look down on less attractive people and be mean to them or bully them. And those mean people and bullies can miss out on the most wonderful people to be in their lives because they have judged them solely on their looks and not seen their inner beauty and worth.
Emily Montague “Hey guys I feel like people equate beauty with worth which is fucked up.” “You sound ugly, lmaoo.” “Shut up fattie.” The rest of us: ....welp there it is
I agree with most points in this video. However, just one small remark. Hermione ‘loses’ her big teeth in book 4, after Madam Pomfrey fixes her face after the hex Malfoy threw on her, making her teeth inhumanly large. I can’t remember the exact quote (also I read it in a different language as a child), but after Harry notices the differences, she says “she asked me stop her [fixing my teeth] when they got back to their normal size, and I just...stayed silent a little bit longer”. So while not covering the entire span of the books, it does account for a sizeable portion of her character book life.
Fun fact! The reason Shia LaBeouf wasn’t overweight in holes is because his character goes through a dramatic weight loss as the story progresses, the director said that he thought it would be too much stress to put on someone so young and would be unethical! That’s why he stayed the same weight the whole movie :)
Well, your reasoning for Holes isn’t entirely accurate. The director was aware that Stanley is supposed to loose huge amounts of weight while he’s at the camp. The director was not comfortable forcing a younger actor to loose such a large amount of weight during filming, so they decided to have him not begin overweight. Adaptations attractiveness is totally a thing, but it doesn’t quite fit in relation to Holes.
@@moomin5878 they could but it would have to look very convincing and also not be obstructive to act in. you might not think it but having someone skinny like shia look convincingly fat would be difficult with his face shape.
In Hermione's case, I love Emma Watson in that role. But they could have at least kept her hair bushy, and given her slightly larger front teeth. She'd still look like herself, still pretty, but it would have been closer to the book version. Now how hard would that have been? Also her character being written too perfect in the movies, was something I vaguely noticed, but it didn't strike me how much it took away from Ron's character, until much later . The trio were much better balanced in the books. I love the movies, but I wish they'd carried that through.
especially since they made nevilles actor wear a fat suit and fake teeth for the entire franchise?? makes it seem like they did to play up the jokes about his appearances in the movies
yeah they at leats didn't have to style and comb her hair that much! and maybe not cover all spots...I once heard in an interview that daniel and emma had some acne but j.k.ROwling enver wrote that into her characters so they covered it up what a logic XD
13:31 so glad you touched on this! They gave Hermione SO many lines that were actually meant for Ron; it made Ron seem way less heroic or concerned about his friends.
This was done with Katniss too. Katniss is described as small, slight, olive skin, and very sharp features while being very plain, while Jennifer Lawrence is completely different. Also, Katniss is implied to be of some Native American descent due to the region she lives in (Appalachians and coal country, her mother and sister are very fair and light like the Scotch-Irish who settled there, while she and her father are of a darker complexion with different features from her mother and sister). All of the less privileged people in District 12 are darker skinned like Katniss, showing a clear class divide that is influenced by race too. The whole thing is a mix of adaptational attractiveness by taking a small, plain looking girl and portraying her with a tall, attractive and famous actress, as well as whitewashing.
I believe they coloured her skin a little bit in the movies. Im not too familiar with the story, but where is it explicitly written that shes a native?
Jomega she was pretty pale in the movies. And she was never specifically mentioned as Native American, because Suzanne Collins purposefully didn’t identify the characters by race but instead described their skin tone. But the class divide and treatment of people from the Seam who looked like Katniss was a strong hint towards her being partially Native American.
@@crestflames492 Did you read this? www.quora.com/Is-Katniss-Everdeen-a-woman-of-color-Some-critics-say-she-was-described-in-the-books-rather-ambiguously-as-a-person-of-color-Should-Katniss-be-interpreted-as-a-biracial-character This sums it up quite good. So I dont think there is "whitewashing" here.
They tried to give Hermione buck teeth but Emma Watson couldn't talk with the buck teeth but I still don't understand they changed her hairstyle. They already took away something from Hermione's look they should have kept it.
Thank god they didn't do that with Deadpool, even though they chose a handsome actor but still kept the scars that are prominent , I would've rioted if they went with his X men origins design
considering they even touched up his junk for the naked fight scene i'd say he was pretty dedicated to the character, still mildly disturbed at the thought but thank you Ryan Reynolds
"Hermione is my favourite character. I should get rid of all of her flaws" I don't know how you can feel like a character, with flaws and all, is your favourite character, and then you revise all the flaws and make them perfect. Like, the character changes A LOT if you just get rid all of their flaws.
For the better, in most of the cases. Ex: Take away Superman’s Kryptonite (and remorse) and he becomes, suddenly, a very scary and formidable opponent.
sounds more like fanboyism than being a fan, like 2 kids fighting whose superhero is stronger, so we end up with Batman with time to plan as opposed to just say well yeah Batman will get fucked by Superman, but who cares he still cool because he is a detective and a ninja and he does that even if he can get killed by one bullet as opposed to Superman will be cooler with no weakness lol..
@@daniel79tj Exactly. It is annoying, really. Even in Injustice (Batman/Superman comic), Batman himself admitted that Superman could have killed him 10 times over from deep space, if he wanted it at the time.
With Hermione there’s also the moment in book 4 when she lets Madame Pompfrey shrink her teeth beyond what they were before after Malfoy jinxes her because Snape makes fun of her. It’s a moment of rare insecurity that we see in Hermione and an example of how Snape isn’t just distasteful, he’s vile to the point of making a student so insecure she changes her appearance.
RE Snape: thank you! He might be a hero and a brave spy, but he was also a horrible bully to little innocent kids. Generations of not-Slytherins, poor Neville bullied so much that Snape was his worst fear instead of, say, his parents' torturer, Hermione, a possible foil for his one true love, and yet. I'm not even mentioning Ron and Harry. In terms of character, they sure made movie Snape way more appealing than book Snape who was a really butt hurt bully, a teacher takingevery wrong the world inflicted on him on unsuspecting kids. It's a good thing book Harry has always been a martyr, so him idolizing Snape made sense, but still...
Slight tangent but hermione actually says that she’s been wanting to shrink her teeth for a while but her parents wouldn’t let her because they’re dentists and they disapproved of using magic for that. So it’s not necessarily all snapes fault.
@@emmarb01 I agree with you, it wasn't his fault, but, IMO, it's pretty low for a 32 (more or less) year old teacher to tell a kid, his student for that, "I don't think there's any difference looking at these magically gigantic teeth of yours and the usual".
This has been my problem with movie Hermione all along. They removed both personality and appearance flaws, and I legit watched a big UA-cam channel calling her one of the brightest students of Hogwarts, ever. Not the brightest student of her generation, but one of the best in Hogwarts history. Ignoring characters like Dumbledore, Voldemort and even historical Hogwarts students like Merlin. By taking away her insecurities, it also made her shine more and look smarter then she was. Sure, Hermione was brilliant, but there were several more characters who nailed incredible accomplishments, who could do things Hermione didn't. Those are by removing Hermione's flaws, also not as fantastic as they were in the books. So perhaps her adaptation doesn't damage the story much, but it does damage other characters. (I am not diving into Ron, the way his character was butchered for her is already obvious enough) Draco Malfoy, for example. His academics were more mentioned in the books, and it was said whilst Hermione was superior, Draco wasn't that much behind. He also mastered things like Occlumency in his early Death Eater stage. Which showed he was at least academically superior to Harry. There were things such as fixing the Vanishing cabinet, the fact it was broken and such a hard thing to fix, wasn't established like it was in the books. They also took away mentions such as that Draco was the second to master things, like the protean charm. These distinctions weren't made in the movies. Another example are the Weasley twins. Sure, they weren't the best students (partially due to their attitude), but they had mastered something in their school years, that Hermione never accomplished herself. Creating magic. It's said there's a difference between creating a spell or magical object, then enchanting an object. Hermione was great at enchanting an object, but the Weasley twins made objects themselves. Such as their candy. The books for example stated, they tested their own projects on themselves, and Hermione actually gives herself a bruise for activating something they were working on. It's also mentioned, that thanks to Hary's teaching, they started producing magical defensive objects, and sold them even to the Ministry for the workers who weren't great at defense. That shows they weren't just great at creating magical prank objects, but skilled at making magical objects in general. Creating magic, however, has also been stated to be an rare achievement. Let's name a few characters who did such a thing; Dumbledore, Nicholas Flamel and Severus Snape. All are accomplished wizards, and thanks to his old school book, we know Snape was easily better at potions then Hermione. Another thing Hermione sucked at, was playing detective. A big discovery like that Regulus was the owner of the locket, or the half blood prince, were all things she never guessed. Sure, she got close on Snape by thinking the suspect of the half blood prince book was his mom, but it's still kinda far off. If it wasn't written in text books, she wouldn't have guessed the Basilisk either. She's good at researching, but both her lack of spell creation and detective work show Trelawney was right. Hermione is too unimaginative. As long as it's written somewhere, big chance she knows it. However, making something by herself, with no books to rely on, isn't something she's capable off. The books made it clear, there were limits to her intelligence, and that she wasn't capable of everything. Showing the accomplishments of characters like the Weasley twins, also showed they could do something Hermione couldn't. The adaptation made her much more of a Mary Sue, and I think Hermione is one of the characters that caused the Mary Sue trend we see much more often in movies and TV then we did before. Harry Potter movies? More like Hermione Granger movies.
With the movie Holes they cast a smaller actor instead of an overweight one because the director said it would be immoral to make to make an overweight actor lose so much weight in such a short period of time for a movie so they opted for one that more closely represented him st the end of the book
Not a chance.I have not read the books but there is no chance a black character was played by a white guy and there weren't tidal waves of crazed SJW boycotting the movie
@Brocialist Party of America Also the way books describe characters' ethnicity is usually pretty vague as well. They use words like "olive skin" or "thick, curly hair" instead of being blatant about race or any familiar identifiers.
This! It's one of the changes I feel don't make the movie worse. It's still a very good adaptation, one where when changes were made they were made for the sake of the well being of the cast, not just because they wanted them to be pretty.
the very fact of adaptational attractiveness is proof of its severity. If moviemakers cannot even bring themselves to make a character ugly or fat to stay true to the source, it goes to show how much appearance *does* matter.
Nobody denies it. Hell, if I were to make a super-being movie, it would be a requirement of “top 10% get powers” So, being killed off by a hot enchantress would be not as bad as by some fat neckbeard.
I liked that this video uses the character pictures from the Harry Potter Illustrated Editions. Jim Kay made an intentional effort to find real kids who matched the specific descriptions in the books and has been using them as the reference models for his drawings. The Illustrated Editions are a real treat to look at if one is looking for an alternative to the less description-accurate film portrayals, or Mary GrandPre's cartoon-like drawings in the original USA editions.
@@selinanoob8184 Jonathan wasn't talking about the movie actors, man. He said the artist for the illustrated books found kids (separate from the movie actors) who looked very similar to the book characters, as drawing reference
One thing I love about the Yule Ball scene is Hermione's comment that she could straighten her hair and look that gorgeous all the time, but it takes too much effort. She's consciously choosing to spend her time on studying and being smart, instead of putting in the time society demands for her appearance. As a result, she's seen as less attractive. That she makes that choice in the books made it much easier for me, when I was younger, to say that I don't want to dress up or wear make-up because I want more time for books. The movie completely took that away because there was no transformation.
The thing about that is she's saying it because she's hurt that she isn't as pretty as other girls (in the books). Plenty of people use that excuse because they are unattractive and that's just their way of dealing with it, it's supposed to give you more insight to Hermione's character, that she actually wishes to be seen as pretty, that's why she's drawn towards Krum, cause she does exactly that. She loves her personality which in turn translates to him finding her attractive and beautiful.
exactly. This was such an important point because, after 4 years of us kind of feeling sorry about her appearance, she chose to remain herself for herself.(except for the teeth thing but everyone has one thing they'd like to change)
@@цветок-ш7п I'm not sure. She seems very NT-ish to me. I definitely read some article that went through many HP characters and what Meyer- Briggs/Joungean types they were and I don't recall any being INFJ's. ( You can probably google it. ) However, she does develop better sensitivity towards others as she matures, so her F factor could be increasing...I just googled it and they have Hermione as being an ISTJ....I do think that is a better fit in the books vs the movies.
Wow, this is utterly amazing. The way you formed your descriptions, and how you went into immense detail, really had me hooked. So interesting to look further than 'they're better looking than I'd pictured them'.
This is an incredibly specific thing that was taken from Hermione, and I'm sure no one else really cares, but it really bothered me back when the movies were still coming out because I was a bushy-haired kid with crooked teeth who was bookish and a teacher's pet and got bullied a lot. I related very heavily to Hermione for so many reasons and I used to fantasize about what it would have been like to play her. In the books, after exchanging hexes with Draco, Hermione goes to Madame Pomfrey to get her teeth shrunk back to their normal size. Afterwards she goes to see Harry and Ron and they remark about how something seems different and she admits that she let Madame Pomfrey shrink her teeth just a bit smaller than they were before; essentially correcting their "abnormal" size. But in the movie this never happens because well... Emma's teeth aren't too big and they never even really did this scene. It's a small thing but at the time it felt like such a loss. It was vulnerability that was taken away from Hermione; that moment felt telling about her character but it just never happened in the adaptation. You said it well; she's just perfect in the movie. Makes me kind of sad.
@@musiccer7446 The suggestion was false teeth could have been used. I could see instead an argument to save time on the cutting room floor, to try and limit the amount of work that requires doing. Some things may reasonably be cited to cut for time. Though I don't think such an argument is being raised here, and I'm not invested enough in HP anymore to go crusading on this point.
@@musiccer7446 it was tho. to paint her more as the insecure nerdy girl whos unconventionally attractive and like the video said, making her cinderella yule ball moment more impactful, to show that shes not just some nerdy bushy haired girl, to show that she has feminine traits too. but emma is too beautiful, so the scene is not that impactful. also her being "pretty" gives out the cormac mclaggen plot, while in book cormac never showed interest at all in her because she is supposed to be unconventionally attractive, but in the movie they made cormac as some kind of 'rival' for ron in quidditch and love life? just to hammer down on ron's insecurity? which is weird because the past movie rarely highlights it but hbp decides they need it now? lol
@@hippityhoppitybleblebleb2236 well, there are many ways you could depict a character like that. Apart from that, hermione wasn’t exactly popular in the first movies. And if the actress you chose for a child role grows up to be beautiful than what should you do about it. I get your point. But I don’t think it is as important for Her character. I read the books too and i never thought of that as an important aspect
I just don't understand why they didn't just put more effort into making Emma look more awkward and bushy haired in the early books? They did a great job of it on princess diaries
@GamingTV yeah they're shallow assholes according to what you're telling me. The movie would have been better if she wasn't portrayed as being so perfect. I like characters that feel real and relatable, not flawless. It's a bad thing for her to not look awkward because here character WAS awkward and that was part of her charm for a lot of people. The point is that in books there are a vast variety of types of characters who have many flaws. Many of them are attractive in the books and many of them are not attractive. When you are making every character flawlessly attractive then you are making the whole story less realistic and less relatable...because in real life there is a variety of people who look a variety of ways and in movies they take away all that interest and excitement and just make everyone look exactly the same...anyways that's why I almost always like the books better. They don't sacrifice the integrity of the story or the characterization of a character just so everyone looks hot.
@GamingTV a good story IS relatable. If it isn't then it it isn't a good story. I love art. I think making all the characters look the same "pretty" way and always need to be perfect is bland. And not very creative. We'll just put a hot chick on the screen so people will like her instead of showing that people who are plain looking or even ugly can be likable too, but you have to actually give them good character development which is apparently too much work when you can just put in a hot girl with no flaws who is not at all relatable. Art is supposed to reflect reality and touch people's hearts... and people liked the book characters BECAUSE they were relatable. The Harry Potter series was originally popular in great part BECAUSE people related to characters who had physical and personality flaws just like they did. I think movies now are super boring because characters aren't relatable. Movies would be great if they always tried to make characters seem like real people instead of barbie dolls. The very best movies and shows do at least a decent job of making characters feel like real people. That's what makes them good. The only case where this is maybe not the case is in super far out shit like kill bill or something. But Harry Potter should definitely be relatable... but maybe we vastly disagree on what good art is.
@@eloryosnak4100 "There was a reason his name wasn't: Jesus Christ That Man's Eyes Are The Color Of Sky!!" Or have a few centuries bred all the blue eyes and blond hair out the middle east?
I am a devoutly christian woman, and I agree with this! Um.... Judas had to point out which one Jesus was to the soldiers! If he was a tall white blond guy wearing a white robe, he wouldn't have had to! Lol These people were brown! Jesus looked like everyone else and scripture says his hair was like wool.
I think Hermoine in the first movie fit the book character really well. She didn't have buck teeth but she's hardly some kind of child beauty queen either and they made sure that her hair is properly bushy. Most importantly though (as you mentioned), she still has those negative character traits that ballance out her extreme intelligence. Most notably that she's a bit of a brat and know it all. Throughout the various movies progress this is less and less noticeable and she becomes more perfect with each one. More so than her character in the books. It's not Emma Watsons fault she grew up to be beautiful of course, but the movies didn't need to enhance that as much as they did.
Not enitrely; she looked average in the first movie instead of below average in the book. And this video showed the clip in the first book where they had her steal Ron's lines. It did get much worse as the series went on.
Yea I feel like it’s something that cannot be helped. 11 year old Emma Watson was averagely cute but she grew up to be gorgeous. It’s not like they could do anything about that. And honestly even if they gave her bushy hair, I doubt it can do anything to hinder her beautiful face!
Braindead Despite Emma's hair being bushy in the first movie I still thought she was a beautiful child. She was never less than stunning to me. Of course she only became more beautiful.
I’ve got wavy/curly hair and wear glasses, but these two things about me are what I actually get most compliments for (regarding my appearance). People always tell me how nice my hair is and how well these glasses suit me, but when I read books or watch movies these are the things that supposedly make girls unattractive. I’ve never understood that because I don’t think wearing glasses or having a certain hair structure makes me ugly, but movies make it seem like that’s a fact.
I always hate it when books are like "*character name* was soo ugly with her long curly blond hair, tall athletic body, piercing blue eyes and huge glasses" Like, it's my dream to look like that.
It's because 'filmic' notions of beauty are based on a small number of conventions about physical appearance, not about the complex mix of attributes that make someone attractive in real life. Cleopatra, it seems, wasn't conventionally beautiful, but her wit, charm, intelligence and personality made men react to her as though she were.
i have something similar where i get complimented on my smile even though i have (very) crooked teeth. like, movies and media would have me believe that having crooked teeth makes you ugly but ive never been made fun of for that and actually get most of my compliments on my smile
The cliche "nerd" character in films with big teeth, glasses and weird hair has caused some people to think that wearing glasses is somehow ugly. It isn't.
I actually feel like rupert and harry weren't actually super attractive, maybe that's just me but i only felt like hermione was the only one that was too good looking.
Tbh, I never got the hype for Emma Watson, she absolutely doesn't look even half as attractive to me, nothing more than below average even with the hundred kg of makeup. I wouldn't look at her twice if I met her in the subway. But Radcliffe, despite not being my type at all, is pretty attractive tbh, he has some Elija Wood thing going on but much more masculine and interesting, sucks he doesn't have more prominent roles in movies nowadays. We can all agree on Rupert tho xD
@@bethdibartolomeo2042 harry reached his peak in half blood prince, but i never forgave the hair they gave him in the last movies smh. emma is basic and rupert should've died his eyelashes.
Even Krum fell into Adaptational Attractiveness. Krum's attractiveness came from his ridiculous quiddich skills. He was described as being kinda thin, with sallow skin, a crooked nose, and thick eyebrows. Movie Krum is a complete beefcake. Hermoine was definitely bolstered a lot by completely gutting Ron's character and his strong moments.
True, but in the books I always found Ron to be kind of an a**hole. In the movies it's toned down a bit and much more relateable. In the books it always felt like Hermione was shunned for being a booksmart girl and never got any credit. In the films, it's Ron who is the third wheel as both his friends are awesome, but he's the normal guy in the mix, and he has to struggle with that. The conclusion to his arc in Deathly Hollows was amazing, where he finally conquers his insecurities and destroy's Riddle's pendant.
@@wolfgod6443 Book Ron was definitely a whiny kid that got in way more fights with Harry than either of them should--but he was still a hundred times more interesting than movie Ron. I think in the 5th movie they barely had Ron in it at ALL, even in the final scene it's Harry and Hermione standing at a balcony while Ron sits in the dark background. It just felt wrong.
@@carlotta4th I mean, I remember the 2nd movie where Hermoine is paralyzed for half of it and Ron and Harry do everything. She even mixes up the polyjuice. I also remember Ron saving Hermoine from the troll in the first film. It really depends on what parts you're looking at and what you want to see. I REALLY don't want to say it, but I feel like I need to get this out there. Even when someone thinks they're not sexist or something like that, they might still be on a subconscious level. For example, complaining about the tough female character while ignoring the strong male one, or vice versa. For me personally, I NEVER heard anything about nor thought that there was a problem between Harry, Ron, and Hermoine's representation in the movies until this video. I don't even know where this stuff came from. After seeing this, I do have things to say, but it only encourages more arguments and I run the risk of making some "sexist" remark just by defending Hermoine, so no one wins. The reality of my defense though is that I shouldn't need to say anything. Just let the story be as it is. If there is a slight lean towards one gender in one scene, and a lean in the opposite direction, that's just going to happen in any story. Think about how hard it would be to have a perfectly balanced, equal story like that? Why can't Hermoine just be awesome? That's who she is. To me focusing so much on some slight mismanagement of character representation between genders shows insecurity about your sex (not you, I'm talking about people who have a BIG issue with all this, like the guys yelling "Mary Sue").
Also, didn't Krum have a limp or something? I vaguely remember them contrasting his flying skill with his strange gait while walking. @Wolfgod 64 You're so afraid of being perceived as a sexist you want to avoid analysis altogether? Relax maybe? You don't have to be sexist to talk about a character in a book or movie. Personally I disagree that 'awesome is who Hermione is' if you look at the books, and especially if you look at the movies. 'perfect is who Hermione is ' would be more appropriate for the movies and I think a character can have flaws and still be awesome even if they're *gasp* female. It's all just a matter of opinion. "Mary Sue" as a trope exists for a reason. The male equivalent is "Gary Stu" if you didn't already know. Someone can become tired of being force fed how great a character is without being sexist, and giving poorly written female characters a pass just because they're female is not progressive, and is in fact detrimental in a world with far too few great female characters. If you think the bar is set arbitrarily high for female characters, I absolutely agree with you. The biggest part of the problem imho is the constant demand for perfection from female characters, with certain people taking creators to task for every minor flaw a character has. The problem is, ironically, that great characters have flaws. So we have a situation where people in one camp are saying people in the other camp are calling character X a mary sue because she's female, and people in the second camp are calling X a bad character because she's a mary sue, and blaming it on people in the first camp. And people in the first camp are policing female characters to make sure they have no flaws, so no one will hate them, while everyone in the other camp hates them because they have no flaws. Good grief that may be the most confusing thing I've ever written. To top it all off, the people making the books and movies are too scared to take risks with their female characters, for fear of the backlash that might ensue. But all great art takes risks, so while they may be avoiding mistakes they're also avoiding successes. I would argue, though, that all the same it is very important for us to be critical of female characters. I just think it should be from the point of view of quality, and now in 'how they're portrayed'. We need to allow room for female characters with flaws in our media. After all, men are allowed to have flaws, so why can't women? Is Walter White perfect? No. Is Tony Montana even a good guy? Not even close. Is Hannibal Lecter a psychopathic homicidal maniac who ought to be locked away from society forever? You betcha. But these are some of the greatest / most beloved characters in recent memory. And women deserve the chance to create rolls like this as well, not just get thrown on top of the generic 'woo hoo kick-ass women, yeah' pile. In the end this is the most feminist thing you can do. As a fan of great characters (male or female) , this is what I want to see, and it's just my opinion. I'd like you to feel like you can voice yours too!
@@redrounin1440 I agree with much of what you said, but I feel you misunderstood what I said. My point with that is part of despising or loving character's strength is dependent on what you think of when looking at them. When I see Hermoine, I see the daughter who wiped the memory of her to her parents to protect them, that is a tougher choice to make than anything I've seen from.anyone else, I don't care what her skill is. Speaking of which, her skill also makes sense because she actually reads and practices magic. Imagine how stupid it would be if she was only as good at magic as Ron even though she studies 10x as hard. What I meant with her being a badass as part of her character is that we already know she works harder for it. It's like saying the kung fu master we know trains all the time can only fight as well as the goofy main character (yes, I do mean Green Hornet, except Bruce definitely is the better fighter). I'm not afraid of sounding sexist, I have no intention to sound so and if I do, then I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that, in subtle ways the person might not even realize, one can be sexist without realizing it. Again, it has to do with complaining about the strong female character while ignoring why she's strong, the fact she's not the main character anyways, and her faults. Saying Hermoine is a Mary Sue is that equivalent. She was far from.perfect in the first two movies, the decisions she's made in hit hard and deep, Harry and Ron have a "bros before hoes" mentality and Harry will almost always side or comfort Ron before her (just look at goblet of fire), and whenever she does something cool she's earned it because she practices and studies harder than the rest. The only thing that is strange is her courage. That would have been a good avenue to give her a character flaw, and it is true that her flaw from the earlier movies (know it all snob who cares more about books that people) disappears as time goes on, but even that is fine because of course it would with such close friends. I'm not saying people here are sexist, I don't think people in general are, but I am saying to look at things from all sides. It's easy to get caught up in one side of a character. Heck, for me, I only saw the side of Hermoine I'm explaining here until this video. It never crossed my mind that Hermoine was too smart or too pretty, I just thought she was cool and a loyal friend. It's actually why I hate Ron so much. Hermoine has always been the more loyal and active friend in the books and movies, but has never the recognition she deserves.
I almost took as an insult what they did with Hermione's hair. There's this scene near the end of the third movie, when Hermione saw her double from the pas and says something like "do my hair really look like that from behind". It only one sentence but I took it so personally, cause after that her hair got "better". So the movie implies that Hermione suddenly realizes that her hair are "ugly" and de idea to fix that. It is the complete opposite of the books. In book 4, she takes hours to do her hair for the ball, and everybody thinks she's prettier this well. But she explains she won't do it again because it takes too long, which I could relate too as I have this kind of hair as well, that demands a lot of time and efforts. So the books have this message : it's ok if your hair are messy, you don't have to conform the norm if you don't want to, in particular if it takes hourd and hours of your life. And the movie changes that into : actually you should, go fix your hair, no matter how much it takes. I'm still not over it.
Good. Messy hair == less attractive. Just swallow the truth instead of avoiding it. Same applies to literally anything else regarding standards. I never understood how people cannot relate or look up to perfect characters. Why would you ever need to validate your imperfections and feed your insecure, pitiful self by looking for other “look, they are like me, it is *beautiful*”? (Clearly deluding oneself) Also, since when you cannot just fix your hairstyle with magic (instantaneously, just like the glasses)?
Sure Kenneth Branagh doesn't look like Gilderoy Lockhart but the way he captures Lockhart's smarminess is perfect I think. He was a joy to watch whenever he was on screen.
Yes, Kenneth Branagh really brought Lockhart to life with his personality in the movies. The way he acted made me feel the same whenever he appeared just like in the books.
I partially agree, acting-wise he WAS Gilderoy Lockhart; however, it was a miscast because he was too old for the part considering he was meant to be the young professor all female highschoolers have a huge crush on.
I thought of Bill Weasley… disfigurment became a cool scar on the side of his face. Holiwood repeatidly fails to pictures ugly or disfigured people as good guys. And they almost never use a disfigured actor to play a disfigured character (same goes with disability and sometimes even with being short but Peter Dinklage changed that a little).
True, and that really hurts the character His wife (sorry, can't remember her name, read that almost 10 years ago) was shown as really being in love with him and being loyal until the last being the wished-for-all top model level beauty and still staying at the side of a disfigured farm boy
to be fair, with Bill, they left the whole "the werewolf bit him" storyline out of the movie so it would've been right weird if Harry and the gang show up at Shell Cottage to see Bill and Fleur (and escape and whatever), just to see Bill, no explanation, suddenly rock this huge ass scar across his face. I think they wanted to keep the reference there for the real fans who had read the books but didn't want to confuse audiences who wouldn't know about the werewolf incident.
And when they do use people who suffer from disability, like achondroplasic dwarves, political correctness often implies that they have to make these characters otherwise perfect. If not, they'll think they'd be accused representing an entire oppressed group as being flawed.
@@foxclower So, what about characters who belong to non-white groups? Is it OK to have them played by a white person in make-up? (And no, I am not saying this because you have a non-western sounding name. I am saying this because I am tired of never seeing female characters who look like me.)
One case of this that I found particularly annoying was Margo from Paper Towns. Book Margo was a short, curvy, Jewish girl but they decided to choose Cara Delevigne to play her? And any anger about this was ignored as "average-looking-girl bitterness". But the fact that she didn't look like a model in the book added depth to her character. She was the queen of the school despite not being as generically good looking as her friends, and it was because she was cool and interesting beyond her looks. But with Cara playing her it was just like every other Regina George character out there- a tall, blonde, selfish trope. Anyway, that's my 5-years-too-late rant over
honestly, margo is even more unrealistic in the books. she was the classic "manic pixie dream girl" type, which wouldn't survive a single second in high school, let alone be put on a pedestal by the likes of the "popular" kids in the book. q is a future shut-in, whose days were fully devoted to playing video games with his friends and _thinking about margo, our notliketheothergirls childhood friend._ we see the entire book from his perspective, and of course you could argue that q did indeed love her for _the deep parts of her soul_ , but... believing that you could love someone that you haven't talked to in 7+ years for _purely_ their personality and still keep it fairly innocent just doesn't fly with me. tl;dr: margo is hot because quentin is obssessed with her in every way possible, and keeping the "she had flaws... and had nothing in common with her friends.. and hated the town she lived in" while combining it with *_"MOST MOST MOST POPULAR GIRL IN THE SCHOOL"_* is a stretch edit:margo's character doesn't add nor subtract from her *actual* looks. since she'll look hot to q no matter what, the only development we really have here is "girl gets mad at her friend because she likes to call her fat" and that never goes anywhere either
The ending was what got me. In the book she gets really pissed that they found her, yet the movie plays it off as an “oh, I’m surprised to see you, how’d you find me” kind of moment. The whole story ends with a totally different feel to it.
It's especially hypocritical if producers now come up with lines like "see, we're creating much more strong girl's/woman's characters now! We're empowering the little girls! We're showing them that they can be anything they want!" I really want to shut their faces. Yeah they can be anything they want, unless they're not beautiful as hell and don't get past 40. (a headmistress of a school is played by 37y.o. Nathalie Dormer, for God's sake. Supergirl was played by a 28y.o. and SuperWOMAN by a 30 y.o. That's your womanly live span, apparently).
judy boo well, in a world (i.e. the movie world) where attractiveness sells, of course main characters are going to be attractive. Of course we get uglier when we age, too. Movies aren’t genuine; they don’t want to elicit the “empowerment” so you speak of; they just want money. Denying that attractiveness fades after 40-ish (and women more, since part of our attractiveness is built on fertility; youth, that’s just biology), is just plain intellectually dishonest. You can’t be valued for beauty forever.
@@vanessacarlson606 I'm not complaining about the general beauty in the movie industry. If you're looking at faces on a big screen, you wanna look at something beautiful. I get that. I'm complaining about the brutal unfairness in these matters between women and men. In another comment I'm stating loads of examples that for men something is possible which for women isn't. Just two of them here: For every man over 40 in a movie, his female counterpart is average 14 years his junior. For every woman over 50 in television, there are 3 men over 50. I don't get why people are fighting for feminism via claiming that women have o work in fields they obviously don't wanna work. But here, where there are loads of women over 40 who are not allowed to work anymore, well it's just ok, yes? And just to put the statement aside that I hear often: "Well maybe people don't wanna watch women over 40 on screen.." - "So Gravity was unsuccessful? Alien? Arrival?" There ARE beautiful women in the film industr over 40, and there ARE people who like to look at them. Noone would complain having to look at a Jennifer Connelly, Mira Sorvino, Helen Hunt, Holly Hunter, Salma Hayek, Lisa Bonet, Kate Winslet, Michelle Pfeiffer, Demi Moore, Famke Janssen, Cameron Diaz, Kirsten Dunst, Sienna Miller, Claire Danes, Carrie Ann Moss, Catherine Zeta Jones, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kelly Macdonald, Milla Jovovic, Jennifer Aniston, Emmanuelle Seigner, Julie Delpy, Katie Holmes, Andie McDowell , but how often do they have a movie part - compared to Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Leo di Caprio, Jude Law... whatever. But casting "new, fresh faces" as women characters is not only about beauty: it's also about the girlishness and the innocence and the untouchedness that a female character has to embody. It's the age-old Virgin vs. Whore thing. By the way, the TV series industry seems to keep up. This is the screen where I can see roles for women, not girls. And they are successful.
Also the "eye glasses are unattractive" bit. Unless someone is wearing oversized ugly eyeglass frames, I think that glasses look cute on a person kinda like an owl.🦉
Glasses in move are stereotype of unatractiveness. Countless examples in movies when a character takes glasses off and instantly becomes "attractive". In real life it can be opposite. And I'm not talking about myself - ugly with glasses or without glasses :P. But there are people who actually do look much better wearing glasses.
The types of frames make a difference. My grandfather's windshield glasses are one thing, and I don't think they are all that handsome. The slighter frames of today, I like much more. There's something to it, that is stylistic and suggestive. And it's not very easy to pin down.
For Harry Potter specifically, I think the films also show the inherent risk in casting pre-teen children for a franchise that's going to go on for a long time (10 years in this case). You can't really predict how a child is going to end up looking after they hit puberty. Take Neville for example. In the first two films, Matthew Lewis looks pretty spot on to how book Neville is described, short and chubby. But by the time they made Goblet of Fire, he'd shot up and ended up being one of the tallest and lankiest in the teenaged cast. When your young cast is locked in early like that, you kind of just have to live with how they look as they get older. I mean, yeah, the main trio weren't exactly 'ugly' children, but there's still no way of knowing how exactly they'll grow up. Plus, skilled child actors can be tricky to cast. So they're going to try and find a kid who looks 'close enough' and is okay being on camera and acts well enough for their age.
Also, what probably many don't know: Emma wore big fake teeth for one scene of the movie (I think it's still in it), but it was too uncomfortable and she couldn't act that well with it, so the director just removed it for the rest of the film.
Neville's case is hit or miss. They never mention in the books how he looks like after the second book, just that he has a rounder face. He could have shot up once puberty hit in the books, but we may never know. Now if you used Fred and George, on the other hand, I'd understand. They were both tall and lanky in the movies (taller than Rupert/Ron), while in the book they're described and short and stocky. But yeah, casting preteens for a long franchise is a huge risk. Still doesn't explains why Hollywood even casts attractive adults for characters with deformities.
@@lunayen soooo many reasons. Mainly because a lot of "ugly" or "misshapen" people don't get to be actors. There should be more of them, whether it works for the character or not. For eg there's an English actress who has a burn scar on her upper arm, its real, not part of her character and they don't bother covering it in scenes. She stands alone on her skills
No effort was made to keep film Hermione's appearance in line with book Hermione, though. They could've made her hair frizzy, but quickly chose not to. You can make a character less attractive in a number of ways, and they decided against it. No one relates to a perfect character.
However, I think there is an issue with casting older actors to play younger characters (like 20+ year olds playing young teens). A major part of this is definitely the relatability, especially when young audiences see these people without any of the androgyny of childhood or awkwardness of puberty. If the 'supposedly 13 year old girl' has clear skin, long flowing hair and big breasts, then it can really impact on girls' self-esteem. The same goes with guys, when characters are fit/muscular, tall and have clear skin, which you can't expect of the average teenage boy! Protagonists are supposed to be relatable, so when you have a movie aimed at young teenagers but have 20-something year old cast, there are some serious issues.
I think it's just that Mr Darcy is super rude and incredibly picky at the start of the story. Nothing is good enough for some people. That he insults Elizabeth's appearance says more about him than about her.
It had an effect with the "Carrie" remake. Her being a social outcast who was not conventionally attractive was a major plot point. Chloe Grace Moretz is just plain hot. That casting just did not work.
I think with Tyrion, much of the cleaning up of his character had to do with the fact that this was pretty much THE first major role for an actor with dwarfism in a major production. At this point in time, that representation matters. And because of this, making him out to be too monstrous, be it in appearance or in action, would have felt much too problematic and unsavory. And I myself am inclined to agree. Hopefully in the future roles for actors with dwarfism will be so much part of the norm that they need not worry about morally dubious character roles reflecting back on them personally or the dwarfism community as a whole.
This. I felt the exact same way when thinking about why he wasn't adapted properly from the books. Considering how popular GoT was/is, I could only imagine the backlash they would have received.
I used to watch a show when a whas a kid featuring a dwarf a main character "The Wizard" loved that show. Two of my favorite film as a kid was "Willow" and "Time Bandit". Both have multiple dwarf actors and main protagonist as dwarf. They date respectivly from 1986, 1988 and 1981. "Willow" was a hollywood production with a over the top budget for the time. So nope not the first major role, it was happenned several times in the 80's. I think showing Tyrion as really ugly would have make him even more lovable if done right. Charaters who are rejected for their apparences and are really ugly tend to attract fans. Plus i think it would have made him more tragic as he lose his nose and getting more and more crap from the intrigue and other Lannisters. As in the book he really is a pitifull character.
So they chose the easy way. Having an ugly and weird character can add depth to their personality is it's multi-faceted and written correctly. Dwarfs aren't new to the big and small screen business either. Yoda, E. T., Sloth in the Goonies, the ugly man in Under the skin and so on, all audience favorites despite them being far from being beauty standards. The fact that the directors chose to make Tyrion and Brienne more beautiful is because they themselves can't relate to these characters if they're too ugly to their taste, certainly not the audience
CreepyHandedMan Not exactly a great comparison there. ET and Yoda are aliens so human standards of beauty are irrelevant concerning them. Also in the Goonies Sloth is goofy an over the top an his freakish features are a aspect of his character. Were he attractive it would have completely ruined him an made no sense.
I think it had more to do with the fact of having to apply makeup/prosthetics from Season 2 until Season 8.. for every single day of filming for him.. for every scene he was in. I mean, imagine having to "chop off" his nose for 5+ years of filming. That's more than just a nuisance. I think it's was practicality that won, over virtue signaling being the case..
To be fair, it went both ways. Ron also replaced Neville, who was supposed to join Harry in the forbidden forrest in the first movie. I don't really understand this, my favorite aspect of the Harry Potter universe is how well built all of the characters were. Taking them away and giving all the lines to the 3 main characters removed so much of the richness of the story.
It would make so much sense that Hermione would forget that she is a witch during crisis since she is born from two muggles. It would be a wonderful flaw, honestly. Especially seeing the development that would later happen where she recognizes herself as a witch. Too sad that did not happen in the movies
The biggest issue I have with adaptational attractiveness is when a protagonist is clearly good looking but treated as being ugly by everyone around them.
Jordan Sipe Carrie (2013)
My uncle told me about a Twilight Zone episode like that. It’s about this alien world where everyone’s ugly accept for this one woman who’s beautiful and all the ugly people think she’s ugly.
"Plain" Keira Knightley's Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice (2005)
@@masonallen3961 I think I know that episode! I think everyone had a pig snout on their face except for her.
@@ShanyShannon do you know the name of the episode? sounds like a great plot
I think a big part of the problem is associating beauty with good morals and ugliness with bad morals, especially in children's movies and cartoons.
This is a huge problem. I'd love to see more films "break the mold" here.
This
@@claudia-7917Being healthy is good, but overweight people aren't automatically evil, and they deserve the same respect as anyone else.
yeah, the only counterexample to this I remember from my childhood is the hunchback of Notre Dame, but that was such a horrible horrible book, that I couldn't really take it seriously. So horrible, why would my parents even let me read such things.
To be fair the association comes from human nature itself. Most good looking features are results of good health so are geared towards wanting to reproduce. Therefore we associate good attributes with beautiful people. It’s mostly a technique to make people like/dislike a character without the need for skilled character development, you can see why this is the case in children’s fiction where the writing isn’t always world class.
Emma Watson is so cute that it confused me as a kid why the movie tried to portray her as surprisingly beautiful at the ball. I was like, "She looks the same? Why are people shocked, how did they not know she was pretty?". lol
It was on a par with that moment in Wallace and Gromit, the Wrong Trousers, where the Penguin takes off the rubber glove on his head and Wallace is amazed: "Good grief! It's you!" As if sticking a rubber glove on his head were an effective disguise.
Cause being "smart" means you ugly according to hollywood
My circle was mad she wasn't wearing periwinkle! I guess you don't expect much brainy ones at parties!
Yeah, they played the bushy unkempt hair thing for the first one or two films and then dropped it as soon as she grew up a little in the third one, to capitalise on those looks.
This was my biggest gripe with the Carrie remake. Chloe Grace Moretz was more beautiful than any of her other classmates so it didn't make sense that she was being bullied. The original actress was pretty too, but she was portrayed in an ugly light. The New Carrie was wearing loads of pretty makeup all the time even if she was supposed to be the awkward ugly high school girl
Hollywood also sometimes make evil, conventionally attractive characters in books ugly in the film adaptation. For example, Cruella de Vil. She was an elegant, young, attractive woman in Dodie Smith’s children’s novel, but Disney made her inelegant, old, and ugly because that’s considered more “evil.”
I think it's because, when you make a villain attractive, that means you're glamorizing or romanticising them? Not all bad people look ugly. In fact, people who look like they do no wrong, take advantage of their own appearance to get what they want
@@ninarances9074 I agree with you, in fact I believe it’s better to make evil characters unattractive unless it’s related to their personality (like a sexy evil temptress) I think this way because so many teens are glorifying villains as iconic or “misunderstood” but they only sympathise with the attractive ones, I’ve never seen anyone portray The Penguin (except in the Tim Burton movie where it’s part of the storyline) or Ursula in a symphathetic manner
One of the reasons I love Invader ZiM is because the main characters are really cute looking, but they are also little jerks. I just live for this combination so much.
@@paemonyes8299 While that may be true, it's partly symptomatic of how teens, and society, perceives and portrays conventionally attractive people as less evil or more sympathetic. Without changing that, without separating attractiveness and morals, I don't think you can solve this problem.
@@siddharthsahu2101 Attractiveness is simply seen as a positive quality. It's a fundamental aspect of human biology. It's quite literally in the name. You might as well eliminate selfishness or murder while you're at it.
The writing of Hermione took away from Ron. Ron turned into an absolute idiot in the movies. He was the one who was raised in the wizarding world, he was the "street smart" one of the group. But, like you said, they gave all his lines to her :/ That has always bothered me.
You're 100% right, but I think it does show how awesome Rupert Grint was in that role. He still managed to be super memorable, even with all his lines stolen. Go watch the the Chamber of Secrets car/train scene, Movie Clips uploaded a version called "Reckless Flying" and just look at his facial expressions. That kid is like 12, and understood physical comedy better than most adults.
Agreed!
Ron was always an idiot
@@rosepetal34 A brave and loyal idiot. They gave his braveness and loyality to Hermione, too.
rosepetal34 Ron was never an idiot 🙄. Go back and read the books, not fanfiction.
in the books, there’s a scene where the slytherin are harassing Hermione about her physical appearance, and use a spell to make her teeth keep growing. when he should have punished the slytherin, snape agrees with them, and says that he can’t see a difference to what her teeth usually look like. this leads hermione to magically alter her appearance to not only counteract the spell, but shrink her teeth further, despite what her dentist parents advised her to do. this scene is not ok the film. i think this not only removes a dimension from hermione, but also from snape; it doesn’t show how cruel he could truly be
In any book worth adapting, everything flows into everything else. You can't make thoughtless changes to make things look "better" onscreen without adjusting other things to compensate.
Hermione was already insecure about her teeth before that incident. It wasn't the cause of her shrinking them to normal size. It was just an opportunity for her to shrink them.
@@AlphabetCookie (which is why her teeth were targeted in the first place, incidentally)
@Philip Arvanitidis It's still considered a defect as far as appearance goes. Leaving out her buck teeth makes Movie Hermione more attractive, hence the trope.
@Philip Arvanitidis I'm pretty sure Book!Hermione knows how buck teeth look on her face better than you...
Another thing the movies seem to forget is that Hermione is muggle born making her not as experienced in the Wizarding world, and not knowing certain things . For example when Draco calls her a mud blood in the chamber of secrets, she has no clue what it means. But in the movies she does know what it means, making hermoine explain it to the audience instead of Ron explaining it to her. Poor Ron, the one thing he has over her is basically non-existent in the movies
Because its okay to do that in Hollywood and modern culture. Portraying a boy as being ignorant of things does not carry political backlash like it does when you do that to a girl. No matter how realistic that makes her character, anything more than "superficial" flaws always brings out the protesters which lowers sales. It's not about artistic integrity, it's about fucking $$$.
I know. I absolutely loathed how the movies dumbed Ron down and for the most part made him comedy relief. Quite a few of his best lines or moments were either given to other characters or taken out entirely. He was my favourite character in the books.
Amazing Ambassador i don’t think they teach wizard slang in textbooks
A lot of Ron’s lines went to Hermione.
Ron was never dumb, he was the one who kept the three grounded.
In moments of panic, Hermione sometimes forgot she’s a witch. Ron reminded her.
That scene bothered me so much!!!
“Sometimes they change the character’s hair color, but this can be brushed off pretty easily.“
Percy Jackson fans: *Imma stop you right there*
it was really important for annabeth to be blonde, im still irked
Don't even starttt on annabeth
Remember when Constantine was released?
Let's just pretend that the movies don't exist, okay?
I think the biggest issue with it, and this could sound really stupid, but it was a curly haired character with blonde hair who was actually legitimately smart and also wasn't the stereotypical "mean girl" (a character who I couldn't relate too and was supposed to be a villain). As a young, curly haired, blonde girl, when I first read this I was so excited. The only other smart blonde female character in media who I could think of was Elle Woods, who was smart no doubt, but was still kind of a ditz. I wasn't like that. I was a book obsessed blonde who was bullied constantly and no one my age ever saw me as pretty. Maybe two people in my grade have ever called me attractive (I'm very pale with insanely curly blonde hair, not over weight by any means but I'm not the skinniest). Annabeth was important to me because smart blondes aren't exactly common, and her and I have really similar personalities and it was just so cool because I still can't think of many examples like her played by naturally blonde actors. Cause, you know, they do exist, and no, blondes don't exactly have dark brown roots and black eyebrows.
Anywho, rant over.
I hated that Hermione got the line “fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.” Only Harry and Dumbledor were comfortable saying Voldemort for a long time.
Didn't that dumb belief get them arrested in Deathly hollows??
Peggy7899 Alison That’s not a dumb belief? The only dumb belief is fearing that something as inanimate as a name could harm them. It was only because Voldemort was resurrected by the Deathly Hallows did he cast a taboo on his name, leading them to be arrested by the snatchers.
Suited her smart ass perfectly to be honest
@@kimkon2171 yes, that's why she was brave enough to say the name 😒
@Maryam Naser
What if Voldemort had the taboo going before he got himself exploded? What if the reason most adults refused to say his name was, that it would call him? Then fearing the name would be perfectly reasonable for anyone who was there during his previous terror.
Voldemort dieing could have broken the spell, making it safe to say his name, but then he reaplied it.
Real talk, book hermione is annoying or inconvenient on several ocasions, making her so perfect in the movies meant taking away the flaws that made her complex and complimenting her personality with all of Ron's good traits, which in turn created a generation of people who truly believe he is undeserving of her or doesnt bring anything to the relationship when he is so essencial to making her happier, braver and bolder
Maria Luísa seriously tho! I’m so sick of people hating and bashing on Ron as if Hermione was some sort of flawless golden girl who could do no wrong (May i point out that she was kinda pretentious and condescending in the books).I lover her but I love Ron too, and I don’t see why everyone insists on putting him down so much just to highlight how much “better” Hermione is or deserves
moral of the story kids, the books are better
I love Hermione in the books and the movie but I feel like Ron was screwed over in the movies they could’ve easily made him more true to the books but chose not to for some reason
I never really got the sense that Hermione ever learned anything from Ron that made her grow as a character I actually think she had the least amount of growth in the books
I actually hate Hermione books and movies
Ron being constantly overshadowed and out-shined by his family and his friends was a constant theme in the books, and by giving his lines, heroism and level head to Hermione the films have done it all over again.
Netflix Adaptation: Hermione and Harry come up to some ginger kid being picked on by Malfloy's trio.
After saving the weird ginger kid he becomes the Fight Club-esque 'Where's Waldo' easter egg of the series.
www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/2b98tz/why_harry_and_hermione_are_actually_the_romantic/ here's why they did that.
Weasley is always the last pick XD
WEASELY IS OUR KING
And to Harry. Or giving Harry’s stuff to Hermione. Making Hermione way more badass than she needs to be because she was pretty great by herself is why those movies just irk me.
And switching Ron getting up on a BROKEN leg and putting himself between Harry and Sirius to Hermione doing it while Ron sits there with I think a bite? Still hurts like hell but a broken leg would be worse, no?
They disrespected Ron so much in those movies. They did not do him justice at all.
As someone with naturally curly hair, I always thought it mildly insulting that the "pretty" curly hair is never bushy or frizzy and always looks more like straight hair that was curled. (Someone actually told me once I should straighten and then curl my hair so it would look better). I always thought Hermione had hair like me, so it was sad when her film adaptation didn't follow through with that after the second movie.
I have curly hair as well and I had been so insecure my entire life. The only time I had been complimented was when I straightened it my hair. It feels horrible to look back and realise what that’s done to my selfesteem. I wish they had more characters who were the pretty one and had curly hair. Not like the usually tamed curls they like to show which you can do with a curling iron, real curls that aren’t the most controlled but still presentable. Curly hair doesn’t have to be unruly and messy like they like to portray all the time.
I have naturally very bushy, curly hair. The amount of times I've been asked by girls with straight hair who use curly irons to make it wavey why I don't straighten it...it's exhausting tbh
100% agree!
I agree. I have incredibly thick and frizzy hair and i'd appreciate more of the "pretty" characters had actually curly or frizzy hair. I feel a lot more fortunate though as people actually really like my natural hair. I'd honestly trade it for anyone elses hair any day since it's a pain to manage.
In India it's apparently a sign of great beauty if women have thick curly hair. My mom and I have straight hair that turns wavy occasionally. All my aunts and cousins on both sides of the family have thick, curly hair. I had a whole phase where I'd try to get my hair curled so that I could feel "pretty". Horribly enough, hair straightening has become a norm now and my cousins keep hurting their hair trying to get "silky, smooth" hair. All of this bullshit made me realize that hair is hair and its stupid to waste all that time worrying about it.
Too spot-on. And unfortunately, the reverse also makes some less savory implications, when characters are shown as plain and flawed, it continues to tie attractiveness with morality and ugliness with evil.
You're very right.
But Draco's hot though eh mate
edit.: and Bellatrix. Damn is Helena gorgeous.
Not necessarily.
I don’t know any examples of what you’re talking about, but if I had to justify it I’d say it’s because it’s a representation and goodness is attractive while being evil isn’t.
Rowling did this throughout the HP series. I adore the books and their author, but I do not like that she did this.
@@feartheghus Disney has done this a lot. In Snow White, the queen turns into an ugly witch just to give Snow the poisoned apple. The queen could have turned into just another beautiful stranger but specifically was ugly.
Imagine auditioning for a movie and they say "Damn, you're really ugly. You'd be perfect for this role."
Midgets everywhere.
Lmao
Also imagine auditioning for a role with the description, short, brown hair, incredibly ugly
😂😂😂
As an aspiring actress, I can tell you I have sit in the same room next to underwear models, and the casting staff (usually mediocre middle aged men/women) had the galls to say to that people that they were not pretty/hot enough, so... Casting world is crazy
First line of "Gone with the Wind": "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful."
Hollywood then proceeds to cast the most beautiful actress in the world ...
Scarlett I feel is the exception because though she was quiet physically plain she never once realized it. She thought herself the most beautiful woman in existence and because she did she was treated like it. Even now that trait would be difficult to protray on screen, let alone back then. Easier just to cast a beautiful actress.
To be fair, Vivien Leigh is phenomenal in the film 👍👍
@@TwelvetreeZ Agreed. Also, I have to wonder what Margaret Mitchell really meant. The rest of the passage goes, "men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were. In her face were too sharply blended the delicate features of her mother, a Coast aristocrat of French descent, and the heavy ones of her florid Irish father. But it was an arresting face, pointed of chin, square of jaw. Her eyes were pale green without a touch of hazel, starred with bristly black lashes and slightly tilted at the ends. Above them, her thick black brows slanted upward, cutting a startling oblique line in her magnolia-white skin."
Nowadays, what she describes would be a photographer's dream--a combination of sex appeal and unique features fit for the cover of any magazine. Maybe the real point was to say that she didn't fit the conventional definition of "pretty" for that era, but had a much more interesting look.
I've never read the book, but I absolutely adore the film. Now that you said this, I wanna read the book!
@@agap05 You definitely should! It's a good read, although be forewarned that it is in many ways a product of its time, so some parts may strike you as a little cringeworthy.
"To attract more viewers, we need to make our characters good looking"
Shrek: "are you sure about that?"
Fais Faizal underrated comment
Yes but Shrek was an original. His entire story ark was based on appearance. That was a good film
Shrek is sexy. Shut up!
Andrea M shrek is love shrek is life
What are you talking about Shrek is a snack 😍😍🤤
For Holes: Stanely loses significant weight while he is at camp, ending with a figure similar to Shia LeBouf's. The director didn't want to make an already skinner child actor put on massive weight then have him lose it over a short window for filming. Adaptational Attractiveness is one thing, but I will brush that aside for a director who gives a sh*t about their actors' health.
They still should’ve casted an overweight actor
@@ebonyobrien5895 they should cast the best actor
Ebony O'Brien and then forced him to lose weight for adaptational truism? That’s kind of shitty - like, “oh, you’re a good actor, kid, but you’ll have to drop 15 kilo over the course of the film to get the part-also if we need to re-shoot scenes or want any additional takes we’re fucked! OR you have to gain it back again so we can recreate that look! _Healthy!”_ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Better to use a fat suit (a series of them as Stanley loses weight) on someone the size of end-goal Stanley, like Shia, along with facial prosthetics so the weight loss is recreatable for additional takes as needed.
Gwen Banning all they’d have to do is create the illusion of weight loss and that’s easily achieved by being creative with the clothing
A little weight gain and loss and a little costume craftiness would have gone a long way and hurt no one.
They can't really just accept the fact that Emma Watson is "too attractive for the role" when they LITERALLY made buck teeth prosthetics for the actor of Neville Longbottom, can they??
wow i always thought that it was his real teeth
Even WITH the teeth Neville was too attractive, They needed to give him a fat suit too XD. But yea, teeth for Hermione would have been good too.
Ikuto1313 they gave her fake buck teeth but Emma Watson couldn’t talk whilst wearing them
@@bethanyb1175 That isn't the only reason she complained about them. They took artistic liberties to make the role more attractive for her, by making her more attractive. They loved her acting, but she hated the role, at first. Same with harry and his contact lenses. Eventually they said 'screw it' and just let the main cast be different than the books. I heard more detail about this on the commentary on one of the DVD sets, if you want to look into it. This is the logic behind allowing the casting of hermione to be black instead. It isn't like they stayed true to the books anyway. However, it does make some lines from the book very confusing, like when hermoine got confused for a weasley.
Richard Smith they actually mentioned in the book that she’s white look it up
Making Hermione perfect also severely took away from Ron's character. In the book, he is emotionally very intelligent and has his own way of saving the day. In the movies, all his good moments are given to Hermione and Ron is just a comic relief.
exactly! There's such a nice balance in the books because all 3 of them are incredibly valuable in making things work and they all have their individual strengths that help save them. In the movies it's Hermione and Harry being amazing wizards and they kind of just drag Ron along and he's used for laughs
It also is one of the reasons that Ron is hated by so many people
Gwendoline Woudstra Ron literally isn’t hated by anyone
ObiWan Kenobi I know SO many people who hate Ron - and I’m pretty sure the film adaptation of his character is the main reason they think Ron is dumb/incapable and that Harry and Hermione should have ended up together.
I have to strongly disagree with you on that. Recall that Luna Lovegood casually mentioned that Ron was funny, but could be very unkind, and that it made Harry uncomfortable because he knew it was true. Ron isn't emotionally intelligent. He is very loyal, and often has small insights, but low emotional intelligence is one of his biggest character flaws. Hermione is, in a certain sense, more magically talented, intelligent, and emotionally grounded than Ron or Harry. But Ron and Harry are the ones who really bring out the qualities that make her a Gryffindor. And honestly, Ron IS just kind of going along with it while Harry and Hermione do amazing things, rising to the occasion when it really matters. Feelings of inadequacy are a major part of his character arc.
Movie logic: You're attractive, you're the good guy. You're ugly, you're the bad guy.
Yep. And if you're attractive, you're the romantic lead; if not, you're the "funny fat friend".
yes! that's the halo effect: we assume that if someone is very good at a certain thing, they're amazing at everything. it's way more that just movie logic though, it even happens in classic fairytales/legends: Rapunzel is beautiful, the witch locking her in isnt. Sigmund, the dragon slayer, is also portrayed as very handsome in paintings. Odysseus' wife (I forgot her name oops) has many admirers and many proposals in the twenty years that her husband was lost on sea (which points to her as being beautiful as well), yet she turns everyone down. it's been a part of human psyche for as long as we told stories.
@@lasolady Penelope
That doesn’t apply here since Malfoy are good looking and still antagonists
Thats not true. Alot of villains are attractive. Especially in YA series and movies.
I actually think Emma Watson's beauty sort of diminishes Ron's character development too. He realizes he doesn't want just a beautiful girl, he wants someone brave, intelligent and kind and who he has an emotional connection.
I haven't read the books but i just recently watched the movies and i couldn't buy in to their relationship at all. They had no chemistry and Hermione is way out of Ron's league.
@@crazy10bears yeah you should read them. she glows up just before the yule ball in the 4th book and thats when ron realizes how pretty she is. their chemistry is apparent from the first book through all the bickering. but thats my opinion.
@@crazy10bears I know, thats a problem many film-watchers have and I don't blame you. Film-Ron is an outright moron. Dumb and focussed on the appearance of girls and not much more than the funny side-kick without much substance. In the books, however, he is - I have to admit - my favorite character and I think overall the most relatable. He is not as smart as Hermione but arguably the same as Harry. He is a bit lazy - who isn't? He is incredibly brave and always stands up for Harry OR Hermione (many scenes which show that are cut out of the films or simply given to the All-Perfect Hermione. For example in the third one when Snape is mean to Hermione, Ron says: "He's got a point, you know?" thats not right at all. In the books he gets so angry that he gets punished by Snape). Ron's got flaws like a real human has and he has a very relatable and believable character-developement, especially when it comes to him viewing women for more than their looks. Much of the bonding between Hermione and Ron happens off-screen and off-paper, but in the books we know about it. Ron spends way more time alone witch Hermione than Harry does. I always loved their chemistry and relationship and I highly recommend you reading the books. Sorry for the long text though :D
@@TheTororist tbh. I found the Ron/Hermione 'chemistry' in the books to be just as flat and incredulous as in the films... both Harry and Ron are complete arses towards her on multiple occations throughout their school years and in the hunt for horcruxes even when she's bending over backwards to save their collective bacons...
@@SonsOfLorgar They're regularly asses toward each other, too, though, yet remain best friends. And during the hunt, they're all spending nearly every moment together during a very stressful time and it starts to wear on them. I thought Rowling did an excellent job of portraying the relationships of close friends during the different stages of adolescence.
As for the chemistry part, though, I mostly agree. I'm glad she avoided the easy cliche of putting Harry and Hermoine together, but putting Ron and Hermione together doesn't read all that much better. It's a small flaw in a great series, though.
They ruined Ron by stripping all of his epic qualities
I know, he is one of my favorite characters, along with Fred and George
Exactly, even his lines. They gave all his good qualities and lines, to Hermione. And took all her flaws. I hated that about the movies. It made romione make no sense at all, whereas in the book they balance each other out.
He was supposed to be be quite smart in a ‘I’m always right but don’t feel like I am’ way but they gave all his amazing, lovable qualities to hermione.
So you don't approve of him being turned into a goof while making his girlfriend look perfect in every way? You sexist pig...
@@ViolosD2I what?
I did not even notice the discoloration on her face in ready player one.
I can’t even see it in this video and I was squinting at the screen looking for it
Tyler Crain it's very faint
@@slenderfoxx3797 Just like Zukos scar in the last airbender live action movie. Simply stated, that burn scar was put on his face as a dark reminder from his father that he's a disappointment in his eyes (it actually goes deeper, but I don't want this comment to be too long... :D)
But in the movie, he just got a light sunburn on the area around his eye. It just hasn't the same implication as a permanent disfigurement (is that the right word? I'm not a native english speaker, so sorry for that. :D), since it's so barely noticeable.
Erigalus damn. That's so unfortunate that they did that.
@@Erigalus Are we referring to the M Night version? Zuko's scar was hardly the worst part of that movie.
What I’ve never understood is why the “ugly” character usually has curly/big hair. Why is it supposed to be unattractive?🤨
Unruly curly hair is spusually synonymous with messy or dirty. Imo
@Bozhena Gahan Exactly! When a character is supposed to be ugly, instead of casting an actor that actually looks like he/she sould look, they usually pick a good looking actor/actress and give them messy hair and crumpled clothes. I noticed they did this with Grantaire in "Les Miserables" and it really bothered me
Sadly curly hair used to be frowned upon a lot. (And POC women still do get frowned upon for curls)
I think because when you’re younger and less experienced with how to style your hair, it’s the curly haired kids who end up looking less put-together. A girl with naturally straight hair isn’t going to look ugly just because she doesn’t know how to do her hair, because her hair will still look tidy. But a young girl with curly/messy hair doesn’t have the hair care routine down yet, so she looks uglier.
@afootineachworld they're just jealous, curly hair has its own beauty !
They defo should have kept Emma Watson's hair big and bushy until the ball.
Actually it's canon in the books she slicked it down for the yule ball
@@landrigarcia5728 the original comment isn't dismissing that... they're saying it should've been bushy UNTIL the ball, where she slicks it down
@@landrigarcia5728 /whoosh
Ant R thats not a whoosh ya bafoon
@@keviniiiiii4750 whoooosh
Not only Hermione is adapted in the films to be more attractive physically and in characteristics, I think they completely ruined Ginny Weasly's character. In the books she is stubborn, bossy, smart, the typical little sister of a bunch of brothers. Especially from the 5th book on it becomes apparent what a strong and talented witch she is. However, in the films, especially after the first two, she becomes this quiet, passive girl who is like pretty, moving furniture in the film and eventually becomes Harry's partner. In the books, Harry respects her strength in both magic and Quidditch, two things he is good at as well. They become a strong team based on equal respect for the strength of the other, even before they become a couple. This completely vanished in the films the more the series progressed.
THANK YOU finally someone says it !
Ginny was one of my favorite characters in the book : she was badass, stubborn, bold, a strong female character who always had a smart thing to say that put people back in their place (which would make sense with all the brothers she had to deal with). But I was so disappointed when I saw the movies cause she was just this useless character that never said anything cool and was just there to kiss Harry once in a while, their relationship was so awkward and didn't make sense as it did in the books.
Their first kiss is especially awkward in the movie and it comes out of nowhere, in the book it's this really cool moment when they just won quidditch and Harry's so happy to see her that he kisses her in front of everyone (and he can see Ron is okay with it which was a big part of why he didn't do it sooner) that just make so much more sense.. I'll never get over what they did to this character :(
Exactly, they basically erased all the character development of Ginny and therefore their relationship doesn't make sense anymore. Ginny was also my favorite character in the book, so the film adaptation in that regard didn't do it justice.
I mean, at the battle of hogwards she keeps of Bellatrix together with Neville, how damn talented was she to do that at 16?! They really didn't do justice to her character :(
also Ginny overcame serious trauma, her childhood and soul was literally stolen by Tom Riddle, and she overcomes it in a blaze of fire. She becomes stronger, kinder, brighter and disillusioned. She defends the people that remind her of her own 11 year old self, vulnerable and easy pickings for cruel people (Neville and Luna).She has a ton of flaws, but she is ultimately the person Harry ends up with because she has also overcome trauma from Voldemort and lets it guide her to being the merciful warrior that Harry is.
Well she wasnt really pretty in the movies either, not ugly nor pretty. But yes, to quiet and passive.
As someone who never read the books, I barely remember her. To me, she's just 'that girl that got used by a book and later married Harry'.
To me Hermione's hair was so important because as someone who also has wavy frizzy hair you never see that on screen and in the first movie its so nice to see someone else representing it but then her hair magically tames itself
YES!
Well tbh I used to have Hermione hair when I was a kid and then as you said, it "magically tamed itself". Maybe Emma's hair did the same thing? It lost texture and the stylist had less natural volume to work with? Their filming schedule was crazy, working with time-wasting extensions or risking a bad perm could have had major consequences. It may or may not be but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise what was the point of having her hair like that in the sorcerer's stone in the first place?
Ellie Wolfe Emma Watson has naturally straight hair.
@@reegankay9799 my comment was about Hermione not Emma Watson
Lea Maree I wasn’t talking to you.
Holes gets a pass, because I remember reading when the movie came out that they did want to portray Stanley accurately (overweight in the beginning and rapidly having lost weight by the end), but they didn't want to put that much of a drastic physical change on the actor. I always thought that was a super acceptable reason, and Shia being cast was not done for aesthetics.
As far as Tyrion goes I am so beyond glad that when they were making him more attractive they didn’t take away the fact that he has dwarfism, I myself have dwarfism and have noticed a change in people’s perceptions from how they perceived me before GoT, people always used to stare and think I was strange and weird because of my disability but now with Game Of Thrones being so famous, I feel the amount of stares I get is lower and people actually have an idea of someone with dwarfism that they can think of that isn’t just a stereotype.
That's a great example for why we need more representation in movies and tv shows for all kinds of people in all kinds of rolls. Lets everyone see that we're not all that different from each other no matter what we look like.
@tylerx2f01 it depends if they say this is Greg he is gay.
Or if they have a character who has character development and personality who happens to be gay.
They would have taken it away if they could.
@2 demons attached Thats not respect that's fear, you've taught them not to stare or you will disprove of them.
Not gonna lie: when a friend first showed me GoT and told me to watch it I didn't, because I thought "what medieval comedy is this?" when they showed Tyrion. When I later watched it and realised, that Tyrion is my favorite charakter, the realisation of my prejudice hit me hard. But it's like you said: we never had deep and intriguing charakters with dwarfsim and that seems to leave a mark.
Thank you for stressing throughout the video that it's the fault of the studios and the writers, not the actors. Emma Watson and Peter Dinklage in particular as still brilliant in their respective roles.
Emma Watson is overrated. Peter Dinklage is amazing
Emma Watson herself said she hated looking back at the earlier movies and seeing herself with the Hermione hair (which wasn't as bushy as it could have been). She refused to look like canon Hermione from the books, and the studio and producers were all too happy to cater to her to beautify Hermione.
@Sternia Hoenheim are you actually complaining because a character looks prettier in a movie than in a book. Like a can sort of understand if she was uglier although you would still be an idiot for complaining, but her being prettier is not a bad thing at all.
Brilliant? Emma Watson? Please don’t lie.
Adaptational adaptness affected Ron's character a lot in my opinion. Just the fact that they made Hermione so much more prettier made people question why she would end up Ron. They both did some shit to each other in the books, but while they kept Ron's negative lines they removed the ones where he defends Hermione, and a lot of times his good lines were given to Emma Watson, making Hermione an all knowing perfect character, which wasn't that way in the books. They were hailing Hermione as an icon to be emulated for all girls, but even icons have flaws, and they made this version of Hermione end up with movie Ron, who was basically the opposite of Book Ron.
Aarushi Gupta it gives a very negative vibe of the perfect girl settling for a less than good guy.
At first I only knew the movies and hated ron and Hermione... she was just there, the untouchable Emma Watson. So I never liked the movies very much. But when I got myself to read the books, I noticed all these mistakes and started to love the Harry Potter universe >
@@mlem6951 samee it makes me want to read the book now
All of this!!!! So true!!!!
So many supposed role models for girls end up being Mary Sues. It's really sad.
“Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful.'' Literally the book's opening words. Well, we all know how that went.
I thought about this too!
Within the same page, Scarlett is also described as having an “arresting face”, “magnolia-white skin”, a tiny waist (seventeen inches) and “breasts well matured for her sixteen years” - not to mention a very charming personality.
Ironically you've picked the one book that isn't an example of this video.
@@gooel and also charming. Between a magnolia here and a charming personality there, men did not even notice that she was not beautiful.
I think what it means by that line is that she doesn’t have perfectly delicate facial features, but is still considered very attractive and special in her own way -- her attractiveness is a big part of the book
I think she was not beautiful for the standards of beauty about women back in that time.
Harry potter had the classic hollywood treatment: the already special boy becomes a hero, he has the wise sidekick and the dumb sidekick with a ton of luck. It's quite sad because Ron is easily one of the best characters of the series and he is dumbed down in the films.
yeah in the books he is that classic underdog type character that becomes awesome towards the end when he starts to step up and become a boss. In the movie he is just comedic relief
Totally agree. There was no need to reduce him to a mere comic relief character with no depth -_- they even gave some of his lines to Hermione.
Also, this results in his love story with Hermione quite.... Inconsistent with hoe the characters were portrayed through SEVEN films.
Really a waste of a good character.
The love story does make more sense in the book, because they both seem more like normal human beings with flaws, but that actually compliment each other very well.
In the movie it seems like this perfect girl with almost no flaws, falls for the biggest goofball out there. Wich just seems weird. Like those American comedy shows, with overweight dumb guys having a very attractive wife, who also fixes there problems every time.
The more I think about the movies, the more I hate them. I’m just remembering the books and how great they were
@@Paul-ng3xn I always had the same feeling about that. It's so clear that the director wanted Harry and Hermione to end up together, not her and Ron. While reading the books I had the feeling that Ron and Hermione had a way closer relationship with each other than Harry and Hermione had, especially in book 5 and 6, in which they spent weeks together without Harry and probably bonded over that time.
I love that scene from "Not Another Teen Movie" where they make the bet to take out the most repulsive thing in school and to make her the prom queen. "What about the hunchback? Way too easy. The hippy albino with bright red eyes? No way. Pfft. Easy. The conjoined twins connected at the head? Piece of cake. No we need someone really repulsive. No, not her. Anyone but her. Not, Jamie Briggs. She's got glasses and a ponytail. There's paint on her overalls." Meanwhile she's obviously beautiful. Lol.
What a great movie though... I loved how that made fun of all the tropes.
@@nicholasmapes Yeah me too. The wise janitor. The nerds making a pact to lose their virginity. The best friend with the obvious crush. It's the best.
Huh… I never would’ve guessed that everyone in our high school was a professional dancer…
The best part about that scene is the main jock actually still thinks (rightfully) that they're all attractive in their own ways beyond a fickle high school movie judgement.
That movie is way better than it gets credit for.
I think Hermione being so perfect might be one of the reasons Ginny played such a minor role in the films. In the books Ginny is described as though, clever and beautiful. Even the Slytherins admit that she is good looking and desired (I think in the train in book 6). Apparently there was not much "need" for Ginny in the films anymore, because Hermoine took over some of her characteristics (still love Hermoine).
To be fair, Ginny was given so little to do and so little development in the books as well. She changed very little and did most of that growth outside the scope of the trio's story.
@@SpankSandwitch99 True, I remember reading the 6th book for the first time and at the end Harry and ginny decide to pause their relationship and I was like "wait... they were together?! When did that happen???"
Which is a great thing. The last thing the story needed was more characters or more scene time for minor ones. They did the right thing eliminating some characters from the books and making Hermione attractive. You think they shouldn't have given her the job because she is cute? That would be very wrong and discrimination.
So.. not hiring someone because they don't fit the description is discrimination?
Discrimination they don't let Hugh Jackman play Sheldon Cooper?
Discrimination Dolph Lundgreen can't play the Karate Kid?
Discrimination they didn't let Pamela Anderson star in Misery?
ua-cam.com/video/3O8J2locx5o/v-deo.html
No.. only casting very attractive people for every role because you need eye-candy is discrimination.
Watson could have gotten pretty much any role from the obligatory side-chick in transformers to small indie projects. But somewhere a wiery haired, plain, knowitall actress is serving burgers because she didn't get the role. (A job in which Watson would still have made five times that actresses tips..)
@@blaze556922 it's more an issue of removing some of the motivating factors Hermione had. She wasn't hideous, but her crazy hair and 'horse' teeth made her more withdrawn and added struggles that she later overcame thanks to having friends and becoming more confident.
She even made a choice after getting bullied by snape about her overgrown (due to draco, I think) teeth, to allow them to be shrank further than what they normally were, giving her a more normal smile from then on, instead of relying on her dentist parents to just use braces
AND RON *REMINDING* HER SHE’S A WITCH SHOWS HOW SHE WAS BROUGHT UP IN A MUGGLE FAMILY. I wish they didn’t leave that out of the movie.
And how she doesn’t know about the tales of Beedle the bard in the books, because they’re children’s stories, so Hermione wouldn’t have grown up with them.
@TwilightRaven witch is the female form of wizard
@TwilightRaven ... because it is.
@TwilightRaven well when you think of witch you think of "old hag stirring a pot of stew" and when you think of wizard you think of "cool magic guy!" But grammatically they are the same.
Yeah I really loved those moments it showed that the wizarding world is still new to her and there will always be a difference between muggleborns and wizards born into wizarding families. They grew up in different cultures. Ron went his whole life surrounded by magic so in stressful times thats his go to move. Hermione is logical and raised by muggles so when told to start a fire her go to is to say there's no wood cause its not natural to her at least at the start
They make Hermoine perfect, and Harry less sassy and smart
Everybody had to be made less smart to make room for Hermione's towering intellect.
I think it's a bit of flanderization as well. In the books Hermione's studiousness made perfect sense. She was muggle born, so she actually appreciated the magic. If you went to magic school you would probably try to learn everything you could about it too. Most kids like Ron just didn't give a f*** because magic school was just ordinary boring school for them. She was bright, but not necessarily a genius. Well-prepared, say. In stark contrast to her peers. (*edit: for comparison, tom riddle was the same way, except he definitely was a genius, inventing his own spells and stuff)
In the movies she's brain-o the magnificent. She comes up with every solution, solves every problem and leaves the rest of the cast a stuttering, fumbling mess.
Another reason for this is probably because of all the exposition they had to cram in to make a 1000 page book work in a 3 hour run time. So they just had Hermione explain everything, do everything and fix everything real quick.
Harry is plain boring
At least in the movies
Eh, I don't think original Harry was "sassy and smart" in the books.
@@paradoxacres1063 Nah fam he was throwing shade all over the place
I think the most notable difference between book Hermione and her movie counterpart is her lack of emotional intelligence in the books, she is book smart but doesn’t really get others feelings and even acts cruel to other students on several occasions
👀
Thats interesting, cause i love Harry Potter and i always thought Hermione was a very emotionally intelligent character. In the sense that, when Harry and Ron wanted to punch Malfoy (which was a lot of times lol), she was always like “Harry, no! We’ll get in trouble! Its not worth it”, and on the 1st book (i think?) Neville was sad because he felt too shy to be in Gryffinfor, Hermione was offering him emotional support. I feel like she always searched to do what she thought was the right thing and tried to be understanding for others. I really like her character for that reason
Yeah! I actually didn’t really like movie Hermione, because I felt like she was the perfect character, and they stripped her off all the flaws that made her Hermione.
In the books, she was an insufferable nerd, that always tried to do the “correct thing”, even if it wasn’t the good choice or it affected others. She also liked to brag and sometimes was extremely insensitive to others, to the point that at the first book no one wanted to be her friend, because she was annoying to the other kids. (Which disappeared with time because guess what? Character development!)
But even then, she was also a *kid* , and was sensitive when feeling alone or when someone attacked her where it hurt; her intelligence.
Remember when Snape made her cry and Ron stood up for her. It made her cry because what she saw as the biggest figure, a teacher, had told her that she was stupid.
Remember that her boggart was McGonagall telling her that she had to go back home, because her notes were all bad.
Point is, the beautiful thing about Hermione wasn’t that; “she is pretty and reads books and is Harry’s friend!”
The beautiful thing about Hermione was that she was human, she did mistakes and bragged and sometimes was even mean or annoying, but still did what she thought was best for everyone. She also put effort into everything, which wasn’t really shown in the movies, and was really a perfectionist.
She was just a girl that did everything right because she was scared to be a disappointment and, when something happened that wasn’t planned, she acted scared and didn’t know what to do. That’s HUMAN, that’s beautiful!
Movie Hermione May have been a beautiful perfect girl... but Book Hermione was a role model, and showed that mistakes are normal, because we all have them and can learn from them. Book Hermione is awesome :)
@@Prettyautumnrain That's a great love-letter to the character.
@@thewindgamer2607 also she advised Ginny about Harry and she was right. I do agree though that Hermione sucks at taking her own advice when it comes to her emotions. She punched Malfoy and sent birds after Ron just cause he chose someone else to date. That's very aggressive and childish but tbh, I relate to it. Flawed characters are obviously more relatable.
1 Cast an attractive actor/actress
2 But the character is supposed to be insecure
3 "wE'll juSt MaKE tHem sAy thEy aRe uGly, pRobLem sOlveD"
4 ??????
5 Profit
Ugly Betty was never ugly.
Exactly, attractive people can definitely be insecure and self-hating just like everyone else, but none of these movies ever actually have a main character that’s ugly??? Everyone goes through struggles, but movies always focus on extremely beautiful people and aren’t even faithful to the books they are based off whilst doing so
Sometimes attractive people REALLY believe that they're unattractive.....
@@danyyyyyyyy Yeah, which is kinda crap and not very relatable
@@zachoo7765 it's relatable to me
A huge part of what made Book Tyrion WAS the fact that everyone thought him not just 'unattractive,' but actually repulsive; every other POV character who encounters him comments on it at least once in the book, many secondary characters comment/insult him about it, and Tyrion frequently speculates on it being the motive of just about everyone around him for distrusting and mistreating him. It's why he behaves as he does throughout the story - as you pointed out, his moral compass in the books is nowhere near as true as it is in the HBO series. He does some downright shitty things, and not always in 'self defence' or because he's 'driven to it.'
Yes, like taking Benjen's furs. Also WoW Tyrion wants to join Daenerys & do a genocide in Westeros. "They would not love me living so let them dread me dead"
2 bad we will never read it
I loved Harry’s sassyness in the books. I wish there was some more of that in the movies.
SqueakyPickles07 the fact that the movies omitted Harry’s meltdown in Dumbledore’s following Sirius’s death pisses me off to great lengths.
Harry was too sassy for his own good in the books, got himself into all sorts of trouble 😂
I couldn't agree more with this comment. What I loved in the book was that all 3 had flaws which made them really believable and relatable. They completely changed that in the movies except for the poor Ron. The poor guy was 10 times worst.
RIGHT?! Harry's actually my favorite character, and that's entirely because of his sassyness. None of that sassyness was really shown in the movies. They actually gave Hermione a couple of his amazing scenes too.
@@AVeryDandyLad THANK YOU!!! THAT PISSED ME OFF SO MUCH TOO!!! Glad someone agrees with me
Movie Ron Weasley got screwed over.
Definitely
Yes
Agreed
Hell yeah! Such a cool guy in the books, but in the movies he is a goddamn stupid dork. Not funny at all, talking bullshit and always got this stupid expression on his face. It worked out in the first two movies as they still were kids then, but after that his acting got really weird and they shot some really weird scenes with him.
Oh and Bill Weasley got screwed over as well
And I fucking hate it
I was kind of sad about how Hermione outshines Ron so much in the movies. It made them getting together seem a little more different than it did in the books... In the books, they were more balanced with intelligence and I felt like they complimented each other a little better.
Yeah, I never read the books, but after the watching the movies, I was like...she ends with HIM? I found it kind of annoying and weird.
It frustrates me too, more because it makes Ron such a useless character, in the books he doesnt do a massive amount, but thoughout the movies he does even less as she takes alot of his best moments
Wtf? Ron is a moron even in the books. I couldn't believe Hermione chooses that idiot in the books as well.
JK Rowling admitted after book 7 that having hermione end up with ron was a literary mistake made for selfish reasons. That that's not how it would have happened / should have been written. As far as I know, it's the only regret JK Rowling has of the 7 books she wrote. “I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment,” she says. “That’s how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron.”
Predicting her fans’ responses, she added, “I know, I’m sorry. I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I’m absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility.
@@rhueoflandorin guess I disagree I think they were good together, but in a unreal sort of way, it's a work of fiction and the relationships should be treated like that because in reality the chances that basically everyone ended up married to someone they dated in highschool are astronomical
they also forgot how much hermione cries in the books.
She is literally found crying for everything, it's high up there with Cho Chang
Super agree about Hermoine! As a kid, the detail that bothered me most was that movie Hermoine didn't have frizzy hair (which they could have easily fixed.) The reason being that it's so often described in the book, like how she had to work so hard to straighten it for the Yule Ball.
I also remember the first time I saw the Yule scene and being excited for the Hermoine reveal, and then just being like "oh....she looks the same"
Completely strips the story of meaningful moments like that, doesn't it?
I just want to point out that from the the third film onward the directors allowed the actors/actresses to have their hair cut/styled how the actors/actresses preferred their hair to be
They could of at least given her a wig, if they didn't want to constantly redo her hair or destroy it :/
@@saddo15 interesting, didn't know that
if anything, the scar on tyrion's face makes him more attractive, because he seems rouguish
That's what Margaery even said in the show.
Yes, and it also makes Sansa look more foolish and callous for not wanting anything to do with him. I don't even mean romantically, I mean just as a human being. If he was this hideous drunk pawing at her, we'd understand why she was so disgusted by him. But in the show he is so kind and handsome, she comes off as not only an asshole but also a simpleton for not seeking whatever advantage there would be in an alliance with Tyrion.
Agreed, Peter is handsome and only getting better with age. The scar and facial hair/darker scraggly hair only adds to his appeal
@@Siegbert85 margaery was a pervy freak. god bless her.
I remember reading Stephen King's book, Carrie. I remember her being described as overweight and a bit stupid, but in the movies (the original and the remake), she was portrayed as a very attractive, skinny girl. I always wondered why they chose to do that.
Because your movie sells better with attractive people.
Not only attractive and skinny, but very smart too. She was most definitely not the slow, bumbling, "stupid" girl portrayed in the novel - described as resembling a "fat, stupid cow grazing in a field while staring blankly", as the book describes her.
The novel was AMAZING btw. One of the best fictional horror stories I've ever read. And one of the most tragic and sad stories I've ever read.
They should get a Netflix adaption and cast Shannon Purser (Barb from Stranger Things) to play her. Or an actual fat teenage girl. It needs a proper adaption regardless of how iconic the 70s film is.
Her being overweight & unattractive was also a main point- she was uncomfortable in her own skin & in the end she saw herself as being excessively bullied which led to the ending of the book. They essentially removed all of the deeper meaning & reasoning when they made her attractive because now it doesn’t make sense
Cuz the one thing that is more unforgivable than being a murderer is being overweight...
This also lead to a lot of people believing that Ron didn't deserved Hermione or Harry should have ended up with Hermione
Because they have not read the books and by seeing only movies that automatically make them to think that Hermione is like a flawless perfect girl who doesn't need anyone(many people have even told me that she could have defeated voldemort 🤦🏻♀️)
But in reality i.e in books she is shown as a relatable character with her own flaws and quirks
That's exactly why I don't ship movie Ron and Hermione. The book relationship is more interesting because they were two kids who wasn't attracted to each other and learned to fall in love. In the movie, if I were Ron of course I would have a crush in Hermione immediately like duuuuuuhhhh.
I read the books... still ahve multiple copies of it till now and still re-read it again and again and prefer it over the movies and I still do not ship Ron and Hermione. But to be fair I also do not see Hermione and Harry together. I just think that maybe they should have met other people to date or Hermione could have focus on her career first until she met the one. I see her as just a close friend to both Harry and Ron.
@@peachpanda88 She becomes the head of the British government while with Ron. So what do you mean "focus on her career?"
Voldemort could been defeated with a sniper rifle in numerous scenes (given that they have no protective spells against that - ex Dobby died from a thrown simple blade).
And even if there were some magical spells, there would also be magical bullets.
Also…. No. All of the main characters were weak as hell, and won out of sheer plot convenience/luck/crutches.
Only attractive people are allowed on TV, didn't you know?
Green Mills is that even a question? Fuck yes I've seen The Sopranos and Tony Soprano is the spitting image of Michael Angelo's David. Fight me.
But srsly, there are plenty of attractive characters in that show. Also, most of the key characters in that show are basically villains, and I think villains are *generally* portrayed as unattractive on TV as a reflection of ugliness of their soul or whatever.
So I guess I was exaggerating a bit, but I still think what I said is true in general.
Tell that to James Gandolfini. Actually he's dead, nevermind.
@LDAR Boy Not a better life, but more attention. And that sometimes is not for the better.
I think that's another reason why people resonated with UA-cam, there's no attractiveness barrier
Especially women. Male actors are more handsome than average, but you still have your Danny De Vitos and many superstars are normal looking guys like Tom Hanks. Actresses are nearly all beautiful, there are few exceptions.
Hermione's physical imperfections aren't just a matter of a single scene, though. A lot of young girls (including me) identified with her as an "ugly" protagonist who was not physically attractive. It is a poweful message for girls, who mostly grow up being told that beauty is their most important asset. Movie!Hermione takes it all away (and come on, they could have least tried to keep her hair bushy. They did, for one moment, in HBP) and repeats the constant narrative of beautiful girls being treated as ugly even though they're clearly not.
@our old account I do agree that the world hates on pretty girls in specific ways (i.e. oversexualization), but the fact remains that women are taught that their most important feature is their beauty, and that they have to put a lot of effort into it. Hermione didn't, and that made her important.
@our old account Beautiful girls ABSOLUTELY get special treatment. I don't know what world you live in where they don't. Can they experience bad things too? Of course, but to say they don't ever get special treatment is so utterly untrue.
I mean, to be fair.. Beauty is probably the second or third most important thing in anyone's life after necessities for survival. Pretty people get treated better, end of story. Doing things to make yourself more attractive such as losing weight(or gaining it, depending on the person), keeping clean, etc is vital for anyone. That's just reality, we are "programmed" to prefer traits that seem like they will aid our offspring and increase our bloodlines chances of survival. Theirs a reason most people view anorexic people as unattractive, it's because its unhealthy. It's the same with overweight people, if it increases your likelihood of death then it's a negative trait in most peoples minds. This isn't always the case of course, it's a mixture of nature and nurture(as is most things) but theirs a reason that most people can agree on when someone is beautiful.
@our old account Okay, so.
1. I said nothing about ass kissing, where are you getting this from? All I said is that attractive people are often treated better than unattractive people because we naturally treat people we are attracted to as potential mates.
2. "But an ugly, but kept together and strong-willed person will always be treated better than a person that is pretty but with a weak character" Tell that to twitch streamers who just show a bit of cleavage and do little else. They get paid just for sitting around and being pretty, and are often terrible people. Just because people are disliked doesn't mean they don't get treated better.
@our old account The only point I'm trying to make is that "pretty people" often have it easier in more things than "average" people do. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, only that it happens and that it's only harmful to yourself if you neglect the basic things you can do to make yourself more attractive.
Yesss I loved what that scene did for Krum. I thought that must have been really great for hermione to have someone who everyone is after be interested in her when nobody else has been before. And then awful when she dresses up and everyone gives her a completely different kind of attention that she’s not had before.
Mmmmmm that hermoine Granger 😍🤤
Yeah, I don’t think it did much for Krum in the movies. As someone who hasn’t read through all the books, I don’t think it comes across as well. To some degree, we assume that Krum likes her basically because she’s pretty-same way with Cormac. With Krum, they don’t make it obvious that he likes her brains. They barely have any on-screen conversations and she only ever says he likes to watch her study-which (as she said) was annoying and comes off creepy. Then with Cormac, I don’t think there was ever a specific reason said for why he’s interested in her, so again, we just assume it’s because she’s pretty and bags a lot of dudes. *_Especially_* considering her reactions to all these advances. She always seems thoroughly unimpressed and almost annoyed. In my opinion, the movies didn’t make Krum seem more endearing for liking Hermione, it just let us know he’s not a total shallow jerk. It was confusing to see all these people acting as if those guys were totally out of Hermione’s league.
@@misterwinkybluff What's funny is that in the book, Cormac isn't even into Hermione. Hermione just asks him to the Slug Club Christmas party because she got angry at Ron for something or other and wanted to make him jealous. Cormac probably agreed because of the exclusiveness of the Slug Club, not because he was attracted to Hermione in particular.
@@emersonandrews7308 but Cormac was already a part of the Slug Club, so he didn't have anything to gain in that sense. I guess he agreed coz he wanted a date to take along.
Cormac did try to kiss her though.
i think a big issue with hermione's personality in the movies is how they tried very hard to turn her into a "girlboss" but she just ended up becoming a woman with no flaws... a "strong female character" taken way too literally
They literally robbed Ron's dialogues when he explained the rules of wizard world to Harry and Hermione, and gave it to Hermione. They literally made Ron an idiot to fit the Hollywood trend of cool protagonist, smart sidekick and dumb sidekick. But that's not all, they also robbed Ron from his bravery and loyalty, guess who was given the Ron's bravery and loyalty, of course Hermione. I liked Hermione in books because she had a lot of flaws that she managed to overcome, just like Ron and Harry, but in movies it's just like you wrote. Hermione is perfect, Ron is not loyal, stupid, coward who seems to be only comic relief. But someone else in book got Hermione treatment too, guess who? It was of course Snape. In movies he is "misunderstood loner who was bullied in school, who sacrificed himself for his love", but Snape from books I know is much different. In books Snape wasn't a victim of bullying, he did it too. He had friends that practised black magic and hated the muggles. Bullied them, they were his team, it was like James team vs Snape team, not James team vs lone Snape how it was captured in movies. He was cruel to every student that wasn't in Slitherin, especially Harry. He pretended to not see the bad doings of Slitherin students, but was merciless towards other houses. He was sadistic teacher nobody likes.
Actually hermione is one of the few characters where I wouldn’t say that this is the case. Seriously, she has flaws, she isn’t the strongest of the bunch and she doesn’t always get everything right. Apart from that she could have been killed dozens of times without the others. She is book smart just like the movies just with a bit more courage. Something the stole from Ron apparently
Literally every single "strong HP woman" Ginny is written in this girl boss way and she is written as a strong women while everyone brushes her flaws aside in the movies and books. I think she's like able but they could have added emotion to her, crying and feeling sadness shouldn't be seen weak it's human emotion, no one should bottle it up.
Given Ron his book accurate personality could give him more depth. He was probably the most dimensional character of the trio. In my opinion.
@@God_abandoned_us_all Ron plays chess better, flies the broom better and knows more about dragons and Bidle's tales than Hermione in the movies. He also protects her in every fight they step into.
What about Brienne of Tarth? She's supposed to be ugly as sin, and it's an important part of her character. She's ugly and huge, and no one wants to give her the time of day, so she becomes a warrior and acts like a knight, and although this only makes things worse for her socially, it at least gives her a sense of purpose so she can look past the insults. That's why when she starts to get close to Jaime, it's such a big deal - his sister is beautiful on the outside but ugly inwardly, while Brienne is ugly outwardly but is a kind, good and honorable person, and Jaime learns that he actually prefers those traits.
It must have been hard to find an actress who is tall enough and also has a stocky enough build to play Brienne. I honestly can't find an example of a better actress for the role.
Honestly, whoever they cast as Brienne, most people would say she's too beautiful to be her. Gwendoline is pretty but they made her unattractive in the show, not ugly, but not as beautiful as Gwen usually is. I think she is great. If they found someone as ugly as sin to play her you still wouldn't admit she is ugly because you don't wanna be an asshole.
I think Gwendoline Christie as Brienne is very hot. But she's a perfect cast.
The actress is a good cast for the role but they should have done something with her teeth. When I read the book I pictured her as having those terribly crooked teeth and in the show they are perfectly straight. They could have done something in the makeup department to give her the messed up grill from the book. It would have been a nice touch in my opinion.
who she? from fourth movei?
I also can’t stand how they portrayed Victor Krum in the film, he was meant to be gangly and awkward and not at all attractive, the girls at Hogwarts found him attractive because of his celebrity status.
nah it was alright, the thing with Victor is that his defining trait is that he is hounded because of his fame and the women who are chasing him care nothing for him and are perfectly willing to impede his success in their attempts to manipulate him, by bothering him in the library and borrowing books he needs. making him attractive as well makes it more emphasized that the women attempting to woo him aren't necessarily doing him any favors, making him unattractive might establish that he would be settling for Hermione or has hang ups that would limit him from romantic endeavors. him seeking out hermione is because he respects her intelligence and thinks shes attractive as opposed to the attractive women who surrounds that he doesn't respect.
him being more attractive makes him less relatable but doesn't detract from his character arcs and does add nuance to his already present one. his appearance is also used as a foil to Fleur and Cedric. Athletically brawny / stunningly beautiful/charmingly wholesome, respectively
Like Alex Honnold of Quidditch
Rebekka Richter But Victor Krum is so not attractive in the films😅😅
@@lyalawrence4090 Well, he sort of is. It is debatable whether he is attractive but at least he is well-built and manly.
I thought he was well cast. They could have made him look more brutish because I pictures him less groomed, more tired looking
Brilliant video. As a woman with a badly scarred face, it hurts like hell to see characters I could relate to on the page be completely 'cleansed' of their physical imperfections once an adaptation hits Hollywood. It's hilarious, nonsensical, and frankly upsetting. When the self-proclaimed 'hideous, monstrous, unloveable' phantom of the opera looks like he has mild sunburn...how the hell am I, or anyone on this earth with a genuine physical flaw, supposed to feel?
There is a book series called “Mortal Engines” which follows the adventures of a clumsy dickhead and a vengeful girl with a scarred face. Recently there was a movie adaptation of Mortal Engines which probably sucked. The girls face in the books was horrifically scarred so much so that she hid her face with a dirty rag, in the movie she’s played by a pretty actress with a teensy weensy scar on her cheek. Aside from that the book is pretty much steam-punk Harry Potter (Don’t quote me on that, my opinion is wrong). Maybe give it a look if you’re into books. This was a weird recommendation, goodbye.
Hermione wasn't whitewashed, watch Rowling talk about how Emma Watson was chosen for a more accurate understanding on how this actually plays out. A lot of the time the choice is not a conscious one, and in the film making industry pragmatism is a vital skill to have!
@@mcdhonalz9004 That pragmatism over expectation in action.
It's quite sad, indeed. Despite the vast majority of people everywhere are not "universally attractive", mass culture doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. They push the idea that the hero is good-looking and unattractive person is a villain or a comic relief sidekick, they divide and conquer. Luckily, there is still enough people who are not blindly following the screen mass culture and do see things for what they are. Wish you to meet more of those. Also, people write and read great books. And if you haven't read J R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, please do. He has a great depth of understanding of the human nature and masterfully explores all the themes, not the last of them being the one of looks and inner beauty or lack thereof with great many characters. All of which is totally lost in the series.
@@sokiel6663 However you are the person that is defining good looking and bad looking, you are labeling, assuming and placing judgement. The actors that play these "unattractive" characters not only do so on their on free will but are chosen very often BY THE AUTHOR ( see J.K Rowling as an example). Just because the character in a film doesn't live up to YOUR expectation doesn't mean that everyone is following a "mass screen culture". The simple fact of the matter is that you can't just cast anyone you want, there are important things involved such as who applies, who fits the character's role best, who the author thinks is the best. You cannot just simply picture a book character and expect them to look exactly like YOU imagined. That's not only sch an ignorant view but also such a 2D perspective.
That is honestly another way of how adaptational attractiveness was in progress with Snape's character. Like Tyrion, Snape became a fan favorite amongst a good portion of fans when it was revealed of his noble sacrifice and intentions. The movie adaptation didn't quite portray Snape's character as bad as it should have been in the books. They minimized most of Snape's bad character traits as more of being comedic and less bullying towards the students he was clearly harassing. The movies also depicted him to be sympathized with by showing him to bullied, lonely, and harassed in his past years. They did this to set up Snape's true intentions which led us to sympathize with him and feel guilty for how we felt about him prior. The problem with the movie set up is that the audience turned completely against Lily and James Potter. They viewed James as a complete evil asshole and they criticized Lily for daring to betray her friend by marrying his "harasser" but this couldn't be further from the truth. James and Snape never liked each other from day 1 and they would try to hex one another each chance they got, Snape also had his own clique of friends of which they would all practice the dark arts. Lily was never fond of Snape's friends dwindling with dark arts but he would always defend them to a point that he defended the actions of racism towards a muggle-born caused by one his "friends". This further and further split them apart and the icing on the top was him calling her a "Mudblood" when she was simply defending him as she always had. Lily only began to fancy James when he straightened his act out and grew up. He stopped the pointless rivalry with Snape and humbled himself by becoming a better person. Snape never did, which why is their friendship never mended. The movie adaptation of Snape failed to deliver his complexity minimizing his bad character traits for mere shock value as a result caused the bashing of Lily and James Potter.
THANK YOU I'm so tired of peopled efending Snape when they've either only watched the movie or read the book with the movie in mind.
Snape was not and never will be a good person. And he definitely should not be sympathised with. They did this with cursed child too where they portrayed him and being good all long. Bullshit.
I love the character Severus Snape. Not because he is portrayed as only slightly obnoxious in the movies, but actually because he is a bad person, who turnes out to do something good in the end. Proving my own look on that really GOOD and nice people can do stupid and even evil things sometimes, but also that EVIL and bad people are capable of doing something good sometimes.
I LOVE the way Alan Rickman played him, but that is because he was a truly fantastic actor. Not because how they toned down his character in the movies.
You are my new favorite person.
I partly disagree. Having likable characters is good, and Snape and Tyrion in particular are very popular, therefore successful. It is certainly true that Snape's changes affect James' and therefore Lily's likability negatively, which is debatably important to Harry's character, but for the most part they are dead and less relevant, what's important is how Harry views them. Movie Snape may not be true to his original incarnation, but I believe he also interesting, and Harry's distaste for him coming off as more unreasonable is good because it highlights some of the flaws of Harry that are harder to see in the movies. Tyrion I'll admit would've fit the themes and mood of Game of Thrones better with his moral ambiguity and flaws, but I do think viewers enjoyed rooting for him and may have had a harder time doing so if they found him creepy, but maybe I'm putting too little faith in viewers in assuming they need a hero to latch onto.
My biggest problem with Snape not being portrayed as he was in the books is mostly that in the movies it is less surprising that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That the movie set his and James relationship up to look like one sided bullying was also a little rough, though they did some of the same stuff in the books until it was explained better.
To the movies defense his character must have been a little hard to show since most of his character was shown of in very short slice of life segments in the book (like most of the other teachers) rather than in scenes central to the story.
It's one of those things which are hard to keep in a film but maybe would have been easier to keep if it was a tv-series instead...
Perfect characters are also boring.
Captain Moz yes they’re like sooooooooooo boring
Depends on what you consider perfect. For example, the "whitewashed" Tyrion from the show is still not perfect. He makes mistakes which makes him less perfect in a way.
Captain Moz Rey
I actually like perfect characters if their perfections lead to other character's growth. For example a character who doesn't make mistakes can be a good secondary character to have a main character feel inadequate next to.
Woah.. writing tips
Great video. That has always bugged me about the movie adaptation. They took away all of Hermione's flaws to make her more "likeable" and made Ron unlikeable by giving her his lines.
People overestimate Hermione. She is incredibly smart and very good at situations where she has time to come up with a plan. She tends to fail or flame out in high stress situations, where Harry and Ron are more likely to keep their cool. See her indecisiveness in the face of Devil's Snare, falling for the boggart in Prisoner, being once of the first students down at the Ministry in Order, etc. Ron tends to fare a little better, see same Devil's Snare scene, coming face to face with Aragog (he goes white but does not panic), his behavior in the Chamber of Secrets, standing up to Sirius in Prisoner, and his performance against the Death Eaters in the beginning of Hallows. This is not to say that Hermione is cowardly or incompetent, but she is fairly high strung in the books and doesn't handle surprises as well as the other two do.
Movie Hermione doesn't have that humanizing factor. Worse, enough of Ron's good moments are transferred to her as to be a drain on him. The books have a power trio of Ego (Harry), Superego (Hermione), and Id (Ron). The movies have a power duo and their friend. It's a shame.
Awesome comparison of ego, superego, and id. Never really thought of that but it caused me to do a little reading and they do seem to fit those roles somewhat, as far as how their little group operates.
i love ur comment! Ron is so much underrated and piss me off af
i agree that his good moments are transferred to Mione, it's so unfair.
Movie hermione feels more like a person with the acting than reading book hermione sorry but its the truth and the same with harry and ron who come across as more personable than how they actually are written in the books. Everyone here is so stupid it's unreal
@@fringmange7040 why you calling me stupid? And how does book Hermione not feel like a person? She's a perfectionist, maybe you just don't relate to some of their personalities.
@@fringmange7040
Could that be because you can see her?
Seeing a person makes them more relatable, simply because you can see their face which contributes greatly to communication, understanding, and empathy.
And you cannot deny that film Hermione assumes parts of book Ron's role.
Him: *Harry Potter didn’t adapt the books very well*
Me: *laughs in Percy Jackson*
SKSHKKFDSGHHJ
*laughs aswell in The Maze Runner*
Seriously, the 2nd and 3rd movie looked like it should be its own not an adaptation. If you dont compare it, its actually good. If you compare it- it makes you wanna throw the books into the screen and scream “OML DID THEY EVEN READ!”
You are right. Percy Jackson's adaptation was... bad.
However it was a bloody masterpiece, compared to the adaptation of Eragon.
(Artemis Fowl was also kinda raped by Disney...)
do NOT remind me of those
What Percy Jackson movies? I only know the Peter Johnson movies
Yeah, i hated how movie Hermione takes away from ron. In the films he is pretty much only there for comic relief. Ron is supposed to be the voice of experience in the wizarding world but she even takes that away from him (for instance Ron explaining the term mudblood and Hermione having never heard of it).
I agree, I don't really mind Emma being pretty that much, the biggest problem is that Ron is comic relief ONLY. He's so stupid and useless in the films.
Kyle Pask Sure, I never thought that she wasn’t pretty. She just had big teeth and bushy hair. Other than that it could just be the boys being a bit silly and not noticing her.
Yes, that moment was super weird. Hermione, what are you doing knowing the swearwords of the Wizarding world? I don't think you'd find that in a textbook. Even more weird is that she was called a Mudblood, and naturally Ron was the one who reacted but then she was explaining his actions to Hagrid and Harry. Could you let the guy stand up for his friends on his own, please?
While I agree overall, I think the change in Chamber of Secrets to Hermione knowing about the term Mudblood and being thus offended was a good one. It makes the whole situation more relatable, makes Ron standing up for her more impressive, and makes her being hurt more endearing than her just being oblivious to it. This was her second year at Hogwarts; you're telling me you actually believe that she could go an entire year without ever hearing the wizarding world's version of "the N word" in a school where one House is predominantly racist or the children of racists? A black kid who was homeschooled may have never heard the "N" word, but upon going to public school he'd be sure to hear it sooner or later.
That said, yes I agree that Hermione was too perfect in the films, but films play up characters' traits to fit them in certain roles that cinema more often than not deems necessary. Harry is the everyman and the hero; Ron is the lovable rogue and the loyal partner; Hermione is the brain and the beautiful one. It makes sense that given a scenario in which one character needs to solve a problem through knowledge or wit that the deed be carried out by "the brainy one" instead of the loyal partner. Ron, in the film, still got to prove his wits in the Chess game, but in doing so he was more fulfilling his role as the loyal partner. Each member of the Trio had to solve a riddle/overcome an obstacle for them to continue: Hermione with Devil's Snare, Harry with the flying keys, and Ron with the chess game. From a story-telling point of view, it makes perfect sense.
I think one big downside to this phenomenon is it perpetuates the idea that unattractive people aren't as valuable as attractive people. For example, Hermione is an fantastic character with plenty of attributes, and if she were plain or ugly, more people would recognise that ugly people have lots to offer. It would show, especially with a female character, that there is so much more to a person than their outward appearance, and would give unattractive girls a character to relate to and recognise their own qualities beyond attractiveness.
Emily Montague sounds like what an ugly person would say
@@oam6626 We should call The Appearance Police!
It's the same for all of us. In Game of Thrones Brienne of Tarth is described as being ugly brutish and ungraceful. Even though I'm a guy I related to her greatly. The stories of men who pretended to like her echo the girls who pretended to like me only to later laugh and mock at me. I'm brutish, ugly, fat, and dumb and seeing these characters who ignore it to rise above their station is a beautiful story to me.
Emily you are absolutely correct, as confirmed by the three replies here. Hollywood, TV and MSM perpetuates the myth that you have to look a certain way to be successful. That not fitting the current social norm for attractiveness makes you as a person of lower worth. Adaptational attractiveness removes positive role models from our screens which is bad for everyone. It makes unattractive people feel worse about themselves and leads to others feeling superior and that they have a right to look down on less attractive people and be mean to them or bully them. And those mean people and bullies can miss out on the most wonderful people to be in their lives because they have judged them solely on their looks and not seen their inner beauty and worth.
Emily Montague
“Hey guys I feel like people equate beauty with worth which is fucked up.”
“You sound ugly, lmaoo.”
“Shut up fattie.”
The rest of us: ....welp there it is
I agree with most points in this video. However, just one small remark. Hermione ‘loses’ her big teeth in book 4, after Madam Pomfrey fixes her face after the hex Malfoy threw on her, making her teeth inhumanly large. I can’t remember the exact quote (also I read it in a different language as a child), but after Harry notices the differences, she says “she asked me stop her [fixing my teeth] when they got back to their normal size, and I just...stayed silent a little bit longer”. So while not covering the entire span of the books, it does account for a sizeable portion of her character book life.
and in reality everyone would use magic to "fix" their appearances all the time in the wizard world.
*book 4
@@mariastrober5162 I was going to comment the same thing. It helped in her big transformation.
@@mariastrober5162 exactly, ty!
And Snape says he sees no difference when her teeth get bigger
Fun fact! The reason Shia LaBeouf wasn’t overweight in holes is because his character goes through a dramatic weight loss as the story progresses, the director said that he thought it would be too much stress to put on someone so young and would be unethical! That’s why he stayed the same weight the whole movie :)
Well, your reasoning for Holes isn’t entirely accurate. The director was aware that Stanley is supposed to loose huge amounts of weight while he’s at the camp. The director was not comfortable forcing a younger actor to loose such a large amount of weight during filming, so they decided to have him not begin overweight. Adaptations attractiveness is totally a thing, but it doesn’t quite fit in relation to Holes.
@Jake the guy makes a good point like that and the thing you pick up on is that?
Just hire a different actor that's more chubby, so his point still stands
Matt Fenner couldn’t they build a fat suit?
@@moomin5878 they could but it would have to look very convincing and also not be obstructive to act in. you might not think it but having someone skinny like shia look convincingly fat would be difficult with his face shape.
@@ebox147 They would've had to cut the fact Stanley loses weight at the end so they still wouldn't have been completely accurate to the book anyway.
In Hermione's case, I love Emma Watson in that role. But they could have at least kept her hair bushy, and given her slightly larger front teeth. She'd still look like herself, still pretty, but it would have been closer to the book version. Now how hard would that have been?
Also her character being written too perfect in the movies, was something I vaguely noticed, but it didn't strike me how much it took away from Ron's character, until much later .
The trio were much better balanced in the books. I love the movies, but I wish they'd carried that through.
especially since they made nevilles actor wear a fat suit and fake teeth for the entire franchise?? makes it seem like they did to play up the jokes about his appearances in the movies
yeah they at leats didn't have to style and comb her hair that much! and maybe not cover all spots...I once heard in an interview that daniel and emma had some acne but j.k.ROwling enver wrote that into her characters so they covered it up what a logic XD
They tried to give Emma fake teeth, but she was not able to speak properly so they decided to not use them. :)
Emma felt kind of uncomfortable and insecure being made look “ugly and nerdy” and requested to be made up better.
@@synflwr Source, please?
Okay, UA-cam. I finally watched it.
And I'm glad I did. Fantastic video, expertly put together. Nice job my dude
UA-cam recommends weird things these days
And I am glad it did.
LOL I had the same issue. I liked this video. I still don't know how to cast obsidian into a sword, though.
Yess happened to me as well
Exactly the same thing happened to me as well. Repeatedly saw it being recommended for days and days on end, so I just gave in
13:31 so glad you touched on this! They gave Hermione SO many lines that were actually meant for Ron; it made Ron seem way less heroic or concerned about his friends.
This was done with Katniss too. Katniss is described as small, slight, olive skin, and very sharp features while being very plain, while Jennifer Lawrence is completely different. Also, Katniss is implied to be of some Native American descent due to the region she lives in (Appalachians and coal country, her mother and sister are very fair and light like the Scotch-Irish who settled there, while she and her father are of a darker complexion with different features from her mother and sister). All of the less privileged people in District 12 are darker skinned like Katniss, showing a clear class divide that is influenced by race too. The whole thing is a mix of adaptational attractiveness by taking a small, plain looking girl and portraying her with a tall, attractive and famous actress, as well as whitewashing.
I believe they coloured her skin a little bit in the movies.
Im not too familiar with the story, but where is it explicitly written that shes a native?
Jomega she was pretty pale in the movies. And she was never specifically mentioned as Native American, because Suzanne Collins purposefully didn’t identify the characters by race but instead described their skin tone. But the class divide and treatment of people from the Seam who looked like Katniss was a strong hint towards her being partially Native American.
They also cast older actors which kind of ruins the point of the book
@@crestflames492
Did you read this?
www.quora.com/Is-Katniss-Everdeen-a-woman-of-color-Some-critics-say-she-was-described-in-the-books-rather-ambiguously-as-a-person-of-color-Should-Katniss-be-interpreted-as-a-biracial-character
This sums it up quite good. So I dont think there is "whitewashing" here.
Jomega I’ve read that and I don’t think it holds up well. It’s a Quora answer ffs, not a credible source.
They tried to give Hermione buck teeth but Emma Watson couldn't talk with the buck teeth but I still don't understand they changed her hairstyle. They already took away something from Hermione's look they should have kept it.
Apparently the process they were using to make her hair look bushy like that was actually damaging her hair so they stopped
@@AranelEruvyreth but the actor who played draco had to constantly bleach his hair - im sure thats far more damaging than making hair slightly bushier
AranelEruvyreth all you’d need to do is tease her hair with a brush and put some hair spray on it. What were they doing that was damaging it?
@@quirkyblackenby Teasing damages hair
@V_0_l_c_a_n_0 2000 Because his scene not much as emma. And hermione character talk alot, so that's different.
Thank god they didn't do that with Deadpool, even though they chose a handsome actor but still kept the scars that are prominent , I would've rioted if they went with his X men origins design
everyone say thank you ryan reynolds
thank you ryan reynolds
@@LetsStopThisSong thank you Ryan Raynolds
I thought the scars were pretty tame tho
considering they even touched up his junk for the naked fight scene i'd say he was pretty dedicated to the character, still mildly disturbed at the thought but thank you Ryan Reynolds
"Hermione is my favourite character. I should get rid of all of her flaws" I don't know how you can feel like a character, with flaws and all, is your favourite character, and then you revise all the flaws and make them perfect. Like, the character changes A LOT if you just get rid all of their flaws.
For the better, in most of the cases.
Ex: Take away Superman’s Kryptonite (and remorse) and he becomes, suddenly, a very scary and formidable opponent.
@@kingol4801 no? Take away superman's kryptonite and his story becomes that much more dogshit
sounds more like fanboyism than being a fan, like 2 kids fighting whose superhero is stronger, so we end up with Batman with time to plan as opposed to just say well yeah Batman will get fucked by Superman, but who cares he still cool because he is a detective and a ninja and he does that even if he can get killed by one bullet as opposed to Superman will be cooler with no weakness lol..
@@daniel79tj Exactly. It is annoying, really.
Even in Injustice (Batman/Superman comic), Batman himself admitted that Superman could have killed him 10 times over from deep space, if he wanted it at the time.
@@kingol4801 That just makes him a completely different, honestly worse character.
With Hermione there’s also the moment in book 4 when she lets Madame Pompfrey shrink her teeth beyond what they were before after Malfoy jinxes her because Snape makes fun of her. It’s a moment of rare insecurity that we see in Hermione and an example of how Snape isn’t just distasteful, he’s vile to the point of making a student so insecure she changes her appearance.
RE Snape: thank you! He might be a hero and a brave spy, but he was also a horrible bully to little innocent kids.
Generations of not-Slytherins, poor Neville bullied so much that Snape was his worst fear instead of, say, his parents' torturer, Hermione, a possible foil for his one true love, and yet. I'm not even mentioning Ron and Harry.
In terms of character, they sure made movie Snape way more appealing than book Snape who was a really butt hurt bully, a teacher takingevery wrong the world inflicted on him on unsuspecting kids.
It's a good thing book Harry has always been a martyr, so him idolizing Snape made sense, but still...
Slight tangent but hermione actually says that she’s been wanting to shrink her teeth for a while but her parents wouldn’t let her because they’re dentists and they disapproved of using magic for that. So it’s not necessarily all snapes fault.
@@emmarb01 I agree with you, it wasn't his fault, but, IMO, it's pretty low for a 32 (more or less) year old teacher to tell a kid, his student for that, "I don't think there's any difference looking at these magically gigantic teeth of yours and the usual".
It happens to all characters.
@@gforskli4307 I'm sorry, what happens to all characters?
This has been my problem with movie Hermione all along.
They removed both personality and appearance flaws, and I legit watched a big UA-cam channel calling her one of the brightest students of Hogwarts, ever.
Not the brightest student of her generation, but one of the best in Hogwarts history. Ignoring characters like Dumbledore, Voldemort and even historical Hogwarts students like Merlin.
By taking away her insecurities, it also made her shine more and look smarter then she was. Sure, Hermione was brilliant, but there were several more characters who nailed incredible accomplishments, who could do things Hermione didn't. Those are by removing Hermione's flaws, also not as fantastic as they were in the books. So perhaps her adaptation doesn't damage the story much, but it does damage other characters. (I am not diving into Ron, the way his character was butchered for her is already obvious enough)
Draco Malfoy, for example. His academics were more mentioned in the books, and it was said whilst Hermione was superior, Draco wasn't that much behind.
He also mastered things like Occlumency in his early Death Eater stage. Which showed he was at least academically superior to Harry. There were things such as fixing the Vanishing cabinet, the fact it was broken and such a hard thing to fix, wasn't established like it was in the books. They also took away mentions such as that Draco was the second to master things, like the protean charm. These distinctions weren't made in the movies.
Another example are the Weasley twins. Sure, they weren't the best students (partially due to their attitude), but they had mastered something in their school years, that Hermione never accomplished herself.
Creating magic. It's said there's a difference between creating a spell or magical object, then enchanting an object.
Hermione was great at enchanting an object, but the Weasley twins made objects themselves. Such as their candy. The books for example stated, they tested their own projects on themselves, and Hermione actually gives herself a bruise for activating something they were working on.
It's also mentioned, that thanks to Hary's teaching, they started producing magical defensive objects, and sold them even to the Ministry for the workers who weren't great at defense. That shows they weren't just great at creating magical prank objects, but skilled at making magical objects in general. Creating magic, however, has also been stated to be an rare achievement. Let's name a few characters who did such a thing; Dumbledore, Nicholas Flamel and Severus Snape.
All are accomplished wizards, and thanks to his old school book, we know Snape was easily better at potions then Hermione.
Another thing Hermione sucked at, was playing detective. A big discovery like that Regulus was the owner of the locket, or the half blood prince, were all things she never guessed. Sure, she got close on Snape by thinking the suspect of the half blood prince book was his mom, but it's still kinda far off.
If it wasn't written in text books, she wouldn't have guessed the Basilisk either. She's good at researching, but both her lack of spell creation and detective work show Trelawney was right. Hermione is too unimaginative. As long as it's written somewhere, big chance she knows it. However, making something by herself, with no books to rely on, isn't something she's capable off.
The books made it clear, there were limits to her intelligence, and that she wasn't capable of everything. Showing the accomplishments of characters like the Weasley twins, also showed they could do something Hermione couldn't.
The adaptation made her much more of a Mary Sue, and I think Hermione is one of the characters that caused the Mary Sue trend we see much more often in movies and TV then we did before. Harry Potter movies? More like Hermione Granger movies.
With the movie Holes they cast a smaller actor instead of an overweight one because the director said it would be immoral to make to make an overweight actor lose so much weight in such a short period of time for a movie so they opted for one that more closely represented him st the end of the book
Wasn't Stanley black in the book also? I'm not entirely sure but that's the impression I got while reading it originally.
Not a chance.I have not read the books but there is no chance a black character was played by a white guy and there weren't tidal waves of crazed SJW boycotting the movie
@Brocialist Party of America Also the way books describe characters' ethnicity is usually pretty vague as well. They use words like "olive skin" or "thick, curly hair" instead of being blatant about race or any familiar identifiers.
This! It's one of the changes I feel don't make the movie worse. It's still a very good adaptation, one where when changes were made they were made for the sake of the well being of the cast, not just because they wanted them to be pretty.
@@SimonWoodburyForget yeah but then that's just tacky and awkward.
the very fact of adaptational attractiveness is proof of its severity. If moviemakers cannot even bring themselves to make a character ugly or fat to stay true to the source, it goes to show how much appearance *does* matter.
Nobody denies it.
Hell, if I were to make a super-being movie, it would be a requirement of “top 10% get powers”
So, being killed off by a hot enchantress would be not as bad as by some fat neckbeard.
I liked that this video uses the character pictures from the Harry Potter Illustrated Editions. Jim Kay made an intentional effort to find real kids who matched the specific descriptions in the books and has been using them as the reference models for his drawings. The Illustrated Editions are a real treat to look at if one is looking for an alternative to the less description-accurate film portrayals, or Mary GrandPre's cartoon-like drawings in the original USA editions.
now i'm trying to find a place to order the first book :D
He should of looked for better actors. They got better after a few films but those first two where terrible. The Weasley twins never got good.
@@selinanoob8184 Jonathan wasn't talking about the movie actors, man. He said the artist for the illustrated books found kids (separate from the movie actors) who looked very similar to the book characters, as drawing reference
One thing I love about the Yule Ball scene is Hermione's comment that she could straighten her hair and look that gorgeous all the time, but it takes too much effort. She's consciously choosing to spend her time on studying and being smart, instead of putting in the time society demands for her appearance. As a result, she's seen as less attractive. That she makes that choice in the books made it much easier for me, when I was younger, to say that I don't want to dress up or wear make-up because I want more time for books. The movie completely took that away because there was no transformation.
Hermoine is such an INFJ
The thing about that is she's saying it because she's hurt that she isn't as pretty as other girls (in the books). Plenty of people use that excuse because they are unattractive and that's just their way of dealing with it, it's supposed to give you more insight to Hermione's character, that she actually wishes to be seen as pretty, that's why she's drawn towards Krum, cause she does exactly that. She loves her personality which in turn translates to him finding her attractive and beautiful.
exactly. This was such an important point because, after 4 years of us kind of feeling sorry about her appearance, she chose to remain herself for herself.(except for the teeth thing but everyone has one thing they'd like to change)
@@цветок-ш7п I'm not sure. She seems very NT-ish to me. I definitely read some article that went through many HP characters and what Meyer- Briggs/Joungean types they were and I don't recall any being INFJ's. ( You can probably google it. )
However, she does develop better sensitivity towards others as she matures, so her F factor could be increasing...I just googled it and they have Hermione as being an ISTJ....I do think that is a better fit in the books vs the movies.
Would you prefer to call it * other people*?
Wow, this is utterly amazing. The way you formed your descriptions, and how you went into immense detail, really had me hooked. So interesting to look further than 'they're better looking than I'd pictured them'.
This is an incredibly specific thing that was taken from Hermione, and I'm sure no one else really cares, but it really bothered me back when the movies were still coming out because I was a bushy-haired kid with crooked teeth who was bookish and a teacher's pet and got bullied a lot. I related very heavily to Hermione for so many reasons and I used to fantasize about what it would have been like to play her. In the books, after exchanging hexes with Draco, Hermione goes to Madame Pomfrey to get her teeth shrunk back to their normal size. Afterwards she goes to see Harry and Ron and they remark about how something seems different and she admits that she let Madame Pomfrey shrink her teeth just a bit smaller than they were before; essentially correcting their "abnormal" size. But in the movie this never happens because well... Emma's teeth aren't too big and they never even really did this scene. It's a small thing but at the time it felt like such a loss. It was vulnerability that was taken away from Hermione; that moment felt telling about her character but it just never happened in the adaptation. You said it well; she's just perfect in the movie. Makes me kind of sad.
Well, guess you can’t change your actors teeth can ya
@@musiccer7446 The suggestion was false teeth could have been used. I could see instead an argument to save time on the cutting room floor, to try and limit the amount of work that requires doing. Some things may reasonably be cited to cut for time. Though I don't think such an argument is being raised here, and I'm not invested enough in HP anymore to go crusading on this point.
@@jackr2287 I don’t get why people find it necessary at all. It wasn’t the most important aspect of hermione anyway
@@musiccer7446 it was tho. to paint her more as the insecure nerdy girl whos unconventionally attractive and like the video said, making her cinderella yule ball moment more impactful, to show that shes not just some nerdy bushy haired girl, to show that she has feminine traits too. but emma is too beautiful, so the scene is not that impactful. also her being "pretty" gives out the cormac mclaggen plot, while in book cormac never showed interest at all in her because she is supposed to be unconventionally attractive, but in the movie they made cormac as some kind of 'rival' for ron in quidditch and love life? just to hammer down on ron's insecurity? which is weird because the past movie rarely highlights it but hbp decides they need it now? lol
@@hippityhoppitybleblebleb2236 well, there are many ways you could depict a character like that. Apart from that, hermione wasn’t exactly popular in the first movies. And if the actress you chose for a child role grows up to be beautiful than what should you do about it. I get your point. But I don’t think it is as important for Her character. I read the books too and i never thought of that as an important aspect
I just don't understand why they didn't just put more effort into making Emma look more awkward and bushy haired in the early books? They did a great job of it on princess diaries
@GamingTV yeah they're shallow assholes according to what you're telling me. The movie would have been better if she wasn't portrayed as being so perfect. I like characters that feel real and relatable, not flawless. It's a bad thing for her to not look awkward because here character WAS awkward and that was part of her charm for a lot of people. The point is that in books there are a vast variety of types of characters who have many flaws. Many of them are attractive in the books and many of them are not attractive. When you are making every character flawlessly attractive then you are making the whole story less realistic and less relatable...because in real life there is a variety of people who look a variety of ways and in movies they take away all that interest and excitement and just make everyone look exactly the same...anyways that's why I almost always like the books better. They don't sacrifice the integrity of the story or the characterization of a character just so everyone looks hot.
@GamingTV a good story IS relatable. If it isn't then it it isn't a good story. I love art. I think making all the characters look the same "pretty" way and always need to be perfect is bland. And not very creative. We'll just put a hot chick on the screen so people will like her instead of showing that people who are plain looking or even ugly can be likable too, but you have to actually give them good character development which is apparently too much work when you can just put in a hot girl with no flaws who is not at all relatable. Art is supposed to reflect reality and touch people's hearts... and people liked the book characters BECAUSE they were relatable. The Harry Potter series was originally popular in great part BECAUSE people related to characters who had physical and personality flaws just like they did. I think movies now are super boring because characters aren't relatable. Movies would be great if they always tried to make characters seem like real people instead of barbie dolls. The very best movies and shows do at least a decent job of making characters feel like real people. That's what makes them good. The only case where this is maybe not the case is in super far out shit like kill bill or something. But Harry Potter should definitely be relatable... but maybe we vastly disagree on what good art is.
GamingTV just wants to watch movies about attractive women in swimsuits.
@GamingTV jesus christ your angry
She was being described ay an 11 year old boy AND she had protruding teeth that were fixed by the school nurse.
Thats it...
The biggest case of adaptational attractiveness in world history: Jesus Christ.
Lol true
I'm pretty sure Jesus was described as no different from a beggar on the street. Wild hair and all.
It's also really cool how a brown jew from the middle east turned into a white man.
@@eloryosnak4100 "There was a reason his name wasn't: Jesus Christ That Man's Eyes Are The Color Of Sky!!"
Or have a few centuries bred all the blue eyes and blond hair out the middle east?
I am a devoutly christian woman, and I agree with this!
Um.... Judas had to point out which one Jesus was to the soldiers! If he was a tall white blond guy wearing a white robe, he wouldn't have had to! Lol
These people were brown!
Jesus looked like everyone else and scripture says his hair was like wool.
I think Hermoine in the first movie fit the book character really well. She didn't have buck teeth but she's hardly some kind of child beauty queen either and they made sure that her hair is properly bushy. Most importantly though (as you mentioned), she still has those negative character traits that ballance out her extreme intelligence. Most notably that she's a bit of a brat and know it all.
Throughout the various movies progress this is less and less noticeable and she becomes more perfect with each one. More so than her character in the books. It's not Emma Watsons fault she grew up to be beautiful of course, but the movies didn't need to enhance that as much as they did.
Not enitrely; she looked average in the first movie instead of below average in the book. And this video showed the clip in the first book where they had her steal Ron's lines. It did get much worse as the series went on.
@@jonnunn4196 It never said she was below average. Harry didn't have pleasant descriptions for anyone in most of the books. He was also 11.
Yea I feel like it’s something that cannot be helped. 11 year old Emma Watson was averagely cute but she grew up to be gorgeous. It’s not like they could do anything about that. And honestly even if they gave her bushy hair, I doubt it can do anything to hinder her beautiful face!
People are being so creepy judging children's attractiveness. I mean, seriously?
Braindead Despite Emma's hair being bushy in the first movie I still thought she was a beautiful child. She was never less than stunning to me. Of course she only became more beautiful.
I’ve got wavy/curly hair and wear glasses, but these two things about me are what I actually get most compliments for (regarding my appearance). People always tell me how nice my hair is and how well these glasses suit me, but when I read books or watch movies these are the things that supposedly make girls unattractive. I’ve never understood that because I don’t think wearing glasses or having a certain hair structure makes me ugly, but movies make it seem like that’s a fact.
I always hate it when books are like "*character name* was soo ugly with her long curly blond hair, tall athletic body, piercing blue eyes and huge glasses"
Like, it's my dream to look like that.
It's because 'filmic' notions of beauty are based on a small number of conventions about physical appearance, not about the complex mix of attributes that make someone attractive in real life. Cleopatra, it seems, wasn't conventionally beautiful, but her wit, charm, intelligence and personality made men react to her as though she were.
i have something similar where i get complimented on my smile even though i have (very) crooked teeth. like, movies and media would have me believe that having crooked teeth makes you ugly but ive never been made fun of for that and actually get most of my compliments on my smile
The cliche "nerd" character in films with big teeth, glasses and weird hair has caused some people to think that wearing glasses is somehow ugly. It isn't.
Even if they changed Ron’s lines I still love Rupert Grint as an actor. I always imagine him as Ron when I re-read the books.
Me too! Harry and Hermione were always different in my head but Ron had the actor's face.
I actually feel like rupert and harry weren't actually super attractive, maybe that's just me but i only felt like hermione was the only one that was too good looking.
Radcliffe is insanely attractive, especially compared to the average person. Even by Hollywood standards he's good looking
Ron was goodlooking for the first three movies. After that, it went south. Harry looked good, though.
Tbh, I never got the hype for Emma Watson, she absolutely doesn't look even half as attractive to me, nothing more than below average even with the hundred kg of makeup. I wouldn't look at her twice if I met her in the subway.
But Radcliffe, despite not being my type at all, is pretty attractive tbh, he has some Elija Wood thing going on but much more masculine and interesting, sucks he doesn't have more prominent roles in movies nowadays.
We can all agree on Rupert tho xD
@@bethdibartolomeo2042 harry reached his peak in half blood prince, but i never forgave the hair they gave him in the last movies smh. emma is basic and rupert should've died his eyelashes.
LadyKraken
>> Emma Watson
>> Below average
Either a troll or has never seen an actual average woman.
Even Krum fell into Adaptational Attractiveness. Krum's attractiveness came from his ridiculous quiddich skills. He was described as being kinda thin, with sallow skin, a crooked nose, and thick eyebrows. Movie Krum is a complete beefcake.
Hermoine was definitely bolstered a lot by completely gutting Ron's character and his strong moments.
True, but in the books I always found Ron to be kind of an a**hole. In the movies it's toned down a bit and much more relateable. In the books it always felt like Hermione was shunned for being a booksmart girl and never got any credit. In the films, it's Ron who is the third wheel as both his friends are awesome, but he's the normal guy in the mix, and he has to struggle with that. The conclusion to his arc in Deathly Hollows was amazing, where he finally conquers his insecurities and destroy's Riddle's pendant.
@@wolfgod6443 Book Ron was definitely a whiny kid that got in way more fights with Harry than either of them should--but he was still a hundred times more interesting than movie Ron. I think in the 5th movie they barely had Ron in it at ALL, even in the final scene it's Harry and Hermione standing at a balcony while Ron sits in the dark background. It just felt wrong.
@@carlotta4th I mean, I remember the 2nd movie where Hermoine is paralyzed for half of it and Ron and Harry do everything. She even mixes up the polyjuice. I also remember Ron saving Hermoine from the troll in the first film. It really depends on what parts you're looking at and what you want to see.
I REALLY don't want to say it, but I feel like I need to get this out there. Even when someone thinks they're not sexist or something like that, they might still be on a subconscious level. For example, complaining about the tough female character while ignoring the strong male one, or vice versa. For me personally, I NEVER heard anything about nor thought that there was a problem between Harry, Ron, and Hermoine's representation in the movies until this video. I don't even know where this stuff came from.
After seeing this, I do have things to say, but it only encourages more arguments and I run the risk of making some "sexist" remark just by defending Hermoine, so no one wins. The reality of my defense though is that I shouldn't need to say anything. Just let the story be as it is. If there is a slight lean towards one gender in one scene, and a lean in the opposite direction, that's just going to happen in any story. Think about how hard it would be to have a perfectly balanced, equal story like that? Why can't Hermoine just be awesome? That's who she is.
To me focusing so much on some slight mismanagement of character representation between genders shows insecurity about your sex (not you, I'm talking about people who have a BIG issue with all this, like the guys yelling "Mary Sue").
Also, didn't Krum have a limp or something? I vaguely remember them contrasting his flying skill with his strange gait while walking.
@Wolfgod 64 You're so afraid of being perceived as a sexist you want to avoid analysis altogether? Relax maybe?
You don't have to be sexist to talk about a character in a book or movie. Personally I disagree that 'awesome is who Hermione is' if you look at the books, and especially if you look at the movies. 'perfect is who Hermione is ' would be more appropriate for the movies and I think a character can have flaws and still be awesome even if they're *gasp* female. It's all just a matter of opinion.
"Mary Sue" as a trope exists for a reason. The male equivalent is "Gary Stu" if you didn't already know. Someone can become tired of being force fed how great a character is without being sexist, and giving poorly written female characters a pass just because they're female is not progressive, and is in fact detrimental in a world with far too few great female characters.
If you think the bar is set arbitrarily high for female characters, I absolutely agree with you. The biggest part of the problem imho is the constant demand for perfection from female characters, with certain people taking creators to task for every minor flaw a character has. The problem is, ironically, that great characters have flaws. So we have a situation where people in one camp are saying people in the other camp are calling character X a mary sue because she's female, and people in the second camp are calling X a bad character because she's a mary sue, and blaming it on people in the first camp. And people in the first camp are policing female characters to make sure they have no flaws, so no one will hate them, while everyone in the other camp hates them because they have no flaws.
Good grief that may be the most confusing thing I've ever written.
To top it all off, the people making the books and movies are too scared to take risks with their female characters, for fear of the backlash that might ensue. But all great art takes risks, so while they may be avoiding mistakes they're also avoiding successes.
I would argue, though, that all the same it is very important for us to be critical of female characters. I just think it should be from the point of view of quality, and now in 'how they're portrayed'. We need to allow room for female characters with flaws in our media. After all, men are allowed to have flaws, so why can't women? Is Walter White perfect? No. Is Tony Montana even a good guy? Not even close. Is Hannibal Lecter a psychopathic homicidal maniac who ought to be locked away from society forever? You betcha. But these are some of the greatest / most beloved characters in recent memory. And women deserve the chance to create rolls like this as well, not just get thrown on top of the generic 'woo hoo kick-ass women, yeah' pile. In the end this is the most feminist thing you can do. As a fan of great characters (male or female) , this is what I want to see, and it's just my opinion. I'd like you to feel like you can voice yours too!
@@redrounin1440 I agree with much of what you said, but I feel you misunderstood what I said.
My point with that is part of despising or loving character's strength is dependent on what you think of when looking at them. When I see Hermoine, I see the daughter who wiped the memory of her to her parents to protect them, that is a tougher choice to make than anything I've seen from.anyone else, I don't care what her skill is. Speaking of which, her skill also makes sense because she actually reads and practices magic. Imagine how stupid it would be if she was only as good at magic as Ron even though she studies 10x as hard. What I meant with her being a badass as part of her character is that we already know she works harder for it. It's like saying the kung fu master we know trains all the time can only fight as well as the goofy main character (yes, I do mean Green Hornet, except Bruce definitely is the better fighter).
I'm not afraid of sounding sexist, I have no intention to sound so and if I do, then I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that, in subtle ways the person might not even realize, one can be sexist without realizing it. Again, it has to do with complaining about the strong female character while ignoring why she's strong, the fact she's not the main character anyways, and her faults. Saying Hermoine is a Mary Sue is that equivalent. She was far from.perfect in the first two movies, the decisions she's made in hit hard and deep, Harry and Ron have a "bros before hoes" mentality and Harry will almost always side or comfort Ron before her (just look at goblet of fire), and whenever she does something cool she's earned it because she practices and studies harder than the rest. The only thing that is strange is her courage. That would have been a good avenue to give her a character flaw, and it is true that her flaw from the earlier movies (know it all snob who cares more about books that people) disappears as time goes on, but even that is fine because of course it would with such close friends.
I'm not saying people here are sexist, I don't think people in general are, but I am saying to look at things from all sides. It's easy to get caught up in one side of a character. Heck, for me, I only saw the side of Hermoine I'm explaining here until this video. It never crossed my mind that Hermoine was too smart or too pretty, I just thought she was cool and a loyal friend. It's actually why I hate Ron so much. Hermoine has always been the more loyal and active friend in the books and movies, but has never the recognition she deserves.
I almost took as an insult what they did with Hermione's hair.
There's this scene near the end of the third movie, when Hermione saw her double from the pas and says something like "do my hair really look like that from behind". It only one sentence but I took it so personally, cause after that her hair got "better". So the movie implies that Hermione suddenly realizes that her hair are "ugly" and de idea to fix that.
It is the complete opposite of the books. In book 4, she takes hours to do her hair for the ball, and everybody thinks she's prettier this well. But she explains she won't do it again because it takes too long, which I could relate too as I have this kind of hair as well, that demands a lot of time and efforts.
So the books have this message : it's ok if your hair are messy, you don't have to conform the norm if you don't want to, in particular if it takes hourd and hours of your life. And the movie changes that into : actually you should, go fix your hair, no matter how much it takes.
I'm still not over it.
Good. Messy hair == less attractive.
Just swallow the truth instead of avoiding it.
Same applies to literally anything else regarding standards. I never understood how people cannot relate or look up to perfect characters.
Why would you ever need to validate your imperfections and feed your insecure, pitiful self by looking for other “look, they are like me, it is *beautiful*”? (Clearly deluding oneself)
Also, since when you cannot just fix your hairstyle with magic (instantaneously, just like the glasses)?
@@kingol4801 bundy fan huh
Preach!!
Sure Kenneth Branagh doesn't look like Gilderoy Lockhart but the way he captures Lockhart's smarminess is perfect I think. He was a joy to watch whenever he was on screen.
Yes, Kenneth Branagh really brought Lockhart to life with his personality in the movies. The way he acted made me feel the same whenever he appeared just like in the books.
I partially agree, acting-wise he WAS Gilderoy Lockhart; however, it was a miscast because he was too old for the part considering he was meant to be the young professor all female highschoolers have a huge crush on.
@@santiagocarreno5881 ...and every mother of 5+ red haired children
o i thought that was ewan mcgregor
santiago carreño lots of the adults in HP was cast too old. Snape, Harry’s parents and so on are all way too old.
I thought of Bill Weasley… disfigurment became a cool scar on the side of his face. Holiwood repeatidly fails to pictures ugly or disfigured people as good guys. And they almost never use a disfigured actor to play a disfigured character (same goes with disability and sometimes even with being short but Peter Dinklage changed that a little).
True, and that really hurts the character
His wife (sorry, can't remember her name, read that almost 10 years ago) was shown as really being in love with him and being loyal until the last being the wished-for-all top model level beauty and still staying at the side of a disfigured farm boy
Rubens Martins de Carvalho yea Fleur (his wife) says she still wants to marry Bill to Mrs Weasley in book 6
to be fair, with Bill, they left the whole "the werewolf bit him" storyline out of the movie so it would've been right weird if Harry and the gang show up at Shell Cottage to see Bill and Fleur (and escape and whatever), just to see Bill, no explanation, suddenly rock this huge ass scar across his face.
I think they wanted to keep the reference there for the real fans who had read the books but didn't want to confuse audiences who wouldn't know about the werewolf incident.
And when they do use people who suffer from disability, like achondroplasic dwarves, political correctness often implies that they have to make these characters otherwise perfect. If not, they'll think they'd be accused representing an entire oppressed group as being flawed.
@@foxclower So, what about characters who belong to non-white groups? Is it OK to have them played by a white person in make-up? (And no, I am not saying this because you have a non-western sounding name. I am saying this because I am tired of never seeing female characters who look like me.)
One case of this that I found particularly annoying was Margo from Paper Towns. Book Margo was a short, curvy, Jewish girl but they decided to choose Cara Delevigne to play her? And any anger about this was ignored as "average-looking-girl bitterness". But the fact that she didn't look like a model in the book added depth to her character. She was the queen of the school despite not being as generically good looking as her friends, and it was because she was cool and interesting beyond her looks. But with Cara playing her it was just like every other Regina George character out there- a tall, blonde, selfish trope.
Anyway, that's my 5-years-too-late rant over
honestly, margo is even more unrealistic in the books. she was the classic "manic pixie dream girl" type, which wouldn't survive a single second in high school, let alone be put on a pedestal by the likes of the "popular" kids in the book. q is a future shut-in, whose days were fully devoted to playing video games with his friends and _thinking about margo, our notliketheothergirls childhood friend._ we see the entire book from his perspective, and of course you could argue that q did indeed love her for _the deep parts of her soul_ , but... believing that you could love someone that you haven't talked to in 7+ years for _purely_ their personality and still keep it fairly innocent just doesn't fly with me.
tl;dr: margo is hot because quentin is obssessed with her in every way possible, and keeping the "she had flaws... and had nothing in common with her friends.. and hated the town she lived in" while combining it with *_"MOST MOST MOST POPULAR GIRL IN THE SCHOOL"_* is a stretch
edit:margo's character doesn't add nor subtract from her *actual* looks. since she'll look hot to q no matter what, the only development we really have here is "girl gets mad at her friend because she likes to call her fat" and that never goes anywhere either
The ending was what got me. In the book she gets really pissed that they found her, yet the movie plays it off as an “oh, I’m surprised to see you, how’d you find me” kind of moment. The whole story ends with a totally different feel to it.
It's especially hypocritical if producers now come up with lines like "see, we're creating much more strong girl's/woman's characters now! We're empowering the little girls! We're showing them that they can be anything they want!"
I really want to shut their faces. Yeah they can be anything they want, unless they're not beautiful as hell and don't get past 40. (a headmistress of a school is played by 37y.o. Nathalie Dormer, for God's sake. Supergirl was played by a 28y.o. and SuperWOMAN by a 30 y.o. That's your womanly live span, apparently).
judy boo well, in a world (i.e. the movie world) where attractiveness sells, of course main characters are going to be attractive. Of course we get uglier when we age, too. Movies aren’t genuine; they don’t want to elicit the “empowerment” so you speak of; they just want money. Denying that attractiveness fades after 40-ish (and women more, since part of our attractiveness is built on fertility; youth, that’s just biology), is just plain intellectually dishonest. You can’t be valued for beauty forever.
@@vanessacarlson606 I'm not complaining about the general beauty in the movie industry. If you're looking at faces on a big screen, you wanna look at something beautiful. I get that.
I'm complaining about the brutal unfairness in these matters between women and men. In another comment I'm stating loads of examples that for men something is possible which for women isn't. Just two of them here: For every man over 40 in a movie, his female counterpart is average 14 years his junior. For every woman over 50 in television, there are 3 men over 50.
I don't get why people are fighting for feminism via claiming that women have o work in fields they obviously don't wanna work. But here, where there are loads of women over 40 who are not allowed to work anymore, well it's just ok, yes?
And just to put the statement aside that I hear often: "Well maybe people don't wanna watch women over 40 on screen.." - "So Gravity was unsuccessful? Alien? Arrival?"
There ARE beautiful women in the film industr over 40, and there ARE people who like to look at them. Noone would complain having to look at a Jennifer Connelly, Mira Sorvino, Helen Hunt, Holly Hunter, Salma Hayek, Lisa Bonet, Kate Winslet, Michelle Pfeiffer, Demi Moore, Famke Janssen, Cameron Diaz, Kirsten Dunst, Sienna Miller, Claire Danes, Carrie Ann Moss, Catherine Zeta Jones, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kelly Macdonald, Milla Jovovic, Jennifer Aniston, Emmanuelle Seigner, Julie Delpy, Katie Holmes, Andie McDowell , but how often do they have a movie part - compared to Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Leo di Caprio, Jude Law... whatever.
But casting "new, fresh faces" as women characters is not only about beauty: it's also about the girlishness and the innocence and the untouchedness that a female character has to embody. It's the age-old Virgin vs. Whore thing.
By the way, the TV series industry seems to keep up. This is the screen where I can see roles for women, not girls. And they are successful.
Also the "eye glasses are unattractive" bit. Unless someone is wearing oversized
ugly eyeglass frames, I think that glasses look cute on a person kinda like an owl.🦉
Glasses in move are stereotype of unatractiveness. Countless examples in movies when a character takes glasses off and instantly becomes "attractive". In real life it can be opposite. And I'm not talking about myself - ugly with glasses or without glasses :P. But there are people who actually do look much better wearing glasses.
The types of frames make a difference. My grandfather's windshield glasses are one thing, and I don't think they are all that handsome. The slighter frames of today, I like much more. There's something to it, that is stylistic and suggestive. And it's not very easy to pin down.
I wear glasses and it annoys me so much
@@zozodioz Comes with the territory. But at least I can see shit.
Sigh....... I should call her
For Harry Potter specifically, I think the films also show the inherent risk in casting pre-teen children for a franchise that's going to go on for a long time (10 years in this case). You can't really predict how a child is going to end up looking after they hit puberty. Take Neville for example. In the first two films, Matthew Lewis looks pretty spot on to how book Neville is described, short and chubby. But by the time they made Goblet of Fire, he'd shot up and ended up being one of the tallest and lankiest in the teenaged cast. When your young cast is locked in early like that, you kind of just have to live with how they look as they get older. I mean, yeah, the main trio weren't exactly 'ugly' children, but there's still no way of knowing how exactly they'll grow up.
Plus, skilled child actors can be tricky to cast. So they're going to try and find a kid who looks 'close enough' and is okay being on camera and acts well enough for their age.
Also, what probably many don't know: Emma wore big fake teeth for one scene of the movie (I think it's still in it), but it was too uncomfortable and she couldn't act that well with it, so the director just removed it for the rest of the film.
Neville's case is hit or miss. They never mention in the books how he looks like after the second book, just that he has a rounder face. He could have shot up once puberty hit in the books, but we may never know. Now if you used Fred and George, on the other hand, I'd understand. They were both tall and lanky in the movies (taller than Rupert/Ron), while in the book they're described and short and stocky. But yeah, casting preteens for a long franchise is a huge risk.
Still doesn't explains why Hollywood even casts attractive adults for characters with deformities.
@@lunayen soooo many reasons. Mainly because a lot of "ugly" or "misshapen" people don't get to be actors. There should be more of them, whether it works for the character or not. For eg there's an English actress who has a burn scar on her upper arm, its real, not part of her character and they don't bother covering it in scenes. She stands alone on her skills
No effort was made to keep film Hermione's appearance in line with book Hermione, though. They could've made her hair frizzy, but quickly chose not to. You can make a character less attractive in a number of ways, and they decided against it. No one relates to a perfect character.
However, I think there is an issue with casting older actors to play younger characters (like 20+ year olds playing young teens).
A major part of this is definitely the relatability, especially when young audiences see these people without any of the androgyny of childhood or awkwardness of puberty. If the 'supposedly 13 year old girl' has clear skin, long flowing hair and big breasts, then it can really impact on girls' self-esteem. The same goes with guys, when characters are fit/muscular, tall and have clear skin, which you can't expect of the average teenage boy!
Protagonists are supposed to be relatable, so when you have a movie aimed at young teenagers but have 20-something year old cast, there are some serious issues.
When they have good looking performers playing people supposed to be ugly, and, they aren't ugly in the movie, it gives us plain folk a complex.
Reminds me of Pride and Prejudice. They try to convince you that Keira Knightley is unattractive. Seriously? Keira Knightley?
Elizabeth Bennett is not described as unattractive. And Keira Knightley is not a beautiful woman for this Era.
Smiley S agreed on the first sentence disagreed on the second
I think it's just that Mr Darcy is super rude and incredibly picky at the start of the story. Nothing is good enough for some people. That he insults Elizabeth's appearance says more about him than about her.
Elizabeth is not ugly, she actually is kinda of pretty but she isn’t the most beautiful one in her family, I think she fitted the role perfectly
In P&P Elizabeth was still meant to be attractive, just not conventionally. I do agree that Keira Knightley was to beautiful for the part, though
It had an effect with the "Carrie" remake. Her being a social outcast who was not conventionally attractive was a major plot point. Chloe Grace Moretz is just plain hot. That casting just did not work.
I think with Tyrion, much of the cleaning up of his character had to do with the fact that this was pretty much THE first major role for an actor with dwarfism in a major production. At this point in time, that representation matters. And because of this, making him out to be too monstrous, be it in appearance or in action, would have felt much too problematic and unsavory. And I myself am inclined to agree. Hopefully in the future roles for actors with dwarfism will be so much part of the norm that they need not worry about morally dubious character roles reflecting back on them personally or the dwarfism community as a whole.
This. I felt the exact same way when thinking about why he wasn't adapted properly from the books. Considering how popular GoT was/is, I could only imagine the backlash they would have received.
I used to watch a show when a whas a kid featuring a dwarf a main character "The Wizard" loved that show. Two of my favorite film as a kid was "Willow" and "Time Bandit". Both have multiple dwarf actors and main protagonist as dwarf. They date respectivly from 1986, 1988 and 1981.
"Willow" was a hollywood production with a over the top budget for the time. So nope not the first major role, it was happenned several times in the 80's.
I think showing Tyrion as really ugly would have make him even more lovable if done right. Charaters who are rejected for their apparences and are really ugly tend to attract fans.
Plus i think it would have made him more tragic as he lose his nose and getting more and more crap from the intrigue and other Lannisters. As in the book he really is a pitifull character.
So they chose the easy way. Having an ugly and weird character can add depth to their personality is it's multi-faceted and written correctly. Dwarfs aren't new to the big and small screen business either.
Yoda, E. T., Sloth in the Goonies, the ugly man in Under the skin and so on, all audience favorites despite them being far from being beauty standards.
The fact that the directors chose to make Tyrion and Brienne more beautiful is because they themselves can't relate to these characters if they're too ugly to their taste, certainly not the audience
CreepyHandedMan Not exactly a great comparison there. ET and Yoda are aliens so human standards of beauty are irrelevant concerning them. Also in the Goonies Sloth is goofy an over the top an his freakish features are a aspect of his character. Were he attractive it would have completely ruined him an made no sense.
I think it had more to do with the fact of having to apply makeup/prosthetics from Season 2 until Season 8.. for every single day of filming for him.. for every scene he was in. I mean, imagine having to "chop off" his nose for 5+ years of filming. That's more than just a nuisance. I think it's was practicality that won, over virtue signaling being the case..
Let's be honest the directer hated the weasley's he even took away some of Fred and George's lines
OreoGaming yeah he liked hermoine a bit too much
I just realised something
@@fz7788 and I oop
Some of Ron’s lines were also taken by Hermione.
OreoGaming WERE TO SMART
To be fair, it went both ways. Ron also replaced Neville, who was supposed to join Harry in the forbidden forrest in the first movie. I don't really understand this, my favorite aspect of the Harry Potter universe is how well built all of the characters were. Taking them away and giving all the lines to the 3 main characters removed so much of the richness of the story.
Incredible debut!
Indeed
It would make so much sense that Hermione would forget that she is a witch during crisis since she is born from two muggles. It would be a wonderful flaw, honestly. Especially seeing the development that would later happen where she recognizes herself as a witch. Too sad that did not happen in the movies